ML20050G597
| ML20050G597 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1981 |
| From: | Ryan Alexander OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-436 NUDOCS 8204140066 | |
| Download: ML20050G597 (8) | |
Text
- -.
o a
/ ]' 52
/r i
290 l"m Oct. 26, 1981 Director, Office of Administration FREEDold OF INFORMATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACI REQUESI,
Washington,D.C.
20555 g pj. s/g
(( Ig ll.3-fl Res FOIA Reauest Sir Pursuant to the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 9, the undersigned makes the following FOIA Request for the documents, items, etc.
listed on the Attachment to this letter.
This requester asks that fees for the production of the requested documents be waived in accordance with 10 CFR section 9.14a.
As enumerated in sub-paragraph (c) of that sections (1)
Upon this requester's review and analysis of the requested documents, that analysis will be disseminated to other members of requester's organization, the Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("0CRE").
OCRE is a public interest,
group with approximately forty members.
It is currently intervening (Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos.
In the Matter of Cleveland Electric Illumi-nating Co.
50-440-441, to protect the health, safety,. and environmental interests of its members (2)
The size of the benefitting audience is approximately forty members (3)
The tangible benefit realized by this audience is the enhanced ability to protect its interests more compe-tently and to participate more meaningfully in that pro-ceeding currently before the ASLB (4)
Requester does not foresee any immediate financial benefit (commercial or otherwise) from the use of the requested d ocuments :
(5)
As this group is a volunteer " bootstrap" operation working entirely pro bono, payment of these fees in the course of its diligent research shall work a hardship upon OCRE:
the group's resources are very limited: and (6)
The intended use of the records requested is likely to manifest itself in the greater safety to OCRE members and to the Northeastern Ohio population in general.
Once OCRE is fully aware of the potential harms connected with the Utility's planned power plant, it may then demand any necessary health, safety and environmental precautions 8204140066 811026 PDR FOIA l
ALEX AND81-436 PDR
r e
t FOIA Request - Oct. 26, 1981 Page 2
- 11) and lii)
Requester expects no benefits to accrue to it in the.se categories iv) Information distilled and disseminated from the requested documents should enhance OCRE's ability-to further public debate in Northeast Ohio regarding the operation of the Perry Nucient Power Plants and v)
Requester expects no benefit here.
The weight of the above factors should clearly demonstrate that furnishing the documents and information contained therein can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public and that waiver of fees for search and production is proper.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely, A
Robert Alexander OCRE Interim Representative 2030 Portsmouth St. #2
~
Houston, TX 77098 Attachment
,, ' t.
.r l
f*'
s' n.
W q
0
/
e.
de
.,,. ~ ~
o FOIA Request - Oct. 26, 1981 Attachment
- Acc. No.
Document Description
- pages 1
8109110269 Annual operation of Texas A & M training reactor, Docket 50-59, 8 pages 2
8109110470 Docket 50-416, Grand Culf, Additihl infon on stack monitor power.
Denton, NRC 7 pages 3
8109100002 Forwards 1+E notice 81-25 O'Reilly, J. P. Region 2 (50-250) 4 pages 4
8109100425 Initial deficiency report re transmitter & trip units for RV water level SCRAMS. from Sherwood (G. E.) TOPREP 2 pages 5
8109100157 Request RE Engel letters re: extension of ECCS performance limits (From Pifferetti, C. E. Co.(TOPREP, C. E.)
6 pages 6
8109100413 Forvards generic rept providing bases for end-of-cycle coastdown to 40% power for BWRs. (Engel, C.E.,
TOPREP) 11 Pages 7
8109170348 Info re: 11osgri earthquake fault, Docket 50-275, Diablo Canyon 9 Pages
'8 8109170297 Testimony on Rn-222 releases, Docket 50-387, Susquehanna Nuclear Plant 9
8109170300 Testimony on health effects of TCgg, Docket 50-387 Susquehann River Nuclear Plant 30 pages 10 7910110379 Licensee Event Report 79-056/011-0, for one of the New York State Nuclear Plants 2 pages
.11 8109160330 Response to President's letter; Docket 50-275, Diablo Canyon.
4 pages 42 8109160091 Proposed FSAR changes and replies to NRC questions, Docket No-50-417, Grand Gulf Plant 10 pages
,13 8109160218 Letter from Congressperson Aspin on moratorium on transfer of spent fuel.
2 Pages Q4 8109180405 Summary of meeting of August, 1981.
Docket 50-498, South Texas Nuclear Project IS 5 pages 8109180014 Summary of august, 1981 meeting with utility on soil struc-ture.
Docket No. 50-498, South Texas Nuclear Project 32 Pages 6
8109180220 PHO-II-81-072 Report of leak in waste gas system, I &E.
Files 2 pages 7
8109110337 Part 21 rept re effects of spurious opening of turbine bypass sys valves.
Docket No. 50-269 Oconce Nuclear Plant 3 pages O
8109220005 Discuses recent NRC actions re pressurized thermal shock to vessals. SECY-81-286A.
4 pages O
8109220483 Summary of ACRS 257th meeting; on site criteris 4 pages 3
8109220424 Paper entitled " corrosion of Structural & Poison Matl in Spent Fuel Storage" Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Plant.
13 pages
~
FOIA Request - Oct. 26, 1981 Attachment (cont'd)
Acc. No..
Document Description
- DnRes 21.
8109220370 Deficinecy Report from Utility on drawings.
Docket No.
50-498, South Texas Project 2 pages 22.
8109220337 Defic ecy report on Crosby safety relief valve.
D. ket No. 50-518 Hartsville Nucicar Plant Unit II 2 pages 23.
8109210075 Response to Generic Ltr 81-03 on BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Hatls. Docket No. 50-387.Susquehanna Plant 4 pages
>24, 8109210017 PNO-I-81-102, on Sept 10, 1981, 2 inch hole in turbine line.
1 Page 25.
8104090921 Summary of 250 ACRS mtg, J. C. MARK 3 pages 26.
8104170081 Comments on ATWS by ACRS consultant, McCreless, ACRS 13 pages 27.
8104090841 Minutes on ac/dc power reliability, Jan 22, 1981 atg of 7 pages ACRS 28.
8104100103 Comment on NUREG-0666 " Prob. Analysis of DC Power Supply Requirements of Nuclear Power Plants" (ACRS) 13 pages 29.
8104230785 RIL-110 Rsults of research on relative hazard of radio-3 pages iodine 30.
8104230787 RIL-111, Results of resecar on acute effects of inhalat
>n of uranium hexaflouride 5 pages 31.
8104230789 RIL-11"., Results of research on effects of throrium on 4 pages former industry workers.
32.
8104230905 RIL-109, Research on WRAP-BWR-EM for LOCA prediction in BWRs.
17 pages 33.
8104220082 Forward letter responding to questions, Docket No.50-289 Three Mile Island Unit 1 1 page 38.
8104220088 Letter recommending ASLB receive testimony on overcooling transients, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island, Unit 1 2 pages 35.
8109220459 Provide summary of 257th ACRS ntg. land disposal 3 pages 36.
8109250391 ForwardsCrimminsTestimony.D$cketNo.50-387 1 page.
37.
8109250392 Crimmins Testimony Docket No. 50-387 11 pages 38 8109250241 PNO-III-81-078, Damaged pipe hangers on HPCI, I & E files 2 pages 39.
8109250232 Receipt of Re. 3 to NEDO ll209-04A, File Location:TOPREP Ceneral Electric Co.
I page 40 8109250236 Rev. 3 to NEBC BWR QA Program. File Location: TOPREP.
Cencral Electric Co.
17 pages l
l
a FOIA Request - Oct. 26, 1981 Attachment (cont'd)
- panes Acc. No.
Document Description Forwards eval of BWR owners group resp to THI, Docket 50-282 9 pages Y/.
8109280199 Request Comm approval to publish proposed and final amendments Y7.
8109170437 to 10 CFR 50 re: hydrogen control sys for Mark-III BWRs.
37 pages In File makred: SECY 81-245A structural engineering 80 8109280205 Forwards request for additional info res:
30 pages in Docket 50-440, Perry, Y.
8109280570 Forward inspection rept. 50-387/41-14 In D'ocket 50-387, 2., PAGES Susquehanna Plant _
b.
8109280583 IE Inspection Report 50-387/81-14 & 50-388/81-07, in Docket
.'.0-307, Susquenhanna Plant
, 6 pages 8107230026 IE Info Notice 81-26, " Compilation of 11calth Physics Related Info Items", Docket 50-2 U. of Michigan Res. Reactor 18 pages I & E Information Notice 81-25, "Open Equalizing Valve of Dif ferential Pressure Transmitter Causes Reactor Scram and Loss of Redundant Safety Signals."
W.
8109030007 Advise utility response to IE Bulletin 79-15 " Deep Draft Pump Deficiencies" is inadequate. Doc. No. 50-387, Susquehanna 4 pages
- Plant, 8109030027 Forwards std order for DOE work: "Applicabiity of TMI Action plan requirements to CRB & LMFBRs", File Location: ORG, Energy, Dept. of 4 pages b + -- 8109030030 Std order for DOE work:" Applicability of THI Action Plan Requiremtents to CRBR and LMFBRs". File Location: ORG Energy, Dept of 8 pages 6 /.
8109030218 PNO-I-81-097: Tube Icakage of react @ coolant into reactor b1dg._ File Location: I & E, PNO-I-81-097 2 pages
PART 9 o ST ATEMEN TS OF CONSIDEllATION 44 FR 15998 making this determination, the pro-Published 3/16/79 posed rule provided that the NRC
+
would, based upon the information 4
Ef fective 4/16/79 submitted by the reque. ster, balance whether the benefit to the public PART 9-PUBUC RECORDS outweighs the cost to the public.
i In their comments. UCS stated that
)
Wolver er Reduction of Fees for the governha criteria were vague and Seerching and Reproduction of subject to arbitrary agency determina-
)
g
,,,g, tions, and t14tt the NRC should devel-op criteria *.o be applied in specific
)
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory cases. In re<ponse to the comments, Commission.
paragraph (0) of f 9.14a has been re-vised to require the requester to show j
ANR Final rule.
how the intended use of the records is
SUMMARY
- This rule amends the reasonably likely to:
Commisalon's regulations "Public Rec-(1) Result in actions to maintain or ords" by adding a new section "Walver enhance the pubtle's health, safety, or or Reduction of Fees." These amend-the quality of the environment; ments reflect the requirements of the (11) Result in improved regulatory Freedom of Information Act that doc-processes, uments shall be furnished without (111) Reduce the cost of providing a charge or at a reduced charge where government service; an agency determines that waiver or (iv) Contribute substantially to 1
reduction of the fee for searching and public debate on an important policy reproduction of records is in the public lasue; or interest because furnishing the infor.
(v) Contribrte substantially to mat-mation can be considered as primarily ters of historical importance. In addi.
benefiting the general public.
tion, a new paragraph (d) has been EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule be-added to l9.14a which specifies those comes effective on April IC,1979.
situations in which a public benefit would not normally result. Finally, a FOR FURTHER INIORMATION new paragraph (e) has been added CONTACT:
which provides that based upon the Mr. J. M. Felton, Director, Division criteria in paragraph (d) and the infor-of Rules and Records U.S. Nuclear mation furnished by the requester in Regulatory Commission. Washing.
response to paragraph (c), the NRC will determine if waiver or reduction l
ton D.C. 20$55 (telephone 301-492-of the fee is in the public interest be-7211)'
cause furnishing the information can SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
be considered as primarily benefiting l
On March 31, 1977 the Commisalon the general public, published in the FEDEsAL RrcisTza (42
- 2. Automafic Faiver of Fees for FR 17131) proposed amendments to its Public Inferest Groups. UCS proposed
{ regulation "Public Records," 10 CFR that non-profit organizations wnose
! Part 9, which would add a new I 9.14a.
mission is to protect or enhance the "Walver or Reduction of Fees." At the public health, safety, and welfare, are request of the Union of Concerned Sci-automatically entitled to a waiver or l entists, the comment period was ex-reduction of fees. The Commiss.ca tended to May 23,19ff.
does not agree, and believes the proper Comments on the proposed rule statutory criterion is whether produc-were received from the Union of Con-tion of the records would primarGy benefit the general pubtle; that is, the i
I cerned Scientists (UCS) and the Roch-focus of the decision to waive or l ester Ons and Electric Corporation reduce fees should be on the intended (R M EL use of the records, and not the re-Discussion or ConsasumTs quester's organization affiliation, the organization's tax exempt status, or
- 1. Adequacy c/Sfandards for Making the purpose of the organisation. It is Determinations to Waive or Jteduce recognised, however, that many non-j Fees. Section 9.14a(c) of the proposed profit organizations, whose mission is rule required a person who requests to protect or enhance the public
- the NRC to waive or reduce fees to health and safety, would qualify for a provide informati)n concerning such walver or reduction of fees. In hear-matters as the intended use of the rec
- ings before the Senate Subcommittee ords, how the information would be on Administrative Practice and Proco-disseminated to the pubile, the size of dure in October,1977, the head of the the public to be benefited, and any fl*
Freedom of Information Committee I nancial benefit the requester may re*
and other Department of Justice wit-l ceive from the use of the records.The nesses indicated in response to ques-rule repeated the Congressional man-tions by Senator Abouresk that, al-I date contained in the POIA that ree-though the decision would have to be 4
l ords shall be furnished without charge made on a case-by-case basis, there j or at a reduced charge where the would be a presumption that fees agency determines "that waiver or re-should be waived for public interest duction of the fee is in the public in-groups and media representatives. In j terest because furnishing the informa-light of these considerations. a new tion can be considered as primarily provision has been added to the pro-benefiting the general public " In posed effective rule as l 9.14a(f) which i
9 SC.9 August 1,1980 j
g
l'Alli 9 o SI AIEMENIS Ol' CONSIDLilAllON provides that the NRC. In absence of a shether a primarily public benefit will D. UCS, while questioning the rel.
specific request for a walver or reduc.
ensue from the release of the informs.
evancy of the requirement to provide tion of fees, may walve or reduce the tion" and the request "need only raise information regarding what financial fees if it determines. based upon infor-a substantial question as to whether benefit. if any, the requester will re-mation furnished by the requester in the release of the information will cette from use of the requested rec-his request for access to records, that
'primarily benefit the general ords (8 9.14 ate)(6) of the proposed production of the records would pri.
public'". As noted above in item 2, rule), acknowledges the relevancy of marily benefit the general public. This
!9.14a(f) provides that the NRC may the requirement if direct financial provision allows the agency to waive walve fees on its own initiative, and benefit la the only motivating f actor in gr reduce fees where the information the Information required by 9 9.14a(b) maktne the request. Thi ability of the provided in the request letter indleates would only have to be submitted when requester to pay for the records also that the requester is !!kely to use the the agency has concluded that the re.
was acknowledged by Congress as records in a manner ahich primarily quest, on its face, does not automat!-
being relevant to a determination of benefits the general public. It is de-cally warrant waiver or reduction of whether to walve or reduce feca. The signed to alleviate the formal showing fees. Under these circumstances, the Senate Report on the 1974 Amend-by requester organizations that they Commission believes that the burden ments to the MIA indisted that if a sneet the requirements of 6 9.14a of proof properly shifts to the request-requester was indigent, a waiver or re-where it is obvious a fee waiver or fee er to provide NRC with suffielent in-duction of fee would be in the public reduction is justified under the cir-formation to justify that production interest. The Commialon has, howev-cumstances.
of the records wul primarily benefit er, deleted the requirement regarding
- 3. Generaf Waiter Provisions. With the general public. UCS also questions the requesters "wilitnrness to pay" for respect to the general waiver provi.
the ability of the requester to comply the requested documents.
sions set forth in i 9.14a(b) of the pro-aith certain information requirements It should be noted that the specific posed rule, the Rochester Oss and I 9.14a(c) f the proposed rule and items of information required to be Electric Corporation challenges the challenges he relevanCF of others.
furnished by requesters is based upon right of the NRC to walve fees for These are discussed as folows:
the guidelines contained in the Atter-searches which do not exceed four A. UCS questions the ability of the ney General's Memorandum on the hours or for reproduction costs which requester to respond to the require-1974 Amendments. In the Justim De-d3 not exceed $10.00. The basis for the ments in i9.14stcM11 of the proposed partment's recent testimony before c:mpany's claim are that there has rule regarding the " intended' use of the Abouresk Subcammittee, it was been no showing that the general the records", and states that the easct stated that these guidelines were co-waiver provisions are in the public in-use cannot be determined until the re-ordinated with both the House and t; rest and that it is unfair.to assess quested documents are reviewed. The Senate committees responsible for the taxpayers for work done by a public information required by this provision FOIA legislation.
Employee for the benefit of a private is intended use of the records. not The Commiazion believes that in the party. The purpose of the general cract use. Failure of a requester to absence of clear Congressional guld-walver provisions was to climinate the have some Idea in mind as to how the anoe as to what-was the intent of the costs of billing cnd processing pay-records requested win be used would term "primarily benefiting the general ments and responding to requests for a be persuasive evidence that the re-public", and in light of the diversity of tralver of fees when these costs to the quester is on a fishing expedition and requesters and type of records request-
\\
l government were relatively small in that providing the records would not ed. the standards and criteria set'forth relation to the amount of staff time primarily benefit the general public.
in 5 9.14a of the effective rule are suf-that would be required to process a fee This provision has been retained in ficient to assure that the agency walver request or. to collect reproduc-the effective rule.
makes a fair and equitable determina.
tion costs. In view of the NRC's prac-B. UCS also questions the ability of tion with respect to any request for a tice of granting *:,ccess to records by a requester to respond to the require-waiver or reduction of fees. -
placing copies of the records in NRC ment **why,all the requested docu.
- 5. Adequan of Procedures jbr Proc-Public Document Room or a local ments are necessary to accomplish the essing Requests Jbr Wateer or Redme-Public Document Room. the provision requester's intended use" (l 9.14alcX2) fion of Fees. UCS alleges that the pro-granting walver of reproduction costs of the proposed rule). UCS points out posed rule did not set forth an ade-nit in excess of $10.00 has been elim!.
that in most FOIA cases, "all" the re-quate administrative structure -te nited from the effective rule. The quested documents are never neces. -
assure fair and efficient pra===ing of Commission believes, however, that it sary. The Comm1=slon agrees with this FOIA requests and requests for waiver is in the public interest to walve the comment and feels that this informa.
or reduction of fees. UCS questions minimal costa encompassed by the tion is not necessary. Where an issue is whether NRC has the right, if a re-search fee walver provtsions, and the rabed regarding the scope of a re-quest for records does not qualify for a gffective rule continues to contain this quest it has been the expertence of wn!ver of fees, to deem the request not provision. The Rochester Osa and the Comminalon that a negotiated res-received, for purposes of complying Electric Corporation aho challenges olution can be reached a1th the re-with the ten-day FOIA response dead-the propriety of automatically wahing quester.
line, until a deposit equal to the esti-search fees as provided in I9.14a(bX4)
C. UCS questions the requirement to mated costs is received or the request.
cf the proposed rule then no docu-provide information concerning how er has agreed to bear the =He 8='ad ments subject to the request are locat-the documents will be reviewed or ans.
costs. UCS also states that requesters ed or when no documents are located lyzed and the results thereof dissemi.
abould be allowed to tnlHate fee which can be disclosed to the request-nated to the public () 9.14WcX3) of the waiver requests on appeal.
sr. The Commission believes that this proposed rule), and argues that a spe.
In response to UCS's emnments, a situation is now adequately addressed cific use cannot be meantntfully pre-new $ 9.14b has been added to the ef-by the revised fee waher criteria set sented until the documents are read, fective rule which specifies the proce-frrth in 3 9.14a, and this provision has As stated in item 3.A above. the Com.
dures which win be fonowed in pmo-been eliminated from the elfcctive mission believes the*e should be an in.
.arinr an FOIA request for a waiver or rule.
tended use of the documents at the red 4 tan of fees. The peh pro-4.
Reitvancy of IWormaffon Re-time a request for waiver is made. Fur-vide that if the request involves more quired To Be submitted by a Requester ther, the requirement for review and than four hours of search time, and for Waiver or Reduction of Fees. UCS analysis of the documents reinforces the requester does not qualify for a questions the right of the NRC to re-that belief, as provided in 5 9.14a(dX5) walver of fees imder 6 9.14atf), the quire organizations to submit informa-of the effective rule, that the intent to NRC wHl notify the requester within tion in order to qualify for a waher of distribute copies of the records to the 10 working days of the *=H=atM costs a
fees stating that "!L is the responsibili.
public does not, by itself, ennatitute of complying with the request-lIbere-ty of the agency to initially decide public benefit-aftgr, the requester may agree to pay j-l 9-SC-10 August 1,1980 l
l
l g..
i PART 9 e STATEMENIS OF CONSIDEHAllON Commission believes this procedure is for the records or request a waiver or
(,,
reduction of fees. If the NRC refuses in the public interest and represents a to waive or reduce the fees,it will pro-reasonable balance between the rights vide a statement to the requester as to of the public and the rights of the in-why the request does not meet the re-dividual requester. The Commission quirements of 9 9.14a and this deter.
also believes that this procedure is in antnation may be appealed to the EDO accord with the broad purpose of the or to the r a==l=taa, as appropriate.
FOIA by providing general public Where the requert does qu=Ufy for access to agency records. Under the waiver or reduction of feca,il44b9to.
circumstances when access to records vides that records will be prompuy can be provided to a requester at a provided.
PDR or LPDR, to also waive reproduc.
'Ibe Commi=ian believes that the tion costs would result in a private benefit only to the requester. This new procedures for processing re-I quests are responsive to UCS's con-practice has now been incorporated wrns and provide a reasonable balance into the regulations by adding a sen-between the rights of the requester, tence to 5 9.10(a) of the effective rule the ruources available to the NRC, that provides that copies of documents knd the rights of the general public.
disclosed in response to FOIA requests
'Ibe Cotrsission further believes that will normally be placed in the NRC the NRC has an obilgatJon not to PDR or local PDR, and by providing expend puhtic funds to search for ree-in f 9.Ita(s) that the NRC will not ords req =ht under the POIA when waive reproduction costs for docu-the request does not either qualify for ments located in the PDR or LPDR in an suhnane waiver of fees or the re-the absence of a compelling reason to quester does not agree to pay the costa do 'so. A compelling reason" could be, of the search. Congress, in perinitting for example if the requester were nameles to charge fees to cover costs both indigent and required the docu-of nearching for records, implied that ments for intervention in an NRC 11-where production of the records would censing proceeding.
not primarGy benefit the general
- 6. Chargina Professional and Cleri-puhtle, search costs should be ma==d.
cal Rates for Searchina. UCS states It would be a misuse of public funds to that the present rule does not ade-dimt the staff from other important quately indicate when clerical rates or acurities to conduct a search for ree-when professional rates for search will ords which a requester may never be applied, and recommends that pro-agree to pay for or may never make fersional search charges should only the showing that waiver of the fees is be applied in those instances where it e -(.
Jusufled under the circumstanoss. In is absolutely essential for professionals i
slew of thm considerations, the Com-to search for documents due to the Enluton conunnes to belim that a re-nature and content of the requested j
quest for anwwas to records should not document The Commission believes be deemed to have been received unta that the proposed rule, as published. is he fee inue is resolved by me re-adequate, and that this matter la prop-g
- elmer asming to pay fw the erly left to the discretion of the re-records or by qualifying tw a waim sponsible operating official. Decisions w reducuan of fm In addluon, me regarding who will conduct the search
==latan does not agree with UCS's are dependent upon subject matter of msnmendmuca mat documents be the request, familiarization of staff sonde avanahi* to the requester at the eMMW%WWnmW intual stage and mat a rgunter the to assure an adequate and timely e penniued to rMuut a fee waim search within the POIA statutory on amal me thygh no such initJal deadlines. FOIA requests received by request was made. The Commi-ion the NRC are normally related to spe-as, howmr. agreed on a trial basis 2 cific technical lasues and. In many provide la 9 9.14b(d) that, in those cases, only a member of the profes-sional staff is capable of assuring that quested and and all records within the scope of the re-agreed to W me numtM m me quest are identified. The diversity of requater man wnhin M @ of &
the subject matter of FOIA requests eetpt of the requestM hta, re.-
received by NRC would make it virtu-bubmit a request for a waiver es' reduo-ally impossible to establish general crl-l tion of fees if meseceipt of the docu-teria applicable to all requests. It is ex-meets has snateriany ehanmed he in-pected, however, that the responsible formation orhinauw furnkhart by me operating official will use clerical staff requester to conduct the search where it is feast-With M to me waiver or redue-ble to do so in order not to unnecessar-tion of fees for Wudan costs,2e ily divert the technical staff from Enafority. of NRC requestera, as a their regulatory functions -or to in-(
snatter of nrareta= accept man =a to r,.
crease costs to the requester.
l gassted records at the NRC Public Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act l
nne-ant Room in Waahtnotest. D.C.
of 1954. as amended. the Energy Reor.
or at a Iscal Public Document Room ha cases where the requested docu-gunization Act of 1974, as amended, and sections $52 and 553 of Title 5 of ments pertain to a specific facility, The requester may then examine the the United States Code, the folloaing
(-)
records which have been snade availa-amendments to Title 10. Chapter L ble, and make copies of just those ree-Code of FWderal Regulations, Part 9 ords in which he is interested. The are published as a document subject to codification:
9 SC-11
_