ML20206A165
| ML20206A165 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/06/1981 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206A158 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-411 NUDOCS 8811140479 | |
| Download: ML20206A165 (2) | |
Text
y
, yq' , ,
pe . A .a e .
\.
i . .
\ *
~ hw th 5 '5 P T)(fj ..
- . l . c. I L4 , ] U . ? <h \
FE8 g Igg; ;
MEM)RANDUM FOR: John G. Davis. Director !
)ffice of Nuclear / Material Safety and Safeguards TMtw ' Daniel J. Donoghue. DireC&tfttNAt,stcNED BT, !
Office of Administration o u gei s, D onogh . , !
FROM: J. M. Felton. Director / <
Division of Rules and Records. ADM ,/
' {
SUBJECT:
LOCAL PUBLIC 00CtNENT ROOMS FOR FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES I f
{
, As you may be aware, on October 8,1980 Ralph Nader and Richard Pollock i wrote letters to the White House and the Office of Management and Budget which l were severely critical of the Local Public Doceent Room (LPDR) program. The letters were based upon an article which appeared in the September,1980 issue 7
- of the Critical Mass Enerny Journal. Subsequently, the LPDR staff conducted (
a survey of the power reactor LPDRs. and met with Messrs. Pollock and 0111ehay i of Critical Mass. The enclosed memorandum to Chairman Ahearne presents the !
results of that meeting and, in Enclosure A. responds to each of the allegations l by Critical Mass. Enclosure B to the memorandum is a list of the actions and l l resources required to upgrade the LPDR program. Note that items 8.9 and C.6 l
l on the list call for a decision on how to handle the fuel cycle LPDRs. The t
! Critical Mass criticisms of the LPORs did not specifically address the ,
- LPDRs that have been established for fuel cycle facilities, and these were not ,
3 discussed in our response to Critical Mass. l
! The LPDR program has suffered from a lack of adequate staff to administer {
l the numerous services requested by the public, as well as the significant l i growth in doc eents distributed. For example, although the num6er of documents j sent to the LPDRs has increased by 400 percent since 1975, the number of staff *
, personnel assigned to the LPDR Branch. DRR has remained the same. The l additional conpittments made in the memorandum to Chairman Ahearne will impose !
j further constraints on the present staff of the LPDR Branch.
In a June 5.1978 Coassissien paper (SECY 78-301) on the LPDRs (copy enclosed). l I the LPDR Branch agreed to accept responsibility for the Docket 40 and 70 !
l LPDRs from NMSS. but implementation of that plan as delayed until additional j staff could be made available through the budget process. As indicated above, t i additional staff was not provided, and the plan was never officially implemented, I i Nevertheless, the LPDR Branch has continued to foru rd documents to the i Docket 40 and 70 LPDRs. and has assisted the NHS$ staff in establishing new LPDRs.
\8811140479 881005 f l PDR FOIA l DARKE88-411 PDR i
,_ l i * *> ................... ..................... ..................... ..... ........ . .. ... .......... . ... ..................... ........ . ...
7> .. .................. ....... ........ .. .... ................ ....... ........... . .... .. .
(
e 2
Because of the existing workload, however, the LPDR staff is no longer able for the fuel cycle LPDRs.to provide these services, and NMSS will have to reass I am enclosing, for your information, a June.1980 survey conducted of Docket 40 and 70 LPDRs.
to the NMSS. Copfes of the survey were previously made available little public use, and probably could be closed.As indicated by the surve These LPDRs have not been visited by our staff, and we really do not know how complete or up-to-date they are. We suspect however, that many of the criticisms made by Critical Mass about the power r,eactor LPDRs are probably more valid with respect to in locating spectfic doceents and the familiarity of the local with the collections. For example, I understand that there were no accession Ifstingsbe should of in documents the file. prepared before July,1978 which would show what document document control system for docnents sinceIn addition, the accession list availab not complete. 1978 in these dockets probably is If you decide to close fuel cycle LPDRs assist your staff in their termination. Ifthe LPDR Branch will be pleased to you want these LPDRs to remain open (note that most librarf ans surveyed thought they should remain spen), and want to provide services similar to those planned for the power reactor LPDRs we -
believe it will require the services of at least one full-time employee and will cost approximately $5,000 per year for each LPOR (microfiche equipment -
$3,000, funding - $1.500, and travel - $50')).
In addltion NMSS would have to develop a system to assure that all doctmots are in fact sent to the LPDRs.
If you do continue fuel cycle LPDRs and wish the LPDR Branch to provide the administrative support for them, it Wuld be necessary to transfer one permanent position and appropriate funding for FY 1981-1983.
Therea f ter.
DRR could fund the fuel cycle LPDRs through the normal budget process.
Please let us know how you wish to proceed on this matter.
be pleased to meet with you or other members of your staff to discuss furtherWe will, o these concerns. ,
3.nnJ.nratE l
J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records 1
Office of Administration I
Enclosures:
As stated DRR Subject File-LPDR Br /
LPDR RDG l'
F RDG DONOGHUE w/o encl.,
,~
< *) ..DRJh,,,,, . pp.:.M. ... . .Q;.M . . . . . , ,
b (5 Y ..... . $....o...
... .. E... ,,
2/ /81 4 2./4/81....................g.................................
2/ /81
.oo nu.. *.. '.n ...on. .o .. ...o . . o o 3i..wsceeweno O F Fit'l a i O &* ^^~ ...
- - . _ _ - - . _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ . - - _ . . _ _ _ ,