ML19273B667
| ML19273B667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/13/1979 |
| From: | Joseph Austin NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE) |
| References | |
| RTR-WASH-1400 NUDOCS 7906120110 | |
| Download: ML19273B667 (13) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.... _ _ _.. _.. _ _ h UNITED STATES t NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h o' WASHINGTON, D. C. 20o55 3 E %,.....J 1,, Fbrch 13.1979 NOTE T0: Files The Risk Assessment Review Group has certified, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the attached minutes for the June 5-8 meeting as an accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting. 0( k John H. Austin Designated Federal Representative Risk Assessment Review Group Attachment As Stated 2350 189 79061201[o
l Risk Assessment Review Group University of California Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Berkeley, California June 5-8, 1978 TENTH MEETING The Risk Assessment Review Group met at the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California in Room 191 of Building 70 on June 5 and 6, in Room 3148 of Building 90 on June 7 and 8 (in the morning), and in Room 4112 in Building 50A on June 8 (in the afternoon). The purpose of this meeting was to continue the preparation of the Peport of the Review Group. The notice of the meeting appeared in the Federal Register (43 FR 21958) on May 22, 1978 (Attachment A). No written statements with regard to this meeting were received from the public. There was one request during the meeting on June 8 to make an oral statement; the request was granted. Mr. Amory B. Lovins was invited to meet with the Panel on June 5. The rest of the meeting consisted , entirely of an Execu.tive Session open to the public. The Chairman of the meeting was Dr. Harold W. Lewis (except the mornings of June 5 and 7). Review Group members also in attendance were: Dr. Robert J. Budnitz, Dr. Herbert J. C. Kouts, Dr. Walter B. Loewenstein, Dr. William D. Rowe (on June 5 and 6), Dr. Frank von Hippel, and Dr. Fredrik Zachariasen. The designated Federal Representative for this meeting was Dr. John Austin. A list of attendees at the meeting is attached (Attachment B). A reference list of documents available,to the Review Group is attached (Attachment C). No written reports were issued or approved by the Review Group at this meeting. The Panel did certify the minutes of the November, December, January and February meetings, subject to any editorial revisions. Statements of views or expressions of opinion made by members of the Review Group dur'ng the meetings are not intended to represent final determinations or beliefs. 2350 190
. Meeting on June 5, 1978 Dr. Budnitz, in the absence of Dr. Lewis, opened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. and noted that the meeting was being conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Copies of the Federal Register Notice for the meeting were made available to those in attendance. There was no response to the request for any statement by those in attendance. Executive Sessic3 The Panel members distributed redrafts of chapters for the Report. It was decided to defer discussion of the chapters and to spend the morning session developing a list of "one-liner" findings, not the precise wording of them but the identification of the areas in which there should be a finding and the rough thrust of that finding. It became evident that the findings should be divided between findings with respect to the WASH-1400 Report and those regarding the fault-tree / event-tree methodology used in WASH-1400. The next 3 hours were spent developing such a list. The meeting was recessed at 12:45 p.m. and reconvened at 2:00 p.m. Discussion with Amory B. Lovins Mr. Amory B. Lovins was invited to meet with the Panel. There were no handouts or illustrations used during the one hour discussion. Mr. Lovins noted that he would first present his views on the future role of RSS-style studies. He believes use of the risk. assessment methodology embodied in RSS should be limited to an internal design tool, rather than use as an influence on public policy. Mr. Lovins gave three reasons for this view. First, the results of such analyses are too opaque for public comprehension. There are only a few that are able to understand whether analyses are done properly. He noted that various groups would use the results differently. Mr. Lovins expressed the view that the RSS Executive Summary differs from the Main Report which differs from the Appendices for institutional reasons. He believes the detailed drafting must be summarized to reflect the specialists input. His second reason for believing that RSS-type analyses should not be used to influence public policy was that the data are too fuzzy to be useful. There is, he indicated, a lack of data on phenomena that might or would occur. Thus, the analyses will not be sufficently precise to be of use for establishing public policy. He noted that extensions of art are incremental and require periodic proof-testing. 2350 191
i The third reason Mr. Lovins gave concerned the style of the analyses, in that they involve a long chain of calculations. One may lose uncertainties due to ignorance and one may have to create information out of a whole cloth. He indicated that the RSS team got around the data problem by assuming everything was a random variable. He suggested it possible to make a fraudulent calculation because of the subjective variation of many variables. With very weak data bases, he believes it possible to shade the analysis; the analysts should look at the data and indicate the results with substantial uncertainties. Dr. Zachariasen asked if he would accept an RSS style analysis of something very complex in which the results could be obtained with small error bands. Mr. Lovins indicated that that might still violate his opaqueness criterion. Dr. Budnitz suggested that a decision on a strategic missile system with a specified circular error probability violates all three criteria. Mr. Lovins said that a decision on a missile system is made in the Pentagon. Mr. Lovins believes that if a technology is such that the public cannot understand it, then it should be rejected. He indicated that one point of his G. W. Law Review article (which had been previously sent to the Panel members) wat that technological analyses go beyond informing the public and become a device to allow policitians to shuffle-off their responsibilities. Dr. Rotte asked what Mr. Lovins would use to set public policy. He responded by noting that the last few pages of his G. W. Law Review article addressed the subject but that basically he believes public policy should be set with better information, e.g., at the early stages of a cost-nenefit analysis, relevant iaformation should be laid-out, a dialogue Mrted, leading to an advocatory review with involvement of public interest research groups. In this way, he indicated, one steers away from opaque ciscussions and analyses,.although some may necessarily creep in. Dr. Budnitz noted that with respeco to the RSS, some say it was counter productive and some critics say they wish it hao not been performed because of the potential for discrediting the methodology. He indicated that Mr. Lovins may discard the RSS-analyses because they may violate the 3 criteria and asked what was the alternative. Mr. Lovins indicated that he shared the anxiety that the technical sloppiness of RSS may rub off.Hebelievesthatbecausereactorsaresocggplicateg,duetothe one cannot show that the catastrophic rate is less than 10 or 10 lack of data. Therefore, he believes, there is not much benefit in performing the analyses, the key point being the uncertainties. Dr. Lewis asked what the basis was for the numerical goals. Mr. Lovins referred to work by Mr. R. Farmer of the United Kingdom and indicated that the values are not generic to all technologies. If one performs a perfect analysis and knows such and can present the results as a range of values, then the goal might be acceptable. However, Mr. Lovins indicated, he suspects that in the reactor case the dominant accidents will involve aspects that are not within the analyses. 2350 192
. Dr. Rowe commented that individuals within a society give up a right to make certain decisions unless they are told they should be concerned. He noted that bureaucracies are, in making certain decisions for society, trying to achieve credibility and asked how technical issues could be brought credibly into the process. Mr. Lovins indicated the public interest movement is designed to address this. Dr. Budnitz cc.amented that, with regard to the opacity criterion, if there were two alternatives, one of which is not understandable by the public but it was the more efficient and environmentally sound alternative, it would seem inappropriate to exclude that alternative; he gave oil refineries as an example. Mr. Lovins felt the example was stretching the argument in that he had not said the voter had to be able ~ to reproduce the reactor safety evaluations. Rather, he believes the voter should understand a technology well enough to make an informed decision. In Mr. Lovins' view, the voter should not have to rely on the technical elite who are not held accountable. Dr. Budnitz felt the opacity criterion was too absolute and suggested that the few in the technical community charged with the analyses must clearly understand the technology. Mr. Lovins indicated that if Norm Rasmussen is the one charged with the analysis of nuclear safety then one should be able to go through the analyses and repeat the calculations, or the analyses must be very clear. Dr. Lewis drew an analogy between the development of nuclear power and the development of the aircraft industry. Mr. Lovins indicated that in researching past operating experiences in a developing technology, one can see outcomes falling into one of two categories, viz. the case where there are no bad accidents in which case it could be said how smart we are, and the second - how long will we be so lucky. He identified several events he termed "near misses", e.g., Browns Ferry fire, water level fluctuations at Quad Cities plant, and the sequential valve failures at Zion. Dr. Budnitz asked if it would be useful to apply the methodology of the RSS. Mr. Lovins responded that parts of the methodology might be useful as a design tool or perhaps in the review process. He indicated it would be interesting to see a comparison of subsystems failure rates and the predicted failure rates. The LNG industry, he noted, has been extensively studied and found to be very hazardous. However, in his view it does not require elaborate analyses to reach the conclusion that one does not want to live near an LNG terminal. He indicated that SAI has published a report on LNG risks which purports the risks to be very small. However, he said, there are substantial unknowns in the failure mechanisms. Dr. Rowe posited the case in which many technical systems have substantial unknowns and asked how should one make decisions. Mr. Lovins responded that those systems should be avoided. 2350 193
. There ensued discussions of: the desirability or lack thereof of high-technology, large central power stations, and the distinction between technical matters and social decisions. Upon thinking Mr. Lovins for meeting with them, the Panel continued in an open Executive Session. Executive Session The Panel went over the list of areas in which they might develop a finding or recommendation and began to group similar areas. It was agreed that the next days would be divided between reviewing draft material and rewriting chapters. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 a.m. on June 6, 1978. 2350 194 I
. Meeting on June 6,1978 Peer Review Process The Panel reviewed, in open Executive Session, a draft of the Disjoint Item on the peer review process and discussed the review process up to and 1.icluding testimony before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The Panel discussed the RSS team responses to peer comments and noted cases where the responses were misleading, wrong or nonexistant. The members discussed methods that might enhance peer reviews of complex studies and the extent to which judgments, assumptions and analyses should be documented. Risk Perception The Panel reviewed a draft of Disjoint Item entitled Risk Perception. There was considerable discussion of the manner in which the risks were presented in the RSS, whether the RSS team met its objective of making " realistic" estimates of risk, the problems attached to perception of risk, the role of value judgments in the RSS effort, and the extent to which the results of the RSS were presented in a manner that led to its misuse. It was agreed that the section would be redrafted on June 7 and that a thrust of the section would be that RSS over-simplified risk perception. Methodologies The Panel reviewed a draft of Section 1 (Methodologies). It was agreed that the section should be rewritten on June 7, to note that given the goal is the assurance of safety, there are many paths to this end'with a quantitative approach being an ingredient. Such quantification would be difficult to achieve; different people with different objectives would do it in various ways so that no one really does the job. Completeness The Panel reviewed a draft section on the issue of completeness. It was i.eted that there were several auestions bearing on: did the study team stop too soon in their analyses of sequences, did they develop all possible sequences and do multipoint failures contribute significantly to the risk. Dr. Lewis indicated he would prepare his version of a draft section during the June 7 meeting. Statistics The Panel reviewed a draft of the section dealing with statistical issues. Following a generai review of the draft, it was suggested that the following additional topics be addressed in the section: the l 2350 195
. consequence model, the applicability of RSS to 100 reactors, the 5 year lifetime of RSS, statistical incompleteness, mean versus medium central estimate, propagation of uncertainties, and the anticipated transients without scram calculation. Common Mode Failures The Panel reviewed a draft of the section addressing common mode failures (CMF). The members discussed the manner in which CMF could activate event-trees; whether the case for completeness vis-a-vis CMF was adequate, and, if not, where should one look for completeness; the initiating events for CMF; and the significance of the expressed concerns with respect to the RSS. General There ensued a general discussion of possible additional items that might be addressed in the report. Topics discussed included: the need to address the ATWS evaluation in the RSS vis-a-vis NUREG-0460, the General Electric evaluation presented at the November meeting and the spread in scram unreliability evaluations, the significance of quality assurance, the consequence analysis by Jan Beyea; the insights of the RSS report and significance of the RSS tables that group dominant accident sequences according to the initiating events and release categories, and operating experience vis-a-vis RSS. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. 2350 196 m . +,
. Meetings on June 7 and 8, 1978 The Panel held open Executive Sessions in which various sections of the report were rewritten to reflect previous comments. The Panel discussed the findings that had been drafted on June 5. On June 8,1978, Mr. Glen Barlow of the Friends of the Earth asked to make a statement. He noted that he had studied Appendix 6 and Section XI-I of the RSS concerning the evacuation model. He was disturbed that the model would allow all to be evacuated within 5 miles and some within 20 miles. He expressed concern with respect to the time it would take for evacuations and the ability to be able to evacuate. He questioned why the model did not permit evacuations beyond 25 miles, distances to which the fission products would travel. He noted that some may be reluctant to evacuate and suggested the Panel consider commenting on the need for widespread distribution of iodino pills. The Panel thanke: Mr. Barlow for his comments. It was agreed that any additional comments on the draft sections of the report should be sent to Dr. Lewis by June 30. Dr. Lewis would then prepare a more coherent report based on all that he had received. The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for around mid-August. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. 2350 197
25958 % NOUCIES 7 repert'of the Reactor Safety Study.~ to inteevene must set forth with par - [7596-01] .' ~ ticularity the interest of the petitioner copies of which ese available for. 'R25K Asst $sM M Rg m GAC W - pubHc inspection at. " ~ in the proceeuing, how that interest may be affected by the results of the wng (1) The NRC Public Document' ~ proceeding. including the reasons why Room.1717 H Street NW., Wathtng-petitioner should be permitted to in-Pursuant to the Federa! Advisory tos D.C.20555. tervene, and the specific aspect or as-Comm!ttee Act (Pub. I. 92-;S3). notice (2) The NRC's five Regional Offices pects of the subject matter of the pro-is hereby given of an open meeting of of Inspection and Enforcement: ceeding as to which petitioner wishes the Risk Assessment Review Group of to inservene. Such petitions must be the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-Recon L 631 Park Avenue. King of Prussia. IDed with the Secretary of the Com-sion (NRC), to be held at 8:30 a.m on Pa.19406. mkainn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory June 5 through 8.1978, at the Univer. Reston II. Suite 1217. 230 Peachtree 13treet. Atlasta. oa. 30303. Crwmtulon. Washington D.C. 20555 sity of California. Lawrence Berkeley Recon III. T99 Roosevelt Road. Olen I:1yn, Attention: Docketing and Service Sec-Laboratory, Berkeley Calif. The meet-tion,_by the above date. A copy of the ing will be held on June 5 and 6 in Rho Ih. Sutta 1000, 611 Ryan Plaza petttionsnd/or request for a hearing Room 191 of Building 70. On June 7 Drtve. Arunren.Tez.78012. should be sent to the Executive Legal and 8. the meeting will be in Room Resten V. Suite 20:.1990 North California 3148 of Bu!1 ding 90. The purposes of Boulevard. Walnut creet. Calif. 94566. an. Was ston. D.C. 05 and to Michael W. Maupts Esc ' this muting are to continue the Copies of the Final Report ma7 be Hunton. Wmf am e Gay & Gibson, P.O] nylew of the final report of the Reac,- obtained from: ter Safety Study (WASH-1400) an.. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory r'am m Nrion, Box 1535. Charlottesvine. Va. 23212. the peer com=ents thereon and to dis-Office of Nuclear Regulatory Researc*t. the at'orney for the licensee. cuss subjects that Inight be included in Probabaistic Annarsis staff. Attn: Meles Not later than fifteen (15) days trier the report of the Review Group. This S. Fos!s.1735 Old Georgetown Road. Be. to the holding of the special prehear. ing conference pursuant to 10 CFR meeting may be extended a day or so thesda, Md. 20014. Telephone 301-493-2.7511. or where no special prehearing if deemed necessary by the Chair =m.m. 8377. conference is held, fifteen (15) days The Risk Assessment Review Group (b) Persons desiring to make an oral prior to the holding of the first pre. is an independent group estabushed statement at the meeting should make heartng conference, the petitioner by the NRC (42 F3 34955) for the pur-a request to do so prior to the meeting, shan file a supplement to his petition pose of providing advice and informa-Identifying the topics and desired pres-to jntervene which must inclnde a list tion to the Coefulon regarding tne entatinn time so that appropriate ar-of the contentions which petitioner final report of the Reuter Safety rangements can be made. The time al-seeks to have litigated in the matter. Study, WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014). lotted for such statements will be at and the bssis for each contention = set and the peer commenta on the Study, the discretion of the Chairman. The forth with reasonable specificity. advice and recommendations on devel-Re Gmtp win nWe oral stab All petitions win be acted upon b7 opments in the field of risk assessment ments on topics relevant to its preview the Commi" ton or licensing board, methodology and courses of action at an appropriate time chosen by the designated by the Commluton or by which might be taken on future devel, Chair: nan. the r%-a n ' of the Atomic Safety opment and use of risk assessment (c) Further informanen ngarding n-u'?f fee:alng Board Panel. Timely pe-methodology. This advice and infor. tiuons win be considered to deter =ine mation win assist the Commi" ion in toples to be d!scussed, whether the meeting has been cancelled or resche-whether a hearing abould be noticed establishing poHey regarding the use or azzother appropriate order issued of risk assessment in the trgulatory duled, the Chairman's ruung on re-regzatng the disposition of the peti-process. It will also clarify the achieve. quests for the opportunity to present .ments and Heltations of the Reactor 'cral statements and the time ano'ted he-event that a hearing is held Safety Study. The Review Group wtB therefor can be obta!ned by a prepaid and s/pe: son is permitted to intervene. submit a report to the Cowi"lon on telephone call on June 2.1978, to de .he te a party to the proceeding and tzas a right to participate funy in or before July 1.1978. Office of Policy Evaluation, telephone the conduct of the hearing. For exam. With respect to puhuc participation 202-254-5184. Att=: John Austin, be in the meeting. the following require-tween 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.d.t. ple, he:may present evidence and ex. smine and cross.ezamine witnersts, ments shan apply; (d) Questions may be asked only by For.fmther detans with respect to (a) Persons wish Ig to submit writ-members of the Review Group. ~ th!s settan, see the applicaticn for ten statements regarding the agenda (e) Statements of views or expres-amendment, dated May 1.1978. which may do so by providing 10Tendily re-sions of cptnlon made by members of is avanable for public inspection at the producible copies to the Review Group the Review Group at open meetings Cnmmmien's Public Document Room. at the beginnmg of the meeting. Com* are not intended to represent final de-171TH Street NW., Washierton, D.C. ments should be limited to areas term. nations or beliefs. 20555. and at the Board of Supervi-.within the Group's purview. Persons (f) The use of sun, motion picture
- sorf Office, Louisa County Courth
.deci +nr to mail written cornments and television cameras, the physical house. ?;O. Bor. 27. Y anin Va-.23083. -may:dnso-by s-Ma read 27 repro-instaHadon and presence of which wiH and the -Alder uan Library.."Manu. 4.udhle copy thereof in time for con-not interfere with:the ennduct of the scripts,.Departme%.'Universttrof Vir-siderstion at tfus meeting. Comments meeting.Will be permitted both before sinia.Qzarlottesvibe. Va. 22901. postmarked no later than May 29 and after the meeting and during any Dated.at Bethesda, Md., this 15th 1978, to Dr. John H. Austin. Office of recess.The use of such equipment wiu ' Policy Evaluadon. NRC. Washington, daI of 2&ay.2978* Dr. 2%)555. win normany be received not, however, be aHowed while the For the '. Nuclear WmWy Cten-.jpggm,rto:bezonsidered.at.this meet. meetingis in session. e4ston. .ing..Df con =ne.rrommerr.smot. received (g) A-copy of-the minntes-of the -cz.m2) mnew in-tt nederthimeettng.wntte circu. meeting wul be available -for inspec. Chief, I,fthf Water 'Resciars lated'to the members of the Revtew tion on or after3cne 30,1978, at the BrenchJio. J. Diouton of.Proj-Group for considerauon at a future NRC Pubile Document Room.1717 H ecialenagement-
- neettng Comments should perta!n to Street NW. Washington.ll.C. Copies tbc' field of T2st assessmentr2nethod-.may be obtained upnn pavment of ap-m tsees F9eds-2147s;mSam) ology-or shoutdte based ~cn the fmal 'propriate charges.
FIUtltAt etCtf.Y1t, Vol.43, No. 99-MONOAY, MAY 22, 1973 1
w :-^ -.- -f :- ; i., b - -- -"E ..'o n ,,jy - ~ ~ - -, d:"T.*?. ' ~ - - -. _ --- w.*. E _._-:~-.. ~;p-{g - -- - -. ~ ~ , ~ ..s _....... ., -. :... - m. f....y
- y *- c~ -,_
--Q*NOUCIT^[~ ^ ~ ~. ~ f. { [ S.2195 4.i.I$'~ Dated at' Washirigton. ' D'.C 'fhis ~ swa wsms snesmm .19th day cf May 19*l8. [3))g.c)) Oulde to Interview of w=-**" Buss. Jon C. HoTT.s. nees A,emimetratJon Pertfolio h a re- M C8 WC"3 Advisory Committee. ment studs. atnzie time. 20==narement Notenment Qfficer. studies. Wa.ren Topellus. 335-4132. useett*' " is
- CPR Doc. 78-14449 Pued 519-78: 9 33 mmJ The following is a list of requests fc clearance of reports intended for us
[3110-01] The White House Fellowships 1979-80 AD'- pwtan. WEP-1. single ti'ne. 3.001 U.S. in coUecting infor"*sthn from tt. pgg7 their carwis. Warm T* pubHc receifed by the Office of Mar. c ut asement and Budget on Af.ar 10.197. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET namenmer or aca2cmrcu (44 UAC. 3509?. the purpose of put Mmr this list in the FznraAz. Rzcts Ecorsnmit Statistics, and Cooperatives Ta 13 to !=ferm the pubUc. eteae aNCE O REPORTS Servies.Ecenomica. Orsin Scathum Pertfl. L!st ef Requests Per Rates Survey annuany 572 sorshum The list includes the title of each re growers. cesta nce Office. 39b3772. etuest received; the name of the asene.t The fouowing is a list of requests for Departments! and other Advisory Commit.. sponsoring the proposed coUection o; clearance of reports intended for use "" M information; the agency for= U mp number (s). lf spp1! cable: the frequencr in collecting information from the ann aur adns w .public received by the Office of Man. bers. Euett. C. A. 395-6137. with whjch the information (* angement and Budget on May 9,1978 T.:conomics. Stattstics, aci c9 operatives Ser. posed to be conected; an indication of pro-vices 4tatistics. Orazing Len.se Survey 444 UAC. 3509). The purpose of pub-Forms, ainsle time. 698 graz!ng livestocks. who will be the respondents to the-711shing this list in the Fr:EaAf. Rzors.~ cearance Ofnee. 395-3772. proposed collection; the estimated Tra is to inform the public. number of responses; the estimatec The list includes the title of each re-spannerr or maatra. cnocmos.en burt'en in reporting hours; and the 1;uest received; the name of the ageneP w n. rams name of the reviewer or reviewing divi sponsoring the proposed conection of E alth ^ slon or office f anformation; the agency fo m g,,tema Ag Ap rDs a. Requests for extension which appear -vmenher(s). if applicable: the frequency tion. Orant Appucadons and Related to raise no significant issues are to be 'with which the informat!cn is pro-Report Por=a. annuaUy. 205 appucants approved after brief notice through Tosed to be conected; an indication of for ESA designauon, Richard nitnfer, this release. who will be the respondents to the 39b3214. proposed conection; the estimated Health Services Admin!stradon. NHSC Sup. Further info ~ nation about the Items plementa12danpower Applicadon, on occa. on this daUy list may be obtalned from nuenber of responses; the estimated sion. 200 grant appucants in manpower the Clearance Offlee. CIfice of Man. turden in reporting hours; and the shortage areas (2.100). Richard Eisinger, agement and Budget. Washington. z:ame of the reviewer or reviewing divi.. 39b3214. RC. 205M. 202-W529. or from the 31o 1 or office
- es es e tra@n. Annual Mewer Med Requests for entension which appear Space Utu!zation and Enronment Report
.to raise no significant issues are to be for Nursies and Health Professions, annu. New Forms . approved after brief notice through any. 418 authort=:nr offices in each nurs. + i this release. ins and health professions school, cear. 'Entther information about the items ' National Institu'es of Health. Survey Ques. Bureau cf Census. Itta cenaus of Arr ance Office,395-37n. 'on'this dally list may be obtained from tural Area Sample. 78-A1(S3). 78-A3. 73-
- 3he. Clearance Office. Office of Man.
tionnaire for User Evaluation of Index of A14. 78-A15, single Ome. 504.000 heads of Dermatolcry, single time. 200 cunica: -agement and Dudget. Washington. csre. Richard Dever. 395-3214. housebolds and other farm operators in I).C. 20503, 202-395-4529 or from the Ofnce of Education. Vaudsuon Form-Basic seg. seltd Office of Pederal Stattstical whr Ested. Educational Opportunity Orsat Program, Poucy and Standard. 6i3-7959. OE-423. annuaDr. 204.000 students and mm w am7. mcarros. Axn Nrw Ponx3 5arents sa individn*1 financial officers of "MAE8 THrs.laverne V Cedlins. 395-3214. - Alcohol. Drtrg Abuse, and Mental Health Office of Humantevelopment. Ocal Overs tzzraerweer or menstov tionalitat:en and Cilent Impact Instru. Energy Conservation Survey (see Part 2 of. AmWstration. Survey of Residential Treatment Centers for Emotionany Dis. mentation /Runawsy Youth Act, other VI .aan house old turbed Chudren-1978, single t!me. 2,800 (see SP-83). 3,820 staff acd clients of TSU design. Cearance Office. 395-377~. RTC staff WUEZ mmplete form on Leda. runaway projec:: representadves of com. mercial agene:es. Human Resources Divi. vidual frcm record. Clearance Office. 395. alon. 393-3532. . Nanosat sezzNc3 FOUNnaT1oK ~ OTIE. "Undenstedna t* Instrucuonal Ls - wt Freeamm Orantee Q=m.**'ee. 4:nste scr. ram wnes:suso aan trnuw
- Rzuzazons swu.m - -
ttme. 930 project directors of NSF couse " Policy Development and Research. Field acrtow nt grants. Warren DMus' Action Volunteer Application (for Use by -3'5"0y3 *- 1 Vandation of Dour and Windows Securtty Locany Redted and Univ. Year for n'=ne. other isee WP-83) Achn Apph=1 press.eect.eds.m.,alic.hrmtnertr, 1.000 2nd --ow ann sarpasama *yowa==m- < rhymood. Action programs... A-33A. on occasten. 8.000 eesponses. 6.000 . Questionnaire-for R*M-ad= * ",, JJo.. n p to hoursSeese.B F 294-3211. ' da*= =*mtad Alecza.== Acdon VolanseerMmeh han=* hand
- Noe rrv Pe*"*=*
30.300 eustamensustrar t.ason cas'en. Action'preemms.% A45, on oe-tts e a - *naal 50.000 Tesponses, remasenual. eta 12 states. Offteerf N 3ureau of -I.utemational Labor A!! airs. 50.000 hours /Reese. B. P. 3954211. -Statlancal Poucy a 3 Standard. 673 4959. . Surrey of TRA and UI Reciptects. II.AB-1239. single *** 1
- TAA and UI recipi.
vzrraansacurs2stzarros maawr oranmer
- -8 tens A.,195412*.
Invensey of 2nergy L -.- =Nrelop. Amication 1or Macauodossm. on occadon. veeetan. 150.000 resecuses. znens-.197s etsroast:197=w a="y.10A80 LDAVIDE LztZmOI;D. 100.000 bot:rs,.CayurrM TLP 395-3443. O.wmnant mul*idestryN me Judpef andMastz:pement.O//icer. Architect.Dem< er Pee ' Proposal. 8-e298, on rela 6edt==**er% C. fe"w em-===% 306-(FR Doc. Ts-14237Pued 5-19-78; 8 45 am3
- n. are mz:stneerh m re.
oa 3211. sponses, 400 hours. Caywood. D. P. 395-3443. . e O.49--,-v.~' = = _ M U.f1. E. 2350 199 N
_A_tj.achment B t Attendance at the Risk Assessment Review Group Meeting June 5, 1978 D. Sokolosky T. A. Zordan M. I. Temme P. J. Morrill June 6, 1978 P. J. Morrill June 7, 1978 2350 200 T. A. Zordan Steven Levine June 8, 1978 A. J. Levine Glen Barlow
Attachment C Documents Available to the Review Group 1. "A Synopsis of WASH-1400 Reviews and Their Implications" Prepared for Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute and Japan Advanced Numerical Analysis, Inc. by P. R. Davis, Intermountain Technologies, Inc., March 1978. 2. Letter to Robert D. Pollard from Darrell Eisenhut dated September 29, 1977, with enclosures, concerning the " Zion Incident" of July 12, 1977. 3. Letter to Congressman Morris K. Udall from H. W. Lewis dated June 27, 1977. ~ 4. H. P. Green "A Skeptical View of the Proposed Science Court" Address before APS Meeting, Washington, May 1976. 5. H. P. Green "The Risk-Benefit Calculus in Safety Determinations," Geo. Wash. L. Rev., 43 !31 March, 1975 pp 791-807. 6. Letter to G. L. Crellin from R. G. Easterling dated May 12, 1978 7. J. R. Taylor, " Design Errors in Nuclear Power Plants", Report No. RISO-M-1742, Danish Atomic Energy Commission, September 1974. 8. Letter to H. W. Lewis From Saul Levine dated June 2,1978. 2350 201 i e ?}}