ML20205K179
| ML20205K179 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/10/1987 |
| From: | Lahs W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Plooster M DENVER, UNIV. OF, DENVER, CO |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205K177 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-378, RTR-NUREG-CR-4829 NUDOCS 8811010016 | |
| Download: ML20205K179 (2) | |
Text
-.
,js* Hcg'o, UNIT ED sT ATEs 8,
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
e
{
,I w AssiNotoN. o. c. rosss k..l...f FER I O Mi1 Mr. Myron Plooster Denver Research Institute Laboratories for Applied Mechanics Division University of Denver P.O. Box 10127 Denver Colorado 80210
Dear Mr. Plooster:
l Attached you will find a pre-print copy of the long-anticipated Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) report. "Shipping Container Response to Severe Highway and Railway Accident Conditions." NUREG/CR-4829. Also attached are LLNL's responses to the peer review coments--a response which we discussed back in November.
1 have reviewed this final report and believe it is a significant improverrent l!
from the "review" version.
Your coments and detailed suggestions were I
instrumental to this upgrade.
You'll note that LLNL was able to reorganize the sections--the probability analysis precedes the screening analysis sections and the section relating potential radiological hazards to damage now follows the j
screening analysis.
The subject--especially the approach taken to reach NRC's objective--is complex and, although I am sure further improvements could be made. I am now comfortable with this report, With regard to schedule slippages. LLNL is not alone. The NRC authored sumary i
l brochure has been delayed in our publications organization because of higher j
priority Comission work.
I had planned to send you the brochure with the LLNL report so that you could view the research program's results in their entirety.
j Instead. I will have to followup this tratismittal with the brochure, hopefully, by the end of this month, Your review of this final LLNL report will conclude your peer review efforts.
t If warranted, a short letter sumarizing your views on both the report and the
[
responses to the peer-review coments would be appreciated.
Certainly. I would appreciate being made aware of any criticism you may have on this final report.
f'e
.,;) /pu. un,k,m ' Q William R. Lahs Risk Analysis Branch Division of Reactor hystem Safety Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l
1
Attachment:
J As stated t
i 1
8811010016 001003 PDR FOIA ppg l
AVDtNOB-370
/g&* **Qu,'o,,
e UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
4 WASHtNGTON.O. C 2%$$
l 5
'S,.....,d Mr. Myron Plooster Denver Research Institute University of Denver P. O. Box 10127 Denver, CO 80210 Dear Mr loNter:
At long last, the brochure supporting the Moda) Study has been printed and is being distributed.
I have enclosed two copies for your perusal.
If you have any coriments on the brochure. I would be pleased to hear from you. My telephonenumberis(301)443-7632.
Sincerely,
.R M
William R. Lahs 2