***************************************************************** 11/09/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.268 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Asia Times: Nuclear fissures in Iran 2 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: ElBaradei: Nuclear Security Is a 'Race Ag 3 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Sets New North Korean 'Red Line': Yo 4 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: IAEA nuclear report set for next week 5 Korea Times: US Sets `Red Line' Over NK Nukes 6 Korea Times: Nuclear Experiments 7 [NukeNet] The 2004 Nuclear-Free Future Award Recipients 8 Bellona: UK seeks co-operation on CO2 9 Haaretz Article: ElBaradei: Israel's nuclear arms blocking Mideast p 10 Japan Times: Dealing with the nuclear-threat hydra NUCLEAR REACTORS 11 US: [NukeNet] WSJ on resurgence of nuclear power 12 US: NRC: NRC to Meet with FirstEnergy on Nuclear Plant Performance 13 US: NRC: AmerGen Energy Company, LLC; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generatin 14 St. Petersburg Times: Incident at Nuclear Plant Leads To Panic 15 US: NRC: Extension of Public Comment Period: Louisiana Energy Servic 16 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Interim Staff Guidance Documents 17 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting NUCLEAR SAFETY 18 TerraDaily: Containers with radioactive cobalt found in Georgian vil NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 19 US: Uranium Mine In Dr Of Congo Must Stay Closed, UN Team Concludes 20 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast water testing begins 21 US: Albuquerque Tribune: Tumblin' tumbleweeds might roll up uranium 22 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada lawmakers approve money to continue Yucca Moun 23 Las Vegas RJ: Lawmakers approve funds to continue Yucca fight 24 BBC: Nuclear waste reaches German site 25 Las Vegas SUN: $1.1 million Yucca allocation helps deplete emergency 26 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Radiation Control Board OKs revisiting waste 27 US: AU ABC: Govt under fire over uranium mining report. 28 US: NEWS.com.au: Uranium mines to keep leaching process NUCLEAR WEAPONS US DEPT. OF ENERGY 29 GROUPS APPEAL BIOWARFARE DECISION AT NUCLEAR WEAPONS LABS 30 chillicothe gazette: Pike commissioners sign off on USEC abatement p 31 Tri-City Herald: DOE cleanup czar to visit Hanford 32 lamonitor.com: EPA's runoff plan open for review 33 PGDP: The Latest News at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 34 DOE: Security 229 Boundary Revision at Oak Ridge Reservation, Y-12 OTHER NUCLEAR 35 [du-list] du in the news - 9/11/04 (with live links !) 36 BBC: Fusion reactor decision must wait 37 PRN: Hydrogen Energy and Fuel Cells Demystified in New Book for Non- ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Asia Times: Nuclear fissures in Iran By Safa Haeri PARIS - Although Iran and three European powers have reached a preliminary agreement over Tehran's controversial nuclear program, the ball is in Tehran's hands, where the final decision will be taken. "An intense debate is raging among Iranian ruling clerics over the issue of nuclear programs. On the one hand you have the so-called ultras, most of them sitting in the most powerful but shadowy League of Islamic Associations, that has recently changed its status to the Party of Islamic Associations, pushing hard for emulating North Korea by ending talks with the Europeans, getting out of both the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] and the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]," a source told Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity during a short stopover in a European capital. "On the other, there are the so-called pragmatists, led by Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rohani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme Council of National Security [SCNS] and the regime's senior negotiator with both the IAEA and the European trio, namely Britain, France and Germany, warning the other side that if Iran does not show flexibility in satisfying the demands formulated by the IAEA and the Big Three, one might expect catastrophe, specially now that George W Bush has been re-elected comfortably as president of the United States," he added. After the weekend's talks in Paris, the Europeans are optimistic that they can get Iran to reach an agreement that will avoid it being referred to the United Nations Security Council and avert the risk of sanctions over its nuclear program. Iran has to be persuaded to suspend its uranium-enrichment program indefinitely as a way to ensure that it does not use the technology to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran has insisted that the suspension be no longer than six months and has sought assurances that it will not be asked to permanently revoke its right to have a nuclear-energy program. According to the pragmatists in Iran, if the Europeans do not get satisfaction, they will side with Washington - which wants the issue to go before the UN - and in a situation where Iran has no friends, apart perhaps from China, the face the risk of sanctions. In one of their proposals to Iran last month, the European trio offered a package of "stick and carrots", including a light-water research reactor, fuel for the reactors under construction with Russian assistance and possible investment in Iran's future nuclear-powered electricity plants against Iran's firm pledge to suspend indefinitely uranium enrichment and related activities, such as reprocessing uranium and building centrifuges used to enrich it, proposals that Tehran rejected, stressing that "the right to master the sensitive nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment, is our legitimate right that we shall never give up". "We will not accept any constraint. It is us who will decide on the duration [of a suspension of enrichment] and we will keep it in place for as long as we want," noted Elias Naderan, a conservative lawmaker. "We have mastered the full nuclear fuel cycle and this project has reached the point of no return. The Europeans must now recognize this fact as a red line." Ironically, it appears that the ultras are after a "catastrophe scenario", hoping that in the event of harsh sanctions or even an attack on its nuclear facilities by the US or Israel, the population, now massively against the regime, would fall in line behind the ruling mullahs and their nuclear ambitions. "The final word must come from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the regime. But so far he seems either undecided or incapable of taking sides. Although he himself reiterates that Iran is not after nuclear weapons, stressing that such arms are banned by Islam, by reading his mouthpieces in conservative-controlled newspapers like Kayhan or Jomhouri Eslami, one gets the impression that he is for the North Korean option," the source explained to Asia Times Online. Last week, Khamenei repeated that Iran, because of its "religious jurisdictions", was not after nuclear arms, and taking a cue from his "directives", several lawmakers at the conservative-dominated Majlis, or parliament, announced a plan aimed at banning the production of nuclear weapons. According to Hoseyn Moussavian, Iran's chief negotiator with the Big Three, the preliminary agreement worked out in Paris during a marathon 22-hour session could be finalized "in the next few days", but then it would have to be confirmed in the capitals of the concerned parties. "We had 22 hours of very difficult and complicated negotiations, but we reached a preliminary agreement at the expert level, with the Europeans accepting eight out of 10 proposals we presented, including the one that says the time of suspension of enriching uranium must be decided by Iran," Moussavian said, adding that the four countries must now ask their governments to approve the accord. If approved, the deal - of which few details are known - would stop the Vienna-based IAEA's board of directors from sending Iran's case to the Security Council. The US, alongside Israel and some European nations, accuses the Iranian ayatollahs of being in the process of building atomic weapons by diverting nuclear technologies for nuclear-powered reactors they have under construction with the assistance of Russia. "If this [preliminary agreement] is approved by all four parties, we will witness an important change in Iran's relations with Europe and much of the international community in [the] not-too-distant future," Moussavian said without elaborating. On October 20, Rohani and foreign affairs ministers from Britain, France and Germany reached an agreement in Tehran stipulating that Iran would suspend uranium enrichment and sign the additional protocol to the NPT, a clause that allows international nuclear inspectors to visit all Iranian nuclear projects and sites without restriction, but refused to stop other related activities, such as reprocessing uranium or building centrifuges, insisting its program was intended purely for the production of fuel for nuclear power generation. Uranium enrichment is permitted under the NPT, to which Iran is a signatory and which is being enforced by the IAEA. However, a source told the official Iranian news agency IRNA in Paris that the talks remained deadlocked as the Iranian side did not accept the European proposal for an indefinite suspension of uranium enrichment, while the European side was not satisfied with Tehran's guarantee that it would never use nuclear technology for military purposes. "Following difficult discussions, the two sides have achieved considerable progress towards a preliminary agreement on a joint approach to the questions," a French foreign-affairs spokesman told journalists. To give Europe a firm sign that Iran is not trying to produce an atomic bomb, a weapon that Israel says would be used to attack the Jewish state, some Iranian lawmakers announced on Monday that they were collecting support for a draft bill banning the production of nuclear weapons. Legislator Mahmoud Mohammadi told the US news agency The Associated Press that the bill could be presented to the Majlis next week, adding that the draft was prompted by a religious verdict by Khamenei. "Ayatollah Khamenei's verdict is clear," Mohammadi observed. "So why not make the production of nuclear weapons illegal under Iranian law?" But the idea was criticized by radical newspapers controlled by the conservatives. "Iran is a member of the NPT. Our leaders have reiterated that we are not using nuclear technologies for military purposes. But this bill runs against all our logic since it looks like confirming the views of our enemies making wrong accusations against Iran," wrote the evening daily Kayhan. Safa Haeri is a Paris-based Iranian journalist covering the Middle East and Central Asia. (Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Nov 10, 2004 Copyright 2003, Asia Times Online, 4305 Far East Finance Centre, 16 Harcourt Rd, Central, Hong Kong ***************************************************************** 2 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: ElBaradei: Nuclear Security Is a 'Race Against Time' Updated Nov.9,2004 11:12 KST Alexander Downer (left) and Mohamed ElBaradei The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has warned that the world faces a real threat from nuclear terrorism. Speaking at a conference in Sydney, Mr. ElBaradei said an extensive black market in radioactive materials is increasing the danger. He also saw signs of hope in an agreement to end a dispute over Iran's nuclear programs. Mohammed ElBaradei says the world is engaged in a "race against time" to control the spread of nuclear material. At an international security meeting in Sydney, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned that action was needed to prevent a nuclear or radioactive emergency. Delegates at the meeting were told that over the past decade, the I.A.E.A. has uncovered a thriving trade in nuclear and radioactive materials. Mr. ElBaradei said Monday this illegal traffic highlights the inadequacy of current controls. He says increased vigilance is needed everywhere, even in Asia. "In Asia-Pacific you have a lot of nuclear material, you have a lot of radioactive sources. This is a danger that can occur anywhere," said Mr. ElBaradei. "We need not wait to see the kind of situation like [the attacks on] 9/11 or Chernobyl for the international community to act." Mr. ElBaradei also said that an agreement brokered in Paris to end a dispute over Iran's nuclear programs is a "step in the right direction." Britain, France and Germany are reportedly close to signing a trade deal that would see Tehran suspend its efforts to enrich uranium, which can be used to make bombs. The United States says Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. Iranian officials insist the technology they are developing is simply to produce energy for peaceful purposes. Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says Iran must comply with I.A.E.A. resolutions calling for it to halt enrichment efforts. "The truth is, if they proceed with enrichment that is going to send a very, very negative message to the international community," said Mr. Downer. "There's no doubt that the level of concern in the international community about nuclear proliferation has been substantially heightened." The conference in Sydney was organized to help the Asia-Pacific region make a concerted effort to keep nuclear and radioactive materials out of the hands of rogue states and extremists. Mr. Downer says the "awful consequences of nuclear terrorism" made it imperative for the world to take this threat seriously. VOA News ***************************************************************** 3 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Sets New North Korean 'Red Line': Yomiuri Updated Nov.9,2004 15:06 KST Quoting a high-ranking U.S. government official, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun reported Tuesday that the U.S. Bush administration had set as its "red line" attempts by North Korea to transfer nuclear materials to a third party, and promised to deal with such attempts immediately and severely. This is the first time a Bush administration official has mentioned a "red line" in connection with North Korea. The official did not concretely explain how the U.S. would respond should North Korea cross the "red line," but the paper explained this was a strong warning that military action could not be excluded. Until now, the U.S. had refused to set a definite "red line," believing the establishment of such a limit could induce North Korea to engage in provocations right up to the line. The U.S. official stressed North Korea shouldn't ever believe it could transfer nuclear materials to a third party. Another U.S. official, responding to criticism the U.S. could not apply enough military pressure on North Korea because of commitments in Iraq, said Iraq wouldn't be a major handicap because while the U.S. Army was deployed in Iraq, it was the U.S. Navy and Air Force that would primarily deal with North Korea. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 4 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: IAEA nuclear report set for next week November 10, 2004 ¤Ñ The International Atomic Energy Agency will issue its report next week on South Korea's past nuclear activities, Agence France Presse said yesterday, quoting diplomats in Vienna where the IAEA has its headquarters. Seoul has been under an agency investigation after revealing information on two unauthorized nuclear experiments conducted in 1982 and 2000 by scientists at a state-run institute. The revelations were made in September, and the nuclear watchdog has conducted three rounds of probes. South Korea has said that it is not pursuing a nuclear arms program. According to the wire service report, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei will release the findings ahead of the agency's board meeting on Nov. 25. At the meeting, a decision will be made on whether to refer the issue to the UN Security Council. Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | ***************************************************************** 5 Korea Times: US Sets `Red Line' Over NK Nukes Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Ryu Jin Staff Reporter The United States has set a ``red line¡¯¡¯ the nuclear-ambitious North Korea should not cross and has decided to consider more coercive options in case it transfers nuclear materials to a third party, a Japanese daily reported Tuesday. Quoting an unnamed U.S. official, the Yomiuri Shimbun said that the U.S. has settled on a policy that would prompt strict measures against the North if it tries to hand over nuclear materials to a third nation or organization. The high-level official didn¡¯t specify what type of action the U.S. might take, but the Washington-datelined report said a ``military strike could not be ruled out.¡¯¡¯ The U.S. had previously refrained from setting a clear ``red line¡¯¡¯ due to concerns it might provoke the communist regime to escalate its nuclear activities to just below the set level, the official was quoted as saying. After the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 2, nations involved in the six-party talks aimed at resolving the North Korean nuclear standoff, have been making diplomatic efforts to jump-start the stalled dialogue. Most of the nations, including the U.S., still hope diplomacy can be given a chance, but some experts predict tensions between the U.S. and its Asian partners, namely South Korea and China, would inevitably increase if the talks fail to show progress. In a significant move to keep in step with the U.S., Japan hinted at the possibility of economic sanctions against the North when its foreign minister paid a visit to South Korea¡¯s President Roh Moo-hyun last week. Seoul has been pursuing a policy of reconciliation and engagement it believes will induce Pyongyang to abandon its atomic weapons programs and overhaul its lagging economy. jinryu@koreatimes.co.kr 11-09-2004 16:58 ***************************************************************** 6 Korea Times: Nuclear Experiments Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion UN Watchdog's Decision Draws Concern The government is deeply concerned with how the international nuclear watchdog will handle the nation¡¯s two atomic experiments involving plutonium and uranium, conducted in 1982 and 2000, respectively. Affiliated with the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency will make its decision on the issue in a meeting of its 35-member board of governors in Vienna, Austria, on Nov. 25. The verdict will be made on the basis of the findings of three IAEA teams in their investigations in Korea. The last inspection was wrapped up on Sunday. In the worst-case scenario, the nuclear watchdog will refer the ``scientific¡¯¡¯ experiments to the U.N. Security Council, which will then consider the imposition of sanctions on Korea for violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The government hopes the case will not be forwarded to the Security Council on the grounds that the United States and many key members of the IAEA believe that Korea¡¯s experiments had nothing to do with nuclear warheads. But the government ought to strengthen diplomatic efforts directed toward the member countries of the nuclear watchdog to avoid punishment. In particular, the government should assure them it that it will strictly abide by the NPT in the future. If the nation is ``pardoned¡¯¡¯ as the government hopes, it will no doubt prompt North Korea to step up its offensives in connection with the six-party dialogue aimed at finding a peaceful resolution to the nuclear standoff between Pyongyang and Washington which began in October 2002. The North severely denounced the Bush administration for applying double standards by taking a lenient stance on Seoul¡¯s atomic experiments, which is in sharp contrast with its stern reaction to Pyongyang¡¯s nuclear programs. It is also using Seoul¡¯s experiments as a timely excuse to keep away from the six-party talks, which have been suspended since the third round held in Beijing in June. With Bush re-elected, the North has no choice but to take part in the dialogue, which includes Seoul, Beijing, Tokyo and Moscow, in order to diplomatically resolve the nuclear crisis with the U.S. as quickly as possible. As demanded by Washington, Pyongyang needs to dismantle all nuclear facilities for the realization of a peaceful end to the second nuclear confrontation between the two sides. To this end, the government ought to enhance efforts to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions and reach an accord with Washington, thus restoring peace and stability to the peninsula. 11-09-2004 19:27 ***************************************************************** 7 [NukeNet] The 2004 Nuclear-Free Future Award Recipients Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:17:20 -0800 For immediate release, scroll down for contacts Press Release November 9, 2004 The 2004 Nuclear-Free Future Award Recipients Since 1998 the Nuclear-Free Future Award, the "world's most prestigious anti-nuclear prize" (tageszeitung, Berlin), has annually honoured the visionaries and architects of a nuclear-free world. This year the Award ceremony, which travels the globe, will be held on 28 November in Jaipur, India, as the culminating event of the three-day Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CDNP) National Convention (more info: www.cndpindia.org ). [NukeNet] The 2004 Nuclear-Free Future Award Recipients Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:17:20 -0800 For immediate release, scroll down for contacts Press Release November 9, 2004 The 2004 Nuclear-Free Future Award Recipients Since 1998 the Nuclear-Free Future Award, the "world's most prestigious anti-nuclear prize" (tageszeitung, Berlin), has annually honoured the visionaries and architects of a nuclear-free world. This year the Award ceremony, which travels the globe, will be held on 28 November in Jaipur, India, as the culminating event of the three-day Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CDNP) National Convention (more info: www.cndpindia.org ). The Nuclear-Free Future Award is a project of the Franz Moll Foundation for the Coming Generations (Munich, Germany), and The Seventh Generation Fund (Hoopa, California). This year the Award's international jury has decided that the Awards, endowed with a total purse of $30,000, will go to the following organizations and individuals: The 2004 Nuclear-Free Future Resistance Award: Jharkhandis Organisation Against Radiation (JOAR), India For decades, JOAR has sought to defend the health and traditional living space of the tribal peoples who live in the fifteen villages surrounding the state-operated Jaduguda uranium mine in the Singhbhum district of Bihar, a forested region rich with natural resources. Mine labourers - who are almost exclusively Dalits or Black Untouchables (mine management is largely made up of Caucasian Brahmins) - are given no safety equipment and routinely suffer from skin diseases and TB. Radioactive waste is simply poured into 'tailing ponds' which overflow during the monsoons, contaminating the region 's groundwater, thereby contributing to the area's high incidence of radiation-related diseases and fertility problems. Mine operators bar outside independent health studies, citing "national security issues." Despite setback after setback before the Supreme Court of India, JOAR refuses to surrender the health of the area's Adivasi - which translates literally as 'first people,' - to the toxic fallout of India's nuclear ambition. "It is like sitting in a place surrounded by fire", says Mr. Ghanshyam Birulee, president of JOAR. The 2004 Nuclear-Free Future Solutions Award: Jonathan Schell, USA Jonathan Schell, The Nation's peace and disarmament correspondent, is the Harold Willens Peace Fellow at the Nation Institute and the author of numerous books, including The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People (2003), and A Hole in the World (2004), a compilation of his "Letter From Ground Zero" columns. His solution to ending the nuclear threat is as simple as it is complex: abolition now! Schell's work - informed by his compelling intuition that where there is a will there is a way (and its stark corollary that without that will there is no way) - has shaped abolition discussion for the past three decades. He honestly trusts the democratic power of informed consensus to set the world upon the path of universal nuclear disarmament - make ballots, not war. Despite the mass graves, tortured dreams and burning towers that pock the world's political landscape, Schell sticks to his guns: one day humanity will discover within itself the means to relinquish its grip from all implements of mass destruction. The 2004 Nuclear-Free Future Education Award: Dr. Asaf Durakovic, USA Dr. Durakovic served as Chief of Professional Clinical Services of the 531 Medical Detachment during the Desert Shield phase of the Gulf War. When he returned to the Veteran's Administration (VA) Nuclear Medicine facility in Wilmington, Delaware, which he headed, he was asked to assess 24 soldiers who had served in the Gulf for evidence of depleted uranium (DU) in their bodies. Durakovic's team performed a whole-body count of uranium 238 on the troops and found that 14 of the 24 had been contaminated. According to Durakovic's June 26, 1997, testimony before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the government 'lost' all records of these examinations. And shortly thereafter, Durakovic 'lost' his job. Durakovic may have been forced to step down from his VA position, but the army could not strip him of his ethics as a medical doctor. In the interests of his patients he founded the Uranium Medical Research Center ( www.umrc.net ), an independent non-profit institute which studies the effects of uranium contamination. The following two awards, endowed with works of contemporary art instead of purses of money, will also be given out at the Jaipur ceremony: The 2004 Lifetime Achievement Award: Hildegard Breiner, Austria Hildegard Breiner, the grand dame of the Austrian grassroots environmental movement, which snuffed out the Zwentendorf nuclear facility via nationwide referendum in 1972, will receive this year's Lifetime Achievement award. The 2004 Special Recognition Award: City Montessori School (CMS), Lucknow, India CMS - with some 28,000 students the world's largest private school - will receive the award of Special Recognition for its visionary New World Order campaign, and for its mission, on behalf of the world's children and the coming generations, to create a future nuclear-free. For more information, please visit our website at www.nuclear-free.com The Nuclear-Free Future Award, Schellingstraße 24 / Rgb. D-80799 München Claus Biegert Founder, Director +49 89 28 65 97 14 cb@nuclear-free.com Craig Reishus Executive Director +49 89 28 65 97 14 craig@nuclear-free.com Dr. Wolfgang Heuss Public Relations +49 89 448 95 38 W.Heuss@t-online.de _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 8 Bellona: UK seeks co-operation on CO2 The British Ministry of Environmental affairs has extended an invitation to leading industrial nations to engage in cooperative CO2-storage in the North Sea, and teams of scientists are collaborating to harmonise CO2-capture and storage plans with existing international conventions governing marine pollution. Hanne Bakke, 2004-11-09 14:23 Translated by Eivind Trædal In Britain, the current minister of environmental affairs, Elliot Morley, has asked for support for the country’s plans to store CO2 in the sediments at the bottom of the North Sea. Morley issued the proposal during a meeting in the London-convention last week. Throughout last week, governmental representatives from several nations conducted meetings to discuss different issues involve in the proposal, one of which is the question of capture and deployment of CO2. According to the current agreements as presented in the London-convention protocol from 1996, and the OSPAR-convention, clean capture and storage of CO2 is not legal, at least not so long as it is considered “dumping”. However, CO2 sequestration as a means of extracting more oil—the EOR method—and storage of the CO2 as part of the production process, is alowed. The London Convention The London convention of 1972 is effective in international waters all over the world. As of today, 80 states have acknowledged it. The Convention were revised and expanded during the –90s to add, among other things, a ban on the dumping of radioactive material. The so-called 1996-protocol of the London Convention includes a general ban on “dumping”, and thus equals the 2nd attachment of the OSPAR-convention. The convention also contains a list of components allowed for dumping, however, CO2 is not included (except in the case of Offshore wells). www.londonconvention.org New Approach Capture and storage of CO2 was discussed during last weeks meetings of the London-convention. One of the issues under scrutiny is how the storage of CO2 relates to the ban on dumping from 1996, explains Per W. Schive, department manager at the Norwegian Ministry of Environmental affairs. CO2-capture and deployment has for a long period of time been legal fodder for lawyers associated with the OSPAR-commission. Now, however, one is willing to seek a different approach on the issue, said Schive. He pointed to the fact that it’s not the lawyers who make the final decision on the matter, but that it is important to allow different factions to comment on the total environmental impact of CO2-storage under the ocean. OSPAR, like the London-convention, is an international agreement to counter the pollution of the marine environment. But in contrast to the London-convention, which is international, OSPAR is effective only in the Northeast of the Atlantic Ocean. Precautionary measures In addition to regulating the dumping of different kinds of waste at sea, the OSPAR-convention also protects the sea and the ocean floor. The deployment of CO2 in geological formations under the ocean floor—for example in old oil reservoirs—are issues that need to be cleared within the convention before new projects can be started. The question of CO2-storage was issued at the OSPAR-commission meeting in 2002. This culminated in a report made by OSPAR’s legal team on May 18th this year. The report underlined that the boundaries of what’s legal depends on whether the method implies “pollution” and thus falls under the principal rule of precautionary measures, and what the goal of the storage is (scientific, oil/gas production, and so on). EOR is allowed under OSPAR. As is storage in the deep as part of the production process. There is no need for changes to be made in the convention to use these techniques. Experience shows that OSPAR usually is in the lead of this kind of work, and that the conclusions made there will be added to the London Convention as well, said Schive. The OSPAR convention The OSPAR convention from 1992 is a deal made to protect that marine environment of the Norh-east of the Atlantic Ocean. OSPAR replaced and updated the Oslo convention of 1972 regarding waste to sea, and the Paris convention of 1974 regarding sea pollution from onshore sources. The work made within the convention is monitored by the OSPAR commission, which is put together by representatives by the governments of the 15 countries which has ratified the convention, as well as representatives from the EU from the European commission. The convention includes general decisions and 5 attachments integrated as a part of the agreement. 1st attachment – land based sources 2nd attachment – dumping 3rd attachment – sources offshore 4th attachment – evaluation of the quality of the marine environment 5th attachment – ecosystems and bio-diversity The 1st and the 3rd attachment are relevant to the issue of CO2-storage. www.ospar.org/eng/html/welcome.html Bellona opinion Even though this seems like a paradox, it looks like the agreements crafted to protect the environment might delay the development of good methods of CO2-deployment as a climate gas-reducing measure. This is not acceptable, and Bellona is glad to hear that we are now approaching this from a different angle than the purely juridical one, says Beate Kristiansen, leader of Bellonas work on energy issues. Bellona is one of the organisations that wants its comments on OSPAR to be heard, working with a focus on safety, the total environmental effect of deployment, as well as the local effects on the marine environment. Measures taken so far In Britain, Environmental Minister Morley told the The Independent, the first priority of the government is to reduce the emissions of climate gases, but that storage of CO2 is acknowledged as a intermediate measure. “If we are to expand our work on this alternative, we need international effort, especially to make sure that the safety issues are taken care of with regard to the marine environment,” said Morley. If other government approves of the plans as well, Morley wishes to create several working groups to estimate how realistic such a plan is, as well as how the project can be made secure. If Morley manages to start this project, it is possible that Britain can store masses of CO2 equal to the country’s emissions for 100 years in the North Sea alone. Ambitious climate plans In February 2003, the British government issued its ambitious plan to reduce national emissions by 60 percent by 2050. The means issued to make this possible are among other things to double the amount of electricity produced by renewable sources by 2020 in contrast to the 2010 goal of 20 percent. The Government also promised an additional grant of 60 million pounds to projects within renewable energy. In addition, the total amount of money budgeted to renewable energy over the next 4 years has been increased to 348 million pounds. In August this year, the British Minister of Energy Stephen Timms said that the plans for deployment can be realized by 2020, and that the best spots for this storage are in the used oil- and gas reservoirs in the North Sea. Timms also said that Britain cannot overlook CO2-deployment if the government plans to reach the climate goals of the nation. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 9 Haaretz Article: ElBaradei: Israel's nuclear arms blocking Mideast peace Tue., November 09, 2004 Cheshvan 25, 5765 Last Update: 09/11/2004 09:35 By DPA SYDNEY - Israel's nuclear weapons are an obstacle to peace in the Middle East, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said in an interview published Tuesday. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohammed ElBaradei said the nuclear arsenal should go as part of a settlement with the Palestinians. "This is not really sustainable that you have Israel sitting with nuclear weapons capability there while everyone else is part of the non-proliferation regime," ElBaradei told The Sydney Morning Herald. ElBaradei said Muslims in the surrounding region resented Israel's nuclear arsenal and wanted it to be part of the non-proliferation program. "It is a very emotional issue in the Middle East," ElBaradei said. The IAEA director general is the keynote speaker at a conference in Sydney organized by the Australian government to discuss safeguards to prevent nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists. Delegates from 30 countries are attending the conference. ElBaradei told the newspaper that he was encouraged by Iran's provisional agreement to suspend the enrichment and reprocessing of uranium at weekend talks with officials from Britain, France and Germany. But he warned that getting Tehran to give up any ambition to develop nuclear weapons would depend on whether Israel was brought into the equation. "In my view, in the Middle East you are facing two options," he said. "Either we will have in the next 10, 20 years three or four countries trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and, worse, have extremist groups trying to get their hands on nuclear devices, or you can try to build a security structure that's built on confidence, cooperation and trust." Commenting on Israel's stance that a comprehensive peace settlement must be in place before nuclear disarmament could go ahead, ElBaradei recommended a compromise. "My take on this is that we will probably need to do the two together in tandem," he said. "You need a security structure to undergird, if you like, protect, that peace process." ElBaradei said the international community should not be exerting pressure on Israel to disarm but should be pushing forward a plan that would have disarmament as part of a comprehensive Middle East peace. "I don't think it's a matter of pressure," ElBaradei said. "It's a question of providing Israel with a credible alternative that they are better off without nuclear weapons." Mohammed ElBaradei: It's a question of providing Israel with a credible alternative. (Archive) © Copyright Haaretz. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 10 Japan Times: Dealing with the nuclear-threat hydra Wednesday, November 10, 2004 By HUGH CORTAZZI LONDON -- The U.S. government has named Iran and North Korea as rogue states. Iran is accused of seeking to develop nuclear weapons and breaching the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). North Korea may already have a few nuclear devices and has announced its withdrawal from the NPT. The two states are very different and should not be conflated into a single threat. Recent talks between the Iranians and the Europeans in Vienna failed to reach agreement on the key question of uranium enrichment. The Iranians say the NPT guarantees them the right to enrich uranium. The Europeans want a complete suspension of uranium enrichment and have offered, in exchange, a trade deal and assurances that Iran will receive enriched-uranium supplies under supervision as well as transfers of nuclear technology, including a light-water reactor. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will soon produce another report on whether Iran is complying with IAEA safeguards. If the report is critical of Iran, as expected, the issue may be referred to the U.N. Security Council where the Americans are likely to press for sanctions against Iran. Still, it would be a mistake to conclude at this stage that negotiations are certain to fail. Because of its hostility toward Israel and support for extremist organizations, Iran's theocratic regime poses a potential threat to peace in the Middle East. Yet, even with the reports of serious human rights abuses in Iran, there is no convincing case at this stage for armed intervention on the grounds that an immediate threat to peace should be eliminated. Concern has been expressed in Europe that, if there were evidence that Iran had begun to develop nuclear weapons, the U.S. government might look favorably on a move by Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Following the intelligence foulups on Iraq, though, public opinion would require a lot of convincing that the evidence was incontrovertible. Any such preemptive move by Israel or the United States before negotiations had clearly and finally failed, and without clear proof of a nuclear threat, could in itself endanger world peace. The six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear development have failed to make progress, but it is still possible that they can be resumed. Much will depend on the willingness of the Americans to show some flexibility and on the extent to which the Chinese are willing to put pressure on the North Korean regime. Key pieces of evidence against North Korea include the regime's own admissions, but in the absence of definite confirmation from other sources it is possible that there is an element of bluff in the admissions. That would not be unprecedented. After all, it now appears that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction, although he tried hard to arouse suspicions that he did. The Stalinist North Korean regime is an anachronism in the modern world with its appalling human-rights record, but any attempt to intervene militarily would be dangerous as hostilities could lead to a much wider conflict. There is a strong case for renewing attempts to continue and widen the dialogue with the North Korean regime. Iran and North Korea do not pose the only nuclear threats to peace. There are serious concerns about whether the Putin regime in Russia can prevent nuclear arms and fissile material from falling into the hands of irresponsible regimes and terrorist organizations. Corruption in Russia seems to have become endemic, and controls on nuclear facilities are said to be weak and ineffective. Weaknesses in Russia could well pose a greater threat to peace than the activities of North Korea or Iran. The leakage of nuclear knowhow from Pakistan poses a potential threat. Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was pardoned by the president of Pakistan after he told Pakistani intelligence authorities of his contacts, but he has not been interviewed by Western intelligence and we may not yet know all the facts. The decision of Libya to halt work on nuclear-weapons development was an important step, but suspicions remain that other regimes may have gotten access to dangerous technology. Some Americans suspect Syria in this context, although it is questionable whether Syria has the resources to develop atomic weapons. Three powers, India, Israel and Pakistan, did not sign the NPT. Much has been written about the dangers of a nuclear conflict involving India and Pakistan. This event is probably deterred by the realization on the part of both that their "mutually assured destruction" would be the likely result. Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons and the Americans have not pressed Israel on this issue, but the probable existence of Israeli nuclear weapons is surely a factor in Iranian thinking. Under Article VI of the 1968 NPT, the signatories undertook "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." This was reaffirmed at the review conference in 2000, but "the total elimination of nuclear arsenals" seems as far away as ever. A further review conference is scheduled in New York in May 2005. We must hope that those taking part will be ready to demonstrate that these undertakings are meaningful and not just pious aspirations. In the present state of the world, it is hard to imagine the existing declared nuclear powers (U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain, India and Pakistan) being ready to take effective steps to reduce, let alone eliminate, their nuclear arsenals. But we should expect them to ensure that nuclear weapons do not get into the hands of terrorists. Israel should be quizzed about its nuclear capabilities. Russia and Pakistan should be pressed to take firm action to prevent nuclear weapons and knowhow from leaking. Hugh Cortazzi, a former British career diplomat, served as ambassador to Japan from 1980 to 1984. The Japan Times: Nov. 10, 2004 ***************************************************************** 11 [NukeNet] WSJ on resurgence of nuclear power Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:17:03 -0800 http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109996476958968447,00.html?mod=us_business_whats_news Nuclear-Power Industry Sees Signs of a U.S. Revival Utilities Face Opposition Over Safety and Storage; A GE-Westinghouse Contest By KATHRYN KRANHOLD Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL November 9, 2004; Page A1 The nuclear-power industry is laying the groundwork to build new plants in the U.S. for the first time in more than two decades. Buoyed by the re-election of President Bush, whose administration has pushed to expand nuclear power as part of its national energy plan, the industry sees a window of two to three years in which the political environment could make it easier to win approval for new projects. Late last week, two separate consortiums consisting of power companies and reactor makers received word that the Department of Energy would share in the cost of obtaining regulatory approval for new nuclear reactors. The two groups expect the cost of winning that approval to be about $500 million apiece, due to the detailed engineering and testing required by regulators for new reactors. "There's lots of enthusiasm for what we're trying to accomplish here," said William D. Magwood IV, director of the Energy Department's office of nuclear energy, science and technology. "If both of these goes to fruition, we could see new nuclear plants by 2014." In part, the revived prospects for nuclear power stem from the volatile energy market and concerns about global warming, which are forcing utilities and their power-generation vendors to consider alternatives. Faced with skyrocketing natural-gas prices and uncertainty about the costs of containing carbon emissions from coal-fired plants, electric companies believe nuclear plants are becoming more economically competitive and safer. They are also being driven by manufacturers -- General Electric Co. and its longtime rival Westinghouse Electric Co., along with a new entrant, Canada's Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., or AECL -- who are looking to sell newly designed reactors into the long-dormant U.S. market, which dried up in the early 1980s amid public outcry over safety and investors' dismay over high costs. Since then, the companies have continued to build reactors overseas in Asia and Europe; GE currently is nearing completion of new reactors in Taiwan. But the U.S. remains the most coveted market because of its economic might and hunger for new sources of energy. While opposition to new plants is likely to be fierce, the companies and Energy Department hope to win approval for construction from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as early as 2009. The Energy Department also is pushing to overcome legal and regulatory hurdles to establish a depository for used nuclear fuel in Nevada. Power companies say they won't build new plants without a storage site. They currently store spent fuel at their plants. To be sure, the power companies and their reactor makers are being cautious not to commit formally to new plants. Longtime proponents of nuclear energy, fearful of being burned by policy changes, are seeking solid government guarantees before proceeding. The collapse of support for nuclear power in the 1980s cost the industry billions of dollars. So far, the proposed new plants would be built at existing facilities. One group, led by Virginia's Dominion Resources Inc., is proposing to build a new reactor, designed by AECL, on a site in Mineral, Va., where a nuclear plant has operated since 1980. A second, much larger consortium led by Exelon Corp. and Entergy Corp., plans to select in 2007 a newly designed reactor from either GE or Westinghouse for a potential new plant. The consortium, NuStart Energy Development LLC, hasn't selected a site but is considering existing locations in Clinton, Ill., and Port Gibson, Miss. GE and Westinghouse, longtime competitors since they built their first reactors in the 1950s, are marketing new reactors that they say are more economical to build and operate. GE says its design takes a new approach to safety, relying on an automated system triggered by gravity instead of human operators to release 360,000 gallons of water to flood a core containing radioactive fuel if it becomes necessary to prevent a meltdown. The design attempts to eliminate human error, which contributed to the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa. Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse, which was acquired by the British government in 1999, recently received approval from the NRC for its own new reactor design, which has safety features similar to those of the GE reactor. The approval enables it to begin offering customers clearer cost estimates and construction schedules, and the company, which has invested close to half a billion dollars on its latest reactor, is hoping to land contracts to build new reactors for China in the next year. "This opens up possibilities for us," said Westinghouse Chief Executive Steve Tritch. By contrast, GE has so far invested about $100 million in its new design. But under Chairman and Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt, it is aggressively pursuing regulatory approval for its new design. "The opportunity exists for the industry to come together around the right technology for a new nuclear plant," said John Rice, chief executive of GE Energy, one of the conglomerate's two biggest businesses. Electric companies also won't have to carry the entire financial burden this time around. GE, Westinghouse and government-owned AECL say they will share the financial risks of building new nuclear plants. That could include providing loans or equity to utilities that build new plants or construction budget guarantees. Such support was missing in the 1970s and 1980s when utilities got clobbered by billions of dollars in cost overruns, among other things. Nuclear power currently accounts for nearly 20% of all the electricity produced in the U.S., compared with 51% coal and 17% natural gas. To maintain that mix, the industry says new plants must be built in the U.S. as older ones are retired. One big challenge, however, is convincing the public that nuclear energy is safe. Opponents charge that utilities aren't adequately maintaining existing plants to prevent possible accidents. The nuclear industry points to a strong overall safety record since the Three Mile Island accident, in which no one was killed, though a small amount of radioactive material leaked into the atmosphere. But the 1986 explosion and deadly aftermath at the former Soviet Union's Chernobyl nuclear plant -- which was caused by major design flaws and by engineers who were conducting unauthorized tests -- continues to haunt the public's view of nuclear power. More recently, a deadly explosion in Japan this year, in which a steam pipe broke because of poor maintenance, caused five deaths. "Reactors aren't inherently safe," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer with the Union for Concerned Scientists, a group that monitors the industry. Mr. Lochbaum, who has sat in on hearings on the new reactor designs, said he thinks they are safer because they have fewer pieces of equipment to operate and maintain. But "a lot of those new features haven't been tested yet except in cyberspace," he said. Nuclear opponents also worry that new plants could become targets of terrorist attacks. Said GE's Mr. Rice, "You've got all this hysteria. You still have in the rearview mirror Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which people haven't forgotten about." Reactors made by Westinghouse and GE already dot the U.S. landscape. Of the 103 reactors currently operating, 49 use Westinghouse-owned designs and another 34 have GE-made models. For now, utility executives are hedging their bets on the new reactors, saying each has its pros and cons and they prefer to make a final judgment when they see pricing and final designs. Though Westinghouse is ahead with design approval, some executives expect that GE's new model could be cheaper because it will produce more electricity and spread capital costs across bigger plants. GE's new design has no large water pipes entering the lower portion of a reactor below the fuel core. The risk in older models is that if those pipes, which carry water in and out of the vessel, burst, water could flow rapidly out of the container's bottom and leave the core uncovered. GE's new design places the pipes above the core so water can't drain out as quickly in case of an accident. In case of accidents, both GE's and Westinghouse's designs use gravity rather than operator-run pumps to force water in and out of reactor vessels and flood the area surrounding the core containing fuel. GE's reactor also holds more water. The NuStart consortium says that cost as much as design will determine its choice of a reactor. A new GE reactor that can provide power to about 1.5 million households could cost roughly $1.8 billion, or 20% less than its current model. Westinghouse's reactor, which is smaller, could cost about $1.14 billion once the costs associated with doing detailed engineering plans are recovered. Building two of AECL's newest reactors, which would produce the same amount of power as one of GE's, would cost about $1.89 billion. But Canada stresses that unlike other reactors, its design doesn't require the plant to be shut down during regular, lengthy refuelings. They argue to utilities that that will increase their revenue during the several weeks such refueling typically takes. The Department of Energy cautions that these construction estimates are overly optimistic and new plants are likely to cost more. Still, proponents argue that nuclear power is efficient. Nuclear power, they note, costs about 1.71 cents a kilowatt-hour to operate over the life of a plant, compared to 1.85 cents for coal and 4.06 cents for gas, according to industry estimates. In addition, nuclear doesn't emit pollutants, while coal's carbon emissions contribute to global warming. "I cannot see any energy future ... without an expanded nuclear base," John Rowe, Exelon's chairman and chief executive, told a group of managers at a climate policy meeting this summer. -- Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html Diane Farsetta Senior Researcher, Center for Media & Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713 fax: 608-260-9714 email: diane@prwatch.org http://www.prwatch.org/ _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 12 NRC: NRC to Meet with FirstEnergy on Nuclear Plant Performance News Release - Region III - 2004-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 No. III-04-049 November 9, 2004 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company officials on Tuesday, November 16, in Painesville, Ohio, to discuss the performance of FirstEnergys three nuclear power plants. The discussion will focus on how the company will deal with challenges resulting from the two-year shutdown at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant in Oak Harbor, Ohio, the degraded performance at the Perry Nuclear Plant in Perry, Ohio, and maintaining adequate performance at the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Plant near Shippingport, Pa. The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at the Renaissance Quail Hollow Resort, 11080 Concord-Hambden Road, in Painesville. The public is invited to observe the business portion of the meeting and will have an opportunity to make comments and ask questions of the NRC staff before the meeting is adjourned. The staff will also be available after the meeting for informal discussions with the public. Even though FirstEnergys nuclear plants are operating safely, two of the three plants face performance issues that need to be addressed. We expect to hear from utility officials how they intend to continue improving performance at Davis-Besse, address performance issues at Perry, and make sure that performance at Beaver Valley does not decline, said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator. Davis-Besse was shut down from February 16, 2002, until March 8, 2004, due to the corrosion damage to the reactor vessel head. The NRC established a special panel to coordinate the agency's response to the corrosion damage and other safety system and staff performance problems. The panel will continue to oversee the plant until the NRC determines that Davis-Besses performance warrants its return to the agency normal reactor oversight program. At Perry, three issues of low to moderate safety significance identified in 2002 and 2003 led to increased oversight by the NRC. In response to the declining performance at the plant, the NRC has stepped up its regulatory scrutiny of Perry, including an in-depth inspection planned for next year to examine equipment problems, safety programs and human performance issues at the plant. At Beaver Valley, all performance indicators and inspection findings are of very low safety significance, and the plant does not require increased NRC inspection oversight. Documents related to the performance of Davis-Besse, Perry and Beaver Valley and the NRC oversight of these plants are posted on the NRC's web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/ Last revised Tuesday, November 09, 2004 ***************************************************************** 13 NRC: AmerGen Energy Company, LLC; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating FR Doc 04-24888 [Federal Register: November 9, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 216)] [Notices] [Page 64982-64983] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09no04-88] Station; Exemption 1.0 Background AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (the licensee), is the holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-16, which authorizes operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS). The facility consists of a boiling-water reactor (BWR), located in Ocean County, New Jersey. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. 2.0 Request/Action Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Appendix J, Option B, Section III.B., ``Type B and C Tests,'' states, in part, that containment leakage tests must demonstrate that the sum of the leakage rates at accident pressure of Type B tests, and pathway leakage rates from Type C tests, is less than the performance criterion (La) with margin as specified in the Technical Specifications (TSs). In this context, ``accident pressure,'' Pa, was previously analyzed to be 35 psig at OCNGS. Accordingly, for main steam isolation valves (MSIVs), leakage rate testing is to be done at this peak containment calculated pressure, i.e., 35 psig. By letter dated December 23, 2003, the licensee requested a permanent exemption from the requirements of the subject provision of Appendix J, such that the MSIVs may be tested at lower pressures but not lower than 20 psig. By separate application also dated December 23, 2003, the licensee proposed to revise the OCNGS TSs, Section 4.5.D, to specify the lower test pressure and leakage rate; the NRC staff will communicate the results of its review of this proposed license amendment by separate correspondence. In summary, in order for the NRC staff to approve the lower leakage rate test pressure for the TSs, the licensee first needs an exemption from the subject regulation. 3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. These circumstances include situations where the regulation would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule. OCNGS has two main steam lines, each having two MSIVs. The MSIVs are 24-inch angled globe valves of ``Y'' configuration. The cup-shaped poppet moves on a centerline that is 45 degrees upward from the horizontal centerline of the piping run. Each MSIV is oriented to provide effective sealing in the direction of post-accident containment atmosphere leakage, i.e., the forward direction, as compared to the between-the-valve Type C test which tends to unseat the inboard valve. The design of the steam lines is such that the preferred method of Type C testing is through the use of a between-the-valves test tap. Periodic Type C testing verifies that the leakage assumed in the radiological analysis is not exceeded. The licensee is requesting this exemption and associated amendment to the TSs in order to reduce the probability of lifting the inboard MSIVs during testing. Testing of the two MSIVs simultaneously at Pa, by pressurizing between the valves tends to lift the disc of the inboard valve. This results in test results which may not accurately reflect the isolation capabilities of the MSIVs. Therefore, testing the two MSIVs simultaneously at Pa does not serve the underlying purpose of the rule. In conjunction with the proposed exemption, the licensee proposed an amendment to the TSs, specifying testing at a minimum of 20 psig between the 2 MSIVs, and an acceptance pathway leakage rate of 11.9 standard cubic feet per hour. The proposed 20 psig pressure is greater than one-half of Pa, and the licensee stated that it would avoid lifting the disc of the inboard valve. As shown in the OCNGS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Figure 6.2-3, the primary containment pressure following a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident reaches its peak within 2 to 3 seconds, and rapidly drops below 20 psig. The NRC staff has previously approved testing of MSIVs at reduced pressure at many other BWR plants. Industry experience in testing these valves at a pressure in the range of 20 psig and with an acceptance criterion of approximately 11.9 standard cubic feet per hour has been shown to be effective in determining the condition of these valves. The underlying purpose of the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option B, Section III.B is to demonstrate by periodic testing that the primary reactor containment will be able to perform its function of providing a leak-tight barrier against uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment. As stated above, the NRC staff examined the licensee's rationale to support the exemption and concluded that MSIV leakage testing at accident pressure does not serve the underlying purpose of the rule, and fulfillment of the proposed alternative testing criteria would demonstrate leak-tightness of the MSIVs. Thus, the underlying purpose of the subject regulation is achieved and served by the licensee's proposed criteria. Based upon a consideration of the information submitted by the licensee, the NRC staff concludes that the licensee's proposed reduced test pressure for Type C testing of MSIVs is justified. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), special circumstances are present in that application of the Appendix J [[Page 64983]] requirements does not serve the underlying purpose of the rule. 4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the licensee an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option B, Section III.B for OCNGS. Specifically, this permanent exemption permits the licensee to perform leakage testing of the MSIVs at reduced pressure, but not lower than 20 psig. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (69 FR 63562). This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of November, 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ledyard B. Marsh, Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 04-24888 Filed 11-8-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 14 St. Petersburg Times: Incident at Nuclear Plant Leads To Panic #1019, Tuesday, November 9, 2004 By Simon Saradzhyan STAFF WRITER A minor incident at the Balakovskaya nuclear power plant created widespread panic in Saratov and nearby regions, with people clearing iodine off drugstore shelves and several being rushed to the hospital with symptoms of iodine poisoning. Reactor No. 2 at the Balakovskaya nuclear power plant, located outside the Saratov region city of Balakov some 900 kilometers southeast of Moscow, shut down Thursday after a pipe burst, but there was no radiation leak, the Federal Nuclear Power Agency said in a statement Friday. However, the incident, which was first reported Friday morning, sparked a panic after Saratov radio stations reported the news along with advice to residents on how to protect themselves from radiation, Gazeta.ru reported. Greenpeace environmental activists then hit the streets in Saratov cities and towns to distribute leaflets explaining how to protect oneself from a radiation leak. Some local residents said they saw a white cloud above the plant and did not believe the authorities' assurances, suspecting a cover-up like the one that followed the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, Russian media reported. "I tell you that there will not be a second Chernobyl. It is not those times any more when you hide information," Igor Maly, head of the local branch of the Emergency Situations Ministry, said on NTV television. Sergei Kiriyenko, President Vladimir Putin's envoy to the Volga Federal District, made a quick visit late Friday to Saratov to try to calm fears. He personally inspected all four reactors at the power plant. But rumors spread quickly throughout the day that authorities were trying to hush up the danger and informally advising schools to let children go home early, Russian media reported. Some kindergartens rushed to seal their windows. Adding to the speculation was the unusual appearance of several generals and about a dozen government vehicles with black military license plates, Kommersant reported Saturday. The officials were there as part of a regularly planned Emergency Situations Ministry exercise, the newspaper said. Worried Saratov residents cleared drugstore shelves of iodine and more expensive iodine-based medicines such as sea kale and vitamins, RIA-Novosti and the Regnum news agency reported. Some vendors at outdoor markets started selling iodine to panicked customers at 10 rubles a drop, the Newsinfo.ru web site said. At least seven people checked into Saratov hospitals with symptoms of iodine poisoning. "The whole city lost their heads," Anna Vinogradova, head of Saratov's department of environmental protection, told Kommersant. "All the telephone lines were busy. People were telling each other to drink vodka, take iodine and no matter what not to use public water." Reports of panic also poured in from the neighboring Tambov, Penza, Ulyanovsk and Nizhny Novgorod regions as well as Astrakhan and Rostov, even though the two regions do not border Saratov. The nuclear power plant's reactor was restarted early Saturday and was running normally, Interfax reported. Russia has 10 nuclear power plants with a total of 30 nuclear reactors, which are regularly shut down for repairs or due to minor accidents. [Copyright] copyright The St. Petersburg Times 1993-2004 ***************************************************************** 15 NRC: Extension of Public Comment Period: Louisiana Energy Services FR Doc 04-24889 [Federal Register: November 9, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 216)] [Notices] [Page 64983] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09no04-89] National Enrichment Facility AGENCY: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Extension of public comment period. SUMMARY: The NRC is extending the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Proposed National Enrichment Facility in Lea County, New Mexico (NUREG-1790) that was to end on November 6, 2004. The original notice of availability of the DEIS appeared in the Federal Register on September 17, 2004 (69 FR 56104). On October 25, 2004, the NRC initiated an additional security review of publicly available documents to ensure that potentially sensitive information is removed from the ADAMS database accessible through the NRC's Web site. Interested members of the public should check the NRC's Web pages for updates on the availability of documents through the ADAMS system. This extension of the public comment period is appropriate to allow members of the public adequate opportunity to obtain access to relevant documents in ADAMS in order to comment on the DEIS. Therefore, the public comment period is being extended until December 18, 2004. Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit comments to the Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Please note Docket No. 70-3103 when submitting comments. Written comments submitted by mail should be postmarked by December 18, 2004, to ensure consideration. Comments mailed after that date will be considered to the extent practical. Comments will also be accepted by e-mail to nrcrep@nrc.gov, or by facsimile to 301-415-5397, Attention: Anna Bradford. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general or technical information associated with the license review of the National Enrichment Facility, please contact Timothy Johnson at (301) 415-7299. For general information on the NRC environmental review process, please contact Anna Bradford at (301) 415-5228. Signed in Rockville, MD, this 2nd day of November, 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. B. Jennifer Davis, Chief, Environmental and Low-Level Waste Section, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 04-24889 Filed 11-8-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 16 NRC: Notice of Availability of Interim Staff Guidance Documents For FR Doc 04-24890 [Federal Register: November 9, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 216)] [Notices] [Page 64996-64998] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09no04-92] Fuel Cycle Facilities AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilkins Smith, Project Manager, Technical Support Group, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20005-0001. Telephone: (301) 415- 5788; fax number: (301) 415-5370; e-mail: . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to issue Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) documents for fuel cycle facilities. These ISG documents provide clarifying guidance to the NRC staff when reviewing either a license application or a license amendment request for a fuel cycle facility under 10 CFR part 70. The NRC is soliciting public comments on the ISG documents which will be considered in the final versions or subsequent revisions. II. Summary The purpose of this notice is to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on a draft Interim Staff Guidance document for fuel cycle facilities. Interim Staff Guidance-09 provides guidance to NRC staff relative the requirements associated with the use of Initiating Event Frequencies (IEFs) for demonstrating compliance with the performance requirements of 10 CFR 70.61. III. Interim Staff Guidance-09, Initiating Event Frequency, Draft October 20, 2004 Issue This guidance addresses the measures needed to assure the validity and maintenance of initiating event frequencies (IEFs) used to demonstrate compliance with the performance requirements for 10 CFR 70.61. Introduction The purpose of this Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) is to clarify the use of IEFs for demonstrating compliance with the performance requirements of 10 CFR 70.61. NUREG-1718, ``Standard Review Plan for the Review of an Application for a Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility,'' and NUREG-1520, ``Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility,'' provide methods for reviewing integrated safety analyses (ISAs), employing a semi- quantitative risk index method. While one of these methods is used below to illustrate the use of IEFs, applicants and licensees may use other methods which would produce similar results. There is no particular method explicitly mandated, and sequences that are risk significant or marginally acceptable are candidates for more detailed evaluation by the applicant or licensee and reviewer. Discussion Each licensee or applicant is required to perform an ISA to identify all credible high-consequence and intermediate-consequence events. The risk of each such credible event is to be limited through the use of appropriate engineered and/or administrative controls to meet the performance requirements of 10 CFR 70.61. Such a control is referred to as an item relied on for safety (IROFS). In turn, a safety program must be established and maintained to assure that each IROFS is available and reliable to perform its intended function when needed. The safety program may be graded such that management measures applied are graded commensurate with the reduction of risk attributable to that item. In addition, a configuration management system must be established pursuant to Sec. 70.72, to evaluate changes, to assure, in part, that the IROFS are not removed without at least equivalent replacement of the safety function. The risk of each credible event is determined by cross-referencing the severity of the consequence of the unmitigated accident sequence with the likelihood of occurrence in a risk matrix with risk index values. The likelihood of occurrence risk index values can be determined by considering the criteria in NUREG-1520, Tables A-9 through A-11. Accident sequences result from initiating events which are followed by the failure of one or more IROFS. Initiating events can be (1) an external event such as a hurricane or earthquake, (2) a facility event external to the process being analyzed (e.g., fires, explosions, failures of other equipment, flooding from facility water sources), (3) deviations from normal operations of the process (credible abnormal events), or (4) failures of an IROFS in the process. Additional guidance regarding initiating probabilities from natural phenomena hazards are addressed in ISG-08, Natural Phenomena Hazards. An initiating event does not have to be an IROFS failure. An item only becomes an IROFS if it is credited in the ISA for mitigation or prevention per the definition in Sec. 70.4. If an item, whose failure initiates an event, has strictly an operational function, it does not have to be an IROFS. This applies to external events and can apply to internal events. If the item whose failure initiates an event, has solely a safety function that is credited in the ISA, then it should be an IROFS. If the item has both an operational and a safety function, the safety function should make it an IROFS (for its ISA credited safety features only). IEFs can play a significant role in determining whether the performance requirements of Sec. 70.61 are met for a particular accident sequence. Whether an initiating event is due to an IROFS or a non-IROFS failure, licensees should take appropriate action to assure that any change to the basis for assigning an IEF value to that event is evaluated on a continuing basis to ensure continued compliance with the performance requirements. For example, a non-IROFS component may not be subject to the same QA program controls and other management measures that an IROFS [[Page 64997]] would receive (i.e., surveillance, testing, procurement, etc.). However, appropriate management controls should be considered, in a graded manner, to provide assurance that performance requirements are met over time. The ability to identify a non-IROFS component failure, similar to that for IROFS, may be needed to provide feedback on failure rates and IEFs to the ISA process. Changes to the IEF values may result from changes to a component's design, procurement, operation, or maintenance history, as well as new or increased external plant hazards, and should be considered in a graded approach. Regulatory Basis 10 CFR 70.61, Performance Requirements. 10 CFR 70.62, Safety Program and Integrated Safety Analysis. 10 CFR 70.65, Additional Content of Applications. 10 CFR 70.72, Facility Changes and Change Process. Applicability This guidance is for use in those cases where an applicant or licensee chooses to use an IROFS or non-IROFS failure IEF for risk determination. Technical Review Guidance 1. IEF and Identification of an IROFS Example. A licensee uses a heater/blower unit to heat a UF6 cylinder in a hot box to liquify the contents prior to sampling. The unmitigated accident sequence involves the failure of the controller for the heater/blower resulting in overheating the cylinder. This results in the cylinder becoming overpressurized and rupturing, releasing the UF6 to the surrounding process area. Such a release is analyzed to exceed the performance requirements of Sec. 70.61. The licensee has two basic choices: (1) Assume the initiating event probability =1 and provide an appropriate level of mitigation or prevention solely through one or more IROFS, or (2) assign a value to the initiating event (blower/heater controller failure) and provide one or more preventive or mitigative IROFS to bring the accident sequence risk within the performance requirements. If the licensee chooses (2) above and assigns an appropriate value to the IEF, the indices of NUREG-1520, Table A-9, Failure Frequency Index Number, may be used. The controller for the heater/blower unit would be assigned an appropriate Frequency Index Number. The licensee would then analyze the accident sequence and determine whether additional IROFS are necessary to meet the performance requirements. There are now two variables that feed into the risk determination: one or more IROFS failure frequencies and the IEF of the non-IROFS controller for the heater/blower unit. Changes to the initiating event that impact the IEF of the non-IROFS controller for the heater/blower unit in a manner that changes the licensee's previous determination of compliance with the performance requirements must be evaluated per Sec. 70.72(a). 2. IEF Index Use Indices may be used to determine the overall likelihood of an accident sequence. NUREG-1520, Table A-9, Failure Frequency Index Numbers, identifies frequency index numbers based on specified evidence. The evidence used by applicants and licensees should be supportable and documented in the ISA summary as required by Sec. 70.65(b)(4). The evidence cited in the ISA documentation should not be limited to anecdotal accounts and must demonstrate compliance with the descriptive definitions of unlikely, highly unlikely, and credible, as required by Sec. 70.65(b)(9). The rigor and specificity of the documented evidence should be commensurate with the item's importance to safety, and the data should support the frequency chosen (e.g., data from 30 years of plant operating experience based on a single component typically could not be expected to support a 10 E-2 failure probability). An item's failure rate should be determined from actual data for that specific component or safety function in the current system design under the current environmental conditions. When specific failure data is limited or not available, the applicant or licensee may use more ``generic'' data with appropriate substantiation. However, when less specific failure data is available, appropriate conservatism should be exercised in assigning frequency indices. The footnote to Table A-9 that states ``indices less than (more negative than) -1 should not be assigned to IROFS unless the configuration management, auditing and other management measures are of high quality, because without those measures, the IROFS may be changed or not maintained,'' should also be applied to non-IROFS IEFs. In this case, appropriate management controls should be provided to assure that any changes to the evidence supporting IEF indices will be identified and promptly evaluated to ensure that the performance requirements of Sec. 70.61 are met. A graded approach may be used in applying management controls based on the IEF values; however, how this will be done should be identified in the ISA Summary. Possible changes to IEFs, failure rates, and the assumptions they are based on should be periodically evaluated by the licensee to assure that any change to an IEF has been accounted for in the ISA process. Over time an IEF may change because of component aging or deterioration. Maintenance and performance experience should be fed back into the IEF evaluation. IEF changes could involve, for example, the introduction of new or hazards from nearby processes or new materials, changes in design, maintenance, or operation activities, etc. The applicant or licensee should establish management measures, which may be graded, to periodically confirm that there have been no changes to the ISA assumptions. For example, an applicant or licensee may choose to verify that there have been no changes to hazards from maintenance activities during a certain period of time based on an appropriate documented technical review or audit under the QA program. Whatever strategy the applicant or licensee chooses to employ should have an outcome of timely identification, and periodic evaluation, of failure rates followed by a prompt evaluation of the failure rate change on the ISA assumptions. This can be accomplished in accordance with the corrective maintenance program and/or the Quality Assurance (QA) problem identification and corrective action system. Indices particularly relied upon (i.e., ***************************************************************** 17 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting FR Doc 04-25024 [Federal Register: November 9, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 216)] [Notices] [Page 64983-64984] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09no04-90] Agency Holding the Meeting: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Date: Weeks of November 8, 15, 22, 29, December 6, 13, 2004. Place: Commissioner's Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and closed. Matters To Be Considered: Week of November 8, 2004 Monday, November 8, 2004 9 a.m. Briefing on Plant Aging and Material Degradation Issues--Part One (Public Meeting) (Contact: Steve Koenick, 301-415-1239). 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Plant Aging and Material Degradation Issues--Part Two (Public Meeting) (Contact: Steve Koenick, 301-415-1239). This meeting (both parts) will be webcast live at the Web address-- http://www.nrc.gov. Wednesday, November 10, 2004 2:30 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting). a. U.S. Department of Energy (High Level Waste Repository: Pre- Application Matters); DOE's appeal of LBP-04-20. b. Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Clinton ESP Site), LBP-04-17 (August 6, 2004). Week of November 15, 2004--Tentative Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Threat Environment Assessment (Closed--Ex. 1). Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Week of November 22, 2004--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 22, 2004. Week of November 29, 2004--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 29, 2004. Week of December 6, 2004--Tentative Tuesday, December 7, 2004 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program (Public Meeting) (Contact: Corenthis Kelley, 301-415-7380). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Wednesday, December 8, 2004 1 p.m. Briefing on Status of Davis Besse Lessons Learned Task Force Recommendations (Public Meeting) (Contact: John Jolicoeur, (301) 415- 1725). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Thursday, December 9, 2004 2 p.m. Briefing on Reactor Safety and Licensing Activities (Public Meeting) (Contact: Steve Koenick, 301-415-1239). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Week of December 13, 2004--Tentative Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1 p.m. Briefing on Emergency Preparedness Program Initiatives (Public Meeting) (Contact: Nader Mamish, 301-415-1086). [[Page 64984]] This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . 2 p.m. Briefing on Emergency Preparedness Program Initiatives (Closed-- Ex. 1) (Contact: Nader Mamish (301) 415-1086). *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415-1651. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities were appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: November 4, 2004. Dave Gamberoni, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 04-25024 Filed 11-5-04; 9:34 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 18 TerraDaily: Containers with radioactive cobalt found in Georgian village TBILISI (AFP) Nov 09, 2004 Two containers with 450 kilograms (990 pounds) of the radioactive isotope Cobalt 60 have been discovered in a village near the Georgian capital Tbilisi, an official said Tuesday. "The special services were informed by the ministry of the environment and we proceeded to transfer the cobalt today (Tuesday) toward a safe place," Pavle Rekhviashvili said. He said each container held 225 kilograms of the radioactive material. Cobalt-60 is used in many common industrial applications, such as in leveling devices and thickness gauges, and in radiotherapy in hospitals. Large sources of cobalt-60 are increasingly used for sterilization of spices and certain foods. The powerful gamma rays kill bacteria and other pathogens, without damaging the product. After the radiation ceases, the product is not left radioactive. This process is sometimes called "cold pasteurization." Leri Meskhi, a spokesman for the environment ministry, said he did not know how the containers discovered late Monday ended up in the village of Lilo. "These open containers constituted a serious radioactive threat to the population," he said, adding that radioactive levels in the region were normal. All rights reserved. © 2004 Agence France-Presse. Sections of ***************************************************************** 19 Uranium Mine In Dr Of Congo Must Stay Closed, UN Team Concludes Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:00:19 -0500 Status: O URANIUM MINE IN DR OF CONGO MUST STAY CLOSED, UN TEAM CONCLUDES New York, Nov 9 2004 4:00PM A United Nations team has found that a uranium mine in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) that collapsed in July, killing eight people, is at high risk of caving in again and must remain closed. The interagency team, led by the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (<"http://ochaonline.un.org/DocView.asp?DocID=2159">OCHA) and the UN Environment Programme (<"http://www.unep.org/">UNEP), visited the Shinkolobwe uranium mine in the southwestern province of Katanga between 25 October and 4 November, and is preparing technical recommendations. The mine had been exploited for uranium but closed before the country gained independence in the 1960s by sealing the main shafts with concrete. In the late 1990s, artisanal mining for cobalt was allowed, leading to uncontrolled and dangerous mining activities. No evidence of uranium mining was found. Around 15,000 people were dependent on the mining activities and living in the nearby village of Shinkolobwe. However, during the UN team's visit, no artisanal miners were active on-site. Following the evacuation of the mining site in early August, the adjacent village had been destroyed. Artisanal miners and their dependants had reportedly dispersed to other artisanal mining sites and some returned to neighbouring towns. "No immediate risks to the environment were observed," said Alain Pasche of the UN assessment team, "though we have taken samples of water, soil and sediments, which will be further analysed in Switzerland for heavy metal concentration." 2004-11-09 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 20 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast water testing begins | 11/09/2004 | • EFFECTS OF TALLEVAST CHEMICALS Lockheed Martin must now determine the extent of contamination at the site of its plant SCOTT RADWAY Herald Staff Writer TALLEVAST - Lockheed Martin on Monday began hauling in truck-mounted drill rigs and stainless-steel hand tools as officials move to pinpoint the industrial groundwater contamination that has shaken this small community. The drilling and probing is part of a state Department of Environmental Protection consent order, which has bound Lockheed to identify the exact extent of the contamination and remove it. "Once we confirm the size and depth of the (contamination) plume, it can help us select the best clean-up method," said Meredith Rouse Davis, a Lockheed senior manager. The community was first shocked in November 2003 when they learned of potential risk of exposure to carcinogens that escaped from the former American Beryllium Co. plant. The ABC plant operated from 1961 to 1996; no one knows when the contamination first entered into the groundwater. The residents' first notice of trouble was when Lockheed crews entered Tallevast to sink monitoring wells, although Lockheed had been investigating the site since 2000. Lockheed bought the plant as part of a larger corporate deal, and the contamination was found during an environmental assessment done as Lockheed prepared to sell the plant. Then in June, residents were devastated when new tests found that the groundwater contamination was three times greater than first estimated. Some resident wells were found to be pumping up tainted water. In some cases, levels of trichloroethylene, or TCE, were discovered at 10,000 times the drinking water standard. TCE was said to be the biggest concern among the solvents that escaped the plant. In July, Lockheed and the state DEP hammered out a plan to clean up the site. The tests are the next milestone as part of that process, and a report on the results is due in January. At the same time, the state Department of Health is conducting an assessment of the health effects in the community from the groundwater and soil contamination. The assessment began in June and could take a year. Residents say they have long suffered an inordinate number of health problems, ranging from bloody noses to miscarriages to cancer. Drinking water concerns On Nov. 15, Lockheed plans to meet with residents to explain in detail the testing that will take place in the next weeks and months. State officials plan to give an update on the progress of the health assessment. DEP spokeswoman Merritt Mitchell there is no longer a risk of people drinking contaminated water. The affected residences were given temporary hook-ups to the county water supply. The DEP teams also tested residential wells extending in a half-mile radius from the factory site to ensure that no other wells were affected by the contamination. "We went house to house to discuss what wells they had and what they were used for," Mitchell said. The only new area that will have groundwater tested is an undeveloped area to the northeast of the plant and the area southeast toward the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, where the Sun Coast Golf Center is located. There are no drinking water wells in those areas, Mitchell said. Testing the aquifer The primary question now is to determine how exactly the contamination went through the aquifer in order to clean it all up, Mitchell said. Water underground seeps through various pockets and fissures. The aquifer is comparable to a honeycomb structure that water can move across and down. Lockheed and its environmental consultants, Tetra Tech Inc., will drill 84 borings to test the water in the upper level of the aquifer. Thirty of those borings will be turned into monitoring wells for the duration of the cleanup project, Davis said. Tetra Tech Inc. will also drill another 20 borings to test the area known as the intermediate aquifer, which ranges from 40 feet down to 300 feet. Gustave Efotte, East Coast project manager for remediation at Lockheed, said four of those borings will be done in 10-foot increments down to 300 feet so the teams can methodically determine exactly how and why the contamination migrated down the 150 feet into residential wells. Efotte said there is a possibility that the wells themselves created the conduit for the contamination to reach deeper levels than experts expected. "We are conducting a comprehensive investigation, which was approved by the (state DEP), that will tell us exactly how wide and how deep the contamination is," Efotte said. Lockheed is also conducting soil testing to determine the extent of contaminants from the former plant. The factory site was found to be the primary source of contaminated soils. But residents have reported that several areas in the community received soil from the plant years ago. Mitchell said those reported areas will also be tested. The majority of the work will take place on public right-of-ways, Davis added. About 20 private properties will also be test sites, but all of the residents and property owners have been contacted already. "The testing will have minimal impact on residents," Davis said. ***************************************************************** 21 Albuquerque Tribune: Tumblin' tumbleweeds might roll up uranium November 9, 2004 TAGS BETWEEN PARAGRAPHS AS SHOWN --> By Sue Vorenberg Tribune Reporter The answer to uranium contamination in deserts across the world might be blowing in the wind. It turns out tumbleweeds are good for something other than classic cartoon fodder. The windblown nuisances are highly effective at eating uranium out of desert soils, said Dana Ulmer-Scholle, a senior research scientist at New Mexico Tech in Socorro. "Of course, the problem is after they eat the uranium they do tend to tumble," Ulmer-Scholle said. "What you could do, though, is use them on a contaminated site and then harvest them before they start to seed." Ulmer-Scholle and other scientists from Tech and New Mexico State University in Las Cruces have spent the past three years studying plants in New Mexico, looking for those that best remove uranium from soil. She is presenting a poster on the topic at the Geological Society of America meeting in Denver on Wednesday. In wetter climates, plants are often used to clean environmental contaminants, including uranium. In deserts that's harder, because plants don't grow as easily or quickly, Ulmer-Scholle said. "Trying to find something that gets you enough biomass is a real problem," she said. "You don't want to have to irrigate it - that's not feasible - but you want to get enough plant growth to remove the contamination." The tumbleweeds would be harvested before they started to blow around and could be burned in a special facility to filter the uranium, Ulmer-Scholle said. The uranium would then be taken to a radioactive or hazardous waste dump, she said. After a preliminary announcement of the work was released by the society Monday, Ulmer-Scholle has been swamped with media phone calls, she said. "This has never happened to me before," she said Monday. "Nobody's ever been this interested in my research. I've done interviews with German radio and news all day." Depleted uranium is used in armor-piercing military munitions and has contaminated some military sites and battlefields. Cleaning it up cheaply and easily could be problematic in places like Iraq, Kuwait and Kosovo, as well as in the U.S. Southwest, Ulmer-Scholle said. "This is probably the lowest-tech, most environmentally friendly way of cleaning up uranium," she said. "There are other more expensive ways - such as removing all of the contaminated soil or using chemical processes, but this method is much cleaner and gives you much less material that you have to get rid of at the end." In the study, funded by the Department of Defense, Ulmer-Scholle and other researchers collected plant samples from two sites in New Mexico known to have uranium contamination: a military facility in the southern part of the state and a natural uranium mine site in the north. "Of the local vegetation at those sites, I would say the tumbleweeds picked up 15 to 30 percent more uranium than other plants," said Bonnie Frey, a senior lab associate at Tech. The researchers tested wild plants and also took soil samples and tested a few other plants in pots. The best plant for removing the uranium was Indian mustard, but it requires a lot of water, Frey said. "The tumbleweeds actually invaded the pots," Frey said. "We had already sampled them and didn't intend to test them in a pot. They were what we call a volunteer, but they did better than everything except the Indian mustard." The main problem with using invasive species is the danger they will spread to areas they haven't already invaded. In New Mexico, Russian thistle and Kochia - both tumbleweeds - have already invaded the landscape, and so they could be used locally. In places like Iraq where they haven't invaded, their use would have to be monitored much more closely, Ulmer-Scholle said. "There's more research we need to do before we can start using this in areas where those plants haven't invaded," she said. "We also want to look at ways to make them absorb the uranium even more efficiently." One thing that helps the plants pick up more uranium is adding citric acid to the soil. The acid breaks down the uranium and makes it easier for plants to absorb, Ulmer-Scholle said. The group also wants to investigate genetic modifications to the tumbleweeds to enhance their ability further, she said. © The Albuquerque Tribune. ***************************************************************** 22 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada lawmakers approve money to continue Yucca Mountain fight ASSOCIATED PRESS CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - State lawmakers have approved spending $1.75 million to continue fighting plans to build a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The Legislature's Interim Finance Committee, which makes budget decisions when the Legislature is not in session, allocated $1.1 million Monday for the Agency for Nuclear Projects and $650,000 for the attorney general's office for outside legal assistance. Bob Loux, executive director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects, said funding from the Legislature's contingency fund could not wait until the Legislature convenes in February. The U.S. Department of Energy plans by the end of December to file a licensing application for Yucca Mountain with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the state has to be ready with its experts and legal advisers, Loux said. The money could be returned to the state if a federal budget is approved including money for Nevada's Yucca Mountain scientific work. The $1.1 million sought by Loux was a new request. The $650,000 for the attorney general's office will come from a $1 million appropriation made by the 2003 Legislature that had reverted to the state general fund when it was not spent quickly enough. The Nuclear Projects Agency relies on federal funding for its fight against Yucca Mountain, but Congress allocated only $1 million for fiscal 2004, far less than the $2.5 million anticipated. A federal budget stalemate this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, means no more funding is yet available. Attorney General Brian Sandoval has sued the Energy Department for more government funding for its anti-Yucca effort. That case is scheduled to be heard Jan. 10 by a panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C. Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn and most Nevada political leaders oppose the Energy Department plan to entomb 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. --- On the Net: Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov --- Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com -- All contents copyright 2004 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 23 Las Vegas RJ: Lawmakers approve funds to continue Yucca fight Tuesday, November 09, 2004 By SEAN WHALEY REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- Lawmakers on Monday approved spending $1.75 million to continue the state's efforts to fight construction of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The request for $1.1 million for the Agency for Nuclear Projects and $650,000 for the attorney general's office for outside legal assistance was approved by the Legislature's Interim Finance Committee, which makes budget decisions when the Legislature is not in session. Bob Loux, executive director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the additional funding from the Legislature's contingency fund is needed now and cannot wait until the Legislature convenes in February. The U.S. Department of Energy has indicated it plans to file a licensing application for Yucca Mountain with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December, and the state has to be ready with its experts and legal advisers, he said. Loux said the money could be returned to the state if a federal budget that includes money for Nevada's Yucca Mountain scientific work is approved. Only the $1.1 million requested by Loux is new money. The $650,000 for the attorney general's office will come from a $1 million appropriation made by the 2003 Legislature that had reverted to the state general fund when it was not spent quickly enough. The Nuclear Projects Agency has relied on federal support for its fight against Yucca Mountain, but Congress allocated only $1 million for fiscal 2004, far less than the $2.5 million anticipated. And with a federal budget stalemate this fiscal year, no funding is yet available. The new federal fiscal year began Oct. 1. Attorney General Brian Sandoval has sued the Energy Department for more government funding for its efforts against Yucca Mountain. That case is scheduled to be heard by a panel of federal judges in Washington on Jan. 10. Guinn and most Nevada political leaders oppose plans by the DOE to bury 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste at the site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 24 BBC: Nuclear waste reaches German site Last Updated: Tuesday, 9 November, 2004 [Nuclear convoy en route to Gorleben] The journey has been dogged by anti-nuclear protests A controversial shipment of nuclear waste has arrived at Germany's Gorleben storage site after a journey marred by the death of a French environmentalist. Thousands of protesters along the route forced the rail convoy of 12 containers to stop repeatedly before arriving at the site early on Tuesday. The shipment of spent fuel rods left La Hague reprocessing plant in Valognes, northwestern France, on Saturday. A protester died after being hit by the train in eastern France. The 21-year-old had chained himself to the track before the train passed near the town of Avricourt, eastern France. Anti-nuclear protesters say the containers holding 175 metric tons of atomic waste are unsafe. Under agreements with Britain and France, Germany sends nuclear waste for reprocessing in both countries but is obliged to take back the resulting waste. Police removed about 400 protesters who staged sit-ins on the two roads to the site at Gorleben early on Tuesday. An estimated 11,000 German police officers were deployed to guard the cargo - the seventh to be returned to Germany since 1996. ***************************************************************** 25 Las Vegas SUN: $1.1 million Yucca allocation helps deplete emergency fund By Cy Ryan SUN CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- Approval Monday by the Legislative Interim Finance Committee of spending $2.1 million to continue the battle against Yucca Mountain and to help fix problems at the Sawyer State Office Building has left the state's emergency fund with just $150,000. Bob Loux, director of the state Office of Nuclear Projects, was asked Monday whether the request for $1.1 million for the Yucca Mountain fight could be delayed until the Legislature meets in February. "We're running out of money. Are you sure we can't put this off until the regular session?" Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, asked. Loux told the committee that the Energy Department plans to file its application for a construction permit in December to start turning Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, into the nation's dump for highly radioactive nuclear waste. Loux said he needed the money from the emergency fund to prepare for the hearings. Loux said there was a possible bright spot in all of this, however: It may be illegal for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to start the hearings because there are no radiation standards on how long the public should be protected. The Environmental Protection Agency believes it will take years to develop a new standard to replace the one struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., Loux said. The appeals court in July ruled that the radiation standard for public protection was inadequate. The court tossed out the 10,000-year radiation compliance period that was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress either has to change the law or the EPA has to come up with a new standard. Loux said it would take years for the EPA to draft and approve a new regulation. Outside the hearing, Loux said the state could take legal action if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission begins its hearings. After the Energy Department files its application, the state has 90 days to submit all of its records, e-mails and other data electronically to the regulatory commission. Loux said there are 8 million to 10 million pages to be transmitted, costing between $160,000 and $200,000. The money would also be used to hire attorneys and to retain the 30 scientific expert witnesses to oppose the project. Committee members wondered why they should allocate the money when the legal issues were still pending. Loux said the state needs to be ready to proceed if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decides to go ahead. The state planned on receiving $2.5 million from the federal government for the Yucca Mountain legal battle, but Loux said it received only $1 million. He said this year's federal appropriation still has not been approved. The hearing before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is scheduled to take about four years. The Interim Finance Committee Monday also allocated $650,000 from its emergency account to the state attorney general's office to continue the other legal battles against the Energy Department. Senior Deputy Attorney General Marta Adams said the office mistakenly sent $1 million back to the general treasury and now needs some of that money for the court battles that are under way. There was $13.5 million in the emergency fund when the Legislature adjourned at the end of the summer of the 2003. The expenditures have included: $2.7 million to help schoolteachers pay insurance costs; $2.6 million to pay to settle the lawsuits over the construction of the Lied Library at UNLV and $2.6 million for the Forestry Division to buy vehicles and cover the cost of fighting wildfires. All contents copyright 2004 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 26 Salt Lake Tribune: Radiation Control Board OKs revisiting waste plan Last Updated: 11/09/2004 12:47:15 AM By Joe Baird The Salt Lake Tribune The Radiation Control Board has agreed to take another look at its radioactive waste management plan, which is now more than a decade old and was seized upon as a problem area by state auditors earlier this year. When the Auditor General's Office released its report last May, it found that the waste management plan, in addition to being out of date, was no longer used by Division of Radiation Control staff and was even hard to find when auditors asked for it. The board voted to address the issue at its monthly meeting this month, with a progress report to be issued by the spring - when auditors are scheduled to make a follow-up visit. Division of Radiation Control Director Dane Finnefrock told the board that the audit's primary concern was that "regulatory creep" has occurred in the past decade in regard to the kinds of waste taken on by Envirocare, the low-level radioactive waste landfill company in Tooele County. "The auditors believed that the plan was in place to address license expansion requests, but we never felt that was the purpose of it," he said. Still, Jason Groenwold, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL), overhaul is clearly overdue. "We've gone way beyond the policy that was originally adopted by this board," said Groenwold. "The original plan limited [Envirocare] to taking mill tailings. Obviously we've gone far beyond that. "Business plans are adopted for a reason." The agency's last comprehensive oversight plan was initiated in 1991 and completed in 1994. The board agreed to gather next month to determine if the update is indeed warranted. If so, work on it would start next year and be at least partially completed by the spring - when the auditor general makes a return visit to the Division of Radiation Control. jbaird@sltrib.com © Copyright 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 27 AU ABC: Govt under fire over uranium mining report. 10/11/2004. ABC News Online ="Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online"> Environmental groups say they have been severely let down by the South Australian Government over its acceptance of a report into the controversial 'in-situ' acid leaching method for uranium mining. The process, which pumps acid into the ground, is used at the Beverley mine and is planned for the Honeymoon mine. Both facilities are in the state's north. Environmentalists say the Government-commissioned report has been flawed from day one because only industry representatives have been involved. State Greens nuclear spokesman Dr Dennis Matthews says it reflects a "privatisation" of environmental reporting. "It also shows that the mining industry is dominant and that environment really doesn't have much show when it comes to mining versus environment - forget the environment basically," he said. © 2004 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 28 NEWS.com.au: Uranium mines to keep leaching process (November 10, 2004) By Political Reporter LEANNE CRAIG November 10, 2004 THE controversial practice of extracting uranium by pumping an acid solution into an aquifer will be allowed to continue in the state's Far North with heightened monitoring, the Government says. Environment Minister John Hill yesterday released a CSIRO report into acid in-situ leach (ISL) uranium mining which found the process had "considerably less environmental impact than other conventional mining techniques". The decision to allow mining of uranium deposits at Beverley and Honeymoon, near Lake Frome, has angered conservation groups and the Democrats who have accused the Government of breaking an election pledge to protect the arid environment in the north. The report recommends acid ISL mining of uranium be "allowed to continue subject to monitoring showing that there are no excursions of leach solution or waste liquids into other aquifers". It also calls for research into the microbiology of the aquifer, the sinking of additional monitoring bores and more mine site inspections. Democrats Leader Sandra Kanck accused the Government of hypocrisy. "The State Government is happy to grandstand on a low-level nuclear waste dump but unwilling to take the tough environmental decisions on its own watch," she said. Australian Conservation Foundation anti-nuclear spokesman David Noonan said the Government had pledged to enforce strict environmental standards at Beverley and Honeymoon. The Advertiser Copyright 2004 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT+11). ***************************************************************** 29 GROUPS APPEAL BIOWARFARE DECISION AT NUCLEAR WEAPONS LABS Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:17:15 -0800 Dear colleagues -- here is the latest on an important case. The outcome will determine whether advanced biological warfare research facilities are operated at highly-secret nuclear weapon sites in the U.S -- without a thorough environmental or proliferation review. Read on... ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS APPEAL COURT RULING ALLOWING OPERATION OF BIO-WARFARE AGENT FACILITIES AT LAWRENCE LIVERMORE AND LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORIES OAKLAND, CA - Late yesterday Tri-Valley CAREs of Livermore, California and Nuclear Watch of New Mexico filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging a ruling on September 10, 2004, by Federal District Judge Saundra Armstrong allowing the federal Department of Energy ("DOE") to operate a contested bio-warfare agent facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. The bio-warfare agent research facility, styled a "Biosafety Level-3" ("BSL-3"), would be used for experiments, including genetic modification, with live anthrax, botulism, bubonic plague and other agents. Some of these agents would be aerosolized for use with live animals to ascertain how effective the agents would be in killing humans. The environmental groups oppose these experimentation facilities because the DOE failed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") evaluating their potential adverse impacts on the environment. Among the many potential adverse consequences of operation of these facilities would be the release of deadly pathogens as a result of an earthquake, fire, sabotage, or other accidental or deliberate release. Two active earthquake faults are located near the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and, according to U.C. Santa Cruz Research Professor Robert Curry, could generate lateral accelerations of up to 1.3 gs. The BSL-3 facility is only engineered for a maximum g-force of just 0.6. Although DOE withdrew its approval of a similar BSL-3 laboratory in Los Alamos last January in response to this litigation, the environmental groups are concerned that the government might decide to reapprove and begin operation of that facility without preparation of an EIS. "Although we are very pleased that DOE has withdrawn its approval of the Los Alamos bio-warfare agent facility, we remain concerned that construction continues on the extremely dangerous Livermore facility," stated Marylia Kelley, the Executive Director of Tri-Valley CAREs. "The serious risks to public health and safety posed by the deadly pathogens that the Department of Energy proposes to use at Livermore could not be greater. This laboratory is located adjacent to the active Los Positas and other earthquake faults, and next to a large metropolitan area," explained Ms. Kelley. "Our community deserves no less than an immediate halt to the construction of the Livermore bio-warfare agent facility and for DOE to withdraw its approval," Ms. Kelley added. "We are concerned that the District Court declined to consider testimony from a number of world-class experts regarding the health and safety risks posed by the Livermore bio-warfare lab," commented plaintiffs' lead attorney Stephan Volker of Oakland, California. "We believe that Judge Armstrong's decision not to consider this testimony defeats the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), which is intended to force federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their programs. This bio-warfare agent lab could become a magnet for terrorist attacks, exposing the entire Bay Area to potential contamination," added Mr. Volker. "Unless DOE promptly withdraws its approval of the Livermore bio-warfare agent lab, we will ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to bar operation of this lab to protect the public's safety," Volker stated. The groups' litigation, filed August 26, 2003 in the Federal District Court in Northern California, charges DOE with violating NEPA by approving advanced research on bio-weapon agents at its two principal nuclear weapon design labswithout conducting a thorough review of the resulting environmental risks and impacts. Their lawsuit asked the Court to order DOE to prepare an EIS on each proposed bio-warfare facility. For further information, please call Tri-Valley CAREs at (925) 443-7148 or Nuclear Watch of New Mexico at (505) 989-7342. Or, visit their websites at www.trivalleycares.org and www.nukewatch.org. -- 30 -- Marylia Kelley Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94551 - is our web site address. Please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax ***************************************************************** 30 chillicothe gazette: Pike commissioners sign off on USEC abatement pact - http://www.chillicothegazette.com Tuesday, November 9, 2004 By Daniel Prazer, dprazer@nncogannett.com Gazette Staff Writer WAVERLY -- The Pike County commissioners signed off Monday on a 15-year tax abatement agreement that helped entice United States Enrichment Corp. to locate its new centrifuge plant in Piketon. The 100 percent abatement gives USEC a free pass on taxes for 15 years, but Community Development Director Ron Pfeifer said the agreement has USEC giving money back to government agencies to make up for the gap. He expects at least $10 million over the course of the agreement. "It's going to be good for the county this time, because we are actually getting some money for us," he said. Other government agencies -- the state, Seal and Scioto townships and Scioto Valley Local school district in Piketon -- have all worked out their own agreements, Pfeifer said. Company officials in January said Ohio's incentive package helped put it over the top in a competition concerning the location of a $1.5 billion next-generation uranium enrichment facility with the Piketon uranium enrichment plant's sister facility in Paducah, Ky. USEC spokeswoman Angie Duduit said she couldn't comment on the incentive package Monday, referring questions to the government. Commissioner Jim Brushart said he was pleased to see the agreement being finalized. The county's in a tough financial spot right now, he said, and the money that USEC should generate will help. "I don't know if there's enough there to curb the deficits we're faced with, but it certainly will help," he said. Brushart said the commissioners haven't started working on the 2005 budget yet, but they're already trimming some fat. "We're already making plans to make some cuts," he said, noting he and his colleagues don't plan to continue a $40,000 contract to clean the government building. That will be done in-house next year, he said. Pfeifer said he's glad to see the deal inked, though USEC hasn't signed it yet. "It's taken us a long time," he said. "I know we went to (USEC's) Bethesda (Maryland corporate headquarters) about this time last year to start talking about it along with the state of Ohio. "I think it's a program that will be good for the county and good for USEC." Originally published Tuesday, November 9, 2004 ***************************************************************** 31 Tri-City Herald: DOE cleanup czar to visit Hanford This story was published Tuesday, November 9th, 2004 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The acting assistant secretary for environmental management at the Department of Energy, sometimes called the cleanup czar, will visit Hanford next week. Paul Golan has been filling the position temporarily since Jessie Roberson resigned in July. The visit is planned to allow Golan to see progress on major cleanup projects at Hanford and meet the management and staff of DOE's Richland Operations Office and Office of River Protection, said DOE spokesman Erik Olds. About $2 billion from DOE's environmental management budget will be spent this year on Hanford cleanup projects for which Golan is responsible. He is scheduled to spend Nov. 16 and 17 at Hanford. According to a tentative agenda, the first day will be spent meeting with representatives of the Yakamas, Nez Perce and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Before Hanford was turned into a nuclear reservation for the production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program in World War II, the land was used by Native Americans for food gathering and many tribes consider certain sites now on the nuclear reservation sacred. Golan also is scheduled to travel to central Hanford for a stop at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, a huge landfill to hold waste contaminated with low-level radiation. It holds about 5 million tons of waste, which includes contaminated soil dug up along the Columbia River and building rubble from dismantling old nuclear reactors. On Nov. 17, he'll see progress being made on construction of the $5.7 billion vitrification plant, which will turn some of Hanford's worst waste into glass for permanent disposal. He also will visit some of the tank farms, fields of underground tanks holding radioactive and chemical waste from processing irradiated fuel to remove the plutonium. Hanford has 53 million gallons of waste in the tanks to be turned into glass or treated by other methods. Work is under way to empty waste from older, single-shell tanks into newer double-shell tanks. Golan also is expected to visit the Cold Test Facility, a practice tank where technology to retrieve waste is tested using nonradioactive materials. Golan was Roberson's principal deputy before being named acting assistant secretary. He holds a bachelor's degree in physics from Loyola University in Chicago and a master's degree in executive management from Northeastern University in Boston. He served with the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and later worked at the Rocky Flats, Colo., nuclear site from 1990 to 2000. He has worked at DOE headquarters since then. © 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 32 lamonitor.com: EPA's runoff plan open for review The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor The top regional official of the Environmental Protection Agency said the public would be able to review and comment on a plan for monitoring stormwater contamination in the area around Los Alamos National Laboratory. Richard E. Greene, the administrator of EPA's Region 6, announced Friday the public would have 30 days to review the draft Federal Facilities Compliance Agreements/Provisions of the Clean Water Act for LANL (FFCA). Greene set a deadline of Dec. 7 for commenting on the draft agreement, which is now available on the Region 6 Web site, www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/w/public-notice-doe.htm. The transparency of the surface water plan became an issue when the draft Order on Consent between the New Mexico Environment Department and Los Alamos National was released on Sept. 1. The consent order indicated that EPA rather than NMED would have responsibility for the part of the environmental monitoring plan having to do with surface water. But unlike NMED, EPA appeared to be reluctant at first to disclose a draft of their agreement. "It's been our stance that we would like to see the FCCA available for public review," said Jon Goldstein, spokesperson for the New Mexico Environment Department. "We want to make sure the FFCA is a robust agreement that will serve as a bridge that will get the state to the point where we assume surface water authority." Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety wrote to EPA on Sept. 23, asking for a 60-day public comment period. CCNS's letter noted some reluctance on the part of EPA. "We understand that EPA is opposed to public comment on the FFCA and is adamantly arguing that there is no requirement to release the draft for public comment," wrote CCNS Executive Director Joni Arends. Arends. She cited a previous instance when Clean Air Act violations were addressed through a similar agreement that was made public and did incorporate suggestions contributed during the review period. "We got 30 days, but we'll take them," Arends said, who began studying the 20-page document after it became available Monday. Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board (NNCAB) chartered to advise the DOE on environmental restoration and several related subjects, sent a letter to Greene on Sept. 30. The board also asked for a 60-day public comment period, noting that EPA and DOE have "provided opportunities for public comment on FFCA's for other DOE facilities." "There were some negotiations going on between DOE and EPA in which NMED was left out in the lurch," said NNCAB Chair Timothy A. DeLong. "We just wanted the opportunity to review and comment to see what was going on. - because of the Cerro Grande Fire and the run-off from some of these solid waste management units and areas of legacy waste." The purpose of the FFCA is to establish a compliance program for regulating storm water run-off from designated sources at the laboratory as an interim measure. Before the end of the year, LANL is supposed to apply for separate storm water permits for two kinds of sources, "solid waste management units" and "areas of concerns." Greene's letter indicated that the agency intends to notify the public and accept comment on those proposals, as well. The proposal calls for monitoring 60 automated stations within the laboratory canyons and sampling near specific sites on a rotating basis. DeLong said the NMCAB's next meeting, Nov. 17, in Pojoaque was scheduled to have a report from DOE on the plan New Mexico is one of five states that does not have regulatory authority over its own surface water. The Clean Water Act provides for states to assume that authority from EPA after a series of qualifications. "We're in the early stages of doing that. An advisory group is being organized to prepare a proposal," Goldstein said. "If it is passed by the legislature in 2006, we would assume authority for it shortly thereafter," Goldstein said. ***************************************************************** 33 PGDP: The Latest News at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Dr. Birge's group from the University of Kentucky (AIP sub-contractor) sampled stream sediment and fish from Little Bayou Creek October 1-3, 2004. Two residential wells well be sampled October 6, 2004 as part of the KY AIP routine monthly groundwater sampling plan. At the request of the PGDP plant neighbors, the Kentucky AIP program has initiated a sampling plan for local water wells. This sampling is focusing on contaminants of the groundwater plumes associated with PGDP. The well water is being analyzed for volatile organic compounds including TCE and technetium-99 by a lab not associated with the PGDP plant. The Kentucky staff has just completed sampling of the wells for plant neighbors who participated in ACT's Garden Vegetable Study. If you are a plant neighbor in the immediate vicinity of PGDP and would like to have your well sampled, you can contact Brian Begley to arrange it. His number is (502) 564-6716. On August 16, 2004, the Division of Waste Management received the Record of Decision for Interim Remedial Action for the Volatile Organic Contamination at the C-400 Cleaning Building at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky. Review will be completed and comments submitted to DOE by September 15, 2004. On July 15, 2004, the Division of Waste Management issued comment on the Sampling and Analysis Plan for Site Investigation and Risk Assessment of the Surface Water Operable Unit (On-Site) at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky (DOE/OR/07-2137&D1) On July 14, 2004, the Division of Waste Management issued to United States Department of Energy (USDOE) a Kentucky Solid Waste permit for the C-746-U Landfills. This Permit (Application number LC1 MOMJ1 / APE20010001) allows the disposal of all non-hazardous solid waste including residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and municipal waste, shredded tires, and non-hazardous spill cleanup residue generated by the United States Department of Energy (USDOE), or on their behalf, in the USDOE-owned Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant contained landfill. For More Information Contact:KY Division of Waste Management14 Reilly RoadFrankfort, KY 40601Phone: (502) 564-6716Fax: (502) 564-4049E-mail: Copyright © 2003 Commonwealth of Kentucky. All rights ***************************************************************** 34 DOE: Security 229 Boundary Revision at Oak Ridge Reservation, Y-12 FR Doc 04-24939 [Federal Register: November 9, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 216)] [Notices] [Page 64920-64924] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09no04-52] National Security Complex AGENCY: Real Estate Office, Oak Ridge Office, TN, U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of 229 boundary revision for Y-12 National Security Complex. SUMMARY: Appended to this notice is the revised security boundary for the National Nuclear Security Administration facility identified as the Y-12 National Security Complex within the Oak Ridge Reservation at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katy Kates, Realty Officer at Oak Ridge Office, 865-576-0977, . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This security boundary is designated pursuant to Section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This revised boundary supersedes and/or redescribes the entries previously contained in Federal Register notices published October 19, 1965, at 30 FR 202 and the amending notice published July 8, 1985, at 50 FR 130, which identified the Y-12 Plant site and related facilities all being located in Anderson County, Tennessee. Issued in Oak Ridge, Tennessee on October 15, 2004. Daniel H. Wilken, Assistant Manager for Administration. Appendix Security 229 Boundary Revision at Oak Ridge Reservation, Y-12 National Security Complex Notice is hereby given that the United States Department of Energy, pursuant to section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as implemented by 10 CFR part 860 published in the Federal Register on August 16, 1963 (28 FR 8400), prohibits the unauthorized entry, as provided in 10 CFR 860.3, and the unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials, as provided in 10 CFR 860.4, into or upon the following described facility of the United States Department of Energy: The bearings and distances of the description set forth below are based on the Tennessee State Plane Coordinate System NAD 83 (88). [[Page 64921]] A parcel of land situated in Anderson County, Tennessee within the Oak Ridge Reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and being identified as the Y-12 National Security Complex of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Beginning at an iron pin, said iron pin being located in the west right-of-way of the South Illinois Avenue ``wye'' and being located at State Plane Grid Coordinates N=611,517.13 and E=2,487,754.62; thence along the following bearings and distances to a point located by iron pins at each of the calls: S 46[deg]25'25'' E a distance of 487.56 feet, S 46[deg]25'25'' E a distance of 194.22 feet, S 64[deg]22'21'' E a distance of 204.07 feet, S 39[deg]30'35'' E a distance of 894.44 feet, S 12[deg]34'25'' W a distance of 47.01 feet, S 40[deg]28'42'' E a distance of 90.39 feet, N 52[deg]43'13'' E a distance of 52.66 feet, N 53[deg]23'27'' E a distance of 50.46 feet, N 84[deg]27'17'' E a distance of 53.14 feet, S 75[deg]26'32'' E a distance of 34.40 feet, S 68[deg]04'27'' E a distance of 681.13 feet; Thence a distance of 334.72 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 3654.36 feet and a chord bearing of S 65[deg]27'42'' E and a distance of 334.60 feet; S 60[deg]30'03'' E a distance of 399.71 feet, S 41[deg]00'20'' E a distance of 27.51 feet; Thence a distance of 62.62 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 35.00 feet and a chord bearing of S 10[deg]15'17'' W and a distance of 54.59 feet; S 61[deg]30'55'' W a distance of 18.83 feet, S 28[deg]29'05'' E a distance of 63.62 feet, N 74[deg]24'26'' E a distance of 81.70 feet, S 84[deg]30'40'' E a distance of 69.77 feet, S 68[deg]35'40'' E a distance of 125.65 feet, S 65[deg]47'40'' E a distance of 265.69 feet, S 60[deg]48'40'' E a distance of 284.13 feet, S 57[deg]44'40'' E a distance of 250.37 feet, S 55[deg]39'40'' E a distance of 547.63 feet, S 41[deg]49'40'' E a distance of 134.62 feet, S 31[deg]23'40'' E a distance of 398.14 feet, N 59[deg]06'16'' E a distance of 36.69 feet; Thence a distance of 235.30 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 2352.12 feet and a chord bearing of S 36[deg]25'11'' E and a distance of 235.20 feet; S 37[deg]37'14'' E a distance of 312.21 feet, S 35[deg]45'22'' E a distance of 330.90 feet, S 36[deg]23'29'' E a distance of 606.16 feet; Thence a distance of 86.90 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 366.98 feet and a chord bearing of S 30[deg]36'48'' E and a distance of 86.70 feet; Thence a distance of 49.59 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 288.95 feet and a chord bearing of S 26[deg]36'16'' E and a distance of 49.52 feet; S 31[deg]23'36'' E a distance of 88.11 feet, S 27[deg]43'42'' E a distance of 588.99 feet; Thence a distance of 130.10 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 1871.86 feet and a chord bearing of S 23[deg]49'30'' E and a distance of 130.07 feet; S 20[deg]46'47'' E a distance of 148.91 feet; Thence a distance of 102.74 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 1060.61 feet and a chord bearing of S 22[deg]56'11'' E and a distance of 102.70 feet; S 21[deg]23'58'' E a distance of 249.78 feet, S 07[deg]12'51'' W a distance of 185.34 feet, S 09[deg]49'55'' W a distance of 181.89 feet, S 14[deg]34'48'' W a distance of 368.08 feet, S 24[deg]12'32'' W a distance of 191.98 feet, S 42[deg]01'40'' W a distance of 117.36 feet, S 56[deg]41'47'' W a distance of 320.00 feet, S 61[deg]08'20'' W a distance of 65.74 feet, S 58[deg]34'50'' W a distance of 224.37 feet, S 66[deg]32'37'' W a distance of 174.83 feet, S 68[deg]17'49'' W a distance of 189.40 feet, S 66[deg]25'37'' W a distance of 167.35 feet, S 64[deg]50'22'' W a distance of 102.28 feet, S 55[deg]51'07'' W a distance of 123.78 feet, S 59[deg]53'17'' W a distance of 167.82 feet, S 62[deg]45'29'' W a distance of 415.66 feet, S 63[deg]01'50'' W a distance of 200.82 feet, S 60[deg]50'52'' W a distance of 137.56 feet, S 57[deg]52'28'' W a distance of 41.63 feet, S 57[deg]22'27'' W a distance of 55.59 feet, S 54[deg]31'35'' W a distance of 66.48 feet, S 52[deg]23'07'' W a distance of 89.96 feet, S 46[deg]32'03'' W a distance of 139.81 feet, S 45[deg]42'09'' W a distance of 205.37 feet, S 46[deg]33'46'' W a distance of 177.19 feet, S 51[deg]56'55'' W a distance of 236.00 feet, S 56[deg]32'26'' W a distance of 211.34 feet, S 59[deg]57'13'' W a distance of 297.15 feet, S 58[deg]08'57'' W a distance of 179.90 feet, S 53[deg]05'38'' W a distance of 211.32 feet, S 51[deg]24'39'' W a distance of 143.47 feet, S 51[deg]16'37'' W a distance of 703.98 feet, S 51[deg]26'00'' W a distance of 174.70 feet, S 51[deg]58'29'' W a distance of 54.24 feet, S 51[deg]11'27'' W a distance of 325.77 feet, S 50[deg]33'57'' W a distance of 200.03 feet, S 52[deg]32'40'' W a distance of 224.98 feet, S 54[deg]43'22'' W a distance of 115.12 feet, S 61[deg]17'36'' W a distance of 121.27 feet, S 59[deg]18'08'' W a distance of 89.56 feet, S 53[deg]43'47'' W a distance of 97.97 feet, S 44[deg]50'59'' W a distance of 104.33 feet, S 39[deg]06'34'' W a distance of 597.64 feet, S 43[deg]42'20'' W a distance of 342.63 feet, S 50[deg]55'40'' W a distance of 655.53 feet, S 51[deg]29'14'' W a distance of 163.35 feet, S 51[deg]29'36'' W a distance of 93.98 feet, S 62[deg]06'33'' W a distance of 244.69 feet, S 51[deg]53'10'' W a distance of 92.10 feet, S 52[deg]57'39'' W a distance of 71.75 feet, S 51[deg]22'08'' W a distance of 318.93 feet, S 51[deg]04'14'' W a distance of 405.64 feet, S 64[deg]31'21'' W a distance of 18.65 feet, S 42[deg]24'41'' W a distance of 35.02 feet, S 52[deg]23'44'' W a distance of 40.07 feet, S 52[deg]24'51'' W a distance of 45.20 feet, S 53[deg]28'25'' W a distance of 247.35 feet, S 59[deg]46'04'' W a distance of 195.54 feet, S 66[deg]09'10'' W a distance of 288.09 feet, S 66[deg]37'33'' W a distance of 256.79 feet, S 62[deg]55'08'' W a distance of 139.60 feet, S 48[deg]54'50'' W a distance of 132.67 feet, S 33[deg]49'23'' W a distance of 126.30 feet, S 26[deg]55'55'' W a distance of 187.00 feet, S 34[deg]23'22'' W a distance of 186.72 feet, S 48[deg]51'42'' W a distance of 133.21 feet, S 52[deg]37'02'' W a distance of 560.77 feet, N 66[deg]01'59'' W a distance of 24.60 feet, N 83[deg]08'04'' W a distance of 68.54 feet, N 30[deg]08'16'' W a distance of 101.85 feet, S 65[deg]02'55'' W a distance of 56.79 feet, N 21[deg]23'06'' W a distance of 156.25 feet, N 32[deg]55'02'' W a distance of 206.58 feet, N 40[deg]35'55'' W a distance of 196.27 feet, N 09[deg]44'34'' W a distance of 89.76 feet, N 03[deg]38'20'' E a distance of 55.89 feet, N 14[deg]11'20'' E a distance of 54.56 feet, N 29[deg]04'22'' E a distance of 113.35 feet, N 26[deg]31'04'' E a distance of 168.46 feet, N 28[deg]05'44'' E a distance of 79.33 feet, N 34[deg]35'24'' E a distance of 150.51 feet, N 34[deg]08'37'' E a distance of 138.36 feet, N 37[deg]07'46'' E a distance of 143.50 feet, N 38[deg]29'47'' E a distance of 70.51 feet, N 30[deg]23'20'' E a distance of 47.17 feet, N 18[deg]20'11'' E a distance of 51.19 feet, N 03[deg]44'41'' E a distance of 56.24 feet, N 19[deg]05'51'' W a distance of 58.67 feet, N 35[deg]17'41'' W a distance of 58.15 feet, N 45[deg]54'09'' W a distance of 150.73 feet, N 55[deg]43'33'' W a distance of 77.30 feet, N 68[deg]58'04'' W a distance of 76.46 feet, N 78[deg]21'36'' W a distance of 132.22 feet, N 70[deg]03'53'' W a distance of 183.66 feet, N 86[deg]24'59'' W a distance of 54.73 feet, N 54[deg]00'50'' W a distance of 17.07 feet, N 65[deg]14'04'' W a distance of 129.89 feet, S 20[deg]51'26'' W a distance of 124.69 feet, S 22[deg]27'24'' W a distance of 77.75 feet, S 27[deg]59'49'' W a distance of 50.12 feet, S 31[deg]51'44'' W a distance of 49.25 feet, S 37[deg]46'53'' W a distance of 84.37 feet, S 51[deg]58'24'' W a distance of 78.10 feet, S 61[deg]08'24'' W a distance of 78.55 feet, S 69[deg]06'16'' W a distance of 59.55 feet, S 72[deg]11'29'' W a distance of 159.42 feet, S 76[deg]24'36'' W a distance of 49.53 feet, S 85[deg]19'07'' W a distance of 27.29 feet, S 74[deg]03'06'' W a distance of 47.43 feet, S 80[deg]03'35'' W a distance of 64.45 feet, S 55[deg]39'30'' W a distance of 33.59 feet, S 82[deg]14'03'' W a distance of 194.45 feet, N 86[deg]28'53'' W a distance of 240.54 feet, N 36[deg]55'09'' W a distance of 126.81 feet, N 79[deg]16'05'' W a distance of 70.61 feet, N 82[deg]27'12'' W a distance of 97.53 feet, N 75[deg]14'49'' W a distance of 257.60 feet, N 67[deg]18'21'' W a distance of 74.47 feet, N 71[deg]54'54'' W a distance of 163.22 feet, N 78[deg]46'23'' W a distance of 123.24 feet, N 74[deg]11'28'' W a distance of 88.54 feet, N 54[deg]53'28'' W a distance of 130.59 feet, N 43[deg]19'26'' W a distance of 85.71 feet, N 39[deg]11'34'' W a distance of 57.54 feet, N 16[deg]13'43'' W a distance of 87.94 feet, N 56[deg]41'12'' W a distance of 120.20 feet, N 10[deg]37'09'' E a distance of 156.06 feet, N 04[deg]44'10'' E a distance of 76.99 feet, N 22[deg]06'28'' W a distance of 134.61 feet, N 28[deg]13'53'' W a distance of 136.97 feet, N 06[deg]05'29'' W a distance of 44.29 feet, N 06[deg]27'04'' W a distance of 153.70 feet, N 30[deg]35'19'' W a distance of 18.88 feet, N 05[deg]26'33'' E a distance of 62.60 feet, N 06[deg]51'14'' W a distance of 72.70 feet, N 35[deg]09'37'' W a distance of 70.52 feet, S 72[deg]44'13'' W a distance of 294.53 feet, N 83[deg]18'30'' W a distance of 220.95 feet, S 80[deg]01'15'' W a distance of 417.69 feet, S 78[deg]47'55'' W a distance of 142.35 feet, S 80[deg]48'08'' W a distance of 340.12 feet, S 75[deg]09'19'' W a distance of 243.31 feet, S 72[deg]29'33'' W a distance of 332.90 feet, S 64[deg]19'46'' W a distance of 56.29 feet, S 21[deg]27'53'' E a distance of 16.18 feet, S 46[deg]02'21'' W a distance of 144.93 feet, S 44[deg]11'43'' W a distance of 107.91 feet, S 46[deg]38'23'' W a distance of 118.82 feet, S 51[deg]31'17'' W a distance of 140.43 feet, S 41[deg]32'55'' W a distance of 69.19 feet, S 50[deg]45'06'' W a distance of 123.82 feet, S 74[deg]53'55'' W a distance of 61.23 feet, S 71[deg]19'58'' W a distance of 63.26 feet, S 59[deg]42'07'' W a distance of 48.59 feet, S 38[deg]42'09'' W a distance of 47.60 feet, S 21[deg]07'37'' W a distance of 14.01 feet, [[Page 64922]] S 22[deg]17'15'' W a distance of 42.33 feet, S 38[deg]23'53'' W a distance of 125.48 feet, S 29[deg]45'28'' W a distance of 109.63 feet, S 23[deg]00'56'' W a distance of 51.53 feet, S 33[deg]09'29'' W a distance of 65.36 feet, S 43[deg]44'27'' W a distance of 41.04 feet, S 36[deg]34'06'' W a distance of 19.15 feet, S 55[deg]40'05'' W a distance of 39.36 feet, S 73[deg]06'42'' W a distance of 87.60 feet, S 67[deg]03'23'' W a distance of 20.36 feet, S 61[deg]13'28'' W a distance of 70.15 feet, S 68[deg]33'34'' W a distance of 89.85 feet, N 39[deg]03'36'' W a distance of 291.49 feet, N 38[deg]56'19'' W a distance of 303.24 feet, N 38[deg]56'23'' W a distance of 164.80 feet, N 38[deg]56'23'' W a distance of 46.78 feet, N 38[deg]59'17'' W a distance of 187.02 feet, N 36[deg]26'08'' W a distance of 116.70 feet, N 31[deg]55'54'' W a distance of 199.17 feet, N 21[deg]44'47'' W a distance of 159.30 feet, N 14[deg]23'20'' W a distance of 166.55 feet, N 24[deg]10'55'' W a distance of 76.15 feet, N 36[deg]14'34'' W a distance of 102.36 feet, N 21[deg]59'31'' W a distance of 171.34 feet, N 57[deg]11'45'' W a distance of 81.41 feet, N 41[deg]56'28'' W a distance of 105.80 feet, N 47[deg]01'49'' E a distance of 93.93 feet, N 43[deg]33'46'' E a distance of 11.58 feet, N 33[deg]08'20'' E a distance of 47.85 feet, N 43[deg]01'32'' E a distance of 23.80 feet, N 35[deg]12'37'' E a distance of 21.93 feet, N 38[deg]00'38'' W a distance of 12.77 feet, N 39[deg]36'51'' W a distance of 42.99 feet, N 33[deg]37'00'' W a distance of 65.19 feet, N 42[deg]13'09'' E a distance of 11.23 feet, N 39[deg]21'06'' E a distance of 18.31 feet, N 43[deg]47'37'' W a distance of 94.02 feet, N 39[deg]19'11'' W a distance of 77.12 feet, N 62[deg]23'59'' W a distance of 39.84 feet, N 67[deg]21'20'' W a distance of 43.16 feet, N 51[deg]42'44'' W a distance of 109.52 feet, N 26[deg]28'35'' W a distance of 26.42 feet, N 31[deg]33'35'' E a distance of 103.13 feet, N 04[deg]42'25'' E a distance of 49.34 feet, N 10[deg]50'26'' W a distance of 57.41 feet, N 09[deg]31'04'' W a distance of 259.67 feet, N 32[deg]33'48'' W a distance of 238.14 feet, N 35[deg]35'12'' W a distance of 171.65 feet, N 37[deg]25'52'' W a distance of 180.80 feet, N 64[deg]46'21'' E a distance of 67.00 feet, N 43[deg]07'08'' E a distance of 265.84 feet, N 63[deg]09'01'' E a distance of 184.95 feet, N 29[deg]45'29'' E a distance of 116.97 feet, N 19[deg]02'40'' E a distance of 162.89 feet, N 79[deg]02'51'' E a distance of 255.61 feet, N 41[deg]40'15'' E a distance of 73.35 feet, N 38[deg]17'21'' E a distance of 161.04 feet, N 42[deg]03'59'' E a distance of 130.60 feet, N 58[deg]04'51'' E a distance of 163.12 feet, N 25[deg]55'32'' W a distance of 58.37 feet, N 18[deg]31'15'' W a distance of 32.02 feet, N 30[deg]39'40'' W a distance of 43.46 feet, N 25[deg]25'55'' W a distance of 75.09 feet, N 02[deg]00'03'' E a distance of 135.07 feet, N 79[deg]18'57'' W a distance of 134.63 feet, N 67[deg]33'52'' W a distance of 242.20 feet, N 32[deg]42'03'' W a distance of 104.70 feet, N 36[deg]14'11'' W a distance of 180.89 feet, N 34[deg]02'27'' W a distance of 139.00 feet, N 33[deg]16'40'' W a distance of 183.87 feet, N 21[deg]53'27'' W a distance of 112.52 feet, N 58[deg]59'55'' W a distance of 41.00 feet, N 38[deg]11'10'' W a distance of 104.91 feet, N 36[deg]57'11'' W a distance of 312.79 feet, N 36[deg]15'48'' W a distance of 102.82 feet, N 32[deg]18'10'' W a distance of 138.91 feet, N 37[deg]36'51'' W a distance of 132.85 feet, N 38[deg]21'19'' E a distance of 47.59 feet; Thence a distance of 119.00 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 154.98 feet and a chord bearing of S 71[deg]32'02'' E and a distance of 116.09 feet; S 88[deg]45'12'' E a distance of 80.42 feet, S 81[deg]41'27'' E a distance of 32.15 feet, S 77[deg]05'40'' E a distance of 135.27 feet; Thence a distance of 160.21 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 371.86 feet and a chord bearing of S 84[deg]41'01'' E and a distance of 158.97 feet; N 81[deg]28'15'' E a distance of 170.39 feet; Thence a distance of 118.35 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 558.44 feet and a chord bearing of N 86[deg]50'56'' E and a distance of 118.13 feet; S 84[deg]12'29'' E a distance of 160.95 feet; Thence a distance of 129.91 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 323.54 feet and a chord bearing of N 86[deg]13'00'' E and a distance of 129.04 feet; N 69[deg]33'56'' E a distance of 110.02 feet; Thence a distance of 189.21 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 1254.00 feet and a chord bearing of N 66[deg]09'31'' E and a distance of 189.03 feet; N 60[deg]24'05'' E a distance of 240.41 feet, N 59[deg]13'33'' E a distance of 79.68 feet, N 56[deg]52'13'' E a distance of 246.05 feet; Thence a distance of 56.79 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 1579.75 feet and a chord bearing of N 58[deg]36'13'' E and a distance of 56.79 feet; N 60[deg]39'51'' E a distance of 355.18 feet, N 58[deg]51'39'' E a distance of 169.33 feet, N 57[deg]54'52'' E a distance of 80.29 feet, N 54[deg]48'19'' E a distance of 329.07 feet, N 51[deg]33'24'' E a distance of 59.67 feet; Thence a distance of 272.54 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 522.81 feet and a chord bearing of N 61[deg]03'40'' E and a distance of 269.46 feet; N 73[deg]48'40'' E a distance of 687.35 feet; Thence a distance of 109.34 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 406.92 feet and a chord bearing of N 68[deg]30'24'' E and a distance of 109.01 feet; N 61[deg]55'59'' E a distance of 218.98 feet, N 58[deg]19'10'' E a distance of 120.18 feet, N 57[deg]40'32'' E a distance of 459.59 feet; Thence a distance of 89.18 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 189.42 feet and a chord bearing of N 44[deg]54'14'' E and a distance of 88.35 feet; Thence a distance of 251.58 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 192.97 feet and a chord bearing of N 54[deg]44'32'' E and a distance of 234.14 feet; N 86[deg]58'09'' E a distance of 122.42 feet; Thence a distance of 125.70 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 123.87 feet and a chord bearing of N 61[deg]02'55'' E and a distance of 120.38 feet; N 34[deg]12'19'' E a distance of 48.88 feet; Thence a distance of 120.18 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 218.19 feet and a chord bearing of N 51[deg]00'05'' E and a distance of 118.67 feet; N 65[deg]48'14'' E a distance of 158.11 feet; Thence a distance of 66.46 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 286.14 feet and a chord bearing of N 59[deg]49'47'' E and a distance of 66.31 feet; N 49[deg]23'13'' E a distance of 58.96 feet; Thence a distance of 86.10 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 155.35 feet and a chord bearing of N 61[deg]34'55'' E and a distance of 85.00 feet; N 78[deg]11'41'' E a distance of 51.07 feet; Thence a distance of 67.77 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 93.31 feet and a chord bearing of N 55[deg]11'16'' E and a distance of 66.29 feet; N 30[deg]42'02'' E a distance of 70.01 feet; Thence a distance of 170.51 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 245.94 feet and a chord bearing of N 48[deg]22'51'' E and a distance of 167.12 feet; N 69[deg]41'17'' E a distance of 130.48 feet; Thence a distance of 78.64 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 212.94 feet and a chord bearing of N 82[deg]09'00'' E and a distance of 78.20 feet; Thence a distance of 63.04 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 101.40 feet and a chord bearing of S 69[deg]15'00'' E and a distance of 62.03 feet; Thence a distance of 89.77 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 290.95 feet and a chord bearing of S 39[deg]09'04'' E and a distance of 89.42 feet; S 51[deg]08'06'' E a distance of 49.25 feet; Thence a distance of 91.26 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 45.25 feet and a chord bearing of N 72[deg]35'55'' E and a distance of 76.56 feet; N 16[deg]49'50'' E a distance of 99.57 feet; Thence a distance of 102.73 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 274.36 feet and a chord bearing of N 26[deg]21'28'' E and a distance of 102.13 feet; Thence a distance of 88.41 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 163.73 feet and a chord bearing of N 53[deg]45'40'' E and a distance of 87.34 feet; N 80[deg]13'40'' E a distance of 48.76 feet; Thence a distance of 88.53 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 98.89 feet and a chord bearing of N 63[deg]48'08'' E and a distance of 85.60 feet; N 35[deg]29'17'' E a distance of 69.20 feet; Thence a distance of 126.21 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 315.26 feet and a chord bearing of N 47[deg]50'19'' E and a distance of 125.37 feet; Thence a distance of 118.08 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 256.97 feet and a chord bearing of N 69[deg]30'09'' E and a distance of 117.04 feet; Thence a distance of 96.52 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 157.59 feet and a chord bearing of S 75[deg]09'06'' E and a distance of 95.02 feet; S 63[deg]25'59'' E a distance of 181.24 feet, N 77[deg]00'10'' E a distance of 60.13 feet, N 71[deg]37'23'' E a distance of 44.39 feet, N 78[deg]14'53'' E a distance of 40.72 feet; Thence a distance of 96.53 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 114.54 feet and a chord bearing of N 67[deg]02'46'' E and a distance of 93.70 feet; N 42[deg]28'05'' E a distance of 44.98 feet; Thence a distance of 118.99 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 253.19 feet and a chord bearing of N 58[deg]43'22'' E and a distance of 117.90 feet; N 76[deg]19'12'' E a distance of 66.71 feet; Thence a distance of 138.59 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 102.26 feet and a chord bearing of N 50[deg]56'43'' E and a distance of 128.23 feet; [[Page 64923]] Thence a distance of 94.25 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 258.25 feet and a chord bearing of N 20[deg]03'27'' E and a distance of 93.72 feet; Thence a distance of 88.75 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 144.08 feet and a chord bearing of N 48[deg]35'50'' E and a distance of 87.36 feet; Thence a distance of 132.51 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 423.05 feet and a chord bearing of N 70[deg]29'57'' E and a distance of 131.97 feet; Thence a distance of 96.18 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 101.22 feet and a chord bearing of N 64[deg]06'04'' E and a distance of 92.60 feet; N 38[deg]58'18'' E a distance of 49.60 feet, N 40[deg]48'12'' E a distance of 36.85 feet; Thence a distance of 93.10 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 190.71 feet and a chord bearing of N 55[deg]26'32'' E and a distance of 92.18 feet; N 70[deg]31'45'' E a distance of 148.98 feet; Thence a distance of 114.81 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 204.20 feet and a chord bearing of N 54[deg]14'16'' E and a distance of 113.30 feet; N 34[deg]42'13'' E a distance of 61.92 feet; Thence a distance of 105.92 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 253.10 feet and a chord bearing of N 46[deg]39'38'' E and a distance of 105.15 feet; N 59[deg]04'37'' E a distance of 140.18 feet, N 60[deg]56'33'' E a distance of 80.09 feet; Thence a distance of 116.39 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 286.97 feet and a chord bearing of N 51[deg]51'02'' E and a distance of 115.59 feet; Thence a distance of 100.95 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 271.49 feet and a chord bearing of N 52[deg]30'51'' E and a distance of 100.37 feet; Thence a distance of 106.76 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 224.96 feet and a chord bearing of N 50[deg]25'41'' E and a distance of 105.76 feet; Thence a distance of 111.88 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 201.98 feet and a chord bearing of N 52[deg]51'03'' E and a distance of 110.45 feet; Thence a distance of 79.05 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 138.81 feet and a chord bearing of N 54[deg]19'25'' E and a distance of 77.98 feet; N 35[deg]25'58'' E a distance of 35.96 feet; Thence a distance of 95.97 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 164.55 feet and a chord bearing of N 52[deg]42'36'' E and a distance of 94.62 feet; N 71[deg]13'19'' E a distance of 49.99 feet, N 62[deg]59'29'' E a distance of 71.02 feet, N 68[deg]01'30'' E a distance of 96.52 feet; Thence a distance of 99.85 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 273.40 feet and a chord bearing of N 57[deg]03'39'' E and a distance of 99.30 feet; Thence a distance of 100.67 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 354.97 feet and a chord bearing of N 51[deg]12'38'' E and a distance of 100.33 feet; N 58[deg]43'39'' E a distance of 139.63 feet, N 64[deg]54'29'' E a distance of 178.46 feet; Thence a distance of 119.93 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 121.04 feet and a chord bearing of N 41[deg]56'03'' E and a distance of 115.09 feet; N 21[deg]57'45'' E a distance of 61.47 feet; Thence a distance of 67.58 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 104.41 feet and a chord bearing of N 44[deg]42'09'' E and a distance of 66.41 feet; Thence a distance of 70.82 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 110.66 feet and a chord bearing of N 81[deg]56'21'' E and a distance of 69.62 feet; S 75[deg]13'34'' E a distance of 38.98 feet, S 70[deg]40'13'' E a distance of 99.33 feet, S 74[deg]2'20''' E a distance of 50.61 feet; Thence a distance of 127.29 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 83.20 feet and a chord bearing of N 70[deg]27'22'' E and a distance of 115.23 feet; N 19[deg]42'24'' E a distance of 69.47 feet; Thence a distance of 90.74 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 146.44 feet and a chord bearing of N 37[deg]23'54'' E and a distance of 89.30 feet; N 54[deg]45'44'' E a distance of 266.17 feet, N 49[deg]20'39'' E a distance of 23.35 feet, N 44[deg]18'53'' E a distance of 72.37 feet; Thence a distance of 137.61 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 303.20 feet and a chord bearing of N 56[deg]45'30'' E and a distance of 136.44 feet; N 65[deg]26'08'' E a distance of 219.74 feet, N 60[deg]27'37'' E a distance of 180.07 feet; Thence a distance of 118.52 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 220.33 feet and a chord bearing of N 56[deg]30'15'' E and a distance of 117.10 feet; N 42[deg]11'57'' E a distance of 50.07 feet; Thence a distance of 71.15 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 167.32 feet and a chord bearing of N 57[deg]50'34'' E and a distance of 70.62 feet; N 73[deg]32'28'' E a distance of 39.54 feet; Thence a distance of 78.54 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 114.83 feet and a chord bearing of N 53[deg]40'20'' E and a distance of 77.02 feet; Thence a distance of 69.35 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 317.86 feet and a chord bearing of N 38[deg]06'56'' E and a distance of 69.21 feet; Thence a distance of 97.16 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 270.45 feet and a chord bearing of N 55[deg]43'50'' E and a distance of 96.63 feet; Thence a distance of 59.46 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 151.86 feet and a chord bearing of N 83[deg]18'11'' E and a distance of 59.09 feet; S 83[deg]42'52'' E a distance of 28.07 feet; Thence a distance of 107.00 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 99.53 feet and a chord bearing of N 58[deg]02'26'' E and a distance of 101.92 feet; N 29[deg]40'02'' E a distance of 96.11 feet, N 36[deg]45'23'' E a distance of 52.85 feet; Thence a distance of 70.20 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 200.82 feet and a chord bearing of N 46[deg]40'52'' E and a distance of 69.85 feet; N 55[deg]42'28'' E a distance of 620.71 feet; N 62[deg]41'38'' E a distance of 411.92 feet to the point of beginning, said parcel containing 3,103.50 acres prior to the deduction of the exclusion areas below: Exclusion Area No. 1 Beginning at concrete monument 00-Y-162 set on the north side of Bear Creek Road and having coordinates of N=610,082.8100 and E=2,488,527.1000, and point being S 70[deg]49' W a distance of 615 feet from the centerline intersection of Bear Creek Road and Scarboro Road; thence along the following bearings and distances to a point located by iron pins at each of the calls: S 51[deg]53'33'' W a distance of 782.97 feet to concrete monument 00-Y-163 having coordinates of N=609,599.6100 and E=2,487,911.0200; thence S 65[deg]58'55'' W a distance of 1740.91 feet; thence a distance of 56.44 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 35.00 feet and a chord bearing of S 17[deg]02'37'' W and a distance of 50.52 feet; S 61[deg]35'46'' W a distance of 658.58 feet, N 40[deg]54'14'' W a distance of 90.02 feet, S 47[deg]39'06'' W a distance of 208.40 feet; Thence a distance of 33.29 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 641.96 feet and a chord bearing of S 38[deg]38'37'' W and a distance of 207.48 feet; thence a distance of 33.29 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 15.00 feet and a chord bearing of S 50[deg]13'55'' E and a distance of 26.87 feet; Thence S 29[deg]50'08'' East a distance of 5.09 feet to a point on the north side of the pavement of Bear Creek Road; thence with said pavement S 58[deg]19'32'' West a distance of 120.80 feet; thence leaving the said pavement N 18[deg]17'28'' W a distance of 4.57 feet; Thence a distance of 42.11 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 77.65 feet and a chord bearing of N 32[deg]28'32'' E and a distance of 41.59 feet; Thence along the north edge of Water Plant Access Road a distance of 305.96 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 643.85 feet and a chord bearing of N 36[deg]30'09'' E and a distance of 303.09 feet; N 47[deg]27'06'' E a distance of 189.92 feet, N 41[deg]17'00'' E a distance of 124.09 feet, N 42[deg]06'38'' E a distance of 181.51 feet, N 46[deg]48'19'' E a distance of 95.15 feet; Thence a distance of 66.86 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 193.47 feet and a chord bearing of N 37[deg]10'04'' E and a distance of 66.53 feet; thence N 26[deg]32'53'' E a distance of 65.34 feet; Thence a distance of 190.81 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 195.00 feet and a chord bearing of N 55[deg]11'32'' E a distance of 183.29 feet; thence N 83[deg]13'28'' E a distance of 200.71 feet; Thence a distance of 230.48 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 400.00 feet and a chord bearing of N 66[deg]43'02'' E a distance of 227.31 feet; N 50[deg]12'36'' E a distance of 95.72 feet, N 45[deg]41'36'' E a distance of 138.30 feet, N 42[deg]02'23'' E a distance of 27.43 feet, N 84[deg]30'19'' W a distance of 201.94 feet, S 35[deg]41'41'' W a distance of 23.89 feet, N 52[deg]02'10'' W a distance of 52.57 feet, S 63[deg]45'23'' W a distance of 185.49 feet, N 40[deg]47'01'' W a distance of 80.60 feet, N 38[deg]21'38'' W a distance of 74.36 feet, N 26[deg]41'16'' W a distance of 47.22 feet, N 21[deg]22'22'' W a distance of 50.11 feet, N 16[deg]05'31'' W a distance of 27.86 feet, N 12[deg]06'35'' W a distance of 33.42 feet, S 55[deg]06'13'' W a distance of 92.80 feet, S 42[deg]24'15'' W a distance of 95.10 feet, S 68[deg]50'25'' W a distance of 177.76 feet, N 31[deg]18'52'' W a distance of 260.76 feet, N 59[deg]46'58'' E a distance of 281.46 feet, [[Page 64924]] S 67[deg]22'07'' E a distance of 182.93 feet, N 07[deg]11'27'' W a distance of 21.98 feet; Thence a distance of 90.82 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 343.24 feet and a chord bearing of N 01[deg]18'15'' E and a distance of 90.55 feet; thence N 14[deg]53'17'' E a distance of 400.64 feet to a concrete monument 00-Y-164 having coordinates of N=610,246.3352 and E=2,486,234.5124; Thence N 41[deg]03'52'' W a distance of 189.93 feet to the south side of Midway Turnpike; thence with the south side of Midway Turnpike, N 62[deg]17'33'' E a distance of 109.31 feet; Thence a distance of 84.23 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 220.04 feet and a chord bearing of N 53[deg]22'36'' E and a distance of 83.72 feet; thence N 42[deg]24'37'' E a distance of 55.09 feet; Thence a distance of 52.98 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 104.83 feet and a chord bearing N 56[deg]53'20'' E and a distance of 52.42 feet; thence N 71[deg]22'04'' E a distance of 57.71 feet; Thence a distance of 68.12 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 109.69 feet and a chord bearing of N 53[deg]34'39'' E and a distance of 67.03 feet; thence N 36[deg]34'16'' E a distance of 62.79 feet; Thence a distance of 164.30 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 164.16 feet and a chord bearing of N 66[deg]37'43'' E and a distance of 157.53 feet; thence a distance of 127.85 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 110.10 feet and a chord bearing of N 64[deg]41'34'' E a distance of 120.79 feet, N 31[deg]29'41'' E a distance of 146.26 feet; Thence a distance of 125.97 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 136.27 feet and a chord bearing of N 57[deg]58'42'' E a distance of 121.53 feet; N 84[deg]27'43'' E a distance of 41.81 feet; Thence a distance of 222.36 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 283.62 feet and a chord bearing of N 62[deg]00'08'' E a distance of 216.70 feet; N 39[deg]32'32'' E a distance of 21.09 feet; Thence a distance of 148.42 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 144.69 feet and a chord bearing of N 68[deg]55'47'' E a distance of 141.99 feet; S 81[deg]40'59'' E a distance of 126.15 feet; Thence a distance of 196.21 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 453.57 feet and a chord bearing of N 85[deg]55'28'' E a distance of 194.68 feet; N 70[deg]37'33'' E distance of 150.03 feet; Thence leaving said south side of Midway Turnpike S 34[deg]14'27'' East a distance of 1339.32 feet to the Point of Beginning, and containing 81.33 acres, more or less. Exclusion Area No. 2 Beginning at concrete monument 00-Y-166 having coordinates of N=608,866.1167 and E=2,491,528.3694, said point being S 53[deg]08' East a distance of 1175 feet from the centerline intersection of Second Street and Scarboro Road; thence along the following bearings and distances running 5 feet outside and parallel to a chain link fence to a point located by iron pins at each of the calls: S 11[deg]57'51'' E a distance of 190.83 feet, S 20[deg]58'39'' W a distance of 162.04 feet, N 82[deg]41'43'' W a distance of 326.09 feet, N 20[deg]55'08'' W a distance of 161.87 feet, N 70[deg]55'21'' W a distance of 256.95 feet, N 21[deg]25'10'' E a distance of 138.58 feet, S 70[deg]56'19'' E a distance of 255.01 feet, N 29[deg]13'41'' E a distance of 153.55 feet, N 36[deg]55'00'' E a distance of 77.89 feet to concrete monument 00-Y-165 set having coordinates of N=609,046.7759 and E=2,491,299.2370; Thence S 51[deg]44'46'' E a distance of 291.79 feet to the Point of Beginning, said parcel containing 4.36 acres, more or less. The net area included within the boundary to be posted for 229 security purposes is 3,017.81 acres, more or less. [FR Doc. 04-24939 Filed 11-8-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 35 [du-list] du in the news - 9/11/04 (with live links !) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:16:59 -0800 > Monday, November 8, 2004 11:08 AM PST > Your Keyword News Alert for [depleted uranium] > matched the following stories: > > The Arizona Republic, Sun, 07 Nov 2004 3:15 PM PST > Lars Jacoby http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/1108gilbertvet08Z6.html > Many veterans who served during Operation Desert Storm suffer from a variety of symptoms commonly called Persian Gulf Illness. Several things are believed to cause the illness, including exposure to depleted uranium and oil well fires. > > SpaceDaily, Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:29 PM PST > EARTH OBSERVATION Tumbleweeds Good For Uranium Clean-Up http://www.spacedaily.com/news/disaster-management-04z.html > The lowly, ill-regarded tumbleweed might be good for something after all. > > The Pocono Record, Mon, 08 Nov 2004 7:12 AM PST > Bottled water is no better, and may be worse, than tap http://www.poconorecord.com/lifestyl/tdo25743.htm > Dear EarthTalk: Why is bottled water so ubiquitous in stores now? Isn't tap water safe enough to drink? Today just about all Americans have access to clean, safe and healthy tap water. > > Electronic Iraq, Mon, 08 Nov 2004 9:00 AM PST > Mary T. Shaw, Electronic Iraq, 8 November 2004 http://electroniciraq.net/news/1697.shtml > George W. Bush's election victory must not be misinterpreted as popular approval of his administration's policies that have led to gross human rights violations in pursuing the "war on terror." > > Media Monitors Network, Mon, 08 Nov 2004 3:20 AM PST > Alawi, Bush and Sharon Promote Scorched-earth Policy in Iraq (by Stan Moore) - Media Monitors Network (MMN) http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/11164/ > ¨ Join the struggle to keep Media Monitors Network (MMN) on the web! ¨ Make a commitment to subscribe, donate and/or place all of your book and other product orders from Amazon.com and others through MMN Shopping web-site by clicking here. > > See more news stories that match your keyword at: > http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?c=&p=depleted+uranium > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 36 BBC: Fusion reactor decision must wait Last Updated: Tuesday, 9 November, 2004 ITER - NUCLEAR FUSION PROJECT [Iter, BBC] The project is estimated to cost $10bn and will run for 20 years It will produce the first sustained fusion reactions Iter is the final stage before a commercial reactor is built The six nations planning to build the world's biggest nuclear fusion reactor ended their latest meeting with no agreement on a site for the facility. Officials had gathered in Vienna at the International Atomic Energy Agency to discuss the project, which will be based in either France or Japan. The parties are deadlocked over the decision - and neither Japan nor the EU will back down in favour of the other. Europe has warned it could go it alone if the matter is not resolved soon. Outside support The decision to break away could come later this month when Europe's Council of Ministers is expected to discuss the issue. The EU would look to other nations outside the Iter consortium to come in and help fund the work at Cadarache in the south of France. These might include India, Switzerland and Canada, which itself recently withdrew from the Iter process. Japan has been irked by comments in the media over the past day that it was about to concede. This will not happen, its delegation in Vienna has said. It is adamant that its candidate site at Rokkasho-mura in the north of the country is the best - and it has the support of the US and South Korea. The other two Iter parties, Russia and China, back Cadarache on the French Mediterranean. "There was no agreement but there was no breakdown either. On the contrary, we have done good work and made good progress," European Commission spokesman Fabio Fabbi told the Reuters news agency. "The two countries least enthusiastic about the European option - Japan and the United States - weren't very warm but they were no longer firmly against it," he said. Challenging concept After the International Space Station, the reactor would be the largest international research and development collaboration. In terms of the physics and huge amounts of energy involved, the project would be akin to building a star on Earth. In a fusion reaction, energy is produced when light atoms - the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium - are fused together to form heavier atoms. This is quite different to nuclear fission in which atomic nuclei are split to release energy. But to use controlled fusion reactions on Earth, it is necessary to heat a gas to temperatures exceeding 100 million Celsius - many times hotter than the centre of the Sun. The engineering challenges this presents are immense. Scientists envisage running the reactions suspended in magnetic fields in a torus-shaped chamber called a tokomak. The rewards, if this can be made to work on the large scale, are extremely attractive. One kilogram of fusion fuel would produce the same amount of energy as 10,000,000 kg of fossil fuel. What is more, fusion does not produce the long-term high-level radioactive waste that burdens nuclear fission. ***************************************************************** 37 PRN: Hydrogen Energy and Fuel Cells Demystified in New Book for Non-Scientists LOVELAND, Colo., Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Pound for pound, pure liquid hydrogen has nearly three times more energy than gasoline. This fact is just one of many found in the new book, "HYDROGEN -- Hot Stuff Cool Science," in which author Rex Ewing explains in plain English, minus politics and hidden agendas, where hydrogen energy comes from, and how we'll use it to power everything from cars to homes to cities. After reading Ewing's book, actor Dennis Weaver says, "I was sure it was going to be stodgy and tedious. I discovered, to my delight, Rex Ewing has concocted a formula that makes his book not only educational and informative, but downright entertaining." Ewing, author of "Power with Nature," and "Logs, Wind and Sun," does whatever it takes to make science interesting and understandable without sacrificing substance. In his latest book he enlists the help of a crafty wizard, a magical place called the Wasserstoff Farm and dozens of clever illustrations and photos to explore and explain the science of hydrogen energy and fuel cells, and examine the cutting-edge technologies being developed to make a hydrogen economy possible. Dr. Ronal Larson, Vice-Chair of the American Solar Energy Society says, "Readers are in for a lot of surprises -- including many amazing, not-yet- well-known future approaches to hydrogen generation and use." Clean, renewable sources of energy for making hydrogen -- including wind, solar and biomass -- along with traditional sources of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power are discussed in detail. To help readers understand the impetus behind hydrogen energy, Ewing puts global warming and America's energy consumption into perspective. He even takes time to illuminate the difference between H-bombs and the hydrogen-for-energy concept. "When people in the hydrogen industry asked for a book for non-scientists, I couldn't resist the challenge of taking vast amounts of complex information and making it both readable and entertaining," Ewing says. "I wanted to go beyond the political and economic rhetoric and explore the science, since it's the real beauty behind hydrogen energy." "HYDROGEN -- Hot Stuff Cool Science: Journey to a World of Hydrogen and Fuel Cells at the Wasserstoff Farm" by Rex A. Ewing ($24.95; ISBN 0-9658098-6-2; PixyJack Press) is available at bookstores, and . PixyJack Press, LLC is a solar and wind-powered company in the Colorado Rockies. SOURCE PixyJack Press, LLC Web Site: Copyright © 1996-2004 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************