ML25329A179
| ML25329A179 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/25/1990 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC/Chairman |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML25329A179 (0) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 CERTIFICATION MINUTES OF THIRD MEETING OF THE LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL I certify that the attached Minutes of the Meeting of the LSS Advisory Review Panel, held on June 7, 1990, are accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
These minutes were approved by the Panel at the October 10-11, 1990, meeting.
Dat'e
MINUTES LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING June 7, 1990 The third meeting of the Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP) took place on June 7, 1990, in Bethesda, Maryland.
Members of the LSSARP present were:
John Hoyle, Chairman (NRC)
Barbara Cerny (DOE)
Dan Graser (DOE)
Felix Killar ((Nuclear Industry)
Kirk Balcom (State of Nevada) participated by telephone Dennis Bechtel (Clark County, Nevada)
Liza Vibert (Clark County, Nevada)
Elgie Holstein (Nye County, Nevada)
William Hooton (National Archives and Records Administration)
Enclosed are:
- 1. Index to Meeting Transcript
- 2. Meeting Transcript
- 3. Meeting Agenda
- 4. Kirk Balcom's May 17, 1990, letter to John Hoyle with recommendations of the Header Working Group
- 5. Barbara Cerny's June 5, 1990, letter to John Hoyle with comments on Header Working Group's recommendations
- 6. Federal Register notice announcing meeting
- 7. John Hoyle's letters to LSSARP members notifying them of meeting
- 8. Attendance List The meeting was open and attended by members of the public.
, Chairman Review Panel
ENCLOSURE 1
L INDEX TO TRANSCRIPT OF LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL JUNE 7, 1990, MEETING Introduction of Members Approval of Minutes of March 20- 21, 1990, Meeting Introduction of Header Format Header Information Prepared by Submitter Header Information Prepared by Others Discussion of Future Meetings Page 3
4 5
39 63 85
ENCLOSURE 2
ORIGINAL OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Agency:
Title:
Docket No.
LOCATION:
DATE:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission LSS Advisory Review Panel Meeting Bethesda, Maryland Thursday, June 7, 1990 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LID.
1612 K St. N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 PAGE.5:
1 -
88
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING Public Hearing Room 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland Thursday, June 7, 1990 12 The panel met, pursuant to notice, at 9:25 13 o'clock, a.m., John Hoyle, presiding.
14 15 MEMBERS PRESENT:
16 Stuart Treby 17 Marilee Rood 18 Felix Killar 19 Daniel Graser 20 Barbara Cerny 21 Liza Vibert 22 Dennis Bechtel 23 Elgie Holstein 24 Philip Altomare 25 Kirk Balcom (by phone) 1
1 ALSO PRESENT:
2 3
4 5
6 7
Elizabeth Shelburne Lloyd Donnelly Dona M. Mennella Steven Scott Lynn Scattolini 8
Reporter:
Dean A. Robinson 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
1 2
3 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. HOYLE:
Good morning, ladies and gentleman.
3 This is the third meeting of the LSS Advisory Review Panel.
4 We do have, as near as I can tell, a quorum present, even 5
though we don't have a representative of the State of 6
Nevada.
We had wanted him to be present because he was 7
Chairman of the Subcommittee which worked on the header 8
foI1I1ats for us.
We were prepared for teleconferencing with 9
those outside of town, but we had no takers this morning.
10 The first thing I want to do is go quickly around 11 the table so that those in the audience will know who is up 12 at the table and who they are representing.
So, I will 13 start with myself.
I am John Hoyle, representing the 14 Nuclear Regulatory Com.mission.
15 MR. TREBY:
Stuart Treby, NRC, Office of General 16 Counsel.
17 MS. SHELBURNE:
Betsy Shelburne of the office of 18 the LSS administrator.
19 MR. KILLAR:
Felix Killar representing the U.S.
20 Council for Energy Awareness.
21 MR. GRASER:
Dan Graser, representing the 22 Department of Energy.
23 MS. CERNY:
Barbara Cerny, representing the 24 Department of Energy.
25 MS. VIBERT:
Liza Vibert, representing Clark
1 County, Nevada.
2 3
4 MR. BECHTEL:
County, Nevada.
MR. HOLSTEIN:
5 County, Nevada.
4 Dennis Bechtel, representing Clark
£ /fJ,*e,
- -i:n=Y. Holstein, representing Nye 6
7 8
MS. ROOD:
Marilee Rood, Administrator.
MR. HOYLE:
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Let me remind everyone to sign the attendance list 9
that we have so we can make a record of that.
We do have a 10 transcript of today's meeting for the first time.
We had 11 talked earlier about having minutes and how quickly we could 12 get them out, and the usefulness of the minutes versus a 13 transcript.
We agreed the last time to try a transcript for 14 this meeting.
I will get it out as soon as it's available 15 to ine.
16 The first administrative matter I want to bring up 17 is the approval of our March 20 meeting.
I had forwarded 18 that to the members on April 23, so I would open the floor 19 to any comments, changes, alterations to the minutes.
Are 20 there any?
21
[No response.]
22 MR. HOYLE:
Not hearing any, I consider the 23 minutes approved at this time.
Thank you.
24 The next item and our primary item on the agenda 25 is to discuss the header format that we agreed at the last
5 1
meeting to look at because it was becoming a critical path 2
item for getting on with the design of the LSS.
3 We established a working group made up of 4
representatives of the State of Nevada, the Nuclear 5
Regulatory Commission and DOE, and had asked the LSS 6
administrator to assign a person to the working group, and 7
he assigned Betsy Shelburne, who is at the table with us.
8 The Subcommittee met a couple of times, I think, 9
and came up with recommendations for the full Committee 10 which we have before us now.
11 I'm going to ask Betsy Shelburne, in Kirk's 12 absence, to walk us through what the Subcommittee did, how 13 it conducted itself and arrived at the recommendations that 14 it did.
So, Betsy, please.
Thank you for doing this on 15 very short notice -- like five minutes.
I greatly 16 appreciate the work of all of those who served on the 17 Subcommittee, and I know the full panel agrees with me, 18 Betsy.
19 MS. SHELBURNE:
Okay.
Basically, as John said, 20 the Subcommittee was made up of Kirk Balcom, representing 21 the State of Nevada, Donna Mennella, who is in the audience, 22 Eileen Tana and myself of the Office of the Administrator.
23 We met, as John said, several times in an iterative process, 24 starting with, as the report indicates, the list of header ii 25 elements which was discussed May 17, 19J<'*
This was a list
6 1
of elements that was devised by another subcommittee of the 2
committee, that is of the Advisory Committee on the 3
negotiated rule.
4 We started with this list and also factored in "3AJ~
5 experience that was gained from the prototype, the SVOI0-6 prototype for the indexing of the sample of records.
So, 7
those two became the starting point.
8 Then, we tried to be systematic to go through the 9
files.
We went through thinking about these elements, as I 10 tried to characterize in the last meeting of the Committee, 11 the issue of what should be picked up, and what, from the 12 point of view, would be of interest to the users, what could 13 be picked up based on the fact that you're looking at a 14 document, and we addressed the issue of who should pick it 15 up.
That is basically the format of the report.
16 We came up with 28 files and divided those into 17 the sections that you see starting on page one of the report 18 and following on page two.
I think it might be helpful to 19 go through how this list differs from this May 17, 1988 20 list, and it does not differ greatly.
21 Basically, we did not come up with any additional 22 fields, though exactly what the fields should contain was 23 discussed, and there may be certain differences based on 24 someone's reading of the field in the May '88 list versus 25 the fields in the appendix in our report.
I am really not
7 1
prepared to go through a detailed difference here.
2 Just quickly looking at the May 17th document, we 3
have the actual title of any document and other fields for 4
the description of the document, a short description if the 5
document was not titled.
We decided to change that into one 6
field on the understanding that people didn't want to search 7
two fields, and may or may not know whether it had a formal 8
title, or whether it was just a description.
That was 9
taking two fields and making them one.
10 The other thing that immediately comes to mind on 11 the May 17th, '88 list -- there was an errata date field 12 that we, after discussion, determined really if a document 13 was an errata, that would have to be captured in its 14 relationship to the document it was changing.
Really, what 15 the date of that document would be would be captured in the 16 document data.
That was eliminated as a field.
17 There was, in the original list, something called 18 a "contract number field," and after discussion, it was 19 decided that it should really be just one field that 20 captured the alpha numeric things that people would call it 21 by.
So, that collapsed into one field.
22 Another field on the May 17, '88 list was 23 something called "Site of Activity." This had been proposed 24 with the idea -- during that time frame, there were several 25 sites under consideration, and the fact, based on the result
8 1
of the prototype, was that this field was felt not to be 2
useful.
If the subject of the document was a particular 3
site or section of the site, that could be captured either i 4
the descriptors, or somehow captured elsewhere.
So, that 5
was eliminated.
6 There are fields that may be different in the May 7
17 list and out list, but the content is essentially the 8
same.
I want to see if there is anything else.
9
[Pause.)
10 MS. SHELBURNE:
There was a field called meeting 11 date on the 1988 list.
We expanded that to a field called 12 event date.
We wanted to pick up documents about meetings 13 that happened on a certain date.
From my experience, that 14 is an essential field.
People may know of the meeting but 15 not know the date of the minutes in the public document 16 room, but we felt there were other events, audits, 17 conferences, and so we broaden that so that if a document 18 was clearly about something, that the searcher might want to 19 have access to based on that, they knew the timeframe.
We 20 picked that up.
Let me see what else.
21 22
[Pause.)
MS. SHELBURNE:
The original recipient field in 23 the 1988 list included the capture of copyees.
We decided 24 to separate that out, so you can see as an addressee, in our 25 recommendation, and a separate field for copyee, an
9 1
organization where it can be identified on the document.
2 That is basically a quick review without going 3
into a lot of detail.
I think there are distinctions to be 4
made about individual fields.
As you will note in the 5
report, we kept bumping up against things that did not 6
really relate to the specific fields, whether or not we 7
wanted to capture or felt we should recommend the capture of 8
an element of information.
9 The report does go through those.
We tried to 10 characterize some of the issues that we felt should be drawn 11 to the attention of the ARP, whether or not they have to be 12 resolved before we can determine that these are the elements 13 of information that the Committee wants to recommend.
We 14 didn't want to ignore them in the report, so we laid them 15 out for discussion.
16 I would like to hear a discussion on each issue, 17 but I don't know how you want to do that.
18 MR. HOYLE:
Well, why don't you just mention the 19 issues and you can comment about what you think the central 20 point of that issue is.
21 MS. SHELBURNE:
Okay.
Starting on page 2 of the 22 report, the first issue related to the acknowledgement that 23 multiple participants may submit the same document during 24 the backlog sort of becomes a question of what is relevant 25 and falls within the topical guidelines. It is not only the
10 1
document authored by that participant.
But either because 2
they have included that in a package, of course, of what has 3
been authored by someone else or because they feel a totally 4
separate study or document is relevant.
We had to 5
acknowledge there would be the same document submitted and 6
header submitted for the same document.
7 According to the understanding of the design, we a
would not need to actually store the text or image of a 9
document multiple times, so long as we determined it was an 10 exact match.
But the header information might be different.
11 We wanted to raise the issue of how to handle that.
So, 12 that is the first issue.
13 In the discussion on characterization of the 14 fields, whether or not they were multi-value, whether or not 15 there should be some format control for ease of indexing, 16 and more importantly, consistency in retrieval.
We talked 17 about editing, quality control, the ability of the capture 18 station, in reviewing the submitted information from the 19 bibliographic information headers to determine what should 20 be done by the LSSA capture station staff in the quality 21 control and correction of editions, I mean, the correction 22 of information and how to notify or whether we needed to 23 notify the participants that we had corrected something.
24 MR. HOLSTEIN:
Should we ask questions along the 25 way or wait?
1 2
11 MR. HOYLE:
I would like to wait until the end.
MS. SHELBURNE:
Issue No. 3 was the issue of 3
abstracts.
There was a lot of discussion on the benefit 4
versus the cost of abstracts, and we did not feel that we 5
could make a hard recommendation on the need for abstracts 6
versus the costs of abstracts.
So, we felt like that was a 7
point of discussion that needed to be discussed with the 8
numbers.
9 We did make a recommendation which was basically 10 we did not feel in the working group that the cost of 11 abstracting every piece of document, given we did have a 12 full text system, was justified.
There are arguments that 13 some types of documents do benefit from an abstract and the 14 pros and cons of that, who should do it, what type of 15 abstracts, is really a larger matter that we felt 16 uncomfortable making a recommendation on given the timeframe 17 and the resources we have.
18 The fourth issue was that there are relevant 19 documentary materials which cannot be stored in full text.
20 It can be stored in image only:
handwritten materials, 21 maps.
There are sets of information which cannot be stored 22 even in image.
These have been characterized as technical 23 data, graphic oriented material.
There are header fields 24 and elements of information, access points, which are 25 different than in the describing of the document, the number
12 1
of pages and certain things.
2 We limited our discussion and recommendation to 3
document material only in the Office of the LSSA 4
Administrator and further information needs to be gathered 5
relating to the idea of accessing information about this 6
material.
So we acknowledged in the report that we did not 7
try to finalize the recommendation on that, and that there 8
may be field within the header report that we recommended 9
that would be applicable for the sponsoring agency.
But we 10 wanted to acknowledge they had not gone through that aspect 11 in detail.
12 The last issue related to our acknowledgement that 13 we are not perfect and that there may be fields in the life 14 of this system, elements of information that warrant the 15 development of a separate field and that it, after 16 discussion here and review by the LSS Administrator, and the 17 setting of the bibliographic header and the full header over 18 time, as we characterized these documents, there may be 19 field that we need to add.
20 Obviously, if we do that, it would be with a lot 21 of deliberation, and the fact that you had to say if you 22 search this field, it will only be for documents captured of 23 this type.
That is an issue with these kinds of systems 24 that would be a point of discussion.
That is basically it 25 without getting into a lot of detail about those issues.
l
13 1
The rest of the report and Appendix A is the list 2
of the names of the fields and our determination as to 3
whether they should be multivalued.
Our feeling as to 4
whether they should be control authority -- a controlled 5
authority being a specific list of acceptable entries in 6
that field.
7 The next column relates to format control and the 8
development of the indexing rules.
We will specify the 9
format of the entry.
10 And the last column was the acknowledgement that 11 the header is the structured field record about the ability 12 to go through, and the example I always give is the 13 descriptor's field. It is a controlled authority, but if 14 someone wants to go through and say give me a set of records 15 where the word "core" was either the first word, the last 16 word or somewhere apart of the descriptor phrase without 17 having to know if it's the first or the last word or its 18 position, that the ability to search that field, as you do 19 in a full text system, would allow you to do what is called 20 words in context search.
Most packages allow you to do 21 that.
We felt we ought to acknowledge that some people 22 might want to do that.
23 Appendix Bis a description of each field. It is 24 divided into those that are recommended to be committed to 25 the participants and those that are either optional for the
14 1
participants and those that will be picked up by the LSS 2
administrator.
3 Now, one of the things we kept coming back to, if 4
you say oh, my God, 26 elements, there are many elements 5
that are not likely to be many document types.
6 So, obviously, if there was no report number, no 7
event date, we know that is not going to be captured, 8
period. It will always say "if applicable."
9 10 That's it.
MR. HOYLE:
Okay.
Betsy, I thank you.
And also, 11 Donna Menella and Eileen Tana, I want to thank them for 12 their participation.
13 MS. SHELBURNE:
Also, if there is anything that 14 you would like to add, or characterize as to what we did or 15 modify something or have left out something, I wish you 16 would chime in.
17 MS. CERNY:
Can I just say, I think you :Eeeall did 18 a good job.
19 MS. SHELBURNE:
Yes.
You can say that.
20 Thank you.
21 If you would like the others up here with me, 22 please feel free to chime in.
23 One of the things about my participation in the 24 group is that I was very sensitive to the fact that I was 25 nota member of the Advisory Review Panel.
If you remember,
15 1
at my presentation to the last meeting, I was the brilliant 2
one who had the idea of having a working group with the idea 3
that this would be a small group of people who are 4
experienced users, experienced with the headaches of 5
capturing, and wanted to get together to try and make our 6
best recommendations.
7 When there were issues in the report and there 8
were some problems, I tried to give my best advice. It was 9
not a lot of voting in the group.
It was just laid out for 10 discussion.
And the group had a strong recommendation of 11 the elements.
And this is a good list. If there are things 12 missing, we would like to hear about it.
But it is a strong 13 recommendation from the working group, prospective of 14 potential users, and also the level of effort on searched 15 capture.
16 MR. HOYLE:
I appreciate you making that point 17 clear, that you are a member of the Administrator's office 18 and are not part, or a member of the panel, and therefore 19 could not be a full-fledged member of the subcommittee.
But 20 I appreciate your efforts greatly.
21 Let me mention two things.
And then Dan had a 22 point to make, and we will get to that.
Otherwise, what I 23 think I will kind of do is go around the table.
Since Mr.
24 Holstein first indicated he had a point, we will start with 25 him and then go around.
16 1
But Betsy mentioned two documents, which I will 2
make a part of the draft bibliographic header field Revision 3
3, which is a starting point for this subgroup dated May 17, 3
4 1988, and then the recent letter from Kirk ~alcolm of May 5
28, 1990, which has recommendations of the working group.
6 MR. GRASER:
It was just a quick point.
I counted 7
29 fields by actually going through the list.
So I think we 8
should clarify that.
9 There are 29?
10 MS. SHELBURNE:
By the time we got through, we 11 were lucky -- well, they were fun meetings.
12 MR. GRASER:
The record should reflect there are 13 29 and we should go by the list as they are listed out.
14 15 MS. SHELBURNE:
Kirk stands corrected.
MR. HOYLE:
There are several ways we could do 16 this.
One is to just go page by page, item by item, and see 17 whether we have agreement or if there is discussion on a 18 point.
19 The Department of Energy has sent me a letter with 20 their thoughts and comments, and we need to discuss those 21 items.
But let's see how this goes.
22 23 Mr. Holstein.
MR. HOLSTEIN:
Thank you very much.
I just have 24 one very brief question to clarify my understanding of the 25 first recommendation, multiple submissions for same
17 1
document.
2 I gather from, rather than trying to make choices 3
among several different submissions of subjective 4
information, that you would go ahead, but that you would 5
identify them by participant's number, and that those 6
numbers would be -- and this is the part I want to clarify -
7
- the number will all be listed in sequence.
8 Will it be easy to ascertain which submission goes 9
with which numbers?
10 11 MS. SHELBURNE:
We discussed that a lot.
Our feeling was that -- Let me just preface this 12 by one comment:
that based on my now speaking for the 13 Administrator's office excuse me.
If something is 14 different, clearly wrong, a different date or just a 15 different format of the contract number, I don't think we 16 would just sort of list that one right after the other.
17 What we are talking about here is for those 18 documents that may be described differently for additional 19 terms that are there, our recommendation is you would still 20 have one header, so people wouldn't have to get two headers 21 and wonder if it was a different document or a duplicate, 22 point to the same image, point to the same text.
23 Only where the description was different, the 24 title description, did we feel it was important to attribute 25 the descripting of it to the different submitters. If
18 1
additional terms were added, we didn't feel like we needed 2
to put a Code Number 1 in a system like this, because we 3
didn't think that would be a problem.
4 If it needed to be done, we would do it.
But only 5
where the textual description and the title description 6
field was different did we feel that some code or acronym or 7
whatever related to it, maybe the submitter's acquisition 8
number, that would be attributed.
We would just merge the 9
information and assume it was right according to the catalog 10 numbers and that the submitter's acquisition number field 11 would add that additional tack-on so the two submitters 12 contributed to this header, but you wouldn't know if the key 13 terms or something like that, which one was which.
14 Does that answer your question?
15 MS. CERNY:
I agree, there is going to probably be 16 a lot of multiple submissions.
But I also think, in many 17 cases, it is going to be very hard.
The very issue you 18 brought up here, you might have different titles, different 19 descriptors.
And in an automated environment, by doing 20 matching to titles, descriptions, et cetera, I think it is 21 very difficult to pick up that they are duplicates, except 22 in very complex search cases.
23 How are you going to find out they are duplicates?
24 To, from, a certain number of fields will match.
But if you 25 have titles, et cetera, the duplicates will throw that out
19 1
and say that isn't a duplicate.
2 I think there is more to this than just the issue 3
of whether you are going to capture both of those titles.
4 MS. SHELBURNE:
I think this was based on the 5
assumption, gee, when you put it in, you said it might be a 6
duplicate, but after review, you determined it was not a 7
duplicate.
Looking at the image of the information, the 8
text of the information, to say this is not the exact same 9
document DOE had, it is as an attachment to a piece of their 10 own document.
There was an additional description. It was 11 the point at which you determined that it was not a 12 duplicate that we had this issue.
13 If there was some question as to whether or not it 14 was the same document, then the header would be separate, 15 would point to a different document.
There would be two 16 different citations on the assumption that people would not 17 duplicate.
18 Am I characterizing this right?
19 MS. CERNY:
But you really get into an issue then 20 of how much manual work are you going to do in this system 21 and how much you want to automate at the expense of having 22 some duplication, just because it is too expensive, and at 23 what point is it worth doing the manual checking that you 24 are talking about.
25 MR. TREBY:
I was wondering if we could maybe set
20 1
up some specific samples instead of talking in the abstract, 2
and get at this issue of how much manual checking we are 3
going to do ahead of time.
4 I can foresee three different situations where you 5
might have -- there may be more, but at least three came to 6
mine -- where you might have duplicate documents with 7
different headers.
8 One would be where, for some reason, the document 9
is developed by the initiator and submitted with a header, 10 or for some reason or another, an organization submits that 11 same document, but their own header.
12 A second situation would be where the issuer 13 develops a document and submits it with its header and 14 another organization has some sort of a different document 15 about this particular issue, say, an enclosure, or in some 16 way or other it is a cover letter they are sending to 17 somebody else.
They had that with the enclosure for some 18 reason.
And the issuing document is also enclosed so they 19 have a header for it.
20 I guess a third situation would be a document not 21 developed by any of the participants but by some outside 22 organization and one or more participants believes that it 23 is an important document that needs to be in the LSS, and 24 they submit it each with their own headers.
25 Taking those three situations, I guess I am
21 1
interested in what the process would be.
2 In the first situation, when you have a 3
participant who is actually the originating organization and 4
they submit a header, and a second organization submits that 5
same document with their own header, I would think that the 6
header of the originating organization perhaps sends the 7
document, that second document back to them, indicating that 8
the document has already been submitted by the originating 9
organization.
10 11 MS. SHELBURNE:
This is a stand-alone entry?
MR. TREBY:
Right.
Would you agree that is what 12 would happen?
13 MR. GRASER:
Not quite.
In the system design, 14 what would happen is that the second attempt to enter the 15 document would define that the document has already been 16 entered.
A straightforward case.
17 There is no question as to the fact this document 18 is the same as this document [indicating).
19 The second attempt to enter that document would 20 find that the document is a duplicate.
The second document 21 submitted would not simply be sent back to the submitter 22 stating that the document had been submitted.
This relates 23 to the fact the system will be annotated with the fact that 24 the second party attempted to submit the document, the date 25 the document was submitted; and we will keep track of the
22 1
fact that, you know, the document was submitted along with a 2
duplicate, and it won't be seen, but in the record, for the 3
first submission, will be appended a notation that that 4
document was attempted to be submitted a second time by a 5
second party.
6 So it is not really just a question of saying oh, 7
we have already got it here. It comes back.
We would be 8
keeping track of every subsequent attempt of submitting that 9
document.
10 When someone comes back and attempts to submit 11 40,000 documents but only 38,000 got into the system, we 12 will be able to say oh, yes, we have 2,000 documents 13 identified as already being in the system.
14 It is not quite as simple as saying no, the 15 document is in there, it comes back.
16 MR. HOYLE:
That is part of the system as you 17 envision it?
18 MS. SHELBURNE:
Your representation is that would 19 be captured on the third section of the administrative 20 tracking, which may or may not be part of the header, but 21 would be retrievable?
22 MR. GRASER:
For database administrators, there 23 will be a complete audit trail of who submitted it to them 24 and so forth.
It will be in the duplicate check file.
25 MS. SHELBURNE:
Would it be given a submitter's
23 1
acquisition number?
2 MR. GRASER :
I am not certain about that level of 3
detail.
Whatever it is going to take to identify, yes, we 4
would keep that information.
5 MS. SHELBURNE:
This is the subject for the three 6
categories. If the header information is different from one 7
to the other, the second submission, once it is deemed to be 8
a duplicate, you would not look further to see if the header 9
information is different?
10 MR. GRASER:
That is a legitimate issue that 11 Barbara was raising.
If one document gets into the system, 12 and that is a complete title that is essentially different 13 from the created title, that the second capture station 14 might attempt to assign to it, depending on the way it is 15 collected.
As to the title field, there may be a less 16 probability that document even being identified as a 17 duplicate if the created titles are so substantially 18 different.
19 This is where it begins to go back to the question 20 of what kind of procedures and standards can be put in place 21 for this title field for the descriptor to ensure there is 22 as much consistency as possible.
23 Very often, in litigation support data bases, 24 where there is no title and someone creates a title, there 25 is a standard procedure for how you go about creating a
24 1
title, like making the first line of the paragraph the one 2
or use the words from the first line to summarize what the 3
document is, so there is some consistency.
4 But whatever procedure is followed, about the only 5
way to be sure that it is a duplicate would be some sort of 6
a standard in place, especially in the title field, where it 7
is a created title.
8 That is an issue, yes.
And that is a problem.
9 The problem, with attempting to put two documents in from 10 totally different environments, with two differently created 11 titles.
12 MR. KILLAR:
Can I bring up a different question 13 with copies? Is someone was to enter an document that would 14 get kicked out because the header or the description is the 15 same, it would never be entered in?
16 MS. CERNY:
My answer to that is, no, it will not 17 be considered a second document because it is my definition 18 not to duplicate.
19 MR. KILLAR:
Your software will not be kicking out 20 the header? It looks at the actual pages?
21 MS. CERNY:
Marginalia is one of the issues in 22 order to kick it out because it is a duplicate.
A duplicate 23 is an exact duplicate.
24 25 MR. HOLSTEIN:
Would they have the same title?
MS. CERNY:
But marginalia is what makes it
25 1
different.
2 MR. KILLAR:
In which case, the first thing that 3
should be checked out is the marginalia?
4 MS. SHELBURNE:
There are two issues in this one 5
that I see. If it is just another version of a document 6
that happens to be unattributed to markings, notes, that we 7
don't know who they are from, they just look different, we 8
assume this has all gone through the participant's dup check 9
and concluded that this is the best copy they are submitting 10 because they want to submit the document.
11 Let's say this, as an example, is the best copy 12 the submitter would find that is legible, here attaching a 13 report which happens to be different from this, B.S.
14 comments, which stands for Betsy Shelburne, by the way.
15 They are submitted and they describe the contents of the 16 document.
That is a characterization of that document.
17 When it came in if there was already a clean copy, if it is 18 a different document, it has the same date and there is 19 another copy with marginalia, that is one kind of situation.
20 The other situation is where a copy of my comments 21 comes in.
The header would say the author is Betsy 22 Shelburne.
The description is comments on Kirk Balcom's 23 report.
These are really two different headers and access 24 points.
So you have two situations.
The situation where it 25 looks like a duplicate except that there are unattributed
26 1
marginalia and, I guess, well, for the two copies, point to 2
the two versions, the issue is where it is being submitted, 3
because it is my comment on something and that is another 4
situation, because it would have a different header, and 5
hopefully we can figure out what the date of my comments 6
were and that kind of stuff.
7 Does that answer your question?
8 MR. KILLAR:
I understand the duplication.
Going 9
back to the header section itself, we have agreed there 10 would only be one heading.
How do you come up with 11 agreement of what the header is?
What you have suggested is 12 that subsequent submitters just let it go.
These people 13 have submitted it and there may be something in it that they 14 want to appear in the abstract or some other items added to 15 the header that will not be picked up.
16 Is there an arbitrator who comes up and who says, 17 what do you have in the header section that you feel 18 comfortable with? Would that be the I.SS Administrator or 19 someone else? The Administrator looks at that, sends it 20 back to the original submitter, and gets agreement that, 21 yes, this will not detract from what he originally submitted 22 as his header? That is my suggestion.
That is a reasonable 23 way to get the header and make the people who submit 24 multiple documents conform it.
25 MS. CERNY:
But the real issue retrievability and
27 1
this is a full text system and you have all of these other 2
fields.
How much, in fact, is that created title going to 3
influence the retrievability of these documents?
4 MR. KILLAR:
I agree.
If you just limit it to the 5
discussion of the created title.
We haven't got down to the 6
other part, and I have some concern about the discussion of 7
the abstract and people doing the searches of abstracts.
8 MS. CERNY:
We will have to come up with standards 9
on how you do this.
I really think this is the issue.
I 10 think the issue is that there is a lot involved and that has 11 to do with the system design and with capture standards, 12 indexing standards, et cetera.
We can just sit here and 13 talk about all this, but in fact, that is what we have to 14 do.
15 16 MR. KILLAR:
I agree with that.
MS. CERNY:
That is what should be put in place 17 and presented.
Will these standards work?
This is a very 18 good start to filter, but we will not sit here and get 19 closure.
20 MR. HOYLE:
No, we are not.
That is a good time 21 to comment on issues versus do you think we get to closure 22 on some of the fields in here, and maybe hold out on those 23 that have issues attached to them and talk about the issues 24 in subsequent meetings, papers, or however else we are going 25 to deal with those, because many of these are properly
28 1
issues for this panel, maybe all of them.
Some of them the 2
panel may not be able to get to or too interested in because 3
you need guidance, but there might be closure and that you 4
want to get going on.
So the question is, how much time do 5
we want to spend talking about issues versus trying to get 6
closure on some of the fields that we can get closure on?
7 8
MS. SHELBURNE:
Can I just do one thing?
MR. HOYLE:
Let me take the mystery out of the 9
note passing.
Kirk Balcom had an emergency at home.
He is 10 available this morning, but only available by phone after 11 10:30 if we need him.
12 MS. SHELBURNE:
I agree with what you say.
I want 13 to go back, Stuart, to your characterization of when are we 14 going to discuss people needing to go away thinking about it 15 in this three-tier issue or the different situations getting 16 an idea on how to handle that, because it is a note in the 17 margin by one organization about this idea of multiple 18 participants create problems.
19 MS. CERNY:
My experience with duplicate software 20 is we spent about two years tuning this thing, and you 21 really error on the side of putting them in because you 22 don't want to miss them.
And you do have duplicates.
23 I think it will take soe working through.
As you 24 say, this is far more complex than just one organization.
25 Could we vote on accepting the fields, the 29 of
29 1
them, as looking at those fields like this one, where we 2
feel we have to go back to the drawing board for one reason 3
or another?
4 MR. HOYLE:
I am ready to do something like that 5
unless there should be other discussion that would keep us 6
from doing that, one by one, or as a group?
7 MS. CERNY:
The 29, do we all agree that these 8
are the fields? That would be a big start.
And then, one 9
by one, in those with which people have some problems.
As 10 we have laid it out in the letter, we have certain problems 11 with certain ones.
And then we can go back and consider 12 those.
But at least get the bulk of those out of the way.
13 MR. HOYLE:
One of those, the NRC feels, is an 14 unnecessary one, for instance, and I take it this is, one of 15 the 29 is whether or not there should be an abstract for 16 documents that will be in full text in the system.
17 18 MS. CERNY:
That is an issue.
MR. HOYLE:
If we already agreed that is an 19 optional field to both participants and the administrator, 20 and so long as we can go back and take it back out, if in 21 discussing the issue it should come out, fine, that is 22 agreed upon.
And then I am willing to agree to the 29 23 fields.
24 25 MR. KILLAR:
We are not.
MR. HOYLE:
We are not?
1 2
a field.
3 30 MR. KILL.AR:
We question the copy organization as MR. HOYLE:
We also have some concern about the 4
numbers of entries that could be in there because the NRC, 5
we send copies to a large number of people.
6 MR. KILL.AR:
There is a NUREG out, and there is a 7
list in Part B.
8 MR. HOYLE:
Is there in the design some limit on 9
the number of copyees, up to two?
10 MR. GRASER:
It depends on the software.
11 MR. KILL.AR:
I guess I am going back to 12 fundamentally what is the point of the fields.
The question 13 is, what is the point of the fields in the first place, what 14 is the value of having the copyee and the copying 15 organization?
16 MS. CERNY:
I think that, if I remember 17 correctly, the State of Nevada was concerned in negotiations 18 and they were very interested.
However, they are not here.
19 20 21 MS. SHELBURNE:
I know.
MS. CERNY:
Don't you recall that?
MR. KILL.AR:
My answer to that, though, is with 22 the full text system, once they see the document, they can 23 see who the copyees are to the document.
24 Why they want to do a search of the header as to 25 copyees is beyond me.
I would think they would do a search
31 1
of headers and find out who the letter went to and not the 2
copyees.
3 4
that.
5 6
7 on that.
MS. CERNY:
You will have to talk to them about MR. KILLAR:
So we are down to 27.
MR. HOYLE:
I would like to get Nevada's viewpoint 8
Do you feel as strongly about addressees and 9
copyees?
10 11 MR. KILLAR:
No.
I think that is appropriate.
MR. GRASER:
I think the discussion is moving 12 towards a very similar sort of realization that there may be 13 some situations and some categories of documents where it is 14 very important to know who the copyees are and the copy 15 organizations, and whether it is a publication with a very 16 wide distribution, which is a very good example of that.
17 There may be examples of documents where it is not 18 appropriate to use that field.
And that is something that 19 could be controlled in the capture system environment when 20 we get to procedures which are being put into place by the 21 LSS Administrator.
22 On the other hand, there may be some fields where 23 it provides another user with a point of access and they do 24 want to have access by that field, and for that type of 25 information, and for a certain category of document.
32 1
I see our discussion moving towards a realization 2
that there may be one field where some subsequent paper or 3
study needs to be done to make a recommendation.
Okay, it 4
won't be used wholesale.
But that doesn't mean the field 5
should be stricken.
6 MS. SHELBURNE:
Let me bring up something to focus 7
the discussion.
And this is a "for example."
8 When we are talking about fields, if you all are 9
going to be doing any recommendations or voting, I would 10 point to looking at Appendix B, not just the list of the 11 fields, because there is a description of what we felt the 12 short title of the field was going to be.
In talking about 13 this, there should be a common understanding of what that 14 field should be.
15 I would note that copyees are useful for 16 correspondence only, names of all the persons to whom a copy 17 of the document was sent, as listed on the unit.
18 I would also like to point to the fact that it is 19 recommended that is a field that is going to be picked up by 20 the capture station personnel.
Therefore, it has to be 21 listed on the elements. It is not something where you would 22 go off and ask everybody where you had copies to.
23 MR. KILLAR:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 24 sent out a NUREG, part of which covers letter lists, which 25 is a listing of all of those who are receiving the document,
33 1
so you would have three pages of copies.
2 MS. SHELBURNE:
Well, that is as to 3
correspondence.
4 MR. KILLAR:
The letter is correspondence, even if 5
it is a transmittal letter.
6 MS. CERNY:
If Mel Murphy were here, he would 7
have a lot of discussion about this.
He would say, it is 8
correspondence having to do with some policy decision, and 9
he wants to know about it, and that was the idea behind 10 copyee.
11 And so this really is a limited category of 12 information in which a document is useful.
And probably 13 Nevada who really wanted it, would agree with the NUREG on 14 transmittal letters.
15 MR. HOYLE:
Let me suggest we try after 10:30 to 16 get hold of Kirk to see if he can speak to that.
17 Meanwhile, I will entertain a vote on the list, 18 reserving, for the moment at least, on copyee.
/J}A. EEttl,£L~
19 MS. VIBERT:
I have one question on the list, if I 20 may.
21 Would there be any benefit in having maybe a 22 description of the item that took place?
You have down 23 here, "event." Whether that might be something that would 24 enable you to trace something, but also, if you were trying 25 to find out if you had an area of concern, or something
34 1
being able to include that information as a mandatory item?
2 I just don't see that here.
3 4
MR. HOYLE:
Can you speak to that?
MS. SHELBURNE:
I am going to ask Donna.
This was 5
originally a field called site of activity.
I can remember 6
us discussing that.
I will turn to Donna on why we decided 7
to take it out.
8 MS. MENNELLA:
It was very difficult to determine 9
on all cases of site activity what happened, from just a 10 reading of the document.
It turns out most of the activity 11 was Yucca Mountain, during the year of tests.
12 When we put in "Yucca Mountain" they got almost 13 the entire data base.
Therefore, it was not felt that it 14 was not worthwhile.
15 The other problem was the tendency to catalog all 16 the information you want to store in this descriptive field, 17 so we ended up merging those two fields.
So it is not that 18 the site was lost in the field. It is just that it appears 19 in a different field.
It does not have its own field.
/fJR, 8Cll~ TC l_ ~
20 li!S. ~T: I can see cases where it wouldn't be 21 applicable and I can see a benefit, if you were trying to 22 look at information about the particular bore hole where you 23 wanted to key it if you used geographic coordinates.
24 I don't know.
25 MS. SHELBURNE:
Wouldn't it be in the full text if
35 the document was available?
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
/ni:. BCC1~iC L; MS
¥I6!M!:
I guess maybe would be to go with an abstract and then you would be able to pick that up from other information.
MR. GRASER:
Or in the title.
MR. KILLAR:
It might be in the title.
ff:/?, BElHtLL ~
~H\\EBT:
But maybe not.
I don't know.
MR. TREBY:
I guess I have one question before we 9
vote.
10 MR. HOYLE:
Let's remove that.
I don't really 11 hear a consensus on adding an item called location, but 12 maybe we could somehow or other urge that title be used to 13 describe location.
/71/;, 8CCt-lT£L:
14 MS VIB.P.RT:
Maybe in the standards of how you 15 describe it.
16 MR. HOYLE:
We haven't really seen the standards 17 and details about how titles should be arrived at.
18 MR. HOLSTEIN:
I would like to comment on this 19 briefly.
I'm not sure.
I think it would take some more 20 analysis as to whether or not the system, as it's currently 21 designed, would give user access to the sort of geographic 22 specific data that Dennis is describing.
23 On the other hand, I'm not sure -- I remain to be 24 convinced that the possibility or the likelihood of bringing 25 down on yourself, mountains of data by using a simple term
36 1
such as Yucca Mountain, is sufficient reason for knocking 2
out a particular code.
Frankly, I think that problem is 3
going to occur in virtually any use of a full text retrieval 4
system, if you don't use sufficiently narrow search terms.
5 If you were to use that problem as a criterion for 6
knocking out some of these items or for determining what 7
items should be on the list, it seems to me you will end up a
in trouble.
Yucca Mountain isn't the only one that I can 9
imagine you bringing down unusable mountains of data with.
10 I am not sure the answer we heard was sufficient, leaving 11 aside whether you could achieve the same results through 12 some other system.
13 14 15 MR. HOYLE:
Any further comments on that?
[No response.)
MR. HOYLE:
I think we do need some at some point 16 the details of what should go into titles and what should go 17 into the event descriptor and what should be in some of 18 these other items like descriptors.
Would there be an 19 opportunity to put the location information in the 20 descriptor?
21 MR. BALCOM:
The thesaurus will contain geographic 22 terms and the description will contain geographic 23 information.
24 I think in the prototype we had bore holes.
25 VOICE:
Every bore hole we know is included as a
37 1
descriptor.
1nR. t,cc H,t.. L:
2 l!fS, V!IE:Mt.
I think the only question I have is 3
the field optional at least in describing this.
4 5
6 7
MS. MENNELLA:
Which field?
MS. VIBERT:
The descriptor.
MS. MENNELLA:
No, that is optional.
MS. SHELBURNE:
It is up to the submitter.
If a
they don't do it, the recommendation is that the capture 9
station's staff would attempt to index the document.
10 MR. KILLAR:
I think, rather than voting on this 11 list, I think we need to have the subcommittee to go back 12 and try to provide some more detail as to what would go 13 under each of these headers and possibly work with Barbara 14 as to what would be the standards or what you call the 15 procedures to fill out these headers.
16 That way, it would give people a more comfortable 17 feeling that their material is going to be included or the 18 material is not going to be included.
19 MR. HOYLE:
Well, it is back to the chicken and 20 egg situation. That's what you're saying we have here.
21 When there is a sequence of events, would there be 22 detailed instructions or procedures prepared for 23 participants?
24 Is it appropriate as Felix suggests, to see that 25 type of detail before we decide on what the header units
38 1
are?
2 Would DOE answer that?
3 MS. CERNY:
I'm happy with the header unit as they 4
are with some tuning, and I will go into that when we get to 5
abstracts of documents.
A lot of thought has gone into 6
this, based upon the prototype and based upon knowledge of 7
other systems.
8 I really see us belaboring this when I am hopeful 9
that we can -- there are good reasons for picking what has 10 been picked and I would just as soon move on and fine tune 11 those fields we need standards for.
12 MR. KILIAR:
I am suggesting we don't need to go
~or~e~
13 over all of them, but just like Gopy E7 or organization.
14 MS. CERNY:
When I suggest this has been narrowed 15 to this set of fields and there are good reasons for having 16 picked it, as Dona just explained why we no longer have a 17 location field, I think we should accept this and go on, say 18 in which way is a field under question.
Do you need your 19 standards set up?
20 I suggest that we move this thing on.
21 MR. HOYLE:
We need to move on: it's 10:30.
We 22 have decided that there are some things to be decided or are 23 we going to put everything off until the issues category?
24 Stew might have a further comment on how we may 25 proceed.
39 1
MR. TREBY:
I think that we should reach some sort 2
of resolution as to the group of headers.
My only question 3
is whether we should vote and whether we should vote on the 4
list first and hear the modifications or hear the 5
modifications and then vote.
I understand that we can talk 6
to Kirk who is the representative of Nevada shortly, and we c.0p:.1ee 7
can hear his comments on Cepy ~ and stuff, if that is still 8
an issue as to whether or not that should be a field of not.
9 The only question is as to standards for that 10 particular field.
11 MS. SHELBURNE:
I just want to go back to Appendix 12 B, if people would like to alter the description of fields 13 to say such things under descriptors to give some 14 recommendation for the purpose and focus and any specific 15 indexes concept or philosophy, if that could be done. It's 16 not only a list of fields, but the wording of some of the 17 descriptions, the site or the location -- if there is a 18 recommendation that descriptor should be something else, 19 fine.
20 I'm not trying to put words in as to what they 21 should say in this report.
You keep talking about the list, 22 but it is the issue of the definition; that detailed indices 23 will be developed from.
24 MR. HOYLE:
Let me proceed by using pages 1 and 2 25 of the document we got from the subcommittee, plus
40 1
Appendix B, page 1.
Let's take the first 5 items and see 2
what issues jump out.
So we have participant accession 3
number, submitter center, submitter paper count, 4
title/description, and then author.
And then, Mr. Treby, I 5
have one minor point I would like to raise, and that is, at 6
the very beginning where it says "Bibliographic Header" and 7
then in parentheses "required to be supplied by 8
participants," I guess I would suggest we might add, after 9
"required," "if applicable."
10 MR. TREBY:
Picking up on what Betsy said, not all 11 of the fields are applicable.
I assume we are referring to 12 all the fields. It is a small point, but I don't think we 13 want to leave the impression that everyone of these fields 14 are required to be filled out if they are not obviously ones 15 that can be filled out.
16 MR. HOYLE:
As you say, Betsy made that point.
17 What we are suggesting is that it be put in the appropriate 18 in describing the headers to be supplied by participants.
19 All right, let's look at the description of the 20 title/description in the Appendix B.
I will read it.
"A brief description given to a unit 21 22 MR. KILLAR:
Excuse me, do we really need to go 23 into this much detail?
24 MR. HOYLE:
All right, the answer is no.
Do we 25 have approval of the first 5 items?
l 41 1
Okay, approval.
2 Next, author organization, addressee, addressee 3
organization, document date, document/report number.
4 Approved.
5 Document condition, edition/version, event date, 6
code, protected status, related documents.
7 MS. VIBERT:
Maybe we should put location in 8
there; maybe descriptor is fine.
9 MR. KILLAR:
I have a question under the 10 edition/ version, and the question is, that it says free 11 text.
The question is, is it appropriate now to talk about 12 this, whether this should be free text searchable or not?
I 13 have no problem with the header, I just have a question 14 about free text.
15 16 17 MS. CERNY:
Let's do the headers.
MR. KILLAR:
Okay.
MR. HOYLE:
Special class, abstract/summary for 18 non-documents.
Okay, we have approved the fields.
/fJR..8Et.Hi£L; 19 MS VIDEBT:
I have a question about protected 20 status.
What exactly does that mean?
21 MR. HOYLE:
Who could describe protected status as 22 a header field?
Betsy, before you run out, could you tell 23 us more about protected status as a field?
24 MS. SHELBURNE:
Okay.
It's my understanding the 25 bibliographic headers would have to be submitted for those
42 1
documents for which participants claim a privilege.
2 MR. BALCOM:
I am catching about 90 percent of the 3
conversation.
4 MS. SHELBURNE:
Very probably because I was 5
walking across the room.
6 MR. BALCOM:
I am glad to join.
I guess I would 7
have to use this conference call after all.
8 MR. HOYLE:
Yes.
Thanks for joining us.
So far 9
what we have done is rapped a bit and we have approved just 10 about all of the fields of the bibliographic header to be 11 supplied by participants.
We are now talking about one of 12 those, the protected status field.
Betsy is describing what 13 that entails.
14 MR. BALCOM:
I heard Betsy start to talk about 15 that.
16 MS. SHELBURNE:
As I said, it is my understanding 17 that there is a requirement for those documents which 18 participants claim a privilege --
I would like anyone to 19 chime in on this one -- that headers must be submitted, and 20 there was the case -- the field in which someone would 21 designate the privilege they were invoking.
22 MR. BALCOM:
Right, privilege, or I think the rule 23 states exemption.
It's in one of the rule sections.
24 MR. HOYLE:
Okay.
The description of this field 25 is "a coded field indicating the type or types of privileges
43 1
or exceptions claimed for the underlying document upon which 2
the header is based."
Perhaps the word "exceptions" should 3
be "exemptions."
4 MR. BALCOM:
Whatever the rule is, we used the 5
wording in the rule which is "exceptions."
6 MR. HOYLE:
Yes.
Eileen's head is giving me a 7
yes, "exceptions." Steve Scott has raised his hand.
8 MR. SCOTT:
Another issue, if that one is closed, 9
is that we might have the instructions to say, "if 10 applicable," correct?
11 12 MR. HOYLE:
Yes.
MR. SCOTT:
That creates inconsistencies that we 13 have with the descriptions in here.
For example, document 14 date.
That is not consistent with a description now.
It 15 indicates that the document will be created regardless of 16 whether or not it's applicable.
17 18 MS. SHELBURNE:
Are we switching fields here now?
MR. HOYLE:
Steve is going back up to a field 19 "document date" and he has a comment on that.
He says the 20 document on which the unit was published is created if it 21 doesn't -- well, that the information in the unit will be 22 used to determine a likely date.
I don't feel that is a 23 problem.
24 MR. SCOTT:
If there is no date, it is not 25 applicable or are we saying one is always applicable because
44 1
one will be created?
2 MR. HOYLE:
I guess I am prepared to say, as far 3
as date is concerned, there should always be something in 4
that field.
5 MR. SCOTT:
The same holds true for author and 6
addressee, organization?
7 8
MR. HOYLE:
Yes.
MS. MENNELLA:
This difference was if it is 9
applicable and whether it is available.
Certain fields will 10 be filled on information that is available.
Other fields it 11 is based on applicable information.
12 For example, if you have a report, the addressee 13 is applicable, because the report does not have an 14 addressee.
Am I making sense? Everything has a date 15 whether or not the date is available in the document format.
16 It is available, but not applicable.
17 18 MR. SCOTT:
Thank you.
MR. HOYLE:
Okay.
If we approve special class and 19 abstract summary --
20 MR. KILLAR:
On abstract summary for non-documents 21 it is an issue as far as an abstract.
And so I have 22 problems approving it for non-documents.
We feel abstracts 23 will be there for all documents whether it is a nondocu.ment 24 or something else.
25 MR. HOYLE:
So you would --
1 45 MR. KILLAR:
The participant should be reasonable 2
in filling out the abstract.
3 MR. HOYLE:
Their proposal is, bring up the 4
abstract summary from the optional field below?
5 MR. KILLAR:
Really, deleting this from the field 6
optional to both participant and LSS and deleting this for 7
participants for non-documents.
The participant is 8
responsible for filling out the abstract summary, whether or 9
not it is a document or a non-document.
10 11 12 MR. HOYLE:
Let's discuss that.
Lynn, do you have a comment?
MS. SCATTOLINI:
I have a comment.
We are having 13 a very great difficulty hearing all of you.
14 MR. HOYLE:
I guess we are getting to the position 15 that the stronger we feel on the subject, the stronger the 16 voice.
But thank you.
We will try to keep our voices up.
17 I think NRC believes that we do not need abstracts 18 for documents which are going to be in full text.
I believe 19 it is a matter of cost-effectiveness.
20 The size of the header field data base or data 21 file would have to be quite large, I would think, if you are 22 going to have abstracts of every document here.
You are 23 getting more and more subjective descriptions of documents 24 in the file.
25 Useful, yes.
Certainly cost-effective.
I'm not
46 l
sure about that.
2 MR. KILLAR:
We are concerned with costs, as well.
3 We recommend that we have abstract summaries for every 4
document and that be a controlled format, that it be limited 5
to 200 words or 300 words or something along that line, so 6
you don't get a summary almost as long as the document.
7 That should help keep the cost down.
It does require labor 8
manpower by the participant to generate that summary, but 9
there are costs to the participants, not the system.
10 The system cost would be limited to the space it 11 takes to get that out as well as the searching of that 12 summary abstract.
13 I know when I went through the prototype testing, 14 there were a lot of abstract summaries.
15 MR. HOYLE:
Felix, I found that, too, when I did 16 the same thing.
17 MS. CERNY:
We come in the middle between the two 18 of you.
19 MR. HOYLE:
Your position is described in your 20 memo.
Why don't you describe it quickly here?
21 MS. CERNY:
That's right.
We really ought to 22 look at classes of documents for which abstracts should be 23 prepared.
They are very, very important, but there have to 24 be standards set for this, in which cases, abstracts don't 25 go or don't say everything, and don't say anything.
But we
47 1
really think this has to be revisited.
2 MR. HOYLE:
Kirk, do you have any comments on 3
this?
4 MR. BALCOM:
I think what I would simply say has 5
already been presented in the paper, and it sounds like 6
Barbara was the last speaker, and I think that is probably 7
our position, too. It is not everything, and not nothing.
8 In the situation for non-documents, it is 9
different, than, of course, the situation for a lot of 10 extraneous material.
11 A non-document is critical. That will be a way to 12 present.
And talking about this in some form, and we had 13 long elected to have this abstract field for tying this all 14 together. It is like a multi-field.
But it is especially 15 important in the situation of non-documents.
16 MR. HOYLE:
I think none of us have a quarrel with 17 that.
18 MR. BALCOM:
Okay.
19 MR. HOYLE:
I think we have to hold up this one, 20 Felix.
Would you be willing to entertain a discussion at a 21 future time, as to whether there are some documents that 22 would not need to be abstracted -- correspondence which does 23 not have lengthy attachments, things like that -- that sort 24 of speak for themselves.
25 I am not trying to get into things which are
48 1
excluded.
2 MR. KILLAR:
I would be glad to listen to the 3
recommendation to quantify what does need or does not need 4
to have an abstract.
5 MR. HOYLE:
Would the L.SS Administrator's office 6
like to take a shot at going over abstracts and give us a 7
proposal and let us review or comment on it?
8 MS. SHELBURNE:
Well, I think if people, what I 9
would like to hear, and I would like to have the writer 10 report their pros and cons, and come up with a potential of 11 what you think the potential set of documents is that they 12 would like to have.
We will end up making the final 13 decision.
But what we are asking for are the thoughts of 14 people.
15 Barbara has already recommended a certain set of 16 ideas.
What I would like to hear is which set we can divide 17 which way.
18 I can lay out the issues, and the way it makes the 19 best sense to us, or the feeling of the advisory group panel 20 on which ones they felt warranted exception or inclusion.
21 I would like to bring up one more issue on the 22 thought of abstracts.
The time it takes to do it relates to 23 cost, but is also relates to delays in issuing the document.
24 There may be some issues that you may want to think about in 25 terms of when we are in a real time mode here.
Yesterday's L
49 1
documents have to get in.
So we have an issue of how you 2
feel about something that does take time to do it right on 3
the submitter's part.
4 I am just raising the issue.
I want to get 5
people's input on the answer.
6 MR. HOYLE:
What did you think?
Do you want to 7
give us to the end of the month to think about this?
I 8
don't know that really we are prepared to talk about it now.
9 Do I have a suggestion from anyone as to how we 10 should proceed with grappling with the subject of abstracts?
11 MR. TREBY:
Well, I guess I suggest that we decide 12 there will be a field of abstracts because we certainly need 13 them for non-documents and that the group consider with 14 regard to documents what standards they would like to have 15 for abstracting those and perhaps we could set a date 16 whereby everybody would submit in writing to John their 17 thoughts and he could circulate them and then at the next 18 meeting in October we could bring it up and have everybody's 19 views available and have an opportunity to think about it 20 and maybe resolve it at that meeting fairly promptly.
21 22 MR. HOYLE:
I appreciate the proposal.
In your comments, Barbara, you point out it's 23 critical in terms of sizing header file -- data files.
If 24 we don't get these resolutions until October, are we all 25 right, Dan?
1 50 MR. GRASER:
We are probably all right because the 2
size of bibliographic header file in comparison to 3
comparison to the text is minuscule -- not minuscule but 4
it's really of much less magnitude than the volume of text 5
that we are going to be putting into the system but, yes, 6
the decision could be deferred but eventually some decision 7
would have to be forthcoming.
8 MR. TREBY:
Absolutely.
The decision must be made 9
in October, no later.
10 MR. GRASER:
It is not so much a question of size 11 of words, 200 words versus 1000, so much it is the 12 multiplier of how many documents are going to be or have to 13 be abstracted, whether it is 10,000, 100,000, a million --
14 the multiplier that you are dealing with there is really a 15 critical factor, so, yes.
16 You shake your head no, but I think we can defer 17 on that until October, yes.
18 MR. TREBY:
I have one question though.
Many 19 Government documents already have been abstracted.
Those 20 abstracts could be found in the full search text.
21 MR. GRASER:
Yes, or they could be put in the 22 abstract field.
That might be one category of documents 23 that you automatically say yes, if an abstract is present in 24 a publication it will be placed in the abstract field.
25 There are no new abstracts that need to be created.
51 1
It's a very simple thing to accommodate.
That 2
might be one of the recommendations that when somebody comes 3
to an abstract field in more detail.
4 MR. HOLSTEIN:
That sounds great but I am not sure 5
that achieves what Felix is after.
6 MR. KILLAR:
Really it does.
What I was looking 7
for is in a search on headers rather than full text headers 8
to have a search of headers which is a lot easier than a 9
full text search.
10 MR. HOLSTEIN:
Are you also looking to have 11 consistence across abstracts?
12 MR. KILLAR:
Whoever is putting the abstract in is 13 going to be generating that document.
They are going to put 14 their own abstract in rather than someone else's.
15 MR. HOLSTEIN:
Let me pose this question to you.
16 I have seen a lot of abstracts of Government documents.
17 If your goal is to have some things consistent, 18 then in all abstracts -- then all abstracts can meet some 19 basic standards of usefulness to this system, are you 20 satisfied with all abstracts previously done by the authors 21 which may or may not meet those standards are somehow going 22 to by definition meet your needs of useability?
23 MR. KILLAR:
The problem is even if you have a 24 very definitive set of standards you are going to have 25 abstracts that are not acceptable because there are
52 1
exceptions to standards.
2 MR. HOLSTEIN:
That is a different question.
3 If somebody can't follow directions, if someone is 4
told write the abstract any way, you want to know what the 5
LSS standards are, it seems to be a separate problem.
6 MR. KILLAR:
You will have to have some guidelines 7
and it is their responsibility to meet those guidelines or 8
not, I agree.
9 MR. GRASER:
I believe in the prototype we had a 10 number of situations where a supplied abstract was found to 11 be deficient and required us to add additional material to 12 the abstract field to make sure that it fully described a 13 document.
We weren't there in a situation in the prototype 14 where the abstract that was provided was not adequate and we 15 had to go a little bit further.
16 MR. HOLSTEIN:
Presumably you don't want to have 17 to do that on a regular basis.
18 MR. GRASER:
Also, let me point out that when the 19 abstract was done you want to utilize that and it's just 20 simply not a clear-cut answer.
21 I think this gets back to exactly -- this is 22 something that needs to be examined.
23 MR. HOLSTEIN:
My point is just a very narrow one, 24 which is whatever the standard is created on, you are going 25 forward based on knowing who is in any event going to be
53 1
writing an abstract for his or her documents should be 2
exempted from having to review and meet these standards the 3
LSS system has for abstracts. That is leaving aside your 4
issue, Felix.
5 MR. GRASER:
I will speak up on that one.
6 I think the probably type scenario, if I follow 7
what you are saying, would be that an engineer who wrote an 8
article out at Sandia, when they do an abstract of their 9
article, are you indicting they should be fully preparing 10 their abstract of their article out there?
11 I think the answer is it probably won't happen.
12 It will probably be a situation where a capture system 13 environment will be responsible for bringing that abstract 14 up to snuff.
15 MR. HOLSTEIN:
I am saying fine, this is the 16 shortcomings but there is no reason why Sandia as a matter 17 of policy has anyone in their employ producing documents for 18 which abstracts can't be a matter of structure, please 19 prepare your abstracts according to the following set of 20 criteria.
21 There is no reason why you don't do both of those 22 things.
23 MR. KILLAR:
I agree.
You want an individual 24 putting the document in to make sure that abstract is 25 relative to the subject if that individual is at Sandia or
54 1
Los Alamos.
2 These are only guidelines.
3 When you develop a document, develop your abstract 4
to take these things into consideration and that saves the 5
individual from relying on or depending on what the 6
standards are we have for our abstracts, which may well be 7
different abstracts from some engineering publication or a
from the Government as to what they require in an abstract.
9 MS. CERNY:
It also becomes a contractual issue.
10 The contractors work under contract and to say 11 that they have to follow certain formats for abstracts would 12 have to be written into their contracts if you are really 13 going to insist that they do it.
14 That would then become a nightmare situation.
15 MR. GRASER:
This is the LSS abstract which is the 16 one to conform to the general publication standard for 17 documents, which is different from the DOE.
In that case, 18 it may very well be driven by what is already in the 19 standards for abstracts.
20 MS. SHELBURNE:
Are there abstracts for the DOE 21 set forth, Steve?
22 MR. SCOTT:
That is the situation.
They must 23 comply.
And we do incorporate those contractually.
24 MS. CERNY:
I don't know the answer to that, 25 because we are getting into contractual issues.
1 2
55 MR. HOYLE:
Well, this is going to be for October.
MR. HOLSTEIN:
What we just heard was that they 3
are incorporated contractually.
Does that not make it 4
unmanageable?
5 My point is only this. If you leave open a lot of 6
opportunities for shoddiness, if you will, by simply telling 7
yourself you are going to use a document control process to 8
catch all of these problems, you will end up with a costly 9
and an enormous job trying to go back and fix the problems.
10 I am simply suggesting it is relatively easy-to-ll handle by some minimal guidance at the front end.
12 MR. ALTOMARE:
I work in the Division of High-13 Level Waste.
We start out a lot of these things.
14 We looked at these problems of going after the 15 abstracts and taking the full text.
But when we went over 16 to a professional abstractor, they were doing it quickly, 17 but we got the impression that there is a cost of having the 18 professional or somebody doing that; and putting it into 19 abstract form quickly exceeded the cost of putting in the 20 full document.
21 That is not a cheap thing.
You have to have 22 professionals, people who know what they are doing.
Our 23 conclusion, you could just go ahead and depend on the full 24 text as much as you can capture electronically in the 25 generation of a document.
56 1
If there is an abstract, there are ways to pull it 2
out of a field and put it in another field like the header.
3 But it depends upon somebody going into the document if he 4
is the one who wrote it, depending on him getting that 5
abstract correct. It is an expensive operation, and we 6
hesitate to do it.
7 I am very concerned about your asking the LSS 8
Administrator to go in and develop abstracts.
9 MR. KILLAR:
I'm not saying that the LSS 10 Administrator is the individual who is putting that document 11 together or is responsible for that abstract at all.
12 MR. ALTOMARE:
If you do know what you should be 13 doing with the document, it is possible to take the document 14 and tap electronically and transfer that over to a header, 15 if you wish.
16 But having a specialist of some kind, somebody 17 checking to see if that is correct, if that covers the 18 document, you are talking about a big expense.
And I would 19 be very hesitant about doing that.
20 MR. KILLAR:
The onus is on the individual putting 21 that document together to make sure that it represents the 22 document.
23 If we have some guidelines we develop as to what 24 should be in there, it is fairly self-evident that if the 25 existing abstract is adequate, then that task is not needed.
57 1
MR. ALTOMARE:
I think having guidelines 2
requesting certain types of documents as has been suggested 3
is fine, seeing if you can get that as something else, it 4
can get a little bit out of control.
5 We have to think about it on a cost basis, as Dan 6
was saying. It's not 200 words.
You start multiplying it 7
by millions, and it does get to be expensive.
8 MR. HOLSTEIN:
I think we are agreeing with 9
everything you said.
We are saying, for having reasons at 10 the front end, for the authors, not subsequent people, but 11 for the authors, that is precisely to avoid the cost 12 problems later on.
13 MR. ALTOMARE:
Let me make one more point, and I 14 will stop.
15 From my perspective, from working in the technical 16 staff side, we did not want to start generating a lot of 17 work for our staff to pick out a specific identification 18 field that should be in the header.
19 We are watching carefully as to what it takes to 20 fill out the header.
We want to utilize that as the primary 21 source.
We agree with that.
22 But if you are asking now that every time you have 23 added maybe just five minutes, is it worth the cost?
I 24 don't think it necessarily is.
25 In our case, the document normally has a header
58 1
and an abstract, so that is one thing.
I am a little bit 2
cautious about what you are asking our staff to do.
I am 3
just adding this caution, that I do not think you should be 4
agreeing to things that are just going to be adding work 5
that has to be paid for by somebody.
6 MR. KILLAR:
I don't think we disagree with you.
7 In fact, some of the suggestions have been what we should 8
include in an abstract and what we should not.
You are 9
talking about a letter and we don't need an abstract for a 10 four-page letter.
11 MR. HOYLE:
I think we have had sufficient 12 discussion on the point.
13 The point that Mr. Holstein has raised is a very 14 good one.
Phil's point is a very valuable commentary.
I 15 think we should all take this discussion into account.
16 I would suggest that you provide to me by July 15, 17 in a little over a month, if that is agreeable, your 18 thoughts on what standards ought to be used for abstracting 19 one set of documents, and that set of documents should be 20 abstracted whether or not you believe all of it, including 21 correspondence and so forth, and who should do the 22 abstracting.
Comment on who should do the abstracting.
23 24 MS. SCATTOLINI:
I have a couple of comments.
There are costs to be realized here.
But I don't 25 know if the group is aware as to what the cost is.
1 59 There are three different types of abstracts that 2
I know of.
I don't know if the group is aware of what they 3
are.
So I think you need some common information based on 4
which to make a decision that should be provided.
5 MS. SHELBURNE:
I would agree to provide a talking 6
point or thought point to distribute to the members for 7
their consideration prior to their recommendation.
I don't 8
know if I can give you dollar values or whatever, but there 9
are issues I think the members should take into 10 consideration before they make their recommendation.
11 If not, you will have to come back with what do 12 you think about this, what do you think about that.
13 MR. HOYLE:
When do you think you could get me 14 that? Maybe July 15?
15 MS. SHELBURNE:
Well, July was the date I set down 16 here (indicating).
17 18 MR. HOYLE:
I need to send your material out.
MS. SHELBURNE:
It is not like I have not thought 19 about this before.
20 I think in the next couple of weeks I ought to be 21 able to get something together.
22 MR. HOYLE:
Perhaps I will set 31 days from the 23 date I send the LSS data out; I will expect back your items 24 for discussion in October.
25 Kirk, are you hearing?
L 1
2 review?
3 4
5 6
60 MR. BALCOM:
30 days after the receipt of Betsy's MR. HOYLE:
Yes, sir.
MR. BALCOM:
That sounds good.
MR. HOYLE:
I believe, with the exception MR. TREBY:
No.
I just have a comment on "special 7
class." And that is what the interim team was thinking 8
about.
9 A special class that came to mind to us was all 10 adjudicatory documents.
We would certainly want those to be 11 flagged.
That would identify what the record was.
12 I guess all we want to do is make sure that was 13 included as an example of a special class.
14 MR. GRASER:
I believe the rule says that the LSSA 15 shall establish a separate file reflecting the official 16 file.
17 So in that regard, adding a separate field to that 18 would be, in a lot of ways, redundant, because the rule says 19 there has to be a separate file for that.
20 MS. SHELBURNE:
What flag on the record?
One of 21 the things I had thought about this issue is how we use 22 different fields.
23 MR. GRASER:
Are the people taking a document into 24 the capture system environment going to know, so this is not 25 a cataloging of a field?
61 1
MS. SHELBURNE:
I will turn to John Hoyle, the 2
Secretary. It is a designation of what is the content of 3
the official file.
4 MR. HOYLE:
The official file is going to be 5
established after the proceeding begins, and there will be a 6
number of documents that will be placed into the I.SS well 7
before that time that will eventually become part of the 8
record.
They will be introduced by DOE or others as 9
pertinent to the record.
10 Stu, are you suggesting that there needs to be 11 something flagged on the document when it is put in, if it 12 is a potential adjudicatory item?
13 MR. TREBY:
We were considering a flag after the 14 fact, after the proceeding began, of a document previously, 15 let's say a site characterization of DOD was entered as an 16 exhibit, and there would be a flag that says this is part of 17 the adjudicatory record.
18 MR. HOYLE:
And a notation would go into the 19 system saying that this is a special class and saying it is 20 an adjudicatory-type record.
21 MS. SHELBURNE:
Well, I do understand that.
But 22 I'm asking the question, whatever the type is, it used to be 23 one thing and it is now something else?
24 25 MR. HOYLE:
Yes.
And still, it is what it was.
Does that help?
1 62 Yes, there does need to be a separate file of an 2
adjudicatory record, and it could be flagged.
There are a 3
number of new records generated within the proceeding 4
itself.
5 MS. SHELBURNE:
One of the things I had here when 6
I was going in this [indicating] that it might be not one of 7
these, but an additional field.
8 However, in working with the Board and the Office 9
of the Secretary as to what needs to be also added, I have a 10 letter and the date that the document is required.
These 11 are issues.
The date received on it I think is an area 12 where we will have to work to make sure the system, ISSA, is 13 meeting the needs of adjudicatory records.
I think a 14 special-type code would be used and part of that parameter 15 will be to determine that.
We will make sure that 16 requirement is met.
17 MR. HOYLE:
Okay.
Those discussions are certainly 18 needed.
19 Maybe Stu was going to further comment, as I will, 20 that a lot of work has previously been done on the subject 21 of legal documents and adjudicatory documents, and how to 22 get some detailed descriptions of this into the header so 23 they can be found in search easily.
We would hope to 24 preserve that work which was done two years ago some way or 25 another.
1 2
Anything further, Stu?
MR. TREBY:
No.
3 MR. HOYLE:
Moving to "Fields Optional to 4
Participant But completed by ISSA."
5 There are six items in here:
document type; 6
sponsoring organization; copyee; copyee organization; 7
publication data; descriptors.
63 8
Kirk, we were talking about copyee before.
Felix 9
has suggested copyee be deleted from the list of header 10 fields.
11 MR. BALCOM:
As just a concept moved back up to 12 addressee or the concept deleted?
13 MR. KILLAR:
The concept deleted.
We have raised 14 a question as to what is the value of the copyee and copyee 15 organization in the header.
16 Why do you have it when you have a full text 17 capability and you are able to call up the document and see 18 who the copyees are?
19 MR. BALCOM:
The reason is usually in the 20 litigation support setting, where you want to find out 21 everyone who received a copy of a document, basically for 22 depositions and examination purposes, and full text 23 sometimes doesn't always work.
24 MR. KILLAR:
If that is going to help, having it 25 in the header -- Aren't there standards about having them in
64 1
the header?
2 MR. BALCOM:
At least you know where to search for 3
them.
4 MR. KILLAR:
I hate to put Jay Silberg, our 5
attorney, in this position.
But he would have been able to 6
be more supportive of your position rather than our opinion 7
that we don't need it.
8 MR. BALCOM:
Well, the reason we actually had 9
originally I think planned to put copyees names in the 10 addressee field is simply to lump all of those together.
11 I think I probably made the case that in terms of 12 handling depositions efficiently, that it would be the best 13 place to do it. That is typically the way it is done.
14 If it is felt it is important to have those names 15 available for an examination, in other words, to find every 16 person who got a copy of a memo, for example, if we don't do 17 that, the full text probably won't pick that up and you 18 won't know every person who got the memo.
19 MS. SHELBURNE:
I want to raise another issue, and 20 muddy the water.
21 If you search full text on somebody's name, you 22 will get those responses, and you will have to go through 23 and figure out if they were copyees.
24 MR. KILLAR:
Well, then, we would have the reverse 25 where you are not.
1 65 MR. BALCOM:
In full text, if you don't find them 2
in the document, you have seen that document, and you search 3
the document, you will then see who actually got the 4
document.
5 In fact, if you would look at the document, you 6
would be able to see whether or not the name is correct, 7
whether or not the address used is correct, rather than 8
putting a corrected address in or a corrected name in at the 9
end.
10 If you want to find out all about that document, 11 as to the persons who received it, for example, so you can 12 have a full history of what that person had to make 13 decisions with or be a participant in the decision, then the 14 only way is to find everything for which they were either 15 addressee or copyee and having a document, and then looking 16 up who received it is not quite the same thing as finding 17 out the document that the person was a recipient of.
18 MS. CERNY:
Can I muddy the waters, too?
19 In DOE correspondence control, in the addressee, 20 if you are sending a memo, you don't put the person's name 21 in: you would show "Licensee Support Branch" and you are not 22 going to know who got the memo, whether it was the Branch 23 Chief or who was the Branch Chief of that support branch.
24 Then, that is all the information you have, is addressee.
25 Then we get into the position where I would have
66 1
to keep a file to have all of the names of the people who 2
got copies.
So I would suggest that you would have to have 3
this addressee field distribution, and then you will have 4
names specified for distribution along with the 5
organizations.
6 But this is just a mixed bag of how these fields 7
are used.
8 MS. SHELBURNE:
Well, I would look to Steve.
Do 9
you want to talk about NRC's distribution codes also?
10 MR. SCOTT:
Ours is a coded system.
The code then 11 goes back to a data base which identifies who was on that 12 list.
13 14 15 MS. CERNY:
When?
MS. SHELBURNE:
At the point in time --
MS. CERNY:
We don't have that.
We have a Chief 16 of a support branch.
There is no matching of the data base 17 as to who the Chief at a particular time was.
You have to 18 just know that.
19 MR. SCOTT:
My other point was that we have 20 another problem we would incur if you are looking towards 21 retrievability.
organizationally we change quite frequently 22 and you would have to maintain the linkage to know what it 23 was the day before if you are going to try to get this 24 information.
25 MS. CERNY:
We don't maintain that.
We just
67 1
reorganize that.
2
[Laughter.]
3 MR. SCOTT:
You can't tell the players without a 4
scorecard.
5 MS. CERNY:
It might be useful, by the way.
I'm 6
circulating one.
7 MR. KILLAR:
I guess that the other comment is we 8
talked about this earlier.
One of the things we talked 9
about in litigation is -- and this is only as to 10 correspondence, we have to talk about what the 11 correspondence is:
Does that include formal letters, does 12 that include memos, does that include transmittal letters, 13 things along that line?
14 Maybe once we go back and define the field, then 15 we can come back and address what is appropriate and 16 inappropriate as to copyees and copyee organizations in 17 here.
18 MR. TREBY:
I agree. It seems to me this falls 19 into the same category as abstracts.
20 I would like to recommend we follow the same 21 procedure and go back and think about it and each submit 22 recommendations and thoughts on it.
We can take it up at 23 our October meeting.
I don't know whether Betsy is going to 24 volunteer to offer any talking point on that.
25 MR. HOYLE:
Is that agreeable?
Okay.
When I
68 1
write you on the subject of abstracts I will remind you to 2
give me your thoughts on the copyee situation.
We will 3
discuss it further in October and a copyee organization.
4 The next item is publication data and then we have 5
descriptors.
6 Any further discussion of those items?
- nR. /3[C-t-l,£L
7 MS VIBERP:
Just the fact that we need 8
observation and we need to flesh a lot of those out as to 9
what those things mean, especially the descriptors.
10 MR. HOYLE:
The descriptors are from the LSS 11 Thesaurus.
There is a thesaurus which of course is in draft 12 form.
13 14 15 16 MR. GRASER:
And it is an ongoing process.
MR. HOYLE:
Would you like to know exactly MR. GRASER:
I will get you a copy.
MR. HOYLE:
It might be in your administrator's 17 office but why don't you send him one.
18 All right, can I consider that group with the 19 exception of the copyee issue approved?
20 MS. SHELBURNE:
Does this mean they are approving 21 the definition or the name?
22 MR. HOYLE:
We are approving the field, I believe 23 as described in the document submitted to us by Kirk's 24 letter:
"Fields optional to both participant and LSSA."
25 Three categories:
identifiers, comments, and
69 1
abstract/summary.
2 Any discussion on identifiers or comments?
3
[No response.)
4 MR. HOYLE:
All right.
We consider them a part of 5
the field.
That ought to be in, approved.
6 Next category is "Fields Not Applicable to 7
Participant but Supplied by System or LSSA."
8 This is LSS System Accession No., number of 9
images, and pointers.
10 Any discussion?
11
[No response.)
12 MR. HOYLE:
Okay, they are approved as Header 13 Fields.
14 The next part of the working group's document goes 15 into issues, some of which we touched on, perhaps all but 16 one or two, that kept corning up as Betsy described in the 17 course of the working group's activity.
18 We talked about triple submissions of the same 19 document already. It seems like two days ago we did that.
20 I am not sure I know what the resolution of that was.
21 Is there any more discussion on the point of 22 multiple publications?
23
[No response.)
24 MR. HOYLE:
Editing of headers by I.SSA is the 25 second issue.
70 1
I believe that too is an issue that needs further 2
discussion and I would suggest we do that later but I would 3
entertain any thoughts or comments that participants would 4
want to make today.
5 The DOE I am sure has some comments there and NRC 6
has comments along the lines that as far as 2A is concerned 7
on page 3 that instead of having LSSA make it discretionary, 8
rather than when LSSA implements, or rather than have them 9
supplement, they may supplement.
10 We would also want to be sure that the 11 administrator would flag the supplement in some way and 12 inform the participant, the submitter, that they have 13 supplemented the record.
I am sorry.
I am getting off into 14 something else.
15 MS. SHELBURNE:
If we add another key term, we 16 have to say we added it or let the participant know.
17 MR. TREBY:
We want the participant to know that 18 his submittal had been modified in some way.
We were 19 thinking there could be an asterisk so the submitter could 20 check.
If he found the asterisk, he could go back and look 21 to see whether or not, within the time that he has to make 22 corrections to his submittal, he had any disagreement with 23 what the LSSA administrator had done.
24 To take the cycle, for example let's say the LSSA 25 administrator looked through the document and he saw that
71 1
the document is dated January 2, 1990, and put on the 2
header, it says "This was a document that was sent out 3
January 2, 1991," so he just corrected it and said, 111990,"
4 it is possible that the submitter was, in fact, accurate in 5
his header that the letter was sent out January 2 1991, but 6
they hadn't gotten around to realizing that the year had 7
changed and had dated it 1990 on the letter.
The submitter 8
might want to go back to the administrator and tell him, 9
"No, this is an incorrect change that you had made." This 10 would be disastrous."
11 MS. SHELBURNE:
This is a difference between what 12 someone submitted, and you add a new value, a new 13 descriptor, a new author, or a new number -- what I'm trying 14 to do is just clarify what you really mean.
15 MR. TREBY:
Any of those changes.
16 MS. SHELBURNE:
Do you want to flag changes or 17 corrections versus flagging what we have added?
18 MR. TREBY:
we were just looking at two ways 19 related to changes and also modifications, and we said, when 20 we have a change made, the submitter ought to have the 21 opportunity to know that the change was made within a 22 reasonable period of time.
We thought the reasonable period 23 of time in which it had to make corrections, to get back to 24 the L.SSA administrator and say, "We thought that you have 25 made this change, and, for whatever reason, we don't think
72 1
that is an appropriate change --
2 MS. CERNY:
This whole section, to me, raised a 3
major policy and design issue, because I think you have two 4
cases.
One, where we have 80 or 90 percent of the 5
information, it is a huge quantity of information.
In no 6
way do we see you going over it in the detail that you are 7
talking about.
8 In fact, it's sort of antithetical in the way the 9
program is laid out, the QA procedures that are approved by 10 the NRC, and then the NRC comes in and does an audit or 11 surveillance against the procedures. It seems that this is 12 just another issue covered under the procedures, that DOD is 13 responsible for corrections of the indexes information, the 14 headers for its information under procedures, under QA, if 15 you will.
We don't have to call it theoretically approved 16 by the time you come in and audit our processing procedures.
17 If you find problems, you can tell us. Just like 18 we correct deficiencies under other QA audits, if you find 19 problems with the information or for batches of information, 20 you come back to us and say, "Now, fix this."
21 We will have that capture station with which we do 22 all this indexing, and you will have a capture station.
23 What you are proposing is actually a duplication of all this 24 work all over again.
25 MS. SHELBURNE:
Can I clarify something here? It
73 1
is something we ran into multiple times in developing this 2
submitter's header versus capture stations full header.
3 We thought, in terms of the bibliographic header 4
being what would be submitted to a capture station, and then 5
what happened to it in the capture station under the rules 6
of procedures in the capture station, would be to review 7
what was submitted and to make changes.
8 What is raised here is after review at the capture 9
station, if the submitter has submitted this to the capture 10 station which feels it is wrong, how they alter the record.
11 What we get confused on is that the DOE will operate one of 12 those capture stations.
13 14 MS. CERNY:
That's right.
MS. SHELBURNE:
You are correct if the issue is 15 that it's decided by DOE under the rules of procedures, and 16 everybody is following the same rules, and they will be 17 generating the full header.
18 MS. CERNY:
Right.
That is all that makes sense.
19 MS. SHELBURNE:
There is not a difference here.
20 It is just a problem of -- if it is agreed that DOE will 21 operate capture stations, your comments I only got this 22 morning and I am sort of reacting to them quickly.
23 We will not review every record.
We would be 24 auditing.
25 Everybody is running capture stations the same way
74 1
and we want consistency however that is determined to be 2
done.
3 What is discussed here for those sets of records 4
that other participants submit to the capture station, NRC, 5
the state of Nevada, if there is a supplementation or 6
correction because we believe it is a typo or whatever, how 7
do we handle that.
That was the issue, how should it be 8
handled?
9 Does that clear up your concern?
10 MS. CERNY:
It isn't written that way.
There are 11 two cases there.
12 One is our case.
We really us doing this all 13 under the procedures, you know, like we do the rest of the 14 QA, what falls into quality effective procedures for the 15 program.
That is one case.
16 The other case is for the other participants who 17 will be submitting information with maybe only the 18 submitters' headers filled out where you won't be put in a 19 place -- with those very stringent quality procedures you 20 will do it yourself because it is easier to take the 21 information from a small party to check information itself.
22 MS. SHELBURNE:
If there is something wrong, there 23 is wrong information that submitter has given us, what do we 24 do?
What is the supplemental information?
25 Those are two questions we could or want to do.
75 Kirk, chime in here.
1 2
MR. BALCOM:
I am not sure I can talk on behalf of 3
Nevada, really, that Nevada has a strong interest one way or 4
the other.
5 I think the original impression that I got, that 6
it was simply an attempt, as Barbara raised the issue of QA, 7
which is an issue of one being more concerned with 8
integrity, and I think Barbara raises a good point about 9
simply letting the participant or the submitter knowing what 10 you found in the LSSA's opinion is in error and then to deal 11 with it normally like a compliance.
12 I don't have strong feelings one way or the other 13 on this.
14 MR. KILLAR:
When I went through and I didn't have 15 any problems with it but now after discussions I have 16 interest or I am concerned about who is going to be 17 monkeying with whose data and who has access to change what 18 fields in somebody's header and who created this.
This is 19 my concern.
20 I want to know who has been at my document.
I 21 want to have them define it.
I don't want someone else who 22 doesn't want my document for their own benefit to go in and 23 change the header so that the document doesn't get pointed 24 out.
25 MS. CERNY:
It's really the role of the LSSA just
76 1
taking this information we give you are produced under 2
certain procedures that you have approved or are you really 3
going in, say, "we don't agree with your characterization of 4
your information."
5 It seems to me that is a real policy decision here 6
that this brings up.
7 MR. HOYLE:
Could I interject at this point and 8
perhaps ask Betsy, would you comment on what you think is 9
appropriate at the October meeting for you to come in and 10 describe what you see is the role of the administrator and 11 the role of the capture station unit?
12 I don't think we have really heard too much about 13 what the capture station is going to do, who operates it, 14 what the audit program is going to be and what that is going 15 to have or operate -- I don't know what the right term is --
16 versus the LSSA is going to have and operate.
17 Is that appropriate to do then or now or how do 18 you want to go about that?
19 MR. DONNELLY:
I am Lloyd Donnelly, the LSS 20 Administrator.
21 You are getting into an area now and there are a 22 lot of similar areas where we have not worked out all of the 23 details and don't know everything that we are going to be 24 doing.
25 I have one fundamental requirement and that is
77 1
ultimately everyone is going to be looking to me for the 2
integrity of that data because whatever integrity means, it 3
means accuracy.
It means no tampering by unauthorized 4
sources and other things.
5 To me it is clear if an accepted submission from
£ 6
oop or one of the other parties is in error, I feel I have 7
the obligation to resolve that on your behalf to make sure 8
the best information is put in.
Exactly how that will be 9
done is a matter that has to be thought through very 10 carefully in terms of the people submitting the QA, in terms 11 of my contractor, it is all integrated so we are not all 12 overkilling, but I can assure you that the data is correct.
13 I think we can talk further about it and we will 14 give it further thought and talk with DOE further about it 15 at the October meeting and provide more information.
16 We will have this whole issue at that point but I 17 think it would be helpful to you if we do that.
18 MR. HOYLE:
I think that it would be very helpful.
19 Thank you.
20 We would find -- we would all find that useful.
21 How are we doing on time?
22 Does everybody have time to work a little longer?
23 People are leaving.
24 25 MS. VIBERT:
I have a meeting at one.
MR. HOYLE:
Stu has to leave in about five
78 1
minutes.
2 The third item on page 3 is Abstracts.
3 We have already held that already.
4 The fourth is Fields for Non-Document Materials.
5 Is there anything we need to do with that one at this time?
6 MR. GRASER:
Yes.
I would like to bring to your 7
attention that in Barbara's letter there was an item in 8
Barbara's comments where basically we agree with the 9
recommendation there should be some field available to 10 identify where non-text material such as core samples or 11 data tapes or whatever are located, and who the point of 12 contact is.
13 I think it might be appropriate at this time that 14 the panel entertain adding some addition field to the list 15 of headers, even though it is a non-textual type material 16 and for the most part, we have been talking about text 17 headers.
At this point, it be considered for addition to 18 the list of headers and perhaps having the meeting acting on 19 another field that could be dealt with in a little more 20 detail and some sort of presentation made as to how to 21 include that field.
22 MS. SHELBURNE:
I guess our only point in 23 supporting that one is that if you add one, there is another 24 one, and then another one, and we could just not wrap around 25 what fields there are.
That is why we just limited our
79 1
recommendation.
2 3
MR. HOYLE:
Are you getting to a miscellaneous?
MS. SHELBURNE:
Well, that's number 4.
4 Dan said there is a recommendation to add a field 5
called "code" which deals with who, what and where, and you 6
could get the material at this point.
The question is, are 7
there other fields, and if the committee is going to 8
recommend them.
Is that the recommendation of the 9
committee?
10 MR. HOYLE:
I don't know about the others on the 11 committee but 12 MR. GRASER:
Well, I've got to ask the question 13 then, what are we going to do with depositions, mark ups, 14 and perhaps we should have a working group at least 15 participating or working with those sorts of categories or 16 materials and the fields required for them.
Maybe it is 17 premature to put this on the list of documentary materials.
18 MR. HOYLE:
Is that something we can defer and 19 pick up in October?
Okay.
20 Let me talk to you further on that.
I will add 21 that.
22 The last item is Miscellaneous Fields.
You are 23 just recognizing there might be other fields that someone is 24 going to think of.
You heard one earlier today, location, 25 that might be useful.
I think we should all recognize as we
80 1
get closer and closer, there might well be fields that we 2
want added.
3 MS. SHELBURNE:
I guess the only thing is to 4
caution people about, in the middle -- well, you have to 5
feel strongly enough about an addition to want to include it 6
now.
7 8
MR. HOYLE:
Agreed.
MS. SHELBURNE:
This is not just sort of the, gee, 9
we will think about it later. This is acknowledging there 10 may be at some point in time new pieces of information with 11 new document types.
To me, it was only the acknowledging 12 that we must be flexible and be able to accommodate.
13 MR. HOYLE:
In spite of the hazards of having to 14 backfill.
15 MR. TREBY:
I would agree.
I am unclear.
I 16 mentioned that under special class we would have other 17 documents.
This is not an add category, I gather was one of 18 the purposes of it. All right.
19 VOICE:
There needs to be somewhere a field that 20 identifies adjudication documents once they get to that 21 point.
We may be a ways from this right now.
22 MS. SHELBURNE:
We have identified a sort of 23 unique set of non-documents, the adjudicatory ones, and you 24 alluded to depositions.
Is there anything special about 25 depositions that could not be captured in these fields or in
81 1
full text?
I don't know.
Maybe you want to ask people to 2
think about that for a certain set that you have that we 3
have identified, or they can identify.
4 MR. HOYLE:
Okay.
I will add that to the letter.
5 Turning to Appendix A, which is a 2-page relisting 6
of each of the fields, we have now approved with comment --
7 Betsy and Kirk, you have listened to the fields then as to 8
why they are not applicable under the columns called multi-9 valued, controlled authority, format control, free text 10 searchable.
11 As the NRC group looked at this, we were comparing 12 control authority column with free text searchable.
We 13 thought if you have a "no" under control authority, you 14 might expect to see a "yes" under free text searchable, or 15 vice versa.
16 Could you describe for me briefly the 2 non-17 exclusive, they are exclusive, or whatever?
18 19 20 MS. SHELBURNE:
You are asking me or Kirk?
MR. HOYLE:
Kirk.
MR. BALCOM:
I will try and respond.
The way this 21 came up was in anticipating how a sample would actually be 22 prepared on a field such as descriptor.
Let the descriptor 23 concept be extremely useful if it's done correctly, but 24 somewhat to navigate until the field is done in the 25 following way.
This is a retrieval system.
In a field like
82 1
descriptors where you may have 2, 3, or 4 that tries 2
automatically to be an indexing system, you would index the 3
whole phrase and simply the whole phrase or part of the 4
first word is done with your root search, or just the first 5
word, but you wouldn't search for the third word in the 6
phrase.
7 That is to make the distinction between a full 8
text search of an ASCII text of the document and get phrase 9
oriented.
Another example would be that you don't remember 10 exactly what the entire descriptor was and then at least you 11 would be able to go at it word by word and do a search and 12 probably hit it.
13 It is a very subtle retrieval activity.
The one 14 who raised it wanted to make sure that that be excluded from 15 the design.
16 MR. HOYLE:
Okay.
I'm not sure I understand what 17 all has been said, but I don't have any further question on 18 it.
19 MR. KILLAR:
I have the benefit of being in an 20 index version text searchable system.
21 Where would you use this to follow your free text 22 searchable under that particular one?
23 24 25 MR. BALCOM:
A good question.
I don't remember.
MS. SHELBURNE:
Can I make up one.
This is the third draft of the fifth revision.
If
83 1
there is no control with it, we avoid the need for that.
2 If it is free text searchable, it may present 3
other questions.
I guess I'm going to have to give you a 4
better example.
5 MR. KILLAR:
It might be helpful, but at the 6
present time I think you're actually limiting yourself and 7
that is the problem with free text searchable on edition.
8 MS. SHELBURNE:
I think one of the -- if you 9
search for a particular document and if you have multiple 10 versions coming in, it is a most valuable tool if you are 11 looking for a specific version, and if we have format 12 control, then you ought to be able to request the fourth 13 version.
14 The problem I have seen is where there are erratas 15 to the editions to, say, 14 drafts and really it gets very 16 complicated.
Hopefully, we won't have that many in the 17 system, but I am not wedded to the use of the free text 18 searchable field.
19 20 21 22 MR. HOYLE:
This is a design issue?
MR. GRASER:
Not at this point.
MR. HOYLE:
How do we want to leave that?
MR. GRASER:
It's probably something that, as we 23 move to the next stage where we have gone beyond having the 24 fields identified and actually begun the process of saying 25 this is now data will be represented in the field, a field
84 1
like this after some hashing through, we may decide can have 2
standardized statements just as Lyband mails out its catalog 3
and L.C. Mark for its rev ed.
We may be able to standardize 4
that and that can be incorporated in the cataloging. It may 5
turn out that you can go ahead and use a code environment in 6
the field.
7 on the other hand, you might get something like 8
farsi language edition, which doesn't have a code value in 9
the system.
It may be that the environment you have has to 10 have the ability to put in a more robust description of what 11 you are dealing with.
I can also see that situation in 12 terms of software where you are dealing with versions of 13 software, where you are just going to have almost an 14 infinite number of software versions.
That could be 15 referred to in that field.
16 One way or the other, I think we get to the field 17 problem of just gathering all of this up and working 18 together to arrive at a solution.
19 MR. HOYLE:
Okay.
Enough discussion.
I believe 20 that we have gone as far as we wanted to go today.
I 21 believe NRC brought out all of the comments that we wanted 22 to bring out.
23 In proving these fields, we pointed out the 24 alternatives and we also approved the language describing 25 the fields, in particular, as we have listed them.
85 1
Now I should point out that we are going to have 2
to come back in October, and I will be corresponding with 3
you within the next month, probably on those items which we 4
will have.
GU f _j e e...
5 I have abstracts, the eopy E issue, non-document 6
issue, whether we want to do something about adjudicatory 7
documents focusing on approval of the LSS administrator.
8 We also had on our other list of documents for 9
October that is in the folders that you have here at the 10 table at least, and we get into the summer, and I wanted to 11 firm up whether or not those topics are still ripe for 12 discussion in October.
13 When is that?
14 15 MS. ROOD:
The 10th and 11th.
MR. HOYLE:
That is October 10 and 11, the date we 16 agreed upon the last time in Reno. We are going to be 17 meeting in the Quality Inn in Reno.
18 Is there any more business to discuss?
19 MR. HOLSTEIN:
Just a suggestion, Mr. Chairman.
20 In the letter that you sent out to us about abstracts and 21 the other issues that you just listed, I would certainly 22 welcome any pros, cons, descriptions of options that you 23 might want to include in that so we can get the most 24 complete discussion among ourselves for our respective 25 parties prior to the meeting.
I think that overall today's
86 1
meeting and deferring issues to October was done not because 2
we weren't willing, but because we genuinely wanted to think 3
about it and talk to our respective gangs about them.
4 To the extent that we can hear other people's 5
views or have a broader understanding of issues involved 6
prior to coming to the table makes it that much easier.
7 I think that everyone agrees that we will reach 8
the point where we will not be able to have different issues 9
without harming the development of this whole thing.
10 MR. HOYLE:
That's right.
Thank you.
11 Barbara, did you have anything else to raise in 12 terms of your comments?
13 14 15 us?
16 MS. CERNY:
No.
MR. HOYLE:
Kirk, do you have anything else for MR. BALCOM:
My question is, were there any 17 changes to fields prior to my getting on the phone?
18 19 20 MR. HOYLE:
No, there were none.
MR. BALCOM:
I have no further issues.
MR. KILLAR:
I do want to raise a question.
This 21 deals with the October meeting and the preparation for the 22 meeting.
I remember from our last meeting the various 23 design documents were going to be sent out as they became 24 available, so we didn't get a whole lump.
Are they 25 sequestered somewhere, and is there going to be a surprise
87 1
attack?
What about it? Have any design documents been 2
released?
3 MR. GRASER:
The design documents are going to be 4
developed in a rather piecemeal manner.
We are focusing on 5
some very specific areas.
The first piece we can focus on 6
came out just at the end of May.
There is another one 7
coming out, and I am expecting it to be this week.
I can go 8
ahead and do distribution to John on those.
Did we send you 9
the first one?
10 MR. HOYLE:
I don't have anything since May.
The 11 last thing is the thesaurus material.
12 MR. GRASER:
We are going through that about every 13 two weeks between now and at the end of September, with 14 draft products coming out at which there has been a fairly 15 detailed discussion of those walk-throughs.
We just are 16 beginning at that process now.
I can go ahead and start 17 forwarding pieces of those documents.
There is the question 18 of whether or not you want to see the initial draft or the 19 final product of the discussions, and that is something you 20 may want to consider.
21 MR. KILLAR:
I was under the impression we agreed 22 at the last meeting we would look at something close to the 23 final draft rather than you have something finalized and we 24 say, "Gee, maybe you ought to look at this."
But at the 25 same time, we wanted something so if we wanted to add it, it
1 could be brought up.
MR. HOYLE:
Thank you.
Is there anything else anyone wants to add?
(No response.]
88 2
3 4
5 MR. HOYLE:
All right.
We stand adjourned.
Thank 6
you much for your attention.
7 (Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the hearing adjourned.]
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceed-ings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
LSS Advisory Panel Meeting DOCKET NUMBER:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING:
Bethesda, !'-faryland were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court report-ing company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
Deaa A. Robinson Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
ENCLOSURE 3
AGENDA LSS ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL MEETING JUNE 7, 1990 9:00 Administrative Issues (including approval of Minutes from 3/20-21/90 LSSARP meeting) 9:15 Discussion and Vote on Recommendations Hade By Header Working Group 10:45 11:00 Future Schedule Adjourn
ENCLOSURE 4
-~-----------------
Kirk ),I. JJalcum, 8sq.
lto11tc' 2. HPK 4S I
,Jf ars/1111/. VirgiHia 2211 S (70J) 36./--3NS May 17, 1990 Mr. John Hoyle Chairman LSS Advisory Review Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.mission Washington, o.c.
20555
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
Attached are the recommendations of the Header Working Gro~p for the fields of information to be supplied by participants and the office of the LSS Administrator. The group consisted of myself as the representative of the State of Nevada; Eileen Tana, NRC, NMSS; Dona
If there are questions or possible revisions, please contact me as 466-4764.
Sincerely,
~~~
Kirk Balcom Chairman Header Working Group
RECOMMENDED FIELDS FOR LSS HEADER RECORDS Header Working Group, NRC Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel May 18, 1990
RECOMMENDED FIELDS FOR 11BEADBR" RECORDS I.
INTRODUCTION The list of recommended fields for the LSS header (Section II and Appendix A) represents the consensus of the Header Working Group appointed by John Hoyle, Chairman of the LSS Advisory Review Panel, at the March 20 meeting of the Panel.
The working group consisted of representatives of NRC, DOE, the State of Nevada and the Office of the LSS Administrator (LSSA), NRC.
As a starting reference point, the group used the list of fields prepared by the technical staff during the negotiated rulemaking, entitled "Draft Bibliographic Header Fields," Rev. 3, dated May 17, 1988.
We also drew on the experience of SAIC, the DOE contractor, in cataloging 100,000 pages of the Site Characterization Plan and assorted other documents for the instrumented test bed ("prototype") and experience with other systems including those used in conjunction with NRC' s records management (NUDOCS) and Public Document Rooms.
During our review process, several issues emerged which were important to our discussions but which we could not completely resolve.
We believe they should be reviewed and deliberated by the Advisory Review Panel. Those issues are presented below in Section III with our recommendations. The issues did not prevent agreement of the number or use of the fields.
The recommended header fields apply to documents only.
We do not have enough information at this time to determine treatment of the so-called "non-documents." This is discussed further in issue number 4 of section III.
Participant is used throughout to mean "party" or "potential party" and submitter refers to the organizational units of the participant contributing documents to the LSS.
II.
RECOMMENDED FIELDS We agreed upon 28 basic fields and have grouped them by who, in our best
- judgment, should supply the information, the participant or the LSSA.
The "bibliographic header" fields together with the remaining fields below constitute the "full header."
They are listed with their attributes in Appendix A.
A description of each field is in Appendix B.
Bibliographic Header participants):
(required Participant Accession Number 1
to be supplied by
Submitter Center Submitter Page Count Title/Description Author Author Organization Addressee Addressee Organization Document Date Document/Report Number Document Condition Edition/Version Event Date, Code Protected Status Related Documents Special Class Abstract/Summary (for non-documents)
Fields optional to participant, but completed by LSSA:
Document Type Sponsoring Organization Copyee Copyee organization Publication Data Descriptors Fields optional to both the participants and the LSSA:
Identifiers Comments Abstract/Summary (for documents)
Fields not applicable to the participant, but provided by the LSSA:
lSS Accession Number Number of Images Pointers III.
ISSUES FOR ADVISORY REVIEW PANEL DELIBERATION; WORKING GROUP RECOMKBNDATIONS There are several issues that kept surfacing during the working group's meetings.
They will undoubtedly come up for consideration again.
- 1. Multiple submissions for same document. This issue arises when two participants submit different headers for the same document and they characterize some of the information differently, for example, the title/description. Should all of the information be merged into one header or does the first header for that document prevail?
We think this will happen frequently during 2
processing of the backlog.
Our recommendation is to append the subjective information from subsequent submissions that is different to the respective fields of the original header.
In the title/descriptions field, subsequent descriptions would be separated in some fashion to differentiate multiple submissions.
The participant's accession number would be carried in the header in order following the original submitter's accession number.
- 2.
Editing of headers by LSSA.
How much latitude should the LSSA have in editing errors in submitter headers?
If there are obvious errors, can the LSSA correct them during data capture or must the header be flagged for possible corrections by the submitter?
We recommend that the editing functions of the LSSA regarding individual fields be as follows:
A. For the fields submitted by the participant (required or optional), the LSSA staff will review the data against quality control standards.
If submitted data is clearly wrong, e.g., the date or spelling of names, or if data is not formatted correctly, then the LSSA staff will correct the entries.
In subjective fields, such as descriptors or title/description, the LSSA will not edit existing information.
The LSSA will supplement with additional information as required to improve retrieval.
B. If the fields are optional to the participant and not completed, the LSSA will complete the following fields, if applicable:
document type,
- copyee, copyee organization, sponsoring organization, publication data and descriptors.
- c.
With the remaining optional fields: identifiers, comments and abstracts, the LSSA will complete the information only if applicable in accordance with standardized procedures.
- 3. Abstracts. As it stands now, an abstract will be required for every unit that does not have searchable full text associated with it.
For other units, it is our recommendation to make selections for abstracting of documents ("searchable full text") based upon some consistent rules, such as length of unit or type of document.
Because all documents would not be abstracted, the system should provide a
warning message (e.g.,
"not all records contain abstracts") to users who use the abstract/summary field in their searches.
the
- 4.
Fields for Non-Document Materials.
rule requires the LSS Administrator 3
Section 2.1003 (c) of to develop "Access
Protocols" of information about materials that are not suitable for storage in either ASCII text form or bit-mapped image form.
Information that such materials exists will be stored in fields in the I.SS header.
A code field to reference how the information can accessed should be in the header.
The code will link with a table (to be updated as necessary) which explains how to access the item(s) referenced.
During the coming year, the I.SS Administrator will be developing a plan for providing access to such "technical data."
Part of that plan will be the development of these special header fields.
It is expected that certain fields recommended here will be used, such as abstract, sponsoring organization, and pointers.
In addition, there may be unique fielded information related only to non-documents technical data, such as storage facility, name of contact, access code or form of data. There will be, however, only one header and one data base for all materials.
Because the actual materials will not be available to the LSS Administrator's operations staff for "cataloging" and quality control, the header elements describing them will have to be provided by the participant organization.
Certain fields, such as the Abstract, which are not required for documents, will be required in the participant's "technical data" header.
As the Access Protocols Plan is being developed, the LSS Administrator will keep the Advisory Review Panel informed and involved.
- 5.
Miscellaneous Fields.
It is probable that needs will arise for fields of information that have not been completely anticipated but which might need to be added without affecting the integrity of a submitter's coding.
One such field is whether a copyrighted document has been approved from the source for distribution.
We have not included such fields in our list but anticipate there will be some.
We do not have a recommendation, but expect the issue will arise.
APPENDIX A:
HIGH LEVEL WASTE -
LICENSING SUPPORT SYSTEM FIELDS FOR "HEADERS" FIELD NAME MULTI-VAWED CONTROLLED FORMAT FREE TEXT AUTHORITY CONTROL SEARCHABLE FIELDS REQUIRED BY PARTICIPANT:
Participant Accession Number Submitter Center Submitter Page Count Title/Description Author Author Organization Addressee Addressee Organization Document Date Document/Report Number Document Condition Edition/Version Event Date, Code Protected Status Related Documents Special Class Abstract (non-documents) y y
N N*
y y
y y
N y
y N
y y
y y
N N
y Y
NA N
N N
N N
y Y
NA N
y Y
NA N
y N
y Y
NA N
y Y,code only Y
Y NA N
N Y
NA N
N FIELDS OPTIONAL TO PARTICIPANT, BUT COMPLETED BY LSSA:
Document Type Sponsoring Organization y
y y
y NA NA NA NA N
y N
y N
y NA NA NA y
NA NA NA y
y y
y
MULTI-CONTROLLED FORMAT FREE TEXT FIELD NAME VALUED AUTHORITY CONTROL SEARCHABLE Copyee y
N y
N Copyee Organization y
y NA y
Publication Data N
N y
y Descriptors (Thesaurus) y y
NA y
FIELDS OPTIONAL TO BOTH PARTICIPANT AND LSSA:
Identifiers Comments Abstract/Summary y
N*
N*
N N
N N
N N
y y
y FIELDS NOT APPLICABLE TO PARTICIPANT, BUT SUPPLIED BY SYSTEM OR LSSA:
LSS system Accession Number Number of Images N
N y
N N
N y
y y
NA NA NA Pointers In each of the four columns, Y = Yes, N = No, NA= Not Applicable Multi-valued
=
multiple entries, e.g., authors~allowed.
Controlled Authority = list of accepted entries with which all participants must comply, such as organization names or document types.
Format Control
=
whether the entry must follow guidelines or cataloging rules.
Free Text Searchable
=
the ability to perform phrase or single-word searches of the header fields
- = Only one varible-length text field.
Multiple entries just appended to previous text.
See Section III, Issue #1.
APPENDIX B:
DESCRIPTIONS OF RECOMMENDED BIBLIOGRAPHIC HEADER FIELDS Participant Accession Number:
a unique identification code required by 10 CFR 2 to be assigned by the participant to each unit submitted for entry into the L.SS.
This code assists the submitter in locating documents they have submitted and assists the capture operation in verifying the identity of the document received and matching it with the image and ASCII file.
This field should include a
specific alpha code identifying the participant organization, e.g., DOE,
- NRC, NEV, and any other alpha/numeric scheme which the submitting organization might be using to control their own documents.
Submitter Center:
a coded field for the name and location of the participant or its subdivision submitting material for inclusion in the I.SS.
This field provides a contact point for material that is rejected by the I.SS capture facility. It provides a contact point for notification that the header, image, and ASCII text have been loaded into the search and image system and are ready for review and verification by the first submitting participant.
Submitter Page Count:
the number of pages identified by the submitter as representing the length of the document. This assists the capture station in determining whether the document is complete.
Ti tle/Oescription:
a brief description given to a unit (usually by the author) to distinguish the unit from other units.
The complete identifying title of the unit, including any subtitle, is stored in this field.
If there is no title, a description of the unit is entered.
A mechanism should be available to distinguish those instances where a title does not exist on the unit but has been created by a person other than the author.
Author:
the names of all persons listed as responsible for the creation of all or part of a unit.
This includes editors or compilers {identified by "ed(s)" or "comp" after the name on the title page) but not those who merely concur or approve.
Only personal authors are entered in this field.
corporations or organizations as authors are entered in the Author Organization field and are linked to their respective authors for report and search purposes.
Author Organization: the name of the organization with which each the author was affiliated at the time the unit was created is stored in this field. This field is also used for the name of the organization when a unit has no personal author, for the corporate source of a report, or for the corporate author of a book.
In l
those cases where both an author and an author organization are entered, a mechanism will be available to link the author with his respective organization.
If an author works for one organization but is representing another, then both affiliations should be
- captured, e.g.,
an attorney using a
law firm's letterhead stationery but representing a client organization, or a scientist for a lab chairing a formal working group or task force.
Addressee:
the names of all persons to whom the unit is addressed {correspondence only).
It is linked to the Addressee Organization for report and search purposes.
See also Copyee field.
Addressee Organization:
the organizational affiliation of each recipient, if indicated (correspondence only).
Document Date:
the date on which the unit was published or created.
If the date is unknown, information in the unit will be used to determine a likely date.
A mechanism should be available to distinguish those instances in which a date does not exist on the unit but has been created by a submitter or cataloger.
Document/Report Number:
any identifying numbers that have been assigned to a unit and appear (typed or handwritten) on the unit itself are considered to be control numbers for that unit.
This field contains these control numbers, which are usually assigned to a document by the issuing agency or organization.
Examples are report numbers, contract numbers, public law numbers, and any other identifying numbers on the unit.
Document Condition: the condition of the unit at the time of entry into the system.
This includes information such as pages missing, portions illegible, and marginalia. It is always assumed that the unit is the "best copy" available to the submitter, but that the "best copy available" may not be a perfect copy.
In some cases, the difference between two identical documents may be that one document contains marginalia; this indication makes the distinction between "duplicate" documents.
Edition/Version: the edition number, version number, revision number, or draft status of all units (including computer codes) that have multiple iterations.
Event Date/Code:
the date(s) a particular event, such as an inspection, audit, meeting, or hearing, which is not the date of the document and a code indicating the type of event, e.g.,
inspection (IN) or meeting {MT).
This enables the user to retrieve all documents concerning a particular inspection or meeting.
Protected Status:
a coded field indicating the type(s) of privileges or exceptions claimed for the underlying document upon which the header is based.
2
Related Documents:
units within the L.SS can have relationships among them which are important to retain. There are several types of relationships, such as: parent/child (a document and its attachments); original/subsequent (a document and later versions, comments, corrections or errata); and whole/part (a book and its chapters, a journal and its articles, an information package and the cataloging units it contains).
This field is intended to be used by a participant to store these relationships by identifying the type of relationship and the units involved.
The L.SSA will translate these references to a standardized form of pointers for navigating between the units.
Special Class:
further classifies units in a manner that would assist a user in locating all units belonging to a special class of units, regardless of the type of unit.
These classifications are not necessarily the subjects of the document, but rather are another way of grouping certain kinds of materials in order to facilitate retrieval or inform the user of some unusual aspect of the group.
Examples of the use of this field, respectively, would be for units that are part of the Site Characterization Plan administrative record or for units that have only a header and image (no full-text of the unit is available).
Abstract/Summary ( for non-documents and image-only materials) :
description of physical samples, raw data, hand-written notes, and other units that are not available for full-text searching in the LSS.
DESCRIPTIONS OF REMAINING RECOMMENDED FIELDS (FULL HEADER)
Document Type: the type of unit, i.e., the format or physical form of the document. This field is a two-part field consisting of both a major document type and a subset of the major document type.
For example, a major document type might be correspondence and the subset would include letters, memos, etc.
Sponsoring Organization:
the name of the agency or agencies responsible for funding or otherwise sponsoring the work reported in the unit is stored in this field. Generally, it is assumed the work has a sponsor if there is a contract number, if it is stated that the work was "Prepared for", or if a conference or workshop was presented or organized by a society or agency.
Copyee:
used for correspondence only and contains the names of all persons to whom a copy of the unit was sent (as listed on the unit).
This field is linked to the Copyee Organization for search and reports purposes.
Copyee Organization:
indicated.
Publication Data:
the affiliation of each copyee, if bibliographic information that is not 3
covered in other fields but is important in identifying or citing the unit.
Examples of such information are journal name, conference title, conference location.
This field in combination with author and title fields provides the user with a standard, consistent bibliographic citation for use in creating bibliographies and references for reports.
Descriptors:
terms selected from the LSS Thesaurus that represent the subject content of the unit.
The descriptor may or may not be a word or phrase contained in the text of the document.
The use of a descriptor obviates the need for synonyms in a search statement. The number of descriptors assigned will vary from unit to unit, depending upon how many are needed to fully cover the content of the unit.
Identifiers:
those terms that are not contained in the thesaurus, but that the submitter or cataloger believe will assist a user in retrieving the unit.
These may be "buzz words" or words representing new concepts that have not yet appeared in the LSS Thesaurus.
The terms in this field will provide a candidate list of terms for inclusion in the LSS Thesaurus.
Comments:
any information not covered in the bibliographic fields which the submitter or indexer believes will be necessary to identify or retrieve the unit is stored in this field. This field should tell the user what language the unit is written if it is not English. It is also important because foreign language documents will not have any ASCII text.
This will assist the user in determining whether the document is in a language which he will be able to understand.
Abstract/Summary (for documents only):
description of the content of the document, generally written by the author but may be prepared by the submitter or cataloger.
DESCRIPTIONS OF SYSTEM FIELDS LSS System Accession Number: a unique internal identification code assigned to each cataloging unit entering the system.
The capture station at which the unit enters the LSS processing system is also identified as part of this number.
The LSS Accession No.
will also be used in the LSS Pointer field for units which have relationships to other units in the data base.
Number of Images:
the exact count of the number of images that will be created from the pages of the unit. This informs the user as to how many pages will be printed if he executes the print command, as well as how many images he will need to view for "image only" documents. Since it is anticipated that an image represents an 8-1/2 X 11" page, there will be more images than the submitter page count indicates to allow for oversize pages (foldouts, maps, etc.) that will need to be tiled.
4
Pointers:
references to related documents after they have been standardized by the I.SSA.
See Related Documents description.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCESS TRACKING FIELDS Additional elements of data are required to track the processing of the documents, their headers and their ASCII files and images for statistics and quality control.
such information might be captured in fields of the LSS Full Header either by the L.SS system automatically or by the Process Tracking Data Bases.
Typically, this type of information is available for use and viewing only to the LSS Operations and Management staff and is not displayed to the users of the search system.
The exact form and content of such fields will be determined by the future LSS design and development integrator. The following are typical examples of tracking information:
- a.
Information about the dates
- received, accepted,
- returned, accepted that submissions were resubmitted, finally
- b.
Initials of Indexer and Station ID
- c.
Initials of QC staff
- d.
Initials of subject and abstract cataloger
- e.
Initials of cataloging QC staff
- f.
Status field indicating the current process stage
- g.
Date loaded into the LSS
- h.
Date and Initials of Submitter center personnel reviewing and verifying the loaded information.
- i.
Change Tracking -
a log of who, when, and what changes, additions, and/or corrections are made to the header record, if any, after the header is loaded into the search database.
s
ENCLOSURE 5
Hr. John Hoyle Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Chairman, LSS Advisory Review Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, O.C. 20S55 Re: Header Working Group Report "Recommended Fields for LSS Header Records*
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
We have some comments on the ARP Header Working Group recommendations which we feel should be addressed prior to any votes being taken on header elements.
A primary concern is that, on four separate issues, de facto policy is being established.
1.)
The Abstract/Summary field has been identified, and we agree that it should be one of the fields. Deciding which categories of documents require abstracts is a fundamental information management question for the LSS. Thus, the precise guidelines for when this field is going to be required, and i detailed description of the style to be used, both need to be promulgated as part-and-parcel of designating this as an LSS header field.
This will allow participants to begin including this information, where required, for all LSS-relevant records processed henceforth.
Likewise, the volume of records involved and the size of the abstract each figure into the sizing of the LSS header record f i1 es.
2.)
In the discussion of Editing of headers by LSSA on page 3, a recommendation has been made that LSSA staff will review submitted data against quality control standar~~ and LSSA staff w111 correct entries.
By one reading, the recommendation as worded sounds like 1t anticipates that records would bypass the Capture System. All records must flow through the Capture System operations before an LSS system load disk is created; the conceptual design has never included an additional review by OLSSA prior to data load because the LSS Capture Systems will be responsible for meeting quality standards and are all to be operated under the strict processing procedures put in place by OLSSA.
An alternative reading of this recommendation suggests that the output of the Capture System process will be so deficient as to require an additional review by LSSA staff prior to database loading. Tightly controlling the Capture System processes and L0Lc-98S-ioc : 731 31N3J WWOJ I
t,
~..
- II I
procedures obviates the need for subsequent review except as already out11ned in the LSS Capture System Oeta1Jed Design Document. If such a second review was ant1cipated, it is our opinion that OLSSA staff igain reviewing the output of a Capture System installation w111 ultimately prove to be an unworkable strategy because of the sheer number of records. Likewise, the Capture Station configurations to be operated directly by the LSSA were not sized for this volume of re-review and scrutiny.
Finally, 1t is redundant of work that should have been done either by the submitter in preparing records for submfssfon to the LSS or by the Capture System processing.
A third alternative reading of this recommendation suggests that data generated from feeder systems such as DOE's RIS would, of necessity, require extensive scrutiny and rework within the Capture System environment. For DOE and NRC, with 90% of the information, rigorous data capture procedures should be 1nst1tuted and audited 1n both the feeder systems such as ooE*s RIS and 1n any co-1ocated Capture System which supports conversion to the LSS header format.
r~r the parties with smaller volumes of submissions, the LSSA can more easily check. edit, ind add information to headers than control standardi2ed entry procedures for the other parties' feeder systems. Hence, more or less rework may be required by the Capture System depending on who the submitter is, but a11 of the correction work and additive cataloging is via the Capture System.
Perhaps *we are belaboring the point, but, a11 other elements of the DOE program w111 be performed under rigorous QA procedures and it 1s the adherence to these procedures that gets continua11y audited. *we feel that this is the model that should be used for LSS data submission as well. An optimal environment 1s one where the quality standards that will be acceptable are defined well in advance, already implemented in internal procedures, where the OLSSA dedicates resources for continuing audits of submitters' adherence to processing procedures (both 1n and outside of the Capture System environment), and, where batches of submitted data not meeting quality standards are returned to the submitter for cleanup.
We car.,,ot support massive reprocessing by LSSA staff.
When batches are returned wholesale, direction 1s provided to remediate the submitters preprocessing until it conforms to the stated quality standards.
3.)
Page 2, notes that an issue to be resolved by ARP 1s the updating of a header record when two participants submit different headers for the same document and they charicter1ze some information differently, for example. the title/description. Should all the information be merged into one header or does the first header prevail? The recommendation of the working group 1s to append the subject information, from a subsequent submission that 1s different, to the respective fields of the original header.
We have a number of concerns about this recommendation:
l 0ll-98S-l0l :731 31N3J
r.
A.)
The concept of continua11y revisiting and updating header records raises more fundamental questions. To what purpose?
When will the updates end? This reco!Mlendat1on invites changes to an LSS record once 1t has been submitted and "locked". DOE's records and headers are those of the license applicant. and the Rule says that each party 1s responsible for submission of all of its own relevant materials. Should we be designing a system which allows anyone to editorialize on the license applicant's (or anyone else's) submitted header? Wi11* DOE still be responsible for the contents of such a changed header record?
Is the OLSSA authorized to be more than the custodian of the LSS, and is OLSSA ready to accept that responsibility?
B.)
Any created title is just that, and w111 j]ways be subjective. In a system providing text search capabilities and a controlled vocabulary, w111 a superior title promote retrieval any more effectively than a merely adequate one?
Our recommendation is to define the standards for a created title and ensure that the submitter complies with the standard.
C.)
This scenario is most likely with created titles, identifiers, descriptors, and abstracts. The recommendation to add data values to a textual field such as I title or an abstract could cause horrific database administration problems depending on the DBMS used, e.g.; reloads of indexes on gigabytes of data.
Also, there could be auditability and integrity problems.
4.)
Appendix B, discusses the Related Documents field. For the submitter, it will be used to store relationships between submitted cataloging units, such as parent/child, superseding versions, etc., so that this can be 1dentif1ed during the submission of records to a capture station. Then, the LSS administrator {Capture System operator) 1s to convert th1s data into LSS acceptable pointers in the LSS environment, where all duplicates are filtered out and pointers set to existing versions.
The submitters conceptualization of linkages may not track exactly to the nature of the LSS linkages. What happens if there is no LSS equivalent to the submitter's relational statement? The LSSA will erase the submitter's non-analogous statement, Does this v1o1ate the partic;pants use of the LSS as its records system?
No, document linkages,re still available.
But, this approach forces each submitter to commit to the LSS design and configuration. This is a policy decision for which we should be eliciting up-front commitment. The fact that we are requesting this commitment should be made explfctt.
In addition, we have colMlents that are of less critical import, but should still be addressed prior to ac1eptance of the recomm~nded fields.
5.)
6.)
Page 3, and continuing on page 4, recommends a code field for the location of non-text/non-bit-mappable data. It should be added to the list as part of the submitter header and submitted in a non-code format so that the control list can be developed.
We request this be added to the submitters' fields 11st.
Appendix 8, page S, in discussing adm1nfstrat1ve and process tracking fields, suggests additional data be maintained in the LSS header. Most of the items on this list are not header data, indeed they are processing tracking data, and items a-f on this list will already be available 1n the process control databases maintained 1n the Capture System processing.
Why duplicate the data in the LSS header, too? If the systems administration staff needs the data, they could mount the history file of the process control data files from the Capture Systems.
We recommend that these comments be presented to the members of the ARP 1n advance of the upcoming meeting and that the members of the ARP give them due consideration before any call for a vote on the recommended list of fields.
s o *d s oo *oN 8£ :Lt 06'SO unr Sincerely, rs.uJ.. _ 14 l.-~y-Barbara A. Cerny, Director Information Resources Management Division Office of Civ111an Radioactive Waste Management I
ENCLOSURE 6
t
, 206,i Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 1990 / Notices Signed at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, thil 11th day or April 1990,,. 1,
Richard Solt.a.a,~, *
. I * -.,
Deputy Regional Adm.inisl.rotcr. :.,: * '.
[FR Doc. 90-11623 Filed 5-17-90; 8:45 am].-~
IU.ING COOi 41 lo-a-41 ;-
- *, /
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON*
CHILDREN Notice of Hearing,
Background
and Budget (0MB} for review the following proposal for the collection or information under the provisiora of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C..;.
. chapter 35), ", * ;,! -:-**,.'T.P. ~ --:*:. ;;:._;.o
- 1. Type of submission. new, 'revisiorr.
or exteruion: Extension.*,,~.* - ;,.. *;:
- 2. The title of the information ** *.";
collection: * *.
- *
- c. '. ~
10 CFR Part 74-Material Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material NUREG 1065-Acceptance Criteria for the Low Enriched Uranium Reform Amendments,
- The National Commission on Children NUREG 1280-Standard Format and waa created by Public Law 100-203, Content Acceptance Criteria for the December 22, 1987 as an amendment to Material Control and Accounting the Social Security Acl The purpose of V,.IC&A) Reform Amendmenl the law I& to establish a nonpartisan
- 3. The form number if applicable: Not Commission directed to study the applicable.
problems of children in the areas of
- 4. How often the collection is health, education. social services, required: Submission of the material Income security. and tax policy.
control and accounting plan and the The powers of the Commission are fundamental nuclear material control vested in Commissioners consisting of plan are one-time requirements which 38 voting members es follows:
have been completed by all current
- 1. Twelve members appointed by the licensees. Specified Inventory and President material status reports are required
- 2. Twelve members appointed by the annually or semiannually. Other reports Speaker of the House of Representatives are submitted 88 events occur.
- 3. Twelve members appointed by the
- s. Who will be required or asked to President pro tempore of the Senate.
report Persons licensed under 10 CFR Thia notice announces a Hearing of h
d the National Commission on Children to parts 70 or 72 w O posseH an use be held in Los Angeles, CA.
certain forms and quantities of apeclal 2
-5 Th d
M nuclear material
- ime: p.m.
p.m.,
urs ay
- ay
- 6. An estimate o1 the number o1
- 31. 1990.
'J
'J Pl
. n ard f s C
ty f responses: 15.
ace.
0 0
upemsors, oun °
- 7. An estimate of the total number of.
Los Angeles. 383 Hall of AdminiStration,
- hours needed to complete the Loa Angeles, CA 90012.
Status: 2 p.m.-S p.m., Open to the requirement or request Approximately public 54 hours6.25e-4 days <br />0.015 hours <br />8.928571e-5 weeks <br />2.0547e-5 months <br /> and 52 minutes per response Agenda: Hearing on "Children and 1,378 hours0.00438 days <br />0.105 hours <br />6.25e-4 weeks <br />1.43829e-4 months <br /> per recordkeeper Oul6ide Their Families."
annually. The total annual burden for *
Contact:
Jeannine Atalay, (zo2) 254-the industry is estimated to be 13,207
- 3800, hours.
... ~.
- 8. An indication of whether Section
- 3504{h}, Public Law 95-511 applies: Not applicable, Dated: May lS. 1!100.
John D. Rockefeller JV, Choirmon, Notional Commission on Children.
(FR Doc. 90-11,34 Filed s-11--oo; 8:45 am)
BILL/NO CODE U2l>-37-tl NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Documents Containing Reporting or Recordkeeplng Requirements; Office of Management and Budget Review AGENCY: Nuclear Regullltory Commissio=i.
I.CTION: Notice of the Office or Management and Budget review of information collection.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted lo the Office or Management
- 9. Abstract: 10 CFR part 74 establishes requirement., for material control and accounting of special nuclear material and for documenting the transfer of 6pecial nuclear material. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are designed to provide timely detection of the loss. theft or diversion of special nuclear material..
The material control and accounting plans and fundamental nuclear control plans are neded to ensure that licensees have systems and procedures in place for the control and accounting of special nuclear material Copies of the submittal may be inspected or obtained for a fee &om the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington.
DC.
. Comments and questions may be directed by mail to the 0MB reviewer:
Ronald Minsk. Paperwork Reduction
. Project (3150--0123), Office of
-. Management and Budget, Washington.
DC 20503:.. ~.!.. * ~- -::
_.. Comments may also be communicated by telephone at (202) 395--3084.
The NRC Clearance officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton. (301) 492-8132. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland. this fourth day of May 1990..
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joyca A. Amenta, De,ignoted Senior Officio/ for lnfonnotion Re,ources Management (FR Doc. ~11594 Filed s-11--oo; 8:45 em}
8IUJNQ 000! y..ao-o,..i Ucenslng Support System Advisory Review Panel; Meeting Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act or October 6. 1972 (Public Law 94-463, 86 Stal 770-776), that the Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP) will hold a meeting on June 1, 1890. The meeting will convene at 9 a.m.
In the Fifth Floor Hearing room, East West Towers Building (West Tower}.
4350 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland The Nuclear Regulatory Commission established the l.SSARP to provide advice and recommendations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to the Department of Energy on topics.
issues. and activities related to the design. development, and operation of an electronic lnfonnation management system known as the Licensing Support System (l.SS), This system ia being designed to contain information relevant lo the Commission's high-level waste licensing proceeding._ In addition to routine administrative matters, this meeting will include a discussion of a Panel working group's recommendations on elements of information to be required in headers for LSS documents.
The meeting will be open to the public. Interested persons may make oral presentations to the Panel or file written statements. Requests for oral presentations should be made lo the contact person listed below as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangement., can be made to allow the necessary time during the meeting for oral statements.
For further information regarding this meeting, contact Marilee Rood. Office of the 1.$S Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20555; telephone 301-492--4003.
Dated et Roclcvllle. Maryland. thia 14th day ofMay1~
i~
~-,
r,..
- f..,
l.
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 97 l Friday, May 18, 1990 / Notices 20673 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commlnlon.
John C. Hoyle, *
- Chairman LSS Advisory Review Panel.
fFR Doc. ~11596 Filed 5-17-90: 8:45 em]
BIWNO COO£ 75t0-ol-tl RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION Adoption: Polley Statement and Procedures for RTC Employees Interaction with Public Officials
SUMMARY
- Notice Is hereby given that on April 3, 1990, the Resolution Trust Corporation ("RTC") adopted a policy statement for responding to inquiries and requests regarding activities of the RTC made by or on behalf of public officials, including measures to avoid political favoritism and undue inJluence.
Copies of the policy can be obtained from the RTC.
DATES: Comments on the policy are requested by June 18, 1990.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the policy can be obtained by writing to the Executive Secretary, Resolution Trust Corporation; 80117th Street NW., Washington, DC 20006. Requests for copies may also be made to the Public Reading Room at (202) 4HH!940. Send comments to John M. Buckley, Jr., Executive Secretary, Resolution Trust Corporation. 80117th Street NW.. Washington, DC 20008. * :
Comments may be band delivered to room 355 on business days between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Comments may also be inspected in the Public Reading Room.
80117th Street NW.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Loren T. Hooper, Deputy Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Resolution Trust Corporation (202) 416-4279.
Dated at Washington. DC.. this 14th May 1990.
Reaolution Trust Corporation.
John M. BuclcJey, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
(FR Doc. 90-11828 Filed 5-17~ 8:45 am) 111.UMQ COOl 1714-0MI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal AvlaUon Administration (SUmma,y Notice No..PE-90-21). _:.
PeUUona for Exemption, Summary of Petitions Received; Dlapo11Uon1 of PeUtlona Issued AOENCV: Federal' Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of petitions for.
exemption received and of dispositions of prior petitions.
SUMMARY
- Pursuant to FAA'*
rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption (14 CFR part 11}, this notice contains a summart of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulation& (14 CFR chapter I).
dispositions of certain peti lions previously received.. and corrections.
The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in. this aspect of F AA'a regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission or informa.tion in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before: June 7, 1990.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on any petition in triplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration. Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-10},
Petition Docket No._ 800 Independence Avenue, SW..
Washington, DC 20591.
'FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The petition. any comments received, and a copy of any final disposition are filed in the assigned regulatory docket and are available for examination in the Rules Docket (AGC-10), room 915G, FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A),
800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3132.
This notice Is published pursuant to paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of§ 11.27 of part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations [14 CFR part 11).
lnued LD Washington. DC. on May 7, 1990.
Denbe Donohue Hall.
Manaser, Program Mana9ement Staff. Office of the Chief Counsel.
Patition1 for Exemption Docket No.: 25242.
Petitioner: International Aerobatic Club.
Sections of the FAR Affected* 14 CFR 61.58(c) and 91.4.
Description of Relief Sought* To extend Exemption No. 4941 that allows Experimental Aircraft Association pilots and petitioner's member pilots to complete a training course in lieu of a pilot proficiency check ae required by I 61.58(c). Exemption No. 4941 will expire on June 30, 1990. _.
Docket No.: 26137.
Petitioner: LA.B. Flying Service, Inc.
Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR 135.243.
Description of Relief Sought* To allow petitioner to operate twin-engine aircraft under visual flight rules using pilots who do not hold airline transport pilot certificates.
Docket No.: 26152.
Petitioner: Sierra Academy of Aeronautics.
Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR part 141, appendix F. paragraph (c)(ill)(a).
Description of Relief Sought: To allow petitioner to conduct its Commercial Pilot. Helicopter Course, utilizing helicopters only, with 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of flight Instruction and 70 hours8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br /> of directed solo training versus 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> of flight instruction and 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> of directed solo training as required by the regulations.
Docket No.: 28170.
Petitioner: WestAir Commuter Airlines, Inc.
Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR 135.293, 135.297, and 135.351(c).
Description of Relief Sought* To allow the satisfactory completion of an approved course of training in an airplane Level B or C fl.ight training device (phase I or Il advanced simulator) to be substituted for the recurrent pilot competency /instrument proficiency check requirements of part 135 on an alternating basis.
Docket No.: 26184.
Petitioner. Florida West Alrlines.
Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR 121.503(f).
Description of Relief Sought: To allow petitioner to schedule flight crewmembers in excess of 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> of continuous flight without an intervening rest period by using two pilots and a flight engineer.
Dispositions or Petitiom Docket No.: 20090.
Petitioner: Sierra Academy of Aeronautics: Inc.
Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR 61.63(d) (2) and (3) and 61.157(d).
Description of Relief Sought/
Disposition: To extend Exemption No.
2963, as amended. that permits petitioner's trainees, who are applicants for a type rating to be added to any grade of pilot certificate, to substitute.
the practical test requirements of I 61.157(a) for those of§ 61.63(d) (2) and (3): and to complete a portion of that
- practical test in a simulator as..
authorized by I 61.157(d).
Grant. April 30, 1990, Exemption No, 2963H.
-~.
Docket No.: 21168.
Petitioner: Executive Air Fleet. Inc.
Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR.
135.297(8).
Description of Relief Sought/
Disposition: To extend and amend
ENCLOSURE 7
Mr. William Hooten DISTRIBUTION:
NRC PDR JHoyle MRood LSS Reading le>1-trC1./ P//e MAY 1 7 1990 National Archives and Records Administration Archives Research and Evaluation Staff 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20408
Dear Mr. Hooten:
The next meeting of the Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP) will be held on June 7, 1990.
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the meeting agenda.
The meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. in the Fifth Floor Hearing Room, East West/West Towers Building, 4350 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
During this meeting we will be voting on the recommendations made by the working group on document headers.
About a week before the meeting, I will be sending you a copy of the group's recom-mendations so that you will be prepared to discuss and vote on their suggestions.
Also enclosed is a copy of a letter from Daniel Graser of the Department of Energy which forwarded to me a copy of an April 6, 1990, draft of the LSS Thesaurus.
If you would like a copy of the Thesaurus for your review, contact Mr. Graser directly and he will send it to you.
If you have any questions concerning this meeting, please contact Marilee Rood, Office of the LSS Administrator, at 301-492-4003.
Enclosures:
- 1. Agenda
- 2. D. Graser letter, undated
~3i 5/15/90 SE((}f/J--
JHo?,':n~
5//b/90 Sincerely, John C. Hoyle, Chairman LSS Advisory Review Panel IDENTICAL LETTERS SENT TO THOSE ON ATTACHED LIST
ENCLOSURE 8
Attendance List LSS Advisory Review Panel Meeting, June 7, 1990 Panel Members Nuclear Regulatory Commission John C. Hoyle, Panel Chairman U.S. Department of Energy Barbara Cerny Dan Graser State Of Nevada Kirk Balcom (via telephone)
Local Government - Site Elgie Holstein Local Government - Adjacent Dennis Bechtel Liza Vibert Nuclear Industry Felix Killar U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (Non-voting Member)
Bill Hooton Others Lloyd Donnelly, NRC/LSSA Chip Cameron, NRC/LSSA Betsy Shelburne, NRC/LSSA Lynn Scattolini, NRC/LSSA Marilee Rood, NRC/LSSA Phillip Altomare, NRC/NMSS John Frye, NRC/ASLBP Chris Kohl, NRC/ASLAP Janet Lambert, NRC/RES Steve Scott, NRC/IRM Eileen Tana, NRC/NMSS Stuart Treby, NRC/OGC
2 -
Others (continued)
Rosetta Virgilio, NRC/GPA/SP Kathryn Winsberg, NRC/OGC Victoria Reich, NWTRB W. Richard Pierce, SAIC Dona Mennella, SAIC Stephen Spector, CNWRA Bill Wells, UNLV Kit Krickenberger, MITRE