David Huizenga July 27, 2001

Department of Energy (DOE)

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC, 20585

Dear David Huizenga:

Thank you for meeting with us on July 23 to discuss the proposed Department of Energy’s (DOE) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) process on the potential release and "recycling" of nuclear weapons complex waste for use in commercial products and disposal as regular trash. As stated in the meeting, we support maintaining and expanding the existing bans on releasing and "recycling" of radioactive metals to prohibit the release of all radioactive materials from the DOE complex.

As discussed, we have numerous serious concerns about the process including:

• the contractor that will carry out the PEIS,
• the short timing for public notice,
• the locations of the hearings at certain DOE sites,
• the narrow proposed scope and
• the incomplete implementation of the current moratorium and suspension on release of potentially contaminated metals from DOE sites.

We are pleased to learn that DOE has canceled the PEIS contract with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). In order to understand how such a questionable award was originally granted and to prevent such a troubling selection in the future, we request the documents and information listed below and discussed in our meeting, well in advance of the hearings.

First, regarding the selection and employment of SAIC as the contractor for the environmental impact statement work:

A. In 2000 SAIC was terminated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission upon the NRC's belated discovery that SAIC was possessed of a substantial conflict of interest on the very subject matter of the EIS (radioactive waste recycling), which it obviously failed to disclose to the NRC as required by law;

1. SAIC was the "regulatory compliance" teaming partner with BNFL under the failed quarter

billion dollar Oak Ridge radioactive metal recycling project. In June 1999 a Federal District court confirmed that DOE awarded its quarter billion dollar radioactive recycling contract to BNFL without regard for the basic requirements of environmental law and openness (See, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, et al. v. Pena, et al. 62 F.Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999). Judge Kessler found that the Superfund law barred citizens from obtaining court-ordered relief, but, nonetheless, found that the concerns raised by the union and environmental groups were valid (emphasis added):

C. In September 2000, the Department's own Inspector General ("IG") reported that the BNFL/SAIC activities had actually increased risk to the public. The IG audit concluded (DOE/IG-0481, at 2) (emphasis added):

D. As Secretary Richardson and the Department have been previously informed, documents uncovered in the Federal court case show that --contrary to DOE rules -- BNFL and SAIC were secret participants in the production of the environmental analysis ("EE/CA") that, according to DOE,

justified the BNFL contract.

E. As the National Academy of Sciences Committee reviewing the NRC rulemaking has been informed, the regulatory analysis performed by SAIC was, indeed, substantially biased; rather than consider real world scenarios experienced in efforts to recycle nuclear waste, SAIC assumed abstract circumstances that, in the case of DOE waste, are now well known not to comport with reality.

In light of the above, as we discussed, there must be full disclosure of the facts surrounding the contract award to SAIC to work on the EIS. This letter is to confirm our request that DOE provide, as soon as possible and, in any case, in advance of the onset of public hearings, the following information:

(1) A copy of the "current contract" (whether in the form of contract, task order, or other form of agreement), under which the SAIC work on the current matter, was awarded;

(2) A copy of the Basic Ordering Agreement under which SAIC and others have been determined to be eligible to do National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) work for the DOE, and the dates of the eligibility determinations;

(3) A copy of all conflict of interest disclosure material provided to DOE pursuant to this contract;

(4) A copy of the request for proposal (however termed) made to Battelle, SAIC, and Tetra Tech, BNFL and any others, for the EIS work on radioactive waste recycling;

(5) A copy of the full response provided by SAIC (including the business proposal, conflict of interest disclosure provided to DOE, and SAIC's response to the "representations and certifications" required of

bidders;

(6) A copy of the "responsibility determination" made by DOE procurement officials in advance of the award to SAIC to perform the radioactive waste recycling work here, and copies of all documents reviewed in relation to this determination.

(7) A copy of all conflict of interest clearances rendered by DOE in regard to the SAIC Basic Ordering Agreement and the current work;

(8) Documents showing the evaluation of contractor performance under the BNFL/SAIC Oak Ridge recycling contract which were considered by the responsible DOE officer in order to comply with the responsibility determination in regard to the current work. (For example, and in particular, what consideration was given to the DOE Inspector General's findings, as cited above, and to BNFL/SAIC's cost overrun and request for substantial sums above those called for in the fixed price contract?);

(9) Information on all communications with the NRC regarding the NRC's termination of SAIC's contract for regulatory analysis including: a) identification of all individuals within NRC who were contacted, and the substance of the discussion, and b) copies of all documents provided to DOE by

NRC regarding the termination;

(10) Information and documentation on the termination of SAIC from the DOE PEIS contract.

Second, with regard to any successor contractor(s) whom DOE proposes to employ to perform the PEIS-related work, we request:

(11) Copies of the conflict-of-interest disclosure(s) provided by such contractor(s);

(12) A listing of the energy industry and environmental cleanup-related government (federal, state and local) contracts which the contractor has had in the past five years;

(13) Copies of all official evaluation reports regarding performance under each of the contracts identified in (12) above. In cases where no official performance evaluation has been performed, please identify DOE officials responsible for performance under each contract.

Third, regarding the PEIS CONTENT, we request, as discussed:

(14) The final and most complete reports and documentation from the DOE Task Force exploring the feasibility of a dedicated radioactive metal processing facility (established at the time of the July 13, 2000 suspension on surface-contaminated metal recycling);

(15) A complete set of DOE’s Guidance Documents that are being and will be used to implement the DOE’s release and recycle policies including the operative version(s) of the DOE Order 5400.5 Guidance Documents. We request a clarification as to the status of these documents and as to whether the content of these documents will be subject to this PEIS;

(16) DOE records of all previous releases of contaminated scrap metals, other metals, materials and wastes for unregulated disposal, reuse and recycling including responsible DOE entities, contractors involved, locations, dates, amounts of material and contamination and detection levels, the contractor and recipient, destination and all other information concerning the disposition of the materials post-release. This information on past and current DOE and Field Office practices is essential for responsible future decisions.

Fourth, regarding the PEIS PROCESS itself:

We believe there should be an immediate postponement of all scoping hearings and proceedings until

• SAIC has been replaced,
• all requested documents and information have been provided to us and made publicly available,
• ample time for public notification has been provided in both Federal Register and major media,
• additional locations have been added for scoping meetings. We call for a significant portion of the hearings to be held in communities that represent the full range of impacts and potential impacts. A suggested list will be provided, shortly.

We remain very concerned about the extremely narrow proposed scope and the procedures to enforce the current moratorium and suspension.

We appreciate your agreeing, at our meeting, to provide this information and hope this itemization is helpful. Please let us know if you require clarification or amplification. Please supply NIRS with the requested information and documents and send copies to each of us.

Very sincerely,

Diane D’Arrigo

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

1424 16^th Street NW Suite 404

Washington, DC 20036

202 328-0002 ext 16

dianed@nirs.org

Dr. Judith Johnsrud

Sierra Club

433 Orlando Avenue

State College, Pennsylvania 16803

814 237- 3900

David Ritter, Wenonah Hauter

Public Citizen

215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE

Washington DC 20007

202 546-4996

dritter@citizen.org

Dan Hirsch

Committee to Bridge the Gap

2-1185 East Cliff Drive

Santa Cruz, California 95062

831 462-6136

CBGHirsch@aol.com

Trisha Christopher

Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

1801 18^th Street NW Suite 9-2

Washington, DC 20009

202 833-4668

trishachr@earthlink.net