Denied: DEP records including well location, and answers to questions
July 29, 2009 Filed in: Denied
| DEP | Infrastructure
security | Non-specific
requests | Questions
not records | Record
doesn't exist | Disruptive
requests
Denied: Several individual
requests for records from the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection related to
a coal fly-ash dump near the requester’s home.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Denied: Several individual requests for records from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection related to a coal fly-ash dump near the requester’s home.
The requests included the GPS coordinates for a certain well, documents showing an amended permit, and requests seeking “verifiable fact” and “scientific data” from investigations.
The DEP denied all the requests. It cited the exemption in the Right to Know Law protecting records that would threaten infrastructure security, the provision that agencies do not have to create records, the provision that requests must be specific, and that some of the requests were for information already provided in previous requests.
The Office of Open Records found:
-- That the record containing GPS coordinates of a well is exempt for release, based on the provision protecting building plans or infrastructure records that, if released, could exposure a vulnerability.
“The RTKL expressly provides for the non-disclosure of certain records of public utility systems.” the OOR wrote. “The DEP provides competent evidence ... that public disclosure of the exact GPS location of a water supply well could expose or create vulnerability to the public utility system.”
-- That the requests for “verifiable fact” or “scientific data” from investigations are questions, not requests for records.
The OOR noted it has previously ruled that agencies are not required to either create records or answer questions. “The RTKL only requires agencies to provide public records.” Wei vs. Department of Health AP 2009-0391; Alex vs. Pa. Department of Corrections AP 2009-0200’ DiPerna vs. Churchill Borough AP 2009-0112, and Cohen vs. Pa. Department of Labor and Industry AP 2009-0099.
The OOR did note that the requester was not prohibited from making a more specific request for a record that contains the information requested.
-- That one of the requests was repetitive and disruptive, in that the DEP had already provided the information subsequent to a previous request. “When a request has been made under the former or current RTKL and granted, the OOR finds that a repeat request for that same record is repetitive and places an unreasonable burden on the agency.”
-- That a record responsive to another of the requests either does not exist or had previously been provided.
The OOR noted that the citizen’s request that the OOR investigate the motives of the DEP is beyond the jurisdiction of the Right to Know Law.
“The purpose of the RTKL is to provide access to public records of the government. The RTKL does not require an agency to create records simply because the requester desires the existence of a record, such as a particular pollution test.”
Dreyer-Department of Environmental Protection -- AP 2009-0453
Denied: Several individual requests for records from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection related to a coal fly-ash dump near the requester’s home.
The requests included the GPS coordinates for a certain well, documents showing an amended permit, and requests seeking “verifiable fact” and “scientific data” from investigations.
The DEP denied all the requests. It cited the exemption in the Right to Know Law protecting records that would threaten infrastructure security, the provision that agencies do not have to create records, the provision that requests must be specific, and that some of the requests were for information already provided in previous requests.
The Office of Open Records found:
-- That the record containing GPS coordinates of a well is exempt for release, based on the provision protecting building plans or infrastructure records that, if released, could exposure a vulnerability.
“The RTKL expressly provides for the non-disclosure of certain records of public utility systems.” the OOR wrote. “The DEP provides competent evidence ... that public disclosure of the exact GPS location of a water supply well could expose or create vulnerability to the public utility system.”
-- That the requests for “verifiable fact” or “scientific data” from investigations are questions, not requests for records.
The OOR noted it has previously ruled that agencies are not required to either create records or answer questions. “The RTKL only requires agencies to provide public records.” Wei vs. Department of Health AP 2009-0391; Alex vs. Pa. Department of Corrections AP 2009-0200’ DiPerna vs. Churchill Borough AP 2009-0112, and Cohen vs. Pa. Department of Labor and Industry AP 2009-0099.
The OOR did note that the requester was not prohibited from making a more specific request for a record that contains the information requested.
-- That one of the requests was repetitive and disruptive, in that the DEP had already provided the information subsequent to a previous request. “When a request has been made under the former or current RTKL and granted, the OOR finds that a repeat request for that same record is repetitive and places an unreasonable burden on the agency.”
-- That a record responsive to another of the requests either does not exist or had previously been provided.
The OOR noted that the citizen’s request that the OOR investigate the motives of the DEP is beyond the jurisdiction of the Right to Know Law.
“The purpose of the RTKL is to provide access to public records of the government. The RTKL does not require an agency to create records simply because the requester desires the existence of a record, such as a particular pollution test.”
Dreyer-Department of Environmental Protection -- AP 2009-0453