ML19263D565

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Informs of Review of All Category A,B,C & D Generic Technical Activities & Categorization According to Risk. Requests Comments on Ofc of Nuclear Regulatory Research Rept & Draft Commission Paper by 781101
ML19263D565
Person / Time
Issue date: 10/27/1978
From: Deyoung R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Denise R, Moore V, Vollmer R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
REF-GTECI-0000, REF-GTECI-AC NUDOCS 7904130020
Download: ML19263D565 (2)


Text

[pa atcdh UNIT E D ST ATES

/' %

.1 NUCLE AR REGULATORY CO!. T11SSION f [Q., / h h

W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 205L5

^4$ff o

?\\.l'j **'

OCT c. bla MEMORANDUM FOR:

V. Moore, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects R. Vollmer, Assistant Director for Site Analysis R. Denise, Assistant Director for Site Technology M. Ernst, Assistant Director for Environmental Technology FROM:

Richard C. DeYoung, Director Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis

SUBJECT:

DSE REVIEW 0F "

SUMMARY

REPORT ON A RISK BASED CATEGORIZATION OF NRC TECHNICAL AND GENERIC ISSUES"

Background

The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Probabilistic Analysis Staff has reviewed all Category A, B, C and D generic Technical Activities and categorized them according to " Risk".

In addition, Program Support Branch has prepared a draft Commission Paper regarding reporting of unresolved safetv issues (enclosed).

A preliminary review indicated (1) that substantial NRR c'iew is required before the RES report can be used to revise the priorities of generic technical activities and (2) that the review needed to include input from all Task Managers, Branch Chiefs, and Assistant Directors.

In addition, review of and comments on the draft Connission Paper are also required.

The review must be accomplished by Wednesday, November 1, 1978.

Action 1.

Review comments on the subject RES report and the draft Commission Paper shall be provided to Fred Hebdon by COB November 1,1978.

Copies of the RES report sections applicable to your TAP and the draft Commission Paper are enclosed.

2.

The technical review of the RES report should include a review of the consistency of the RES input with: (a) ALAB 444 write-up on each generic issue, (b) approved Task Action Plans, and (c) proposed Task Action Plans (e.g., Category B items).

The reviews should not be delayed to obtain interdivision comments.

Your comments are to be specific and should include marked-up copies of the RES write-up.

If some".hing is in error, state why and recommend an alternative wording.

&(

Richard C.

Young (Director Division o Site Safety and Environmental Analysis

Enclosure:

.,MD OOM As stated

~.

. OCT 2 71978 cc: w/o enc 1.

W. Minners, DSS L. Crocker, DPM F. Hebdon, DSE B. Youngblood J. Collins G. Lear W. Kreger L. Hulman W. Houston

.