***************************************************************** 07/10/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.160 ***************************************************************** 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 SPIEGEL ONLINE: Clearing a Cold War Arsenal: No More Nuclear Weapons 2 DW: Study Says US Removed Nuclear Weapons From Base in Germany | Ger NUCLEAR REACTORS 3 US: NRC: NRC Schedules Conference with SCE&G to Discuss Apparent Vio 4 US: NRC: NRC Invites Public to Submit Nominations for the Advisory 5 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point officials renew vow to have sirens wo 6 US: NRC: Eric Epstein petition receipt 7 PDM: Temelin staff complete first physical tests at 2nd unit on Sund 8 Prague Daily Monitor: Anti-terrorist exercise to check Czech rescue 9 Prague Daily Monitor: Official: ÄŚR did not breach Temelin agreement 10 US: MHNN: Entergy says it will meet new deadline for their new India 11 Hemscott: German govt says Vattenfall nuclear plant fire caused by h 12 IPS: GERMANY: Breakdowns Renew Case Against Nuclear Energy 13 US: PRNews: Progress Energy Again Chooses Westinghouse Technology 14 SPIEGEL ONLINE: The World from Berlin: Nuclear Safety Meltdown in Ge NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 15 Guardian Unlimited: N-plant organ probe cases 'to rise' 16 US: OMB Watch: Federal Government Kept Nuclear Accident Secret - 17 BBC NEWS: Organ removal inquiry net widens 18 US: DHHS: New EEOICPA procedures NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 19 US: Guardian Unlimited: EPA Investigating Waste at Camp Lejeune 20 Guardian Unlimited: Scientists sacked from decommissioning project 21 US: USATODAY.com: Boom times for uranium mines? - 22 HeraldTribune.com: Panel says state should examine nuclear fuel 23 US: Daily News Journal: Landfill radiation dumping holds minuscule r 24 US: Star Phoenix: Cameco workers at Ontario facility ink new contrac 25 times and star: Nuke waste plant setback PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 26 DOE: Second Major U.S. Climate Change Science Program Report Issued 27 Times-News: INL to conduct explosives test in E. Idaho desert 28 Knoxville News Sentinel: Wamp touts Y-12 success, sounds warning 29 Hemscott: Nuclear weapons plant gets new offices ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 SPIEGEL ONLINE: Clearing a Cold War Arsenal: No More Nuclear Weapons at Ramstein - July 10, 2007 A longstanding nuclear arsenal at the US Air Force Base in Ramstein, Germany, seems to be gone. But Germany still hosts a number of American nuclear weapons -- in fact Washington still maintains an estimated 350 warheads around Europe. AP No more nukes at Ramstein? For years, the US nuclear weapons arsenal at the Ramstein Air Force base in Germany has been something of a political bone of contention. Now, though, the Americans may have removed them with hardly a peep. According to a list handed out to US weapons inspectors, the arms may have been removed bombs may no longer be stationed there. "I think it is fairly certain that they are gone," Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C., told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "There are too many things which indicate that they are gone. This fits very nicely." The Federation of American Scientists, or FAS, conducts regular inspections of US nuclear facilities. It periodically receives a list from the Air Force of bases to be inspected, and the latest list -- from January 2007 -- failed to include Ramstein, which was still included in 2005. Another base in Germany, at Büchel, remains on the list, along with bases in Belgium, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. About 350 American nuclear warheads remain in Europe. Up to 130 additional warheads had been stored at Ramstein, but (more...) in 2005 that the arsenal was cleared during renovation work, and it's possible they never came back to Germany. Cold War Relics, Deep Underground Neither the German defense ministry nor the Pentagon will discuss the status of those bombs. The Pentagon, as a rule, never comments on "the number or position of the US military's nuclear weapons." But Kristensen said the list counted as evidence. "This means that the weapons are gone," he said. "They are not allowed to store weapons without this security process and no security process means they are gone ... That is the best evidence you can get in this business." During the Cold War the number of US warheads stationed in Europe was in the thousands; the estimated number reached a peak of about 7,000 in 1971. Some bombs could be mounted on American as well as allied planes in case of war. It became US policy during the Cold War to let NATO allies like Germany "participate" -- under US command -- in the deployment of nuclear weapons. Even before the Cold War ended, though, many nuclear weapons were pulled out of Europe. In 2005 two German politicians, then-Defense Minister Peter Struck and then-Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, formally asked NATO why American nuclear weapons had to remain in Germany. A groundswell of popular protest followed, but nothing seemed to result -- in fact Fischer and Struck backed down from their public positions. Now it seems possible that the US removed the weapons anyway. An estimated 20 nuclear bombs remain underground at Büchel, another Air Force base in the German state of Rheinland-Pfalz. They can be mounted on German Tornado fighters, but not on the planned Eurofighter, a European-built plane which may replace German Tornados starting in 2013. msm/spiegel © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2007 ***************************************************************** 2 DW: Study Says US Removed Nuclear Weapons From Base in Germany | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 10.07.2007 The US air base at Ramstein in Germany is the largest of its kind in Europe The Ramstein air base in southwestern Germany, long the largest US nuclear storehouse in Europe, has been completely emptied of its atomic arsenal according to experts who say the weapons are out of the country. This week the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists (FAS) said in a study that the US army had apparently completely removed its stock of an estimated 130 nuclear weapons from the Ramstein air base. That would reduce the total US atomic weapons arsenal in Europe to about 350. It marks a fraction of what the US deployed in Europe during the Cold War. "I think it's almost certain that the bombs aren't in Ramstein anymore," Hans M. Kristensen, author of the study, told the online version of German news magazine Der Spiegel. "In any case, there are several indications that they aren't there anymore." "The best proof you can get" The FAS study cited a public report by the US Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) from January 2007, which lists nuclear installations in Europe to receive visits in the coming months from American nuclear safety experts who usually help local teams prepare for regular technical inspections. For the first time the Ramstein air base is not on the list. Bildunterschrift: The United States still has around 350 nuclear weapons stationed in Europe dating from the Cold War Since inspections for all US nuclear bases in Europe are mandatory, the FAS believe that the removal of Ramstein from the list is proof that it no longer contains nuclear weapons. "The list clearly proves that the weapons are gone," Kristensen said. "The army can't store them there without regular inspections. In this business, this is the best proof you can get." Neither the Pentagon nor the German defense ministry has officially reacted to reports of the removal of the nuclear arsenal at Ramstein. Welcome news for anti-nuclear lobby It remains unclear when, if at all, the nuclear weapons were removed from Ramstein. The issue flared up in 2005 when members of Germany's previous Social Democrat-Green government vowed to take up the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from German soil at NATO amid widespread opposition across party lines about their continuing presence. Proponents of a withdrawal of the weapons argued that they were a Cold War relic and undermined the international non-proliferation process. By the time the Cold War ended in the late 1980s, more than 2, 570 nuclear weapons were estimated to have been deployed across dozens of locations in Germany alone. Bildunterschrift: Greenpeace activists in Germany demonstrate against nuclear armament with a skull-faced Statue of Liberty nestled in a bomb In 2005, Der Spiegel, citing unnamed German defense officials, also reported that nuclear bombs in Ramstein stored in special underground vaults had been discreetly removed during major construction work at the air base. The assumption now is that the weapons were never returned to Ramstein. Remaining nuclear weapons raise pressure on Berlin Reports of the likely withdrawal of the 130 nuclear weapons from Ramstein will be welcomed by Germany's anti-nuclear lobby as a boost for disarmament efforts. But experts point out that the withdrawal also raises pressure on the government to justify the presence of the remaining US nuclear arsenal on German soil. Politicians from Germany's opposition Green Party and the Left Party have long demanded the complete pull-out of all nuclear weapons from the country. According to the USAFE list of US nuclear installations in Europe, the only remaining US air base in Germany that contains nuclear weapons is BĂĽchel in the country's southwest. It's believed to hold around 20 nuclear bombs in underground bunkers. "It will now be difficult for the federal government to justify the remaining nuclear weapons in Germany," wrote Otfried Nassauer, director of the Berlin Center for Transatlantic Security in an article for Der Tagesspiegel newspaper. He argued that the nuclear weapons in Germany failed to fulfill any military purpose but rather ran up huge costs because of the need for expensive personnel to monitor them. "Until now the federal government always told proponents of the withdrawal of nuclear weapons that Washington continued to stick to the deployment of nuclear weapons in Germany and it was Berlin's duty to show solidarity in NATO," Nassauer wrote. "The first argument no longer holds. The federal government now needs to justify why it continues to support the storing of nuclear weapons when the US itself no longer considers it necessary in Germany." DW staff (sp) US Defense Secretary Winds Up Missile Shield Push in Germany The United States will continue to consult with its allies and Russia on Washington's plans to install a missile shield in Europe, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in Berlin. (25.04.2007) * Europe Wary of US Defense System in Poland, Czech Republic Poland and the Czech Republic have voiced willingness for the US to install parts of a global missile defense system on their territory. Experts say the project is technically underdeveloped and politically risky. (20.02.2007) * Bush, Merkel Hold Firm Against Iran Nuclear Program After meeting with US President George W. Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the US and Germany were in "total agreement" on the need to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (04.05.2006) 1. © 2007 Deutsche Welle ***************************************************************** 3 NRC: NRC Schedules Conference with SCE&G to Discuss Apparent Violation at Summer Nuclear Station News Release - Region II - 2007-036 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is scheduled to meet with representatives of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) on Monday, July 16, to discuss an apparent violation of agency requirements related to the emergency plan for the company’s Summer Nuclear Station, located near Jenkinsville in central South Carolina. The apparent violation was identified during an NRC inspection of Summer’s emergency plan. The conference with SCE&G is scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. (EDT) in the NRC Region II Office, at 61 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 23T85, in Atlanta, Ga., and will be open to the public. The meeting is between SCE&G and the NRC, but those people attending will have an opportunity to ask questions of NRC staff prior to the end of the meeting. During late 2006 and early 2007, the NRC reviewed revisions to the emergency plan for Summer and found that, in several cases, the revisions had potentially decreased the effectiveness of the emergency plan and resulted in a failure to maintain a standard emergency classification system. The NRC requires nuclear plant operators to maintain a standard emergency classification system to be used in declaring the appropriate emergency level during an event. NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Tuesday, July 10, 2007 ***************************************************************** 4 NRC: NRC Invites Public to Submit Nominations for the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials News Release - 2007-084 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking qualified candidates for an appointment to its Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNWM). Currently there are five members and the Commission is seeking to replace one of the positions on the Committee. The ACNWM is a part-time advisory group established by the NRC to provide independent technical review of, and advice on, the disposal of nuclear waste, transportation of both high- and low-level radioactive waste, storage of spent nuclear fuel, materials safety, and facilities decommissioning. This encompasses activities related to rulemakings, associated regulatory guides, and technical positions developed to support and clarify NRC’s nuclear materials and radioactive waste regulations, and independent studies. Currently, the Commission is seeking an individual with technical expertise in earth sciences as applied to radioactive waste disposal, site remediation, and closure activities. The ACNWM membership includes individuals who possess specific technical expertise along with a broad perspective in addressing safety concerns. Committee members are selected from a variety of engineering and scientific disciplines, such as risk assessment, chemistry, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, materials sciences, and earth sciences. At this time, candidates are being sought who have 10 years of experience in earth sciences (geology, geophysics, and/or hydrology). Candidates with pertinent graduate-level education will be given additional consideration. Committee members serve a four-year term with the possibility of reappointment for a total service of eight years. Criteria used to evaluate candidates includes education and experience, demonstrated skills in nuclear waste management matters, the ability to solve complex technical problems, and the ability to work collegially on a board, panel, or committee. The Commission, in selecting its Committee members, considers the need for a specific expertise to accomplish the work expected to be before the ACNWM. For this position, the expertise should preferably relate to the areas of radioactive waste disposal, site remediation and closure activities. Demonstrated experience would be particularly desirable in engineering design and risk assessment in the areas of radioactive waste storage and disposal. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Commission seeks candidates with diverse backgrounds so that the membership on the Committee will be fairly balanced. Candidates for ACNWM appointments may be involved in or have financial interests related to NRC-regulated aspects of the nuclear industry. Because conflict-of-interest considerations may restrict the participation of a candidate in ACNWM activities, the degree and nature of any such restriction on an individual’s activities as a member will be considered in the selection process. Each qualified candidate’s financial interests must be reconciled with applicable federal and NRC rules and regulations prior to final appointment. This might require divestiture of securities or discontinuance of certain contracts or grants. Information regarding these restrictions will be provided upon request. A security background investigation for a Q clearance (or the transfer of an up-to-date Q clearance) will also be required. Copies of a résumé describing the educational and professional background of the candidate, including special accomplishments and professional references, should be provided. Candidates should provide their current address, telephone number and e-mail address. All qualified candidates will receive careful consideration, and appointment will be made without regard to such factors as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disabilities. Candidates must be citizens of the United States and be able to devote approximately 70-100 days per year to Committee business. Applications will be accepted until October 31, 2007. Résumés should be sent to Angelina Chapeton, Administrative Assistant, ACRS/ACNWM, Mail Stop T2E-26, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 or to e-mail address AHC@NRC.GOV. NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Tuesday, July 10, 2007 ***************************************************************** 5 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point officials renew vow to have sirens working by Aug. 24 Tuesday, July 10, 2007 By GREG CLARY CORTLANDT - Indian Point officials renewed their vow last night to deliver a new emergency siren system by Aug. 24, but federal and local officials said there is still much to be done to accomplish that goal. "Aug. 24th sounds pretty soon to me," said Rebecca Thomson, a top official with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which must sign off on the new system. FEMA's in-depth review of the new 150-siren notification system and operational training for emergency staff from Westchester, Orange, Rockland and Putnam counties are two critical elements of the project that Indian Point officials don't control. Michael Slobedien, Indian Point's top emergency preparedness official, said he thought the system would be ready enough to train county workers by the end of this month, though Anthony Sutton, Westchester County's top emergency preparedness official, noted that schedules this time of the year can be difficult to coordinate with people taking summer vacations. Sutton said the counties would do everything possible to provide Indian Point with what it needed. "We want to get this system up and running," Sutton said. "It's been a long time coming." Slobedien said the company would have to work as closely as possible to make sure FEMA had all the information it needed to complete its work. "I think we have more discussions we need to have with FEMA," he said. "But it's our intent to have the system operational by Aug. 24th." The company acknowledged to FEMA and officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at a sparsely attended public meeting last night that there is no single source of some of the problems technicians have found as they race to meet their third deadline after missing one in January and a second in April. If Indian Point is successful, the new $15 million alert system would finally take over as the primary way to notify residents in an emergency at the nuclear plant. It would replace a decades-old system that until the past six months had produced headaches with each successive failure, including once when all the sirens failed to sound. Luckily for residents, as the new system has been under construction, periodic tests of the old system show it to be performing reliably. Residents and public officials who stayed through the two-hour meeting raised concerns about everything from reliability and whether sirens were loud enough to be heard to whether continual testing was leading residents to too easily ignore warning sirens. Slobedien said the company would continue to conduct a public outreach campaign to keep residents informed of testing, so they can differentiate between a test and an actual emergency. NRC officials have said they will review the situation if another deadline is missed, but have not ruled out further financial and other sanctions. The agency's top regional official said the NRC would continue to commit resources necessary to ensure that Indian Point's road to a completed installation wasn't impeded by the federal government, a sentiment echoed by FEMA representatives. "We're looking forward to this coming to a successful end Aug. 24th," said Samuel Collins, the NRC's regional administrator. Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566. Copyright © 2007 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 6 NRC: Eric Epstein petition receipt FR Doc E7-13316 [Federal Register: July 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 131)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 37470-37471] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10jy07-13] Proposed Rules Federal Register This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. [[Page 37470]] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 [Docket No. PRM-50-85] Eric Epstein, Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking, dated April 11, 2007, which was filed with the Commission by Eric Epstein. The petition was docketed by the NRC on April 17, 2007, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-85. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations regarding emergency preparedness to require that all host school pick-up centers be at a minimum distance of five to ten miles beyond the radiation plume exposure boundary zone to ensure that all school children are protected in the event of a radiological emergency. DATES: Submit comments by September 24, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include PRM-50-85 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays (telephone (301) 415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll Free: 800- 368-5642. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitioner The petitioner is Eric Epstein, Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. The petitioner states that Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., was founded in 1977 and is a safe-energy organization based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., monitors Peach Bottom, Susquehanna, and Three Mile Island nuclear generating stations. The Proposed Amendments The petitioner believes that current NRC, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) emergency planning requirements fail to meet the safety needs of all school children. Further, the petitioner believes that the current planning requirements of these agencies do not establish a reasonable standard for offsite relocation distances that adequately protects the public's health and safety. The petitioner seeks to clarify NRC, DHS, and FEMA relocation requirements and requests that NRC promulgate and codify relevant regulations pertaining to radiological emergency readiness planning. The petitioner requests that NRC mandate that all host school pick-up centers be at a minimum distance of five to ten miles beyond the radiation plume exposure boundary zone, and has attached several exhibits to the petition to support this proposal. The support material includes information from the West Shore School District; maps and news articles; data from NRC's NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1; and other statements and exhibits. Conclusion The petitioner states that there is a regulatory gap, and an absence of minimum distance requirements, for host school pick-up centers in relation to radiation plume exposure boundary lines. The petitioner believes that allowing host school pick-up centers to be just outside of the 10-mile radiation plume exposure boundary zone fails to meet the safety needs of school children. The petitioner also believes that the proposed change in current regulations is necessary in order to ensure that all school children are properly protected in the event of a radiological emergency. Accordingly, the petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations related to [[Page 37471]] emergency preparedness as described previously in the section titled, ``The Proposed Amendments.'' Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of July, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-13316 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 7 PDM: Temelin staff complete first physical tests at 2nd unit on Sunday - Prague Daily Monitor By Prague Daily Monitor/CTK / Published 10 July 2007 CTK TemelĂ­n's second unit will resume power supplies in the middle of the week. Temelin, July 9 (CTK) - Staff at the nuclear power plant Temelin in southern Bohemia completed on Sunday the first of a series of physical tests at the second unit which was shut down for fuel replacement from May, Vaclav Brom, spokeswman for the CEZ group which operates Temelin, told CTK Monday. Output of the reactor was lower than one percent and was gradually raised to 30 percent, said Brom, adding that further tests will be made at this output level. The second unit will resume power supplies in the middle of the week. The first unit has been producing power without limitations. A turbine with an upgraded part of a high-pressure rotor will be launched for the first time today. The output of the 1,000 MW equipment has increased by at least 20 MW. The turbine with the new part has to be balanced, said Brom. During the two-month shutdown, the staff placed 48 modernised fuel assemblies made by U.S. company Westinghouse into the reactor which contains 163 fuel assemblies in total (with 92 tonnes of fuel), as the original assemblies got deformed more than expected, and rearranged the remaining ones. A quarter of fuel was replaced at the Temelin first unit at the beginning of this year already. Another quarter is to be replaced during the summer shutdown to start in August during which part of the turbine's high-pressure rotor will be exchanged for a new one. Consequently, both units will jointly produce power by the end of July. CEZ has a contract for fuel supplies with Westinghouse until 2010. Then, Russia's TVEL will supply the fuel. The contract secures supplies for Temelin's both units for a further ten years. During that time, TVEL is to supply some 400 tonnes of fuel to Temelin. The company is a long-term supplier of fuel also for the second Czech nuclear power plant of Dukovany, south Moravia. This story is from the Czech News Agency (CTK). The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its content. Copyright 2007 by the Czech News Agency (CTK). All rights reserved. Copying, dissemination or other publication of this article or parts thereof without the prior written consent of CTK is expressly forbidden. copyright 2007 monitor ce media services s.r.o. | all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 8 Prague Daily Monitor: Anti-terrorist exercise to check Czech rescue system - Wednesday, 11 July 2007 / Log in By Prague Daily Monitor/CTK / Published 10 July 2007 Prague, July 9 (CTK) - To check the efficiency of the Czech Integrated Rescue System is the main goal of a large scale anti-terrorist exercise that will take place in the Liberec, north Bohemia, and Holice, east Bohemia, areas on Wednesday and Thursday, organisers from the Interior and Defence Ministries told journalists Monday. It will be one of the largest exercises with the participation of police, firefighters and other parts of the Integrated Rescue System, Czech Fire and Rescue Corps director Miroslav Stepan and Miroslav Balint from the Interior Ministry told journalists. The Protection 2007 exercise will stimulate two specific situations. On Wednesday, special police forces will train the solution to the situation in which terrorists break into a school in Holice and take children hostages. They will train negotiations with the terrorists, a police operation and the liberation of the hostages. On Thursday, the Liberec-based Tipsport arena will become the site of the world athletic championship that is chosen by terrorists as a target of their attack. Classic explosives and poisonous gas Sarine will be used during the simulated terrorist attack. The military will join the operation - a chemical protection brigade will participate in eliminating the consequences of the attack. About 1000 people and 180 vehicles will take part in the exercise. Apart from the police, fire-fighters and the army, the Health Ministry, Foreign Ministry and the State Nuclear Safety Authority (SUJB) will take part in the exercise that will be watched by representatives of all NATO member states. They are attending in Prague a seminar on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This story is from the Czech News Agency (CTK). The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its content. Copyright 2007 by the Czech News Agency (CTK). All rights reserved. Copying, dissemination or other publication of this article or parts thereof without the prior written consent of CTK is expressly forbidden. Prague Daily Monitor copyright 2007 monitor ce media services s.r.o. | all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 9 Prague Daily Monitor: Official: ÄŚR did not breach Temelin agreements with Austria By Prague Daily Monitor/CTK / Published 10 July 2007 Prague/Vienna, July 9 (CTK) - The Czech Republic has definitely breached no agreements it signed with Austria on the nuclear power plant in Temelin, south Bohemia, Dana Drabova, State Authority for Nuclear Safety (SUJB) head, said in reaction to what the Austrian tabloid Neue Kronen Zeitung wrote Monday. The paper wrote, referring to the Upper Austrian Atomstopp association, that the Czech authorities have withheld from Austria information on 11 out of 20 breakdowns, designated with degree one on the INES seven-degree scale, since 2000. Temelin, situated some 60km away from the Austrian border, has been criticised by some Austrian as well as Czech environmentalists and some Austrian officials as dangerous. The Czech and Austrian prime ministers reached agreement in Melk, Austria, in 2000 in which the Czechs pledged to raise Temelin's safety and to inform Austria about all breakdowns in the plant. Drabova said that according to the Melk agreements Czech authorities are obliged to inform Austria within 72 hours of any breakdown that the first estimates put at degree one or higher on the INES scale. She said, however, that it often happens that SUJB requalifies them retroactively, even after several months. "In this case the red line loses its sense," Drabova said. She added that SUJB then informs Austrians at regular annual meetings. Drabova said relations with Austria are above-standard because it is usual internationally that only breakdowns assessed with degree two on INES scale are reported. "It is very difficult to discern between the two lowest degrees - degree zero and one," Drabova said. She added that her office has displayed all information on breakdowns on its web site previously. The Czech associations South Bohemian Mothers, OIZP and Calla also wrote that the Czech power company CEZ that operates Temelin does not inform the public about all breakdowns, in a joint statement sent to CTK today. "We believe that the Temelin nuclear power plant operator does not provide information on these breakdowns intentionally because it would harm the virtual image of a reliably functioning power plant," Monika Machova-Wittingerova from South Bohemian Mothers wrote. CEZ spokesman Vaclav Brom said similar statements only aim to "aggravate" the atmosphere ahead of the first meeting of the Austrian-Czech parliamentary commission on Temelin on Wednesday. This story is from the Czech News Agency (CTK). The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its content. Copyright 2007 by the Czech News Agency (CTK). All rights reserved. Copying, dissemination or other publication of this article or parts thereof without the prior written consent of CTK is expressly forbidden. Prague Daily Monitor copyright 2007 monitor ce media services s.r.o. | all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 10 MHNN: Entergy says it will meet new deadline for their new Indian Point warning system July 10, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide News Network, Inc. Cortlandt Manor – August 24 is now the magic day for Entergy to have the new 150-siren alert system ready. Director of Emergency Planning Mike Slobidien told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Monday night that deadline is doable, and that includes having backups if there are problems with any of the sirens. Slobodien O'Neill Sutton Collins “If the sirens are out of service, it’s a great concern to us, but there are multiple means of making notification to the public,” he said. The new system has a lot of features the old system does not have, including independent and redundant backup batteries for each siren. Using a form of ‘reverse-911’ outbound calls would be the ultimate backup, if there are problems. Dan O’Neill is mayor of the Village of Buchanan, hometown to the nuclear reactors. “I am also am happy that the notification system according to Westchester County officials will not only concern Indian Point, but other areas of essential danger like the Croton Dam and the Kensico Dam.” Westchester County Emergency Services Commissioner Anthony Sutton, representing the four counties in the alert radius, said they hope things work out, this time. “We remain to be skeptical because we’ve lived this experience for many years now with the old siren system and with the construction and implementation of the new siren system. We’re cautiously optimistic. We’re committed to working with Entergy and the regulators to get it done because it’s really an important part of our system.” Small turnout for the session NRC Regional Administrator Sam Collins said the really important point now is for Entergy, which earlier this year was fined $130,000 for missing the first deadline, to show significant progress. “As a regulatory agency, we get down to the 24th and the system is operable but hasn’t completed all the internal reviews, we want to be able to say ‘that’s reasonable’, and an extension is or is not warranted going forward in that approach. Planning in the window is very important as far as working with FEMA to insure that adequate time for review, the data submitted on time is accurate, whatever support is appropriate to reasonably attempt to meet that schedule.” The two-hour discussion involving the Entergy, the NRC and FEMA, was followed by a public comment period, but attendance was sparse. Only about 40 people, compared to about 300 who packed the same banquet hall for the relicensing kick-off meeting two weeks ago. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 11 Hemscott: German govt says Vattenfall nuclear plant fire caused by human error (Updating to add CEO comment on possibly faulty pegs) BERLIN (Thomson Financial) - The German government said human error caused a recent fire at a nuclear power plant that has fanned criticism of the plant's operator Vattenfall Europe AG. 'Apparently the shift on duty at the time of the unplanned shutdown did not act according to operating manuals and training,' the German Environment Ministry said in a statement. The Ministry said the Kruemmel nuclear power plant will not operate until the cause of the fire has been determined, and any possible faults in the system and unreliability of staff have been removed. Local police reported two weeks ago that the fire, which started when coolant in a large electric power transformer substation ignited due to a short circuit, had been isolated from the atomic reactor. 'While the operations sequence at the facility during the incident on June 28 have been mostly discussed and cleared up in talks with the regulators, there is still uncertainty about the extent and cause of staff's misconduct,' the Ministry said today. Neither the line manager nor the reactor operator were present during talks with the regulator, despite the regulator's express request, it said. Their absence was explained by saying they required protection until analyses of the incident have been completed, an excuse that the Ministry said is 'not acceptable.' The decision whether the Kruemmel plant will come back online will be made by a regional regulator in Kiel, Germany, and the Environment Ministry. Adding to Vattenfall's troubles, the company's chief executive Klaus Rauscher told journalists today there are 14 'conspicuous' pegs on Kuemmel's maintenance platforms, without being more specific. Two of them do not comply with 'specific demands,' he said, adding these faults are not directly related to the recent fire. The company is planning to conduct its own safety inspection. Vattenfall two weeks ago also had to shut down a nuclear power plant in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein, Brunsbuettel, due to overloaded capacity. And the company last year shut down reactors at its Forsmark nuclear plant in Sweden for two months after a fault in the plant's back-up power system was discovered. maria.sheahan@thomson.com mas/jfr/dpa/mas/lam COPYRIGHT Copyright AFX News Limited 2007. All rights reserved. The copying, Copyright 2007 Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 12 IPS: GERMANY: Breakdowns Renew Case Against Nuclear Energy Wednesday, July 11, 2007 05:05 GMT By Julio Godoy BERLIN, Jul 10 (IPS) - A series of technical breakdowns in two of the oldest nuclear power stations in Germany has led to renewed demands to phase out nuclear energy. Between Jun. 28 and Jul. 7, the nuclear power stations at Kruemmel and Brunsbuettel, both situated in the north of the country some 20km away from the port city Hamburg, were shut several times following technical problems of undetermined gravity. The Swedish energy giant Vatenfall, which operates both generators, was accused of failing to properly report the accidents to the local government. Vatenfall finally admitted Jul. 7 that the Brunsbuettel generator, which had been shut down less than a week before, had to be partially taken out of service again due to a concentration of hydrogen in the reactor that had created a risk of explosion. Earlier, on Jun. 28, a short-circuit led to automatic shutdown of the plant. It started off a fire in one of the plant's transformers, and as a consequence, a second nuclear power station located nearby, Kruemmel, was also automatically shut down. Vatenfall admitted that inadequate handling of the original problems of Jun. 28 at Brunsbuettel led to a series of disturbances during the following week, which in turn forced the partial shutdowns. Gitta Trauernicht, minister for social affairs in the federal state of Schleswig Holstein, announced that her administration was considering withdrawal of permission to Vatenfall to operate nuclear power stations in the area. "According to our laws, dependability and impeccable technical skills are indispensable conditions for operating nuclear power stations," Trauernicht said at a press conference Monday. "I am going to use all legal instruments at my disposal to sanction these cases," she added. "I won't baulk at taking strong measures against Vatenfall, since its structures appear to be failing." Vatenfall has just sought a permit to continue operating Brunsbuettel beyond 2009, when the power station is due to go out of service. Brunsbuettel is the oldest nuclear power plant in Germany. Vatenfall has been facing similar problems at its nuclear power stations in Forsmark in Sweden. In July 2006, one of the Forsmark reactors was shut down after a short-circuit. Lars-Olov Höglund, former construction chief at Vatenfall, said then that this was the most serious nuclear accident since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. Vatenfall's chief executive officer in Germany, Bruno Thomauske, announced at a press conference that all technical information on the nuclear power stations would be made available on the Internet. "We understand that the public expects swift, comprehensive information," he said. The recent breakdowns come after an energy 'summit' of the federal government and major electricity generators to set German's energy policy within the framework of European Union directives to reduce greenhouse gases by 20 percent by 2020. The summit did not bring concrete results, but now the breakdowns accidents at Brunsbuettel and Kruemel have restarted a debate on further use of nuclear energy. Some 12.5 percent of the electricity consumed in Germany is generated at nuclear power plants. The four major companies controlling electricity generation in Germany are asking for revision of a decision taken in 1998 by the former German federal government to phase out the country's oldest nuclear power plants by 2023. The decision was based on nuclear safety and environmental considerations, especially disposal of radioactive waste. The 1998 decision to phase out nuclear power by the ruling coalition then of the Social Democratic (SPD) and Green parties, was confirmed in 2005 by the present government, formed by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the SPD. But leading CDU members have been demanding revision of the phasing out. Christian Wulff, prime minister of the federal state of Lower Saxony, has argued that Germany needs nuclear energy "for the foreseeable future." But several energy and environmental experts consider nuclear power both dangerous and avoidable. "Nuclear energy is an old, inefficient, dangerous technology," Wolfram Koenig, director of the state agency for radiation protection told IPS. "In the medium term, we won't need it for electricity generation." Nuclear power makes less than two percent of the total energy consumed worldwide, he said. "According to the United Nations Environmental Programme, some 3,000 new nuclear power plants would be needed to make a noteworthy contribution to reducing greenhouse gases emissions." But the world's reserves of uranium, needed to fuel these plants, would not suffice to meet such a demand, Koenig said. In addition, he said, the nuclear energy's environmental footprint includes the "unsolved problem of disposal of radioactive waste, the safety considerations associated with the operation of nuclear power plants, and the political risks of internationally spreading a technology which produces material used in atom bombs." (END/2007) Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 PRNews: Progress Energy Again Chooses Westinghouse Technology Tuesday 10 July 2007, 18:57 GMT Westinghouse Electric Company PITTSBURGH, July 10 /PRNewswire/ -- - AP1000 selected for Levy County Florida site Progress Energy (NYSE: PGN) today formally announced the selection of the Westinghouse AP1000 for potential new nuclear plant construction at its Levy County Florida site. The selection marks the second time Progress Energy has chosen the AP1000 for possible new plant construction and expansion of its fleet of commercial nuclear power plants, the first time being for its Harris Nuclear Plant site near New Hill, N.C. "We are pleased that Progress Energy again has chosen the AP1000 for potential new plant construction in Florida," said Steve Tritch, president and CEO of Westinghouse Electric Company. "In moving forward with the option to expand its baseload generating capacity, Progress Energy is planning ahead and will be well-situated to meet the increases in future energy requirements." In addition to Progress Energy, Duke Energy, SCANA and Santee Cooper, and the team of Southern Company and Georgia Power have selected the AP1000 standardized design for possible future expansion of their nuclear capability. The AP1000 will now be the technology basis for 12 construction and operating license (COL) applications with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The AP1000 is the only Generation III+ nuclear power plant to have received Design Certification from the NRC. Additionally, the AP1000 recently passed all the steps of analysis for compliance with European Utility Requirements, clearing the way for the AP1000 to be licensed in Europe. Westinghouse believes the AP1000 is ideally suited for the U.S. and worldwide nuclear power marketplace. The AP1000 is: -- The safest, most advanced, yet proven nuclear power plant currently available in the worldwide marketplace (conservative probabilistic risk assessment (PRA): core damage frequency potential at negligible 2.5x10-7) -- Based on standard Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology that has achieved more than 2,500 reactor years of highly successful operation -- Is an 1100 MWe design that is ideal for providing baseload generating capacity -- Modular in design, promoting ready standardization and high construction quality -- Economical to operate (less concrete and steel, and fewer components and systems mean that there is less to install, inspect and maintain) -- Simplified to promote ease of operation (features most advanced instrumentation and control (I&C) in the industry) For more information about the Westinghouse AP1000, visit http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000. For images of the AP1000, visit http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/D6.asp. To download a complete AP1000 brochure, visit http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/docs/AP1000_brochure.pdf. Westinghouse Electric Company, a group company of Toshiba Corporation, is the world's pioneering nuclear power company and is a leading supplier of nuclear plant products and technologies to utilities throughout the world. Westinghouse supplied the world's first PWR in 1957 in Shippingport, Pa. Today, Westinghouse technology is the basis for approximately one-half of the world's operating nuclear plants, including 60 percent of those in the United States. Web site: http://www.westinghousenuclear.com http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000 http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/D6.asp http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/docs/AP1000_brochure.pdf Distributed by PR Newswire on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Company PR Newswire Europe Ltd. 209 - 215 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NL Tel : +44 (0)20 7490 8111 Fax : +44 (0)20 7490 1255 E-mail : info@prnewswire.co.uk Copyright © PR Newswire Europe Limited. All rights reserved. A United Business Media Company. Terms and conditions of use apply. ***************************************************************** 14 SPIEGEL ONLINE: The World from Berlin: Nuclear Safety Meltdown in Germany - July 10, 2007 At first the company played down a fire and a shutdown at two German nuclear plants as no big deal. Turns out, Vattenfall was fibbing. Now German officials are threatening to take the energy giant's license away. DPA A fire at Vattenfall's Krümmel reactor was worse than the company was willing to admit at first. The news just keeps getting worse for Vattenfall, a power company with customers across Europe. First, there was (more...) at their nuclear power plant in Krümmel, near Hamburg -- a fire which the company played down before being forced to admit that the reactor itself had been affected. Then on Sunday, the company revealed that a second German reactor had to be shut down due to a buildup of hydrogen in reactor pipes -- a problem that led to an explosion at the same site in 2001. The company waited almost a week to inform regulatory authorities. At a Monday meeting with company leaders, German officials said the company may lose its license to operate nuclear reactors as a result of these two mishaps. Gitta Trauernicht, responsible for nuclear oversight in the state of Schleswig-Holstein -- where both problem sites are located -- said that she would investigate whether Vattenfall can be relied on to safely operate atomic reactors. "I will work closely with the (German) Environment Ministry and will take full advantage of all the instruments available to me" to ensure adequate oversight, Trauernicht said on Monday. She said she would not hesitate to withdraw the company's operational license if it became clear that the company was operating irresponsibly. The German public, already concerned that nuclear reactors may not be phased out by 2021 as the government under former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had resolved, was less than impressed by the time it took for Vatenfall to go public with the two mishaps. On Tuesday, German commentators take a closer look. Center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung on Tuesday writes: Nuclear power companies "have reflexively played down disturbances since the technology has existed. That reflex is the only way to explain the hesitance to go public with the most recent mishaps. It is also the only explanation for the fact that the hydrogen explosion in the Brunsbüttel reactor in December 2001 was at first described as 'spontaneous leakage.' Only after an investigation by the atomic energy authority did it become clear that the leak was actually a meter-long section of pipe that had been ripped to shreds." "Mishaps last summer in Sweden's Forsmark reactor -- also run by Vattenfall -- were also first reported as harmless. It only came out later that safety personnel weren't careful enough and sometimes even worked under the influence of alcohol." "Covering up and playing down -- unfortunately these strategies have been followed ever since nuclear power has existed. That is not acceptable for a technology that in the worst case -- see Chernobyl -- can kill thousands of people." Conservative voice Die Welt, in an impressive logical backflip, actually uses the mishaps at Krümmel and Brunsbüttel to support the paper's position that Germany should continue to use nuclear energy. "Of course the mishaps in the nuclear reactors of Brunsbüttel and Krümmel should be thoroughly investigated and Vattenfall has to put a stop to the lapses. Nevertheless, we shouldn't see every incident as a narrowly-avoided meltdown. Behind the almost hysterical reactions many have had to the mishaps, a political calculation can be detected. Every problem in a nuclear reactor is used as an argument against the technology." "In the interest of protecting the climate, it is desirable that politicians return to more realism. At the same time, energy companies -- Vattenfall first and foremost -- have to commit themselves to the greatest possible transparency and safety in order to dispel doubts about the technology. Otherwise, incidents like those in Krümmel and Brunsbüttel threaten to become a much bigger problem -- for the cause of climate protection." -- Charles Hawley, 12:15 p.m. CET © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2007 ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: N-plant organ probe cases 'to rise' Press Association Tuesday July 10, 2007 3:28 PM The number of cases about body organs removed from nuclear workers apparently without consent will increase, the man leading the inquiry has said. Michael Redfern QC will look at 65 reported cases involving workers who were mainly employed at Sellafield in Cumbria between 1962 and 1992. He said the number of cases would undoubtedly rise during the course of his investigation but he did not anticipate "huge numbers". Announcing the framework of the independent probe, he said his role was not concerned with the safety of the nuclear industry but whether the retention of organs was carried out within the law at the time. The Government moved quickly to appoint Mr Redfern after feelings of "shock and outrage" were expressed over the disclosure that organs were taken from individuals and then analysed for radionuclide content. A radionuclide is an unstable form of an element that can decay and give off radiation. The then Trade and Industry Secretary, Alistair Darling, told the Commons in April that the individuals concerned were largely based at Sellafield, but there were also cases from Aldermaston, in Berkshire; Harwell, in Oxfordshire, and possibly other sites. There is also one known case from the Capenhurst nuclear site in Cheshire and two from the Springfields nuclear site in Lancashire. Mr Redfern said research published in the 1980s deriving from the organ examinations revealed retention of whole organs and long bones including the femur and rib cage. That research also showed that organs were also obtained from "two control groups", one consisting of deceased residents from the Sellafield area and a second from further afield. Mr Redfern previously conducted the inquiry into the removal of body organs from children at the Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool, which concluded a pathologist "systematically stripped" organs from dead children. He said: "We have started investigating all the cases referred to us by BNFL (British Nuclear Fuels). It is likely there will be more. I don't expect to deal with huge numbers but we expect to exceed the current total of 65. I don't think it is useful at this stage to speculate on what the final figure may be." © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 16 OMB Watch: Federal Government Kept Nuclear Accident Secret - Information & Access - Published: 07/10/2007 Details on an accidental release of highly-enriched uranium at a nuclear fuel processing plant in Tennessee were kept secret from the public and Congress by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for thirteen months. On March 6, 2006, Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) in Erwin, TN, spilled approximately nine gallons of highly-enriched uranium. The yellow solution was noticed escaping under a doorway and into a hallway within the plant. Initially, the highly-enriched uranium accidentally spilled into a glove box, which had a well-functioning drain, and came within four feet of falling down an elevator shaft. If the solution had pooled and achieved a depth of a few inches, a self-sustaining chain reaction would have resulted, endangering the lives of those in the vicinity. After NRC became aware of the NFS event, the agency changed the terms of its license and concealed all information regarding the event from Congress and the public. The agency marked information regarding the incident as Official Use Only (OUO), a sensitive but unclassified (SBU) category intended to keep truly sensitive information secret. Federal agencies have dramatically increased use of SBU categories since 9/11, but the rise of SBU has been accompanied by the unnecessary restriction of important health and safety information. The OUO policy was developed in August 2004 in response to a request from the Department of Energy's Office of Naval Research to restrict public access to sensitive security information. In addition to the highly-enriched uranium spill, the OUO policy motivated the removal of 1,740 previously public documents regarding the NFS plant. In a July 3 letter to the chairman of the NRC, Reps. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Bart Stupak (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, wrote, "NRC went far beyond this narrow objective [from the Department of Energy] when it acceded to the Naval Reactor's request to withhold all information that is neither classified nor safeguards related. As a result, NRC has removed hundreds of otherwise innocuous documents relating to the NFS plant from public view" (emphasis original). Modification of NFS's Special Nuclear Material License is supposed to require public notice and allowance for public comment. "Due to the August 2004 OUO policy, the NRC inspection reports, changes to license conditions, and the Confirmatory Order are all marked 'OUO' and withheld from the public," said Dingell and Stupak. Hence, public participation was preempted by the failure to provide notice. The OUO policy itself is marked OUO and withheld from public view. The New York Times recently reported that the issue came to light in part due to the efforts of one of the five commissioners of the NRC, Gregory B. Jackzo. Jackzo said, "Ultimately, we regulate on behalf of the public, and it's important for them to have a role." With the unnecessary restriction of safety information under SBU categories, it is impossible for the public to play such a role. The Times reported that NRC's OUO policy is under review. Dingell and Stupak reported that NRC has agreed to reissue the Confirmatory Order and allow public participation. © 2007 OMB Watch 1742 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 202-234-8494 (phone) 202-234-8584 (fax) Combined Federal Campaign #10201 ***************************************************************** 17 BBC NEWS: Organ removal inquiry net widens Last Updated: Tuesday, 10 July 2007, 16:25 GMT 17:25 UK The case of 65 former workers at Sellafield sparked initial concerns More families could be affected by the removal, apparently without consent, of body parts from nuclear plant workers. An inquiry has been launched into the removal of human tissue from workers at Sellafield in Cumbria for medical tests since the 1960s. The inquiry, led by Michael Redfern QC, could take up to a year. The inquiry will ask why samples were taken and if next of kin were informed. On Tuesday, Mr Redfern said he was looking into cases between 1962 and 1992 and appealed for families who believed they may have been affected to come forward. Encourage research In a statement Mr Redfern said: "We have started investigating all the cases referred to us. It is likely there will be more. "We will be investigating whether the removal, retention, testing and disposal of organs was conducted in compliance with the legal requirements in force at that time. "Our purpose is to encourage research and organ donation but strictly in compliance with the law." Mr Redfern also led the investigation into the removal of children's organs at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool. He added: "It is not the intention to restrict or undermine research. The very essence of disease identification and cure depends upon it." The inquiry has been welcomed by the Human Tissue Authority (HTA) which was set up in 2005 to regulate the removal, storage, use and disposal of human bodies, organs and tissue. Adrian McNeil, chief executive of the HTA, said: "This investigation reaffirms the importance of establishing a clear regulatory framework for obtaining consent." * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 18 DHHS: New EEOICPA procedures Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness FR Doc E7-13233 [Federal Register: July 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 131)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 37455-37459] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10jy07-11] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Part 83 RIN 0920-AA13 Compensation Program Act of 2000; Amendments AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services. ACTION: Final Rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services is amending its procedures for designating classes of employees to be added to the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). The final rule adds and revises deadlines for evaluating petitions for cohort status, clarifies when time periods commence and how they toll, and provides information relevant to these deadlines on the content of petition evaluation reports. DATES: This Final Rule is effective July 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6825 (this is not a toll free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to OCAS@CDC.GOV. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Purpose of Rulemaking On October 28, 2004, the President signed the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. 108- 375 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.). Division C, Subtitle E, of this Act includes amendments to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (``EEOICPA''), 42 U.S.C. 7384-7385. Several of these amendments, under Sec. 3166(b), established new statutory requirements under 42 U.S.C. 7384q and 7384l(14)(C)(ii) that pertain to the Department of Health and Human Services (``HHS'') procedures established under 42 CFR part 83: ``Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.'' These new requirements included the following: (1) Following the receipt of a petition for designation as members of the Special Exposure Cohort (``the Cohort''), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) must submit ``a recommendation'' on that petition, including all documentation, to the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (``the Board'') within 180 days; (2) following the receipt by the Secretary of HHS (``the Secretary'') of a recommendation by the Board that the Secretary determine in the affirmative that a class meets the statutory criteria for addition to the Cohort, the Secretary must submit to Congress a determination as to whether or not the class meets these statutory criteria within 30 days; (3) if the Secretary does not submit this determination to Congress within 30 days, then on the 31st day it shall be deemed that the Secretary has submitted a report to Congress that designates, as an addition to the Cohort, the class recommended by the Board for addition to the Cohort and that provides the criteria used to support the designation; and (4) the period Congress shall have to review a report submitted by the Secretary to designate a class as an addition to the Cohort is reduced from 180 days to 30 days. The purpose of the new requirements was to expedite the evaluation and decision process for adding classes of employees to the Cohort. On December 22, 2005, HHS issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) incorporating changes to ensure the new statutory requirements are met and requesting public comment (70 FR 75950). The public comment period for this rulemaking was initially to close on February 21, 2006. Upon a request from the Board for additional time to comment, the comment period was extended for 30 days and closed on March 23, 2006, after a total of 90 days. As discussed below, HHS has incorporated additional changes in this Final Rule in response to comments from the Board and from the public. These changes also bring the Final Rule into alignment with the Congressional recommendations specified in the Conference Report associated with the new statutory deadlines (H. Rep. 108-767). II. Summary of Public Comments The public comment period for the IFR extended from December 22, 2005 through March 23, 2006. HHS received comments from seven parties in addition to the consensus comments of the Board. These include four individuals, one U.S. Senator, one labor organization, and one advocacy group. The comments are summarized and responded to below, together with explanations of changes HHS has incorporated into this Final Rule. A. 180-Day Deadline for NIOSH Recommendations Several commenters, including the Board, recommended that HHS reiterate in the final rule NIOSH's 180-day statutory deadline to evaluate a petition and submit recommendations to the Board. One commenter also wanted the rule to specify what actions HHS would take if NIOSH failed to meet that deadline. In contrast, another commenter recommended against including any of the statutory deadlines in the rule because of concern that hastening the evaluation and recommendation process could prevent [[Page 37456]] the full and fair consideration of petitions. Commenters also raised concerns about various aspects of the IFR's petition qualification and review process. Several commenters were concerned that the rule did not include within the 180-day statutory deadline NIOSH's process for identifying deficiencies in petitions. They said the FY05 Defense Act Conference Report (H.Rep. 108-767) indicated that Congress intended for the qualification process to be included within the 180-day period, citing the following from the Report: During the 180 day period when NIOSH is preparing the petition for review by the Advisory Board, NIOSH should identify all deficiencies in the petition * * * Most commenters, including the Board, also recommended that HHS reinstate the 30-day period for petitioners to request a review of NIOSH's proposed finding that a petition is deficient and does not qualify for consideration. Finally, one commenter recommended that HHS clarify in the rule that NIOSH will provide a recommendation for each class of employees the petition covers. In response to those comments, HHS has made several changes in the final rule. First, HHS has added a reference to the 180-day deadline for NIOSH to evaluate petitions and submit recommendations to the Board (Sec. 83.13 (e)). The provisions in the IFR were designed to ensure that NIOSH would meet the deadline. Referencing the 180-day deadline in the final rule identifies the goal that the earlier changes are intended to achieve. Second, HHS has revised the rule so the process of determining whether petitions are qualified is included in the 180-day period (Sec. Sec. 83.5(k) and 83.11). HHS agrees with the commenters that Congress intended to include that process in the 180-day period, and the change brings the final rule into alignment with the Conference Report. As the commenters pointed out, the IFR did not include this process in the 180-day period. In the preamble to the IFR, HHS said it was necessary to exclude the process from the deadline to ensure that NIOSH had adequate time to evaluate petitions and make recommendations within the deadline. According to NIOSH, sometimes it can take months to assist and consult with petitioners to help them remedy petition deficiencies, which could significantly impact NIOSH's ability to do a comprehensive evaluation before the deadline ended. Thus, in the IFR HHS distinguished between ``submissions'' (i.e., petitions that were not yet determined to meet the requirements of Sec. Sec. 83.7-83.9) and ``petitions'' (i.e., petitions that have been determined to meet the requirements) (Sec. 83.5(k)). The 180-day period started tolling only when NIOSH received a ``petition'' (Sec. 83.5(k)). In the final rule, HHS has deleted Sec. 83.5(k) and removed the distinction between submissions and petitions in Sec. 83.11. Third, HHS has reinstated the 30-day period for petitioners to request a review of NIOSH's proposed finding that a petition is deficient (Sec. 83.11). In the IFR, HHS had reduced the request period to 7 days to increase the feasibility of NIOSH meeting the 180-day deadline. To ensure that the additional time for requesting review does not prevent NIOSH from meeting the deadline, HHS is adopting the recommendation of one commenter that the clock on the 180 days start when petitioners seek and are granted a review on whether their petition satisfies all requirements. Accordingly, HHS has added new paragraph (e) to Sec. 83.13 specifying that the 180-day period shall not include any days during which (1) the petitioner is revising the petition to remedy deficiencies NIOSH identified, (2) the petitioner requests a review of NIOSH's proposed finding that the petition does not meet all relevant requirements, or (3) the three-person HHS panel (as authorized by Sec. 83.11(d)) is reviewing the petitioner's request. Finally, HHS has revised Sec. 83.13(d)(4) to clarify that NIOSH evaluation report findings to the Board must specify whether it is ``feasible'' to estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy ``for each class defined in the report.'' HHS is adding this specification because NIOSH sometimes finds a Cohort petition covers more than one class of employees even though it is submitted on behalf of a single class. For example, in some cases, NIOSH will find differences in radiation exposures and record availability for different employee groups at the same facility. Consequently, NIOSH evaluation reports may need to define more than one class of employees in the petition and provide separate findings concerning each class. In light of NIOSH's 180-day deadline, HHS has also added language to paragraph (d)(4) indicating that NIOSH's evaluation report must include a feasibility finding about whether radiation doses for each class of employees can be estimated with sufficient accuracy. HHS did not adopt every recommendation commenters made. HHS has not incorporated recommendations that NIOSH inform petitioners of all deficiencies within the first 30 days (H. Rep. 108-767). HHS believes the recommendation is not necessary. The changes in the final rule specifying that the 180-day period begins when NIOSH receives a petition gives the Agency more than adequate incentive to identify very quickly whether the petition qualifies for consideration or has deficiencies. Also, HHS has not adopted the recommendation to add requirements to the final rule specifying the actions HHS would take if NIOSH failed to meet the 180-day deadline. HHS fully understands the EEOICPA statutory amendments stressing the importance of evaluating petitions in a timely manner. Although there may be complex circumstances of radiation exposure or records availability or exceptional instances when it may be challenging to complete a comprehensive evaluation covering all of the classes of employees included in petition within 180 days, HHS will make every effort to meet the deadline. The NIOSH Web page at http:http://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/ocas will continuously track the progress of each active petition for the interested public. B. Resubmission of Petitions Based on New Information Two commenters indicated confusion concerning whether a petitioner could submit a petition on behalf of a class of employees subsequent to NIOSH finding that a prior petition covering the class did not meet the petition requirements. The commenters believed that Sec. 83.11(f) only permitted NIOSH, upon its own discretion, to consider a petition for a class of employees for which a prior petition had already been found to not meet petition requirements. Nothing in the rule would prevent a petitioner from submitting a subsequent petition based on new information. Such a petition would be evaluated by NIOSH as a new petition. HHS has amended Sec. 83.11, adding paragraph (g), to clarify that petitioners may submit an additional petition for a class of employees, based on new information, subsequent to NIOSH finding that a petition does not meet the petition requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 83.7--83.9. The existing paragraph (f) of Sec. 83.11 has a different purpose. It is intended to allow NIOSH to reconsider a petition that it found to not meet petition requirements, based on new information NIOSH might obtain from any source, irrespective of any further action of the petitioner. [[Page 37457]] C. Deadline for the Chair of the Board To Submit the Cohort Petition Recommendations of the Board One commenter recommended that HHS regulate the current policy of the Board that requires the Chair to submit recommendations of the Board on the outcome of Cohort petitions to the Secretary within 21 days of the Board's consensus formulation and approval of the recommendations. HHS has not incorporated this Board policy into the rule. Doing so would violate the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 for the development of regulations. The APA requires that the regulating agency both provide the public with the opportunity for notice and comment and consider submitted comments prior to promulgation of a final rule. The change proposed by the commenter is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the changes discussed in the IFR and making such a change would not offer the public adequate notice of the change. Furthermore, HHS does not consider it necessary or appropriate to regulate this currently self-imposed policy of the Board. It is within the Board's prerogative, with the guidance of the Designated Federal Official, to set and manage its own deadlines. D. Review of Proposed and Final Decisions of HHS on the Outcome of Cohort Petitions One commenter recommended HHS reinstate the opportunity for petitioners to seek reviews of the proposed decisions on the outcome of petitions, issued by the Director of NIOSH under Sec. 83.16(a), prior to the issuance of final decisions by the Secretary of HHS. As discussed in the preamble of the IFR (70 FR 75950, December 22, 2005), it is not possible for petitioners to seek and HHS to provide an administrative review of the proposed decision, and for the Secretary to issue a final decision, all within the 30-day Congressional report deadline. For this reason, the administrative review opportunity of petitioners was preserved but moved in the sequence of HHS actions to follow, rather than precede, the Secretary's final decision. Another commenter questioned whether the Secretary has discretion in responding to an HHS administrative review of a final decision and whether petitioners must seek such an administrative review as a prerequisite to obtaining a judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary issued under Sec. 83.17. Under Sec. 83.18(c), the Secretary retains the discretion to decide the outcome of a petition, after obtaining and considering the information provided by the HHS administrative review. The authority to decide the outcome of petitions was statutorily assigned to the President (42 U.S.C. 7384q) and delegated to the Secretary by Executive Order 13179. The Secretary's decision to add or deny adding a class to the Cohort is final unless he revises the decision pursuant to an administrative review under Sec. 83.18 or Congress takes other action. This administrative review is optional; neither EEOICPA nor this regulation requires it as a prerequisite to judicial review. E. Protection of the Personal Information of the Petitioner One commenter recommended requiring that NIOSH disclose the identities and contact information of petitioners. The commenter reasoned that since the petitioner is acting on behalf of a class of employees, the petitioner should not have the right to privacy. The IFR did not propose imposing such a requirement on NIOSH or petitioners in this Final Rule. Instead, HHS would first have to provide public notice, the opportunity for public comment, and consideration of comments submitted, as required for rulemaking under the APA. Moreover, the recommendation to require petitioners or NIOSH to disclose the identity and contact information of the petitioners is contrary to the customary protection afforded by the Federal government to members of the public under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). In particular, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) bars agencies (subject to certain exceptions not applicable here) from disclosing records such as those at issue in the recommendation, where petitioner information is ``contained in a system of records'' that allows retrieval of such records by unique person-specific identifiers, ``to any person, or to another agency'' without the individual's written request or prior written consent. In addition, there does not appear to be a substantial justification or benefit to requiring the disclosure of the identity and contact information of the petitioner. A petitioner should not have to choose between acting on his or her own behalf, as a member or a survivor of a member of the class of employees represented in the petition, and his or her right to privacy. It is true that the class of employees includes other individuals who would also benefit from an affirmative decision on the petition by the Secretary, but any other member of the class of employees covered by the petition can obtain the same rights as the petitioner by submitting a valid petition, meeting the requirements specified under Sec. Sec. 83.7-83.9, on behalf of the same class of employees. F. Authority and Deadline for the Secretary To Decide on Petitions Two commenters appeared to have misunderstood the statutory requirement that the President render a decision regarding the addition of a class of employees to the Cohort within 30 days of the Board having recommended its addition (see 42 U.S.C. 7384q(c)(2)(A)-(B)) to newly authorize the President's involvement in these decisions. One commenter recommended that the President not be given the role of making such decisions, and the second commenter recommended that the President not be provided 30 days to make such decisions, as the commenter believed this would prolong the decision-making process. Since EEOICPA was originally enacted in 2000, the President has been solely authorized in the statute to decide whether or not to designate classes of employees for addition to the Cohort. The President delegated this authority to the Secretary, who has implemented this authority ever since. The only change made by the statutory requirement discussed above is to impose a 30-day deadline on the President to make such decisions in certain cases. As discussed in the IFR, this 30-day deadline applies to the Secretary's decisions, since the President delegated this decision-making authority to the Secretary. The deadline does not prolong the decision-making process since, prior to this statutory requirement, the Secretary was not under any deadline to make such decisions. G. Non-Regulatory Comments HHS received several comments that do not pertain to the IFR. These included a comment to add a class of employees from the Hanford facility to the Cohort, a personal perspective on the history of the management of the U.S. nuclear weapons program, concerns about the involvement of the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') in the program, and a speculation that adding classes of employees to the Cohort would be cost-saving compared to the conduct of dose reconstructions. [[Page 37458]] The Board recommended NIOSH provide petitioners with guidance in the form of a timeline for the petition process, to ensure petitioners understand the expected duration of the entire process and its elements, from the submission of a petition to the point at which final decisions on a petition become effective. NIOSH will provide each petitioner with such guidance, together with other introductory materials provided to petitioners upon the receipt by NIOSH of a petition. One commenter suggested all cancers be added to the list of 22 ``specified cancers'' covered for members of the Cohort. The list of specified cancers covered for members of the Cohort is established statutorily under EEOICPA and not governed by this rulemaking. EEOICPA states: The term ``specified cancer'' means any of the following: (A) A specified disease, as that term is defined in section 4(b)(2) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note). (B) Bone cancer. (C) Renal cancers. (D) Leukemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia), if initial occupational exposure occurred before 21 years of age and onset occurred more than two years after initial occupational exposure. 42 U.S.C. 7384l(17) III. Regulatory Assessment Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review by OMB and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f), the order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action that is likely to result in a rule (1) having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the executive order. This rule is being treated as a ``significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of the executive order because it meets the criterion of Section 3(f)(4) in that it raises novel or legal policy issues arising out of the legal mandate established by EEOICPA. It amends current procedures by which the Secretary considers petitions to add classes of employees to the Cohort to comport with new statutory deadlines (see 42 U.S.C. 7384q(c)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C)(ii)). The revisions, however, neither affect the financial cost to the federal government of responding to these petitions nor the scientific and policy bases for making decisions on such petitions. The rule carefully explains the manner in which the procedures are consistent with the mandates of 42 U.S.C. 7384q and 7384l(14)(C)(ii) and implements the detailed requirements of these sections. The rule does not interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. The rule is not considered economically significant, as defined in Sec. 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. As discussed above, it does not affect the financial cost to the federal government of responding to these petitions nor does it affect the scientific and policy bases for making decisions on such petitions. Furthermore, it has a subordinate role in the adjudication of claims under EEOICPA, serving as one element of an adjudication process administered by the Department of Labor (``DOL'') under 20 CFR parts 1 and 30. DOL has determined that its rule fulfills the requirements of Executive Order 12866 and provides estimates of the aggregate cost of benefits and administrative expenses of implementing EEOICPA under its rule (see 71 FR 78520, December 29, 2006). OMB has reviewed this rule for consistency with the President's priorities and the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations. HHS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA. The rule affects only HHS, DOL, the Department of Energy, and certain individuals covered by EEOICPA. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided for under RFA is not required. C. What Are the Paperwork and Other Information Collection Requirements (Subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act) Imposed Under This Rule? The Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'') 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires an agency to invite public comment on and to obtain OMB approval of any regulation that requires ten or more people to report information to the agency or to keep certain records. The Special Exposure Cohort rule, 42 CFR part 83, which requires the collection of information from petitioners, is covered by the PRA and has received OMB clearance (OMB control 0920-0639). However, this rulemaking, which makes limited changes to 42 CFR part 83, does not contain any information collection requirements. Thus, HHS has determined that the PRA does not apply to this rulemaking. D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act As required by Congress under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), HHS will report to Congress promulgation of this rule prior to its taking effect. The report will state that HHS has concluded that this rule is not a ``major rule'' because it is not likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, this rule has a subordinate role in the adjudication of claims under EEOICPA, serving as one element of an adjudication process administered by DOL under 20 CFR parts 1 and 30. DOL has determined that its rule is a ``major rule'' because it will likely result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs agencies to assess the effects of federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector ``other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law.'' For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, this rule does not include any federal mandate that may result in increased annual expenditures in excess of $100 million by state, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice) This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive [[Page 37459]] Order 12988 on Civil Justice Reform and will not unduly burden the federal court system. HHS adverse decisions may be reviewed in United States District Courts pursuant to the APA. HHS has attempted to minimize that burden by providing petitioners an opportunity to seek administrative review of adverse decisions. HHS has provided a clear legal standard it will apply in considering petitions. This rule has been reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities. G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) HHS has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have ``federalism implications.'' The rule does not ``have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental, Health Risks and Safety Risks) In accordance with Executive Order 13045, HHS has evaluated the environmental health and safety effects of this rule on children. HHS has determined that the rule would have no effect on children. I. Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) In accordance with Executive Order 13211, HHS has evaluated the effects of this rule on energy supply, distribution or use, and has determined that the rule will not have a significant adverse effect on them. J. Effective Date The Secretary has determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that there is good cause for this rule to be effective immediately to eliminate legal inconsistencies between new statutory requirements under 42 U.S.C. 7384l and 7384q and regulatory requirements under 42 CFR part 83 and to make the implementation of the new statutory requirements feasible. List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 83 Government employees, Occupational safety and health, Nuclear materials, Radiation protection, Radioactive materials, Workers' compensation. Text of the Rule 0 For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the interim rule amending 42 CFR part 83, published on December 22, 2005 (70 FR 75950), is confirmed as final with the folling changes: PART 83--[AMENDED] 0 1. The authority citation for part 83 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7384q; E.O. 13179, 65 FR 77487, 3 CFR, 2000 Comp., p. 321. Subpart B--Definitions Sec. 83.5 [Amended] 0 2. Amend Sec. 83.5 by removing paragraph (k) and redesignating paragraphs (l) through (p) as paragraphs (k) through (o), respectively. Subpart C--Procedures for Adding Classes of Employees to the Cohort 0 3. Amend Sec. 83.11 as follows: 0 A. By revising the section heading. 0 B. By replacing the term ``submission'' with the term ``petition'' in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (f). 0 C. By replacing the phrases ``7 calendar days'' and ``7 day period'' with ``30 calendar days'' and ``30-day period'', respectively, in paragraph (c). 0 D. By replacing ``8 calendar days'' with ``31 calendar days'' in paragraph (e). 0 E. By adding a new paragraph (g) to read as follows: Sec. 83.11 What happens to petitions that do not satisfy all relevant requirements under Sec. Sec. 83.7 through 83.9? * * * * * (g) A petitioner whose petition has been found not to satisfy the requirements for a petition under either paragraph (d) or (e) of this section may submit to NIOSH a new petition for the identical class of employees at any time thereafter on the basis of new information not provided to NIOSH in the original petition. In such a case, the petitioner is required to fully re-address all the requirements of Sec. Sec. 83.7-83.9 in the petition. 0 4. Amend Sec. 83.13 by revising paragraph (d)(4) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: Sec. 83.13 How will NIOSH evaluate petitions, other than petitions by claimants covered under Sec. 83.14? * * * * * (d)(4) A summary of the findings concerning the adequacy of existing records and information for reconstructing doses for individual members of the class under the methods of 42 CFR part 82 specifying, for each class defined in the report, whether NIOSH finds that it is feasible to estimate the radiation doses of members of the class with sufficient accuracy, and a description of the evaluation methods and information upon which these findings are based; and * * * * * (e) The NIOSH report under paragraph (d) of this section shall be completed within 180 calendar days of the receipt of the petition by NIOSH. The procedure for computing this time period is specified in Sec. 83.5(c). In addition, the computing of 180 calendar days shall not include any days during which the petitioner may be revising the petition to remedy deficiencies identified by NIOSH under Sec. 83.11(a) or (b), nor shall it include any days during which the petitioner may request a review of a proposed finding under Sec. 83.11(c) or during the conduct of such a review under Sec. 83.11(d). Dated: March 16, 2007. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services. Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the Federal Register on July 3, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-13233 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: EPA Investigating Waste at Camp Lejeune Tuesday July 10, 2007 10:46 PM By ESTES THOMPSON Associated Press Writer RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - The Environmental Protection Agency is investigating whether cancer-causing radioactive material was buried in the 1980s near a rifle range at Camp Lejeune, the Marine Corps' primary base on the Atlantic Ocean. A recently recovered Navy document dated 1981 said the material included 160 pounds of soil and two animal carcasses laced with strontium-90, an isotope that causes cancer and leukemia. ``We are looking into this information to determine if we need to sample and where,'' said Dawn Harris-Young, a spokeswoman for the EPA's regional office in Atlanta. ``It's really early.'' The document said the dirt, carcasses and other materials containing strontium-90 originated at a naval research lab near the base and were buried in a remote area. According to the paperwork, the waste was later recovered, ``safely stored'' and was awaiting shipment to an approved disposal site in South Carolina. But base spokesman 2nd Lt. Craig Thomas said that because of record keeping practices in the early 1980s, the Marine Corps can't find any proof the material was shipped to South Carolina. The Marines informed the EPA of the past contamination while discussing the possible construction of a building nearby, Thomas said, adding that recent testing found there are ``no harmful materials'' at the site. ``I guarantee you the waste material from that lab is sitting over there'' at the range, said Jerry Ensminger, a former Marine master sergeant who found the 1981 document while researching the base's history of contaminated water. He also recalled seeing a sign warning of hazardous waste while hunting near the rifle range in 1986. Ensminger came across the Navy document, as well as others referring to ``radiation pools,'' while seeking information on chemical contamination of water wells at the base. He said he also found a water-testing report from 1984 that showed radioactivity levels of more than twice the allowed amounts. Over three decades, tens of thousands of Marines at Camp Lejeune and their families drank and bathed in water contaminated with as many as 40 times more toxins than permitted by safety standards. The wells had been contaminated with industrial solvents and were shut off in the mid-1980s. The base's water now meets federal standards. At least 850 former residents of the base have filed claims against the military, seeking nearly $4 billion, for exposure to the tainted water. Ensminger, 55, served in the Marine Corps for 24 years, living for part of that time at Camp Lejeune. His 9-year-old daughter, Janey, died of cancer in 1985. Today, he is a member of the Restoration Advisory Board, a panel of military and civilian representatives formed in 1996 to discuss the water contamination issues. He said he planned to bring up the radioactivity report at a quarterly board meeting scheduled for Tuesday night. --- On the Net: Camp Lejeune: http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil EPA: http://www.epa.gov/ Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Scientists sacked from decommissioning project David Hencke, Westminster Correspondent Tuesday July 10, 2007 Fifty newly-recruited scientists and engineers in charge of the government's nuclear decommissioning programme in Harwell and Winfrith are to be sacked by Christmas, with another 150 facing redundancy next June. Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, said that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has a budget of Ł60m for the next financial year — nearly half that allocated for 2006 — resulting in 200 job losses and a big delay in the programme, which includes the creation of science parks at both sites. Prospect, the union representing the scientists, condemned the move. David Luxton, Prospect's national secretary, said scientists affected by the cuts were furious about the decision, since many had left private companies expecting to spend six to 10 years on the decommissioning project. "This is a false economy because the effect will be to put back the whole decommissioning programme, and delay the opening of new science parks for up to 10 years," he said. Mr Wicks indicated in a letter to the Tory leader, David Cameron, that an attempt will be made to try to get more resources during further talks with the Treasury — but "the NDA can only confirm funding at the lower level (Ł60m)". He admitted this will have an impact on the handover of the Harwell site for a privately funded science park. Mr Cameron described the response as "very depressing". He has alerted his frontbench team to challenge the government. He said the slowdown in the decommissioning programme will delay the creation of a science park at Harwell from 2014 to 2030. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has been forced to make the cuts because it was relying on profits from the now abandoned Thorp reprocessing plant in Sellafield to help fund decommissioning. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 21 USATODAY.com: Boom times for uranium mines? - By William M. Welch, USA TODAY GRANTS, N.M. ? Like a lonely Maytag repairman, Joe Lister has spent the past 16 years keeping quiet watch over a half-mile hole in the ground on an extinct volcano outside town. Lately, though, his phone has been ringing. A lot. The Mount Taylor mine where Lister is manager and caretaker sits on of one of the nation's largest reserves of uranium. And with a uranium renaissance at hand, old-timers who once worked the mines are checking in from all over, eager to pick up helmets and picks that lay untouched for decades. "They call me from jail, home, the bar and say, 'Joe, when's the mine opening? Have you got a job for me?' " says Lister. Soon, he hopes — a hope shared by a generation of old mining hands. Grants and other towns west of Albuquerque recall the yellow ore not as fuel for nuclear plants and atomic bombs but for its conversion to cash. "It was big money," says Frank Emerson, who arrived in New Mexico from Montana half a century ago looking for a job in the mines. He expected "I'd be here long enough to get a stake," and never left. Miners drew a wage and also were paid bonuses tied to production. Even in the '50s, some could make $80,000 a year — and spend it. "People went through their money like water," says former miner Cecil Brown. "We had 21 bars here at one time, and 21 service stations and one street," says 85-year-old Ralph McQueary, who owned two of those gas stations. Emerson says he "made money like a yo-yo, up and down," before he ran for municipal judge and won. Now retired, he and a lot of men who went through boom and bust in this dusty town, encircled by mesas and cut through by Route 66, smell good times again. This time, it is the exploding price of uranium ore. Trading at $7 a pound in 2001, "yellowcake," as it is called, hit $120 a pound in May. By the end of June it raked in as much as $138 a pound on the spot market. The surging price has lured more than two dozen companies with mining expertise to the high-desert uranium fields here in just the past year or so, says John Indall, a Santa Fe lawyer for the Uranium Producers of America. The companies are reviving old claims, searching filing cabinets for forgotten geological maps and hiring old-timers who know the land. "We have seen a kind of gold rush," says William von Till, chief of the Uranium Recovery Branch at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in Washington. Von Till says prices are propelled by a belief among energy markets that nuclear power is poised for a revival. The NRC expects orders for as many as 28 new reactors over the next two years, and scores more are planned worldwide over the next decade, says Larry Camper, director of the division of waste management and environmental protection at the agency. Why the comeback? Increasing demand for energy in developed and underdeveloped nations, coupled with worries that coal- and oil-fired power plants may contribute to global warming. Nuclear power produces zero greenhouse gases, and the USA has a massive supply of uranium. Uranium rose as an industry in the West in the post-World War II atomic age. But production withered to almost nothing by the mid-1980s after nuclear accident scares at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union shook public faith in nuclear power. Uranium is found widely, but New Mexico is the mother lode. Indall estimates that 600 million pounds of uranium lie under New Mexico's sandy soil. And the energy produced by a pellet of uranium the size of a fingertip is equal to that produced by nearly a ton of coal, Lister says. Yet not everyone is hankering for a uranium boom. Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley signed a tribal law two years ago banning mining on Navajo lands, which cover much of rural New Mexico. He says the last boom left behind radiation, pollution and disease. "I believe the powers that be committed genocide on Navajo land by allowing uranium mining," he said. Not all Navajos agree. In Crownpoint, a small town along a mesa that is part of the Navajo Nation, resident Ben House says many Navajo landowners need the money uranium can bring. He is working for one of the companies, HRI Energy of Lewisville, Texas, pursuing claims. "Right now the economy is very bad in Crownpoint. We don't even have a café," he says. Grants once counted 18,000 residents, but when mining left so did the people. The population is now 8,000. The town brought in jobs, in part, by bringing in prisons. There are now three prisons here, one federal and two state — one of them for women. Uranium is what brought people to Grants and to many small towns around this southernmost tip of the Rockies. And uranium is what ran it down. Reminders of the boom-gone-bust are all around Grants. A shuttered restaurant bears the sign "Uranium Café." Old drilling equipment sits on display outside a mining museum. Trucks at a dry desert patch, unfittingly named Ambrosia Lake, work to entomb a massive pile of sandstone, also known as tailings, left behind by a once-thriving uranium operation. Kelly Cregger, 78, moved here from Wytheville, Va. — and from West Virginia's coal mines. Eventually, he got mad at a local judge and ran against him. They tied, and the winner was decided by pulling names from a hat. Cregger won, becoming a judge like his friend Emerson. He didn't have a law degree, but he now had a regular paycheck. He could hardly believe it. "My folks back there in Virginia couldn't hardly believe it, either," Cregger says. Salvador Chavez took a mining job in 1969. When uranium played out, he went to work for the state highway department, but kept collecting geological maps drawn up by the old mining companies showing where the uranium lay. A few months ago, HRI and a Japanese partner hired Chavez for his experience, and his maps. Today, he drives a new luxury Lincoln pickup with the license plate "U308" — the chemical symbol for yellowcake. Like the old days, uranium is roping them in again from all over. "My love is underground," says Rick Van Horn, a Texas miner who arrived in town in January. "There is nothing like it. You always know what the weather will be like." Joe Lister, manager since 1991 of the idle Mount Taylor mine that sits atop of one of the largest known uranium deposits in North America, looks forward to kicking a new era into high gear. Conversation guidelines: USA TODAY welcomes your thoughts, stories and information related to this article. Please stay on topic and be respectful of others. Keep the conversation appropriate for interested readers across the map. Copyright 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 22 HeraldTribune.com: Panel says state should examine nuclear fuel BY DAVID ROYSE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS TALLAHASSEE -- Florida should consider building more nuclear power plants and even contemplate constructing a facility that would recycle nuclear waste into usable fuel, a panel examining the state's energy future says. The committee will likely recommend that nuclear be a big part of that future, in light of concerns about coal contributing to global warming. Volatile spikes in the price of natural gas and concerns about carbon emissions from coal plants are driving a renewed interest in nuclear power across the nation, and Florida should also be moving in that direction, several members of the Florida Energy Commission said Monday. One of the obstacles to building more nuclear power plants is the question of what to do with the spent fuel. Currently, much of that waste is set to eventually be taken to the national Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada, but it will not hold it all. There is also opposition to storing it there that may pose problems for that plan. Last year, the Bush administration proposed reviving nuclear fuel reprocessing. Recycling used fuel, which contains 90 percent of its original energy after one use, can reduce waste. "Do we want to put (the waste) into salt mines for eternity or do we want to make use of it as a fuel?" said J. Sam Bell, chairman of the Florida Energy Commission's advisory committee on energy supply. The panel will recommend changes to the commission, which in turn will make suggestions to the Legislature. The United States stopped reprocessing nuclear waste in the 1970s because that also produces a plutonium that is nearer to weapons grade, raising fears that reprocessing could increase the risks of nuclear terrorism or proliferation of nuclear weapons. Several members of the panel said knowledge about the reprocessing technology is lacking, so it needs to be studied more before committing Florida to taking a leading role. Along with security concerns, some environmental and other groups have questioned whether reprocessing is a legitimate answer, noting that it is expensive and still leaves waste that must be disposed of. Safety, security and what to do with the waste are not the only obstacle to more nuclear plants -- there is also the huge capital cost. The last new nuclear plant in the United States, opened in 1996 in Tennessee after 22 years of construction, cost $7 billion. The panel's discussions also included whether state policy should embrace coal as another option for the state's electric power generating future, a touchy subject because of global warming. Electric industry officials say new technology makes coal much cleaner. Last modified: July 10. 2007 4:29AM Serving the Herald-Tribune newspaper and SNN Channel 6 © Sarasota Herald-Tribune. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Member ***************************************************************** 23 Daily News Journal: Landfill radiation dumping holds minuscule risk www.dnj.com - To the editor, I am very concerned about the way information on the landfill dumping of low level radiation contamination has been handled in the media. The reporting that I hear appears to be more intent on publishing the anti-nuclear viewpoint than seeking the true impact of such dumping. This helps to flame the fires of misinformed hysteria against the sensible use of nuclear materials. I decry the lack of scientific investigative reporting on this matter. As an engineer and scientist, I have worked in the nuclear industry the major portion of my professional career (the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Westinghouse Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, designer of U.S. Nuclear Navy reactors). Being familiar with the use of nuclear material makes me very perturbed at the mismanagement of this news. All I see in this story as it is presented is either a lack of ability to understand scientific processes or a lack of desire to understand. It only took me five minutes on the Internet (Google, radiation exposure) to find the following information about the radiation exposure that an average American receives each year from the environment. This information is available on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Web site where any individual can calculate their own estimated radiation exposure. The total annual exposure for an average American from all sources is 369 mrem (millirem). As an engineer and scientist, I have worked in the nuclear industry the major portion of my professional career (the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Westinghouse Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, designer of U.S. Nuclear Navy reactors). Being familiar with the use of nuclear material makes me very perturbed at the mismanagement of this news. All I see in this story as it is presented is either a lack of ability to understand scientific processes or a lack of desire to understand. It only took me five minutes on the Internet (Google, radiation exposure) to find the following information about the radiation exposure that an average American receives each year from the environment. This information is available on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Web site where any individual can calculate their own estimated radiation exposure. The total annual exposure for an average American from all sources is 369 mrem (millirem). Following are some of the typical sources for the average annual radiation we receive: exposure from cosmic radiation at sea level, 26 mrem (Add 2 mrem for each 1000 feet elevation). Exposure from terrestrial sources (The ground on which we live and work), 46 mrem (90 mrem, if you live in on the Colorado Plateau). Food and water, 40 mrem. The air we breathe, 200 mrem. Each 1,000 miles traveled by jet, 1 mrem (Think about the airline personnel who fly every day). Watching TV, 1 mrem. Using a computer regularly, 0.1 mrem. Each medical X-ray, 40 mrem. If you live within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor, 0.009 mrem. If you live within 50 miles of a coal-fired power plant, 0.03 mrem (Surprise! There is trace uranium in coal that comes out the smoke stack, 30 times more radiation than from a nuclear reactor plant). The laws and regulations that are in place, when duly enforced, will permit no more than 1 mrem per year exposure to those living in the environs of the landfill. This is no more exposure than what the average person receives from watching TV during the year. I am not opposed to having additional testing done to ensure the public safety. But, let's keep this in proper perspective. What one would receive from the landfill is minuscule compared to what we receive on a regular basis from our environment. Roy A. Nance ====================================================================== "This may not have been such a horrible issue had our landfill not BEEN PLACED RIGHT BESIDE A RIVER - OUR WATER SUPPLY! " Someone finally gets it!!! The DUMP should never have been built on the bank of the Stones River which flows into Percy Priest Lake--our water supply. The point: CLOSE THE DUMP it is too close to the water supply. Whether they dump radioactive waste or whatever--close it down. I do not want to hear about liners and etc. Who was paid off when it was built on the river bank?? Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:12 pm http://www.wsmv.com/news/13620876/detail.html?taf=nash Everyone should review this link to Channel 4's report on the high levels of radioactivity found in the leachate sampling at Middle Point. A Univ. of CA professor found our levels to be "alarming"! That's a prof. in CA, not here! I wouldn't think he would have any reason for bias. Would you? One thing the author of this letter does not address is the radiation emitted from different types of nuclear ions - thorium for example. OR the radiation emitted from spent nuclear ion exchange pellets. We all know that humans are exposed to radiation every day. That is common sense and I don't think anyone is trying to say otherwise. I don't appreciate TDEC and it's officials trying to "dumb down" the information and make it seem so simplistic - because it is not!! Different types of radiation can penetrate different types of materials. For example, wearing a lead apron for x-rays. If it's so safe, why wear the apron? The lead is supposed to shield the body from unnecessary exposure. Same issue when trucks bring the trash into Middle Point. The so called geiger counter at the entrance is supposed to detect loads with excessive radioactivity. What about the metal walls of the trucks? What about radioactivity being shielded by lead/metal debris? Probably an inaccurate reading - and that is if the geiger counter at the entrance is calibrated and properly maintained and functioning! Who checks it? How often? Again, why do we receive the waste that California, Washington and Michigan do not want? Hmmmm. There is something going on here and the public must be educated. There are so many questions to be answered and the public must be educated on this issue. Does anyone realize that the intake for our water supply is just a hop, skip, jump down from the landfill? DOES ANYONE KNOW THAT THE LAST LEACHATE TESTING FROM THE LANDFILL CAME BACK EXCESSIVELY HIGH? This may not have been such a horrible issue had our landfill not BEEN PLACED RIGHT BESIDE A RIVER - OUR WATER SUPPLY! If the water comes back with good results today, so what? It's not necessarily this moment that we should be concerned about. It's WHEN the landfill leaks and the poisonous leachate gets in our water. Landfill liners have an expected usage limit of 30 years. Our landfill is over 20 years old already. What about when our liner begins/further deteriorates? Why doesn't the general population of Murfreesboro seem to give a hoot about this issue? Would someone please answer that question? Does everyone think that TDEC or some governing body is going to always do what is in our best interests? We, the people, must stand up for our community and our environment. ***gets down off soapbox. bonita Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:57 pm The above reply is the BEST worded response I've heard YET on the landfill issue. Great job on this! The cover-up was the crust of this issue......Nancy Allen signing the contract in 1995.....no one informed further when the poisonous materials were dumped at Middle Point. If this letter to the editor comes from a scientist, why did a second scientist state in Sunday's paper that this is a HUGE issue that will have longlasting ramifications? The situation is tragic and there needs to be legislative hearings. Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:30 am Had the public been informed at the beginning when this contract to accept radiological material along with the safeguards to be implemented and the assurance of continual testing, we would not have this problem today. IT WAS THE COVERUP and lack of honesty by governmental entities that caused this problem. Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:09 am Copyright ©2007 The Daily News Journal. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 Star Phoenix: Cameco workers at Ontario facility ink new contract Murray Lyons, The StarPhoenix Published: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Cameco's hourly workers at its uranium conversion facility in Port Hope, Ont., ratified a new three-year contract late last week, with an 89 per cent vote of approval by about 250 members of a United Steelworkers Union local. The agreement provides wage increases of four per cent in the first two years and 4.75 per cent in the third year. The previous contract expired on June 30 of this year. According to a press release from the Steelworkers, the union membership will also receive two $1,200 cash signing bonuses, one immediately and one in the third year of the agreement. A separate Steelworkers local, representing 23 security workers at the facility, also ratified a new contract. A Cameco spokesperson says the first year of the contract should result in hourly wages ranging from $22.57 to $30.94, depending on the position. "We are pleased that these contract negotiations have successfully concluded," stated Jerry Grandey, president and CEO of Cameco. "These agreements will allow us to focus on developing and delivering quality products and services to our customers and developing new opportunities within the nuclear fuel cycle." According to the union, members of both locals gained improvements to maternity leave benefits, shift premiums, statutory holidays, severance pay, early retirement provisions and compassionate care leave. The Port Hope conversion facility is the first step toward making nuclear fuel after uranium oxide or yellowcake is extracted from Cameco's Saskatchewan mines. The Port Hope facility produces uranium dioxide that is processed further into the natural uranium fuel used in Canadian-designed Candu reactors, which use heavy water as a moderator. Zircatec Precision Industries Inc., another Cameco subsidiary which was bought by the company more than a year ago, is also located in Port Hope. That division assembles the fuel bundles for Candu reactors. Earlier last week, Cameco came to an agreement with the 120 unionized members at Zircatec, represented by a separate United Steelworkers local. That agreement, the first negotiated under Cameco's ownership of Zircatec, resulted in a two-year contract with wage increases of four per cent in each year. The Port Hope conversion facility also produces uranium hexafluoride, which is sent to enrichment facilities for the making of fuel rods that are used in light water reactors, the more common type of reactor around the world. mlyons@sp.canwest.com © The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2007 © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks ***************************************************************** 25 times and star: Nuke waste plant setback Published on 10/07/2007 A NUCLEAR decontamination site planned for Lillyhall, Workington, has been recommended for refusal by Allerdale council. Studsvik UK wants to recycle low-level radioactive items at Joseph Noble Road. The plans have caused uproar from local businessmen and nearby residents of the industrial estate, who say it will be detrimental to the area. Cumbria County Council will make the final decision on the plans, but Allerdale’s development panel has been consulted and voted against the proposal this morning. Council policy is against salvage operations in “prestige industrial estates except under exceptional circumstances.” Buildings which need licensing under the nuclear, explosive and hazardous substances acts are also recommended, in Allerdale’s policy, to be refused except in exceptional cases. County councilors decided that the building proposed would have to be licensed under all of the acts. Councillor Peter Bales said the plan was seriously flawed. He added: “We have a cheese factory proposed within metres of this proposal and it is stupid to approve this if there is any chance, even small, of contamination.” Coun Ivor Humes said the site would be better placed nearer to Sellafield. The final decision will be made by the county council. ***************************************************************** 26 DOE: Second Major U.S. Climate Change Science Program Report Issued July 10, 2007 Report Evaluates the Emissions, Energy, and Economic Implications of Stabilizing Greenhouse Gas Concentrations WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) today announced the release of the second in a series of 21 Synthesis and Assessment (S&A) reports. Coordinated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), this S&A 2.1 report is titled “Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations, and Review of Integrated Scenario Development and Application,” and provides a new long-term, global reference for greenhouse gas stabilization scenarios and an evaluation of the process by which scenarios are developed and used. CCSP was established by President Bush in 2002 to integrate federal research on global environmental change at 13 federal agencies, and to provide the nation with science-based knowledge to manage the risks and opportunities of change in the climate and related environmental systems. This report is presented in two parts. Part A, “Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations,” uses computer-based scenarios to evaluate four alternative stabilization levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the implications to energy and the economy for achieving each level. Although these scenarios should not be considered definitive predictions of future events, they provide valuable insights for decision-makers. Part B, “Global-Change Scenarios: Their Development and Use,” examines how scenarios have been developed and used in global climate change applications, evaluates the effectiveness of current scenarios, and recommends ways to make future scenarios more useful. The three integrated assessment models that were used in Part A included: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Integrated Global Systems Model; Electric Power Research Institute’s Model for Evaluating the Regional and Global Effects of Greenhouse Gases; and the DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s integrated assessment model, MiniCAM. “All three models agree that widespread deployment of new energy technologies will be essential to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions on an appreciable scale,” John Houghton, DOE’s Office of Science Program Manager and Lead Coordinator for CCSP 2.1 Report said. “Achieving the transformational breakthroughs needed to develop these new energy technologies and make them economically viable is a key objective of DOE-sponsored science and technology programs.” This report uses a reference case and four scenarios that evaluate the implications of stabilizing greenhouse gases. The reference case assumes that no new measures are instituted to limit emissions. In the four stabilization scenarios, global greenhouse gas concentrations are limited in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million (ppm), 550 ppm, 650ppm and 750ppm. The report shows that stabilizing the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most important greenhouse gas released by human activities, requires global emissions to peak in the 21st century and then decline indefinitely thereafter for all four stabilization levels. Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane and nitrous oxide, played an important role in each level. Under all the stabilization scenarios, the technology and economic development paths for the U.S. and global energy systems were dramatically different from the reference case. The scenarios assume widespread development and deployment of alternatives to fossil fuels over the next century, including nuclear energy, biomass, and advanced carbon sequestration technology for coal use. The report also shows a range of economic effects for a given stabilization level due to variations in key assumptions, such as the availability of energy technologies and the magnitude of the emissions cuts needed, particularly in the post-2050 years. Part A goes beyond previous scenario development by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others, which modeled stabilization for carbon dioxide. Part A includes stabilization scenarios for the six primary anthropogenic greenhouse gases - CO2, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride – and it used updated economic and technological data and new tools for scenario development. However, the report highlights that the outcomes, estimated over a 100-year period, reflect simplified assumptions about economic, societal, and political behavior, including a presumption of perfect economic efficiency and policy agreement among nations. “It is important,” write the authors, “to view these results as scenarios under specified conditions, not as predictions or best-judgment forecasts of the most likely outcome within the national and international political system.” Part B of the report concludes that scenarios can support decision-making by providing insights regarding key uncertainties, including future emissions and climate as well as other environmental and economic conditions. The report argues that useful scenarios require a blend of scientific knowledge with judgment and speculation, and that improving scenario practice does not require avoiding speculation, but making it more disciplined and transparent. The report recognizes that different types of decisions–e.g., those related to climate impacts and adaptation, emissions mitigation policy, or private-sector energy resource and technology development—are informed by scenarios in different ways. To support diverse climate-related decisions, the authors advocate greater transparency about the assumptions and reasoning underlying scenarios, including more explicit statements of developers' probability judgments, and they recommend an expanded capacity to commission, disseminate, document, and evaluate scenarios and related decision-support tools. “I applaud the efforts of DOE and the authors of this excellent assessment,” said Acting Director of the CCSP Dr. William J. Brennan. “With the development of each S&A report, CCSP’s focused efforts are making true breakthroughs in answering and addressing how our planet’s climate is changing. The authors of 2.1 have incorporated advances made in economics and natural sciences to update emission scenarios – the first time since IPCC’s Third Assessment five years ago. This alone is a huge benefit to the scientific community, and the results deserve close analysis by policy makers.” The authors of CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1, Part A, “Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations,” include Leon E. Clarke, DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; James A. Edmonds, DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Henry D. Jacoby, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Hugh M. Pitcher, DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; John M. Reilly, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Richard G. Richels, Electric Power Research Institute. The authors of CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1, Part B, “Global Change Scenarios: Their Development and Use,” include Edward A. Parson, University of Michigan; Virginia R. Burkett, U.S. Geological Survey; Karen Fisher-Vanden, Dartmouth College; David W. Keith, University of Calgary; Linda O. Mearns, National Center for Atmospheric Research; Hugh M. Pitcher, DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Cynthia E. Rosenzweig, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; and Mort D. Webster, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Publication of today’s report follows the first CCSP S&A report announced last May by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Federal agencies plan to deliver the remaining 19 products over the course of the next year to increase scientific understanding related to climate change. DOE will coordinate two of the remaining 19 CCSP reports. Read this report and find more information on the CCSP. Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 27 Times-News: INL to conduct explosives test in E. Idaho desert Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID Last modified on Monday, July 9, 2007 6:45 PM MDT By JOHN MILLER BOISE, Idaho - Bomb experts at the Idaho National Laboratory will detonate explosive blasts sometime this week in a remote sage-and-grass corner of the 890-square-mile atomic research reservation in a new program aimed at helping design buildings better able to withstand terror attacks. U.S. Department of Energy engineers will be testing the effects of thousands of pounds of vehicle-borne explosives on buildings, protective barriers and materials. Only one test will be conducted this week, INL spokesman Ethan Huffman said. Ensuing tests would occur weekly and monthly. While explosives tests at other U.S. sites, including the Nevada Test Site near Las Vegas, are geared to improving weapons systems, these tests at INL are aimed at making safer buildings, bridges and tunnels. Since 1949, 52 nuclear reactors have been built at the INL; this week's planned explosions are part of the installation's changing mission following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. For three years, the Energy Department has planned research here to probe the effects of car bombs and other explosions on sensitive facilities and security systems. "Architects, structural engineers, designers will be able to take information we've gained off these tests and design a safer building," Huffman said Monday. "This is purely defensive research." After the Energy Department released a draft environmental assessment in December, about a dozen groups or individuals submitted public comments on the proposal. For instance, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, whose traditional lands extend beyond the nearby Fort Hall Reservation and include the compound, raised concerns about wildlife habitat, as well as potential damage to cultural resources in the east Idaho desert. The Nature Conservancy noted that two rare species, the leopard lizard and whipsnake, live at the proposed location, which is also close to an active sage grouse mating area and a nesting site for ferruginous hawks. Now that the INL is set to go ahead, Nature Conservancy officials said they're working with INL contractors who oversee the site's ecology to try to reduce possible negative impacts. "They did a pretty good job of designing it so it has a real specific impact," said Marilyn Manguba, the Nature Conservancy's protections specialist for Idaho and a former INL contract worker who helped draft her group's response to the DOE's explosives plan. "They've set it up so that it will have a specific direction that the explosions go. They'll be able to contain it." Only conventional explosives including TNT, dynamite and ammonium nitrate fertilizer will be tested at the site. High-speed cameras and audio sensors will be used to monitor the effects of the aboveground explosions. This week's explosion will be less than the equivalent of 15,000 pounds of TNT explosives, though Huffman declined to give specifics. Huffman also wouldn't say just when the explosives would be detonated, for security reasons, he said. The site can accommodate blasts of as much as 20,000 pounds, or three times the force of the bomb that destroyed the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. In the future, the INL plans to make media announcements in advance whenever tests exceed 3,000 pounds of TNT equivalent. Officials say the test range is located 7 miles from a public access road. The nearest occupied public building is 13 miles away. Huffman said residents of Idaho Falls, located about 60 miles to the east, wouldn't notice the blast. The test site is on an undisturbed area _ to avoid kicking up any contaminated radioactive dust from more than a half-century of atomic work here. "It's a site that hasn't been touched by previous research activities," Huffman said. Eventually, other government agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and bomb squad units of local police forces may use the site to test explosives, he added. A service of the Associated Press(AP) Copyright © 2006, Lee Publications Inc. Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of The Times-News, published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St., Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises. ***************************************************************** 28 Knoxville News Sentinel: Wamp touts Y-12 success, sounds warning By Frank Munger (Contact) Originally published 01:52 p.m., July 10, 2007 Updated 01:52 p.m., July 10, 2007 J. Miles Cary Congressman Zach Wamp was the keynote speaker at a ribbon cutting ceremony for the newly constructed Jack Case Center and New Hope Center at the Y-12 Nuclear Security complex Tuesday. OAK RIDGE — Calling it a first step toward modernization of the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., today hailed the ahead-of-time, under-budget completion of two privately financed facilities. “This is a big, big day,” the congressman said at the dedication of the New Hope Center, the plant’s new visitor center, and the Jack Case Center, an enormous office facility that will house about a third of the Y-12 work force. Wamp compared the two Oak Ridge facilities, which total 550,000 square feet and cost about $150 million to build, to the new visitors center at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. — a project of similar size and scope, but still uncompleted after six years of work and a taxpayer investment of nearly $600 million. The comparison underscores the difference between innovation in private industry and the sluggish process often associated with government projects, he said. Tom D’Agostino, the deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the federal agency plans to apply the Oak Ridge model to other sites in the nuclear weapons complex. “I really want to copycat what you’ve done here,” said D’Agostino, the nominee to become administrator of the NNSA, a semi-independent part of the U.S. Department of Energy that runs the weapons program. Lawler-Wood of Knoxville was developer of the successful Oak Ridge project and will lease the two facilities to BWXT Y-12, the contractor that manages Y-12 for federal government. Turner Universal was the construction chief for New Hope and Jack Case. While praising the cost control and tight schedule on the privately financed facilities, Wamp acknowledged the price tag for federal projects at Y-12 has escalated. The Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility is now projected to cost about $549 million, more than double the original estimate. Construction of the high-security storage facility, which will house the nation’s stockpile of weapons-grade uranium, is about 60 percent complete. The cost of the Uranium Processing Facility, a proposed facility that is supposed to replace the plant’s main production center, is now expected to cost about $2 billion — double the initial estimate — and construction has not yet begun. The rising costs have been mostly blamed on security changes needed to meet the evolving threat of terrorism. In an interview before today’s ceremony, Wamp was asked if federal agencies are using national security and homeland security as an excuse to spend carte blanche. “I’m constantly asking the question you just asked,” he said. “You can’t just spend regardless of cost. You have to weigh it and balance it.” Wamp said he believes the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility, after earlier problems, is now under control, “on track and responsibly managed.” He said the Uranium Processing Facility is only going to be built if the HEUMF is successfully completed. The congressman said there may be other, more creative ways to procure these federal projects, even a high-security facility such as the UPF — where Y-12 would process uranium and build warhead parts. The new facilities are Y-12 are critical to the nation’s security, Wamp said, but he added: “We have to make sure that it’s not a bottomless pit … You can’t just go haywire. There’s got to be some cost control and containment,” he said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 29 Hemscott: Nuclear weapons plant gets new offices OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (AP) - The Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, much of it dating to its top-secret birth in World War II, took a leap into the 21st century Tuesday with the dedication of two new privately financed buildings. The buildings, totaling more than 500,000 square feet, will provide office space for 1,400 of the plant's 7,633 employees, replace 50 older structures that will be torn down and house the high-security plant's first public visitor center. 'This totally changes the face of the Y-12 National Security Complex,' said U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. Y-12 makes uranium parts for every warhead in the U.S. nuclear arsenal and is the nation's prime storehouse for bomb-grade uranium. Knoxville developers Lawler Wood LLC provided more than $150 million in capital for the buildings, which were completed in 18 months and under budget by private contractors and will be leased to the government. At the end of the 20-year lease, the government will own the buildings. Tom D'Agostino, deputy director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of Energy unit that oversees nuclear weapons, said the Y-12 revival could be a model for the seven other sites in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Copyright 2007 Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************