Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Notices 28181

summaries, accurate and usable crossreferences, and appropriate level of

detail.

Additional detail on the scope of the

review is given in the questions below.

Public comments are sought on these

issues to assist the NRC in its review.

Although the NRC is interested in as

many comments as possible,

commenters are not obligated to and

need not address every issue.

In providing comments, please key

your responses to the number of the

applicable question (e.g., ‘‘Response to

A.3’’). Section D should be used for

additional or miscellaneous comments.

Comments should be as specific as

possible. The use of examples is

encouraged.

Comments are requested on the

following specific issues:

A. Inspection Report Content

1. Focus on safety:

a. Are inspection reports

appropriately focused on safety issues?

Should report writers be required to

articulate the safety significance of each

finding?

b. Is the level of detail for a given

issue generally commensurate with the

significance of that issue?

c. What threshold of significance

should be used to determine whether or

not an observation should be

documented in the inspection report?

Do existing reports generally use an

appropriate threshold of significance?

d. Are reports, as currently written,

too negative in their focus? Should

‘‘equal time’’ be given to discussions of

licensee strengths and successes? If so,

what criteria should be used to include

such findings in inspection reports?

2. Supporting Details:

a. Do inspection reports generally

contain an appropriate level of detail to

describe technically complex issues?

b. What level of detail should be

included for describing an event when

that event has already been described

separately in a licensee event report?

c. What level of detail should be used

to describe inspection activities when

little or no findings have resulted from

those activities?

d. What are the costs and benefits of

including, as enclosures to the report,

all referenced material to support report

findings (e.g., licensee procedures,

supporting calculations, or independent

studies)?

3. Enforcement Issues:

a. What information should be

included in inspection reports to

support taking enforcement actions?

b. Are reports generally clear in

stating the circumstances of the

violation (e.g., what requirement was

violated, how it was violated, who

identified it, etc.)?

c. Is sufficient detail generally given

to substantiate enforcement-related

conclusions?

d. Should all minor and non-cited

violations be documented in inspection

reports? What threshold should be used

to determine the significance of

compliance items that must be

documented?

4. Clear Conclusions:

a. Are report conclusions generally

well-supported by facts? Is the

progression of logic generally clear?

b. Is a conclusion statement always

necessary for each section of the report

(e.g., when limited observations or

findings were made in a given area)?

B. Inspection Report Format

1. Consistency:

a. Should inspection report formats be

consistent from region to region? What

benefits or problems would result from

adopting a standardized report outline?

b. What are the advantages and

disadvantages of combined or integrated

inspection reports (e.g., one report per

six weeks, per reactor site, covering all

areas)?

c. When is the use of ‘‘boilerplate’’

appropriate (i.e., standard phrases or

sentences used from report to report to

describe similar inspection methods,

purposes, or conclusions)? Should more

or less boilerplate be used?

2. Readability:

a. What features increase or decrease

a report’s readability or effectiveness in

communication?

b. Do you prefer a narrative or a

‘‘bulletized’’ appearance?

3. Usefulness:

a. What features increase or decrease

the efficiency of later efforts to retrieve

information from a report (e.g., for SALP

reviews, regional studies, or external

reviews)?

b. Are there particular parts of the

report that could be deleted without

decreasing the report quality or

detracting from its function?

4. Report Summaries: What

information should be included in a

report summary? How should it be

presented?

5. Cover Letters: How might cover

letters be modified to express more

clearly the level of concern, or to better

convey a particular performance

message to a licensee?

C. Inspection Report Style

1. Style variations: In what ways do

variations in writing style influence the

effectiveness of inspection reports?

2. NRC style: Are there particular

features of standard NRC style (e.g.,

consistent use of past tense or thirdperson form) that make inspection

reports more readable? Less readable?

3. Tone: Are inspection reports

generally written in an appropriate

tone?

4. Grammatical Construction: Are

inspection reports generally acceptable

in sentence and paragraph construction?

Do they give evidence of careful

proofreading?

D. Additional Comments

In addition to the above specific

issues, commenters are invited to

provide any other views on NRC

inspection reports that could assist the

NRC in improving their effectiveness.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of May 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard W. Borchardt,

Chief, Inspection Program Branch, Directorate

for Inspection & Support Programs, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–13104 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste; Notice of Meeting

The Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste (ACNW) will hold its 75th

meeting on June 21 and 22, 1995, in

Room T–2B3, at 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting will be open to public

attendance, with the exception of

portions that may be closed to discuss

information the release of which would

represent a clearly unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy pursuant to

5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).

The agenda for this meeting shall be

as follows:

Wednesday, June 21, 1995–8:30 a.m.

until 6 p.m. and

Thursday, June 22, 1995–8:30 a.m. until

4 p.m.

During this meeting the Committee

plans to consider the following:

A. Final PRA Policy Statement—The

Committee will discuss the NRC staff’s

proposed Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Policy Statement and Implementation

Plan with representatives of the NRC

staff.

B. Technical Site Suitability Process—

Representatives from the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) will

discuss the major elements of the

technical site suitability process being

applied at the proposed high-level waste

repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

C. Seismic Hazard Analyses—The

Committee will review the NRC staff

and Center for Nuclear Waste
28182 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Notices

Regulatory Analyses’ strategy for

evaluating the DOE’s seismic hazard

analyses program. This review will

include discussions of the use of the

SEISMO–1 code, related key technical

uncertainties, and the status of topical

reports under review.

D. Meeting with the Director, NRC’s

Division of Waste Management, Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards—The Director will provide

information to the Committee on the

status of current waste management

issues, which will include the progress

on the integration of key technical

uncertainties, the status of DOE

technical basis report reviews, and the

results of alcove tests at the proposed

Yucca Mountain high-level waste

repository.

E. Preparation of ACNW Reports—

The Committee will discuss proposed

reports including regulatory issues on

low-level-radioactive waste performance

assessment, and Seismic Hazard

Analyses for the proposed high-level

waste repository at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada. Additional topics will be

considered as time permits.

F. Use of Expert Judgment—The

Committee will hear presentations by

and hold discussions with the NRC staff

on draft technical guidance on the use

of expert judgment in performance

assessment for licensing a radioactive

waste repository.

G. Recent Report by the National

Academy of Sciences—The Committee

will hold discussions with members of

the Academy and their staff on a recent

Academy report on the Ward Valley,

California low-level-waste disposal site.

H. Committee Activities/Future

Agenda—The Committee will consider

topics proposed for future consideration

by the full Committee and Working

Groups. The Committee will also

discuss ACNW-related activities of

individual members. The Committee

will elect officers for the next twelve

months.

I. Miscellaneous—The Committee will

discuss miscellaneous matters related to

the conduct of Committee activities and

organizational activities and complete

discussion of matters and specific issues

that were not completed during

previous meetings, as time and

availability of information permit.

Procedures for the conduct of and

participation in ACNW meetings were

published in the Federal Register on

October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51219). In

accordance with these procedures, oral

or written statements may be presented

by members of the public, electronic

recordings will be permitted only

during those portions of the meeting

that are open to the public, and

questions may be asked only by

members of the Committee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the ACNW Executive Director, Dr. John

T. Larkins, as far in advance as

practicable so that appropriate

arrangements can be made to allow the

necessary time during the meeting for

such statements. Use of still, motion

picture, and television cameras during

this meeting may be limited to selected

portions of the meeting as determined

by the ACNW Chairman. Information

regarding the time to be set aside for this

purpose may be obtained by contacting

the ACNW Executive Director prior to

the meeting. In view of the possibility

that the schedule for ACNW meetings

may be adjusted by the Chairman as

necessary to facilitate the conduct of the

meeting, persons planning to attend

should check with the ACNW Executive

Director if such rescheduling would

result in major inconvenience.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been cancelled or rescheduled, the

Chairman’s ruling on requests for the

opportunity to present oral statements

and the time allotted therefor can be

obtained by contacting the ACNW

Executive Director, Dr. John T. Larkins

(telephone 301/415–7360), between 7:30

a.m. and 4:15 p.m. EDT.

Dated: May 23, 1995.

Andrew L. Bates,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–13105 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL

REVIEW BOARD

Board Meeting: Waste Isolation

Strategy, Thermal Management

Strategy, the Engineered Barrier

System

Pursuant to its authority under

section 5051 of Public Law 100–203, the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987, the Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board will hold its summer

meeting on July 11–12, 1995, in Salt

Lake City, Utah. The meeting will be

held at the Little America Hotel, 500

South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah

84101; (Tel) 801–363–6781; (Fax) 801–

596–5911. The meeting is open to the

public and will begin at 8:30 a.m. both

days. Presentations during the meeting

will focus on the Department of

Energy’s (DOE) advanced conceptual

design for a potential deep geologic

repository for spent nuclear fuel and

defense high-level radioactive waste at

Yucca Mountain, Nevada; new

radionuclide release standards for

Yucca Mountain (based on the National

Academy of Sciences studies); and

updates on environmental impact

statement scoping studies for the DOE’s

high-level nuclear waste program and

exploratory facility construction at

Yucca Mountain (including tunnel

boring machine operations). The Board

also will hear about the annotated

outline being developed by the DOE for

license application to construct a

repository, should the Yucca Mountain

site be found suitable.

Time will be set aside on the agenda

for comments and questions from the

public. To ensure that everyone wishing

to speak is provided time to do so, the

Board encourages those who have

comments to sign the Public Comment

Register, which will be located at the

sign-in table. Those signing up are

advised that, depending on the number

of people wishing to speak, a speaking

limit may have to be set on the length

of individual remarks. However, written

comments of any length may be

submitted for the record.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board was created by Congress in the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987 to ealuate the technical and

scientific validity of activities

undertaken by the DOE in its program

to manage the disposal of the nation’s

spent nuclear fuel and defense highlevel waste. In that same legislation,

Congress directed the DOE to

characterize a site at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada, for its suitability as a potential

location for a permanent repository for

the disposal of that waste.

Transcripts of the meeting will be

available on computer disk or on a

library-loan basis in paper format from

Davonya Barnes, Board staff, beginning

September 6, 1995. For further

information, contact Frank Randall,

External Affairs, 1100 Wilson

Boulevard, Suite 910, Arlington,

Virginia 22209; (Tel) 703–235–4473;

(Fax) 703–235–4495.

Dated: May 24, 1995.

William Barnard,

Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board.

[FR Doc. 95–13127 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–AM–M

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Notice of Request for Reclearance of

OPM Form 2809

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.