Publication Laka-library:
Findings of the Peer Review. Panel on the Draft Reactor Risk (1988)
| Author | US NRC |
| Date | May 1988 |
| Classification | 6.01.3.70/32 (NUCLEAR SAFETY - RISK ANALYSES / RISK PERCEPTION) |
| Front | 
|
From the publication:
1.1 Introduction In the late Spring of 1987, a panel of experts (see Appendix A) was assembled to peer review the "Draft for Comment" version of NUREG-1150, the "Reactor Risk Reference Document, " Volumes 1-3, dated February, 1987. In addition to these three volumes, the panel members were supplied with a number of supporting documents prepared by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) contractors and sub-contractors. These supporting documents are listed in Appendix B. The peer review panel acted independently of the NRC, calling its own meetings and setting its own agenda. At the same time, the NRC Staff and Contractor Personnel were very responsive to the Peer Review Panel's needs. The Contractors were also very cooperative in arranging meetings and supplying additional information as requested. To facilitate the peer review, meetings were held to hear presentations by NRC staff, contractor and sub-contractor staff, and by representatives of organizations performing related relevant work, but supported outside the NRC activities. Early in the process it was decided to conduct the peer review in two stages. The first stage would focus on the body of work included in the Draft for Comment version of NUREG-1150 and only slightly on the plans for updating and improving the supporting analyses. This Chairman's Report, and the reports that accompany it, contain a peer review of this first stage. Because there is a major on-going effort to revise the supporting analyses, the second stage of the peer review will focus on the work in progress and the final version of NUREG-1150. The second stage will be followed by a final peer review report. For this report, each panel member was asked to provide his own personal opinion on various issues contained in NUREG-1150. These personal opinions are contained in a series of individual reports accompanying this Chairman's report. The panel was not requested to provide a consensus opinion. This particular report contains the Chairman's summary. It does not cover each and every issue raised by the individual peer review members nor their recommendations. The reader is strongly encouraged to study each members report in order to benefit fully from the review.
This publication is only available at Laka on paper, not as pdf.
You can borrow the publication or request a copy. When we're available, this is possible for a small fee.