ML072670363
| ML072670363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07007004 |
| Issue date: | 12/17/2004 |
| From: | Sea G - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | NRC/SECY |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 70-7004-ML, ASLBP 05-838-01-ML, RAS 14173 | |
| Download: ML072670363 (20) | |
Text
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY Page 20 of 20 In the Matter of USEC Inc.
(American Centrifuge Plant)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Filed December 17, 2004 Docket No. 70-7004 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A PETITION OF INTERVENTION AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PERIOD FOR FILING PETITIONS OF INTERVENTION SUBMITTED BY GEOFFREY SEA This is a request for extension of the time period for filing petitions of intervention for proceedings related to USEC'~ application for an NRC license. It is also a notice ofGeoffi-ey Sea's intent to file such a petition after the license application and related documents are restored to public access and a proper sixty-day period for review and preparation has then expired.
On October 7, 2004, the Commission issued a Notice of Receipt of Application for License; Notice of Availabilityi of Applicant's Environmental Report; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of License; and Notice of Hearing and Commission Order, all related to USEC's application for a license to constmct and operate a new gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant in the town of Sargents, near Pjiketon, Ohio. The Notice of Availability of Applicant's Environmental Report was effectively rescinded on October 25, 2004, when the Commission removed the license application, environmental report, and all other case related documents from electronic access, along with its entire ADAMS document retrieval system, pending a security review "to ensure that documehts which might provide assistance to terrorists will be
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 19 of 20 inaccessible."
Review and ref~rence to these documents is essential to preparation of a petition to intervene, and indeed to any considered decision about intervention.
However, the Commission failed to postpone the deadlines that were set in motion by its notices of October 7. Thus the public has been in the situation of having its time for review of the essential documents toll, while those documents have not been actually available for review.
Ifthis be democracy, it can only be democracy Ukrainian-style, that is, in desperate need of an orange revolution.
Indeed, the, Commission appears to have borrowed its script from the opening pages of A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams, where the destruction ofthe Earth proceeds expeditiously ih order to accommodate construction of a new Hyperspace Bypass. When earthlings expr~ss surprise at this development, they are informed by PA system that "all the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it'sfar too late to start making afuss about it now." The Commission's deadline for the, filing of intervention petitions is today.
Yet the documents remain inaccessible, with no specific timeline given for their restoration to electronic access.
Like most ofthe public, I was not quick enough to access the case-related documents in the window oftime between October 7 and October 25. And though I did speak to project manager Yawar Faraz during this period to request that I be put on the project's e-mail notification list, this did not occur. I received an e-mail from Yawar Faraz last evening, December 16, apologizing and explaining that he had made some error in recording my e-mail address. He also included an e.*mail notification dated October 13, 2004, which, had I received it, would have informed me that the documents were available for physical inspection at the 2
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office ofthe Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 18 of 20 Commission's reading room on Alpha Centauri-oops, I mean in Rockville, Maryland.
However, I do not know if these documents too were withdrawn from access on the 25th.
Clearly, sense and justice dictate that the period for filing intervention petitions regarding the USEC case must be extended, to sixty days from the date that the relevant documents are restored to public accessibility.
I intend to file a petition to intervene.
But other affected parties have been denied the oppoli1.~~£~~'
to fairly consider their option and their right to do so. I therefore beg that the Commission grant this ex1ension.
For the aforementioned reasons, I have not yet had the oppoliunity to review USEC's license application and environmental report. Therefore I cannot now submit a proper petition to intervene in compliance with Commission regulations.
Yet I shall attempt to summarize here my standing for intervention and n!1yanticipated contentions based on public statements about the documents and about the prop<;>sedproject. For purposes of doing so, I shall here make some reasonable presumptions about what is contained in the case documentation, under hazard of later correction. These commepts and contentions are subject to any and all types of change once the documentation can be revi~wed.
Description of Petitioner and Standing Petitioner Geoffrey sei comes as an individual impacted by the proposed action in a number of different ways.
First, I am under contract to soon purchase a home and property that adjoins the Piketon atomic site and that shares a bqundary line with the proposed centrifuge site that is nearly a mile long. My intention is to make :this my primary residence. This property may be affected by operation of a centrifuge in many ways. It is in the direction of previous offsite migrations of 3
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office ofthe Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 17 of 20 uranium hexafluoride gas, including the large accidental release that occurred in March, 1978.
Future plant emissions and accidental releases might follow this same path. National security restrictions will inhibit free use of the property and may themselves cause environmental problems. Beginning in 2002, a ten-foot security strip has been defoliated around the site's outer boundary using an herbicide, including all along the fence-line with my prospective property.
\\
The effects of this defoliation do not stop at the fence. Conversion ofthe site for new nuclear production may have a significant impact on neighboring property values, and could make my property a target for terrorism pr for invasive security measures aimed at combating terrorism.
The possibility of converting ~y property for commercial or public use related to tourism and education may be foreclosed. Enjoyment of the very rich natural environment, which includes springs and creeks and animal trails that cross the fence lines, may be seriously impinged.
Second, I have long been a leader in developing and advocating alternative uses for the atomic site, uses that would be.foreclosed by construction of a centrifuge plant. Between 1980 and 1985, I was employed as a staff consultant by the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union at the site. In that capacity, I initiated the Atomic Reclamation and Conversion Project, the first organization to advocate alternative use planning for site facilities that might become surplus (at that time we did not know ifthe gaseous diffusion plant might close or ifthe Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant might be cancelled). I published numerous articles on the subject of site alternative use planning and plilyed some role in alerting public officials throughout the region to the need to plan for shutdowns and terminations.
These efforts ultimately gave sprout to the
\\
Department of Energy's altern~tive use planning efforts and to creation of the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative. When I left the union's employment, I continued to direct the Atomic Reclamation and Conversion Project as a nonprofit organization for many years. In December of 4
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 16 of 20 2003-one month ahead ofU8EC's announced selection of Piketon as site for the ACP-I published a long essay in The American Scholar, which culminated in a specific proposal to make the Piketon atomic site into a national monument.
(Geoffrey Sea, "A Pigeon in Piketon,"
The American Scholar, Winter 2004, Volume 73, No.1, pages 57-84.) I am now under contract with Viking/Penguin to turn that essay into a book, which will elaborate ideas for how the site can be cleaned up and redeveloped. USEC's centrifuge project will have obvious dramatic impacts on the possibility for ~l*.:osc alternative use scenarios, which have been in development for more than twenty years.
Third, as a writer and historian, I have become committed to protection of the cultural and environmental resources of Pike County and Scioto Township in particular. My researches led me to discover the site oftl;1e shooting ofthe last wild passenger pigeon in 1900, less than a mile from what would become the centrifuge plant's southwest boundary. This was a preeminent event in environmental history~ for the eradication of the passenger pigeon was the most infamous man-made extinctio~ of all. In that same locale, I have discovered a previously unrecognized remnant of the S:Cioto Township Works-perhaps the largest of all ancient Hopewell earthworks.
Parts of this remnant touch the plant's southwest access road (and were destroyed by it); other palts C~';Sthe Department of Energy property along the Scioto River from which the plant draws its water. I have also uncovered the history ofthe Barnes Home, a stately mansion now celebrating its bicentennial on an estate that once included much ofthe land of the proposed centrifuge site; In November of2004 I nominated the Barnes Home for listing on the National Register ofHi~toric Places, and for consideration as a National Landmark.
That application is pending.
The proposed centrifuge plant will greatly impact these sites, which all 5
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 15 of 20 coexist in the tiny town of Sargents, along with possibilities for public access to and enjoyment ofthem.
Specific Aspects of the Subject Matter as to which Petitioner Seeks to Intervene There are at least seven broad areas of subject matter in this proceeding as to which petitioner Geoffrey Sea wishe~ to intervene:
- 1) The need to comply with requirements ofthe National Historic Preservation Act and related legislation which seek to prevent "adverse effects" offederal action on sites of historical or archaeological significance,lincluding sites listed or nominated for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, or National Landmark sites.
- 2) The need to consider all reasonable alternatives to the proposed license, including proposed alternative use scenarios for the site and surrounding areas.
- 3) The need to consider the diverse impacts on surrounding areas in terms of environmental pollution, traffic flow and road construction, national security restricted uses, and negative impact on land value~ and county development plans.
- 4) Impact ofthe project on environmental cleanup goals for the site and eventual possibilities for community reuse.
- 5) The need to plan for,the project's impact on nuclear proliferation, compatibility with nuclear nonproliferation policy and implications for broader national security objectives, including the possibility that tIle project may need to be canceled abruptly as the result of international negotiations on utanium enrichment technology. Also, the need to weigh the project against alternate sources of nuclear fuel such as expansion ofUSEC's own "megatons to megawatts" program.
6
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 14 of 20
- 6) Lack of clarity and Qonflicts of interest in the public-private relationship between USEC and the federal government and in the nebulous quasi-private status and organization of USEC.
- 7) The absence of eith~r plans or facilities to process and dispose of wastes from the proposed centrifuge plant, the dubious market potential for the plant's product, and the dubious fit of a new enrichment facility with the country's evolving energy strategy.
Respectfully submitted, Geoffrey Sea Current contact information pending relocation to Pike County:
340 Haven Ave., Apt. 3C New York, NY 10033 Telephone: (212) 568-9729 E-mail: GeoffreySeaNYC@ao1.com ANTICIPATED CONTENTIONS ON THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT/OPERATING LICENSE APPLICA)'ION FOR THE AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PLANT MADE BY GEOFFREY SEA Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309 and the notice published by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or the "Commission")
at 69 Fed. Reg. 5873 (Feb. 6,2004),
Petitioner Geoffrey Sea anticipates making contentions for hearing on the construction permit/operating license application by USEC Inc.
Here I will elaborate on the subject areas of my contentions:
- 1. Compliance with the.National Historic Preservation Act and related legislation.
7
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 13 of 20
- 2. Due consideration of reasonable alternatives.
- 3. Impacts on surrounding area.
- 4. Impacts on site cleatiup and community reuse.
- 5. Nuclear proliferation considerations.
- 6. Structure ofUSEC and of the USEC-DOE relationship.
- 7. Waste processing, waste disposal and energy markets.
- 1. Compliance with the Nadonal Historic Preservation Act and related le!!islation.
Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act establishes a process for preventing and/or rectifying any federal action that adversely impacts a historical or archaeological resource.
Specifically, it manqates a process intended to be equivalent to the process established by the National Environmental Policy Act for protecting environmental resources. As with NEP A, the NHP A process ess~ntially involves four stages of assessment, mitigation, negotiation and remediation. Section 106 kicks in when any federal action is contemplated that "may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National RegiSter [of Historic Places] in a manner that would diminish the integrity ofthe prope11y's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association," (Section 800.5(a)(l>>
It is important to recognize that the impacted site must not necessarily be listed already on the Register-it must only have qualities that would qualify it for listing. In practice this often means limitation to prop¢rties that either are listed or that are in the process of consideration for listing. More stringent criteria apply for sites that have or are being considered 8
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 12 of 20 for status as National Landmarks, which are basically National Register sites that are recognized as having national significance.
It is also important to r~cognize that the impacted site does not have to be on federal property to be impacted.
Section 106 mandates that "areas of potential effects" be established in the assessment phase, which are in every way comparable to environmental impact zones. Areas of potential effects under NHp:A-which may include zones of physical damage, of visual or noise impairment, of impact on public access or aesthetic appreciation-often tend to be larger than equivalent zones of environmental impact.
Compliance with NHP A has been shoddy at best, especially for Department of Energy sites that generally predate the:Act, with established operational modes that are hard to change.
But this does not excuse the noncompliance.
At Piketon, the site for the atomic plant was originally chosen in 1952, for some of the very same reasons that the ancient Hopewell Indians-two thousand years ago-chose the same locale for one of their largest c~remonial earthwork complexes, if not the largest of all. In fact, due to a strange set of historical circumstances that center on the Barnes family-who built their family home to maximize their view of the earthworks-we can say that the atomic complex is where it is because ofthe Hopewell complex long before it.
It is therefore no coin.;i..1*.mce that the area of the atomic site, especially that between the plant and the Scioto River, is qftremendous archaeological and historical significance.
This significance has not been fully appreciated since the nineteenth century, when the earthworks were mainly intact. In 1820, Cflleb Atwater surveyed "parallel walls of earth" along the Scioto River, and included a drawingofthem in his treatise called Description of the Antiquities Discovered in the State ofOhi9 and other Western States (Plate XI). These walls, which were 9
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 11 of 20 named the Piketon Works and are now listed on the National Register, form one ofthe only surviving sections of what is called The Great Hopewell Road, which once extended at least from Piketon up to Chillicothe and then on to Newark, Ohio-the longest ancient road in the Western Hemisphere.
In the 1960s, the Department of Energy seized this property by eminent domain, and it now uses the earthen embankments to shield its water wells, which provide all water to the atomic site. The Ilossible effect of this water pumping on the earthworks above has never been studied.
In the 1840s, Isaac Newton Barnes invited the famous archaeologists Squier and Davis onto his land, to survey the astounding Hopewell circle and square-each covering twenty acres-that he could see from his bedroom window.
Squier and Davis dubbed this the Seal Township Works, and featured them prominently in their 1848 masterpiece, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley (Plate XXV). These works were surveyed again in the 1890's, and included in the Smithsonian study by Cyrus Thomas called The Circular, Square, and Octagonal Earthworks of Ohio. They were featured also in Gerard Fowke's Archaeological History of Ohio of 1902, and more recently in William Morgan's Prehistoric Architecture in the Eastern United States of 1980.
Renamed the Scioto Township Works when the township broke away from Seal, the small circle was largely destroyed by the modernization of Route 23 to accommodate increased traffic for the enrichment plant in 1952. The square was partially destroyed around that same time by a gravel quarry, whicil; included an asphalt plant that produced pavement for the atomic site. The Scioto Township Works are also now listed on the National Register, though little remains of what was apparent in the 19th century.
10
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 10 of20 Because of this destruction wrought by the A-Plant and associated highways and gravel quarries, people forgot about these earthworks. No recent survey has been conducted.
This is truly unfortunate because the nineteenth century surveyors lacked an essential tool for assessing the extent ofthe works-aerial photography.
Today, if you examines an aerial photograph of the area from 1951-the year before the A-plant was built-you can see the circle and square quite clearly, but also something else, a much larger circle whose edge passed precisely between the smaller circle and the square. This larger circle, which has also not been professionally I
surveyed, passes right by the A-plant's southwest access road and right through the area that USEC might want to pave over to connect that road to Route 23.
It should be noted that the National Historic Preservation Act does not limit federal action only if it impacts known structures or sites, but also requires studies and surveys in cases where I
there is reasonable suspicion of such features. It covers "all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property." (Section 800.5(a)(2))
But there is no evidence that either DOE or USEC (or NRC) has ever taken its obligations under NHP A seriously.
In the Risk-Based End-State document for the Piketon site, the Department of Energy included a map that showed known "archaeological sites" on the atomic reservation.
But the map did not include the known Indian mounds that were destroyed during plant construction in 1~52, nor did it include any of the famous Hopewell earthworks that are just offsite, even though they are listed on the National Register and even though they are close enough to appear on the map. Nor did it include DOE's riverfront property, separated from the main site, where the Piketon Works are located. These obvious and illegal omissions have allowed DOE to avoid its obligation of conducting thorough cultural resource impact 11
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 9 of 20 assessments, to match its elabqrate environmental impact assessments.
And I am presuming that I
since USEC filed an extensive environmental assessment for its proposed project, but no cultural resource assessment, it too failed to provide the substance for evaluating impact under section 106 ofNHP A This omission must be corrected in NRC's licensing review.
A few more words on this subject. In public forums, DOE defends its sensitivity to I
archaeological resources onsite by saying that it tries to avoid physical destruction of such sites, or where it cannot avoid this, ~J paying for professional excavation.
This is a wholly inadequate approach to Section 106 obligations.
Physical destruction covers only a small subset of adverse potential effects. Perhaps the largest adverse potential effect at Piketon is the whole umbrella of national security restriction.
lithe site is cleaned up and developed for diverse non-nuclear and non-military uses, the archaeological sites on and off-site might one day be united, restored, and opened to the public as a showcase of Hopewell earthwork magnificence, like at Chillicothe or Newark.
Such a scenario would be consistent with a civilian manufacturing company leasing the GCEP buildings.
It is inconsistent with a new centrifuge facility that would maintain a lock-down status for the entire area.1 It should be pointed out that the obligations ofNHP A apply equally to DOE and NRC.
In public statements, DOE of5:::-ialshave maintained that they are legally bound to lease facilities to USEC by the legislation that mandated enrichment privatization.
However, that legislation did not exempt DOE from the requirements ofNHPA, any more than it did from the I
requirements ofNEP A NRC must therefore consider in its licensing review that DOE made certain fatal errors in turning over the facilities for USEC use, without proper legal compliance, just as if DOE had failed to comply with NEP A In other words, NRC must not only conduct its 12
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 8 of20 own Section 106 review process, but must also consider that in failing to conduct its 106 review properly, DOE may have undermined the legal basis of its lease to USEC.
- 2. Due consideration of reasonable alternatives.
This case is perhaps unique among NRC license applications because a private company is applying for a license to operate a quasi-private venture in existing buildings on a federal site.
The process for considering "reasonable alternatives" under both NEP A and NHP A must therefore be suitably tailored t9 the specialness ofthe situation.
Since the buildings already exist and are publicly owned, reasonable alternatives for those buildings include the full range of i
private leasing possibilities as well as other governmental uses. SODI, the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative, once;located a private truck manufacturing company that expressed a desire to lease one ofthose buildings for a plant that would employ about 800 people. That option was rejected by DOE because of its special legislated commitment to USEC. But as part ofNRC's environmental and cultural resource review process, that option must be revived and explored as a reasonable altenxative use.
One pernicious aspect of the centrifuge proposal is that it is a relatively small operation that will nonetheless commandeer the entire site, primarily because ofthe security regime that must accompany it. In practic¢, DOE has prohibited discussion of community use of any part of the main site, so that an unbroken "security zone" can be maintained for USEC's ACP.
Therefore, the "reasonable alternatives" scenario must encompass not just a single other use for those centrifuge buildings, but'a multiplicity of other uses for various parts of the very large site.
For example, what wiUhappen to the old process buildings of the gaseous diffusion site?
If the American Centrifuge Plant is built, the northern half of the site-the old diffusion plant-13
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office ofthe Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 7 of 20 will wind up being cordoned off and left to decay, an enormous eyesore and environmental atrocity. That is clearly the intent of DOE and USEe, since they have built a new administrative office building on the south side of the site, intended to replace the old office building that will be fenced off with the diffusion plant, and perhaps demolished or entombed.
Another scenario is po~sible. In my essay, "A Pigeon in Piketon," I suggest that the old X-326 building, the upper bomb-grade end of the Cascade which is forever contaminated, could be entombed in an aesthetic w~y and made into a giant monument-a pyramid-for the passenger pigeon, which went extinct on this land. Such a monument, with an environmental education center in a clean building, could become a major draw for tourists and students-entirely consistent with a manufacturing company leasing the GCEP buildings.
Under that scenario, much of the surrounqing forested land could be turned over to the National Park Service, which could run nature walks through some of the wilder areas and could create a companion site to its Hopewell park in Chillicothe.
A pyramid to the passenger pigeon would complement the Hopewell park-examples of monumental mound architecture, ancient and modern.
We wouldn't have to stop there. Since the site will be a location of ongoing environmental cleanup, employing cutting edge cleanup technologies, why not move that part of Oak Ridge National Laboratory that does research on environmental cleanup to Piketon?
Piketon suffered under control;from Oak Ridge for decades.
Why can't Piketon benefit from new federal spending on research and development?
It's already federal land, of immense historical and archaeological value. Why waste that? A multiplicity of new public and private uses all with an environmentaltheme must be considered as a "reasonable alternative" to the construction of one iffy and dirty centrifuge plant.
14
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office ofthe Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 6 of 20 When NRC considers the panoply of potential "reasonable alternatives," it must also consider that once the centrifuge facility is equipped and operated, that space will be irrevocably tainted, even ifthe project soon fails. That already happened once in those buildings.
When construction ofthe Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant was underway and additional federal funding looked doubtful, local,managers ran a '"test run" of uranium through the new centrifuges-just for the purpose of contaminating that equipment and those buildings, so to frustrate all the talk of finding some alternative use. Ifthey had not been permitted to do that, those buildings might have be~n occupied by a manufacturing company for the last fifteen years.
- 3. Impacts on surroundin2 area.
Many potential local impacts are obvious but some are less so. When security tightened at the plant-site after 9/11, the perimeter road was closed to local traffic. This is a tremendous inconvenience to residents on the east side of the plant, whose access to town and the highways was blockaded. In 2003 and 2004, the herbicide Garlan-4 was used to defoliate a ten-foot strip around the entire outer boundaty ofthe site, destroying the lush natural vegetation and spreading a kill-zone onto adjoining properties.
This was done either out of caprice or out of some new sense of enforcing "perimeter security."
Cleanup and alternative use development can slowly restore the area to some semblance of its great natural beauty and natural development pattern as existed prior to 1952. But construction ofthe ACP means continued atomic dependency and control, and an artificial economy for the region, continuing on into the indefinite future, perhaps irrevocably even if the project fails.
15
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 50f20 At the very least, given the many uncertainties ofthis project, NRC must consider what project failure as well as operation will mean for all the small hamlets and towns in Pike County and beyond.
- 4. Impacts on site cleanup and community reuse.
There is a sense in Piketon that DOE supports the USEC vision not just because it was congressionally mandated, but'because new nuclear development will relieve DOE of its cleanup obligation and forestall the necessity of restoring parts of the site to safe industrial or agricultural standards.
This local concern must be taken seriously, and NRC must explore the cleanup and restoration pathways under bo~hlicense award and license denial scenarios.
- 5. Nuclear proliferation considerations.
It certainly is an odd time to be pursuing an "American Centrifuge" project. USEC's announcement of the "award" of the plant to Piketon had to be postponed twice-first in October of2003, when Iran preemptively almounced that it had an Iranian Centrifuge, and then again in December 2003, when Libya alIDounced that it had a Libyan Centrifuge.
Finally, in fear of a Bolivian Centrifuge I suppose, USEC chose the day of the Iowa presidential caucuses to announce to a near-empty presF gallery that America had its centrifuge, too.
USEC had apparently failed to get a briefing paper to the president, because when the Iranian Centrifuge program was announced, George Bush went on TV to say that such a program is "criminal."
USEC might COJlleforth and say that its centrifuge is peaceful and all that. But of course that is just what the IraQ-ianssay, too.
16
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 4 of 20 It is obvious to a ludicrous degree that when "The American Centrifuge" is alUl0unced as a fait accompli to the world, there will be a backlash.
We will be accused of being hypocrites, because we are. Countries on the edge of reconsidering their compliance with the fraying Nonproliferation Treaty will teeter over the edge. That's what this project buys.
From a self-interested perspective in Ohio, we must consider this. What happens if this project travels down the road ~or a few years or more years and then the North Koreans or the Iranians or the Belarussians say that they will surrender their centrifuge plants, but only ifthe United States does likewise?
Has USEC considered and planned for that scenario?
Will the country go to war to save USEe's American Centrifuge Plant? Should it?
Due to such considerations, reputable international policy experts have already started calling for an international ban on centrifuge technology.
And that idea is bolstered by the fact that new demand for nuclear fi,lel,at least in the United States, can be met by boosting the downblending of old weapons~grade uranium, rather than by enriching more from scratch.
- 6. Structure ofUSEC and otthe USEC-DOE relationship.
USEC is an odd thing. It was created, not for the purpose of enriching uranium, but for the purpose of closing the old diffusion plants down, without liability attaching to any politician.
It is theoretically a private entity, but it exists only at the behest of the federal government, operating on federal lands, using federal equipment, its access to technology and facilities guaranteed by federallegislati<;>n, pumped with federal investment money, and with prominent national politicians serving on its board of directors.
Anyone who gets to know about USEe gets uncomfortable with it. It is entirely unclear what this entity really is, whether it will exist 17
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 3 of 20 tomorrow or the day after the nex"!presidential election, and whether this quasi-nonentity can be relied upon to launch or manage any new production venture.
How the public-private divide will evolve over the course ofthe centrifuge project is also entirely unclear.
The original privatization fervor that accompanied USEC's creation is as gone as USEC's stock price. Now it is clear that USEC's only hope for "private" survival rests on access to federal facilities for waste processing and disposal, paid for by American taxpayers.
If USEC really is a private endeavor reliant on market economics, why doesn't NRC deny this license application, so that USEC can pursue its laissez faire ideal on private land, far away from any public investment, using private venture capital, with a privately funded repository for its waste? And if that scenario is as unlikely as we all know it to be, why are we enduring this charade?
- 7. Waste proCeSSllu!. waste disposal and ener!!v markets.
I have not yet been abl~ to review what USEC says it will do with its wastes, but I'm i
curious. DOE is building a uranium hexafluoride conversion plant at the Piketon site to convert legacy waste, using money from public funds paid by former federal enrichment customers and current American taxpayers.
USEC surely would like access to that facility, but DOE says that the facility will be dedicated to legacy waste and may not have an extendable lifespan to handle more. DOE may also be of the opinion that the new privatization regime should maintain a separation, perhaps mandated by law, between new federal facilities and new private ones.
Segregation was supposed to be the idea.
There currently is no private conversion facility in the United States, and nobody thinks that USEC can raise the privat~ capital to build one. And after the depleted uranium is mystically 18
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 2 of 20 converted, where will it go? New Mexico is the logical choice-in old uranium mines or at the WIPP site. But New Mexico' ~governor just barred the idea of New Mexico disposing of any depleted uranium waste, even r.OlU a centrifuge plant proposed for his own state. In this case, New Mexico certainly will not be taking any waste from Ohio. So what then?
Even though the USEe facility will employ some 600 workers-200 less than the truck manufacturer that wanted to lease those buildings-USEC adveltises a jobs bonanza for southem Ohio. This has to be matched up against the dismal market potential of its product.
With the exception of one recent order, no nuclear reactors have been ordered or built in the United States since the 1970s. Currently operating reactors are all reaching the end of their operational lives.
Prospects for a massive nuclear revival in the United States are entirely speculative-and Canadian reactors use unenriched fuel. Since economy of scale is the main determinant of price for enrichment services, it is logical to forecast that the price advantage will rest for quite some time with European and Asia~:suppliers, where the market is. This is the inescapable logic that dooms USEC to perpetual reliance on federal subsidies, hidden or overt, and that may doom the American Centrifuge Plant altogether.
My main interest is to see that southem Ohio and Scioto Township are not doomed right along with it.
19
From: Geoffrey Sea To: Office of the Secretary FACSIMILE COVER PAGE Date:
Time: 2:43:14 PM Page 1 of 20 To:
Sent:
Subject :
Office of the Secretary at 2:43:10 PM attn: Rulemaking and Adjudic~tions Staff From:
Pages:
Geoffrey Sea 20 (including Cover)