ML20211N905
| ML20211N905 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/08/1999 |
| From: | Bollwerk G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Galante A NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211N634 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-64FR24531, 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 AG07-1, AG07-1-011, NUDOCS 9909130104 | |
| Download: ML20211N905 (3) | |
Text
Q.
)9G-074p' z)>
/ ~%, UNITED STATES $
l 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
~'
5 E (
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL .p V
'g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 s
- January 8,1999 NN g/ cl \y 0 N
(g-G :V '/
i y \ 3 1 MEMORANDUM TO: -
A.J. Galante
\p' ' y t y
>y ChiefInformation Officer i) '
W#
I ,,(
FROM: G. Paul Bollwerk, lil Acting Chief Administrative Judge k \J )
I
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAL RULE TO DISCONTINUE NRC LOCAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM PROGRAM AND TO ANNOUNCE ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY OF NRC PUBLIC RECORDS
- We have reviewed the draft final rule attached to your December 30,1998 memorandum. Although we recognize the policy decision has been made to discontinue the Local Public Document Room (LPDR) program, relative to the proposed final rule we would like to make several " implementation" observations j based on our experience over the years in dealing with the public and Local Public
- l. Document Rooms (LPDRs) in the course of adjudicatory proceedings.
l l l l. Immediately Effective Rule !
l You have requested OGC approval to make this rule immediately effective without l notice and comment. Whatever the legality of such an approach, because the proposed new system would not go into effect until August 1999 at the earliest, we j would suggest that practical considerations warrant providing at least a brief comment l period before going to a final rule. Over the years, the need for local access to i documents through creation of an LPDR to ensure meaningful participation in the j proceeding has been an issue in a number of agency adjudicatory proceedings.
l Recent examples are the ongoing Private Fuel Storace case and the Georaia Institute l of Technoloav case, in which public expressions of concem about access to licensing i
information during an ongoing proceeding led to the creation of LPDRs for the facilities. For the agency now to rescind the program without providing for public comment (even a minimal thirty days) may be perceived as an attempt to curtail the )
public's ability to leam about and participate in the agency's regulatory process. We urge this not be done unless adopting this rule in final without a comment period is necessary to obtain significant cost savings for the agency.'
In this regard, given the long development period for the ADAMS system, we I think the' agency may be hard pressed to explain why it could not have incorporated (continued...)
9909130104 990908 PDR PR 1-64FR24531 PDR
[b O ,
O
,~',
II. Access to Post-ADAMS Documents
~ We agree that providing Intemet access to electronic versions of agency documents following the implementation of the ADAMS system has the potential to expand the direct availability of NRC information to additional persons, subject to an important caveat. Reactors and significant nuclear materials facilities often are located in less
- urban environments, and the LPDRs supporting those facilities generally are in the same locality. The paper, however, provides no indication of what percentage of the public in such areas (or the American public in general) has Intemet access or what access costs for those currently without it. Rather, it seems to presume this percentage is substantial and the cost is minimal. For instance, the paper notes six of the present LPDR sites do not provide, and apparently have no plans to provide, s
Intemet service. Proposed Final Rule Draft at 3. It 'does not address, however, how the individuals who now use those LPDRs will get Intemet access or how much it will cost them to obtain access.2 This suggests the subject of public availability and cost may need to be addressed further in the regulatory analysis.
lli. Access to Pre-ADAMS Documents The paper indicates that documents created prior to ADAMS implementation will be available on microfiche through (1) the NRC Public Document Room (PDR); and (2)
Federal Regional Depository Libraries by making at least one microfiche collection available in each state that currently has an LPDR. LPDRs presently housing such a collection would be given retention preference. Searches for pre-ADAMS docurnents could to made through the NRC Web site using the existing Bibliographic Retrieval
' System (BRS). This seems to be a workable altemative so long as each of the current
' LPDRs (a) is given a microfiche collection; and (b) has Intemet access that will allow Intemet access for NRC Web site document searches. If this is not the case for any LPDR, then at that location the public arguably is being given less than they now have.8
'(... continued) even a brief comment period for this rule into any implementation schedule.
' it is our experience that those who use the LPDR rely upon it not only to gain access to technical information conceming a facility, but to keep abreast of notices highlighting regulatory developments, such as amendment requests, that may generate intervention opportunitiek. This is not surprising given the cost of a Federal ;
Register subscription, the other obvious source for such notices. Those without i
- Intemet access, or the financial resources to obtain such access, may thus lose an important opportunity for notice that is now afforded by the agency.
- We would note that the degree to which the public has comprehensive, timely access to agency information about a facility and any proposed agency action (continued...)
e q
j g
'.;,?"'
IV. Timing for Discontinuing the LPDR Program The paper indicates that the LPDR program will be discontinued once records are available through the NRC Web site. We nonetheless would hope there could be a trial period of at least six months (a year would be preferable) during which the present LPDRs would remain in operation after ADAMS implementation.' Although not pesfact (i.e., it sometimes takes a lengthy period for documents to reach LPDRs), over an extended period the LPDR program has shown itself to be effective in aiding members of the public to keep abreast of and make contributions to the NRC regulatory process. We think some demonstration of the effectiveness of the ADAMS system in doing the same should be provided before abandoning the LPDR system entirely.
V. Conclusion
. The goal of this proposed final rule - to " computerize" public access to agency documents - is one with which we are fully in accord. . In the adjudicatory context, for some time we have been encouraging those who participate in hearings to provide filings electronically via the intemet. At the same time, however, we realize we must '
be prepared to accommodate those members of the public who want to participate in the agency's hearing process but, for whatever reason, do not have access to
. computers and the Intemet. Similarly, in implementing this rule, we hope the needs of all stakeholders, both those with and without access to computers, will be considered and reasonably accommodated.
cc: R.A. Powell, OClO B.J. Shelton, OClO S.A. Treby, OGC H.T. Bell, OlG
- (... continued)
~ regarding that facility can be a significant factor affecting the efficiency of the adjudicatory process. In setting scheduias, a presiding officer must take into account the means by which interested persons are able to gain access to relevant agency information. Thus, at present, when dealing with interested persons outside the Washington, D,C. area, the ready availability of an LPDR generally means a more expeditious schedule is possible than if the litigant is only able to obtain information by interacting with and awaiting responses from the PDR. Likewise, the degree to which the new ADAMS system is able to provide interested persons in any given location with timely access to agency information will be a scheduling consideration.
- In this regard, we would recommend maintaining any LPDR paper and/or microfiche collections intact at their present locations, supplemented by agency-sponsored internet access to the agency's Web site if Intemet access is not otherwise available at the LPDR site.
l u i S- j