ML20147E537

Responds to & Forwards Info Re NRC Res Constr Proj Funding Policies(Outlined in Enclosed 761103 NRC Ltr to J Brooks),The Plenum Fill Exper(Pfe)Prog & Termination of ECC Bypass Test Facil(Ebtf)

ML20147E537
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/05/1978
From:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Dingell J HOUSE OF REP., INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE
References
NUDOCS 7812210106
Download: ML20147E537 (63)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:l$##_j*g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION %e . UNITED STATES [ { WASHINGTON, D C. 30559 i% y C DMit c ? %.N '....# December 5, 1978 OFFICE OF THE ' CHAIRMAN ' THIS~ DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUAUTY PAGES i t The Honorable John D. Dingell Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Power Comittee_ on Interstate and Foreign Commerce i United States House of Representatives 4 . Washington, D. C. 20515 +

Dear Mr. Chairman:

i This letter is in reply to your letter of August 16, 1978 requesting information related to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatoiy Commission's (NRC) research construction project funding policies and to the Plenum Fill t Experiment (PFE) program. You asked if it is still the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory' Commission to fund short-lived experiments from operating funds. The original question.related to the General Accounting Office's inquiry relevant to the then existing Atomic Energy Commission policy)to fund such short-lived experiments from operating (program support. funds as distinguished from distinct construction line items. All current NRC research programs are funded from operating funds ~since the NRC is not engaged in major construction projects. However, it is the policy of the Commission to keep the Congress informed regarding our requirements and plans for con-struction of those small facilities for which more than $1 million of operating appropriations is obligated. This policy was stated in a letter from former NRC Chairman Marcus Rowden to the Honorable Jack Brooks, Chairman, House Committee on Government Operations of November 3, 1976. A copy of this letter is enclosed. We normally seek Congressional approval for such projects as a part of our authorization _and appropriation request to the Congress in which we l identify' projects, if any, which may cost over one million dollars. In particular, Mr. Saul Levine, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, presented the details of such planned expenditures in his FY 1978 budget testimony to Congress. His testimony for FY 1979 did not list suen items because there were no new plans at that time for modi-ficacions to experimental. facilities in excess of $1 million. 7 812 210 lofo - t 9

Tne Honorable John D. Dingell We believe it is necessary to maintain the capability to build small test facilities using operating funds to enable timely response by our research program to meet needs for information and data required tc resolve important safety issues as they arise. As an example of this type of activity, in March of 1976, an urgent need was identified for data on dynamic loads imposed on BWR pressure suppression systems during a loss of coolant accident. We were able to start a research program within a few months by internal reprogramming action and the needed tests were started in March of 1977. The total cost for this program was 52.1 million, of which $1.2 million was used to construct a 1/5 scale sector model of the MARK I suppression system used for the experiment. You also asked for a list of all short-lived projects which were funded from. the operating expense appropriation and for a list of projects over $1 million with an explanation of each. We have combined the two lists into Table I which is enclosed. I should point out that, although we are conducting large-scale experimental programs such as LOFT and PBF, which were built by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration, the NRC has not constructed any large experimental facilities, nor do we have any current plans for such construction. In your last question you asked for a report on the current status of the Plenum Fill Experiment and the expected scale of the project. We have provided such a report as an enclosure to this' letter. The report starts with a brief history of the project covering the past five years. Briefly speaking, PFE was proposed in 1972, the estimated costs escalated from 52.1 million to $36 million and the program was cancelled in July 1976, as indicated in the GA0 report. Since the need for ECC bypass data still existed, additional conceptual design efforts were carried out and further evaluations of alternate facility options were made. This evaluation process included the solicitation of views of outside experts, Research Review Groups, and meetings with the Advisory Commit-tee on Reactor Safeguards and their consultants. As a result of all these investigations, it has been decided that adequate ECC bypass data can be obtained from ongoing small-scale' experiments plus large (near full-scale) tests in the Three Dimensional (3D) experimental program we are participating in with the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and Japan. 0ur role in this research effort involves providing of special instrumentation for the 3D. experiments and detailed analyses of the experimental f.acilities which are being constructed in the FRG and Japan. e 6

s The Honorable John D. Dingell In closing, I would again lik'e to emphasize our intent to keep Congress informed and to alert the Congress whenever we plan to use operating appropriations for construction activities in excess of $1 million. trust this information will provide you with the data requested. I can be of further assistance, please call upon me. If I Sincerely, +. Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman

Enclosures:

1. Ltr fm Rowden to Brooks dtd November 3, 1978 2. Summary of Experimental Facility Upgrade Costs, Purpose and Status 3. Status of PFE Project and EBTF Studies 4. Report of NRC Inspector and Auditor dtd August 4, 1978 e e a w 9 b e 4 t 6 4 m, .y-, .w,. ,... c

[n....a'[% NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a -em. o. c. mn .a W :'.d

q%%[v.. e

%... *,/ November 3, le76 gg C) 'D"*:01 OF TH E U. $. N d, p

ctT22, 2

NtV E me

• W u.s.xa w The Honorable Jack Brooks

,q Chairman O Committee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives, Washington., D. C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chaiman:

In accordance with Section 235 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission is hereby submitting a statement on the Comission actions being taken with regard to the reco.mendations made by the Comptroller General of the United States in a' report entitled, " Poor Management of a Nuclear Light Water Reactor Safety Project" (Pienum Fill Experiment). Nuclear Regulatory Cet mission coments on the report are included in a letter from the Executive Director for Operations, HRC, to the General Accounting Office which is reproduced in Appendix III of the CAO report. The Comission statements relative to t.be specific Comptroller General recomendations are as follows: Reccmendation No.1 - --postpone all decisions on the new Plenum Fill Experiment project until

a. conceptual design is completed which provides a realistic scope,.

schedule, and total estimated cost, and until an agree ent is reached with the Energy Research and Development Administration for ranaging the project as well as future re~ actor safety projects. Statement - HRC wi'll not proceed with a large scale ECC Bypass Test Facility (EETF) ' prior to completion of a conceptual design study based on firm test ' re quirements. HRC is funding such a conceptual design study, which is being carried out by Atomics Internatie:a1 with support from ERDA's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and Lawrence Livertere Laboratory. Cnr plans call for completion of this study by Decer.ber 1975. This s'wdy will provide realistic cost and schedule estimates and will provide confirmation of the technical basis for facility design. Enclosure I

Tne Honorable Jack Bro:rts Dnly upon completion of a satisf a: tory con =eptual design study and agreement with ERDA on a sound project management arrangement will the Commission approve pro:eeding with the ESTF project. The Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy and the House and Senate Appropriations Comittees will be notified of such plans prior to the initiation of furtner efforts. With regard to future reactor safety projects, MRC is currently working with EP.DA on an Interagency Agreement to establish an overall po1~ icy for the management of HRC safety research in ERDA facilities. We expect that this Agreement will be concluded before a decision is made to pro:eed with ESTF. Rece nendation No. 2 - --institute measures to minimize the 6se of operating appropriations for constru: tion activities. Statement - presently ERDA has the responsibility to budget for the construction of experimental facilities that will be used by HRC. We anticipate'that these facilities would 'be funded from construction appropriations. However, there may be circumstances which require NRC to utilize operating appropriations for minor construction activities to obtain prompt confirmatory research data.- These circumstances w:uld be ifmited to previously unplanned, yet high priority experiments of short duration that require minor modifications to existing fa:ilities. Therefore, since the normal procedure for funding construction projects will be for ERDA to request construction appropriations, we believe that measures are already in place to minimize the use of operating appropriations for constru: tion activities. Re:c-,endation No. 3 - --aiert the Congress of any construction activities'for which ir. ore than $1 mill. ion of operating appropriations is obligated. Statement - We plan to keep Congress informed reca+ ding our requirements and plans for construction activities for which more than 31 million of operating

• le believe it is ne:essary to t.aintain tne apprcpriations is oblicated.

cepability to build small test facilities using operating funds in order that our research program can respond to our needs for information. 4 9 0 g m .m

\\ l , Tae H:ncrable Ja:k Breaks Thar's have been several inste.nces in the past where smaller experi= ental facilities h:ve been built with operating funds. F:r e.xtgle, the EC li:ensing staff identified in.?4 arch 1975 an urgent need for confir= story research data on the dyna nic loads experienced by a ET/. pressure suppression EC was able to type containment during a loss-of-coolant accident. start a research program at Lawrence Liverecre Laboratory within a few r.cnths af ter the p oble.i was identified, and we expect to have the test i facility completed and to obtain.the first data by early 1977. .In the case of large test facilitias,'such as ESTF. we are in agreNt ( 't. hat they would be funded c:re properly with construction appropriations. To assure that Congress is adequately. informed, we plan to identf fy and highlight any significant construction efforts in justification naterial in support of budget requests and major reprogran::ing requests. W2 w:vid like to reemphasize our intent to alert the Congress whwever we plan to use operating appropriations for constn:: tion activities in er. cess of Si million, to keap the Congress fully informed on ;ar plans fer caj:t confir:1 tory research facilitias, and to rep:rt progress en s;:h pr:je ts on c ticely basis. Sin:erely, 15dg W S W d W Eum A R.r-=n Marcus A.,P.owden Chairn n c:: E. Staats, Comptroller General of the United States P.. Sea: Ins ; Administrator, U.S. Energy P.esearch and Development Administration G. M.:rphy, Exe:utive Director, J: int Co=ittee on Atcri E.nergy "w cv c

TABLE I Suf1 malty Of LXPtitIMLill AL FACill'iY M0lll! ICA110N AND UI'GRA00 COSTS lti I:XCl.SS OF 11ti. PURPOSE AND STATUS ANTICIPATED ANNUAL COST DISTRIBUTION FACILITY UPGRADE COSTS SillISCALE PROGRAM AT INEL *.. facility nulification and upgrades required FY 1976 & FY 1976(T) = $1.5M' $1.5 - $2.0M to run L0fI related experiments and tests of FY 1977 = $1.5M tmergency Core Cooling Systems FY 19711 =.11.5ti (Est. ) FY 1979 = $1.8 (Est.) POWER BURS 1 FACILITY (PDF) AT INEL* Facility modifications associated with loop FY 1976 + FY 1976(T) = $3.0M $2.5 - $3.0M flow stability problem, LOCA mods, fuel train FY 1977 = $4.0M assembly, signal conditioning and safety FY 1978 - $1.8M (Est.) cri ti.al i ty modi fica tions FY 1979 - $2.4M (Est.) AtillulAR C0llE PULSE REACTOR (ACPR)** $3.0M for Reactor Upgrade and $1.lM for FY 1976 - $4.lM UPGRADE COMPLETED luel Motion Diagnostics Systems. Modifications completed in FY 1978 on schedule and within ItWR PRESSURE SUPPRESSION EXPERIMENTS AT LLL* budget ~ Program completed in FY 1978, FY 1977 - $1.2M to design PROGRAM COMPLETED Total Cost = $2.lti huild and shakedown experimental apparatus. Bl.0HOOWil lif.AT TRANSFER (BDilT) PROGRAM Al ORfil' FY 1975 = $2.0M to construct NONE PLANNED experimental blowdown loop, loop in operation since FY 1976 IllSIRiit11tlI TEST FACILITY.FOR 3D Preliminary cost estimates indicate NONE AFTER FACILITY approximately $2M to be costed in - COMPLETED FY 1979 and FY 1980.

• tioted in S. Levine FY 1978 Budget Testimony.
  • Hot indicateel in FY 1978 Budget Testimony because work was ohilgated prior to establishment of NRC policy.

PURPOSE AND STATUS (CONCLUDED) P H 0 0.1t N 1 1.LI M EllT PURPOSE STATUS Semiscale ~ Provide scale model system testing of Tests have shown the type of reactor Emergency Core Cooling System in non-system behavior expected in a loss-of- ~ nucle.ir tests. coolant accident. Power Burst facility Evaluate fuel behavior in-pile under Tests in progress. (Pill) accident conditions. Annular Core Pulse An e perimental facility to provide Initial series.of tests have provided Reactor (ACPR) data for modeling of IICDA phenomena key data in assessing materials to assess accident energetics (including interactions. Advanced series of SIMMER. code) and post-accident core energetics and core debris tests are debris coolability. being prepared. BWR Pressure To obtain experimental data for code Final report provided in March 1978. Suppression verification and licensing needs on a Experiments BWR MARK I torus suppression chamber (1/5 scale sector) Blowdown and Reflood Provide separate ef fects tests of Experiments in progress on pressurized lleat Iransfer blowdown heat transfer characteristics water reactor blowdown and reflood and expected in a loss-of-coolant accident. boiling water reactor blowdown. Experiments planned on boiling water reactor reflood. Instrument Test An instrument calibration loop for Initial design studies and cost estimates fac il i ty * *

• development testing advanced instru-being made.

Preliminary cost estimates mentation in a steam / water environment indicate approximately $2M to be costed prior to shipment on loan to Japan and in FY 1979 and FY 1980. Germany under cooperative research program . on LOCA 3D core flow distribution program.

• • • tiol indicated in S. Levine FY 1979 Budget Testimony because plans for this experimental loop were not made at that time.

ENCLOSURE 2

STATUS OF THE PLENUM FILL EXPERIMENT (PFE) AND THE ECC-BYPASS TEST FACILITY (ESTF) STUDIES The PFE Program originated in September 1972, when Battelle's Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) submitted a proposal to the Reactor Development and Technology Division of the Atomic Energy Commission. The PFE program as, originally proposed by PNL' was to use existing equipment, and to reac.tivate a decommissioned steam plant to obtain a steam supply, in orde'r to save costs and to obtain data -in July 1974..At the time, the project began in 1973, the total cost was estimated to be' about $2.1 millione Subsequently, it became apparent that one of two existing vessels planned to be used was unsuitable, that the planned program of tests was inadequate, and that continuation of the program at PNL would necessitate the procurement of a new vessel and a large steam supply. Increasing cost estimates, and projections of delays in the schedule for obtaining data, led to the creation of a jo' int NRC/ERDA fact-finding team, which reported its finding to the Commission in December, 1976. Af ter a full reappraisal of the entire PFE program, and of the capacity of PNL's design to meet NRC's experimental needs, the conclusion was reached in April,1976, that the program would be both very costly and limited in its ability to provide the data needed by NRC. The reappraisal, which included examination of alternative ways to obtain the needed data, led to the conclusion that the facility could be built at sites other than PNL at less expense. in Policy Session 76-20, (May 19,1976) the Cc= mission approved termination of the Plenum Filling Experiment at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory. In the July 23, 1976 briefing on ECC Bypass conceptual design, the Commission approved the p'roposal to proceed with a conceptual design study to' deve' lop cost and schedule estimates for an'ECC-Bypass Test Facility (EETF). Concep'tual design studies for a 1/3-1/2 scale EBTF were initiated in September 1976, under the management of ERDA, San Francisco Operations Office. The' principal design contractor was Atomics International with technical support from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore Labcratory. The EE~~ design was based on utilizine Pacific Gas and Electric's Contra Costa Power Plant for 'he steam supply. PG&E in November 1975, after further study of their long term power commitments, 9 Enciosure S r- -.y, .w-- =

, reduced the available steam from 2.7 to 1.5 million 1bs/hr and requested that site use be limited to six years. RES then redirected the design study to a 1/3 scale facility. The'results of that study, which was completed in March 1977, indicated that a 1/3 scale ESTF program would cost $95-115M and would not begin test operations prior to 1983, even assuming supplemental funding of $10 million in FY 1978.. If no supplemental funds were available in FY 1978, the schedule for start of testing was the start of testing delay was estimated at 1984. This conceptual i design effort was terminated.in April 1977. I 4 Given t.he developing high program cost estimates, long construction ~ schedu1es and continued uncertainties related to utilizing Utilities' power plants to supply steam, the NRC undertook further " options" studies to evaluate lower cost facility approaches. One cotion was to utilize the two low pressure (200 psia) boilers purchased under the PFE program. In addition, sensitivity studies were performed using recent research results to reexamine th'e relative importance of ECC bypass on overall ECCS performance. These studies indicated that bypass appeared to be somewhat less important than had previously been thought. This suggested that a somewhat smaller scale (less than 1/2 or 1/3), less expensive experiment might be undertaken without significantly affecting the uncertainty in predictions of ECCS performance. In January 1977, the questier. of scale size for the experiment was reviewed with a panel of six senior scientists which included persons who had been connected with the ECCS rulemaking hearing and others who had studied the matter extensively. Although some sentiment was expressed that a l'arger scale experiment would be desirable, the panel unanimously acreed that proceeding with a 1/3 scale experiment, as then proposed by the RES staff, was a suitable course of action.

n a meeting with an ACRS subcommittee on ECC bypass in February 1977, she consultants to the subcommittee expressed the general view that, based 6n the sensitivity analyses, it was difficult to justify a costly, l

large scale experiment. These two meetines led the RES staf# to the belief that there was eeneral succort for a 1/! scale facility. RES then proposed to the dommissicn (SECY 77-152, March 24, 1977) that a conceptual design study for a 1/5 i 1 e 4 .v- ,n.--.- .,n.,<- ,- -> - n,~ - - ~

, scale facility be unde'rtaken. In the Commission meeting on the proposal, there was a technical disagreement between the research staff and some members of the licensing staff on the appropriate scale for EBTF, with these licensing staff members arguing that 1/3 to 1/2 scale was necessary for a better understanding of ECCS behavior. On April 25, 1977, the staff called a meeting of the EBTF Research Review Group (RRG) and consultants to get their views on the scale size for EBTF. Although there were strongly negative views expressed by many of the consultants about the cost benefit aspects of an EETF experiment, some of the consultants also confirmed the need for a large scale experiment. After the RRG meeting, the research and licensing staffs held extensive discussion on what course of action should be recommended to the Commission. La ;ely because of the strong views of some members of the licensing staff that a large scale facility was needed to develop a better understanding of ECCS behavior, the research and licensing staffs jointly recommended to the Commission in August 1977 (SECY-77-152A, August 4,1977), that the NRC proceed witn a 1/5-1/3 scale ESTF, which was estimated to cost $27 million. Although the staff paper noted that the RRG consultants did not support the high cc:t of a 250 psi,1/3 scale EBTF, the paper did not present all of the negative views of the consultants resulting from tne April 25, 1977 meeting. Following the August 23, 1977, Commission briefine, the Commission acproved (on September 19, 1977) the ESTF project, included preliminary ESTF cost estimates in the FY 1979 budget request to OM5, anc directed RES to proceed with competitive procurement activities to secure a contractor to design, construct and operate the ESTF. As part of their consideration of the FY 1979 budget, OMS requested that the NRC agelemerate all ESTF costs prior to the start-of testing into a single sum that would be treated as an equivalen " construction cost". This arount would then be requested in the FY 1979 budget on a fully funded basis rather than,incrementally funding year by ye=r. However, budgeting for'co'nduct of the test program after completion of construction and checkout of the facility would be done on a year-by-year basis. As part of the Commissien August 23, 1977 briefing, a question was raised 1 acout the advisability of loc = ting EETF at a private contracior's si:e as opposec to a CDE laboratory. Specific inquiries established t..at :ne j Idano National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) wou'.d ' e willing to urce - take the project. Meetings between RES, CCE anc EG&2 (: NEL centractor, resuitec in general agreement, that, subject to Commission accroval, i suitable arrancements to procesc witn ESTF at INEL coulc te workec cut. l 4

d-On Oc:ocer 31, 1977, the RES staff forwarded two additional papers on ESTF :o the Ccmmission (SECY-77-152B and SECY-77-152C). In these papers the staff recommended locating the EBTF project at INEL and provided a new total cost estimate of 545.3M, with a cost estimate of $30.2M for ESTF design, construction, and preoperational testing.1/ The recommenda-tions in these papers were briefed to the Commission on November 4, 1977. In light of the substantial increase in the estimated total project cost, the Commission requested further assessment by DOE construction staff, of the EBTF cost estimates. Commissioner Gilinsky expressed concern over the utility of the EBTF program and indicated that he would independently seek an evaluation of the program. Subsequently, a DOE-Headquarters cost-estimate for the EBTF design, construction and shakedown of $32.2 Million was received in December 1977, an increase of 52.0 Million over EG&G's estimates. On December 9, 1977, Commissioner Gilinsky again expressed his concern to the staff over the support that the proposed project had from the technical consultants. On December 19, 1977, RES and NRR staff met with the ECCS Subcommittee of the ACRS and their consultants. The purpose of the meeting was to review the need for ESTF, to discuss how the ESTF data would be used' and to present the proposed ESTF design. The comments of the ACRS ' onsultants were generally negative and can be summarized as follows: c 1 1. NRC should do more analysis of the existing data on ECC bypass; 2. NRC should consider upgrading the 2/15 scale test facility to do higher pressure transient tests, larger d:wncomer gap tests and to install more and better ' instrumentation; and ine data to be obtained from the proposed ESTF program are not J. worth the estimated S45 million cost. Opinions were expressed that a larce scale test facility should be built!instead of E5TF if l large expenditures were to be made. On December 29, 1977, the Commission eppreved a recc=mendation from the RES staff to remove funding of the proposad E57F facili y from the FY 1979 NRC oucge; submis,sion, and requested that staff to c:n:inus to evaluate various options to determine the m:s: usefui a::roacn to the study of the ECC bypass and to perform c:nce: ual design <:rk on 2:proaches to studying such :henomena J ~ns e ?mencation in these papers :ic n : re# lect a dissenting sta##

ini:n.

This matter resulted in an incepencen-investigation oy ne C:mmissien's Office of Inspector and Auci:or in:o the procecures usec y tne staff in handling these papers anc action by the Commission to i ensure there are no future recurrences. A copy of the Office of Ins ector and Auditor's, report is provided as Enclosure 4

. On Oc ccer 31, 1977, the RES staff forwarded.two additional pacers on ESTF to the Cc=ission (SECY-77-152B and SECY-77-152C). In these papers the staff recommended locating the EBTF project at INEL and provided a new total cost estimate of $45.3M, with a cost estimate of $30.2M for EBTF design, construction, and preoperational testing.1/ The recommenda-tions in these papers were briefed to the Commission on November 4, 1977. In light of the substantial increase in the estimated total project cost, the Commission requested further assessment by DOE construction staff, of the EBTF cost estimates. Commissioner Gilinsky expressed concern over the utility of the ESTF program and indicated that he would independently seek an evaluation of the program. Subsequently, a DOE-Headquarters cost estimate for the ESTF design, construction and shakedown of 532.2 Million was received in December 1977, an increase of 52.0 Million over EG&G's estimates. On December 9, 1977, Commissioner Gilinsky again expressed his concern to the staff over the support that the proposed project had from the technical consultants. On December 19, 1977, RES and NRR staff met with the ECCS Subco=ittee of the ACRS and their consultants. The purpose of the meeting was to review the need for ESTF, to discuss how the ESTF data would be used' a,nd to present the proposed ESTF design. The comments of the ACRS ' onsultants were generally negative and can be summarized as follows. c 1. NRC should do more analysis of the existing data on ECC bypass; 2. NRC should consider upgrading the 2/15 scale test facility

o do higher pressure transient tests, larger c:wntomer gap ests and to install more and better ins rumentation; and ine data to be obtained from the proposed E57F program are not J.

worth the estimated 545 million cost. Opinions were expressed that a larce scale test facility s'ould be buii:Jinsteac cf ESTF if h large expenditures were to be made. l On December 29., 1977, the Com ission appr:ved a rec:= endation from the-i i RES staff to rem:ve funding of the preposit EETF facili y from the i FY 1979 NRC cud;e: s ubmi s.sion, anc. recuestec :na start to continus c evaluate various options :: determine -he most useful a::r:acn :: he study of the ECC bypass and :: perform c:nce::uai I cesigr w:rk :n a:cr: aches to studying sucP :henomena. -1 e :=encaticn in these pacers cic no: re#iec: a dissenting s a ' e ~ c:inicn. This ma :er resultec in an ince;encen-inves: iga:icn oy ;re C:-,ission's Office of Inspector and Auci:cr in:o the procedures usec by ne staff in handling these pacers anc action by the Comissicn c l ensure :nere are no future recurrences. -A ccpy of the Office of

ns;ector anc Auditor's 'repcrt is proviced as Enclosure 4

~ _, _ _.

1 4 e ' in response to the Commission's direction to determine the most useful l ap:rcach to the stucy of ECC bypass phenomena, the EES staff, with the assistance of the INEL staff, has hao extensive discussions with. technical consultants and other knowledgeable professionals in the field. These discussions have addressed the facility needs, if any,' for further ECC bypass tests and the Facility needs for other safety research experiments, in response to the cortments by ACRS members and censultants that a multipurpose tests facility should be considered. The RES staff requested the views of the laboratory code developers on their research data needs, a'nd we have had extensive discussions with the NRR staff. In addition, INEL was requested to assist RES'in surveying the views of the technical community. INEL carried out such a survey and convened a meeting of 45 safety experts in Denver on May 24-25, 1978, to discuss their views on the data needs for a large scale multipurpose test facility. As a result of these extensive discussions and surveys regarding research data needs, the RES staff reached' the following conclusions: 1. There is widespread agreement in the technical community that the evaluation models used in the licensing reviews of ECCS performance are conservative; 2. Current LOCA/ECCS research programs are addressing some of the small scale model development tests. Others, identified by the code developers, will be considered on a priority basis; 3. Further separate effects tests at large scale shculd be carried cut to investicate ECC bypass, refill and reficed phenomena in PWR's and ECC refill and reflood phenomena in SWR's; and 4. There is widesp' read agreement.in the technical'ccmmunity and the ACRS tha; more research emphasis shcuid te placed en ncn LOCA research. l Duririg this peried of evaluating research needs and approaches, the l RES staff also investigated.12 major facility c:tions for obtaining the large scale separate effects data needed for PWR's and SWR's. In i eva'.va:ing these options the staff has weighed the views of the ACRS anc the techr.ical ccemunity, the neecs of the NRR staff, how scor. the data ecuic be available, and of course the cos:s cf the facilities. l Aitn:U;b the RES staf f received a wide spectrum cf views, twc :rimary - :c;icns. e er;ed : (a) A new full scale multicur:Ose tes: ft:ility, er

) 3 air :ne neeced cata from the curren: :es; cr:; ram, wi:n some

cifica:icns, bu: witn no new LOCA/ECCS test facilities.

l ( I.-..... -. _ ~ -...... -., - - - --....,- - - -, - -- - ~ - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ' ~ ' ' "~

6-In view of :ne many expressed views and large scale experimerits to adress ECC-bypass and SWR counter current ficeding phencmena, one of the c;tions which found considerable support in the tecnnical cc= unity was a new, large scale MTF which would require a large steam supply (1.0 million 1b/hr at 1000 psi), a water source (18,000 gpm at 1000 psi), a large electrical power supply (150 MWe) and testing bays for full scale pWR and SWR components. A scoping estimate for such a facility estimated costs upwards of $300 million. The rationale for a Multipurpose Test Facility (MTF) was that: .(a) The test data from'MTF would be obtained from egjaipment more, 5 protetypical of PWR's and SWR's as it is possible to attain, .thus minimi & scaling considerations; and (b) The MTF could be used to study safety questions that may arise in the future and could be used to study improved safety features such as alternate ECC systems. (There was some sentiment in the technical community that MTF would be a valuable national asset.) Offsiting these pros, it was recognized that: (a) The MTF would be very costly to build and operate (over $300 million total costs); (b) The facility would not be completed until at least 1985, and the test data would be even later; (c) The NRC staff would have to be augmented with more people having skills in the legal, contractual and technical aspects of managing a large construction project; and (c) The costs and management attention needed for MTF would shift the balance even further toward LOCA/ECCS research, contrary to .the general views of the ACRS, the technical. cc= unity and ne NRC staff. ] In vi'ew of the overall agreement that licensing models are conservative, l a diminishing emphasis on the importance of ECC-bypass related effects and many recc=endations to commit resources to non-LOCA related research areas, and the ACRS's agreement that large expenditures for ECC-by; ass research were not warranted, the RES staff racc= ended to -he Cc=ission the following approach:

I e Continue the following programs on LOCA/ECCS research until they are completed: 1. 1/15 scale ECC' bypass tests with improved instrumenta-tion; 2. 2/15 scale ecd bypass tests with improved instrumenta- ~ tion;. .. l+ g g:.tq.r.o-1.y ,_..,.pa v. r.4u. c.. 3. Cooperative 3D program with' Germany and Japan. The"~' German tests will include large (or near full-scale) ECC-bypass tests; and 4. Conduct basic physics' tests for model development purposes. This recommended approach provides a means to obtain the desired large-scale ECC bypass data at less cost to the NRC.- Commission approval of these recommendations was granted in August 1978. 4 e R k l

~ ~ /p' arcq% . UNITED STATES. , ! }. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISsf 0N g

.'f

y WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 4

s Augest 4, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: LChainnan Hendrie Tommissioner Gilinsky -~ Commissioner Kennedy. Commissioner.Bradford. Commissioner' Ahearne i FROM:

0. Gene Abston,' Acting Director-Office of Inspector and Auditor

SUBJECT:

INQUIRY INTO EVENTS SURROUNDING THE HANDLING OF CONCURRENCES FOR THE EBTF' COMMISSION PAPERS The responsible Assistant Director for EBTF did not initial concurrence on a Commission paper and had rese' vations concerning it. This matter r was brought to the attention of the Commission by an April 6,1978 memorandum from Thomas J. McTiernan, former Director, Office of Inspector and Auditor (01A) (Attachment I). Subsequently, Saul Levine, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), reviewed this matter. Mr. Levine's findings were reported to.the Commission in a May 3,1978 memorandum (Attachment II) sent through the Executive Director for Operations (EDO). On June 5,1978, Chairman Hendrie requested OIA ( Attachment III) to inquire into this matter and make a report to the Commission.

SUMMARY

SCOPE OF INQUIRY I In order to determine whether the concurrences for the EBTF staff papers were properly handled,13. individuals were interviewed or contacted on one or more occasions during the -course of this inquiry. In addition, w'e examined the concurrences on the five RES staff papers concerning the ESTF proposal. These concurrences as set forth on SECY-77-152 through SECY-77-152D are listed in Attachment IV.

Contact:

W. Foster, OIA C. Kelley, DIA 49-27051 ~ ,g ,n- <~ .w 'V - awww-s m--

• - -~ ~ - ~ ' '

=-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *

-4 Commission 2 RESULTS OF INQUIRY The five staff papers in question were drafted between March a. December 1977. During this period,.there was no. official written RES policy on obtaining concurrences for staff papers. It was standard procedure, however, that the concurrence chain for staff papers followed the organiza-tional chain of command. Thus, the concurrence block would begin with the originating staff member followed by' the cognizant Branch Chief,- Assistant Director, Division Director, and Office Director. It was also standard procedure for staff papers initiated at Division Director' level which concerned major program matters, such as the EBTF proposal, to be passed down to the cognizant Program Manager to begin the concur.rence chain. Staff papers, SECY-77-152 and SECY-77-152A, were sent to the Commission on March 24 and August 4,1977, respectively. The standard RES procedure for obtaining concurrences was followed in the case of 152 and 152A, but was not followed for 152B, C, and D. SECY-77-152B This staff paper recommended that EBTF be placed at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory ~ for an estimated cost of $45.3 million. Charles Burger, EBTF Program Manager and Aleck Serkiz, Section Leader for EBTF, were not given an opportunity to concur in the paper. Also, Dr. Long Sun Tong, the responsible Assistant Director for EBTF, did not concur in the paper. SECY-77-152B was forwarded to the Commission on October 31, 1977. SECY-77-152C This staff paper contained a breakdown of the cost estimate included in SECY-77-152B and was for all intents and purposes, part of that paper. The concurrences for this paper were handled in the same manner as.those for SECY-77-152B. SECY-77-152C was also forwarded to th'e Commission on October 31, 1977. ~ SECY-77-152D Mr. Serkiz refused to initial his concurrence for this paper in a December'16<, 1977 staff meeting on EBTF. In attendance at this meeting were Mr. Serkiz' Branch Chief, Assistant Director, and Division Director. SECY-77-1520 was forwarded to the Commission on December 21, 1977 without Serkiz' concurrence or his dissenting opinion. i 8 n m

l i Commission 1 3 i . CONCLUSIONS The concurrences of the RES staff for SECY-77-152B, SECY-77-152C, and SECY-77-152D were handled improperly and deviated from the standard RES procedures for obtaining concurrences for staff papers. concerning major programmatic items. i \\ With respect to the events leading up to the drafting of?SECY-77-1528 and C, Dr. Tong was not available to participate.in many of the key-decisions which resulted in this. staff paper,, and-RES management.did not actively involve Dr. Tong in the. EBTF project upon his return from foreign traval at 'the end of September 1977. the fact the cognizant RES staff for EBTF, from the Program Manager to the Office Director, participated in the.mid-Detober trip to INEL with' the exception of Dr. Tong.. We were unable, however, to determine whether Dr. Tong's' views concerning the management capabilities at INEL and the-potential high cost of conducting the project were the reasons' he was not kept involved in the project. Dr. Tong's' reservations were known to Dr. Murl'ey prior to SECY-77-152B and C being forwarded to the Commission. Considering a project of the magnitude and complexity of EBTF, however, it is expected that concerned. staff would have reservations' in varying degrees. we're as serious as he contends, he should have exhausted all possibleIf Dr.v steps in an attempt to have his concerns resolved before SECY-77-152B and C were sent to the Commission. With respect to the preparation of SECY-77-152B, Mr. Scroggins deviated from established office procedures by having the paper prepared without having Mr. Burger's, Mr. Serkiz' and Dr. Tong's names placed on con-currence. As noted above, Dr. Murley was aware that Dr. Tong had reservations concerning the EBTF project. R Dr. Murley a'nd advised him Dr. Tong hadWhen Mr. Scroggins brought SECY-77 believe that Dr. Murley should have resonot concurred in the paper, we f lved Dr. Tong's concerns or ,f include.d his dissenting opinion before going forward with the paper. Also, we believe Dr. Murley should have made Mr. 'Levine aware of Dr. Tong's lack of concurrence. Further, considering the importance of the informa-tion contained in SECY-77-152B and C, Mr. Levine as Office Director, should have ensured the papers were,in complete orderL before they were forwarded to.the Commission. In the. case of SECY-77-152D, Mr. Scroggins should have resolved Mr. Serkiz' c,cncerns or included his dissenting opinicn before he (Scroggins) initialed the staff paper. - Further, in' view of the proximity of the individuals involved in the December 16 meeting, it is unlikely that Dr. Murley was Il II, i y'r .,e e ,...e--,, y -..m u ,,, ~ ,n %,,9- .sy v,.,-,,,---

r. -, '..-,,,.

....-.....-..*_-#..,w. w.-~

Commission 4 not aware of Mr. Serkiz' refusal to concur in SECY-77-152D. It was incumbent upot Dr. Murley to ensure the concurrences of the Reactor S6fety Research staff were in order before he signed the paper out for Mr. Levine. In summary, the three staff papers concerning the 45 million dollar proposal should not havb been forwarded to the Commission without the concurrences of all cognizant staff or without a record of their dissenting opinion. This is made more significant in light of the amount of monqy involved and the interest the Commission, OMB, and the Congress had in - EBTF, one of the largest research programs the NRC had planned to under-take. i It should be noted, however, that Mr. Levine has taken corrective action to prevent the reoccurrence of similar situations in handling of concur-rences within his office. In a June 26, 1978 memorandum to the RES staff (see Attachment V), Mr. Levine set forth definitive guidelines to be followed for obtaining concurrences on RES staff papers. These guidelines if adhered to should prevent a reoccurrence of the events described in this report. Attachments: As stated cc: L. Gossick, EDO 4 f 4 4

1 INQUIRY INTO EVENTS SURROUNDING THE HANDLING OF CONCURRENCES FOR THE EBTF COMMISSION PAPERS DETAILS. The responsible Assistant Director for EBTF did not initial concurrence i on a Commission paper and had reserv~ations concerning it. This matter was brought to the attention of the Commission by an April'6,1978 memorandum from Thomas J. McTiernan, former Director, Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) (Attachment I).. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), reviewed this matter. Sub Mr. Levine's findings were reported to the Commission in a May 3,1978 memorandum,((Attachment II) sent through the Executive Director for Operations ED0). On June 5, 1978, Chairman Hendrie requested OIA (Attachment III) to inquire into this matter and make a report to the Commission. SCOPE OF INOUIRY we' re properly handled, the following individuals were contacted on one or more occasions during the course of this inquiry: Barbara Gabriel - Secretary to the Director, Division of Reactor Safety Research (RSR), RES; C Betty Sue Decker - Secretary to the Chief, Systems Engineering Branch RSR, RES; Charles Burger - Research Program Manager, Systems Engineering Branch, RSR, RES; Aleck Serkiz - Senior Reactor Engineer, Systems Engineering Branch, RSR, RES; Ronald Scroggins - Chief, Systems Engineering Branch, RSR, RES; y Dr. Long Sun Tong - Assistant Director for Water Reactor Safety 5 Research, RSR, RES; ~ Dr. Thomas Murley - Director, RSR, RES; Saul Levine - Director, RES; Patricia Norry - Deputy Director, Office of Administration; l ~

2 Dr. Denwood Ross - Assistant Director for Reactor Safety, Division of Systems Safety, Office 'of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR); Edson. Case - Deputy Director, NRR; Lester Rubenstein - Chief, Research Analysis Section, Program Support Branch, NRR; and Dr. Stephen Hanauer - Technical Advisor to the EDO. .In addition, we examined the concurrences on the five RES' staff papers .concerning the EBTF proposal. 77-152 through SECY-77-152D are listed 1n Attachment IV.These concu RESULTS OF INOUIRY The five staff papers in question were drafted between March and December 1977. During this period, there was no official written RES policy on obtainin however,g concurrences for staff papers. It was standard procedure, tional chain of command.that the concurrence chain for staff papers -followed the Thus, the concurrence chain would begin with the originating staff member followed by the Branch Chief, Assistant Director, Division Director, and Office Director. It was also standard procedure for staff papers initiated at the Divisien Director level which concerned major program matters, such as the EBTF proposal, to be passed down to the cognizant Program Manager to begin the concurrence chain. Staff papers, SECY-77-152 and SECY-77-152A, were sent to the Commission on March 24 and August 4,1977, respectively. for obtaining concurrences was followed in the' case of both 152 andThe stand 152A, but was not followed for 152B, C, and D. Details for 152B, C, and D are as follows: SECY-77-152B In SECY-77-152A, the RES staff recommended to the Commission that the ESTF proposal be bid competitively. RES manegement, however, for a variety of reasons. decided it would be in the best int.erest of NRC to p(lace the project at ERDA's Idaho Nctional Engineering Laboratory INEL). This decision was reached by RES in late t. September 1977. SECY-77-152B (dated October 31,1977) made the reccmmendation that ESTF be placed at INEL for an estimated ccst of $45.3 million. i u I

.~-.. d 4 0' Dr. Long Sun Tong, the cognizant Assistant Director for ESTF;, was either on jury duty (September 9 through 16) or on foreign travel (September 19 through 30) when the management meetings were held which led to the decision to place the facility at INEL. prior to these absences, Dr. Tong had been actively. involved in the EBTF project. During the period he 'was on jury. duty, Tong in a discussion. J with Ronald Scroggins, the responsible Branch Chief for EBTF, raised certain reservations'concerning placing the f.acility at INEL. According to Tong,-he told Scroggins that he (Tong) had " grave concerns" about.the.possible high cost of EBTF if the project ' was placed at INEL. Tong asked Scroggins to pass these con.cerns on to RES management. Scroggins verified that the above discussion took' piace while Tong was on jury duty.. According to Scroggins, however, Tong made no reference to the possible high cost of the project during this discussion. Scroggins stated he remembered Tong expressing concern with respect'to " management problems" at INEL based upon the laboratory's past performance on the LOFT'and pBF projects. Scroggins stated'he did remember Tong expressing concerns, after his return to the office in October 1977, about the high cost of conducting the project at INEL. Scroggins advised.he passed Tong's concerns, with respect to'INEL management on to Dr. Murley, the responsible' Division Director, a day or so'after the discussion with Tong. Scroggins recalled that Murley's only response was to thank him for.the information. Dr. Murley stated that Scroggins advised him in late September that Tcng had reservations about placing EBTF at INEL. Murley assumed Tong's reservations were concerned with placing another major facility project at INEL. According to Murley, Dr. Tong's reservations as conveyed by Scroggins did not make any mention of the cost benefit of EBTF. Murley stated, however, that in several discussions durino October 1977, Tong expressed reservations to him about the expense of the project and about the project being conducted at INEL. Murley pointed out: that Tong also stated during this, period, that he would support RES's position on EBTF once a decision was E reached. Dr. Tong stated he did say he would support' RES management's position on EBTF but said he told hurley this in December 1977, at least a month after SECY-77'-152B was' issued. Dr. Murley advised that he thought he passed Tong's concerns about INEL, in general, on to Saul Levine. Murley did not remember any comment Levine may have made. Mr. Levine said he remembers such a ccnversation with Murley, but stated this ciscussion took place scmetime during the summer of 1977, prior to the decision to place EETF at INEL. 4 6 4 \\ ,.,m... ,.,,---...-.-...~,-....-m.,

4, On October 12, 1977, Scroggins, Murley, and Levine visited INEL to review the conceptual designs for EBTF with the INEL and EG&G (INEL's' primary contractor) staffs. Aleck Serkiz, Section Leader for ESTF, and Charles Burger, EBTF program Manager, had preceded them to Idaho. During this visit to Idaho,.a new cost estimate for EBTF of about $45 million was arrived at, approximately $18 million ' more than the August cost projection. Dr. Tong did ~ot participate in this trip.' According to Tong, he n .was not asked to accompany the cognizant RES management on this trip nor was he advised of' the trip's purpose until after.his' staff retu.rned from Idaho. Mr. Scroggins stated that he was " pretty sure" he briefed Tong as to the purpose of the-trip before the staff visited liiEL. Dr. Murley advised that' he probably did not ask Tong to participate in the trip because Tong was not actively involved in EBTF at that time. After the RES staff returned from the above trip, a series of meetings took place to_ debate the pros and cons of going ahead with ESTF in view of the significantly higher cost estimate. Some of the meetings were held jointly with the cognizant NRR s'taff. It was agreed that a decision needed to be reached quickly on this matter because of the interest of the Commission, OMB, and Congress ~ in the ESTF proposal. Dr. Tong stated that he was not asked to participate in nor was he made aware that these meetings were taking place. Mr. Serkiz, Mr. - Scroggins, and Dr. Murley all believe Tong attended one or two of ~ these meetings. No minutes of these meetings could be located. A number of NRR officials involved in the EBTF project were contacted in an attempt to determine the participants at any joint NRR/RES staff meetings held on EBTF in late October 1977. The results of these contacts were negative. During the late October time frame in which the BTF meetings were held, Serkiz drafted a memorandum dated October 20, 1977 to Dr. Murley, which was sent through Dr. Tong. This memorandum, concurred in by Dr. Tong, lists a-number of unresolved issues concerning EBTF which Serkiz wished to discuss with Murley. One of the unresolved issues was the need for a draft Commission paper: recommending placement of EBTF at INEL. Dr. Tong stated he concurred '.n this memorandum under the assumption that he would be able to voice his concerns about EETF during subsequent discussions on ths unresolved issues mentiened above, s 4

g., - - -

,. ~, n .-,--vn,v ,~.w. w - -'--~-nw-- oww~~r4w-r- ~ - - + n' ~ v~ - ~ * * * ~ " ~ - - ' - - - ^ ^ ^ ^ ' ^ ' ' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' ^ ' - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ " ^ ' ^ ^ ^ ' ^ ^ ^ ~ ~

-S - Tong also did-not view his concurring in the memorandum as an indication that he was in agreement with placing EBTF at INEL. Tong advised that he was not asked to participate in such a discussion nor was he aware that such a discussion took place among other members of the RES staff. Dr. Murley interpreted Tong's concurrence 1 in this memorandum as showing that Dr. Tong was clearly aware. of the de. liberations to place EBTF at INEL and was in agreement with the actions outlined in the memorandum. j .Mr. Scroggins advised thatlwith input from his immediate staff, the Controller's Office and personnel from DOE Headquarters, he drafted most of the Commission paper recommending EBTF be placed at INEL-for an estimated cost of $45 million (SECY-77-1528). Scroggins advised he also incorporated Murley's comments into the paper. Mr. Scroggins and Mr. Serkiz stated they adequately briefed Dr. Tong cn the progress of the proposal as SECY-77-152B was being put together. Dr. _ Tong does not recall being kept informed by his staff of the progress of the paper. Mr.Scrogginsadvisedthatafterhehadcompletedadrdftofthe staff paper, he gave it to his secretary to type. Scroggins believed he told his secretary to put Murley down as orginator and contact. ~ Scroggins stated he also believed he told his secretary to add his name to the concurrence as an "after thought." Scroggins advised that on October 28, as he was proofing Ine final copy of SECY-77-152B, he noticed Tong's name was not on the concurrence block. According to Scroggins, he then went to Tong's office and advised Tong that the paper was drafted. A brief discussion then took place concerning the contents of the paper. Dr. Tong stated he again expressed reservations about conducting the project at li;EL. Mr. Scroggins stated he did not remember Tong expressing any reservations at this time. At the end of this conversation, Mr. Scroggins asked Tong if he wanted to concur in the paper. Scroggins stated Tong replied, in effect, that be did not need to. According to Tong, he replied that he would prefer not to concur in the paper. Mr. Scroggins then proceeded to Dr. Murley's office where he advised Murley that Tong's name was not on concurrence for the paper, but die not emphasize this point. Scroggins advised that to the best of his recollection he left the staff paper with Dr. Murley. e

m.. -

4 y m ne ma, w~

I 1 a 5 e -6, Dr. Murley stated that after the above conversaticn with Scroggins, 't he initialed the staff paper and handed it back to Scroggins. Murley advised that he assumed Scroggins hand carried the document to Levine's office. Mr. Levine stated he thought Murley brought the staff paper to him' for signature, but could not be certain. Levine added that if' lurley did bring him the staff paper, he (Murley) definitely did not point out or br.ng it to his attention that Dr. Tong was not in jetobe Y-77-152B was forwarded to the Commission on re ce. With' respect to this staff paper, it should be noted that Aleck Serkiz was.not given an opportunity to concur. the standard RES policy on concurrences. This was a deviation from This omission is made more significant by Serkiz' prior position that EBTF should be bid competitively. Mr. Serkiz advised, however, he was in agreement with the contents of SECY-77-152B when it was forwarded to the Commission. Serkiz did state he should have been placed on concurrence for the paper. y Charles Burger, EBTF Program Manager, was also not given an opportunity to concur in SECY-77-152B. This was a deviation from the standard RES policy for obtaining concurrences on staff papers. Burger t stated he was also in favor of having EBTF bid competitively, g Y adding that it was his opinion that placing the facility at INEL would not be in the best interest of NRC. Burger advised that he made everyone in his management chain, including Mr. Levine, aware c Burger stated, however, he is supportive of management, ~y of his views. thus pr e y would have concurred in the staff paper had he been given the opportunity. Mr. Burger did state it is still his opinion that EBTF should have been bid competitively. i It should also be noted that Dr. Tong was not placed on the distribution for SECY-77-1528. This fact was described by Mr. Scroggins and his secretary as simply an oversight" or a " clerical error." S'ECY-77-152C This staff paper enumerated the sensitive, detailed breakdcwns of i the cost estimate for ESTF contained in SECY-77-1528 and for all intents and purposes was part of that staff paper. The concurrences for this staff paper were the same as those for SECY-77-152B with the exception that Mr. Scroggins' name did not appear in a concurrence bicck. Scroggins did, however, initial his c'oncurrence in the top left hand ccrner of the concurrence block containing Dr. Murley's name.

,o. SECY-77-152C was also forwarded to the Commission on October 31, 1977. _SECY-77-152D On December 16, 1977, certain' members of the RES staff attended a meeting to discuss-the EBTF proposal.. In attendance at the meetin were Dr. Murley, Dr. Tong, Mr. :Scroggins, Mr. Serkiz, Mr. Burger, g and possibly others. final copy of SECY-77-152D was brought to Dr. Murley.. Som .of this paper was to inform the Commission of a D02 review of theThe purpos 3 NRC's construction. cost estimate for EBTF. When Dr. Murley received the paper he noticed Cr. Tong's name was not shown on the concurrence bl ~ock. At 'that time, Murley wrote in Tong's name above the typed concurrence block. SECY-77-152D was then passed around the room for the participants to initial their concurrence. Mr. Serkiz, who is shown as co-originator of the document with Mr. Burger, declined to initial his concu rence staff shown on concur: ence. The paper was initialed by the other who was then on foreign travel., and signed out by Murley for Levine, ~ Mr. Burger advised-that the purpose of the December 16 meeting was to have a " dry run" of a presentation the RES staff planned to give to the ACRS.on the status of EBTF. Burger stated that during the p meeting, SECY-77-152D was circulated for concurrences by Dr. Murley. Burger advised that' he initialed his concurrence and gave the paper to Serkiz who passed the paper on without concurring. Bur ccmmented that when the paper reached Dr. Tong, he (Tong) gerinitialed and returned the paper to Serkiz and advised Serkiz that he (Serkiz) did not concur. Serkiz again declined to concur. Burger did not know who received the paper next, but thought it was given back to Murl ey. Burger did not knew if Murley was' aw?.re Serkiz did not ~ Burger. stated he did not observe any dialogue between concur. Murley.and Serkiz or Murley and Scroggins during the meeting. Burger stated he did observe dialogue between Serkiz and Scroggins ~ about the same time the paper was being circulated,. but was not aware of the substance of the discussion. i 7 Mr. Serkiz stated _that when he received the staff paper, he passed it on without initialing his concurrence. Serkiz did not remember who he handed the paper to. Serkiz advised that he thought the . reason he did not concur in the staff paper was he had problems 4 with some of the " cost phraseology." with the contents and principle cf the paper.Serkiz added he was in agreement Serki: stated he had nc dialogue with Scroggins or Murley about his lack of concurrence during the December 16. meeting. 'He did.say that he discussed his lack cf concurrence with Scroggins after the paper had been issued .i by.Murley. 1 I.

s jm,' a + Mr. Scroggins stated Serkiz passed SECY-77-1520 to him after he (Serkiz) refused to initial the document. Scroggins advised that he then asked Serkiz why he was not concurring and a "one-to-two t minute" discussion took place. Scroggins stated he told Serkiz that he did not agree with Serkiz' concern, but was unable.to convince Serkiz.to initial the paper. Scroggins stated he then initialed the document and handed it to Murle that Serkiz declined to concur in the paper. y and advised Murley Scroggins did'not remember any verbal response from Murley. Scroggins stated he did not recall discussing this matter with Serkiz after the _ December 16 meeting. H Dr. Tong stated-that when he.was given SECY-77-152D, he read the paper and initialed his~ concurrence. was bein'g passed around for concurrence, Murley and.Serkiz had a discussion, the substance of which he (Tong) did not hear or become aware of. Tong stated he was sure Murley was aware that Serkiz did not concur in the staff paper during the December 16 meeting. Dr. Murley stated he remembered the December 16 meeting and circulatin SECY-77-152D around the room for concurrence. Murley' stated he did not remember Serkiz not conc' rring in the paper or having any-u discussion in' this regard with Serkiz during the meeting. Murley stated he did not remember Scroggins advising him that Serkir. did not. concur in SECY-77-152D during this meeting. -{ t SECY-77-152D was' forwarded to the Commission'on December 21, 1977. CONCLUSIONS 4 The concurrences of the RES staff for SECY-77-1528, SFCY-77-152C, and e SECY.77-152D were handled. improperly and deviated from the standard RES i procedures for obtaining concurrences for staff papers concerning major programmatic items. With respect to the events leading up to the drafting of SECY-77-152B and C, Dr. Tong was not. available to participate in many of the key-decisions which resulted in this staff paper, and RES management did not i actively involve Dr. Tong in the EBTF project upon his return from . ;E ' foreign travel, at the end of September 1977. s This point is supported by the fact the ccqnizant RES staff for EBTF, from the Program Manager to the Office Director, participated in the mid-October trip to INEL with d the exception of Dr. Tong. We were unable, however, to determine whether Dr. Tong's views concerning the management capabilities at INEL and the ] potential high cost of conducting the-project were the reasons he wi.s j

no.t kept involved in the project.

q l q . ~

Dr. Tong's reservations were known to Dr. Murley prior to SECY-77-152B and C being forwarded to the Commission. Considering a project of the magnitude and complexity of EBTF, however, it is expected that concerned staff would have reservations in varying degrees. were as serious as he contends, he should have exhausted all possibleIf D and C were sent to the Commission. steps in an attempt to have With respect to the preparation of SECY-77-152B, Mr. Scroggins deviated from established office procedures by having the paper prepar having Mr. Burger's, Mr. Serkiz' and Dr. Tong's names placed ed without on concurrence. As noted above, Dr. Murley was aware that Dr. Tong had reservations concerning the EBTF project. Dr. Murley and advised him Dr. Tong had not concurred in th believe that Dr. Murley should have resolved Dr. Tong's concerns or, we included his dissenting opinion before going forward with the paper Also, we believe Dr. Murley thould have made Mr. Levine aware of D lack of concurrence. contained in SECY-77-1528Further, considering the importance of the information and C, Mr. Levine as Office Director, should have ensured the papers were in complete order before they were forwarde to the Coraission. .In the case of SECY-77-152D, Mr. Scroggins should have resolved Mr. Serkiz' concerns or included his dissenting opinion before he (Scrogg initialed the staff paper. Further, in view of the proximity of the, individuals involved in the December 16 meeting, it is unlikely that Dr Murley was not aware of Mr. Serkiz' refusal to concur in SECY-77-1520 It was incumbent upon Dr. Murley to ensure the concurrences of the RSR staff were in order before he signed the paper out for Mr. Levine. In summary, the three staff papers concerning the 45 million dollar proposal should not have been forwarded.to the Commission without the concurrences of all cognizant staff or without a record of their dissenting opinien. 'This is made more significant in light of the amount of money involved and the interest the Commission, OMB, and the Congress had in ESTF, one of the largest research programs the NRC had planned to under It should be noted, however to prevent the' reoccurrence,of similar situations in handling of c rences within his office. In a June 25, 1978 memorandum to the RES s:eff (see Attachment V), Mr. Levine set forth definitive guidelines to be folicwed for obtaining concurrences on RES staff papers. cuidelines if adhered to should prevent a reoccurrence cf the events These , described in this report. A::ach ents: As stated 4 ! I i

,6 N h I978 .s MEMORmDUM FOR: Chairman Hendrie Comissioner Gilinsky Coanissioner Kennedy Co=nissioner Bradford [0; ':.L nkp. FROM: Thomas J. McTiernan, Director Office of Inspector and Auditor adh.'yby. . ernen.

SUBJECT:

(SECY-152B)~INFORMATION 'CONCERNING EBTF - that when SECY-152B, dated OctoberI thought that you would 31, 1977, concerning EBTF, was sent not initial concurrence on the paper end had re We understand that these reservations have not been conveyed tu the Ccanission. During the course of the ongoing knouiry into personnel and manageme / practices within the Office of Research, CIA examined some of the documentstion which led to the recc=endation to give thE ESTF project to Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) for an estimated cost of $45.3 million. The significance of this staff paper was the fact 1977. Tong, Assistant Director for Water Reactor Projects, was not included among those whose concurrences were shown. On March 29, 1978, Dr. Tong was interviewed. Dr. Tong advised that he had not seen the staff ~ paper before it was sent to the Comission. Dr. Tong also advised that he would not have done so.,He said that the reason he would concur 7 ed was that it is improper to accept a very high cost estimate frca a specific contractor withcut carefully considering the cost effec-tiveness of the program. Dr. Tong stated that he had expressed his reservations to Dr. Murley, Directer, Reactor Safety Research Division, prior to the staff paper being sent to the Cormission. On April 4,1978, Dr. Thomas E. Murley was contacted in an effort to detemine why Dr. Tong's concurrence did not appear on SECY-1523. result of this centact, Dr. Murley was interviewed en April 5,1973.As a During the interview, Dr. Murley provided a summary of the events leading up to SECY-1523. Dr. Murley said that he could not recall that, rn"T:.m i e + %. nTa, 9_717n l W.Fostef,01A,2-7051 ATTACHMENT I G

s ~. W sS 2 at the time the staff paper was prepared, Dr. Tong did not concur. Dr. Murley did recall, however, that Dr. Tong advised him that h had reservations about the EBTF project, even before a cost estim been developed. were, but did recall that they had to do with Dr. Ton and of the expense associated with INEL research work. ~ Dr. Murley said he specifically. remembered Dr. Tong telling him tha (Tong) would go along with whatever was decided. not know that Dr. Tong had such strong adverse feelings about the EB proposal and, had he known, he would have deferred action on SECY-15 until all concerns had been addressed. Dr. Murley said that on the morning of April 5,1978, in an effort to reconstruct the above chronology when concurrences were being scug,ht for SECY-1523, Dr. To he preferred not to be included on the concurrence. Also, Dr. Murley that he did not concur in the proposal to give the for an estimated $45.3 million. Dr. Murley said that he then discussed with Saul Levine, Director, R what course of action now needed to be taken with regard to advising t Co mission and the Congress of Dr. Tong's position. In view of NRC's 'past experience en the issue of dissent within'the be certain that staff papers, regarding this project, re dissenting views of cognizant persons exist. cNb,--EDG--- ~5. t.eVine, KE$- ^ DIST: OIA 'Subj ect OIA Reading Ryan Reading Strickler F v dster 4 I I - ~. -.

+ -. d '4 uu:TED STATCS 4, ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMiss!OfJ- _"L .h f WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 .a,"< J / .UM' y ;g;.g %.+ .1 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairnan Hendr I Comissioner Gilinsky Commissioner. Kennedy Comissioner Bradford ~ FROM:- Saul Levine,.' Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research THRU: Lee V.' Gossick Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

ECC. BYPASS TEST FACILITY "It 'has 'recently come " o my' $tientiin '-t' ha'l"Or. ' Lohg Sun Tong was t not on the concurrer.ce list'of SECY 77-152B, dated October 31, 1977. This is of special significance because Dr. Tong's name should not have been omitted from the concurrence list and because of question's about whether the Office of Nuclear Regulatory' Research (RES)- kept the Commission adequately informed of the lack of consensus in the technical community on EBTF. The matter o.f consensus in the technical. community was addressed in my memorandum of March 2,1978, to' Chairman Hendrie and in his letter of March 17, 1978, signed by Commissioner Gilinsky, to i Congressman Udall. In a further action, Commissioner Gilinsky.by i lette'r dated April 11, 1978, has informed Congressman Udall of the lack of Dr. Tong's concurrence on SECY 77-152B. I have attached hereto as Enclosures 1 'and 2 respectively statements by Dr. 'Murley and Dr. Tong on this matter. A summary of the situation' is as follows: 6 1. In SECY 77-152A, dated August 4,1977, RES recommended 'to the Commission that the NRC request budget 1/5 and 1/3 authorization for an EBTF facility using(TEC) of $27 scale vessels at a total estimated cost a eg,I,t;, million and that a competitive procurement would be used to select a contractor. Dr. Tong concurred in

y 73 c :,,

this reco.mmendation. ATTACW.DG II -+-.m . +,.

'.,,'[ The ' Con:niss ion

• 2.

Although this recomendation was approved by the Ccmmission on September 19,1977 (see Enclosure 3), questions had arisen during the Commission's review, about why this type of facility should not be located at a 00E laboratory. Furthermore, as noted by Dr. Murley in Enclosure 1, ther'e were additional questions concerning HRC's capability to handle a...alti-million dollar facility procurement. In mid-September we re-explored the pessibil of locating EBTF at INEL and received a positive response ity irom DOE and EGSG. 3. By October 12, we were giyen a TEC for ESTF of $4g.9 by INEL as opposed to the previous TEC of $27M in SECY 77-152A. After a series of meetings with various contractors, the staff and contractors raised the RFP estimate to $33M and the INEL estimate was reduced to $45M by EG&G. 4. Both Dr. Tong and Dr. Murleysnote that on October 20, Dr., Tong signed and, forwarded tocor Murley a memoiandum from' A.W. Serkiz whic cdst 'estimaties and which listed a(t, an action item the presented.the two 7 preparation of a-Commission paper recommending the placement of EBTF at INEL. 5. During the period from mid-Septe$r.ber to the'end of September Dr. Tong was not deeply involved in EBTF discussions beceuse he was either out of the country or on jury duty.. While Dr. Murley states that, during this period, he heard indirectly about Dr. Tong's reservations concerning locating EBTF at INEL, he attributed this to Dr. Tong's general reservations toward locating large faci.lities at INEL. Dr. Tong 3 states that he. liter (afte'r October 20) became more concerned about the magnitude of the INEL cost estimate and INE' 's ability to carry out the program a effectively bec6use of their past performance on LOFT. i# As a' resul.t of reviewing Dr. Murley's and Dr. Tong's attached e statements, I have come to the following conclusions: l. Dr. Tong.has stated that he should have been more ,orceful in ensuring that his reservations on SECY 77-152B were fully discussed with Dr. Murle~v and myselT. I fully agree with this. Although 1 !l 4 et 3 l

The Commission: - Dr. Tong did-express some reserv- ::ns to Dr. Murley, 'he apparently did'not make him aware of the full extent of his feelings 'about-the costs and location ' of EBTF. Furthermore, our Agency and my office have

an open ~ door. policy'(see Enclosures 4 and 5) which encourages anyone to see me about matters such as this and which Dr. Tong did not follow.

a 2. .Dr.- Tong has:also stated that he should have ensured i .that SECy 77-1528 would not have gone forward without his.name on the concurrence list. I agree. Apparently, -there was a serious miscommunication between Dr. Tong and.Mr. Scroggins. If not for this, the paper would almost certainly have been prepared with his name on the concurrence list and the matter of h'is concurrence or lack thereof would have become~ a matter of fact. Appropriate action could theq have been taken to resolve his reservations ift he had no.t concurred. I have to. 'the. basic proposal: becauie' our 'rsv,ltimately concurred on assume that Or. Tong would have e in costs between the proposals in SECY 77-152A and 152B led to understandable and supportable-differences and it was already clear at that time that INEL's performance on LOFT was ' improving markedly. A detailed schedule had been established for LOFT in October,1976; one year later the project was ahead of schedule by several months. 3. Dr. Murley has stated that he erred in forwarding SECY 77-152B without Dr. Tong's concurrence. I agree; furthermore, had Dr. Murley been more sensitive to Dr. Tong's reservations, however they had been expressed in September, this situation probably would not have arisen. As a final point, I'must accept some of the responsibility for this matter. It is clear to me tha.t the meaning and use of concurrences was not well understood in this matter. I will take appropriate action'to. clarify this for the entire RES staff in the near future. - e ,.,-.res.~a.,,, m.c., un

The Commission - In sum: nary, it 'is clear that a serious lack of communication about ESTF existed between Dr. Murley and Dr. Teng. I believe that the lesson learned _from this is the need to follow NRC's open door policy and concurrence procedures with rigor. The action I plan to take should help to prevent future recurrence of problems of this type. 2 f, !sau evin#CTiNetor Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Enclosure. 1. Statement by Dr. T. Murl ey i 2. Statement by, Dr.. L. S. To n.g, 3. Memo,. S'. Chil k' to "*

a.

ta L. V. Gossick, dt'd,

" ' /'5' September 19, 1977 4. Memo, L.V. Gossick to-Office Directors, dtd Dec. 7, 1976 5. Memo, H.U.C. Kouts to RES Staff, dtd March 4,1976 N 'fe y f F \\ + i a-

3,6 NUCLEAn REGULATORY CCMM!00:0N . l 's., f ~ U) $ 1 '. E - WAS H WGTOM, D. C. 30h5 4 April 28,1978 1 \\ ~ MEMORAt!DUM FOR: S'aul Levine, Director Office of Nuclear-Regulatory Research FROM: Thoras E. Murley, Director Division.of. Reactor Safety Research

SUBJECT:

.EBTF On Tuesday, April 4, I received a call from Mr. Chip Foster of OIA regarding the internal investigation of administrative matters connected with the Office of Research. His question pertained to. .the. Commission Paper on EBTF, SECY-77-152, dated October 31, 1977, 'and the reason khy.Dr. Tong was not oh concurrence. I told Mr. Fos 5er I would.look.into the matter. On Wednesday, April 5 I asked Dr. Tong for his recollection of the Commission Paper and the reason he was not on concurrence. He told me that he had told CIA he had not read the paper and that he. did not agree with the recommenda. tion'in the paper. He further explained that the basis for his views was that he could not support the cost-effectiveness ($45 million total program cost) of the ESTF as it was proposed 'in SECY-77-1528. Since this revelation came as a surprise to me, I have asked Dr. Tong to. write a memo to you out-lining his views on the matter.- .In the chronology of events for EBTF that you forwarded to the Chairman and he subsequently sent to Congressman Udall, one could infer that there was no disagreement among the RES staff on the ESTF recommendations. In light o'f this, I believe you should forward this memo and Dr. Tong's memo to the Commission. t Backaround In order..to place this recent development in context, it is useful to recount the events leading up to the October 31 Commissicn Paper. As. part of the FY 1979 budget process, the Commission had approved on September 19, 1977, the staff recommendation to include EETF in the budget. The cost estimate at that time was $27M, and.the plan was to select a contractor via a competitive procurement to design, construct and operate the facility. Dr. Tong concurred in the staff reccmmendation at that tine.

m.-,. 4 --.s s.2 e u a 4u. o.- a.+ Mr.'Levino April 23,1978 During September 1977, as we began to lay out the plans for the competitive procurement, it became clear to me that NRC simply did not have staff experienced in the procurement of a multi-million dollar facility construction project. Questions arose concerning ~ incentive fee contracting and placing a government facility on a privately' owned site for which I could not get answers' from the NRC staff. I contacted ERDA procurement officials to reques't that they assign someone full time to assist NRC, but I was not successful. I then attempted to hire a retired'ERDA procurement official'to assist NRC on a consultant basis, but I was again unsuccessful. Based on this experience and on conversations with ERDA contacts who raised significant q' estions on our procurement p'lans, I u concluded that NRC was over its head in this competitive procurement process'and that the schedule and cost estimates were in jeopardy. It was at that time, in mid-September, that' I suggested to you that we expl6re the possibility of placing the project at an ERDA labora-tory having experience in design and construction management. We then asked DOE and EG&G if they would 'be interested in managing and bu.i.lding EBTF at INEL, and they both indicited a strong p6sitive interest in having~EBTF.at'INEL.' Dr..Tontj"was out of, the country and on jury duty from about September 9 to 56ptember 30 and consequently was not a party to these discussions. During late September, while he was on jury duty, Dr. Tong sent word to me through Ron Scroggins that he had reservations about placing the project at INEL. I assumed his reservations had to do with placing another big facility project at INEL. No mention was maae by Dr.' Torig at that time of reservations on the basis of cost benefit. In fact, vie did not learn of INEL's higher cost estimate until you and I went to Idaho on October 12. During the month of October I had several disc'ussions with members of my staff concerning EBTF, and to the best of my recollection Dr. Tong tcok part in some of these discussions.' It is fair to say that all of us, including myself, had reservations of one sort cr anot er w ti h a'$45 million EBTF program at INEL, but in the end I h thought these reserystions had been resolved. I have no recollection of Dr. Tong ever telling me that he disaoreed with the recommendation in the Commission Paper. In fact, Dr. Tong told ne on more than one, occasion that he would support the RES position on EBTF once a decision was reached as a result.of all the discussions we were having among ourselves. and with NRR. The enciesed memo to me from Mr. Al Serkiz, dated Dctober 2D,1977, anc concurred in by Dr. Tong, describes the increase in Sattelle's ces; estimate and lHEL's estimate for the project. It also lists, S v,,...,,... ,,q9-' g- ,,,_....Y2 gy.,,,.m..y...,y..,, _,,.o_, _..,..-.,#.m.c.3,m,.,. e. -

s ~ Mr. Levine ' April.28, 1978 a number of actions required by the staff, among them the need to draft a Commission Paper recommending placement of EBTF at INEL. This memo clearly shows that Dr. Tong was aware of the deliberations to place ESTF at INEL, and I assumed he agreed with the cours' of e action outlined in the memo. ~ v With regard to the events surrounding Dr. Tong's absence of con-currence on the Commission Paper, my recollections are not totally ' clea r. Ron Scroggins, who drafted the paper, says thats he asked Dr. Tong if he wished to be on concurrence and Dr. Tong said he would rather not. To the best of my recollection I believe Mr. Scroggins brought the commission Paper for my concurrence and briefly noted in passing that Dr. Tong's name was not on.the concurrence list. I probably assumed that he did not feel the need to concur because he had c'oncurred in the previous Commission Paper,on EBTF and the technical recommen.dation (1/5-1/3 scale).had not ch.anged. I am certain that Dr. Ton'g was not bypassed sch the concurrence list by me delib'erately. If I,had thou's.ht that-Dr.. Tong disagreed with the recor::nendation inthe Comm'is'si' ri Pa'pe'r, G.oild not have gone forward o with the paper until.we had a mutually agfee'able r.ecommendation. In retrospect, I.believe it was a mistake on my part to have con-cdtred in the Commission Paper in the absence of Dr. Tong's con-currence. I. have issued instructions to my. staff that all papers f'or my signature o'riginating in WRSR must have Dr. Tong's con-currence before reaching me. It is also clear in hindsight that, even though Dr. Tong was spending a major part of his time on the 3-D project, I should have made sure that he was deeply involved in all of the deliberations concerning EBTF,- s lid/0J? Thoras E. Murl y, irector Division of Rec ' Safety Research

Enclosure:

As stated g e

[ k. UMITED STATES, ] [k ' ',,.,pk ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COV.MisslOta ',. i g. wAssincTem, o. c. 2:scs. v%..e.cQ gg ?,0 till MEMORANDUM'FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director. Division of' Reactor Safety Safeguards Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: Aleck U. Serkiz Systems Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety-Research THRU: L. S. Tong, Assistant Director for Water Reactor Safety Research [ ~ Division of Reactor Safety SafeguardM

SUBJECT:

ESTF COST (S)

SUMMARY

AND REQUIRED ACTIONS i3ESULTING . FROM OCTOBER' 6 .13,;1977 DISCUSSIONS.WITH EG&G ANDD0y/ID 1. ' '.r. *. .= ~ Tables 1, 2.and 3, provide' cost summaries relevant to the ESTF. Table-1, summarizes the reasons for EBTF cost estimate increases between June 1977 and October.1977, a total increase of approximately $6.million. .J table 2 summarizes BCL's cost estimates for design, construction and " facility turnover (cost estimate of $23.7 million), and RSR project staff current assessment for these costs (cost estimate of $27.4 million).- Table 3 summarizes program cost estimates carried out by BCL'and EG&G. ECL estimates that $23.7 million would be required to effect facility turnover versus an EGEG estimate of $32'.6 million. BCL's total program cost estimate is $33'.4 million versus EG&G's $49.9 million estimate. The respective differe'nces are further detailed in Appendix A, EG&G's handout material of October 11, 1977. Table 4 summarizes major start and completion milestones for th'e ESTF program; EG&G concurs that the schedule is achievable. Recognizing the-rapidness of-events occurring between October 6,1977 and October 12, 1977, it should be recognized that major unresolved items l exist. These are summarized in Table 5. Desi9n and cost reviews at BCL have been scheduled for the week of October 17, 1977, and Charles Burger will. attempt to ccordinate activities. An October 21, 1977 S 5

/ Thomas E. Murley 2-meeting at Columbus, Ohio., is scheduled for your attendance. Many of the unresolved i'ssues shown in Table 5, require your attention and.I - would like to discuss them with you at your earliest convenience. In the meantime, Charles Burger and I will try to keep activities under control. I strongly recommend completion of. the EBTF final conceptual-design package by BCL and Stilson Associztes. ~ Aleck W. Serkiz Systems Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety Research cc w/encls: J :.- Salevine

• T.
• P. Norry

?. Strom L. Tong G.Bennett R. Scroggins C. Surger J. Stone W. Beckner 0 p e 9 e e 4 6 9 ~we--me-rm--- a ~, - ,--r v a

Q TABLE 1,

SUMMARY

OF. COST ESTIl%TE I!' CREASES (REFERENCEJUNE.1977COSTBASE) aCOST , 1. BCL Fixed Fee 3 Percent Versus 9 Percent (for.CPFF Contracts) . 'r ' ' ~ $0.9M ' 2. Increased Estimated Escalation Factor (7 Percent + 10 Percent ) U) 2.7M' 3. Six Month Start-of-Design Slippage '(October 1977 - April'19)8), 1,1M' Acceptance Testing.(2) 4. ),4g G 5. Resizing Back Pressure Vessel.and Addition of '[ Hot Well' Requirements 3} 0.3M i 6. Increasing Pressure Rating for 1/3 Scale Vessel, ' Addition of N System and Change in Ramping (4). 0.1M 2 6 Sybtotal to Facility Turnover = $6.5M Total Program A = ,$6.2M k (1) Estimated escalation factors are now projected at 10 percent. This is confirmed by Stone and Webster's estimates and EG&G's opinion. Current escalatien rates = 5 - G percent / annum. l i I e c- -.w

._:A 4 6-s- 4 a 4_. 2 -i .a m ,a u [:,. Tame iS.urtnery of Cost Estimate Increases - 2 (2) ECL claims that acceptance- (or goal) tests are redefined in the l current NRC requirement document. t (3) Resizing of major facility components resulting from more design 1 effort in conceptual desigh. .(4) Result of RSR/BCL' discussions. i e e h O g e 4 .= g 4 i e e 4 g 4 g 4 4 S 9 e G 2 e 9 6 9 e w e 8 e e 4 ,r ~.,.--ewr u-,- --#wt.,we-v. e.,w- . -, - -. ~, w .~..v.-. --. ~, -. .------e-,

arm;.z.:~s :.:4:w;,.:.m .?: n. . ya 2:. - L~iT W d g d i! E NN3kMR" We ?2-s-TABLE 2 g: .r %%Tr -f r"h CCL COST ESTIMATES FOR EBTF AND RECOMMENDED REVISIONS S . q- -y Design @ 10% Contingency = $1.6M (I) @ 20% Contingency = $1.8M'(2) , Construction 0 20% Contingency = 18.7M @ 25% Contingency = 19.5M Acceptance Testing 0 20% Contingency = 1.7M ' 0 30% Contingency = 1.9M' Analysis Support @ 25% Contingency = 0.3M- @ 3'0% Contingency = 0.3M Program Management @ 0% Contingency = 1.4M 0 20% Contingency = 1.7M . TOTAL =.$23.7M TOTAL =.$25.2M Intentified Possible Shortcomings: .s-Instrumentation = S'1.1M Estim'ated O)'. Operational Crea = Sl'.lM Estimated ( ) Best Estimate Cost to Facility Turnover = $27.4M (1) Cost estimates provided by BCL and Stilson Associ'ates on 0ctober 3,1977, contingencies as shown. (2) Recommended cost increases due to i.ncreased to ingerycy factors shown. RSP project staff recommends increases shown ~ (3) Potential instrumentation cost under estimate identified by EG&G sta'f, ~ requires further confirmation. (4) Potential underestimate on identified crew site. Prior estimates by AI recemr,anded 25 man crew; ECL's estimate is 10 - 15 mr.n crew. O o rww--. = e----

a / .7... TABLE 3 RELATIVE COST COMPARIS0!iS ER. DESIGtt AliD' C0!1STRUCT BCL PP.0 JECT STAFF EG&G Design $.l.6M $ 1.8M $ 2.2M. Construction-18.7M 20.6M 21.4M Testing 1.7M 3.0M 5.3M Analysis 0.3M 0.3M 0.8M Program Management 1.4M 1.7M 2.9M c Subtotal (3) 523 7M S27.4M $32.6M ~ EXPERIMEf1TAL PHASE Testing $ 5.0M $10.0M Analysis ' 3.9M 4.5M Program Management 0.8M 2.8M Subtotal " . $ 9.7M $17.3M TOTAL ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST $33.4M. $49.9;P (1) Subt'otals represent costs through facility turnover. "On this date, May 3,1978, 'S. Levine added the following information. As a result of discussions between the RES staff and liiEL, the cost estimate was later reduced to S45M due principally to the discovery of scme dcubie accounting for ccnduct of the experimental pre;rcm. 4 ,..,,-m., e e w-.. eav- --+ --*- " -

i., ~ TABLE 4 EBTF ESTIMATED SCHEDULE. i f l Begin Final Design April - 1978 Complete' Final Design February 1979 - Begin Construction May 1979 Complete Construction August 1981 Comence. Testing June 1982 ~ Complete Testing April 1984' Complete Data Analysis ' ' October 1984 s q . ) 4 i '1 .J e 9 4 i s 4 l m..-,... ...-.4 ~ ..c.. m +.

/i?

o....

f:? f 4 ~' TABLE 5. rc REQUIRED ACTIO?ts AtiD UNRESOLVED ITEMS (REFERENCE 14RC/ DOE-ID/EG&G MiETINGS OF OCTOBER 6 - 13, 1977) ,1. Commission Paper - Recommending emplacement of EBTF at INEL'and n.. . utilizing EG&G, target date October 22, 1977 for " Draft". 2. EG&d Design and Schedule Review (October 17 - 21, 1977) - Presentation of findings to Dr. T.,E. Murley on.0ctober 21, 1977. 3. Establishment of,NRC, Idaho and EGSG intepfaces, respective responsibiliti and '. identi fi catiSn if')pnincipal personn'ei hith.'thei~r ' respective authorities). 4. Formal transmittal of itRC's program and facil'ity requirements. 5. Establish required work for November - December 1977, identifing specific tasks, key milestones and required funding level. 6. RES/RSR/ Program staff interfaces and delegation of authority.

7.. Informing Congress'ional Comittees and OMB of recent decisions.

e 4

, / ' f,,,_,. [ 'h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COV'.'.!SSIOfJ Y'

.E,' $'

V.*A S H ttsC TC:4.0.C.:C;$5 b ' 'k:l9}df APR 2 8 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: Saul Levine, Direct'or Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research M THRU: Thomas E. Murley, Director FT ' v'. Division of Reactor Safety Research i b g FROM: 1.. S. Tong, Assistant Director for Water Reactor Safety Research SUBJECT': ECC BYPASS TEST FACILITY I am writing this memorandum to you to clarify the si*tuation regarding the ' omission of my name from the concurrence list on SECY 77-152B, dated Octcber 31, 1977. This Commission Pqper proposed to go forward with the construction of a 1/5-1/3 scale ESTF facility at INEL at a total estimated cost of $45M. I had previously concurred on SECY 77 52A, dated August 1977, which ~ was essentially the same. technical preposal, at a total estimated cost of $27M and was to be implemented as a competitive procurement. Although the Commission approved SECY 77-152A, by a memorandum from Chilk to Gossick, dated September 19, 1977, a question was raised at the Comm.ission meeting regarding why the facility was not. being located at a National Laboratory. In response to this question, the staff re-examined the availability of a suitable National Laboratory at which to locate the - iBTF. Durir.g about half the time at which this was occurring (i.e., September and October 1977), I was not in the office. A combination of foreign travel and jury duty made me essentially unauailable from September 12 through September 30,.1977. During October, I was briefed by my staff about the possibility of relocating the EBTF at IMEL and that the cost estimate was rising. On October 20, 1977, I' approved a memorandum from A. W. Serkiz to Dr. liurley showing estimated RFP costs, staff cost estimates and.INEL cost estimates. This memo also recom ended the prepar-atica of a Cor. mission Paper proposing to locate the ESTF at 1HEL. 6

.,y., r -Saul Levine j As the time for decision approached, I became more concerned about - I the magnitude of the cost estimate for locating EBTF at INEL and 'about the question of INEL's ability to carry 'out the program in view of their past performance on LOFT.. Because of my prolonged absence from the office during September, I'had not been closely involved-in many of the discussions and hcinfopW concerning the change of EBTF to INEL . and consequently, felt 1 %cJ'id'not'take a strong role in the decision. While I had made my reservations genera 11y'known to Dr. Murley in early October, we never had a thorough. discussion of my views. When SECY 77-152B was being prepared toward the end of October,. Mr. Sc Nggins briefed me on the general contents of the paper. When I exprcssed some reservations, Mr. Scroggins asked me whether I wanted to concur 'on the paper. I told him that.I would' prefer not to. concur on ine paper. Apparently he interpr'eted this to mean.that 'my na'me should be 'left off the concurrence list and thus I 'did not see SECY 77-l'523 before it was sent to the Commission. At the time the-paper went forward and based on.what I knew at the time, I probably would not have concurred if I had been given the opportunity for sons -I stated earlier. On the other hand, had the paper been co me for concurrence, there probably would have been discussions pi v whicn might have resolved my concerns. For instance, it is now clear that INEL's performance in the conduct of LOFT project has been excellent as-the project i.s well ahead of schedule,'and I would no longer have any objection to EBTF placement at INEL on that basis. In retrospect, I believe that I should have been more. vigorous in catching up with the basis of various EBTF cost estima'tes on my return to the office in October. I should also have been more' forceful in ensuring that my reservations were fully discussed with Dr. Murley and Mr. Levine. Finally, 'I should have assured that SECY 7-7-152B should not have gone. forwar.d to the' Comission without my concurrence-or with my views fully stated. ~ O L. S. Tong, Assistant Dgrector fcr Water F.eactor Safety,nesearch l ._-,-4 .. ~ - - - -

-..... v... ; ' s, v.....G cv ii.,;i .: v::::::mcN. o.c. vm, tnc3.0; n 3 [' /9l7y .r. c: w ame:v.- .~ l ..GD?M*Mi FOR: Lea Y. Gossick (xecut,ive Otrc-eto'r for Ope %tfons FF,0ei: Senr.!c1 J. Chilk, Secnt.: y 'S2CY-77-152/i. Ecc'BYFASJ

SUBJECT:

' As you are aware, the Co;t:ission. on Augs:t 25 ctid Aegust .opproved the inclusion of 53.8 million 1 25, 1977

• the FY 1979tbudget'for's,1/5 plus 1/3 cce.le EDTF progran.'

(5de the Secretaryts. Ausust 29 and August

31. ccorenda,

Subject:

Ogdget Kr.rkup.) of SECY-77-152A : sgarding:In takf 50 this ' action, the Cte.tssion has the initiatica of w ccepetitivo pr6 cure.T:mt cction to secure a c. i prir,e.progrt.m centf. ctqr;. c b. inittetton of c'ctions requir$d to 'hotify Ct.iB and Congress fonal co.',r,ittees of current URC.plc::: fur'the.E2TF p"ogreen. ctatus of the EDTF program. including any schedulinP! case thfer chances that may occur during FY 1978 cod FY 1979, g, design, and cost (T2S ) (SECYSuspente: Quarterly /cc rquired)

l E

cc Chair:zn HendrTo Cennissiener E.T.linsky Cer.issienct X.cnnedy C:=,issioner E radford Ahtfr.g Generel counsel Direetcr, Policy Evoluctfon 1 Cire,-tor, Cong res::icM1 Affcf r5 - M TACT: 'n K:0 hor, SECY .~M-)?ic d i I

4 i UfnTED Stim HUcLic.AR REGUL6 TORY CCMMISblC61 -/ 7 " U, e S.?.[d I 0 wemmo.v o. c. m.=.s 4' N / C I December 7,.1976 o.,. " MEMDRANDU'1 FOR: Kenneth R. Chapman, Director, NMSS Saul Levino, Acting. Director, RES Robert B. Minogue, Director, SD Benard C. Rusche, Director, HRR Ernst Volgenau, Director IE Learned W. Barry, Acting Controller Daniel.s22nephse, ' Director. ADM William G. Mcdonald, Director, M1FC ' Barrett il. Riordan, Director, PLA Robert G. Ryan, Director, SP Howard K. Shapar, ELD James R. Shea, Director, IP Edward E. Tucker, Directer, EE0 FRON: Lee V. Gossich .? ' Executive Directof 'for Operations -"' SU3 JECT: RESOLUTION OF SAFE 1"f CDNCUiHS' 7 By now, you have received a copy of HRC Announcement tio. 333, dated November 3,1975, to which is attached a copy of the Chairran's November 2,1976, statccent regarding NRC's Regulatory Mission. l In that ste.tement, the Chairman emphasized to 'all NRC omployees their.right and duty to rake prcmptly known to appropriate levels of ernagement any situation which they consider unacceptably, i addressed 'or resolved frem the standpoint of protection of the

public, t

I wholeheartedly subscribe to the principles' set forth in that sta ter,ent. In the co0rse of our work, all of us beceme involved in 'a wide variety of r.ntters which can impact on public health and safety. national security and/or enviror.mantal protection. The Co missicn hu established an cpan-docr policy to allow stricusly concerned e.:picyees to bring their concerns directly to the attention of the Dffice of Inspector and Auditor or to the Comission itself. You should be sure that cach mcmber of your office is aware of this policy. Pany concerns, hcwyer, can be resolved at organizational levels beicw the:Cernissicn. Whilo in no way limiting an e-ployee's right tc take i a.w.ntaga ef. the open-door policy, all members of your office shoulc te infomed that any concerns they rcy have regarding such natters I

.,r -2 should crdinarily first be"discusscd with their i.=c-diate supervisor cr, if that does not appear appropriste to ths, than with another level, of supervision within the office where they feel they can more - comfortably discuss the natter. If "after that discussion, the employee desires to pursue the 1.-atter further, the ecpicyee.should feel free to present his concern to yoU -- either orally.or in writing, as hc-sees fit. e If the employee remains dissetisfied with the response to his concern, he is free to-bring the matter - either orally or in. writing -- to my attention or to the attention of the Director of the Office of Inspectnr and Auditor, the Chairran, or to any of the other Cem.issioners. In fact, as mentioned earlier, the employee ray, if he wishes, do this in the first instance if he believes that the circumstances so warrant. The purpose here is to insure that cc.picyees understand thac they cay, without fear of retribution, bring to canagement attention'any situation which in their view has not been satisfactorily addressed or resclved in the normal staff proce'ss as. regsrds protection ofj;he public, + .~ "C a, Gossick.. ee Y. Executive Director for Operations g b5 o-4 t 9 0 4 = - - ' e,

3 4 .e f UNITED srATes V I .is /.Q., I71 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '?' _,'%..;.'<Q 't f o WASHING TON, 0. c, 20$ $$ 3 w. C,e ai 5.g ' * ~ r,e

• e,."p'

{ s OFFtCC CF THE - Ch* AIRMAN November 2,1976 MEMORANDUM FOR: Lee V. Gossick Executive Direc n for Operations ' FROM: F uIdo 'en N Chairman

SUBJECT:

NRC's Regulatory Mission I believe 'it highly desirable to cont'inuously-remind ourselves staff of the regulatory ethic of this agency and of the operationa 2 r.nd our climate needed to nourish that ethic. The mission of the NRC is to protect the public.in the uses of n facilities and materials. 'That is the reason for our exis uclear c reason NRC was established-as a separate and independent n nce--the' ulatory agency. and safety and the environment, safeguarding of n facilities, and assuring consistency with this nation's anti t This mission is the guiding force in establishing policies - rus t l aws.. - and, issuing or denying licenses. searching reviews of proposed ~ , conducting es It is inevitab nuclear power,le' that in a complex and highky technical field such as there will be differing viewpoints among capable end c,ualified persons within our organization as to what constitutes so regula tory jud'gment. diversity of viewpoint is a strenAs we have emphasized throughout our ege und weakness;.and we must maintain an.gth of our regulatory process, y life,.- not a An inevitable aspect, of such a process is that s r job. prevail. .Novertheless, bacause of the importance we attach to our n s will not chligations to the public, we believe that it is not only the right b the duty of a mamber of the NRC management and staff to mske known u prceptly to appropriate management levels any situatica which he o considers to be unacceptable from the star.d;oin r she public. all its er;hyaes are afforded that opportunity. 'nent to these basic principles; that staff be able an our ccmmit-xpected to mah 4 4 4 y- .,.%-u e r v, -y.m e-.- .*-e- +. --m -

.c . ;.. r ,.,y ,.._.,.,.1,/

• '9

(- (~, -<-},.C \\ %J 2, TV,:. y. known-their best professional judgdent, whether or not it corresponds with the views of other staff or management; and that this can be done with the. assurance of no recrimiitation or retribution. I ask you to assure that a copy of this 'memor'andum be given to each HRC employee and to every new employee 'upon joining this agency. l a .=.. .y* = e a e s'. o 0 e f i ,c g*-w- ,-.,,.5 --yor w w -ww,---

-- m m c c u,,y. wn (. U ' g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMilSSION ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 333 DATE: ' November 3,1976 TO: All NRC Employee.s

SUBJECT:

NRC'S REGULATORY MISSION The attached memorandum from Chairman Rowden states the mission of the iluclear. R'egulatory Commission. arid' emphasizes the duty of members ~ 2 . 11RC staff to make kno,;n to the appropriate. levels of management, technical issue which'.they consider unacceptabby ;addresseo' cr ren...a in carrying out the Commission's responsibiTities for protection of the public. I direct your attention to the existing and co'dinuing policy of this r agency as stressed by Chairman Rowden.- [ /.t %.a ~ Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations Attachment Memorar.dum to 1.ee V. Gossick/EDO fm Chairman Rowden dtd 11/2/76 f 7 cv/ e.& D . y a f I d -e 4

."l (- enclosure 5 x.i. :.Q. n y' \\ s t.*NtTT.o cTArts o . f' S RUCLEAR REGULATORY cot.'.MISSIO.N p .Q* !.E. (? n f. E'ASHINGTON. c. c. w!.5 .. : :.;r,,1. t ."~O 4,f' !hrch 4, IS76

• ) % e Y

m .~. - id:S Staff-e CETN CC'MWICATICNS I would ID:e to re=..J,asize the irportance of the need for free and open c~... :'icatiens bet >:een all organizatic-.a1 levak in the course of ranaging the IGC confi=atory safety ras = ch pg cm. I would paa.cicularly like each of ycu to feel free at any ti. e to Ancuss d4 ectly with ne <:ny F%1em r.i.ich you rccy be enc ~rming in pa:-femi.g your duties. eis policy is to be felic.ted without regard to organizatienal alignmants. In other words, no cne sSculd feel cbliged to fc11cw the cS=in of cc:nrand in bringing a prcblem to f attention. I want each s.aff ne:ier'to be. assured that he or she has a*. cpen avenue of centact f.irectly to ne in any case i.T.are it u. c=.sidered nasary. ~~ 1-5=Ad J. C. Ec.:ts, Director Cdfice of Idacla=- Regulatory Research ', e d ,a f I'

E, .A NUCLE AR R5GblkhbRY COT /TMSS'bN ~ , 3'.- }/ i' (f;' $ WASHtNGTON, D. C. 20555 %,,[s[.,,f" ! June 5, 1978 f C HAIRM AtJ MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas J. McTipqnan, Director Office of Insp ct r and Auditor FROM: Joseph M. Hendrie (4 NUBJECT: COMMISSION REVI r 4ATTERS RELATED TO STAFF CONCURRENCES ON THE PROPOSED EBTF The Commission has received a memorandum of May 3, 1978, from Mr. Levine, through the Executive Director, on the matter of staff concurrences on the proposed ECC Bypass Test Facility. A copy, with attachments, is enclose.d. The Commission wishes the Office of Inspector and Auditor to look into the handling of these concurrences, particularly the handling of Dr. Tong's not having indicated formally either-concurrence or nonconcurrence, and make a report to the Commission.

Enclosure:

As Stated cc: Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford Lee V. Gossick Samuel J. Chilk Kenneth S. Pedersen Carlton C. Kammerer l 1 I ATTACM'ENT .'*1

STCY, PAPF.It SulidECT TYPE CONCUllRENCE (DATE)

TYPIST 1- ~ -152 - March 21, 1977 Policy Session item, Diane Bidle R.b.fcroggins Itf S'st aff proposal to Commission that a conceptual design study for a 1/5' scale EBIF be under-taken G. L. Bennett (3/18/77) L. S. Tong-T. E. Murley (3/18/77)* P. G. Norry S. Levine (3/18/77) 152A. - Augus t 4,1977 Policy Session Item A. S. Serkiz (7/25/77) Diane Bidle R. M. Scroggins RES s taff recommendation to Commission that NRC request ~ G. L. Bennett (7/25/77) budget authorization for an L. S. Tong ERTF using 1/5 and 1/3 scale -i vessels at a total estimated E. Murley (7/25/77) N: cost of $27 million and that P. G. Norry (7/25/77) a competi tive procurement would - S. Levine (7/25/77) be used to select a contractor 1520 - October-3_1, 1977 Policy Session Item R. M. Scroggins (10/28/77 Betty Sue Decker T. E. Murley (10/28/77 ItES reconmendation that EDTF bs placed at INEl. at a total P. G. Norry estimated cost of $45.3 million S. Levine (10/28/77) . 152C - October 31, 1977 Information Report 1./. E. Murley (10/27/77) Barbara Gabriel T P. G/ Norry Inform Commission of detailed S. Levine-(10/25/77) cost estimated for [BTF life cycle at INFL 4 0 3 I m

-2, -SECY PADER SilB.lfCT TYPE -CONCURREllCE (DATE) TYPIST ^ 15?ti - December 21, 19/7 2 Information Report /. Burger (12/16/77) Darbara Gabriel C inform Commission of the results A. Serkiz of a DOE review of E0TF's estimated R. M. Scroggins (12/16/77) construction' costs M. S. Tong L T. E. Murley (12/16/77) P. G. Norry (12/16/77) S. Levine (12/16/77) (By Murley) w t q d.-

t:-

i I I/ Scroggins ini tials appear on upper left corner of Murley's concurrence block f/ Serkiz did not initial. i/ Tong's name handwritten and shown above Murley's concurrence--iMtialed but hot:diteds l 4 1 ,Ili ' ' {. i j.' ' 4

• 4'

UMTED STATES j' g, g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g 3 - g *j ' WASHWGTON, D. C. 20155 esv.;Tsyl ' C&i JUli 2 6 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR: RES Staff FROM: Saul Levine, Director, RES

SUBJECT:

USE OF CONCURRENCES =. Recent events have brought tt.J attention the fact that there may be some misunderstandings' on the part of RES staff on the use - and meaning of concurrences for memoranda, letters, Commission' Papers, etc. The purpost of this memorandum is to clarify the handling of such concurrences in order to preclude any future misunderstandings. The use of the concurrence chain on correspondence serves as a means of documenting the viewpoints of the individuals who have responsibilities in the area involved. This starts with the originator of the document, includes, where appropriate, other staff individuals and other offices and goes up the mana5ement chain to a levei consistent with authorized delegations. Concurrence means thft each individual who concurs in the document supports, in the areas of his or her professional ccmpetence and management responsibilities, the viewpoints expressed in the document; it does not mean that the individual has only read the document. It is clear that the meaning of concurrence.. requires that individuals having responsibility in the concurrence chain are required to be listed and cannot be omitted. While it is expected that the decision process involved in formulating RES positions and recommendations will continue to be that of the normal collegial discussions between the appropriate staff and manage-ment personnel that are a necessary par.t of arriving at organizational positions, the use of the concurrences on resulting documentation is required to record these agreements, or ariy disagreements that might exist. The following paragraphs give additional guidance in this area: 1. For all cuments related to program or policy matters prepared by staff for the signature of a management level individual, all appropriate management levels between the preparer and signatory must be included for concurrence. In addition, concurrences of-all other cc:ni:cr.t Branches, Divisions, Offices, etc., which ccordir.ation is desired or required, should also be obtained. ATTACH!'E:T 'l w

..k~.< RES Staff -

3.,j 2.

For documents related to program or policy matters prepared by all staff and management personnel for their own signature, concurrence by at least one level of management i above the preparer should be obtained. Additional management level concurrences and appropriate concurrences from oth,er organizations for coordination may also be obtained as. appropriate. It is the responsibility of the primary management individual who concurs initially to determine if I higher level management concurrence is needed. 3. In cases where supervisors or management prepare documents related to project and program planning or management for his or her own signature, concurrence of appropriate lower levels .of management and staf.f involved in the conduct of the program should also be obtained. 4. In cases where the Office Director's staff or Administration Office prepares documents for the signature of the Office Director, concurrence of the Division Director (s) affected by the document should be obtained. Where the absence of individuals prevents obtaining their normal concurrence on major. programs or policy matters, other appropriate. individuals may concur for them if they are certain that the absent individuals will concur. In areas of lesser importance, normal delegations and judgment can be used in filling in the concurrence chai'n. 4 In the case where a nonconcurrence is tr indicated, the individual should note the nonconcurrence on the co. rence sheet. In addition, a statement relating the basis for nonconu.rence should be added to the document " record note" or in a separate memorandum to be attached i to the subject document. I would 1,ike to remind you again of my open door pol' icy (see attached). As noted, one of the purposes < of this policy is to ensure that all divergences in viewpoint are heard to help ensure that office positions l are reached in a truly collegial manner. In those cases where individuals l feel they cannot support a consensus view of the office, they are l required to make their views known through lack of concurrence. 1 i

0 RES St. -f dM 2 6 g l I hope that the above comments and guidelines will be useful to all RES staff and should avoid any future misunderstanding regarding the use and meaning of concurrences. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or R. Scroggins. '/* j IM Saul Levine, Director ~ Office of Nuclear Regulatdry Research

Enclosure:

Memorandum to RES Staff from Saul Levine, dtd 6/26/78 cc: LGossick

5. Hanauer C. Smith R. Minogue E. Case E. Volgenau e

e e e G e a 9 9 9 h \\ ~ -... ~...

u s m.m m co m o. _,g=.g. _ ec..ao.o**uu.ucu cum um mons (202) us-soso J" fs/WJTZ'.'0,",.L. d" T,'ir*1 _, ;,;, geou g, ";* L. J CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

. ;; g g y,

ggg,<g,,.,, g n, =,.g.c,,. House OF REPRESENTATIVES %301^0.t"4','=': "- "r3th *,-. =. oM.o SUBCOMMITTEE 0N ENERGY ANO POWER W auss COMMITTEE ON INTER $7AT AND FOREIGN COMMERCE E^ ' ^ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20515

".0 " O %."";..

August 16, 1978 .2 co s: .w Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie u p.c Chainnan U. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 2 U:% Washington', D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On July 25, 1976, the General Accounting Office issued a report entitled " Poor Management of a Nuclear Light Water Reactor Safety Project." This report concerned the NRC's and ERDA's management of the Plenum Fill Experiment whose estimated costs increased from $1.8 million to $36 million. The project was terminated after $7.4 million was actually expended. I take particular note of the fact that you were one of the report's con-sul tants. 7 One of the problems raised in this report was the fact that there ' had been no Congressional overview of this project because there had been an agency policy of funding short-lived experiments, which is defined as those having. a useful life of less than three years, from its operating expense appropriation. In view of this past experience, I request that you advise the Subcomittee if this is still the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, and if so, please submit a list of all such projects with an explanation of each. I also ask that you supply the Subcomittee with a list of all projects administered by the Office of Reactor Safety Research which are expected to cost more than $1 million, regardless.of the length,of the projects, together with an explanation.of the purpose and status of each, and its total estimated costs. Further, I ask that you provide the Subcommittee with a report on the status of the Commission's consideration of the Plenum Fill Experiment, the expected scale for this facility, and the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed scale. I appreciate your. consideration of this-ma.tter and look forward to your response. ) With every good wish. f'i' Sincerely 'fburs? 4Y Q'W i Lh, Wh.a .l John D. Dingell Chairman JDD/J1c. THis STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS ... -,.}}