ML19347F014
| ML19347F014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/03/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis, Harold Denton, Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347F009 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-13 NUDOCS 8105150080 | |
| Download: ML19347F014 (4) | |
Text
~
7
~
}f V
e e
g 4
UNITED STATES y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%*****/
QEQ 3 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR:
J. G. Davis, Director, NMSS H. R. Denton, Director, NRR V. Stello, Jr., Director, IE l
D. J. Donoghue, Director, ADM l
N. M. Haller, Director, MPA l
. H. K. Shapar, Executive Legal Director L. W. Barry, Controller FROM:
W. J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
REDIRECTION OF THE DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM I have decided to take a number of actions that will redirect the NRC's 3
Document Control System (DCS). The actions are listed in the enclosed copy of the package on this subject.which I recently sent to the Chairman, t
This package includes:
an explanation of the fifteen separate actions I am directing, the MPA study that was the basis for my decisions, and detailed office comments on the DCS.
While most of the actions will be the responsibility of the Office of Administration, the cooperation of all offices will be needed. To this end, I am appointing a DCS Policy Advisory Group, which will be chaired by the Director of Administration and composed of the Deputy Directors of NMSS, NRR, IE, MPA, and ELD.
I expect Office Directors to arrange for the Advisory Group members to be assisted by their program support staffs.
In order to ensure that all DCS action assignments are properly coordinated, the Division of Technical Information and Document Control will prepare implementation plans in cooperation with other cognizant offices. These plans will be submitted to the DCS Policy Advisory Group for approval.
Specific assignments for the DCS actions listed in Attachment 1 to my November 18, 1980, memo are as follows:'
Assianments for DCS Actions l
l Office of Administration (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,14,15)
Office of Management and Program Analysis (8)
Office of the Controller (14)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (4) i i
l 810515O b8 afwemmuum
4_
?
. + -
I Addressees Assignments for DCS Actions, cont'd.
g OfficeofInspectionandEnforcement(4) 4 Executive Legal Director (Assist with 2, 4, and 7)
(synec Willi:m J.Dircia William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations i
Enclosure:
EDO Memorandum to Chairman Ahearne dated November 18, 1980.
cc w/ encl:
R. Minogue, RES R. Smith, SD J. Shec, IP G. Kerr, SP C. Michelson, AE00 cc w/o encl:
Chairman Ahearne Conmissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Hendrie Commissioner Bradford OPE OGC N
P 4
l c
~
[~f.
1 U *,te; c: r ru ; ; r.d
- c. the li !. 5 /.::i r
- r. t ir.c c i r. ' n e::.. r., i t: the ED')'s I;overbe r it, nl:
rs :n r.duc. to V.t U.Lir.sn) 4 T.edu t the docur.+nt backfit effort - Revie.e timing and cxtEnt of reduction Review priorities for continuing be.dfit of liRC docu.ents.
l 1
of backfit effort.
l2 Examine ootions to lower
- contractor billino rates _ - Review calculation of Proposed billing rates for any extension or recompetition of the DCS contract.
Limit content of'the DCS data ' base _ - Recornend to the EDO criteria for 3.
including non-PDR. non-docket 50 documents in the DCS.
- Test. and where feasible,' *have 'llRC staff cerform document' coding -
Participate in the plar:ning and evaluation of a pilot test and recommend whether to phase W.
i out contractor coding of documents.
i Review plans for implementing the DCS Test the DCS sub.iect search capability -
l 5.
subject search capability, the documsnt types to be subject coded and indexed.
and, based on a cost-benefit analysis, reco rir.end to the EDD whether the subject l
search capability should be continued.
Establish a DCS policy Advisory Grouo_ - Designate staff supporting Advisory 6.
Group camaer.
Expedite necotiations to oermit recomoetino the contrac; - Review plans for 7.
recompeting the DCS contract.
Conduct user needs' study -
Review pSris' and Interim reports of f.he -contractor
, conducting the user needs study _a_s part of the liRC Management Study.
8.
_Desiewte full-time contract manaaer - Approve selection of the Contracting 9.
Officer's Technical Representative..
Defer any expansion of video terminals _ - Monitor resolution of video image 10.
cuality probl. ems.-- -. ___._
Reduce contractor plannino and deielopment staff - Review ADM' plans' Lfor acco 11.
ing certain development and problem resolution wWnow d5ne by contractpr.
- 12.. Iliminate duplicate. document orocessing].. Review
~
i i
proces, sing of documents through DCS.
" ~
l
- 13. 'Icorove cuality control and user. statistics -
Review propoied s'tatisticar t
('
measu.res to ansure their usefulness in evaluatinglDCS b_enefits.-, _
Investicate technioues for user offices to share the cost of DCS I
- recorcend to the EDO procedures for charging user offices for special products I
14.
and services provided by DCS.
i
'N Consider limited cost imorovements_,, Review all plans for additional DCS 15.
expenditures.
i t
P00RORMAl.
i l
t
f xf,
~
.w
- :.3 S**
l.': ~::~ :: t C e nt t 01 Sys sm I c ', i c a' :. u. )
CH.*J.iii.
Purpose:
The Document Control System (DCS) Policy Advisory Group has policy oversight of the DCS to ensure that the DC5 is cost-effective in meeting the documsnt control and retrieval needs of HRC.
Responsibilities:
Protide the mechanism to obtain agency-wide consensus s
on DCS policies and procedures; Oversee implementation of the 15 DCS Actions identified i
e by the EDO to improve DCS management and operation with conccmitant cost savings (See attached Role of Policy l
Advisory Group in DOS Actions.);
and
~
Make recorxnendations to the EDO.
e Deputy Office Directors of HRR, NMSS, IE, l$A, and ELD.
1:embership:
Chair'ed by the Director of Office of Administration..
Staff supporting the Advisory Group members will serve as the primary day-to-day, contact with the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative.
- At least through resolution. of.'the 15 DCS Actions or Duration:
when the EDO decides the Advisory Group is.no longer needed.
Relationship with.the. Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (C0TR):
Through the Director _of ADM, the Advisory Group can task the...
COTR with developrrient of implementation plans and other work The COTR retains- ~
needed to support Advisory Group decisions.
responsibility for. da."-to-day management of the DCS contract.__
~
j, The COTR will supply Advisory Group members with both a brief, l
monthly status report on the implementation of the DCS Actions and contractor-prepared monthly reports.
j f
P00R o n g
~
g
..f a.
- 3 V
5:{
Enclosure A1 g
,,g g
a e
g gg g
. 1 b
ut
.1 o
t gaa 9 L:
P T N.g g
'j r
e Dan s
c
...q gs 8.: :
m o
Ij
[
U on! (B g
Em 1
A PROGRAM EVALUATION OF THE t
a c
cE j
NRC DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM if N, RE no y;
F N 24 Office of Management and Program Analysis t
November 1980
- -g TT v
~
.. s ga "Oug),
UNITED STATES
,A f }h,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- p 7 l
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 September 9, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harald R. Denton, Director, NRR John G. Davis, Deputy Director, NMSS Robert B. Minogue, Director, SD Victor Stello, Jr., Director, IE Thomas E. Murley, Acting Director, RES Howard K. Shapar, Executive Legal Director Norman M. Haller. Director, MPA James R. Shea, Director, IP G. Wayne Kerr, Acting Director, SP Carlyle Michelson, Director, AEOD Robert H. Engelken, Director, Region V f
Daniel J. Donoghue, Director, ADM FROM:
E. Kevin Cornell Deputy Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
NRC'S DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM We are in the process of assessing the usefulness and costs of NRC's Document Control System (DCS). As you know, the DCS is an automated storage and retrieval system that has been developed and operated for NRC by the TERA Advanced Services Corporation.
We are now contacting members of the staff to determine how widely the DCS is used within the agency. The purpose of this memorandum is to solicit your personal views on the system.
In addition to your general views on the useful-ness of the DCS, I would be interested in your opinions on the following:
1.
Are you satisfied with the services that the DCS has provided to your office?
2.
To the extent possible, estimate the savings in terms of dollars or staff years per year you achieve now or will achieve when the system is fully implemented.
3.
If the DCS were terminated, what effect would that have on your office?
4.
What might be done to make the DCS more useful to your office?
I would appreciate receiving your comments by Friday, September 19.
We will give serious consideration to your views in our future deliberations on the DCS.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please call Steve Conver, x27721.
/4 w[ ^
4. Kevin Cornell Deputy Executive Director for Operations cc:
W. Besaw, DDC j 0 0$bh
. t p rar 'o UNITED STATES .! } ", (g[,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
,e SEP 2 51980 MEMORANDUM FOR: Stephen K. Conver, Chief Analysis and Planning Branch Office of Management and Program Analysis FROM: Herbert N. Berkow, Chief Management Analysis Branch Planning & Program Analysis Staff, NRR
SUBJECT:
NRC'S DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM In answer to E. Kevin Cornell's memorandum of September 9th, same subject, we are forwarding comments received from the Divisions and Program Offices within NRR. In general, there seems to be support for the system. Most people in NRR feel (1) it has great potential; (2) that savings won't be realized until some time in the future; and (3) that they would like to see the subject index feature added. k u erbert N. Berkow, Chief Management Analysis Branch Planning & Program Analysis Staff, NRR
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/o encl. E. K. Cornell ) O Nh IYh
.i W a: e UNITED STATES EE'y,([4j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f,
- '17 /.E WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 h.W
/,,E s ~.... September 18, 1980 MEMORAtlDUM FOR: Herbert N. Berkow, Chief Management Analysis Branch Planning and Program Analysis Staff, NRR FROM: Steve L. Ramos, Chief Emergency Preparedness Developmert Branch Emergency Preparedness Program Office, NRR
SUBJECT:
NRC'S DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM The flRC's Document Control System (DCS) appears to be of great benefit to the Document Control Division in maintaining control, inventory, and accountability of the numerous multifarious documents received daily by the NRC. As to the usefulness of EPP0 staff, to date it has been proven to be of little value. Perhaps this is because of lack of understanding by staff members in the features of the system, unavailability of getting a hard copy at the remote terminal closest to the EPPO office, and proximity of the docket room. For example, if you must go to the basement anyway to get your hard copy, why not go to the docket file and review the document there. It is easier and faster. In a few instances where we were attempt-ing to obtain the exact dates and determine if the licensee had responded to a request to submit new emergency plans, it proved useful; however, it did require several computer runs because of errors in the system. In summary, if the docket files were not accessible and a better understanding of the DCS were known, with emphasis on capabilities, and hard copying capability available at each terminal; then it might be of some va.lue. The following provide answers to your specific questions: 1. Yes, except it appears to take a couple of days longer to receive documents than under the previous system. 2. Cannot provide any estimate on savings as the system has not been used sufficiently to estimate this factor. 3. If the DCS were terminated, it would have no effect because of the lack of use. This is explained above. 4. Make the system more accessible, have hard copying capability at each terminal and have more terminals. [ amos, Chief eve m. amergency Preparedness Development Branch j Emergency Preparedness Program Office, kRR kpeof np4act>4md2
r: c 4 j UNITED STATES j,(3 'i Y b. t, / NUCLE.6R REGULATORY COMMISSION j w.sHINGTON, D. C. 20555 .g.'e $.s) / . SEP 13 6 +.... MEMORANDUM FOR: Herbert N. Berkow, Chief Management Analysis Branch, PPAS, NRR FROM: Bernard J. Snyder, Program Director Three Mile Island Program Office, NRR
SUBJECT:
NRC DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM This is in response to the questions in E. Kevin Cornell's memorandum of September 9, and your transmittal of that memorandum, of September 15, subject as above. In general, it is perceived that the NRC Document Contrc 3ystem (D. has a potential for savings of time and manpower within the agency by eliminating the need to assemble, file and reproduce the majority of documents handled by the staff. In addition, being able to access new information more rapidly than in the past, with the video capability and potentially rapid entry of documents into the DCS, could be expected to increase staff efficiencies in the future. Unfortunately, the system has been essentially unavailable (with few exceptions) to the TMI Program Office staff because of the lack of terminals convenient to Were the DCS more available to us, we would definately utilize the system. us. My specific responses to your questions follow: Ouestion #1: Are you satisfied with the services that the DCS has provided to your office? Resoonse: DCS services have been limited to this office since there are no convenient teminals nearby. However, experience with the DCS by some of my staff in pre-vious assignments has been extensive. In that respect, the service was found to be adequate but could be improved: a. The DCS terminals could be active from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., to coincide with flextime and personnel availability. The best time to use the DCS and to train on it would appear to be during the non-core time, 7:00 - 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 - 6:00 p.m., or later. b. In most caser. hecause our business is 100% TMI, the documents the TMI Program 0..he staff does search for are usually in the DCS. Unfortunately, neither a video terminal or video copier are con-venient to my staff. And even though TMI-2 material is essen-tially 100% on the DCS, we note it still takes several days before new documents can be accessed. So, we remain dependent on our hard copy files. Y N 7
. t i Question #2: To the extent possible, estimate the savings in tems of dollars or staff ' years per year you achieve now or will achieve when the system is fully implemented.
Response
Dollar estimates of savings incurred or expected to be incurred are not i possible in the limited time available to respond to your request. However, the DCS, if properly applied and supported by NRC, has the potential for eliminating a majority of our files and the need for filing. We note GG-14 and 15s are expensive file clerks, but these personnel must often spend con-siderable time filing because no other suitable means are available. A sub-stantial dollar and man-year savings could be realized by the agency if the t need for such filing and duplication were eliminated by the DCS. Question #3: If the DCS were terminated, what effect would that have on your office?
Response
Unfortunately, with the system's limited use by this office, the present loss of the DCS would have little consequence to us at this time. However, we would utilize the DCS if it were more convenient. Question #4: What might be done to make the DCS more useful to your office? P
Response
To make the DCS more useful to this office it must be made conveniently available to us. A total commitment must be made by NRC to provide full DCS servi,ce. The pieceme11 way the system has been allowed to develop is indicative of an apparent lack of understanding and encouragement on the i part of management and staff, and has rendered any real appreciation of l the system somewhat limited. By total commitment, it is meant-t a. Management must be fully behind implementation of the DCS. We must be comitted to make the DCS work through the difficult adjustment and learning period. And, we must make the staff essentially dependent on the DCS, or they will fall back on old ways, b. A~ sufficient number of terminals with video capability must be provided. This does not mean one terminal for each floor. It means at least one terminal for each section, branch, divisiun, j etc. In some cases (i.e. Project Managers and Licensing Assistants), l it could mean one terminal for each individual.
e c. The DCS files must be complete and up to date. Every effort must be made to assure all documents for all licensing actions, etc. are in the DCS in a timely manner. Bac'kfitting must be completed in short order. All of the DCS files must also have video access. d. Training must be provided to all personnel, and must be rigorous and frequent. Modern data aquisition systems are like foreign language skills, if they are not used constantly, the faculty cannot be maintained. The user becomes clumsy, reluctant to use the system further, and the system breaks down. Training and frequent use must be routine. e. There must be a means to safeguard infonnation in the system, ir, order to ensure sensitive documents (such as some internal memo-randa) are not accessible by just any one who has access to a terminal. Should you wish to discuss these remarks, please contact Oliver Lynch on X27258. f p Bernard J. Snyder, Prograrr Director Three Mile Island Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
ong .q UNITED STATES g }y) y.qg j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .p // g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 SEPTD'BER :: 51900 MEMORANDUM FOR: Claire Harwood Planning and Program Analysis Staff FROM: James Leonard, Program Assistant Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
NRC DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM Reference is made to your memorandum dated September 15, 1980 requesting a survey of the staff concerning the utilization of and services orovided 5y the TERA Advanced Services Corporation. Responses from individuals was quite varied. The following summarizes the responses to the four questions. 1. Are you satisfied with the services that the DCS has provided your Office? Staff is generally satisfied with system and consider the services provided by DCS to be invaluable. DCS is particularly useful and helpful in locating documents not currently in file. However, the DCS is only useful and helpful if proper training in the system is provided. Some of the staff indicates that cooies of the reports are not clear. There are also complaints about the quality of the video display since it is often skewed and can not be corrected without calling the video system operator. There is also a general feeling that the backfitting process should be expedited. 2. To the extent possible, estimate the savings in terms of dollars or staff years per year you achieve now or will achieve when the system is fully imolemented? The responses vary from branch to branch and range from no savings to one person week per branch per year with many of the responses indicating it is too early to tell. 3. If the DCS were terminated, what effect would that have on your office? If terminated, the NRC would be a paper mill where finding one document would take tremendous effort and person hours. Termination of the DCS would place a great burden on the staff for filing, distributing, controlling and copying of records and would definitely require more personnel and space. It has also been stated there will be an increase of last documents if TERA contract or concept were terminated. apeof ca4@$ M 7
~ Claire Harwood SEPTEMBER 2 51980 Recommend the IE documents be included in the system (IE notices and bulletins). It is recommended the all Licensing Assistants have their own tenninal. ( fiM./dfnn l n James Leonard, Program Assistant f Division of Licensing j i S I a e , - - -s -e-r-
,(}aat:vq[o + UNITED STATES g g .r.,, g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pE WASHINGTON. C. C. 20565 September 24, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR: E. Kevin Cornell Deputy Executive Director for Operations FROM: R. S. Brown, Jr. Assistant to the Director and Chief, Program Support Branch, NMSS
SUBJECT:
NRC'S DOCU$ENT CONTROL SYSTEM In response to your memorandum of September 9,1980, relative to the above subject, the following information is provided: 1. NMSS is generally satisfied with the services provided by the DCS. However, the error rate in encoding documents and the time lag encountered on documents being entered into the system is considered inordinate. In this regard, a new feedback loop for error corrections has been established and is working well. Additionally, TEPA personnel have been very receptive to correction requests. Al though some progress has been made in this area, considerable emphasis needs to be placed in the proper encoding of documents (quality control) the first time through the system. 2. We have no way of estimating savings from the system until it is fully implemented. However, during the transition to the system,' an increase in staff effort due to unfamiliarity with the DCS is being experienced, but this could only be temporary. Dollar and staff year savings may increase as the system is more fully implemented, since it is anticipated that a reduction of search time will occur with the video feature availability. As an added benefit file integrity should improve over the present manual system, particularly in the area of docket files. 3. Aside from docket material, other correspondence within HMSS essentially has not been put into the DCS. Our intention at the outset was to start with the placement of docket material into the system. With the correction of the problems outlined in paragraph 1 above, if the system is retained we will expand our use of the DCS. However, since the system is not fully operational for MMSS, it is difficult to estimate what impact, if any, termination would have. We believe the benefits of a well defined DCS should be measured in future terms rather than those of the present; however, such a system must be cost effective. Y Yhh.l 0
m u .E. Kevin Cornell 2 =- 4. If the present DCS is to be retained, we would suggest the following be considered to make the system more useful: a. Improve quality control (data entry and coding) and more complete implementation of feedback loops to identify problems, b. A fulltime liaison person from TERA in the Willste Building to work more closely with the staff for training and guidance in / he capabilities of the system and its expansion throughout NMSS. t c. Better search capabi,lities (subject, statistical, etc.) are needed. The present system underutilizes its search logic capability. The user must query the system, building hierarchical logic-rather than the system querying the user. It would help if the DCS was oriented better towards the individual user which, undoubtedly, would encourage wider use of the system. If the present system is determined to be cost effective and retained by NRC, it is generally agreed within NMSS that closer liaison is required with TERA if tangible benefits are to be accrued from the DCS. The enumerated - problem areas listed above require examination and correction when pos sibl e. Additionally, steps need to be taken to expand the system Within NMSS and to train the professional and clerical staff as well in the use of the system. In this regard, an on-the-scene TERA representative would be most useful. l S' l WA. R. S. B rown, Jr Assistant to th Di recto r and Chief, Program Support sranch, NVSS l i ) 9
~ SEP 2.; g E. Kevin Cornell, c) Those in 50 who use the DCS have requested that the system be upgraded to allow the staff to retrieve actual document pages through video transmission. d) The TERA Corporation is sending representatives to interview the OSD staff to determine how the DCS can better meet the needs of this office. They are examining ways to produce more complete and timely information as well as revising their user training course to address specific user office needs. We expect the above mentioned cooperation with TERA will lead to improvements .in the DCS which will make the system more useful to the SD staff. N h. ' Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development
a SEP 2 31980 E. Kevin Corne" with each video terminal. The DCS would also be more useful if there were a better means of identifying and indexing enclosures to documents in the system. We have been working with TERA person-nel to define those classes of existing documents which should be added to the system to improve information retrieval in the Oper-ations Center and to make file searches more efficient. In closing, let me reiterate my support for a fully implemented document retric-val system. Whether this system is the DCS as presently envisaged, or a differ-ent system with similar objcctives, is really of no great import to the technical staff. The important point, in ray view, is that we must continue to move forward with the. development of an adequate document retrieval system. Any reduction in the originally planned objectives would be a grave error. f rW. '7 Victor Steljo, Jr / Director " Office of Inspection and Enforcement cc: N. C. Moseley, IE H. D. Thornburg, IE R. C. DeYoung, IE J. H. Snie:ek, IE E. M. Howard, IE L. I. Cobb, IE R. H. Engelken, RV
w = [f 1% - UNITED STATES + jt NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIJ' N 3 8 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556 o / ....+ September 22, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR: E. Kevin Cornell Deputy Executive Director for Operations FROM: Thomas F. Engelhardt Deputy Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
NRC'S DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM This responds to your t ndum of September 9,1980 requesting comments on NRC's document control system. Currently TERA provides three services to the Office of the Executive legal Director: the agency-wide title list system, the OELD antitrust document control file for the Stanislaus antitrust proceeding, and the OELD subject index special file. The latter two systems were designed specifically for OELD use. I am responding to the questions as they apply to each of the three systems. The agency-wide title list system has been of little use to the OELD staff. Occasionally a search is performed to find a specific document; however, if the system were not available, we would contact the orginating office or central files to get copies of required documents. The Antitrust Division of OELD is satisfied with the services they have been provided in connection with.the special file designed for them to keep track of' voluminous documents in connection with the Stanislaus antitrust proceeding. It is estimated that if the automated systems were not available, an additional three staff years of effort would be required to perform this function manually. Also this system provides the Antitrust Division with automated document retrieval similar to that already available to other parties in the proceeding. Termination of the system would have a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Division to maintain its production pace in the processing of documents. We are now developing the OELD subject index special file. The necessary data fields have been incorporated in the conputer by TEPA and OELD originated legal memoranda and substantive legal pleadings and briefs are being coded into the system by the initiating attorney. ltpo f 116424(MLf
g- .0 0 L v. Secause there are only about 200 documents in the specialized OELD file it is difficult to determine fully how useful it will be. If the systems proves useful, as we expect it will, we estimate a savings of approximately 13 staff weeks per year in search time for legal documents. This is based cn a estimate of five searches per week at the rate of 2.6 staff weeks por year per search. Termination of this automated capability would require us to develop a manual system which would be time consuming and inefficient. With respect to question 4 of your memorandum we would find it most useful if the document control system had the following capalilities: Capability of Boolian search of subject digests. Expanded and improved indexing. Elimination of clutter on the system. Minimize title list capacity. More accurate document type codes. Indication of number P documents retrieved. Reverse chronological. display. Videt document display. Office specific training. Better microfiche compatability. Better assisted search option. Better user manual. Better document hierarchy. Forward or backward more than a page at a time. Improvement to quality control. Search history needed. Combined searches with Boolian connectors. Fonnal files generation. If I can be of further assistance to you in thi mattsr please,let me know. Thomas F. Engelhardt Deputy Executive legal Director m
.-w ~ P
SUMMARY
OF !4PA CP.AUCH CFM.W CWD'n ON TERA'S DOCU:SU CONTROL SGM y-
- 1) Are you satisfied with the services that the M3 has truvided to your of fice?
l Out'of five branches in MPA, only three una di tcras%ntIly. The two branches who do not use it feel they have nu une for 51'because they i can easily get what correspondence they wed fr.cm othET 3ources, 0 9. files, other offices. There also seems 1r :be a 1rik nf interest in their branches to learn how to use the systunt. DT tw three branches who occasionally use the system, two are vet satisPind with the services provided. Only one said he was sartsfiicd in ynneral with the services, but there still are problene; diic:h wnd in te resolved. Problems g.iven were: a) Too many data gaps in system. For mncide,, wrpy SECY papers and memos under the " Author" file we n51 sing b) lhe need for the system is miniurL snuthys f"7.? docu:nents are very occasional and documentI tr.c cary tu ge from other r.ources. The branch chief who said that he 'tes se15sT51ci used the system frequently when he was on the T!1l Spscial Inquiry Grnup Mr.ever,, his branch still only uses it occasiot. ally.
- 2) To the extent oossible,, estimate the sav9nys in irrns vr N1".ars or staff years oer year you acnieve now or will acnieve vmen ite sys tem is fuDy molemented.
Most said none. The system is not used arrugh it mW m difference. Only one branch chief said that he would esthnate a shuinas rf about 1/10 manyr/yr. He was the only one who felt that the sysic raved :more time than goirg to Central Files. 3) If the DCS were terminatea, what effect wouM thM 6wd on your office?! One branch chief said the effect would be mininmL 7tr irest said there would be no effect. One comment was that the system iis more ucieful for those offices with technical or research resporcsibiliit-its Dirce our office is policy related, we do not need the system es much.1Dimic: tor does not agree with this statement.] y o + q ---g ge ,m
e- .2- ~
- 4) }{ hat might be done to make the DCS nore useful to your office?
Coments given were: a) Fill in data gaps (most common co.wnent).' ' A' problem with the gaps in ~ -SECY papers is that TIOC is supposed to get all of the SECY pacers to TERA: however T.lDC does not get all of the SECY papers themselves.. A solut. ion would be to have SECY automatically put TERA on the distribution list. b) Categorize co'rrespondence into' subjects. I c). Cranch would probably use system more if
- 1) terminal was on same ficer
- 2) more people were trained. '
t 5 T 4 I l e i i s f e 9 e .-.-.e,- e r
[ ,[ g o UNITED STATES g - e eg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- a WASHING TO N, D. C. 20555
...../ SEP 161990 MEMORANDUM FOR: E. Kevin Cornell Deputy Executive Director for Operations FROM: G. Wayne Kerr, Acting Director Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
NRC's DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM In response to your memo of September 9, we wish to submit the following comments on NRC's Document Control System: 1. The TERA personnel have been very responsive whenever we have had a problem in locating a document in the DCS. They have made a very concerted effort to educate us to the system. 2. In terms of savings in 2ollars, it would be very difficult to estimate staff years per year saved because we are not able to make full use of the system as it prasently exists. If the system currently had a 3-year backfitting of documents we could better utilize the system. Also, we could further utilize the system if a subject index were available for retrieving documents. 3. If the DCS were terminated it probably would not greatly impact on our office at this time. However, if the DCS were fully implemented as planned, we could greatly improve the cutback in hard copy documents. Also, since our office interacts with all the program offices, it would be helpful to retrieve documents initiateu by other offices as needed. Basically, we could handle our paper flow and files more efficiently and it would result in both a savings in time and money. 4. The DCS would be more useful to us if we had a video terminal, a subject index and a backfitting of documents covering at least 3 years (1977 to present). Since we have regional state liaison officers in each of the NRC regional offices, it would also help to have a digital terminal system with up-to-date microfiche of NRC documents available in all of the regional offices k D G. Wayne err, Acting Director Office of State Programs
a, _ ,s E. Kevin Cornell.
- Enclosed are some more specific comments concerning the DCS, If you have any additional questions concerning this matter, please contact me or Fred Hebdon (x29543) of my staff.
( t N WDN CarlyleMichelson,Directorg& r Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
Enclosure:
Comments en the f;RC Document Control System cc w/ enclosure: W. Besaw, DDC N. Carter, TERA S. Conver, DDC (
Corr:ents on the NRC Document Control System 1. Are you satisfied with the services that the DCS has provided your office? In general, the DCS bas been very responsive to the specific requests fer services that have been made by this office. These tarvices have included training sessions, special search strategies, etc. Unfortu-nately, the usefulness of the DCS continues to be limited by several fundamental problems. a. People are not confident that they can find needed documents using the DCS. We have not conducted a formal survey of the percentage of documents ava.ilable on the system, but we do see a general per-ception that the percentage is unacceptably low, particularly for internally generated documents. This perception has prevented people from developing sufficient confidence in the system to permit using DCS as their primary source of needed documents. Cor.sequently, groups (including this iffice) and individuals continue to maintain separate manual files of important documents. b. This office is located in the MNBB and does not have a video terminal. Therefore, we must rely on a microfiche file. Unfortunately, it frequently takes several weeks before the microfiche copy of a docu-ment appears in our file. For example, on July 30, 1930, AE00 issued a report on the Browns Ferry, Unit 3 partial failure to scram event. The report was dis-tributed to several recipients (e.g., the Commissioners, the Director of URR) as an enclosure to separate forwarding letters. On August 14, 1980, an initial search for the letter forwarding the report to the Director of MRR produced the microfiche address of the forwarding letter; however, that microfiche sheet was not available in our files until about September 1,19B0. When it was eventually available, the microfiche included the forwarding letter, but not the enclosed report. Some additional searches and some assistance from TERA, Corp. produced the microfiche address of the report. As of September 16, 1920, the microfiche sheet containing the actual report is not yet available in our files. c. The DCS appears to be much less user oriented and much mere inflexible than other document control systcms we have used (e.g., RECON). For example, if the review of a large number of documents is interrupted, there is no vay that we know of to resume at the point where the review was interrupted. The reviewer must start over with the first document in the group.
o fe, UNITED STATES
- *, ' [C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
- )
c WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 \\ / September 23, 1980 NOTE TO: E. Kevin Cornell
SUBJECT:
'NRC'S DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM In reply to your memo of September 9 requesting coments on the Document Control System, attached are:
1. Comments from the Director, Division of Rules and Records, one of the user offices for the DCS. 2. Coments from the Records Services and Document Management branches of TIDC. These two branches are also user offices. 3. A summary memo which addresses the questions raised in your memo.
- f. ll k Daniel J. Donoghu rector Office of Administration Attachments:
As stated l 0
o .y b fp* Wk UNITED STATES -j l Pr f,i ,,g F NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , c ) WASHING TON. D. C. 20555 h, //: %g v [o p g, September 19, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR: Patricia G. fiorry, Deputy Director Office of Administration FROM: J. M. Felton, Director, DRR, ADM
SUBJECT:
NRC's DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM Enclosed are DRR's coments regardir.g !!r. Cornell's memorandum of September 9-1980. We will be pleased to discuss any questions you may have. / / [#f Mn [ J. M. Felton, Director / Division of Rules and Records, ADM
Enclosure:
As stated ~{ 23 '~T:;;;7;7:~,qqpyv "~,"~ . _ - x'n DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Fj Entire document previously ?i..,l entered into system ur. der: r1 ($ 130_klDN.2OOb3t/ Q s IQ No. of pages: Up gimrsGwyr_;w ; m e r y a1o ,,e ~.~ h as
- waa,
o., - ,(c, UNITED STATES 8 9 A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J' ' s. l WA$mNGTON D.C.20555 t SEP 2 21980 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Sesaw, Director Division of Technical Information and Document Control, ADM FROM: R. Stephen Scott, Chief Document Management Branch, TIDC, ADM
SUBJECT:
INFACT OF DISCONTINUING DCS ON DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT BRANCH PROGRAMS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS IN DCS Per Myrna Steele's request of September 22, 1980, we have examined the possible impact of discontinuing the DCS on the work of DMB. The following represents the major applications of DCS to the support services we previde to NRC: 1. Regulatory Information Distribution System (RIDS). The Document Management Branch provides an open, sort, identification, control and dissemination support function for MRR and IE. More than 150 items submitted by licensees are identifiec for selective distributions each day. DCS provides maintenance for P.ad production of automated distribution lists for this effort. Should DCS be c'!scontinued, alternative means for accomplishing the e# fort would be required. Conversion to a manual effort, ascuming NRC requires the present turn-around-time, would require an additional 10 or 11 persons and an additional 800 square feet or more of additional space. However, assuming no increase in staffing, the turn-around-time would become 5-7 days. Also 400 square feet of operational space would be required for effective control of backlog submittals. In addition, there would result a significant loss in our ability to locate submittals and respend to staff and licensee queries regarding the"r status. To retain such capacity would require some type of locator system. The cost for such a system would be approximately $350,000 per year, expressed in time-sharing ccsts. 2. PDR Accession List DMS has been required to provide the PDR with a caily comprehensive listing of all 500 or mere documents sent to the PDR each day as a prerecuisite to their accep-tance. If DMB had to produce the list manually, without the support of DCS, we estimate i Ap of MG40 37
5 that we would require an additional 15-20 highly qualified persons. There would also be a substantial reduction in the number of factors indexed as well as in the quality of the final product. To maintain quality control and assure a useable list would require some form of ADP support. If purchased on time-sharing, we estimate the cost at $10-15V, per month. 3. Records Management Title 44 requires each Federal Agency to maintain an efficient and effective records management program. DCS is intended to serve that end in two respects: e Automatic record series indexing, identification and retrieval e Conversion to microform for storage and retention. Without DCS, an additional 5-8 persons would be required for the efforts listed above. In addition, NRC would be required to acquire contractor support for microform conversion and increase space and records storage equipment require-ments substantially. Production of Docket 50 microforms alone, which are now provided by the National Technical Information Service through the use of the DCS data base, would cost more than $250,000 per year. No effort has been made to calculate other efforts, since continued DCS support was assumed in our planning. DMB believes that DCS should be further utilized in paperwork management throughout NRC in efforts that will produce more assurance of document control, adequate dissemination and cost-effective applications and storage. For ' example: 1. RIDS should be expanded to provide a central agency point for receipt, control and dissemination of licensing information. 2. The " electronic mail" concept exists within the DCS framework and should be capitalized upon to reduce costly copying and distribution. 3. The DCS framework can logically be tied-into the Federal Information Locator System (FILS), and assist in meeting requirements of the new Federal Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 4. DCS can be used to identify gaps or miscues in the exchange of documentation between licensees and NRC. 5. DCS can be used to examine trends in issues, problems, etc. R. Stephen Scott, Chief Document Management Branch, TIDC
,n en / .os UNITED STATES ,y $) c('n i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .g f. j wAssincrow. o. c. 20sss September 22, 1980 tiOTE TO: Bill Besaw ~FROM: Inez Bailey
SUBJECT:
EFFECTS OF TERMIriATItiG ALL AUTOMATED EQUIPMEtiT At40 MICROFICHE There would be a. tremendous impact on the Records Services Branch if the automated services and microfiche were terminated. As of today, a total of 5,482 Commission Papers have been converted to microfiche to free approx-imately 50 cubic feet of space. A total of 3,842 Vendors' Topical Reports have been converted to microfiche freeing up approximately 95 cubic feet of space. With no hope for additional space for these vital records, there would be no available space for the daily flow of new records coming into the Agency. The terminals have been time-saving in retrieving documents with little decriptive information and in the retrieval of documents sub-jected to F0IA Requests. There have been many trips saved to the repro-duction machine when only one page of a 20 page document is needed which can be gotten from the video terminal. The one feature that I would like added to the system is search by Subject Category. To take the automated system away would mean an additional increase of staff to provide service to the fiRR staff for retrieval and reproduction. The system has provided tremendous savings.in search time for documents. In most cases, the system provides the only means of retrieval of documents subject to the Rogovan requests. Finally, we are responsible for the maintenance of valuable, irreplaceable archival records. Continual wear and tear and possible loss or misfiling of these records is a situation that would cause this Agency a great deal of embarrassment if it ie, necessary to go directly to the files, time after time, to pull documents for reproduction versus using microfiche and TERA. A v3 y Inez Bailey / ) 0
9 c $ MCy ,f 'o UNITED STATES ^g y 3 2.., g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 .p jg %+..../ SEP 2 319S0 MEMORANDUM FCR: E. Kevin Cornell, Deputy Executive Director for Operations FROM: Daniel J. Dongohue, Director Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
NRC'S DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM: 0ADM EVALUATION OF USEFULNESS
Reference:
Memo, Cornell to Multiple Addressees, "NRC's Document Control System," dated September 9,1980. We are responding to your request for an evaluation of the NRC's Document Control System (DCS) as you requested: first by giving you my own personal views on the DCS, and secondly, by answering your four (4) questions in the order they were asked. First, my own views of the DCS are that it has been an administrative asset almost from the beginning of the time the contract was let on June 2,1978. As you may know, the NRC had set up a semiautomated system (called DACS-Document Accession and Control System) to try to control the documents that were being sent to the PDR. Before DACS the PDR staff (and all the over-time help they auld get) had to spend long hours manually typing lists of the documents they received daily (aboct 50 documents / day in 1977) before the documents could be filed. Similarly, the various file rooms within the NRC kept manually-produced logs, noting the various availabilities of dccuments. When TERA came to the NRC in 1978, more than 1500 manually-produced logs were maintained routinely. Those mentioned above were the largest and most time-consuming to maintain. Now, the large-volume logs have been automated. But that is not what I see as the greatest benefit to the Comission as a whole. Before we were automated, there whs no document control. Distribution was controlled to the extent possible, bE the agency was still in its infancy, undergoing numerous changes. The volume of paper was increasing rapidly (for example, the volume increased about 24f, between 1977 and 1978) and few mechanisms were in place to ensure an orderly processing of paper handling in an agency that has the largest paper volume per capita of any in the Federal Government. To make conditions more demanding, very few administrative personnel and functions had been retained when the old AEC was split into NFC and ERDA (in 1975) and, comparatively few were allowed to be hired in the first ccuple of years after the NRC was formed. TERA not only took over the DACS functions, but also assumed the production of the substitute for the Power Reactor Docket Infor~aticn, a titia liet and subiect index of documents made publicly available. This had 7 -- q h 9 DUPLICATE DOCUMENT [I 9 Entire document previously entered into system under: YhO&{}()h//$ ?: ANO u ~ No. of pages: // %n y,. ,,~ ,0J ~ ' ' a Rl, lll Wu, ? Mk.. ' '~
C.. C Ja atg o UNITED STATES O [ \\, c, j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 %, * *... / NOV 181980 MEMDRA!'DUM FOR: Chairman Ahearne FROM: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
THE NRC DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM MPA has just completed a comprehensive review of the Document Control System (DCS). The purpose of this memorandum is to sur,Taartze the major findings cf the MPA study and to describe the decisions I have made to redirect the system and to reduce substantially the current $11 million annual cost. The study results are presented in the form of a briefing package (Enclosure A). The principal findings are: 1. To date there has not been extensive use of the DCS by the technical staff, and the DCS has not yet provided the substantial savings in technical staff time that were cited in the original justification for the system. However, some program offices rely on the DCS for special information products that support technical functions. 2. The DCS development process is not yet comolete. Use of the system by the NRC technical staff may increase if additional system capabilities, such as subject indexing and backfitting of older documents, are realized. It is very uncertain, however, how great these potential increases in use and associated benefits will be. 3. The DCS is currently performing a number of necessary administrative functions -- for example, providing accession lists for the public, distribution lists for NRC use, and file integrity. The total annual cost of performing these administrative functions without the DCS is estimated at $4 to $6 million. 4. Since about two thirds of the $11 million current annual cost of the DCS is in labor cost, major cost savings in this area may be possible. Based on these findings, I have decided to make substantial changes in the DCS. The resulting system will perform necessary administrative functions and serve several limited but well-established technical staff r.eeds; however, it will not foreclose the possibility of providing more substantial technical benefits in the future, p.~ ,, y # y... - - +,
- % o - +, -r
- take actions tnat will result 63; __ _ _ m =o .v -, -ment of the DCS, allow for g DUPLICATE DOCUMEN'" t Entire document previously 2 entered into system under: TlON3n/L W A ANO 'J((')' f d No. of pages: $y - h&;&_ kyG>. ~ ~ h ^M '~'d -= 4"'*
- }}