UPDATE: On April 25, 2002 in Charlotte, the majority of Duke Shareholders voted against "Proposal 7 – Nuclear Program Study". However, since 10.52 percent voted for the proposal, the resolution should have another vote next year. Shareholders who support an open review of nuclear power were and are encouraged to vote "for" the proposal.

NUCLEAR RISK and RESPONSIBILITY

The shareholders request the Board of Directors to conduct an open comprehensive study, utilizing independent public resources, oversight, and participation (but excluding proprietary and confidential information), defining Duke Energy's risk of, and potential responsibility for, causing public harm due to the company's continued participation in nuclear energy programs, and to prepare, at reasonable expense, a report for the next annual shareholders' meeting in 2003.

Supporting Statement:

Duke Energy's Environmental, Health & Safety Policy states: 

Duke Energy highly values the health and safety of our employees, customers and communities.

Duke Energy will engage in partnerships that enhance public environmental, health & safety awareness and address common environmental, health & safety issues.

Duke Energy will foster open dialogue and informed decision making through meaningful and regular communication of environmental, health and safety information with management, employees and the public.

Additional Supporting Statement:

The last Nuclear Regulatory Commission study of reactor accident consequences was done by the Sandia National Laboratory in 1981.

Duke Energy has made application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to renew the operating licenses for the McGuire and Catawba nuclear plants for an additional 20 years and if approved, will have authorization to operate these plants until the years 2041-2046.  License approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and subsequent operation of the reactors, would extend by 20 years the risks associated with plant aging and the threats associated with terrorism.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission acknowledges the threat of terrorism attacks on nuclear facilities.  While ongoing analysis at the federal level is essential, when such questions are raised at the local level, they are often considered generic and not within the scope of the license renewal process.

###