***************************************************************** 07/28/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.173 ***************************************************************** 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 Korea Herald: [ANN]Australia to sign Asean non-aggression treaty 2 Guardian Unlimited: Tehran accuses US of nuclear double standard 3 Reuters: U.S. warns Iran against violating nuclear deal 4 [NYTr] More Hope than Progress in Korea Nuke Talks 5 IPS-English U.S.-NORTH KOREA: Significantly far apart on nuke 6 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., N. Korean Envoys Hold Third Meeting 7 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Rules Out Bilateral N. Korea Talks 8 Guardian Unlimited: US: climate deal complements Kyoto 9 Korea Herald: Six-party talks move to crucial phase 10 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Nuke Talk Success Depends on U.S.: Kim Da 11 AFP: US ready for long-haul on Korean nuclear talks - Rice - 12 Japan Times: Japan gets to nuke issue after North issues denial 13 Reuters: CHRONOLOGY-Six-country talks on N.Korea nuclear programmes 14 Reuters: FACTBOX-Issues at six-country talks on nuclear-free N.Korea 15 Reuters: N.Korea may have no nuclear bombs at all--Interfax 16 Reuters: North, South Korea ministers meet on nuclear issue 17 Reuters: N.Korea talks to stretch to day four, gulf remains 18 Reuters: N.Korea, U.S. to continue talking - China 19 Interfax China: N. Korea has nuclear bomb components, but no weapons 20 US: Las Vegas SUN: House RollCall Energy 21 US: Las Vegas SUN: Highlights of the Energy Bill 22 US: Deseret News: Energy woes not going away 23 US: Las Vegas RJ: Geothermal projectswould aid counties 24 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Energy bill falls short 25 US: San Francisco Chronicle: An inefficient energy policy 26 US: Waxman: $1.5 Billion Waxman letter: Giveaway Secretly Slipped in 27 US: Las Vegas SUN: House Approves Massive Energy Bill 28 UN Atomic Watchdog Calls For Global Cooperation On All Nuclear Issue 29 Moscow Times: Russia to Scrap Rusting Arsenal 30 Daily Yomiuri: Pugwash confab issues antinuke declaration NUCLEAR REACTORS 31 [NYTr] Kinshasa: Even Nuclear Reactor Was Looted 32 Moscow Times: Kiev Rewriting Rules on Energy 33 US: Brattleboro Reformer: NRC clarifies 'catastrophic failure' at Ya 34 CANOE Canada: N.B. government supports aging nuclear reactor 35 RIA Novosti: Russia, China to start building floating nuclear plant 36 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting on Emergency Preparedness for Nu 37 US: Concord Monitor: Lynch chides nuclear plant over shutdown 38 US: NRC: NRC Announces Availability of License Renewal Application f 39 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Davis-Besse Nuclear 40 US: Reuters: Entergy Vermont Yankee nuke starts to exit outage 41 US: Reuters: Constellation takes N.Y. Ginna nuke offline 42 US: Newsday: After 2 failures, Indian Point emergency sirens to get 43 CBC New Brunswick: Lord to make decision on Lepreau Friday NUCLEAR SECURITY 44 US: Guardian Unlimited: Homeland Security Lists Toxic Threats 45 Whitehaven News: Security beefed up at Sellafield NUCLEAR SAFETY 46 US: ABQJOURNAL: Los Alamos Worker Exposed To Radiological Contaminat 47 US: Herald Tribune: A long and painful road 48 US: NRC: In the Matter of David H. Hawes; Establishment of Atomic Sa 49 US: NRC: Announcement of a Public Meeting To Discuss Selected Topics 50 US: Yuma Sun: Uranium in river water raises crop questions NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 51 US: No Dumping Nuclear Waste on Native Lands 52 AU ABC: Katherine split over nuclear dump site 53 Las Vegas RJ: Yucca Mountain Project management defended 54 Las Vegas SUN: Survey: 62 percent have unfavorable view of Yucca 55 US: PE.com: Tougher limit urged on rocket fuel in water 56 AFP: US admits problems in persuading North Korea to dump nuclear PEACE 57 StatesmanJournal.com: Shadows remind people of nuclear-bomb damage US DEPT. OF ENERGY 58 AP Wire: SRS layoffs hit some longtime employees hard 59 Tri-City Herald: DOE finds funds to close 70 unused Hanford wells 60 kgw.com: Supreme Court rules I-297 can stand even if part is 61 lamonitor.com: Report deals with LANL's impact on health 62 Colorado Daily: Udall offers new 'Flats mineral rights proposal 63 DOE: Office of Science; Notice of Renewal of the Fusion Energy 64 Times-News: Plutonium draws fire from residents 65 Las Vegas SUN: Scientists conduct powerful experiment at Nevada ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Korea Herald: [ANN]Australia to sign Asean non-aggression treaty A great Australian barrier will fall Thursday when Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer commits his country to a non-aggression pact with the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean). At an ongoing Asean meeting, he will initial a declaration of intent to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. That stroke of the pen will mean that Australia promises never to invade a South-East Asian nation. The treaty primarily prevents the 10 Asean nations and their partners from launching attacks on one another's territory. As important, Australia's decision will bring it aboard the East Asia Summit - an Asean-led grouping which will meet for the first time in Kuala Lumpur in December. That makes Australia, along with New Zealand and India, one of three countries not traditionally considered part of East Asia to be invited to the summit. Downer called the development a historic step forward and one of Australia's most important diplomatic victories in years. The debate about pre-emption is hypothetical, he said. "If the suggestion here is are we planning to invade our neighbours, that is a preposterous proposition," Downer told reporters here Wednesday. "If there were to be an attack planned by some terrorist group in one of our neighbouring countries, we'd obviously expect that country to deal with that attack and make sure that it didn't take place," he said on Australian television before landing in Laos. "Short of there being some kind of completely unexpected and radical revolution in some country, which I'm sure isn't going to happen... I don't think this debate really means very much." Downer also said Asean foreign ministers were "absolutely delighted" when he told them Australia would sign the treaty. "They know that we've had these reservations and the fact that we're to sign it, they're very pleased about it and for them the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation is an important piece of architecture in the region and we respect that," he said. Australia had ascertained the treaty would not infringe its right to self-defence under the United Nations charter, he said. Australia's leap of faith results at least in part from the fact that Asean insisted upon it as a precondition to joining the East Asia Summit. "We've come to the conclusion that the best thing for Australia's long-term interests is to be a key player in the East Asian summit," Downer said. The summit is Asean's response to the need for a new architecture to preserve its edge in a rapidly changing Asia where China and India are increasingly dominant. It is to be driven by Asean's 10 members, and includes the '+3' countries - South Korea, China and Japan. The agenda of the summit came up for discussion during the annual Asean+3 meeting here Wednesday. The next stop is the Asean Regional Forum conference, to focus on the nuclear crisis in North Korea, whose foreign minister is attending. 2005.07.29 ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Tehran accuses US of nuclear double standard Simon Tisdall Thursday July 28, 2005 The Guardian Iran accused the Bush administration yesterday of operating a double standard and undermining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by agreeing to aid India's civil nuclear programme, while insisting that Tehran abandon its nuclear ambitions or face international sanctions. The Iranian accusation will raise the temperature as the EU3 - Britain, France and Germany - prepare to unveil a "final" draft proposal on curbing Iran's nuclear programme early next month. The US and Israel suspect Iran is only months away from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, a charge Tehran flatly denies. The EU3 plan is expected to offer limited economic incentives and energy generation assistance if Iran forgoes uranium enrichment, which is associated with the manufacture of nuclear weapons. But Iranian resistance to the proffered deal may have been reinforced by President George Bush's unexpected decision last week to acknowledge India's status as a nuclear weapons state and offer "full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade", despite the fact that India, unlike Iran, has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "India is looking after its own national interests. We cannot criticise them for this," a senior Iranian official said. "But what the Americans are doing is a double standard. "On the one hand, they are depriving an NPT member from having peaceful technology, but at the same time they are cooperating with India, which is not a member of the NPT, to their own advantage." The US policy shift has been attributed to Washington's wish to develop a strategic security relationship with India. The Clinton administration imposed sanctions on Delhi after its 1998 nuclear bomb tests. The tests confirmed India as a nuclear power and led Pakistan to follow suit. But the move, yet to be approved by the US Congress or agreed with the 40-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, has been criticised by administration opponents for circumventing the NPT. Nigel Chamberlain of the independent British American Security Information Council said the Iranian accusation appeared justified, given that Tehran had apparently complied so far with NPT and International Atomic Energy Agency inspection requirements. "The Iranians do feel they are being singled out unfairly. It is very difficult to say that there are legal grounds to tell them to stop doing what they are doing. And India now seems to have benefited by standing outside the treaty," Mr Chamberlain said. He said Washington's move was potentially fatal for an NPT regime already severely weakened by the failure of last May's treaty review conference, scene of what he called "a running battle" between Iran and the US, as well as disputes over the failure of acknowledged nuclear weapons states, such as the US and Britain, to relinquish their arms. The unveiling of the EU3 plan could coincide with the inauguration on August 6 of Iran's conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Observers have suggested he may take a tougher line than his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami. But the senior Iranian official said that while "methods and tactics" might alter when the new government took office, Tehran's basic insistence on its legal right to develop its nuclear industry would not change. "People are getting impatient," the official said. "We have said repeatedly that we are ready to give guarantees to the EU3 and IAEA that we are not diverting from our peaceful nuclear activity." [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 3 Reuters: U.S. warns Iran against violating nuclear deal Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:18 PM ET WASHINGTON, July 28 (Reuters) - The White House warned Iran on Thursday against resuming key work on its nuclear fuel cycle, saying it could prompt the United States and its European allies to pursue U.N. sanctions against Tehran. On Wednesday outgoing Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Iran would resume some work on its nuclear fuel cycle, which the West suspects is part of a clandestine effort to produce a bomb. "Iran made some commitments to suspend their uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. We expect them to abide by that commitment," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "If Iran is going to violate their agreements, then we would obviously be looking at discussing with (the) Europeans, who have also committed to doing so, looking at going to the (United Nations) Security Council," McClellan added. Khatami said the nuclear fuel work would fall short of actually producing enriched uranium, but stressed that Iran would also ultimately resume its enrichment program. Three European Union powers -- Britain, France and Germany -- plan to offer Iran a limited package of nuclear, economic and political incentives next week to give up suspect nuclear work. But EU diplomats said the European offer was predicated on Iran agreeing to maintain indefinitely its suspension of uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel reprocessing and related activities. Iran regards nuclear fuel cycle activities as a right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, meant to prevent the spread of atomic weapons while allowing civilian nuclear work, and wants to be allowed to keep at least a pilot enrichment program. Britain, France and Germany remain adamant, with strong U.S. backing, that they will agree to no enrichment or reprocessing activity. "If they were to begin those activities again, they would be violating the commitment they made under the Paris agreement with the Europeans," McClellan said. "And we have made it very clear that Iran has a history of hiding their nuclear activities from the international community. That is why it is so important that you have some confidence building measures, or objective guarantees, in place so that they show the international community that their nuclear program is not being used to develop weapons... under the cover of a civilian program," McClellan added. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] More Hope than Progress in Korea Nuke Talks Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:05:22 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com More Hope than Progress in Korea Nuke Talks Beijing, Jul 28 (PL)--The fourth round of the six-party talks on the Korean nuclear issue has generated more hope than real progress after two days of sessions, though China, main facilitator of the negotiations, believes they are on the right track. The Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo insisted Thursday the talks are moving on the right direction after meeting with the heads of the six delegations. The atmosphere of the talks is good, he stressed. The chiefs of the negotiating teams from China, Japan, Russia, United States, the People4s Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK) and South Korea agreed to postpone for Friday a close door plenary session to give the two main protagonists, the US and the DPRK, a chance to work out on their differences. The American and North Korean delegations held Thursday a three-hour meeting to discuss face to face their disagreements in an effort to find a solution to the nuclear crisis in the Korean Peninsula. For analysts, the outcome of this meeting was key to the success of the round of talks underway in Beijing, but little was known about its results. According to Dai, "all the delegates come to the talks with a good political will, that is, to make progress in solving the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue." "They have made frank, in-depth and pragmatic discussions on how to realize a nuclear-weapon-free peninsula and setting an overall goal of the six-party talks through various forms," Dai said. He pointed out the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue is very complex and it is very natural that related parties have differences. China4s deputy foreign minister stressed that all the people hope the issue can be peacefully solved through talks and hope the peninsula can have a peaceful development. His remarks come up after two days of talks with no evident progress in narrowing the differences. "There are still substantial and even conceptual differences between the DPRK and the United States," said Russian delegation head Alexander Alexeyev, also deputy foreign minister of Russia. "One of the issues," he added, "is what to do with enriched Uranium." There was no agreement on this specific issue, but the parties agree to keep talking to resolve it, he said. mh * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 5 IPS-English U.S.-NORTH KOREA: Significantly far apart on nuke Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:45:28 -0700 AF HD PR DV U.S.-NORTH KOREA: Significantly far apart on nuke issue Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM) SEOUL, July 28 (WAM) - After two days of meeting, all participants to the six-way talks on North Korea nuke issue have confirmed that their common goal is to make the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons but the two protagonists, North Korea and the United States, are "significantly far apart," the chief South Korean delegate, Song Min-soon, was quoted by Yonhap news agency as having said on Thursday. The meeting bringing together the two Koreas, the United States, host China, Russia and Japan was scheduled to begin at 0100 GMT at Diaoyutai State Guesthouse on Thursday. This week's meeting, the fourth in its series, opened on Tuesday after a 13-month suspension caused by a North Korean boycott. During Thursday's closed-door session, the chief negotiators will discuss how to coordinate each other's positions presented a day earlier and whether to adopt a joint statement, Song said. The closing date of the talks has not been decided yet. In Wednesday's meeting, the United States said that it was prepared to normalize relations with North Korea if the communist country agrees to verifiably dismantle its nuclear program. North Korea responded by saying that a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula won't be achieved unless the United States fully recognizes it and makes a firm, concrete commitment not to use military force to try to topple its regime. The North's proposed package deal contained many sticky points that would require intense, hard negotiations. They included the removal of a U.S. nuclear umbrella for South Korea. The exchange revealed the gap between the two main adversaries in the talks and underlined the difficulty of efforts to resolve the dispute through negotiations, Yonhap said. (WAM) ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., N. Korean Envoys Hold Third Meeting From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday July 28, 2005 12:16 PM AP Photo XHG107 By STEPHANIE HOO Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - U.S. and North Korean envoys held their third one-on-one meeting Thursday, with the American delegate saying talks on the communist nation's nuclear program still had a long way to go despite points of agreement. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told reporters after the two-hour session with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan that the six nations involved in the nuclear negotiations were expected to start drafting a joint statement ``in the next 24 hours.'' ``We've had a lot of discussions with a lot of the delegations so we'd like to see if we can put some of these thoughts down on paper and see where we are,'' Hill said. ``We have a long way to go still.'' ``There's certainly some points of agreement, but there continues to be points of disagreement,'' he said without elaborating. Meanwhile, a news report said North Korea hasn't assembled a working nuclear bomb but that the country has acquired all the components necessary to build one. The North claimed to have nuclear weapons in February. However, a diplomatic source close to the arms talks told Russia's Interfax news agency that Pyongyang informed China that the announcement meant the North was able to build a detonator for an atomic bomb - the most sophisticated element of the weapon design. North Korea has avoided spending to build up a nuclear stockpile, but the source told Interfax that the country would begin to do so in the face of unacceptable demands or a lack of security guarantees from the United States and its allies. At the morning meeting, the Americans proposed an international inspection of North Korea's nuclear facilities in September, Interfax reported, citing a North Korean source. Hill denied the report. ``I have absolutely no idea what they are talking about,'' he said. The U.S.-North Korean meeting was a ``very difficult, concrete talk and maybe the first time both sides talked so deeply, so concretely and for such a long time,'' said the chief Russian delegate, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev. Alexeyev said he planned to return to Moscow on Saturday but would leave his deputy in Beijing to continue the talks. The Russian negotiator said he would return to China if necessary. The increased contacts between the Americans and North Koreans are a change from the previous three rounds of nuclear talks, where Washington mostly shunned direct contact with the communist nation. The last round of the six-nation talks was in June 2004 and the latest began this week after the North ended a boycott over what it called ``hostile'' U.S. policies. Japan's main delegate, Kenichiro Sasae, said the U.S.-North Korea talks Thursday would determine the course of the following negotiations. Without progress between those two countries, there won't be agreement on a joint statement from all sides at the conclusion of the talks, Sasae said. Also Thursday, China's Foreign Ministry hosted a lunch for envoys from all six governments - China, Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas - in an apparent effort to maintain a cordial tone after the often-strained atmosphere during earlier rounds. Earlier at the talks, North Korea reportedly said the United States must abandon plans to topple its regime and establish mechanisms for peaceful coexistence. The North also raised the issue of what it claims is a U.S. nuclear arsenal that could be used against the North, a senior American official said on condition of anonymity because the talks are still in progress. Both Washington and Seoul deny any U.S. nuclear weapons are in the South, and South Korea earlier raised the possibility of opening South Korean and U.S. bases for some form of verification by the North. Washington has repeatedly said it recognizes North Korea's sovereignty and has no intention of attacking the country. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Rules Out Bilateral N. Korea Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday July 28, 2005 7:31 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States on Thursday ruled out negotiating a bilateral agreement with North Korea even though envoys from both nations have met separately three times. ``That approach was tried and it failed,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, referring to a 1994 agreement that collapsed when Pyongyang to revive activity at a nuclear plant. McClellan said the one-on-one meetings between the envoys did not signal a bilateral approach to getting North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions. He said the United States also had met separately with other delegations as part of the talks involving the United States, North Korea, Japan, South Korea and China. ``The place to negotiate is in the context of the six-party talks and with all parties at the table,'' McClellan said. ``All parties that are involved in this share the concern. All of us want to see a nuclear-free peninsula.'' Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the top U.S. envoy, held his longest meeting yet Thursday with his North Korean counterpart. Hill said in Beijing that he hoped they soon would be able to draft a joint document that would signal some progress in talks aimed at curbing the North's nuclear ambitions. Hill and others have stressed that they do not expect any breakthroughs, but Thursday's bilateral meeting was ``maybe the first time both sides talked so deeply, so concretely and for such a long time,'' said Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev, the chief Russian delegate. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: US: climate deal complements Kyoto Mark Oliver and agencies Thursday July 28, 2005 The US today insisted that its surprise announcement last night of a new pact over clean energy technologies with other five countries was not a threat to the Kyoto emissions treaty. A deal between the US, Australia, China, India, South Korea and Japan was announced late yesterday in a statement by the US president, George Bush. The news prompted widespread surprise - not least in Downing Street. Details of what the pact involves were still sketchy today but its explicit aim was to promote the invention and sale of technologies ranging from "clean coal" and wind power to next-generation nuclear fission with the aim of reducing pollution and addressing climate concerns. The announcement of the New Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate received a mixed reaction, alarming many environmentalists. Critics noted that the partnership, which apparently comes after a year of secret talks, is not binding and sets no targets for reducing pollution. By contrast the Kyoto protocol, signed by 140 countries to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, which experts believe contribute to global warming, is legally binding. The US, which accounts for 25% of the world's greenhouse gases, and Australia are the only developed countries that have refused to sign the Kyoto protocol, which runs until 2012. Greenpeace said the new pact sounded like a "dirty coal deal" that must not be "used by the US and Australia to escape domestic emissions reductions". The environmental campaigner and Guardian columnist George Monbiot told BBC Radio 4's Today programme today that the pact was "a deliberate attempt to subvert and undermine the Kyoto protocol". Mr Monbiot said: "If you rely on alternative technology but don't back that with regulation that says this technology must replace coal and oil and gas, then all you are doing is supplementing our existing energy use." The pact was reaffirmed today at an Asia-Pacific security meeting in Laos attended by the US deputy secretary of state, Robert Zoellick, and the Australian foreign minister, Alexander Downer. Both insisted the pact did not detract from the Kyoto protocol but rather bolstered it. Mr Zoellick said: "We view this as a complement, not an alternative". Amid criticism that the agreement was lacking in detail, Mr Downer told a news conference that a ministerial meeting would be held in November in Adelaide, Australia to turn the plan's vision into action. Japan, which joined the pact late and is a leading supporter of Kyoto, said it would not let the new deal affect its obligations. The announcement yesterday appeared to come as a surprise to Downing Street. It followed what critics have described as a lack of progress on the climate change issue at the G8 summit earlier this month in Gleneagles. Last night the government eventually issued a statement welcoming the agreement but warning that it must not replace Kyoto. It also made clear that the prime minister, Tony Blair, would continue to discuss climate change with America, China and India, as part of his G8 presidency. The environment minister Elliot Morley today gave the new initiative a cautious welcome. He told Today it was "very much in line with the agreement at Gleneagles in relation to the action plan on sharing technologies". The final G8 communique said climate change was a "serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe". Pierre Pettigrew, Canada's foreign minister, said the new initiative at least indicated that the US and Australia acknowledge the climate change problem, but added that they now should produce results. "I still have to wait for the meat," he said. The US and Australia have argued that ratifying Kyoto would harm their economies by raising energy prices, and would cost 5m jobs in the US alone. Their other objection is that pact orders emission reductions only among industrial countries and not in developing nations such as India and China, which is second only to the US in terms of emissions. The Bush administration has been accused of overstating scientific divisions over the extent to which climate change is caused by man. There is a strong consensus among experts linking greenhouse gases to climate change. Mr Bush moved partially on the issue before Gleneagles, when he acknowledged man was at least partially responsible for climate change. Analysts have suggested that elements of his support base have called for more action. Useful links IPCC UN framework convention on climate change [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 9 Korea Herald: Six-party talks move to crucial phase U.S., North Korea hold third bilateral negotiations on parallel positions BEIJING - After five days of bilateral exchanges and a third day of official sessions, negotiations on the North Korean nuclear standoff yesterday entered a critical bargaining stage with delegations weighing the possibility of the first joint declaration ever to emerge from the six-party framework. American and North Korean diplomats met face-to-face for nearly three hours to talk about their parallel positions and demands in their third rendezvous since Sunday, marking the most frequent and lengthy bilaterals they have held within the multilateral discussion format. North Korea reportedly affirms it will not dismantle its nuclear arsenal unless relations with Washington are normalized, while the United States remains mostly steadfast, though with a softer tone, to proposals it made in 2004. South Korean government officials said this fourth round of the six-nation talks, which reopened Tuesday after a 13-month stalemate because of a North Korean boycott, was at a crucial turning point for . South Korea's top negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon, told reporters he expected the talks to continue at least through tomorrow. "I think the talks will continue at least through Friday but I do not know at the moment whether it will progress into next week," Song was quoted as saying. The previous three rounds of the talks usually lasted three to four days. South Korean officials explained that the consecutive series of general and bilateral meetings will help members gauge the future of the six-party talks. Featured on the third day of the official talks were more in-depth bilateral discussions and a luncheon hosted by China's Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo, as well as a general session among the top negotiators. While eyes and ears focused on the talks between the two most antagonistic and key players, the United States and North Korea, other members continued to contact each other for one-on-one talks or via other avenues. The initial high hopes for a substantial outcome of the talks dwindled slightly on Wednesday after the chief delegates delivered their keynote speeches, apparently displaying vastly different approaches to reaching the goal of verifiable dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program. Keeping its guard up against the communist state, the U.S. government in Washington played down reported remarks by its top negotiator, Christopher Hill, "to undertake to normalize relations with North Korea." "He was asked about this and I don't think that that is what he said," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters at his daily press briefing. McCormack also supported Washington's intention to include other topics in the six-party talks, such as human rights in North Korea, and Japan's insistence on trying to raise the issue of past North Korean abductions of Japanese. "We have said that the six-party talks are also a forum where other issues can be raised certainly, and the issue of abductees is one of them," McCormack said. North Korea refuses to sit face-to-face with Japan as a protest against the latter's insistence on solving North Korea's kidnapping of Japanese in the 1980s at the six-party talks. While a demand by the North for the United States to remove its nuclear umbrella from the Korean Peninsula is a complication, the U.S. resolve to include discussion of human rights is similarly burdensome for the other side. However, all in all, sources close to the negotiation and observers alike feel the multilateral discussions are progressing in a significantly changed atmosphere compared to the third round in June last year. Both the United States and North Korea refrained from using provocative phrases in their opening and keynote speeches, while openly showing a willingness to talk. North Korea's top negotiator, Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan, reportedly told Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing during dinner on Monday that he would not return to Pyongyang without any accomplishment. The South Korean delegation is equally, if not more, determined not to go home without seeing a meaningful result. Whether the parties will manage any tangible success remains to be seen. They failed to make any ground in the previous three rounds of talks held over an 18-month period. (angiely@heraldm.com) 2005.07.29 ***************************************************************** 10 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Nuke Talk Success Depends on U.S.: Kim Dae-jung Home> National/Politics Updated July.28,2005 21:46 KST failure of six-party talks on North Korea¡¯s nuclear program depended on the U.S. but it had ¡°yet to make up its mind." Kim made the remarks in a meeting with former Irish President Mary Robinson at his home in western Seoul. He also told her Washington ¡°should guarantee North Korea's security and open a way out for the North Korean economy." The former president countered criticism that Seoul is keeping quiet about Pyongyang¡¯s dismal human rights record. ¡°The international community asks why South Korea does not raise the issue,¡± he said. ¡°But South Korea, according to its own formula, wants to induce a slow change in the North. And because North Korea has such a strong, even perverse, sense of pride, it could try to sever relations and set back inter-Korean family reunions and the whole relationship if we raised the human rights issue that way." (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: US ready for long-haul on Korean nuclear talks - Rice - Friday July 29, 12:42 AM WASHINGTON (AFP) - Persuading North Korea to scrap its nuclear weapons program is a long-haul affair but the United States is ready to work at it "for as long as necessary," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. Rice said in a televised interview the six-nation talks that resumed in Beijing this week after a 13-month hiatus had gotten off to a promising start in a professional and "very good" atmosphere. "I think that there are a lot of difficult issues that have to be gone through," she told Public Television's NewsHour. But she added, "We're prepared to roll up our sleeves and work for as long as necessary to make progress." Rice spoke as the State Department conrfirmed North Korea had reacted coolly to the last US proposals for ending the dispute, expressing particular concern over the timing of concessions and rewards. The chief US diplomat counseled patience. "I would not expect that out of this round of the six-party talks, we're going to have a solution to this problem," she said. "It took us some time to get there. "People forget that the North Koreans have been trying to build the nuclear weapons since the late 1960s when they had cooperation with the Soviet Union. So it's going to take some time to change this circumstance." Her spokesman Sean McCormack said earlier that North Korea's long-awaited response to US proposals dating back to June 2004 reflected concern over the "sequencing, or phasing" of moves to defuse the crisis. "I think it's going to be one of the issues that as a group, as a grouping of the six parties, that will continue to be discussed as well as other issues," McCormack told reporters. He made his remarks after the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia completed three days of talks in Beijing with the North Koreans, who agreed to come back to the table after a 13-month hiatus. The New York Times, quoting a senior US official in Beijing, said the North Koreans were balking at the timing of mutual actions proposed by the Americans last year to dismantle Pyongyang's nuclear arms program. It said North Korea had complained the United States and its allies were demanding too many up-front moves toward dismantlement before coming across with aid and energy assistance. The US proposals would require North Korea to pledge to dismantle all its plutonium and uranium weapons programmes before receiving "non-nuclear energy assistance," including oil and food, as well as security assurances. McCormack said the North Koreans "had some reactions to the June 2004 proposal" during Wednesday's talks in Beijing. "They expressed concerns in the public forum about the phasing and sequencing." But he added, "We think the June 2004 proposal is still on the table, and we are going to continue working from the June 2004 proposal. There are other ideas that are out there as well." The spokesman said that the parties were focused on drafting "a statement of principles that might form a foundation to move forward" but was unable to give any details. He said the talks so far had been characterized by a "good atmosphere," but added: "We are still at the very beginning of these talks. This is tough, multi-lateral diplomacy." Rice played down the three face-to-face meetings held this week between US and North Korean negotiators, saying that such "breakout sessions" were a normal part of the multilateral negotiating process. But she added that results would be achieved only within the six-party framework. "What we are not prepared to do is to let North Korea go back to the early '90s when we had a bilateral arrangement with them, which they then broke out of practically before the ink was dry," Rice said.; McCormack said the direct discussions with North Korea had been confined to a discussion of "the modalities of the talks." "They are in an effort to understand North Korean positions and to explain US views. So that's the nature of those contacts, not negotiations. Negotiations take place in the multi-lateral six-party forum." Copyright © 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Japan Times: Japan gets to nuke issue after North issues denial Thursday, July 28, 2005 BEIJING (Kyodo) Japan urged North Korea on Wednesday to abandon all its nuclear ambitions, including an alleged secret uranium enrichment program, as delegates from six countries met for a second day of talks on the country's atomic threat. Signs of trouble have already started to emerge at the talks, however. According to negotiation sources, North Korea denied having a secret uranium enrichment program, either for weapons or for peaceful purposes, in a bilateral meeting Tuesday with the U.S. Japan's chief delegate, Kenichiro Sasae, also underlined his government's demand in his keynote remarks that Pyongyang shed more light on the past abduction of Japanese nationals by North Korean agents, in order to improve bilateral relations. Delegates of the six parties -- China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the United States -- were scheduled to make their keynote remarks and hold their first full-scale exchanges Wednesday on ways to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. The chief Japanese delegate called North Korea's nuclear activities a threat to Northeast Asia and a "serious challenge" to the international nuclear nonproliferation regime, according to a summary of his keynote remarks distributed to reporters. Japan "strongly hopes (North Korea) will accept the complete dismantlement of all its nuclear programs, including the uranium enrichment program," said Sasae. The Japan Times: July 28, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 13 Reuters: CHRONOLOGY-Six-country talks on N.Korea nuclear programmes Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:02 AM ET SEOUL (Reuters) - East Asian powers seeking a solution to the crisis over North Korea's nuclear ambitions are holding a fourth round of talks in Beijing after 13 months of stalemate. Following is a chronology of the talks involving North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States: - - - - October 2002 - Top State Department envoy James Kelly confronts Pyongyang with evidence Washington says points to covert uranium enrichment programme. Pyongyang says "it is entitled to possess not only nuclear weapons but other types of weapons more powerful than them in defence of its sovereignty in face of the U.S. threat". December 2002 - North Korea says it plans to restart Yongbyon reactor, disables International Atomic Energy Agency surveillance devices at Yongbyon and expels IAEA inspectors. January 2003 - North Korea says it is quitting the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with immediate effect. At talks between U.S. team led by Kelly and North Koreans and China in Beijing, American officials say North Korea told the United States that it has nuclear weapons and might test them or transfer them to other countries. August 2003 - First round of six-way talks on the nuclear issue take place in Beijing. North Korea threatens to test nuclear bomb and test-fire new missile. October 2003 - North Korea says it has enhanced its "nuclear deterrent" with plutonium reprocessed from thousands of nuclear fuel rods. Pyongyang says it is willing to display the deterrent. January 2004 - Pyongyang permits unofficial U.S. delegation, including nuclear expert, to tour Yongbyon. U.S. nuclear expert Sigfried Hecker says he is not convinced North Korea could turn its nuclear technology into a weapon or mount it on a missile. February 2004 - The father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, admits to passing on uranium-linked technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea. Pyongyang calls Khan's confession a lie. Second round of six-party talks held in Beijing. June 2004 - Third round of talks held in Beijing. U.S. proposes fuel aid and security guarantees to North Korea if it scraps nuclear programmes. February 10, 2005 - North Korea's Foreign Ministry issues statement saying it has manufactured nuclear weapons for self-defence and is pulling out of six-way talks indefinitely. June 17, 2005 - North Korean leader Kim Jong-il tells senior South Korean envoy in Pyongyang that North Korea can return to talks as early as July, if United States meets certain conditions, such as treating North Korea with "respect". July 9, 2005 - North Korea announces it has agreed to return to the stalled talks in the week of July 25 after a break of more than a year. July 22, 2005 - North Korea calls for a peace treaty to replace the armistice that ended the 1950-53 Korean War, saying it would resolve the nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 Reuters: FACTBOX-Issues at six-country talks on nuclear-free N.Korea Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:02 AM ET SEOUL (Reuters) - Six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons programmes entered a third day on Wednesday with Pyongyang taking a tough line on U.S. demands for its disarmament. The previous three rounds of the six-way discussions going back to 2003 saw little substantive progress, while disagreements, fresh demands and pitfalls bred complications. Following are key points surrounding the Beijing talks. GIVE AND TAKE The basic premise is for North Korea to dismantle all nuclear weapons programmes in a verifiable and irreversible manner in exchange for much-needed aid for its moribund economy and security guarantees. THE ROUNDS China hosted three rounds of talks beginning in August 2003 with North and South Korea, the United States, Japan and Russia. It was not until the third round in June 2004 that substantive proposals were made. No discussions on the proposals have followed so far. WHAT NORTH KOREA WANTS The North has sought energy aid, its removal from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism and the lifting of all sanctions against it. It has said it wants to see those moves in return for a freeze of its nuclear programmes, before it begins dismantling them. Since March this year, the North has demanded the six-party process be turned into disarmament talks that would also discuss U.S. nuclear weapons it says are deployed in South Korea. Washington denies the existence of such weapons. Pyongyang has also repeated calls for a peace treaty with the United States. U.S. DEMANDS Washington wants to see the North begin dismantling all nuclear programmes, including one based on uranium enrichment technology, within three months of freezing them. It has not offered to be directly part of an energy aid package. SWEETENER Seoul said earlier this month it would supply the North with 2,000 megawatts of electricity, roughly equivalent to present total power output in the impoverished communist state, if Pyongyang dismantled its nuclear programmes. STUMBLING BLOCKS Tokyo says the issue of Japanese citizens abducted by the North Koreans decades ago should be raised at the Beijing talks. Washington sees the need to include North Korea's record of human rights abuse on the table. Seoul has tried to keep this coming talks session focused on the North's nuclear arms. ANOTHER BREAKDOWN? All the parties, including North Korea, say they are prepared to work for substantive progress. Another breakdown could mean the end of the six-party process and renewed U.S. calls to take the issue to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 Reuters: N.Korea may have no nuclear bombs at all--Interfax Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:25 AM ET BEIJING, July 28 (Reuters) - A Russian news agency added a new twist on Thursday to the tortuous history of North Korea's nuclear ambitions, quoting a diplomatic source as saying that Pyongyang as yet had no functioning atomic arsenal at all. The report, seen in Beijing, appeared as China hosted six-party talks aimed at defusing an international crisis over the secretive North's nuclear ambitions. The standoff erupted in October 2002 when U.S. officials accused Pyongyang of pursuing a clandestine weapons programme, prompting it to expel U.N. nuclear inspectors. Last February 10, North Korea announced that it had nuclear weapons. It demanded Washington provide aid, security guarantees and diplomatic recognition in return for scrapping them. Interfax said the source, described as being close to the Beijing talks, said Pyongyang had advised its ally, China, after declaring its nuclear status in February, that it had developed a detonator to activate nuclear charges. After completing this work, North Korea announced that it had become another nuclear power, "because the production of all the components for nuclear weapons had become technically possible", the source said. Interfax said the source believed Pyongyang would not spend large sums of money on mass production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons as long as it had hopes of reaching a desirable outcome at the six-party talks. U.S. intelligence reports have speculated that North Korea had stockpiled enough plutonium to make at least two and possibly as many as nine bombs. The U.S. military commander in South Korea confessed that even he was unclear if Pyongyang's nuclear boast was true. "North Korea has self-proclaimed itself as a nuclear power and on several occasions said they had nuclear weapons," General Leon LaPorte said on Thursday. "North Korea is the only one that could precisely answer the question whether they have nuclear weapons." © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 Reuters: North, South Korea ministers meet on nuclear issue Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:42 AM ET By Jon Herskovitz VIENTIANE (Reuters) - North and South Korean foreign ministers met for only the third time on Thursday and agreed on the need for substantial developments in multilateral talks in Beijing to end Pyongyang's nuclear weapons ambitions. The 50-minute meeting between South Korea's Ban Ki-moon and the North's Paek Nam-sun was held on the sidelines of a meeting of Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) foreign ministers in Vientiane, the capital of Laos. In Beijing, negotiations aimed at defusing the crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons programmes crept into a third day with Washington and Pyongyang still far apart on proposals for disarming the reclusive North. "Both sides agreed that we wanted substantial developments in the six-party talks, which will be important for a resolution of the nuclear issue, peace on the Korean peninsula and regional security," the two foreign ministers said in a statement. Before going into the talks, Paek told reporters Pyongyang was committed to resolving the nuclear dispute through dialogue. "We are trying to make real progress in the six-party talks," he said after shaking hands with Ban and heading into the meeting. Ban said ties between North and South Korea, divided by the world's last Cold War frontier, were warming at an unprecedented rate and he wanted more frequent meetings with his opposite number. North and South Korea have stepped up bilateral contacts in recent months and reached deals concerning commerce, military confidence building and reuniting through video conferencing families separated by the 1950-1953 Korean War. But Paek did not reply to the request for regular discussions, a South Korean official said. RARE EVENT After the meeting, North Korea held a rare news conference at which Foreign Ministry official Jong Song-il answered questions in Korean and English about the talks between the two ministers. "Both sides agreed that having substantial and constructive developments in the talks will be very important for a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issues and for regional peace and security," Jong said. Ban said on Wednesday Seoul was waiting for North Korea to respond to an offer to supply it with a large amount of electricity when the reclusive state dismantles its nuclear programmes, a South Korea official said. South Korea has said its offer to supply North Korea with 2,000 megawatts of electricity, roughly equivalent to the North's total power output, if it scrapped its nuclear plans, could be key to resolving the nuclear weapons crisis. The South Korea government official quoted Paek as saying the North appreciated the offer of electricity aid and Pyongyang was looking to explore the offer further through bilateral talks. The foreign ministers of the two states, which stare at each other across their heavily fortified border, met for the first time in 2000 and again about a year ago. At last year's meeting, Ban proposed they open a regular channel of communications between their delegations at the United Nations in New York. But shortly afterwards, ties became strained and the North suspended all bilateral contact. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 Reuters: N.Korea talks to stretch to day four, gulf remains Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:15 PM ET (Adds Rice comments) By Teruaki Ueno and Brian Rhoads BEIJING, July 29 (Reuters) - Six-party talks aimed at settling the North Korean nuclear crisis stretch into their fourth day on Friday, with Washington and Pyongyang prepared for further one-on-one contact to bridge the gulf between them. China's delegation spokesman said the two main protagonists in the three-year crisis had agreed to continue holding consultations at the talks which have already featured three lengthy and unprecedented bilateral meetings. The fourth round of talks in Beijing, resumed this week after stalling last year, has seen the parties retreat to familiar territory -- with North Korea demanding aid and security guarantees before scrapping its nuclear programmes and the United States insisting it scuttle those programmes first. Still, the talks have featured a pattern of unusually frequent exchanges -- Thursday's lasted three hours -- that have signaled a shift in the U.S. approach and raised hopes for a positive outcome. Chinese delegation spokesman Qin Gan said on Thursday that talks were moving in the right direction but added: "It's far too early to say if it's a breakthrough or a breakdown." Qin said no end-date had been set for the talks, and various parties would hold more bilateral contacts on Friday. Chief Russian envoy Alexander Alexeyev said he was flying back to Moscow on Saturday and it was possible that other delegates might return home for weekend consultations. The U.S. and North Korea delegations were slated for bilateral talks on Friday morning and all six top negotiators would meet in the afternoon, a Japanese official said. But White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the United States would not negotiate a bilateral deal with North Korea. "We have no intention of negotiating any bilateral agreement with North Korea. That approach was tried and it failed," McClellan said. All sides -- both Koreas, the United States, Japan, Russia and host China -- were working on a joint document. Agreed joint statements have failed to materialise at three previous rounds. U.S. chief negotiator Christopher Hill told reporters on Thursday he was hopeful that the six delegations could begin drafting a text in the next 24 hours. "I just want to tell you this is not an easy process. It takes time. We're working through this with five other parties." North Korea has reacted coolly to a U.S. offer to provide it with security guarantees and South Korean aid in return for the North agreeing to dismantle -- not just freeze -- its nuclear programmes in a verifiable way. Pyongyang has insisted on security guarantees and aid pledges before it moves to scrap its weapons programme, and a senior U.S. official told reporters the North Koreans had objected to the proposal that they should move first. "It's not a matter of who goes first; it's a matter of a strategic commitment that the goal of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula is embraced by all," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in her first comments about the current round of negotiations. "We know that the South Koreans, the Japanese, the Russians, the United States and China all agree that it has to be a non-nuclear Korean peninsula. The question is do the North Koreans embrace that goal as well?," Rice said in Washington on the PBS program "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." The North has demanded Washington remove nuclear weapons from the peninsula. The United States, which keeps more than 30,000 troops in South Korea, says it no longer has such weapons there. Despite the continuing U.S.-North Korea stalemate, Russian negotiator Alexeyev said he felt the length and depth of the discussions between the U.S. and North Korean delegations were unprecedented, and that the talks thus could not be considered a complete failure even if no other progress was made. The nuclear standoff erupted in October 2002 when U.S. officials accused Pyongyang of pursuing a clandestine weapons programme, prompting it to expel U.N. nuclear inspectors. On Feb. 10 this year North Korea announced that it had nuclear weapons. It demanded Washington provide aid, security guarantees and diplomatic recognition in return for scrapping them, a sequence that remains at odds with the U.S. position. (Additional reporting by Jack Kim and Wang Nan, and Tabassum Zakaria in Washington) © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 Reuters: N.Korea, U.S. to continue talking - China Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:39 AM ET (Adds Interfax report on whether N.Korea actually has bombs, U.S. general) By Benjamin Kang Lim and Lindsay Beck BEIJING, July 28 (Reuters) - The United States and North Korea agreed on Thursday to hold more one-on-one contacts, keeping conciliatory mood despite deep differences over proposals at six-way talks to scrap Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programmes. "They agreed to continue holding consultations," Qin Gang, spokesman for the Chinese delegation to the talks, told reporters after Americans and North Koreans held a third bilateral meeting since Monday on the sidelines of the multilateral conference. After a buoyant start to the long-awaited fourth round of talks that saw unprecedented contact between the U.S. and North Korean teams, the parties fell back to more entrenched views on how the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula should unfold. But Thursday's latest bilateral meeting, after exchanges on Monday and Tuesday, continued a pattern of unusually frequent exchanges that has marked a change in the U.S. approach and raised hopes for a positive outcome. China's official Xinhua news agency said the meeting lasted about three hours, far longer than either of the previous two. "The talks are moving forward in the right directionbut the North Korean nuclear issue is complicated and it is normal for differences to exist among the various parties," Qin said. "It's far too early to say if it's a breakthrough or a breakdown," he added. Qin said no end-date had been set for the talks, and various parties would hold more bilateral contacts on Friday. Chief Russian envoy Alexander Alexeyev said he was flying back to Moscow on Saturday and it was possible that other delegates might return home for weekend consultations. JOINT DOCUMENT? Xinhua quoted a South Korean delegation official saying that all sides -- both Koreas, the United States, Japan, Russia and China -- had agreed at a Chinese-hosted lunch on Thursday "to strive for substantive results, including a joint document." If they did reach a consensus sufficient to produce such a document, it would be a first in a tortuous process which has dragged on for almost three years. U.S. chief negotiator Christopher Hill told reporters he was hopeful that the six delegations could begin drafting a text in the next 24 hours. "When we start drafting, we want to make sure that the drafting becomes the easy part and that there is already a consensus on how to proceed," he said. "I just want to tell you this is not an easy process. It takes time. We're working through this with five other parties." North Korea has reacted coolly to a U.S. offer to provide it with security guarantees and South Korean aid in return for the North agreeing to dismantle -- not just freeze -- its nuclear programmes in a verifiable way. Pyongyang has insisted on security guarantees and aid pledges before it moves to scrap its weapons programme, and a senior U.S. official told reporters the North Koreans had objected to the proposal that they should move first. The North has staked out a tough position, demanding Washington remove nuclear weapons from the peninsula. The United States, which keeps more than 30,000 troops in South Korea, says it no longer has such weapons there. POSITIVE SIGNS Despite the continuing U.S.-North Korea stalemate, Russian negotiator Alexeyev said he saw positive signs. "This may be the first time both sides spoke so deeply ... and for such a long time about not generalities but concrete problems." He added that even if there was no direct outcome at the present round of talks, this meant the dialogue could not be considered a complete failure. The nuclear standoff erupted in October 2002 when U.S. officials accused Pyongyang of pursuing a clandestine weapons programme, prompting it to expel U.N. nuclear inspectors. Last February 10, North Korea announced that it had nuclear weapons. It demanded Washington provide aid, security guarantees and diplomatic recognition in return for scrapping them, a sequence that remains at odds with the U.S. position. Russia's Interfax news agency added a new twist to the story on Thursday, quoting a diplomatic source as saying that North Korea as yet had no functioning nuclear arsenal at all. The agency said the source, described as being close to the Beijing talks, said Pyongyang had advised its ally, China, after declaring its nuclear status in February, that it had developed a detonator to activate nuclear charges. After completing this work, North Korea announced that it had become another nuclear power, "because the production of all the components for nuclear weapons had become technically possible", the source said. Interfax said the source believed Pyongyang would not spend large sums of money on mass production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons as long as it had hopes of reaching a desirable outcome at the six-party talks. The U.S. military commander in South Korea confessed that even he was unclear if Pyongyang's nuclear boast was true. "North Korea has self-proclaimed itself as a nuclear power and on several occasions said they had nuclear weapons," General Leon LaPorte said on Thursday. "North Korea is the only one that could precisely answer the question whether they have nuclear weapons." (Additional reporting by Jack Kim and Wang Nan in Beijing, Yoo Choon-sik in South Korea) © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 Interfax China: N. Korea has nuclear bomb components, but no weapons - source Beijing. July 28. INTERFAX-CHINA - North Korea has no arsenal of nuclear weapons ready for use, a diplomatic source close to the six-nation talks on the Korean nuclear problem told Interfax on Thursday. "Following the announcement that North Korea has become a nuclear power, Pyongyang made it clear to China that North Korea has developed a detonator for blowing up nuclear charges, which is the most sophisticated component of nuclear munitions," the source said. "North Korea developed methods of making nuclear weapons back in the early 1960s, but it did not succeed in creating a detonator for a long time," the diplomat said. "After work on this problem succeeded, North Korea announced that it became the fourth country possessing nuclear weapons, since methods for making all of its components were now available and the production of nuclear weapons ceased to be a problem," he said. The source said that North Korea is still hoping for real results at the six-nation talks and is refraining from serious spending on the mass production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. "But if the U.S. and its allies delay providing real security guarantees to North Korea, or advance demands Pyongyang cannot accept, North Korea will have to step up the creation of a self-defense nuclear arsenal," the diplomat said. 1991-2005 Interfax Information Service. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 Las Vegas SUN: House RollCall Energy Today: July 28, 2005 at 15:52:28 PDT By The Associated Press ASSOCIATED PRESS The 275-156 roll call Thursday by which the House passed a national energy policy bill. A "yes" vote is a vote to pass. Voting "yes" were 75 Democrats and 200 Republicans. Voting "no" were 124 Democrats, 31 Republicans and one independent. "X" denotes those not voting. There is one vacancy in the 435-member House. ALABAMA Democrats - Cramer, Y; Davis, Y. Republicans - Aderholt, Y; Bachus, Y; Bonner, N; Everett, Y; Rogers, Y. ALASKA Republicans - Young, Y. ARIZONA Democrats - Grijalva, N; Pastor, N. Republicans - Flake, N; Franks, Y; Hayworth, Y; Kolbe, Y; Renzi, Y; Shadegg, Y. ARKANSAS Democrats - Berry, Y; Ross, Y; Snyder, Y. Republicans - Boozman, Y. CALIFORNIA Democrats - Baca, Y; Becerra, N; Berman, N; Capps, N; Cardoza, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, N; Eshoo, N; Farr, N; Filner, N; Harman, N; Honda, N; Lantos, N; Lee, N; Lofgren, Zoe, N; Matsui, N; Millender-McDonald, N; Miller, George, N; Napolitano, Y; Pelosi, N; Roybal-Allard, N; SAnchez, Linda T., N; Sanchez, Loretta, N; Schiff, N; Sherman, N; Solis, N; Stark, N; Tauscher, N; Thompson, N; Waters, N; Watson, N; Waxman, N; Woolsey, N. Republicans - Bono, Y; Calvert, Y; Cox, Y; Cunningham, Y; Doolittle, Y; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, Y; Herger, Y; Hunter, Y; Issa, Y; Lewis, Y; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, Y; Pombo, Y; Radanovich, Y; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N; Thomas, Y. COLORADO Democrats - DeGette, N; Salazar, Y; Udall, N. Republicans - Beauprez, Y; Hefley, Y; Musgrave, Y; Tancredo, Y. CONNECTICUT Democrats - DeLauro, N; Larson, N. Republicans - Johnson, Y; Shays, N; Simmons, Y. DELAWARE Republicans - Castle, N. FLORIDA Democrats - Boyd, N; Brown, Corrine, N; Davis, N; Hastings, N; Meek, N; Wasserman Schultz, N; Wexler, N. Republicans - Bilirakis, Y; Brown-Waite, Ginny, N; Crenshaw, N; Diaz-Balart, L., N; Diaz-Balart, M., N; Feeney, N; Foley, N; Harris, N; Keller, N; Mack, N; Mica, Y; Miller, N; Putnam, N; Ros-Lehtinen, N; Shaw, N; Stearns, Y; Weldon, N; Young, N. GEORGIA Democrats - Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Lewis, N; Marshall, Y; McKinney, N; Scott, Y. Republicans - Deal, Y; Gingrey, Y; Kingston, Y; Linder, Y; Norwood, Y; Price, Y; Westmoreland, Y. HAWAII Democrats - Abercrombie, Y; Case, N. IDAHO Republicans - Otter, Y; Simpson, Y. ILLINOIS Democrats - Bean, Y; Costello, Y; Davis, N; Emanuel, N; Evans, Y; Gutierrez, N; Jackson, N; Lipinski, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, X. Republicans - Biggert, Y; Hastert, Y; Hyde, Y; Johnson, Y; Kirk, Y; LaHood, Y; Manzullo, Y; Shimkus, Y; Weller, Y. INDIANA Democrats - Carson, Y; Visclosky, Y. Republicans - Burton, Y; Buyer, Y; Chocola, Y; Hostettler, Y; Pence, Y; Sodrel, Y; Souder, Y. IOWA Democrats - Boswell, Y. Republicans - King, Y; Latham, Y; Leach, Y; Nussle, Y. KANSAS Democrats - Moore, Y. Republicans - Moran, Y; Ryun, Y; Tiahrt, Y. KENTUCKY Democrats - Chandler, N. Republicans - Davis, Y; Lewis, Y; Northup, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, Y. LOUISIANA Democrats - Jefferson, Y; Melancon, Y. Republicans - Alexander, Y; Baker, Y; Boustany, Y; Jindal, Y; McCrery, Y. MAINE Democrats - Allen, N; Michaud, N. MARYLAND Democrats - Cardin, N; Cummings, N; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Van Hollen, N; Wynn, Y. Republicans - Bartlett, N; Gilchrest, Y. MASSACHUSETTS Democrats - Capuano, N; Delahunt, N; Frank, N; Lynch, N; Markey, N; McGovern, N; Meehan, N; Neal, N; Olver, N; Tierney, N. MICHIGAN Democrats - Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, N; Kilpatrick, N; Levin, Y; Stupak, Y. Republicans - Camp, Y; Ehlers, Y; Hoekstra, Y; Knollenberg, Y; McCotter, Y; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Schwarz, Y; Upton, Y. MINNESOTA Democrats - McCollum, N; Oberstar, Y; Peterson, Y; Sabo, N. Republicans - Gutknecht, Y; Kennedy, Y; Kline, Y; Ramstad, Y. MISSISSIPPI Democrats - Taylor, N; Thompson, Y. Republicans - Pickering, Y; Wicker, Y. MISSOURI Democrats - Carnahan, N; Clay, N; Cleaver, N; Skelton, Y. Republicans - Akin, Y; Blunt, Y; Emerson, Y; Graves, Y; Hulshof, Y. MONTANA Republicans - Rehberg, Y. NEBRASKA Republicans - Fortenberry, Y; Osborne, Y; Terry, Y. NEVADA Democrats - Berkley, N. Republicans - Gibbons, Y; Porter, Y. NEW HAMPSHIRE Republicans - Bass, Y; Bradley, N. NEW JERSEY Democrats - Andrews, N; Holt, N; Menendez, N; Pallone, N; Pascrell, N; Payne, X; Rothman, N. Republicans - Ferguson, Y; Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, Y; LoBiondo, N; Saxton, N; Smith, N. NEW MEXICO Democrats - Udall, Y. Republicans - Pearce, Y; Wilson, Y. NEW YORK Democrats - Ackerman, N; Bishop, N; Crowley, N; Engel, N; Higgins, N; Hinchey, N; Israel, N; Lowey, N; Maloney, N; McCarthy, N; McNulty, N; Meeks, Y; Nadler, N; Owens, N; Rangel, N; Serrano, N; Slaughter, Y; Towns, Y; VelAzquez, N; Weiner, N. Republicans - Boehlert, N; Fossella, Y; Kelly, N; King, Y; Kuhl, Y; McHugh, Y; Reynolds, Y; Sweeney, Y; Walsh, Y. NORTH CAROLINA Democrats - Butterfield, Y; Etheridge, Y; McIntyre, Y; Miller, N; Price, N; Watt, N. Republicans - Coble, Y; Foxx, Y; Hayes, Y; Jones, N; McHenry, Y; Myrick, Y; Taylor, Y. NORTH DAKOTA Democrats - Pomeroy, Y. OHIO Democrats - Brown, N; Jones, N; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Ryan, Y; Strickland, Y. Republicans - Boehner, Y; Chabot, Y; Gillmor, Y; Hobson, Y; LaTourette, Y; Ney, Y; Oxley, Y; Pryce, Y; Regula, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, Y. OKLAHOMA Democrats - Boren, Y. Republicans - Cole, Y; Istook, Y; Lucas, Y; Sullivan, Y. OREGON Democrats - Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Hooley, N; Wu, N. Republicans - Walden, Y. PENNSYLVANIA Democrats - Brady, X; Doyle, Y; Fattah, N; Holden, Y; Kanjorski, Y; Murtha, Y; Schwartz, N. Republicans - Dent, Y; English, Y; Fitzpatrick, N; Gerlach, Y; Hart, Y; Murphy, Y; Peterson, Y; Pitts, Y; Platts, Y; Sherwood, Y; Shuster, Y; Weldon, Y. RHODE ISLAND Democrats - Kennedy, N; Langevin, N. SOUTH CAROLINA Democrats - Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y. Republicans - Barrett, Y; Brown, Y; Inglis, Y; Wilson, Y. SOUTH DAKOTA Democrats - Herseth, Y. TENNESSEE Democrats - Cooper, N; Davis, Y; Ford, Y; Gordon, Y; Tanner, Y. Republicans - Blackburn, Y; Duncan, Y; Jenkins, Y; Wamp, Y. TEXAS Democrats - Cuellar, Y; Doggett, N; Edwards, Y; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson-Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Ortiz, Y; Reyes, Y. Republicans - Barton, Y; Bonilla, Y; Brady, Y; Burgess, Y; Carter, Y; Conaway, Y; Culberson, Y; DeLay, Y; Gohmert, Y; Granger, Y; Hall, Y; Hensarling, Y; Johnson, Sam, Y; Marchant, Y; McCaul, Y; Neugebauer, Y; Paul, N; Poe, Y; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y. UTAH Democrats - Matheson, Y. Republicans - Bishop, Y; Cannon, Y. VERMONT Independent - Sanders, N. VIRGINIA Democrats - Boucher, Y; Moran, N; Scott, Y. Republicans - Cantor, Y; Davis, Jo Ann, Y; Davis, Tom, Y; Drake, Y; Forbes, Y; Goode, Y; Goodlatte, Y; Wolf, Y. WASHINGTON Democrats - Baird, N; Dicks, Y; Inslee, N; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, N. Republicans - Hastings, Y; McMorris, Y; Reichert, Y. WEST VIRGINIA Democrats - Mollohan, Y; Rahall, Y. Republicans - Capito, Y. WISCONSIN Democrats - Baldwin, N; Kind, N; Moore, N; Obey, N. Republicans - Green, Y; Petri, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, Y. WYOMING Republicans - Cubin, Y. s -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Return to the referring page. Las Vegas SUN main page ----------------------------------------------------------------- Questions or problems? Click here. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 21 Las Vegas SUN: Highlights of the Energy Bill Today: July 28, 2005 at 15:57:34 PDT By The Associated Press ASSOCIATED PRESS Highlights of the energy bill: - Tax breaks of $14.5 billion over 10 years for energy companies, renewable energy sources and promotion of efficiency. - Requirement for refiners to use 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol annually by 2012, double current production. - Extension of daylight saving time by a month. - New efficiency standards for commercial appliances, from air conditioners to refrigerators. - Requirement for utilities to meet federal reliability standards for the electric transmission grid, hoping to avoid blackouts such as the one in the summer of 2003. - Easing the way for more imports of liquefied natural gas by giving federal regulators final say over import terminals. - $1 billion for coastal environmental management in states where there is offshore oil production. - Loan guarantees and other subsidies for clean energy technologies and new nuclear reactors. - A $1.8 billion program to promote clean coal research and development. - Requirement for an inventory of offshore oil and gas resources, including areas now off limits to drilling. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Return to the referring page. Las Vegas SUN main page ----------------------------------------------------------------- Questions or problems? Click here. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 22 Deseret News: Energy woes not going away [deseretnews.com] Thursday, July 28, 2005 10 panelists explore issues, dispel myths, chart future By Jenifer K. Nii Deseret Morning News Despite much-anticipated energy legislation slated to come out of Congress this week, Utah energy insiders say the main issues, obstacles and challenges facing the industry and consumers aren't going anywhere — at least not in the near term. Leaders from Utah's utility industry, government and business gathered Wednesday at the Salt Lake Chamber's Energy Policy Forum, a two-hour event organized to highlight issues, dispel myths and chart the path forward. While the event's 10 panelists — ranging from Salt Lake-based Questar chief executive Keith Rattie to Jim Kohler, senior analyst with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and Tracy Livingston, chief executive of Wasatch Wind, a wind power company based in Summit County — sometimes bore divergent points of view, they seemed to agree on a few points: • Energy demand is putting pressure on supply, which in turn is putting continued upward pressure on prices. • Barring a recession or some other dramatic event, demand is not likely to diminish any time soon. • The status quo isn't indefinitely sustainable. "I'm going to try to sort out the realities, of which there are a few, from the energy myths, of which there are many," Rattie said. "Everyone here knows that energy prices are at the highest levels they've been at in a couple of decades. High prices are sending us a very simple message, and that is that we have a supply problem. The hallmark of that problem is this country's inability to reconcile our need for ever-increasing amounts of energy with our environmental ideals. "We Americans love our cars. We aspire to own the biggest houses we can afford. We like to keep those homes warm in the winter and cool in the summer. We like the freedom to move about the country. We like devices that use electricity. We want our food to be low cost, high quality, free from bugs and rodents, and that means that farmers have to use petrochemicals. We love plastic and synthetic fibers, and all these things depend on an abundant — and growing — supply of energy." At the same time, he said, Americans generally express a dislike for "the things we have to do" to obtain the things we want. Americans generally voice displeasure about dependence on foreign oil, mining and drilling, building new refineries and the development of nuclear power technologies. The consequence of that conflict is "what you see when you open your energy bill from your utility every month," Rattie said. In the end, Rattie held that there are only a few "realities" in the energy debate. First, the demand for energy will increase in the next several decades, he said. The United States currently imports 63 percent of its crude oil, according to Lee Peacock, president of the Utah Petroleum Association. At current levels, the UPA predicts that the per barrel price for crude will remain above $50 through 2006. Second, Rattie maintained that "there are no near-term alternatives to oil and gas." Even if the country had the will-power to transition to other energy sources, Rattie said alternative energy sources are decades away from being practical. Two sources again generating some buzz — tar sands and oil shale — are plentiful in Utah, said the BLM's Kohler. The oil shale resources in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado may contain 2 trillion barrels of oil, one- to two-times the world's crude oil reserves. Utah's tar sands resources could total 11.8 billion to 12 billion barrels of oil. But marked impediments remain before these resources can be developed, Kohler said. It would be costly (upwards of $60 per barrel, in the case of the oil shale), and there are environmental and regulatory concerns. Regardless, Rattie said, "We can't drill our way to less (energy) dependence, and we can't conserve our way to less dependence." He disputed the claims that the planet is running out of oil and natural gas. The supplies are there, he argued, and human ingenuity — if less encumbered by agendas and ulterior motives — can find a way to access them. "So what do we need?" Rattie asked. More than an energy policy, Rattie recommended letting the market economy do its work — that the markets will determine how much and which type of energy to use. Peacock added four recommendations: • Encourage domestic oil and gas production. • Encourage the building and expansion of domestic oil refineries. • Encourage "moderate" environmental and regulatory policies. • Maintain a stable tax environment. Chris Roybal, senior economic adviser to Utah Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr., said the administration is putting together its energy initiative and this week will announce a new energy adviser. "We only want to play a role that is appropriate for government, and then hopefully get out of your way," Roybal said. "We do believe that energy could really have a profound effect on economic development. We think there's a lot of opportunity for job creation and capital investment, really across the board. Not just in the traditional oil and gas sense, but also in light of some of these new technologies. Over time, we believe they can be a significant economic development tool to the state of Utah." E-mail: jnii@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 23 Las Vegas RJ: Geothermal projectswould aid counties Thursday, July 28, 2005 Energy bill includessubsidies to buildmore nuclear plants By SAMANTHA YOUNG STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Four Nevada counties and perhaps more could share in millions of dollars in royalties from geothermal exploration on federal land, under an energy bill heading toward final votes in Congress this week. The new royalty payments are authorized in an $85 billion bill that contains policies and subsidies to encourage development of oil and gas, coal, nuclear and renewable energy. The bill contains federal funding and potential tax breaks and loan guarantees to encourage nuclear power plant construction. Environmental groups estimated the value of nuclear industry benefits at more than $12 billion, saying more nuclear power will mean more nuclear waste and added pressure to complete a repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "(U.S. Sen.) Harry Reid would be crazy to vote for this bill," said Michele Boyd, legislative director of the Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. Reid, D-Nev., has not decided how he will vote, a spokeswoman said Wednesday. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., also has not declared a position. An aide said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., will vote against the bill. Reps. Jon Porter and Jim Gibbons, both R-Nev., are still looking at it, aides said. The bill also contains provisions sought by Western lawmakers requiring that counties be given 25 percent of royalties from geothermal power plants. States would continue to receive their 50 percent share, and the federal government would bank the remaining amount. "This would be money that would go directly to the counties," said Christy Morris, program manager of oil, gas and geothermal at the Nevada Division of Minerals. Last year, Nevada power plants using geothermal resources from public lands paid $2.1 million in royalties to the federal government, of which half was returned to the state, according to the Division of Minerals. Current law leaves Nevada counties on the short end while forcing them to pay for local infrastructure to accommodate geothermal operations, officials said. Nine geothermal plants are on federal land in Churchill, Washoe, Eureka and Lyon counties, according to state officials. Federal officials expect exploration will expand. Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault contributed to this report. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 24 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Energy bill falls short Today: July 28, 2005 at 9:36:13 PDT LAS VEGAS SUN It's becoming clear now why President Bush has been demanding an energy bill from Congress for the past five years. The bill that Congress is scheduled to have ready for the president's signature by Friday is a godsend to the nuclear power and fossil fuels industries, which constitute a significant portion of Bush's campaign contributors. A reasonable question for Congress, which is on the verge of passing the bill, would be: Is this a bill to enable energy producers to become more profitable, or is it a bill to help solve the nation's energy problems, including its dependence on foreign oil? The early word is that U.S. dependence on foreign oil will not be reduced by the bill. And the word comes not only from those with environmental and liberal leanings, traditional critics of Bush, but from a well-known conservative group, the Heritage Foundation. In a story this week the Washington Post quoted Ben Lieberman, who tracks energy issues for the group, as saying, "We'll be dependent on the global market for more than half our oil as long as we're using oil, and the energy bill isn't going to change that." The main reason the bill wouldn't change our dependency upon Russian, Arab and South American oil sources is that it doesn't demand enough from the auto industry. It contains no provision requiring automakers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. This is one of the reasons why we see this bill as severely flawed. Another reason is that the bill would provide billions of dollars in new-construction subsidies for the nuclear power industry. Is it really a good idea to build a slew of new nuclear plants when the only plan for disposing of their deadly wastes is burial at Yucca Mountain? This site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, poses monumental risks from the standpoints of transportation and safe containment. The bill's other subsidies are heavily weighted toward the oil, natural gas and and coal companies, rendering subsidies for forward-looking, renewable sources miniscule by comparison. We recognize that our reliance on traditional sources of energy cannot be brought to a sudden end. But a worthy energy bill would be one that recognizes the finite supply of fossil fuels and what the needs of future generations will be. This recognition would show itself in greater support of the so-called green fuels, such as solar and wind power. It would also be evident in stricter fuel efficiency requirements for the auto industry, which on its own will apparently continue to forever produce old-style gas guzzlers while Japanese car makers capture greater and greater market share with their more fuel-efficient vehicles. Five years in the making, and this energy bill is still not worthy. Congress is stuck on the idea of satiating the status quo. If it instead were focused on what's right for the future, it would send this bill back to the drawing board. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 25 San Francisco Chronicle: An inefficient energy policy EDITORIAL Thursday, July 28, 2005 THE ENERGY bill making its way through Congress this week is notable for what it doesn't do. It doesn't end this nation's dependence on foreign oil. And it doesn't end the oil and gas industry's reliance on generous tax breaks from the federal government. The version on the brink of final passage in the House and Senate this week fails to include what should have been the central element of a genuine federal energy policy: A required increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. But the domestic auto industry successfully lobbied against higher mileage standards. So the result was an energy bill with an undue emphasis on costlier ways to narrow the gap between fuel supplies and this nation's voracious consumption. At the moment, the United States imports 58 percent of the oil it uses, a figure expected to rise to 68 percent by 2025. This "national energy policy" would slightly slow that rate of growth. At the same time, it is loaded with goodies for various energy industries. The nuclear industry's benefits include $2 billion in "risk insurance" for any permitting or regulatory delays in building power plants; the coal industry gets loan guarantees and $2.9 billion in tax breaks to develop cleaner coal; agriculture gets a requirement for refineries to double the use of ethanol; oil and gas producers get $1.5 billion in tax breaks. The list goes on and on. The bill does take some important steps toward conservation, such as new efficiency standards on commercial appliances including refrigerators and air conditioners. It also adds $3 billion in tax breaks for renewable energy sources. Overall, this bill keeps energy companies healthy and profitable, but without making a serious attempt to reduce a dependence on Middle East oil that has jeopardized this nation's economy and national security for more than three decades. Page B - 8 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 26 Waxman: $1.5 Billion Waxman letter: Giveaway Secretly Slipped into Energy Bill , Waxman Says NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN By: Rep. Henry Waxman 07/28/05 In a letter to Speaker Hastert, Rep. Waxman writes that after the energy legislation was closed to further amendment in the recently concluded conference, a $1.5 billion provision benefiting oil and gas companies, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas, was mysteriously inserted in the text. The text of the letter is below: The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert Speaker U.S. House of Representatives H232 Capitol Washington, DC 20515-6501 Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to draw to your attention a provision in the Energy Conference Report that raises serious procedural and substantive concerns. At its essence, this provision is a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas. The provision was inserted into the energy legislation after the conference was closed, so members of the conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this measure. Before the final energy legislation is brought to the House floor, this provision should be deleted. The provision at issue is a 30-page subtitle called "Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources." This subtitle, which was taken from the House-passed energy bill, was mysteriously inserted in the final energy legislation after the legislation was closed to further amendment. The conferees were told that they would have the opportunity to consider and vote on the provisions in the conference report. But the subtitle was not included in the base text circulated to conferees, and it was never offered as an amendment. Instead, the new subtitle first appeared in the text of the energy legislation only after Chairman Barton had gaveled the conference over. Obviously, it would be a serious abuse to secretly slip such a costly and controversial provision into the energy legislation. On the merits, the subtitle is an indefensible giveaway to one of the most profitable industries in America. The provision establishes a $1.5 billion fund, up to $550 million of which would be dedicated direct spending, which is not subject to the normal congressional appropriations process. Although the name of the subtitle refers to "ultra-deepwater and unconventional natural gas," it appears that the $1.5 billion fund created by the subtitle can in fact be used for many oil and gas projects. According to the language of the subtitle, oil and gas companies can apply for funds for a wide variety of activities, including activities involving "innovative exploration and production techniques" or "enhanced recovery techniques." While oil and gas companies could be required to contribute to the costs of their projects, the subtitle expressly provides that the Department has discretion to reduce or eliminate any such contribution. The subtitle appears to steer the administration of 75% of the $1.5 billion fund to a private consortium located in the district of Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Ordinarily, a large fund like this would be administered directly by the government. The subtitle, however, directs the Department to "contract with a corporation that is constructed as a consortium." The leading contender for this contract appears to be the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) consortium, housed in the Texas Energy Center in Sugar Land, Texas. Halliburton is a member of RPSEA and sits on the board, as does Marathon Oil Company. The subtitle provides that the consortium can keep up to 10% of the funds - in this case, over $100 million - in administrative expenses. The subtitle further provides that members of the consortium, such as Halliburton and Marathon Oil, can receive awards from the over $1 billion fund administered by the consortium. In short, the subtitle provides that taxpayers will hire a private consortium controlled by the oil and gas industry to hand out over $1 billion to oil and gas companies. There is no conceivable rationale for this extraordinary largess. The oil and gas industry is reporting record income and profits. According to one analyst, the net income of the top oil companies will total $230 billion in 2005. If Congress has an extra $1.5 billion to give away, the money should be used to help families struggling to pay for soaring gasoline prices - not to further enrich oil and gas companies that are rolling in profits. In recent years, Congress has been repeatedly embarrassed by the mysterious insertion of provisions in omnibus legislation. Last year, for example, we learned only after House action that the 3,000 page, $388 billion omnibus spending bill allowed members and staff of the Appropriations Committee to examine the tax returns of ordinary Americans. We should not allow this to happen again. The Energy Conference Report should not be brought to the House floor until this objectionable provision is deleted and there is ample opportunity for members to read the legislation and delete any other problematic provisions. Thank you for your attention to this problem. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member cc: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Translate this page (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) ***************************************************************** 27 Las Vegas SUN: House Approves Massive Energy Bill Today: July 28, 2005 at 15:52:27 PDT By H. JOSEF HEBERT ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - A national energy plan that would send billions of dollars in tax subsidies to energy companies passed the House on Thursday despite criticism from many lawmakers that it would do nothing to dampen high prices or lessen dependence on Middle East oil. Supporters said the legislation would establish a framework for developing a wider mix of energy sources in coming years, including wind turbines, lower-pollution coal plants and new nuclear reactors. Lawmakers avoided a certain fight in the Senate by leaving out one of President's Bush's top energy goals: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling. House Republicans promised to pursue that issue separately. The White House said Bush, who had challenged Congress to end four years of stalemate over energy legislation, looked forward to signing the legislation. The president has acknowledged the measure will have little impact on oil or gasoline prices. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the legislation would address root causes of high energy prices, but "we didn't get into this overnight and we're not going to get out of it overnight." The bill passed the House by a vote of 275-156 and was expected to be approved by the Senate by a wide margin, probably Friday. "This bill is going to go through lickety-split," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., though he denounced it as a collection of giveaways to cash-rich energy companies that would fail to curb the nation's thirst for imported oil. Seventy-five Democrats joined Republicans in moving the 1,725-page legislation through the House. "It is not a perfect bill," said Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the top House Democrat involved in crafting the legislation. "But it is a solid beginning to developing an energy strategy for the 21st century." Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who chaired the House-Senate conference that crafted the final legislation, called it a bill "for America's future." Sponsors said it would improve the nation's electricity grid and foster energy conservation as well as production. In a move widely awaited in the Farm Belt, it also calls for doubling the use of corn-produced ethanol in gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons a year by 2012. And it would extend daylight saving time by a month - an extra three weeks in the spring and another week in the fall - to save energy. The product of weeks of negotiations that meshed widely different versions approved by the House and Senate earlier this year, the legislation would provide $14.5 billion in energy tax breaks, including $2.6 billion for oil and gas industries. "This bill is packed with royalty relief, tax breaks, loan guarantees for the wealthiest energy companies in America even as they are reporting the largest quarterly profits of any corporation in the history of the United States," complained Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. The bill also would direct loan guarantees and other subsidies to encourage construction of new nuclear power plants and develop carbon-capturing and other technologies to assure continued use of coal to produce electricity. About $1.3 billion in tax breaks are earmarked for conservation and efficiency programs, including credits for buying hybrid gas-electric cars and energy efficiency improvements in homes. "While it makes some progress on energy efficiency it ducks the nation's most important energy challenges," said Bill Prindle, deputy director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a private advocacy group. The group estimated the bill's provisions would lead to little oil savings and - largely because of new efficiency standards for commercial appliances - reduce electricity by about 2 percent by 2020. Other major provisions in the legislation include: - Subsidies and tax breaks for wind, geothermal and solar industries and for technology aimed at making coal more environmentally friendly. - New efficiency standards for commercial appliances from air conditioners to refrigerators. - A requirement for utilities to meet federal reliability standards for the electric transmission grid, in hopes of avoiding blackouts like the one in the summer of 2003. - Easing the way for more imports of liquefied natural gas by giving federal regulators final say over terminals. - Spurring construction of new nuclear power reactors by offering loan guarantees and "risk insurance" against regulatory delays for the initial units to be built. - A nationwide inventory of offshore oil and gas resources. Critics said they're concerned the inventory may lead to drilling in areas now off-limits. A provision that had passed the Senate to require the president to find ways to reduce U.S. oil demand by 1 million barrels a year by 2025 was abandoned because of strong opposition from House Republicans and the administration. ---- On the Net: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: http://energy.senate.gov/public/ House Energy and Commerce Committee: http://energycommerce.house.gov/ -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Return to the referring page. Las Vegas SUN main page ----------------------------------------------------------------- Questions or problems? Click here. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 28 UN Atomic Watchdog Calls For Global Cooperation On All Nuclear Issues Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:00:24 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on pascal.ctyme.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ORG, SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com UN ATOMIC WATCHDOG CALLS FOR GLOBAL COOPERATION ON ALL NUCLEAR ISSUES New York, Jul 28 2005 5:00PM From countering the threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism to preventing nuclear weapons proliferation to slaking a growing thirst for energy, the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency today called for continued global cooperation as it seeks to rise to new challenges and profit from new opportunities. “In this regard, its programmes in nuclear technology, safety, security and verification constitute the unique tools that help build a better world for all people,” the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/annual_report2004.html">IAEA) says in its <"http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/Anrep2004/index.html">Annual Report for 2004, released today. “What is needed is continued global cooperation. For the Agency, this cooperation is the key to harnessing nuclear energy in the service of development and peace.” The report highlights all aspects of the 138-Member-State agency’s work in the past year, as well as prospects for future developments. “Global nuclear developments in 2004, such as the changing outlook for nuclear power, the increasing role of nuclear applications in global sustainable development initiatives, greater international cooperation in matters of safety and security, and the increasing recognition of the need to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime, have created new challenges and opportunities for the Agency,” it says. It notes that security of nuclear and other radioactive material and associated technologies has taken on heightened significance in recent years. “However, while nuclear security is and should remain a national responsibility, some countries still lack the programmes and the resources to respond properly to the threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism. For these countries, international cooperation is essential to help them strengthen their national capacities,” it says. “International cooperation is also essential for the Agency’s efforts to assist in building regional and global networks for combating transnational threats,” it adds, stressing that its nuclear security plan is founded on measures to guard against thefts of nuclear and other radioactive material and to protect related facilities against sabotage. In this regard, the Agency has been assisting States in training customs officials, installing better equipment at border crossings, and ensuring that information on trafficking incidents is shared effectively. Since 1993, over 650 confirmed incidents of trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive material have been recorded. In 2004 alone, 121 such incidents were reported, 11 of which involved nuclear material – the highest number of incidents confirmed to the Agency in a single year since 1993. Other points in the report include:
  • The implementation of comprehensive safeguards agreements and additional protocols remains crucial for preventing clandestine nuclear weapons programmes.
  • There is clearly a sense of rising expectations for nuclear energy. Near term projections released in 2004 based on the most conservative assumptions predict the equivalent of 127 more 1000 megawatt nuclear plants than the 2000 projection.
  • The ageing of the nuclear work force is a serious concern for a number of Member States, particularly those where nuclear expansion has slowed or is being reversed by phase-out policies, and new talent must be recruited to replace retirees. New recruits are also needed in countries that are planning to expand the use of nuclear power.
    • 2005-07-28 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 29 Moscow Times: Russia to Scrap Rusting Arsenal Friday, July 29, 2005. Issue 3219. Page 5. Staff Writer Itar-Tass Russia will spend $2.5 billion to dispose of weapons like the SS-18 missile. The Cabinet on Thursday approved a six-year, $2.5 billion program to dispose of piles of strategic and conventional arms no longer used by the Russian armed forces. The federal program drafted by the Industry and Energy Ministry was debated behind closed doors and approved on Thursday, a ministry source said. The program will require financing of 73.15 billion rubles ($2.5 billion), according to the program documents made available to The Moscow Times. The state budget will finance 26.5 billion rubles of the program while the rest will come from other sources, including the U.S. government. The disposal is expected to generate over 13 billion rubles ($452 million) through the sale of byproducts such as ferrous, non-ferrous and precious metals. Kommersant reported Thursday that the disposal list included 500 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 40 strategic bombers, 1,000 airplanes and helicopters, 84 nuclear submarines, 30,000 anti-aircraft and 5,000 cruise missiles, about 6,000 tanks and over 5 billion units of ammunition. Six regional disposal centers will be created, offering jobs to 20,000 people. Formerly under the aegis of the Defense Ministry, the disposal process will now be controlled by the Industry and Energy Ministry. Cleaning up obsolete arsenals is a major issue facing the Russian military, but the progress has been slow, mostly due to insufficient funding. Russia has been under increasing international pressure to dispose of rusting weapons for fear they may end up in the hands of terrorists or cause environmental damage. "There still is a lot of unsupervised ammunition lying around, especially beyond the Urals," said Pavel Felgenhauer, a Moscow-based independent defense analyst. "Most of it is quite dangerous, too." In 1994, the government adopted a program on ammunition disposal but it never took off due to lack of funds at the Defense Ministry, said Marat Kenzhetayev, an expert with the Center for Arms Control. "As a result, there have been regular fires and explosions at military storage sites in the Pacific and Baltic fleets and Army storages in Vladivostok, Chelyabinsk and other places," he said. "In the 1990s, there was no financing from the budget at all; it all came from the West," Felgenhauer said. In 1991, the United States launched a program to assist former Soviet Union countries in controlling and protecting their nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Washington spends around $1 billion per year on the program. (The Moscow Times) © Copyright 2005 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 30 Daily Yomiuri: Pugwash confab issues antinuke declaration The Yomiuri Shimbun The 55th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs closed Wednesday after issuing the Hiroshima Declaration of the Pugwash Council that aims to ban nuclear weapons. In the declaration, delegates called on nuclear powers to agree to the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention. They also urged states to act promptly to control nuclear material to prevent regional conflicts and the possible use of nuclear weapons by terrorists. The declaration stated that the number of countries that have nuclear weapons has grown in the past 10 years, and that almost no progress has been made toward nuclear disarmament. It also said strategies focusing on the possible use of nuclear weapons were close to being established. The declaration called for compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty as short-term measures. (Jul. 28, 2005) Copyright © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 31 [NYTr] Kinshasa: Even Nuclear Reactor Was Looted Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:36:15 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Simon McGuinness The Irish Times, Thu, Jul 28, 05 http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2005/0728/3517775730FR28KINSHASA.html DR Congo: Letter from Kinshasa A city picked bare ... even nuclear reactor was looted by Paul Cullen Some cities are born drab, some achieve drabness, but you suspect that Kinshasa, the teeming capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo, has had drabness slowly thrust upon it. Each year that passes brings fresh waves of migrants from the countryside and a further steady decline in the state of the city. Like an ageing set of teeth, bits of the urban streetscape crack, become dislodged and fall out. New layers of dust and decay settle on the faded fabric of the city; potholes grow deeper, broken windows remain unreplaced. Other African cities were ravaged by war, but Kinshasa doesn't even have this excuse. Brazzaville, capital of the other Congo across the river, was battered by shelling a few years ago but Kinshasa, throughout all its conflicts, avoided taking a direct hit. Rather, its dowdy, threadbare looks are the result of regular bouts of looting, as if a passing swarm of locusts had picked the city bare. The city has fallen apart; it is, in the local phrase, "cadaviri". No one really knows how many people live here. In the 1980s the population was little over two million but these days, rough estimates put it at between eight and nine million. For decades, "Kin-la-Belle" absorbed those fleeing ethnic strife elsewhere in the Congo, offering them sanctuary if not comfort. Former dictator Joseph Mobutu stimulated further growth through his creation of a vast, underworked bureaucracy. But with the civil wars of the 1990s came economic collapse. Factories closed, civil servants were left unpaid and soldiers went on regular looting sprees. Mobutu's cronies fled to Europe with the fortunes they had salted away and fighting cut the capital off from the resource-rich provinces. With typical big-city humour, the Kinois resort to the French acronym for Aids to describe their impoverished condition, Sida (Salaire Insuffisant Depuis des Annies). Even the city's nuclear reactor was pillaged for profit. Built by the Belgians in 1958 - little did they know they would be gone within two years - the reactor rusted dangerously throughout Mobutu's rule. Then its nuclear rods went missing, only to show up in Europe. In 1998, Italian authorities seized a fuel element which had been shipped to DR Congo in the 1970s. It is believed the rods ended up in the hands of the Mafia, for possible sale to the Middle East; now the Americans fear they made have gone to al-Qaeda. The model city of boulevards, parks and sports grounds laid out by Belgian colonisers is largely gone now, submerged under tin-shack slums and mountains of rubbish (hence the city's revised nickname, Kin-la-poubelle). While the Boulevard du 30 Juin, Africa's Champs Elysie, still runs the full length of the downtown area, its eight lanes are usually choked with ancient, overcrowded buses and cars. Only the posher districts on the heights, such as Mont Fleurie and Ma Campagne, retain an ordered look, courtesy of high security provided for present-day elites. A few international- style hotels survive, too, using generators to overcome the shortcomings of the city's electricity supply. But even the five-star Grand Hotel, with its jaded dicor and garish curtains, seems to have changed little since George Foreman stayed here in preparation for his famous "rumble in the jungle" with Muhammad Ali in 1974. It's hard to know what the Kinois do for a living. Certainly, they trade - like the woman who carried a gross of eggs on her head as she hurried past my window to the market each morning - but no one seems to actually manufacture anything. Locals tell you workers are people who go to work to see if they might get paid. At the postal service HQ, for example, hundreds of employees oversee a non-functioning postal system. There are no customers in the post office, only workers who say they are owed more than five years pay. Kinshasa might be drab, but it is never dull. This is the original home of the sapeur, the style-mad poseur who believes it is better to be well-dressed than well-fed. Amid all the poverty and deprivation, sapeurs treat bars and nightclubs as catwalks where they can flaunt their latest purchases. DR Congo is the musical capital of sub-Saharan Africa and Kinshasa its beating heart. Music, spontaneous and joyful, permeates a city where hip- waggling seems involuntary. Teeming slums pulse to the hybrid, carnal Afro-Cuban rhythms unique to the country. The biggest stars have long since emigrated to Brussels or Paris but the music, like the life in the city, goes on. ) The Irish Times * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 32 Moscow Times: Kiev Rewriting Rules on Energy Friday, July 29, 2005. Issue 3219. Page 1. By Greg Walters Staff Writer Itar-Tass Russia exports 80 percent of its gas to Europe via Ukraine, while Ukraine depends on Russia for one-third of its gas. As the Ukrainian presidential campaign kicked into full gear last fall, Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company, Energoatom, announced a deal to sell electricity to Russia for well below the average wholesale price. At the time, Moscow was making no bones of its support for Viktor Yanukovych, the anointed successor to Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma. A little more than half a year after the Orange Revolution foiled Moscow's plans to install its favored candidate, Kiev pulled the plug on the electricity deal by raising rates by 77 percent. The price hike came exactly at a time when Russia was hammering Ukraine over 7.8 billion cubic meters of gas that it said had gone missing. Russian-Ukrainian relations may never have been easy, but with President Viktor Yushchenko reorienting the country toward the West, Moscow and Kiev are locked in a tense struggle to rewrite the rules of their energy partnership -- a dispute that is as much about politics as it is about business. "Under the new presidency, Ukraine is definitely trying to show its independence through its energy policy," said Anna Butenko, an oil and gas analyst at Alfa Bank in Moscow. Yushchenko's government has taken concrete steps aimed at loosening Russia's grip on Ukraine's gas, oil and electricity sectors -- though, so far, with little success. Meanwhile, Russian gas monopoly Gazprom says it is negotiating to more than triple the price Ukraine pays for Russian gas, from $50 per thousand cubic meters to $160. "Many people [in Russia] ... can't forget about their defeat in the [Ukrainian] elections," said Boris Nemtsov, a liberal Russian politician who advises Yushchenko on attracting investment from Russia. "Gazprom is a state company, and politics has always had a great influence." Although the two countries often seem to be engaged in an escalating volley of threat and counterthreat, they are also deeply entwined in a symbiotic relationship: Russia sends some 80 percent of its gas exports to Europe via Ukraine, while Ukraine depends on Russia for more than one-third of its gas needs. Noisy squabbles over energy already characterized relations under Kuchma. Yet the new ruling class in Kiev seems intent on reversing even those agreements reached near the end of the Kuchma presidency. Kiev's push for greater independence from Moscow has been spurred in part by next year's parliamentary elections in Ukraine. According to changes in the constitution, the next parliament -- and not the president -- will choose the prime minister, and Yushchenko wants to make sure one of his allies gets the job. With the elections looming large, his government is fighting to keep energy prices under control. "Economic questions are extremely important for the next elections," said Oleksander Lytvynenko, a political analyst at the Razumkov Center think tank in Kiev. Moscow, meanwhile, may have concluded that giving CIS countries preferential energy treatment does not necessarily result in greater political influence. The State Duma earlier this month passed a measure asking Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov to consider renegotiating gas prices not only with Ukraine, but with several other former Soviet republics, such as Moldova and Georgia. Ukraine, however, is a vital partner in Moscow's gas trade. The breakup of the Soviet Union left Russia with a quarter of the world's natural gas reserves. But it also gave Ukraine key pipelines linking Russia to European markets. Gazprom is expected to sell more than $20 billion worth of gas to Europe this year. New political tensions between Moscow and Kiev have strongly colored the debate over gas prices, said Nemtsov. If Moscow pushes too hard to get Ukraine to pay more for gas, Nemtsov said, it could derail fragile bilateral relations. "If they radically raise the prices, it will strengthen anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine," he said. Besides pulling the plug on the electricity deal -- which was relatively small compared to the volumes of Russian energy that Ukraine consumes -- Kiev has engaged in hardball negotiations with oil and gas suppliers. In May, Ukraine's fiery prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, accused Russian oil companies of colluding to raise prices at Ukrainian gasoline pumps and pushed to introduce price caps. She was eventually rebuffed by Yushchenko himself. Earlier this week, the Ukrainian Security Service said it was investigating whether international organized crime groups were involved in the sale of gas from Turkmenistan to Ukraine, a lucrative trade now controlled by Swiss-registered trader Rosukrenergo. Half of Rosukrenergo is owned by Gazprom via Gazprombank, and the other half is owned by Raiffeisen Investment, a subsidiary of Austria's Raiffeisen Bank. Earlier this year, Ukrainian Fuel and Energy Minister Ivan Plachkov called for Rosukrenergo to be replaced by a different trading company, or for Naftogaz Ukrainy -- Ukraine's gas monopoly -- to take a 50 percent stake in the operation. Under Kuchma, Moscow and Kiev reached an agreement in principle on the creation of a multinational consortium -- including Ukrainian, Russian and possibly European interests -- that would have controlled Ukraine's pipeline network. Yushchenko's administration appears to have gone cold on the deal. A spokesman for Naftogaz Ukrainy said that Ukraine now wants to restrict the consortium to new pipeline projects only. Meanwhile, Ukraine is scrambling to diversify its gas supplies, making new overtures to Turkmenistan -- which already supplies more than 40 percent of its needs -- and exploring new opportunities with Iran. But any new deals are complicated by transportation problems, and only accentuate Kiev's dependency on Moscow, as all existing pipelines from the Caspian region pass through Russia. "Ukraine will likely reach an agreement to get more supplies from Turkmenistan," said Ruslana Deykun, an oil and gas analyst at the Kiev office of Troika Dialog, a brokerage. "But Russia might have its own negotiations with Turkmenistan over how much Turkmen gas can transit through its territory." Last week, Ukrainian Justice Minister Roman Zvarych said that an August 2004 gas-for-transit barter deal with Russia may be illegal and should be revised. That deal appeared to end a longstanding dispute over Ukraine's debt for gas that Gazprom said had been stolen. The issue reemerged this summer when Gazprom said 7.8 bcm of gas had "disappeared" in Ukraine. Naftogaz spokesman Serhiy Lukyanchuk said that Gazprom's complaint was unjustified and was a direct response to Kiev backing off from the international pipeline consortium. "This is not a matter of economic relations between Gazprom and Naftogaz Ukrainy," he said. "It is much more a matter of the political situation between Ukraine and Russia." The case of the missing gas was closed earlier this month after Gazprom agreed -- at least officially -- with Naftogaz's claim that the 7.8 bcm was stored in underground canisters in western Ukraine. According to the agreement, most of the gas would be sold on to Europe, and 2.55 bcm would be taken by Ukraine as payment of transit fees. To Jonathan Stern, director of gas research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies in England, the dispute bore an unsettling resemblance to the late nineties, when Ukraine siphoned off huge amounts of Russian gas bound for Europe every year. The practice apparently stopped in the middle of 2000 after Kuchma admitted Ukraine had been siphoning off gas to cope with the country's energy crisis. Ukraine and Russia continued to argue over the debt for the siphoned gas until August 2004, when Ukraine agreed to let Gazprom reduce its barter payments for transit. The Ukrainian Justice Ministry's recent suggestion that the deal be overturned brings up bad memories, said Stern. "This is real dangerous stuff," Stern said. "We thought these days were over." Despite the tough bargaining positions, however, most observers say that neither side is likely to get more than an incremental edge in the gas partnership. Even if Gazprom's plan to build a pipeline on the Baltic seabed to Germany is realized by the target date of 2010, Russia will still need Ukraine to handle the majority of its European exports. "Neither side can really afford to fall out with the other," said Stern. © Copyright 2005 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 Brattleboro Reformer: NRC clarifies 'catastrophic failure' at Yankee July 28, 2005 Brattleboro, VT By KRISTI CECCAROSSI Reformer Staff VERNON -- There was no catastrophe at Vermont Yankee this week. At least not one plant officials or regulators have yet detected. There was, however, a "catastrophic failure" of a piece of equipment in the plant's switchyard, which bumped the 540-megawatt reactor offline, where it remains today. Around 3:30 p.m., Monday, an 8-foot-tall electrical insulator broke, sending a signal through the plant that shut down its generator, turbines and reactor. Staff in Vermont Yankee's control room observed the failure and, as required, they sent a report to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The first sentence of which reads "the plant experienced a load reject ... due to a catastrophic failure in the 345 kV switchyard." The report, which made rounds on the Internet after being published on the NRC's Web site, set off undue some alarms, said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the agency. "'Catastrophic' is a term used fairly frequently. It really just means there was a sudden failure of a piece of equipment. The safety significance was blown out of proportion," Sheehan said. "'Catastrophic failure' conveys something much more significant than it should." Rob Williams, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee said the "catastrophic" term, as published in some news reports, was misinterpreted. "Catastrophic is accurate. It means the piece broke apart all at once," he said. "But it caused some unnecessary public concern." The broken electrical insulator was sent to a laboratory to be tested, Williams said, and a new insulator has been installed. As of Wednesday night, he said engineers were preparing to restart the plant. The governor of New Hampshire scolded Vermont Yankee officials Wednesday for not notifying his state officials sooner about the shutdown. "It's a big concern for me that Vermont Yankee officials failed to notify New Hampshire of all the facts surrounding the incident as it was unfolding," Gov. John Lynch said in a statement released by his office. Lynch continued, "We need a full accounting from Vermont Yankee of exactly what happened, why New Hampshire wasn't notified and how we can be assured this type of communication oversight by Vermont Yankee does not happen again. We also need assurances that the plant is indeed safe to operate in light of Monday's event." Williams said plant officials are required to notify the Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts emergency management agencies within 15 minutes when there is an emergency at the plant. But plant officials didn't think Monday's shutdown fit within those guidelines, Williams said. It was not defined as an emergency by the NRC's standards and no radiation was released as a result of the shutdown. While Vermont Yankee has been offline, Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power have been shopping on the open market for replacement energy. That comes at a higher price for the state utilities, the costs of which could eventually be passed on to ratepayers, according to Stephen Costello, a spokesman for CVPS. The last time Vermont Yankee shut down unexpectedly was slightly more than a year ago. A transformer fire closed the plant from June 18 to July 5, 2004. The 17-day outage cost CVPS $860,000 and Green Mountain Power $525,000. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee officials have said the fire was due to their failure to properly maintain and monitor equipment. However, there is still a dispute between CVPS and plant owners about the cause. If CVPS can prove the fire was related to a 20 percent power "uprate" under way at the plant right now, Vermont Yankee will have to reimburse the utility for money spent buying replacement power during the last outage. When the state's Public Service Board approved the plant's uprate proposal last March, it did so with provisions: if the plant goes offline because of uprate-related work, Vermont Yankee is required to repay utilities for costs incurred during the outage. Whether this can be applied to last year's fire is now a question before the Public Service Board. Information from the Associated Press was used in this report. Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 34 CANOE Canada: N.B. government supports aging nuclear reactor July 28, 2005 By KEVIN BISSETT July 28. 2005 8:00AM MONTPELIER, Vt. - The governor of New Hampshire scolded the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant yesterday for not notifying his state officials sooner about an equipment failure that caused the plant to shut down Monday. But plant, state and Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials and even a nuclear critic agreed yesterday that the phrase "catastrophic failure," used in the plant's initial report to the NRC about the incident, may have set off undue alarm among the public. "It's a big concern for me that Vermont Yankee officials failed to notify New Hampshire of all the facts surrounding the incident as it was unfolding," New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch said in a statement released by his office. The plant is located in Vernon, just across the Connecticut River from Hinsdale, and a few miles from the Massachusetts border. Vermont Yankee spokesman Robert Williams said yesterday the plant is required to notify the Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts emergency management agencies within 15 minutes when there is an emergency at the plant. Monday's incident involved a high-voltage short circuit caused by the failure of an electrical insulator in the switchyard that moves power from the plant to the electric grid. Plant equipment detected the problem automatically and shut the reactor down, officials said. Plant officials didn't see the event as an emergency, Williams said, and NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said his agency didn't, either. By DAVID GRAM The Associated Press Concord Monitor Online, P.O. Box 1177, Concord NH 03302 Phone: 603-224-5301 | E-mail: webmaster@concordmonitor.com[ ***************************************************************** 38 NRC: NRC Announces Availability of License Renewal Application for Oyster Creek News Release - 2005-10 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-107 July 28, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced today that an application for a 20-year renewal of the operating license for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Station is available for public review. The Oyster Creek plant is located approximately nine miles south of Toms River, N.J., and its current operating license expires on April 9, 2009. The licensee, AmerGen Energy Co. LLC, submitted the renewal application July 22. It is available on the NRC Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons.html. The NRC staff is currently conducting an initial review of the application to determine whether it contains enough information for the required formal review. If the application has sufficient information, the NRC will formally docket, or file, the application and will announce an opportunity to request a public hearing. In December 2004, the NRC granted AmerGen an exemption allowing it to retain the protection of the timely renewal provision of NRC regulations. This provision stipulates that if a nuclear power plant licensee applies for license renewal at least five years before its current operating license expires, the existing license will not expire while the NRC decides whether to grant the requested renewal. AmerGen missed that time frame, but the NRC staff decided the exemption was warranted because there would still be ample time to complete the review before the plants license expires, provided a sufficient application was submitted by July 2005. For additional information, contact Donnie J. Ashley, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop O-11F1, Washington, D.C. 20555; Telephone (301) 415-3191. Last revised Thursday, July 28, 2005 ***************************************************************** 39 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power FR Doc E5-4012 [Federal Register: July 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 144)] [Notices] [Page 43719-43721] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jy05-52] Station, Unit 1; Exemption 1.0 Background The FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC or the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-3, which authorizes operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (DBNPS). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of a pressurized-water reactor located in Ottawa County, Ohio. 2.0 Request Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, appendix R, ``Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979,'' establishes fire protection requirements to satisfy 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, General Design Criterion No. 3, ``Fire Protection.'' By letter dated January 20, 2004 (ADAMS ML040220470), as supplemented by letters dated September 3, 2004 (ADAMS ML042520326), and February 25, 2005 (ADAMS ML050610249), FENOC requested an exemption from Appendix R, Section III.G.3, ``Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability.'' The licensee is requesting an exemption from the requirements of Section III.G.3 to provide area-wide fire detection and fixed fire suppression in Fire Area HH. Control room emergency ventilation systems are routed through Fire Area HH in the auxiliary building. Fire Area HH is equipped with a fire detection system (covering approximately 96 percent of Fire Area HH), but no fixed suppression system is installed. In summary, FENOC has requested an exemption from the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.3 requirement for a fixed fire suppression system in Fire Area HH and for fire detection in the approximately 4 percent of Fire Area HH not equipped with a fire detection system. 3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. These special circumstances are described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), in that the application of these regulations in this circumstance is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the regulations. The underlying purpose of appendix R, section III.G, is to provide features capable of limiting fire damage so that: (1) One train of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions from either the control room or emergency control station(s) is free of fire damage; and (2) systems necessary to achieve and maintain cold shutdown from either the control room or emergency control station(s) can be repaired within 72 hours. Fire Area HH consists of the Air Conditioning (A/C) Equipment Room (Room 603), the Records and Storage Area (Room 603A), and Vestibule (Room 603B). Room 603 consists of approximately 3,150 square feet of floor area, with an in situ combustible loading consisting of cable insulation; heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) duct insulation; and small quantities of grease, lube oil, and miscellaneous combustibles. Combustibles are located throughout the room, and in proximity to the cables of interest. Rooms 603A and 603B do not contain combustibles or equipment. Existing fire protection capability in the area consists of a fire detection system that protects the A/C Equipment Room (Room 603) and manual (not fixed) fire suppression capability consisting of portable fire extinguishers and standpipe hose stations for the protection of the entire area. Rooms 603A and 603B are not equipped with detection. Room 603A is separated from Room 603 by a 12-inch thick concrete masonry unit wall and a Underwriters Laboratory Class B fire door with a louvered opening. Room 603A is no longer used as a records storage area. The louvered opening is equipped with a fire damper held open by a fusible link. The door is normally locked and placarded with a sign that states, ``Storage of Any Kind is Forbidden'' and ``Door Must Remain Locked.'' Room 603B is a vestibule separated from Room 603 by a 2-hour rated barrier. Fire Area HH has 3-hour rated fire barriers on the walls and floors. The fire barrier between Room 603 and the stairwell and elevator, Fire Area UU, is 2-hour rated. All cables are within [[Page 43720]] conduit or cabinets. There are no cable trays in Area HH. Fire damage to the circuits for the Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) in Fire Area HH could disable the Control Room HVAC. The installed ionization smoke detection system will alert the Control Room operators to summon the fire brigade to respond and manually extinguish the fire. Standpipe hose stations are available to the fire brigade. No combustibles are stored in Rooms 603A and 603B, and these rooms are separated from Room 603, therefore a fire in Room 603A or 603B is not expected to damage the cables of interest. FENOC performed an analysis to determine the impact of a fire in Fire Area HH. For example, assuming a 500kW fire in Room 603, the room would not exceed 250 [deg]F for at least 20 minutes. Even with this relatively large fire size for the equipment in the room, the room temperature would not be high enough to cause area-wide cable damage. Also, 20 minutes would provide time for the fire brigade to respond to the fire alarm that would annunciate in the control room. The 20-minute response time allows 5 minutes for the detection system to actuate and 15 minutes for the fire brigade to respond. FENOC verified that a number of the motor control centers in Room 603 were remote from the cables of interest and therefore, would not be expected to impact them. Other combustible sources were considered to cause damage to the cables of interest and are discussed in the risk analysis. A floor drain is provided in Room 603. Based on the configuration of the room, it is expected that if any of the combustible liquids leak from their enclosures the liquids would flow to the floor drain and not flow to below the circuits of interest, where if ignited, could cause a fire that would impact the cables of interest. Loss of the Control Room HVAC is not expected to have an immediate effect on the ability to shutdown the plant from the Control Room. With no reduction in Control Room heat load, FENOC calculated that it will take 30 minutes before the Control Room will reach a temperature of 105 [deg]F. Although procedural guidance to mitigate a temporary loss of HVAC is provided (i.e., by reducing the Control Room heat load), the operators may need to or choose to abandon the Control Room due to high temperatures. FENOC has identified a few pinch points where a single fire could potentially fail both trains of CREVS circuits. These pinch points are in the area near the C6714 and C6715 cabinets, around C6705 cabinet, and a transient fire affecting the CREVS controls and compressors located in Room 603. Since the room configuration does not assure that safe shutdown will not be challenged, the licensee has performed a risk analysis to determine the probability that the existing configuration will challenge safe shutdown as discussed below. Alternate shutdown capability can be provided by evacuating the Control Room and shutting down the plant from the Auxiliary Shutdown Panel. Plant procedures include instructions for these manual operator actions if Control Room cooling is disabled. The licensee performed a risk analysis of Room 603, and determined that the fire frequency of fires that could impact the CREVS is 8.25E- 5/year. The risk analysis also estimates the likelihood that the Control Room operators would fail to take actions to shed Control Room heating loads in order to keep the Control Room habitable. This conditional probability of failure to shed control room heat loads was evaluated as 0.05 (5E-2). The risk analysis also estimates the likelihood that safe shutdown would fail if a fire affecting the CREVS required control room evacuation. This conditional probability was calculated to be 0.079 (7.9E-2). Therefore, the probability that both the CREVS cables would be damaged by a fire and the mitigation from outside the control room would fail would be: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Fail to Fail to shed shutdown from Fire frequency x heat loads x alt. shutdown = Total panel ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- 8.25E-5/year..................................... .. 5E-2 .. 7.9E-2 .. 3.3.E-7/year ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- This value is the frequency that a fire in the area may challenge safe shutdown. The value may be smaller (for example, this value does not take credit for manual suppression). FENOC also provides the overall core-damage frequency for DBNPS as 1.2E-5/year. The NRC staff examined the licensee's submittals to determine if the configuration in Fire Area HH would meet the underlying purpose of the rule, 10 CFR part 50, appendix R. The NRC staff has compared the configuration to the three defense-in-depth elements described in 10 CFR part 50, appendix R: 1. To prevent fires from starting, 2. To detect rapidly, control, and extinguish promptly those fires that do occur, and 3. To provide protection for structures, systems and components important to safety so that a fire that is not promptly extinguished by the fire suppression activities will not prevent the safe shutdown of the plant. The combustibles and ignition sources in Fire Area HH are limited to those expected in an area of this type. The licensee has control over transient combustibles and hot work performed in this area. Combustible liquids are installed within equipment, and cables are installed within cabinets and conduits; no cable trays are installed in the area. According to the licensee's analysis, if the combustible liquids were to escape their enclosure, they would flow to the floor drain and not to an area of Room 603 where, if ignited, could affect the cables of interest. There is substantial separation (2-hour rated barriers) between this area and other exposing fire areas. Room 603 is equipped with an ionization smoke detection system which annunciates to the control room for rapid plant response. The other rooms, 603A and 603B, do not contain combustibles and are separated from Room 603, and therefore are not considered to be an ignition source that could damage the cables of interest. In the unusual event that a fire did occur in either Room 603A or 603B, it is expected that the fire detectors in Room 603 would actuate. Fire suppression equipment (hose stations and fire extinguishers) are available for suppression of a fire were it to occur. Based on the room size and expected fire types, a fire creating a hot layer that causes area wide damage is not expected. The licensee identified combustibles and pinch points in Fire Area HH. These may be subjected to fires in the area, which could challenge safe shutdown. FENOC states that there are only a few pinch points and only a few [[Page 43721]] fire hazards that could affect the pinch points. Although it is unlikely that a fire will affect the pinch points, if such damage were to occur and the CREVS was to be made inoperable, means to achieve safe shutdown remain available. First, the operators could shed loads to reduce the heat load in the Control Room so that Control Room abandonment is not required. Secondly, if Control Room abandonment is required, the alternate shutdown panel is available to shutdown the plant. The licensee performed a risk analysis of these configurations which is described above. The risk analysis in the February 25, 2005, submittal is generally consistent with the NRC's fire protection significance determination process (Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix F). The results of the analysis are consistent with a change that would be acceptable when compared to the acceptance criteria described in Regulatory Guide 1.174, ``An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk- Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis,'' Revision 1. The evaluation that FENOC prepared assesses the impact of the change. This evaluation uses a combination of risk-insights and deterministic methods to show that sufficient safety margins are maintained. The NRC staff examined the licensee's rationale to support the exemption request and concluded that adequate defense-in-depth and safety margins exist. Although fixed suppression is not installed in the area, the configuration of the area makes it unlikely that the cables of interest will be damaged by a fire in the area. Also, if the cables of interest are damaged, adequate assurance remains to demonstrate that the plant can be brought to a safe shutdown condition. Based upon the above, the NRC staff concludes that application of the regulation is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the requested exemption is acceptable. 5.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants FENOC an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, section III.G.3 to install a fixed fire suppression system in Fire Area HH for DBNPS and to install fire detection in the approximately 4 percent of Fire Area HH (i.e., Rooms 603A and 603B) not currently covered by a fire detection system. This exemption is based on the limited combustibles located in the fire area (including no storage of combustibles in Rooms 603A and 603B), the limited ignition sources in the fire area, administrative controls on both transient combustibles and hot work, the configuration of Room 603 that avoids in-situ combustible liquids from affecting the cables of interest, the fire detection and manual suppression capability available, and the availability of alternate means to achieve shutdown if a fire were to occur and cause damage to the cables of interest. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (70 FR 42112). This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 21 day of July 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ledyard B. Marsh, Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-4012 Filed 7-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 40 Reuters: Entergy Vermont Yankee nuke starts to exit outage Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:17 AM ET NEW YORK, July 28 (Reuters) - Entergy Corp.'s (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 506-megawatt Vermont Yankee nuclear power station in Vermont started to exit an outage and ramped up to 2 percent of capacity by early Wednesday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report. The unit shut on July 25 due to the failure of an insulator in the transmission switchyard. An insulator is a material like glass or porcelain that does not conduct electricity. The Vermont Yankee station is in Vernon in Windham County about 80 miles north of Hartford, Connecticut. One megawatt powers about 800 homes, according to the North American average. New Orleans-based energy company Entergy's Entergy Nuclear subsidiary, the second largest nuclear generator in the United States, operates the Vermont Yankee station. Entergy's subsidiaries own and operate about 30,000 MW of generating capacity, market electricity, and transmit and distribute power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 41 Reuters: Constellation takes N.Y. Ginna nuke offline Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:32 AM ET (Adds NRC event report) NEW YORK, July 28 (Reuters) - Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) took the 497-megawatt Ginna nuclear power station in New York offline on July 27 due to chemistry concerns that occurred during maintenance, the company told the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in an event report. Early on Thursday, the plant was operating at 3 percent of capacity. To clean up the plant, the Baltimore-based company said it had to reduce the reactor to below 5 percent of capacity. Earlier on Wednesday, the unit was operating at full power. The Ginna station is located in Ontario in Wayne County about 20 miles east of Rochester, New York. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American average. Baltimore-based Constellation's unregulated Constellation Generation subsidiary owns and operates Ginna. Constellation's subsidiaries own and operate more than 12,000 MW of generating capacity, market energy commodities in North America, and transmit and distribute electricity and natural gas to customers in Maryland. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 Newsday: After 2 failures, Indian Point emergency sirens to get backup power New York City - AP New York Newsday.com July 28, 2005, 6:16 PM EDT WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) _ The owner of the Indian Point nuclear plants, prodded by politicians and two recent power failures, said Thursday it will install backup power for the 156 sirens that are meant to warn nearby residents of an emergency. Twenty of the sirens were out of order after a thunderstorm Wednesday night, and the entire system was down for nearly six hours July 19 when power was lost to a signal transmitter. Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano has been demanding a backup, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton recently inserted a provision into the pending Nuclear Security Act of 2005 that would require it. Mike Kansler, president of Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the owner of the plant in Buchanan, said, "We are simply not satisfied with the equipment and agree with Senator Clinton and other government officials that the public deserves better." Clinton called the announcement an "important change" and added, "It's the right thing to do for the safety and security of the people who live around the plant." Spano said, "I'm happy that Entergy is responding now, but they should learn to respond not just to crises but to logic." Entergy said it would begin the design process by meeting with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the state Emergency Management Office, its own security consultants and officials from the four counties within 10 miles of the plant _ Westchester, Rockland, Orange and Putnam. The plant is 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan. Copyright © 2005, The Associated Press ***************************************************************** 43 CBC New Brunswick: Lord to make decision on Lepreau Friday www.cbc.ca Last updated Jul 28 2005 04:28 PM ADT CBC News New Brunswick will find out on Friday about the future of nuclear energy in the province. Premier Bernard Lord has called a 10 a.m. new conference to unveil the decision reached at Thursday's cabinet meeting. He'll announce whether or not the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station will be refurbished. If the government decides against refurbishment, he'll talk about how the province will replace that lost energy supply. Policies Copyright © CBC 2005 ***************************************************************** 44 Guardian Unlimited: Homeland Security Lists Toxic Threats [UP] Friday July 29, 2005 1:01 AM By LARA JAKES JORDAN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Only four of an estimated 60 biological and nuclear agents that terrorists could use as weapons are classified now as highest-level threats, federal officials said Thursday. To designate substances as health threats, the government must determine whether there are enough vaccines or antidotes in the event of an outbreak, or whether new countermeasures should be developed. The four health hazards already on the Homeland Security Department's material threat determination list are anthrax, smallpox, botulinum toxin and the effects of radiological and nuclear devices. ``We've only done four. And I'm told there are about 60 possibilities for material threat assessments. Is that correct?'' Rep. Norm Dicks asked at a hearing of a House Homeland Security subcommittee. Dr. John Vitko, director of the department's biological countermeasures office, said Homeland Security has focused first on the high-priority concerns. The process of naming a hazard as a high-level threat is complex and lengthy, he added. ``This is worrisome to us,'' said Dicks, D-Wash. ``Somehow, we need to move the process a little more rapidly.'' The director of the National Institutes of Infectious Diseases told lawmakers that the lag in classifying the diseases ``is a concern.'' ``I'm aware of how difficult it is ... in getting the analysis,'' said Dr. Tony Fauci, whose office is part of the National Institutes of Health. ``I agree there is a concern and it needs to be moved faster,'' Fauci said. He said the Health and Human Services Department ``is clearly addressing that.'' The Homeland Security Department almost has finished assessing whether three more threats - plague, tularemia and chemical nerve agents - should go on the list, Vitko said. The department will begin reviewing viral hemorrhagic fevers for inclusion next month, he said. In an interview with The Associated Press, Vitko said there is no specific indication of threats to the U.S. by biological agents not already on the list. In prioritizing the agents, the department looked at ``how much they infect people, how easy they are to get, what their effects are,'' Vitko said. ``I don't want to say there's a real scare,'' Vitko said. ``The whole issue with the biological question is, there are lots of agents that are possible and within the access of terrorists. ... These are the ones of major concern.'' Also at the hearing, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it was unclear whether there will be enough flu vaccine for the public this winter. She and others made similar warnings last spring. ``I'm not counting on it,'' Dr. Julie Gerberding said. Last October, the flu-shot supply was abruptly cut in half when British regulators shut down a Chiron Corp. factory because of contamination concerns. This year, federal health officials plan to urge the elderly and others most at risk from the flu to be the first vaccinated. ^--- On the Net: House Homeland security Committee: http://hsc.house.gov/index.cfm Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 45 Whitehaven News: Security beefed up at Sellafield Published on 28/07/2005 By Alan Irving MILLIONS of pounds is to be spent on stepping up Sellafield’s security to combat the threat of terrorism. It has been revealed that the new measures include a special nuclear material detection system for checking vehicles along with workers and visitors to the site. An automatic vehicle number plate recognition system is also being introduced. Copeland councillors will be told today that the systems are to be installed at all the main entrances and exits. Sellafield is still on amber alert, the second highest security level, following the London attacks, but British Nuclear Group said the new measures were not the result of the bombings but an on-going review of security. “Millions of pounds are going to be spent on these systems. Work has already started but nothing is visible,†said spokeswoman Emma Dobinson. The site’s own police force is licensed to carry arms and these have been in evidence during recent workforce checks. Following criticism that up to 5,000 “non-essential workers†were told to stay at home after the first London bombings, British Nuclear Group decided to keep everyone at work despite last Friday’s latest alert in the capital. Copeland Council will also be told today that the emergency transport measures, including a park- and-ride scheme, could become permanent but there would be public involvement in any final decisions affecting the community. Copeland’s mayor, Coun Norman Clarkson, said: “Any steps of this kind can only be for the good of this community if they can prevent tragedies taking place.†The borough council is looking at ways in which local communities might get cash compensation from having Sellafield and the Drigg low-level waste repository on the doorstep. The council is set to spend £150,000 from its major projects fund to finance a campaign to win financial benefits similar to those paid out to “nuclear†communities in other European countries. Copeland Council is today expected to ask the county council to refuse any current or proposed planning applications to increase Drigg’s storage capacity until a similar off-set package is agreed. Copeland Council leader Elaine Woodburn said: “We have delivered a service to the nation for a long time now and it is time our communities received compensation. My hope is that we will get a win, win, win for all of us. There is no shopping list: it would be up to the communities to decide how they would want to spend the money.†***************************************************************** 46 ABQJOURNAL: Los Alamos Worker Exposed To Radiological Contamination the Albuquerque Journal newspaper. Wednesday, July 27, 2005 Albuquerque Journal--> Associated Press LOS ALAMOS — A decontamination team is cleaning the home of a Los Alamos National Laboratory worker who was exposed to a radiological contaminant while working at the northern New Mexico lab. An investigation confirmed that contamination was present in the employee's workspace and on his clothing, the lab said in a statement issued Wednesday. A survey by the decontamination team also detected trace amounts of americium 241 in the worker's car and trace amounts inside his home. Americium 241 is produced when plutonium atoms absorb neutrons in a nuclear reaction. The resulting metal is mostly used as a component in household and industrial smoke detectors. Lab officials said they are investigating to determine the origin of the contamination and whether established safety procedures and protocols were followed. "Our first concern is to ensure that every employee is safe and that the general public is protected,'' said lab director Robert Kuckuck. "We believe that this has been accomplished.'' The lab said tests are being conducted to determine how much americium is in the researcher's body. Five co-workers are also being tested. Experts said the amount carried off site by the employee is a fraction of the radioactivity contained in a typical residential smoke detector. They added that the low levels of radioactive material found at the employee's home doesn't pose a risk. Workers in the facility where the contamination occurred were sent home Tuesday afternoon so experts could complete radiological surveys of the area and clean up any residual contamination. Copyright Albuquerque Journal Steve@abqjournal.com ***************************************************************** 47 Herald Tribune: A long and painful road heraldtribune.com STAFF PHOTO / ROD MILLINGTON Former American Beryllium worker Charlie Ziegler's medical records describe symptoms of lung damage, commonly found in berylliosis patients. But in three blood tests -- the first step toward diagnosis -- he has tested negative for sensitivity to the disease. Update WHAT'S NEW: Only four former employees of the American Beryllium Co. in Tallevast have gotten federal compensation for getting sick while on the job. About 90 have been told they don't qualify. THE STORY SO FAR: The federal government will pay $150,000 to former workers who got sick from exposure to beryllium, a light, strong metal used to make parts for weapons. WHAT'S NEXT: About 60 former workers are waiting to find out if they'll qualify for the compensation. A long and painful road Compensation still elusive for former American Beryllium workers BY KATHLEEN CULLINAN TALLEVAST -- Charlie Ziegler's medical records show he has had symptoms associated with an incurable, often deadly lung disease called berylliosis since at least 1991. But the onetime janitor at the old American Beryllium Co. plant on Tallevast Road can't convince the federal government he deserves a payout from the fund it set up to compensate workers exposed to dangerous metals during the Cold War. "I'd rather have my health than to have anything else," Ziegler, 70, said. "I think the government owes me a little bit of money." Ziegler isn't alone. For more than a year, 160 former American Beryllium workers have applied to the fund; only eight have been approved for the $150,000 compensation. Ninety have been denied, and the rest are still in limbo. Ziegler's case is especially perplexing since two members of his household have tested positive for berylliosis, even though they never worked at the plant. They most likely got it from the beryllium dust Ziegler brought home on his clothes. With crucial old health records lost or incomplete, and with reactions to beryllium sometimes taking decades to show up in medical tests, many sick workers are finding it draining to get money out of the government fund designed to help them. Theresa Davy, a spokewsoman for the Department of Labor program, said most of the former workers who were denied were like Ziegler: They didn't test positive for berylliosis. Beryllium is a lightweight metal that is used to produce weapons parts, including for nuclear warheads. For nearly 40 years, workers at American Beryllium cut the metal and cleared away its chips and dust. Ziegler worked at the plant for 21 years, and often hauled bags of beryllium dust to be disposed of. At the end of the work day, Ziegler's hair and uniform would often be caked with the dust, he said. Ziegler's company medical records from 1991 show that a doctor found mild signs of lung damage, such as thickened and scarred tissue, that are commonly found in berylliosis patients. For the past few years, Ziegler has suffered from breathing problems that keep him up at night. But, in three blood tests, Ziegler has tested negative for sensitivity to berylliosis -- the first step toward being diagnosed with the disease. Ziegler's wife and brother-in-law, who lived with him during his tenure at the plant, have tested positive. They aren't eligible for the government money because it's available only to former plant employees. Without having examined Ziegler or knowing more than the basics of his situation, a doctor who specializes in berylliosis said there could be several reasons why Ziegler's family tested positive but he hasn't. It's possible Ziegler really has the disease, but the test, which is imperfect, isn't catching it, said Dr. Lee Newman of the National Jewish Medical Center in Denver. Or, other medicine Ziegler is taking might be interfering with the results. Only about 10 percent of workers who are exposed to beryllium are sensitized to it, Newman said, so not everyone who breathes the metal dust contracts the disease. And even if Ziegler and other former American Beryllium workers haven't tested positive for the disease so far, they still might, since it can take 20 years before symptoms arise. The government program will reconsider workers who are denied once for testing negative if they come back later with positive results. Other former American Beryllium employees are watching how the government handles the current cases like Ziegler's, and waiting to see if they get sick. "I was definitely exposed to the stuff," said Michael Augustin, 49, who worked at the plant for a year in the late 1980s. So far, he has tested negative for sensitivity to the metal, he said, "but I think about it all the time." Only four former American Beryllium workers have gotten the $150,000 payout from the government. Lester Koher, 79, found out from his hospice bed in March that he'd gotten his check. Koher worked for American Beryllium for seven years until 1975, when he was diagnosed with berylliosis. Stricken with cancer last winter, he was given only a few weeks to live. But when he lived through the spring and as his wife was terrified she'd no longer be able to afford his hospital bills, the government check came. After fighting for the money for two years, Koher's wife, Dorlis, understands what people like Ziegler are going through. "Anybody else that is going through this, they have my sympathy and I wish them luck," she said through tears. "Cause it's a long, hard road." Ziegler said he's not about to give up, despite his string of setbacks. Just this week, he got another letter from a federal caseworker asking for proof of a positive test result, and a string of employment documents that Ziegler says he's already sent in. Any money he gets will go toward his medical and prescription drug bills, Ziegler said. "I'll try, I really will," he said. "I'll try and I'll try again." Last modified: July 28. 2005 6:10AM ***************************************************************** 48 NRC: In the Matter of David H. Hawes; Establishment of Atomic Safety FR Doc E5-4010 [Federal Register: July 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 144)] [Notices] [Page 43721] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jy05-53] and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding: David H. Hawes (Reactor Operator License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant) This proceeding concerns a request for hearing submitted on June 28, 2005, by David H. Hawes in response to a June 20, 2005, NRC staff letter proposing the denial of his application for a reactor operator license for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. According to the staff letter, the basis for the proposed denial action was Mr. Hawe's failure to obtain a passing grade on the May 27, 2005, written examination portion of his reactor operator license application for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Ann M. Young, Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Michael C. Farrar, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Peter S. Lam, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. Issued in Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of July, 2005. G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E5-4010 Filed 7-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 49 NRC: Announcement of a Public Meeting To Discuss Selected Topics for FR Doc E5-4011 [Federal Register: July 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 144)] [Notices] [Page 43721-43725] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jy05-54] the Review of Emergency Preparedness (EP) Regulations and Guidance for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) reassessment of emergency preparedness following September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concluded that the planning basis for emergency preparedness (EP) remains valid. However, as part of our continuing EP review, some enhancements are being considered to EP regulations and guidance due to the terrorist acts of 9/11; technological advances; the need for clarification based upon more than 20 years of experience; lessons learned during drills and exercises; and responses to actual events. Therefore, the NRC will hold a one and one-half-day public meeting to obtain stakeholder input on selected topics for the review of EP regulations and guidance for commercial nuclear power plants and to discuss EP-related issues that arose during an NRC/FEMA workshop at the 2005 National Radiological Emergency Preparedness (NREP) Conference. [[Page 43722]] DATES: Wednesday, August 31, 2005, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday, September 1, 2005, 8 to 12:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, Maryland 20852. (Go to for additional hotel information.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Moody, Mail Stop O6H2, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 1-800-368-5642, extension 1737; or e-mail . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting Purpose: The purpose of the meeting is to discuss selected topics for the review of EP regulations and guidance for commercial nuclear power plants and to obtain stakeholder input. The selected topics also include EP-related issues that arose during the 2005 NREP Conference, NRC/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) workshop. In addition to the comments provided by attendees during the discussion of the above topics, the NRC is accepting written comments. Meeting Overview: The first day of the meeting will cover topics pertaining to potential changes to EP regulations and guidance for commercial nuclear power plants. This portion of the meeting will be conducted as a roundtable discussion among participants who have been invited to represent the broad spectrum of interests in the area of EP. The spectrum includes representatives from State, local, and Tribal governments, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/FEMA, NRC, advocacy groups, and the nuclear industry. The meeting is open to the public, and all attendees, including State, local, and tribal governments not represented at the roundtable, will have an opportunity to offer comments and ask questions at selected points throughout the meeting. Any questions regarding the roundtable discussion should be directed to the meeting facilitator, Francis ``Chip'' Cameron by phone at 301-415- 1642 or e-mail . The second day of the meeting will include a discussion of unanswered comments and questions captured during an NRC/FEMA workshop at the 2005 National Radiological Emergency Preparedness Conference (NREP). During the workshop, Emergency Preparedness Directorate (EPD) staff captured all unanswered comments and questions brought forth by stakeholders in a ``Parking Lot.'' Since the NREP Conference, the staff has worked with FEMA to develop responses to the ``Parking Lot'' comments and questions. This part of the meeting is to discuss the NRC/ FEMA responses to the NREP ``Parking Lot'' comments and questions in a town hall-type setting. All attendees are encouraged to participate in the discussion. The public meeting notice and agenda, as well as the responses to the ``Parking Lot'' comments and questions from the NREP Conference, can be found on the Internet at: . Updated Meeting Information: The NRC encourages all participants to check frequently the following Web site for the most current information on the meeting. New information will be added to this Web site periodically: . Submitting Comments: Comments related to the review of EP regulations and guidance may be sent to Mr. Robert Moody, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, Mail Stop O6H2, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Comments may also be hand- delivered to the NRC at the above address from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. during Federal workdays. To be considered, written comments must be received at the NRC by the close of business on Monday, October 17, 2005. Comments provided during the roundtable discussions will be captured in the meeting transcript, and along with any written comments, will be evaluated by the NRC staff. Electronic comments may be submitted via the following Web site: . Electronic comments must be sent no later than the close of business on October 17, 2005. Meeting Transcript: A transcript of the meeting should be available electronically on or about September 15, 2005, and accessible on the Internet at: . Primary EP Regulations: To facilitate discussion and comment, the primary EP regulations within the scope of review are as follows: 10 CFR 50.47; 10 CFR 50.54(q); Appendix E to 10 CFR 50. These regulations are available on the NRC EP Web site at: . Primary EP Guidance Documents: A list of the primary EP guidance documents that are within the scope of the review are as follows and are also available on the NRC EP Web site at: . 1. NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants''. 2. NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Supplement 3, ``Criteria for Protective Action Recommendations for Severe Accidents''. The following EP guidance documents are also within the scope of the review. However, they are currently only available electronically in NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): (Note: ADAMS is the NRC's online document management system at ). 1. NUREG-0696, ``Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities'' (ADAMS number ML051390358). 2. NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, ``Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements'' (ADAMS number ML051390367). Brief History: Since 1958, applicants for nuclear power plant operating licensees have been required to have procedures for coping with a radiological emergency. In 1970, the Commission approved new emergency preparedness (EP) requirements in Appendix E to title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 50. The few public comments received on the proposed regulations applauded the Commission for its effort to strengthen radiological EP requirements. The responsibility for carrying out the plans in the event of an accident remained in the hands of local and State governments. In 1973, the Commission issued guidance to local and State governments, including a checklist of 154 items that should be considered in their plans. In 1977, in response to advice from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety, the Commission published Regulatory Guide 1.101, ``Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' which gave nuclear plant licensees more detailed information on what should be included in emergency plans. Also, about this time, the Conference of (State) Radiation Control Program Directors asked the Commission to make a determination of the most severe accident basis for which radiological emergency response plans should be developed by offsite agencies. In response, the Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency formed a task force. The NRC/EPA task force submitted a report in December 1978, NUREG-0396, ``Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local [[Page 43723]] Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants.'' Among other recommendations, this report recommended that for planning purposes, a plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) of about a 10-mile radius and the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ about a 50-mile radius. Emergency response planning received close scrutiny by Congress and the Commission in the wake of the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident. Congressional oversight committees quickly made it clear that they wanted the Commission to upgrade emergency response planning. The final regulations related to TMI were issued in August 1980, when 10 CFR 50.47 was issued and Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 was revised. Since that time, implementation of the regulations and guidance, technological advances, and lessons learned from actual events and drills and exercises have revealed areas for potential enhancements and increased clarity. In addition, the staff has undertaken a number of studies to improve the state of knowledge in the area of radiological EP. The most important event in shaping the course of nuclear power since the Three Mile Island Accident in 1979 was the coordinated attack of terrorists on this nation on September 11, 2001. To enhance the interfaces among safety, security and emergency preparedness, the NRC created a new office, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR), and subsequently an Emergency Preparedness Directorate within NSIR, to address the implications of 9/11 on nuclear power plants. NSIR has worked hard to develop improved security and preparedness for nuclear power plants over the past few years. In addition, following the events of September 11, 2001, the NRC staff conducted a formal evaluation of the emergency planning basis in view of the threat environment that has existed since the terrorist attacks. This evaluation addressed all aspects of nuclear power plant emergency preparedness requirements. In doing so, the evaluation determined that emergency preparedness at nuclear power plants remains strong, but identified several areas for enhancement. These areas for enhancement are the subjects for the first half-day of the meeting. Review of EP Regulations and Guidance: The NRC staff is conducting a review of EP regulations and guidance to determine where enhancements are needed. The staff will summarize the results of its review, including comments from stakeholders, in a paper to the NRC Commissioners. The paper will include a framework of potential changes to EP guidance and, if necessary, to EP regulations, along with next steps, prioritization, and resource estimates. This effort will be conducted in cooperation with FEMA. Federal EP regulations state that NRC and FEMA will provide an opportunity for the other agency to review and comment on guidance prior to adoption as formal agency guidance. Questions to Promote Discussion: The following questions have been developed to promote attendee discussion, to obtain attendee input, and to be considered by attendees to help focus their input in each area. Due to their generic nature, they may be applicable to any of the agenda topics. Other questions to promote discussion appear after the summary for each agenda item later in this notice. 1. How can Federal, State, local and tribal governments best respond to protect public health and safety to a rapidly developing security event that has already been broadcast in the media? 2. What approaches work best to minimize the impact of enhanced rules and/or guidance on local and State government? 3. What enhancements to EP regulations and guidance would help you to more effectively and efficiently implement them in a post-9/11 threat environment? 4. What EP regulations and guidance should be enhanced based upon advances in technology? Agenda Items--Enhancements in Response to the Post 9/11 Threat Environment (Onsite): 1. Security-Based Emergency Classification Levels (ECLs) and Emergency Action Levels (EALs) As a result of improvements in Federal agencies' information sharing and assessment capabilities, security-based emergency declarations could be accomplished in a more anticipatory manner than the current declarations for security events. Therefore, the NRC is considering modifications to security-based ECL definitions and EAL thresholds in an effort to recognize those improvements. Suggested question to promote discussion: How will public health and safety be enhanced by having security-based ECLs and EALs? 2. Prompt NRC Notification In the post-9/11 environment, there is the potential for coordinated attacks on multiple facilities. Prompt notification of the NRC is particularly important during a security event to support subsequent notifications made by the NRC to other licensees and initiate the Federal response in accordance with the National Response Plan. The NRC is considering modifications to require an abbreviated notification to the NRC Operations Center as soon as possible after the discovery of an imminent or actual threat against the facility, but not later than 15 minutes from discovery. Suggested questions to promote discussion: (1) What public health and safety benefits can be derived from an early notification of a security event to a central location, such as the NRC Operations Center? (2) How should early notifications of security events be sequenced to best protect public health and safety? 3. Onsite Protective Actions While actions, such as site assembly, personnel accountability, site evacuation, etc., are appropriate for some emergencies, other actions may be more appropriate for a terrorist attack, particularly an aircraft attack. Licensees have made protective measure changes in response to the NRC Order of February 25, 2002, but certain security- based scenarios could warrant consideration of other onsite protective measures. The NRC is considering a range of protection measures for site workers to address this threat. Suggested question to promote discussion: What is the most effective way to implement offsite protective actions, such as site evacuation of non-responder personnel or accounting for personnel following release from the site, during a terrorist threat or strike? 4. Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Augmentation The ERO is expected to be staged in a manner that supports rapid response to limit or mitigate site damage or the potential for an offsite radiological release. Some licensees have chosen not to activate elements of the ERO during a security-based event until the site is secured. It is prudent to fully activate emergency response organization members for off-normal hours events to promptly staff alternative facilities. During normal working hours, licensees should consider deployment of onsite emergency response organization personnel to an alternative facility near the site. Suggested question to promote discussion: During a terrorist event, would there be impediments that would preclude effective recall to the site of station emergency response personnel during a terrorist event, and how could they be overcome? [[Page 43724]] 5. Drill and Exercise Program Current assessments indicate that licensee measures are available to mitigate the effects of terrorist acts. Consequently, such acts would not create an accident that causes a larger release or one that occurs more quickly than those already addressed by the EP planning basis. However, the condition of the plant after such an event could be very different from the usual condition practiced in more conventional nuclear power plant emergency preparedness (EP) drills and exercises. In light of the foregoing and of the post-9/11 threat environment, licensees should exercise and test security-based EP capabilities as an integral part of the licensee's emergency response capabilities. Suggested question to promote discussion: How can security-based drills and exercises be most effective in training, practicing and assessing coordinated response roles and responsibilities? Additional Information Related to the Onsite Agenda Items: NRC Bulletin 2005-02, ``Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-based Events,'' dated July 18, 2005, provides additional information to help attendees understand the above topics. This document is available in ADAMS at number ML051740058 or on the Internet at: . Agenda Items--Enhancements in Response to the Post 9/11 Threat Environment (Offsite): 6. Enhanced Offsite Protective Action Recommendations (PARs) The current PAR guidance contained in Supplement 3, ``Criteria for Protective Action Recommendations for Severe Accidents,'' to NUREG- 0654/FEMA-REP-1 (see the NRC website) specifies that the licensee should issue a PAR based on plant conditions that involve actual or projected severe core damage or loss of control of the facility (i.e., at a general emergency). In the event of an emergency classification based on a security event, the NRC is soliciting comments regarding the receipt of a PAR from a licensee at the site area emergency or possibly at the alert classification level. Suggested questions to promote discussion: (1) What value to public health and safety would a recommendation to ``go indoors and monitor the emergency alert system'' at a site area emergency classification provide during a security event? (2) What benefits or possible consequences would occur for stakeholders, if such a recommendation were made during a security event? 7. Abbreviated Notifications to Offsite Response Organizations (OROs) The regulations in Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 (to see the regulations go to ) require the licensee to have the capability to notify responsible ORO personnel within 15 minutes after declaring an emergency. While licensees and OROs are proficient with notification transmission and receipt, the notification process itself takes several minutes for the licensee to fill out the form, obtain authorization, and notify the OROs, perform repeat backs, and verify the notification. The NRC is soliciting offsite officials' comments on the receipt of an abbreviated initial notification to enhance emergency response in the case of a rapidly developing security event. Suggested questions to promote discussion: (1) What public health and safety benefit would be derived from an abbreviated notification to the ORO during a security event? (2) How could such an abbreviated notification be effectively implemented during an onsite security event? 8. Backup Power to Siren Systems FEMA is in the process of revising its guidance documents to reflect the technological advances that have taken place since they were originally published. By congressional direction, this guidance will require that all warning systems be operable in the absence of alternating current (AC) supply power. FEMA-REP-10, ``Guide for Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants,'' is currently under revision. Once the revised guidance becomes available, the NRC will be considering regulatory approaches to implement the revised guidance and effect necessary Alert and Notification System (ANS) upgrades. Suggested question to promote discussion: Should the NRC require that the ANS be operable in the absence of AC power, or are there backup alerting methods that can reliably alert the public in a timely manner under reasonably anticipated conditions that would be an adequate substitution for backup power? Agenda Item--Protective Action Recommendation Guidance: Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10) (to review the Planning Standard go to ) requires that a range of protective actions be developed for the protection of the public. Guidance related to the implementation of a range of protective actions is provided in Supplement 3 to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 (see the NRC Web site above) and EPA-400-R-92-001 (see ). While each guidance document contains the same basic protective action concepts of evacuation, shelter, and, as a supplement, potassium iodide, the NRC is considering changes to clarify the responsibilities of the licensee to recommend PARs, and State, local, and Tribal officials to make the final decision regarding, which protective action(s) is/are implemented. The NRC is also considering the need to more clearly define sheltering. In addition, the NRC is considering the need to enhance guidance related to the updating and use of evacuation time estimates. Suggested questions to promote discussion: (1) How can the responsibilities of the licensee and State, local, and Tribal officials be clarified relative to protective actions to protect public health and safety? (2) How can sheltering (for discussions on sheltering see EPA-400-R-92-001, ``Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents'' can be found on the NRC Web site at: ) be more clearly defined? (3) How can guidance related to the updating and use of evacuation time estimates be enhanced? Additional Information Related to Protective Actions: The following information and electronic addresses are provided to help attendees better understand the topic related to protective actions: 1. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-13, ``Consideration of Sheltering in Licensee's Range of Protective Action Recommendations,'' August 2, 2004 (ADAMS number ML041210046) 2. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-13, Supplement 1, ``Consideration of Sheltering in Licensee's Range of Protective Action Recommendations,'' March 10, 2005 (ADAMS number ML050340531) 3. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-08, ``Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Guidance `Range of Protective Actions for Nuclear Power Plant Accidents','' June 6, 2005 (ADAMS number ML050870432) Background Information for the NREP Parking Lot Issues: On April 11, 2005, at the National Radiological Emergency Preparedness Conference, NRC and FEMA conducted a workshop with State/local/tribal stakeholders, along with licensee representatives. The [[Page 43725]] workshop, ``Emergency Preparedness Enhancements in the Post-9/11 Environment,'' covered a broad range of EP topics, including proposed 9/11-related enhancements regarding offsite preparedness/response. The workshop was attended by stakeholders nation-wide. During the workshop, EPD staff recorded all comments and questions brought forth by stakeholders in a ``Parking Lot.'' NRC and FEMA promised stakeholders that they would provide responses to these comments and questions. Since NREP, the staff has worked with FEMA to develop responses to the ``Parking Lot'' comments and questions. This part of the meeting is intended to discuss the NRC/FEMA responses to the NREP ``Parking Lot'' comments and questions, that will be included on the following Web site on or about August 1: . Dated in Rockville, Maryland, the 22nd day of July 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nader L. Mamish, Director, Emergency Preparedness Directorate, Division of Preparedness and Response, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. [FR Doc. E5-4011 Filed 7-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 50 Yuma Sun: Uranium in river water raises crop questions BY JONATHAN ATHENS, Sun Staff Writer Jul 27, 2005 Authorities on Wednesday said the amount of uranium in the Colorado River running through Yuma County is far below the federal limits to be considered a threat to human health. And while university researchers for the past two years have been testing the river here at least once a month for uranium, no one knows for certain if or how much of that radioactive element could be in the crops grown here because such tests on crops are not conducted. The issue came to the forefront when federal authorities on Monday said they intend to move more than 12 million tons of uranium tailings in 2007 from a dumping spot along the Colorado River near Moab, Utah, to Crescent Junction, Utah, about 30 miles away from the river. In question is whether crops grown in the county and irrigated by the river have absorbed the radioactive element. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality said they have not conducted uranium tests and said they have no data to suggest there could be traces of uranium in crops grown here. The Arizona Department of Agriculture said they have not conducted such tests and said they have no mandate from the state, nor the funding from the Legislature to do so. Arizona Farm Bureau spokesman Neil Schneider said, "We don't think there's any reason for people to think that the food supply isn't the safest in the world ... We have the safest food supply in the world." University of Arizona researcher Charles Sanchez said tests of the river in the Yuma area during the past two years indicate there are 3 to 5 parts per billion of uranium, far below the 30 parts per billion acceptable limit set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Ingesting sufficient levels of uranium in water can cause cancer and toxicity in the kidneys, said EPA environmental engineer Jill Korte. The level of uranium in the river here "is not a concern" when it comes to drinking water but "whether or not it is a risk is debatable," Sanchez said. Sanchez said it is not possible to ascertain if the uranium in the river here comes from the pile in Utah. Sanchez said there are other potential sources of uranium along the river, some naturally occurring throughout the basin and others from abandoned mines in the northern portion of the river. Sanchez said researchers have not tested crops for uptake of uranium due to a lack of funding. Sanchez said efforts are under way "to raise funds to test for food uptake." ADEQ spokesman Cortland Coleman said, "We have nothing to indicate that there is a potential problem." Coleman said ADEQ could conduct such tests but has not done so. Coleman would not elaborate any further. Coleman said ADEQ does not have "any data or reports per se on Colorado River quality." In a news release statement ADEQ issued on Monday, the department stated the Clean Colorado River Alliance identified uranium, along with nitrogen, nitrates, ammonia, chromium, salinity, sediments and perchlorate among "main pollutants of concern potentially affecting water quality in the Colorado River." The Alliance consists of more than 30 leaders from communities along the river, according to ADEQ's Web site. Agriculture department spokeswoman Katie Decker said the agriculture department does "not have a clear mandate" to do uranium testing and as a result of not having such a mandate, the department is not funded to conducted such tests. "Until the Legislature gives us the mandate and funding to do so, we're not able to," Decker said. Regarding the yet-to-be ascertained possibility of uranium traces in crops, Decker said: "If this is in fact what is happening, this raises alarms with us and we're concerned. You can only imagine how industry would be (affected) with something of this magnitude." Schneider said if there is to be additional testing of crops, the government must bear that expense for the public good. --- Jonathan Athens can be reached at jathens@yumasun.com or 539-6857. © Copyright 2005 The Sun, a Freedom Newspapers of Southwestern Arizona company. All rights reserved. Contact Us| 2055 Arizona Ave. Yuma AZ 85364 (928) 783-3333 FAX 343-1009 ***************************************************************** 51 No Dumping Nuclear Waste on Native Lands Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:31:27 -0500 (CDT) No Dumping Nuclear Waste on Native Lands July 27, 2005 A group of artists, experts and Native Americans held a press conference Monday to speak against a provision in the current energy bill that would dump nuclear waste on a Utah reservation. Before a hundred people in a press conference room in the US Capitol, they spoke on behalf of the Skull Valley Goshute tribe against a proposal to dump 44,000 tons of highly radioactive atomic fuel from commercial reactors onto the reservation, located 45 miles from Salt Lake City. Congressman Kucinich, opening the presentation, denounced PFS (Private Fuel Storage), the private, limited liability consortium behind the proposal. Kucinich called PFS's plan "unjust, dangerous, and unnecessary," saying it not only violates the rights of the tribe by ruining its land, but also risks catastrophe for the whole country in transporting the waste to Utah. Navin Nayak of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) spoke and MC'd the event. Other speakers included actor and activist James Cromwell; Amy Ray and Emily Saliers of the Indigo Girls; Margene Bullcreek, founder of Ohngo Guadedah Devia, Skull Valley Goshute; singer and song-writer Ani DiFranco; Kevin Kamps of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service; and Pete Downing of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. Sixty members of Congress have written to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the matter, Kucinich said, but so far have received no response. The energy bill, which could reach 1,000 pages in length, had not yet been made public at the time of the press conference. The House was expected to vote this week, followed closely by the Senate, possibly as early as Thursday. Kucinich pointed out that most Members of Congress will not have seen the bill before it comes to the floor for a vote. In a stirring conclusion to the event, Kucinich said, "The American people are waiting to be inspired and moved. Will $2 per gallon move them? Maybe not. Will $3? $4? Probably not. "But if people make connections between a war against innocent people in Iraq and our energy policy, between moving tons of nuclear waste and our so-called energy policy, between the production of nuclear weapons and our failed energy policy ... "We're not just talking about protecting sacred land. The whole earth is sacred. The whole earth is sacred! We're talking about reclaiming our humanity. "Jamie Cromwell talked about people putting themselves on the line. We have to shake the conscience of this country! WAKE UP! That's what we ought to be telling this country, and we are the ones. We are the messengers. We are the messengers." http://www.kucinich.us/archive/home/display.php?src=k_20050727_ab_qhzcva t.cuc ***************************************************************** 52 AU ABC: Katherine split over nuclear dump site (ACST)Friday, 29 July 2005. 10:11 (AEDT)Friday, 29 July 2005. The Mayor of Katherine in the Northern Territory says she has had a mixed response from the town about the possibility of a Commonwealth nuclear waste dump in the region. Anne Shepherd has voiced her opposition to a dump being set up at Fishers Ridge, 40 kilometres south of Katherine, which is one of three possible sites in the Northern Territory. Ms Shepherd says the rest of the council is still undecided over the issue and she has heard from a number of residents who are in favour of the dump. "They see it as an economic benefit to Katherine, on the other hand I've had a lot of negative feedback as well about it, a lot of fear, a lot of irritation that we'd been dictated to," she said. "There was no previous consultation, there are certainly strong feelings in the town." ***************************************************************** 53 Las Vegas RJ: Yucca Mountain Project management defended Thursday, July 28, 2005 DOE official says delays are allowing time to `improve' program By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- A Department of Energy official on Wednesday defended DOE management at Yucca Mountain, saying recent senior staff departures were to be expected and that long delays are allowing time to "tweak and improve" the nuclear waste program. Eric Knox, associate director for the Yucca project, blamed outside forces for holdups. The Energy Department last fall postponed a self-imposed deadline of December to file a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission following judicial rulings last summer that set back the repository effort. A new timeline has not been set. Knox maintained delays are giving DOE "extra time" to scrutinize its license application. "It's kind of like having a college exam coming up and all of a sudden the professor gets sick or the building catches on fire and you have to reschedule it for a week or two weeks or a month later," Knox said. "You have extra time to prepare for the exam. That's how I look at what we are doing right now. "We are going back and improving quality and enhancing quality, not to say it was bad before," Knox said. But Knox said the extra scrutiny is adding pressure for Yucca managers to "have it right" when they do submit a repository license application. "One thing we cannot afford is to submit a license application and then two, three years down the process, it is rejected," Knox said. Knox delivered the assessment to a conference organized by the Nuclear Energy Institute trade association. In his presentation Knox downplayed the departure of senior managers from the Yucca project this year, including director Margaret Chu, deputy director Ted Garrish, quality assurance manager Denny Brown and licensing manager Joseph Ziegler. "The staff changes mean that people have lives and they have other things they need to do and want to do," he said. Knox is a former Yucca Mountain official who returned to the project in April from another DOE assignment. Paul Golan, a deputy assistant secretary overseeing environmental cleanup at DOE sites, was named in April to replace Garrish. Last week, Golan was named acting director of the Yucca project. Bob Loux, a Nevada official who coordinates the state's opposition to Yucca Mountain, said the Energy Department was trying to cast a positive light on flaws that hamper the project. "They can't maintain a schedule because they are not in control of events any longer," said Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. "Of course they are not schedule-driven because it is out of their hands." Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 54 Las Vegas SUN: Survey: 62 percent have unfavorable view of Yucca Today: July 28, 2005 at 10:57:20 PDT Some worried about drop in home values By Stephen Curran LAS VEGAS SUN The proposed high-level nuclear waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas could provide some unwanted relief for would-be homeowners stifled by rising housing costs, a Clark County-sponsored survey found. Worried that the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain would send land and property values in Southern Nevada plummeting, almost half -- 43 percent -- of 600 people surveyed last month said the project would send what had been skyrocketing home prices into a slump. Irene Navis, planning manager for the county's nuclear waste division, said residents believed that shipping the more than 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste would be akin to building a massive, environmentally hazardous landfill and manufacturing facility near their homes. In the survey, more than 62 percent of respondents said the proposed nuclear waste dump would have a negative impact on the quality of life in Clark County, according to a summary of the statistics, which are expected to be presented to the County Commission next week. The answers, she said, indicated that residents did not support negotiating for benefits from the Energy Department, although residents were not directly asked if they supported such a plan. Leaders in the rural counties where most of the 319-mile rail line would travel have openly negotiated for a financial windfall from the project, saying it could help repair schools and other public facilities in the struggling areas. "Based on how people answered, negotiating for benefits was not a priority," Navis told the Commission on Nuclear Waste on Monday. A separate study of fewer than 70 people in rural Nevada is under way to "begin the process of developing and providing a list of impacts and needed mitigation." Contractors performing the study on behalf of the Central Nevada Community Protection Working Group have said some rural respondents are concerned about losing property that in many cases has been in large families for generations. The Lincoln and Nye county commissions have also signed formal resolutions supporting the process and launching efforts to negotiate for money they hope will revive those areas' lagging economies. Hal Bloch, president of the Summerlin North Homeowners Association, the largest such group in the county, said the board rarely addresses matters of a statewide or national significance, instead focusing on the "nuts and bolts" of running the master-planned community. Bloch said, while the homeowners association has not taken an official stance on the project, it was too early to say whether it would have an adverse effect on property values in the affluent community. "I'm sure there are people who feel that way, but I wouldn't say it's a groundswell among the homeowners," he said. "I have heard some people who might be more excitable than the average person saying there might be an adverse effect." In the mid-1990s the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, which represents more than 750 contractors, developers and real estate brokers, approved a resolution against the massive repository, saying it posed a "grave safety concern for the community." Monica Caruso, a spokeswoman for the group, said property values might not be directly tied to the nuclear waste dump but that speculation among would-be newcomers could cause demand on previously hot properties to drop. "Will it remain a viable, growing community if we have nuclear garbage stored in our attic?" she said. "... I think it's certainly reasonable to postulate that demand would likely decline among homeowners who would not be interested in living near nuclear waste." Caruso added that such concerns are mostly "academic" as the safety risks of living so close to nuclear waste outweigh the economic threats. But while most Las Vegas business and government leaders remain steadfastly opposed to Yucca Mountain, anti-Yucca activism appears to have lost traction among average citizens, Caruso said. "I don't know if there's the emotion and passion among the average person that you see among the business and civic leaders," she said. "For the average person just living their life, I'm not sure they're that concerned." ----------------------------------------------------------------- Return to the referring page. Las Vegas SUN main page ----------------------------------------------------------------- Questions or problems? Click here. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 55 PE.com: Tougher limit urged on rocket fuel in water Inland Southern California PERCHLORATE: An Inland lawmaker says public health may be in danger under current standards. 10:57 PM PDT on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 The Press-Enterprise State Sen. Nell Soto is asking the state to set a tougher public health goal for a rocket-fuel chemical that has contaminated several Inland drinking-water supplies. New information about the chemical, perchlorate, justifies lowering the drinking-water goal, the Pomona Democrat said a letter Tuesday to the director of the state office that evaluates environmental health risks. The public-health goal currently is six parts perchlorate to 1 billion parts water -- less than the amounts found in some Inland water supplies. The health goal is not a regulation, but it is a guideline that many agencies use in deciding whether water is safe to deliver to consumers. In sufficient doses, perchlorate can impair the thyroid gland's ability to make hormones needed for proper brain and nerve development. The state currently is developing a rule to limit perchlorate in drinking water. The public-health goal was set last year by the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment. Since then, perchlorate has been discovered more widely in food and in human breast milk, Soto said in her letter. In addition, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has raised concerns about how people with genetic thyroid disorders might be harmed by perchlorate. Soto also said that the conclusions in a study used to calculate the health goal have been refuted. "I no longer feel confident that six parts per billion is sufficient to protect those who are most at risk," Soto wrote in a letter to Joan Denton, director of the environmental health office. Denton and a spokesman could not be reached for comment Tuesday. 2005, The Press-Enterprise Company ***************************************************************** 56 AFP: US admits problems in persuading North Korea to dump nuclear weapons 28/07/2005 09h59 Chinese paramilitary police guard the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse ©AFP BEIJING (AFP) - The United States admitted that persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons drive was not proving easy and key differences remain, but the two sides agreed to meet again. The main protaganists met Thursday for the third time this week. While the atmosphere and rhetoric is better than previous encounters, neither side is budging from their uncompromising positions on the three-year standoff. "We had a lengthy discussion and I must say there are a number of differences," chief delegate Christopher Hill told reporters after his two-hour meeting with North Korean counterpart Kim Kye-gwan. "On the other hand, on some points we have some common understanding on how to proceed. I must say, though, this is not an easy process." The six parties to the talks that also include China, South Korea, Russia and Japan, are hoping to produce a joint statement setting out what has been achieved and where they go from here, but this has yet to be drafted. Hill said he hoped this process could begin with 24 hours. Earlier, the Russian news agency Interfax reported that Hill proposed to Kim that international inspectors enter North Korea in September to check its nuclear facilities, but Hill denied this. "I have no idea what they are talking about," he said. International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors were thrown out of North Korea in December 2002 after the US accused the regime of running a uranium enrichment program, sparking the current showdown. China, hosting the multinational talks for a fourth time, made clear that it was too early to say whether the negotiations had succeeded or failed, but also admitted there were still major hurdles to clear. "It's far too early to say if there is a breakthrough or a breakdown," said foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang of the talks between the US and North Korea. "There were difficulties but there is a willingness to continue talking. I think they are in the process of finding common ground and there are differences but what the common ground is, I'm not in a position to comment. "There are many problems that need to be discussed ... and everyone needs to continue talking." The US and North Korea are scheduled to meet for a fourth time Friday, the US embassy said. With little sign of movement in the talks, a meeting between all of the chief delegates was cancelled to allow the US-North Korean contact to go ahead. It has been rescheduled for Friday afternoon, South Korean officials said. Pyongyang refuses to disarm until Washington normalizes relations, among other conditions. A key sticking point is the American allegation that North Korea is running a highly enriched uranium program. On Wednesday the US maintained that North Korea must abandon all its nuclear programs, including the uranium enrichment scheme. North Korea has always denied operating such a program, which can be used to produce atomic explosive devices, either for weapons or for peaceful purposes. "This issue has to be clarified in the process of the six-party talks," said Qin. North Korea abandoned the six-nation talks in June last year, complaining of hostile US policy, but returned after a 13-month hiatus -- enticed in part by a softer US approach. In an effort to forge a breakthrough, South Korea has offered to provide the North with 500,000 tonnes of rice and some 2,000 megawatts of electricity if it abandons its nuclear ambitions. Seoul has also suggested that in the joint communique issued at the end of the talks North Korea pledges to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs. In return, the other nations would promise to normalize ties and offer security guarantees and economic cooperation. Copyright Disclaimer ©AFP 2005 ***************************************************************** 57 StatesmanJournal.com: Shadows remind people of nuclear-bomb damage Opinion - July 28, 2005 The nuclear shadows were remnants of atomized people; they appeared 60 years ago at the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and 9, 1945. An estimated 300,000 human beings died from those two bombs, which also leveled two cities. Although the United States is the only country that has ever used the bomb, today nine countries have approximately 27,560 bombs ready to go. Fortunately, the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 created the International Atomic Energy Agency that tracks nations that are trying to build such weapons, and it dismantled the efforts in Iraq. Now our Bush administration is pushing hard to develop a new generation of nuclear bombs, primarily the "bunker buster" with 70 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. It would dig deeper into the earth or rock before exploding, destroying a wider area. This year's request for funding to develop this bomb will be thrashed out by a conference committee of the House and Senate in September. On the 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima bomb, look for sidewalk shadows in downtown Salem to remind us of the loss of life that nuclear weapons foreshadow. -- Polly Hare, Salem Copyright ©2005 StatesmanJournal.com All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 58 AP Wire: SRS layoffs hit some longtime employees hard | 07/28/2005 | JACOB JORDAN Associated Press AIKEN, S.C. - Fifty-one-year-old Leonard Collins learned he was being laid off from the Savannah River Site while away on funeral leave. It was a disappointing way to hear the news - the Aiken man had spent half his life working at the plant. Collins is one of 1,200 workers being laid off from Westinghouse Savannah River Co. by Oct. 1. The company, which operates the site for the Department of Energy, said the layoffs were necessary because a variety of projects at the former nuclear weapons complex have been completed. Now workers like Collins are left without jobs, wondering what they will do next. Many attended meetings this week - held at offsite locations for security reasons - about benefits and future employment opportunities. They talked about how they were escorted out of the old "bomb plant," where the nation produced nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Many agreed worker morale was low and said the system to determine who was laid off was unfair. Collins was one of 400 people to receive his pink slip this month. The electrical course instructor had rushed home after learning his granddaughter died at birth. His bosses called the same day. "They wanted to know if I could come back for an hour to get laid off," said Collins, who refused. "It shows a lack of compassion." Company spokesman Will Callicott said it's a stressful process for everyone. "You just try to work your way through it the best way that you can," he said. "Ideally, we would like to get this all done within reason, as quickly as we can." Former employees were told earlier this month they would be paid for another 60 days. For security reasons, workers are asked not to return after they're laid off. Collins, who has a wife and four grown children, said he'll be OK. He'll get a retirement package that will provide some benefits, but he's already looking for another job, possibly commuting to Columbia or Orangeburg. Not everyone is that lucky. Ron Malanowski spent 17 years as project manager at SRS. He already has sent out 40 or 50 resumes to companies around the country. "I'm going to have to go somewhere else," the 59-year-old from Aiken said. "I don't know what fair is. Do I think I should have lost my job? No, but somebody had to be laid off." Westinghouse is involved in the cleanup of waste left behind from nuclear weapons production as well as environmental management and waste solidification. Buildings have been demolished and reactors have been decommissioned. The site peaked with 25,000 employees during the early 1990s but is down to about 11,000 workers. In addition to the 400 layoffs announced this month, about 650 volunteered to be laid off in the spring. More layoffs are coming, too, as part of the Department of Energy's work force restructuring plan. Up to 800 additional employees could be laid off by Oct. 1, 2006. Many employees remain loyal to the site even after they were laid off and didn't want to be interviewed for this story. SRS has been a fixture in the area since the 1950s and generations of families and businesses have benefited from the economic engine. Others spoke candidly about their situations. Janice Detrick, 59, said she knew the layoffs were coming. Her manager told her a few years ago that the procurement group of eight she worked with would be reduced to two. "I'll be 60 in December so I probably won't do a lot for a while," Detrick said. And if she does get a job, it will be a "no-brainer" working nine to five, said Detrick, who worked at the site for 20 years. Mozell Murray, 53, said she may return to the medical field after working 15 years at the site. "The job market is so scarce it's hard to say what I may or may not do," she said. Workers leaving the site, either on a voluntary or involuntary basis, will receive one week's pay for each year of service, up to 26 weeks. The company also is helping. Westinghouse has sought employment opportunities for workers within various partner companies, and the local unemployment office is offering training, assistance in creating and polishing resumes and helping former workers apply for unemployment. The office even hired more workers and started opening on Saturdays. Some former employees are sure to need help, especially those that don't qualify for retirement benefits. But even those that do were counting on better benefits. Collins said he won't reach a milestone anniversary at the plant that would have given him additional perks. Collins worked there "24 years, 11 months and 10 days." -+Click to enlarge photo "I missed 25 years by 20 days," he said. WASHINGTON (AFP) - Persuading North Korea to scrap its nuclear weapons program is a long-haul affair but the United States is ready to work at it "for as long as necessary," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. Rice said in a televised interview the six-nation talks that resumed in Beijing this week after a 13-month hiatus had gotten off to a promising start in a professional and "very good" atmosphere. Click to enlarge photo "I think that there are a lot of difficult issues that have to be gone through," she told Public Television's NewsHour. But she added, "We're prepared to roll up our sleeves and work for as long as necessary to make progress." Rice spoke as the State Department conrfirmed North Korea had reacted coolly to the last US proposals for ending the dispute, expressing particular concern over the timing of concessions and rewards. SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/thestate.news/local;kw=bottom;c The chief US diplomat counseled patience.p=234x60;ord=11226103645 82?" BORDER="0" > "I would not expect that out of this round of the six-party talks, we're going to have a solution to this problem," she said. "It took us some time to get there. "People forget that the North Koreans have been trying to build the nuclear weapons since the late 1960s when they had cooperation with the Soviet Union. So it's going to take some time to change this circumstance." reprint or license this "I think it's going to be one of the issues that as a group, as a grouping of the six parties, that will continue to be discussed as well as other issues," McCormack told reporters. He made his remarks after the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia completed three days of talks in Beijing with the North Koreans, who agreed to come back to the table after a 13-month hiatus. The New York Times, quoting a senior US official in Beijing, said the North Koreans were balking at the timing of mutual actions proposed by the Americans last year to dismantle Pyongyang's nuclear arms program. It said North Korea had complained the United States and its allies were demanding too many up-front moves toward dismantlement before coming across with aid and energy assistance. The US proposals would require North Korea to pledge to dismantle all its plutonium and uranium weapons programmes before receiving "non-nuclear energy assistance," including oil and food, as well as security assurances. McCormack said the North Koreans "had some reactions to the June 2004 proposal" during Wednesday's talks in Beijing. "They expressed concerns in the public forum about the phasing and sequencing." *****************************************************************