I. OAK RIDGE 
II. PADUCAH 
III. PORTSMOUTH 
IV. US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
V. UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION 
VI. RUSSIA
VII. HIGHLY-ENRICHED URANIUM
VII. DEPLETED URANIUM
IX. SCRAP METAL

Penalty against BNFL

The US Department of Energy (DOE) has issued a civil penalty of $41,250 against BNFL Inc., the contractor in charge of decontamination and decommissioning at the former K-25 site. The fine stems from a fire that occurred April 4, 2000, in a bundle of metal tubes housed in an assembly being decontaminated in the K-33 process building. According to DOE, the fire released uranium into the building while workers were fighting the fire. DOE’s Office of Enforcement and Investigations found that BNFL did not follow established procedures and implement an effective quality improvement process. The Preliminary Notice of Violation was issued March 19. It becomes final within thirty days unless challenged by BNFL. BNFL must respond to the Preliminary Notice with a schedule for completing corrective actions. The company does not agree that the fire released uranium into the building, but as of March 23 had not indicated whether it would challenge the penalty. (DOE Press Release, 3/22/01; Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 3/23/01)

Progress in cleanup

March 27 BNFL Inc. shipped the last of 640 process motors from the K-33 building to Envirocare in Utah. K-33 is the largest of the three process buildings that BNFL is decommissioning and decontaminating. The shipment of the 16,000 pound motor occurred 65 days ahead of schedule. (Frank Munger, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 3/28/01)

TN & Associates

Bechtel Jacobs Co. recently awarded a $1.4 million subcontract to clean up twenty-five waste storage areas at Oak Ridge to TN & Associates Inc. The company will close storage units, tanks, and waste holding areas scattered across the Reservation. The tanks contain "mixed waste." Work is expected to be completed by September. (Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 3/19/01)

II. PADUCAH

Authorization to enrich to 5.5%

March 19 the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amended the Certificate of Compliance for the Paducah plant to authorize the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to enrich uranium at Paducah to 5.5% uranium 235 by weight. The Paducah plant had been limited to enriching uranium to 2.75% uranium 235. Uranium enriched at Paducah was transported to Portsmouth for enrichment to higher levels. Most nuclear power plants use uranium enriched to 4 to 5% uranium 235.

The NRC had been prepared to issue the amendment March 16, but Rep. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) and John Dingell (D-Mich) asked the NRC Chairman Richard Meserve to delay authorizing the increase in the enrichment level at Paducah or to require that the Portsmouth plant be kept in "hot standby" until Paducah has proven that it can enrich to the higher level.

Stickland and Dingell argued that, according to the USEC Privatization Act of 1996, the NRC cannot issue a Certificate of Compliance if the issuance of the certificate "would be inimical to (a) the common defense and security of the United States; or (b) the maintenance of a reliable and economic domestic source of enrichment services." Allowing Portsmouth to close before Paducah has been proven to be able to enrich to 5.5% would not ensure the maintenance of a domestic source. In certifying Paducah for the new assay, the NRC, they said, was relying on the "’view’ of the NRC General Counsel that the concept of a reliable and economic domestic supply ‘is principally directed to the possibility of foreign entities gaining control.’" This "view" is not consistent with the intent of Congress in passing the Act, they said.

They also noted in the letter that USEC is filling Paducah cylinders at Portsmouth with uranium hexafluoride enriched to 3% "that may be shipped to Paducah" for further enrichment. Portsmouth should not be allowed to claim that it is enriching to 5.5% if, to do so, it enriches uranium hexafluoride already enriched to 3%. (Letter from Ted Strickland and John Dingell to NRC Chairman Meserve, 3/14/01. The letter is available at www.house.gov/strickland/03.14.01-NRCletter.html .)

The NRC delayed the authorization until it could reply, but stated in its answer that "it would be inappropriate to condition the Paducah amendment on USEC’s maintaining a particular operational status at Portsmouth." Lashing out at the NRC in a March 27 hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on energy and air quality, Strickland noted that the NRC appeared to recognize its obligation to ensure domestic production in a 1997 staff memo, but later changed its position. (Jonathan Riskind, Columbus Dispatch, 3/17 and 3/28/01; Katherine Rizzo, Associated Press, 3/16 and 3/19/01; Federal Register: 3/28/01, vol. 66, no. 60, pp. 16960-16961)

Application for hazardous waste permit

DOE has submitted a permit renewal application for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal at the Paducah Plant for the next ten years. Its current permit expires August 19. The Kentucky Division of Waste Management is reviewing the application and plans to notify DOE of any deficiencies by May 21. The Division welcomes comments from the public during its review. Questions and comments should be sent to Brian Baker, Hazardous Waste Branch, Division of Waste Management, 14 Reilly Road, Frankfort, KY 40601; 502-564-6716, Brian.Baker@mail.state.ky.us. The application can be seen at the office of the Division and at the McCracken Public Library in Paducah and the DOE Information Center in Kevil. (Letter from the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, 3/15/01)

Proposed "CERCLA Cell"

DOE is developing a Siting Study document that would narrow down from ten to three the potential sites for a CERCLA Cell proposed for Paducah. The CERCLA Cell would be a disposal structure for radioactive waste that is regulated by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Siting Study was to be submitted to regulators and to the Site Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) March 30 for their review. DOE will seek the Board’s input over the next few months in selecting a single site.for further study. Meanwhile, planning for a Seismic Study, which would involve field work, is underway. Paducah is located within the New Madrid fault system. (E-mail from David Dollins, Oak Ridge, 3/27/01)

Settlement of whistleblower suit?

Assistant US Attorney Bill Campbell said March 30 that prosecutors in the whistleblower suit filed in June 1999 by three workers have met twice with lawyers for Lockheed Martin to discuss possible settlement. The US Department of Justice has been looking into the charges for almost two years as it decides whether to join the suit. On the 30^th, the department asked US District Judge Joseph McKinley for a seventy-five day extension of its time to reach a decision. The motion for an extension noted that the government has tried to include in settlement talks, lawyers representing other plaintiffs but so far has not succeeded. One suit seeks one billion dollars for workers and their families; another seeks damages for people owning property near the site. (Associated Press, 3/31/01)

III. PORTSMOUTH

Portsmouth in relation to the Paducah upgrade

(see Paducah above)

Domenici Bill

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) has introduced the "Nuclear Energy Electricity Assurance Act of 2001," S. 472, designed to strengthen the nuclear industry. The bill provides, among other things, for maintenance of the Portsmouth plant on cold standby for five years, with an authorization of $36 million for this purpose for fiscal year (FY) 2002 and such sums as needed for FY 2003, 2004, and 2005. It would also provide Converdyne with up to $8 million per year for FY 2002, 2003, and 2004 to enable it to continue to convert uranium. The bill is available at http://thomas.loc.gov .

Bush on Portsmouth

In an interview with nine reporters March 13, President Bush said that the release of $125.7 million for cold standby and worker transition at Portsmouth during fiscal years 2001 and 2002 is a strong indication that he means to honor his election campaign promise to keep the plant open. The fate of the plant will, nevertheless, depend on the conclusions of two task forces that he has appointed. (See UEN March 2001). (Jonathan Riskind, Columbus Dispatch, 3/14/01)

Layoffs

Rep. Ted Strickland wrote to William Timbers, CEO of USEC, March 8 to urge that USEC offer its employees at the Portsmouth plant an opportunity to select early retirement before layoffs begin this year.

IV. US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

Subcontracting

DOE’s inspector general, Gregory H. Friedman, has released a report, stating that Bechtel Jacobs has not performed as expected in regard to subcontracts, since it entered into a $2.5 billion management and integration contract with the Oak Ridge Operations Office, for environmental remediation at Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Portsmouth. To speed cleanup and reduce cost, Bechtel Jacobs was to rely for much of the work on competitively awarded, fixed-price subcontracts. In its response to the request for proposals, Bechtel Jacobs promised that within two years of the contract award it would subcontract just over 90 percent of the work and cut staffing by about 80 percent through shifting staff to subcontracts. As of September 2000, Bechtel Jacobs had subcontracted less than 60 percent of the original work scope and reduced staffing by only 58%. The Oak Ridge Operations Office did not incorporate the subcontracting requirement into Bechtel Jacobs’ contract. The inspector general estimates that DOE could have saved $44.1 million in Fiscal Year 2000 had Bechtel Jacobs fulfilled the terms of its proposal. (Audit Report, Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC’s Management and Integration Contract at Oak Ridge, DOE/IG-0498, March 2001, available at www.ig.doe.gov )

In a letter of March 9 to Mitch Daniels, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao asked that administration of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) be moved from the Labor Department to the Justice Department. She stated that the Labor Department does not have the infrastructure to implement the program, in particular to determine the eligibility of workers claiming to have been made ill by radiation. She pointed out that, on the other hand, the Justice Department administers a small program to compensate miners suffering from exposure to radiation.

Various Republican and Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Mike Dewine (R-Ohio), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass), and Representatives Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky) have written letters to Chao and/or to Daniels opposing the switch to Justice. Other opponents of the change include Richard Miller of the PACE labor union and Dr. Taylor McKenzie, vice president of the Navajo Nation, who criticizes the Justice Department’s handling of the program for miners.

Those disagreeing with Chao contend that the Labor Department has more experience than the Justice Department with compensation programs, that Congress intended the Labor Department to administer the program, although it left the final decision to the President, and that the change of administration would slow the granting of compensation. As laid out in the EEOICPA, the government is to be ready to accept applications by July 31.

As we write, Chao, supported by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), appears to be getting her way. March 29 the White House Office of Management and Budget circulated a draft executive order that would override a December executive order by President Clinton and transfer the program to the Justice Department. The proposed order cannot go into effect until the President signs it. (Ben White, Washington Post, 3/23/01; Jonathan Riskind, Columbus Dispatch, 3/22/01; Katherine Rizzo, Associated Press, 3/27 and 3/29/01 )

 Long-term stewardship

Doe has released to the public its two-volume Report to Congress on Long-Term Stewardship. The report is the result of a request by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act for a report on DOE’s existing and anticipated long-term stewardship obligations at sites where environmental restoration activities are complete or will be complete by 2006. The first volume presents a summary of the Long-term Stewardship Program including cost projections at sites (or portions of sites) where cleanup, stabilization, or disposal activities have been completed. The program is expected to cost annually $6 billion as of 2000 and 2006 and $150 million as of 2050.

The second volume contains site summaries which present cleanup activities and "accomplishments" to date plus plans for long term stewardship. Of the three enrichment plants, Portsmouth is the farthest along with cleanup. By 2006, Portsmouth is expected to have completed all assessments and agency- required remedial actions ( prior to decontamination and decommissioning ) and shipped all DOE Environmental Management waste for final disposal. At the East Tennessee Technological Park, the former K-25 site, except for the decision to demolish buildings, most remedial decisions are in the early planning stages. At Paducah, the only activities expected to be completed by 2006 are removal of 65,000 tons of scrap metal, remedial construction for cleanup of groundwater sources, and remediation activities for contamination of the North-South Diversion Ditch.

The report is available online at http://lts.apps.em.doe.gov/center/ . To obtain copies of this Report or for more information on the environmental management activities of the U.S. Department of Energy, contact The Environmental Management Information Center at 1-800-736-3282.

Recycled uranium

March 29, DOE released nine reports that examine the movement of recycled uranium through the department’s facilities. The three gaseous diffusion plants are among the twelve sites covered. The studies identify where recycled uranium and trace amounts of other radioactive contaminants could have concentrated or been released; but they do not claim to be the final answer to the question of what took place. DOE admits that because of differing operational practices, different designations for recycled uranium in historical records, and extensive blending operations, the data are not always consistent, and the recycled uranium totals for each site cannot be added to give an accurate, overall total. To remedy this problem, DOE’s Office of Plutonium, Uranium, and Special Materials Inventory will conduct a follow-up study to develop a historical mass balance for uranium, including recycled uranium. The reports and a project overview are available in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/legacy/ .

Funds for Cleanup

The federal budget passed by the House of Representatives in late March was accompanied by a report in which the House recommends that $6.65 billion be spent on cleanup of DOE’s nuclear complex in the next fiscal year. The report does not recommend amounts for specific sites. The President’s budget outline calls for a three percent cut in DOE spending. Bush is expected to release more details on the budget April 9. (Associated Press, 3/30/01)

V. UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION (USEC)

Licensing procedure

A proposal from USEC to amend section 193 of the Atomic Energy Act is going the rounds on Capitol Hill. The suggested change would require the NRC to conduct only a single informal hearing rather than to go through a lengthy licensing process with "an adjudicatory-trial-like hearing" to license a new enrichment plant on the site of an existing gaseous diffusion plant. Last year USEC asked the NRC to support legislation to license a new enrichment plant under the regulations that now apply to certification of the existing enrichment plants. NRC refused to do so, but noted that it had earlier supported legislation to allow a new enrichment plant to be licensed in an informal hearing. Michael Knapik of Nuclear Fuel points out that USEC runs a risk in opening up the Atomic Energy Act as it applies to enrichment facilities. Utilities could take the opportunity to try to remove uranium enrichment services from coverage by US trade law. (Michael Knapik, Inside N.R.C., 2/26/01)

Views of USEC’s privatization

US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers Union (OCAW; now PACE) in a dispute as to whether attorneys for the union should be reimbursed by DOE for expenses incurred in efforts to make public the records of the privatization proceedings. Concluding that the attorneys were engaged in a legitimate effort to inform the public, she severely criticized the privatization process. "The transcripts of the June-July 1998 meetings show that the board’s deliberations were ‘model’ only insofar as they were a model of what not to do when considering various options for privatizing a federal entity." "Many board members were forced to rely largely upon information provided by parties with potential conflicts of interest," who "recommended" the stock offering. Charles Yulish of USEC wrote to Energy Daily in regard to a March 21 article on Kessler’s decision. He stated that since USEC had been dismissed from the suit in 1998, the judge heard only the union’s "provocative, one-sided and often specious set of allegations," and he gave ten examples of "why the charges OCAW makes, the conclusions of the judge and your article, are so misleading." (Jonathan Riskind et al., Columbus Dispatch, 3/18/01; Gladys Kessler, Memorandum Opinion in OCAW vs. USDOE; Charles Yulish, Energy Daily, 3/22/01)

VI. RUSSIA

Under an agreement signed in early March, the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), Techsnabexport ( Tenex ) and ConverDyn will cooperate on USEC’s return of natural uranium to Russia in connection with the implementation of the U.S.-Russian Megatons to Megawatts program. When USEC purchases LEU from Russia, it pays for the enrichment content and is obligated to return to Tenex an equivalent amount of natural ( non-enriched ) uranium. Under the new terms, USEC utilizes account transfers to assist Tenex by giving it the option to take possession of appropriate quantities of natural uranium at the Honeywell conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois, for return to Russia. (USEC Press Release, 3/15/01)

Exports to Iran

Platts Nucleonics Week reported March 8 that several sources confirmed that Russian officials have told the United States that Russia will not send laser equipment to Iran. US officials believe that Iran would have used the lasers for uranium enrichment, although Russia long maintained that they could not serve this purpose.

Replacement of the nuclear energy minister

March 28 President Vladimir Putin replaced Yevgeni Adamov as nuclear energy minister, with Alexander Rumyantsev. Rumyantsev is head of the Kurchatov Insitute, the nation’s main nuclear research establishment. The state attorney’s office received a report in February on alleged illegal activities by Adamov, from the Duma’s anti-corruption committee. The committee accused Adamov of having interests in at least ten commercial enterprises within and outside Russia. The change was part of a government reshuffle, the first since Putin assumed power. A US official told Agence France Presse that the United States believes that Adamov "has been tolerating if not supporting transfers of sensitive technology to Iran." The United States will watch closely to see whether Rumyantsev stops this practice. (Agence France Presse, 3/28 and 3/30/01)

Review of US aid to Russia

The White House is embarking on a review of American aid programs to Russia designed to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Officials of the National Security Council who have been critical of some of the programs initiated the review. Senior officials at the Council will conduct the review, which will last six to eight weeks. Included in the review will be the Megatons to Megawatts program under which USEC buys downblended highly enriched uranium from Russia. However the official who told the New York Times of the review praised this program. The review parallels but is distinct from a broad White House review of policy towards Russia. (Judith Miller, New York Times, 3/29/01)

VII. HIGHLY-ENRICHED URANIUM

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has approved the transfer of 33 metric tons of highly enriched uranium ( HEU ) from the federal government to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for use in TVA’s Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Alabama. About 12 tons of the uranium is currently stored at Oak Ridge’s Y-12 complex; the balance is at the Savanna River plant. DOE is not charging TVA for the HEU, but TVA will have to pay for the blending of the HEU with low-enriched or natural uranium to prepare it for use. DOE spokesperson Steven Wyatt claims that the transfer will save the government money, because it would have had to spend $ 1 billion to prepare the HEU for disposal as nuclear waste. Nuclear Fuel Services at Erwin, Tennessee, is expected to carry out the downblending for TVA; Siemens Power Corp. at Richland, Washington, to make the fuel. The HEU would be transferred to TVA by stages between 2003 and 2007. The two operating reactors at Browns Ferry would begin using it in 2005.

Instead of performing an environmental review of the conversion process, TVA proposes to adopt a review that DOE conducted in the mid-1990s. In a March 6 letter to TVA, Citizens for National Security, a group that monitors activities at Y-12, objected to this tactic and to the use of an interagency agreement to set up the transfer. TVA’s board of directors approved the agreement March 28. ( Frank Munger, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 3/15/01; Oak Ridger Online, 3/15/01 )

VIII. DEPLETED URANIUM

DOE’s source evaluation board for acquisition of depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion facilities and services at Portsmouth and Paducah has received five proposals. They come from: 1. American Conversion Services, a LLC comprised of CH2MHill and United States Enrichment Corporation, Inc.; 2. Foster Wheeler Environmental Conversion Services, a LLC comprised of BWXT Services, Inc., BNFL, Inc., and Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation; 3. General Atomics; 4. Jacobs-Cogema, LLC ; 5. Uranium Disposition Services, a LLC comprised of Framatome ANP Richland, Inc., Duratek Federal Services, Inc., and Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. According to DOE’s Web site on acquisition of services for the conversion project, a contract will be awarded in August of this year. The Web site is at http://www.oro.doe.gov/duf6disposition .

IX. SCRAP METAL

Release criteria

A National Academy of Sciences Committee on Alternatives for Controlling the Release of Solid Materials from Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Licensed Facilities held a meeting to hear from "stakeholders" March 26 and 27 in Washington. A letter to the committee from 119 public interest groups and individuals criticized the meeting as dominated by representatives of industry, and the committee process as "skewed toward" recommending use of the waste to make common household goods and building materials." No critic of the release of contaminated materials was allowed to address the full committee.

The committee was formed to help the NRC to make rules on the release of solid, radioactively-contaminated materials from NRC-licensed facilities. However, the decision reached by the committee will set a precedent that is likely to impact standards for the release of such materials from Department of Energy and Department of Defense sites. Bill Richardson, when energy secretary, placed a moratorium on the release of radioactive metals from DOE sites, but contaminated materials that are not metals may still be released from these sites provided that the releases will result only in "authorized doses" of radiation to the public. (Public Citizen, Press Release, 3/26/01, available at www.citizen.org/Press/; E-mail from Diane D’Arrigo, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 3/26/01)

Nickel at Oak Ridge

Frank Munger, writing for the Knoxville News-Sentinel, posed the question of what will be done with the estimated 3.5 million pounds of radioactively contaminated nickel that will be removed from process buildings at the K-25 site. Since DOE’s moratorium on release of contaminated metals, BNFL is selling metals to DOE at market price, but it is not clear what will happen to the nickel, which, after recovery, is stored at the site. (3/14/01)