ML19343C809
| ML19343C809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/11/1981 |
| From: | Lancaster L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Vessely W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343C811 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103250327 | |
| Download: ML19343C809 (3) | |
Text
so eac
((f, # c/l j o,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOM t.
J l
g W ASH WGTON. D. C. 20555
.,,[
FEB 11198!
g%b&LD (1
g g 1 3136 N e.u &
y
', ~
MEMORANDUM FOR: Willian E. Vesely, Acting Chief t
Methodology and Data Branch, DSRR, RES O
id: i.* k '.
FROM:
Leslie E. Lancaster Methodology and Data Branch, DSRR, RES
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF THE PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS RESEARCH REVIEW GROUP (PSRRG)
The meeting was held on the 6th of February 1981 in the Willste Building with the following members in attendance:
W. E. Vesely L. E. Lancaster J. W. Johnson L. R. Abramson F. F. Goldberg D.Rubinstein 1.
The general charter of the PSRRG was discussed. Currently the general charter contains two functions. The discussion was on whether or not two more functions should be added, and if they are added, what words should be used in the description. These two new functions deal with contractor proposals and developed techniques or prescribed procedures.
Adding these two functions may involve a complete revision of the general charter. Therefore, it was decided that the undersigned would rewrite the four functions into a proposed charter to be discussed at the next meeting. For example, besides probability and statistics, we should als o be concerned with risk analysis.
Once a charter is finalized, we need to set priorities on group accomplishments.
2.
An output or product from PSRRG was discussed. This output would ceflect the consensus of the group plus a minority opinion, if necessary. For example, these minutes would be an output. The output should include management aids and information within Research.
8108250 f
~
William E. Yesely 2-3.
Two propcials were reviewed for group comment (see attached).
a.
The first 6ne written by Sobel appears to be of interest, but we need more information.
It was decided to explore the possibility of getting Sobel here for one day for a seminar and a working session. During the discussion, Professors Olkin and Barlow were also mentioned as likely candidates for one day sessions.
b.
The second by MAXIMUS ves less favorable. Hence, the consensus of the group was to reject this proposal and PSRRG member, Dr. Johnson said tha,t he would take care of it.
4 The Kansas State computer programs on Bayesian techniques were dis cussed. Before finalizing the drafts as NUREG's the consensus was that more clarity, more definitions, and more derivations should be included. Also, the estimation techniques should be checked out in greater detail.
It was suggested that we communicate directly with the KSU statisticians and, if necessary, have them come to NRC for a working session.
5.
The next meeting was tentatively set up for Tuesday the 17th of March 1981 from 9:10 AM to 12:00.
It was agreed that a draft agenda be mailed to the members two weeks before the meeting as part of the operating procedures. For the next meeting the tentative agenda
- is:
o Charter (Lancaster) o P roposals o KSV (Lancaster) o In Plant Data (Goldberg) o AS A (Lancaster) o Prescribed Procedures o Priorities c
- ~ -. -
i i
i William E. Vesely 1
.o Reports:
o NPRDS, Cox, et al (Dennig) 3 o Common Cause, Atwood (Johnson) i parentheses indicate the person involved in the project or in the action, however, all members will participate.
u r fnt Leslie E. Lancaster Methodology and Data Branch Division of Systems and Reliability Research, RES 4
Enclosure:
As Stated cc:
R. Minogue, RES R. Bernero, RES Public Document Roory
(';f I
4 r
4 w.-%a
%9
-%,..-y, y..
,e,
_y_
y
.ww-e r
-1e
- e
-