Re: FOIA (formerly NRC Policy Guidance on the Internet?)

[carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>]

At 10:36 PM 12/21/99 -0600, you wrote:
>The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 USC 552) specifically 
>requires that "Each agency, upon any request for records . . .shall . . 
>.determine within 20 days . . .after the receipt of any such request whether 
>to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making 
>such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right 
>of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination."
>
>The FOIA is not a guarantee that you'll get the information you want right 
>away, but six months is too long, and "can't find it" is obviously not a 
>legitimate reason to withhold the documents you seek.  Sounds as if you're 
>not trying hard enough.  You should also consider a request under state FOI 
>law.
>
>Good luck.
>
>Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
>St. Peters, MO
>GlennACarlson@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 12/21/1999 7:34:58 PM Central Standard Time, 
>csmarcus@ucla.edu writes:
>
><< Subj:     Re: NRC Policy Guidance on the Internet?
> 
> Don't count on it.  The Society of Nuclear Medicine and the American College
> of Nuclear Physicians put in a FOIA for NRC's Draft Licensing Policy, which
> came out in June.  It went to Agreement States in June or July.  To get it
> off the web you needed a password that only Agreement State Program
> Directors can get.  SNM and ACNP also put in a FOIA for the Agreement States
> comments.  Would you believe it, guys, but the NRC "can't find" the
> documents, and 6 months have elapsed?!!!!!!!!!!  If you believe them,
> there's a used car I'd like you to look at......!
> 
> Ciao, Carol
> <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
>  >>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>

What does "trying hard enough" mean?  Asking repeatedly?  More than that?
Why should more than that be necessary?  A lot of NRC folks are on Radsafe.
Will they do something about this? 

 NRC hasn't really "lost" the document.  The document is heinous, and should
be an embarassment to the Agency.  NRC is hiding it on purpose.  The
dysfunctional plotting and scheming of those who created and signed off on
the document represents a national hazard in the making.  I have seen it,
but SNM/ACNP would like an official copy so that the document can be
officially commented upon, shown to Congress, slammed in front of the
eyeballs of Commissioners who have no idea what their vicious staff and
management are up to, perhaps used in Court........

This document is the "smoking gun" typifying the evil perversion of certain
people in NRC's "Medical" Program, and the pathetic incompetence and
laziness of others.  Dick Meserve, who probably couldn't understand it if he
tried to, because it requires a thorough knowledge of what has gone on and
what is going on now in the "Medical" Program, would do more for America
than he will probably accomplish in his entire tenure by firing the five
people who signed off on that document, and any others that were involved in
its review, such as NRC lawyers.

Curious?  Try asking for draft Policy and Guidance Directive PG 83-2, REV.
1, SUPPLEMENT 1:  RENEWAL OF MATERIALS LICENSES.  Signed off in May, 1999.

Ciao, Carol
<csmarcus@ucla.edu>


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html