Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains materials relating to proposals for the production of enriched uranium by a private company versus the expansion of the government owned plant in Portsmouth, Ohio.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
18396928
label
Uranium Enrichment (20)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
18396928
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Uranium Enrichment (20)
description
This file contains materials relating to proposals for the production of enriched uranium by a private company versus the expansion of the government owned plant in Portsmouth, Ohio.
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Ohio
Legislation
Uranium enrichment
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
18396928
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-31
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-04-01
month
4
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
95c919716064e1b8
ocrText
FYI
NFAA
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 24, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
GLENN SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
UNION SUPPORT FOR NFAA
Here is another copy of the background material for
conversation with Bill Usery to try to get additional
and renewed labor support for the NFAA. Support from
the steel workers is particularly important.
By way of recap of the support in the House:
-- The following unions supported:
Electrical workers;
Rubber workers;
Plumbers and pipefitters;
Building and construction trades;
Boilermakers
-- Two other unions indicated they favored the bill
but we had no letters or telegrams to confirm it:
Operating engineers;
Sheet metal workers
-- Those working against the NFAA were:
UAW;
Mine workers;
Oil, chemical and atomic workers
-- The steel workers Washington representative
worked against the bill. There is some hope that
the National leadership could be persuaded to help
in the Senate, but this is far from assured. Help
here would be especially useful. The steel workers
are holding their convention in Las Vegas next week
or the week thereafter.
cc:
Jim Cannon
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Energy
NFAA
THE WHITE HOUSE
REQUEST
WASHINGTON
ACTION
August 25, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
GLENN Jhonn SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED LETTER TO SENATOR
MANSFIELD ON THE NFAA
Attached, as requested, is a proposed letter to Senator
Mansfield.
I have reviewed it with Bob Fri, ERDA staff and OMB staff
and incorporated their comments
It has not been reviewed by Jim Connor, Jim Lynn or
Bill Kendall but I'm sending copies to them with this
memorandum to you.
Also, it hasn't been reviewed by Max Friedersdorf, Jack
Marsh or Mr. Hartmann's staff.
CC: Jim Connor
Jim Lynn
Bill Kendall
Art Quern
GERAZA FORD CIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
SIGNATURE
WASHINGTON
August 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
LETTER TO SENATOR MANSFIELD URGING
PROMPT PASSAGE OF THE NUCLEAR
FUEL ASSURANCE ACT
Enclosed for your consideration is a proposed letter to
Senator Mansfield, urging prompt passage of the Nuclear
Fuel Assurance Act (NFAA).
The House completed action on the NFAA (H.R. 8401), but
the Senate has yet to schedule action. Informal discussions
with Senators Pastore, Mansfield and others indicate that
a major push will be necessary to get the bill brought up
for Senate action.
Your advisers believe that a letter from you to the Majority
Leader will help substantially. The attached letter has
been reviewed and approved by Jack Marsh, Max Friedersdorf,
Jim Lynn, Jim Connor and Mr. Hartmann's staff.
Recommendation
That you sign the letter to Senator Mansfield at Tab A.
FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Senator Mansfield:
This letter is to request the earliest possible passage
of a very important bill now awaiting Senate action: the
Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act (NFAA), H. R. 8401.
I submitted the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act to the Congress
on June 26, 1975. After extensive hearings and public
debate, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy reported a
modified but acceptable bill on May 14, 1976, by a vote of
16-0. The House passed the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act,
H.R. 8401, and sent it to the Senate on August 4, 1976.
This bill is of unusual importance to the Nation. It will
enable major steps toward several important national
objectives:
Energy Independence - It will provide the framework for
increasing capacity in the United States to produce
enriched uranium needed to fuel new nuclear power plants.
This will permit future growth of nuclear power, thus
helping to increase our energy independence and reducing
our growing reliance on imported oil.
Non-proliferation - It will provide an essential means
to help maintain our role as a major world supplier of
nuclear fuel and equipment for peaceful purposes. If we
are a competitive and reliable supplier, we can exert
strong influence in obtaining controls that constrain
nuclear proliferation. If we are not such a supplier,
other nations -- perhaps with a lesser commitment to
non-proliferation -- can and will fill the void.
Economic Growth and Jobs - Increased use of our domestic
nuclear and coal resources (both are essential, even with
strong energy conservation efforts) will provide the
increased energy needed for a growing economy and expanding
job opportunities. Also, building uranium enrichment
plants and nuclear power plants will provide many new
job opportunities in the years ahead.
FORD is LIBRARY
- 2 -
Avoid Unnecessary Growth in the Federal Government -
The bill will provide the framework for moving toward a
private competitive uranium enrichment industry -- ending
the current Government monopoly in an area of commercial-
industrial activity that can be performed equally well or
better in the private sector than in the Federal Govern-
ment. Private firms are willing and able to provide
the needed capacity with only limited and temporary
Government assurances and cooperation.
Hold Down the Federal Budget - The bill would provide
the framework under which the private sector can provide
the $30-50 billion that must be committed over the next
15-20 years to build new uranium enrichment capacity in
the U.S. This would avoid the need for the taxpayers to
put up this money and avoid the unnecessary competition
for Government funds, particularly the competition with
demands that can be satisfied only by the Government.
All of this can be accomplished with little or no cost to
the taxpayer and with the maintenance of all necessary safety
and environmental controls and nuclear safeguards.
Briefly, the bill now awaiting Senate action:
Authorizes ERDA to negotiate cooperative agreements with
private firms wishing to finance, build, own and operate
uranium enrichment facilities. It provides explicitly
that such agreements cannot be executed by ERDA until
individual contracts are reviewed and approved by the
Congress. While the bill provides the framework for
moving ahead, it also provides full opportunity for the
Congress to reject any contract that it does not find
acceptable.
Authorizes and directs ERDA to initiate activities
necessary for adding new capacity to an existing Government
owned uranium enrichment facility (at Portsmouth, Ohio) and
authorizes funds to begin work on this project.
We must move ahead promptly to expand uranium enrichment
capacity in the U.S. The total capacity of the three
Government-owned plants (already in the midst of an expansion
program) has been fully commited for the life of those plants
since mid-1974. The add-on facility authorized in the bill for
Portsmouth, Ohio, would be used to fulfil existing Government
commitments -- permitting more efficient operation of the
&
FORD
ERALD
- 3 -
Government facilities and conserving our domestic uranium
resources.
ERDA estimates that new capacity equivalent in size of six
to twelve full-size enrichment facilities will have to be
committed in the next 15-20 years. These are needed so that
utilities can decide to build new nuclear power plants --
with assurance that fuel will be available for these plants --
and to supply a share of the foreign market.
We should not delay any longer in making clear the commitment
of the United States to provide the needed capacity.
It is not often that we have an opportunity in one piece of
legislation to provide the basis for major steps forward
on several important national objectives -- objectives that
are shared by both major political parties. I urge the
Senate to pass this bill without further delay.
Sincerely,
The Honorable Michael J. Mansfield
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
CC: Senator Hugh Scott
R FORD
Inergy
NFAA
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM GLENN CANNON SCHLEEDE
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SUGGESTED CHANGE IN MANSFIELD LETTER
As we discussed this morning, I suggest adding a
paragraph such as the following in the letter to
Senator Mansfield. It could go after the first
full paragraph on page 3 of the draft I sent you
last night.
"By the next decade of this century,
uranium enrichment will be a major
industry in this country. Such
industries should not be within
the Government."
GERALD FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 25, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
GLENN Hown SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED LETTER TO SENATOR
MANSFIELD ON THE NFAA
Attached, as requested, is a proposed letter to Senator
Mansfield.
I have reviewed it with Bob Fri, ERDA staff and OMB staff
and incorporated their comments.
It has not been reviewed by Jim Connor, Jim Lynn or
Bill Kendall but I'm sending copies to them with this
memorandum to you.
Also, it hasn't been reviewed by Max Friedersdorf, Jack
Marsh or Mr. Hartmann's staff.
CC: Jim Connor
Jim Lynn
Bill Kendall
Art Quern
FORD & LIBRARY BERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Draft
August 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
LETTER TO SENATOR MANSFIELD URGING
PROMPT PASSAGE OF THE NUCLEAR
FUEL ASSURANCE ACT
Enclosed for your consideration is a proposed letter to
Senator Mansfield, urging prompt passage of the Nuclear
Fuel Assurance Act (NFAA).
The House completed action on the NFAA (H.R. 8401), but
the Senate has yet to schedule action. Informal discussions
with Senators Pastore, Mansfield and others indicate that
a major push will be necessary to get the bill brought up
for Senate action.
Your advisers believe that a letter from you to the Majority
Leader will help substantially. The attached letter has
been reviewed and approved by Jack Marsh, Max Friedersdorf,
Jim Lynn, Jim Connor and Mr. Hartmann's staff.
Recommendation
That you sign the letter to Senator Mansfield at Tab A.
FORD is DERALD LIBRAR
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Draft
Dear Senator Mansfield:
This letter is to request the earliest possible passage
of a very important bill now awaiting Senate action: the
Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act (NFAA), H. R. 8401.
I submitted the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act to the Congress
on June 26, 1975. After extensive hearings and public
debate, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy reported a
modified but acceptable bill on May 14, 1976, by a vote of
16-0. The House passed the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act,
H.R. 8401, and sent it to the Senate on August 4, 1976.
This bill is of unusual importance to the Nation. It will
enable major steps toward several important national
objectives:
Energy Independence - It will provide the framework for
increasing capacity in the United States to produce
enriched uranium needed to fuel new nuclear power plants.
This will permit future growth of nuclear power, thus
helping to increase our energy independence and reducing
our growing reliance on imported oil.
Non-proliferation - It will provide an essential means
to help maintain our role as a major world supplier of
nuclear fuel and equipment for peaceful purposes. If we
are a competitive and reliable supplier, we can exert
strong influence in obtaining controls that constrain
nuclear proliferation. If we are not such a supplier,
other nations -- perhaps with a lesser commitment to
non-proliferation -- can and will fill the void.
Economic Growth and Jobs - Increased use of our domestic
nuclear and coal resources (both are essential, even with
strong energy conservation efforts) will provide the
increased energy needed for a growing economy and expanding
job opportunities. Also, building uranium enrichment
plants and nuclear power plants will provide many new
job opportunities in the years ahead.
GERALD R. FORD
- 2 -
Avoid Unnecessary Growth in the Federal Government -
The bill will provide the framework for moving toward a
private competitive uranium enrichment industry -- ending
the current Government monopoly in an area of commercial-
industrial activity that can be performed equally well or
better in the private sector than in the Federal Govern-
ment. Private firms are willing and able to provide
the needed capacity with only limited and temporary
Government assurances and cooperation.
Hold Down the Federal Budget - The bill would provide
the framework under which the private sector can provide
the $30-50 billion that must be committed over the next
15-20 years to build new uranium enrichment capacity in
the U.S. This would avoid the need for the taxpayers to
put up this money and avoid the unnecessary competition
for Government funds, particularly the competition with
demands that can be satisfied only by the Government.
All of this can be accomplished with little or no cost to
the taxpayer and with the maintenance of all necessary safety
and environmental controls and nuclear safeguards.
Briefly, the bill now awaiting Senate action:
Authorizes ERDA to negotiate cooperative agreements with
private firms wishing to finance, build, own and operate
uranium enrichment facilities. It provides explicitly
that such agreements cannot be executed by ERDA until
individual contracts are reviewed and approved by the
Congress. While the bill provides the framework for
moving ahead, it also provides full opportunity for the
Congress to reject any contract that it does not find
acceptable.
Authorizes and directs ERDA to initiate activities
necessary for adding new capacity to an existing Government
owned uranium enrichment facility (at Portsmouth, Ohio) and
authorizes funds to begin work on this projec
We must move ahead promptly to expand uranium enrichment
capacity in the U.S. The total capacity of the three
Government-owned plants (already in the midst of an expansion
program) has been fully commited for the life of those plants
since mid-1974. The add-on facility authorized in the bill for
Portsmouth, Ohio, would be used to fulfil existing Government
commitments -- permitting more efficient operation of the
- 3 -
Government facilities and conserving our domestic uranium
resources.
ERDA estimates that new capacity equivalent in size of six
to twelve full-size enrichment facilities will have to be
committed in the next 15-20 years. These are needed so that
utilities can decide to build new nuclear power plants --
with assurance that fuel will be available for these plants --
and to supply a share of the foreign market.
We should not delay any longer in making clear the commitment
of, the United States to provide the needed capacity.
It is not often that we have an opportunity in one piece of
legislation to provide the basis for major steps forward
on several important national objectives -- objectives that
are shared by both major political parties. I urge the
Senate to pass this bill without further delay.
Sincerely,
The Honorable Michael J. Mansfield
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
CC: Senator Hugh Scott
File
THE WHITE HOUSE
Energy
WASHINGTON
August 31, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Letter to Senator Mansfield Urging Him
to Bring the Nuclear Fuel Assurance
Act to the Seante Floor
Attached for your consideration is a proposed letter
to Senator Mansfield, urging him to bring the Nuclear
Fuel Assurance Act (NFAA) to the Senate floor for
action.
The House passed the bill on August 4, 1976, by a vote
of 222-168 after narrowly defeating (193-192) the Bingham
amendment which would have deleted everything from the
bill except the Portsmouth add-on plant.
Bill Kendall has met with Senator Mansfield and found
that he is very reluctant to bring the bill to the
floor, indicating that he would not do so unless he can
get a time agreement and he believes that is not likely.
Max Friedersdorf, Jim Connor, Bill Kendall and I believe
this letter will be helpful in getting Senator Mansfield
to move on the bill.
Recommendation
That you sign the attached letter to Senator Mansfield
which has been approved by Doug Smith.
GERALD FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Senator Mansfield:
The Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, H.R. 8401, passed
the House of Representatives on August 4, 1976,
and is now awaiting action by the Senate. This
bill is of great importance to the Nation.
We must act to increase the capacity in the United
States to enrich uranium needed for nuclear power
plants. This action is necessary to our energy
independence and to a strong economy.
This nation and many others around the world will,
without question, become more reliant on nuclear
energy as the supplies of oil and natural gas
diminish. We must have additional uranium enrich-
ment capacity for our domestic needs and to main-
tain our role as a major supplier of enrichment
services to others.
Moreover, it is my conviction that the best way
to control nuclear proliferation throughout the
world is for the United States to maintain its
leadership in supplying nuclear fuel.
The Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act which has passed
the House would provide for U.S. leadership in
an industry that is closely related to U.S. progress
and to future international security.
I urge you to bring H.R. 8401 to the Senate floor
immediately after the Labor Day recess.
Sincerely,
Honorable Michael J. Mansfield
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
NFAA
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 1, 1976
File
Dear Mike:
The Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, H.R. 8401, passed
the House of Representatives on August 4, 1976,
and is now awaiting action by the Senate. This
bill is of great importance to the Nation.
We must act to increase the capacity in the United
States to enrich uranium needed for nuclear power
plants. This action is necessary to our energy
independence and to a strong economy.
This Nation and many others around the world will,
without question, become more reliant on nuclear
energy as the supplies of oil and natural gas
diminish. We must have additional uranium en-
richment capacity for our domestic needs and to
maintain our role as a major supplier of enrich-
ment services to others.
Moreover, it is my conviction that the best way
to control nuclear proliferation throughout the
world is for the United States to maintain its
leadership in supplying nuclear fuel.
The Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act which has passed
the House would provide for U.S. leadership in an
industry that is closely related to U.S. progress
and to future international security.
I urge you to bring H.R. 8401 to the Senate floor
immediately after the Labor Day. recess.
Sincerely,
Herold R.
The Honorable Mike Mansfield
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
9/16/76
FACT SHEET
NUCLEAR FUEL ASSURANCE ACT (H.R. 8401)
What the Bill Provides
Authorizes ERDA to enter into cooperative arrangements with
private firms wishing to finance, build, own and operate
uranium enrichment facilities -- subject to:
- passage of the necessary appropriations act; and
- congressional review and approval of each cooperative
arrangement.
Arrangements can provide for temporary assurances and
cooperation such as:
-
making Government-owned technology available and warranting
that it will work -- for which industry pays royalties to
the Federal Treasury.
-
selling and providing warranties on certain materials
and equipment available only from the Government --- on
a full cost recovery basis.
- technology assistance -- on a full cost recovery basis.
-
purchase of enrichment services from private producers or
selling such services to producers from the Government
stockpile to accommodate plant start up and loading problems.
- assumption of domestic assets and project liabilities in the
unlikely event a project falters -- up to a limit of
$8 billion for all covered projects. (Expenditure of any
of the $8 billion to assume assets and liabilities is
unlikely.)
Authorizes and directs ERDA to initiate construction planning
and design, construction and operation for expansion of an
existing Government-owned uranium enrichment facility; and
authorizes the appropriation of $255 million to begin work on
such a project.
Why Legislation is Needed
To increase the United States' capacity to produce enriched
uranium to fuel domestic and foreign nuclear power plants.
Existing capacity (including current expansion) has been
fully committed since July 1974.
To retain U.S. leadership as a world supplier of uranium
enrichment services and technology for the peaceful uses of
nuclear power -- and thus strengthen the U.S. ability to
require rigid safeguards to control proliferation.
To begin the transition to a private competitive uranium
enrichment industry -- ending the Government monopoly and
avoiding the need for Federal expenditures for capacity that
can be provided by the private sector. (It would cost the
ERALO FORD LIBRAR
-2-
Federal Government between $10 and $12 billion (in 1976 dollars)
to build the four plants which could be provided by the private
sector under the NFAA.)
To overcome -- through limited and temporary Government
assurances and cooperation -- present obstacles to obtaining
financing from normal commercial sources (e.g., banks,
insurance companies, retirement funds). Principal obstacles
are:
- lack of commercial experience with the classified technology,
- large size of the capital investment required for each
plant,
- long time before investment is paid back.
To provide a complementary expansion of existing Government-
owned uranium enrichment capacity -- which will help conserve
limited natural uranium resources and supplement the national
stockpile of enriched uranium.
How the Bill Would Be Implemented
ERDA would -- subject to congressional approval of each
contract -- enter into cooperative arrangements with
private firms wishing to finance, build, own and operate
enrichment plants. (Four private firms have submitted
proposals and negotiations are underway.)
ERDA would simultaneously proceed with planning and other
activity necessary to the construction of an add-on
Government plant.
Foreign investment in private U.S. projects would be permitted
only under conditions which insure U.S. control of projects.
No foreign access to enrichment technology would be permitted.
Owners of private projects will take substantial equity risks
in order to participate in the program.
No Government guarantee of profit.
Private plants will be subject to licensing by the
independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) which must
consider safety, environmental, safeguards and anti-trust
matters and must also assure that projects are and will
remain under the control of U.S. citizens.
19/9/767
nuclear fuel RTe
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
RECOMMENDED TELEPHONE CALL
TO:
Senator Mansfield
DATE:
As soon as possible today
RECOMMENDED BY:
Max Friedersdorf, Jim Cannon
PURPOSE:
To head off decision by Senator Mansfield
to defer further action on the Nuclear
Fuel Assurance Act.
BACKGROUND:
Senator Mansfield has indicated to
Bill Kendall that he sees little or no
chance of scheduling the NFAA this year
and may include this in a statement this
afternoon.
TOPICS OF
1. Action this year on the Nuclear Fuel
DISCUSSION:
Assurance Act (NFAA) is critical. We
must proceed with firm actions to
expand capacity in the United States to
enrich uranium because:
- Our ability to supply uranium enrichment
services is the best tool we have for
influencing other countries to act in
ways that limit the threat of proliferation.
- U.S. utilities need to know that fuel will
be available in the mid and late 1980's
if they decide to build additional nuclear
plants.
2. We have already lost more than a year because
Congress has not taken final action.
- I sent the bill up on June 26, 1975.
- The JCAE reported the bill 16-0 on
May 14, 1976.
- The House passed the bill on August 4, 1976.
3. You have scheduled a nuclear export control
bill (S. 1439) for September 16. That bill
FURD
is based on concerns about proliferation.
If the Senate is truly interested in non-
proliferation, the members should recognize
that the NFAA is far more critical. Without
-2-
enrichment capacity, other steps you
might wish to take will be largely
ineffective.
4. In summary, this bill is important for
non-proliferation, energy, economic and
Federal budget objectives.
September 9, 1976
Action
FORD it 070070
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 1, 1976
Dear Mike:
The Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, H.R. 8401, passed
the House of Representatives on August 4, 1976,
and is now awaiting action by the Senate. This
bill is of great importance to the Nation.
We must act to increase the capacity in the United
States to enrich uranium needed for nuclear power
plants. This action is necessary to our energy
independence and to a strong economy.
This Nation and many others around the world will,
without question, become more reliant on nuclear
energy as the supplies of oil and natural gas
diminish. We must have additional uranium on-
richment capacity for our domestic needs and to
maintain our role as a major supplier of enrich-
ment services to others.
Moreover, it is my conviction that the best way
to control nuclear proliferation throughout the
world is for the United States to maintain its
leadership in supplying nuclear fuel.
The Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act which has passed
the House would provide for U.S. leadership in an
industry that is closely related to U.S. progress
and to future international security.
I urge you to bring H.R. 8401 to the Senate floor
immediately after the Labor Day recess.
Sincerely,
Hereld
R.
The Honorable Mike Mansfield
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
SERIO FORD
CC: Schleede
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 11, 1976
MEMO TO:
MR. CANNON
FROM:
CAMERON
SUBJECT:
President's Phone Call to Senator Mansfield
re: Nuclear Fuel Assurance
Sarah Emery in Connor's office called to give me the
President's comments after phoning Senator Mansfield on
the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act:
"I will try to program."
"If we could get a time agreement, I am sure
he (Mansfield) would."
noted
BLFORDY
Piketon Plant
ers during the construction phase over
a number of years.
SENATE MAJORITY leader Mike
Mansfield, D-Montana, tried to get
Glenn and other objectors to the
legislation to agree to a compromise
this week to allow eight hours of
debate in the beavily loaded Senate
schedule before Congress adjourns
Glenn is the leader of a dozen
See PIKETON on Page A-3
Threatened
Continued from Page 1
senators who refused Mansfield's com-
promise. Glenn says he is not con-
vinced the legislation has enough
safeguards to prevent Arabs from
obtaining nuclear weapons material.
After succeeding in blocking senate
action on the legislation, Glenn depart-
ed vith Mansfield for a visit to the
Oct. 2.
People's Republic of China. Glenn has
been criticized by U.S. Rep. Delbert T.
Atomic Plant For Piketon
Latta, R-Bowling Green, for taking
part in a "junket" which will keep him
out of the country for the rest of this
Columbus Dispatch 9/19/76
Threatened By Senators
year's Congress.
GLENN'S TOP legislative aide, Len
tor of the White House Domestic
Council, told The Dispatch he had
passed on his warning about the
proposed $2.7 billion project to Gov.
James A. Rhodes.
Ford has made good on his pledge in
Columbus before the June 8 Ohio
primary election to push for the
massive project north of Portsmouth.
U. S. Rep. William H. Harsha, R-
Portsmouth. has predicted the project
at the U. S. atomic plant at Piketon
would employ more than 5,000 work-
Beckwit, has assurred reporters that
other legislation already approved by
Congress or certain of being enacted
would clear the first $255 million Ford
requested for preliminary work on the
Piketon plant.
Cannon disputes the Glenn-Beckwit
argument. Cannon said Saturday that
without congressional action on the
now stalled Nuclear Fuel Assurance
Act, would be jeoparidized.
"Without Congress passing this
legislation in this session, this just isn't
going to proceed," Cannon said.
"THERE ARE just too many people
who want to block any development of
new facilities to provide nuclear fuel,"
By George Embrey
Chief, Dispatch Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON President Ford's
top domestic adviser said Saturday the
proposed $2.7 billion addition to the
Piketon, Ohio, atomic energy factory
"just isn't going to proceed" without a
stalled piece of legislation.
Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, is the
leader in blocking action in the Senate
on the proposed legislation, the Nu-
cleaur Fuel Assurance Act of 1976.
JAMES CANNON, executive direc-
Cannon said.
The Piketon plant addition would
be the first new facility in the
government's attempt to assure the
United States of an ample supply of
nucleur fuel or nuclear power plants to
generate electricity and provide other
energy for the foreseeable future.
Cannon explained that unless the
legislation is passed before Congress
quits Oct. 2, the President would have
to start all over again with the new
Congress toward getting the necessary
legislation.
CANNON SAID that a strong ally of
the Ford administration and will not
be around to help next year. Sen. John
Pastore, D-Rhode Island, chairman of
the Joint Senate-House Atomic Energy
Committee. has pushed for the pro-
posed Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, but
he is retiring.
Cannon said he is sure President
Ford will win the election Nov. 2 and
continue to press for the Piketon
addition. But Cannon said Democratic
candidate Jimmy Carter, whom Glenn
is supporting, has questioned whether
the U.S. should proceed with develop-
ing nuclear fuel in enrichment facili-
ties such as the Piketon addition.
Cannon said that last week a major
French magazine carried a story that
French government officials viewed
the opposition to United States devel-
opment of new nuclear fuel manufac-
turing facilities to be such that France
should produce nuclear fuel for world
markets.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
UNITED STATES
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545
STATE
USA
September 23, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO:
Brent Scowcroft
Jim Cannon
Jim Lynn
Jim Connor
Frank Zarb
Chuck Robinson
FROM:
Bob Fri shat
SUBJECT:
Nonproliferation and NFAA
Our discussions with Senator Percy have identified four key
points of difference. These points of difference, and suggested
compromise resolutions, are set forth below, and a marked-up
copy of the Anderson Bill (HR 15419) is attached showing specific
language changes involved on both the four key points (and on
several more minor points as well).
1. "Trigger" for stricter licensing criteria
Congress will recede from the S.3770 trigger for the
stricter licensing criteria (effective after 18 months
but subject to Presidential delay). Instead, the
compromise would provide:
a.
A Congressional policy declaration that the
stricter "criteria" will be sought from other
nations, and should (ultimately) become statutory
licensing criteria.
b. A requirement that the President periodically
propose legislation to implement the commitments
obtained from other nations as statutory export
licensing criteria. If the President has not, at
the end of the time period, obtained the agreement
of other nations, he must report to the Congress in
detail the reasons why the commitments were not
obtained.
REVOLUTION
MERICA
BICENTENNIAL
FORD & LIBRARY SERALD
1/76-1976
-2-
2.
Reprocessing
Inasmuch as the "stepped up" reprocessing criterion set
forth in Section 15 (a) (5) of S.3770 will no longer
automatically become a statutory licensing criterian--
but will instead be only a "negotiating goal"--the
Administration would accept the Section 15 (a) (5)
reprocessing criterion essentially as written in S. 3770.
This means that we would negotiate with other nations
toward an ultimate objective of reprocessing only under
"international auspices, management and control. The
bill would contain no reference to the "controlled spread"
provision of HR 15419 which would have permitted national
reprocessing under limited conditions.
3. Presidential Override
Congress would agree to a Presidential override of NRC
license denials. However, the bill would contain an
explicit provision for Congressional override of the
President's override. This Congressional override would
be accomplished by a joint resolution (subject to
Presidential veto), enacted within thirty calender days
after the President's override. The joint resolution/
thirty calender day approach is based on the "Symington
amendment" to the Foreign Military Sales and Assistance
Act signed by the President on June 30.
4. Nuclear Fuels Assurance Act
Senator Percy has indicated that he is unable to secure the
assent of other Senators required to permit a vote on NFAA
this year. Consequently, he will propose that a "NFAA"
section be added to the nonproliferation bill that would:
a. require construction of the Portsmouth add-on,
b. provide for a Presidential report by April 15, 1977
on private VS. government enrichment,
C. permit the President to submit (at the same time) the
elements of proposed cooperative arrangements with
private enrichment companies. These arrangements would
be referred to the JCAE, which would be required to
report to both Houses of Congress on an expedited
basis. There would be a nonbinding recital to the effect
FORD
-3-
Congress will vote approval or disapproval of the
proposed cooperative arrangements "on a timely basis. "
If Congress approves the arrangements, however, no
further action could be taken without a specific
Congressional authorization and appropriations.
You should be aware of the following:
Senator Percy and I agreed, on the basis of the
above compromises, to write a clean bill that only
represents our best efforts, but with no guarantees
that it is acceptable to anyone else.
The specific language in the attached markup is mine,
not Senator Percy's. Staff counsel are meeting at
9:00 a.m. Friday (tomorrow) to work out a clean bill,
and there may be problems.
Your agreement to the proposed language would, in my
judgment, strengthen our position.
CC: G. Schleede
D. Elliott
FORD
Terry Arcynoled attn's ?
State -
- wants me flaxibility in Phone II
Centeric
of for BERALD 1.5.1 R. FORD
nuclear
THE WHITE HOUSE
Reguest
energy
WASHINGTON
urgenk
September 24, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
JIM GLENN Jan CAPTION SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT ON
NUCLEAR LEGISLATION
Attached is the first cut *of the memo to the President
describing the three alternatives.
I have tried to get the "Percy compromise" language on
uranium enrichment from Bob Fri and received the following
interesting response from his assistant.
Jim Wilderotter and Connie Evans (Percy's assistant)
have not yet had time to draft new language on uranium
enrichment for inclusion in the bill.
Connie did not bring any language on uranium enrichment
with her, just some rough notes.
The only language available is the two-day old draft
originally presented as the "Percy compromise".
Draft letter implementing Alt. #3 also attached.
CC: Jim Mitchell
Dave Elliott
*It doesn't yet reflect the review by Jim Mitchell and Dave
Elliott
SERIET REID TORO
O.H.-
met
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
That assist we
September 28, 1976
hading
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
ASSIS
SUBJECT:
LETTER TO SENATOR BAKER TO AVOID
AN AMENDMENT TO THE NUCLEAR
PASSAGE OF
FUEL ASSURANCE ACT
Attached for your consideration is a proposed letter in Urponse
to Senator Baker's request which seeks to head off
a Senate floor amendment to the Nuclear Fuel Assurance
Act.
The amendment has the effect of providing that (a) cooperative
arrangements authorized by the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act
could not be entered into before March 1, 1977, and
(b) the President must make and submit to Congress a
finding that such cooperative arrangements are in the
national interest as a part of a report analyzing
the relative merits of public and private uranium
enrichment services.
Your advisers believe that there is no problem with
the substance of the amendment but its addition at
this point could delay Yorkill final Congressional action on
the bill.
Senators Allen and Sparkman apparently intend to
bring the bill up on Wednesday morning, September 29.
Senator Baker would like to have the letter before
the bill is taken up so that it could be used on
the floor if necessary.
The attached letter has been reviewed and concurred
in by OMB, Max Friedersdorf, Phil Buchen (Barry Roth),
and Doug Smith.
RECOMMENDATION
That you sign the letter attached at TAB A.
Attachment
file GERALD R. FORD
1
File
THE WHITE HOUSE
SIGNATURE
WASHINGTON
September 28, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON Jui
SUBJECT:
Letter to Senator Baker to Assist Passage
of the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act
Attached for your consideration is a proposed letter in
response to Senator Baker's request that we assist in
heading off a Senate floor amendment to the Nuclear Fuel
Assurance Act.
The amendment has the effect of providing that (a) coopera-
tive arrangements authorized by the Nuclear Fuel Assurance
Act could not be entered into before March 1, 1977, and
(b) the President must make and submit to Congress a finding
that such cooperative arrangements are in the national in-
terest as a part of a report analyzing the relative merits
of public and private uranium enrichment services.
Your advisers believe that there is no problem with the
substance of the amendment but its addition at this point
could delay or kill final Congressional action on the bill.
Senators Allen and Sparkman apparently intend to bring the
bill up on Wednesday morning, September 29. Senator Baker
would like to have the letter before the bill is taken up
so that it could be used on the floor if necessary.
The attached letter has been reviewed and concurred in by
OMB, Max Friedersdorf, Phil Buchen (Barry Roth), and Doug
Smith.
RECOMMENDATION
That you sign the letter attached at Tab A.
attachment
NALD FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Senator Baker:
As you requested, I have reviewed Senator Stevenson's
amendment No. 2264 to S. 2035, the Nuclear Fuel
Assurance Act.
I believe the requirements set forth in that
amendment are reasonable, but I am concerned
that adding the amendment to the bill might
delay final Congressional action on the Nuclear
Fuel Assurance Act.
I am prepared to make the finding and submit
the information in the time frame specified
without the amendment being added to the bill.
I urge the Senate to pass the Nuclear Fuel
Assurance Act in the form passed by the House
of Representatives on August 4, 1976.
Sincerely,
The Honorable Howard H. Baker
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
FORD is LIBRARI GENALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Schleede wasto
have called Beckwitt
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
JOHN GLENN
End
COMMITTEES:
OHIO
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
f.
1976 OCT 13 PM 2 09
October 11, 1976
Mr. James M. Cannon
Director, Domestic Council
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Cannon:
It is disappointing that our office still has
received no answer to my letter to you of October 1
concerning the uranium enrichment plant in Portsmouth,
Ohio. May we please have a written response from you at
the earliest possible time?
Yours sincerely,
Canard Bickuit or.
Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
Chief Legislative Assistant
to Senator John Glenn
LB:mh
FORD LIDRARY
101313
NIUM
for
HIO
ACTION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
576 001 25 AM 8 31
Or, nment- are Path
over
October 25, 1976
1
t at
of
TO:
JIM CANNON
ested
nd
FROM:
GLENN SCHLEEDE
ional
2
SUBJECT:
Q&A on Portsmouth, Ohio
Uranium Enrichment Plant
iron-
Here is the Q&A I put into the system.
court
Do you want to change or supplement it
entalists.
in any way?
e:
CC: Jim Connor
surance
t but
for
6 million
the
(Glem As Jun
u would
1976,
for
FY 1977
t for
oney
(the
the
$178.8
3
102603
ars).
Current estimate is that costs will rise to $4.4 billion.
GRS 10/25/76
FORD & LIENA OTHER
Energy
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Olio
issues
OROLIBRARE FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
REQUEST
Oluo
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 26, 1976
Fourtain TO: Seg -
6573
JIM CONNOR
GLEN SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT FROM:
PORTSMOUTH INSERT FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S CINCINNATI SPEECH
at
JOUU requested, is a rough draft of
on the A-E contract that ERDA
has promised to announce on Thursday.
In case you want more details, I'm also
attaching (1) an ERDA draft and (2) a Fact
Sheet on the Portsmouth plant.
Be careful to note that probably none of the
employees hired on the new $25 million A-E
contract will be employed at Portsmouth.
The principal hope for local employment relief
is when construction begins.
CC: Jim Cannon
P.S. - ERDA is working towards a Thursday
release of the request. Is that
Okay??
GIRRALO RIFORD
POSSIBLE INSERT FOR CINCINNATI SPEECH
SUBJECT: URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT AT PORTSMOUTH OHIO
We are proceeding steadily with work necessary to the
construction of an add-on uranium enrichment plant at
Piketon, Ohio -- near Portsmouth.
Another important step was taken earlier today when the
Energy R&D Administration announced that the agency was
requesting proposals from contractors interested in a major
contract for design for on the plant.
The first two contracts for detailed design work were
signed this summer. This is the third design contract.
The Congress adjourned without providing authority to
spend all the $179 million that I requested for this
plant for fiscal year 1977, but I will go back to the Congress
early next year for more spending authority. Right now,
we have enough to carry through March 31, 1977.
Construction on
/ the Piketon (Portsmouth) plant is scheduled to begin in
early 1978 and, when construction work is at its peak, 6000
people will be employed.
This plant will be important to Southern Ohio -- and to the
rest of the nation. The enriched uranium will be used in
fuel for a large number of nuclear power plants that will be
providing electrical energy for a growing economy -- with more
and more jobs.
Proposed Add-on Plant Statement
We are proceeding steadily along the path that will provide add-on uranium
enriching capacity to the Portsmouth plant in order that the operating mods
of the Government enrichment plants may be improved and our national resources
of uranium utilized more effectively. The new capacity, which will cost more
than $4 billion when completed, is scheduled for initial, limited production
in 1984. A number of design activities have been under way for some time and are
proceeding in orderly fashion. Next week there will be a formal announcement
requesting engineering services for the bulk of the process systems. The work
to be accomplished under this contract could amount to about $25 million over
the next 5 or 6 years for the chosen design contractor.
Some 500-600 new jobs are expected to result from the engineering tasks thus
far announced. The add-on project, when it gets into its peak construction phase
will require a force of about 6000 persons and the number of permanent new
operating jobs will be about 400. Several new power plants will also be needed
to supply the electrical power required by the add-on plant, resulting in
additional thousands of construction and operating jobs. Of course, all of
these activities must be undertaken in strict conformance with procedures designed
to protect the environment. This is not only sound public policy but it is the
law. A detailed environmental impact statement on the Portsmouth add-on
project has already been issued by ERDA.
We will have a number of complex tasks to accomplish in bringing this mammoth
project into operation in the mid-1980's but the result will be good for
this area and good for America.
UPDATE FOR FACT SHEET FROM ERDA
October 26, 1976
OHIO
(update for Portsmouth add-on)
-- Uranium enrichment
The Bortsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
operated for ERDA by Goodyear Atomic
Corporation, produces enriched uranium
used in fuel elements for nuclear power
plants and for programs of national
defense. Representing an investment of
some $785 million in plant and equipment,
the facility employs about 2,500.
The Portsmouth add-on would mean an
additional 450 personsto operate, but
it would take about 6,000 persons to
build, at the peak of construction.
Estimated escalated cost of the add-on
is $4.4 billion ($2.8 billion in FY77
dollars)
With full congressional authorization,
construction could begin in April 1977,
with first production in February 1984
and full production by October 1985.
ERDA has contracted for A&E for grading
and preliminary site work ($20-$25 million;
250 people; Catalytic Inc. Philadelphia)
and for a switchyard (about $5 million; 75
people; Stone & Webster, Boston).
Third A&E package *EXEE requesting A&E services
for process building --the - main unit--to be
issued about October 29 would cost about
$24-$28 million and involve about 250 people
at the contractor's office (not necessarily
Portsmouth).
FORD
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN CINCINNATI AND CLEVELAND
Q. What is the Federal government doing about economic
development problems in Cincinnati and Cleveland?
A. Both Cincinnati and Cleveland have shared in the
nation-wide research and technical assistance studies
conducted by the Economic Development Administration.
Job-development programs conducted by the City of
Cincinnati and the Determined Young Men, an organiza-
tion established to encourage Black entrepreneurship,
have received grants from EDA to help provide assis-
tance for minority workers.
Cleveland, also, has pursued programs to assist minority
group workers with EDA assistance. The Black Economic
Union has received financial support from the agency,
as have a small business center and business education
programs operated by the City.
EDA also has participated in studies for a multi-level
industrial building and an international trade center
to stimulate jobs for minority group workers in
Cleveland.
On the construction side, the agency has approved grants
totaling more than $1.7 million for new construction at
the Port of Cleveland and approved another $1 million
grant for water and street improvements in the city.
PCL 10/21/76
FORD
POSITION ON CONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED ADD-ON URANIUM
ENRICHMENT PLANT AT PIKETON (NEAR PORTSMOUTH), OHIO
Q. Are you firmly committed to build the add-on Government-owned
uranium enrichment plant at Piketon (near Portsmouth), Ohio?
Or, are you going to insist on turning uranium enrichment over
to private industry?
A. I am committed to the completion of the Portsmouth -- or Piketon
add-on plant -- subject, of course, to completion of the
necessary environmental requirements.
The Congress has approved some of the money I requested for
planning and engineering work for the plant, and that work
is underway. I will ask the next Congress for additional
funds to continue work on the plant.
Background
The commitment on plant completion is the same as the one you made
to Congressman Harsha in a July 29, 1976, letter. The environ-
mental qualification is necessary because of potential court
challenges and because of opposition from Ohio environmentalists.
The specifics of your record on the Portsmouth plant are:
On June 26, 1975, you proposed the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act
which contemplated private industry involvement but also
provided for construction planning and design for expansion of
a Government-owned enrichment plant.
On May 5, 1976, you asked Congress to approve $12.6 million
for continuing design work for Portsmouth through the remainder
of FY 1976 and the transition quarter.
On May 26, 1976, you announced in Columbus that you would
accept the NFAA as reported by the JCAE on May 14, 1976,
which bill included authorization of $255 million for Portsmouth.
On June 4, 1976, you requested $178.8 million for FY 1977 for
design, planning and long lead-time procurement for the
Portsmouth plant. Congress appropriated the money but both
bills containing the authorization failed (the NFAA and the
1977 ERDA authorization bill).
On October 11, 1976, you signed the continuing resolution which
permits ERDA to obligate about $50 million up to March 31, 1977
(additional Congressional action needed to spend the rest of
the $178.8 million).
The plant was estimated to cost $2.8 billion (1976 dollars).
FORD
Current estimate is that costs will rise to $4.4 billion.
GRS 10/26/76
AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS
Q. The prosperity of American farms is tied closely to
agricultural exports. Is there a danger that foreign
countries will not want our agricultural production?
A. I see little danger of this. In the first seven months
of 1976, $13 billion in agricultural products were
exported, slightly ahead of the same period last year.
With severe droughts having curtailed farm production in
several European countries, their demand for US farm
products has increased.
As for the long term, there is very, very little like-
lihood that we will have a surplus of US agricultural
production as long as we keep open our exports to
foreign countries. Our farmers, the most productive and
efficient farmers in the world, can compete effectively
in world markets.
Moreover, foreign markets should continue to grow.
Our Long-Term Grain Supply Agreement with Russia alone
ensures the sale of 6 million metric tons of US corn and
wheat tons of US corn and wheat each year. And, many
countries, unable to raise enough to feed their growing
populations, need not only products from US farms but
also need our advice and technological expertise. The
world population will almost double by the turn of the
century. The farmers of America and the world are going
to be hard-pressed to keep up.
Background
US agricultural exports are up 4% for the January-July
period of 1976. Gains have occured for all major commodities,
except wheat, rice, cotton, vegetable oils, and dairy products.
During fiscal year 1976, US farmers:
-- Sold the production of nearly one crop acre in three
on global markets.
-- Earned almost 25% of their cash receipts in the world
market.
-- Exported:
55% of their wheat
51% of their soybeans
50% of their cowhides
47% of their rice
40% of their cotton
FORD
25% of their feedgrains
20% of their tobacco
PCL
10/19/76/AB
GRAIN RESERVES
Q. Why don't you tell Kissinger to forget about building
up international grain reserves? They'd just depress
market.
A. Republicans at Kansas City simply said: "We oppose
government-controlled grain reserves
"
I agree.
Some reserve guidelines are helpful for meeting unusual
situations. The important thing is who controls those
reserves. My position is that each nation should be
free to control its own reserves. For us, that means
the reserves will be carried by farmers and the
private trade.
Reserves in the hands of government cost millions
of dollars to store, require massive bureaucracy, lead
to strict acreage controls and political manipulation,
and depress prices to farmers. The United States ends
up in the position of a residual supplier of global
markets. We had enough of that.
Background
Mr. Carter and the Democratic Platform call for the creation
of a predictable, stable, reasonably small grain reserve,
with up to a two-month supply. Prominent groups like the
Committee for Economic Development (CED) and the National
Planning Committee have also suggested the need for govern-
ment-held grain reserves.
In the past, large surplus grain stocks held in the US,
Canada, and Australia served as the world's reserve system.
Now those surpluses are gone and other countries -- the
grain importing nations among them -- must help carry a
larger share of the load.
Two principles now guide the United States on the issue
of reserve stocks:
First, given the fact that the United States supplies more
than half the grain moving in world trade, our market-oriented
full-production policy makes an important contribution to
world food security.
Second, It is up to each government to determine how to hold
reserves. Given US reliance on market orientations, our grain
reserves will be under private ownership.
FORD
PCL
10/20/76/AB
LIBRARY
HOG SITUATION
Q. The number of hogs being produced is increasing.
Does this mean that retail prices on pork will be
falling? And what does it mean to farmers?
A. It is clear that the hog cycle, in terms of numbers
is on the upswing, but retail pork prices may not
fall too much. That's because, while the amount of
pork is increasing, so is the demand. In the third
quarter of this year, almost 3 billion pounds of pork
were prouduced, 15% more than in the third quarter a
year ago. The average retail price per pound was
$1.38 compared to $1.49 a year ago.
Background
Farmers received an average of $43.33 per hundred weight
last quarter compared to $56.20 a year earlier. There
was a 21% increase in the number of hogs farrowed this
summer, which means that the supply of pork probably will
increase in 1977. Hog slaughter could be 18% above 1976
during the first half of 1977.
PCL
10/22/76/AB
MEDICAID FRAUD AND ABUSE -- OHIO
Q. What is being done to combat fraud and abuse in the
Medicaid program?
A. A Federal-State team is currently in Ohio investigating
fraud and abuse. HEW is also adding additional investi-
gators, and the State is stepping up its monitoring and
surveillance efforts.
Let me add that about two weeks ago (October 15) I
signed into law a bill creating an independent office
of the Inspector General in the Department of HEW.
The task of the Inspector General is to ferret out the
abuses. My choice for the position will be made solely
on the basis of demonstrated ability and poiltics won't
enter into it.
Background
A Federal-State team of investigators is currently in
Columbus reviewing the Medicaid program for fraud and
abuse. An investigation of nursing homes in Ohio is
expected to be undertaken in the near future.
FORD
MINORITY BUSINESS
Q. In any adverse economic situation, it seems minority
business is hardest hit. What are you doing about
the problems that minority businesses face?
A. We are seeing some very favorable trends for minority
business in the United States. The minorty financial
community is strengthening -- more banks, more S-and-
Ls, more venture capital -- and the tight money prob-
lems historically experienced by minority business
firms are easing. We expect minority business receipts
to double between 1972 and 1977, from $16 billion to
$32 billion. Then, by 1982, we expect them to have
doubled again, from $32 to $67 billion.
The Office of Minority Business Enterprise in the
Commerce Department and the Small Business Administra-
tion have strong programs to assist minority business,
and I fully support these efforts.
As for Ohio, Commerce Department figures show that
our programs to encourage minority business are catching
hold. In Cleveland and Cincinnati, our funded organi-
zations last year helped minority business secure 156
procurement contracts totaling about $13.2 million.
They also helped minority business prepare some 56 loan
packages having a total value of about $4 million.
FORD
LIBRAN,
CETA -- CLEVELAND, OHIO
Q. Why was the city of Cleveland ordered by the Department
of Labor to reimburse the CETA program to the tune of
over $1 million?
A. Several unauthorized expenditures by the Cleveland
prime sponsor were identified and reimbursement was
necessary. Over 80% of the unauthorized expenditures
($863,690) occurred because salaries in excess of the
$10,000 limit were paid.
Background
The CETA program in Cleveland has had some significant
problems in the past, including high drop-out rates, high
administrative costs, and inadequate program monitoring.
DOL has noted satisfactory progress in Cleveland's efforts
to correct all deficiencies.
Other unauthorized expenditures were a $170,000 monitoring
contract and $20,000 for T-shirts.
WMD
10/20/76/AB
R. FORD
(Ohio)
PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM
Q. How much can Ohio expect to get from the new Local
Public Works Capital Development and Investment Program?
A. Ohio and its communities will receive a total of
$59,578,000. All cities may apply for 100% grants to
construct public facilities, with priority going to
those with unemployment above the national average. The
Economic Development Administration began accepting
applications for grants on October 26, and expects to
process them within 45 days so that construction can get
under way quickly.
Background
Under this $2 billion program the basis for allocating funds
to the states will be the actual number of unemployed workers
and the state unemployment rate compared to the national rate.
State allocations will range from a minimum of $10 million
to a maximum of $250 million.
In approving individual project applications, first priority
will be given to the projects that provide the largest
number of jobs and that can be started immediately.
PCL
10/21/76/AB
FORD
SOYBEAN SITUATION
Q. In recent years the growth of uses for soybeans has
spurred increased plantings. Markets for soybeans,
soybean oil, soybean oil meal, and other by-products
are increaing both at home and abroad. What is the
outlook this year for soybean growers?
A. Soybean production this year is forecast at 1,250
million bushels. This is about 2% (or 25 million
bushels) below earlier forecasts and about 18%
below last year. This is a short crop, and current
prices show it. The crop, however, is not what you
would describe as "alarmingly low".
The harvest of soybeans was finished mostly ahead of
other years (only a small acreage remains unharvested).
Note: There is some concern among soybean growers that
the sharp increase in palm oil production and imports
in the last five years will erode the market for US soybean
oil. It is estimated that projects financed by international
development banks accounted for about a fourth of the
increase in world palm oil production and about a fifth of
the increase in exports. Last summer (July 26) the US
indicated it would no longer support loans by international
development banks to expand palm oil production for export
trade purposes. This, plus the fact that palm oil no longer
enjoys a price advantage over our soybean oil, should cause
the threat to our market to decline.
PCL
10/27/76/AB
AGRICULTURE AND THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Q. In the current "Tokyo Round" of negotiations in
Geneva, will agriculture be sold down the river
again?
A. I have directed our negotiators to insist that agri-
culture be an integral part of those discussions. The
only way to obtain the best possible agreements for US
farmers is for agricultural and industrial issues to be
treated in one package. So far, we've been successful
in this approach.
Under the Kennedy Round of negotiations a few years
ago, agriculture did not fare well because agricultural
tariff concessions were negotiated separately from
industrial concessions. You have my assurances that
farmers will not be sold down the river by my Adminis-
stration during the current negotiations -- or at any
other time.
I have also ordered our negotiators to vigorously
represent our Nation's economic interests, guard against
protectionism, and insist that the principles of fair
trade be scrupulously observed.
PCL
10/20/76/AB
INTERIM REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION
Q. The Committee's report does not advocate additional
Federal funds for cities. Isn't that what is really
necessary to end urban blight, stagnant economies,
and the deterioration of city neighborhoods?
A. We all know that money alone will not solve these
problems. The Federal government in past years has
spent billions in misguided programs like urban renewal
which have worsened urban difficulties rather than
improve them.
What is required is community effort, real cooperation
between local officials and Federal officials, and well-
designed programs. I'm thinking here of Administration
programs like Revenue Sharing and Community Development
Block Grants, which furnished cities with the resources
to deal with problems according to their own priorities
rather than those directed by Washington. This approach
is the democratic way to deal with urban problems.
The report of the Committee on Urban Development and
Neighborhood Revitalization opposes massive additional
Federal funding at this time. It concludes that if
spending programs are properly coordinated and targeted,
the billions of Federal dollars now being spent may be
enough.
FLM
10/20/76/AB
LIBRARY
POSITION ON CONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED ADD-ON URANIUM
ENRICHMENT PLANT AT PIKETON (NEAR PORTSMOUTH), OHIO
Q. Are you firmly committed to build the add-on Government-owned
uranium enrichment plant at Piketon (near Portsmouth), Ohio?
Or, are you going to insist on turning uranium enrichment over
to private industry?
A. I am committed to the completion of the Portsmouth -- or Piketon
add-on plant -- subject, of course, to completion of the
necessary environmental requirements.
The Congress has approved some of the money I requested for
planning and engineering work for the plant, and that work
is underway. I will ask the next Congress for additional
funds to continue work on the plant.
Background
The commitment on plant completion is the same as the one you made
to Congressman Harsha in a July 29, 1976, letter. The environ-
mental qualification is necessary because of potential court
challenges and because of opposition from Ohio environmentalists.
The specifics of your record on the Portsmouth plant are:
On June 26, 1975, you proposed the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act
which contemplated private industry involvement but also
provided for construction planning and design for expansion of
a Government-owned enrichment plant.
On May 5, 1976, you asked Congress to approve $12.6 million
for continuing design work for Portsmouth through the remainder
of FY 1976 and the transition quarter.
On May 26, 1976, you announced in Columbus that you would
accept the NFAA as reported by the JCAE on May 14, 1976,
which bill included authorization of $255 million for Portsmouth.
On June 4, 1976, you requested $178.8 million for FY 1977 for
design, planning and long lead-time procurement for the
Portsmouth plant. Congress appropriated the money but both
bills containing the authorization failed (the NFAA and the
1977 ERDA authorization bill).
On October 11, 1976, you signed the continuing resolution which
permits ERDA to obligate about $50 million up to March 31, 1977
(additional Congressional action needed to spend the rest of
the $178.8 million).
The plant was estimated to cost $2.8 billion (1976 dollars)
Current estimate is that costs will rise to $4.4 billion.
RALD FOPD THRIST
GRS 10/26/76
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON 26 10 21
26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
JIM GLENN CANNON SCHLEEDE John
Please substitute the attached page for the
one previously given to you this a.m.
Thanks.
CC: Jim Connor
ol
called 95. & talt
it out to the field forces.
approval absoto upedite getting
POSITION ON CONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED ADD-ON URANIUM
ENRICHMENT PLANT AT PIKETON (NEAR PORTSMOUTH), OHIO
Q. Are you firmly committed to build the add-on Government-owned
uranium enrichment plant at Piketon (near Portsmouth), Ohio?
Or, are you going to insist on turning uranium enrichment over
to private industry?
A. I am committed to the completion of the Portsmouth -- or Piketon
add-on plant -- subject, of course, to completion of the
necessary environmental requirements.
The Congress has approved some of the money I requested for
planning and engineering work for the plant, and that work
is underway. I will ask the next Congress for additional
funds to continue work on the plant.
Background
The commitment on plant completion is the same as the one you made
to Congressman Harsha in a July 29, 1976, letter. The environ-
mental qualification is necessary because of potential court
challenges and because of opposition from Ohio environmentalists.
The specifics of your record on the Portsmouth plant are:
On June 26, 1975, you proposed the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act
which contemplated private industry involvement but also
provided for construction planning and design for expansion of
a Government-owned enrichment plant.
On May 5, 1976, you asked Congress to approve $12.6 million
for continuing design work for Portsmouth through the remainder
of FY 1976 and the transition quarter.
On May 26, 1976, you announced in Columbus that you would
accept the NFAA as reported by the JCAE on May 14, 1976,
which bill included authorization of $255 million for Portsmouth.
On June 4, 1976, you requested $178.8 million for FY 1977 for
design, planning and long lead-time procurement for the
Portsmouth plant. Congress appropriated the money but both
bills containing the authorization failed (the NFAA and the
1977 ERDA authorization bill).
On October 11, 1976, you signed the continuing resolution which
permits ERDA to obligate about $50 million up to March 31, 1977
(additional Congressional action needed to spend the rest of
the $178.8 million).
The plant was estimated to cost $2.8 billion (1976 dollars).
Current estimate is that costs will rise to $4.4 billion.
FORD
GRS 10/26/76
REQUEST
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 26, 1976
Full
TO:
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
GLE SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
PORTSMOUTH INSERT FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S CINCINNATI SPEECH
Attached, as requested, is a rough draft of
some comments on the A-E contract that ERDA
has promised to announce on Thursday.
In case you want more details, I'm also
attaching (1) an ERDA draft and (2) a Fact
Sheet on the Portsmouth plant.
Be careful to note that probably none of the
employees hired on the new $25 million A-E
contract will be employed at Portsmouth.
The principal hope for local employment relief
is when construction begins.
CC: Jim Cannon
P.S. - ERDA is working towards a Thursday
release of the request. Is that
Okay??
FORD LIBRARY
POSSIBLE INSERT FOR CINCINNATI SPEECH
SUBJECT: URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT AT PORTSMOUTH OHIO
We are proceeding steadily with work necessary to the
construction of an add-on uranium enrichment plant at
Piketon, Ohio -- near Portsmouth.
Another important step was taken earlier today when the
Energy R&D Administration announced that the agency
was
requesting proposals from contractors interested in a major
contract for design for on the plant.
The first two contracts for detailed design work were
signed this summer. This is the third design contract.
The Congress adjourned without providing authority to
spend all the $179 million that I requested for this
plant for fiscal year 1977, but I will go back to the Congress
early next year for more spending authority. Right now,
we have enough to carry through March 31, 1977.
Construction on
the Piketon (Portsmouth) plant is scheduled to begin in
early 1978 and, when construction work is at its peak, 6000
people will be employed.
GERALD FORD
This plant will be important to Southern Ohio -- and to the
rest of the nation. The enriched uranium will be used in
fuel for a large number of nuclear power plants that will be
providing electrical energy for a growing economy -- with more
and more jobs.
Proposed Add-on Plant Statement
We are proceeding steadily along the path that will provide add-on uranium
enriching capacity to the Portsmouth plant in order that the operating mods
of the Government enrichment plants may be improved and our national resources
of uranium utilized more effectively. The new capacity, which will cost more
than $4 billion when completed, is scheduled for initial, limited production
in 1984. A number of design activities have been under way for some time and are
proceeding in orderly fashion. Next week there will be a formal announcement
requesting engineering services for the bulk of the process systems. The work
to be accomplished under this contract could amount to about $25 million over
the next 5 or 6 years for the chosen design contractor.
Some 500-600 new jobs are expected to result from the engineering tasks thus
far announced. The add-on project, when it gets into its peak construction phase
will require a force of about 6000 persons and the number of permanent new
operating jobs will be about 400. Several new power plants will also be needed
to supply the electrical power required by the add-on plant, resulting in
additional thousands of construction and operating jobs. Of course, all of
these activities must be undertaken in strict conformance with procedures designed
to protect the environment. This is not only sound public policy but it is the
dodbt
law. A detailed environmental impact statement on the Portsmouth add-on
project has already been issued by ERDA.
We will have a number of complex tasks to accomplish in bringing this mammoth
project into operation in the mid-1980's but the result will be good for
this area and good for America.
UPDATE FOR FACT SHEET FROM ERDA
October 26, 1976
OHIO
(update for Portsmouth add-on)
-- Uranium enrichment
The Bortsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
operated for ERDA by Goodyear Atomic
Corporation, produces enriched uranium
used in fuel elements for nuclear power
plants and for programs of national
defense. Representing an investment of
some $785 million in plant and equipment,
the facility employs about 2,500.
The Portsmouth add-on would mean an
additional 450 personsto operate, but
it would take about 6,000 persons to
build, at the peak of construction.
Estimated escalated cost of the add-on
is $4.4 billion ($2.8 billion in FY77
dollars)
With full congressional authorization,
construction could begin in April 1977,
with first production in February 1984
and full production by October 1985.
ERDA has contracted for A&E for grading
and preliminary site work ($20-$25 million;
250 people; Catalytic Inc., Philadelphia)
and for a switchyard (about $5 million; 75
people; Stone & Webster, Boston).
Third A&E package ***** requesting A&E services
for process building the main unit--to be
issued about October 29 would cost about
$24-$28 million and involve about 250 people
at the contractor's office (not necessarily
Portsmouth).
SIV FORD