*****************************************************************
07/21/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.172
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 AFP: Ahmadinejad avoids nuclear issue in letter to Merkel 
2 Guardian Unlimited: European Nations Circulate U.N. Iran Draft
3 RIA Novosti: Lawyers of Russia ex-minister against replacing 
4 Guardian Unlimited: This trade in carbon emissions won't combat glob
5 AU ABC: Gorbachev backs alternative power sources
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
6 US: NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Hear Oral Argument in 
7 US: Rutland Herald: NRC 'discussion' frustrates activists
8 US: NRC: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Beaver Valley Nuclear Power P
9 US: Brattleboro Reformer: NRC wants more info from Yankee
10 US: MyWestTexas.com: $1 million could be on way for nuclear reactor
11 Times and star: Trade secretary disappoints over nuclear laboratory 
12 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: County's Diablo debate spreads
13 US: Star-Telegram: America needs to get up and atom, folks
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
14 Guardian Unlimited: Fake bomb planted on N-waste train
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
15 US: APP.COM: Nuclear accident would spur chaos | 
16 US: toledoblade.com: Ohio justices reverse workers' comp ruling
17 US: OSHRC: Proposed FOIA changes
18 US: UCS: FDA Scientists Pressured to Exclude, Alter Findings
19 US: Rocky Mountain News: Aid for sick nuke workers surges
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
20 [NukeNet] UK reporter plants fake bomb on nuke waste shipment
21 Las Vegas SUN: Light banter fills room at latest Yucca hearing 
22 US: AU ABC: SA mining exploration reaches high. 
23 Mirror.co.uk: TOXIC CARGO IS A PERFECT TERROR TARGET
24 Edinburgh Evening News: Probe after reporter plants fake bomb on nuc
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
25 DOE: DOE Providing Additional Supercomputing Resources to Study 
26 DOE: Statement by Secretary Bodman on Receiving DOEs Inspector 
27 Inside Bay Area: Weapons specialist leads lab in UC bid
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 AFP: Ahmadinejad avoids nuclear issue in letter to Merkel 

 Fri Jul 21, 7:54 AM ET 
		 	 
BERLIN (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said 
nothing about nuclear issues in a letter he sent to German 
Chancellor Angela Merkel this week but lashed out at Israel " /> 
Israel, a government spokesman said. 

"The letter contained no pronouncements about the Iranian
nuclear programme," Ulrich Wilhelm told reporters on Friday.
 
"Instead it contained a lot of wide-ranging remarks, including
about Israel, its right to exist and the Holocaust which we find
completely unacceptable.
 
"It is in no way acceptable to question these facts, as
Chancellor Merkel has made clear."
 
Wilhelm said the hardline Iranian president remained silent
about the current crisis in the Middle East, which Iran
" /> Iranis accused of fueling by backing Hezbollah.
 
Ahmadinejad expressed a wish for closer cooperation between
Tehran and Berlin, he said.
 
Asked if Merkel had responded to the letter, Wilhelm said she
had "no intention of engaging in a lengthy correspondence" with
Ahmadinejad.
 
The spokesman said Berlin would not make public the full content
of the missive, which was written in Farsi and handed to the
German embassy in Tehran by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
on Wednesday.
 
Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped
off the map and questioned the Holocaust, in May wrote to US
President George W. Bush
" /> President George W. Bush.
 
That letter ended a 26-year break in top level contacts with
Washington but also offered no concessions in the nuclear
dispute raging between Tehran and world powers.
 
Iran on Thursday said it wanted to continue uranium enrichment
work and would wait until late August to respond to an
international package of incentives in exchange for freezing
that work, which Europe and the United States fear could be
hiding atom bomb development.
 
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: European Nations Circulate U.N. Iran Draft
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday July 21, 2006 2:01 AM
 	
AP Photo PAR108 
By NICK WADHAMS Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Key European nations circulated a draft
U.N. Security Council resolution Thursday that would put the
threat of sanctions, but not force, behind demands that Iran
suspend uranium enrichment and clear up suspicions about its
nuclear program. 

If Iran does not comply, the draft states, the council will
follow up under Article 41 of Chapter 7 in the U.N. Charter,
which allows punishments that do not involve military action,
such as economic sanctions, banning air travel or breaking
diplomatic relations. 

The draft, sent to the entire 15-nation council, is the
follow-up to a July 12 promise by the foreign ministers of
Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the U.S. to send
Iran back to the council for not responding to an offer of
incentives to suspend enrichment. 

The draft, proposed by Britain, France, Germany and backed by
the U.S., would make mandatory earlier demands from the council
and the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy
Agency, that Iran stop uranium enrichment. 

Enriched uranium can be used to produce both nuclear power and
weapons, but Iran insists its nuclear program is purely
peaceful. 

The United States had hoped to have the Security Council pass
the resolution by the end of this week, but that seemed unlikely
because diplomats were occupied with the Lebanon crisis. 
In addition, there was no indication that a split with Russia
had been bridged. 

Russia had circulated a counterproposal Wednesday that stripped
much of the tough language from the draft. Western powers
presented their version to the full council anyway. 
Diplomats from the five permanent members of the council and
Germany met Thursday morning, and planned to convene again on
Friday. 

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton didn't rule out a deal by the end of
the week, though he acknowledged the chances were slim. 

``It's now Thursday, I'm not sure how we're going to do this by
Friday, but creative minds might yet find a way through,'' he
said. 

In its current form, the West's draft says only that Iran must
comply with the demands by August. It does not take into account
a Thursday statement from Iran's Supreme National Security
Council saying Tehran would reply Aug. 22 to the Western
incentive package. 

That statement was Iran's first mention of a precise date after
weeks of being accused of stalling. It also warned that Iran
would retaliate if the world tried to punish it. 

``In case the path of confrontation is chosen instead of the
path of dialogue ... and Iran's definite rights are threatened,
then there will be no option for Iran but to reconsider its
nuclear policies,'' the Iranian statement said. 

Russia's U.N. Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, indicated on Wednesday
that Moscow was in no rush to get a resolution passed but said
Russia wanted an answer sometime soon to the package of
incentives, put forward on June 5. 

Russia has helped Iran build its nuclear program, selling it
equipment and expertise for an $800 million power plant by the
Persian Gulf. 

Churkin stressed the council is not trying to push Tehran to
suspend enrichment. 

``We are not in a rush at all,'' Churkin said. ``We do not want
to ambush Iran in any way. We're very much in a negotiating
political mode. We do not want to dictate things to Iran.'' 

``Nobody's pushing Iran anywhere,'' he said.     
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 3 RIA Novosti: Lawyers of Russia ex-minister against replacing 
fraud-case judge
 
21/ 07/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, July 21 (RIA Novosti) - Lawyers acting for a former
nuclear power minister of Russia demanded Friday that a judge
presiding over his embezzlement case be returned to the bench
after they said he had been replaced illegally.

 Yevgeny Adamov, 67, has been in custody for almost a year after
being arrested in Switzerland at the request of the United
States and has been in a Russian prison for the past six and a
half months after being extradited to face charges of
embezzlement and abuse of office at the start of the year.

 Presiding Judge of the Supreme Court Alexei Shurygin and two
other judges heard arguments in the case and left for
consultations Thursday but then adjourned until Friday. On
Friday, the lineup of judges changed.

 "We have every reason to believe that Shurygin, known as a man
of principle, withdrew to avoid being involved in a crime," said
Yevgeny Adamov's lawyer Genri Reznik.

 "A judge can be replaced if he cannot fulfill his duties. We
believe that Shurygin can preside in this trial," said another
lawyer Timofei Gridnev, adding that the new judge had been
appointed to make an unlawful decision. 

The Supreme Court convened Friday to consider an appeal from
Adamov's lawyers against his custody that had been extended by
the Moscow City Court on May 23 until August 8.
Prosecutor Anatoly Bashmakov said all the arguments of the
defense was mere guesswork.

"I request that the defense lawyers' arguments be rejected,"
Bashmakov said.

 The court has now recessed for consultations.

 Prosecutors said the former minister, who served from 1998 to
2001, was a leader of an organized criminal group whose members
were on an international wanted list and that he should be
remanded in custody to prevent him from influencing witnesses. 
The U.S. accused Adamov of misappropriating $9 million given to
Russia for nuclear safety projects. He would have faced 60 years
in prison if convicted in the U.S.

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: This trade in carbon emissions won't combat global warming

| Comment is free | 

There are much more honest and sustainable ways of dealing with
climate change, says Peter Bunyard 

Friday July 21, 2006 The Guardian             

Europe's gas emissions trading scheme is in disarray, as reported 
in the Guardian (Emission permits: UK and 10 others miss deadline 
for setting targets, July 4).The 11 governments now "face 
warnings of legal action from the European commission". In fact, 
the scheme may well prove unworkable, not least because British 
industry feels it is being unfairly treated in comparison with 
France and Germany, which are actually calling for emission 
allowances that would exceed their emissions of several years' 
back.

It is questionable whether carbon emissions trading will bring a
certifiable reduction. As now embodied in the EU emissions
trading scheme, fossil- fuel-burning companies such as power
utilities, steelworks or cement factories are granted
substantial carbon credits that they can sell - on the basis
that they have emitted less than expected. That may provide some
incentive to look to more efficient technologies, but the
assumption is that someone elsewhere, even in another country,
is going to buy that credit in order to pollute.

In addition, the use of tradeable carbon units combined with the
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - whereby the Kyoto
signatories from industrialised nations can invest in
emission-reduction projects in developing countries - has huge
potential for environmental damage and fraud.

How relevant are such schemes when deforestation, particularly
in the tropics, results in tens of times more carbon emissions
than putatively captured by all CDM schemes put together?

Perhaps a carbon tax that could be ploughed back into
carbon-reducing schemes, even by the original emitter, would be
much fairer and less prone to abuse.

Last month energy minister Malcolm Wicks gave a clear indication
to the Welsh affairs select committee that "the government will
commit itself to a framework that sets a long-term price for
carbon, either through a domestic, EU-wide or eventually wider
international trading agreement" (Carbon pricing to encourage
new nuclear power stations, June 14). Wicks obviously knew that,
following the energy review, Britain would be building a tranche
of nuclear power stations, despite the advice of the sustainable
development commission.

Wicks says that we will have to replace 30% of the UK's current
gener-ating capacity over the next 20 years, mostly with nuclear
power, if we want to reduce carbon emissions. But he compares
the emissions from a nuclear power programme with stand-alone
fossil-fuel fired plants rather than with a co-generation
system, ideally operating on biofuels, which produces heat and
electricity for households and industries simultaneously.

Cogeneration can be combined with other renewable energies, even
intermittent ones: in terms of reducing emissions this leaves
nuclear power standing.

France's 60 operating PWRs emit a relatively benign 29 tonnes of
carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour; but that is for today's
high-grade ores, which will last a few years at best. Once we
consider the next grade of uranium ore down, then nuclear power
burns up considerably more energy than it generates and its
emissions will exceed those even of coal.

· Peter Bunyard is science editor of the Ecologist 
peter.bunyard@btinternet.com

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian
Newspapers Limited 2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 5 AU ABC: Gorbachev backs alternative power sources
 
 Friday, 21 July 2006. 17:01 (AEDT)Friday, 21 July 2006. 16:01

Warning: Mr Gorbachev says nuclear power should be a last
resort. 

Former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev says nuclear power
stations should only be built in cases of extreme need. 

Mr Gorbachev is in Brisbane as the keynote speaker for this
weekend's Earth Dialogues summit. 

He says while new nuclear power stations may be needed, there
has not been enough investment into alternative power sources. 

"Given that there is a deficit of energy and the power situation
in the world is very difficult, nuclear power stations may be
needed," he said through a translator. 

"But only as a lesser evil and only in extreme need should such
stations be built." 

Mr Gorbachev says he is disturbed at what he believes is the
rise of militarism and the prevalence of nuclear weapons. 

"We see signs of a new arms race in the world and I think it
would be totally wrong and unacceptable, intellectually wrong
and irresponsible, to start another arms race," he said. 

"That would be like, as we say in Russian, stepping on the same
rake again." 
Related Audio
 
Gorbachev doubts benefits of nuclear energy
 
Just a fortnight after John Howard suggested Australia should
consider nuclear power, the former Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev has expressed grave concern at the idea. MP3RealMedia

*****************************************************************
 6 NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Hear Oral Argument in Vermont Yankee License
Renewal Proceeding

News Release - Region I - 2006-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, 
King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 No. I-06-042                          
July 21, 2006 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. 
Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov  
  
An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) panel will hear oral
argument on requests for a hearing on the Vermont Yankee license
renewal application on Tuesday, Aug. 1, and, if needed, on
Wednesday, Aug. 2, in Brattleboro, Vt. The ASLB is a
quasi-judicial arm of the NRC that deals with licensing matters.
 
The Aug. 1st session is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. in the
multi-purpose room at Brattleboro Union High School, 131
Fairground Road in Brattleboro. If needed, the oral argument
will continue starting at 9 a.m. on Aug. 2 at the same location.
The sessions are open for public observation, but participation
will be limited to the parties involved in the proceeding. Early
arrival is suggested (so at to allow for security screening) for
all members of the public interested in attending. Attendees are
requested to refrain from bringing any unnecessary hand-carried
items, such as packages, briefcases, backpacks and other items,
that might need to be examined for security purposes.
 
Entergy, the owner and operator of Vermont Yankee, submitted an
application for a 20-year license extension on Jan. 25. The
current NRC operating license for the plant, which is located in
Vernon, Vt., is set to expire on March 21, 2012.
 
Requests for an evidentiary hearing on the application were
submitted by the states of Vermont and Massachusetts; the New
England Coalition, a nuclear watchdog organization; and the Town
of Marlboro, Vt. The ASLB panel will hear oral argument on the
admissibility of some of the issues raised in these filings and
determine, at a later date, whether a hearing should be granted.
 
Documents related to the Vermont Yankee license renewal
application are available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons/vermont-yankee.html. Documents pertaining to the ASLB
proceeding are available in the agencys electronic document
library at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html.
 
More information about the ASLB can be found at:
http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/organization/aslbpfuncdesc.html.
   



  


 	Last revised Friday, July 21, 2006 	
*****************************************************************
 7 Rutland Herald: NRC 'discussion' frustrates activists

Rutland Vermont News & Information
 	 	 	 	 	 
July 21, 2006 

By DANIEL BARLOW Southern Vermont Bureau   
  
BRATTLEBORO — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission came to town
Thursday to discuss Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant's license
extension proposal, but at least one federal official noted it
was not clear exactly why they were there.

Thursday's meeting between NRC officials and representatives of
Entergy Nuclear Vermont, the owner of the Vernon plant, was
billed as an opportunity for the two parties to "discuss the
findings of a team audit" related to the license renewal,
according to a news release from the agency.

Several NRC officials spoke about the approval process for
Vermont Yankee's license renewal — and said they are seeking
more information on eight out of 384 initial questions
concerning how the plant would operate — for about 30 minutes
before turning the meeting over to Entergy officials.

The Entergy officials said they had nothing to add.

And that's when Ray Shadis, a technical adviser with the nuclear
watchdog group the New England Coalition, stood up.

"There was no meeting with Entergy," Shadis said. "What we had
was a presentation in broad generalities of the process, but not
a discussion. Had I known this, I would not have bothered to
drive over from Maine."

Frank Gillespie, the NRC license renewal director, quickly
agreed and apologized. The NRC has found little "controversy" in
Entergy's application to extend its license by 20 years past the
current end time of 2012, resulting in there being little to
actually discuss.

Gillespie said NRC staff has begun internal conversations
regarding its meeting schedule for reactor license renewals,
because the issue has arose in other communities where nuclear
power plants have sought extensions.

It would be better to time such meetings — which are open to the
public — after the NRC has published its preliminary safety
evaluation findings. Right now, they still are at the
information-gathering phase, Gillespie said.

"I agree with you, but this meeting was already scheduled," he
said. "Maybe there are meetings we shouldn't be having anymore."

About 30 people attended Thursday's meeting at the Quality Inn
in Brattleboro, many of them local anti-nuclear activists
opposed to the license extension.

Entergy officials are seeking to expand the plant's license to
2032. Vermont Yankee completed a power boost of 20 percent
earlier this year.

*****************************************************************
 8 NRC: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Plant
 
News Release - 2006-09
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs     
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov No. 06-095     July 20, 2006   
  
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) to increase the
generating capacity of Units 1 and 2 of the Beaver Valley Power
Station by approximately 8 percent. The NRC staff determined
that FENOC could safely increase the reactors output primarily
by upgrading certain plant systems and components. NRC staff
also reviewed the companys evaluations showing the reactors
designs can handle the increased power level.
 
The NRC's safety evaluation of the proposed power uprate focused
on several areas, such as the nuclear steam supply systems,
instrumentation and control systems, electrical systems,
accident evaluations, radiological consequences, operations and
training, testing, and technical specification changes. For
added confidence in the analysis, the NRC staff also conducted
independent calculations, evaluations and onsite audits of
selected areas.
 
The power uprate for Beaver Valley, located about 25 miles
northwest of Pittsburgh, Pa., will increase Unit 1s generating
capacity from approximately 821 to 889 megawatts electric, and
Unit 2's capacity from approximately 821 to 886 megawatts
electric. FENOC intends to operate Unit 1 at the higher power
level no later than completion of its fall 2007 refueling
operations, and Unit 2 at the higher power level no later than
its spring 2008 refueling.
 
NRC published a notice March 22 about the power uprate
application in the Federal Register providing the public an
opportunity to comment or request a hearing. No hearing requests
were received by the NRC. The agencys evaluation of the Beaver
Valley uprate will be available through the NRCs ADAMS
electronic document database by entering ML061720376 on this Web
page: http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm.
   
 	Last revised Friday, July 21, 2006 	
*****************************************************************
 9 Brattleboro Reformer: NRC wants more info from Yankee

By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff  

 Friday, July 21 BRATTLEBORO -- The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has asked Vermont Yankee to provide some information
to supplement the plant's license renewal application, staff
members announced at a public meeting Thursday. 

Still, the two sides aren't very far apart, said NRC staffer
Frank Gillispie, who estimated that the commission agreed with
about 95 percent of the process the plant used to evaluate
itself for relicensing. 

"I want to stress that in most cases, (this) doesn't mean
they're in error or they're wrong," fellow staff member Gary
Galetti said at the meeting. "We understand the process they
went through, but we didn't think they were as clear as they
needed to be." 

Vermont Yankee's license is set to expire in March 2012, and the
plant has filed to extend its operation by 20 years. 

Early in the relicensing process, the NRC reviews applications
to see if the plant has considered the integrity of the proper
systems, structures and components. 

Most of the review process looks at how parts of the plant will
withstand another 20 years of use. Because other boiling water
reactors have been approved for license extensions, the
regulatory path is well-worn for Vermont Yankee. But there are
certain plant-specific issues that the NRC wants to know more
about. 

The NRC released early results of its review at a meeting with
plant officials Thursday, and asked for more information about
how the plant weighed four specific topics: 

* The commission wants more information about how parts of the
plant would respond during "design basis events," including
floods, storms and earthquakes, that all plants are required to
be able to withstand under federal rules. 

It requested that Vermont Yankee provide a list of events
considered during the application process and a description of
how the potential effects of those events were analyzed. 

* The NRC also asked for more information about how Vermont
Yankee evaluated parts that aren't related to plant safety, but
are directly connected to safety-related systems. 

The commission wants the plant to provide a more detailed scope
of parts, including anchors, that may interact with
safety-related systems. 

* In addition, the commission is requesting more information
about the Vernon hydroelectric station, which Vermont Yankee
would rely on for backup power in case of a blackout. 

NRC staff members were satisfied with the plant's evaluation of
the station's structural integrity, but is looking for more
detail about its mechanical and electrical systems. 

* Finally, the NRC asked for more information about how Vermont
Yankee reviewed its quality assurance practices with regard to
procedures, training and staff. 

The NRC has sent the plant more requests for information, but
those weren't made public on Thursday. Michael Morgan, of the
NRC, said those aren't public because some of them have to do
with pending litigation. 

The nuclear watchdog New England Coalition, the Vermont
Department of Public Service, and the Massachusetts Attorney
General's office have all filed contentions to the plant's
relicensing with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a
quasi-judicial arm of the NRC. 

The NRC itself will be a party to hearings on those contentions,
which begin on Aug. 1. 

Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee, said questions about
a relicensing application are a normal part of the process. 

"It's part of a thorough NRC review process, and we fully
expected that the NRC would make requests for clarification," he
said. 

He said Vermont Yankee has already provided information about
the Vernon dam's electrical and mechanical shape, and will
answer the NRC's other requests as well. 

Andy Rosen can be reached at arosen@reformer.comor (802) 
254-2311, ext. 275. 
  
» (802) 254-2311
» 62 Black Mountain Road
» Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242 	   	 	
*****************************************************************
 10 MyWestTexas.com: $1 million could be on way for nuclear reactor
                 
Midland Reporter-Telegram                                                                                                                                         

Ruth Campbell  Staff Writer

Midland Reporter-Telegram                      

 07/21/2006

The University of Texas of the Permian Basin could get $1 million 
to help construct its high-temperature teaching and test reactor, 
if the full Congress approves.                                                         

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee member Kay Bailey Hutchison 
(R-Texas) announced in a news release Thursday the panel would 
provide the funds to conduct scientific research and train 
nuclear engineers at UTPB. 

A separate $1 million would go to Texas Tech University to 
research and develop nanophotonic devices, the release said. 

"I think it's wonderful, just marvelous," UTPB President David 
Watts said. "It's a major boost to the project. It will provide a 
continuation of funding beyond the $3 million we've already 
raised." 

"No. 2, it represents a buy-in by the federal government in the 
project. That's very important. And it will provide an additional 
element of credibility in the project," Watts said. 

The reactor, which probably would not be operational until 2020, 
would be a state-of-the-art, helium-cooled nuclear research 
facility, built largely underground in Andrews County. The county 
is also home to Waste Control Specialists, a low-level 
radioactive waste storage site and is right across the line from 
the proposed Louisiana Energy Services uranium enrichment 
facility in Lea County, N.M. 

It would be a prototype for a full-size version at Idaho National 
Laboratory near Idaho Falls and subject to licensing from the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The modular helium reactor is 
designed so it cannot melt, even at temperatures up to 1,500 
degrees centigrade. 

Fuel used in the reactor is pencil-point size pellets coated
with three layers of ceramic. The fuel pellets are placed in a
reactor core about the size of a chair, in the case of the
high-temperature teaching and test device. The core is then put
in a reactor vessel protected by a cement floor. 

Watts said progress is being made on the preconceptual design
for the project and UTPB has hired a nuclear physicist and is
making substantial progress on the engineering and academic
component of the preconceptual design. UT Austin is advising on
academic issues, he said. 

UTPB also has a strong working relationship with General
Atomics, a project team member. "Progress is being made on every
single front," Watts said. 

Like Watts, Andrews City Manager Glen Hackler and project team
members Grant Billingsley of Midland and Kirk Edwards of Odessa
were thrilled with the appropriation. 

"It's great news," Hackler said. "It gives the project real
legitimacy in Washington and I think it bodes very well for
future funding opportunities. We're very appreciative of Sen.
Hutchison and her staff for all the work they've done (for) this
region." 

"With the potential now for federal participation, this project
can move from being a local, regional and state effort. Many
thanks are due to Sen. Hutchison and her staff for going to bat
for the Permian Basin again," Billingsley said. 

Edwards echoed Billingsley's sentiments. 

"I thank our senators Hutchison and (John) Cornyn for all the 
hours they've spent listening to us pitch the project and making 
it part of their agenda for next year. ... It's fantastic for the 
project," Edwards said. 

©MyWestTexas.com 2006                                   
*****************************************************************
 11 Times and star: Trade secretary disappoints over nuclear laboratory 

workington lake district

Published on 21/07/2006

TRADE and industry secretary Alistair Darling toured
energy sites in Cumbria just days after announcing that nuclear
power may still play a part in creating tomorrowâ€™s energy. 

On his first visit to the county since his cabinet appointment,
Mr Darling made a flying visit over Barrowâ€™s offshore windfarm
before touring Sellafield. 

The nuclear facility, which employs around 12,500 people, is
being wound down and could mean the loss of 8,000 jobs.
 
It was hoped that Mr Darling would make an announcement about a
proposed National Nuclear Laboratory which could save some of
those jobs, but he would only confirm that Cumbria was in the
running as a site for the centre. 

He said: â€œIt is important to recognise there are many people
in this area with unique skills and we donâ€™t want to lose
them.â€ 

A decision on the laboratory could be made in the coming months,
he indicated. 

He refused to be drawn on whether a new power station could be
built in Cumbria, saying he would expect proposals for energy
production at various sites. 

Local politicians and unions have called for a new nuclear plant
in Cumbria to safeguard the economy. 

He repeated the message contained in last weekâ€™s energy that
both nuclear and green energy sources would be examined for
future use. 

He said:â€œRenewables will play an increasingly important part
and we are looking at ways we can increase offshore
development.â€ 

He also met Nuclear Decommissioning Authority chief executive
Ian Roxburgh, Copeland MP Jamie Reed and Workington MP Tony
Cunningham. 

Mr Darling also opened the authorityâ€™s new headquarters at
Herdus House in the West Lakes Science Park, near Whitehaven. 

He added: â€œWe have a big job of work in relation to
decommissioning. The nuclear industry has been important, is
important and will remain important to this country and
particularly Cumbria for many years to come.â€
 
â€œI was also impressed by the progress on the University for
Cumbria which seems on track to open in August next year.â€ 

He met union officials who called on him to resolve concerns
over pensions. 

Officials from industry union Prospect warned of industrial
action as workers ask the Government to underwrite their
pensions as their employer British Nuclear Fuels is broken up. 

                                                                    
*****************************************************************
 12 San Luis Obispo Tribune: County's Diablo debate spreads

| 07/21/2006 | 

A range of projects across the U.S. could be affected by a
recent ruling benefiting activists who urge local control over
nuclear power plants

 By David Sneed dsneed@thetribunenews.com

  + Court ruling affecting Diablo Canyon (PDF)

A recent federal appeals court ruling has put San Luis Obispo
County at the center of a growing national debate: How much
public involvement is appropriate in designing nuclear power
plant projects so that they are safe from terrorist attack? 

In June, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco
ruled that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission erred when it
denied requests by local activists to consider the environmental
impacts of a terrorist attack on Diablo Canyon nuclear power
plant's above-ground facility for storing high-level radioactive
waste. 

That ruling has sent shock waves across the nation. 

Lawyers for public utilities and infrastructure managers are
trying to figure out how the groundbreaking decision could
affect them. 

A recent legal analysis of the ruling by the nuclear industry's
trade group Nuclear Energy Institute summed up the impact: 

"A wide range of industrial and public projects, including
energy facilities, dams, urban infrastructure, transportation
facilities and the like could be affected," the analysis
concluded. "Many agencies will be ill-equipped to deal with
terrorism issues substantively or procedurally." 

The ruling may also embolden other nuclear watchdog groups to
file similar suits in other states, said Rochelle Becker of the
San Luis Obispo-based Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. 

These groups are also referencing the ruling in letters to their
lawmakers urging local control of nuclear plants. 

"The case has already been cited many times," Becker said. "They
realize that this has implications far beyond California and far
beyond Diablo Canyon." 

On Wednesday, the American Bar Association hosted a
teleconference with several of the nation's top legal experts on
terrorism and environmental law to discuss the ruling. 

Participants repeatedly referred to a growing tension since the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks between the need to keep the public
informed about anti-terrorism measures and the danger of
revealing too much information. 

Mark J. Robinson, an attorney for the federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, said the nation's need for power is growing, but the
public must have confidence that its energy infrastructure is
safe. 

"I think those pressures will do nothing but mount, and the
public must be brought along," he said. "We cannot cram
infrastructure down the public's throat." 

Post-9/11 concerns 

The Diablo Canyon controversy began shortly after the 2001
terrorist attacks, when Pacific Gas and Electric Co. applied to
build a dry cask storage facility for its used — but still
highly radioactive — nuclear fuel rods. 

Like all commercial nuclear plants in the nation, Diablo
Canyon's main storage facility, located in the plant, is filling
up, and additional storage must be created for the used fuel
rods. 

The San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and other activists
petitioned federal regulators to examine the environmental
consequences of a terrorist attack on the facility, including a
range of options for minimizing the potential effects. 

The NRC rejected the request, saying the possibility of a
terrorist attack was too speculative, and there is no way to
predict the success of such an attack. The nuclear industry also
argued that the Atomic Safety Act, not the National
Environmental Policy Act — NEPA — was the appropriate law for
protecting nuclear plants. 

"NEPA is simply not a threat assessment statute and should not
be made so," said Michael Bauser, a Nuclear Energy Institute
attorney. "There is the potential of confusing and complicating
the (nuclear facility) licensing process." 

The federal appeals court disagreed, and has ordered the NRC and
PG to do the environmental analysis. 

They have until Aug. 31 to decide whether they will appeal that
ruling. 

Meanwhile, Mothers for Peace has filed a legal injunction with
the NRC in hopes of stopping the ongoing construction of the
dry-cask facility and preventing PG from loading any casks until
the court's mandate is fulfilled. 

The commission has no deadline by which to respond to the
action, but is actively considering it, NRC spokesman Dave
McIntyre said. 

PG officials say they will continue to build the dry cask
facility unless the NRC tells them to stop. At town-hall-style
meetings when the dry cask facility was initially proposed, the
community told the utility that was the safest storage option,
PG spokeswoman Sharon Gavin said. 

Diane Curran, the lawyer who successfully argued the Mothers for
Peace case, said the group's actions were motivated by a desire
to increase public confidence in the security measures at Diablo
Canyon. 

Since the 2001 attacks, the nuclear industry nationwide has
added 3,000 security officers and spent $1.2 billion on security
upgrades, Bauser said. 

But all of that was done behind closed doors and with little
public input, and this approach does not engender public
confidence, Curran said. 

An environmental review is a good way to get the public involved
in the process without revealing details that could help
terrorists, she said. Briefing local agencies and groups after
they have signed confidentiality agreements is one tool that has
been used successfully. 

"We wanted to get this out in the public eye," Curran said. "It
clearly can be done." 

Curran praised steps taken by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to involve the public in security enhancements at the
nation's 2,500 dams and four liquefied natural gas unloading
facilities. 

These steps far exceed what the NRC has done at the nation's 103
commercial nuclear reactors, she said. 

Federal regulators explained the consequences of a terrorist
attack on a dam or liquefied-natural-gas terminal and what is
being done to prevent it, Robinson said. They went into great
detail in some areas but not others. 

For example, they explained how far flames would shoot out of
varying sized holes in a punctured natural gas tanker. But they
stopped short of saying what kind of weapons would produce those
holes of various sizes. 

"We do not want to teach terrorists how to attack," he said.
"There's a balance and tension between the two." 

Reach David Sneed at 781-7930. 

*****************************************************************
 13 Star-Telegram: America needs to get up and atom, folks

07/21/2006 | 

 By BERNARD L. WEINSTEIN Special to the Star-Telegram 

Once again, violence has flared in the Middle East, and oil
prices have shot up in response. At nearly $80 a barrel,
petroleum is at an all-time high adjusted for inflation. And
some analysts predict that the price could rise as high as $100
a barrel during the next several months. 

The possibility of supply disruptions from this politically
unstable region, along with the rapidly escalating price, drives
home the imperative to diversify America's energy base and
reduce our dependence on oil imports. A revival of the nuclear
energy industry could help. 

The press recently has been filled with articles suggesting that
nuclear power is on the rebound in America. For example, a March
Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans support
construction of more nuclear power plants, while Greenpeace
co-founder Patrick Moore has come out in support of nuclear
energy "as a safe, efficient and environmentally friendly
alternative" to fossil fuels. 

On the Texas front, NRG Energy, the operator of the South Texas
Project near Bay City, has announced plans to add two nuclear
plants to the two already in service, at a cost of $5.2 billion.
NRG expects to finish the first plant by 2014 and open the
second in 2015. TXU, which plans to build 11 traditional
coal-fired plants in Texas during the next decade, claims it is
considering expansion of its Comanche Peak nuclear power
facility. 

Will these plans materialize? If America is to have a clean,
affordable and reliable supply of electric power in the decades
ahead, let's hope so. 

The United States hasn't seen a new nuclear plant since the
1970s. But new legislation providing loan guarantees, production
tax credits and federal risk insurance seems to be reviving the
industry. And President Bush --unlike his predecessors -- has
become a vocal advocate for nuclear power, emphasizing its
importance to ensuring economic and national security. 

Today, America has 103 nuclear plants in 31 states; these
facilities generate about one-fifth of the nation's electricity.
While the nation's 600 coal-fired power plants produce 36
percent of all U.S. emissions and nearly 10 percent of global
greenhouse gases, nuclear power generation is environmentally
benign. What's more, new reactor designs will permit plants to
be built more cheaply, with enhanced safety and less spent fuel. 

Of course, anti-nuclear naysayers still abound, claiming that
the technology is inherently unsafe and produces waste that is
dangerous for thousands of years. This same crowd claims that we
can obtain all the energy we need through conservation and
renewables. 

Certainly, conservation can help. Indeed, we've made
considerable progress by dramatically reducing our energy usage
relative to gross domestic product during the past 20 years.
Wind, solar and other renewables have their place; but because
they are intermittent and unpredictable, they can't be viewed as
substitutes for large baseload plants. 

As for the safety issue, the nuclear industry can point to
almost 60 years of commercial operation without a fatal
accident. Even the 1979 incident at Three Mile Island resulted
in no injuries or deaths to plant workers or nearby residents.
Can the U.S. coal industry say the same? 

Furthermore, since 1964 the industry has transported more than
10,000 used fuel assemblies without incident to temporary
storage sites. Once the U.S. Department of Energy begins
accepting nuclear waste at a permanent repository in Nevada's
Yucca Mountain, the controversy about what to do with spent fuel
finally will be over. And though used fuel remains radioactive
for centuries, within 40 years it losses 99.9 percent of the
radioactivity it had when it left the reactor. 

As for terrorist attacks: Even if a 747 crashed into a reactor
and breached the 6-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment
vessel, no explosion would occur. Chemical plants and pipelines
are much more exposed to a terrorist attack than a nuclear power
plant. 

With political pressure building for caps on carbon emissions,
and oil and natural gas prices on a permanently higher plateau,
now's the time to aggressively build nuclear power plants. By
themselves, these plants won't wean America off fossil fuels or
totally eliminate the need to import oil and gas. But they can
help ensure a balanced mix of energy sources, hold down
long-term power costs and improve our economic and environmental
health. 

Bernard L. Weinstein is director of the Center for Economic
Development and Research at the University of North Texas in
Denton. 

*****************************************************************
 14 Guardian Unlimited: Fake bomb planted on N-waste train

[UP] 

Press Association 

Friday July 21, 2006 7:18 AM
 	
An investigation was under way after a newspaper reporter
planted a fake bomb on a train carrying nuclear waste.
 
The journalist wandered up to the unattended wagons at a north
west London depot, according to the Daily Mirror.
 
A terrorist could have blown up the waste, sparking a vast toxic
cloud that would have killed hundreds, the newspaper said.
 
Reporter Tom Parry writes that once a week the diesel-powered
locomotive goes unnoticed as it pulls four trailers hundreds of
miles around the rail network. But the train trundling from the
Kent countryside to Cumbria carries radioactive flasks of spent
uranium fuel rods.
 
He says he was able to place a device that could have been a
bomb on the 12-ton cargo as the train sat in sidings at the
depot. He approached in daylight after the wagons were left
seemingly unattended for almost 10 minutes.
 
The yard is just a short walk from a sports stadium, a large
hospital and one of the capital's major roads, and is surrounded
by housing estates, the newspaper says.
 
The reporter says his only identification as a legitimate rail
worker was a fluorescent orange jacket and hard hat, on sale at
any builders' merchants. "And this was not a one-off. It was the
tenth time I had wandered freely into the depot."
 
The newspaper said a spokeswoman for Direct Rail Services
initially claimed it would not have been possible to get close
to the nuclear flasks while the train was stationary in the yard.
 
But after seeing its evidence she said: "The entire journey is
protected by very stringent security. However, having seen these
pictures we will speak with our security people. A full
investigation will be carried out."
 
Nobody was available to comment at Direct Rail Services on
Thursday night.
 
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
 
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 15 APP.COM: Nuclear accident would spur chaos | 

Asbury Park Press Online

Friday, July 21, 2006
  	 	 
I attended the state Department of Environmental Protection's
hearing July 11 on the evacuation plans for a radiological
emergency at Oyster Creek nuclear plant. No evidence presented
convinced me that an adequate system is in place to evacuate us
safely in a nuclear emergency — not with these roads, a booming
population and substantial numbers of transient visitors.

People will respond very differently to this kind of emergency
because it is scarier than anything else. The unique fear of
invisible radiological poisoning leads to what is termed the
"evacuation shadow effect," in which people living great
distances outside the evacuation zone will spontaneously flee.
The terror and resulting escape behaviors will not be limited to
just the 10-mile radius surrounding the plant, as set in this
evacuation plan. For great distances, people will want to escape.

Experts state there will be "role conflict and abandonment" for
emergency workers in the event of a nuclear accident. Naturally,
their concerns will be for themselves and their families. We saw
this problem with Hurricane Katrina last fall.

Most distressing was discovering how our local Ocean County
freeholders have not responded in any productive way. They
should be raising those voices to state and federal authorities
to demand that the Oyster Creek plant be decommissioned in lieu
of a realistic evacuation plan.

I left the meeting wondering what our county leaders are waiting
for. If we cannot depend on our leaders to take a stand to
protect us, perhaps it is time for new leadership.

Doreen Greenberg

2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 16 toledoblade.com: Ohio justices reverse workers' comp ruling

Saturday, July 22, 2006 

Article published Thursday, July 20, 2006
 
 Hurt employees who return can't seek higher benefit
 
By JIM PROVANCE BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS - In an extremely rare move, the Ohio Supreme Court
yesterday reversed itself, undoing the impact of two prior
rulings allowing employees who work for years while fighting
debilitating injuries to receive greater benefits.
 
The 5-2 decision is believed to be just the second time the
court's all-Republican majority, ushered in with the 2002
election and strengthened in 2004, has acted to undo a prior
ruling it didn't like. Traditionally, justices consider prior
case precedent to be settled law.

 The court ruled yesterday in a new case that the fact someone
who suffered a work-related illness or injury and returned to
work for years doesn't mean they can claim "special
circumstance" and seek higher benefits than they would have
received at the time of their original injury.

 The decision overturns the effect of the 1998 ruling that
allowed former Brush Wellman employee Galin "Butch" Lemke, a
leading activist for victims of beryllium disease, to collect
benefits from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation based on
the higher salary he was earning immediately before he became
disabled. That was two decades after he left Brush.

 The Elmore man died from the disease in 1999.

 The other decision, issued by a vote of 4-3 in 2002, involved
Patrick D. Price, who continued to work more than 20 years after
suffering multiple fractures while working as an appliance
repairman. Mr. Price successfully sought increased benefits by
citing Lemke.

 The Lemke decision in 1998 was a unanimous vote of the court.
That included two current members, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer
and Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, who've now ruled the case
was "wrongly decided" and "defies practical workability."

 They were joined by Justices Maureen O'Connor, Terrence
O'Donnell, and Judith Lanzinger, who were elected after the
Lemke and Price decisions.

 "Lemke was a well-intentioned response to a very real problem,"
reads the majority's decision.

 "Its underlying reasoning, however, created more problems than
it solved."

 The court majority said the 1998 Lemke decision led to demands
by other disabled workers that their benefits be recalculated to
reflect their wages when they became disabled vs. the date their
injuries occurred.

 "We also repeat our entreaty to the General Assembly to address
this shortcoming in the workers' compensation system and fashion
a method to allow the average weekly wage to more accurately
reflect, over time, the economic realities of the individual
claimant or the economic landscape as a whole," reads the
decision.

 Justices Alice Robie Resnick and Paul Pfeifer, the only
remaining members of the 4-3 majority from the Price decision,
dissented.

 Justice Resnick, the court's only Democrat, argued that courts
have not had difficulty distinguishing between claims based on a
natural increase in earnings from cases like Lemke "where the
claimant has an extremely long and consistent post-injury
employment history, and the application of the standard method
yields a grossly unfair result."

 BWC spokesman Jeremy Jackson said the bureau agrees that
lawmakers may want to look at this issue in future legislation.

 Phil Fulton, past president of the Ohio Academy of Trial
Lawyers, raised concern over a decision that undoes precedent.

 "Depending on who's on the court, you can just reverse what was
decided previously as good law," he said. "It's one thing to say
in a decision that we want the legislature to change this. It's
another to say we're going to do it without the legislature."

 Contact Jim Provance at: jprovance@theblade.com or 614-221-0496.

 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 17 OSHRC: Proposed FOIA changes

                        FR Doc E6-11574 
[Federal Register: July 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 140)] 
[Proposed Rules] [Page 41384-41392] From the Federal Register 
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21jy06-10]                         

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 29 CFR Part 2201
 
Regulations Implementing the Freedom of Information Act AGENCY: 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. ACTION: Notice 
of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 
(OSHRC) is proposing to revise its regulations implementing the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. The 
proposed regulations contain new provisions to comply with 
Executive Order 13392. In addition, the proposed regulations have 
been updated to reflect changes in OSHRC's policies and 
procedures. As a result of these proposed amendments, the public 
will have a clearer understanding of OSHRC's policies and 
procedures implementing the FOIA. DATES: Submit comments on or 
before August 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any 
of the following methods:

     E-mail: regsdocket@oshrc.gov. Include ``FOIA PROPOSED 
RULEMAKING'' in the subject line of the message.

     Fax: (202) 606-5417.

     Mail: 1120 20th Street, NW., Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 
20036-3457.

     Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mailing address.

    Instructions: All submissions must include your name, return 
address and e-mail address, if applicable. Please clearly label 
submissions as ``FOIA PROPOSED RULEMAKING.'' If you submit 
comments by e-mail, you will receive an automatic confirmation 
e-mail from the system indicating that we have received your 
submission. If, in response to your comments submitted via 
e-mail, you do not receive a confirmation e-mail within five 
working days, please contact us directly at (202) 606-5410.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jin H. Kim, Attorney-Advisor, 
Office of the General Counsel, via telephone: (202) 606-5410, or 
via e-mail: jkim@oshrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background The Occupational Safety and Health Review 
Commission (OSHRC) proposes several substantive and technical 
revisions governing its regulations implementing the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. OSHRC proposes 
revising its FOIA regulations, including the addition of new 
provisions and the modification of existing provisions, to comply 
with Executive Order 13392 (E.O. 13392), 70 FR 75373, December 
19, 2005. In E.O. 13392, the President directs each agency to 
ensure that its FOIA operations treat FOIA requesters courteously 
and appropriately and to provide requesters with prompt 
information regarding the status of their FOIA requests, as well 
as appropriate information regarding the agency's response. In 
addition, each agency is to provide FOIA requesters and the 
public in general with ``citizen-centered'' ways to learn about 
the agency's FOIA process and how to receive agency records that 
are publicly available. By ensuring that its FOIA operations are 
``citizen-centered'' and ``results-oriented,'' each agency will 
improve service and performance, thereby strengthening compliance 
with the FOIA.

    In order to achieve these goals, E.O. 13392 requires each 
agency head to designate a Chief FOIA Officer, who has 
agency-wide responsibility for the efficient and appropriate 
compliance with the FOIA. As part of his or her duties under E.O. 
13392, the Chief FOIA Officer must review the agency's FOIA 
operations and identify any areas for improvement. In addition, 
E.O. 13392 requires agencies to establish FOIA Requester Service 
Centers to enable any FOIA requester to seek information 
concerning the status of his or her FOIA request as well as 
appropriate information about the agency's FOIA response. As part 
of the FOIA Requester Service Center, E.O. 13392 further requires 
an agency to designate its own FOIA Public Liaison(s) to serve as 
the supervisory official(s) to whom a FOIA

[[Page 41385]]

requester can raise concerns about the service the FOIA requester 
has received from the FOIA Requester Service Center, following an 
initial response to the FOIA request. Based upon these new 
requirements, OSHRC therefore proposes to revise its regulations 
implementing the FOIA to comply fully with E.O. 13392.

    Further, as a result of the Chief FOIA Officer's review of 
OSHRC's FOIA operations, OSHRC proposes to amend its rules to 
reflect recent changes in OSHRC's policies and procedures as they 
relate to the processing of FOIA requests. At the beginning of 
this fiscal year, OSHRC moved all FOIA processing from its Office 
of Administration to the Office of the General Counsel, where 
paralegals and attorneys have received training in the handling 
of FOIA requests. Moreover, OSHRC has identified several areas 
for improvement in its processing of FOIA requests that are 
addressed by these proposed rules, such as establishing a 
recordkeeping log, standardizing forms for processing FOIA 
requests, adding definitions to clarify the use of terms, and 
establishing a streamlined appeals process that covers fee waiver 
denials. These changes in OSHRC's policies and procedures will 
make the processing of FOIA requests more efficient and 
responsive. Lastly, OSHRC proposes several minor revisions that 
are purely technical or clarifying in nature which relate to 
changes in phrasing and nomenclature.

    Accordingly, OSHRC proposes to revise its regulations 
implementing the FOIA and put them out for public comment 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i), (a)(6)(B)(iv), 
(a)(6)(D)(i), and (a)(6)(E)(i). For the convenience of the 
reader, OSHRC reproduces proposed 29 CFR part 2201 in its 
entirety. The specific amendments that OSHRC proposes to each 
section of 29 CFR part 2201 are discussed hereafter in regulatory 
sequence.

II. Proposed Regulatory Revisions

    The President's issuance of E.O. 13392 on December 14, 2005 
created new requirements and duties for improving agency 
disclosure of information under the FOIA which are implemented in 
these proposed rules. Consequently, OSHRC proposes to amend the 
authority citation in 29 CFR part 2201 to add a reference to E.O. 
13392.

    In 29 CFR 2201.1, OSHRC would make changes to correct a 
grammatical error in the section heading and to add abbreviations 
for ``Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission'' and 
``Freedom of Information Act'' to the regulatory text. 
Accordingly, the proposed rules in part 2201 are revised 
throughout to refer to the ``Occupational Safety and Health 
Review Commission'' as ``OSHRC'' or ``Commission,'' and the 
``Freedom of Information Act'' as ``FOIA.''


    In Sec.  2201.2, OSHRC proposes adding a sentence to the end 
of the section that provides additional details about the 
designation of one of the Commissioners as the Chairman and his 
responsibilities for the administrative operations of the 
Commission, consistent with section 12(e) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 661(e). Also, to conform 
to the abbreviations noted above in Sec. 2201.1, OSHRC would 
substitute ``OSHRC'' in place of ``The Occupational Safety and 
Health Review Commission (OSHRC or Commission)'' in new Sec.  
2201.2.

    In Sec.  2201.3, OSHRC proposes revising the delegation of 
FOIA- related duties to reflect the changes required by E.O. 
13392 and break them out into new paragraphs (a) through (d). In 
order to comport with E.O. 13392, OSHRC would eliminate the 
current language regarding the Chairman's delegation of authority 
to the Freedom of Information Act Officer. In its place, OSHRC 
proposes adding a delegation of authority to the Chief FOIA 
Officer under new paragraph (a). In addition, OSHRC would 
eliminate the alternate designation of another OSHRC officer or 
employee, such as the General Counsel or the Executive Secretary, 
by the Chairman or the Executive Director in the absence of the 
Freedom of Information Act Officer. Instead, under new paragraph 
(b) of proposed Sec.  2201.3, the Chief FOIA Officer would 
designate the agency's FOIA Disclosure Officer(s) to process all 
FOIA requests. Under paragraph (c), the Chief FOIA Officer would 
designate the FOIA Public Liaison(s) to address any concerns 
about the service a FOIA requester has received following an 
initial response by the agency. Under new paragraph (d), OSHRC's 
proposal identifies the FOIA Disclosure Officer(s) and FOIA 
Public Liaison(s) as serving in the agency's FOIA Requester 
Service Center and provides the address and telephone number to 
contact the FOIA Requester Service Center. This new language 
reflects changes in the delegation of authority and designation 
of personnel in compliance with E.O. 13392.

    Indeed, in order to ensure appropriate communication with 
FOIA requesters, E.O. 13392 requires agencies to ``establish one 
or more FOIA Requester Service Centers'' to receive and respond 
to inquiries from FOIA requesters. To comply with this 
requirement, OSHRC proposes to establish a FOIA Requester Service 
Center at its national office in Washington, DC OSHRC's FOIA 
Requester Service Center, which will handle all FOIA requests and 
inquiries about FOIA requests, will consist of FOIA Disclosure 
Officer(s) and FOIA Public Liaison(s). Under OSHRC's new 
procedures, the FOIA Disclosure Officer(s) will handle all 
initial responses to FOIA requests. The FOIA Public Liaison(s) 
will ensure appropriate communication between FOIA requesters and 
FOIA Disclosure Officer(s) and will be supervisory employee(s). 
This change will help ensure that OSHRC's FOIA operations are 
``citizen-centered'' and ``results-oriented'' as directed in E.O. 
13392. OSHRC also would update references to the FOIA Officer and 
Information Office throughout 29 CFR part 2201 to reflect this 
change.

    OSHRC proposes to eliminate the second to last sentence of 
current Sec.  2201.3 that refers to the handling of requests for 
copies of individual decisions because copies of Commission 
decisions have been placed on OSHRC's Web site for the public's 
convenience, pursuant to the Electronic Freedom of Information 
Act Amendments of 1996, Public Law 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048 
(codified as amended in 5 U.S.C. 552) (e- FOIA). OSHRC would 
further eliminate the last sentence of current Sec. 2201.3 which 
refers to the handling of ``all other information requests'' 
because this information will be covered under new Sec. 2201.5(a) 
of the regulations; thus, its inclusion in Sec. 2201.3 is 
redundant.

    In Sec.  2201.4, OSHRC first proposes to change the heading 
to include the phrase ``and definitions.'' Second, OSHRC would 
update regulatory cross-references and make minor nomenclature 
changes throughout the section, such as deleting ``Review'' from 
``Review Commission'' and replacing ``Freedom of Information Act 
Officer'' with ``FOIA Disclosure Officer.'' Third, OSHRC would 
make other minor changes in phrasing to paragraph (a) by 
combining the last two sentences of the existing regulations for 
clarity without changing the meaning of the provision. Fourth, in 
paragraph (c), OSHRC would edit the paragraph heading to update 
the nomenclature, as well as the introductory text to describe 
more precisely the location of the reading room. Fifth, OSHRC 
would also add new paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) to reflect the 
language of the FOIA, and renumber current paragraphs (c)(3) and 
(c)(4) as new paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6). Sixth, in paragraph 
(d), OSHRC would add a new paragraph heading noting record 
availability at the OSHRC

[[Page 41386]] e-FOIA reading room, as well as language 
clarifying the availability of electronic records. Finally, OSHRC 
would add a new paragraph (e) to Sec.  2201.4 to provide 
definitions relevant to 29 CFR part 2201 that are consistent with 
other agencies' FOIA regulations. These nine definitions clarify 
certain FOIA terminology but in no way change how OSHRC processes 
FOIA requests. The terms include: ``commercial use request,'' 
``direct costs,'' ``duplication,'' ``education institution,'' 
``noncommercial scientific institution,'' ``representative of the 
news media, or media requester,'' ``review,'' ``search,'' and 
``working day.'' The terms have been defined using standard 
language consistent with the statute, including the incorporation 
of minor technical modifications from the FOIA regulations of 
several other government agencies, including the Department of 
Justice (28 CFR part 16) and the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) (5 CFR part 1303). OSHRC proposes to define ``working 
day,'' which is not defined in other government agencies'' FOIA 
regulations, in order to clarify the FOIA's calculation of time.

    OSHRC would remove current Sec.  2201.5 altogether because it 
is no longer necessary. OSHRC had a policy of providing a hard 
copy of a single decision before the advent of the Internet and 
e-FOIA. Pursuant to e-FOIA, OSHRC has placed Commission decisions 
on OSHRC's Web site, http://www.oshrc.gov, for the public's 
convenience. Therefore, OSHRC proposes to remove Sec.  2201.5 in 
its entirety and renumber subsequent sections accordingly.

    OSHRC then proposes to redesignate current Sec.  2201.6 as 
new Sec.  2201.5. In new Sec.  2201.5 (old Sec.  2201.6), OSHRC 
would eliminate paragraph (a) of the current regulations in its 
entirety. Pursuant to e-FOIA, OSHRC has placed most of this 
information on its Web site for the public's convenience. OSHRC 
also proposes to make minor technical changes throughout this 
section to update cross- references and to reflect changes made 
to other sections in part 2201, as well as to clarify language 
which would not change the meaning of the provision. For example, 
OSHRC would remove ``Review'' from ``Review Commission,'' replace 
``Freedom of Information Act Officer'' with ``FOIA Disclosure 
Officer'' and change references to other provisions. Further, 
OSHRC would redesignate the old paragraph (b) as paragraph (a) 
with a new paragraph heading, ``Requests for information'' and 
modify the language within new paragraph (a) to clearly delineate 
the procedures for making FOIA requests. The new paragraph (a) 
provides that requests for information must be made in writing 
with ``Freedom of Information Act Request'' printed on the 
request's envelope or cover as well as the request itself, and 
addressed to the FOIA Disclosure Officer. In addition, FOIA 
requests must describe the record requested to the fullest extent 
possible and specify the preferred form or format of the 
response. The new language states that OSHRC shall try to 
accommodate requesters as to form or format when possible, and if 
no form or format is specified, OSHRC shall respond in the form 
or format that is most accessible to OSHRC. This new language is 
easier to understand and clarifies the procedures for requesting 
records. Further, OSHRC would redesignate current paragraph (c) 
as new paragraph (b), and would rephrase new paragraph (b) for 
clarity regarding the date of receipt of a FOIA request. OSHRC 
would also delete paragraph (d) (Specificity required) (old Sec.  
2201.6) because the information requested in paragraph (d) is now 
incorporated in new paragraph (a) of proposed Sec.  2201.5.

    OSHRC proposes to redesignate current Sec.  2201.7 as new 
Sec. 2201.6. In new Sec.  2201.6 (old Sec.  2201.7), OSHRC would 
first update cross-references to other sections changed in part 
2201 and then make minor technical and grammatical changes 
throughout this section. For example, OSHRC would remove 
``Review'' from ``Review Commission'' and replace ``Freedom of 
Information Act Officer'' with ``FOIA Disclosure Officer'' 
throughout this section. OSHRC also proposes to rephrase 
paragraph (b) for clarity without changing the meaning of the 
provision by directly stating that the FOIA Disclosure Officer(s) 
shall notify the requester in writing about extensions of time. 
Also in the introductory text to paragraph (b), OSHRC would 
delete the phrase ``telephonic notice'' when discussing 
``extensions of response time in usual circumstances'' beyond the 
allowable time, because the FOIA requires written notice under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B). Further, OSHRC would modify the language of 
paragraph (b)(1) to reflect in a more precise manner the location 
of OSHRC records. OSHRC records are currently located in OSHRC's 
national office, regional offices and an off-site storage 
location. In paragraph (b)(3), OSHRC would delete the phrase ``or 
among two or more components within the Commission having 
substantial subject-matter interest in the request'' because this 
phrase is unnecessary to OSHRC's FOIA operations. For consistency 
purposes, OSHRC proposes requiring written notice in paragraph 
(c) for additional extensions of time, as well as in paragraph 
(d)(3) for when the estimated time to process a FOIA request 
substantially changes. By providing written notice to requesters 
for these circumstances, OSHRC believes that it would improve 
OSHRC's communication with requesters.

    In paragraph (d) of Sec.  2201.6 (old Sec.  2201.7), OSHRC 
would rename the heading from ``multitrack processing'' to 
``two-track processing'' to describe more accurately OSHRC's 
processing of FOIA requests. Further, in order to streamline the 
FOIA rules and make them more user friendly, OSHRC proposes 
deleting paragraph (e)(4), as well as paragraph (g) of current 
Sec.  2201.7 and incorporate that information in new Sec.  2201.9 
(Appeal of denials). New Sec. 2201.9 will apply to all appeals of 
denials related to FOIA requests (i.e., requests for records, 
requests for expedited processing, and/or requests for fee 
waiver).

    In paragraph (f), OSHRC proposes to consolidate all denials 
related to FOIA requests (i.e., requests for records, requests 
for expedited processing, and/or requests for fee waiver) to 
streamline the rules and make them more user friendly. Finally, 
OSHRC would further revise the language in paragraph (f) to 
closely track the language of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)(i) 
and (F), by requiring the FOIA Disclosure Officer(s) to provide 
the reason for a denial, a reasonable estimate of the volume of 
matter denied (unless doing so would harm an interest protected 
by the exemption(s) under which the request was denied), the name 
and title or position of the person responsible for the denial of 
the request, and also notify the requester of the right to appeal 
the determination in the written notice of denial. Due to the 
movement of paragraph (g) to new Sec.  2201.9 (Appeal of 
denials), OSHRC proposes redesignating paragraph (h) as new 
paragraph (g). OSHRC would edit the language in new paragraph (g) 
to require written justification for deletions within a record, 
because the FOIA states that ``the justification for the deletion 
shall be explained fully in writing'' as required under 5 U.S.C. 
552(a).

    OSHRC proposes to redesignate current Sec.  2201.8 as new 
Sec. 2201.7. In new Sec.  2201.7 (old Sec.  2201.8), OSHRC would 
revise this section to reflect changes in OSHRC's calculation of 
fees, and create an appendix that reflects OSHRC's fee schedule. 
In paragraph (a), OSHRC proposes to make several nomenclature 
changes and update a cross- reference to the section on fee 
waivers. In addition, [[Page 41387]] OSHRC proposes eliminating 
the specified dollar amount ($10) and changing it to ``the 
threshold amount as provided in OSHRC's schedule of fees.'' 
Further, in new Sec.  2201.7 (old Sec.  2201.8), OSHRC proposes 
deleting paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) and incorporating that 
definitional information in paragraph Sec.  2201.4(e). In 
addition, the procedural information in paragraph (a)(3) is 
duplicated in new Sec. 2201.8(a) discussed below. In paragraph 
(b), OSHRC proposes revising the copying, searching and reviewing 
fees so they are based on the direct costs of these services as 
provided in the FOIA under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(iv). The FOIA 
provides that the Director of OMB shall promulgate guidelines for 
a uniform schedule of fees for all agencies under 5 U.S.C. 
552(a)(4)(A)(i). OSHRC calculates its fees in accordance with 
OMB's ``Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and 
Guidelines,'' 52 FR 10012, March 27, 1987. Under OMB's 
guidelines, these fees are to be based on the average hourly 
salary (base plus DC locality payment) of employees performing 
the services plus 16 percent for benefits. In addition, the fees 
for clerical employees are to be based on an average of all 
employees at the GS-9 level and below; the fees for professional 
employees are to be based on all employees at the GS-10 through 
GS-14 level; and the fees for managerial employees are to be 
based on an average of all employees at the GS-15 level and 
above. OSHRC's Office of Administration has calculated and 
updated the fees, which appear in the attached Appendix A. The 
FOIA Requester Service Center also will provide a hard copy of 
the schedule of fees upon request. OSHRC proposes to revise the 
language in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of new Sec.  
2201.7 (old Sec.  2201.8) to reflect the new calculation of fees.

    OSHRC proposes to add a new paragraph (c) in new Sec. 2201.7 
(old Sec.  2201.8) requiring the FOIA Disclosure Officer to 
provide requesters an itemized invoice for fees related to FOIA 
requests. Although the FOIA does not require an itemized invoice, 
OSHRC would provide an itemized invoice for the convenience of 
the requester as part of OSHRC's effort to be citizen-centered 
pursuant to E.O. 13392. OSHRC would also redesignate old 
paragraph (c) as new paragraph (d) to reflect the addition of the 
new paragraph (c). New paragraph (d) will be updated to include 
changes in nomenclature. OSHRC also would delete the current 
paragraph (d) (Certification or authentication), and include such 
certification or authentication service in a new paragraph (g) 
(Fees for services not required by the Freedom of Information 
Act), which is more inclusive of other services, such as express 
mail.

    Paragraph (e) will remain essentially the same, except that 
OSHRC would make changes in wording that are technical in nature, 
such as replacing ``Freedom of Information Act Officer'' with 
``FOIA Disclosure Officer'' and using gender neutral language. 
OSHRC would also change ``copying or search'' to ``the total 
fee'' to reflect the true cost of satisfying the request. OSHRC 
in this proposal has left in place the $25 total fee threshold, 
above which the agency is required to contact the requester about 
cost. OSHRC is considering, however, whether to raise that 
threshold amount. OSHRC requests comments specifically on 
whether, and by how much, this threshold should be raised.

    In paragraph (f) of new Sec.  2201.7 (old Sec.  2201.8), 
OSHRC would make some changes in nomenclature to insert the term 
``FOIA Disclosure Officer'' and insert gender neutral language. 
OSHRC would also modify the language in the third sentence to 
require full payment when a requester has previously failed to 
pay within 30 days. This revision is more consistent with the 
other sentences in the paragraph addressing advance payment. As 
noted above, OSHRC proposes to create a new paragraph (g) on fees 
for services not required by the FOIA. This new paragraph is more 
inclusive of the types of services, such as express mail, that is 
not in OSHRC's current regulation. OSHRC also would revise the 
language in paragraph (h), as well as paragraph (i), to reflect 
changes in OSHRC's procedures for transferring the bill 
collection responsibilities related to FOIA requests to OSHRC's 
Office of Administration. OSHRC believes that this change in bill 
collection procedures will improve efficiency because the FOIA 
Requester Service Center will not have to devote resources to 
bill collection and can focus on responding to FOIA requests. In 
paragraph (i), OSHRC would further revise the language to more 
precisely reflect the statutory provisions relating to the 
Federal government's collection of debts under the Debt 
Collection Act of 1982 and its administrative procedures.

    OSHRC proposes to redesignate current Sec.  2201.9 as new 
Sec. 2201.8. In new Sec.  2201.8 (old Sec.  2201.9), OSHRC would 
make several minor changes that are technical in nature, such as 
replacing references to the ``Freedom of Information Act 
Officer'' with ``FOIA Disclosure Officer'' and using gender 
neutral language. As mentioned in the discussion of new Sec.  
2201.7 (old Sec.  2201.8), OSHRC would include some of the 
procedural language from paragraph (a)(3) of old Sec.  2201.8 in 
paragraph (a) of new Sec.  2201.8 (old Sec. 2201.9).

    As previously mentioned, OSHRC proposes adding a new section, 
Sec. 2201.9 (Appeal of denials), to consolidate all appeals in 
one section. This change is intended to make the FOIA rules more 
user friendly. OSHRC would also change the time the requester may 
appeal a denial from 30 working days after the requester receives 
notice of the appeal to 20 working days. This change is based on 
a survey of various smaller agencies, including the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Review Commission (20 working days). In 
addition, OSHRC would add appeals of denial of fee waivers in 
this section because OSHRC's current rule does not specifically 
provide for appeals of denial of fee waivers.

    In Sec.  2201.10, OSHRC would make minor technical changes, 
such as replacing ``Freedom of Information Act Officer'' with 
``FOIA Disclosure Officer.''

    Finally, OSHRC would update the cross-references to the 
various sections and paragraphs throughout the rules in 29 CFR 
part 2201 to reflect changes in section numbers and paragraphs 
due to the reorganization of these proposed regulations. 
Executive Order 12866

    The Commission is an independent regulatory agency, and as 
such, is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 12866. Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    The Commission has determined that the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., does not apply because these rules 
do not contain any information collection requirements that 
require the approval of OMB.

Executive Order 13132

    The Commission is an independent regulatory agency, and as 
such, is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13132. 
Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Commission has determined under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 606(b), that these rules, if adopted, 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility 
Statement and Analysis has not been prepared.

[[Page 41388]]

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Commission is an independent regulatory agency, and, as 
such, is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 
U.S.C. 1501 et seq. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996

    This proposed rule is not a major rule under the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 
The proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the 
economy of more than $100 million per year; a major increase in 
costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, 
State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or 
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based companies in 
domestic and export markets.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2201

    Freedom of Information.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 17, 2006. W. Scott Railton, 
Chairman.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission 
proposes that Chapter XX, part 2201 of Title 29, Code of Federal 
Regulations, be revised as follows:

PART 2201--REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 
ACT Sec. 2201.1 Purpose and scope. 2201.2 Description of agency. 
2201.3 Delegation of authority and responsibilities. 2201.4 
General policy and definitions. 2201.5 Procedure for requesting 
records. 2201.6 Responses to requests. 2201.7 Fees for copying, 
searching, and review. 2201.8 Waiver of fees. 2201.9 Appeal of 
denials. 2201.10 Maintenance of statistics. Appendix A to Part 
2201--Schedule of Fees

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 661(g); 5 U.S.C. 552; E.O. 13392, 70 FR 
75373, 3 CFR, 2005 Comp., p. 216. Sec.  2201.1  Purpose and 
scope.

    This part prescribes procedures to obtain information and 
records of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 
(OSHRC or Commission) under the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. It applies only to records or information 
of the Commission or in the Commission's custody. This part does 
not affect discovery in adversary proceedings before the 
Commission. Discovery is governed by the Commission's Rules of 
Procedure in 29 CFR part 2200, subpart D. Sec.  2201.2  
Description of agency.

    OSHRC adjudicates contested enforcement actions under the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651-678. 
The Commission decides cases after the parties are given an 
opportunity for a hearing. All hearings are open to the public 
and are conducted at a place convenient to the parties by an 
Administrative Law Judge. Any Commissioner may direct that a 
decision of a Judge be reviewed by the full Commission. The 
President designates one of the Commissioners as Chairman, who is 
responsible on behalf of the Commission for the administrative 
operations of the Commission. Sec.  2201.3  Delegation of 
authority and responsibilities.

    (a) The Chairman delegates to the Chief FOIA Officer the 
authority to act upon all requests for agency records.

    (b) The Chief FOIA Officer shall designate the FOIA 
Disclosure Officer(s), who shall be responsible for processing 
FOIA requests.

    (c) The Chief FOIA Officer shall designate the FOIA Public 
Liaison(s), who shall serve as the supervisory official(s) to 
whom a FOIA requester can raise concerns about the service the 
FOIA requester has received following an initial response.

    (d) OSHRC establishes a FOIA Requester Service Center that 
shall be staffed by the FOIA Disclosure Officer(s) and FOIA 
Public Liaison(s). The address and telephone number of the FOIA 
Requester Service Center is 1120 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20036-3457, (202) 606-5410. Sec.  2201.4  General policy and 
definitions.

    (a) Non-exempt records available to public. Except for 
records and information exempted from disclosure by 5 U.S.C. 
552(b) or published in the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 
552(a)(1), all records of the Commission or in its custody are 
available to any person who requests them in accordance with Sec.  
2201.5(a). Records include any information that would be a record 
subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552 when maintained by 
the Commission in any format, including electronic format. In 
response to FOIA requests, the Commission will search for records 
manually or by automated means, except when an automated search 
would significantly interfere with the operation of the 
Commission's automated information system.


    (b) Examination of records in cases appealed to courts. A 
final order of the Commission may be appealed to a United States 
Court of Appeals. When this occurs, the Commission may send part 
or all of the official case file to the court and may retain 
other parts of the file. Thus, a document in a case may not be 
available from the Commission but only from the court of appeals. 
In such a case, the FOIA Disclosure Officer may inform the 
requester that the request for a particular document should be 
directed to the court.

    (c) Record availability at the OSHRC on-site FOIA Reading 
Room. The records of Commission activities are publicly available 
for inspection and copying at the OSHRC on-site FOIA Reading 
Room, 1120 20th St., NW., Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457. 
These records include:

    (1) Final decisions including concurring and dissenting 
opinions as well as orders issued as a result of adjudication of 
cases;

    (2) OSHRC Rules of Procedure and Guides to those procedures;

    (3) Specific agency policy statements adopted by OSHRC and 
not published in the Federal Register;

    (4) Administrative staff manuals that affect a member of the 
public;

    (5) Copies of records that have been released to a person 
under the FOIA that, because of the subject matter, the 
Commission determines that the records have become or are likely 
to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially 
the same records; and

    (6) A general index of records referred to under paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section.

    (d) Record availability at the OSHRC e-FOIA Reading Room. 
Materials created on or after November 1, 1996 under paragraphs 
(c)(1), (2), (3) and (4) of this section may also be accessed 
electronically through the Commission's Web site at 
http://www.oshrc.gov.

    (e) Definitions. For purposes of this part: Commercial use 
request means a request from or on behalf of a person who seeks 
information for a use or purpose that furthers his or her 
commercial, trade, or profit interests, which can include 
furthering those interests through litigation. The FOIA 
Disclosure Officer shall determine, whenever reasonably possible, 
the use to which a requester will put the requested records. When 
it appears that the requester will put the records to a 
commercial use, either because of the nature of the request 
itself or because the FOIA Disclosure Officer has

[[Page 41389]]

reasonable cause to doubt a requester's stated use, the FOIA 
Disclosure Officer shall provide the requester a reasonable 
opportunity to submit further clarification.

    Direct costs means those expenses that the Commission 
actually incurs in searching for and duplicating (and, in the 
case of commercial use requests, reviewing) records to respond to 
a FOIA request. Direct costs include, for example, the salary of 
the employee performing the work (the basic rate of pay for the 
employee, plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits) and the 
cost of operating duplication machinery. Not included in direct 
costs are overhead expenses such as the costs of space and 
heating or lighting of the facility in which the records are 
kept.

    Duplication means the making of a copy of a record, or of the 
information contained in it, necessary to respond to a FOIA 
request. Copies can take the form of paper, microform, 
audiovisual materials, or electronic records (for example, 
magnetic tape or disk), among others. The FOIA Disclosure Officer 
shall honor a requester's specified preference of form or format 
of disclosure if the record is readily reproducible with 
reasonable efforts in the requested form or format.

    Educational institution means a preschool, a public or 
private elementary or secondary school, an institution of 
undergraduate higher education, an institution of graduate higher 
education, an institution of professional education, or an 
institution of vocational education, that operates a program of 
scholarly research. To be in this category, a requester must show 
that the request is authorized by and is made under the auspices 
of a qualifying institution and that the records are not sought 
for a commercial use but are sought to further scholarly 
research.

    Noncommercial scientific institution means an institution 
that is not operated on a ``commercial'' basis, as that term is 
defined in this paragraph, and that is operated solely for the 
purpose of conducting scientific research the results of which 
are not intended to promote any particular product or industry. 
To be in this category, a requester must show that the request is 
authorized by and is made under the auspices of a qualifying 
institution and that the records are not sought for a commercial 
use but are sought to further scientific research.

    Representative of the news media, or news media requester is 
any person actively gathering news for an entity that is 
organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the 
public. For purposes of this definition, the term ``news'' means 
information that is about current events or that would be of 
current interest to the public. Examples of news media entities 
include television or radio stations broadcasting to the public 
at large and publishers of periodicals (but only in those 
instances where they can qualify as disseminators of ``news'') 
who make their products available for purchase or subscription by 
the general public. For ``freelance'' journalists to be regarded 
as working for a news organization, they must demonstrate a solid 
basis for expecting publication through that organization.

A publication contract would be the clearest proof, but the FOIA 
Disclosure Officer shall also look to the past publication record 
of a requester in making this determination. To be in this 
category, a requester must not be seeking the requested records 
for a commercial use. However, a request for records supporting 
the news-dissemination function of the requester shall not be 
considered to be for a commercial use.

    Review means the examination of a record located in response 
to a request in order to determine whether any portion of it is 
exempt from disclosure. It also includes processing any record 
for disclosure--for example, doing all that is necessary to 
redact it and prepare it for disclosure. Review costs are 
recoverable even if a record ultimately is not disclosed. Review 
time does not include time spent resolving general legal or 
policy issues regarding the application of exemptions.

    Search means the process of looking for and retrieving 
records or information responsive to a request. It includes 
page-by-page or line- by-line identification of information 
within records and also includes reasonable efforts to locate and 
retrieve information from records maintained in electronic form 
or format. The FOIA Disclosure Officer shall ensure that searches 
are done in the most efficient and least expensive manner 
reasonably possible. For example, the FOIA Disclosure Officer 
shall not search line-by-line where duplicating an entire 
document would be quicker and less expensive.


    Working day means a regular Federal working day. It does not 
include Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal legal public holidays. 
Sec.  2201.5  Procedure for requesting records.

    (a) Requests for information. All requests for information 
must be made in writing and must be mailed or delivered to the 
FOIA Disclosure Officer at the address in Sec.  2201.3(d). The 
words ``Freedom of Information Act Request'' must be printed on 
the face of the request's envelope or covering as well as the 
request itself. Requests for information must describe the 
particular record requested to the fullest extent possible and 
specify the preferred form or format (including electronic 
formats) of the response. The Commission shall accommodate 
requesters as to form or format if the record is readily 
reproducible in the requested form or format. When requesters do 
not specify the preferred form or format of the response, the 
Commission shall respond in the form or format in which the 
record is most accessible to the Commission.

    (b) Date of receipt. A request that complies with paragraph 
(a) of this section is deemed received on the actual date it is 
received by the Commission. A request that does not comply with 
paragraph (a) of this section is deemed received when it is 
actually received by the FOIA Disclosure Officer. For requests 
that are expected to result in fees exceeding $250, the request 
shall not be deemed to have been received until the requester is 
advised of the anticipated costs and the Commission has received 
full payment or satisfactory assurance of full payment as 
provided under Sec.  2201.7(f). Sec.  2201.6  Responses to 
requests.

    (a) Responses within 20 working days. The FOIA Disclosure 
Officer will either grant or deny a request for records within 20 
working days after receiving the request.

    (b) Extensions of response time in unusual circumstances. In 
unusual circumstances, the Commission may extend the time limit 
prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section by not more than 10 
working days. The FOIA Disclosure Officer shall notify the 
requester in writing of the extension, the reasons for the 
extension and the date on which a determination is expected. 
``Unusual circumstances'' exists, but only to the extent 
reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular 
request, when there is a need to:

    (1) Search for and collect the requested records from one of 
OSHRC's regional offices or off-site storage facilities;

    (2) Search for, collect, and appropriately examine a 
voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are 
demanded in a single request; or

    (3) Consult, with all practicable speed, with another agency 
having a substantial interest in the determination of the 
request.

    (c) Additional extension. The FOIA Disclosure Officer shall 
notify the

[[Page 41390]]

requester in writing when it appears that a request cannot be 
completed within the allowable time (20 working days plus a 10 
working day extension). In such instances, the requester will be 
provided an opportunity to limit the scope of the request so that 
it may be processed in the time limit, or to agree to a 
reasonable alternative time frame for processing.

    (d) Two-track processing. To ensure the most equitable 
treatment possible for all requesters, the Commission will 
process requests on a first-in, first-out basis using a two-track 
processing system based upon the estimated time it will take to 
process the request.

    (1) The first track is for requests of simple to moderate 
complexity that are expected to be completed within 20 working 
days.

    (2) The second track is for requests involving ``unusual 
circumstances'' that are expected to take between 21 to 30 
working days to complete and those that, because of their unusual 
volume or other complexity, are expected to take more than 30 
working days to complete.

    (3) Requesters should assume, unless otherwise notified by 
the Commission, that their request is in the first track. The 
Commission will notify requesters when their request is placed in 
the second track for processing and that notification will 
include the estimated time for completion. Should subsequent 
information substantially change the estimated time to process a 
request, the requester will be notified in writing. In the case 
of a request expected to take more than 30 working days for 
action, a requester may modify the request to allow it to be 
processed faster or to reduce the cost of processing. Partial 
responses may be sent to requesters as documents are obtained by 
the FOIA Disclosure Officer from the supplying offices.

    (e) Expedited processing. (1) The Commission may place a 
person's request at the front of the queue for the appropriate 
track for that request upon receipt of a written request that 
clearly demonstrates a compelling need for expedited processing. 
Requesters must provide detailed explanations to support their 
expedited requests. For purposes of determining expedited 
processing, the term compelling need means:

    (i) That a failure to obtain requested records on an 
expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent 
threat to the life or physical safety of any individual; or

    (ii) That a request is made by a person primarily engaged in 
disseminating information, and that person establishes that there 
is an urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged 
Federal Government activity.


    (2) A person requesting expedited processing must include a 
statement certifying the compelling need given to be true and 
correct to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. The 
certification requirement may be waived by the Commission as a 
matter of agency discretion.

    (3) The FOIA Disclosure Officer will make the initial 
determination whether to grant or deny a request for expedited 
processing and will notify a requester within 10 calendar days 
after receiving the request whether processing will be expedited.

    (f) Content of denial. When the FOIA Disclosure Officer 
denies a request for records, either in whole or in part, a 
request for expedited processing, and/or a request for fee 
waivers (see Sec.
 
2201.8), the written notice of the denial shall state the reason 
for denial, give a reasonable estimate of the volume of matter 
denied (unless doing so would harm an interest protected by the 
exemption(s) under which the request was denied), set forth the 
name and title or position of the person responsible for the 
denial of the request, and notify the requester of the right to 
appeal the determination as specified in Sec.  2201.9. A refusal 
by the FOIA Disclosure Officer to process the request because the 
requester has not made advance payment or given a satisfactory 
assurance of full payment required under Sec. 2201.7(f) may be 
treated as a denial of the request and appealed under Sec.  
2201.9.

    (g) Deletions. The FOIA Disclosure Officer shall provide to 
the requester in writing a justification for deletions within 
records. The amount of information deleted from records shall be 
indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including 
that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption 
under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the 
place in the record where the deletion is made shall be marked. 
Sec.  2201.7  Fees for copying, searching, and review.

    (a) Fees required unless waived. The FOIA Disclosure Officer 
shall charge the fees in paragraph (b) of this section unless the 
fees for a request are less than the threshold amount as provided 
in OSHRC's fee schedule, in which case no fees shall be charged. 
The FOIA Disclosure Officer shall, however, waive the fees in the 
circumstances stated in Sec.  2201.8.

    (b) Calculation of fees. Fees for copying, searching and 
reviewing will be based on the direct costs of these services, 
including the average hourly salary (base plus DC locality 
payment), plus 16 percent for benefits, of the following three 
categories of employees involved in responding to FOIA requests: 
clerical--based on an average of all employees at GS-9 and below; 
professional--based on an average of all employees at GS-10 
through GS-14; and managerial--based on an average of all 
employees at GS-15 and above. OSHRC will calculate a schedule of 
fees based on these direct costs. The schedule of fees under this 
section appears in Appendix A to this Part 2201. A copy of the 
schedule of fees may also be obtained at no charge from the FOIA 
Disclosure Officer. See Sec.  2201.3(d).

    (1) Copying fee. The fee per copy of each page shall be 
calculated in accordance with the per-page amount established in 
OSHRC's fee schedule. For other forms of duplication, direct 
costs of producing the copy, including operator time, shall be 
calculated and assessed. Copying fees shall not be charged for 
the first 100 pages of copies unless the copies are requested for 
a commercial use.

    (2) Search fee. Search fees shall be calculated in accordance 
with the amounts established in OSHRC's fee schedule. Commercial 
requesters shall be charged for all search time. Search fees 
shall be charged even if the responsive documents are not located 
or if they are located but withheld on the basis of an exemption. 
However, search fees shall be limited or not charged as follows:

    (i) Easily identifiable decisions. Search fees shall not be 
charged for searching for decisions that the requester identifies 
by name and date, or by docket number, or that are otherwise 
easily identifiable.

    (ii) Educational, scientific or news media requests. No fee 
shall be charged if the request is not for a commercial use and 
is by an educational or scientific institution, whose purpose is 
scholarly or scientific research, or by a representative of the 
news media.

    (iii) Other non-commercial requests. No fee shall be charged 
for the first two hours of searching if the request is not for a 
commercial use and is not by an educational or scientific 
institution, or a representative of the news media.

    (iv) Requests for records about self. No fee shall be charged 
to search for records filed in the Commission's systems of 
records if the requester is the subject of the requested records. 
See the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(f)(5) (fees to be 
charged only for copying).

[[Page 41391]]

    (3) Review fee. A review fee shall be charged only for 
commercial requests. Review fees shall be calculated in 
accordance with the amounts established in OSHRC's schedule of 
fees. A review fee shall be charged for the initial examination 
of documents located in response to a request to determine if it 
may be withheld from disclosure, and for the excision of 
withholdable portions. However, a review fee shall not be charged 
for review by the Chairman under Sec.  2201.9 (Appeal of 
denials).

    (c) Invoices. The FOIA Disclosure Officer shall provide the 
requester with an invoice containing an itemization of assessed 
fees.

    (d) Aggregation of requests. When the FOIA Disclosure Officer 
reasonably believes that a requester, or a group of requesters 
acting in concert, is attempting to break a request into a series 
of requests for the purpose of evading the assessment of fees, 
the FOIA Disclosure Officer may aggregate any such requests and 
charge accordingly.

    (e) Fees likely to exceed $25. If the total fee charges are 
likely to exceed $25, the FOIA Disclosure Officer shall notify 
the requester of the estimated amount of the charges. The 
notification shall offer the requester an opportunity to confer 
with the FOIA Disclosure Officer to reformulate the request to 
meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.

    (f) Advance payments. Advance payment of fees will generally 
not be required. If, however, charges are likely to exceed $250, 
the FOIA Disclosure Officer shall notify the requester of the 
likely cost and: If the requester has a history of prompt payment 
of FOIA charges, obtain satisfactory assurance of full payment; 
or if the requester has no history of payment, require an advance 
payment of an amount up to the full estimated charge. If the 
requester has previously failed to pay a fee within 30 days of 
the date of billing, the FOIA Disclosure Officer shall require 
the requester to pay the full amount owed plus any interest owed 
as provided in paragraph (h) of this section or demonstrate that 
he or she has, in fact, paid the fee, and to make an advance 
payment of the full amount of the estimated charges before the 
FOIA Disclosure Officer begins to process the new request or a 
pending request from that requester.

    (g) Fees for services not required by the Freedom of 
Information Act. The Commission has discretion regarding its 
response to requests for services not required by the FOIA. For 
example, the FOIA does not require agencies to certify or 
authenticate responsive documents, nor does it require responsive 
documents to be sent by express mail. If these services are 
requested, the FOIA Disclosure Officer shall assess the direct 
costs of such services.

    (h) Interest on unpaid bills. The Commission's Office of 
Administration shall begin assessing interest charges on unpaid 
bills starting on the thirty-first day after the date the bill 
was sent. Interest will accrue from the date of billing until the 
Commission receives full payment. Interest will be at the rate 
described in 31 U.S.C. 3717.

    (i) Debt collection procedures. If bills are unpaid 60 days 
after the mailing of a written notice to the requester, the 
Commission's Office of Administration may resort to the debt 
collection procedures set out in the Debt Collection Act of 1982 
(Pub. L. 97-365, 96 Stat. 1749), as amended, and its 
administrative procedures, including the use of consumer 
reporting agencies, collection agencies, and offset. Sec.  2201.8  
Waiver of fees.

    (a) General. The FOIA Disclosure Officer shall waive part or 
all of the fees assessed under Sec.  2201.7(b) if two conditions 
are satisfied: Disclosure of the information is in the public 
interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to 
public understanding of the operations or activities of the 
government; and disclosure is not primarily in the commercial 
interest of the requester. Where the FOIA Disclosure Officer has 
reasonable cause to doubt the use to which a requester will put 
the records sought, or where that use is not clear from the 
request itself, the FOIA Disclosure Officer may seek 
clarification from the requester before assigning the request to 
a specific category for fee assessment purposes. The FOIA 
Disclosure Officer shall afford the requester the opportunity to 
show that the requester comes within these two conditions. The 
following factors may be considered in determining whether the 
two conditions are satisfied:

    (1) Whether the subject of the requested records concerns the 
operations or activities of the government;

    (2) Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute 
significantly to public understanding of government operations or 
activities;

    (3) Whether the requester has a commercial interest that 
would be furthered by the requested disclosure; and, if so, 
whether the magnitude of the identified commercial interest of 
the requester is sufficiently large, in comparison with the 
public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is primarily in 
the commercial interest of the requester.

    (b) Partial waiver of fees. If the two conditions stated in 
paragraph (a) of this section are met, the FOIA Disclosure 
Officer will ordinarily waive all fees. In exceptional cases, 
however, only a partial waiver may be granted if the request for 
records would impose an exceptional burden or require an 
exceptional expenditure of Commission resources, and the request 
for a waiver minimally satisfies the ``public interest'' 
requirement in paragraph (a) of this section.

Sec.  2201.9  Appeal of denials.

    A denial of a request for records, either in whole or in 
part, a request for expedited processing, or a request for fee 
waivers, may be appealed in writing to the Chairman of the 
Commission within 20 working days of the date of the letter 
denying an initial request. The Chairman shall act on the appeal 
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(ii) within 20 working days after the 
receipt of the appeal. If the Chairman wholly or partially 
upholds the denial of the request, the Chairman shall notify the 
requesting person that the requester may obtain judicial review 
of the Chairman's action under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)-(G). Sec.  
2201.10  Maintenance of statistics.

    (a) The FOIA Disclosure Officer shall maintain records of:

    (1) The number of determinations made by the agency not to 
comply with the requests for records made to the agency and the 
reasons for those determinations;

    (2) The number of appeals made by persons, the results of 
those appeals, and the reason for the action upon each appeal 
that results in a denial of information;

    (3) A complete list of all statutes that the agency used to 
authorize the withholding of information under 5 U.S.C. 
552(b)(3), which exempts information that is specifically 
exempted from disclosure by other statutes;

    (4) A description of whether a court has upheld the decision 
of the agency to withhold information under each of those 
statutes cited, and a concise description of the scope of any 
information upheld;

    (5) The number of requests for records pending before the 
agency as of September 30 of the preceding year and the median 
number of days that these requests had been pending before the 
agency as of that date;

[[Page 41392]]

    (6) The number of requests for records received by the agency 
and the number of requests the agency processed;

    (7) The median number of days taken by the agency to process 
different types of requests; (8) The total amount of fees 
collected by the agency for

processing requests;

    (9) The average amount of time that the agency estimates as 
necessary, based on the past experience of the agency, to comply 
with different types of requests;

    (10) The number of full-time staff of the agency devoted to 
the processing of requests for records under this section; and

    (11) The total amount expended by the agency for processing 
these requests.

    (b) The FOIA Disclosure Officer shall annually, on or before 
February 1 of each year, prepare and submit to the Attorney 
General an annual report covering each of the categories of 
records to be maintained in accordance with paragraph (a) of this 
section, for the previous fiscal year. A copy of the report will 
be available for public inspection and copying at the OSHRC FOIA 
Reading Room, and a copy will be accessible through OSHRC's Web 
site at http://www.oshrc.gov. Appendix A to Part 2201.--Schedule 
of Fees

             Type of fee                         Amount of fee

Threshold Amount (Amount below which     $10. 
fees will not be assessed). Search and Review Hourly Fees: 
Clerical (GS-9 and below)..........  $23. 

Professional (GS-10 through GS 14).  $46. 
Managerial (GS-15 and above).......  $76. 
Duplication cost per page..............  $0.25. 
Computer printout copying fee..........  $0.40. 
Searches of computerized records....... 

Actual cost to the Commission, but shall not exceed $300 per 
hour, including machine time and the cost of the operator and 
clerical personnel. Certification Fee......................  $35 

per authenticating affidavit or declaration. (Note: Search and 
review charges may be assessed in accordance with the rates 
listed above.) [FR Doc. E6-11574 Filed 7-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING 
CODE 7600-01-P
 
*****************************************************************
 18 UCS: FDA Scientists Pressured to Exclude, Alter Findings

July 20, 2006

FDA Scientists Pressured to Exclude, Alter Findings; 

Scientists Fear Retaliation for Voicing Safety Concerns

Public Health and Safety Will Suffer without Leadership from FDA
and Congress 



FDA Scientists' Survey Documents FDA survey summary and other
resourcesFDA survey brochure (pdf) FDA survey questions and
findings (pdf) Excerpts from FDA survey essays (pdf) Abuses of
science at the FDA (pdf) Comparison of UCS and IG surveys (pdf)
FDA center-specific questions and answers (pdf) FDA centers
response analysis (pdf) Other Related Links Other UCS surveys of
scientists at federal agenciesScientists' statement on
scientific integrityScientific integrity in the newsReports:

Scientific Integrity in Policy MakingScience Idol: The
scientific integrity editorial cartoon contest 
WASHINGTON, DCThe Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today
released survey results that demonstrate pervasive and dangerous
political influence of science at the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). Of the 997 FDA scientists who responded to
the survey, nearly one-fifth (18.4 percent) said that they "have
been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately
exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a
FDA scientific document." This is the third survey UCS has
conducted to examine inappropriate interference with science at
federal agencies.    

"Science must be the driving force for decisions made at the
FDA. These disturbing survey results make it clear that
inappropriate interference is putting people in harm's way,"
said Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director of UCS's
Scientific Integrity Program. "FDA leaders should act now to
improve transparency and accountability and renew respect for
independent science at the agency."
 
The UCS survey, which was co-sponsored by Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility, was sent to 5,918 FDA scientists.
Forty percent of respondents fear retaliation for voicing safety
concerns in public. This fear, scientists say, combines with
other pressures to compromise the agency's ability to protect
public health and safety. More than a third of the respondents
did not feel they could express safety concerns even inside the
agency.
 
"This is more than just a bureaucratic problem within the
agency," said Kim Witczak, WoodyMatters.com, who lost her
husband due to side effects of a dangerous anti-depressant.
 
"It has real human impacts which can be devastating. My husband
paid the ultimate price for FDA's lack of accountability."
 
The survey also revealed other compelling points of concern: 

  + 61 percent of the respondents knew of cases where
"Department of Health and Human Services or FDA political
appointees have inappropriately injected themselves into FDA
determinations or actions." 
  + Only 47 percent think the "FDA routinely provides complete
and accurate information to the public." 
  + 81 percent agreed that the "public would be better served if
the independence and authority of FDA post-market safety systems
were strengthened." 
  + 70 percent disagree with the statement that FDA has
sufficient resources to perform effectively its mission of
"protecting public healthand helping to get accurate
science-based information they need to use medicines and foods
to improve their health." 
"The FDA regulates products vital to the well-being of all
Americans, including food, drugs, vaccines, and medical
devices," said Dr. Grifo. "To fully protect public health and
safety, the FDA must have the best available independent
scientific data." 

To address the concerns raised by FDA scientists, UCS recommends:
 
  Accountability: FDA leadership must face consequences if they
side with commercial or political interests and not with the
American people.
 
  Transparency: Scientific research and reviews should be open
so any undue manipulation is immediately apparent.
 
  Protection: Safeguards must be put in place for all government
scientists who speak out.
 
"What we see at the FDA, while dramatic and frightening, is all
too common at many federal agencies," said Dr. Grifo. "All
federal scientists need protections so they can speak out when
their science is manipulated, and all federal agencies need
fully functioning independent advisory committees. FDA
leadership must understand and support independent science and
it is up to Congress to hold them accountable."
 
###
  
  Contacts 

  Reporters: Join our notification listto receive breaking news
from UCS.

For general media inquiries, please call our press office at
202-331-5420.

Press Contacts:
 
ERIC YOUNG
Press Secretary
202-331-5439
eyoung@ucsusa.org</FONT> 

EMILY ROBINSON
Press Secretary
202-331-5427
erobinson@ucsusa.org 

RICH HAYES
Media Director 
202-331-5437
rhayes@ucsusa.org</FONT> 

© Union of Concerned Scientists 
Page Last Revised: 07/20/06   

*****************************************************************
 19 Rocky Mountain News: Aid for sick nuke workers surges

Program has helped 23,000 nationwide, far above projections

By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News

July 21, 2006

An aid program for nuclear weapons workers who became ill or died 
from exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals on the job has 
paid 23,000 people nationally, more than seven times the original 
expectation of 3,000. 

Since Congress authorized the program, some 2,400 workers from 
the now-demolished Rocky Flats atomic bomb plant on the outskirts 
of Denver have applied for aid and compensation. 

Nationally, $2 billion has been spent in the first five years of 
the program and an additional $4.3 billion is expected to be 
needed over the next five years. 

The high cost, both in dollars and lost health and lives, were 
revealed Thursday by Austin Smythe, acting deputy director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, during a congressional hearing. 

The aid program provides medical care and up to $150,000 in 
compensation to workers who came down with cancer, beryllium 
disease and other ailments as a result of building nuclear 
weapons. For decades, the workers could not claim workers 
compensation because records of their exposures were secret. 

Billions of dollars now are being spent on care and compensation 
even though the program is turning down 70 percent of the sick 
workers who apply, said Dr. Lewis Wade of the National Institute 
of Occupational Safety and Health. 

Workers must prove that they were exposed to enough plutonium and 
other toxic material to cause their illnesses, but records are 
turning out to be so scarce and inaccurate that many applicants, 
including those at Rocky Flats, say they can't possibly prove a 
connection. As a result, Rocky Flats workers are asking for an 
exemption and automatic compensation in cases of cancer. 

Wade said workers are not taking the high rate of rejection 
easily. 

"The government that once lied to them about their work and 
exposure is now telling them the illness is not the result of 
that exposure," he said. "That's a huge problem." 

Smythe assured a House committee that the administration plans to 
continue funding whatever compensation is awarded under the 
program. Budget numbers for the program are rough projections, 
not limits, he said. 

The program now expects to spend $870 million in the fiscal year 
that ends Sept. 30 and grow to $1.1 billion in 2007. 

So far, some 473 former Rocky Flats workers have been paid under 
the program, while more than 1,700 have had claims denied. 


imsea@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5438                                                                      
site

2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
 20 [NukeNet] UK reporter plants fake bomb on nuke waste shipment
 
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:57:02 -0700

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17422392&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=-the-gate-was-open--there-were-no-security-guards---i-walked-up-to-the-train-and-planted-my-bomb---name_page.html

21 July 2006
'THE GATE WAS OPEN, THERE WERE NO SECURITY GUARDS.. I WALKED UP TO THE 
TRAIN AND PLANTED MY BOMB'
NUKE WASTE TRAIN FIASCO THE MIRROR INVESTIGATES
By Tom Parry
IT looks like an ordinary freight train. Drab, workmanlike and uninteresting.

But it carries a lethal nuclear cargo that could cause untold deaths if 
targeted by terrorists. Once a week the diesel-powered locomotive goes 
unnoticed as it pulls four trailers hundreds of miles around our rail network.

Few are aware the train trundling from the Kent countryside to Cumbria 
carries radioactive flasks of spent uranium fuel rods.


Advertisement


After the July 7 terror bombings most would think such a vulnerable target 
would be under the tightest of security.


But a Daily Mirror investigation has revealed a series of astonishing flaws 
that will inspire horror and disbelief. Incredibly, I was able to place a 
device that could have been a bomb on the 12-ton cargo as the train sat in 
sidings at a North West London rail depot.


I approached in daylight after the wagons were left seemingly unattended 
for almost 10 minutes. The driver, who was taking a break nearby, even left 
the engine running while myself and a Mirror photographer stood beside the 
radioactive material.


For two months we had monitored the trains that carry waste from nuclear 
power stations to the Sellafield reprocessing plant.


We discovered the flasks are frequently open to a potential terror strike 
while the locomotives wait in a depot.


The vast North West London yard is just a short walk from a sports stadium, 
a large hospital and one of the capital's major roads. It is surrounded by 
housing estates. All in all, the perfect weak spot for a terror strike.


Nuclear transport expert Dr John Large has estimated an attack on 
containers of radioactive waste could kill 8,000 people in an instant.


Thousands more would become victims as a vast poisonous cloud of up to a 
hundred square miles drifted across Britain.


On Wednesday, the nuclear train pulled in to the depot on time at 7.54pm 
after leaving


Kent's Dungeness Power Station three hours earlier and travelling slowly 
through stations at Ashford, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and South London. On 
arrival the crew of one man and one woman climbed from the cab and walked 
to a hut 100 yards away.


Two private security guards initially patrolled the train while it stood 
waiting for a replacement crew for the next leg of the journey north. But 
they were only visible for 15 minutes before disappearing.


Suddenly there was no one to see us. As we approached the train the four 
flasks, each containing enriched fuel pins, were clearly indicated by their 
radioactive warning signs.


We were able to take photographs for several minutes. Anyone with a basic 
knowledge of driving trains could have hijacked it. By the time we walked 
past the front of the train the replacement driver was in position, but he 
did not challenge us. Minutes later he pulled out, heading through Milton 
Keynes, Rugby, Crewe and Warrington, before arriving at Sellafield.


My only identification as a legitimate rail worker was a fluorescent orange 
jacket and hard hat, on sale at any builders' merchants.


And this was not a one-off. It was the tenth time I had wandered freely 
into the depot.


Not once was the main entrance gate shut. The security booth, containing a 
bank of blank screens for CCTV cameras that never appeared to be 
functioning, was always empty. Drivers and track maintenance workers who 
saw us walking between the rails nodded or said hello. I was never asked 
for a security pass, supposedly obligatory in a fenced-off area. Other 
trains arrive from Suffolk's Sizewell A power station. Some get there in 
the middle of the night and wait for long periods in the virtually unlit yard.


A rail insider said: "Security is a joke. All you need to do is find the 
gate and you can wander at will. If you wear an orange jacket no one will 
ever ask what you are doing."


Last night nuclear experts and politicians said they were horrified by the 
Mirror's findings. Dr Large said: "I'm appalled. Every one of these trains 
would be a potential target for terrorists. If you had an incident in 
London, I estimate that 190,000 people would have to be evacuated. Those 
flasks were designed to counter accidents. But they weren't designed to 
counter the likes of al-Qaeda."


Lib Dem environment spokesman Chris Huhne said: "This is a shocking 
revelation."


A spokeswoman for Direct Rail Services initially claimed it would not have 
been possible to get close to the nuclear flasks while the train is 
stationary at Brent yard.


But after seeing our evidence she said: "The entire journey is protected by 
very stringent security. However, having seen these pictures we will speak 
with our security people. A full investigation will be carried out."


tom.parry@mirror.co.uk



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 21 Las Vegas SUN: Light banter fills room at latest Yucca hearing 

Today: July 21, 2006 at 7:47:6 PDT 

By Lisa Mascaro Las Vegas Sun
 
WASHINGTON - Playfulness and good cheer aren't moods commonly
associated with the words "Yucca Mountain." 

But there are exceptions. This week, certain lawmakers on
Capitol Hill were brimming with hope as they spoke with the
enthusiastic new director of the planned nuclear waste burial
site at Yucca Mountain. Edward Sproat is a turnaround expert
from the private sector, a can-do guy determined to breathe new
life into the project 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

Sproat told members of the House Energy and Commerce
subcommittee that he intended to have it open by 2017. 

"I'm going to try to be around to hold you to 2017," said Rep.
Ralph M. Hall, a Texas Republican who celebrated his 83rd
birthday last month. In a nod to his own optimism, Hall added:
"George Burns said he didn't buy green bananas." 

"I'm frustrated by the lack of progress at Yucca, but I'm not
giving up," said Rep. Joe Barton, also a Texas Republican.
Barton had served in the White House when the plan was unveiled
in 1982. "It's only going to be 19 years late." 

The committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. John D. Dingell of
Michigan, gave a resounding welcome to Sproat. 

"This long-delayed program can be put on a sound footing,"
Dingell said, before asking whether Sproat's call for still more
studies would slow down the project. 

"I won't let it," came the reply. 

"Then let us pray," Dingell said. 

As the hearing wound down, Republican Rep. Charlie Norwood of
Georgia asked Sproat how he feels about the whole thing. 

"I took this job because I have a strong opinion about its need
for the country," the former nuclear industry executive said. 

"I can't remember how many hearings we've had where the
directors sat there and assured us of this and that and
nothing's happened," said Norwood, who then issued a caution: 

"You've got bureaucrats around every corner, digging a hole,
hoping you'll fall in it." 
Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at
lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 22 AU ABC: SA mining exploration reaches high. 

21/07/2006. ABC News Online

South Australia is recording its highest ever level of mining
exploration.

 The Department of Primary Industries and Resources has
announced 11 new applications for exploration licences around
the state, including one for uranium near Tumby Bay on Eyre
Peninsula.

 Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway says the
mining industry is now worth $110 million to the state every
year.

 "As resources are discovered then they will in the long-term
lead to the development of mines, so we think we're very much on
track to see this ... transformation in our economy where mining
will become an increasingly more significant part of the wealth
of this state," he said. 



*****************************************************************
 23 Mirror.co.uk: TOXIC CARGO IS A PERFECT TERROR TARGET
              
TERROR TARGET 	By Stephen Tindale Executive Director, Greenpeace
EVERY week, trains carrying extraordinarily dangerous nuclear
waste criss-cross the country.

They trundle through passenger stations, past our schools, our
back gardens and our workplaces.

Anyone who thinks that these toxic trains are not a near-perfect
terrorist target is either lying ... or deluded.

And anyone who believes that terrorists aren't perfectly aware 
that unprotected radioactive waste is passing through our major 
cities isn't living in the real world.

There's absolutely no reason for these trains and their 
ridiculously hazardous cargoes to be traipsing around the 
country.

This waste will never be safe, but it is a lot less dangerous to
keep it on the site of the nuclear power station that created
this mess, rather than lumbering it around the UK.

After arriving at Sellafield in Cumbria, the mobile terrorist 
target is supposed to be separated into plutonium, uranium and 
what's known as high-level waste.

But this isn't happening at the moment because the site sprung a 
leak last year. So there's even less reason for these transports 
to take place.

Everyone who lives or works near one of these radioactive routes 
is entitled to know that these nuclear trains are passing them 
every week.

That's why Greenpeace published a full map showing the routes
these highly dangerous trains take.

Worryingly, the train routes were easy to work out. Anyone could
do it, including a terrorist.

*****************************************************************
 24 Edinburgh Evening News: Probe after reporter plants fake bomb on nuclear train
 
Friday, 21st July 2006

AN investigation was under way today after a newspaper reporter
planted a fake bomb on a train carrying nuclear waste. 

The journalist from the Daily Mirror claimed he had wandered up
to the unattended wagons at a north west London depot. 

And the paper claimed a terrorist could have blown up the waste,
sparking a vast toxic cloud that would have killed hundreds. 

Reporter Tom Parry claimed the locomotive goes unnoticed as it
pulls four trailers from the Kent countryside to Cumbria carries
radioactive flasks of spent uranium fuel rods once a week. 

He said he was able to place a device that could have been a
bomb on the cargo as the train sat in sidings at the depot. 

He approached in daylight after the wagons were left unattended.
The yard is just a short walk from a sports stadium, a hospital
and a major road, and is surrounded by houses. 

The reporter said his only ID as a rail worker was a fluorescent
orange jacket and hard hat, on sale at any builders' merchants. 

"This was not a one-off. It was the tenth time I had wandered
freely into the depot," he claimed. 

Nobody at rail operator Direct Rail Services was available to
comment last night. 

This article:
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1061462006 

Last updated: 21-Jul-06 11:49 BST 

Comments 
1. Josephine, London / 3:34pm 21 Jul 2006               

A Truly terrifying thought! But,as Mr Parry says this is the
tenth time He had "wandered" into the area,Has He
At Any Time,informed the company,in any way,of this 
hole in Security? 

If He Has,& it's STILL THERE,the paper has the right to
sound-off,If He,or they haven't,

HOW ON EARTH CAN THE RAIL COMPANY PUT IT RIGHT? 
THAT SAID, MAYBE THE RAIL COMPANIES NEED A FEW
SECURITY EXPERTS TO TAKE A LOOK OVER THE ENTIRE RAILWAY SYSTEM &
correct matters! Report as unsuitable                   

2. Andrew, Cumbernauld
/ 4:40pm 21 Jul 2006 		
+ 
So will the bold Tom Parry be prosecuted TEN times for these
self-admitted TEN instances of trespass on the railway and in
the case of this lastest irresponsible act, also with 'intent to
cause fear and alarm'?? I won't be holding my breath!! Report as
unsuitable                      

3. Mike, Cumbernauld / 1:06am 22 Jul 2006               
+ 
No, you won't be if you understand what 'burden of proof' means.
Report as unsuitable 	 		

*****************************************************************
 25 DOE: DOE Providing Additional Supercomputing Resources to Study 
Hurricane Effects on Gulf Coast
 
  July 19, 2006
 
WASHINGTON, DC  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced
today that the Office of Science has provided an additional
400,000 supercomputing processor-hours to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to simulate Gulf Coast hurricanes.  The allocation
brings the amount of computational time provided by DOE on
supercomputers at its National Energy Research Scientific
Computing Center (NERSC) in California to 800,000
processor-hours. 

Im proud that our computing resources at NERSC can be used to
create simulations that will help save lives, reduce property
loss and protect the environment when hurricanes strike the Gulf
Coast, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman said.  The
Department is prepared to provide as much additional time,
support, and collaboration on software as needed during the
current hurricane season. 

From the initial simulations, the Corps computed draft storm
stage-frequency curves for the critical five-parish area of
Louisiana surrounding New Orleans and the Lower Mississippi
River. With the expanded allocation, the Corps will perform
simulations for the Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas coast
lines.  This will allow researchers to produce more accurate
models for calculating the effects of future hurricanes. FEMA
will study the simulations to develop new flood maps for the
state of Louisiana and to support other aspects of the Gulf
Hurricane Protection Projects.  

Running the 400,000 hours of simulations on a single-processor
PC would take about 46 years.  Running the code on a small
supercomputer, with 128 processors, would take about 130 days. 
But by tapping NERSCs supercomputers, which include a
6,080-processor IBM supercomputer, an 888-processor IBM cluster
computer, and a 720-processor Linux Networx cluster the
simulations can completed much faster. 

In addition to providing computing time on its supercomputers,
NERSC will provide dedicated technical staff expertise to the
project.  NERSC, which has been the DOE Office of Sciences
flagship center for unclassified supercomputing for more than 30
years, is managed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in
Berkeley, Calif. 

DOE's Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic
research in the physical sciences in the nation and helps ensure
U.S. world leadership across a broad range of scientific
disciplines. The Office of Science supports a diverse portfolio
of research at more than 300 colleges and universities
nationwide, manages 10 world-class national laboratories with
unmatched capabilities for solving complex interdisciplinary
scientific problems, and builds and operates the worlds finest
suite of scientific facilities and instruments used annually by
more than 19,000 researchers to extend the frontiers of all
areas of science. 

For more information about the NERSC Center, go to
http://www.nersc.gov/. 

For more information on the Corps of Engineers, go to
http://www.usace.army.mil/. 

Media contact(s): Jeff Sherwood (DOE), (202) 586-5806 Jon Bashor 
(NERSC), (510) 486-5849     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General 
*****************************************************************
 26 DOE: Statement by Secretary Bodman on Receiving DOEs Inspector 
Generals Special Inquiry Report Relating to the Departments 
Response to a Compromise of Personnel Data
 
  July 20, 2006
 
Today I received the Department of Energys Inspector Generals
Special Inquiry Report Relating to the Department of Energys
Response to a Compromise of Personnel Data at the National
Nuclear Security Administrations (NNSA) Albuquerque Service
Center.  I appreciate the work of the Inspector General in
completing this comprehensive investigation and his thorough
report that has allowed me to get all of the facts. 

Before addressing the report, I would like to once again
apologize to the 1,502 employees who we did not properly notify
of the theft of their personal information.  These employees
were not well served by this Department.  I would like to assure
them that we will fix our mistakes and move forward. 

I take very seriously the management of this Department, and
this report shows an unacceptable failure of communication
within the Department during this incident.  While there were
several senior managers who knew about the theft of personal
information, neither me, nor my deputy were notified for several
months. 

The Inspector General (IG) outlined six recommendations to
prevent this type of failure in the future.  I agree that we
must act immediately and I have directed the Deputy Secretary to
institute them as quickly as possible.  

I expect all action on the IG recommendations to be completed
by September 30, 2006, and have asked the Deputy Secretary to
report to me upon completion of those actions. 

I have already begun acting on the sixth recommendation by
issuing a letter of reprimand to a senior level employee and the
Department may conduct further disciplinary action as deemed
necessary. 

In addition, I have directed the Under Secretary for the NNSA
to immediately do the following: 

  1. Put in place a system in which the Under Secretary ensures
information is communicated in a timely manner to myself and the
Deputy Secretary and to the relevant Department of Energy
offices to include the Departments General Counsel, the Chief
Information Officer, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Chief Financial
Officer, and the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence;
and 

  2. Put in place a system in which the Under Secretary ensures 
Congress is notified in a timely fashion of appropriate matters, 
including serious incidents such as the cyber intrusion at the 
Albuquerque Service Center. 

One thing that is absolutely clear from this Inspector Generals
Report is that this Department must continue to strive to work
as a single, cohesive unit.  We must continue to build a better
reporting mechanism to ensure that this type of communication
breakdown does not happen again.  In order to do this, we will
need to overcome actual and perceived barriers and obstacles
that have long hamstrung this Department.  We must
over-communicate both internally and with our stakeholders, and
work as managers to guarantee that our employees are treated
with the utmost respect.  In short, we must regain and retain
their trust.  

With these actions, the Department is putting this incident
behind it and moving forward.  

Summary of the Special Inquiry Report Relating to the Department
of Energys Response to a Compromise of Personal Data (pdf) 

Media contact(s):
 Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940     [ ]   

  
  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General 
   
*****************************************************************
 27 Inside Bay Area: Weapons specialist leads lab in UC bid

  Article Last Updated: 07/21/2006 02:51:52 AM PDT  

Livermore said likely to remain first and foremost nuclear 
weapons facility

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER  

  A veteran nuclear weapons scientist who now is head of
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was tapped Thursday to
lead the University of California's competitive bid to keep
running the nuclear weapons lab for the federal government. 

George Miller, 61, is very much a weaponeer's weaponeer, a
tireless proponent of new weapons-related programs — he led
Livermore's for 11 years — and the lab's ranking voice of
resistance to a nuclear test ban into the Clinton
administration. 

"I'm really just looking forward to leading the laboratory into
the future, extending the basic values of the university in its
tradition of national service and technical excellence in
national security," Miller said after his appointment Thursday
by the university's governing Board of Regents. 

His selection means Miller's tenure as lab director, which began
in March, would continue through 2009 if the university retained
the management contract to operate Livermore. 

Miller went straight into weapons work out of graduate school at
William and Mary and spent all of his 35-year career at
Livermore, save a one-year stint advising former Secretary of
Energy James Watkins on nuclear weapons. Much of his yearswere
spent in Livermores B Division, home to the weaponeers most
steeped in the physics of thermonuclear ignition and burn. 

In the last chapters of the Cold War, Miller strongly
contributed or led weapons design teams that put a half dozen
H-bomb designs in the U.S. arsenal, including the W84
ground-launched cruise missile warhead that is now shelved as
inactive for lack of a delivery vehicle but is considered by many 
as the most advanced nuclear weapon that the United States 
stocked. 

In 1999, cost overruns and mismanagement threatened to kill
construction of Livermores largest experimental project, the
National Ignition Facility, putting the worlds largest laser to
work on questions of nuclear fusion, weapons design and weapons
longevity. Miller stepped in with a massive, new project
management plan that brought discipline to construction of the
big laser and has kept it within a revised budget of just over
$4 billion. 

I think its a very good choice for Livermore, said Bill Madia,
executive vice president at Battelle Memorial Institute, a
nonprofit contractor likely to challenge UC for the Livermore
contract. George knows the laboratory and has a great
appreciation for the weapons side of the program. He understands
that, yet has enough broad, forward-looking vision to lead the
lab well. 

The universitys choice of Miller over scientists who are younger
or have more varied careers outside of the nuclear weapons
business was taken as a sign that UC is confident in keeping the
contract and believes the federal government wants Livermore to
remain first and foremost a nuclear weapons lab. 

 © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers |   
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************