VIII. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY

I. OAK RIDGE GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT

Suspension of DRS cleanup project

 Cleanup of K-1420, which was used to take apart and clean uranium-contaminated equipment from the process buildings at K-25 was suspended in early January because of a budget issue.  Decon and Recovery Services (DRS), the contractor, said that the suspension was involuntary; the US Department of Energy (DOE) said that the suspension was voluntary. In 1997 DRS was awarded a $10 million contract to clean up and decommission the building. (Frank Munger, News-Sentinel, 1/6/01; Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 1/11/01) 

Performance reward for Bechtel Jacobs 

DOE paid Bechtel Jacobs 91% ($16,228,813) of the available performance-based fee ($17.8 million) for its management of cleanup work at Oak Ridge for the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2000.  Bechtel Jacobs received an additional $590,375 based on its management evaluation (59% of an available $1 million).  DOE said that Bechtel Jacobs needs to improve its integrated Safety Management program and criticized it for not coordinating a program to paint old cylinders that store uranium. (Frank Munger, Knoxville News, 1/11/01) 

Land use 

January 24 the Southern Environmental Law Center sent a letter in regard to land use on the Oak Ridge Reservation to Leah Dever, manager of Oak Ridge Operations, on behalf of Advocates for the Oak Ridge Reservation and the Tennessee Conservation League.  The letter asks the DOE not to make individual land-use decisions before completing an Environmental Impact Statement that considers the impact of decisions on the reservation as a whole.  Dev Joslin, president of AFORR, says that AFORR has repeatedly asked DOE to prepare a long-term land-use plan for the reservation, taking into consideration all potential uses.  

The Tennessee Depart of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) is preparing new registry agreements to submit to DOE.  In May DOE terminated the agreements that had been in effect since 1985.  The agreements concern the protection of seven sites with unusual flora and fauna.  The sites, which total less than a thousand acres, are currently being protected under temporary “hold-over” agreements. (R. Cathey Daniels, Oak Ridger, 1/22/01) 

TCSA Incinerator

A Bechtel Jacobs spokesperson has announced that DOE’s target date for restart of the Oak Ridge incinerator, shut down for repairs and maintenance, is early March. (Frank Munger, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1/24/01)

Lawsuits against contractors

Two class-action lawsuits were filed January 17 against contractors who have operated the Oak Ridge plant.  One deals with the “health hazards that were created and have never been properly addressed;”  the other with “the deliberate creation of a racially segregated community which has been preserved up to this time.”  The first suit was filed on behalf of several plaintiffs with thyroid cancer.  The second concerns the community of Scarboro, where residents, who are predominantly black, are reportedly exposed to releases from Y-12 about a mile away. (Duncan Mansfield, Associated Press, 1/17/01; Paul Parson, Oak Ridger 1/24/01)

Nick Timbers in  Paducah 

Nick Timbers, president and CEO of USEC Inc spoke at the Paducah Chamber of Commerce’s annual dinner January 18.  He gave an upbeat review of the company’s financial position and stated its commitment to enriching uranium at the Paducah plant.  “We’ve put down a stake in this community.” (Joe Walker, Paducah Sun, 1/19/01)

Upgrade

 USEC spokesperson Georgann Lookofsky reported that the upgrade to permit the Paducah plant to enrich uranium to 5% uranium 235 is 95% complete.  USEC expects to carry out the last physical changes in February.  The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing the new operating and safety procedures submitted by USEC.  According to Courtney Blanchard, the NRC’s senior resident inspector at Paducah, USEC is “on target” for approval of 5% enrichment at Paducah in March. (Bill Bartleman, Paducah Sun, 1/18/01; USEC Press Release, 1/24/01) 

Report on worker exposure 

January 10, DOE released  a report entitled “Exposure Assessment Project at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,” compiled by a team that included representatives of the University of Utah, the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE), and Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. (CPS).  Using readily available records including electronic databases, and interviews with workers, the team estimated that “2500 to 4000 workers worked in areas with ‘moderate’ to ‘high’ potential for increased internal and external radiation exposures [in relation to exposures in other plants of the plant] . . .  These areas included the Feed Plant (C-410/420),  Decontamination Building (C-400), Metals Building (C-340), and the Cascade Buildings. . . Primary Departments identified included:  Process Operators, Chemical Operators, Maintenance Mechanics, Instrument Mechanics, and Electricians.”  Approximately 200 individuals a year apparently received external exposure in excess of 1 rem, the study said.  

Former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson ordered the report “as a basis for further study to ensure that workers made sick at Paducah get the compensation they deserve.”  The team that compiled the report emphasized that the conclusions in it are preliminary and called for further research, including a check of the quality of the electronic databases used in the report.  The report is available at tis.eh.doe.gov/benefits/docs/2000012paducah.pdf. (James Malone, Courier Journal, 1/11/01; Bill Bartleman, Paducah Sun, 1/11/01) 

Annual environmental report 

DOE has released its annual environmental report for 1999.  The report does not show any “statistically significant” increase or decrease in levels of radiation and toxic chemicals in comparison to previous years, Don Seaborg, DOE’s site manager, sums up.  DOE maintains that technetium 99 is still 2000 feet from the Ohio River, but Craig Jones, one of the report’s authors, admitted that the highest level of technetium 99 in any waterway in the vicinity of the plant was found downstream of the plant in the Ohio River.  The impact of USEC’s operations at the plant is not covered in the report.  A copy can be obtained by calling 270-462-2550.  Seaborg expects the report for 2000 to be released in September. (Angie Kinsey, Paducah Sun, 1/19/01; James Malone, Courier Journal, 1/19/01) 

Decrease in PCB contamination 

A draft report on Little Bayou Creek by the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet states that levels of PCB contamination have dropped from almost two parts per million in 1992 to less than one part per million today as a result of improvements in environmental management at the plant and cleanup efforts.  Nevertheless, consumers are still advised not to eat fish from the creek.  The report can be obtained by calling  502-564-3410 or downloading from water.nr.state.ky.us/dow/tmdl.htm.  Comments can be submitted to the Cabinet through Feb. 9.  (Paducah Sun, 1/11/01) 

Cleanup plans for 2001 

The following major cleanup actions are planned for 2001:  1) begin cleanup of the North-South Diversion Ditch, which carried contaminated water to Little Bayou Creek (a two-mile section may be excavated to remove residual contamination); 2) study methods for removal of a high concentration of volatile organics in groundwater near Building C-400 (DOE will test a “six-phase heat” method in which electrodes heat the area to volatize the contamination, and soil vapor extraction wells remove it); 3) prepare building C-410 for demolition by beginning the removal of contaminated equipment and infrastructure. (Kentucky Environmental Oversight News, 1/1/01) 

Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) 

In September the Kentucky Division of Waste Management (KDWM) issued a Notice of Violation against DOE, which requires DOE to notify the KDWM of storage areas.  Additionally the Notice required DOE to further assess the areas identified and assure proper management and disposal of the waste.  At that time KDWM knew of 212 DOE Material Storage Areas (DMSAs).  DOE has since notified KDWM of 262 additional Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) for a total of 474 SWMUs.  Many of the areas “have radionuclide contamination which had not been characterized adequately to address nuclear criticality safety concerns.”  DOE was to deliver a detailed assessment to KDWM and the US Environmental Protection Agency February 1. (Kentucky Environmental Oversight News, 1/1/01) 

Slurry wall 

The injection of iron-filings slurry across a segment of the Southwest Plume continues.  Workers are constructing a subsurface iron wall, a Permeable Treatment Zone (PTZ), to treat contaminated groundwater migrating off site.  The Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection enumerates several potential serious problems with the PTZ, but believes that “the potential benefits far outweigh the risks.” (Kentucky Environmental Oversight News, 1/1/01) 

Metals in groundwater 

Investigations in 2000 identified sixteen metals as “priority contaminants” in groundwater.  Three: antimony, nickel, and chromium, have been found in off-site wells at levels in excess of safe drinking water standards and may represent contamination from the plant. Chromium and nickel are within the Northeast Plume of groundwater contamination.  Antimony is primarily in the Southwest Plume. DOE is considering how to address the problem. (Kentucky Environmental Oversight News, 1/1/01) 

Failed monitoring wells 

“The majority of monitoring wells at three of PDGP’s landfills have failed due to severe corrosion.”  DOE stopped using three of the wells in October of 2000.  After the cause of the corrosion has been found, the remaining corroded wells will be abandoned and new wells built. (Kentucky Environmental Oversight News, 1/1/01)

Funding for cold standby 

January 19, DOE released about $160 million, the first of $630 million promised to keep the Portsmouth plant in a cold standby after USEC ends enrichment operations in June and to finance construction of a pilot gas centrifuge enrichment plant at the site. (Nuclear News Flashes, 1/20/01) 

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued an opinion that the $630 million was being used improperly.  The money was part of $725 million received by the government from its privatization of the US Enrichment Corporation.  The $725 million is to go for “expenses of privatization,” which, the GAO said, do not include the plan to help Portsmouth.  Former House Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley had sought the opinion of the GAO.

January 22, the Monday after the inauguration, the Bush administration froze the $160 million in order, the administration said, to give government officials time to review the situation and reach a decision about whether to assist Portsmouth and, if so, how.  Bush promised Ohio Governor Bob Taft during the election campaign that he would “aggressively explore how the workforce and facilities at the Piketon site can continue to serve our national interest.”  Governor Taft and the Ohio Congressional delegation are lobbying Bush to release the money to support the plant. (George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, 1/25/01; Jonathan Riskind, Columbus Dispatch, 1/24 and 1/25/01)

January 11, the Clinton administration sent to Congress legislation proposing amendments to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-398).  The Act, which was passed in October 2000, gave the president until March 15 to submit implementing legislation to Congress.  It permitted him to propose increasing compensation and asked him to determine how the legislation will be administered.  If Congress does not act on the proposed legislation by March 15, the law will automatically go into effect in the form in which it was passed in October.

 The Clinton administration proposed increasing compensation to give eligible workers a choice between receiving lost wages or receiving a $150,000 lump sum payment. The latter was originally the only option. In either case the workers, would as originally established, receive lifetime health care.  The administrative framework was that described by Clinton in an executive order late last year. (See UEN, Nov. 00 and Dec.00/Jan.01) 

Also January 11, Secretary Richardson made public an initial list of 317 facilities in 37 states to be covered under the legislation, including beryllium vendors, Energy Department sites that used radioactive materials, and facilities where atomic weapons workers may have been employed.  The proposed legislation, the preliminary list of facilities, and information on the compensation program are available at www.eh.doe.gov/benefits .

Suits against USEC 

January 8 a motion was filed in US District Court in Western Kentucky to consolidate ten class-action lawsuits against USEC Inc.  If the motion is granted, the lead legal team would be Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan and Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Learach.  The lead plaintiffs would be Howard Cohen and Myles Wren. 

Dumping investigation    

The International Trade Commission (ITC) by a 4-0 vote January 22 determined that there is evidence that imports of enriched uranium from Urenco and Eurodif are materially injuring USEC Inc. The Department of Commerce will now carry out a full investigation and is scheduled to make preliminary determinations by March 2 on the levying of duties and by May 16 on the issue of dumping.  If DOC makes a preliminary determination in favor of USEC, importers of uranium enriched in Europe will have to post a bond to cover potential duties.  DOC and ITC are expected to make final determinations towards the end of 2001. 

US utilities that are customers of the European companies, including Commonwealth Edison and Duke Energy, oppose USEC’s case; and six members of Congress from North Carolina and South Carolina wrote to the ITC to say that the case could set a dangerous precedent. 

USEC’s charges against Urenco and Eurodif contrast with USEC’s desire to import low-cost, commercial enriched uranium from Russia.  USEC claims that the deal with Tenex is different because it is necessary for the maintenance of the US-Russian High-Enriched Uranium agreement.  (USEC Press Release, 1/22/01?; Edward Alden, Financial Times, 1/23/01  Nuclear News Flashes, 1/22/01; Geoerge Lobsenz, Energy Daily, 1/23/01) 

Kazakhstan uranium 

The US Court of International Trade has rejected USEC Inc. and an ad hoc group of US uranium producers’ appeal of a 1999 decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC) that imports of uranium from Kazakhstan were not materially harming the US industry.  (Nuclear News Flash, 1/30/001) 

Valves 

Hunt Valve Co. told the NRC in December that it has found cracks in one-inch packing nuts for the valves on UF6 cylinders.  The company made for USEC 2300 valves, of which 1300, including one on a cylinder at Portsmouth, have been found to be defective.  Hunt is replacing the cracked nuts. (Nuclear Fuel, 12/25/00) 

Financial report 

USEC reported earnings for its second quarter, which ended December 31, 2000, of $20.9 million, or $0.26 per share, compared to $32.6 million of $0.36 per share for the same period in 1999. During the six-month period ending December 31, USEC earned $25.5 million or $0.31 per share, down from $48.7 million or $0.52 per share in the same period a year ago.  USEC still expects to earn $30 to $35 million in fiscal year (FY) 2001.  

Revenue for the second quarter was $387.1 million, compared to $447.6 million in the second quarter of FY 2000.  Revenue for the six-month period was down 10%, $613.9 million as compared to $678.5 million for FY 2000.  Revenue from the sale of natural uranium was $35.4 million in the second quarter, as opposed to $15.8 million in the same quarter of FY 2000. (USEC Press Release, 1/24/01) 

Contaminated uranium 

USEC reported to DOE in December that samples of “certain natural uranium” transferred to USEC from DOE prior to privatization contained sufficient technetium 99 to put the uranium outside of commercial specifications.  The quantity of uranium affected could be 9500 metric tons.  Once testing has been completed, USEC expects DOE to replace any uranium found to be unsalable.  (USEC Press release, 1/24/01) 

VI. RUSSIA

USEC-Tenex agreement 

In its final days, the Clinton administration took steps towards approval of a tentative agreement between the US and Russian executive agents for the US-Russian HEU accord.  The agreement between USEC and Tenex would lower the cost to USEC of the downblended uranium that it imports to fulfill the agreement and would also provide for USEC’s importing an additional 3 million Separate Work Units (SWU) from Russia’s commercial enrichment plants over the next five years.  To make the importation of the commercial uranium possible, the Department of Commerce has to approve an amendment to the Russian anti-dumping suspension agreement now in force.           

The Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers International Union (PACE) strongly opposes the importation of the 3 million extra SWU, because it would displace production at the Paducah enrichment plant and increase the likelihood that USEC will shut the plant down.  The Clinton administration reported that USEC has agreed to maintain a production capacity of one million SWU per year.  One million SWU is only 10% of the US requirement for enriched uranium, PACE says.  Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have written to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to ask her to review the decision of the Clinton administration.  (PACE Press Release, 1/16/01; Ux Weekly, 1/15/01; George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, 1/23/01)   

GAO report 

December 30 the US General Accounting Office (GAO) released its response to a request from former Rep. Tom Bliley (R-Va), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, for a study of the effects of the US-Russian High Enriched Uranium agreement.  The report, Nuclear Nonproliferation: Implications of the U.S. Purchase of Russian Highly Enriched Uranium (GAO-01-148) finds that the removal of more than 100 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium from Russia as the result of the agreement has come at the cost of making the United States increasingly dependent on Russian origin material for nuclear fuel.  Russian material now accounts for “about 40% of annual US sales.” The Enrichment Oversight Committee (EOC) “has been largely passive in its responsibilities to monitor the impact of privatization and the HEU agreement on the industry.” The GAO believes that the EOC should monitor more closely and report on the impact of USEC’s activities to decision makers.  In particular, in regard to negotiations between Tenex and USEC on a new US-Russian contract, the EOC should “make clear what the benefits would be of importing newly produced LEU [low-enriched uranium] rather than additional LEU derived from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons.”  The EOC should also prepare and transmit to Congress a contingency plan that could go into effect if USEC withdraws or is replaced as executive agent for the HEU agreement. 

Advisory board report 

January 10 an advisory panel sponsored by DOE released a draft Report Card on the Department of Energy’s Nonproliferation Programs with Russia.  The panel, co-chaired by former Senator Howard Baker (R-TN) and by Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel, states that “the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nations states and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home.”  Current nonproliferation programs are inadequate to meet the threat.  “The President, in consultation with Congress and in cooperation with the Russian Federation, should quickly formulate a strategic plan to secure and/or neutralize in the next eight to ten years all nuclear weapons-usable material located in Russia and to prevent the outflow from Russia of scientific expertise that could be used for nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction.” 

 The report proposes a strategic plan with five major points:  secure Russian nuclear weapons and material; eliminate excess Russian High-Enriched Uranium (HEU), manage excess Russian plutonium, downsize the nuclear complex, and plan for Russian financing of sustainable security.  To eliminate excess Russian HEU, it advocates “demilitarizing all remaining excess Russian HEU through the development of an expanded capacity for downblending in Russia; and accelerating the purchase of the approximately 400 metric tons of HEU remaining to be downblended under the current HEU agreement, while ensuring that the material not flood and depress the world market.  This could require the Russian or U.S. Government to hold the material for an indefinite period of time.”  The program that the panel advocates could be carried out for “less than one percent of the U.S. defense budget, or up to a total of $30 billion over the next eight to ten years.”  It suggests spending $11 billion of this total on securing Russian HEU. (Report Card at www.hr.doe.gov/seab; George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, 1/11/01)

VII. DEPLETED URANIUM

Munitions 

The Pentagon has stated that plutonium and uranium 236 found in US depleted uranium munitions are the result of contamination at the nation’s three enrichment plants.  All three plants during the 1950s through the 1970s were contaminated by enrichment of uranium that had been separated, through reprocessing, from irradiated fuel. Uranium from reprocessing contains plutonium, neptunium, technetium-99, uranium-236 and other isotopes not found in natural uranium.  Depleted uranium that had passed through the contaminated equipment at the plants picked up the isotopes. 

The Pentagon made this admission as the result of a furor in Europe over claims from peacemakers that they have been made ill by radiation from depleted uranium weapons and after the discovery of traces of uranium 236 and plutonium in these munitions. 

Armaments made of depleted uranium were used in Bosnia in 1994 and 1995 and in Kosova in 1999.  The European Council and Germany, Italy, and Switzerland have all demanded a moratorium on the use of this type of munitions.  (Jim Mannon, Agence France Presse, 1/23/01; Katherine Rizzo, Associated Press, 1/24/01) 

Importation 

In November the NRC authorized Philotechnics, Ltd. to import depleted uranium metal in aircraft counterweights from the United Kingdom for recycle or disposal.  The NRC understood at that time that Philotechnics would be authorized to dispose of the non-reusable materials at a facility owned by Waste Control Specialists L.L.C. in Texas.  The Texas Department of Health later notified the NRC that Waste Control Specialists will not be permitted to take the waste.  Therefore the NRC told Philotechnics in January not to import any depleted uranium until arrangements for disposal of the non-reusable portion have been made. (Letter to Don Barbour, Philotechnics, from Ronald D. Hauber, NRC, 1/22/01) 

Conversion 

USEC held a meeting in Piketon January 22 to present to community leaders the company’s partnership with CH2MHill nuclear waste specialists. The two companies together with Fluor Corp. intend to bid on DOE’s request for proposals for conversion of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to more stable forms. Through the meeting USEC hoped to obtain local political support for its bid for the conversion contract.  At least three other teams will compete for the contract.  Proposals are due March 1.

VIII. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY

Centrifuges for France?  

In a four-year contract with the French government, signed January 25, the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) committed to phasing out its research on enrichment by the laser isotope process AVLIS in order to concentrate on centrifuge technology.  The CEA plans to bring its work on AVLIS to the demonstration phase in 2003 before closing down the program.  The CEA’s administrator general stated that the CEA has found that AVLIS would be difficult to put into industrial operation and has an uncertain future. (Nuclear News Flashes, 25/1/01)  The move by the CEA appears to validate USEC’s decision not to develop AVLIS. 

The French fuel cycle giant Cogéma and the government-affiliated Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute are discussing the possible construction of a centrifuge enrichment pilot facility at Tricastin in France.  Cogema will not decide for at least a month or two whether Japanese centrifuge technology is suitable from a technological and financial point of view. The Japanese institute, formerly the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (Donen) has been developing this technology since the 1970s.  (Agence France Press, 1/11?/01)