***************************************************************** 07/29/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.174 ***************************************************************** 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 MNA: Iran sets August 1 deadline for EU nuclear proposal 2 Guardian Unlimited: Atmosphere Improves at Nuclear Talks 3 Guardian Unlimited: Few Signs of Progress in Nuclear Talks 4 Xinhua: Six parties to start drafting common document 5 Xinhua: Six-party talks to continue amdist differences 6 Asia Times: A way out of the Korean standoff 7 Reuters: North Korea nuclear talks enter uncharted territory 8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., N. Korea Hold Longest Meeting Yet 9 Reuters: U.S. shows N. Korea data on secret nuclear program 10 Reuters: N.Korea, US seek to bridge gap on nuclear crisis 11 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., N. Korea Differ on Nuclear Policy 12 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Getting High Marks From U.S. 13 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: President's money grab off for now 14 US: Las Vegas SUN: Congress Passes Far-Reaching Energy Bill 15 US: Las Vegas SUN: Reid votes against bill; Ensign supports it 16 US: Weekly Standard: Why Truman Dropped the Bomb 17 US: Cincinnati Post: A disappointing effort 18 US: CNN: Analysts see gains for oil and coal industries - 19 US: Guardian Unlimited: Congress Set to Pass Energy Bill 20 Guardian Unlimited: Worse than irrelevant 21 BBC: Fears over future energy sources 22 BBC: Indian PM justifies nuclear deal 23 Xinhua: New nuclear submarine to equip Russian fleet in Far East NUCLEAR REACTORS 24 US: [epa-impact] Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Availabil 25 UK The Times: Safety fear overruled for Putin's floating reactors 26 CNW Group: AECL mobilizing immediately on Lepreau refurbishment 27 CNW Group: Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) Hails Great Day for Nu 28 Xinhua: US says DPRK should not retain civilian nuclear capability 29 CBC News: N.B. to refurbish aging nuclear plant 30 US: Reuters: Constellation N.Y. Ginna nuke back in service 31 US: Reuters: Entergy reduces N.Y. FitzPatrick nuke for work 32 National Post: Overhaul of N.B. power plant a go 33 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Operators power up VY plant NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 34 US: NRC: Notice of License Amendment Request for Eastern Technologie 35 Reuters: UK's Pursuit joins US air decontamination project 36 US: Paducah Sun: Legislation provides pension protection for cleanup NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 37 AU ABC: Senator wonders if NT dump ban is 'under review' 38 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: Rocket fuel ingredient found in drinking wat 39 Las Vegas SUN: Porter's committee still waiting for some Yucca docum 40 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Not in my backyard: Only three states will al 41 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting 42 US: AU ABC: Martin open to change over uranium mining policy. 43 US: L.A. Daily News: Wells may be contaminated PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 44 DOE: RIN 1991-AB62 Aquisition regs 45 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford initiative clears legal hurdle 46 Tri-City Herald: Hanford insurance for retirees reduced 47 Planet Jackson Hole: DOE Tilting at INL ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 MNA: Iran sets August 1 deadline for EU nuclear proposal Tehran: 20:39 , 2005/07/27 TEHRAN, July 27 (MNA) -- A high-ranking Iranian nuclear official recently met and held talks with two European Union ambassadors involved in the Iran-EU talks on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, the Mehr News Agency learned on Wednesday. The recent talks can be regarded as Iran’s second important message to Europe ahead of the deadline set for the EU big three (Britain, Germany, and France) to present a comprehensive plan on Iran’s nuclear program. The first message from Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, was delivered to the EU last week in a session in London. During the recent meetings, the unidentified Iranian nuclear official called on the EU to officially recognize Iran’s right to master the complete nuclear fuel cycle in its proposed plan. Iran will restart part of its nuclear activities on August 1 if Europe fails to respect the country’s minimum demand at this stage, he added. “If Iran sees that the EU proposal does not meet its demands, not only will it immediately reject the plan, but it will also see no reason to continue the suspension of various nuclear activities.” Any delay by Europe resulting in its proposed plan not being presented on the agreed date will be viewed by Iran as a violation of the EU’s commitments, the official said. During the meeting, the European diplomats raised questions about President-Elect Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to the nuclear sites in Isfahan and Natanz, he added. “In response, we clearly announced that this is an internal matter and completely normal and Iran’s nuclear policy is quite clear and unchangeable: to continue nuclear activities for peaceful purposes within the framework of international law.” The official noted that the EU should be aware that President Mohammad Khatami and Mahmud Ahmadinejad share a common nuclear policy and both agree on the need to continue constructive talks with the EU. The European diplomats announced that they would precisely deliver Iran’s message to their respective capitals, he said in conclusion. In related news, Iran has sent a formal letter to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei announcing that it is prepared to resume nuclear activities at some nuclear centers in the next few days, a European diplomat said in Vienna on Wednesday. The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the Mehr News Agency that the letter had fully informed the IAEA and particularly the Safeguard Sector of the agency, which is in charge of supervision, about the details of the nuclear activities. In regard to all the technical and legal considerations, all the demands of the Islamic Republic are peaceful and within the framework of the current regulations, he added. Asked about the reaction of the European Union and the IAEA toward Iran’s letter, the European diplomat said that the IAEA should act according to the regulations. Prior to this, most news outlets had focused on the letter that the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rowhani, had sent to the foreign ministers of the EU big three, in which Rowhani had announced Iran’s readiness to resume nuclear activities at some nuclear centers. SA/HL/HG End MNA © 2003 Mehr News Agency ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Atmosphere Improves at Nuclear Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Friday July 29, 2005 7:46 PM AP Photo TOK206 By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - An improved atmosphere might be the most significant accomplishment as six-nation talks on North Korean nuclear disarmament stretched into their longest round Friday, but the top U.S. envoy stressed ``this isn't going to be easy.'' After a fourth session of one-on-one meetings between American and North Korean diplomats, they remained split over the North's demand for U.S. concessions before giving up its nuclear weapons program and its insistence on having a peaceful atomic energy project. ``The fact that they're continuing to talk to each other is by far the most encouraging sign,'' said Peter Beck, the Seoul-based director of the North East Asia Project for the International Crisis Group, an independent think tank. Beck said the latest round of talks has continued longer than previous rounds - which were marked by bombast - because neither the North nor the Americans seemed to want to be blamed for scuttling the discussions by walking away. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill's meetings with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan have been a marked change that has raised optimism over the talks, which have been run more flexibly than the previous rigidly scheduled negotiations. Still, Beck noted, ``we're no farther than we were after the previous rounds of talks in terms of what they have to show for their actions.'' That assessment was backed up by Hill, who told reporters Friday evening: ``We have a lot of differences that remain. I don't want to suggest for a minute that this is going to be easy.'' Despite the apparent impasse, the No. 2 South Korean delegate, Cho Tae-yong, said Friday's meetings ``were not lower than my expectation.'' ``It's too early to pack, or draw conclusions,'' he said. Talks were scheduled to resume Saturday and no date was set for ending the meeting, which also include delegates from Japan, China and Russia. Three earlier rounds of talks each lasted three days. Hill declined to speculate about the length of this round. Rather than focusing on substantive issues in this round, the negotiators were trying to agree on a set of principles as the foundation for later talks, Hill said. ``There is a growing consensus that where we end up is the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula - that is no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons programs ... no nuclear programs that could conceivably be nuclear weapons programs,'' he said. However, he said there was dissension on ``how that's going to be sequenced'' - a reference to the North Korean demand for aid and concessions first before giving up its nuclear trump card. Washington wants to see the weapons programs eliminated before it rewards the North. The delegates hope to start drafting a joint document Saturday on what they've agreed to so far, a Japanese official said on condition of anonymity due to the delicate nature of the ongoing talks. The latest nuclear standoff with North Korea was sparked after U.S. officials say the North admitted in late 2002 to running a uranium enrichment program - which could provide fuel for atomic bombs - in violation of an earlier 1994 deal with Washington. North Korea has subsequently denied having such a program, and Hill said Friday that its status was one of the sticking points in a resolution. Also, Hill said the North has insisted it should have the right to use peaceful nuclear technology for power generation if it rejoins the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The United States maintains the North shouldn't be allowed to do so because of proliferation concerns. Meanwhile, the foreign ministers of the two Koreas adopted a joint statement Friday at an Asian regional summit in Laos calling for a peaceful resolution of the nuclear standoff and better relations between the two countries, the North's official Korean Central News Agency reported. The South's Ban Ki-moon and his North Korean counterpart, Paek Nam Sun, called for ``substantial and constructive progress'' at the nuclear talks, KCNA said. North Korea has insisted the United States remove any nuclear weapons from South Korea as well as its ``nuclear umbrella'' of security guarantees to its ally, but Hill said Friday that Washington's alliance with the South ``doesn't depend on relations with other countries.'' Hill raised the possibility that the talks might take a break or be conducted at a lower level before resuming again quickly in what he referred to as a ``second part of this round.'' ``We don't want to have rounds where we walk away and see this rock that we've been pushing up this very steep hill roll all the way back to the bottom of the hill, such that at the next round we have to start pushing it up to the top of the hill again,'' he said. ``We want to make progress.'' Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Few Signs of Progress in Nuclear Talks [UP] Friday July 29, 2005 11:16 AM AP Photo GFX266 By BO-MI LIM Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - The top U.S. envoy pledged Friday to keep at nuclear talks with North Korea as long as necessary, meeting again with the North's delegate as negotiations stretched into the longest round since the six-nation process began. All six chief delegates met Friday afternoon and agreed to continue the talks Saturday, said Cho Tae-yong, the No. 2 South Korean delegate. The top delegates will ``seriously discuss how to push forward this round of talks,'' Cho said of the Saturday session. Despite the apparent impasse at the talks after a record fourth day - the previous rounds never exceeded three days - he said Friday's meetings ``were not lower than my expectation.'' ``It's too early to pack or draw conclusions,'' said Cho, head of the Foreign Ministry's task force on the North Korea nuclear issue. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill held a one-on-one meeting Friday morning with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan for about 90 minutes, a South Korean official said on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the continuing talks. No results of the meeting - their fourth direct talks this week - were immediately known. China's state Xinhua News Agency reported that the two would meet again Saturday, citing unnamed sources. No deadline has been set for the nuclear talks in the Chinese capital to wrap up, unlike other sessions. The talks that began Tuesday are the fourth round in which China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States have come together since 2003 to press North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. ``We'll just keep at it just as long as it's useful to keep at it. I've got plenty of patience,'' Hill said Friday before his meeting with the North Koreans. He said the meeting was to focus on discussions of ``denuclearization'' of the Korean Peninsula - the buzzword of the negotiations, whose definition remains a point of contention. Most of the negotiations between the United States and North Korea have lasted for three days or less - Aug. 27-29, 2003; Feb. 25-28, 2004, and June 23-26, 2004 - but in 1994, United States and North Korea held several weeks of nuclear negotiations. North Korea is insisting the United States remove any nuclear weapons from South Korea as well as its ``nuclear umbrella'' of security guarantees to its ally, while others say denuclearization means just getting rid of nuclear weapons from North Korea. The United States denies it has any nuclear weapons in South Korea, and has refused to make any concessions until the North is certified as nuclear-free and inspectors can monitor that it stays that way. ``We had some of their ideas which we did not feel were usable, but we had some of their ideas that very much correspond to some of the ideas we have,'' Hill said of his previous meetings with the North. ``We'll have to wait and see how it goes.'' There were no breakthroughs in the earlier six-nation talks, and many delegates said they didn't expect any in this round, which convened after a 13-month hiatus during which the North refused to attend, citing ``hostile'' U.S. policies. Most parties have said they hope merely to set a date for a fifth session. Russia's top envoy, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev, has said he will leave Beijing on Saturday but that the talks could continue - an indication negotiations might be winding down or will proceed with lower-level officials. The increased contacts at this round between North Korea and the United States - which remain technically at war with some 32,500 U.S. troops based in South Korea - have raised hopes for progress in the standoff. Despite the meetings with the North Koreans, the United States ruled out negotiating a bilateral agreement. ``That approach was tried and it failed,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday, referring to a 1994 pact that collapsed after U.S. officials claim North Korea admitted running a secret uranium enrichment program in late 2002. The North later pulled out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarted its main nuclear reactor, spawning the current nuclear crisis. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 4 Xinhua: Six parties to start drafting common document www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-07-30 07:56:33 BEIJING, JULY 30-- The six parties of the ongoing talks on the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue will start drafting a common document on Saturday, a Japanese diplomatic source said on Friday. "Tomorrow, all the parties will start the drafting process for a common document," said the Japanese official who declined to be named. But he did not say what the document would state. The Six-Party Talks, which involve China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the United States, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Russia and Japan, will "enter a new stage," he told a press conference. ROK deputy chief delegate Cho Tae-yong said on Friday that there will be another meeting of top delegates on Saturday. Observers said the frequency of one-on-one meetings between the DPRK and the United States raised hopes that progress could be made in reaching an agreement on the first phase of action to realize a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. The two sides have held at least four one-on-one meetings since Tuesday, struggling to bridge their differences. And more such talks are expected. The DPRK demands a US non-aggression accord and economic assistance while Washington insists on the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling of the DPRK's nuclear programmes. US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said after his fourth one-on-one meeting with the DPRK envoy: "Still we have a lot of differences that remain." "I don't want to suggest for a minute that this is going to be easy," Hill told reporters Friday evening. Hill declined to speculate on how long the negotiations would run. Scheduled to continue on Saturday for a fifth day, they have already become the longest such talks to date. No timeframe for this round's end has been set, a departure from the previous three rounds that began in 2003, each lasting three days. "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," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on PBS television. "We are prepared to roll up our sleeves and work for as long as necessary to make progress. But so far, the atmosphere has been very good," she said. Scott McClellan, Press Secretary of the White House, said on Thursday that the United States wants to see progress made towards the goal of a denuclearized peninsula. The chief of EU's foreign policy, Javier Solana, told reporters that he met with DPRK Foreign Minister Paik Nam Sun on the sidelines of an Asia security forum in Laos, and came away with the impression that Pyongyang is willing to find a solution, Xinhua reported. "I have the impression that the situation may look a little bit more optimistic," Solana said. (Source: China Daily) Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 Xinhua: Six-party talks to continue amdist differences www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-07-29 19:12:57 BEIJING, July 29 (Xinhuanet)-- The delegations of the six-party talks on the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue agreed Friday afternoon to continue their meetings on Saturday as the parties concerned will continue to work for narrowing down differences. The talks are yet to touch upon conclusion or drafting a joint statement, said an official of the Republic of Korea (ROK) delegation on condition of anonymity. The parties concerned will continue to discuss how to narrow down differences and push forward this round of the six-party talks, said the ROK official. This round of talks have already lasted longer than the previous three rounds six-party talks, but few signs of progress had been made so far. The talks set no deadline for its duration since they started on Tuesday at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing. The talksinvolve China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the United States, Russia and Japan. The fourth-round six-party talks are markedly characterized by one-on-one consultations and contacts. The United States and the DPRK, the two major parties to the talks, have carried out their fourth consultations on Friday, but no immediate information is available. The two sides are reported to have another one-on-one meeting Saturday. According to the ROK official, the bilateral consultations among the delegations have transformed from formal meetings to small-scale contacts so that they could exchange ideas and seek consensus in a more flexible, frequent and close manner. The ROK delegation has had bilateral contacts with the United States, the DPRK and Russia respectively following its 90-minute consultations with the Unites States on Friday morning, said the ROK official. The meeting among the delegation heads agreed on Friday afternoon to continue their meetings on Saturday. The meeting willbe followed by more one-on-one consultations, said the ROK official. There is no word on when the talks will close, nor will the talks be suspended, said the official. However, neither conclusionnor drafting a joint statement was talked about at the meeting of the delegation heads on Friday afternoon. Since Russian delegation head Alexander Alexeyev will leave Beijing for Moscow on Saturday due to domestic affairs, the delegation deputy will remain in Beijing, said the ROK official. If necessary, Alexeyev will come back again to participate in the talks, the official added. Enditem Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 Asia Times: A way out of the Korean standoff Asia Time Online By Brad Glosserman Note: The US and North Korea on Friday held a fourth bilateral meeting and are working on a joint declaration that could lay the groundwork for Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons. A meeting of delegates from the two nations and China, Japan, Russia and South Korea will then begin drafting a declaration. Agreement is still a long way off and more rounds of talks are expected. All participants in the six-party talks including North Korea - say that the goal of the negotiations currently underway in Beijing is the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Don't bet on it. An unblinkered assessment of the various interests forces one conclusion: the world must prepare for a "gray" North Korea, a nation with a suspected but unconfirmed limited nuclear capability. This conclusion is based on three premises. First, Pyongyang will do everything possible to preserve some nuclear-weapons capability. For more than four decades, North Korea has sought to acquire or develop a nuclear weapon. This interest is understandable, at least from a North Korean perspective. Pyongyang was threatened by the US with atomic bombs during the Korean War. It is the ultimate piece of military hardware for a government committed to a "military first" policy. Nuclear weapons are an important status symbol for a regime desperate for legitimacy. Building a bomb suggests North Korean technical superiority over South Korea. Finally, it is seen by North Korean strategists as the guarantor of regime survival. Any one or combination of these rationalizations drives North Korean behavior. Given North Korean history and suspicions, it is extremely unlikely that Pyongyang will abandon its nuclear programs and give up all the weapons it has developed. Second, despite their rhetorical commitment to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, neither China nor South Korea is ready to enforce the strict verification regime required to eliminate all North Korean weapons. Neither country wants North Korea to demonstrate conclusively that it has nuclear weapons; neither, however, do they want to push Pyongyang so hard to denuclearize that it is destabilized. Both wish to preserve the North Korean government and do not want the chaos and uncertainty a "no-tolerance" policy would create. There are three ways North Korea could have developed nuclear weapons. The first is with fissile material generated prior to the signing of the Agreed Framework in 1994. According to that agreement, this material would have been accounted for only prior to the delivery of critical components needed for the operation of light-water reactors built by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. Most intelligence agencies estimate this is enough for one to four weapons. The second source is the 8,000 fuel rods frozen by the Agreed Framework, and recently reprocessed by the North. Some additional material may have been generated since the collapse of the Agreed Framework. The third source is the enriched uranium program that the US has charged North Korea with developing in violation of the Agreed Framework. North Korea is probably ready to give up the second and third sources. It agreed to turn over the fuel rods in the Agreed Framework and while it denies having a clandestine uranium program, Pyongyang has reportedly asked what it could receive for abandoning it. That leaves the plutonium acquired before 1993 and the weapons allegedly created with it. North Korea is unlikely to give this up. Pyongyang's inclination to clutch at this option is strengthened by doubts whether the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can determine how much fissile material was diverted from the North Korean nuclear energy program prior to 1993. China and South Korea are likely to accept this: combine the North's belief in the value of such weapons with Chinese and South Korean reluctance to push the North to the brink and you have the basis for a compromise. Indeed, Seoul and Beijing have lived with just this situation a North Korea with a few crude nuclear devices since 1994. When asked point blank at conferences, Chinese and South Koreans have said that they have lived with a "gray nuclear North Korea" for over a decade. Since China has a permanent veto in the United Nations Security Council, the authority to which the US would turn if the six-party talks prove fruitless, the threat of international sanctions looks toothless. Thus, the third critical point: the US is going to have to accept this, too. China and South Korea (and Russia) will not back the US demand for "complete verifiable" nuclear disarmament. In these circumstances, it is Washington, not Pyongyang, that risks isolation for pushing too hard. (The Japanese could come down either way.) Doing so could alienate South Korea and marginalize the US on the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia, the real strategic prize. Moreover, accepting the ambiguity surrounding the original plutonium is merely going back to the status quo ante of the Agreed Framework. By this logic, a six-party agreement would be a gradual process that dismantles the North Korean nuclear infrastructure, starting with the 8,000 fuel rods and then moves on to the disputed uranium-enrichment program. Dismantlement by the North would be matched by economic aid from the South, humanitarian assistance from other parties and diplomatic recognition from the US. The process would be long and carefully calibrated, but by the end the North would be left with whatever nuclear weapons that had been built from the fissile material generated before the Agreed Framework and had been hidden. The chief concern is whether this deal would be consistent with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Reportedly, the IAEA will have difficulty providing a complete accounting of North Korea's oldest plutonium stocks; that fudge could preserve the credibility of the agency and the treaty, and discourage other countries from trying to copy North Korea. This is not a happy solution, but it is, by this logic, the best and most realistic solution available. In many ways, it is an updated Agreed Framework: it kicks the can of complete dismantlement down the road. The critical question is whether any such deal can be sold in the US, given the political beating that agreement has endured and the image of North Korea in Washington. Brad Glosserman is director of research at Pacific Forum CSIS. He can be reached at bradgpf@hawaii.rr.com (Used by permission of Pacific Forum CSIS) Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 ***************************************************************** 7 Reuters: North Korea nuclear talks enter uncharted territory Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:07 PM ET (Adds comments from U.S. officials in Washington, paras 11-14) By Brian Rhoads BEIJING, July 30 (Reuters) - North Korea nuclear crisis talks enter uncharted territory on Saturday, with the six parties sitting down with hopes of drafting their first joint statement to cap the longest negotiating session yet. The main protagonists, the United States and North Korea, appear as entrenched as ever, diplomats say, with Pyongyang sticking to its demands for security guarantees and aid and Washington insisting the nuclear programmes be dismantled first. Still, the first round of talks in more than a year has seen an unprecedented level of contact between the U.S. and North Korean sides, who have met for talks five times already this week after refusing to budge from scripted position statements in three previous rounds. The talks have come a long way from the early days of the administration of George W. Bush, in which the president labelled North Korea part of an "axis of evil" alongside Iran and pre-war Iraq, or even early this year when his secretary of state called Pyongyang an "outpost of tyranny". This time the talks involving the two Koreas, the United States, Russia, Japan and the host nation, China, have remained open-ended. If lacking in major concessions so far, they have featured a more thorough airing of viewpoints that the parties hope could point to possible consensus. "I think there is a growing consensus that where we end up is denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, that is, no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons programmes, in the Korean peninsula. No nuclear programmes that can conceivably be nuclear weapons programmes," U.S. chief negotiator Christopher Hill said. The six parties would start drafting a joint statement on Saturday, to be spearheaded by China, a Japanese delegate said, adding talks were likely to last through the weekend. Previous rounds have failed to secure joint statements. LONG HAUL 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. The United States demands the nuclear programmes be abandoned first. In Washington, U.S. officials said negotiators at the Beijing talks had presented North Korea with data America says is evidence of a covert program to produce highly enriched uranium (HEU). Pyongyang admits only to producing plutonium. They said the evidence was obtained from disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan whose secret network sold nuclear technology to North Korea. "The negotiators presented them with some of the Khan evidence and they tried to deny it. But they always deny it. We have a lot of facts and they have given the North Koreans some of them," said one official, who declined to be named. The United States is demanding that Pyongyang dismantle all its nuclear activities, including the HEU program. Hill said on Friday he was prepared for a long haul. "We have a lot of differences that remain, so I don't want to suggest for a minute that we are, you know, this is going to be easy," he said. All sides are committed in principle to a nuclear-free peninsula. The crux of the disagreement is over timing, whether Pyongyang should receive the security guarantees and aid before it moves to scrap its weapons programmes. The North has also demanded Washington remove nuclear weapons from the peninsula. The United States, which keeps some 30,000 troops in South Korea, says it no longer has such weapons there. Some diplomats suggest that whether or not a joint statement is reached at the fourth round of talks, the parties can still declare success due to the unprecedented level of contact between North Korea and the United States. Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., N. Korea Hold Longest Meeting Yet From the Associated Press [UP] Friday July 29, 2005 5:01 AM AP Photo GFX266 By BO-MI LIM Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - U.S. and North Korean envoys held their fourth one-on-one meeting this week Friday as six-nation talks aimed at persuading Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons program stretched into the longest such negotiations since the process began in 2003. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill began a one-on-one meeting with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan at the state guesthouse where the talks are taking place, China's official Xinhua News Agency reported. No deadline has been set for the nuclear talks in the Chinese capital to wrap up, unlike other sessions that lasted about three days. ``We'll just keep at it just as long as it's useful to keep at it. I've got plenty of patience,'' Hill said Friday. He said his meeting with the North Koreans would focus on discussions of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula - the buzzword of the negotiations whose definition remains a point of contention. North Korea insists the United States remove its alleged nuclear weapons from South Korea as well as its ``nuclear umbrella'' of security guarantees to its ally, while others say denuclearization means just getting rid of nuclear weapons from North Korea. The United States has refused to make any concessions until the North is certified as nuclear-free and inspectors can monitor that it stays that way. ``We had some of their ideas which we did not feel were usable, but we had some of their ideas that very much correspond to some of the ideas we have,'' Hill said of his meetings with the North. ``We'll have to wait and see how it goes.'' Earlier talks produced no breakthroughs, and many delegates said they didn't expect any in this round, which convened after a 13-month hiatus during which the North refused to participate, citing ``hostile'' U.S. policies. Most parties have said they hope merely to set a date for a fifth session. Despite the meetings with the North Koreans, the United States ruled out negotiating a bilateral agreement. ``That approach was tried and it failed,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday, referring to a 1994 pact that collapsed after U.S. officials accused North Korea of running a secret uranium enrichment program in late 2002. The North later pulled out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarted its main nuclear reactor, spawning the current crisis. Hill said earlier that he hoped to start drafting a statement by the end of Friday with results of the talks so far - a possible indication that negotiations were inching forward. American officials have said the document would contain ``agreed principles'' for future negotiations. ``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 Thursday. ``We have a long way to go still.'' The six-nation talks that began Tuesday are the fourth round in which China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States have come together to press North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. Most of the negotiations between the United States and North Korea have lasted for three days or less - Aug. 27-29, 2003; Feb. 25-28, 2004, and June 23-26, 2004 - but in 1994, United States and North Korea held several weeks of nuclear negotiations. Thursday's bilateral meeting - held as part of six-nation talks - 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. The increased contacts at this round between North Korea and the United States - who remain technically at war with some 32,500 U.S. troops based in South Korea - have raised hopes for movement in the nuclear crisis that began in late 2002, after the U.S. accused the North of running a secret uranium enrichment program. However, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, interviewed on PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, said any agreement in which North Korea gave up its nuclear weapons ``is really only going to be achieved in a six-party framework.'' Rice said ``breakout sessions in which people talk directly'' are not unusual in negotiations involving several countries. Hill was representing Washington for the first time at the talks, and his contacts with the North Koreans were a departure from previous meetings. An experienced negotiator who previously has focused mostly on Eastern Europe, Hill has worked on resolving conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo. 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 its announcement meant the North was able to build a detonator, the last component it needed for a bomb. 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. Earlier at the talks, North Korea called for the U.S. to remove its alleged nuclear threat against the communist nation. It also reportedly said Washington must abandon plans for toppling the communist regime and set up mechanisms for peaceful relations before it hands over its atomic weapons. The United States repeatedly has said it has no intention to attack North Korea. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 9 Reuters: U.S. shows N. Korea data on secret nuclear program Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:53 PM ET (Adds U.S. envoy, background on talks) WASHINGTON, July 29 (Reuters) - U.S. negotiators at talks in Beijing have presented North Korea with data that America says is evidence of a covert nuclear weapons program, but Pyongyang continued to deny such a program exists, U.S. officials said on Friday. They said the evidence was obtained from disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan whose secret network sold nuclear technology to North Korea. It was presented as part of U.S. efforts to unblock a key sticking point at the six-party talks aimed at ending Pyongyang's nuclear programs. "The negotiators presented them with some of the Khan evidence and they tried to deny it. But they always deny it. We have a lot of facts and they (negotiators) have given the North Koreans some of them," one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity as he is not authorized to speak to the media. The evidence, handed over in bilateral meetings held during the multi-party talks, related to a covert program to produce highly enriched uranium, or HEU, which has been an issue since Washington said it uncovered it in 2002. Pyongyang admits to producing plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. The Americans say North Korea initially acknowledged also having a secret HEU program when accused of that by U.S. officials but has subsequently denied the program's existence. The issue is critical because the United States is demanding in the six-country talks that Pyongyang dismantle all its nuclear activities, including the HEU program. Although U.S. officials are confident the HEU program exists, they say they do not know where it is. North Korea has thousands of underground tunnels dug for military use. U.S. officials speculated the continued denial of the HEU program suggested Pyongyang was digging in for long and tough negotiations. "Eventually, they may want to get something in return for coming clean on this," one official said. He added that "the information that was passed on (to the North Korean negotiators) was information we did get from Khan himself," although the official could not say if it was from Khan directly or through the Pakistani government. 'SOME ENCOURAGING SIGNS' China said on Friday the talks would stretch into the weekend as Washington and Pyongyang struggle to bridge their differences. The parties have retreated to familiar territory, with North Korea demanding aid and security guarantees before scrapping its nuclear programs and the United States insisting it stop those programs first. U.S. officials have estimated North Korea may have nine or more nuclear weapons. It was unclear what if any progress had been achieved so far, but the latest round, which resumed on Tuesday after a 13-month hiatus, has already lasted longer than the previous three and has seen unprecedentedly frequent one-on-one contacts between Washington and Pyongyang, the two main protagonists. China's Xinhua news agency said the Americans and North Koreans held two bilateral meetings on Friday and would hold another on Saturday, which would be their sixth this week. "There are some encouraging signs, they (North Koreans) too understand the issue here is the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," chief U.S. envoy Christopher Hill told reporters in Beijing on Friday night. A Japanese delegate said the six parties would start drafting a joint document on Saturday that other delegates have said would set out agreed principles that would form the basis for negotiating an eventual agreement. The discussions would be led by China, the host nation. The negotiations include North and South Korea, Russia, Japan, the United States and China. Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Reuters: N.Korea, US seek to bridge gap on nuclear crisis Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:50 AM ET By Teruaki Ueno and Jack Kim BEIJING (Reuters) - Six-party talks aimed at ending the crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions are to stretch into the weekend, China announced on Friday, as Washington and Pyongyang struggled to bridge their differences. The negotiations, which resumed on Tuesday after a 13-month hiatus, have 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. "There is agreement among the six parties to have another top delegates' meeting tomorrow and to seriously discuss how to take this forward," South Korean deputy chief delegate Cho Tae-yong. told reporters in Beijing. "It is too early to be packing or drawing conclusions." It was unclear what if any progress had been achieved so far, but this round has already lasted longer than the previous three and has seen unprecedentedly frequent one-on-one contacts between Washington and Pyongyang, the two main protagonists. The talks, which this time are open-ended, also involve South Korea, Russia, Japan and the host nation, China. The six met for a plenary session in the afternoon that lasted just half an hour. China's Xinhua news agency said the Americans and North Koreans held two bilaterals on Friday and would hold another on Saturday, which would be their sixth this week. "The discussions we had yesterday involved our ideas on how to get to the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula and their ideas," U.S. chief negotiator Christopher Hill told reporters before the start of Friday discussions. "I'm not saying they were identical ... but we heard some of their ideas which very much correspond to some of the ideas that we have," he said as he left his hotel. LONG HAUL Hill has expressed a desire to put together a joint document setting out agreed principles that would form the basis for negotiating an eventual agreement. Joint statements have failed to materialise at three previous rounds. A Japanese delegate said the six parties would start drafting such a document on Saturday, to be spearheaded by China. The delegate said talks were likely to go on past Saturday, echoing Hill's remarks that he was prepared for a long haul. "We'll keep at it as long as it's useful to keep at it." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the United States would not negotiate a bilateral deal with North Korea. "That approach was tried and it failed," McClellan said, a reference to the Clinton administration's efforts to resolve the nuclear crisis in the 1990s. All sides are committed in principle to a nuclear-free peninsula. The crux of the disagreement is over timing, whether Pyongyang should receive security guarantees and aid before it moves to scrap its weapons programmes, as it insists, or if it should move first, as Washington wants. "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. "The question is do the North Koreans embrace that goal as well?," Rice told PBS television. The North has also demanded Washington remove nuclear weapons from the peninsula. The United States, which keeps some 30,000 troops in South Korea, says it no longer has such weapons there. 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. In February, North Korea announced that it had nuclear weapons. It regularly demands that Washington provide it with aid, security guarantees and diplomatic recognition in return for scrapping them. Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., N. Korea Differ on Nuclear Policy From the Associated Press [UP] Friday July 29, 2005 3:31 PM AP Photo TOK209 By BO-MI LIM Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - The top U.S. envoy met again Friday with his North Korean counterpart at nuclear disarmament talks but said differences remained between the sides as negotiations stretched into the longest round since the six-nation process began. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill held a one-on-one meeting Friday morning with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan, their fourth such encounter this week. Hill said the nations were still divided over the issue of when the North will receive aid in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons program. ``Still we have a lot of differences that remain,'' Hill told reporters Friday evening. ``I don't want to suggest for a minute that this is going to be easy.'' The delegates are meeting again Saturday, where they hope to start drafting a joint document on what they have agreed to so far, a Japanese official said on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the ongoing talks. ``There is no tentative draft,'' the official said. ``All delegations will be striving to draft this common document.'' Hill declined to speculate on how long the negotiations, ending their fourth day Friday, would run. No end date for this round has been set, a departure from previous rounds that lasted only three days. The talks that began Tuesday are the fourth since 2003 where the United States, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia have come together to press North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. All six chief delegates met Friday afternoon and agreed to continue the talks Saturday, said Cho Tae-yong, the No. 2 South Korean delegate. The top delegates will ``seriously discuss how to push forward this round of talks,'' Cho said. Despite the apparent impasse at the talks, he said Friday's meetings ``were not lower than my expectation.'' ``It's too early to pack or draw conclusions,'' said Cho, head of the Foreign Ministry's task force on the North Korea nuclear issue. North Korea is insisting the United States remove any nuclear weapons from South Korea as well as its ``nuclear umbrella'' of security guarantees to its ally, while others say denuclearization means just getting rid of nuclear weapons from North Korea. The United States denies it has any nuclear weapons in South Korea and refuses to make any concessions until the North is certified as nuclear-free and inspectors can monitor that it stays that way. There were no breakthroughs in the earlier talks, and many delegates said they did not expect any in this round, which convened after a 13-month hiatus during which the North refused to attend, citing ``hostile'' U.S. policies. Most parties have said they hope merely to set a date for a fifth session. The increased contacts at this round between North Korea and the United States - which remain technically at war with some 32,500 U.S. troops based in South Korea - have raised hopes for progress in the standoff. Despite the meetings with the North Koreans, the United States has ruled out negotiating a bilateral agreement. ``That approach was tried and it failed,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday, referring to a 1994 pact that collapsed after U.S. officials claim North Korea admitted running a secret uranium enrichment program in late 2002. The North later pulled out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarted its main nuclear reactor, spawning the current nuclear crisis. Pyongyang also claimed in February that it had nuclear weapons. That claim has not been verified, but U.S. intelligence and other estimates say the North has as many as six atomic bombs. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Getting High Marks From U.S. From the Associated Press [UP] Friday July 29, 2005 10:01 PM AP Photo BEJ102 By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Having been denounced by President Bush as part of an ``axis of evil,'' and its leader Kim Jong Il dismissed by former U.S. negotiator John R. Bolton as a ``tyrannical rogue,'' North Korea is suddenly getting high marks from the Bush administration. Officials are crediting North Korea with being cooperative in the current round of nuclear weapons talks in China and agreeing that the Korean peninsula should be denuclearized. North Korea is putting ideas on the table that could contribute to the foundation of an eventual agreement, and the atmosphere is different in the new round of talks, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday. ``I think all would agree that we have a continuing good atmosphere,'' McCormack said after another one-on-one meeting between U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill and his North Korean counterpart. The round has gone so well that all six parties - North Korea. China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States - are working on a statement of principles that could evolve into an agreement, McCormack said. And, he said, ``you have all the parties agreeing what the goal of the six-party talks is now: a denuclearized Korean peninsula.'' The fact that the United States is having one-on-one talks with North Korea may contribute to the brighter mood, though the administration is taking a nonchalant public stance on the development. ``You'll find if you look back through the history books'' that bilateral talks have been part of the six-nation negotiations since they began in August 2003, McCormack said. And, he said, Hill has met separately also with members of the South Korean, Japanese and Chinese delegations. But these were what McCormack called ``pull-asides,'' a usually brief exchange. Hill's five one-on-one sessions with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan have been more extensive and in apparent response to persistent North Korean demands for the form of bargaining pursued by the Clinton administration. That produced an agreement in 1994 that froze North Korea's nuclear facilities in exchange for energy assistance. But North Korea eight years later was found to have been in violation of that agreement by starting up an enriched uranium operation, according to U.S. officials. The Bush administration hesitated at first to try to resume negotiations but finally did in a six-nation format. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, interviewed Thursday on PBS' ``NewsHour,'' said any agreement in which North Korea gave up its nuclear weapons ``is really only going to be achieved in a six-party framework.'' Rice dismissed what she called ``breakout sessions in which people talk directly'' as not unusual in negotiations involving several countries. In fact, McCormack said Friday, the statement of principles in the works is a result of consultation with the Japanese, Chinese, South Korean and Russian delegations, as well as the North Koreans. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 13 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: President's money grab off for now Today: July 29, 2005 at 8:53:36 PDT LAS VEGAS SUN Early in his administration President Bush set a paradoxical policy of increasing spending while cutting taxes. The short-term effect is a superficial but politically advantageous jump in federal revenues, as people have more money to spend and tax collections show slight gains. The long-term effect, however, is enormous growth of the national debt as tax collections ultimately will fall well short of the yearly increases in federal spending. The national debt is now increasing by $1.64 billion per day and rapidly growing toward $8 trillion, an increase of more than 30 percent since Bush took office. This is money that will have to be paid back at some point by a combination of higher taxes and reduced benefits. For Nevadans, that "some point" was intended by the Bush administration to begin immediately in the form of reduced benefits from the Public Land Management Act of 1998. Congress passed the act to compensate Nevada for the overwhelming amount of federal land it contains, land that cannot be used to develop tax-producing businesses and industries. The act says that all proceeds from federal land sales in Nevada are to be spent in Nevada on airport improvements, water infrastructure, education and conservation programs. In an attempt to at least partially offset federal spending while keeping its tax cuts intact, the Bush administration in February put forward a budget for 2006 that proposed amending the lands act. The amendment would have been a gigantic money grab. It would have allowed the federal government to take 70 percent of our land-sale proceeds, amounting to more than $700 million a year. The rest of the country is not yet having to pay for Bush's cockeyed economic theories, so why should Nevadans? Our congressional delegation -- two Democrats and three Republicans -- united in opposition to Bush's proposed money grab and persuaded a majority of their colleagues to oppose it as well. Thankfully, this week, it was able to announce that the money grab, for this year anyway, is almost certainly dead. The delegation served Nevada well by heading off this threat to the state's well being. We are hopeful they will be as successful next year, when Bush and his allies in Congress are likely to again go after Nevada with the same proposal. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 14 Las Vegas SUN: Congress Passes Far-Reaching Energy Bill Today: July 29, 2005 at 11:47:18 PDT By H. JOSEF HEBERT ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - After years of stalemate, Congress on Friday sent President Bush a national energy plan touted by supporters as providing a diverse mix of fuels, new jobs, cleaner burning coal and the next generation of nuclear reactors. But the bill now ready for President Bush's signature won't stem high energy prices that have been viewed as a growing political concern, both in Congress and at the White House. The Senate approved the mammoth $12.3 billion legislation 74-26, though some Democrats said they voted for the measure reluctantly because of its cost and its tepid response to reducing the country's consumption of oil - now more than 20 million barrels a day, more than half imported. The Senate action a day after the bill breezed through the House completed the first major overhaul of the nation's energy policies in 13 years. The White House said in advance of passage that Bush looked forward to signing it into law, possibly next week. Under political pressure to do something about the nation's energy problems in light of soaring oil and gasoline prices, Bush challenged Congress to provide him a bill before lawmakers depart this week on a five-week summer recess. But even the bill's sponsors acknowledged that their the 1,724-page bill would have little if any impact on today's energy prices or wean the nation away from its thirst for oil. "We won't have any answers if the question is what are you going to do tomorrow morning about gasoline prices," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who led the Senate negotiations with the House in crafting the legislation. But he said the bill would, indeed, provide financial incentives and federal policies "that we as a nation will benefit from not tomorrow, but for the next five or 10 years." A provision with direct and more immediate impact on the public expands daylight-saving time by one month, adding three weeks in the spring and a week in the fall, taking it beyond Halloween. The change would go into effect in 2007. Consumers also will see tax credits for the purchase of hybrid-electric cars and get tax breaks for making energy conservation improvements in their homes. The bill provides $14.5 billion in tax breaks and potentially billions more in loan guarantees and other subsidies to encourage oil and gas drilling, improve natural gas and electric transmission lines, build new nuclear power reactors and expand renewable energy sources, especially construction of wind turbines. Its cost, put at $12.3 billion after revenue offsets, is nearly twice the $6.7 billion price tag the White House had sought. "The cost of this .... is staggering, " said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who tried to block the measure because he said it violated the Senate's own budget rules. His attempt was rejected 71-29. The bill's cost was overridden by its widespread political support, in part because it includes something for virtually everyone. In addition to the broad array of tax incentives and tax breaks to virtually every energy industry, it will be a boon to farmers by directing a doubling of corn-based ethanol use in gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012, a provision embraced by Farm Belt lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans. The legislation expands the federal government's authority over siting liquefied natural gas import terminals, overriding local or state opposition if necessary. Domenici said it will mean more gas imports to meet the country's growing demand for natural gas. For the first time, utilities would have to meet federal reliability standards for the electricity grid to try to avoid a repeat of the massive 2003 blackout that hit the Midwest and Northeast. But critics said the bill also eases environmental rules for refiners and for oil and gas exploration. And they're concerned about what's not in it. "The bill is a series of missed opportunities," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who was the only Senate Democrat to oppose the compromise legislation in the House-Senate conference that crafted the final version this week. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said it falls far short of what is needed by not addressing climate change and including nothing that would increase the fuel economy of automobiles, the biggest guzzlers of oil. Just this week, Kerry said, a report was made public from the Environmental Protection Agency showing a decline in automobile fuel economy. Lawmakers avoided a certain fight in the Senate by leaving out one of Bush's top energy goals: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling. House Republicans promised to pursue that issue separately this fall. House Republicans also abandoned a provision that would have given the makers of the gasoline additive MTBE protection against lawsuits stemming from the chemical's contamination of drinking water supplies in at least 36 states. --- On the Net: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: http://energy.senate.gov/public/ House Energy and Commerce Committee: http://energycommerce.house.gov/ All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 Las Vegas SUN: Reid votes against bill; Ensign supports it Today: July 29, 2005 at 11:15:37 PDT By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., voted against a massive energy bill passed by the Senate today. Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said he supported the energy bill passed by the Senate earlier this year, but too many of the Senate provisions were taken out for him to support the final bill. She noted that the final bill included more tax credits for the oil and gas industry, left out a federal ban the on fuel-additive MTBE and took out measures to reduce global warming. "On balance he felt the bill did more harm than good," Hafen said. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., voted for the bill. The Senate approved the final version of the energy bill today, 74-26, ending a complicated legislative struggle initiated by the Bush administration's energy plan introduced in 2001. The House passed the final version Thursday, with Nevada's lawmaker voting the same way they did on the original bill passed earlier this year. Republican Reps. Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter voted for the bill and Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley voted against it. The bill simplifies the leasing process for geothermal production and by modifies federal royalty requirements to make royalty payments more predictable and less bureaucratic, according to Gibbons' office. It will also increase state and local government royalty share and make payments quicker. Counties can also get a 25 percent share of the royalty payments for the first time. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 16 Weekly Standard: Why Truman Dropped the Bomb From the August 8, 2005 issue: Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision. by Richard B. Frank 08/08/2005, Volume 010, Issue 44 The sixtieth anniversary of Hiroshima seems to be shaping up as a subdued affair--though not for any lack of significance. A survey of news editors in 1999 ranked the dropping of the atomic bomb on August 6, 1945, first among the top one hundred stories of the twentieth century. And any thoughtful list of controversies in American history would place it near the top again. It was not always so. In 1945, an overwhelming majority of Americans regarded as a matter of course that the United States had used atomic bombs to end the Pacific war. They further believed that those bombs had actually ended the war and saved countless lives. This set of beliefs is now sometimes labeled by academic historians the "traditionalist" view. One unkindly dubbed it the "patriotic orthodoxy." But in the 1960s, what were previously modest and scattered challenges of the decision to use the bombs began to crystallize into a rival canon. The challengers were branded "revisionists," but this is inapt. Any historian who gains possession of significant new evidence has a duty to revise his appreciation of the relevant events. These challengers are better termed critics. The critics share three fundamental premises. The first is that Japan's situation in 1945 was catastrophically hopeless. The second is that Japan's leaders recognized that fact and were seeking to surrender in the summer of 1945. The third is that thanks to decoded Japanese diplomatic messages, American leaders knew that Japan was about to surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation. The critics divide over what prompted the decision to drop the bombs in spite of the impending surrender, with the most provocative arguments focusing on Washington's desire to intimidate the Kremlin. Among an important stratum of American society--and still more perhaps abroad--the critics' interpretation displaced the traditionalist view. These rival narratives clashed in a major battle over the exhibition of the Enola Gay, the airplane from which the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, at the Smithsonian Institution in 1995. That confrontation froze many people's understanding of the competing views. Since then, however, a sheaf of new archival discoveries and publications has expanded our understanding of the events of August 1945. This new evidence requires serious revision of the terms of the debate. What is perhaps the most interesting feature of the new findings is that they make a case President Harry S. Truman deliberately chose not to make publicly in defense of his decision to use the bomb. When scholars began to examine the archival records in the 1960s, some intuited quite correctly that the accounts of their decision-making that Truman and members of his administration had offered in 1945 were at least incomplete. And if Truman had refused to disclose fully his thinking, these scholars reasoned, it must be because the real basis for his choices would undermine or even delegitimize his decisions. It scarcely seemed plausible to such critics--or to almost anyone else--that there could be any legitimate reason that the U.S. government would have concealed at the time, and would continue to conceal, powerful evidence that supported and explained the president's decisions. But beginning in the 1970s, we have acquired an array of new evidence from Japan and the United States. By far the most important single body of this new evidence consists of secret radio intelligence material, and what it highlights is the painful dilemma faced by Truman and his administration. In explaining their decisions to the public, they deliberately forfeited their best evidence. They did so because under the stringent security restrictions guarding radio intercepts, recipients of this intelligence up to and including the president were barred from retaining copies of briefing documents, from making any public reference to them whatsoever at the time or in their memoirs, and from retaining any record of what they had seen or what they had concluded from it. With a handful of exceptions, they obeyed these rules, both during the war and thereafter. Collectively, the missing information is known as The Ultra Secret of World War II (after the title of a breakthrough book by Frederick William Winterbotham published in 1974). Ultra was the name given to what became a vast and enormously efficient Allied radio intelligence organization, which secretly unveiled masses of information for senior policymakers. Careful listening posts snatched copies of millions of cryptograms from the air. Code breakers then extracted the true text. The extent of the effort is staggering. By the summer of 1945, Allied radio intelligence was breaking into a million messages a month from the Japanese Imperial Army alone, and many thousands from the Imperial Navy and Japanese diplomats. All of this effort and expertise would be squandered if the raw intercepts were not properly translated and analyzed and their disclosures distributed to those who needed to know. This is where Pearl Harbor played a role. In the aftermath of that disastrous surprise attack, Secretary of War Henry Stimson recognized that the fruits of radio intelligence were not being properly exploited. He set Alfred McCormack, a top-drawer lawyer with experience in handling complex cases, to the task of formulating a way to manage the distribution of information from Ultra. The system McCormack devised called for funneling all radio intelligence to a handful of extremely bright individuals who would evaluate the flood of messages, correlate them with all other sources, and then write daily summaries for policymakers. By mid-1942, McCormack's scheme had evolved into a daily ritual that continued to the end of the war--and is in essence the system still in effect today. Every day, analysts prepared three mimeographed newsletters. Official couriers toting locked pouches delivered one copy of each summary to a tiny list of authorized recipients around the Washington area. (They also retrieved the previous day's distribution, which was then destroyed except for a file copy.) Two copies of each summary went to the White House, for the president and his chief of staff. Other copies went to a very select group of officers and civilian officials in the War and Navy Departments, the British Staff Mission, and the State Department. What is almost as interesting is the list of those not entitled to these top-level summaries: the vice president, any cabinet official outside the select few in the War, Navy, and State Departments, anyone in the Office of Strategic Services or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or anyone in the Manhattan Project building the atomic bomb, from Major General Leslie Groves on down. The three daily summaries were called the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary, the "Magic" Far East Summary, and the European Summary. ("Magic" was a code word coined by the U.S. Army's chief signal officer, who called his code breakers "magicians" and their product "Magic." The term "Ultra" came from the British and has generally prevailed as the preferred term among historians, but in 1945 "Magic" remained the American designation for radio intelligence, particularly that concerning the Japanese.) The "Magic" Diplomatic Summary covered intercepts from foreign diplomats all over the world. The "Magic" Far East Summary presented information on Japan's military, naval, and air situation. The European Summary paralleled the Far East summary in coverage and need not detain us. Each summary read like a newsmagazine. There were headlines and brief articles usually containing extended quotations from intercepts and commentary. The commentary was critical: Since no recipient retained any back issues, it was up to the editors to explain how each day's developments fitted into the broader picture. When a complete set of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary for the war years was first made public in 1978, the text contained a large number of redacted (literally whited out) passages. The critics reasonably asked whether the blanks concealed devastating revelations. Release of a nonredacted complete set in 1995 disclosed that the redacted areas had indeed contained a devastating revelation--but not about the use of the atomic bombs. Instead, the redacted areas concealed the embarrassing fact that Allied radio intelligence was reading the codes not just of the Axis powers, but also of some 30 other governments, including allies like France. The diplomatic intercepts included, for example, those of neutral diplomats or attachs stationed in Japan. Critics highlighted a few nuggets from this trove in the 1978 releases, but with the complete release, we learned that there were only 3 or 4 messages suggesting the possibility of a compromise peace, while no fewer than 13 affirmed that Japan fully intended to fight to the bitter end. Another page in the critics' canon emphasized a squad of Japanese diplomats in Europe, from Sweden to the Vatican, who attempted to become peace entrepreneurs in their contacts with American officials. As the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary correctly made clear to American policymakers during the war, however, not a single one of these men (save one we will address shortly) possessed actual authority to act for the Japanese government. An inner cabinet in Tokyo authorized Japan's only officially sanctioned diplomatic initiative. The Japanese dubbed this inner cabinet the Big Six because it comprised just six men: Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Army Minister Korechika Anami, Navy Minister Mitsumasa Yonai, and the chiefs of staff of the Imperial Army (General Yoshijiro Umezu) and Imperial Navy (Admiral Soemu Toyoda). In complete secrecy, the Big Six agreed on an approach to the Soviet Union in June 1945. This was not to ask the Soviets to deliver a "We surrender" note; rather, it aimed to enlist the Soviets as mediators to negotiate an end to the war satisfactory to the Big Six--in other words, a peace on terms satisfactory to the dominant militarists. Their minimal goal was not confined to guaranteed retention of the Imperial Institution; they also insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled. The conduit for this initiative was Japan's ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato. He communicated with Foreign Minister Togo--and, thanks to code breaking, with American policymakers. Ambassador Sato emerges in the intercepts as a devastating cross-examiner ruthlessly unmasking for history the feebleness of the whole enterprise. Sato immediately told Togo that the Soviets would never bestir themselves on behalf of Japan. The foreign minister could only insist that Sato follow his instructions. Sato demanded to know whether the government and the military supported the overture and what its legal basis was--after all, the official Japanese position, adopted in an Imperial Conference in June 1945 with the emperor's sanction, was a fight to the finish. The ambassador also demanded that Japan state concrete terms to end the war, otherwise the effort could not be taken seriously. Togo responded evasively that the "directing powers" and the government had authorized the effort--he did not and could not claim that the military in general supported it or that the fight-to-the-end policy had been replaced. Indeed, Togo added: "Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender." This last comment triggered a fateful exchange. Critics have pointed out correctly that both Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew (the former U.S. ambassador to Japan and the leading expert on that nation within the government) and Secretary of War Henry Stimson advised Truman that a guarantee that the Imperial Institution would not be eliminated could prove essential to obtaining Japan's surrender. The critics further have argued that if only the United States had made such a guarantee, Japan would have surrendered. But when Foreign Minister Togo informed Ambassador Sato that Japan was not looking for anything like unconditional surrender, Sato promptly wired back a cable that the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary made clear to American policymakers "advocate[s] unconditional surrender provided the Imperial House is preserved." Togo's reply, quoted in the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary of July 22, 1945, was adamant: American policymakers could read for themselves Togo's rejection of Sato's proposal--with not even a hint that a guarantee of the Imperial House would be a step in the right direction. Any rational person following this exchange would conclude that modifying the demand for unconditional surrender to include a promise to preserve the Imperial House would not secure Japan's surrender. Togo's initial messages--indicating that the emperor himself endorsed the effort to secure Soviet mediation and was prepared to send his own special envoy--elicited immediate attention from the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary, as well as Under Secretary of State Grew. Because of Grew's documented advice to Truman on the importance of the Imperial Institution, critics feature him in the role of the sage counsel. What the intercept evidence discloses is that Grew reviewed the Japanese effort and concurred with the U.S. Army's chief of intelligence, Major General Clayton Bissell, that the effort most likely represented a ploy to play on American war weariness. They deemed the possibility that it manifested a serious effort by the emperor to end the war "remote." Lest there be any doubt about Grew's mindset, as late as August 7, the day after Hiroshima, Grew drafted a memorandum with an oblique reference to radio intelligence again affirming his view that Tokyo still was not close to peace. Starting with the publication of excerpts from the diaries of James Forrestal in 1951, the contents of a few of the diplomatic intercepts were revealed, and for decades the critics focused on these. But the release of the complete (unredacted) "Magic" Far East Summary, supplementing the Diplomatic Summary, in the 1990s revealed that the diplomatic messages amounted to a mere trickle by comparison with the torrent of military intercepts. The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender. Ultra was even more alarming in what it revealed about Japanese knowledge of American military plans. Intercepts demonstrated that the Japanese had correctly anticipated precisely where U.S. forces intended to land on Southern Kyushu in November 1945 (Operation Olympic). American planning for the Kyushu assault reflected adherence to the military rule of thumb that the attacker should outnumber the defender at least three to one to assure success at a reasonable cost. American estimates projected that on the date of the landings, the Japanese would have only three of their six field divisions on all of Kyushu in the southern target area where nine American divisions would push ashore. The estimates allowed that the Japanese would possess just 2,500 to 3,000 planes total throughout Japan to face Olympic. American aerial strength would be over four times greater. From mid-July onwards, Ultra intercepts exposed a huge military buildup on Kyushu. Japanese ground forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of four. Instead of 3 Japanese field divisions deployed in southern Kyushu to meet the 9 U.S. divisions, there were 10 Imperial Army divisions plus additional brigades. Japanese air forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of two to four. Instead of 2,500 to 3,000 Japanese aircraft, estimates varied between about 6,000 and 10,000. One intelligence officer commented that the Japanese defenses threatened "to grow to [the] point where we attack on a ratio of one (1) to one (1) which is not the recipe for victory." Concurrent with the publication of the radio intelligence material, additional papers of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been released in the last decade. From these, it is clear that there was no true consensus among the Joint Chiefs of Staff about an invasion of Japan. The Army, led by General George C. Marshall, believed that the critical factor in achieving American war aims was time. Thus, Marshall and the Army advocated an invasion of the Home Islands as the fastest way to end the war. But the long-held Navy view was that the critical factor in achieving American war aims was casualties. The Navy was convinced that an invasion would be far too costly to sustain the support of the American people, and hence believed that blockade and bombardment were the sound course. The picture becomes even more complex than previously understood because it emerged that the Navy chose to postpone a final showdown over these two strategies. The commander in chief of the U.S. fleet, Admiral Ernest King, informed his colleagues on the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945 that he did not agree that Japan should be invaded. He concurred only that the Joint Chiefs must issue an invasion order immediately to create that option for the fall. But King predicted that the Joint Chiefs would revisit the issue of whether an invasion was wise in August or September. Meanwhile, two months of horrendous fighting ashore on Okinawa under skies filled with kamikazes convinced the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral Chester Nimitz, that he should withdraw his prior support for at least the invasion of Kyushu. Nimitz informed King of this change in his views in strict confidence. In August, the Ultra revelations propelled the Army and Navy towards a showdown over the invasion. On August 7 (the day after Hiroshima, which no one expected to prompt a quick surrender), General Marshall reacted to weeks of gathering gloom in the Ultra evidence by asking General Douglas MacArthur, who was to command what promised to be the greatest invasion in history, whether invading Kyushu in November as planned still looked sensible. MacArthur replied, amazingly, that he did not believe the radio intelligence! He vehemently urged the invasion should go forward as planned. (This, incidentally, demolishes later claims that MacArthur thought the Japanese were about to surrender at the time of Hiroshima.) On August 9 (the day the second bomb was dropped, on Nagasaki), King gathered the two messages in the exchange between Marshall and MacArthur and sent them to Nimitz. King told Nimitz to provide his views on the viability of invading Kyushu, with a copy to MacArthur. Clearly, nothing that had transpired since May would have altered Nimitz's view that Olympic was unwise. Ultra now made the invasion appear foolhardy to everyone but MacArthur. But King had not placed a deadline on Nimitz's response, and the Japanese surrender on August 15 allowed Nimitz to avoid starting what was certain to be one of the most tumultuous interservice battles of the whole war. What this evidence illuminates is that one central tenet of the traditionalist view is wrong--but with a twist. Even with the full ration of caution that any historian should apply anytime he ventures comments on paths history did not take, in this instance it is now clear that the long-held belief that Operation Olympic loomed as a certainty is mistaken. Truman's reluctant endorsement of the Olympic invasion at a meeting in June 1945 was based in key part on the fact that the Joint Chiefs had presented it as their unanimous recommendation. (King went along with Marshall at the meeting, presumably because he deemed it premature to wage a showdown fight. He did comment to Truman that, of course, any invasion authorized then could be canceled later.) With the Navy's withdrawal of support, the terrible casualties in Okinawa, and the appalling radio-intelligence picture of the Japanese buildup on Kyushu, Olympic was not going forward as planned and authorized--period. But this evidence also shows that the demise of Olympic came not because it was deemed unnecessary, but because it had become unthinkable. It is hard to imagine anyone who could have been president at the time (a spectrum that includes FDR, Henry Wallace, William O. Douglas, Harry Truman, and Thomas Dewey) failing to authorize use of the atomic bombs in this circumstance. Japanese historians uncovered another key element of the story. After Hiroshima (August 6), Soviet entry into the war against Japan (August 8), and Nagasaki (August 9), the emperor intervened to break a deadlock within the government and decide that Japan must surrender in the early hours of August 10. The Japanese Foreign Ministry dispatched a message to the United States that day stating that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration, "with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler." This was not, as critics later asserted, merely a humble request that the emperor retain a modest figurehead role. As Japanese historians writing decades after the war emphasized, the demand that there be no compromise of the "prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler" as a precondition for the surrender was a demand that the United States grant the emperor veto power over occupation reforms and continue the rule of the old order in Japan. Fortunately, Japan specialists in the State Department immediately realized the actual purpose of this language and briefed Secretary of State James Byrnes, who insisted properly that this maneuver must be defeated. The maneuver further underscores the fact that right to the very end, the Japanese pursued twin goals: not only the preservation of the imperial system, but also preservation of the old order in Japan that had launched a war of aggression that killed 17 million. This brings us to another aspect of history that now very belatedly has entered the controversy. Several American historians led by Robert Newman have insisted vigorously that any assessment of the end of the Pacific war must include the horrifying consequences of each continued day of the war for the Asian populations trapped within Japan's conquests. Newman calculates that between a quarter million and 400,000 Asians, overwhelmingly noncombatants, were dying each month the war continued. Newman et al. challenge whether an assessment of Truman's decision can highlight only the deaths of noncombatant civilians in the aggressor nation while ignoring much larger death tolls among noncombatant civilians in the victim nations. There are a good many more points that now extend our understanding beyond the debates of 1995. But it is clear that all three of the critics' central premises are wrong. The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood--as one analytical piece in the "Magic" Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts--that "until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies." This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945. The displacement of the so-called traditionalist view within important segments of American opinion took several decades to accomplish. It will take a similar span of time to displace the critical orthodoxy that arose in the 1960s and prevailed roughly through the 1980s, and replace it with a richer appreciation for the realities of 1945. But the clock is ticking. Richard B. Frank, a historian of World War II, is the author of Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. Copyright 2005, , Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 Cincinnati Post: A disappointing effort OPINION When members of Congress come home for their summer recess, don't be surprised if they start touting the new energy bill. Don't be fooled either. The bill, at least six years in the making, does have a number of good features. Any legislation this large and this expensive ought to have some good features. But this one fails its most important obligation: to significantly reduce the nation's energy consumption and its reliance on imported oil. Rather than enacting tough fuel-efficiency standards or making an all-out effort to promote conservation, Congress contented itself with nibbling around the edges. The bill has a process for looking at tweaking the fuel-efficiency standards. It has modest incentives for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles. But there's nothing in it that says Congress has any genuine intention of weaning America off its addiction to gas-guzzling SUVs or reducing our reliance on oil from the Middle East. Consider the bill's tax incentives. The oil and natural gas industries are in line for $2.6 billion worth of new tax breaks, even though prices are at all-time highs and the big energy companies are raking in more money than ever before. Ordinary Americans who buy energy-efficient cars or take steps to reduce energy use in their homes were allocated half that amount, $1.3 billion. Judging from the reports we've seen to date out of Washington, this bill will not, as some of its architects assert, transform the way America produces and uses energy. It is, essentially, more of the same. That said, there are promising features in it. Among them: A $1.8 billion clean-coal technology program. States, the federal government and the industry have been funding clean-coal research for more than 20 years now. But with the spike in oil and natural gas prices, it appears the time might be ripe for the refinement and deployment of some of the more promising technologies. Notable among these are systems that would enable power plants to run on gas that's made from coal, in a process that improves operating efficiency and vastly reduces emissions. This has big implications for Kentucky, southern Ohio and West Virginia which have large deposits of high-sulfur coal. A mandate for doubling the production of corn-based ethanol from current levels by 2012. While this would be a boon to corn states such as Ohio, and while it's prudent to nurture development of renewable fuels, it bears noting that many experts believe the production of ethanol consumes more energy than it delivers. A variety of incentives to promote the resurrection of America's nuclear industry. This could affect Greater Cincinnati down the line in view of Cinergy's pending merger with Duke Energy, which operates several nuclear plants in the Carolinas. Duke has expertise that Cinergy lacks, and it's not too far-fetched to contemplate the day when a combined company might opt to rely on new nuclear capacity to replace the output from old, dirty coal-fired plants. But until the federal government opens the long-promised Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository or otherwise takes tangible action to provide storage for spent fuel rods, it's unlikely any new plants will be built even with the provisions in this bill. Tighter rules and standards governing the electrical transmission grid. This is a welcome, but belated, response to the massive brownouts two years ago that started near Cleveland and shut down power plants in Canada and throughout the American Northeast. Tougher efficiency requirements for air conditioners, refrigerators and the like, and the extension of Daylight Savings Time by a month in an effort to cut energy consumption. We're also happy to report that the energy bill includes the voluntary incentives proposed by Ohio Sen. George Voinovich and others to encourage the installation of pollution control equipment on older diesel engines. It won't do much to improve energy efficiency, but it will help clean the air. In the same vein, this bill is notable for something it doesn't include: authorization for oil exploration in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. (Including this would have likely killed the entire energy bill. Supporters of drilling in the refuge, however, say they intend to come back and insert the language in a budget bill which under Congress' rules is not subject to a filibuster.) All told this bill, disappointing as it is, represents progress by a Congress that has been stymied for far too long on energy policy. And some provisions hold promise. But we sure hope that when members of Congress come home and discuss the bill, they'll realize that their constituents are far ahead of them - and want much stronger legislation to promote energy independence. Publication date: 07-29-2005 [Cincinnati.Com] Copyright2005 The Cincinnati Post, an E.W. Scrippsnewspaper. ***************************************************************** 18 CNN: Analysts see gains for oil and coal industries - Jul. 29, 2005 Energy bill's winners and losers Some big oil and coal producers stand to benefit, some chemical companies could face lawsuits. By Shaheen Pasha, CNN/Money staff writer NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - As the energy bill moves closer to becoming law, debate is still raging over the first overhaul of national energy policy in a decade. Supporters say the $14.5 billion bill will pave the way for more exploration and ultimately less reliance on foreign oil. Critics say it will enrich the already wealthy oil industry without addressing the need for relief from record oil and gasoline prices. But if there's one thing that both parties can agree on, it's that the oil industry as a whole stands to benefit from its passage -- which could be an attractive point for investors looking to share the wealth. The bill, which has already been approved by the House and is expected to pass the Senate on Friday, provides $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives over 10 years to encourage domestic production of oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear energy. Nearly $9 billion is set aside for oil and gas, electricity and coal companies, while about $5 billion will go towards energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Large oil producers stand to benefit, said Rick Mueller, senior oil analyst at Energy Security Analysts. He said companies such as Exxon Mobil(Research), ConocoPhillips(Research) and BP(Research) are among the winners of the bill, given their strong exploration presence in the Gulf of Mexico, which produces 1.5 million barrels of oil a day. The bill will provide an elimination of royalties that oil and gas companies pay the government for drilling in the deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. While details still need to be finalized, those companies that drill deeper will receive more relief, said KeyBanc vice president Kim Pacanovsky. The American Petroleum Institute, an industry group, estimated that the oil industry pays upward of $5 billion in royalties to the U.S. government for oil and gas production, much of which comes from its deep production in federal waters. Oil services firms such as Schlumberger(Research) and Halliburton(Research) -- once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney -- could also see some gains from the bill down the road, Mueller added. But don't expect the market to have a knee-jerk reaction to the bill's passage, KeyBanc's Kim Pacanovsky said. She said that while tax incentives may provide a boost for deep-water exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, the process remains expensive. And she added that the bill does nothing to curtail the volatility in oil prices, which remains a concern for industry executives and investors. The oil industry won't be alone in reaping the benefits of a revamped energy policy. Investors may want to take a look at coal stocks, said David Pursell, partner at Pickering Energy Partners, an energy research firm. "There will be more interest in clean coal technology, which should help the coal guys more than anyone else," he said. He said the incentives to promote drilling are largely contained to the Gulf of Mexico, leaving potentially oil-rich areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and some areas in California virtually untapped. That should rev up the need for more efficient forms of coal for fuel, and that should boost coal stocks such as Peabody Energy(Research) -- the world's largest coal producer, which counts U.S. power companies for 90 percent of its sales. The revamped bill also calls for the U.S. to nearly double is usage of ethanol to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 and provides tax incentives for the creation of ethanol plants -- a move that will help big ethanol producers such as Archer Daniels Midland(Research) and closely held Cargill, said John Eichberger, director of motor fuels at the National Association of Convenience Stores, an international trade association. He said the new focus on ethanol -- a corn-based additive that allows gasoline to burn more cleanly -- could eventually phase out the use of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), a fuel additive also meant to reduce pollution from auto emissions that has been criticized for contaminating ground water and possibly being a carcinogen. MTBE makers may feel the heat if the energy bill passes into law, analysts said. The energy bill omitted a limited liability provision for manufacturers of the substance, which opens the door to possible litigation down the road. That could potentially hurt companies such as Lyondell(Research), which are among the largest producers of MTBEs and Valero Energy(Research), which produces MTBEs for use in its own oil production. But ultimately, analysts said the only losers to the bill remain consumers. "It's more of a feel-good bill than anything else," said Pickering Energy's Pursell. "The bill does nothing to reduce our dependence on imported oil and the only winners will be those that benefit from high energy prices." (Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the name of Archer Daniels Midland Co. We regret the error). For more on the energy bill click here: House approves $14.5B energy bill. To see the EPA's view on fuel efficiency, click here. 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: Congress Set to Pass Energy Bill From the Associated Press [UP] Friday July 29, 2005 7:46 AM AP Photo DCGH103 By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - After years of stalemate, Congress is set to enact a national energy plan that its supporters say will provide a more diverse mix of fuels, create jobs and spur development of cleaner burning coal and a new generation of nuclear reactors. The Senate was to take up the legislation Friday, a day after it passed the House by a wide margin. President Bush, under political pressure to do something about the nation's energy problems in light of soaring oil and gasoline prices, is eager to sign the measure into law. He had challenged Congress to provide him a bill before lawmakers depart this week on a five-week summer recess. Even the bill's sponsors acknowledge the mammoth energy blueprint, covering 1,724 pages, will have little if any impact on today's energy prices or wean the nation away from its thirst for oil - some 20 million barrels a day, nearly 60 percent of it imported . ``We won't have any answers if the question is what are you going to do tomorrow morning about gasoline prices,'' said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who led the Senate negotiations with the House in crafting the legislation. But he said the bill would provide financial incentives and federal policies ``that we as a nation will benefit from not tomorrow, but for the next five or 10 years.'' The bill provides $14.5 billion in tax breaks and potentially billions more in loan guarantees and other subsidies to encourage oil and gas drilling, improve natural gas and electric transmission lines, build new nuclear power reactors and expand renewable energy sources, especially construction of wind turbines. It also expands the federal government's authority over siting liquefied natural gas import terminals and electric transmission lines if they are deemed critical to the national power grid. For the first time utilities would have to meet federal reliability standards for the electricity grid to try to avoid a repeat of the massive 2003 blackout that hit the Midwest and Northeast. A measures that may have a direct impact on the public include a provision to expand daylight-saving time by one month, adding three weeks in the spring and a week in the fall, taking it beyond Halloween. The change would go into effect in 2007. Consumers also will see tax credits for the purchase of hybrid-electric cars and get tax breaks for making energy conservation improvements in their homes. Farmers will sell more corn, as the legislation calls for the doubling of ethanol use as an additive in gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Refiners no longer will have to include an oxygenate in gasoline to reduce air pollution. Refiners say they can meet the air quality rules with conventional gas and will have more flexibility in supplying the fuel to head off shortages. But critics of the legislation said the bill also eases environmental rules for refiners and for oil and gas exploration. And they're concerned about what's not in the legislation. ``The bill is a series of missed opportunities,'' said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who was the only Senate Democrat to oppose the compromise legislation in the House-Senate conference that crafted the final version this week. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said it falls far short of what is needed by not addressing climate change and including nothing that would increase the fuel economy of automobiles, the biggest guzzlers of oil. Just this week, Kerry said, a report was made public from the Environmental Protection Agency showing a decline in automobile fuel economy. Lawmakers avoided a certain fight in the Senate by leaving out one of Bush's top energy goals: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling. House Republicans promised to pursue that issue separately this fall. House Republicans also abandoned a provision that would have given the makers of the gasoline additive MTBE protection against lawsuits stemming from the chemical's contamination of drinking water supplies in at least 36 states. Both the Arctic refuge drilling and the MTBE liability shield were almost certain to have prompted a filibuster in the Senate, dooming the bill, as was the case two years ago. Congress last passed a broad energy bill in 1992. For the past six years it tried to pass another one, coming close at times, but never got the job done. --- On the Net: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: http://energy.senate.gov/public/ House Energy and Commerce Committee: http://energycommerce.house.gov/ Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Worse than irrelevant Politics | Comment | Replacing Trident is against both our national interests and our international obligations Robin Cook Friday July 29, 2005 Down at Aldermaston they are spending hundreds of millions of pounds of your money on a refit of the production line for nuclear warheads. We are assured this does not mean that any decision has been made to replace the Trident nuclear system. Dear me no, the investment is merely intended to keep open our options. If we want to exercise the option of producing more weapons, we are told we must make up our minds in this parliament. This is not because Trident is in imminent danger of going out of service. The British submarines can keep on diving and surfacing for another two decades. The problem is that it will take that long to order, build and commission another expensive fleet to replace them. This is an excellent opportunity for Tony Blair to prove that he is a real moderniser. It is a fixed pole of his political pitch that he represents a clean break from old Labour. It was the Wilson government of the 60s that built, launched and named the Polaris fleet. It was Jim Callaghan who first struck the Trident deal with President Carter, eccentrically in a beach hut on Guadeloupe. There could not be a more convincing way for Tony Blair to break from the past and to demonstrate that he is a true moderniser than by making the case that nuclear weapons now have no relevance to Britain's defences in the modern world. The justification for both Polaris and Trident was that we faced in the Soviet Union a great, hostile bear bristling with nuclear claws. The missiles were put on submarines precisely because the ocean bed was the only place they could hide from Russian firepower. But those are calculations from a long-vanished era. The Soviet Union has disintegrated, its satellites are our allies in the European Union, and the west is now sinking large funds into helping Russia to defuse and dismantle the warheads that we once feared. No other credible nuclear threat has stepped forward to replace the Soviet Union as a rationale for the British nuclear weapons system. To be sure, two or three other nations have emerged with a crude nuclear capability, but none of them has developed the capacity or the motivation to attack Britain. It is not easy to see what practical return Britain ever got out of the extravagant sums we invested in our nuclear systems. None of our wars was ever won by them and none of the enemies we fought was deterred by them. General Galtieri was not deterred from seizing the Falklands, although Britain possessed the nuclear bomb and Argentina did not. But the collapse of the cold war has removed even the theoretical justification for our possessing strategic nuclear weapons. However, the spirit of the cold war lives on in the minds of those who cannot let go of fear and who need an enemy to buttress their own identity. Hence the vacuum left by the cold war has been filled by George Bush's global war on terror. It is tragically true that terrorism, partly as a result, is now a worse threat than ever before. But nuclear weapons are hopelessly irrelevant to that terrorist threat. The elegant theories of deterrence all appear beside the point in the face of a suicide bomber who actively courts martyrdom. And if we ever were deluded enough to wreak our revenge by unleashing a latter-day Hiroshima on a Muslim city, we would incite fanatical terrorism against ourselves for a generation. Investment in a new strategic nuclear system would be worse than an irrelevance. It would be an extravagant diversion of resources from priorities more relevant to combating terrorism. Trident cost us more than 12.5bn - roughly half the whole defence budget for a year. Even if its successor did not have a higher price tag, it could not be bought without cutting back on the conventional capacity of our armed forces. It will be more difficult this time to find the funds for a new nuclear weapons system without those cuts being painful, because the defence budget as a percentage of GDP is now much less than the level that accommodated the Polaris and Trident programmes. Our army is already shedding both troops and tanks. Yet Britain's most valuable role in global stability is the professional, experienced contribution of our soldiers to peacekeeping missions, which earns us much more goodwill round the world than our nuclear submarines prowling the seas. The world would be less stable and Britain would be less secure if we were to trade in even more of those army units for son-of-Trident. It is not just peaceniks who would oppose such a choice. I suspect a clear majority of the officer corps would vote against diverting the defence budget into another generation of nuclear weapons. It is not as if the large sums that would be required to keep us in the nuclear game would buy us an independent weapon. Dan Plesch documents in an impressive forthcoming report that all levels of the Trident system depend on US cooperation. The missiles are not even owned by us, but are leased from the Pentagon in an arrangement that Denis Healey once dubbed as "rent-a-rocket". Renewing our collaboration with the US on nuclear weapons will deepen the bonds between Downing Street and the White House, at the very time when the rest of the nation longs for a more independent stance. It is therefore against Britain's national interests to replace Trident. It is also against our international obligations, notably the commitment in the non-proliferation treaty to proceed in good faith to nuclear disarmament. To be fair, New Labour has so far had a decent record on progress towards this objective. In the past decade Labour has scrapped Britain's other nuclear weapons, signed up to the test ban treaty and reduced the alert status of our submarines by several days. But these positive steps will be reversed if we now charge off in the opposite direction by ordering a brand-new nuclear system. There is a chasm too wide for logic to leap, between arguing that Britain must maintain nuclear weapons to guarantee its security, and lecturing Iran et al that the safety of the world would be compromised if they behaved in the same way. Despite the current anxieties over proliferation, more nations have given up nuclear weapons over the past generation than have developed them. Brazil and Argentina negotiated a treaty to terminate their rival nuclear programmes. Ukraine and other former Soviet states renounced the nuclear capacity they inherited. South Africa, post-apartheid, abandoned its nuclear programme and dismantled its weapon capacity. None of those countries regards itself as any less secure than before. Nor need we, if our leadership can find the courage to let Trident be the end of Britain's futile and costly obsession with nuclear-weapon status. About this site Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited ***************************************************************** 21 BBC: Fears over future energy sources Last Updated: Friday, 29 July 2005 [Wind turbine] Wind turbines have become part of the landscape across Wales There are calls for the Welsh assembly and UK governments to start planning future energy needs now, or face power cuts and job losses. Experts at the Wales TUC conference are expected to call for more balanced and sustainable energy sources. An appeal not to rule out nuclear energy as an option is also expected to be made at the Llandudno event. The conference is held as opponents to plans for 230 wind turbines off north Wales lobby Llandudno town council. The UK will soon import more gas and oil than it exports and delegates at the TUC conference will be warned the UK could be at the mercy of international events unless other resources are established. "The sources of gas and oil will be from some of the world's most unstable countries where security of supply and price will be out of our hands," said the union's Welsh general secretary Felicity Williams. At the same time, she said demand for energy was "likely to double over the next 50 years". [Trawsfynydd] Nuclear plants such as Trawsfynydd are being decommissioned She added: "There is increasing doubt about whether renewable energy generation such as wind farms can meet our future energy needs. "And the nuclear fleet, which provides 20% of our current energy and emits virtually no greenhouse gases, is in the process of being decommissioned. "Decisions on just how we fill this massive deficit will need to be made quickly and this conference will be a major contributor to that debate." The TUC conference is also set to investigate issues of 'cleaner' coal and greenhouse gas emissions. Gas drilling Last month, the Welsh Assembly Government launched consultation on a scheme to give Wales "cleaner, more efficient energy production". On Thursday, oil firm Marathon announced it would start drilling for gas 21 miles off the Pembrokeshire coast this autumn. The 12m project off Milford Haven will be the first commercial drilling off Wales in 11 years. The firm said that gas reserves, which were not commercially worthwhile years ago, are now more valuable because of the increases in energy prices. ***************************************************************** 22 BBC: Indian PM justifies nuclear deal Last Updated: Friday, 29 July 2005 [Manmohan Singh] India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has justified to parliament the country's recent civilian nuclear technology deal with the US. Mr Singh said the deal would not limit or lead to any outside interference in the country's nuclear weapons. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party and the ruling Congress party's Communist allies have voiced concerns about the landmark deal. It was reached during Mr Singh's recent visit to the US. Delhi had been anxious to strike a deal on ways to share nuclear technology to help meet its growing energy needs. Our strategic assets are source of national security and will continue to be so and remain outside the scope of our discussions with any external interlocutors Manmohan Singh The deal was agreed despite India's continued refusal to sign an international nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), designed to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. Mr Singh told the parliament that the basis of the agreement with the United States "was that India is a responsible nuclear power with an impeccable record on nuclear non-proliferation". "Our strategic assets are a source of national security and will continue to be so and remain outside the scope of our discussions with any external interlocutors," he said. He said the joint statement signed with US President George W Bush was "testimony" to India's rising stature in the world. Mr Singh said there was nothing in the signed statement between India and US that inhibited India's "strategic nuclear programme or autonomous control". He said ever since the liberalisation of India's economy in 1991, it had been able to work with the US on "equal terms" as the economy had been "stronger than ever". ***************************************************************** 23 Xinhua: New nuclear submarine to equip Russian fleet in Far East www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-07-29 11:26:10 MOSCOW, July 28 (Xinhuanet) -- Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Thursday that Russia is to equip its Pacific fleet with a new generation of multi-functional missile nuclear submarine. During his visit to the Kamchatka peninsula in Russia's Far East, Ivanov said that the nuclear submarine base of the Pacific fleet will be set in the Viliuchinsk city of the peninsula. The government will invest heavily for the completion the infrastructure of the base and it will be built into one of the most modernized in one and a half year. Ivanov also revealed that Russia's new-generation strategic nuclear submarine Iuri Dolgorygiy, which is still under construction, will be launched in 2006. The submarine will be equipped with the new-generation "Bulava" missile which can carry 10 nuclear warheads. Another missile nuclear submarine Alexander Nevsky will be launched in 2007. After that, Russia will continue to construct other nuclear submarines, said the defense minister. Ivanov added that Russia is ready to equip its forces in the Far East with modern weapons. Enditem Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 [epa-impact] Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Availability Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:30:34 -0400 (EDT) http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/July/Day-29/ ======================================================================= [Federal Register: July 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 145)] [Notices] [Page 43863] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29jy05-91] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [ Project No. 2105-095] Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment July 21, 2005. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects' staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for an application for a non-capacity related amendment of the Lake Almanor Development of the Upper North Fork Feather River Project. The Upper North Fork Feather River Project, FERC No. 2105, is located on the Butt Creek and North Fork Feather River in Plumas County, California. The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposal and concludes that approval of the proposal would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A copy of the EA is attached to a July 20, 2005, Commission order titled ``Order Approving Application for Amendment of License and Revised Exhibit K,'' which is available for review and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``elibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (prefaced by P-) and excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. For further information, contact Rebecca Martin at (202) 502-6012. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-4032 Filed 7-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ------------------------------------------ http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/ ------------------------------------------ You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-46782Y@lists.epa.gov OR: Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription. For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov ------------------------------------------ ***************************************************************** 25 UK The Times: Safety fear overruled for Putin's floating reactors July 30, 2005 From Jeremy Page in Moscow RUSSIA is to start building the worlds first floating nuclear power plant next year to supply electricity to its remote northern coast. Despite the warnings of environmentalists, the Federal Nuclear Energy Agency has said that it will complete the first of several plants by 2011 and put it into operation at the northern port of Severodvinsk, on the White Sea. Environmental groups say that the power plants will be an unprecedented environmental and security hazard because they will be moored in remote ports and would be hard to reach in the event of an accident or terrorist attack. Russia has an unenviable record of nuclear and naval accidents, including the sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk in 2000, and has suffered terrorist attacks by Chechen rebels. Were very concerned youll have an environmental, a security and a proliferation risk, said Nils Boehmer, head of the Russia group at Bellona, an environmental group based in Norway. It will be difficult to do anything if they have an accident, plus the fuel will be highly enriched and could be used in nuclear weapons, he added. But Russian nuclear officials, who have been promoting the idea for 15 years, say that the plants will have extra safety features to prevent radiation leaks and to resist even a 9/11-style terrorist attack. Leakage wont occur even if a plane or a helicopter crashes into the floating block, said Vladimir Uryvsky, the deputy department head at the Federal Nuclear Energy Agency. This construction comes with a 100 per cent safety guarantee. The plants will supply electricity to remote ports that are inaccessible by road, such as Severodvinsk, which is the site of the Sevmash shipyard, an important defence manufacturer. Many such communities were left stranded when subsidies dried up after the Soviet Unions collapse and still face power shortages during winter in temperatures as low as - 40C. Each floating plant will house a 70 megawatt reactor similar to that on a nuclear submarine, or icebreaker, and big enough to power a city of 200,000 people. They will probably be assembled in St Petersburg, Russias second city, before being towed to their destinations around the coast. The far eastern regions of Kamchatka and Chukotka governed by the oil tycoon Roman Abramovich have already signed up for one each and other regions are expected to follow. Each plant is designed to last 40 years and will cost about $200 million (115 million). China signed a $86.5 million deal this week to build the boat for the first one, while Russia will construct the reactor block. Russia also plans to export plants to China, Thailand, Indonesia, the Middle East and even Canada. Concerns have been raised that the plants nuclear technology and materials could fall into the hands of hostile governments or terrorist. Each plant will hold enough highly enriched uranium to produce several nuclear weapons. Earlier this year Greenpeace asked Russias Federal Security Service to ban the production and export of the floating plants, arguing that they would be easy targets for terrorist attacks. Greenpeace and other environmental groups say that it would be cheaper and easier to develop wind and solar power in remote regions like Kamchatka and Chukotka. But the nuclear industry appears to have won over President Putin, who has accused environmental groups of impeding Russias economic development. The nuclear lobby is very powerful. They still have the connections from Soviet times and now they want new business, Mr Boehmer said. ATOMIC WOES + Sept 29, 1957: waste storage tank explodes near Chelyabinsk hundreds killed + Apr 26, 1986: Chernobyl nuclear plant near Kiev, in Soviet-ruled Ukraine, explodes: 31 killed in explosion; almost one million people evacuated from the area; possible long-term death toll 300,000 + Aug 2000: Nuclear submarine Kursk sinks in Barents Sea 118 die Copyright The Times - timesonline.co.uk ***************************************************************** 26 CNW Group: AECL mobilizing immediately on Lepreau refurbishment Canada NewsWire Group July 30, 2005 QUICK Detailed engineering and scheduling work already underway MISSISSAUGA, ON, July 29 /CNW/ - Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) today announced it is building on its excellent pre-project partnership with NB Power and is immediately mobilizing and accelerating to meet the requirements of the Province of New Brunswick and that it has committed to a fixed price and firm schedule for the retubing and refurbishment of Point Lepreau. "Clean, reliable, affordable power from Point Lepreau is crucial to the continued economic well being of the people of New Brunswick," says AECL President and CEO Robert Van Adel. "AECL has the people, the resources and the proven track record to ensure this important project is completed successfully and the Lepreau reactor continues producing power efficiently for another 25 years." AECL has been working closely with NB Power, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and its many project partners for the past five years to assess the plant's condition, develop a comprehensive integrated project plan and schedule and complete the scope and budget for the project. AECL's 25 years of actively supporting the operation of the station and its strong working relationships with Point Lepreau staff, NB Power staff and local suppliers enables the project team to continue working smoothly and seamlessly. AECL fully intends to maintain its long-standing commitment to hiring and working closely with qualified local labour and suppliers. "The plant is in good condition going into refurbishment," says AECL Chief Operating Officer Ken Petrunik. "NB Power has invested in maintenance and improvements on an ongoing basis and we are confident the plant will operate reliably for an additional 25 years once our work is done." AECL is responsible for two aspects of the overall project: retubing in which 380 fuel channels and associated feeder tubes will be removed and replaced, and construction of a facility on site to store the removed active material; and refurbishment, where aging components and outdated technology will be removed and upgraded. The plant owner, NB Power, will be responsible for other aspects of the project including: normal shut down of plant for outage, removal of fuel, heavy water, normal maintenance during outage, providing new fuel, reloading heavy water and providing station staff to restart the plant. About AECL AECL is an integrated nuclear technology company providing services to nuclear utilities worldwide. Our 3,200 employees are focused on delivering R support, nuclear services, design and engineering, construction management, specialist technology, and waste management and decommissioning in support of CANDU reactor products. Additional information on AECL and its products can be found at www.aecl.ca. For further information: please contact: Steve Skidd, Laurie Weir, ph: (905) 403-7444, (416) 322-3030 ext. 239 ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED - More on this ***************************************************************** 27 CNW Group: Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) Hails Great Day for Nuclear Industry Canada NewsWire Group July 30, 2005 OTTAWA, July 29 /CNW Telbec/ - "The CNA welcomes today's announcements that the government of New Brunswick has given the go ahead for the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau reactor and that Ontario Power Generation has been authorized to start up Pickering Unit 1, the second reactor to be refurbished at the Pickering 'A' Plant," said Murray Elston, President and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association. Both announcements extend the horizon for Canada's nuclear industry, and assure Canadians of "reliable, cost-efficient energy supply" to quote Premier Bernard Lord in confirming that his government's exhaustive analysis determined that the Point Lepreau reactor refurbishment was the most cost effective option for New Brunswick. The decision to refurbish Point Lepreau ensures that New Brunswick will continue to be at the forefront of Canada's innovative nuclear industry providing the province with highly skilled jobs, ongoing academic excellence at post secondary institutions and strong economic spin offs for New Brunswick's economy. The value of the announcement also extends to the environment because the decision reflects Canadians' desire to avoid increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The clean energy solution for New Brunswick extends the life of the CANDU 6 unit for 25-30 years. "At Pickering, the announcement that Unit 1 is ready to begin its startup tops off a great day for Canada's nuclear industry," Mr. Elston said. "Like New Brunswick, this announcement confirms that Ontario's environment will benefit from the addition of 515 MW of clean electricity supply." The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) is a non-profit organization established in 1960 to represent the nuclear industry in Canada and promote the development and growth of nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. The CNA has about 90 members including power utilities, labour unions, manufacturers, uranium mining and fuel processing companies, engineering companies, universities, and associations. For further information: Pierre Guimond, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association, (613) 237-1632, Fax: (613) 237-0989, guimondp@cna.ca CANADIAN NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION - More on this ***************************************************************** 28 Xinhua: US says DPRK should not retain civilian nuclear capability www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-07-30 04:36:43 WASHINGTON, July 29 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States said on Friday that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) should dismantle its nuclear weapons programs and should not retain a civilian nuclear capability as well. The remark came after Christopher Hill, top US envoy to the six-party talks currently being held in Beijing, suggested that Washington could be willing to allow the DPRK the peaceful use of atomic power if the DPRK rejoined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The DPRK withdrew from the NPT in 2003. "We don't challenge the fact that they have the rights to this under the treaty, but we challenge whether they should be exercising these rights," Hill told reporters in Beijing on Friday. However, Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, said on Friday that Hill was clear that the DPRK should not be allowed to retain civilian nuclear capability. "I think he was very clear and we're very clear that we do not think that North Korea should retain a civilian nuclear capability," McCormack said, stressing that the US goal is to achieve a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. "We've seen North Korea in terms of the 1991 agreement, the NPT,the 1994 Agreed Framework, in which they have not lived up to their nuclear obligations. So any nuclear program in North Korea could potentially be a nuclear weapons program," he said. Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 CBC News: N.B. to refurbish aging nuclear plant Last Updated Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:42:50 EDT CBC News New Brunswick said Friday it is going ahead with a $1.4-billion refurbishment of its Point Lepreau nuclear plant, and said Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. will be the general contractor. The decision from Premier Bernard Lord's government ends months of speculation over the fate of the aging power generating facility near Saint John that employs 700 workers and supplies more than a third of New Brunswick's power. Point Lepreau nuclear plant The deal with Crown corporation AECL is expected to extend the life of the plant, allowing its Candu reactor to keep operating for at least 25 years. There will be substantial penalties for AECL if it fails to finish the overhaul by September 2009, according to the terms of the deal. In announcing the decision, Lord said the project will help solidify Saint John's position as an energy hub for the region. But he also had a warning for taxpayers in his province. "We acknowledge that New Brunswick is taking on more financial risk than we had originally intended," Lord said in Fredericton. "I think it's important for everyone to realize that." Critics voiced their concern at the news. Lawyer Rod Gillis, a long-time critic of NB Power, said refurbishment is too risky because it's never before been tried on the kind of Candu reactor operating at Lepreau. "It has the potential to bring the province to its financial knees if it doesn't work out," Gillis told CBC News. "It's a gutsy move," he said. "But who's going to be there to pay for the disaster if it does take place?" Gillis suggested Friday's announcement keeping the plant open is simply politics. New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord. (CP File Photo) News about the plant also affects neighbouring Prince Edward Island, which buys 95 per cent of its electricity from New Brunswick. Point Lepreau began operating in 1983 and was set to be closed in 2008. In going with AECL, the government rejected a competing bid from an Ontario company, Bruce Power. That deal would have seen Bruce Power assume more of the refurbishment risk in return for the right to sell electricity back to N.B. Power. In the lead-up to this decision, New Brunswick had asked Ottawa to help cover costs of the pricey refurbishment. But two weeks ago, the federal government refused to do so, saying it would set an expensive precedent given that other Candu reactors in Ontario are also approaching their twilight years. Copyright CBC 2005 ***************************************************************** 30 Reuters: Constellation N.Y. Ginna nuke back in service Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:16 AM ET NEW YORK, July 29 (Reuters) - Constellation Energy Group Inc.'s (CEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 497-megawatt Ginna nuclear power station in New York returned to service and ramped up to 49 percent of capacity by early Friday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report. Late Wednesday, the Baltimore-based company reduced the unit to below 5 percent of capacity to fix some chemistry problems that occurred during maintenance. 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. ***************************************************************** 31 Reuters: Entergy reduces N.Y. FitzPatrick nuke for work Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:36 AM ET (Adds company comment) NEW YORK, July 29 (Reuters) - Entergy Corp. (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) reduced the 825-megawatt FitzPatrick nuclear power station in New York to about half power by early Friday to work on a feed water pump, a spokeswoman for the plant said. She could not say how long the unit would remain reduced but noted power reduction would likely not last long and the company did not expect to shut the unit for the work. On Thursday, the unit was operating at full power. The FitzPatrick station is located in Scriba, in Oswego County, about 90 miles east of Rochester, New York. One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American average. Entergy's unregulated Entergy Nuc FitzPatrick LLC subsidiary operates the station. Entergy's subsidiaries own and operate about 30,000 MW of generating capacity, market energy commodities, and transmit and distribute power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 National Post: Overhaul of N.B. power plant a go nationalpost.com Canadian Press July 29, 2005 FREDERICTON -- The New Brunswick government will go ahead on a $1.4-billion overhaul of the aging Point Lepreau nuclear power plant, announcing Friday that Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has been hired as the general contractor. The contract includes a fixed price and substantial penalties for AECL if the federal Crown corporation fails to meet the September 2009 completion date. But Premier Bernard Lord warned that the deal with AECL means the province will assume a substantial amount of risk. ``We acknowledge that New Brunswick is taking on more risk than we had originally intended,'' Lord told a news conference. ``I think it's important for everyone to realize that.'' The premier lashed out at the federal government for refusing to contribute $400 million to the project, suggesting Ottawa> was responsible for increasing the financial risks associated with the project. Lord's Conservative government rejected a bid by Bruce Power that would have seen the Ontario company assume more of the risk by taking over the operation of the plant and selling electricity back to N.B. Power. But N.B. Power president David Hay said the Bruce deal would have cost the province an additional $450 million. When the province weighed the additional risk of the AECL proposal against the additional cost of the Bruce option, the AECL bid represented the most prudent choice, Lord said. The 22-year-old plant was supposed to be pulled from service in 2008. The refurbishment is expected to extend its life by another 20 to 25 years. The plant near Saint John, N.B., employs 700 people, and provides 30 per cent of the province's energy requirements. It is the only nuclear power plant in Atlantic Canada. Construction of Lepreau began in May 1975 and was completed in late 1981. The plant generated its first power in 1982 and began commercial operation in February 1983. Built mainly by AECL, it was the first Candu-6 reactor to be licensed for operation. In 2002, New Brunswick's Public Utilities Board scuttled NB Power's proposal to refurbish the plant by partnering with AECL. At the time, the regulatory board said the project, then estimated to cost $845 million, was too risky. That estimate was boosted to $1.4 billion in a report prepared for the province in 2004 by an international nuclear expert. Earlier this year, Lord said the province could be forced to mothball Lepreau and build coal-fired generating plants to meet the province's energy needs if Ottawa failed to cover some of the costs. But the federal government said it wouldn't contribute funds because such a grant would set an expensive precedent that would prompt other provinces to seek a similar deal. Lord said the province had been misled and betrayed by Ottawa, but he dumped the idea of building more coal-fired plants. Canadian Press 2005 y ***************************************************************** 33 Brattleboro Reformer: Operators power up VY plant July 29, 2005 Brattleboro, VT By CAROLYN LORI Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant resumed production on Thursday afternoon. The reactor shut down on Monday after an broken insulator triggered a full shutdown. Cracks in the ceramic portion of the insulator were reportedly responsible for triggering the problem. No radiation was released and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission classifies the incident as a "non-emergency." Vermont Yankee Vice President Jay Thayer said in a news release that the cause of the shutdown was "well understood." The part in question has been sent to lab for evaluation. According to Neil Sheehan, NRC spokesman for Region I, the agency is satisfied with the explanation of the incident provided by Vermont Yankee officials and will not investigate the matter further. Prior to Monday, the plant had run continuously for 385 days. The last forced shutdown of the plant occurred in June 2004, when a transformer fire stopped power production for 15 days. That shutdown cost Vermont utilities, which have a purchase contract with Vermont Yankee, more than $1 million. According to Stephen Costello, spokesman for Central Vermont Public Service, rough estimates indicate that the utility spent between $500,000 to $600,000 in total costs to buy power while Vermont Yankee was off-line during this week's outage. He said it was most likely "several hundred thousand dollars" above what it have cost to buy the power from Vermont Yankee. Green Mountain Power reported that replacement power during the three days came to $350,000. According to CEO Chris Dutton, the average costs of electricity this week was $85 per megawatt hour, compared to the contract price at Vermont Yankee which is $45 per megawatt hour. These costs may eventually get passed onto consumers. Copyright 1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: Notice of License Amendment Request for Eastern Technologies, FR Doc E5-4066 [Federal Register: July 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 145)] [Notices] [Page 43906-43908] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29jy05-143] Inc.'s Facility in Northumberland, PA and Opportunity to Request a Hearing AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of consideration of a license amendment request and opportunity to request a hearing. DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by September 27, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna M. Janda, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone (610) 337-5371, fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: dmj@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an amendment to Eastern Technologies, Inc., Materials License No. 01-30362-01, to change the location of use for operation of a nuclear laundry from 51 River Road, Berwick, Pennsylvania, the location currently approved on the license, to 3114 Point Township Drive, Northumberland, Pennsylvania. The licensee never initiated licensed activities at the Berwick, Pennsylvania location. The Federal Register Notice regarding consideration of the licensee's initial application was previously published [[Page 43907]] on March 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 61, pages 16613-16614). The license, which was initially issued on November 10, 2004, authorizes the collection, laundering, and decontamination of contaminated clothing and other launderable non-apparel items; collection and decontamination of respirators and other items that are used in conjunction with a protective clothing program; and for the possession of contaminated equipment in the licensee's portable laundry unit. If the NRC approves the amendment, the approval will be documented in an amendment to NRC License No. 01-30362-01. Before approving the proposed amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's regulations. An environmental assessment for this licensing action is not required, since this action is categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(14)(xiv). II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on a license amendment application. In accordance with the general requirements in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 2,\1\ 'Rules of General Applicability; Hearing Requests, Petitions to Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires to participate as a party must file a written request for a hearing and a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ The references to 10 CFR Part 2 in this notice refer to the amendments to the NRC Rules of Practice, 69 FR 2182 (January 14, 2004), codified at 10 CFR Part 2. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 (a), a request for a hearing must be filed with the Commission either by: 1. First class mail addressed to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications; 2. Courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, Attention Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays; 3. E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or 4. By facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, at (301) 415-1101; verification number is (301) 415-1966. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 (b), all documents offered for filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all parties to the proceeding or their attorneys of record as required by law or by rule or order of the Commission, including: 1. The applicant, by delivery to Eastern Technologies, Inc., P.O. Box 409, Ashford, Alabama 36312; and, 2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the Office of the General Counsel, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail addressed to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hearing requests should also be transmitted to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725, or by e-mail to ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov. The formal requirements for documents are contained in 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), (d), and (e), and must be met. However, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.304(f), a document filed by electronic mail or facsimile transmission need not comply with the formal requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and (d), if an original and two (2) copies otherwise complying with all of the requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and (d) are mailed within two (2) days thereafter to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b), a request for a hearing must be filed within 60 days of the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part 2 of the NRC's regulations, the general requirements involving a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must state: 1. The name, address and telephone number of the requestor; 2. The nature of the requestor's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3. The nature and extent of the requestor's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; 4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requestor's interest; and 5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b). In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a request for hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must: 1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; 4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; 5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requestor's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and 6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application that the requestor/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requestor/petitioner believes the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requestor's/petitioner's belief. In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition is to be filed, such as the application or other supporting documents filed by the applicant, or otherwise available to the petitioner. Contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer. Requestors/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requestors/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requestor/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requestor/petitioner must do so in writing within ten days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requestor/petitioner. [[Page 43908]] In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310. III. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for the license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents currently on file include the Eastern Technologies, Inc. License Application dated January 30, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052020187), letters containing additional information to support the license application dated June 15, 2004 (ML052020196) and October 1, 2004 (ML042800481), License Amendment Request dated April 6, 2005 (ML051220551), and letters containing additional information to support the amendment request dated May 26, 2005 (ML052020202), and June 24, 2005 (ML051790049). Portions of the documents with ADAMS Accession Nos. ML052020187, ML052020196, and ML052020202 have been redacted to protect information important to security of licensed material. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Documents related to operations conducted under this license not specifically referenced in this Notice may not be electronically available and/or may not be publicly available. Persons who have an interest in reviewing these documents should submit a request to NRC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instructions for submitting a FOIA request can be found on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/foia-privacy.html . Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 22nd day of July, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John D. Kinneman, Chief, Materials Security & Industrial Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E5-4066 Filed 7-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 35 Reuters: UK's Pursuit joins US air decontamination project Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:04 AM ET LONDON, July 29 (Reuters) - British technology firm Pursuit Dynamics Plc (PDX.L: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Friday it has entered a licensing deal with a U.S. government agency to develop a decontamination system for airborne biological, chemical or nuclear attacks. Pursuit's PDX Basilisk system fills the air with millions of water and decontamination fluid droplets in seconds and could shield or clean up large areas such as transport systems or buildings, Chief Executive John Heathcote told Reuters. "Terrorism attacks are very, very topical at the moment," said Heathcote. "There is a huge amount of interest for the technology in this area." By 0930 GMT Pursuit Dynamics shares had risen by 3 percent to 207-1/2 pence. The company has outperformed other engineering and machinery stocks by nearly 120 percent over the last 12 months. Pursuit Dynamics, founded in 2000, will develop its technology over the next 12 months with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the central research and development organisation for the United States' Department of Defense. Heathcote expects the agreement, which is fully funded, to result in the development of vehicle mounted or man portable units. Pursuit Dynamics' PDX technology is also used by firms such as Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc (CCE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Premier Foods Plc (PFD.L: Quote, Profile, Research) for mixing drinks and food ingredients. Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 Paducah Sun: Legislation provides pension protection for cleanup workers - By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com 270.575.8656 Friday, July 29, 2005 Congress is on track to pass legislation to protect the pensions and retiree medical benefits of displaced uranium enrichment workers who find jobs with Department of Energy cleanup firms. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Hopkinsville, was part of the Energy Conference report passed 275-156 Thursday by the House of Representatives. Jeff Miles, Whitfield's press secretary, said the report is expected to pass the Senate and be signed into law later this year. DOE is replacing cleanup contractor Bechtel Jacobs at Paducah and Piketon, Ohio, with two firms one for cleanup and another for plant infrastructure work. For the past five years, USEC Inc. enrichment workers transferring to cleanup jobs took their pension and retiree health benefits with them, but now DOE wants to exclude nonvested hourly workers. In a speech to the conference committee, Whitfield said the provision directs the Energy Department to maintain the longtime pension and health care transfer policies. "We have demonstrated to DOE that there is little or no cost for maintaining a seamless transition," Whitfield said. DOE agreed to maintain equivalent-cost benefits for the first year after new contractors are in place, but many workers will lose decades of accumulated service credit under that approach "for no valid reason," he said. Phillip Foley, president of the plant nuclear workers' union, said the legislation preserves the rights of hourly employees. "That's what we asked for, and we appreciate all the work that Rep. Whitfield and Sens. (Jim) Bunning and (Mitch) McConnell have done on our behalf on this," Foley said. The amendment covers Paducah USEC workers hired by new infrastructure contractor Swift & Staley and any of its subcontractors. It also covers Bechtel Jacobs' cleanup successor, which will start work Nov. 1 under a contract through Sept. 30, 2009. Bids for the job are due by Thursday. More than 500 people currently work for Bechtel Jacobs and its subcontractors. USEC employs 1,270 at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. ***************************************************************** 37 AU ABC: Senator wonders if NT dump ban is 'under review' 07:49 (ACST)Saturday, 30 July 2005. 08:49 (AEDT)Saturday, 30 Country Liberal Party (CLP) Senator Nigel Scullion has questioned how steadfast the Northern Territory Government's opposition to a planned nuclear waste dump will be. Senator Scullion says Chief Minister Clare Martin has done a "backflip" on uranium mining this week by admitting a ban on new mines could change in future. Ms Martin says all policies are under regular review, although she says there are no plans at this stage to scrap the ban. The Senator says if Ms Martin is willing to soften her stance against uranium mining, she might also change her mind on storing the radioactive waste produced by such operations. "I just wondered if their review would extend to any comments you may wish to make in regard to the facilities being proposed by the Commonwealth," he said. "It would seem if she's going to make a backflip on such a significant matter, is she going to make a backflip on this other matter?" Senator Scullion says Ms Martin should clarify her stance on the planned waste dump. ***************************************************************** 38 SignOnSanDiego.com: Rocket fuel ingredient found in drinking water wells ASSOCIATED PRESS 5:39 a.m. July 29, 2005 SIMI VALLEY  Small amounts of a rocket fuel ingredient have been found for the first time in the city's drinking water wells, officials said. Community activists were angered that they weren't told of the test results until a Wednesday night meeting of the Santa Susana Field Lab Working Group. The Southern California Water Co. initially discovered perchlorate in the two wells last August. "We've been told for years that there is no perchlorate showing up in drinking-water wells," said Dan Hirsch of the Committee to Bridge the Gap. "Now that it's been found in the drinking-water wells, it confirms that the contamination is widespread." Quarterly tests have turned up perchlorate levels in the wells of 1 to 3.3 parts per billion  below the state's allowed limit of 6 parts per billion. The findings furthered speculation that the fuel spread from the nearby Santa Susana Field Lab. The Boeing Co., which owns the Rocketdyne field lab, has disputed such contentions. Officials from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board said they'll monitor water well test results but won't try to determine the pollution source. "We don't have the money to go out and do an investigation of the valley, and these low levels don't warrant an investigation at this time," said David Bacharowski, the water board's assistant executive officer. Earlier this month, builders of a 151-home development downstream from the Santa Susana lab found extremely high levels of perchlorate contamination near the construction site. Long-term exposure to high levels of perchlorate can cause thyroid problems. The Southern California Water Co. blends imported water into Simi Valley's groundwater to ensure that it's safe to drink. Contact the Union-Tribune Copyright 2005 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 39 Las Vegas SUN: Porter's committee still waiting for some Yucca documents Today: July 29, 2005 at 9:59:18 PDT By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jon Porter's subcommittee is still waiting for some of the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump documents it requested through a subpoena earlier this month, despite Energy Department assurances that it would comply with the subpoena. The department delivered 1,652 pages requested by the subpoena for the subcommittee's investigation into possible falsified information at Yucca but did not send over the draft of the license application for the nuclear dump and some other items, according to Porter's office. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman would not comment on when the department would send the draft after a press conference on the energy bill this week. He said that his department is "going to comply with the terms of the subpoena." But Porter, R.-Nev., said the department already is not in compliance. The subpoena specified that certain documents, including the draft of the license application, needed to be delivered by 4 p.m. last Friday. Porter's staff of investigators this week have been reviewing the documents that were delivered, trying to piece together what led U.S. Geological Survey employees to send e-mails to each other complaining about budget problems and how they would "fudge" some work. The department announced in March that it had discovered the e-mails, which may have compromised research on the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Porter heads the House Federal Workforce and Agency Organization subcommittee, which is investigating the matter. Porter said he has been working with the committee counsel on the legal options. He can pursue a resolution citing Bodman for contempt of Congress for not delivering all the documents in time. He has not chosen to do so yet, but his spokesman T.J. Crawford said the option is definitely there. According to a 2003 Congressional Research Service report on congressional subpoena and contempt power, "individuals who refuse to testify or produce papers are subject to criminal contempt, leading to fines and imprisonment." The House Government Reform Committee would have to vote on resolution because Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., issued the subpoena. If approved, the whole House would have to vote on it as well. If approved by the House, a U.S. Attorney may call in a grand jury to decide whether or not to indict and prosecute. Holding a person in contempt of Congress is not common, but has been done before. Former Environmental Protection Agency Anne Gorsuch is the highest ranking offical to be held in contempt, based on the report. In 1982, the House voted to hold her in contempt for refusing to turn over 64 documents dealing with what was then a new Superfund clean-up program. Gorsuch was acting under instructions from President Reagan's Justice Department to withhold the documents. Reagan said the documents contained strategy and legal information. He feared, similar to some of the Energy Department's concerns over Porter's documents, that what is shared with Congress might be made public, so they should not be shared at all, according to the Congressional Research Service report. The Justice Department refused to prosecute and the District Court dimissed the case, according to the Congressional Research Service. Gorsuch later resigned as a result of the controversy. That same Congressional investigation into the Superfund put another EPA official, Rita Lavelle, in prison. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, voted unanimously to hold her in contempt for refusing to comply with subpoena. The House voted 413 to zero to hold her in contempt, according to the Congressional Research Service. She was sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years' probation and a $10,000 fine in 1984. The Energy Department is also no stranger to contempt charges. In 1980, a House Government Operations subcommittee wanted certain department documents on President Carter's fee on imported oil and gasoline. After issuing a subpoena, Energy Secretary Charles W. Duncan sent 28 documents to the subcommittee but did not produce some because they involved "deliberative materials underlying a major Presidential decision," according to the report. The subcommittee then subpoenaed Duncan but he told members he declined to turn over the documents and did not bring them with him to the hearing. Duncan said the committee chairman and the ranking minority member could view the documents but the ranking member objected saying the department should trust the whole committee, not just two members. The subcommittee held him in contempt for not complying with the subpoena, but less than a month later the subcommittee received all the documents it had requested. A day before the documents arrived, a federal court struck down Carter's fee. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 40 Salt Lake Tribune: Not in my backyard: Only three states will allow disposal sites for such waste Article Last Updated: 07/29/2005 12:19:33 AM By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune SNOWBIRD - Three states had disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste a quarter century ago. And three states, including Utah, take the waste now, even though two decades and $1 billion have been spent to try to get more states to share the burden. For architects of the waste-management system, the numbers amount to failure. They spoke about it here this week at the 20th annual Low-level Radioactive Waste Decisionmakers' Forum. Ralph Disibio said he didn't realize a national approach was needed until he got a call one day saying a truck filled with radioactive waste had caught fire at Beatty, Nev. Then head of Nevada's health department, he had no idea that there was a radioactive waste landfill in the state, let alone that his agency was responsible for it. Eventually, he organized the governors of the two other states with sites to push for a national law that groups states into 10 regions, each of which was responsible for developing a site to serve member states. "In our minds, it was so simple," said Disibio, retired after a career managing the nation's biggest radioactive waste sites for private contractors. But, in the end, the so-called regional compact system unraveled as some states resisted responsibility - even for waste generated within their own borders. "It became self-interest and not a regional issue," he said. Fast-forward to 2005. Governors in Nebraska killed a site planned for central states' waste. Political pressures drove the federal government to block a land purchase needed for a proposed California site. Legislators in Texas twice rejected plans for a site in that state. At one time, northeastern states talked about buying the ghost town of Delle, Utah, about 70 miles west of Salt Lake City, for their site. Beatty closed in 1993 because of leaks. That left two low-level disposal sites in the compact system: Barnwell, S.C., and in Richland, Wash. Envirocare of Utah became a third facility in 1988. Privately owned and operated, unlike the South Carolina and Washington sites, Envirocare gained an exemption from the compacts at the behest of a state regulator who was taking money, valuable coins and real estate from Envirocare's former owner. As the Barnwell site prepares to close to all but a few states in 2008, Envirocare remains the only disposal site for low-level waste from more than 30 states. And, thanks to a ban on "hotter," or more radioactive, waste types in Utah, some hospitals, universities and nuclear plants will have no disposal for some waste in a few years. The regional compacts "failed because political leaders in some states were opposed to it happening," said Ed Helminski, whose trade newsletter hosted the meeting. He said all eyes are on Barnwell as new alternatives are being explored. Waste could go to federal land already contaminated with radioactive waste from defense programs, to Nevada, a proposed Texas facility or even Envirocare, if waste limits were to be lifted. And maybe federal regulators will loosen regulations so that some waste can go to hazardous waste landfills. "A lot of what-ifs," he said. "A lot of wishing going on." But not everyone is so pessimistic. "We feel like we can work with the current system," said Envirocare Senior Vice President Tim Barney. "And we can work with a new system, depending on how it was structured." fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 41 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting FR Doc E5-4065 [Federal Register: July 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 145)] [Notices] [Page 43908-43909] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29jy05-144] The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold its 162nd meeting on August 2-4, 2005, Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The schedule for this meeting is as follows: Tuesday, August 2, 2005 The Committee will conduct a 2-day working group meeting on Waste Determinations. 8:30 a.m.-11:25 a.m. Session 1: (Open)--This session will provide a background for waste determinations. The ACNW Moderator will discuss the purpose of the Working Group meeting and provide an overview of the meeting sessions. DOE staff will provide an overview of DOE's current and planned management of tank waste at four tank sites, including waste handling practices, waste streams likely to require waste determinations and their characteristics. NRC staff will provide an overview of NRC's involvement in waste determination evaluations to date, a summary of new waste determination provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2005, and anticipated waste determination activities by the NRC. 11:25 a.m.-4:15 p.m. Session 2: (Open)--Invited experts will address state-of-the-art and R technology for waste retrieval including removal of common target radionuclides, and technology for characterizing tank heels. In addition, a historical perspective on the definition of ``highly radioactive waste'' in the regulations and in practice will be provided. There will also be a roundtable discussion of Session 2 topics. 4:15 p.m.-5 p.m. Session 3: (Open)--Invited experts will discuss the status of technology for using cementitious materials to stabilize wastes. Wednesday, August 3, 2005 8:30 a.m.-11:35 a.m. Session 3, continued: (Open)--Invited experts will address the status and prospects of predicting durability of grouts; performance assessment perspectives on waste disposal; and practical approaches to make decisions on waste determinations. There will also be a roundtable discussion of Session 3 topics. 11:35 a. m.-4:40 p.m. Session 4: (Open)--Invited experts will address status of technology for environmental monitoring of on-site waste disposal, monitoring of engineered barriers performance, and non- destructive monitoring for cementitious waste forms. There will also be a roundtable discussion of Session 4 topics, as well as topics from other sessions as they relate to the waste determination provisions in the NDAA. 4:40 p.m.-5 p.m.: (Open)--The ACNW Committee members will discuss the main thoughts and findings of the Working Group meeting, and a potential letter/report to the Commission. Thursday, August 4, 2005 10:15 a.m.-10:20 a.m.: Opening Statement: (Open)--The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. 10:20 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Discussion of Current Letters/Reports: (Open)--The Committee will discuss prepared draft letters and reports on April 2005 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses Program Review, NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Generic Waste-Related Research, and Risk-Informing Nonreactor Activities. 12:45 p.m.-3:45 p.m.: Status of Repository Design Issues: (Open)-- The Committee will hear a briefing by the NRC staff on issues related to the design of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The general areas to be addressed are: ``NRC Staff Views on the Sufficiency of Current U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Level of Design Detail''; ``Recent NRC Staff Visits to Spent Nuclear Fuel Handling Facilities in France (Cogema), and the United States (Idaho and Washington)''; and ``Status of Development of NRC's Pre-Closure Safety Assessment Tool.'' 4 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: ACNW Low-Level Waste White Paper: Draft 3: (Open)--The Committee will comment on the third draft of the white paper on low-level waste. 4:45 p.m.-5:15 p.m.: Miscellaneous: (Open)--The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of ACNW activities, and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Discussions may include future Committee meetings. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2004 (69 FR 61416). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make oral statements should [[Page 43909]] notify Ms. Sharon A. Steele, (Telephone 301-415-6805), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET, as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during this meeting will be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW office prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Ms. Steele as to their particular needs. Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted, therefore can be obtained by contacting Ms. Steele. ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) at pdr@nrc.gov, or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas). Video Teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW Audiovisual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. ET, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed. Dated: July 25, 2005. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E5-4065 Filed 7-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 42 AU ABC: Martin open to change over uranium mining policy. 29/07/2005. ABC News Online Update: Friday, July 29, 2005. 12:00pm (AEST) Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin has agreed with her Mines Minister Kon Vatskalis that the Labor Party's policy opposing any new uranium mines in the Territory could change. The Labor Government went to the last election saying there would be no increase in uranium mines, but it has continued to grant licenses to companies to explore for the resource. Ms Martin says all policies are under regular review. "Like any policy, all policies are under review," she said. "Labor certainly has over you know the last 10, 20 years changed policies and I suppose that process could include in the future uranium mining. "But as I say very clearly there's no intention to change it now." © 2005 ABC| Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 43 L.A. Daily News: Wells may be contaminated www.dailynews.com Article Published: Thursday, July 28, 2005 - Rocket-fuel ingredient found in drinking-water source By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer SIMI VALLEY -- Traces of perchlorate have been detected for the first time in the city's two drinking-water wells, near previous hits of the rocket fuel ingredient, officials said Thursday. Information about the test results was reported Wednesday night at a meeting of the Santa Susana Field Lab Working Group and fueled speculation that the rocket-fuel ingredient leaked from the nearby Santa Susana Field Lab. Community activists expressed frustration that they hadn't been told earlier. "We've been told for years that there is no perchlorate showing up in drinking-water wells," said Dan Hirsch of the Committee to Bridge the Gap. "Before, the results created a possibility that the perchlorate contamination was spotty. "Now that it's been found in the drinking-water wells, it confirms that the contamination is widespread." The perchlorate levels were below the allowed limit of 6 parts per billion. The groundwater is diluted with imported water to ensure that it is safe to drink. The Boeing Co., which owns the Rocketdyne field lab, has said there is little evidence showing that perchlorate contamination has spread from the rocket manufacturing and testing site. Company officials maintain that the bedrock beneath the site acts like a sponge and holds pollutants on the hill. But water-quality officials said they will not draw any conclusions about where the perchlorate may have come from and whether the field lab could be a potential source. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Assistant Executive Officer David Bacharowski said his agency is keeping an eye on incoming perchlorate results, but he doesn't anticipate further action as long as the levels stay low. "We don't have the money to go out and do an investigation of the Valley, and these low levels don't warrant an investigation at this time." Southern California Water Co. officials first discovered the perchlorate last August when they switched to a new water-quality laboratory that was able to detect perchlorate at extremely low levels. The chemical has been found every quarter since then at levels ranging from 1 ppb to 3.3 ppb -- below the official California detection limit. "We don't know exactly what it means or where it's coming from," said Dawn White, water-quality manager with the SoCal Water Co. "We're not making any claims as to what it means at this point. "We will continue to do this monitoring and share this information with regulators." -- Kerry Cavanaugh, (818) 713-3746 kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 44 DOE: RIN 1991-AB62 Aquisition regs FR Doc 05-14810 [Federal Register: July 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 145)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 43832-43836] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29jy05-39] Acquisition Regulation: Technical Revisions or Amendments To Update Clauses AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to amend its acquisition regulation to remove and add specified clauses, and revise certain [[Page 43833]] other clauses, currently contained in the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR). This rule also proposes to revise associated regulatory coverage, as necessary. DATES: Written comments (three copies) on the proposed rulemaking must be received on or before August 29, 2005. ADDRESSES: This notice of proposed rulemaking is available and comments may be submitted online at http://www.Regulations.gov. Comments may be submitted by e-mail to Michael.fischetti@hq.doe.gov. Comments may be mailed to: Michael P. Fischetti, ME-61, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Comments by e-mail are encouraged. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Fischetti at (202) 287-1304 or Michael.fischetti@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Background II. Section-by-Section Analysis III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy I. Background The purpose of this rulemaking is to update various clauses within 48 CFR chapter 9 to specify contractor responsibility in the areas of performance, work authorization, and subcontract flow down provisions. This rulemaking would modify current guidance contained in DEAR clauses concerning Debarment; Fast Payment Procedures; Laws, Regulations, and Directives; Work Authorization; Integration of Environment, Safety, and Health into Work Planning and Execution; and Facilities Management. II. Section-by-Section Analysis The Department of Energy proposes to amend the regulation as follows: 1. DEAR 909.406, Debarment, is proposed to be revised to permit a debarring official to debar a contractor, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, for falsely certifying or otherwise representing itself as a small, small disadvantaged, women- or veteran-owned, or similar concern. 2. DEAR subpart 913.4 Fast Payment Procedure is proposed to be deleted in its entirety. DEAR 913.402 currently prohibits the use of fast payment procedures. Upon review of the Department's policy and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), DOE has determined that fast payment procedures could be used by DOE and that FAR coverage in subpart 13.4, Fast Payment Procedure, is adequate to protect the Department's interests. Removal of this section would permit DOE to use fast payment procedures under FAR 13.4. 3. DEAR 970.5204-2, Laws, Regulations, and DOE Directives, is proposed to be revised by adding the following three sentences to the end of paragraph (e): ``Unless the contract specifically instructs the contractor regarding subcontract flow-down, the contractor shall be responsible for determining the appropriate implementation of the requirements, including the extent to, and manner in which, requirements should be reflected in subcontracts. In doing so, the contractor retains the same responsibility for performance and cost management that it has for all contract efforts. Specifically, the contractor shall not unnecessarily or imprudently flow down requirements to subcontracts and shall only incur costs that would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business.'' This language is intended to emphasize the contractor's responsibility in effective cost management in flowing down prime contract requirements to its subcontractors. 4. DEAR 970.5211-1, Work Authorization, is proposed to be added, with prescriptive language in DEAR 970.1170-1 and a contract clause instruction in DEAR 970.1170-2. This clause incorporates requirements that are presently located in the contractor's requirements document attached to DOE Directive DOE O 412.1, Work Authorization System. The DOE O 412.1 currently establishes an assignment and control process for budget of estimated costs, description of work, and schedule of performance for individual work activities performed by designated contractors within the contract scope of work. The proposed clause would eliminate the need for a contractor requirements document by establishing the requirements as a DEAR clause. 5. DEAR 970.5223-1, Integration of Environment, Safety, and Health (ES) specifies contractor requirements pertaining to ES. It is proposed to be modified by making some editorial changes to paragraphs (d) and (e) and adding the following three sentences to paragraph (h): ``Unless the contract specifically instructs the contractor regarding subcontract flow-down, the contractor shall be responsible for determining the appropriate implementation of the requirements, including the extent to which, and manner in which, requirements should be reflected in subcontracts. In doing so, the contractor retains the same responsibility for performance and cost management that it has for all contract efforts. Specifically, the contractor shall not unnecessarily or imprudently flow down requirements to subcontracts and shall only incur costs that would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business.'' This language is intended to emphasize the contractor's responsibility in effective cost management in flowing down prime contract requirements to its subcontractors. 6. DEAR 970.5237-2, Facilities Management, and the corresponding instruction at DEAR 970.37, Facilities Management Contracting, are proposed to be deleted. They currently provide guidance concerning site development planning, design criteria, energy management, and subcontract requirements. DOE directives, such as DOE O 430.1A, Life Cycle Asset Management, already provide sufficient guidance. III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 Today's regulatory action has been determined not to be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this rulemaking is not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification [[Page 43834]] and burden reduction. With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, these proposed regulations meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act This rulemaking has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., which requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that must be proposed for public comment and that is likely to have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on small entities. While rule requirements may flow down to subcontractors in certain circumstances, the costs of compliance are not estimated to be large and, in any event, would be reimbursable expenses under the contract or subcontract. Accordingly, DOE certifies that this rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act Information collection or record keeping requirements contained in this rulemaking have been previously cleared under Office of Management and Budget paperwork clearance package Number 1910-0300. There are no new burdens imposed by this rulemaking. E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act DOE has concluded that promulgation of this proposed rule falls into a class of actions which would not individually or cumulatively have significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations (10 CFR part 1021, subpart D) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from NEPA review because the amendments to the DEAR would be strictly procedural (categorical exclusion A6). Therefore, this proposed rule does not require an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment pursuant to NEPA. F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order does require agencies to have an accountability process to ensure meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined today's proposed rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132. G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires a Federal agency to perform a written assessment of costs and benefits of any rule imposing a Federal Mandate with costs to State, local or tribal governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. This proposed rulemaking would only affect private sector entities, and the impact is less than $100 million. H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rulemaking or policy that may affect family well-being. This rulemaking will have no impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. Today's rule is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. [[Page 43835]] K. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy Issuance of this proposed rule has been approved by the Office of the Secretary of Energy. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 909, 913, and 970 Government procurement. Issued in Washington, DC on July 20, 2005. Richard H. Hopf, Director, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, Office of Management Budget and Evaluation/Chief Financial Officer. Robert C. Braden, Director, Office of Acquisition and Supply Management, National Nuclear Security Administration. For the reasons set out in the preamble, Chapter 9 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as set forth below. PART 909--CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 909 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201, 2282a, 2282b, 2282c, 7101 et seq.; 41 U.S.C. 418(b); 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq. 909.406 Debarment. 2. In section 909.406-2, the section heading is revised and paragraph (e) is added to read as follows: 909.406-2 Causes for debarment. (DOE coverage--paragraphs (c) through (e)). * * * * * (e) The debarring official may debar a contractor, established by a preponderance of the evidence, such as an SBA determination, for falsely certifying itself as a: (1) Small Business Concern; (2) Small Disadvantaged Business Concern; (3) Women-Owned Small Business Concern; (4) Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern; (5) Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern; (6) Historically Underutilized Business Zone Concern. PART 913--SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES 3. The authority citation for part 913 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq; 41 U.S.C. 418(b); 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq. Subpart 913.4--[Removed] 4. Subpart 913.4 is removed. PART 970--DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS 5. The authority citation for part 970 continue to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201, 2282b, 2282c, 7101 et seq.; 41 U.S.C. 418b; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq. Subpart 970.11--Describing Agency Needs 6. Sections 970.1170, 970.1170-1, and 970.1170-2 are added to read as follows: 970.1170 Work authorization. 970.1170-1 Policy. Each contract for the management and operation of a DOE site or facility, and other contracts designated by the DOE or NNSA Procurement Executive, must contain a scope of work section that describes, in general terms, work planned and/or required to be performed. Work to be performed under the contract shall be assigned through the use of a work authorization to control individual work activities performed within the scope of work. Work authorizations must be issued prior to the commencement of the work and incurrence of any costs. 970.1170-2 Contract provision. The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 48 CFR 970.5211- 1, Work Authorization, in each solicitation and contract for the management and operation of a DOE site or facility and in other contracts designated by the DOE or NNSA Procurement Executive. Subpart 970.37--Facilities Management Contracting 970.3770-2 [Removed and Reserved] 7. Section 970.3770-2 is removed and reserved. Subpart 970.52--Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses for Management and Operating Contracts 8. Section 970.5204-2 is amended by revising the clause date and paragraph (e) to read as follows: 970.5204-2 Laws, regulations, and DOE directives. * * * * * Laws, Regulations, and DOE Directives (XXX-XXXX) * * * * * (e) Regardless of the performer of the work, the contractor is responsible for compliance with the requirements of this clause. The contractor is responsible for flowing down the requirements of this clause to subcontracts at any tier to the extent necessary to ensure the contractor's compliance with the requirements. Unless the contract specifically instructs the contractor regarding subcontract flow-down, the contractor shall be responsible for determining the appropriate implementation of the requirements, including the extent to, and manner in which, requirements should be reflected in subcontracts. In doing so, the contractor retains the same responsibility for performance and cost management that it has for all contract efforts. Specifically, the contractor shall not unnecessarily or imprudently flow down requirements to subcontracts and shall only incur costs that would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. (End of clause) 9. Section 970.5211 is added to read as follows: 970.5211-1 Work authorization. As prescribed in 970.1170-2, insert the following clause. WORK AUTHORIZATION (XXX-XXXX) (a) Work Authorization Proposal. Prior to the start of each fiscal year, the Contracting Officer (CO) or designee shall provide the contractor with program execution guidance in sufficient detail to enable the contractor to develop an estimated cost, scope, and schedule. In addition, the Contracting Officer may unilaterally assign work. The contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer or other designated official, a detailed description of work, a budget of estimated costs, and a schedule of performance for the work it recommends be undertaken during that upcoming fiscal year. (b) Cost Estimates. The contractor and the Contracting Officer shall establish a budget of estimated costs, description of work, and schedule of performance for each work assignment. If agreement cannot be reached as to scope, schedule, and estimated cost, the Contracting Officer may issue a unilateral work authorization, pursuant to this clause. The work authorization, whether issued bilaterally or unilaterally shall become part of the contract. No activities shall be authorized or costs incurred prior to Contracting Officer issuance of a work authorization or direction concerning continuation of activities of the contract. (c) Performance. The contractor will perform work as specified in the work authorization, consistent with the terms and conditions of this contract. (d) Modification. The Contracting Officer may at any time, without notice, issue changes to work authorizations within the overall scope of the contract. A proposal for adjustment in estimated costs and schedule for performance of work, recognizing work made unnecessary as a result, along with new work, shall be submitted by the contractor in accordance with paragraph (a) of this clause. Resolution shall be in accordance with paragraph (b) of this clause. (e) Increase in Estimated Cost. The contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer immediately whenever the cost incurred, plus the projected cost to complete work is projected to differ (plus or minus) from the estimate by 10 percent. The contractor shall submit a proposal for modification in [[Page 43836]] accordance with paragraph (a) of this clause. Resolution shall be in accordance with paragraph (b) of this clause. (f) Expenditure of Funds and Incurrence of Costs. The expenditure of monies by the contractor in the performance of all authorized work shall be governed by the ``Obligation of Funds'' or equivalent clause of the contract. (g) Responsibility to achieve Environment, Safety, Health, and Security Compliance. Notwithstanding other provisions of the contract, the contractor may, in the event of an emergency, take that corrective action necessary to sustain operations consistent with applicable environmental, safety, health, and security statutes, regulations, and procedures. If such action is taken, the contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer within 24 hours of initiation and, within 30 days, submit a proposal for adjustment in estimated costs and schedule established in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause. (End of clause) 10. The clause at section 970.5223-1 is amended by revising the clause date, paragraphs (d), (e), and (h) to read as follows: 970.5223-1 Integration of environment, safety, and health into work planning and execution. * * * * * Integration of Environment, Safety, and Health into Work Planning and Execution (XXX-XXXX) * * * * * (d) The System shall describe how the contractor will establish, document, and implement safety performance objectives, performance measures, and commitments consistent with DOE program guidance while maintaining the integrity of the System. The System shall also describe how the contractor will evaluate its effectiveness as well as maintenance and improvement processes. (e) The contractor shall submit to the Contracting Officer documentation of its System for review and approval. Dates for submittal, discussions, and revisions to the System will be established by the Contracting Officer. Guidance on the preparation, content, review, and approval of the System will be provided by the Contracting Officer. The contractor will evaluate System implementation and effectiveness annually. Formal change control and maintenance of the System is required. On an annual basis, the contractor shall review and update, for DOE approval, its safety performance objectives, performance measures, and commitments consistent with DOE's program guidance and direction. Resources shall be identified and allocated to meet the safety objectives and performance commitments as well as maintain the integrity of the entire System. Accordingly, the System shall be integrated with the contractor's business processes for work planning, budgeting, authorization, execution, and change control. * * * * * (h) Regardless of the performer of the work, the contractor is responsible for compliance with the ES requirements applicable to this contract. Unless the contract specifically instructs the contractor regarding subcontract flow-down, the contractor shall be responsible for determining the appropriate implementation of the requirements, including the extent to which, and manner in which, requirements should be reflected in subcontracts. In doing so, the contractor retains the same responsibility for performance and cost management that it has for all contract efforts. Specifically, the contractor shall not unnecessarily or imprudently flow down requirements to subcontracts and shall only incur costs that would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. * * * * * 970.5237-2 [Removed and reserved] 11. Section 970.5237-2 is removed and reserved. [FR Doc. 05-14810 Filed 7-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 45 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford initiative clears legal hurdle [seattlepi.com] Friday, July 29, 2005 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES YAKIMA -- A state-approved initiative that bars the U.S. Energy Department from sending any more waste to the Hanford nuclear site until all existing waste there is cleaned up may stand even if a federal judge finds parts of it unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday. The federal government has filed suit to overturn Initiative 297 on grounds it violates the federal government's authority over interstate commerce and nuclear waste. The case is before U.S. District Judge Alan McDonald in Yakima, who will decide the initiative's constitutionality. The state, which is defending the measure, had asked McDonald to allow the state Supreme Court to first decide if the entire measure would be nullified if McDonald finds part of it unconstitutional. The state justices held that even if the judge rules that parts of the initiative are unconstitutional, that does not necessarily invalidate the rest of it. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 1996-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 46 Tri-City Herald: Hanford insurance for retirees reduced This story was published Friday, July 29th, 2005 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Hanford Employee Welfare Trust is reducing life insurance benefits for about 1,800 Hanford retirees after concluding the benefit was better than most private companies or other Department of Energy contractors offered. The change will save the federal government about $2 million per year when it takes full effect in September 2006. Retirees whose benefits are administered by the trust, or HEWT, have been notified by the change in a letter. "I just thought, 'This can't be,' " said Syd Hoke of Richland, a retired executive secretary for former Hanford contractor United Nuclear Co. The life insurance benefit for both her and her husband, James, a retired Hanford manager for former contractor Rockwell, are being reduced. Making financial plans based on retirement benefits is difficult when at any time "Zap! They're not there," she said. HEWT has been reviewing its life insurance benefit for retirees for more than a year, comparing it with private industry and other DOE contractors, said Dom Sansotta, chairman of HEWT. "We are probably in the top 1 percent in the country as far as level of benefit and the fact the retiree pays very little, if anything," he said. Among about 20 DOE contractors, Hanford retiree life insurance benefits ranked first or second, he said. Only about a quarter of private industry surveyed offered life insurance benefits for retirees and then often only until age 65, he said. Even after reductions in benefits, Hanford life insurance benefits will remain among the best in the DOE complex and HEWT will still pay the majority of the costs, Sansotta said. "We're trying to essentially provide a good benefit to retirees at a reasonable cost," he said. HEWT's premium for life insurance is increasing from $1.51 a month per $1,000 of coverage to $1.98 per $1,000 coverage, Sansotta said. That increase comes despite an industry trend toward declining term life insurance rates. Without changes to benefits, annual costs would have increased by $6.95 million, according to the letter sent to retirees. "In these times of reduced budgets, it is especially important for contractors to manage their operating budgets in order to accomplish our mission, which is to clean up the site," the letter said. Now retirees 65 and older receive life insurance coverage equal to half of the salary at which they retired. Under the new plan, they could receive no more than $20,000 beginning in September and that would drop to $15,000 in September 2006. Retirees under age 65 now receive life insurance coverage equal to two times their former salary at a cost to them of 8 cents per month for $1,000 of insurance coverage. Under the reduced benefits, they will receive $15,000 at no cost. If they wish to purchase increased coverage, they will be charged $1 per $1,000 of additional coverage when the plan takes full effect in September 2006. The coverage will be capped at their annual pay up to $50,000. For a retiree wanting $50,000 of coverage, the cost would be about $35 a month. When people retire, HEWT tells them that such benefits as life and health insurance are subject to change, Sansotta said. "We go to great lengths to tell them this is not a promise or a guarantee," he said. Retiree benefits was one of the topics that came up in June at the annual Hanford State of the Site meeting, at which employees and the public can ask questions of Hanford managers. "We, like everyone else in the complex and in the country are under pressure to have our plans conform with industry norms," said Keith Klein, manager for Hanford's DOE Richland Operations Office. Many Hanford plans are beyond the norm, he said. "What we are trying to do is bring these plans much more in line with what is common in industry," he said. 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 47 Planet Jackson Hole: DOE Tilting at INL By Gil Brady 7.28.05 In an exclusive interview with Planet Jackson Hole, John F. Kotek, a DOE official and Deputy Director of Idaho National Laboratories, said that INL is the "preferred alternative" to concentrate the production, warehousing and security of the nation's supply of plutonium-238. DOE proposal has sparked a firestorm of protest among residents in Wyoming and Idaho who are concerned about the potential nuclear fallout. Plutonium-238 is the key element in the production of radioisotope power systems (RPSs) to fulfill the federal goverment's growing national security and space mission needs since the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Nuclear labs at Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Los Alamos, New Mexico, while still being considered as alternatives, do not appear to capture the practical zeal and long-range imagination of DOE officials quite like INL has. Mr. Kotek did emphasize that the Secretary of Energy will make the final determination and has not made up his mind yet. But, neither Tennessee nor New Mexico, in the DOE's view, possesses the nuclear refinement capabilities and security standards that Idaho does. Despite promising seventy-five high paying jobs, the DOE proposal has sparked a firestorm of protest among residents in Wyoming and Idaho who are concerned about the potential nuclear fallout from the production of plutonium-238. -brady@planetjh.com www.planetjh.com | Copyright 2004-2005 Planet Jackson Hole, Inc.. All Rights Reserved. | Site developed by CryBaby ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************