ML20212G516
| ML20212G516 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/23/1999 |
| From: | Northern S NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212G521 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR24531, FRN-64FR48942, RULE-PR-1, RULE-PR-100, RULE-PR-110, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51, RULE-PR-52, RULE-PR-60, RULE-PR-62, RULE-PR-7, RULE-PR-72, RULE-PR-75, RULE-PR-76, RULE-PR-9 AG07-2-001, NUDOCS 9909300002 | |
| Download: ML20212G516 (3) | |
Text
_ _____________ _ _____
?
pa ato og\\
UNITED STATES y*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 AG07-2
=
September 23,1999 MEMORANDUM TO:
NUDOCS FROM:
Sandra S. Northern, ISB/IMD/OClO
SUBJECT:
TRANSMITTAL OF FINAL RULE REGULATORY HISTORY DOCUMENTS
[
p Please enter the attached index and related documents into NUDOCS.
These documents were compiled as a regulatory history for the final rule entitled
- Electronic
[
Availability of NRC Public Records and Ending of NRC Local Public Document Room Program" L
which was published in the Federal Reaister on September 9,1999 at 64 FR 48942-48956.
~
-This entire package can be made available to the public.
If you have any questions please contact me at 41 -6879.
Attachments: As stated i
s
'l I
/
k, 6
i 9909300002 990923
/ L/ f PDR PR
/s
/
1 64FR48942 PDR Q
li c /.h 796950066 2 o or
AG07-2 REGULATORY HISTORY FINAL RULE - ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY OF NRC PUBLIC RECORDS AND ENDING OF NRC LOCAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM PROGRAM (10 CFR PARTS 1. 2. 7. 9. 50. 51. 52,
- 60. 62. 72. 75. 76.100. AND 110)
(64FR48942-48956)
INDiX DATE DESCRIPTION 1.
Undated Comment on proposed rule submitted by Martha Dibblee.
2.
5/20/09 Letter from R. Mellor, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, to NRC providing comments on proposed rule.
3.
5/27/99 Letter from S. England, State of Illinois, Department of Nuclear Safety, to NRC providing comments on proposed rule.
4.
6/15/99 Letter from Lynn Connor, Portland, OR, to NRC providing comments on proposed rule.
5.
6/21/99 Letter from Sarah Fields, Moab, UT, to NRC providing comments on proposed rule.
6.
6/21/99 Letter from P. Rich, Nuclear Energy Institute, to NRC providing i
comments on proposed rule.
7.
6/18/99 Letter from R. Huston, Licensing Support Services, to NRC providing comments on proposed rule.
I 8.
Undated Anonymous comments on proposed rule.
i 9.
6/23/99 Letter from K. Sutton, D. Ferraro, and C. Sisco, Winston and Strawn, to NRC providing comments on proposed rule.
10.
6/23/99 Letter from G. Stagis, G C Slagis Associates, Pleasant Hill, CA, to NRC providing comments on proposed rule.
11.
8/5/99 Email from S. Northern, OClO, to A. Shepard, ADM, attaching the SBREFA prepared for the Final Rule.
12.
8/13/99 Memorandum from S. Reiter, Acting CIO, to W. Travers, EDO, J.
Funches, CFO, M. Springer, ADM, and S. Treby OGC transmitting the notice of final rule for concurrence.
Page 1 of 2
)
r 13.
8/17/99 Memorandum to S. Reiter, Acting CIO, from V. Wilson, ADM, providing concurrence on final rule.
14.
8/20/99 Email from S. Baggett, OCFO, to R. Powell, OClO, providing i
OCFO concurrence on final rule.
15.
8/24/99 Letter from D. Meyer, ADM, to E. Godwin, OMB, enclosing a brief description of the final action (SBREFA) for review and concurrence.
16.
8/24/99 Memorandum to Commission from S. Reiter, Acting CIO, forwarding final rule signed by CIO on 8/24/99 and informing that final rule will be forwarded on 8/31/99 to be published in the Federal Reaister unless otherwise directed.
17.
8/31/99 Fax received from E. Godwin, OM3, providing OMB's concurrence with NRC's determination on final rule.
18.
9/7/99 Letter from D. Rathbun, OCA, to Honorable James Inhofe, U.S.
Senate, transmitting the final rule being published in the Federal Reaister.
19.
9/7/99 Letter from D. Rathbun, OCA, to Honorable Joe Barton, U. S.
House of Representatives, transmitting the final rule being published in the Federal Reaister.
20.
9/9/99 Final rule on electronic availability of NRC public records and ending of NRC Local Public Document Room Program published in Federal Reaister. Effective date: 10/12/99.
i Page 2 of 2 1
i E
w
,q ; -
o May 14,1999 NOTE TO:
Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch MddA/>
^
FROM:
. M.e.-'
l:
ADM, DAS
SUBJECT:
DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE - ELECTRONIC L
AVAILABILITY OF NRC FUBLIC RECORDS AND ENDING OF NRC i
LOCAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM PROGRAM t
Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject proposed rule. This comment was received via e-mail on May 14,1999. The submitter's name is Martha Dibblee.
1 1
i Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Russell Powell (mail stop T6-D-8) for his
]
l records.
l
Attachment:
i As stated Cc w/o attachment:
R. Powell
)
i l
neja npn a M.) tu y'v/ T 00Q
I
~
. 20XET NUMBEH h
~;
?h0 POSED RULE $ /, A f_ffd.
~~
I M'FM 2ySSI) 0' i
If you eliminate the public document room & put it on the internet (which I believe is a f
wonderful kko t nce I use the internet) the rule or an appendix should include a list of public j
i l
libaries in the LS. Not everyone -in fact not a majority - has a PC capable of internet access. Additionally, a notice should be posted in major US newspapers to ensure publicity.
Martha Dibblee dibblee@ teleport.com b-4 uW o
x a
k v'. U 1
l
~*
l 23 C
j W
7,
+'
f I
l J
e
1 AG094 @
.s
-4 i
CONNECTICUT NkkkEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY E -2 A 0 :56 HADDAM NECK PLANT 362 INJUN HOLLOW ROAD e EAST HAMPToN. CT 06424-3099 Or May 20,1999 Docket No. 50-213 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULEIN /, A 1 /7d.
CY-99-076 (GVkRb4551)
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Washington, DC 20555 Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Comments on the Proposed Rule Governina the Availability of NRC Public Records The purpose of this letter is to provide Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) comments on the NRC's proposed amendments (64FR24531) to its regulations that would reflect a change in the way its records are made available to the public. CYAPCO fully supports the NRC's initiative to implement a new document management system that would permit the electronic storage, retrieval, and on-line ordering of publicly available NRC official records through the NRC Web site.
CYAPCO understands that a new electronic record keeping system called the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)is being developed. When ADAMS becomes operational, any NRC official records that are normally publicly available under the Commission's regulations will be available electronically through ADAMS at http://www.nrc. gov, (the Electronic Reading Room). Internet access is provided at CYAPCO's Local Public Document Room (LPDR) in the Russell Library in Middletown, CT.
Therefore, the local public will continue to have access to NRC public records.
CYAPCO also supports expanded use of ADAMS for electronic licensee submittals and agency documents for docketed correspondence. We are encouraged that the NRC staff is planning to implement rulemaking for electronic submittals in the next fiscal year.
1028-3 REV 2-91
-GG96x>^> Di%
ePP o
- ~
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission CY-99-076/ Page 2 If you require further information or have any questions, please contact Mr. Gerry van Noordennen at (860) 267-3938.
Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY ou Russell A.
ellor Vice Presiden - perations and Decommissioning 1
~
M01-2 @
.q:; G g ;i ' I DOC 8 8 OF ILb,
STA U$'NUd.,SLEAR SAFETY n%RC DEPARTMENT 1035 OUTER P RNE
- SPRINGFIE ILLINOIS 62704.og Jf -2 P 3 52 217-785-9900'i.. 17-782-6133.iTDD)
\\ r Y
v..
/ t George H. Ryan
~
Thomas W. Ortciger Governor Directob AD.
May 27,1999 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RUlf N 1. A 7 IIA [-
Secretasy
( $gg, q33,)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Re:
Proposed Rule; Electronic Availability of NRC Public Records and Ending of NRC Local Public Document Room Program; Federal Register: May 7,1999
Dear Secretary:
The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) has reviewed the above-l referenced proposed rule and submits the following comments. IDNS supports the expanded availability of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) records through the NRC Web site. This should facilitate greater public access to the records and cost savings to NRC.
In the Supplementary Information portion of the Proposed Rule, NRC states that, l
"Under ADAMS, NRC would initially begin making available electronically through the Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Intemet Web site, imaged copies ofits newly l
received and created publicly available official records that are in paper form." This statement implies that new documents (license applications, amendments, license transfers, etc.) for all classes oflicensec will be available on the NRC's Web site. Will documents relating to Part 30 and Part 40 licenses be available on the NRC's Web site?
The quoted statement also implies that NRC, not licensees, will be responsible for imaging paper copies into electro. sic form. Is this correct? How will NRC handle oversize documents?
NRC states further in the Supplementary Information portion that, "A survey of the facilities where LPDRs are currently located revealed that all but six now provide, or j
will provide Internet access to its patrons by the end of 1999." Individuals residing near
&,wm 900 030nd, eg y
- y o
. Secretary I
- U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 27,1999 i
i the subject facilities should be provided Intemet access to NRC documents since hard
. copies of new documents will not be available in the facilities where the LPDRs are l
. currently located. IDNS has the following questions regarding Internet access at those
- facilities:
l Is there a legal requirement that these facilities provide Intemet access?
Whose responsibility is it to provide and maintain such access?
Has it been determined that such Intemet access is Y2K compliant? If not, when will Y2K compliance be determined?
i 1
i Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, feel free to l
contact me at 217/524-5652.
S' 'erely,
)
f 1
?
t tephen J. En land-Chi;f Legal Counsel SJE/fw L
i
~
6--
7 h
y
~
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR m #d.
cm.
.o June 15,1999 Secretary oa J'; ;7 M,:11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff
}
Proposed Rule; Electronic Availability of NRC Public Records akhEnding of NRC Local Re:
Public Document Room Program; FederalRegister, (64FR24531)
Dear Secretary,
I have reviewed the above referenced proposed rule and contend that the rule is premature.
While in theory I support a new document management system that would permit the electronic storage, retrieval, and on-line ordering of publicly available NRC official records through the NRC Web site, I believe it is impossible to provide any meaningf :! omment on a system that is not yet operational and for which there is very little public information available on how it will work. The ADAMS FAQs on the NRC Web site provide no substantial information on i
ADAMS nor do the few documents in the PDR on ADAMS.
I If more information was provided on the capabilities of ADAMS and the electronic reading room, it would then be possible to comment on something besides the theory of the electronic reading room.
Sincerely, Lynn Connor 111 vN Harrison St. - Apt. 22B Portland, OR 97201 301-346-0119 or 503-499-6750 lynnbc@compuserve.com I
1 1
[
QW CC0
., dlTU MARKET NOAB 16-12-99 21:32
[99) ut/4 PROPOSED RUI.E.M i m 7 </a/.
fpgg DOCKET NUMBER
(&#RM53I)
DOCKETED US E June 21, 1999 9 JJN 22 A7 :11 secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cimission og Washington, D. C. 2oges ooal ADA_.
Attn Rulemaking and Qudications Staff Ret Consents on 6h FR 2h531, May 7,1999, Proposed Rule, nectronic Availability of NRC Public Hecords and Ending of NRC Imeal Public Document Room Program I.
The %elear Regulatory consnission's (NRC's) decision to open the door to the elimination of Local Public Document Rooms (LPDRs) must have been made based on some sort of determination that the documents created before the ADAMS system goes on line will no longer be important or relevant; therefore, LPDAs can dispose of these documents if they wish. Where exactly did this idea come from? It is totally absurd. Historical records, whether last j
month's,. last year's, or last decade 's, are Ltill pertinen', to the onrotng i
regulation of aty NRC licensed facility. This is expecially true when it comes time to decommission a facility. Some pertinent records, such as applications, Environmental Imoact Statements, and Technical Evaluation j
Heports (with their supportine documentation), are hundreds of pages. It does no good to have these records only aratlable for viewing and copying in Washington or some distant LPDR.
i II.
In the early 1980s the NRC disestablished the LPDRs that were in the vicinity of uranium mills, without notice to the LPDRs or anyone else. Today there are no LPDRs in the states where there are the greatest number of mill sites: New Mexico and W oming. Only recently did the NMC establish an LPDR in Salt Lake City, Utah. *!his LPDR does not have the complete microfiche collection of NRC cublicly available records, and it is many miles from the uranium mills-operating or undergoing decommissioning in southeastern Utah.
n igDQsshsH9n!
rep
, CITU MARKET MOAB 16-12-99 21:32
[993 #2/4 Rulemakine and Ajudications ">taff Juns 21, 1999 Page 2 The records in the LPDRs contain a great deal of current and historical infomation which should be made available near' the mill sites.
NRC's failure to provide LPDRs near mill sites was compounded by the Mneaive Suppression of Records for both Title I and Title II sites by the Uranium Recovery Field Office (URPO). Twenty thousand records is an awful lot of records not to'have been made enblicly available in a timely manner.
I am hampered, my conse.tnity is hampered, my state is hampered, mv local and state government is hampered, on a daily basis, by the lack of local availability of NRC and AEC licensine records.
NRC's inability to understand that licensing documents and other pertinent records (like regulatory histories) must be made available locally has crippled public participation.
III. Recently, legislation has been introduced in Concress which would Provide compensation to uranium mill workers (or their families) if they suffered certain health effects caused by working at uranium processing facilities under contract to the AEC. Also, the NRC has recently made publicly available hundreds of AEC licensine documents pertaining' to these uranium processing facilities. These enriv records will be of creat importance to uranium mill workers and their families, for they document the health and safety conditions and radiation ernosures at these sites. Having seen'some
- of these records, I know there is no way a pernon can tell whether or not a record is of significance without actually reading the record. The brief descriptions in NRC's record indexes do not provide enouFh information. A person has to be able to sift through many, many pares or records, one at a time.
IV.
There is one other issue that I think the NRC should take into consider-ation regarding the closing of the LPDRs.
Section lib (e) of the Uranium
CITU MARKET MOAB 16-12-99 21:33
[993 M3/4 2
Balemaking and Ajudications Staff Ane 21, 1999 Page 3 ML11 Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) states The Commission, in cooperation with the Secretary, shall ensure that arry relevant information, other than trade secrets and other proprietary information otherwise exempted from mandatory disclosure under any other orovision of law, obtained from the cordact of each of the remedial actions authorized by this title and the subsequest perpetual care of those residual radioactive materials is documented systematically,] and made publicly available gmiently for use.
[P#inhasis added.
'lhis section, of course, is referrine to the remediation of Title I '
facilities.
I have not been able to locrite any ' written MRC colicy which indicates how the NRC implements this section of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. I find no indicction that there has been any opportunity for public coment on any proposed policy to implement Section llh (e).
So, maybe it is time for the NRC to:
A.
Consider what "made publicly available conveniently for use" means (that is, what was the intent of Conrress?).
B.
Consider how the 'NRC should innlement this provision of law.
C.
Consider how the NRC failed to imolement Section 11h(e) by not making the
" relevant information" "nublicly available conveniently for use".
D.. Consider how it came to be that the NRC for years failed to make oublicly available thousands of parea of " relevant information" in the form of hundreds of Title I nnd AEC documents, in direct violation of UMTRCA.
E.
And consider.how the NRC can facilitate the establishment of michrofiche collections nenr Title I sites in order to implement. Section 11h(e) of U!frRCA.
M V
IV.
In light of the above, I would recomend the following:
1.
The NRC should maintain at least one LFDR in each state that currently has an LPDR.
l
, ',,CITU MARKET MOAB 16-12-99 21:33
[993 #4/4 Mulemaking and Ajudications Staff June 21,1999 Page h 2.
The NRC should facilitate the transfer of the LPDR collection from any LPDR which does not wish to keep its collection to an appropriate library nenr the site of uranium mills which have operated under license to the AEC ard/or the NRC.
3.
The NRC should establish a priority list for the transfer of LPDR collections to mill site areas. First on the list should be the Orants and Gallup areas of New Mexico, Wyoming, and southeastern Utah.
Sincerely, Ck e a.
Sarah..M. Fields P.O. Box 601 Moab, Utah
e NUCLEAR ENFRGY INSiliUlf 3 f 22 P!I25 Phyllis M. Rkh s t r u m c, n. >
if 14s l h A ' A l i, < ! f F f, ',
E'
?
A' J.m e 21,1999 Ms. Annette L Vietti-Cook cuCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR t a, y #s.
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (M#Ro?V53I)
Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Proposed Rule," Electronic Availability of NRC Public Records and Ending of NRC Local Public Document Room Program," 64 Fed. Rec.
24531. May 7,1999
Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:
On behalf of the nuclear energy industry, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)1 is submitting comments on the Electronic Availability of NRC Public Records and Ending of NRC Local Public Document Room Program, published in the Federal Register on May 7,1999 (64FR24531). Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposal for public availability of NRC records.
NEI commends the NRC on its initiative to make its records available electronically. The efficiencies inherent in this initiative will be far-reaching.
As we move further into this age ofinformation, it is important that the NRC continue its efforts toward using technology to streamline its activities. The availability of NRC records via an electronic format will provide broader, more timely access of this information to all of the NRC's stakeholders. Furthermore, the cost savings that will be realized through the elimination of the Local Public Document Room (LPDRs) will be beneficial to all stakeholders.
The industry recognizes the complex nature of a project such as the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) and the related Electronic 1 NEI is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEI's members include all utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers. major architect / engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry. NEl is the successor organization to the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC).
r.
!. l F f t t t; it A ";
s A '.
a i? m
+
4
> s*
6As
't.'
^
~
~ Ms. Annette L. Vietti-Cook' June 21,1999 '
Page 2 Information Exchange (EIE) initiative. We urge the NRC to consider the full range ofindustry experience in this area as they move forward. The industry offers its support and looks forward to working with the NRC to ensure a successful implementation of these activities.
Sincerely, Phyllis Rich i
l j
1 J
MO%7 1
m
[u-Licensing Supporrt Serruice's W J3. 23 P 2 33 Roger W. Iluston Rogm@hcmsingsupportM 5
y^
June 18,1999 JOCKET NUMBER Secretary PROPOSED RULEN t, p. 7 efa/.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, QC 20555
[6VFRbV63/)
ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff
SUBJECT:
Public Comment on Proposed Rulemaking re: Electronic Availability of NRC Public Records and Ending of NRC Local Public Document Room Program (64 FR 24531)
Licensing Support Services (LSS) is pleased to provide comments in response to the subject Federal Register notice. LSS is a small consulting firm providing services to nuclear utilities. Part of our mission is to monitor NRC activities and inform our clients of new developments. Access to NRC information is important in carrying out this mission. We have a strong interest in assuring that information is available broadly and promptly.
The proposal would substitute electronic availability via the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System ( ADAMS) for paper copy availability at central and local public document rooms (LPDRs). ADAMS would make documents accessible via the World Wide Web. LPDRs, which have heretofore provided access to paper and microfiche copies of documents near major nuclear facilities, would be eliminated. LSS supports the proposal to change to a records system that would make NRC documents available to the public via the World Wide Web. LSS has significant concerns, however, with how this change is being carried out.
World Wide Web access has great promise. Realizing that promise depends on how the proposed change is implemented. ADAMS is, to our knowledge, an untried system. It may be capable of performing all of the tasks envisioned for it with ease. It may also, however, be unable to fulfill all of NRC's plans. It is not uncommon for software to be marketed with great expectations only to find that the reality is somewhat less than expected once the system is in place. It is therefore prudent to try out a new system first, to debug it and verify that it can accomplish what is intended, before abandoning the tried-and-true method it is to replace.
Ilere, that is not being done. The Federal Register Notice reports that the Commission has decided to terminate support of the LPDR system at the end of FY99. Current plans 4204 Christine Place Alexandria, VA 22311-1109 703-671-9738 703-671-0828(fax) lQD ggfL h'
DY
(^
['
. Secretary June 18,1999 Page 2 i
are that ADAMS will not be available until about the end of FY99, but reports are that implementation of the system is not going according to plan. This is not surprising.
Implementation of major computer based systems of the scope of ADAMS often surfaces.
j unexpected problems. Resolving those problema takes time. Implementation schedules must be viewed as likely to encounter delay, not as certain of being met, even in the best i
ofcircumstances.
The likelihood of a delay in implementing ADAMS, combined with the end of support for LPDRs at the beginning of FYOO, makes it'very likely that public access to i
information will be interrupted for a time. How long is unknown. If the system is implemented in calendar year 1999 and fulfills most or all ofits expectations, that time will be brief. If the system does not become available, or cannot accomplish tasks now planned, public access to information could be seriously curtailed for an unknown duration. Given the magnitude of this undertaking, it would be prudent to maintain the existing system, which we know works, until its replacement is proven.
The Federal Register notice states, in part, that "[s]ome new records will be available to the public within days instead of the two weeks or longer it now takes for LPDRs to receive microfiche or paper copies of new accessions". This too is part of the promise of the World Wide Web, but it is not an automatic outcome in any web-based system. LSS
. recently wrote to the Commissioners expressing concern with delays associated with recent posting of SECY and related documents on NRC's web site (LSS letter dated May 7,1999, enclosed). A response to that letter was received on June 4,1999, from Ms.
Lynn Scattolini, Director, Information Management Division. Ms. Scattolini's letter reads, in part-
" Commission documents intended for posting to the web site have to first be coded in hypertext markup language. Therefore, several days may lapse from the date of their release to the Public Document Room until the
- date ofposting",
i This explains delays currently being experienced with the posting of a few (rarely more than ten) documents a day. The Public Document Room accession list often adds over 300 records in a day. LSS is concerned that the volume of material, and the practical needs of preparing it for web availability (the problem identified by Ms. Scattolini), will
. make it difficult or impossible to fulfill the promise made in the Notice. Again, the lack of a trial period makes it impossible to know whether these fears are misplaced. In any event, NRC needs to monitor carefully the timeliness ofinformation availability, and its quality, once ADAMS is implemented. Problems, ifidentified, must be addressed.
Resource needs for performing this function should be considered in implementing the change.
~
Secretary June 18,1999 Page 3 LSS appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If there are any questions
. regarding our comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully, M
R
. Huston
. Enclosure
-r.
i Enclosure e
i Licensing Supf,OFC SeFUlees er W. Huston iemsinpuppat.no May 7,1999 Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson Commissioner Greta Joy Dieus Commissioner Nils J. Diaz Commissioner Edward McGafligan, Jr.
Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Commissioners:
Licensing Support Services (L )is a s 11 consult ng irm oviding servic es to nuclear utilities. Part ofour mission ' to monito NR activit' s
' inform our clients of new developments. NRC's han ing of the pu elic clease finfo mation ha ; recently made fulfilling that mission diffi uit. The purpo se c f this letter i to bring this situation to your attention.
The proble can cha eter'.ed as select ;ve releas ofiaformation. NRC chnical stafTpro de docu ent. to a ; articul.tr par 1y, often tbe Nu: lear Energy tute (NEI),
before y are a ilab etoothers. Doc 2 ment s a:: reportedly "se t" to the public doc nt room at t s.
et me, but that does not raake them available. PDR processing ofte akes t w
s or mo: e before a do:unent cin be accessed by a member of the pub c. Ti s 1
mak es it c ifficult for L 'S, 3r any public observer, to understand fully the ubl' "di ussioris of ti is info inati v hich c flen fbliow.
Th mos recent examr le of t is pr ble was the)70mmission briefing this week on pn pose I changes to th : main rr ice ru e. Pr g6 sed ru!e language had apparently been pr )vided to NEI in advance of the mee ng. Discussion also appeared to indicate that at least pajt of a d eg latory Guide sd been made available to them. To our krowlec ge, nei her f t se docume s was otherwise publicly available. Although LSS ccnsideis itsel part if"t e indust. ', documents provided to NEl do not reach us. In m.my cases,t y d not r ch - utility clients in a timely manner either.
NRC has ailabl a tool to make information like this available promptly to the public at
!ar 'e. That is its 'eb site. The NRC web site is generally a very useful source of int rmation reg ding agency activities. SECYs and Staff Requir'ements Memoranda (S
f) are tw of the categories ofinformation now routinely made available through the web ite. H e too, however, information is not always posted in a timely manner. A 4204 Christine Place Alexandria, VA 22311-1109 703-671-9738 703-67I 0828(fax)
+
- p L',
The Commissioners l
May 7,1999 I
Page 2 recent example is the StafrRequirements Memorandum on SECY-99-086, a v' g elimination of the watch list. That action was ofsignificant interest. The Co is ion action was reported in the trade press. We understand that a copy of S
(
ed April 16,1999) reached the PDR on April 21. To date, it has not st on web site. In fact, no SRM dated after April 14,1999, is posted on t web s e of t day.
NRC's proposed rule change reflecting a shift to electro '
cu nt v...i bil' and elimination of the local public document room pro was ubli hed inhy s Federal
' Register. LSS intends to comment on that rule, s rting t pro sed c
- s. Public j
confidence that this change will mean better a more timely a vail ility ofi ormation could be heightened through hetter use of the 1ools presently a railab to timely release ofdocuments to the broad spectrum of your iMested pubbc.
l 1
We would appreciate your assis ei ssuriigtin-ely ele sofinfo matioa intended to be public to allinterested mbers o he p ablic. If u e any questiors, please do not hesitate to call me.
l Sincerely, or5nal S gned sy.
Roger W uston ec: A J. Galante, N RC
/
I t
$0N PROPOSED RULETR /, A 7 g' h
DOCKET NUMBERnn 00c 10 (WIMMS30 Conunents on Proposed Rule RIN 3150-AG07 F 24 I# GZ Electronic Availability of NRC Public Records?
The NRC system may work well for those industry, special interest, commercial and government users with fast access to the Internet, however the system may be slow, cuinbersome, and costly for home users with 33K and 56K modems. NRC states that it will make " Imaged copies ofits nev,1y received and created publicly available records that are in paper form." Scanned image files of single pages can be very large in terms of bytes of data, making download times very long for these kinds of documents for users who do not have high speed access.
Has the NRC dor,e an assessment of use of the Local Public Document Rooms (LPDRs) located near nuclear power plants and nuclear facilities by members of the public? Has NRC targeted these users and done an assessment to reach these users? For example, the Federal Register may not be a suitable mechanism to reach members of the public. How do these members of the public feel about NRC's plans?
NRC is asking where there are potential unique situations where electronic availability of records may not provide adequate availability. Many users, especially in economically disadvantaged communities, may not even have computers, thereby making access to ADAMS very difficult.
Should these users be forced to pay a fee to access NRC documents? In addition, as highlighted in recent newspaper articles, many rural communities and parts of the United States, especially in the West, do not even have telephone systems capable of supporting electronic data transmission and some systems do not permit data transfer for higher speed modems.
The NRC's existing dectronic systems on the Internet and the new system as proposed will provide lots of data but not enough information. There will be a lot of data, but it will be hard to get information (understanding)just as it is today with NRC's Internet site and paper documents.
For example, how many pages will one have to look at to find out that NRC has posted a record or document? How many hard copy documents will a user have to retain or find to understand an electronic record or document. For example, SECY-99-035 issued February 1,1999 is a status of the Site Decommissioning Plan. Yet without the previous NRC documents that describe each site, one viewing the SECY-99-035 for the first time would know very little. Another example, NRC issued an important policy-setting related SECY-99-012 "Use of Uranium Mill Tailings impoundments for the Disposal of Waste Other than I le.(2) Byproduct Material and Reviews of Applications to Process aterial Other than Natural Uranium Ores" on 04/08/1999, yet there is not a corresponding news release. How many web pages will one have to look at to find something important that is new? The NRC has few if any public Internet accessible databases. There are none for licenses, SDMP sites, radiation exposure from licenses, or those that discharge radioactisity to the air, water, or land. One cannot search by zip code NRC's existing Internet is hard to locate along functional lines. It is not well integrated, except by NRC numbering systems such as SECY numbers and news release date. Search engines do not integrate in paper or microfiche or documents not yet posted.
NRC states that it will discontinue the LPDR program at its 86 LPDRs. Eighty six LPDRs is a p
hn,Up dC V'1I 'l 3PP O
ni.n
E
~.
P significant number. NRC states it will offer current LPDRs the opportunity to keep their current collection. NRC states that the decision to accept transfer of ownership of the collection and the length of time they will be maintained will be the sole discretion of each library. This implies that the NRC is literally abandoning the information in these LPDRs since the NRC is apparently not going to provide any funding or oversight to maintain the exisitng information in the LPDRs that is not in electronic format. Today the NRC places information on the Internet, however one often needs to refer to older documents in paper format to interpret the current electronic information that NRC is providing and gain the full understanding of the situation. Unfortunately, unless the NRC commits to placing paper copy and microfiche information in electronic format to ensure its availability to the public, there is a strong likelihood that over time there will be an information gap where paper copy information is needed but not available.
Today the NRC places electronic information such as SECY documents on the Internet, however i
the electronic documents often reference documents that are not available in electronic format.
Before the NRC finalizes a mie to change the way documents are made available to the public in electronic format and abandoning existing paper and ruicrofiche systems, the NRC needs a transition period to get an electronic system truly ftmetioning to the satisfaction of the customers most affected, the members of the public and other federal, state, and local government agencies.
The NRC needs a customer feedback process to ensure that the public's comments are obtained and acted upon during the transition period.
i The NRC needs a system to actively seek customer feedback of problems that customers (as the public) experience with its new system, a system to provide en analysis of customer problems reported, and a system to make changes and improvements in response to customer feedback.
The NRC's existing electronic system is not well integrated with existing paper documents to provide information.
The NRC has no visible information system for member of the public to locate information by zip code.
The NRC states that some new records will be made available to the public in days instead of the two weeks or longer it now takes for LPDRs to receive documents. The NRC should examine its existing electronic system as there are documents that the NRC has issued months ago in 1999 that are not on the Internet. For example, SECY documents and SECY-99-035 was issued in February 1,1999 yet it is not available in electronic format months later. At I
http://www nre cov/NRC/COhaflSSION/SECYS/indethtml#1999 SECY-99-009,019,023, 026,032 - 036,044,053, etc. possibly dating back to the January February 1999 timeframe show no listings. Are some of these like SECY-99-035 and issued but not yet posted??
l Will NRC fund and maintain and upgrade the computer terminals, software, and printers in j
LPDRs?
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Certification, the NRC states that the action "will not have a j
I
..~
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities". It goes on to say that "Any small entity subject to this regulation" and follows that with subsections (a) through (d) focused only on " licensees". If this regulation is for availability of public records, then who is the customer here, the licensee or the member of the public? Is not a member of the public or a LPDR in a community with low speed access to the Internet either because oflimitations of the phone system or the computer hardware not a small entity??
Section 9.21 of the proposed regulation subsection (a) states that single copies certain NRC
{
records will be available through NTIS. If NRC is replacing the LPDR with the Internet, why I
can't these records in (a) also be made available through the Internet?
Section 9.21 of the proposed regulation subsection (c) states "The following records of NRC activities are available for public inspection and copying:" What records are not available for inspection? What about records oflicensees or applicants for licenses submitted to the NRC?
Shouldn't records like decommissioning plans and letters to the NRC also be made available in the electronic format? Shouldn't licensees be required to submit records in electronic format as well as paper format so that file sizes on the Internet be smaller rather than requiring NRC, to scan and post the images or to conduct optical character recognition that may result in loss of data? Also what about information on sites and status of sites, and what about public outreach documents.
Will these be placed on the Internet?
Section 9.23 of the proposed segulation subsection (a)(1), shouldn't the NRC require the same of itself that each record or document be placed on the Internet be described in suflicient detail to enable the public to locate the document? Shouldn't the NRC require itself to build a relational information system such that a member of the public can locate all NRC and licensee information, including upcoming meetings, about a specific site or licensee?
Section 9.35 of the proposed regulation subsection (2). What about making copies available on floppy disk, high density disk, or CD?
Section 9.45 of the proposed regulation subsection (b). Why can't the NRC place similar measurable requirements such as the within one day afler vote on other records?
Section 9.107 of the proposed regulation subsection. How soon in advance? What about an e-mail notification system that lets people know rather than making them look at a web site?
Part 50. What about decommissioning plans, letters, and other documents submitted to the NRC by a licenser or license applicant?
Section 51.62. How soon after will they be posted?
The NRC should look at the DOE stakeholder Internet database to see what. kinds ofinformation the public wants on the Internet.
- Singed, 9