ML19209B310

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to FOIA Request for All Documents Re Preparation of NUREG-0459 & Upgraded Physical Protection Regulations in 10CFR73.Document Being Prepared Re NUREG-0459.Remainder of Request Does Not Meet 5USC552(a)(3) Requirements
ML19209B310
Person / Time
Issue date: 10/05/1979
From: Felton J
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To: Roisman A
National Resources Defense Council
References
FOIA-79-371 NUDOCS 7910090494
Download: ML19209B310 (2)


Text

.

~

),

Wn oeo 8[*s,(o, s c. s.

UNITED STATES y

f

'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,\\

WASHING TON, D. C. 20555

%, W /

OCT 0 51979

....+

Anthony Z. Roisman, Esquire fiatural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

IN RESPONSE REFER 1725 I Street, fl.W.

TO F0IA-79-371 Washington, DC 20006 (f1RDC/AZR/79-3)

Dear Mr. Roisman:

This is in response to your letter of September 6,1979 in whico.<ou requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, all documents prepared or received in connection with the preparation of NUREG-0459 and with the preparation of the upgraded physical protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 73.

Pursuant to a telephone conversation of September 18, 1979 with Jacob H.

Zamansky of my staff, you have agreed to a ten-day extension in responding to your request.

Regarding your request for the reference materials used in the preparation of NUREG-0459, Generic Adversary Characteristics Summary Report, a list of all such sources is being compiled by the NRC staff.

Since NUREG-0459 indicates that more than 650 documents were used as reference materials for the report, it will take some time to prepare this list.

We will keep you informed of the progress of this compilation.

Concerning the preparation of upgraded physical protection regulations, a significant portion of the f4RC safeguards-related effort expended of phys $C's inception in 1975 might relate in some way to the upgrading since fl ical protection regulations contained in, or planned for inclusion in, 10 CFR Part 73.

As a result, there is a wide range of documentation from diverse functional areas that might have contributed to the final safeguards amendments.

Af tc; careful consideration, we have determined that this part of your req 4ect does not " reasonably describe" the records sought, but is a broad request for production, lacking reasonable specificity.

As such, this part of your request fails to meet the threshold requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3).

It is reasonable to assume that the files located throughout the various branches of the Division of Safeguards and other NRC offices contain documents relating in some way to this subject. We cannot, however, short of examining every file, state with any degree of confidence that all documents relating to it have been located.

1112 155 7 9100 90 p'97

Support for this interpretation is found in the House Report on the 1974 Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act which provides that:

"A ' description' of a requested document would be sufficient if it enabled a professional employee of the agency who was familiar with the subject area of the request to locate the record with a reasonable amount of effort." (H. Rpt.93-876 at 5-6.)

Similarly, the Senate Report indicates that the 1974 Amendments to the F0IA were not intended "to authorize broad categorical requests where it is impossible for the agency reasonably to determine what is sought.

(See Irons v. Schuyler, 465 F.2d 608 (DC Cir.1972))..." (S. Rpt.93-834 at 10.)

In view of the scope and nature of this part of your request, the documentary material being sought, and the considerations expressed above, we conclude that your request does not meet the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3). Accordingly, no further action will be taken with respect to this part of your request.

If you consider this response to be a denial of this part of your request, you may appeal this determination within 30 days to the Executive Director for Operations.

As provided in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision."

Sincer ly, J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration 1112 156

.