28180 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Notices

effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant non-radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed exemption.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would result in no

change in current environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action did not involve the use of

any resources not previously considered

in the Final Environmental Statement

related to operation of the Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 23, 1995, the staff consulted

with the Georgia State official, Mr.

James L. Setser of the Georgia

Department of Natural Resources,

regarding the environmental impact of

the proposed action. The state official

had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the licensee’s letter dated

October 3, 1994, as supplemented by

letter dated March 1, 1995, which are

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC and

at the local public document room

located at the Burke County Library, 412

Fourth Street, Waynesboro, Georgia

30830.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of May 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Herbert N. Berkow,

Director, Project Directorate II–2, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–13103 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Reveiw of NRC Inspection Report

Content, Format, and Style

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is revising its

procedures on inspection reports and

requests public comment on whether

the content, format and style of

inspection reports as currently issued

are appropriate, and how they may be

improved.The NRC is soliciting

comments from interested public

interest groups, the regulated industry,

States, and concerned citizens.

Comments are requested from both

reactor and materials licensees. This

request is intended to assist the NRC in

making the inspection report a more

effective tool for communicating with

the regulated industry and the public,

and in meeting the NRC’s responsibility

for public health and safety.

DATES: The comment period expires

June 29, 1995. Comments received after

this date will be considered if it is

practical to do so, but the Commission

is able to ensure consideration only for

comments received on or before this

date.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to: David Meyers, Chief, Rules Review

and Directives Branch, Division of

Freedom of Information and Publication

Services, Office of Administration, Mail

Stop: T–6D–59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,

between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on

Federal workdays. Copies of comments

received may be examined at the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street,

NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laban Coblentz, Mail Stop: O–12E–4,

Inspection Program Branch, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301)

415–2619.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation (NRR) has begun a review of

the content, format, and style of NRC

inspection reports, as a preliminary step

to revising internal inspection report

procedures. The review is being led by

Laban Coblentz, Inspection Program

Branch, NRR, and is being

supplemented by contacts in other NRC

Headquarters offices and the regions.

This review will attempt, through

discussion, review, and consensusbuilding, to define the characteristics of

the ideal NRC inspection report, and to

revise internal procedures to produce

reports meeting those characteristics. As

such, it involves understanding the

results of other assessments, learning

from inspection report users, and

evaluating the interfaces of the report

with other agency processes and

systems. The scope of the review

applies only to documenting inspection

results, and does not encompass the

focus, scope, or frequency of

inspections.

NRC inspection reports are primarily

designed to communicate the results of

an NRC inspection to the licensee

inspected. They:

(1) Briefly describe the areas

inspected, with more detail given to

support more significant findings;

(2) Give general conclusions about the

effectiveness of the Program or activity

inspected;

(3) Provide a basis for other NRC

action, including Enforcement actions,

Plant Performance Reviews, Systematic

Assessments of Licensee Performance

(SALPs), and other assessments.

In addition to the primary addressee,

inspection reports communicate

relevant information on licensee

performance to other NRC offices, other

licensees, public interest groups,

Congressional oversight committees,

other Federal agencies, State and local

governments, and the public. Unless

exempted from pubic disclosure (e.g.,

because of containing proprietary or

safeguards information), copies of NRC

inspection reports are placed in the NRC

Public Document Room (PDR).

Scope of the Review

This review will attempt to approach

the NRC inspection report from two

perspectives. The first is that of the

initial readers—primarily the licensee to

whom the report is addressed, but also

the other readers listed above. This

viewpoint should highlight questions

such as, ‘‘Is the message clear?’’ ‘‘Is the

information presented in a logical,

consistent manner?’’ ‘‘Is the tone

appropriate?’’ etc.

The second viewpoint is that of

subsequent users (e.g., a manager

preparing a SALP report, an inspector

scanning old reports for past problems,

a group of local citizens reviewing a

licensee’s history of issues, or an

external agency evaluating the

effectiveness of NRC inspection in a

particular area). This viewpoint should

emphasize the ease of information

retrieval, consistency of format from

report to report, effective report
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