Search This Blog
About This Blog
Categories
Archives
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
Comments on blog posts do not represent official NRC communication, and links to internet sites other than the NRC website do not constitute the agency’s endorsement of that site’s content, policies or products. Please read our Disclaimer for more information.
A major advance would occur with severe restrictions on the use of acronyms. Acronyms are a hindrance to clarity as they can be easily misinterpreted or misunderstood. The fact that the different reactor designers often use different acronyms for similar systems only adds to the confusion. Acronyms be gone.
I agree with Len. The first time a term is used in a given document it should be spelled out in full and the acronym should follow in parentheses. Although the NRC website does list acronyms, they are alarmingly numerous and seem to multiply faster than rabbits. It is cumbersome to have to look them up.
We realize acronyms can make documents difficult to read and they are one of the things our working group will be looking at as we try to improve the readability of NRC documents.
Glenn Ellmers
Your point is well taken. We make an effort to give the public as much advance notice of our public meetings as possible. Sometimes that means documents that will be made available in ADAMS have not been posted there yet. If they have been posted, we try to include the ADAMS ML number for convenience.
Glenn Ellmer
I have noticed an improvement in the clarity of the inspection reports for Diablo Canyon over the past couple of years. There is now a summary of the most important findings at the beginning. This enables the lay reader to get the lay of the land and to decide which parts of the full report to read in detail.
Notifications of meetings from OPA would be improved if the exact ML# of all relevant documents were included at the bottom of the notice. Using as an example No. IV-11-006, it would save me a lot of time and frustration if there were something like this:
” The agenda and reports to be considered for this meeting may be found at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/aslbp/2011/ by clicking on ************. Alternatively, see ML 88888888 and ML 444444″, which will be posted 5 working days before the meeting date.”
You get the idea. Don’t make us go on a scavenger hunt. And no fair posting the reports to be discussed during or after the PUBLIC MEETING. If we can’t see the content in advance, we can not be ready to fully understand nor to offer useful comments.