ML20205K210
| ML20205K210 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/17/1986 |
| From: | Lahs W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Chou C LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205K177 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-378 NUDOCS 8811010025 | |
| Download: ML20205K210 (2) | |
Text
,t .. ,
fg g" '"d I'",
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
je :j WASHINGTON, D. C,20555 e
\...../
60T 171986 Dr. C. K Chou .
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808 Livemore, California 94550
Dear Dr. Chou:
The intent of this letter is to document the funding and schedule constraints which exist regarding the incorporation of peer review coments into and the completion of work on the LLNL report, "Shipping Container Response to Severe Highway and Railroad Accidents."
I believe we both agree that almost all of the detailed comments provided by the peer reviewers at the Denver Research Institute have considerable merit. I believe the technical questions, specifically regarding the apparent anomaly in the frequency distribution of thermal damage to truck casks, must be reviewed and addressed. Of almost equal necessity, the typographical errors, inadequate annotations of tables and figures, and instances of obscure text should also be addressed. In many cases, the peer reviewers have provided suitable guidance to accomplish this task.
Another point has to do with the question of additional sensitivity studies and benchmark efforts. This question involves a subject where, I believe, the approach taken to accomplish the report's objective was to choose conservative assumptions in lieu of complex and perhaps unwieldy sensitivity analysis and truly applicable benchmarking data. The division of sections 6 and 7, although decided upon in order to focus on the primary results of the study (i.e. the fraction of accidents for which no radiological hazard would be expected), also segregated calculational methods into a well-proven, fairly straight-fonvard class in which there is high confidence and a sophisticated class in which, for the higher potential cask damage states, the elements of uncertainty are appreciated and are discussed in the report.
Finally, there are several questions and coments on (1) the selection of data bases to accomplish the overall program approach and (2) the organization of
- the report. On the first item, although these questions and coments on data bases are certainly valid, many can be responded to in a manner which focuses on the subjective judgments involved vis-a-vis the overall objective of the program. In fact, I believe the peer reviewers, recognize and refer to this relationship. The coments on the second item, organization of the report, also have merit, but again, in many cases, there were reasons for the organizational presentation (e.g. separate sections 6 and 7). In,other cases.
I believe, that as the report was being completed we also might have preferred
$ 10 g 5 001003 AUDINOO-370 PDR NM
2 to rearrange certain sections but were limited by schedule and fun restraints.
prepared sumary and again given funding and schedule restraints, I believe the :
current organization of sections may by something we may have to accept in the nain report. Although the peer reviewers did not have a copy of the NRC summary during their review, I recently sent Myron Plooster a draft and suggested that our response to the peer reviewer's oroenizational coments may ,
follow the above approach.
With regard to NRC funding for LLNL to incorporate peer rev be provided. The schedule for the final report submission is December 31, 1986. Failure to meet this date, asWith we discussed, will seriously affect the this proposed level of funding and j credibility of the entire program. I schedule, we agreed that the figures and tables used in the draft report, with appropriate corrections and clarifications suggested by the peer review, are l suitable for the final document.
If he As you requested, I am sending a copy of this letter to Myron Plooster.
has any concerns or questions with the approach, I will imediately bring them to your attention. On the NRC front, if I detect any problems in obtaining the
$50K funding level, I will inform you promptly.
l I think, with just a little more effort, an extremely valuable piece of work can be properly documented.
Sincerely,
,44u ds Y William R. Lahs Risk Analysis Branch Division of Reactor System Safety Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research I
- cc: Myron Plooster, DRI W. Lake, HMSS I J. Cook, NMSS D. Hopkins, RES
_- .,. -_ - . . , .