[ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access

Mon Jun 27 14:10:34 CEST 2005

All,
Without comment I would like to make everyone aware of the Petition For
Rulemaking submitted by James Salsman to the NRC.

 http://thefederalregister.com/d.p/2005-06-15-05-11799

Please respond to the NRC's request for comments.

Thank you,

John Kuperus
AnazaoHealth

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Syd H. Levine
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 1:50 AM
To: James Salsman; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access

As usual, you do not have a clue what you are talking about.  It is a
waste of time trying to use the FOIA to obtain licensing or sealed
source information from NRC.  They have crafted a clever way to use one
of the existing exemptions in the FOIA that is iron clad to prevent
disclosure.  If you were a licensee, and not just a know-nothing loud
mouth, you would already know about this from recent NRC mailings (all
of which say on their face they are exempt from disclosure under the
FOIA as sensitive material).

If they could use a pro bono case?  How exactly do you imagine that
works?
Lawyers are not required to do pro bono work, but some firms do a bit of
it from time to time.  I have done a number of pro se FOIA appeals, and
even took a different pro se case all the way to the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals.  And incidentally, the first level of appeal of a denied
FOIA request is usually administrative within the agency at issue.

James, your posts are tiresome, usually wrong, and always unscientific.

Syd H. Levine
AnaLog Services, Inc.
Phone:  270-276-5671
Telefax:  270-276-5588
E-mail:  analog at logwell.com
URL:  www.logwell.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Salsman" <james at bovik.org>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>; <syd.levine at mindspring.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NRC Restores Document Access

> If you need, or you think there is a public need, for government
> document access, you can file a Freedom of Information Act request:
>
>   http://www.rcfp.org/foi_letter/generate.php
>
> If you use that template, then your letter will request the reasons
> that the information is not being released.  If you think there is
> a more important reason that it should be released, then you can
> file suit in U.S. District Court.  If you win, your fees are covered.
>
> If you think there is a chance that you might not win, then try to
> get an attorney to represent you "pro bono" (for free) -- i.e., go
> through your County Bar Association's directory phoning and asking
> whether they could use a Freedom of Information Act case for pro
> bono work, or use the form you get with this URL:
>
http://legalrecords.findlaw.com/ss/search_results_exp.jsp?ch=LP&legaltop
ic=1&legalissue=112&search=exp&law=lawyer
> except plug in your location and use "First Amendment Law" instead
> of "Constitutional Law" for your first pass.  Don't forget to ask
> for referrals if they don't need any pro bono work.  Or, you can
> file in propria persona (without a lawyer) in which case you really
> should study these resources first:
>
> Nolo Press self-representation FAQ:
>
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/75864481-C7EE-4427-A9F16A125445
5EA4/catID/8F965511-320B-429E-AFF92326E148C549/104/308/214/FAQ/
>
> Pertinent Nolo Press books:
>   http://www.isbn.nu/0-87337-908-X
>   http://www.isbn.nu/1-4133-0178-9
>   http://www.isbn.nu/1-4133-0058-8
>
> Federal Court Rules of Procedure:
>   http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/overview.htm
>
> Federal Court Forms:
>   http://forms.lp.findlaw.com/map.html
> (click location, "US District Court," "Civil,"
>
> The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press -- www.rcfp.org --
> might agree to help for free, too, if you can find a reporter who
> wants to write a story about something that the NRC decided (in an
> "abundance of caution," probably) to withhold which would be a
> greater benefit health and safety more if it were available.
>
> Frankly, I can see why they don't want to release records of
> licensees, who are likely to have addresses near vulnerable
> storage facilities for
>
> The sealed source registry database is also a threat to the extent
> that existing sources with legitimate purposes could be used to
> mask the presence of restricted materials.  However, I am not
> certain whether that concern outweighs the benefit of the health
> professionals' community having access to it.  That's probably
> something that the NRC isn't going to think about until there's
> an accident that could have been avoided if the database had
> been public.  Perhaps the NRC could be persuaded to provide free
> NukAlerts or Geiger counters if they wish to keep the sealed
> source registry database sealed.  There is only one way to find out.
>
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman
>
>
> 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

This email transmission and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this transmission to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return email and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.