ML20128Q530
| ML20128Q530 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/27/1984 |
| From: | Browning B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19292E725 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-170 NUDOCS 8507130449 | |
| Download: ML20128Q530 (8) | |
Text
' '
t, woEf f*f f hY & &4#
b-
'.w t's/ / 9. November 27, 1984 NOTE TO: John Davis FROM: Bob Browning
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR FUEL ARTICLE Regarding differences between the Nuclear Fuel article and our Comission Paper (both attached), note the following:
- 1. The Comission Paper ouotes the language of the draft AMFM report directly, stating that the Panel " concludes" that other organizations are better suited than 00E. We did not write that the report "recomended" a transfer of functions, which it does not.
- 2. The Comission Paper also reported the Panel's "recomendations" that DOE improve the current structure, such as by forming an Advisory Siting Council and other bodies, which could later be transferred to the new organization. (These ideas originated when the Panel was searching for ways to afford a smooth transition to a new organization.)
- 3. The draft report does identify FEDCORP--the public corporation--as the Panel's preferred alternative.
- 4. The Novenber 19 article in Inside Energy (also attached) has a different emphasis and is in better agreement with the results of the study and our Comission Paper.
Original Sianed by Ro'a ert E. Crawning Bob Browning
Enclosures:
- 1. Nuclear Fuel A.rticle
- 2. Comission Paper
- 3. Inside Energy Article cc: M. Bell J. Bunting Y @- @ CO bcc: MKearney NNumark B507130449 850517
,1l _
W!P,Q,,,,W,,,, WS, # ,,,,,, ,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,,,, ,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,, ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"*> .I..".9.MA},q,:,q,q,
,1,,,f1 G , ,, ,,, ,, ,,,, , ,,,, , ,,, ,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,, ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
- > .l.1/.NB4. . . . . . . .l .l./hB.4. . . . ... ............... .................... .................,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................
ice ro:u sia no.somacu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY *"""-****
'tion..Candu natural uranium fuel bundles from the Douglas
' Point reactor havs been vmdarly contamed for testing at Whitenbell with the same integrity over ame yeen. Sochaski CURRENT URANIUM PRICING INDICATORS said the average cost of the canisters, including six baskets, (US. 5/lb U308 all accessones, and a capitahzed share of the concrete pad at Source (date) Price 1.ast report (date)
Whitenbell was $64,000. Transportanon and loading added
$10.000; maintenance and a capitahzed share of the transfer DOE (as of Dec.1983)1 39.43 37.30 (Oct.1982)
Nuexco (Oct. 31,1984)2 flask and loadmg gantry brought the cost to supply, 811, and Exchange value store One camster to $111,000. The canister will hold 2.6 16.00 17.50 (Sept.1984)
Transaction value 16.05 16.55 tons /U of enriched fuel or 4.2 tons /U of Candu fuel, for a Nukem (O(.t.)3 16.50 18.00 (Sept.1984) cost of $47.60/kgU and $29.37/kgU respectively in the study.
16.85 16.25 "Our involvement in commerciahamg this concept both within and outside raanda within the last year has been mar- 1. DOE sells uranium in emergency cases only. Its list pnce ,
ginally successful," Sochaski said. AECL Whiteshell and established exclusively for this purpose,is a weighted aver.
AECL,Candu sales ensmeers at Montreal have been assessin age based on identifiable spot price sales and market. price the concrete camster econonuca to store fuel from the expengcontract settlement in the year prior to the reporting date.
mental Gentilly 1 reactor. Some conceptual design work has 2. Nuexco,s Exchange Value retlects the company's judg.
been done under contract to France's C~=6 iat a l'Ener- ment of the price at which sales of significant quantities of gie Atomique (CEA) to adapt the camster for possible stor, ye!!owcake could he concluded as of the reporting date.
age of fuel from French reactor EL 4 soon to be decommis.
The Tmnsection Value is a weighted average price derived sioned. Early this year AECL negotiated a license agreement from recent sales for which delivery is scheduled within with Nuclear Packasms of Federal Way, Washinton to use one year of the transaction date.
AECL concrete canister technology for a smular NuPac con-
.ner that would hold U.S. LWR fuel (Nucleomes Week, 8 3. Nukem's price range retlects bids and offers for natural Nov.,12). NuPac expects to introduce its concept by the end uranium on the worldwide spot market during the report.
ing month, of 1985, and Sochaski said " marketing is being achvely pur-sued d comiduable intamt from prospective udlitim. U.S. GOVERNMENT INDICES AECL has done some da$.-st work on a pilot scale USgD AS U30s CONTRACT ESCALATOR 81 model to determme whether the Whitenbell canister, as now todos(dam) venue Imt.w ,.Hdam) designed, could be used for transportation. Drop tests have been encourages, but computer studaes suggest that $re test- P
- ing to IAEA standards nusht cause thermal cracking of the
,[gN2 224.3 222.4(sept.1984) concrete. Ontario Hydro, however, has done extensive feasi- (
bility studses which nuclear matenal engmeer Jose Freire- "[P"',',I"d**
, g3g- g g g g , Y Canosa told the Toronto conference show that heavy rein-forced concrete canistan, with an unpermeable outer shell of 0'j' ,'[jj' **,',"
,, g,,,
polymer concrete, would allow Hydro to move its fuel bun- Metal rmnins (sept.1984)
Pnmary nonferrous metats 13.23 13.10 (Aus.1984) dies to dry storage after Sve years of water-bay cooling, (sept.1984)
'"d *13dP ' d""** 13.40 13.52 ( Aus.1984) transport them up to 1,000 miles from the Pickenng, Snace, and Darlington stanons to d=pa=al sites, and bury them at a [9 3 gggg t of $28.5 /kgU in the year 2000; $19.1/kgU in 2025 (as 1. Except for the GNP figures, data. incorporated in this mculated in 1981 Canadian dollars). If Hydro reactor final is table are compiled and published by the U.S. Bureau of retained in water. bay storage (which would have to be con-Labor Statistics. The base year for the Producer Price In-siderably expanded), eventually transported in metalhc casks and buried in lead contaners, Freire Canosa put the costs at dex is 1967 (assigned a value of 100.00). Current figures are subject to later revision by the butaru.
(1981 dollars) at $49.4 and $31.8/kgU in the years 2000 and 2025 respeenvely. The Hydro study was based on polymer- 2. The GNPimplicitprice defistor is computed on a quarter.
impngnated concrete, canisters that would hold 288 Candu ly basis by the U.S. Department of Commerce, using 1972 fuel bundles in three interior modules.-Aay Silwr, Toromo as the base year (100.00). The current value is th season.
! ally adjusted figure for the second quarter of 1984: the previous value, that for the first quarter of 1984.
l PANEL SUGGESTS CURRENT 00E WASTE PROGRAM i
SE IMPROVED AND POSSISLY RESTRflCTURED y in the munt samtum. The panel, which has ban exam-
! mmg alternatives to the present orgaruzation since January, Instead of recommendmg a new orgamzation to run the made these recommendations to Secretary of Energy Donald l waste program as expected, the advisory panel on alternative Hodel at its Anal meenns on November 14. The panel's re-
> port is expected to be released in December.
means of financas and managmg radioactive waste manage.
ment facilities (AMFM) has recosmzed the pracucal ddBeul- Dunns the course ofits deliberations over the last 11 i months, the panel found senous defects in the structure of ties of taking such a hard line approach and has concluded that as i==arha'* dort *ha"Id be e en *== the cur. the OfBee of Civilian Radsonctive Waste Man..st J, cent As.r . The panel also sand, however, that consider-(OCRWM) that hamper its ability to carry out an effective h
' program. In light of this, the panel examined a number of anon should be given to td"pracacality of imolementing a new orEnnazationTsuc -, . ? " J management structures as possible alternatives that would im-y.samuoM prove the credibility, internal Sexibility, and cost effectiveness program necause of the m .- - or standity and continu. of the program. At its meennes in September and October, 14 -Nucinerhuel- Nonmber 26,1984-
a
- ne panel appeared to be leenmg toward recommandmg some was " conceptually" a good ides, adding, however, that "prac.
form of a public wiri.uos as a preferred alternativa (NF,8 ticality" is a different question. Rusche emphasized that any Oct.,12). There was considerable disagreement, however, on suggestions of change would hava to take-into consideration the details of the federal wiyvi.dcs concept (FEDCORP) the importance of and complexities of federal / state interac-that evolved, as well as on the pracacality of recommending tion in implementing the waste program.
any new orgamentian (NF,5 Nov.,13). Paraeabing the difR- Several industry sources were encouraged by the panel's culties of makmg any legislanve changes to the Nuclear recognition of "the practical impossibdities" of a fundamental' Waste Policy Act of 19ag th. - " A= ally =d.==d the two- change in the program durmg the site selection process. One Y== 'ch== to the current structu3 source emphasized that the panel's suggested enhancements
_ tier approach of em?
wnue ano E==a'a= ocen the -- ^ tiey of a new oig=nuon would have the most impact.-Mary Losare Waper, Wash-siliilras FEDCORP as the ma=* nemm al somaan The panel
--- mas its recommendations were made within that SWUCO'S WOLF SAYS DOE'S US CONTRACT contest ENSURES LONG TERM MARKET DEMANO The panel agreed en a number of speci6c suggestions for improvements to_the curtsat strucuam winlcit said shou _ld_
be exammed as necessary elements of any orgamvational DOE's utility services (US) contract appears to ensure a structure selected to run the program. De most important of long-term market for DOE. supplied SWU, at least in the these points was the formation of a siting advuory council to 1990s, said Walt Wolf, president of Swuco Icc. However, the provide input to as well as oversight of the site selecuon pro- picture is not as " cheery" for the near term, he added, since ,
i cess. De siting couned, which has been a concept included provisions written into the contract will likely curb DOE's l I since the beginning of the panel's deliberations, would be market for actual sales in the late 1980s.
composed of a halmand representation of constituency Wolf, talkmg at the Atomic Industrial Forum's annual j
groups. The panel also suggested formanon of a waste fund conference in Washington last week, said "it is clear that the oversight conumttee and a scientiac peer review board to pro- conversion program has met its objective to protect the future vide input to these aspects of the waste program. A number busmas of the U.S. enriching enterprise." Rose who con-
! verted bene 6e as well, Wolf said, since contract provisions of suggestions intended to improve federal / state cooperation
! grant a 30% margm for purchasing non DOE SWU and af-i and to mitigste public opposition to the siting of a waste fa-cility were also included. De panel also said the waste ofBce ford the protection of a ceding price, which is currently should engage the services of an oversight contractor, a pri- $135/SWU. Moreover, while the quantities of DOE SWU vate law arm for regulatory counsel, and a private accounting avadable for purchase wdl be limited after 8 scal year 1986, Hrm. the nameplate capacity of all enrichment plants ensures no j shortage of supply until at least the year 2000 or beyond,
- , As developed by the panel, FEDCORP would be a public corporsuon with seven directors appomted by the President Wolf said.
f' and conarmed by the Sens:e. The board would appomt a The negousted conditions of conversion to the US con-chi:f executive odicar to run the corporation as well as a sit- tract, coupled with the termmation of requirements contracts ing advisory councd ==ilar to that suggested for the current (which exceed 6.9 million SWU), will limit near. term direct i
weste odice. The panel recommended that FEDCORP be a sales of DOE SWU, Wolf said. DOE has not released the l pernculars of the individual US contracts in the ave weeks relatively small w.peisdos with most of its work done by outside contractors. Some of the advantages of FEDCORP, since the conversion deadhne passed. However, Wolf said l there are instances in which: the contract holder will not buy the panel said, would be its strong business orientation, its greater internal 8exibility, and its relative freedom from polit- any SWU from DOE until 1989 or 1990, and instead buy ical induence. The major disadvantage of such a change, it 100% non U.S. SWU; a US holder will make only one pur-chase from DOE for the duration of the contract; some US said, would be problems of transition. However, the panel also cautioned that many of the advantages could turn out to converters will wipe out commitments for SWU deliveries in be disadvantages if the program was not managed properly. this decade due to nuclear plants not yet operating; some De panel emphasized that its frame of reference in mak- converters have the opportunity to use up their own inven-ing its m=andarians was the recognition that OCRWM tories prior to purchasms any DOE SWU; and some con-was "a movmg target" and that any changes reqmrms legisla- tracts grant complete reliefin the near term. "I'm sure that tive acnon would be ddBcult. The panel said they also recos- in a number of these cases, DOE has extracted a quid pro
=" forms might be better suited for quo, (but) until the detads of each negonanon are known, we nized several sc managmg the construenon and operation phases of the waste can only guess," Wolf said.
Wolf projects an active secondary market for SWU sales, program and =s-O fhrther study of the legislative changes needed for such a transition. The panel touched only prunardy those of DOE origin, through FY 86. In subse-bne8y on the current Ananemg mechamsm of the waste pro- quant years, the quannty of DOE SWU available for pur-grans, c-:++-M that it was " fair, amenable to admmistra- chase will be limited and will come from DOE 8xed-commit-ment contract he'Jers who did not convert, Wolf said. In tive implementation and cost controls, and sudlcsently Sexi-ble to =====adare the full recovery requirement of the 1987, excess DOE SWU, pnmarily in the form of enriched uranium, will be committed to converters to the US contract,.
legislation." he said. At that time, there will be a balance in the supply It wm not clear whether DOE would take a position on the panel's recommendanons before submitting the report to and demand for excess DOE SWU commitments Wolf said.
g By the end of the decade, the majority of SWU on the see
% Congress. Whde Hodel made no specioc comments on the ondary market will orismate from non DOE sources Wolf panel's conclusions, he noted that "the ad=mistration favors nongover==satal solutions to problems," implying the de- said. Because there has been little movement toward relief from Eurodif contract commitments, he said, thee excess partment might choose to endorse the panel's ideas on FED-commitments will continue to enter the market, probably at CORP. Weste odice director Benard Rusche said FEDCORP Nuclesrfuel- November 26,1984 - 13 n
f For: The Commissioners From: William J. Dircks Executive Directer for Operations
Subject:
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S ADVISORY PANEL ON ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF FINANCING AND MANAGING RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE FACILITIES
Purpose:
To inform the Commissioners on the Panel's forthcoming recommendations in preparation for review of DOE's draft report to Congress
Background:
Section 303 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the Secretary of Energy to " undertake a study with respect to alternative approaches to managing the construction and operation of all civilian radioactive waste facilities, including the feasibility of establishing a private corporation for such purpose." The Act directs the Secretary to " consult" with the Chairman of the Commission in conducting the study, which was to have been reported to Congress by January 7, 1984.
In carrying out these provisions, 00E elected to establish an Advisory Panel pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The background on the establishment of the Panel and a listing of Panel members was provided to the Commissioners in SECY-84-118 (March 15, 1984). An update on the Panel's activities as of August 1984 was provided to the Commissioners in SECY-84-338 (August 23, 1984). The Panel held ten meetings between January and November of 1984, which were attended by NRC staff observers. The Director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards briefed the Panel on the Commission's regulatory role on February 22, 1984.
Contact:
Neil J. Numark, WMPC 427-4328 e
The Commissioners Discussion: The Panel's tenth and final meeting on November 13 and 14 concluded in a meeting with Secretary Hodel to discuss their recommendations and forthcoming report. The report, which will be available in final draft form by December 7, concludes that several organizational forms are more suited than 00E for managing the waste program, including an independent federal agency or commission, a public corporation, and a private corporation. Among these alternative organizations, the draft report identifies a public corporation as the Panel's preferred alternative, as it best meets criteria the Panel developed for an acceptable waste management organization. In particular, the draft report indicates that a public corporation would be stable, highly mission-oriented, able to maintain credibility with stakeholders, and more responsive to regulatory control than a federal executive agency.
As described in the draft report, the corporation, "FEDCORP," would have a seven-member Board of Directors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, serving staggered seven year terms. The President would designate a Chairman of the Board. The Board would appoint a Chief Executive Officer to serve at their pleasure as manager of the corporation and to be an ex officio member of the Board.
Regarding financing, the draft report concludes that the fee on nuclear generated electricity (currently 1 mil per kilowatt-hour) provided 'for in NWPA is fair, shows no evidence of serious flaw to date, and appears to be adaptable to a change in organizational structure.
The Panel's draft also recommends adoption of several specific program components which are independent of the type of organization Congress ultimately chooses to run the program. These could be instituted by 00E and later transferred to a new organization. Foremost among these, the Panel believes an Advisory Siting Council should be established by 00E, with representatives from all legitimate stakeholders. The Council would provide oversight concerning site selection processes, and would review and comment on siting recommendations made by the site selection authority. Under the Panel's plan, the NWPA procedures for State and Tribe participation in siting decisions would be retained. In addition, the draft report recommends that an oversight contractor with a systems t
i
The Commissioners integration function should be hired, that a waste fund oversight comission and a scientific peer review board should be established, and that the selected organization should be exempted from civil service requirements.
l In a letter to Secretary Hodel dated July 8, 1983, the Chairman indicated that the Commission intended to limit its area of consultation on the AMFM study to the examination of potential impacts on NRC regulatory responsibility which may flow from any recommended alternative management proposal. The Panel has stated that they do not intend any change in NRC's regulatory role as a result of their recommendations. The staff has expressed to the Panel that it would be of value to state the Panel's intent concerning regulation in the report to avoid any potential misunderstanding. Although the transfer of functions to a public corporation (or other organization) would affect some of NRC's procedures for doing business in the waste program, the staff does not expect any major impact on regulatory responsibilities.
The Panel expects to submit its final report to the Secretary before the start of the 99th Congress. After developing its own draft report to Congress, 00E is expected to submit the draft to the Commission for a brief review and consultation period. Secretary Hodel stated in a February 16, 1984 letter to Chairman Palladino that the NWPA consultation requirement cannot be met until the Chairman is given the opportunity to review and comment on the Department's draft report to Congress.
In preparation for commenting on the Secretary's draft report to Congress, the staff has organized a review of the Panel's final draft report, which will be available by December 7. If the Commission intends to broaden its scope of involvement beyond impacts on NRC responsibility, the staff recommends that members of the AMFM Panel be invited to brief the Commission on their work. In the interim, the staff will forward the final draft of the Panel's report to the Commission under separate cover. We will keep the Commissioners informed of future developments.
The staff notes that this action involves no new resource requirements.
' ~
- d The Commissioners Schedule: The Panel expects to submit its final report to the Secretary before the beginning of the 99th Congress. It is expected that DOE's draft report to Congress will be forwarded to the Commission for review and comment shortly thereafter.
William J. Oircks Executive Director for Operations e e O
6 h
_ _ , _ ._ .. _ _.- _ _ _ _ .. _ _Y _WITO3==.:.::.
_ _ _ ___ _mv. .q %;, .,,,s.m;.c,;. ; ; m , .
s
! , .* ,,, .
- Pesshin. . , : -y, y r, .v ..
. u W y. . 2, a w . V . *: e ..:... '
De nonce aho commens a status report on ERA's enforcement program.,Curratly about .490 Arma ,,
l '
are subject to besaganons,or litigation, down from more than 2,000 when. oil-prios controis were,ahammes.' l l , l i ' ed in January 1981. ERA is auditing fewer than 150 Arms, with most of the mass in the taal stages of onen.
3
" . . p, , . . p. :; 3 . ;
plenon, the nonce said. They will be litigated, settled or closed out. ,
! ADVISORS SAY A PUBUC CORPORATION, NOT. DOE, SHOULD MANAGE NUCLEAR WASTE 1 fC) w Dee,ae a inch a among memben, DOE s adviso,y ,a,,emammag ahemadves rm. manag-ing nuclear weste repostorier will stick with its original vote to recommend a federally chartered corporn -.
- s. , .. :
tion to run the program, Dan.Schausten, the panel's staf director, said last. week. > . . -
}
1 But rather than a saiipills recorma-danan the pubisc. corporation suggeenon will appear an a* pre- ,
i ferred ahernative" among a eenes of opnons, Sclean said. The decmon to present the m=- a=a= in l a more " fuzzy" form is a conomenon to those panel members who still have "some uncertainty" and think l l DOE should be given simply's shoppeg list of ahernatives, perhaps with rankass but with no eaaned prefer. . ,
. ; ::. := .' .
i
- : : . . n . '.% . 2.n . . : .
ence, he said. : - . . - . . . . .:
The panel made the Anal determinanon to recommend a public corporanan at its menang last week in -
! Washington, followmg two anonths of flip.6optana on the issue. At a Septanber seemon, the penal voted to recommed to DOE the g"--s.po,. don approach. But at an October mannas, after some paamhets runed l concerns about the decimon..the group was lennes towards provuhng only a "shopp,ms. list" of sheensaves-j for Energy Secretary Donald Hodel to choces froni (IE/FI.,29 Oct,1). It wasn't ut.til"as late as test week" that the group agreed to, stick with,,its, original, plan.i,5chausten said. , ,. fy,e .
g, e ,pps : 7 7 3 ,- p .,.,
f '\ .
The 13 member Advisory Panel on Altarnative Means of Financing and Manasms Radioisiiive Waste
- i 1 Facilities stems from secoon 303 ofthe Nuclear Weste Policy Act, which regered DOE to " unde'rtalis" a one year study of waste-management alternatives. The' agency chose to establish an W "t panel of . #
' "; * " - L '~; ' " ^- ' -F ' ~N N Mt t state and utility oMcials to conduct the study.
One alternative that won't E-- e in the mou, to beissued in 6aal h=W=a"*h'~is for DOE's
~
1
- ogog of cm a =7-+_
- w , p. ----- to coatmos manases'the presiam, Schaustom said No * ~
model of OCRWM would prtmde " adequate stabihty and contamty," a prehnunary draft of theisport saya' -
Schausten said that the draft ' report 'r======da later6m steps' DOE can'ambe to ' " _
l I
.( asement between now and when should set up a /a ----
e a._ ges would charter-the pubhc comoranon. For-instemos. the agency
" over-h' a~~" to maatne the adsunstranen or uva'sisenes. -
manage =mit fund. the draft says."' ' * " "' ' *
.7 t
i 1he panel notes, however, that the overall1biancing' structure foi the westeiwogram,whick'fmdoives t
in'part the collection of fee's f6ai indmdenal repositoNes, regiares no chaiyi!"It is the venst's souciasion that the *==M=5 mechamem)rovided by Congress under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,eppaan to be Isir,'
amenable to adnunistrative'iinplementation and cost controls and susciently teeible to**h tiis ,
~i* l'""' ,"; i l
full recovery requirement of the 'T4-4 " the draft report esys.
"We're not gendng involved in"whether the foi should beincrease'd or efecreased,"Schausten amid. "AB
) ' ~'
"' F"# ' ~~ "P % ~ (
i we're saying is that the macha=== itselfis fair and workable."
l
' In =~*k-r interiniM DOE sharid establish immediateli s' advisory n onnel for the sidna' c(nuclear I repositones that would include representatives of alivernes interested in the issue. The panel, would help "-
uur. set entana for seisenas sites and obtaming issc input,'m addnion to 'actualifWr 1 sites for l w:: 6: ,m i:m: u.: ..e -
- 2. uo vu. :. .: . , _ . r.2 d.a r.cr.;.,:.t s.n m/. , ,
j l The penalis'M'thit'the'pubbe corpientxiii'b inn bfsAsiven manbar boortre(~duveders,$ -
appointed by the prendent and comermed by the' Senate.'No liams4ere' set by the panel init boir manyM members should be selected from government or pnvase indestry.-Meky,.. Denier
. . u ~a -. :. . .. . ........ ... .: . :. t n:.. :. . ...,?? ,
DOE HAS NO N0htlNEES YET 70R ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF NUCl. EAR ENERGY, Energy Sometary .
Donald Hodel said last week, attempting to quash nunors to the contrary. ."We do not have a manuses for i ther position," Hodel toldJamide EnerWwish Federell.4 ads "1. keep running.into people making asemasp.
tions that we have condadetes."":t r f:t r ,o: . i .., ,. .:s ec :- .! n . . .w: v:n c . c ;
l '
One rwoor heard in Washington has Lyle Wilcoi Alling the sometant escretary poet vaanted by SheRyy l
- Brewer earlier this year. Wilcox was appomted deputy ammatant secretary for breeder reactor programs in .
July. He is the fonner prendet of the Univerary of Southern Colorado: m,. ::r.. . wu !.m ...-
~
Said Hodel: :'I went Lyle to reshape the breeder program and. manage it. it was withthat relatively -
l clear understanding - 1 didn't.know then that Shelby was leaving -[that he was appointed to the deputy's i
poet,] not with the thought in mind that it would be a steppes stone.1 don't have plans to r=aa====nt to
- the preendent that he nomunste I.yle." o . ' . . . - a e. . . r. . . .s .. a.
- . . ... . .. : .
- ... . o,..: .v.v r;:. 0 ...: :m..p.., .
u t. . .
l ,, ,
I inses orsacy/wesi runsan.1.mos - November 19,1944 5 !
r .
i i .
- l. y
- *