1. Oak Ridge
2. Paducah
3. Portsmouth
4. US Department of Energy
5. United States Enrichment Corporation
6. Russia
7. Depleted uranium
8. Scrap metal

I. OAK RIDGE

Damages for whistleblowers

July 31, Daniel F. Sutton, an administrative law judge with the federal Department of Labor, awarded financial damages to three whistleblowers: Ken Warden ($50,353 in compensation plus reinstatement in his former position), Commie Byrum ($25,000 in compensation and withdrawal of a reprimand), and Virginia Johnson ($2,500 in compensation). All three are present or former security analysts at Oak Ridge. The complainants "expressed concerns that questionable individuals, including convicted felons, drug dealers and abusers, and persons with psychological problems, had their national security clearances granted or renewed." According to Sutton, DOE "deliberately altered evidence" in the case. DOE filed an appeal of the ruling with the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board August 9. (Frank Munger, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 8/7/01; Paul Parson, Oak Ridger Online, 8/16/01)

Options for K-25 and K-27

The Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the K-25 and K-27 Buildings was released in July, and an information session was held on it August 16. The release had originally been planned for June but was halted at the last minute due to the need to discuss the analysis with regulators (see July UEN). Of the four alternatives analyzed in the final version of the study, the preferred approach would dispose of some of the radioactive waste that is generated by demolition, at the Nevada Test Site and the remainder of this waste at the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility under construction at Oak Ridge. This approach would leave in place the basement slabs and retaining walls. The estimated cost for the preferred alternative is $294 million. Work would be completed by the end of FY 2008. The fate of the concrete slab, underground soil, and utilities will be addressed later. Copies of the analysis are available from the DOE Information Resource Center (865-241-4582). (Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 7/31/01; DOE Press Release 8/15/01)

Health problems in communities near K-25

Because of complaints from the Coalition for a Healthy Environment (CHE), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has asked DOE to draw up a plan to investigate possible contamination in communities along the Clinch River, near the East Tennessee Technology Park (previously known as K-25). Harry Williams of the CHE reports that residents of Dyllis, Sugar Grove Valley, and Dickey Valley are experiencing serious health problems. CHE would prefer that EPA look into the possible contamination directly rather than work though DOE. (Oak Ridger Online 8/14/01; Frank Munger, News-Sentinel, 8/17/01)

Historic water contamination

The team conducting an investigation into possible water contamination in the past at K-25 released a draft report in mid-August. The draft states that the project team has made "substantial progress reviewing documents and developing an understanding of the water systems" at K-25. It has identified a preliminary list of contaminants of concern and potential exposure routes.

The draft also indicates that the investigation may have to stop because of "budget constraints." Bob Garber of Parallax, which is coordinating the investigation, explains that Parallax did not believe that the project would last as long as it has. He says, however, that the remaining money should cover a final version of the draft report. Steven Wyatt, DOE spokesperson, indicates that additional funding may be available. Parallax currently has a $1.5 million contract.

Because of problems that have arisen in regard to the investigation, the Community Input Team for the project has asked that Roane County District Attorney Scott McCluen conduct an investigation. The problems include missing computer hard drives and failure to save information after the demolition of the K-1001 Building, in which several sick workers had worked. McCluen points out that an investigation at a DOE facility is "technically a ‘matter of federal jurisdiction.’" (Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 8/22, 8/23, and 8/28/01)

Land use planning

August 29, US Rep. Zach Wamp announced that DOE has established a focus group to draft a "roadmap for development" on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). The focus group will include representatives from the city of Oak Ridge, The Nature Conservancy, Advocates for the Oak Ridge Reservation, Friends of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee. Advocates for the Oak Ridge Reservation has posted on its Web site a summary of the organization’s concepts for an ORR planning process. (Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 8/29/01; www.korrnet.org/aforr)

Waste storage

August 28 DOE held a public meeting to discuss a proposal to store waste in existing "tent-like structures" next to the Oak Ridge incinerator. The waste would consist of hazardous and radioactive materials packaged in ready-to-burn boxes. DOE says that storing the waste next to the incinerator would enable the department to save at least $180,000 annually by canceling a contract for storage space in a Weskem facility a few miles from the incinerator. The incinerator is at the west end of the K-25 plant. (Knoxville News-Sentinel, 8/16/01)

Compacter

British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) has installed at Oak Ridge what the company describes as the "largest compactor ever used in the nuclear industry." The supercompacter is designed to crush metal that is to be disposed of rather than recycled. BNFL hopes that the machinery will process two million pounds of metal a week. (Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 8/17/01)

Erratum—fire

The fire at K-25 the morning of July 25 actually occurred in the K-31 building of the K-25 plant, rather than in the K-25 building itself as we mistakenly reported last month. Workers were in the process of using a plasma torch to cut a converter when the fire occurred. BNFL has completed its investigation of the fire by mid-August, but we have been unable to ascertain whether DOE has given permission for work in K-31 to restart. (Knoxville New-Sentinel, 8/17/01)

II. PADUCAH

PACE contract

August 29, USEC and members of PACE, the Paper Allied-Industrial Chemical and Energy Workers (PACE), reached an agreement that will keep hourly workers at Paducah on the job until at least November 15. They have worked without a contract since July 31. The agreement, which expires November 15, provides for a four percent hourly wage increase retroactive to July 31 when the old five-year contract expired. It forbids a strike and also layoffs of hourly workers. USEC has agreed to draw up a new contract proposal. If USEC and PACE cannot agree on a new contract by November 15, the four percent pay raise will be discontinued.

August 2 workers had soundly rejected a contract that would end after one year if USEC does not remain the sole US executive agent for the US-Russian High-Enriched Uranium (HEU) agreement, does not obtain market-based pricing in a new contract with Russia’s Techsnabexport, and is not allowed to import "commercial" enrichment from Russia. The Union has now pledged to help USEC obtain favorable terms in regard to the HEU agreement. (Joe Walker, Paducah Sun, 8/30/01; WPSD TV (www.wpsdtv.com ), 8/29/01)

Rejection of request for a site-wide EIS

US District Court Judge McKinnley has denied a motion by the Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists (RACE) to require a site-wide Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on cleanup activities at the Paducah site. RACE had challenged the lack of a site-wide EIS at Paducah under the Administrative Procedure Act’s "failure to act" provisions.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), responsible for federal agency compliance with NEPA, encouraged agencies to adopt their own regulations implementing NEPA. DOE did so. Among DOE’s NEPA regulations is the statement that "DOE shall prepare site-wide EISs for certain large, multiple-facility DOE sites." The judge ruled that neither NEPA itself, nor NEPA regulations promulgated by the CEQ, nor the NEPA regulations drawn up by DEA mandate a site-wide EIS at Paducah. DOE regulations give DOE "a discretionary choice to perform site-wide EISs at certain of its facilities."

Mark Donham of RACE says that RACE is considering a sixth circuit challenge to the ruling but that other means of approaching the issue remain open. DOE is doing several Environmental Assessments (EAs) at the present time. In the EAs, the agency is obligated to analyze cumulative impacts. RACE intends to sue DOE, if DOE does conduct complete analyses. (Mark Donham, e-mails, 8/7/01 and 8/31/01; Memorandum Opinion and Orders on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, Civil Action No. 5:00CV-116-M, US District Court, Paducah Division.)

Comments on ATSDR assessment

The Kentucky Division of Waste Management has submitted comments to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Control Registry (ATSDR) on the draft of its public health assessment for the Paducah plant, released May 1 (see May and June UEN). The Kentucky agency "suggested that the public health assessment underestimated the affected population, the public’s ability to access contaminated areas outside the plant, and past pollution from the plant." In doing so, it noted that ATSDR does not appear to have taken into consideration certain information in DOE’s Phase II Independent Investigation of the plant. In its final version of the report ATSDR will respond to all comments that it has received. (LeRoy Chittenden and Lauren McDonald, Kentucky Environmental Oversight News, 7/01)

Modification of hazardous waste permit

The Kentucky Division of Waste Management has drafted Modification #16 to the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant’s Hazardous Waste Permit. The modification will incorporate the PGDP Site-Wide Operable Unit Strategy into the Corrective Action portion of the permit. The strategy, agreed upon by the US EPA Region 4, DOE, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, divides the plant into several media- or function-specific Operable Units: Surface Water, Groundwater, Surface Soils, Burial Grounds, and Decontamination and Decommissioning. A Comprehensive Site Operable Unit will address any problems that remain after completion of the media-specific units. The Operable Unit Strategy is already being implemented. Nevertheless, Modification #16 has been presented for public comment, because it contains a revised corrective action compliance schedule. Comments will be received until September 2l. They should be sent to Michael V. Welch, Hazardous Waste Branch, Department of Waste Management, 14 Reilly Road, Frankfort, KY 40601. Copies of the Modification can be consulted at the Information Center for the Paducah plant and at the public library in Paducah or requested from the Division of Waste Management (502-564-6716). (Mike Guffey, Kentucky Environmental Oversight News, 7/01)

Visit by Exelon

Exelon officials visited the Paducah plant twice in August as part of an informal exchange program under which a team from one nuclear plant visits another to review operations and suggest ways of improving efficiency. August 3 Exelon president and chief nuclear officer Oliver Kingsley Jr., toured the Paducah plant with William Timbers, USEC president and CEO. Later in the month a group of technical experts from Exelon visited Paducah. USEC spokesperson Elizabeth Stuckle denied rumors that Exelon is interested in buying the plant. (Bill Bartleman, Paducah Sun, 8/30/01) Exelon owns ten power plants, with a total capacity of 16,810 MW, in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Thus it purchases much enriched uranium. The company was formed by the merger of PECO Energy (formerly Philadelphia Electric) with Unicom, Inc. of Illinois.

New environmental information center

August 1, DOE opened a new environmental information center on the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, just off Interstate 24 and across from Paducah Community College. The environmental information center for the Paducah plant had previously been located at Kevil, Kentucky, twelve miles from Paducah. The center was shifted in response to pressure from the public to move it to a more accessible location. The Coalition for Nuclear Justice issued a press release August 16 stating that the move is a positive step, but that DOE is also taking steps to avoid involving the public in decision making. It has not, for instance, held a meeting on the scrap metal preliminary environmental impact statement at Paducah despite a consensus recommendation by the Site Specific Advisory Board (SSAB); and it has not informed the public (apart from the SSAB) about its plans for a new radioactive waste disposal center at Paducah. The new information center is in the same building as the new workman’s compensation center (July UEN) and an office for the Site Specific Advisory Board. (DOE Press Release, 8/8/01; Coalition for Nuclear Justice Press Release, 8/16/01)

III. PORTSMOUTH

Community programs

Governor Bob Taft announced the week of August 6 that a new center for technology training and job development will open in the fall of 2003 in Piketon. The center is intended to help displaced enrichment workers in particular, but will be open to other members of the public. It will be financed by a $1.92 million federal grant, $900,000 from Ohio State University, and $270,000 from the Appalachian Regional Commission. (Jonathan Riskind, Columbus Dispatch, 8/12/01)

At a meeting of local community leaders near Piketon, Dennis Spurgeon of USEC presented a check for $2 million from USEC to the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative (SODI) for local community and economic development. The money was part of the approximately $44 million that the Ohio Valley Electric Corp. (OVEC) paid USEC for reducing its electricity consumption in the summer of 2000. USEC is devoting $18 million of the money from OVEC to benefits for workers who are losing their jobs because of the cessation of enrichment operations at Portsmouth--$10 million for enhanced benefits, $8 million for USEC’s standard package. (See UEN Dec.00/Jan.01.) (USEC Press Release, 8/28/01)

IV. US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

Compensation for workers

In a ceremony held August 9 at the new Energy Compensation Resource Center office in Paducah, US Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and her husband Senator Mitch McConnell handed a check for $150,000 to Clara Harding, widow of Joe Harding. Clara Harding did not speak at the ceremony but reportedly said afterwards that Joe Harding would "be grateful that we got this, but he’d also tell ‘em it wasn’t enough." The Hardings’ daughter Martha Alls told an interviewer that the payment would not even cover Joe Harding’s medical bills. The check was the first payment under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. Tim Gannon, a process operator at the Portsmouth plant who is suffering from cancer, was to receive the first check to be delivered to a living worker. Under the act, people who worked at certain locations, including the enrichment plants, and who suffer from certain types of cancer are automatically considered to have been made ill by their work. DOE has not yet written regulations that will determine which workers at other DOE sites will be compensated. (Sara Shipley, The Courier-Journal, 8/10/01)

Environmental Management Budget

As Congress goes back into session in September, the total funding for DOE’s Environmental Management programs is as follows: FY 01 appropriation $6.265 billion; FY 02 request from the Bush administration $5.913 billion; House appropriation for FY 02 $6.612 billion; Senate appropriation for FY 02 $6.845 billion. The difference between the House and Senate appropriations will be ironed out in committee.

Review of Environmental Management programs

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) filed a Freedom of Information Act request with DOE August 16 seeking "all documents produced as part of the ‘top-to-bottom assessment of the Environmental Management program’ initiated by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. Previously ANA had asked Abraham "to conduct the review in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires a balanced review panel and open meetings." Abraham did not respond to that request. (see June UEN)

Jessie Roberson, DOE’s new assistant secretary for environmental management, said August 15 that concluding the review will probably be a gradual process. As new ways of speeding cleanup are identified, they will be implemented without waiting for the study to be completed. Abraham ordered the review in the spring and has opposed efforts in Congress to increase DOE’s FY 2002 budget for cleanup on the grounds that the study has not been completed. (John Stang, Tri-City (WA) Herald, 8/16/01)

Double billing

The US Court of Federal Claims ruled August 23 that the federal government owes nine utilities $25.69 million, because, between September 1992 and June 1993, DOE double charged them for the future decontamination and decommissioning of its enrichment plants (see UEN August 01). Other utility companies may now try to bring similar cases against the government. (www.platts.com, 8/23/01)

V. USEC

Annual financial report

USEC has reported that in Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, revenue totaled $1,143.9 million, a drop of 23% from the FY 2000 total of $1,489.4 million. Gross profit in FY 2001 was $152.2 million, 34.8% below the gross profit of $233.6 in FY 2000. Sales of separative work units (SWU) represented $1,057.3 million, a reduction of $330.5 million from the previous year. Sales of natural uranium represented $86.6 million in FY 2001, another decrease, since natural uranium sales in FY 2000 were $101.6 million. The company anticipates that earnings in FY 2002 will be between $35 million and $40 million in spite of an anticipated small loss in the first quarter. (USEC Press Release, 8/1/01)

VI. RUSSIA

Deliveries in 2002

In a letter of July 27, Techsnabexport (Tenex) the Russian executive agent for the US-Russian High Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement, asked USEC to start discussing with it a schedule for delivery of downblended Russian HEU in 2002. The Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy and the Russian enrichment enterprises that downblend the HEU have requested that Tenex and USEC come to an agreement on a tentative delivery schedule "promptly," because preparing the uranium for delivery and obtaining government approvals is time consuming. The Bush administration, which is considering whether to continue the current HEU program with USEC as the sole US executive agent, has not approved an agreement based on market-based pricing that USEC and Tenex negotiated last year. (See UEN, 8/00.) The current contract expires at the end of 2001. (Carter Dougherty, Washington Times, 8/22/01; www.platts.com, 24/8/01)

HEU as collateral

July 31 Senator Pete Domenici (R. NM) reintroduced the Russian Fissile Material Disposition Loan Guarantee Act (S.1277). The act would provide US loan guarantees of up to $1 billion for loans by private investors to Russia. The private loans would have to be for the purposes of retirement of Russia’s debt, support of Russian nonproliferation programs, or development of Russia’s energy infrastructure, including "peaceful uses of nuclear energy." For each $20 million in loans Russia would have to place one metric ton of HEU and one metric ton of plutonium as collateral in a Russian facility under IAEA safeguards. (http://thomas.loc.gov).

VII. DEPLETED URANIUM

DOE announced August 6 that the following three firms had been selected to compete for the contract to build and operate conversion facilities for depleted uranium hexafluoride at Paducah and Portsmouth:

--American Conversion Services, LLC, composed of USEC and the environmental engineering firm CH2M Hill;

--Jacobs COGEMA, LLC, composed of Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. and COGEMA LLC, the French fuel-chain giant;

--Uranium Disposition Services LLC, composed of the French firm Framatome ANP Richland Inc., the cleanup company Duratek Federal Services Inc., and the engineering firm Burns and Roe Enterprises Inc.

Not making the short list, were General Atomics, on the one hand, and Foster Wheeler Environmental Conversion Services, composed of BWX Technology Services, Inc., BNFL Inc. and Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. on the other.

The Energy Daily was told that DOE’s source evaluation board, which reviewed the bids, did not recommend American Conversion Services. Sources suggested to the publication that political factors may have been behind the consortium’s eventual inclusion in the top three. For instance, DOE may want to compensate USEC for a possible decision by the Bush administration to name a second executive agent for the US-Russian HEU agreement.

According to DOE spokesperson Walter Perry, DOE’s Oak Ridge Operations office is scheduled to award the contract in October. Construction of the conversion plants must start by Jan. 31, 2004. (DOE announcement, 8/6/01; George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, 8/10/01; Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 8/9/01; Joe Walker, Paducah Sun, 8/8/01)

Depleted uranium imports

USEC Inc. has asked the NRC to determine whether it can import depleted uranium under a general license as source material. In support of its request, the company is citing the decision in May of the French Conseil d’Etat that depleted uranium is not a waste. USEC has requested an "indication" of the NRC’s thinking in about a month, but, according to an NRC staffer, the NRC may not be able to meet this timetable, since the decision will likely be up to the commissioners rather than the staff. (www.platts.com, 8/22/01)

VIII. SCRAP METAL

Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement

DOE has extended by sixty days the public scoping period for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the Disposition of Scrap Metals. The department will now consider all comments received by November 9, 2001. Furthermore, DOE will hold three additional meetings: in Santa Monica, CA (Oct. 8), Simi Valley, CA (Oct. 9), and Minneapolis, MN (Oct. 16), and New York city (Oct. 18). (See August UEN) Information on the PEIS is available at www.em.doe.gov/smpeis .

Future scrap

DOE predicts that it will generate 942,000 tons of scrap carbon steel, 37,000 tons of stainless steel, and 3,000 tons of iron, plus unspecified amounts of aluminum, copper, lead, nickel, and other metals between now and 2035. Eighty-four percent of the steel will come from facilities at Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Portsmouth. (Tim Bonfield, Cincinnati Enquirer, 8/15/01)