ML20150D328
| ML20150D328 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/29/1978 |
| From: | Norry P NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Nordlinger M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150D312 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7812050143 | |
| Download: ML20150D328 (5) | |
Text
-
['
UNITED STATES 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y g.,
E Mu m[8 I 4 i/*
E WASHINGTON D.C.20555
\\7 ovj AUG 2 91978 l
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Marjorie S. Nordlinger, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel I
FROM:
Patricia G. Norry, Deputy Dirntor, Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
TRIAL PROGRAM FOR SUPPLYING NUREG DOCUMENTS TO PARTICIPANTS IN HEARINGS l
This is in response to your request for information on the costs and implications of initiating a policy of providing "NUREG and other technical documents" without charge to parties with a demonstrated interest in NRC proceedi.ngs.
The factors that must be considered in the evaluation and implemen-tation of such a policy include:
1.
What types of documents would be provided free?
2.
To whom would the documents be provided?
3.
How would the general procedure operate?
I 4.
What would be the method of document delivery?
5.
Who would administer the program?
6.
What would be the effect of such a policy on existing NRC operations?
)
7.
What limits would be applied to quantity distribution?
I 8.
How would incoming requests be screened?
9.
What would the cost of the program be?
10.
Would the program affect workload?
In order to deal with these variables and to make meani.ngful cost estimates, a numuer of assumptions were made.
These present one possible prograr. for implementation. Within the available time, it was not feasible to collect data on all alternatives, though the effects of other assumptions can be generally predicted.
781205 0/4/3
Marjories S. Nordlinger The August 17, 1978 memorandum from James Kelley to the Commission referred to free distribution of "NUREG and other technical documents."
We are interpreting this to mean NUREG and NUREG/CR (contractor) docu-ments.
This interpretation makes NRC responsible for providing NUREG and NUREG/CR documents, while avoiding:reproddcti6n and ' distribution of documents from other sources.
j l
1 The opposite assumption would interpret "other technical documents" broadly to refer to any public NRC-related information.
Conceivably, I
any of the several million pages in the Public Document Room could be included in the widest interpretation of this phrase.
The cost esti-mates presented here can be extrapolated out from the narrow interpre-tation we have assumed to any intennediate volume or to the broadest volume.
A second assumption of our estimates is that "an intervenor or partici-pant" eligible to receive free NUREG and NUREG/CR reports would be limited to those who are full participants.
This distribution confines free report distribution to parties who have demonstrated serious in-terest in NRC proceedings.
The average number of full participants in docketed cases is about 15.
The total number of full participants for all current cases is approximately 1,200.
Alternatively, one could broaden this definition to include limited participants.
We have chosen not to do so because of the difficulties involved in realistically estimating the effects of such a policy.
Currently, the number of limited participants is far greater than the number of full participants.
Seabrook, for example, has 11 full par-ticipants and almost 500 limited ones.
Anyone can become'a limited participant in a case, simply by filling out a form, and with the added incentive of free NUREG availability, it is conceivable that the number of limited participants would increase dramatically.
With free reports widely available, sales of NUREG and NUREG/CR reports at NTIS could drop to almost nothing.
Further, such an expansion would raise other issues which would not apply to a more limited program.
OMB Circular No. A-25, " User Charges,"
dated September 23,1959(Rev. April 16,1974), Item Sa, states that technical information made available by the Federal government should be priced to recover "the direct and indirect costs to the government of carrying out the activity."
Currently, NUREG reports are sold for NRC by NTIS.
Our agreement with NTIS states that NRC will " avoid secondary distribution of free copies to the public."
Programmatic needs. are ex-cluded from these requirements.
If the eligibility requirements for free NUREG reports were lowered to include limited participants, these issues
' would have to be considered along with considerably increased costs.
These considerations appeared to make limitation of the program to full participants the proper choice for estimation purposes.
i
Marjorie S. Nordlinger Ft.
-t estimating, we assumed that NUREG's would be provided in res;
' to specific written requests from full participants for
- sing, copies only.
This eliminates automatic distribution and multiple copy requests, both of which would raise the cost of the program.
The issue of limiting requests to single copies raises several questions.
First, should multiple copies be provided where a full participant is involved in several cases and wants copies for each case? Second, should extra copies be provided for participants who have several persons involved in a single case? These decisions might have a significant effect on the cost of the program.
In the past, participants have frequently requested 20 or more copies of single documents.
It was further assumed that any NUREG or NUREG/CR reports requested would be provided free.
This means that a participant could be given any past or present NUREG or NUREG/Cd report that they felt was ap-plicable to the case.
Currently, about 800 such reports are published annually.
The cost estimates below are based on the figure of 50 requests per year per full participant for current reports.
Conceiva-bly, however, the availability without cost of any NUREG or NUREG/CR report might result in requests for complete back collections of NRC reports.
Again, related issues are raised.
Should a time limit be imposed on availability of specific reports? Would subscription NUREG's be included? How could subscriptions be stopped when eligibility ended?
Warehouse stock is small or non-existent for many reports.
The older the agency gets the more prevalent this condition will be.
Currently, requests for out-of-print reports are referred to NTIS for fulfillment.
Under a policy of providing free reports to full participants, would HRC order costly reprinting of a report upon receiving a single request from a participant?
It would be difficult to screen requests for rele-vance," and with no specific limits in this area, the estimate of 50 requests per year might be too low.
Based on the stated assumptio'ns, it is estimated that 60,000 reports could be distributed free annually to full participants.
The cost to respond to a request for one copy of a 200-page report is estimated to be 59.50.
This estimate is made up of the following components:
j Printing (based on cost recovery)
$4.50 Handling (based on NTIS costs) 2.75 Packaging (based on material cost)
.25 Postage (actual) 2.00
$9.50
Marjorie Nordlinger Therefore, the total estimated annual cost of distributing free NUREG and NUREG/CR reports to full participants on request would be about
$600,000.
This estimate, based on the several assumptions stated, requires some further qualification.
Many attorneys within NRC have long practiced a policy of giving NUREG's to participants upon request.
Therefore, the formal implementation of such a program may have little real effect upon either the amount of free distribution or the existing cost to NRC.
NRC attorneys like the existing procedure because participants must funnel requests through the attorney on the case and this permits them to keep abreast of the interests of all participants.
Further, the attorney knows who the full participants are and does not need to verify requester eligibility.
Under a formalized free report request system, the attorneys might forward all approved requests to TIDC for fulfillment.
However, as is mentioned repeatedly above, the real effect of such a program may be much different.
The publicity necessary for a formali-zation of such a program may dramatically increase demand.
A broad interpretation of the type of document covered, or of an eligible re-quester, could multiply the workload.
And so could a large volume of historical requests.
Any significant increase in the number of partici-pants would make the present system break down quickly since it is j
dependent on legal and technical staff screening.
A special unit could be established to handle participant requests.
Con-centrating the screening and handling of document requests would allow prompt fulfillment and free technical staff for casework.
It would also concentrate the estimated handling charge of $2.75 per document in one location, and thus require the addition of personnel, policy for such a program must be written specifically and carefully to ensure that the result matches the intent of the Commission.
Depending upon the scope of the chosen. program the effect and implementation may be a simple formalization of an existing informal practice or it may be an expensive and administrative 1y complicated system requiring more per-sonnel, additional warehouse space, and impacting on many facets of NRC operation.
A suggested one-year trial program could be structured as follows:
1.
Documents included in the program will be NUREG and NUREG/CR documents, excluding subscription series documents.
.,2.
Recipients eligible for free documents will be limited to full participants in active NRC proceedings.
3.
Requests must be written, though they may be delivered in person.
.." &.~
5-Marjorie S. Nordlinger 4.
Requests must specify individual documents.
No automatic distribution will be allowed.
l 5.
Requests for documents should be submitted to the lead NRC attorney on the case.
The, attorney will screen the requester for eligibility by ascertaining whether he qualifies as a full participant.
The request will then be forwarded to TIDC for fulfillment.
It should be initia11ed by the attorney and marked with the docket number to simplify record keeping.
6.
Single copies of documents will be provided to a participant.
If additional copies are required, duplication is the respon-sibility of the participant.
7.
All documents will be delivered by first class mail to the address of the full participant.
lQ U@w Patric'ia G. Norry,Y eputy Director D
s Office of Administration
\\
e e
e