Personal Communication with Federal and State Officials, and Media
The correspondence below with federal and State officials, and media, concerning legislative, regulatory and operational actions related to the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) has been initiated by myself, acting as a private citizen and community resident.
The material has benefited from the knowledge acquired during my twenty five years as Senior Manager of Radiation Safety at SSFL before my retirement. However the views and opinions expressed are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Boeing Company, the Department of Energy (DOE) or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Neither Boeing, nor DOE, nor NASA has approved this correspondence, neither has it been sought. I alone am responsible for its content.
Senate Bill 990 (2007) and Health and Safety Code § 25359.20
Request for Revocation of SB 990 Language
after being Struck Down in Federal Court.
Request for Removal of SB 990 from DTSC Website. |
| Date |
Communication |
| November 16, 2020 |
Letter to Senator Henry Stern
Email transmitting above letter |
| November 16, 2020 |
Letter to Grant Cope, DTSC
Email transmitting above letter |
| November 16, 2020 |
Automated email from Senator Henry Stern's OffIce |
| November 17, 2020 |
Email from Grant Cope, DTSC |
| November 19, 2020 |
Letter from Attorney General's Office |
| December 4, 2020 |
Letter to Attorney General's Office
Email transmitting above letter |
| June 17, 2021 |
Email to Grant Cope, DTSC |
No substantive response has been received from Senator Stern or the California Attorney General or any others on distribution regarding H&S Code 25359.20.
During 2023, DTSC finally removed all references to SB 990 from its web site.
|
2020 Amendment to Order on Consent
Opposition to Management of Non-radiological Building Debris
as Low-level Radioactive Waste |
| Date |
Communication |
| November 15, 2020 |
Questions and Issues Related to the Amendment to Order on Consent
Email
transmitting above paper
|
| November 29, 2020 |
Letter to Steven Becker, DTSC
Email transmitting above letter |
| March 11, 2021 |
Email to DTSC Management
Public Records Act Request for DTSC - CBG Communications |
| March 26, 2021 |
Letter from DTSC Senior Counsel, Arthur Pugsley
Response to Public Records Act Request
Email transmitting above letter |
| July 8, 2021 |
Email to DTSC Senior Counsel, Arthur Pugsley
Public Records Act Request |
| July 16, 2021 |
Email from DTSC Senior Counsel, Arthur Pugsley
Public Records Act Request |
| August 15, 2021 |
Letter to Meredith Williams, Director, DTSC
Public Records Act Request
Email transmitting above letter |
| August 27, 2021 |
Letter from DTSC Senior Counsel, Ross Colburn
PRA Final Response - DTSC/Hirsch Communications
Email transmitting above letter |
| August 28, 2021 |
Email to DTSC Management
Reply to PRA Final Response |
| DTSC has failed to directly address my opposition to sending non-LLRW to a LLRW disposal site. |
2024 DTSC STREAM Platform
SSFL Tool for Response, Engagement, and Answer Management |
| Date |
Communication |
| November 16, 2024 |
Preliminary Questions for Soil Smarts Workshops
Email transmitttng above questions |
| SCF000004 |
| November 21, 2024 |
Morgenstern Community Cancer Study
|
| December 20, 2024 |
DTSC Response
Thanks me for my feedback. Fails to repond to my comments on the Morgenstern Study. |
| SCF000005 |
| November 21, 2024 |
General Comments on STREAM Platform |
| December 19, 2024 |
DTSC Response
"DTSC takes all comments received into consideration. In addition, DTSC provides responses to all questions received. Comments received that are not questions are acknowledged and considered, but DTSC does not typically provide responses to these."
"Currently the STREAM platform does not show DTSC's responses to the general public. However, we will take your suggestion into consideration." |
| SCF000006 |
| December 3, 2024 |
Radionuclide Questions for Soil Smarts Workshops, Rev A |
| January 28, 2025 |
DTSC Response
Superficial and fails to addresss issues raised. |
| February 1, 2025 |
My reply to DTSC response |
| SCF000008 |
| December 7, 2024 |
Chemical Questions for Soil Smarts Workshops
SCF000008 |
| January 13, 2025 |
DTSC response to SCF000008
Valerie Hanley (DTSC) confirms that ...
- When a background dataset has a large percentage of non-detects, chemical LUTVs are based on unrealistically low MRLs that are significantly less than the majority of both detect data and MDLs in the background study, and in site characterization data.
- Because of these artificially low LUTVs, it is likely that an unknown fraction of site characterized data, identified as chemically contaminated, are actually false positives.
|
| SCF000014 |
| March 13, 2025 |
Comments & Questions following the #3 Soil Smarts Public Meeting
Online submission of SCF000014 suggesting that MLEs would be unecessary if DTSC had followed EPA prrotocols in calculating chemical LUTVs |
| March 24, 2025 |
DTSC response to SCF000014. DTSC is still not able to admit that it calculated LUTVs in error, and failed to follow EPA protocols used for radionuclides. It should admit this to the public and recalculate LUTVs for majority non-detect background chemicals using the 2-sigma UCL of characterization MDLs. |
| March 24, 2025 |
My reply to DTSC response |
California Public Records Act (PRA) Request for Communications Between
Dan Hirsch
and Rick Brausch During Drafting of the 2010 AOCs |
| Date |
Communication |
| March 7, 2025 |
Email to the Secretary of CalEPA and the Director of DTSC.
PRA request for communications between Dan Hirsch (CBG) and DTSC/CalEPA management during the drafting of the 2010 AOC. |
| March 17, 2025 |
Letter from DTSC Counsel acknowledging receipt of PRA request.
Email transmitting above letter. |
| March 31, 2025 |
Letter from DTSC Counsel requesting extension.
Email transmitting above letter. |
| March 31, 2025 |
Email to DTSC Counsel, providing basis for PRA request |
| April 3, 2025 |
Email from DTSC Counsel, promising reply by April 28 |
| April 28, 2025 |
Letter from DTSC Counsel requesting another month extension to May 26.
Email transmitting above letter. |
| May 26, 2025 |
Letter from DTSC Counsel. First document production.
Email transmitting above letter.
2025-05-26 Document Production.
- 2007-04-03
- 2007-04-04
- 2007-10-16
- 2007-12-20
- 2008-02-15
- 2008-07-10
- 2008-12-15
|
| May 29, 2025 |
Email reply to DTSC Counsel on first document production |
| June 23, 2025 |
Letter from DTSC Counsel,
Email transmitting above letter. |
| Communication with Kit Stolz, Ojai Valley News |
| Date |
Communication |
| March 20, 2025 |
Email to Kit Stolz, following discussion at DOE's March 18, 2025, SEIS Scoping Meeting |
Falsification of DOE Waste Shipping Records at the
Energy Technology Engineering Center (2020-2021)
|
SUMMARY
Re-defining of Low-Level Radioactive Waste
In the 2020 Amendment to the Order on Consent, DTSC required the DOE to classify, and manage demolition debris from decommissioned buildings and buildings with no history of radiological use, as low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). DTSC forced DOE to dispose of this material out-of-state to a licensed LLRW disposal site.
This agreement effectively re-defined LLRW, implemented California Senate Bill, SB-1970 (2002) that had previously been vetoed by former Governor Gray Davis, and violated California Executive Order D-62-02.
A FOIA request (EMCBC-2022-00149-F) was submitted to the DOE for shipping records of this demolition debris. This records included radioactive waste profiles and NRC Form 540/541 LLRW manifests.
Complaint to the DOE Energy Technology Engineering Center
Review of waste profiles and waste manifests for decommissioned material and debris from buildings with no history of radiological use, reveals that falsified data has been used, in a blatant attempt to mischaracterize non-LLRW as LLRW.
Data on over 400 shipment manifests were systematically inconsistent and transparently illogical. Shipping manifest radionuclide concentrations did not match waste stream profiles. Multiple different containers with significantly different waste weights were assigned identical total and individual radionuclide activities, which is physically impossible. Multiple different containers were assigned identical waste weights and identical total and individual activities, which is physically impossible. Container weighted average concentrations were derived from container total and individual radionuclide activities rather than vice versa. The apparent falsification of data and total lack of any quality control of manifest data by all participants, North Wind, DOE and EnergySolutions is troubling.
A complaint was submitted to all levels of DOE management including ETEC, EM-1, and Secretary Granholm, North Wind management, EnergySolutions management, and DTSC management. All recipients failed to respond to, or dispute, these allegations.
Complaint to the DOE Office of Inspector General 23-0160-C
A complaint was submitted to DOE's Office of Inspector General (OIG Complaint 23-0160-C). DOE closed the investigation at an indeterminate date stating that, "no further action was warranted." The OIG refused to say when the investigation was closed and why the complainant was not notified of the closure, citing unspecified "Privacy Act Restrictions."
Submission of FOIA Request HQ-2024-01160-F
A FOIA request (HQ-2024-01160-F) was submitted February 8, 2024 for the investigation records. Several responses to this FOIA request were received obfuscating on issues of privacy, but failing to address the specific allegations of the original 23-0160-C complaint or the specifics of the HQ-2024-01160-F FOIA request. The OIG stated that the office of Mr. William White, the previous senior advisor to EM (aka EM-1) had provided a response to the original complaint on July 14, 2023. OIG later asked EM for approval to release that response on or before March 26, 2024.
Complaint to the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
A complaint was submitted to the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (WMRC) (Complaint DRC-2023-001509). WMRC closed its investigation, stating that EnergySolutions had complied with its license and WAC requirements, however it did not address any of the specific allegations of the complaint, and it was unable to provide any documented evidence that any investgation of the allegattions had been conducted. A Utah GRAMA public records request was submitted, and a response confirmed that no records of the investigation existed. On April 21, 2024, a final appeal to WMRC was made to re-open the investigation of the specific alegations in the complaint. No response has been received as of the revision date of this page. No further attempts to communicate with WMRC has beeen pursued.
Appeal to the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals
An appeal (FIA-24-0050) was made to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). After an exhaustive 2-day review, OHA washed its hands of the affair.
Complaint to the US House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability failed to acknowledge receipt of the complaint.
Letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright Requesting Support for Complaint
President Trump was included on distribution for this letter.
Neither Secretary Wright nor the White House acknowledged receipt of this letter.
X Message to Elon Musk and DOGE Soliciting Support for Complaint
Neither Elon Musk nor DOGE acknowledged receipt of this X message.
Final Response from DOE's FOIA Office
On April 4, 2025, the DOE FOIA Office finally provided the July 2023 EM response to the February 2023 OIG complaint. Although DOE EM did its best to whitewash and side-step the specific allegations of the complaint, several statements in EM's investigation report clearly suggest culpability, and acknowledgement of the complaint's major allegations. See quotations below.
Re-defining LLRW
In response to the allegation of re-defining LLRW, by sending debris from non-contaminated, non-radiological buildings to a LLRW disposal site, EM acknowledged,
- "... the Amendment to the Order on Consent stated, "Debris from buildings 4038, 4057, 4462 and 4463 will be disposed of out of the State of California and out of an abundance of caution, at an authorized mixed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility ...""
- "When signing these documents, Mr. White was aware of the abundance of caution that was applied in making this decision on disposal of building demolition debris. Given the options available to him, in reaching an agreement with the State of California, Mr. White determined that signing these orders was the best option for the government."
Clearly Mr. White, Senior Advisor to EM, was uncomfortable agreeing to the demands of the California DTSC but felt that EM had no option but to sign the two Orders.
Falsification of Data
In response to the allegation of falsification of data by assigning maximum contamination data from one contaminated RMHF facility to all other decommissioned buildings and non-radiological buildings, EM acknowledged,
- "We conservatively used worst case radiological data from the facilities to create the waste profile and NRC 540/541 shipping documentation. This approach was utilized to comply with the 2020 Orders requiring that all demolition debris be disposed of at a licensed low level waste landfill outside of the state of California."
In response
to the allegation of falsification of manifest data, including multiple containers with identical waste weights and radionuclide activities, and other multiple containers with identical radionuclide activities but different weights, EM acknowledged,
- "During the live-load and go campaign of buildings 4462 and 4463, pre-set activities were established based on maximum allowable transport weight."
Irresponsible Cost Expenditure
In response to the allegation of wasted costs, DOE EM is silent. Disposal of the subject non-LLRW demolition debris as LLRW out-of-state, obviously costs more than disposing in-state to appropriate permitted Class 1 or 2 disposal facilities, in compliance with California Executive Order D-62-02. In addition, it violates DOE's waste minimization policies.
Cover Up
The original complaint to DOE was made in January 2023, twenty-seven months ago. The subsequent complaint to DOE OIG was made in February 2023. The EM investigation report was completed in July 2023. The "final response" from DOE was emailed to me in April 2025, twenty-one months after the date of EM's investigation report. The simple fact that it has taken this long and extensive communication with DOE to extract a "final response," is proof that DOE management has done its best to cover up this investigation. |
| Date |
Communication with the DOE |
| November 17, 2021 |
FOIA Request for Records - EMCBC-2022-00149-F
Letter from Michelle Farris, Office of Chief Counsel, DOE EMCBC |
| September 29, 2022 |
Response to FOIA Request - EMCBC-2022-00149-F
Letter from Melody C. Bell, Deputy Director, DOE-EMCBC.
Data Package for FOIA EMCBC-2022-00149-F |
| January 10, 2023 |
Letter to Josh Mengers, DOE ETEC Project Director
Response to FOIA Data Package
Email transmitting above letter |
| February 10, 2023 |
Letter to DOE Inspector General
Shipments of Waste from the Former Energy Technology Engineering Center
Email transmitting above letter |
| April 9, 2023 |
Email to the Utah Division of Waste Management and the DOE Inspector General
Irregularities in DOE's Waste Shipments from ETEC to EnergySolutions |
| July 25, 2023 |
Waste Characterization by the Department of Energy at the Energy Technology Engineering Center
Presentation to the Health Physics Society Annual Meeting in National Harbor, Maryland
|
| August 1, 2023 |
DOE Waste Characterization at the Former Energy Technology Engineering Center
Email to DOE, DTSC, North Wind, EnergySolutions, Utah DWMRC, and CalEPA.
Challenge to respond to allegations.
|
| February 7, 2024 |
Complaint 23-0160-C
Email to DOE Inspector General requesting the status of the complaint
|
| February 8, 2024 |
Complaint 23-0160-C
Email response from the DOE Inspector General stating that the investigation had been closed at an earlier unstated date. The OIG stated that, "no further action was warranted." A FOIA request would need to be submitted to learn of the results of the investigation.
|
| February 8, 2024 |
FOIA Request for File on OIG Complaint 23-0160-C Investigation
Email to DOE FOIA Office
|
| February 8, 2024 |
Complaint 23-0160-C
Email to DOE OIG forwarding copy of the FOIA request
|
| February 9, 2024 |
FOIA HQ-2024-01160-F
Acknowledgement letter from DOE FOIA Office |
| February 12, 2024 |
Complaint 23-0160-F
Email containing third and final refusal of DOE OIG to tell me what date the investigation into Complaint 23-0160-C was closed and why I was not informed. OIG cited unspecified "Privacy Act Restrictions. The OIG declined tto explain why a closure date and the lack of notification to the complainant could be considered "private." |
| February 22, 2024 |
Email to FOIA Office regarding HQ-2024-01160-F
Email request to the DOE FOIA Office for and estimated completion date for the FOIA request. Email also requested clarification why the investigation closure date and reason why complainant was not notified of the closure, was subject to "Privacy Act Restrictions." |
| February 26, 2024 |
DOE FOIA Office Email Response
Email response from the DOE FOIA Office stating that the DOE FOIA Office will request records of the complaint investigation from DOE OIG, records that DOE OIG had refused to provide to the complainant. The DOE FOIA Office will then forward potential records to the complainant. The DOE FOIA Office was unable to provide an estimated completion date, and chose to ignore the question related to alleged "Privacy Act Restrictions." |
| February 26, 2024 |
Email response to the DOE FOIA Office
Complainant questions the efficiency and transparency, or lack thereof,
of this process. |
| March 6, 2024 |
Interim Letter from DOE FOIA Office HQ-2024-01160-F
Letter from DOE FOIA Office denies request for fee waiver and request for expedited response.
Email transmitting above letter. |
| March 7, 2024 |
Letter to DOE FOIA Office HQ-2024-01160-F
Reply to DOE FOIA Office questioning requester status, and denial of fee waiver and expedited processing.
Email transmitting above letter. |
| March 7, 2024 |
Email from FOIAOIG
Email from FOIAOIG verifying that the "FOIA request is in the search stage" and committing to "provide a response as quickly as possible."
|
| March 27, 2024 |
Email from FOIAOIG
Attachments include ...
FOIAOIG also offered to provide copy of email by which complainant was notified that investigation was closed. |
| March 30, 2024 |
Letter to Anthony Cruz, DOE OIG FOIA
Response to March 26/27, 2024 email and letter from FOIAOIG.
Email transmitting above letter. |
| May 11, 2024 |
Email to Anthony Cruz, DOE OIG FOIA
Six week reminder of lack of resonse to March 30th letter. |
| May 11, 2024 |
Email to Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm
Expresses dissatisfaction over lack of meaningful response from her staff, and requests that she "rattles some cages."
Secretary Granholm did not have the common courtesy to reply. |
| May 14, 2024 |
Email from Jennifer Bacon, FOIAOIG
Need to coordinate FOIAOIG and Hotline and will respond shortly.
|
| May 14, 2024 |
Email to Jennifer Bacon, FOIAOIG
Suggests that FOIAOIG start with William White.
|
| June 4, 2024 |
Email from Jennifer Bacon, FOIAOIG
Attachments ...
|
| June 9, 2024 |
Letter to Anthony Cruz, DOE OIG FOIA
Response to 6/4/2024 email and 5/31/2024 letter from FOIAOIG
Email transmitting above letter. |
| August 13, 2024 |
Telecon with Aleaander (Chris) Morris, DOE FOIA liaison. He committed to "look into" why EM's response to complaint 23-0160-C (Document 4) had not been released by EM and provided to me in response to FOIA HQ-2024-01160-F. |
| August 14, 2024 |
Email from Jennifer Bacon, paralegal with DOE FOIAOIG, stated that no further communications would be forthcoming from OIG following Mr. Cruz's 5/31/2024 supplemental response, and that the whereabouts of Document 4 should be pursued with Alexander Morris. |
| August 15, 2024 |
Email to Jennifer Bacon (FOIAOIG), Anthony Cruz (OIG) and Alexander Morris (FOIA) referencing my letter of June 9, 2024, and stating that the job of DOE FOIAOIG was far from over. |
| August 15, 2024 |
Email from Alexander Morris (DOE FOIA Liaison) committing to chase down Document 4. |
| August 31, 2024 |
Letter to DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals
Appeal to OHA for failure of OIG and FOIA Office to respond to 23-0160-C and HQ-2024-01160-F.
Email transmitting above letter.
|
| September 3, 2024 |
Receipt acknowledgement from DOE OHA
Assignment of tracking no. FIA-24-0050 |
| September 5, 2024 |
Letter denying Appeal FIA-24-0050
Cover letter for above denial
Email transmitting above denail |
| September 8, 2024 |
Email to OHA replying to its denial of FIA-24-0050 |
| September 10, 2024 |
Email from OHA, washing its hands of Appeal FIA-24-0050, and stating,
"This is the final order of the Department of Energy from which any aggrieved party
may seek judicial review pursuant of 5 U.S.C. Section 522(a)(4)(B)." |
| September 23, 2024 |
Letter to U.S. Congressional Committee on Oversight and Accountability. Submiited to the Committee's online Whistleblower portal. The Committee failed to acknowledge receipt of the complaint.
Email transmitting above letter to distribution.
|
| October 25, 2024 |
Email to Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Raskin of the US House Committee on Oversight and Accountability requesting a reply to the whistleblower complaint.
As of the revision date of this page, the Committee has failed to respond to, or take action on the complaint. |
| November 10, 2024 |
Letter to Steve Milloy, JunkScience.com
Online Email Portal transmitting above letter. |
| January 6, 2025 |
Email to Alexander Morris, DOE FOIA Office reminding him of his August 15, 2024 promise to expedite release of Document 4. |
| Janaury 6, 2025 |
Email from Richard Hayes, DOE FOIA Office, committing to "follow up" on the status of Document 4. |
| February 6, 2025 |
Letter to DOE Secretary Chris Wright.
Letter also sent by USPS to Secretary Wright and POTUS.
Email transmitting above letter to POTUS, DOE, DTSC and NRC personnel.
Online email to POTUS at Whitehouse.
Online email to the House Committee on Oversight & Accountability. |
| February 20, 2025 |
Message to Elon Musk and the DOGE Team via X.
Review of DOE complaint |
| April 4, 2025 |
Final Response from DOE FOIA Office
Responsive Document from DOE EM, dated July 13/14, 2023
Email transmitting above documents |
| April 6, 2025 |
Letter to Tavis Williams, DOE FOIA Office
Email transmitting above letter |
| As of April 6, 2025, I consider this complaint against DOE, closed. |
| |
| Date |
Communication with the Utah DWMRC |
| February 9, 2023 |
Letter to Doug Hansen, Director, Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Shipments of Waste from the Former Energy Technology Engineering Center
Email transmitting above letter |
| April 9, 2023 |
Email to the Utah Division of Waste Management and the DOE Inspector General
Irregularities in DOE's Waste Shipments from ETEC to EnergySolutions |
| May 16, 2023 |
Letter from Utah WMRC
WMRC response finds that EnergySolutions complied with its license and WAC requirements, and did not accept greater than Class A LLRW from ETEC. This of course was not the allegation. None of the specific allegations in the complaint were adressed or disputed. WMRC closed its investigation. |
| May 20, 2023 |
First Utah GRAMA Records Request
Request for complaint investigation records |
| June 6, 2023 |
Email response to GRAMA Records Request
States that no records of the investigation exist other than those (e)mail communications between complainant and WMRC. Note that this email was not received on June 6, 2023, but was received February 9, 2024 |
| July 20, 2023 |
Follow-up to Utah Complaint DRC-2023-001509
Email to Otis Willoughby, WMRC |
| February 9, 2024 |
Utah GRAMA Records Request
Email to Utah Public Records Office
Attachment 2023-07-20 Email |
| February 9, 2024 |
Email response from Alyssa Stringham, Utah GRAMA Records Officer
Email denying that records of investigation of Complaint DRC-2023-001509 exist |
| February 9, 2024 |
Second Utah GRAMA Records Request relating to investigation of Complaint DRC-2023-001509
Email with GRAMA Records Request Form |
| February 16, 2024 |
DRC-2024-004475
Letter including denial of appeal regarding complaint and GRAMA request dated May 20, 2023. Statement that specific allegations in the complaint were outside WMRC's scope of regulatory interest.
Email transmitting above letter. |
| February 16, 2024 |
Response to February 9, 2024 GRAMA Records Request
Statement that no records exist of an investigation of the specific allegations of the complaint other than (e)mail communications between complainant and WMRC. |
| February 17, 2024 |
Email request to Utah WMRC to re-open investigation into complaint regarding ETEC waste shipments
Requested WMRC re-open the investigation and address the specifics of the allegations of the complaint. |
| April 21, 2024 |
Email to Assistant Director Jalynn Knudsen, Utah WMRC, requesting response to February 17, 2024 request to re-open investigation. |
| As of the revision date of this page, no further communication from the Utah DWMRC has been received. |
Senator Dianne Feinstein's Correspondence with
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson (May 1999)
FOIA HQ-2024-01615-F |
| Date |
Communication |
| April 2, 2024 |
Email to DOE FOIA Office requesting correspondence between Senator Dianne Feinstein and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson
|
| April 4, 2024 |
Letter from Alexander Morris discussing requirements for fees and fee waiver.
Email transmitting above letter. |
| April 5, 2024 |
Email from me providing basis for fee waiver within 5-day period |
| May 11, 2024 |
Email from me asking for the ststus of HQ-2024-01615-F |
| May 13, 2024 |
Email from Lela Addison promising a final response "by the end of this week." |
| July 10, 2024 |
Email from me observing that two months have passed since the promise of "end of this week." |
| July 11. 2024 |
Email from Craig Greenberg apologizing for the delay and assuring that he "will personally monitor the processing of your request and provide you an update next week." |
| July 19, 2024 |
Email from me observing that a week has passed with no update. |
| July 22, 2024 |
Email from Craig Greenberg apologizing for the delay and stating "I firmly believe the final response will be ready to send to you either later this week or early next week." |
| August 29, 2024 |
Email from Timothy Farrell repeating for the third time that the "release package is in the final review stage." He also stated that "necessary modifications to redactions were identified and thus additional review was needed." |
| August 29, 2024 |
Email from me expressing my thanks for the FOIA Office's assistance. |
| August 29, 2024 |
Email from Craig Greenberg stating, "The redactions on the responsive records for your request have completed almost all of the necessary review and are being prepared for the final release approval [fourth time]. We hope to have that approval finalized within the next couple of weeks to be able to send you a final response letter with responsive records."
Note that the subject line to this email incorrectly gave a FOIA number of HQ-2024-01160-F, not HQ-2024-01615-F. HQ-2024-2024-01160-F is the FOIA for the OIG complaint 23-0160-C. |
| August 29, 2024 |
Email from me stating that, "I fail to see why non-classified, open, written communication between two public, federal officials would need any redactions at all."
The incorrect subject line is continued. |
| October 20, 2024 |
Email from me stating "Over six months and still waiting."
The incorrect subject line is continued. |
| November 3, 2024 |
Email from me summarizing the unacceptable 7-months of apologies and empty promises that the DOE FOIA Office has provided instead of the Feinstein letters that were subject of FOIA HQ-2024-01615-F.
I issued a challenge to Secretary Granholm to respond. |
| December 16, 2024 |
Email from me, status request |
| December 16, 2024 |
Email from Jennifer Canady, DOE FOIA Office.
Feinstein-Richardson communication regarding community health study |
| December 16, 2024 |
Email from me requesting original request for cleanup standard communications |
| January 6, 2025 |
Second email from me requesting original request for cleanup standard communications |
| January 7, 2025 |
Email from Timothy Farrell, DOE FOIA Office, committing to follow up on the request. |
| As of the revision date of this page, the DOE has failed to provide the subject letters.. |
|
