ML20150A785
| ML20150A785 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/06/1978 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-CR-0400, RTR-NUREG-CR-400 NUDOCS 7810170323 | |
| Download: ML20150A785 (3) | |
Text
._ . _ _ . - . _ - - - _.
i 1 00T S 1978 i.
I j, .
M MEMORANDINI FOR: Lee V. Gossick. Executive Director for Operations l I Robert 8. Rinogue. Director, Office of Standards j FRON:
Development l ,, . .
SUBJECT:
RISK ASSESSMENT REVIEW GROUP REPORT - NUREG/CR-0400 l
In the fall of 1974, an extensive peer review of the draft Reactor )
i Safety Stm@ uns ande by the AEC Regelatory staff. In its findings, '
the staff identified both the strengths and shortcomings of the draft t Sta4 Simca that time, there has been little progress to orderly esa the techsignes put forth in the Ranctor Safety Study in the regulatory process-er to correct its shortcomings. The Risk Assessment Review Groep generally sepperts the fladings ande by the Regelatory staff is 1974 1 It appears to as that um hace an obstacle to the effectivenese of WASE-1400. not la lack of a good appreciation of'it, het is what we hope to es with it and with the regniatory methodology it fathers.
Therefore, I W that ear first order of hesiness is to develop as agency-wide plan fler activities, is this ares. At a stalans, the plan shoofd comers
- 1. ForthL asal.yses needed to complete, modify, or complement the work in NASE 1400 as reactors.
- 2. Development and pubitcaties of a risk perspectives document based on the results of 61400 and the related sort. I believe the
.l case has been well onde that the Executive Smenary to WASH-1400
! should not be redent , bot a superseding document is needed.
l
- 3. An explicit plan for applying this risk assessment work to reactor
! regulation.
- 4. An explicit plan for perfbraing similar work in other regulatory areas.
i la sommary, I believe we most concentrete on moving forward to develop risk assessment as a regel.A tory technique and not on endless reevaluations
- of what is now bashally a 4-year old work. We sust develop a plan i 7 flo n u 32-3 . . - - . .
l o+. :e > - - . . - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .-
l sumur > --- --.- - ---- . . - - - - - - - - - - . - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - ;
one> . - - --- - - --- . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - . - -- - - - - - - - - - - . .-------------.-----------L----------
NRC Form 318 (2 76) NRCM 02040 tr u.s. co v s m NME N T p at N tin o o F Ff C E f 19 7 6 -E 34- ? 9 2
9 i
I ~ -
\
L , ,
Lee Y. Gossick OCT 6 1978 directed to an orderly and expanding use of the methodology put forth l ,' ,in WASH-1400. The rate of expanding its use should be closely tied j '., to the validity and size of the data base. We must start this process ,
i now so that 4 years hence we won't be looking back having done nothing j i and still waiting for all pieces to fell fn place before we start. '
1 I
NMinoga Office of Standards Development r Y DISTRIBUTION CENTRAL FITES SD ALPHA /RF MSS RF - _.
DES SUBJ/ DES RF , ,
bec: RBMinogue -
RGSmith .- ...
GAArlotto. -
RMBernero
^ ' ' +
4 _.
t i
l SD Task No, N/A
, SD2196and,2146 l
orrice > hht41S p b RMBernero/ g_ .__SDa,qQ r . ___{d i g __ ______
/
i l
- suaaaur > SeAtlotJAdad.__ _ RGSmil.h_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _RBMinague_4 _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ r _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ _ -_ + _ _- - - - -_- -
Ir / I 1 { l DATE>)O/M23________.._l0/3/28___. ___30/_bl28-4__________
NRC Form 318 (2-76) NRCM 02040 c v.s, c o v E H NME N T P RIN TIN G O F FF C E: 1979 634_782
~
4
[ - t s
, ,. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{S*)t...{.i j-WASW NCTON, D. C. 20555 ;
hd -V [ September 19,.1978 TEMORANDUM FOR: Harcid R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regul ation
<aul Levine, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory ;
Research jKobertD Minogue, Director, Office of Standards Development
. l Clifford V. Smith, Director, Office of . Nuclear Material 'i Safety anvSafeguards '
John G. Davis, Acting Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement FR0M: Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director for Operations '
SU3 JECT: LEWIS COMMITTEE REPORT ON REACTOR SAFETY STUDY As a followup to my re' quest made at the staff meeting on Friday, September 15, for suggestions regarding where we go from here as a result of the Lewis Report, please.let me have by September:29 brief answers to i the following questions as best you can do in the short'~ time-ava11aDie. ,
- 1. Areas of potenti4 disagreement between staff views and Lewis Report.
- 2. Potential effect on programs of your office if the Lewis Report ,
recorrmencitions are accep'!iid-
- 3. ijajor policy issues _ foreseen needing resolution as a consequence of the Lewis Report. ,
- 4. Areas where p or pending Commission or staff actions and positions relied on the aeactor Safety Study which may have to be reconsidered.
- 5. Portions of the Lewis Report that you intend to concentrate your detailed technical review.
If you need additional time for dealing with any of the above issues, ;
pierse let me know and we can discuss some extensions. .
n W,- =v. J Lee V. Gossick cc: Chairman Hendrie Executive Director for Operations Corraissicner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy ,
Commissioner Bradford Cctrmissicner Ahearne __
--.--_- .