UC Preservation Program Annual Report – FY 1988-89

October 4, 1989

To:Joe Rosenthal
 Chair, Steering Committee
 UC Preservation Program
 cc: Steering Committee
 Operations Committee
Fr:Barclay Ogden
 UC Preservation Program

Re: Annual Report. FY 1988-89 and Budget Request, FY 1989-90

I am pleased to submit, and none too early, the UC Preservation Program Annual Report, FY 1988-89. Much important work has been accomplished during the year and good progress has been made on yet more. Our major problem at this time is insufficient funds to pursue all program elements, most notably the development of regional capabilities to do major conservation treatment and, less visible though no less important, much needed increases in minor repair of the most heavily used parts of the collections.

The Preservation Replacement component of the UCPP is doing very well with modest funding, but our capacity to do original microfilming may be exceeded in the near future, depending on our success with grants. UCLA still has some capacity, but UCB’s capacity already has been exceeded greatly. Additionally, some campuses would prefer to contract to regional centers the preparation of the material to be filmed rather than do it in-house; currently UCLA’s preparation work is limited to making targets and UCB has a very limited capacity to prepare materials from other campuses for microfilming. I should very much appreciate the advice of the Steering Committee on all of these concerns.

Also attached is the UCPP Budget Request, FY 1989-90, which has been approved by the Operations Committee. Please ask the Steering Committee (and Library Council?) to review and endorse the Request. If we want to follow the same procedure as that used last year, please return the reviewed Request to me to be submitted as a recommendation with endorsements to Calvin Moore for approval and funding. Thanks very much.







Major Accomplishments

  • 2,068,098 pages of library materials were preserved and made serviceable through a combination of original tab microfilming, photocopying, and purchase of commercial reprints and microforms.
  • A new service to photocopy on acid-free paper and bind preservation replacement copies of brittle original volumes. The service has been implemented in the northern and southern binderies; equipment research and training were underwritten by the UC Preservation Program.
  • A draft proposal for a Conservation Technician Training Project was completed and approved by the Operations and Steering Committees. The Program Director has been authorized to seek grant funding to underwrite the Project.
  • A draft proposal for a California Manuscripts and Archives Preservation Microfilming Project nearly has been completed. The proposal will be submitted (perhaps in December, 1989) following review by a faculty advisory committee, informal review by the staff at the National Endowment for the Humanities, and revisions as necessary.
  • The UC library binding review identified that campuses were incurring added binding costs from “corrections,” that is, errors in spine marking at the binderies due to a combination of lack of standardized abbreviations for spine marking among campuses and consequent high error rates at both campuses and binderies. A draft of standardized abbreviations for all campuses was drawn up and is under review for adoption in FY 1989-90.

Program Components

1. Environmental Monitoring and Disaster Response.

In preparation for a comprehensive evaluation of environmental conditions in UC libraries, additional monitoring equipment was purchased for use at UCLA and UCSF. The collection of data will be undertaken in FY 1989-90 and compiled into a university wide document on the needs and rationale for environmental control for libraries.

Program funds were spent to complete the stockpiles of disaster response supplies in the regional library facilities for use by all campuses. Procedures were established and documented for retrieval of the supplies by any of the campuses. An investigation was made into the viability of a UC owned freeze-drying chamber with the conclusion that commercial services are likely to be available at lower cost. A summary of insurance coverage for disasters involving UC collections was prepared for the information of the UC preservation officers.

2. Education and Training.

On behalf of the Preservation Program, the Director attended the annual meeting of cooperative preservation programs and the NEH- and LC-sponsored States’ Preservation Conference. The States’ Preservation Conference led to beginning discussions among the State Library, State Archives, and UC to explore state funding for preservation and, for the more immediate future, the use of LSCA funds for preservation planning projects of benefit to UC as well as other major libraries and archives in California.

As indicated under major accomplishments, a project to train conservation technicians from all UC campuses was developed, costed out, and approved by the Operations and Steering Committees. If funding is found, the project will enable between 7 and 15 technicians to spend three one-week sessions at Berkeley working with new, more conservationally sound, and more cost effective repair materials and techniques than those that have been used traditionally by UC. The project also would supply all of the participants with small equipment and supplies needed to implement improved procedures at each campus. This project would build on the foundation already achieved in the preservation administrator training project by providing technical training for conservation technicians to complement the training of the preservation administrators.

3. Library Binding Services.

The major project in this program component has been the UC Library Binding Review. It has identified production, scheduling, billing, and communication problems, has recommended solutions, and has been instrumental in implementation of solutions. There are three parts of the Review that still are in progress toward completion:

a. standardization of abbreviations for spine marking to reduce error rates and costs for corrections;
b. development of the Innovacq binding module to make it more satisfactory for UC use; and
c. comparison of pricing of standard services with commercial alternatives.

Additionally, as mentioned under major accomplishments, the Binderies have started a service to photocopy brittle originals on acid-free paper and then to bind the photocopies. Much use is being made of the service already. Funds were expended from the UCPP budget to send Hans Wiesendanger to a commercial supplier of preservation photocopies in Des Moines, Iowa, for training in production preservation photocopying. Equipment has been leased or purchased with monies from the binderies’ equipment maintenance funds.

4. Preservation Technologies Review.

In addition to the review of freeze drying technologies mentioned under Disaster Response, the Program completed a review of the potential application of Parylene, an ultra thin plastic that can be coated around brittle paper fibers, to the preservation needs of UC collections. The conclusion of the review was that there may be a narrow application to friable artifactual materials that cannot be preserved by any other means. For the majority of the brittle materials in the collections, the combination of high cost and limited improvement in the performance of the treated materials makes Parylene not a viable preservation option at this time.

The UCPP is maintaining currency with developments in mass deacidification technology. Several commercial organizations have expressed an interest in offering mass deacidification services to libraries. Some have developed their own processes; others are planning to franchise existing technologies. UC needs a mechanism to compare the alternatives and to that end has been cooperating with efforts of the CIC libraries by providing information that would enable them to do an independent review of technical and economic factors to be considered in plans to deacidify collections. Our cooperation with the CIC project (headquarters at Northwestern) may enable UC to make decisions without conducting extensive testing ourselves.

A possible project of considerable interest to many campuses is preservation of photographic materials. To undertake such a project would require an investigation of appropriate technical options for preservation reformatting of photographic materials. To date there has not been consensus in the library preservation field on a technology of choice, so a project that requires grant funding would need an elaborate justification for the selected technology. The UCPP could undertake such an investigation, but the RLG Preservation Committee currently is undertaking this investigation, so the Operations Committee has elected to wait for the RLG results before taking action.

5. Preservation Steering and Operations Committees.

The Steering Committee conducted its business primarily by phone. Actions taken included approval of the needs-based method for allocation of preservation replacement funds, discussion of an increase in the UC Preservation Program budget, authorization to prepare a grant proposal for microfilming manuscripts and archives, and authorization to seek grant funding for a conservation technician training project. Further, the Committee recommended, and received endorsement from Library Council, that:

  • two regional centers for reformatting be established for UC, one north and one south;


    Status: UCLA and UCB are acting as regional filming centers for UC campuses, but UCB already has reached capacity. The binderies are serving as centers for preservation photocopying.

  • a comprehensive environmental survey of UC libraries be undertaken to assess the overall situation;


    Status: Equipment purchased, survey in design stage. Completion anticipated within twelve months.

  • two regional centers for major conservation treatment be established, with minor treatment undertaken by all campuses;


    Status: No action taken on regional treatment centers because no funds have been allocated for major treatment. UCLA discussing the possibility of setting up a center; UCB could serve in a similar capacity.

  • education and training be organized both centrally and regionally, as appropriate;


    Status: UC conservation technician training project in preparation. Implementation depends on success with funding. UCPP assists with ongoing information needs of campus preservation programs.

  • a decision on the establishment of mass deacidification treatment facilities be deferred until a technology has been selected for UC.


    Status: UC monitoring current developments and informally participating in review efforts of other institutions.

The Operations Committee met twice during the year, August and February, for one day per meeting, to resolve problems with implementation of program components and to develop improvements to the effectiveness of the UC Preservation Program.

6. Preservation Replacement.

The majority of UCPP funds were allocated to the campuses to microfilm, photocopy, or purchase commercial reprints or microforms to replace materials in the collections that were no longer in serviceable condition. More than two million pages of materials were replaced with preservation copies at a total cost of $161,891 (less than $.08/page).

Problems with cataloging of master negatives were resolved for RLIN campuses by recommending that they queue titles to be filmed and for OCLC campuses by recommending that they “prospectively” catalog (i.e., catalog before filming) master negative titles. All campuses should now be contributing master negative bibliographic records to either OCLC or RLIN.

Production- (all campuses):


Type #titles #vol #pages $ cost % ttl $
commercial reprint 97 221 104,197 11,629 7
commerical microform 43 2,718 1,435,082 55,201 34
photocopy 100 149 81,259 10,654 7
microfilming 301 939 447,560 77,489 48
other/liens       6,918 4
Total 541 4,027 2,068,098 161,891 100



The membership of the Steering Committee in 1988-89: Joseph Rosenthal (UCB – Chair), Dorothy Gregor (UCSD), Dennis Smith (UCOP), James Thompson (UCR), and Barclay Ogden (UCB – as Director, UCPP)

The membership of the Operations Committee in 1988-89: Terry Allison (UCSD), Chris Brun (UCSB), Christopher Coleman (UCLA), Kazuko Dailey (UCD), Sheryl Davis (UCR), Lynn Jones (UCB – as Librarian, UCPP), Eric MacDonald (UCI), Karen Mokrzycki (UCSC), Barclay Ogden (UCB – Chair), Cameron Folsom Olen (UCB – as Admin. Asst., UCPP), Stanley Stevens (UCSC – as LAUC observer), and Paul Wakeford (UCSF).

Respectfully submitted,
Barclay W. Ogden
Director, UC Preservation Program
4 October 1989

Attachment: UC Preservation Program Financial Statement. FY 1988-89

 ComponentOrig. Alloc.Final Alloc.Exp./LiensBalance
 S & E1,5001,4361,849(413)
2.Ed. and Train
 S & E1,0009579570
3.Lib. Binding
5.Op. Cte. Mtgs.
 S & E1,0009579570
6.Pres. Repl.
 Los Angeles47,05045,02745,0270
 San Diego10,0009,5709,5700
 San Francisco10,0009,5709,5700
 Santa Barbara10,0009,5709,5700
 Santa Cruz10,0009,5709,5700



DRAFT 17Aug89a






1. Environmental Monitoring / Disaster Response
  Equipment (monitoring and salvage) 1,500
  0.025 FTE Director 1,489
2. Education and Training
  Travel (2 conf/mtgs) 1,600
  0.025 FTE Director 1,489
  0.2 FTE Librarian 7,502
3. LIbrary Binding Services
  Travel (2 mtgs., Southern Bindery) 600
  0.1 FTE Director 5,597
4. Preservation Technologies Review
  0.025 FTE Director 1,489
5. Preservation Operations Committee
  Meeting Arrangements 500
  Phone/Postage/Copying 1,500
  0.1 FTE Director 5,597
  0.1 FTE Administrative Assistant 2,712
6. Preservation Replacement
  Reprints, Photocopies, Microfilming 166,936
  Berkeley 50,260
  Davis 10,000
  Irvine 10,000
  Los Angles 45,982
  Riverside 10,694
  San Diego 10,000
  San Francisco 10,000
  Santa Barbara 10,000
  Santa Cruz 10,000
  0.025 Director 1,489
  TOTAL REQUEST $200,000


Last reviewed: March 4, 2004