ML19017A171
| ML19017A171 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/11/2019 |
| From: | David Nelson NRC/OCIO |
| To: | Fitzpatrick C Egan, FitzPatrick, Malsch & Lawrence, PLLC |
| References | |
| FOIA, NRC-2018-000259, NRC-2019-000072 | |
| Download: ML19017A171 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
-'\\l 1 1 2019 Charles J. Fitzpatrick, Esquire Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch & Lawrence, PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd., Bldg. 1 Suite 250 Austin, TX 78735
Dear Mr; Fitzpatrick:
IN RESPONSE REFER TO:
NRC-2019'-000072 NRC-2018-000259 On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your letter dated October 19, 2018, in which you appeal the agency's decision related to your' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, NRC 2018-000259. In your request, you sought records relating to the NRC's implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) revised standards for doses that could occur after 10,000 years, but within the period of geologic stability. Specifically, you sought any records created or compiled by NRC staff, beginning January 1, 2005 and ending with the NRC's publication of its final rule on 1 O CFR Part 63 on March 13, 2009.
On August 3, 2018, the FOIA Officer provided you With two records that reflected the regulatory histQry of both the proposed and final rule. These regulatory history listings included the ADAMS accession ("ML") numbers for the records that were deemed to be of central relevance to (i.e.,
used and relied upon in) the development-of the rule. In your appeal letter, you challenge the adequacy of the search.
Your appeal letter takes issue with the NRC's understanding of the records you were requesting and, as a result, the search that was conducted. For the reasons set forth below, I am granting your appeal as to the adequacy of the search, and I am remanding the matter to the FOIA Office for appropriate action.
Initially, you challenge the NRC's interpretation of your FOIA request. I have confirmed, however, that NRC staff appropriately interpreted your request to reach any records created or compiled by NRC staff, beginning January 1, 2005 and ending with NRC's pubiication of the final Part 63 rule on March 13, 2009.
At the same time, I find that the NRC's response to you omitted certain records that were responsive to your FOIA request. Upon receipt of your appeal, the subject matter experts and rulemaking staff within NMSS who had been involved in the rulemaking and were still at the NRC conducted new searches of their own offices (including paper and electronic files) and did not locate any additional records. The staff also confirmed that no additional records were temporarily stored at the National Archives & Record Administration's Federal Records Center.
During a second search of ADAMS, however, NMSS staff realized that several of the records
Fitzpatrick, C. listed in the regulatory histories, which had been intended to be made available to the public in ADAMS, were not publicly available. This oversight has now been corrected; the accession numbers of these records are ML090550353, ML082480517, ML090550591 and ML090550536.
Moreover, staff in my office also undertook an additional search in ADAMS and identified several other records that appear torelc;1te to the NRC's implementation of the EPA's revised standards for doses that could occur after 10,000 years, but within the period of geologic stability and, accordingly, would be responsive to your request.
In light of the records located in ADAMS, I am remanding this matter to the FOIA Office for their appropriate action. You may expect to hear from them shortly.
Sincerely,
~~
David J. Nelson Chief Information Officer Office of the Chief Information Office