***************************************************************** 10/07/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.240 ***************************************************************** 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 US: [progchat_action] FOCUS: U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on WMD 2 Not everybody lied about Iraq's WMD - Green Left Weekly reports 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iraq had no WMD, inspectors conclude 4 BBC: Iraq war debate fuelled by report 5 UK: Evening Times: Blair defiant in face of Iraq WMD report - 6 UK Independent: The final judgement 7 Forbes.com: Korea Redux 8 Las Vegas SUN: Bush, Hu Discuss N. Korea, Trade Deficit 9 US: SF Chronicle: George Bush and John Kerry on the environment 10 News from the British Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu 11 Inspections, Diplomacy Can Help Keep Nuclear Proliferation In Check 12 Times of India: Time not right to sign NPT - Manmohan 13 Xinhuanet: Brazil agrees on IAEA inspection of its nuclear facilitie 14 Las Vegas SUN: Russia Rejects Nuclear Criticism NUCLEAR REACTORS 15 US: [NukeNet] As of Dec. 31, 2002, over 47, 000 metric tons of 16 US: Platts: Senate resolution praising nuclear power introduced 17 UPI: Czech nuclear plant restarts after repairs - 18 US: NRC: Dr. Richard S. Denning Appointed to NRC Advisory Committee 19 US: AP Wire: TVA nuclear reactor needs $200 million repair 20 US: NRC: NRC Staff to Hold Public Meeting in Atlanta Oct. 13-15 on F 21 US: AP Wire: Nuclear power plant shuts down after lightning strikes 22 Reuters: New Finnish nuclear plants raises hopes and fears 23 US: PRN: Westinghouse Wins Contract to Supply Replacement Steam Gene 24 St. Petersburg Times: Report Says Renovation of Chernobyl-Type React 25 US: NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide; Issuance, Availability 26 US: NRC: Proposed Generic Communication; Steam Generator Tube Integr 27 PRAVDA.Ru: 200 American nukes said to be in Western Europe - NUCLEAR SAFETY 28 Doctors, Depleted Uranium and Dying Children 29 US: [du-list] [Fwd: DU use in Florida] 30 [du-list] DU in the news 7th Oct 04 31 [du-list] ["depleted uranium in the news "] live links 32 [DU-WATCH] DU PINK ELEPHANT-PHOTO EXHIBIT- NYC 33 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $9,600 Fine Against Virginia Firm in Whistlebl 34 csmonitor: Plutonium: rising terror threat NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 35 Las Vegas RJ: EDITORIAL: More waste at Yucca 36 Las Vegas RJ: Agency hunts new site to store nuclear waste 37 BBC: France moves US plutonium south 38 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca issue lacks national appeal 39 US: Las Vegas SUN: New site sought for nuke waste 40 Las Vegas SUN: Democrats say Bush deceiving Nevadans on Yucca 41 Las Vegas SUN: Proponents cite missing waste as need for Yucca 42 RGJ: Promise won’t help Yucca 43 KRT Wire: Though strongly GOP, Democrats may exploit Nevada's growth 44 US: PR Newswire: Phase I uranium acquisition complete 45 KESQ: Kerry would use budget, Cabinet influence to kill Yucca Mounta 46 News & Star: MOX fuel boost is on cards for BNFL NUCLEAR WEAPONS 47 US Plutonium to France: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/ US Atomic US DEPT. OF ENERGY 48 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Umatilla tribes say they'll sue over env 49 Hawk Eye: IAAP lands large Defense contracts 50 lamonitor.com: Russians study environment in Los Alamos 51 San Francisco Bay View: UC Regents lose control of nuclear weapons p 52 Corvallis Gazette-Times: Umatilla tribes file lawsuit notice OTHER NUCLEAR 53 UCS: Environmental Groups Demand Cape Wind Impact Statement ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [progchat_action] FOCUS: U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on WMD Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:00:26 -0500 (CDT) FOCUS: U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on WMD http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100804Z.shtml ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/XgSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/progchat_action/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: progchat_action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 2 Not everybody lied about Iraq's WMD - Green Left Weekly reports Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:13:47 -0500 (CDT) UNITED STATES: `We have Iraq on the radar screen' .. Scott Ritter, an UNSCOM weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, has backed Iraq's claim. Under the most stringent on-site ... www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/475/475p19.htm IRAQ: US war drive `built on a bed of lies' .. One key expert who was excluded from the hearings was Scott Ritter, who as senior UNSCOM weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998 personally led the inspections ... www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/504/504p12.htm IRAQ: A war based on lies .. They have read the evidence of Scott Ritter, who as senior United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq for seven years, is uniquely placed to assess how much of a ... www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/507/507p15.htm COVER STORY: Bush's Iraq war threat based on lies .. According to Scott Ritter, who as head weapons inspector until 1998 led the inspections and the subsequent destruction of what was found, 90-95% of Iraq's ... www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/511/511p12.htm IRAQ: How George Bush lied .. However, former top UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter stated in a June 2000 article in Arms Control Today, Through its inspection activities, UNSCOM [the ... www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/524/524p12.htm IRAQ: `Star witness' told US that weapons were totally destroyed .. wrote. A military aide who defected with Kamel ... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks. These statements ... www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/528/528p13b.htm IRAQ: A war based on US lies .. UN inspectors have confirmed that if Iraq possesses any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), they are merely the forgotten legacy of its past weapons programs. ... www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/531/531p12.htm IRAQ: How Bush, Howard and Blair lied about WMD. BY ROHAN PEARCE. ... Kamal's testimony was repeatedly cited as evidence of the extent of Iraq's WMD programs. ... www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/541/541p14.htm UNITED STATES: How the media spread Bush's WMD lies .. Duelfer admitted he was a committed proponent of regime change whether Husseon was harbouring illegal weapons or not (Endgame, Scott Ritter): I think it ... www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/550/550p14.htm ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iraq had no WMD, inspectors conclude [UP] 1,625 UN and US inspectors spent two years searching 1,700 sites at a cost of more than $1bn. Yesterday they delivered their verdict Julian Borger in Washington Thursday October 7, 2004 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] [The UN searches the desert around Falluja in February 2003] The UN searches the desert around Falluja in February 2003. Photograph: David Guttenfelder/AP Saddam Hussein destroyed his last weapons of mass destruction more than a decade ago and his capacity to build new ones had been dwindling for years by the time of the Iraq invasion, according to a comprehensive US report released yesterday. The report, the culmination of an intensive 15-month search by 1,200 inspectors from the CIA's Iraq Survey Group (ISG), concluded that Saddam had ambitions to restart at least chemical and nuclear programmes once sanctions were lifted. However, concrete plans do not appear to have been laid down, let alone set in motion. Nor did Saddam issue direct verbal orders to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The main evidence of his intentions are his own cryptic remarks, and the meaning his aides inferred from them. The ISG conclusions, delivered to Congress yesterday, are badly timed for George Bush's re-election bid, as they starkly contradict his pre-war claims as well as statements he has made on the campaign trail. Even in recent days the president has insisted that, although Iraq had no WMD at the time of the war, it was a "gathering threat" which had to be confronted. Instead the ISG found Saddam represented a diminishing threat. However, Charles Duelfer, the head of the ISG and the report's chief author, said that by late 2001, when the international embargo on Iraq was tightened, it was clear sanctions would not have contained Saddam for much longer. Mr Duelfer told a Senate committee yesterday the Saddam regime "had made progress in eroding sanctions, and had it not been for September 11, things would have taken a very different turn for the regime". He pointed out the report was comprehensive but "not final" as a team of 900 linguists were still sifting through a mountain of documents. But Mr Duelfer, a former UN weapons inspector, added: "I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are hidden in Iraq." Tony Blair said that the report showed Saddam was seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction and had retained key scientists to do so. Mr Blair said in Ethiopia that the report showed that "the situation is far more complicated than many thought. Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now shows that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to deploy, I hope others will have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions were not working. On the contrary Saddam was doing his best to get round those sanctions". Iraq had pesticide plants and other chemical facilities which could have been converted to the production of chemical weapons, the ISG found, but there was no clear evidence of such plans. Meanwhile, Saddam appears to have lost interest altogether in biological weapons. "ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW [biological warfare] programme or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes," the report concluded, adding that "there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the presidential level". Iraq would therefore "have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability". As far as making a nuclear bomb was concerned, Mr Duelfer said Saddam "was further away in 2003 than he was in 1991. So the nuclear programme was decaying steadily". Mr Duelfer's team did find evidence that Saddam wanted to restart his weapons programmes if the United Nations embargo on his country was lifted. However, none of that evidence was on paper. The primary source was the imprisoned dictator himself. According to Mr Duelfer, Saddam saw WMD primarily as a counterbalance to Iran's programmes. The ousted dictator reportedly told his interrogators "he would do whatever it took to offset the Iranian threat, making it clear he was referring to Iran's nuclear capability", Mr Duelfer said. He suggested that only the ousted leader knew what his weapons plans were and that even close aides were uncertain whether Iraq had WMD or not. The Duelfer report found that there had been no "identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. "Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent but firm, verbal comments and directions to them." In the 12 years between the first and second Gulf wars, however, an American official who helped compile the report said, it was clear that UN sanctions had been effective in persuading Saddam to disarm. Mr Duelfer said Saddam's "prime objective was the termination of UN sanctions on Iraq. And he weighed all policy actions and steps for their impact on this overarching objective". Saddam apparently believed WMD had stopped the US marching on Baghdad in 1991 and had prevented defeat by Iran. A separate CIA report, leaked to the US press this week, severely weakened the Bush claim of a link between Baghdad and al-Qaida. It found no clear evidence of Iraq harbouring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist believed to be behind many of the attacks and now holding the British hostage, Kenneth Bigley. In all, 1,625 US and UN inspectors were working in Iraq for two years - from November 2002 to September 2004 - at a cost of over $1bn. They searched nearly 1,700 sites. Related articles 04.02.2004: Swift and secret, Blair's inquiry 04.02.2004: Blair says legal basis for war was sound 04.02.2004: Kennedy spurns narrow brief that won't win trust 04.02.2004: Lord Butler: the man who will investigate 04.02.2004: The Franks precedent Comment 04.02.2004: Leader: Iraq inquiry 04.02.2004: Jonathan Freedland: Don't be fooled again over Iraq 04.02.2004: Kenneth Pollack: How did we get it so wrong? 04.02.2004: Sketch: Simon Hoggart 04.02.2004: Diary: Matthew Norman 04.02.2004: Letters: From one inquiry to the next Hutton report Full coverage of the inquiry and report Read the Hutton report (pdf, 2MB) [http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2004/01 /28/huttonreport.pdf] Intelligence and security committee report Download the MPs' published report (pdf) [http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/09 /11/1109isc.pdf] 11.09.2003: ISC report: key quotes Foreign affairs committee report Read the MPs' report in full (pdf) [http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/07 /07/WMD_report.pdf] 07.07.2003: Conclusions and recommendations The dossiers The government's September dossier on Iraqi WMD (pdf) [http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09 /24/dossier.pdf] The government's February dossier on Iraqi WMD (pdf) [http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2003/02 /07/uk0103.pdf] Explained 03.06.2003: The different government inquiries Political alerts Get daily headlines straight to your mobile Sign up for the Backbencher Our free weekly insider's guide to Westminster What do you think? Email comments for publication to politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk [politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk] Special reports Hutton inquiry David Kelly Politics and Iraq Iraq: the war and its aftermath Useful links Intelligence and security committee [http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/intelligence/] Foreign affairs select committee [http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affair s_committee.cfm] The Hutton inquiry [http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 4 BBC: Iraq war debate fuelled by report Last Updated: Thursday, 7 October, 2004 [Charles Duelfer with report] Duelfer confirmed there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq An official US report saying Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when US-led forces invaded has intensified the debate about justification for the war. Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller said thousands had died and yet Iraq had never posed a grave or growing danger. However, the report by the Iraq Survey Group said there was evidence that Saddam Hussein intended to resume a weapons programme. The White House said this showed the former Iraqi leader posed a threat. It is also clear that the was every intention on Saddam's part to develop weapons and that he did not have any intention of complying with the UN resolutions Tony Blair UK Prime Minister Blair under fire over report UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said that while he now accepted that Iraq held no stockpiles of WMD ready to be deployed at the time of the invasion, the report showed that UN sanctions had not been working. Australian Prime Minister John Howard, another leading member of the coalition, said the report had changed nothing and he was "not in any way apologetic" for being involved in the war. The coalition used allegations of Iraqi WMDs as a key reason for going to war. Chief US weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the ISG, said in the report that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion. Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed not grown since the 1991 war, he added. 'Risk' President Bush himself again defended last year's invasion, though he made no reference to the report. HAVE YOUR SAY Saddam Husse may be guilty of a number of dreadful things, but thought crime - is this a new legal precedent? Cameron Haig, New York Send us your comments On the election campaign trail on Wednesday, Mr Bush said that the world was better off without Saddam Hussein, and the risk of him passing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to terror groups was "a risk we could not afford to take". But Senator Rockefeller, who attended a closed-door briefing by Mr Duelfer before the publication of the report, completely disagreed. "We invaded a country, thousands of people have died and Iraq never posed a grave or growing danger," he said. World opinion also remains divided over the report. Set up in May 2003 Firs leader, David Kay, quit in Jan 2004 stating WMD would not be found in Iraq New head, Charles Duelfer appointed by CIA 1,200 experts from the US, Britain and Australia HQ in Washington, offices in Baghdad and Qatar In quotes: US Iraq policy Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barhem Saleh, said anyone who doubted that Saddam Hussein had WMDs only needed to visit Halabja - where the former Iraq dictator had gassed thousands of Kurds. But former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said he hoped Mr Blair and Mr Bush would now admit that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Key findings in the report: + "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability." + "There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted... " + "The problem of discerning WMD in Iraq is highlighted by the pre-war misapprehensions of weapons which were not there. Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions." The ISG also published a list of people and groups to whom Saddam Hussein allegedly offered cheap oil in return for their support in trying to get UN sanctions lifted. Many on the list - drawn from official Iraqi documents - are from Russia, France and China - countries which opposed the war in Iraq. ***************************************************************** 5 UK: Evening Times: Blair defiant in face of Iraq WMD report - [online@eveningtimes.co.uk] The Government was today facing up to confirmation that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. The group hunting for Saddam's arsenal has said it had found no evidence he had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons at the time of the US-led invasion. The Iraq Survey Group concluded Saddam had destroyed his banned weapons after the 1991 Gulf War. The ISG said it could not completely rule out the possibility that Iraq held on to some weapons, but it had nothing of a "military significant capability". However, in a finding seized on by Prime Minister Tony Blair, the ISG said Saddam was determined to revive his weapons programme once UN sanctions were finally lifted. ISG chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer told a US Senate committee the world was better off without Saddam in power. The findings undoubtedly have the potential to damage Mr Blair. Saddam's supposed WMD was the reason the Prime Minister gave for taking Britain to war. However, in truth the report simply confirmed what most people already thought and the Prime Minister himself had accepted. Despite his initial conviction that Saddam had WMD, last year the premier accepted the ISG "may never find" them. And just last week he admitted the original intelligence was wrong. But the findings have sparked renewed questions over the legality of the war and the timing could scarcely be worse for American President George W Bush, coming just weeks before the presidential election. Mr Blair said he had to accept the conclusion that Saddam did not have weapons stockpiles, but he said it showed sanctions were not working and Saddam was determined to develop weapons. Speaking during a trip to Ethiopia, he said: "Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren't working." But the Conservatives said the report again proved Mr Blair had lied about Saddam's weapons. Tory leader Michael Howard said the premier "did not tell the truth about the intelligence he received". And the LibDems foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, said "Brick by brick, the Government's case for going to war is being demolished." ***************************************************************** 6 UK Independent: The final judgement * Iraqi Survey Group: There were no WMD * Saddam less of a threat in 2003 than in 1998 * Bush and Blair's case for war is demolished 07 October 2004 Now we finally know what we had long suspected. When US and British forces invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons; he had no biological weapons; he had no nuclear weapons. In fact, he had no banned weapons at all. That is the considered judgement of the Iraq Survey Group, set up by President Bush to prove his case for removing the Iraqi dictator, and released in Washington last night. The ISG report proves precisely the opposite. The much-maligned international regime of weapons containment had functioned exactly as it was supposed to. After his failed effort to annex Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was progressively disarmed. Establishing this truth has required half a dozen top-level inquiries on either side of the Atlantic, the spending of millions of dollars and pounds, the dispatch of hundreds of UN weapons inspectors over the years, and - since the removal of Saddam Hussein - the work of 1,200 inspectors who scoured the country under the auspices of the US-directed Iraq Survey Group. Oh yes, and it took a war, a war in which thousands of Iraqis, more than 1,000 Americans and more than 100 British and soldiers of other nationalities have died. Iraq is a devastated country that risks sliding into anarchy. And what has it all been for? After the war officially ended, President Bush and his chief ally, Tony Blair, kept telling us to wait patiently for the ISG to report. In that time, they have changed their story many times over, editing the words, trimming the sense for the possibility that the threat might not have been as great as they had thought. Perhaps there were no weapons, Mr Bush said, but he would have gone to war anyway. Even if there were no actual stockpiles, Mr Blair and his ministers said, there were "weapons programmes". Last week, the programmes themselves evaporated. Mr Blair told us (almost) straight the intelligence was wrong. "I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong," he said, without actually doing so, "but I can't sincerely, at least, apologise for removing Saddam." Mr Bush's case for war is also unravelling. His Defence Secretary let slip this week that there was no "hard evidence" for a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida. The second US viceroy of Iraq, Paul Bremer, said US troop numbers had been grossly inadequate for the job they had to do. Troop numbers had been an ideological decision. Now that the ISG has reported, it is clear beyond doubt that Iraq's deadly weapons capacity boiled down to a glint, if that, in Saddam Hussein's eye. In one of the more shameless examples of pre-emptive "spinning", even from this Government so addicted to "spin", the Foreign Secretary told us yesterday that, "the report highlights the nature of the threat from Saddam in terms of his intentions and capabilities in even starker terms than we have seen before". Try parsing that. Try translating it into plain English. The ISG report tells us in no uncertain terms that the invasion of Iraq was grounded in little more substantial than figments of a fevered, post-11 September, imagination. The international "consensus" that Saddam Hussein constituted a global threat was incorrect. So much for UN Resolution 1441 that gave the US and Britain their spurious excuse for war. There was a failure of intelligence, on either side of the Atlantic, of historic proportions, the reasons for which need to be identified as a matter of urgency. More gravely, though, there was a historic failure of judgement on the part of a small group of national leaders. Trust us, they told us. They were credulous, they failed to consult broadly enough, they failed to exercise due responsibility - and they were wrong. Spanish voters have already given their verdict on the judgement of their former prime minister. Australians have their chance this weekend. Americans should use their vote in less than four weeks' time to express their disgust with a President who rushed their country into so unnecessary and damaging a war. We British will probably have to wait at least until next year. In the meantime, the very least that Mr Blair should offer is a full apology. An apology for asking us to trust him so unconditionally. An apology for the lives of the British servicemen and the Iraqis that have been so needlessly lost. An apology for his judgement that turned out to be so flawed on a matter so crucial as peace and war. The final verdict will then rest, as it should, with the voters. UK Independent Ltd. .channelbg { background-color: #EFD5CC;} .channelskylinebg { ***************************************************************** 7 Forbes.com: Korea Redux Forbes Magazine Lisa W. Hess, 10.18.04 The peninsula's consumers have been in a funk. But government pump priming and strong job growth will turn that around--and soon. A big mistake investors make is spending too much time predicting the unpredictable--like whether a company's earnings next quarter are going to be 2 cents higher than the consensus--while ignoring trends that are quite visible and that will have a huge impact on investment results. A prime example of such a trend: the rise of the consuming class in Asia and the dramatic increase in the quality of life that must inevitably follow. What with cell phones, cars, credit cards and houses within reach of millions of formerly impoverished Asians, this trend will not go away and will only grow stronger. One way to capitalize on this underappreciated trend is to buy stocks in South Korea. A year ago (Oct. 13, 2003) I recommended Korean stocks as better values than Chinese issues. Since then the Korean Composite index, or Kospi, is up almost 14%, and China, depending on which index you use, is down between 4% and 8%. I am even more convinced today that the better bargains are on the peninsula. China's need to recycle surplus dollars is creating a dangerous overvaluation in commercial real estate. Why are stocks cheap in South Korea? The primary reason is that consumer sentiment is weak. As measured by the oecd Consumer Confidence Survey, over the past year the index has tumbled from the normal level of 100 to 87. This downshift has come with tension over North Korea's efforts to make nuclear bombs and, more significantly, with a surge in recession-related loan defaults. Still, the situation is hardly as dire as during the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, when, reminiscent of Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind, Korean patriots turned in their gold, even their wedding rings, to the central bank. This civic-mindedness helped rescue their country from bankruptcy. From a low of 280 in 1998 the Kospi has recovered to 850. Yet in dollar terms Korean stocks are as cheap as they were 15 years ago. One reason to look for a resumption in consumer confidence--and spending--is the strength of Korea's export economy, due, in large part, to the deliberate undervaluing of the Korean won. As in China, Japan, Thailand and Indonesia, in Korea the central bank has moved to ensure that consumers overseas find the output of Korea's factories a bargain. Growing China and the consumption-happy U.S. are Korea's largest export markets. As a result Korea enjoys solid job growth that puts cash in people's pockets. Consumer behavior in Korea has been on some wild swings. After the 1998 crisis the Korean banks went on a consumer lending binge. Next came the 2000-03 worldwide economic downturn, and debt-laden Koreans pulled back on their consumption. Now, though, Korean fiscal and monetary policy is aimed at reviving domestic demand. The Korean central bank unexpectedly cut rates in August. Subsequently the government announced a series of sales and income tax cuts. The stimulus won't be felt right away, but it is coming. Here are two Korean stocks that will catch this wave. Hyundai Motors (10, HYU GR) is the dominant car and truck manufacturer in South Korea. With a 50% market share, it's like General Motors and Ford rolled into one. To buy Korean shares directly, you must have your broker open an account with a firm situated in Korea and register for a foreign investor number, usually an expensive proposition with a hefty commission of around 3%. A cheaper idea is to buy the Global Depositary Receipts. Hyundai sells at seven times trailing earnings and pays a 1.9% dividend. Normally I don't recommend buying stock in a chaebol (Korean conglomerate). But this company, unlike its bloated brethren, is very efficient and well run. The past year has been a rocky one for Hyundai. In addition to flagging domestic sales, it has weathered the indictment of the chief executive for unfair political contributions and DaimlerChrysler's unloading of a 10% stake. Despite such travails, exports have continued to improve. A new car model, the Sonata, was introduced at the end of August. ***************************************************************** 8 Las Vegas SUN: Bush, Hu Discuss N. Korea, Trade Deficit By SCOTT LINDLAW ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush called Chinese President Hu Jintao on Thursday, reviewing U.S. positions on a wide range of delicate issues with the leader who is amassing new power in China. Bush placed the call 2 1/2 weeks after former President Jiang Zemin handed over his last post as military chief. That move consolidated China's top party and military posts under Hu's control, giving him and his premier, Wen Jiabao, a freer hand to act. The changes also raised the stakes in Bush's relationship with Hu, about two years after Hu became Communist Party leader. White House spokesman Scott McClellan did not mention the shifts in Chinese politics, remaining vague on what prompted the call. He said it was "part of our continuing, constructive, cooperative and candid dialogue with China on U.S.-China relations." The two leaders talked about several big-ticket issues between their countries, including the North Korea nuclear problem; Hu said his country remained committed to the stalled talks between the two Koreas, the United States, Russia, China and Japan. Three rounds of talks have been held in Beijing, but yielded little progress. A fourth round was set for September, but North Korea has refused to attend. According to McClellan, Hu also committed to "move forward firmly and steadily to a market-based, flexible exchange rate." For months, U.S. officials have lobbied their Chinese counterparts to commit to no longer linking their currency, the yuan, closely to the value of the dollar. The effort is intended to address the bulging U.S. trade deficits and nearly 3 million lost American manufacturing jobs. "Firmly and steadily" was precisely the phrase Chinese officials used last weekend as they promised to do so. But China refused in discussions with the United States and also in broader talks with other nations' officials to say when it might stop linking the yuan to the U.S. dollar. Many private economists believe it could be years before China is willing to give up the trade benefits it enjoys from a tightly controlled exchange rate that makes its products as much as 40 percent cheaper than American-made goods. The U.S. trade deficit with China soared to a record $124 billion last year. Bush also reiterated his support for the long-standing "one-China" policy, which opposes formal independence for Taiwan, as well as the Taiwan Relations Act, which permits arms sales to the island off the Chinese mainland. Bush urged the Chinese leader to "look for opportunities" for dialogue across the Taiwan Straits, McClellan said. -- ***************************************************************** 9 SF Chronicle: George Bush and John Kerry on the environment [http://www.sfgate.com/index/] ] Jane Kay [jkay@sfchronicle.com] Thursday, October 7, 2004 The candidates' positions on key environmental issues: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Bush: Supports first-time oil drilling in the Arctic refuge. Favors increasing oil production to the west of the refuge in the National Petroleum Reserve and expanding gas production in the Rocky Mountains and Alaska. Kerry: Opposes drilling in the Arctic refuge, the only Arctic region off- limits to drilling. Favors development in the National Petroleum Reserve and on millions of acres of public land in the West already available for leasing. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oil drilling Bush: Denied California's request to buy back 36 oil-drilling leases already sold off the Santa Barbara coast. Kerry: Opposes new offshore oil drilling in areas with existing moratoria, which includes California. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Bush: Proposed an energy bill offering tax breaks and regulatory relief for the coal and oil industries and subsidies for nuclear power and ethanol. Opposed a federal mandate requiring utilities to produce 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Favors developing small nuclear plants. Has committed $2 billion for clean-coal technology. Kerry: Opposes Bush's energy bill. Supports a federal mandate on utilities to produce 20 percent of their electricity from such renewable sources as solar, wind and geothermal by 2020, already a requirement in California. Promises $10 billion for clean-coal technology. Opposes permanent storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Promoted higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Global warming Bush: Opposes the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that the United States can't afford to cut carbon dioxide below 1990 levels by 2012 and that the pact doesn't demand enough reductions for developing nations. Opposes mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide. Has committed to reducing by 18 percent over the next decade the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to gross domestic product. Commits to increases in research funds, but distances himself from government studies linking global warming to human activities. The Bush administration decided the EPA didn't have authority to regulate carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, as an air pollutant. Kerry: Opposes the Kyoto Protocol, saying the United States cannot meet the cuts assigned to it by the deadline; wants to meet again with other nations to come up with a practical response for reducing greenhouse gases. Wants mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide emissions, including from power plants and vehicles. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Endangered species Bush: Supports a major change of the Endangered Species Act, saying it hasn't succeeded in recovering species and creates an adversarial relationship with farmers, ranchers and other private property owners who face regulation. Kerry: Favors more money to support the Endangered Species Act, and believes that the law is valuable in protecting threatened and endangered species. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wetlands Bush: Changed a Clinton-era regulation that required power plants to use the best technology available to prevent sucking up about a trillion fish a year and, instead, allows operators to make up damage by providing new wetlands or hatchery fish. Citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision, limited the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from regulating the filling or polluting of millions of acres of wetlands not directly connected to larger water bodies. Pledged to seek more money in next budget to create and protect at least 3 million more wetland acres over the next five years. Kerry: With other senators, signed two letters to the president asking him to rescind the directive limiting wetland protection, saying the administration went far beyond the court decision in limiting regulation. Opposed measures to weaken wetland protections under the Republicans' "Contract With America." ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clean air Bush: Proposed major changes to the Clean Air Act, one of which would allow industries and utilities to expand without installing new pollution controls if emissions don't exceed their highest level in the last 10 years; another would let plants conduct repairs that may increase emissions without upgrading pollution controls. Supports "clear skies'' legislation that calls for a 70 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury by 2018; the measure allows a cap-and-trade provision as a market-based approach that would allow dischargers to buy and sell emission allowances. Kept Clinton- era diesel rule to require low-sulfur fuel and retrofit engines in big trucks and buses, and adopted diesel standards for off-road equipment, marine engines and locomotives. Kerry: Joined nine senators in supporting a lawsuit filed against the EPA by 50 state, county and city attorneys charging that the proposed changes to the Clean Air Act subvert its intent, and would make it easier for older plants to avoid installing modern pollution controls. Opposes the "clear skies'' legislation, saying it's too weak and doesn't include regulating carbon dioxide. Opposes cap-and-trade for mercury emissions, saying it would cause hot spots of mercury and allow a continued flow of fish-contaminating emissions. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Forests Bush: Won congressional support for an initiative opening 20 million acres of national forests to logging, saying it would promote forest health and resistance to catastrophic wild fires. Repealed the Clinton-era "roadless rule," which banned road-building in nearly one-third of the nation's forests; under the Bush proposal, governors may petition the federal government to retain protections on national forests in their states. Kerry: Says Bush's proposed "roadless rule'' jeopardizes critical habitat in the national forests. Wants to put back protections removed from the Clinton rule, citing overwhelming support by scientists and the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Superfund Bush: Opposes the "polluter pays" principle, a tax on oil and chemical companies to pay for the cleanup of abandoned toxic-waste sites, in effect since the program's start in 1980. Congress allowed the tax to expire in 1995, and last year the trust fund ran out of money. Cleanups have fallen by nearly half since Bush took office. The budget projects nearly all cleanup funds coming from taxpayers. Kerry: Supports the polluter-pays principle, and wants to reinstitute the tax on oil and chemical producers. Page A - 6 San Francisco Chronicle [http://www.sfgate.com/staff/] ***************************************************************** 10 News from the British Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:17:36 -0700  
Subject: News from the British Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 21:49:52 -0700
From: U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu <freevanunu@mindspring.com>
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;


Free Mordechai Vanunu - Info & Action Alert #35 -

>From the U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu
www.vanunu.com

** PLEASE FORWARD TO SYMPATHETIC LISTS **

1)  U.S. and U.K. Campaigns Need Funds

2)  News from the British Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu
- September 30 action at Israeli Embassy in London
- Letter and update from the British Campaign

3)  Write to Mordechai Vanunu

===================
1)  U.S. and U.K. Campaigns Need Funds
DONATIONS NEEDED!

The U.S. and U.K. campaigns are in need of funds as they continue to 
work for Mordechai Vanunu's freedom.  People are urged to make 
contributions of any amount they are able.  When Mordechai's 
restrictions are lifted and he is able to leave Israel, remaining 
campaign funds will be given to him to help him rebuild his life. 
Donations also continue to be collected for Mordechai's trust funds. 
For more information on how to contribute to the campaigns and/or 
trust funds, please contact the U.S. Campaign at 
freevanunu@mindspring.com and the U.K. Campaign at 
<campaign@vanunu.freeserve.co.uk>
Donations can be made online via Paypal at both campaign websites as well -
U.S. Campaign - www.vanunu.com
U.K. Campaign - www.vanunu.co.uk

===============
2)  News from the British Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu:

-September 30 action at Israeli Embassy in London

Dear Friend and Vanunu Supporter,

The small demonstration at the Israeli Embassy in London, on 
September 30th, went well and we now have a good photograph of the 
event. If you would like to see a report and the photograph of the 
action please look at our website 
<http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk>. We must keep up the pressure for 
Mordechai's release whatever and whenever we can. Don't forget 
Mordechai's 50th birthday is on October 13th.

With my best wishes,

Ernest Rodker,
Coordinator

> Six people chained themselves to railings outside the Israeli 
>embassy in central London on September 30 in protest against the 
>refusal of the Israeli government to allow the nuclear whistleblower 
>Mordechai Vanunu to leave the country.
Photo at http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/htdocs/pressReleases.htm

Vanunu supporters in embassy protest

Duncan Campbell
Friday October 1, 2004
The Guardian

Six people chained themselves to railings outside the Israeli embassy 
in central London yesterday in protest against the refusal of the 
Israeli government to allow the nuclear whistleblower Mordechai 
Vanunu to leave the country.

The six - members of the Campaign to Free Vanunu - acted on the 18th 
anniversary of the day Mr Vanunu was grabbed by members of the 
Israeli security forces in Rome, after which he was returned to 
Israel and jailed.

The action came a week before Mr Vanunu is due to be awarded the 
Lennon Ono peace prize in absentia.

"Vanunu has served his full sentence," said Ernest Rodker, one of the 
six. "He is not charged with any new offence and yet he is not a free 
man and he continues to be treated like a criminal. His life is also 
in danger from far-right groups as shown by many death threats made 
against him."

The campaigners, all wearing Vanunu masks, called on the Israeli 
government to halt their "vindictive and vengeful efforts to destroy 
Mordechai". The Israeli embassy had no comment yesterday. Police cut 
the protesters from the gate with boltcutters and they were released 
without charge.

Mr Vanunu, who will be 50 next month, is living in St George's 
cathedral in Jerusalem after his planned post-release accommodation 
in an apartment block in Jaffa was exposed in the Israeli media and 
became the subject of threats.

At St George's he acts as a bell-ringer, something that his 
supporters say gives him great pleasure as the bells can be heard in 
the nearby district court where he was jailed for 18 years.

While he has received death threats, he has also had support from a 
variety of people when he has ventured out. The woman in the local 
post office had written "good luck" on his transaction sheet, and an 
elderly Jewish couple approached him in a restaurant and thanked him 
for his work, according to the latest Vanunu campaign newsletter.

On October 7, his adoptive parents, Nick and Mary Eoloff, an American 
couple, will receive on his behalf the 2004 Lennon Ono award at a 
dinner in the United Nations building in New York. The other award 
this year will go to Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker journalist, who 
exposed abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

As a technician at the Dimona nuclear plant in Israel from 1976 to 
1985, Mr Vanunu discovered that nuclear weapons were being secretly 
produced.

The following year he gave details of the plant to the Sunday Times, 
and was lured to Italy by a female Mossad agent, kidnapped and 
smuggled back to Israel to stand trial.

He was jailed for 18 years, most of which he served in solitary 
confinement. He was released in April. Mr Vanunu is currently 
forbidden from leaving the country until at least next April. He 
would like to visit Britain and the United States, where his adoptive 
parents live.


Campaign to Free Vanunu
and for a Nuclear Free Middle-East
185 New Kent Road, London SE1 4AG Tel/Fax: +44 20 7378 9324
e-mail: campaign@vanunu.freeserve.co.uk web site: www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk

Press Release
30 September 2004, 3 pm

Subject: Nonviolent protest at Israeli Embassy in London on behalf of 
Mordechai Vanunu
At 3 pm today six supporters of Mordechai Vanunu will chain 
themselves to the gate and fence of the Israeli Embassy in London and 
then put on masks depicting the face of Mordechai Vanunu.
Their message is:  Let Vanunu Go!
The six people are: Ernest Rodker, David Polden, Dan Martin, Adeline 
O'Keeffe, Angela Broome, Hope Liebersohn.
Mordechai Vanunu, Israel's nuclear whistleblower, was released from 
Ashkelon prison on 21 April this year, after 18 years of brutal 
confinement.  But the Israeli government continues to impose harsh 
and archaic restrictions on his freedom, most notably by not allowing 
him to leave the country and begin his life of freedom in another 
country.
Vanunu has served his full sentence; he is not charged with any new 
offence and yet he is not a free man and he continues to be treated 
like a criminal.  His life is also in danger, from far-right groups, 
as shown by the many death threats made against him.
The six people and the Campaign call on the Israeli government to 
stop its vindictive and vengeful efforts to destroy Mordechai and to 
admit the truth that he revealed of Israel's secret nuclear weapons 
programme.
Today, 30 September, is the 18th anniversary of Mordechai Vanunu's 
life-threatening kidnapping from Rome (in 1986) by agents of Israel.
The use of chains at the Israeli Embassy symbolizes the restrictions 
imposed on Mordechai by the Israeli government.  Every day that 
Mordechai Vanunu is denied full rights of citizenship is a day of 
danger for him and a day of shame for the Israeli government.
----ENDS---

-Letter and update from the British Campaign -

Dear Friend and Vanunu Supporter,

When we wrote to you at this time last year we expressed the hope 
that we might be nearing the end of Mordechai's ordeal and our 
lengthy campaign to free him. Regrettably our hopes were not realized 
and Mordechai, as you know, despite being released from prison, is 
still being held in Israel against his wishes. And at present, we 
have no idea when the security services, outrageously backed by the 
Israeli Supreme Court, will reduce or remove the worst restrictions 
and allow Mordechai to leave Israel. It is very likely that Mordechai 
will be forbidden to leave Israel before April 2005 when his 
"conduct" and the restrictions will be reassessed. So the Campaign to 
achieve Vanunu's full freedom continues, as does the support he will 
need while he is kept in Israel.

For the time being Mordecahi is able to stay at St. George's 
Cathedral, which is a great relief and which he has found comfortable 
and friendly - see enclosed report. He has constant visitors and he 
also meets with tourists and pilgrims visiting the church.

However, we do need to keep pressing for his full freedom and if you 
can make the time, please write to your MP, MEP and/or the Foreign 
Office and the Israel Ambassador to remind them that Mordechai Vanunu 
is still being severely punished despite having finished his original 
prison sentence. Of course any other initiative you can take, that 
you think might help, should not be discouraged. Mordechai is facing 
no new charges except being accused of having an exceptional memory. 
Using this argument the Israeli authorities could keep him in Israel 
indefinitely; until he either loses his memory or all hope of 
freedom. We must not let this happen.

Though we have stopped our weekly vigil, since Mordechai's release, 
we are still holding an annual benefit [in London]. This year's is on 
Saturday, November 20th from 7.00 till 9.30pm, as usual at Conway 
Hall). As always we have a good programme, ending, we hope, with a 
recently made short film of Mordechai in Jerusalem and some footage 
of his release from prison. We are also thinking of having a live 
link, if possible, with Mordechai at the end of the evening.

We hope you will come to the benefit for an enjoyable evening, but 
also to show support for Vanunu as well as to raise as much money as 
possible. As I've already mentioned we will need to keep assisting 
Mordechai while he is held in Israel and continue to put aside money 
for his future. If you cannot come to the benefit perhaps you could 
send us a donation to match what you might have spent. In truth, our 
most recent bulletin appeal raised less than usual, and we did not 
fully expect to need finance for Mordechai for another year in Israel 
as well as for the continuing Campaign. If you can make a 
contribution towards these expenses we would be very grateful.

We look forward to seeing you on the 20th - tickets are now 
available.  With my best wishes,
Ernest Rodker

** If anyone has an item that would make a splendid prize for the 
benefit raffle please contact the office. We are also hoping to get a 
pair of tickets for the Royal Opera Covent Garden worth £150 each. 
The tickets will be for Puccini's 'La Rondine' starring Angela 
Gheorghiu or Jonathan Miller's production of 'Don Pasquale'. If we 
can get these tickets we will give them to the person who makes the 
highest bid between now and the closing date. Please send your 
written bids to the office. Bidding will close on Friday, November 
12th so we can inform the winner in good time (no bids received after 
the post arrives on November 12th will be included). Best of luck 
with your bid.

Forthcoming Peace Award: On October 7th Nick & Mary Eoloff will 
receiveMordechai's most recent peace award: The 2004 Biennial 
LennonOno Grant For Peace. The award ceremony will take place during 
a private dinner in the United Nations delegates dining room and will 
be attended by UN ambassadors, government officials, dignitaries, 
international journalists and friends. Both recipients, the other 
recipient is Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker investigative journalist, 
were chosen by Yoko Ono.

Mordechai's birthday: Mordechai will be 50 on October 13th. Messages 
and cards can be sent to him at his e-mail address 
vanunumvjc@hotmail.com or at St. Georges Cathedral, PO Box 19018, 20 
Nablus Road, Jerusalem 91190, Israel.

Most recent report from East Jerusalem, September 6th:
Adeline O'Keeffe. A member of the British Campaign Committee, 
recently visited Mordechai in Jerusalem and found him to be in great 
spirits, fit and healthy.  He swims every day for an hour and has 
made some friends locally who are supportive and caring towards him. 
He has many visitors at St. George's where he is most welcome.  One 
of his regular responsibilities is to ring the Cathedral bells, which 
he takes great delight in doing, because he knows the chimes can be 
heard by the people in the neighbouring District Court - which is 
where he was sentenced 18 years ago - and that they know he is now 
the bell ringer. However, he is longing to leave Israel and meet his 
supporters from all over the world; Mordechai especially wants to 
come to England to walk the streets of London unhindered and finally 
lay the ghosts of the kidnapping to rest.

Mordechai is adept at working with technology and has 2 mobile phones 
as well as an apple mackintosh laptop computer purchased by the 
Campaign.  He is kept busy answering phone calls and emails as well 
as giving interviews to international media, both over the phone and 
in person.  The restrictions forbid him to do this, but Mordechai is 
clearly determined to uphold his right to free speech.

When walking in the streets of East Jerusalem he is constantly 
greeted warmly by Palestinians and often invited into shops for 
coffee.  He seems not to be fearful of leaving the Cathedral despite 
the many threats he has received. Once in the post office the woman 
behind the counter wrote "good luck" on his transaction sheet and on 
another occasion an elderly Jewish couple approached him in a 
restaurant and thanked him for all he had done and the courage he had 
shown.  The love he receives is palpable.

So, Mordechai is enjoying the life he has made for himself since 
leaving prison on 21st April this year; he is making the best of his 
current situation even with the many restrictions placed on him. 
There is a feeling of quiet urgency about his efforts to leave Israel 
and most of Mordechai's day is focused on any communication that will 
help him attain that goal.  He constantly looks outwards and forwards 
to the real freedom that will come when he leaves Israel.
===================
3)  Write to Mordechai

Mordechai would love to hear from his friends and supporters.  You 
can write to him at:
Mordechai Vanunu
c/o Cathedral Church of St. George
20 Nablus Road
PO Box 19018
Jerusalem 91190
Israel

and email him at <vanunumvjc@hotmail.com>
===============
end
Felice Cohen-Joppa
Coordinator
U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu
POB 43384
Tucson, AZ 85733
Phone/Fax 520-323-8697
freevanunu@mindspring.com
www.nonviolence.org/vanunu

***************************************************************** 11 Inspections, Diplomacy Can Help Keep Nuclear Proliferation In Check - Iaea Chief Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:00:51 -0400 X-Temp-Whitephrase: YES NUCLEAR INSPECTIONS, DIPLOMACY CAN HELP KEEP NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IN CHECK - IAEA CHIEF New York, Oct 7 2004 4:00PM Verification of a country's nuclear activities, used together with diplomacy, can be a very effective way of ensuring compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but the international community must be prepared to take action in the event of non-conformity, the head of the United Nations atomic watchdog has said. "We cannot afford not to act in cases of non-compliance," Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/index.html">IAEA), said yesterday in reference to the way the international community has been dealing with the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2004/ebsp2004n010.html">Speaking at the Pugwash <"http://www.pugwash.org/reports/rc/ea/EA2004/seoul2004.htm">Conference on Science and World Affairs this week in Seoul, Mr. ElBaradei recalled the many instances where Pyongyang failed to carry out its obligations under the <"http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/">NPT, capped by withdrawing from the accord in January 2003. "Naturally, all of these actions were promptly reported by the Agency to the Security Council - but with little to no response," he noted. "This type of reaction by the Council may be setting the worst precedent of all, if it conveys the message that acquiring a nuclear deterrent, by whatever means, will neutralize any compliance mechanism and bring about preferred treatment." By contrast, he said, verification and diplomacy have been part of the success so far in Iran and Libya, "and in that sense I can only hope that the continuation of the six-party talks on the DPRK nuclear programme will yield results that will include full IAEA verification." 2004-10-07 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 ***************************************************************** 12 Times of India: Time not right to sign NPT - Manmohan [http://www.indiatimes.com] IANS[ THURSDAY, OCTOBER 07, 2004 03:49:43 PM ] NEW DELHI: Declaring that India is a responsible nuclear power, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Wednesday that the time was not right for New Delhi to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "We are a nuclear power. We are a responsible nuclear power," Manmohan Singh said in response to a question whether or not India would sign the NPT. He was addressing a press conference along with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder following their summit-level talks here. The prime minister said India acted with restraint and noted that its nuclear doctrine was based on "no-first use". "We have an impeccable record in export control and we would like to work with like-minded countries on non-proliferation issues," he said. The circumstances were not right to sign the NPT, he said. "India in any case fulfilled the commitments of a nuclear power." Schroeder, who concludes a two-day visit here Thursday, said Germany would support India to have closer relations with the Group of Eight (G-8) industrial nations. "This is part of the strategic partnership with India," he said, when asked if Germany would support India's inclusion in the exclusive club. Schroeder's visit was part of the annual summit-level interaction the two countries institutionalised during his last visit to India in 2001. Copyright © 2004 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. | ***************************************************************** 13 Xinhuanet: Brazil agrees on IAEA inspection of its nuclear facilities www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2004-10-07 11:31:02 VIENNA, Oct. 6 (Xinhuanet) -- Brazil has agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect some of its nuclear facilities and an accord will be signed this week, diplomats said Wednesday. The tentative compromise would allow inspectors to see parts of the centrifuges in mid-October to vindicate Brazil's claim that ithas neither enriched uranium to weapons-grade levels nor diverted the nuclear material to other places. The compromise will end months-old differences over Brazil's access to technology that can be used to build nuclear weapons, diplomats said. Brazil has refused to allow IAEA inspectors to view its centrifuges at its plant in Resende, about 60 km northwest of Rio de Janeiro, saying that the plant's advanced technology could be stolen by other countries should outsiders be allowed into it. US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday told Brazilian business leaders in Sao Paulo that Washington is not worried aboutBrazil's nuclear program, but urged Brazil to resolve its disputeswith the IAEA as soon as possible. Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim has said his country did not hide any nuclear activities to the UN nuclear agency and its enriched uranium will be used for peaceful purposes only. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 Las Vegas SUN: Russia Rejects Nuclear Criticism By MARA D. BELLABY ASSOCIATED PRESS MOSCOW (AP) - Russia shrugged off U.S. criticism over nuclear issues Thursday, saying it had made progress in reducing its tactical weapons in Europe and would continue cooperating with Iran's program despite concerns Tehran might be trying to develop atomic weapons. Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said a 1991-1992 initiative to reduce tactical nuclear weapons and implement other disarmament measures was being "completely fulfilled." "All of these weapons, unlike the situation in the United States, are exclusively located on our national territory," Yakovenko said in a statement. "They are located under strict control ... there is no reason to be concerned." His remarks came a day after Stephen G. Rademaker, an assistant U.S. secretary of state for arms control, reportedly said the United States was concerned that Russia had not entirely fulfilled its post-Soviet commitment to reduce the battlefield weapons that would be used in a potential European war. "First of all, the word 'commitment' in this context isn't correct," Yakovenko said. "We are talking about a unilateral initiative in 1991-1992 that was a goodwill gesture on the side of Russia." Yakovenko noted that Russia announced in May it had eliminated more than 50 percent of nuclear ammunition for tactical sea and air-based rockets. Rademaker also said former President Bush made a similar commitment in 1991 to remove and dismantle tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, adding that the United States removed those warheads years ago and dismantled them last year, according to the Interfax news agency. Separately, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev said Russia "will continue to cooperate with Iran in the peaceful usage of nuclear energy," another project that has drawn concern from the United States. Russia is completing a $800 million deal to build a nuclear reactor at Bushehr in southern Iran. "It does not matter if there is pressure or not, but it does matter that we will comply with all legal commitments in cooperation with Iran," Alexeyev said, according to Interfax. "Russia has said more than once that cooperation with Iran will be developed in line with the well-known norms." The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, is investigating nearly two decades of covert nuclear activity by Iran. Tehran maintains its program is meant to generate electricity, but Washington claims it is a weapons program. Russia says Iran has the right to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program but has urged Iran to voluntarily halt all efforts to enrich uranium as a sign of goodwill and to show greater openness to IAEA inspectors. -- ***************************************************************** 15 [NukeNet] As of Dec. 31, 2002, over 47, 000 metric tons of Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:32:14 -0700 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C4ACA8.A30DA962" Grand total of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel generated in US, as of Dec. 31, 2002, is 47,023.4 metric tons of heavy metal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/spent_fuel/ussnfdata.html This was just posted within the past couple days. It used to be, from 1982 to 1995, that such data were reported annually. Then there was a report in 1998. This is the one up to Dec. 31, 2002. The next report wont come out till 2006 perhaps. DOE, on its OCRWM (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste, pronounced O-Screw-Em) website (www.ymp.gov will take you there) reports 49,000 metric tons as of the end of 2003. So the EIA website is solid documentation, OCRWMs is an interim ballpark update. (To convert from metric to U.S. tons, multiply by 1.1023. Thus, OCRWM is saying that as of the end of 2003, there is over 54,000 U.S. tons of heavy metal of irradiated commercial fuel in the U.S.) Kevin Kamps, NIRS _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 16 Platts: Senate resolution praising nuclear power introduced [The McGraw-Hill Companies] + A bipartisan resolution lauding nuclear power in the U.S. was introduced by Senate Energy &Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) today. The resolution noted that the U.S. will need 40% more energy by 2020, requiring the use of all available energy sources. "We will require significant additional electric generating capacity to meet this rising demand--electricity generation that is absolutely necessary to keep our economy growing," Domenici said in a statement. The resolution states that U.S. nuclear power plants have a safety record that is unrivaled and "do not produce harmful emissions or greenhouse gases." Domenici, who has been a staunch champion of nuclear power, was joined by 10 other senators in signing the resolution. Washington (Platts)--6Oct2004 Copyright © 2004 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 17 UPI: Czech nuclear plant restarts after repairs - (United Press International) October 07, 2004 Prague, Czech Republic, Oct. 7 (UPI) -- A reactor at the Temelin nuclear power plant in the southern Czech Republic has been restarted after repairs, officials said Thursday. The reactor, which has a history of malfunctions, had been closed for nearly two weeks due to problems in a cooling system. After minor adjustments are made, the reactor should be reconnected to the country's electricity grid later Thursday. The reactor was shut down twice in September and twice in August prompting protests from neighboring Austria, which is fiercely anti-nuclear. The Austrian border is 35 miles south of the Temelin plant. Temelin was built according to a Soviet design but was later upgraded using American technology. The Czech government says it monitors safety at Temelin closely but is satisfied the plant is technically sound. The plant has two 1,000-megawatt reactors. [UPI Perspectives] ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: Dr. Richard S. Denning Appointed to NRC Advisory Committee News Release - 2004-12 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 04-126 October 6, 2004 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has appointed Dr. Richard S. Denning to its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). As part of this 10-person committee, Dr. Denning will serve as an independent advisor to the Commission on the safety aspects of nuclear facilities and the adequacy of safety standards. In 1967, Dr. Denning joined Battelle Memorial Institute, where his research concentrated on international safety, risk assessment, sabotage assessment and nonproliferation assessment. He became a member of the Ohio State University faculty in 1999 and served as chair of the Nuclear Engineering Graduate Studies Program from 1999 to 2001. He continues to teach and work with graduate students on research projects. An internationally recognized expert in the fields of risk analysis and severe accident behavior of nuclear reactors, he has been a principal contributor to previous NRC research activities, including the first study of commercial reactor risk and the Severe Accident Research Program. Throughout his professional career, Dr. Denning has been associated with a variety of advisory committees on reactor and non-reactor nuclear facility safety, including the Department of Energys Advisory Committee on Nuclear Facility Safety. For more information about the ACRS, including information about future meetings, go to http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/organization/acrsfuncdesc.html. Last revised Thursday, October 07, 2004 ***************************************************************** 19 AP Wire: TVA nuclear reactor needs $200 million repair | 10/07/2004 | Associated Press SPRING CITY, Tenn. - Eight years into a licensed 40-year lifetime, the $7 billion Watts Bar nuclear station needs a $200 million repair. The Tennessee Valley Authority plans to replace four steam generators at the single-reactor plant located about 40 miles south of Knoxville. The plant began operation in 1996 after 23 years of interrupted construction. TVA is not alone. Utilities across the nation are having to replace these expensive pieces of equipment at pressurized water reactors like Watts Bar because of leaking tubes affecting power generation. "You reach a point where you have to make a business decision to either have less output from the plant or to replace the steam generator," said Paul Trudel, project engineer for the steam generator replacement. The steam generators essentially are heat exchangers. Water from the reactor goes through the generator and is turned into steam, which turns turbines that produce electricity. In 2003, TVA spent $177 million replacing steam generators on the Unit 1 reactor at Sequoyah nuclear plant near Chattanooga. The federal utility expects to receive Watts Bar's steam generators by late 2005 and install them in 2006. David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C., said the problem can be traced to the stainless steel alloy used in the steam generator tubes. "The material ... was thought, when the plants were designed and constructed, it wouldn't degrade over 40 years," Lochbaum said. Instead, the metal proved vulnerable "to a number of degradations, corroding, cracking, swelling up." That can lead to safety problems as well as loss of generation capacity, he said. The steam generators are no longer made in the United States. TVA will contract with Westinghouse in Chattanooga, which designed the system and will buy and ship the steam generators from Doosan in South Korea. The old steam generators, having received water from the reactor, are highly radioactive and must be carefully stored. The ones at Sequoyah are encased in a concrete-reinforced bunker and stored at the plant site. TVA plans to store the steam generators at Watts Bar the same way. TVA is the nation's largest public utility serving 8.5 million people through 158 distributors in Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia. --- TVA: http://www.tva.com [http://www.tva.com] Information from: The Knoxville News-Sentinel ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: NRC Staff to Hold Public Meeting in Atlanta Oct. 13-15 on Fire Protection Standard, Inspections News Release - 2004-12 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 04-127 October 6, 2004 meet with the public at the agencys Region II office in Atlanta from Oct. 13 - 15, to discuss how the National Fire Protection Associations (NFPA) Standard 805 will be applied at the nations commercial nuclear power plants, as well as the resumption of electrical cable inspections at the plants. The meeting will be held in the 24th floor main conference room of the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St. SW, from 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. on Oct. 13 and 14, and from 8 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. on Oct. 15. The meeting agenda includes how the agency will transition to NFPA 805, how inspections will be carried out using the standard, and other practical applications for the standard. The public will be able to discuss these issues with the staff at designated points. A preliminary draft of the regulatory guide covering NFPA 805, DG-1139, is available on the NRCs Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/power-re actors/draft-index.html . Any questions on the public meeting should be directed to James Downs at 301-415-3194 or Joyce Calloway at 404-562-4668. Last revised Thursday, October 07, 2004 ***************************************************************** 21 AP Wire: Nuclear power plant shuts down after lightning strikes | 10/07/2004 | Associated Press BURLINGTON, Kan. - Wolf Creek Generating Station officials Thursday were investigating the cause of an emergency shutdown at the nuclear power plant. A spokeswoman said the plant automatically shut down after a lightning storm moved through Coffey County, about 50 miles south of Topeka. Thunderstorms moved through much of eastern Kansas throughout the day. Jeannene Ryan said workers were still investigating whether lighting was the cause of the outage, which occurred shortly before noon. Ryan said there was no indication when the plant would resume generating electricity. The nuclear reactor is jointly owned by Westar Energy and Kansas City Power & Light. ---_ On the Net: Wolf Creek: http://www.wcnoc.com [http://www.wcnoc.com] ***************************************************************** 22 Reuters: New Finnish nuclear plants raises hopes and fears 07 Oct 2004 01:04:57 GMT Source: Reuters By Peter Starck OLKILUOTO, Finland, Oct 7 (Reuters) - One of the world's largest nuclear power plants is under construction in Finland, raising the long dormant atomic power industry's hopes for a revival but evoking fears among opponents of lethal accidents and waste. The 3-billion-euro ($3.7 billion) project is the only new nuclear reactor being built in western Europe where nations such as Germany and Finland's neighbour Sweden have decided to phase out their existing atomic power stations. If the 1,600 megawatt Olkiluoto-3 reactor comes on stream in 2009 as planned, it could herald a new dawn for nuclear power, supporters say. They argue that Europe can't meet its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without more nuclear energy. "The world needs more and more energy. If you must reduce the use of fossil fuels, nuclear power must be given a prominent role," said Sven Kullander, a professor of high energy physics at Sweden's Uppsala University. Anti-nuclear campaigners -- ever fewer in recent years after a heyday in the wake of the 1986 Chernobyl reactor meltdown that contaminated 150,000 square km (57,920 square miles) in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia -- oppose Finland's fifth reactor. "I try to believe that we could stop it," said Annaliisa Mattsoff of Finnish Women Against Nuclear Power. Last month activists from environment lobby Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear groups demonstrated near Olkiluoto, carrying banners warning the area is "infected by nuclear disease". "MEGALOMANIA" The opponents say every new nuclear reactor increases the risk of terrorists getting hold of plutonium, the deadly radioactive material used in nuclear bombs. Anti-nuclear activist Pirkko Lindberg described the Olkiluoto-3 project as "megalomania". She has written a book about the Pacific state of Tuvalu which is at risk of being submerged if oceans rise as a result of global warming. "Nuclear power has no effect on the climate," said Stockholm University Meteorology Professor Bert Bolin, who led the United Nations climate change panel during the birth of the Kyoto protocol. The international treaty, which is yet to come into force, commits industrialised nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Bolin said 10,000 big nuclear reactors would be needed to produce enough electricity to offset a meaningful cutback in fossil fuel use. "Do we want to have that many?" Nuclear plants heat up water to steam, which drives a turbine generating electricity. The uranium fuel is extracted from abundant ore deposits mined in several countries. Enriched uranium used in atomic reactors is highly radioactive and spent fuel remains hazardous for 100,000 years. CHEAP ELECTRICITY "I'm not afraid," said part-time farmer Tuomo Jalava, who lives 2 km (1.2 miles) from the two dull-red-and-grey-painted nuclear reactors built in the 1970s at Olkiluoto on Finland's west coast, 200 km (125 miles) northwest of Helsinki. "It is positive for this community. It creates jobs," he said, seated on a red tractor. Nuclear power produces some 16 percent of world electricity while coal, oil and gas -- the fossil fuels whose carbon dioxide emissions are regarded by some scientists as the main global warming culprit -- account for two thirds. Finnish power group TVO, which runs Olkiluoto, puts domestic electricity demand growth at 1.5 to 2.5 percent a year. "The forest industry needs nuclear power," said Risto Viitanen, an executive at Finnish forestry group UPM, the world's top paper maker. UPM, a co-owner of TVO, has already reserved almost 30 percent of Olkiluoto-3's output. "This decision ensures a stable and affordable electricity price for UPM's factories," Viitanen said. French state-controlled nuclear energy group Areva, whose Framatome ANP subsidiary won the Olkiluoto-3 reactor contract, hailed Finland's decision in 2002 as a milestone, saying it "strikes an encouraging chord for nuclear development". GUINEA-PIGS But it is a nightmare for anti-nuclear activist Lindberg. "This is a prototype, it has been tested nowhere," she said of Framatome's new reactor design. "France, the mother country of this monster, refuses to have it on its own ground. We are chosen to be guinea-pigs ... with the risks and that horrible deadly dangerous waste of plutonium." Sweden, whose nuclear phase-out has resulted in the closure of one of 12 reactors, stores 4,000 tonnes of spent fuel in a high-security facility near its three-reactor Oskarshamn complex on the Baltic Sea coast 300 km (185 miles) south of Stockholm. The facility's underground water basins holding spent fuel shimmer eerily blue. Leaning on the 1.5-metre-thick reinforced concrete basin wall, process engineer Stefan Nordh said anyone trying to grab the nuclear waste would die quickly of radiation. At the nearby Aspo final disposal test site scientists work 460 metres (1,510 feet) below ground. Even earthquakes, rare in Scandinavia, would do little damage at that depth, said Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management spokeswoman Anni Bolenius. "This represents ultimate security," she told Reuters during a tour of the cavernous tunnels. Sweden has yet to decide where to build its final waste repository but the Aspo site resembles Finland's planned waste burial ground in the Olkiluoto bedrock. Lindberg said: "The bedrock there is as full of ruptures as anywhere so it's impossible to say it's safe, maybe for a short time, then the waste will probably spread all over the place." ***************************************************************** 23 PRN: Westinghouse Wins Contract to Supply Replacement Steam Generators for Diablo Canyon [http://www.prnewswire.com/] "http://www.westinghouse.com"> PITTSBURGH, Oct. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- Westinghouse Electric Company has won a contract for eight replacement steam generators at Pacific Gas & Electric's (PG's) Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2. Under terms of the contract, Westinghouse will supply a technically advanced version of its field-proven Model 54F steam generator, which will be manufactured by ENSA. The contract extends through September 2008, and is valued in excess of $100 million. "Westinghouse continues to grow its market share in the replacement component business," said Nick Liparulo, vice president, Westinghouse Engineering Services. "And PG has made a significant and well-thought-out investment at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant that serves to ensure that they will continue to economically produce safe, clean and reliable electric energy for the next several decades which will benefit their customers and their investors." The Diablo Canyon plant is located in San Luis Obispo County and provides electricity for more than two million northern and central Californians. Westinghouse Electric Company, wholly owned by BNFL plc of the United Kingdom, is the world's pioneering nuclear power company and is a leading supplier of nuclear plant products and technologies to utilities throughout the world. Today, Westinghouse technology is the basis for approximately one- half of the world's operating nuclear plants. SOURCE Westinghouse Electric Company Web Site: http://www.westinghouse.com [http://www.westinghouse.com] Company News On Call: Company News On-Call: http://www.prnewswire.com/comp/127481.html [http://www.prnewswire.com/comp/127481.html] Copyright © 1996-2004 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights ***************************************************************** 24 St. Petersburg Times: Report Says Renovation of Chernobyl-Type Reactor Rushed - #1010, Friday, October 8, 2004 By Vladimir Kovalev STAFF WRITER A series of mishaps has occurred during the renovation of reactor No.1 at the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant, or LAES, in Sosnovy Bor outside St. Petersburg because basic safety regulations were ignored, according to a new report. Reactor No. 1 is the oldest of four reactors at the plant and its official working life has expired, but the Federal Nuclear Power Agency is seeking to extend it. It is an RBMK-1000 reactor, the same type that caused the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and LAES management plan to restart it this fall. Sergei Kharitonov, a former employee of the plant and now an environmental campaigner, wrote in the report that the safety systems for the reactors were installed in a rush, in some cases by unqualified workers, breaching standards on how the work should be done, the report said. As a result, two workers died in the spring, including a 32-year-old construction worker who fell from the wall of bloc No.1 in April and a 42-year-old fitter was crushed while working on bloc No.2 in May. "[The management] paid most of its attention to [staff] training for the launch of bloc No.1," Kharitonov quoted LAES management as saying in a statement on July 16. "The lectures were poorly attended ... Two lectures remain to be conducted. Such a situation is unacceptable, when the bloc [No.1] is about to launched, but employees are not ready for it." Forty-nine staff got only one week's training in March. Another 39 failed to be approved as having appropriate skills to work on the renovation project, the report said. LAES spokesman Sergei Averyanov said that LAES management received permission from the Federal Nuclear Supervision Service on Sept. 30 to launch reactor No.1. Although no specific date for the launch of the bloc has been determined yet, it will happen sometime this month, he said Wednesday in a telephone interview. Kharitonov worked at the plant for 27 years and battled LAES management in court when they fired him after he publicized some of the plants failings. He last worked there in 1999. He said that rushed renovations seemed to be frequent and that LAES had used fast work on other plants as examples to be followed. "An outstanding level of training to renovate bloc No.1 of Volgodonskaya Nuclear Power Plant and detailed organization of the work allowed the project to be completed in 55 days, while the standard period for a renovation should be 90 days," Kharitonov quoted a LAES statement as saying. In an article "The Most Effective Will Survive" in an official LAES document in December 2002, the plant management urged employees to work faster by writing "earn more and get more benefits." The document gave the example of the Kaliningrad Nuclear Power Plant, which raised its energy output and wages were raised shortly afterward using the proceeds from selling electricity. The fire service at LAES is also in a worrying condition, according to Mayak, the weekly Sosnovy Bor newspaper, which in November last year reported that "the 72 firefighters providing safety at the nuclear plant commit from 1,700 to 1,800 violations annually," according to Kharitonov's report. "How does he know what's going on at the plant if he hasn't been working there for such a long time?" LAES' Averyanov said. "If he is citing materials from [LAES's official documents] that discuss all the spectrum of internal problems of the LAES staff, it would be wrong to make judgments based on such articles," he said. Kharitonov said encouraging renovations to be done quickly could in the long run lead to dangerous developments comparable in their scale to the Chernobyl disaster. "An ongoing and dangerous experiment is being carried out at LAES," Kharitonov said. "They are always working in a rush. There is always some sort of defect that is being fixed on the way." Important parts of the new equipment to maintain the safety of bloc No.1 are being stolen, including the switches on a security system that can in emergency bring the reactor to a halt, Kharitonov said. "Even crucial things like that are fixed in a rush," Kharitonov said. One of the latest minor accidents mentioned in Kharitonov's report was an emergency shutdown of a reactor's operations last month after rainwater fell through the roof onto a 20-kilowatt cable causing a short circuit. "As a result of the event, head engineer O. G. Chernikov directed most of the [management's] attention to the necessity of renovating and maintaining the roofs of buildings and to boost measures to protect premises and equipment from rain," Kharitonov quoted a management statement as saying Sept. 3. By mid year there had been five emergency shutdowns of different reactors at the plant. Management said that "this way LAES has the biggest number of such shutdowns among all [nuclear power] plants," according to a statement on July 2. More top stories: Russia 'Aided Hussein' | Paper Publishes Purported Interrogation of Pumane | Something to say? Write to the Opinion Page Editor. E-mail [letters@sptimesrussia.com?subject=Report Says Renovation of Chernobyl-Type Reactor Rushed ] or online form: If you are willing for your comment to be published as a letter to the editor, please supply your first name, last name and the city and country where you live. Your email: Little about you: [http://www.sptimesrussia.com/cgi-bin/count_client.cgi?art=92] [Copyright] copyright The St. Petersburg Times 1993-2004 ***************************************************************** 25 NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide; Issuance, Availability FR Doc 04-22545 [Federal Register: October 7, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 194)] [Notices] [Page 60192-60193] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07oc04-74] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued for public comment a draft of a new guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. The new draft regulatory guide, entitled ``Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,'' is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1139, which should be mentioned in all related correspondence. The draft regulatory guide contains the staff's regulatory position on ``Guidance for Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection Program Under 10 CFR 50.48(c),'' which the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has promulgated as document NEI 04-02. It is the staff's intent to endorse a version of NEI 04-02, as appropriate, in the final regulatory guide, consistent with the new risk-informed, performance-based fire protection rule, specified in Title 10, Section 50.48(c), of the Code of Federal Regulations [10 CFR 50.48(c)], which the NRC has issued for existing light-water nuclear power plants. This new regulation provides a voluntary alternative to the requirements of Appendix R to 10 CFR part 50, ``Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979.'' As such, the new rule endorses a national consensus standard (NEI 04-02), sets performance goals and criteria, and takes advantage of experience and enhanced methodologies. The NRC staff is soliciting comments on draft regulatory guide DG- 1139, and comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data. Please mention DG-1139 [50.48(c) RG] in the subject line of your comments. Comments on this draft regulatory guide submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety on the NRC's rulemaking Web site. Personal information will not be removed from your comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods. Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Email comments to: NRCREP@nrc.gov [NRCREP@nrc.gov] . You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://ruleforum.llnl.gov] . Address questions about our rulemaking [[Page 60193]] Web site to Carol A. Gallagher (301) 415-5905; email CAG@nrc.gov [CAG@nrc.gov] . Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-5144. Request for information about draft regulatory guide DG-1139 may be directed to Paul W. Lain at (301) 415-2346 or via email to PWL@nrc.gov [PWL@nrc.gov] . Comments would be most helpful if received by December 15, 2004. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time. Electronic copies of the draft regulatory guide are available through the NRC's public Web site under Draft Regulatory Guides in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collecti ons/] . Electronic copies are also available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] , under Accession No. ML042740308. In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 415-3548; and by email to PDR@nrc.gov [PDR@nrc.gov] . Requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by email to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov [ DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov] ; or by fax to (301) 415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them. (U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of September , 2004. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Sharon D. Stewart, Acting Director, Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. 04-22545 Filed 10-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: Proposed Generic Communication; Steam Generator Tube Integrity FR Doc 04-22546 [Federal Register: October 7, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 194)] [Notices] [Page 60193-60196] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07oc04-75] and Associated Technical Specifications AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to issue a generic letter (GL) to request that addressees submit a description of their program for ensuring steam generator (SG) tube integrity for the interval between inspections and description of the methodology used to assess the effects of non-pressure-related loads such as bending on SG tube integrity. Addressees should also provide a safety assessment demonstrating that the SG tubes will have adequate structural and leakage integrity (with appropriate regulatory margins) at the time of their next SG tube inspection, taking into account the effects of non-pressure-related loads. This Federal Register notice is available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML042710075. DATES: Comment period expires December 6, 2004. Comments submitted after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSEES: Submit written comments to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T6-D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to NRC Headquarters, 11545 Rockville Pike (Room T-6D59), Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Karwoski, NRR at 301-415-2752 or by e-mail at kjk1@nrc.gov [kjk1@nrc.gov] or Maitri Banerjee, NRR at 301-415-2277 or by e-mail at mxb@nrc.gov [mxb@nrc.gov] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Draft NRC Generic Letter 2004-XX: Steam Generator Tube Integrity and Associated Technical Specifications Addressees All holders of operating licenses for pressurized-water reactors (PWRs), except those who have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel and {the following plants that have already modified their technical specifications to be consistent with those in the Attachment{time} . Purpose The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this generic letter (GL) to: (1) Request that addressees submit a description of their program for ensuring steam generator (SG) tube integrity for the interval between inspections; and (2) Request that addressees submit a description of the methodology used to assess the effects of non-pressure-related loads such as bending on SG tube integrity. Addressees should also provide a safety assessment demonstrating that the SG tubes will have adequate structural and leakage integrity (with appropriate regulatory margins) at the time of their next SG tube inspection, taking into account the effects of non-pressure-related loads. Discussion Steam generator tubes function as an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) and also serve to isolate radiological fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary coolant and the environment. For the purposes of this generic letter, tube integrity means that the tubes are capable of performing these functions in accordance with the plant design and licensing basis, including applicable regulatory requirements. During operation, licensees are required to monitor and maintain the condition of the SG tubing with the objective of ensuring its continued integrity. Specifically, licensees are required by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(iii), 10 CFR 50.55a(g), or by the plant technical specifications to perform periodic inservice inspections and to repair (e.g., sleeve) or remove from service (by installing plugs in the tube ends) all tubes found to contain flaws exceeding [[Page 60194]] the plugging limit (i.e., tube repair criteria). The current technical specification requirements for inspection and repair of SG tubing were developed in the 1970s and define a prescriptive approach for ensuring tube integrity. This prescriptive approach involves inspecting the tubing at specified intervals, implementing specified tube inspection sampling plans, and repairing or removing from service by plugging all tubes found by inspection to contain flaws in excess of specified flaw repair criteria. However, as evidenced by operating experience, the prescriptive approach defined in the technical specifications may not be sufficient to ensure that tube integrity is maintained. For example, in cases of low to moderate levels of degradation, the technical specifications only require that 3-to 21-percent of the tubes be inspected, irrespective of whether the inspection results indicate that additional tubes need to be inspected to reasonably ensure that tubes with flaws that may exceed the tube repair criteria or which may impair tube integrity are detected. In addition, the technical specifications (and Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code) do not explicitly address the inspection methods to be employed for different tube degradation mechanisms at specific tube locations, nor are the specific objectives to be fulfilled by the selected methods explicitly defined. Also, incremental flaw growth between inspections can in many instances exceed what is allowed for in the specified tube repair criteria. In such cases, the specified inspection frequencies may not ensure reinspection of a tube before its integrity is impaired. In short, current technical specification surveillance requirements may not require licensees to actively manage their SG programs so as to provide reasonable assurance that tube integrity is maintained. As a result of the above, licensees have frequently found it necessary to implement measures beyond the technical specification requirements to ensure adequate tube integrity. These measures are frequently accompanied by interaction with the NRC staff in an oversight or review capacity to ensure that adequate tube integrity is being maintained. The NRC staff, with external stakeholder involvement, embarked on efforts to improve the SG tube integrity regulatory framework as discussed in SECY-03-0800, ``Steam Generator Tube Integrity (SGTI)-- Plans for Revising the Associated Regulatory Framework.'' As a result of these efforts, the NRC and industry generically developed modified technical specifications for addressing steam generator tube integrity. These generically developed technical specifications were recently incorporated into one facility's technical specifications. (Proposals to change the plant-specific technical specifications are reviewed in accordance with the license amendment review process to confirm their acceptability). These modified technical specifications are attached to this generic letter for your information. The approach taken in the modified technical specifications in the Attachment is conceptually similar to the approach outlined in the industry initiative referred to as NEI 97-06, ``Steam Generator Program Guidelines.'' The modified technical specifications in the Attachment are performance-based in that they are focused on ensuring that the tubing satisfies performance criteria that are commensurate with tube integrity. This approach can be readily adapted to new or unexpected degradation mechanisms and advances in nondestructive examination technology. This approach also includes programmatic elements to ensure that tubes are being adequately monitored and maintained relative to the performance criteria. The requirements pertaining to the integrity of the SG tubes are contained within Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). Specifically, the general design criteria (GDC) \1\ described in Appendix A to 10 CFR part 50 contain, in part, requirements related to the RCPB (e.g., GDC 14, GDC 30, GDC 32). In addition to the GDC, 10 CFR 50.55a specifies that components that are part of the RCPB must meet the requirements for Class 1 components in Section III and XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code unless the plant technical specifications for surveillance differ from those specified in the ASME Code, in which case the technical specifications govern. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Or, for PWR facilities licensed before the issuance of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, similar requirements in the plant-specific principal design criteria. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The requirements pertaining to the content of a plant's technical specifications are given in 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications.'' All currently operating PWR licensees have technical specifications governing the surveillance of the SG tubes. These technical specifications also include operational leakage limits so that if significant leakage develops, the plant is shut down. The plugging limits in the technical specifications were developed to ensure that degraded tubes: (1) Maintain factors of safety against gross rupture consistent with the plant design basis (i.e., consistent with the stress limits of the ASME Code, Section III); and (2) maintain leakage integrity consistent with the plant licensing basis while, at the same time, allowing for potential flaw size measurement error and flaw growth between inservice inspections. As part of the plant licensing basis, applicants for PWR licenses are also required to analyze the consequences of postulated design- basis accidents. Typical accidents analyzed are the SG tube rupture, the locked-rotor, control rod ejection, and a main steamline break. These analyses consider the potential primary-to-secondary leakage through the tubes during these events and must show that the offsite radiological doses do not exceed 10 CFR part 100 limits (or some fraction thereof) and GDC 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 50. Irrespective of technical specification requirements for SG tube inspection and repair, licensees are also required by 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B Criterion XVI, ``Corrective Action,'' to ensure that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected. In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. The staff is requesting information as to: (1) Actions licensees are taking or will take to ensure tube integrity is being maintained, and (2) contemplated changes to the technical specifications to reflect these actions. As discussed above, the approach in the attached technical specifications is performance-based. There are three performance criteria for the SG tubes: (1) A structural integrity performance criterion, (2) a primary-to-secondary leakage performance criterion for normal operation, and (3) a primary-to-secondary leakage performance criterion for postulated accident conditions. During public interactions with stakeholders on the structural integrity performance criterion, the staff became aware that the effects of various non-pressure-related loads such as bending loads may not be fully addressed in industry guidance documents for assessing the integrity of degraded SG tubes. Non-pressure-related loads were assessed in the original design of the SG tubes so as to ensure that nondegraded tubes would have adequate integrity for the full range of operating conditions. As a result, this generic letter requests addressees to discuss how they have [[Page 60195]] assessed the effects of non-pressure-related loads in their assessments of tube integrity and to discuss whether all tubes will have adequate structural integrity at the time of their next SG tube inspection, taking all loading conditions on the tube into account. Requested Information Addressees are requested to provide the following information to the NRC within 60 days of the date of this generic letter: 1. A description of the actions they are taking or will take to ensure tube integrity is being maintained and contemplated changes to the technical specifications to reflect these actions. 2. A description of the methodology used to assess the effects of non-pressure-related loads such as bending on SG tube integrity. In addition, addressees should provide a safety assessment demonstrating that the SG tubes will have adequate structural and leakage integrity at the time of their next SG tube inspection, taking into account the effects of non-pressure-related loads. Required Response In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f), addressees are required to submit written responses to this generic letter. Two options are available: (a) Addressees may choose to submit written responses providing the information requested above within the requested time period. (b) Addressees who cannot meet the requested completion date or who choose an alternate course of action are required to so notify the NRC in writing as soon as possible but no later than 30 days from the date of this generic letter. The response must address any alternative course of action proposed, including the basis for the acceptability of the proposed alternative course of action, and the basis for finding that the SGs remain operable. If the information requested in the previous section of this GL will be subsequently provided, the response must set forth the schedule for submitting the information. The required written response should be addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, under oath or affirmation under the provisions of section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f). In addition, a copy of the response should be sent to the appropriate regional administrator. Reasons for Requested Information This GL requests addressees to submit information. The requested information will enable the NRC staff to determine whether addressees' SG tube integrity programs provide reasonable assurance of tube integrity consistent with their design and licensing basis and applicable regulatory requirements (10 CFR part 50, Appendix A1; 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B). In addition, the requested information will enable the NRC staff to determine whether SG tube integrity is being maintained under all loading conditions consistent with the design and licensing basis and applicable regulatory requirements (10 CFR part 50, Appendix A1). The NRC staff will review the responses to this GL in order to determine whether additional actions are necessary. Backfit Discussion Under the provisions of section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f), this GL transmits an information request for the purpose of verifying compliance with applicable existing requirements. Specifically, the requested information will enable the NRC staff to determine whether the applicable requirements discussed above are being met. No backfit is either intended or approved in the context of issuance of this GL. Therefore, the staff has not performed a backfit analysis. Federal Register Notification To be done after the public comment period. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The NRC has determined that this action is not subject to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This GL contains information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval no. 3150-0011, which expires on February 28, 2007. The burden of these mandatory information collections on the public is estimated to average 200 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of these information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services Branch (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to infocollects@nrc.gov [ infocollects@nrc.gov] ; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. Sample Technical Specifications Steam Generator (SG) Program A SG Program shall be established and implemented to ensure that SG tube integrity is maintained. The SG Program shall include the following provisions: a. Provisions for condition-monitoring assessments. A condition- monitoring assessment is an evaluation of the ``as-found'' condition of the tubing with respect to the performance criteria for structural integrity and accident-induced leakage. The ``as-found'' condition refers to the condition of the tubing during a SG inspection outage, as determined from the inservice inspection results or by other means, prior to the plugging of tubes. Condition-monitoring assessments shall be conducted during each outage during which the SG tubes are inspected or plugged to confirm that the performance criteria are being met. b. Performance criteria for SG tube integrity. SG tube integrity shall be maintained by meeting the performance criteria for tube structural integrity, accident-induced leakage, and operational LEAKAGE. 1. Structural integrity performance criterion: All inservice SG tubes shall retain structural integrity over the full range of normal operating conditions (including startup, operation in the power range, hot standby, and cooldown and all anticipated transients included in the design specifications) and design-basis accidents. This includes retaining a safety factor of 3.0 against burst under the normal steady state full-power operation primary-to-secondary pressure differential and a safety factor of 1.4 against burst applied to the design-basis accident primary-to-secondary pressure differentials. Apart from the above requirements, additional loading conditions associated with the design-basis accidents, or combination of accidents in accordance with the [[Page 60196]] design and licensing basis, shall also be evaluated to determine if the associated loads contribute significantly to burst or collapse. In the assessment of tube integrity, those loads that do significantly affect burst or collapse shall be determined and assessed in combination with the loads due to pressure with a safety factor of 1.2 on the combined primary loads and 1.0 on axial secondary loads. 2. Accident-induced leakage performance criterion: The primary-to- secondary accident-induced leakage rate for any design-basis accident, other than a SG tube rupture, shall not exceed the rates assumed in the accident analysis for total leakage rate from all SGs and leakage rate from an individual SG. Accident-induced leakage is not to exceed [licensee to insert value] gallons per day through each SG and [licensee to insert value] gallons per day through all SGs. 3. The operational LEAKAGE performance criterion is specified in limiting condition for operation (LCO) [licensee to insert reference to appropriate LCO. For limits currently greater than 150 gallons per day, the LCO limit should be lowered to a value less than or equal to 150 gallons per day.] c. SG tube repair criteria. Tubes found by inservice inspection to contain flaws with a depth equal to or exceeding 40 percent of the nominal tube wall thickness shall be plugged. d. Provisions for SG tube inspections. Periodic SG tube inspections shall be performed. The number and portions of the tubes inspected and the method of inspection shall be performed with the objective of detecting flaws of any type (for example, volumetric flaws, axial and circumferential cracks) that may be present along the length of the tube, from the tube-to-tubesheet weld at the tube inlet to the tube-to- tubesheet weld at the tube outlet, and that may satisfy the applicable tube repair criteria. The tube-to-tubesheet weld is not part of the tube. In addition to meeting requirements d.1, d.2, and d.3 below, the inspection scope, inspection methods, and inspection intervals shall be such as to ensure that SG tube integrity is maintained until the next SG inspection. An assessment of degradation shall be performed to determine the type and location of flaws to which the tubes may be susceptible and, based on this assessment, to determine which inspection methods need to be employed and at what locations. 1. Inspect 100 percent of the tubes in each SG during the first refueling outage following SG replacement. 2. Inspect 100 percent of the tubes at sequential periods of [for licensees with thermally treated Alloy 690 tubes, insert ``144, 108, 72, and thereafter 60 effective full-power months;'' for licensees with thermally treated Alloy 600 tubes, insert ``120, 90, and thereafter 60 effective full-power months;'' for licensees with mill-annealed Alloy 600 tubes, insert ``60 effective full-power months;'']. The first sequential period shall be considered to begin after the first inservice inspection of the SGs. In addition, inspect 50 percent of the tubes by the refueling outage nearest the midpoint of the period and the remaining 50 percent by the refueling outage nearest the end of the period. No SG shall operate for more than [for licensees with thermally treated Alloy 690 tubes, insert ``72 effective full-power months or three refueling outages;'' for licensees with thermally treated Alloy 600 tubes, insert ``48 effective full-power months or two refueling outages;'' for licensees with mill-annealed Alloy 600 tubes, insert ``24 effective full-power months or each refueling outage'' (whichever is less)] without being inspected. 3. If crack indications are found in any SG tube, then the next inspection for each SG for the degradation mechanism that caused the crack indication shall not exceed 24 effective full-power months or one refueling outage (whichever is less). If definitive information, such as from examination of a pulled tube, diagnostic nondestructive testing, or an engineering evaluation indicates that a cracklike indication is not associated with a crack or cracks, then the indication need not be treated as a crack. e. Provisions for monitoring operational primary-to-secondary leakage. Steam Generator (SG) Tube Inspection Report A report shall be submitted within 180 days of the initial entry into MODE 4 following completion of the inspection. The report shall include: a. The scope of inspection performed on each SG. b. Active degradation mechanisms found. c. Nondestructive examination techniques utilized for each degradation mechanism. d. Location, orientation (if linear), and measured sizes (if available) of service-induced indications. e. Number of tubes plugged during the inspection outage for each active degradation mechanism. f. Total number and percentage of tubes plugged to date. g. The results of condition monitoring, including the results of tube pulls and in-situ testing. End Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html] . If you do not have access to ADAMS or if you have problems in accessing the documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [ pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 30 day of September, 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Francis M. Costello, Acting Branch Chief, Reactor Operations Branch, Division of Inspection Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 04-22546 Filed 10-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 27 PRAVDA.Ru: 200 American nukes said to be in Western Europe - 10/07/2004 14:53 The US administration is seriously concerned with Russia's failure to reduce tactical nuclear arms Washington is seriously concerned that Russia has incompletely fulfilled its obligations to reduce tactical nuclear arms in Europe. The statement has been released by Stephen Rademaker, Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, after the talks with the Russian specialists. The talks were devoted to issues of control over nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. According to the American official, the European community is concerned about the large quantity of Russian tactical warheads in the region and about the countries, at which those nukes are aimed. Rademaker said that tactical nuclear arms of NATO countries do not raise so much concern for the US administration. In 1991, the US president stated that the American tactical nuclear arms in Europe would be considerably reduced. US nukes were removed; their utilization was completed last year. Russian President Boris Yeltsin announced the reduction of nuclear arms at that time too. However, the US administration believes that Russia failed to stand by its commitments. The high-ranking American official did not specify either the reason or the ground of such concerns. Stephen Rademaker did not say why US specialists suspect several Russian companies of providing assistance to Iran in the development of long-range missiles. According to Rademaker, it is highly dangerous: Iran presently possesses 2,000-kilometer distant missiles, which cannot reach the USA. However, Rademaker added, the range could be increased some day. The US administration believes that such missiles will be rather important for Iran, if they are capable of taking weapons of mass destruction to large distances. In addition, the US diplomat said, Iran supports terrorist movements in several Mideast states. The American administration is seriously concerned about a possibility for one of those terrorist groups to obtain nuclear weapons. Rademaker's statements have probably been timed to the forthcoming visit of the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Iran. The visit is scheduled for October 10-11. The talks will reportedly touch upon the issues of nuclear cooperation between Iran and Russia. Tehran has repeatedly stated that its nuclear program was solely peaceful. Spokespeople for the Russian Foreign Ministry did not comment Stephen Rademaker's statements. As far as the tactical nuclear arms are concerned, one has to believe politicians, when they say that the arms have been reduced. Unlike strategic nuclear forces, which have been repeatedly calculated and inspected, the international community cannot control the tactical warheads. However, both Russia and Washington express their concerns on the issue from time to time. The American administration is basically worried about the deployment of nukes in Russia's Kaliningrad region, whereas Russia denies the nuclear presence in the region. In return, Russian officials remind Washington that there are 200 B-51 American nuclear air bombs in Western Europe. The US administration neither rejects their existence, nor does it say that the arsenal is useless from the military point of view. Dmitry Litovkin Read the original in Russian: (Translated by: Dmitry Sudakov) Pravda.Ru L1999-2002 "PRAVDA.Ru". When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, reference to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The ***************************************************************** 28 Doctors, Depleted Uranium and Dying Children Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 00:50:11 -0500 (CDT) "The Doctors, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children" August 11, 2004 For Immediate Release ... Contact: Sunny Miller, Traprock Peace Center, 413-773-7427 http://traprockpeace.org German documentary exposes current radioactive warfare in Iraq. Website: http://www.traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium_iraq.html Veterans, military families, activists and interested individuals can now order an English version of a documentary film produced for German television by Freider Wagner and Valentin Thurn. This stunning new video has just been released by Ochoa-Wagner Produktion in 2004 in Germany and is available through Traprock Peace Center in Deerfield, Massachusetts through the website, www.traprockpeace.org. "The Doctors, the Depleted Uranium, and the Dying Children" exposes the use and impact of radioactive weapons during the current war against Iraq. The story is told by citizens of many nations and opens with comments by two British veterans, Kenny Duncan and Jenny Moore, describing their exposure to radioactive, so-called depleted uranium (DU), weapons and the congenital abnormalities of their children. Dr. Siegwart-Horst G|nther, a former colleague of Albert Schweitzer, and Tedd Weyman of the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) traveled to Iraq, from Germany and Canada respectively, to assess uranium contamination in Iraq. Weyman led the investigative team that gathered samples for analysis for the UMRC http://www.umrc.net He discusses startling findings of the 2003 field investigations in Iraq. "The human and environmental samples have been found to contain depleted uranium and abnormally high levels of the artificial transuranic isotope, 236U. ... Viewers will see in the film, evidence of a new class of uranium weapons." These include "bunker defeat" bombs. As an M.D., Dr. G|nther is especially interested in the health effects that can be caused by such contamination. At a hospital in Basra, Dr. Jenan Hassan revealed an on-going health catastrophe--a ten-fold increase in cancers and a twenty-fold increase in congenital deformities. The grisly realities of the cancer ward provide an appropriate alarm that could help to stop the use of these weapons unless it can be shown they will not harm civilians for generations to come. Dr. Asaf Duracovic, founder of the Uranium Medical Research Centre, and formerly a Colonel in the U.S. Army, says that the Canadian government has wasted a million dollars on tests provided to Canadian veterans, using faulty methodology that looked for uranium in the hair, where uranium will not accumulate. ### http://www.traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium_iraq.html MORE: "The Doctors, the Depleted Uranium, and the Dying Children" .Throughout his travels, the film shows Tedd Weyman regularly noting Geiger-counter readings and taking soil and water samples for laboratory analysis. Weyman visited a bombed television station, areas where tanks shelled buildings and vehicles, city streets and scrap yards where children played on the remains of destroyed vehicles, often forgoing the use of protective gear in order to gather samples without being stopped by authorities. "The Doctors ..." introduces us to Dr. Axel Gerdes a geologist at the Mineralogical Institute at Goethe University at Frankfurt-am-Mien. Gerdes used mass spectrometry on behalf of UMRC to precisely analyze soil samples collected near a refreshment stand in Baghdad. He reports the concentrations of uranium dust found there to be as high as 50-60%. Such concentrations pose a tremendous hazard for inhalation of this radioactive and toxic heavy metal. U236 (a highly radioactive man-made isotope of uranium)was also detected by mass spectrometry, and was probably used in coalition weapons. The US has acknowledged that traces of U236, plutonium and other transuranics waste products from nuclear reactors and nuclear reprocessing facilities have contaminated American DU munitions. Analysis of urine samples collected from Iraqis showed uranium levels as high as 400 times normal. Dr. Asaf Duracovic, founder of the Uranium Medical Research Center, and formerly a Colonel in the U.S. Army, says that in years past the Canadian government wasted a million dollars on tests provided to Canadian veterans, using faulty methodology that looked for uranium in the hair, where uranium will not accumulate. This video offers a brief chronology of Dr. G|nther's life, from his early involvement in East Germany with Hitler's Youth Brigades and his participation in the resistance toward the end of WWII, to his many awards for humanitarian service. G|nther speculated that German industrial research from 1973-1996 by MBB, a corporation in Bavaria, on the development of uranium weapons may be one reason that his findings are not always well-received in Germany. G|nther was the victim of a hit and run accident while walking on a country road. German authorities fined him 3,000 DM for carrying a uranium bullet fragment from Iraq into Germany, even though the German government later claimed that use of these weapons in the Balkans posed no health threat to residents living in contaminated areas. Of 3500 resettled from a contaminated area there, 1112 have developed cancer. -- A Review by Sunny Miller, Traprock Peace Center, Deerfield, MA 01342 - August 10, 2004 http://traprockpeace.org/sunny_miller_10aug04.doc To purchase "The Doctors, the Depleted Uranium, and the Dying Children" (VHS NTSC format) go to http://www.traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium_iraq.html _________________________________ The Salmon Valley Observer is a non-profit broadside, in the spirit of Tom Paine and Ben Franklin. The Observer is admittedly bias toward creating a better world for all children to the seventh generation. Copies are sent across North America, Europe, and Australia providing background material to print, radio, and television news professionals, academics, campus editors, activists and inactivists. We've had favorable responses from veteran journalists. We encourage sharing the Observer with others. We welcome suggestions as to content. We do not share your address with others. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 29 [du-list] [Fwd: DU use in Florida] Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:32:11 -0700 *REPORT ON TRIP TO PERRY, FLORIDA* ** I have just returned from as one-day trip to Perry, Florida to speak to a gathering of concerned citizens who are organizing to stop the placement of a new bombing range in their rural community. It was one of the most inspiring trips that I have ever made. Perry is up in the Florida panhandle, just south of the capital city of Tallahassee. The region is called the nature coast as Taylor county touches the Gulf of Mexico and has several key rivers that run through its pine tree forests to the gulf. The county has a relatively small population as Florida goes and that is one reason the Pentagon sees it as a good place to put a bombing range. There is a bombing range already in the region, just further west at Eglin AFB near Ft Walton Beach. I lived there while in high school when my father was stationed at Eglin and I hiked through the middle of the bombing range as an explorer scout. It is one of the largest military bases in the nation but population has grown near the base to the point where the noise from the bombing range has begun to draw complaints. Most recently the Mother of all Bombs (MOAB) was tested at Eglin. The MOAB is the most powerful non-nuclear bomb ever created that creates a mushroom cloud and shockwaves similar to a small nuclear explosion. Rural Taylor County already has huge problems. The Buckeye paper mill has been contaminating the Fenholloway River that flows into the Gulf. Long ago classified as an industrial river, it is essentially dead and dumps toxic pollution into the Gulf. Groundwater contamination in Perry has long been a result and one local activist, Joy Towles Ezell, has been working to organize people in their company controlled town for years. Joy is a fifth generation Taylor County resident who has now taken on the military over the bombing range. I met Joy years ago when I worked for the Florida Coalition for Peace & Justice. We tried to support her work around the paper mill and she supported our efforts to alert people when cruise missiles were fired from Navy ships in the Gulf that flew over the panhandle and then crashed into the Eglin bombing range. Before the meeting Tuesday night Joy showed me a letter she wrote to then Gov. Lawton Chiles in 1991 on our behalf protesting the cruise missile tests. Years later when I organized a 700-mile /Walk for the Earth/ from the Everglades to Tallahassee we camped on her land outside of Perry and held a rally at the paper mill. My son had a great time riding one of her prized mules while we were there. Fifty local residents gathered Tuesday night in the back room at the Chaparral restaurant. The first thing Joy did when we arrived was make two of us go out front and put up on the portable advertising sign the words "Don't Bomb Nature Coast Meeting 7:00 pm" just below the words "Country Buffet." The first speaker was Dr. Ronald Saff from Florida State University in Tallahassee who is an expert on coal fired power plant pollution. In addition to the paper mill and the bombing range, there are also plans to build a coal power plant in Taylor County. The decision has been made to turn the county into a wasteland, a sacrifice area. Taylor County is your basic southern, rural, conservative place. People vote Republican and they don't take to outsiders very well. They don't do radical politics either. That is what made the meeting Tuesday night so special. These 50 folks who gathered were retired school teachers, good church goers, the local industrial development officer, well dressed, quiet and concerned. One of them, a refined southern woman, Republican and Episcopalian, had been in the group that the Air Force recently flew to Eglin so they could see how nice the bombing range looked. The Taylor County delegation was promised that depleted uranium would not be used in their county. Joy was not invited to go along on the trip. The Eglin AFB bombing range has been testing depleted Uranium (DU) and since 1973 over 220,000 pounds of DU penetrators were expended there. Cruise missiles that crashed on the Eglin range carried DU as ballast in the nose cones in place of a warhead. After so-called "clean-up" a public health assessment at Eglin estimates that 90-95% of the DU remains in the soil. People in Taylor County have been told that cruise missiles will be tested over their heads and that the weapons will circle around in Alabama and come back to the proposed bombing range to crash land. The military "needs" the Taylor County range they say because they need to practice flying cruise missiles off ships in the Gulf of Mexico. The Pentagon has been telling the residents that the tests are practice for "missile defense" as part of homeland security. A pro-bombing range group called "Citizens for Homeland Security" has been set up but residents say it is just a couple of those who are involved in the money trail behind the bombing range and the coal plant. I told the residents that it was time to redefine the term "homeland security." I asked how secure they were when their water, air and land was becoming so contaminated that they future generations could not live there? I also told them cruise missiles were first-strike, sneak attack weapons that have nothing to do with "defense." I told them cruise missiles are part of a preemptive military policy that violates international law. I asked them how they'd feel if another country launched sneak attack weapons onto the U.S.? The local Rotary Club has been offered a gift of $10,000 if they will support the bombing range. The county government has been offered $40 million. Local hunters have been promised continued access to the range so they can hunt deer and wild boar on the land. In spite of all that the local residents are organizing and have forced a non-binding referendum on the question on the November ballot. They think they will win the vote but fear the county will agree to the range anyway. The folks have yard signs, buttons, bumperstickers and will have a booth at the up-coming forest service "Forest Festival" and draws 20,000 from the region. They keep letters to the editor flowing into their local paper in order to combat new rumors put out by the military. The meeting ended with Joy calling Vieques, Puerto Rico and getting one of the leaders of their long and successful campaign to close down the military bombing range on their beautiful island. I can't describe the feeling to listen to Robert Rabin as Joy held the microphone up to her cell phone. I looked around the room at the people as they deeply listened as Robert told the story how the Navy dropped a bomb on a Navy building killing one of their own security guards. A moan went through the room like a knife through the heart. The Taylor County community had been promised by the military that they never have accidents. It was incredible to hear Robert use the word love a dozen times to describe the core of their campaign against the Navy and how they used non-violent civil disobedience. The people just listened and after his 15 minute talk they applauded with great vigor. There is nothing like life experience to change people. The folks in Taylor County are changing rapidly. One woman, a life long Christian and good Republican, told me she'd never vote for another Republican again. (I couldn't help but think how stupid the Bush administration is to bring this bombing range issue up right before the November election in a state where EVERY VOTE really counts.) At the end of the meeting the people asked me two things. What more can we do and do you think we can win? I told them that the people in Vieques won because they became a "pain in the ass" and they had to do the same. I also told them they could not do this alone, that they needed to send folks out around the state to educate others about the issue. I acknowledged two people in the audience from the Florida Coalition for Peace & Justice (John Linnehan from Jacksonville and Bob Tancig from Gainesville. Bob is the new director of the organization. John had picked me up at the Jacksonville airport and drove me to Perry.) They pledged the support of the Florida Coalition. I urge others to send a message of solidarity to Joy and the folks in Taylor County. They could use some encouragement and some hope. I know they have just given me a bunch of it. You can reach Joy Towles Ezell at hope@gtcom.net This is how America will change. Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 (207) 319-2017 (Cell phone) globalnet@mindspring.com http://www.space4peace.org ------------------------ 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/ ***************************************************************** 30 [du-list] DU in the news 7th Oct 04 Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:32:24 -0700 Looks like " Google" are trying to filter out DU items... viz.... today from "Google" The war's littlest victim Collective Bellaciao - Paris,France ... The News had reported that four of seven soldiers from another National Guard unit, the 442nd Military Police, had tested positive for depleted uranium (DU). ... Meanwhile from "Yahoo" ..... Cameco has a long history in Port Hope Northumberland News Wed, 06 Oct 2004 8:55 AM PDT PORT HOPE - For more than 70 years, Port Hope has shared an intimate relationship with the nuclear industry. World News Axis of Logic Wed, 06 Oct 2004 3:53 AM PDT Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat said Tuesday he was prepared to step aside and become "the Palestinian Nelson Mandela", but added that he would do so only after the establishment of a Palestinian state . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/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/ ***************************************************************** 31 [du-list] ["depleted uranium in the news "] live links Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:32:30 -0700 Cameco has a long history in Port Hope Northumberland News Wed, 06 Oct 2004 8:55 AM PDT PORT HOPE - For more than 70 years, Port Hope has shared an intimate relationship with the nuclear industry. World News Axis of Logic Wed, 06 Oct 2004 3:53 AM PDT Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat said Tuesday he was prepared to step aside and become "the Palestinian Nelson Mandela", but added that he would do so only after the establishment of a Palestinian state . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/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/ ***************************************************************** 32 [DU-WATCH] DU PINK ELEPHANT-PHOTO EXHIBIT- NYC Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 00:49:28 -0500 (CDT) Did this reach you yet? http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/236934p-203326c.html and also:http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=690760 Victims of a Different Nuclear War: A Photo Exhibit of US and Iraqi Children Photographers Takashi Morizumi and Lorna Tychostup Free Admission Opening October 9, 6-9 PM Purple Lounge, Student Union Building, SUNY, New Paltz Show runs October 5-13, 8:30am to 11pm And October 22, 6:30-9 PM Inquiring Mind Bookstore, Saugerties Show runs October 19-26, Mon through Sat, 11:30am to 7:30pm and Sunday, noon to 6pm The Invisible War, a documentary on Depleted Uranium Oct 22, 7pm This little Iraqi boy has leukemia. In some parts of Iraq, cancer rates are 17 times higher than before the first Gulf War. Depleted Uranium (DU) is a radioactive nuclear waste the Pentagon uses in weapons. When it ignites it vaporizes into a deadly dust that causes cancers, birth defects and more. DU stays radioactive for 4.5 billion years. Parts of Iraq will be radioactive for the rest of time. STOP THE POISONING! BAN DEPLETED URANIUM IN WEAPONS! Sponsored by SAFE Legacy, Women in Black of New Paltz, Saugerties Committee for Peace and Social Justice, Cancer Awareness Coalition, Synthesis, Arts for Peace, Students Activities and Union Services of SUNY New Paltz, Peace Action Network, Iraq Humanitarian Travelers Alliance, Sue Zimit and Hector Rodriguez, Ulster Co Legislators, 9/11 People Against Racism, Women in Black, Woodstock, Persephone, Informed Consent- Town of Esopus, Solar Works! Project for Democracy, SUNY New Paltz Students Against Empire and Depleted Uranium Weapons Network of Mohawk Hudson Region For more information: WomeninBlacknp@aol.com or call SAFE Legacy at 845 255-5482 > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 33 NRC: NRC Proposes $9,600 Fine Against Virginia Firm in Whistleblower Case News Release - 2004-12 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 04-128 October 7, 2004 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $9,600 civil penalty against a Manassas, Va., firm for firing a dispatcher it believed had reported safety concerns to the NRC. The dispatcher was fired by Soil Consultants, Inc. (SCI), in August 2003, several days after NRC conducted an inspection of the companys facilities. The dispatcher indicated that company managers believed that he had notified the NRC about possible violations of NRC regulations. SCI contended that there were legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for terminating the dispatcher. Based on evidence gathered during the NRCs investigation and information provided during a predecisional enforcement conference in August 2004, the NRC determined the companys belief that the employee had notified the agency of safety concerns was a contributing factor in its decision to terminate the dispatcher. Under the agencys enforcement policy, a base civil penalty of $4,800 is assessed for this type of violation. However, the NRC staff is proposing an escalated fine because the violation was identified by the NRC rather than self-reported by the licensee, and because the companys corrective action was focused too narrowly and did not address managements understanding of NRC regulations on employee protection. It is apparent that SCI was concerned with who may have called the NRC about safety concerns, Frank J. Congel, director of NRCs Office of Enforcement, wrote in a letter to SCI regarding the enforcement action. The escalated fine, Congel wrote, will emphasize the importance of prompt identification and correction of violations and a safety conscious work environment that is free of any chilling effect so that employees can bring forward nuclear and radiological safety concerns without fear. The company is required to provide the NRC a written reply to the charges within 30 days. Last revised Thursday, October 07, 2004 ***************************************************************** 34 csmonitor: Plutonium: rising terror threat [http://www.csmonitor.com/] from the October 07, 2004 edition FRENCH RESISTANCE: Greenpeace activists worried that terrorists would hijack US weapons-grade plutonium, unloaded Oct. 6 in Cherbourg, France, that will be converted into fuel for a US nuclear power plant. JACKY NAEGELEN/REUTERS By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor The biggest threat facing the United States - and the world - is the spread of nuclear material to rogue states and terrorists. So say terrorism experts. Both major American presidential candidates concurred in last week's televised debate. So why is the US moving plutonium from military to less secure civilian control? And why, critics ask, is it embarking on research programs that teach other nations how to use plutonium in nuclear power plants after a quarter-century of opposing such moves? That's what Tom Clements wants to know. Lurking beside major highways that cut through the heart of France, Mr. Clements and other antinuclear activists from Greenpeace usually watch for unmarked white trucks carrying plutonium-based fuel to French nuclear power plants. Their aim is to dramatize how easily terrorists could spot the trucks and steal their contents. This week, however, they hope to track more dangerous quarry: a convoy laden with about 275 pounds of plutonium oxide shipped from the US. Unlike nuclear fuel for power plants, which terrorists would have to convert to make a bomb, this plutonium is weapons grade - enough dark, coarse-grained powder that could be used immediately to make 15 to 20 atom bombs the size of the one dropped on Nagasaki in World War II. Knowing terrorists are seeking nuclear material, nations have made strides to secure bomb-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU). But they have paid far less attention to an alternative: plutonium. The US shipment of weapons-grade plutonium to France, its first overseas, is not only a security threat but also clouds America's nonproliferation message, critics say. Moreover, it focuses attention on plutonium from another source - nuclear power plants. This "separated" plutonium can be converted into a weapon and poses a threat comparable to HEU, most experts say. "The big risk we face with separated plutonium is from theft by terrorists at a factory making reactor fuel - maybe an inside job," says David Albright, a researcher at the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a Washington think tank. "You always have to worry about the physical protection of plutonium. Nations always tell you their protection is good. But it may not be enough." Consider: " The world is swimming in plutonium. Although military stockpiles have stabilized, the amount of civilian-held plutonium has doubled in the past 13 years, says a new ISIS report. At the end of 2003, 14 nations' civilian reactors held 235 metric tons of the most dangerous variety in terms of a terrorist threat - separated plutonium. That's enough material to fashion some 40,000 Nagasaki-sized weapons; the amount is growing by five to 10 tons a year. " France annually converts tons of this plutonium to a mixed-oxide or MOX fuel, which is trucked to its nuclear power plants. Despite its "reactor grade" label, MOX could make an effective bomb - as a US test in 1962 revealed. Even if a weapon "fizzled" because its plutonium was only reactor-grade, it would still yield a one-kiloton explosion that would "rip the heart out of a city," says Leonard Spector, deputy director of the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies. " While it's far simpler to make a bomb from HEU, it's conceivable that terrorists could build a plutonium-based device with expert help, observers say. Just 15 pounds of the material, a baseball-sized chunk, would be enough to wipe out a large portion of a major city. Last month, Kyrgyz security agents arrested a man trying to sell 60 small containers of plutonium. The US has carefully protected the onetime shipment of plutonium to France, counters Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Department of Energy. "There are efforts and procedures in place we're not going to discuss publicly." By developing new technology to reprocess the plutonium in nuclear fuel, the US can boost its energy independence and reduce the volume of nuclear waste, the administration argues. It contends this could make unnecessary a second nuclear-waste repository beyond Yucca Mountain. "It is our hope that this technology will ... provide the benefits of recycling spent fuel without increasing proliferation risks," Kyle McSlarrow, deputy secretary of Energy, told Congress in July. Two forms, one menace Plutonium is created when uranium fuel is irradiated within a nuclear reactor. Reprocessing extracts the plutonium from spent fuel, which may then be fabricated into more fuel for reactors. Civilian plutonium comes in two basic varieties: the separated plutonium and irradiated plutonium, which is embedded within spent nuclear fuel rods. Ironically, irradiated plutonium is less worrisome because it is so radioactive. Terrorists typically wouldn't be able to handle spent rods without fatal consequences, though desperadoes could steal it for use in a dirty bomb. But separated plutonium could be diverted within a plant or stolen en route and readily transformed back into metal plutonium suitable for bombs, nonproliferation experts say. The arrival in France Wednesday of US weapons-grade plutonium - destined for fabrication into commercial reactor fuel - highlights these concerns. During the 1960s, it was thought that future shortages of uranium would make it economical to extract plutonium from reactor waste and use it for fuel. Some nations forged ahead, Britain, France, Japan, and the Soviet Union among them, despite the higher cost of reprocessing. So did the US - until India in 1974 conducted a "peaceful nuclear explosion" using a device created with plutonium culled from a research reactor. Recognizing the danger of nuclear proliferation, presidents Ford and Carter discouraged the use of plutonium as a fuel in civilian reactors. The US government withdrew its support for a "plutonium economy," throttling back America's use of plutonium as reactor fuel. So while the US military has plenty of weapons-grade plutonium, America has refused to reprocess spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for civilian use. Therefore, the US does not have a growing stockpile of civilian plutonium - which some would say is a huge blessing, given the costs involved in disposing of it. Even so, the idea of using plutonium for civilian use gained a toehold during the Clinton administration. The US and Russia in 2000 signed a disarmament treaty to dispose of "excess" military plutonium by following a dual-track approach. Some of the 34 metric tons of military plutonium from each country would be mixed with nuclear waste and put into canisters for burial - while the rest would be made into MOX for use in the US and Russia. Russia had resisted the burial option, declaring plutonium a valuable resource. In January 2002, the Bush administration dropped the idea, too. Instead, Energy secretary Spencer Abraham announced all 34 tons of excess US weapons plutonium would be made into MOX for power plants. "The US and Russia have agreed to dispose of 34 tons each of weapons plutonium through the Russians' preferred method of conversion to MOX," says Mr. Wilkes, whose agency oversees the joint weapons-to-MOX program. "We need the Russians on board." The US plan calls for France to create a limited amount of reactor fuel from the weapons-grade plutonium and then ship it back to South Carolina's Catawba nuclear-power plant for a test next spring. After that, the plan is for MOX to be made on US soil at a new $2.2 billion fabrication plant in South Carolina. The facility is to be completed by 2008 by a US subsidiary of Areva, the French company that's supplying the MOX to Catawba. The plan faces some obstacles. Environmentalists have filed suit in a bid to block the use of MOX fuel in the Catawba plant. A bigger obstacle is a dispute between Russia and the US over who would be liable in case of an accident or terrorist act involving US contractors working in Russia on the new MOX plant there. Absent an agreement, the whole plan will grind to a halt, analysts say. Murky policy Officially, the US still discourages other nations from using plutonium-based fuels in civilian reactors. But shipping plutonium to France to make MOX undercuts any US efforts to discourage the likes of Iran and North Korea from reprocessing spent reactor fuel, several experts say. Even for disarmament purposes, the use of MOX in US power plants "sets a terrible example for the world" when burying the material is still an alternative, says Paul Leventhal, head of the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington. "You don't want to in any way legitimate the use of bomb-grade fuels to generate electricity - because you can do that with low-grade fuels. So why allow it?" The US has in recent years begun promoting nuclear fuel-reprocessing technology for extracting plutonium, experts note. In May 2001, the Bush administration's new National Energy Policy emphasized the use of nuclear power to meet energy needs. At the same time, it also endorsed and promoted reconsideration of "advanced reprocessing" of spent reactor fuel. Despite the administration's hopes, this futuristic material would not significantly decrease terrorists' ability to use it to make a bomb, critics say. "The Bush administration has explicitly changed its policies," says Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist in the global security program of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It is actively promoting recycling spent fuel at home and abroad." The US has spearheaded the Generation IV International Forum with some 10 nations to develop new generation nuclear power plants. At least three of the five reactor designs under consideration would use recycled plutonium, Dr. Lyman says. The US has also contracted with South Korea and other nations to work on the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, which includes new technologies for recycling plutonium. South Korea revealed last month that in 1982 some of its civilian researchers, without permission, had separated plutonium. From power to bombs? The revelation caused an uproar among nonproliferation experts, who worry about civilian programs developing reprocessing expertise that can lead to weapons development. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei called the experiments "of serious concern." Meanwhile, Japan has a new reprocessing plant seeking certification. India wants to expand its reprocessing capacity. China has said it, too, wants to reprocess for civilian purposes. "Plutonium production is a machine that just won't stop," says Dr. Spector of the Monterey Institute. "The nuclear establishment is so powerful in some countries, it just drives forward by its own inertia." The spread of reprocessing technology, combined with the move to use MOX fuel in US reactors, comes at a time when the world is desperate to corral loose nuclear material before terrorists can get it. Plutonium is especially hard to track. When it's being reprocessed or fabricated, it sticks to nearly everything it comes in contact with. Last year, for example, international nuclear inspectors reported that the Tokaimura nuclear-fuel reprocessing plant north of Tokyo could not account for some of its plutonium - enough to make 25 nuclear weapons. Similarly, France's COGEMA Cadarache plant where the US is shipping its excess military plutonium, was found by EURATOM in 2002 to have "an unacceptable amount of material unaccounted for," according to a recent report in Nuclear Fuel, a trade publication. "It's like seeing an accident in the future and pressing on the accelerator.," says Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. "We're all human, and we make mistakes in government. But on this we should just cease and desist." www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2004 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 Las Vegas RJ: EDITORIAL: More waste at Yucca Thursday, October 07, 2004 And the folly continues ... The flushing sound from 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, ever-present for nearly two decades, is getting louder. A federal audit found the Department of Energy last year threw out 1,300 pieces of Yucca Mountain Project materials -- about 9,000 metric tons of taxpayer property -- with a potential value of $1.75 million. The department did not offer to transfer the property to other federal agencies. And rather than sell it at auction, the department paid a contractor $73,000 to haul it away. Among the equipment deemed ready for the scrap heap: a refurbished rock-boring machine valued at $792,000. The contractor, realizing the machine was akin to a choice antique or rare sports trading card found at a garage sale, pitched it on the Internet as being "in very good condition with only 165 hours of use." The Yucca Mountain program, which has carved out miles of tunnels in the ridge and aims to excavate more to entomb the nation's most lethal nuclear waste, apparently has gear to spare. The audit's findings are the latest footnote in the multibillion-dollar boondoggle's history of mismanagement and lack of accountability to the U.S. taxpayer. In 1986, the federal government told the nation's nuclear energy industry it would take possession of growing heaps of spent fuel by 1998. Utility customers have paid billions of dollars in surcharges over the years to finance the transition. Almost 20 years after that promise was made, the Department of Energy is no closer to fulfilling its obligation. After singling out Nevada for the "study" of suitable repository sites in 1987, the government promised the mountain's geology would safely contain the intense heat and radiation that would result from sealing off the waste. After realizing that wouldn't work, in 2001 the Energy Department hedged, alleging the creation of thick containers and additional man-made barriers would get the job done. There is no evidence to convincingly demonstrate those measures will hold up into the distant future. The Energy Department's supervision of this project, purportedly based on years of scientific research and planning, is a bouncing ball that adjusts to whatever idea allows the government to keep digging -- and keep spending. It comes as no surprise, then, that such disregard for taxpayers has spread from the layers of fat in Washington, D.C., to Yucca Mountain site workers. In addition to the rock-boring machine, two trailers that belonged to the National Nuclear Security Administration for use at the Nevada Test Site were turned over for disposal. Tons of scrap metal, fencing, drill rigs, mining tools and water tanks also were thrown out with the trash. Could such a cavalier approach to managing resources be found in the private sector? Any businessperson would at least attempt zto have a junk hauler take the stuff away free of charge. It's easy to understand why the Yucca Mountain Project has dire financial problems -- its once-flush budget is on the congressional chopping block. With the findings of this audit made public, federal lawmakers should grab their axes and swing freely. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 36 Las Vegas RJ: Agency hunts new site to store nuclear waste Thursday, October 07, 2004 Energy Departmenttried to ship materialto Nevada Test Site By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department has begun to look at new disposal choices for nuclear weapons waste it has been blocked from sending to the Nevada Test Site. Department officials have told a cleanup contractor to identify other sites where special-category radioactive byproducts might be shipped out of three 20-foot-tall silos at the decommissioned Fernald uranium-processing plant 18 miles north of Cincinnati. The government expects the contractor, Fluor Fernald, to submit a report by the end of the week with cost estimates and a timetable to conduct a search, said Johnny Reising, DOE associate director for environmental restoration at the plant. In a Sept. 24 letter, a project director at Fluor Fernald was told: "Identify viable alternatives leading to either commercial interim storage or permanent commercial disposal of the silo materials. Permanent disposal is the preferred alternative." Reising directed questions to headquarters as to whether the search means the department has abandoned plans to move the waste to the Nevada Test Site. A DOE spokesman in Washington did not respond to a call and an e-mailed query. Nevada has not received any notification from the Energy Department, said Marta Adams, an assistant attorney general. But Adams said state officials are taking the department's directive to Fluor Fernald as a sign the department might be moving on. "That says to me they really are trying to find another site rather than the test site, which is quite delightful," Adams said. "We were on pretty solid legal footing." Attorney General Brian Sandoval threatened to sue the government after the Energy Department in February announced plans to move 3,750 truckloads of the special type of radioactive waste to its low-level nuclear waste dump at the test site. Sandoval said the Fernald material contained more potent levels of waste than what the test site is licensed to store safely. The department has shipped 6.4 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste from the Fernald site to Nevada since the early 1980s. Energy Department lawyers said the waste could be buried at the test site but delayed shipments to Nevada after Sandoval's legal threat and said the state would be given 45-days notice before the department began any shipping. Two of the silos contain 240,000 cubic feet of slurry tainted with byproducts of high-grade uranium that was used at the Fernald plant for 37 years until it was shut down in 1989. The third silo contains 137,000 cubic feet of powdery thorium waste. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 37 BBC: France moves US plutonium south Last Updated: Thursday, 7 October, 2004 [Cargo being transported to southern processing plant] Police are guarding bridges along the route south A first convoy of US weapons-grade plutonium is on its way from northern France to a processing plant in the south-east of the country. A heavily-guarded truck left a nuclear facility at La Hague, where the 125kg shipment had been stored overnight. Environmentalists, who have protested against the consignment, say it might be vulnerable to terrorist attack. The state-owned company which will reprocess it says the consignment is safe and will be converted into fuel. The treatment is part of a post-Cold War agreement between the United States and Russia to get rid of plutonium from excess nuclear warheads. Rally The 125kg (275lb) of radioactive material reached Cherbourg aboard two armed British freighters early on Wednesday. It was then loaded onto lorries and driven to the plant in nearby La Hague, accompanied by a heavy police escort. This is a high-risk strate being played by the nuclear industry with the lives of millions of people Shaun Burnie, Greenpeace International The plutonium has been in transit since the two British-registered ships left South Carolina last month. It is now being driven nearly 1,000km (660 miles) to south-east France for further reprocessing at the Cadarache facilities run by the Areva-Cogema company. Police are guarding all the bridges along the route. But environmental campaigners Greenpeace still have concerns. "This is a high-risk strategy being played by the nuclear industry with the lives of millions of people," said Shaun Burnie, of Greenpeace International. Some activists have called for a rally at the Cadarache plant on Thursday. In order to combat a repeat of protests in Cherbourg, a French court has ruled that any protester who goes within 100 metres of the shipment faces a 75,000 euro fine. The French state-owned nuclear energy firm Areva, whose Cogema unit will recycle the plutonium into nuclear fuel, insists the shipment is safe. "The plutonium... is shipped in casks that comply with the regulation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)," Areva said in a statement. "Its transport is the object of the strongest safety and security measures." Cogema will process the material and convert it into mixed oxide nuclear fuel (MOX), which will then be shipped back to the US for civilian use. The US Department of Energy says the plutonium has to be shipped overseas because there is not a plant capable of carrying out the conversion process in the US. ***************************************************************** 38 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca issue lacks national appeal By Benjamin Grove and Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- In August, when President Bush visited New Hampshire's Seacoast region, the Portsmouth Herald's editorial page wrote him a letter outlining a lengthy list of local concerns. Included were issues ranging from the war on terrorism, Medicare reform and the No Child Left Behind Act to the future of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Canadian border security, and reviving small-boat fishing. While a nuclear power plant in Seacoast has 246 tons of radioactive waste, the paper didn't mention a word about nuclear waste or Yucca Mountain. Despite Yucca's brief moment in the national spotlight after recent Nevada visits by Bush and challenger John Kerry, neither candidate has discussed the proposed nuclear waste dump much outside the state. Yucca barely registers at all as a campaign issue -- even in regions where nuclear plants generate electricity -- and where many voters would love to see the nuclear waste piling up in their backyards shipped off to Nevada. "Not only have they not talked about it, they haven't even been asked about it, as far as I'm aware," said Tom Rath, a New Hampshire Bush adviser, long-time GOP insider and the state's national committeeman. Yucca Mountain might seem like a salient issue for political activists in the nation's 34 nuclear-power states, and there are clear differences to be drawn. Bush approved the plan to create a national radioactive waste repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas; Kerry vowed to block it. But state and local political activists told the Sun that Yucca Mountain has been virtually non-existent this election season in 10 "battleground" states with nuclear power -- Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. They said the issue has been absent in heated advertising wars, in the news, at fund raisers and rallies, and in numerous visits by the two candidates themselves. Officials for Bush and Kerry won't say why that is. But there are lots of theories: the voters don't care; the issue is too complex for the stump; it's a political hot potato for both. Kerry critics say he can't trumpet an anti-Yucca stance in the nuclear-power states where waste-weary voters rely on plant jobs and the states receive hefty tax revenues and emissions-free energy. And analysts say Bush would only help Kerry by raising the issue. "You can imagine what Kerry would do, he would rush back to Nevada and quote the president," said Lawrence Jacobs, University of Minnesota political science professor, and director of an intensive study of 2004 presidential politics in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin. The study has tracked what issues are important to voters in those states and nuclear waste has not registered anywhere on the list, Jacobs said. Kerry is using Yucca to "out-flank" the president in a rare instance in which a single issue tends to dominate the political landscape, Jacobs said. "He's playing to the voters in Nevada," Jacobs said. Two top Bush-Cheney spokespeople declined to explain why the campaign isn't hammering Kerry on Yucca outside Nevada. But they were quick to blast Kerry for "pandering" to Nevadans. "What we have seen is John Kerry's eagerness to tout his newfound opposition of Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but he has refused to discuss it in the 39 other states where nuclear waste is currently stored," Tracey Schmitt, Bush-Cheney's Western states campaign spokeswoman. "It's disingenuous and it's disconcerting. Clearly, he is vulnerable, and that is why he hasn't talked about it outside Nevada." But Kerry's campaign hotly disputes that Kerry is vulnerable on the issue of nuclear waste. "This is an important issue in this election outside Nevada," Laura Capps, a top Kerry spokeswoman, said. "This is a classic example of President Bush breaking his promises." Capps said it was highly unusual for a candidate to make a state-specific issue like Yucca Mountain the "message of the day" for more than 50 media covering a campaign, as Kerry did in Las Vegas in August. State and local campaign coordinators for Kerry and Bush said people in other states generally just don't think or care about Yucca as much as voters in Nevada do. Eric Schultz, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign in New Hampshire, said Yucca had not been a campaign issue in the state, despite the Seabrook nuclear plant. Seabrook generates 57 percent of the state's electricity and has produced 246 metric tons of radioactive waste awaiting shipment to Yucca. Both Bush and Kerry have visited New Hampshire since Kerry's big anti-Yucca speech in Nevada, but neither mentioned waste. Locals believe the waste piling up at the Seabrook plant is a real problem and their general feeling is: "We certainly need something quickly, and if it's Yucca Mountain,it's Yucca Mountain," Portsmouth Herald managing editor Shir Haberman said. But local voters are simply focused on other issues such as Iraq, the economy and the nearby shipyard, he said. The newspaper has not written any editorials on Kerry's anti-Yucca stance. Other observers said Yucca Mountain just isn't a sexy campaign issue for either party. Nuclear waste policy and the long history of the Yucca project are complex and technical compared to any number of splashier stump subjects. Still others said Yucca Mountain isn't an easy issue for Bush or Kerry because it begs thorny questions. For Kerry: Isn't the waste more safely stored in a single, secure repository? And: If not Yucca, where? For Bush, there are the tricky issues of a controversial 10,000-year safety standard and the nagging question of transportation: How do you move the waste to Nevada, without accidents or sabotage? Plant officials say waste can be shipped safely. But many voters are worried about waste traveling through the state, environmental activists said. "There is a great deal of concern about cask safety and the irradiation of communities where people live and work and go to school by the tracks," said Janet Zeller, director of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League in North Carolina, home to some of the biggest waste stockpiles in the country. Lots of people are more concerned about waste shipping than living near waste, several plant-region locals said. "People have learned to live with having waste around them," said Dan Trevas, communications director for the Ohio Democratic Party. Still, several state Bush activists said Yucca Mountain could be a winner if it were forced into the public discourse, saying that nuclear waste is a sensitive issue to many people who live near plants. Terry Lowe, chairman of the Republican Party in Ottawa County in Ohio, home to the Davis-Besse reactor, agreed. He said he had no idea that Kerry has vowed to stop Yucca. "If he (Kerry) ever came to Ohio and came out against Yucca Mountain," Lowe said, "there would be fallout." ***************************************************************** 39 Las Vegas SUN: New site sought for nuke waste By Benjamin Grove LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- Spurred by lawsuit threats from Nevada, the Department of Energy has begun looking for a new place to store radioactive waste piled up in Ohio. Nevada officials have long fought to keep the radioactive material out of the Nevada Test Site. The Energy Department had said Nevada was its "primary" disposal site for the waste at the former uranium processing plant in Fernald, Ohio. But the department has now told cleanup contractor Fluor Fernald to look elsewhere for a dump site. The department expects the contractor on Friday to submit a search plan for a new site, said Bill Taylor, director of the Fernald cleanup project. Department officials want to find a new site by March, he said. In response to Nevada's objections, the department and Fluor Fernald are "opening the aperture" to seek out commercial dump sites, Taylor said. Taylor and Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis today declined to say if the department had completely scrapped its plan to ship the waste to Nevada. Sandoval had said he would sue the Energy Department if it tried to move thousands of truckloads of the waste from Ohio to Nevada. About 9,000 cubic yards of the material is a solid, viscous material, Taylor said. About 5,000 cubic yards is a white metallic power. Nevada officials have argued the waste should be stored at a site regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They have said the Fernald waste is more radioactive and not the same classification as waste at the low-level test site dump. The state had a strong case, Deputy Attorney General Marta Adams said. "This is considered a very special kind of waste for a reason," Adams said. "The law requires that it be handled at a very specialized kind of site." The Test Site, home to a federal government low-level radioactive waste dump, is managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration, an affiliate of the Energy Department. The border of the 1,375-square-mile Nevada Test Site, once the nation's nuclear weapons proving ground, that is nearest to Las Vegas is about 65 miles northwest of the city. The 1,050-acre Fernald plant, 18 miles northwest of Cincinnati, had supported the U.S. weapons programs for 37 years when it was closed in 1989. ***************************************************************** 40 Las Vegas SUN: Democrats say Bush deceiving Nevadans on Yucca By Kirsten Searer LAS VEGAS SUN Recent comments in a science magazine prove that President Bush is deceiving Nevadans about the Yucca Mountain project, top state Democrats said Wednesday. In the October edition of Physics Today, Bush's science adviser wrote that the Bush administration has "made a strong commitment to resolving the nuclear waste challenge and making the construction of a long-term geologic repository at Yucca Mountain achievable. "We are moving ahead with the submission of a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the end of this year." The comments show Bush is aggressively pursuing the nuclear waste dump despite telling the state he is taking a wait-and-see role while the courts and regulatory commissions determine if it is safe, the Democrats said. Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, said Bush is "going to see what he can do to make it happen." Democrat Tom Gallagher, who is running for Congressional District 3, called Bush's comments "another George Bush flip-flop." They also pointed to papers filed in late September indicating the Department of Justice might appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court a lower court ruling against Yucca Mountain. "It seems as though George W. Bush is still stringing Nevadans along," Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins, D-Henderson, said. Bush-Cheney spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said Bush has been consistent on the issue and is not allowing politics to play a role in his decisions. She pointed out that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry voted in favor of investigating the project but now says he opposes it. "The President has been clear and consistent on this critical issue," Schmitt said. "He understands that some Nevadans may disagree, but John Kerry has attempted to turn this critical issue into a political poker chip. He has clearly worked to mislead the state on his votes." Bush told Nevadans while campaigning here in 2000 that he would rely on "sound science" when making decisions on the proposed nuclear waste repository. And in an August trip to Las Vegas, Bush told a crowd that "I will allow this process to be appealed to the courts and to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and I will stand by the decision of the courts and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." In the lower court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency's 10,000-year radiation standard for the site doesn't meet recommendations set by the National Academy of Sciences. While the EPA has said it doesn't want to appeal the decision, Bush administration officials have kept the option open and have until Nov. 30 to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Kerry wrote in the Physics Today questionnaire that he would dispose of waste only after peer-reviewed science and analysis has lead to "public understanding and confidence." Kerry also told the magazine that he would reject a license for Yucca Mountain and initiate a study to examine whether geologic disposal is the best way to contain waste. ***************************************************************** 41 Las Vegas SUN: Proponents cite missing waste as need for Yucca By Benjamin Grove SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Highly radioactive waste is missing at a closed California nuclear power plant, and critics and proponents of Yucca Mountain each say the issue bolsters their positions regarding the nuclear waste dump. The missing waste signals a need for a single, permanent national waste repository, Yucca proponents say. They say it's a huge leap to suggest that lost waste at a few plants signals trouble ahead for Yucca. But critics ask: If a single nuclear plant can't account for all its waste, how can the Energy Department keep tabs on 77,000 tons of highly radioactive material, loaded on thousands of shipments bound for Nevada, over decades? "We know that's not possible, and a single accident or terrorist attack would be a disaster," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. At issue is the highly radioactive spent uranium fuel from the nation's 103 active commercial nuclear reactors, and the waste stored at closed reactors. The federal government for years has aimed to establish a single repository for the waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Meanwhile the waste is piling up in storage at the power plants. This is not the first time a plant has lost waste. -- The Vermont Yankee plant reported two missing pieces in April this year and found them in July -- right where they should have been, in the plant's waste pool. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission fined the Millstone nuclear plant in Connecticut $288,000 after plant officials in 2000 realized that they could not account for two spent nuclear fuel rods, which contain uranium and plutonium. The rods were not found. "These things are 15 feet long and fairly radioactive," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has called on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to better regulate used fuel. "It's hard to accidentally lose track of them." But nuclear power industry officials said the incidents of lost waste are exceptionally rare in the 50-year history of commercial nuclear power. They say it is a stretch to argue that the incidents are a preview of waste losses and accounting errors in the massive effort to ship the nation's waste to Yucca. The Humboldt waste was lost because of an accounting record mistake in 1968 or 1969, PG spokesman Jeff Lewis said. One set of old records said the waste was shipped away and other records said the waste went into the plant waste pool. More high-tech searching of the pool is planned, Lewis said. "This is a decades-old issue that doesn't reflect the attention to detail that we have now," Lewis said. There is no connection between the Yucca Mountain plan and a few scraps of lost waste, said Steve Kerekes, spokesman for Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's top lobby group. "Leading scientists for decades have said the best way to isolate the waste is a geologic disposal facility," he said. "To try to say we should turn that on its head because of the situations that occurred at these (three) facilities is ludicrous." Private waste shippers and Energy Department officials who would manage the Yucca project have long said they can safely transport waste to Nevada. High-level waste has been shipped for decades without lost cargo or an accident that resulted in a harmful release of waste, department spokesman Joe Davis said. The department must adhere to a long list of federal shipping requirements, Davis noted. But Yucca critics are skeptical. "If the nuclear plants can't keep track of this material while it's stationary, how do they expect to keep track of it when it's in motion to Yucca Mountain?" Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., asked. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said, "They have had a lot of problems with the Yucca Mountain project already. I don't have a lot of confidence in the DOE." Meticulous record-keeping and documentation is going to be required for Yucca, project critic Kevin Kamps said. "And the Department of Energy and the industry are not showing that they can do it," said Kamps, nuclear waste specialist with Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Nevada officials also don't buy the argument that waste could be better monitored in a central repository at Yucca. Waste will still accumulate at plants as long as plants operate, said Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Office. ***************************************************************** 42 RGJ: Promise won’t help Yucca [http://www.rgj.com/] Promise won’t help Yucca [online@rgj.com] RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 10/6/2004 08:56 pm Oct. 6, 2004 Nevadans shouldn’t depend on their vote for U.S. Sen. John Kerry, or any other candidate, to save them from the Yucca Mountain project. He and the anti-Yucca team working against the project might slow progress, but it will take much more than a campaign promise to halt the project. People should base their vote on some other issue. President Bush already has demonstrated how easily a campaign promise can be broken. (Remember his father’s “Read my lips…”?) Even after a court ruling that plans are not safe enough for long enough, millions are spent to dig tunnels, bore through rock and plan transportation systems. Somebody in Washington obviously thinks the project is a fait accompli. It is likely to take an act of Congress to get the right kind of help to stop Yucca Mountain, no matter how many times a candidate promises. If this state is to keep up the fight, it should take place on Capitol Hill and in the courts, and votes should be based on other factors. © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a [http://www.gannett.com] ***************************************************************** 43 KRT Wire: Though strongly GOP, Democrats may exploit Nevada's growth woes | 10/07/2004 | BY LAURA KURTZMAN Knight Ridder Newspapers LAS VEGAS - (KRT) - In the four years since George W. Bush beat Al Gore by about 22,000 votes in Nevada, the state has added nearly 15 times that many people. Many are thought to be blue-collar workers drawn by Las Vegas' thriving tourist industry, and as much as anything in this unsettled political season, these newcomers are keeping Nevada and its five electoral votes in play. Bush won the state by 4 percentage points in 2000 and Republicans swept all six statewide offices two years later. But as the nation's fastest-growing state, Nevada is beset by growth-related problems - from too few schools to inadequate health care - that could make the state ever more friendly to the Democrats. Nevada grew by a phenomenal 70 percent from 1990 to 2000. "Demographically, what you find is people who might be more likely to identify with the Democratic Party," said David Damore, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. But he cautioned that the boom would help the Democrats only if they succeed in turning out their voters, an area where Republicans have always done better. "At the same time," he added, "I've never seen a year like this." With many different groups signing up voters, Democrats have seen a bonanza in registration numbers. Although they began the year at a numeric disadvantage, the Democrats pulled even with Republicans by August and are now slightly ahead, according to officials with both parties. The number of Democratic voters in Clark County, where Las Vegas is located and where about 1.6 million of the state's 2.4 million people live, increased by 25 percent. Republicans have launched their own effort, much of it by mail, registering enough new voters to raise their smaller base by 20 percent in Clark County. Polls show the Nevada race remains tight. A Mason-Dixon poll for the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Review-Journal.com done in mid-September found Bush leading Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry 50 percent to 45 percent among likely voters in the state. The margin of error was 4 percentage points. Four other polls, all done before the first debate between Bush and Kerry on Sept. 30, also had Bush in the lead, with margins ranging from 2 to 9 percentage points. Some analysts are surprised to find that Bush needs to fight for the state. Nevada's booming economy, as evidenced by the construction cranes that rise above the Las Vegas strip, should be good news for the president. But his decision to allow the nation's nuclear waste to be stored at an underground repository in Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, appears to have hurt him with some voters. As a candidate in 2000, Bush promised to let scientists determine whether the site was safe before he allowed it to go forward. But once in office, Bush approved it while the studies were still being done. Jon Ralston, a nonpartisan political analyst in Las Vegas, began the year convinced that Bush wouldn't be hurt by Yucca Mountain because he thought Nevadans had grown sick of debating the issue. "It's possible a very small number of voters are driven by the Yucca Mountain issue," Ralston said. "It may be enough to make this race close." Yucca Mountain is intended to be the single repository for spent fuel from the nation's nuclear reactors. Such fuel is currently stored at each plant. Supporters of Yucca Mountain say it can safely contain the fuel. By centralizing the waste in one site, they say, the radioactive materials can be better kept from terrorists. Opponents worry that groundwater will seep through the mountain, pick up radiation and ultimately threaten drinking water. They also point to the dangers of shipping spent fuel to Nevada. On visits to Nevada, Kerry has attacked Bush over Yucca Mountain and has said he would stop the project, but he hasn't said what he would do with the nuclear waste. "If you're ready to stop it (the spent fuel) here, what are you going to do with it?" asked Chris Carr, the executive director of the Nevada Republican Party. Some say Kerry's attacks would have found a wider audience if he'd made Yucca Mountain part of a larger argument about what Bush has done wrong on the environment. "I would have pounded away, if I was Kerry, the fact that Bush reversed quite a few of the clean air, clean water initiatives that affect Lake Tahoe," said Billy Vassiliadis, a Democratic consultant in Las Vegas. He faults Kerry's national campaign for being flat-footed when it comes to local issues. Instead, it's been the Bush campaign that's blanketed the airwaves in Reno, where Lake Tahoe is located, with messages to shore up the heavily Republican base there. Those voters tend to be more moderate than the president on social issues and on the environment. In the first three weeks of August, the Bush campaign advertised more in Reno than in any other market in the nation. Before the advertising, said Pete Ernaut, a Republican consultant in Reno, polls showed a tie in Washoe County, where Reno is located, despite the Republicans' 15-point registration advantage. But after the Republican convention, he said, Bush was leading by 8 or 9 points, "which is where we should be." He added that the change was a reflection of "not just the success of the Bush message, but it's also the weakness of the Kerry message." Republicans also are heartened by the presence of independent candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot, although he's barely registered in the polls. Democrats, however, may have other reasons to hope for victory. A ballot measure to raise the minimum wage and a hot race in the 3rd congressional district, which includes the southern portion of Las Vegas, are expected to bring Democrats to the polls. And then there's the success of their voter registration groups. "It's been startling," said Ralston, the analyst. "It's got to be worrying the Republicans." --- © 2004, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services. ***************************************************************** 44 PR Newswire: Phase I uranium acquisition complete Media Company" /> [http://www.prnewswire.com/] Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan TSX.V - CVV OTCBB: CVVLF http://www.canalaska.com [http://www.canalaska.com] VANCOUVER, Oct. 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - Further to the announcement dated September 21, 2004, CanAlaska Ventures Ltd. ("CanAlaska") announced today that it has completed its first phase of property acquisitions and has acquired approximately 48,000 hectares (approximately 120,000 acres) or 480 square kilometers of prospective uranium claims in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan. The Athabasca Basin hosts several major uranium deposits including Cigar Lake and McArthur River, two of the highest grade uranium deposits in the world. Production from the Athabasca Basin currently accounts for 32% of the worlds' supply of uranium and is expected to increase to 50% by the end of the decade. For the past decade or two, uranium exploration within the Athabasca Basin has been at a relatively low level and it is evident that the potential for the discovery of other deposits remains high. Peter Dasler, President, noted "before commencing its staking program, CanAlaska carried out a comprehensive due diligence program taking into account existing geological and geophysical data, and as a result, has identified and acquired projects that are well located and which it is believed have considerable potential". Staking is expected to continue through the Fall and Winter in order to position the Company and its shareholders for what CanAlaska believes will be the largest expansion in uranium exploration since the 1970's. Harry Barr, Chairman of CanAlaska stated, "Our objective is simply to control one of the largest uranium exploration portfolios in the Athabasca Basin". CanAlaska's Canadian technical team is currently set up in Saskatchewan guiding the acquisition process and preparing for Fall and Winter exploration programs. In addition to staking, CanAlaska is actively negotiating on several other drill ready targets in order to rapidly develop its uranium exploration portfolio. CanAlaska is also actively exploring for gold in the Hemlo Gold Belt and nickel in the Voisey Bay area of Labrador. In New Zealand the Company has assembled a series of grass roots and advanced gold exploration projects, which are budgeted for detailed exploration and drill testing in early 2005. The qualified person for this release is Peter Dasler, P.Geo, President of CanAlaska Ventures Ltd. About CanAlaska CanAlaska is a mineral exploration company with uranium, gold, base and platinum group metal projects in Alaska, British Columbia, Labrador, Ontario, Quebec and New Zealand. Management's objective is to create shareholder wealth through the exploration and development of diversified mineral project portfolio. On behalf of the Board of Directors "Harry Barr" Harry Barr, Chairman Investor Contact: Peter Dasler President Tel: 604.685.1870 1-800-667-1870 Email: ir@canalaska.com [ ir@canalaska.com] The TSX Venture has not reviewed and does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release: CUSIP No. 137089108. This news release contains certain "Forward-Looking Statements" within the meaning of Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, included herein are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the Company's expectations are disclosed in the Company's documents filed from time to time with the British Columbia Securities Commission and the United States Securities & Exchange Commission. SOURCE Canalaska Ventures Ltd. Copyright © 1996-2004 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights ***************************************************************** 45 KESQ: Kerry would use budget, Cabinet influence to kill Yucca Mountain NewsChannel 3 Palm Springs, CA October 7, 2004 RENO, Nev. Democrat John Kerry says if he is elected president he will refuse to fund efforts crucial to the construction of Yucca Mountain to keep the nation's nuclear waste dump from being built in Nevada.Kerry told a Reno television station in a satellite feed from Iowa today that he does NOT think Yucca Mountain is safe.He told KRNV-TV, quoting now, "I'll guarantee you, if I'm president, Yucca Mountain is not going to happen. Nevada can take that to the bank.Kerry repeatedly has pledged to kill the high-level radioactive waste repository planned 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But Republicans argue he's powerless to do anything about it and that the federal courts ultimately will decide the fate of the project.Kerry said today he has a number of ways to keep the dump from being built, beginning with his budget. He says refusing to fund things necessary to make Yucca Mountain a reality is a good place to start.In addition, Kerry says the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency have to approve various health and safety standards for the dump to be built. As president, he says he would have the power to make sure those signoffs don't occur.Kerry says he intends to be back in Nevada at least once before the election to campaign in Reno. Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights [http://www.worldnow.com] All content © Copyright 2002 - 2004 WorldNow and KESQ. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 News & Star: MOX fuel boost is on cards for BNFL Published on 07/10/2004 SELLAFIELD’s controversial MOX reprocessing plant is expected to be given a huge boost if Japan wants its mixed oxide fuel. It has being reported that a secret Japanese government committee is to call for a major upgrade of power stations in the country to enable them to use MOX fuel. This could lead to lucrative contracts for BNFL to reprocess spent fuel rods from Japan into MOX fuel. The fuel would then be sent back and used in the upgraded power stations. Shipments of MOX from Sellafield stopped five year ago following a document falsification scandal. BNFL will have its work cut out to win new contracts. Sources in the district of Fukui, a centre for nuclear powers, told the Independent that sensitivities over the falsification scandal meant the first batch of MOX orders would go to Cogema — BNFL’s French rival. Sellafield GMB union convener Peter Kane said: “If the Japanese go for MOX fuel it would be good news for BNFL, the workforce and the country. “It would secure jobs.†Director of Japan’s nuclear watchdog Green Action, Aileen Myoko Smith, said: “The global energy situation has put Japan at a crossroads, and the pressure is all the greater for the country to build its dependence on nuclear power.†***************************************************************** 47 US Plutonium to France: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/ US Atomic Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:31:46 -0700 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle@law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:fboyle@LAW.UIUC.EDU] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 9:26 AM To: Globenet (globenet@yahoogroups.com) Subject: [globenet] US Plutonium to France: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energ y Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle@law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account you wish to be subscribed to: abolition-caucus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT 92114.jpg 92156.jpg ---------- Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/globenet/ * * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: * globenet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com * * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net Attachment Converted: 92114.jpg: 00000001,44ea95e8,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 92156.jpg: 00000001,44ea95e9,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 48 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Umatilla tribes say they'll sue over environment at Hanford [seattlepi.com] Thursday, October 7, 2004 By SHANNON DININNY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS YAKIMA -- The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have filed notice of intent to sue the U.S. Department of Energy, demanding the agency assess the harm that 40 years of plutonium production caused to natural resources at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. In filing the notice, the tribes joined the states of Washington and Oregon in seeking to have natural resource injuries assessed at Hanford. In July, the two states sought a court-ordered assessment of environmental harm at Hanford if the federal government does not conduct one. The tribe is not seeking monetary damages, said Armand Minthorn, a member of the tribe's board of trustees. "Only once we know the extent of the damage to natural resources, can we develop plans to restore those resources," Minthorn said in a statement. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla is composed of the Umatilla, Cayuse and Walla Walla tribes, which say they retained the right to use natural resources at Hanford under treaty. The Energy Department had not yet reviewed the notice of intent to sue yesterday and could not comment, spokeswoman Colleen French said. The Yakama Nation filed suit against the Energy Department in 2002, seeking restoration of Hanford natural resources damaged by plutonium production for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. The Yakama Nation alleged that contamination of the Columbia River with radioactive waste and other hazardous substances has contributed to declining Northwest salmon populations in the past 50 years. The Energy Department has said it is too soon to assess damage to the environment. A court ordered the Yakama Nation and the Justice Department, which represents the Energy Department, into mediation talks earlier this year. Washington, Oregon and the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho had asked to be allowed to join the mediation talks, but the Energy Department declined. Hanford, near Richland in south-central Washington, was created as part of the Manhattan Project in World War II to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. The 586-square-mile site now contains the nation's largest collection of nuclear waste. Cleanup costs are projected at between $50 billion and $60 billion, with cleanup to be completed by 2035. select.nwsshopads{font-size:8pt;width:140px;} [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to [newmedia@seattlepi.com] ©1996-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 49 Hawk Eye: IAAP lands large Defense contracts [http://archive.thehawkeye.com] Wednesday, October 6, 2004 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST By RON FIELDS rfields@thehawkeye.com MIDDLETOWN — A pair of substantial contract awards will help maintain current staffing levels at the munitions plant, while the proposed funding of an expansion could help grow the facility. About 700 people are currently employed at the plant. Jon Phillips of American Ordnance, the operating contractor at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, said Tuesday the company recently landed a $12.2 million contract to provide the U.S. Army and Marines with 166,744 155mm M107 projectiles. The artillery is expected to be delivered between September 2005 and June 2006. Phillips said the 155mm shells were a mainstay at the plant from the 1950s to early 1970s, when reserve stockpiles ended their production at the Middletown ammo plant. Production resumed in 1998, Phillips said. "We're actually working on them now ... this is a continuation," he said. AO also recently won a $14.5 million contract to resume production of modular artillery charge systems, components used to propel artillery down range. AO will build more than 940,000 MACS, which are expected to be delivered to the Army between July 2005 and September 2006. "We had produced them until the spring of 2002 ... then we lost that contract," Phillips said. "We won this contract competitively for the next 940,000." Also in the works at IAAP is the renovation of existing facilities to bring the ammo plant up to date with the Defense Department's move toward "insensitive" weaponry. "The Army is requiring that all new ordnance systems be insensitive–munitions compliant in the near future," Phillips said. "It makes it safer to handle, transport." He said the new explosives would be less sensitive to static electricity, shock, temperature and "things that set things off." The Defense Department's 2005 budget, which has yet to be finalized, includes $3.5 million for the initial phase of the upgrade at IAAP. "We'd take existing facilities and upgrade them to the current standard," Phillips said, noting that Iowa Sens. Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley, Rep. Jim Leach and Illinois Rep. Lane Evans were instrumental in getting the funding attached to the defense spending bill. The money likely will not be available to begin the project until the spring. "We'll use the $3.5 million to put in some equipment so we're ready to bid some contracts," Phillips said. "Hopefully, phase two funding will allow us to complete it and do some testing so we can show the customers that we can go." In other news at IAAP, Phillips said the contract for producing reactive armor for the U.S military's new Stryker vehicle remains in limbo. "It's still in development," he said. AO originally did its research and development at the Middletown plant for the armor, which would protect the vehicle and its passengers by using explosive armor that repels attacks. Phillips said that work is "in a holding pattern." "We hope to hear something in a couple of months," he said. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 · 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · webmaster@thehawkeye.com [webmaster@thehawkeye.com] ***************************************************************** 50 lamonitor.com: Russians study environment in Los Alamos The Online News Source for Los Alamos [http://www.lac-nm.us] CAROL A. CLARK, lanews@lamonitor.com [lanews@lamonitor.com] , Monitor Staff Writer Eight Russian delegates arrived in Los Alamos Sunday night for a weeklong study of ecological and environmental issues with local experts. This is the first trip to America for the delegates, comprised of government officials, environmental leaders, academics and environmental activists who are visiting as part of the Los Alamos/Sarov Sister City Initiative coordinated by Lawry Mann, chair; Fran Berting, treasurer, and member Dr. Robert Thomsen and others. Marina Pershina, 27, is an ecological engineer in Sarov. "Los Alamos has an absolutely wonderful landscape - it's a very friendly, quiet and cozy town," Pershina said. Dr. Ann Wadstrom is a four-time host of Russian delegates visiting Los Alamos. "We enjoy having them stay with us," Wadstrom said. "They share so much of their culture with us and are like us in so many of our feelings and values. One night two doctors stayed with us from a visiting medical group. We were sitting around the table and they began to sing Russian songs to us and one began to play songs on the piano; it was so much fun." Thomsen also has been very active in the Russian medical exchange program, Mann said. He is participating heavily with the current visitors also. "I'm involved because I think it's important to create a bridge between our communities," Thomsen said. Russian environmentalists face tremendous challenges because their country's vast territory contains valuable natural resources but suffers from degradation and exploitation. Despite economic difficulties, Russia has a growing nongovernmental sector working to preserve the country's forests, water supplies, and endangered species. "One of my every day activities is to work so there will be no fires," said Andrey Zinenko, 38, director of city forestry. "My first impression in Los Alamos is that the trees are exactly like the trees in my home in Siberia." Nina Hecker has been going to Russia for nine years and actually got the medical exchange program going in Los Alamos after visiting a newborn wing at a Russian hospital. "I told Sig that we had to do something to help the newborns," Nina said. "When we returned to Los Alamos, I spoke with doctors here and the program began to evolve." The Heckers have grown close to the Russian people of Sarov, Nina said. She said it was actually a friend from Russia that told them their home had survived the 2000 fire. "We were staying with friends in Santa Fe when we found out from a friend in Sarov that our home was OK," Nina said. "He e-mailed Sig that our house was okay because the phone was still ringing." The Los Alamos/Sarov Sister City Initiative works in conjunction with the State Department's Open World Program, initiated in 1999 by the Library of Congress and authorized by the U.S. Congress to increase understanding between the United States and Russia and to support Russia's efforts to strengthen its democratic reforms. Hosts include Hecker and Nina, Alice Mann, Paul White, Jody Howell, Wadstrom, Thomsen, and Ron Augustson. Translators for the week include Olga Augustson and Valida Dushdurova who both work at UNM-LA. The Open World Russian facilitators include Natalia Shaydorova from Novgorod and Yaroslav Pisarev from Chelyabinsk. The group toured Bandelier Monday and met with Open Space Specialist Craig Martin. Martin spoke about the Cerro Grande Fire, recovery efforts, open space programs, and community and youth involvement. On Tuesday, they listened to Lorrie Bonds-Lopez, division office chief of staff at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Bonds-Lopez spoke at Fuller Lodge about risk reduction and environmental stewardship, LANL work on environment cleanup and issues of legacy waste. John Bartlit of New Mexico Citizens for Clean Air and Water lead a discussion on citizens' roles in cleanup and the importance of advisory groups. The delegates went to the Bradbury Science Museum for a tour and talk on Russian scientific interchanges by Hecker. Berting spoke today about the Northern New Mexico Citizen's Advisory Board at Fuller Lodge and Barbara Gonzales spoke about Indian Pueblos. The group also toured the landfill and heard a recycle talk by Regina Wheeler. Thursday they will hear a talk on solid and liquid waste programs at Fuller Lodge by Deputy Utilities Manager Tim Glasco, and an alternative energy talk by Buck Monday, utilities manager. Friday begins with an Open World program planning session at Fuller Lodge by World Services of La Crosse Inc., followed by a talk from Rep. Jeannette Wallace on the legislature on environmental concerns and state energy conservation. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 San Francisco Bay View: UC Regents lose control of nuclear weapons program National Black Newspaper of the Year 10/6/04 Home [http://www.sfbayview.com] Five admirals, Carlyle Group and Rand take over Part 4 by Leuren Moret A ‘controlled society’ Hunters Point environmental justice activist Lynne Brown (left) leads a toxic tour to the Hunters Point Shipyard, still heavily contaminated with radioactive pollution, a probable contributing cause of Bay View Hunters Point’s astounding infant death rate – a rate over twice as high as San Francisco’s citywide rate. That’s the topic of “Too young to die,” the story that dominates the front page of Sunday’s Chronicle. Photo: Communities for a Better Environment, www.cbecal.org SAIC (Science Applications International Corp.), a Pentagon-connected company involved in voting machines (Sequoia, Diebold etc.), controlling the internet (Network Solutions) and training foreign militaries, also had contracts to develop information systems for the Pentagon, FBI and IRS. Police can now legally stop a person on the street, ask their name, type it into a palm pilot and come up with detailed personal information in a few seconds. An Associated Press story on Sept. 9, 2004, “Conn. City Uses Scanners to Nab Criminals,” revealed that police in New Haven, Conn., are now driving around in police cars with infrared scanners, connected to databases, which they are using on license plates to hunt for “criminals,” tax delinquents and parking ticket violators. Some of the $25,000 scanners were paid for in one month from collected revenues. A military project of DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the Department of Defense, the backbone of the internet was developed at the Livermore Lab, and the real purpose of the internet is now being revealed: “The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values,” wrote Zbigniew Brzezinski, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, founding member of the Trilateral Commission and National Security Advisor to five presidents, in his 1971 book “Between Two Ages.” “Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.” The association of Admiral Inman, the Bush crime syndicate, Texas oil companies and the Carlyle Group with the University of Texas (UT) explained why an advanced fourth generation nuclear weapons research program is at UT. And it explained why the University of Texas is so eager to take over the nuclear weapons labs. But this takeover resembles Inman’s involvement with a stealth takeover of the Mars program, transferring it from the management and control of the Jet Propulsion Lab to NASA. The NASA Deep Space Program was started at the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) at Cal Tech to do space exploration more efficiently with lower costs. Criticism of NASA/JPL Mars mission failure problems in the Thomas Young Report released on March 28, 2000, revealed that the supposedly public space program had been hijacked into secrecy and that the military was calling the shots. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin on March 29, 2000, revealed at JPL the day after release of the report just who was in control and the existence of a JPL Oversight Committee that nobody at JPL knew existed: “I’d also like to acknowledge Admiral Inman, head of the JPL Oversight Committee at Cal Tech. He couldn’t be here today, but I talked to him by phone. His commitment to the team here is also unwavering. And I thank him for that.” Goldin was there to address beleaguered personnel, scientists and engineers of the nation’s premier center for unmanned planetary exploration, and to somehow advise them of the new political and engineering realities, while simultaneously exhorting them to continue to new heights but now under more stringent NASA management. The real question is what was Admiral Inman doing as chair of a committee in a private university overseeing all civilian unmanned exploration of the planet Mars without the knowledge of anyone at JPL? In two years, Admiral Bobby Ray Inman took over the space program, and in another year from now he will have succeeded in taking over the nuclear weapons program. When Newsweek called him “a superstar in the intelligence community,” it was for good reason. A Naval officer I interviewed later replied when I asked him if he knew Inman, “Oh yeah, he’s one of the players.” “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people,” said Theodore Roosevelt on April 19, 1906. “To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.” Depopulation: fourth generation nuclear weapons and depleted uranium The development of fourth generation nuclear weapons is now underway, with the U.S. in first place, Germany and Japan tied for second place, followed by Russia and other nuclear and non-nuclear states. As an expert witness on the environmental and health effects of depleted uranium (DU) weaponry for the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, held in Japan in 2003, I discovered that there was a connection between the use of depleted uranium by the U.S. since 1991- in the Middle East, Yugoslavia and Central Asia - and fourth generation nuclear weapons. The “iron triangle” that ties politics to the military and big corporations exists between the Carlyle Group, President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993), the introduction in 1991 of depleted uranium weaponry, and the program at the University of Texas for development of fourth generation nuclear weapons. Frank Carlucci, former chairman of the Carlyle Group (1989-2003), sat on the board of directors of General Dynamics (1991-97), which is one of the main manufacturers of DU weaponry in the U.S. International scientists Drs. Andre Gsponer, Jean-Pierre Hurni, and B. Vitali, watch-dogging nuclear weapons developments globally, presented a paper which identified the use of DU weaponry as a way to test the radiobiological effects of the new nuclear weapons now under development: “It is shown that the radiological burden due to the battlefield use of circa 400 tons of depleted-uranium munitions in Iraq (and of about 40 tons in Yugoslavia) is comparable to that arising from the hypothetical use of more than 600 kt (respectively 60 kt) of high-explosive equivalent pure-fusion fourth-generation nuclear weapons” (Fourth International Conference of the Yugoslav Nuclear Society, Belgrade, Sept. 30-Oct. 4, 2002). The use of weapons in war are most effective when the weapons do not kill, but create long-term health and environmental consequences in soldiers and the civilian population, such as lingering illnesses which slowly destroy the health of the environment and the people, causing a decline in the productivity of a nation and the economy. The use of Agent Orange in Vietnam is a good example of an environmental disaster with lingering and long-term health effects on a population, as well as causing trans-boundary contamination. Depleted uranium is a permanent terrain contaminant with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, forms immense volumes of nano-sized particles - smaller than bacteria or viruses - which are lofted permanently as components of atmospheric dust, traveling around the world until they are rained or snowed out of the air. There is no possible protective clothing, air filters that will filter out the tiniest particles or treatment for internal exposure to this form of poison radioactive gas. DU was proposed as a military poison gas weapon in 1943 under the Manhattan Project. Even worse, uranium targets the DNA, and the Master Code (histone) which controls the expression of the DNA, and slowly destroys the genetic future of exposed populations (see “Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War”). In federal law – U.S. Code, Title 50, Chapter 40, Sec. 2302 - weapons of mass destruction are defined: “The term ‘weapon of mass destruction’ means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of - (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity The U.S. has staged four nuclear wars since 1991 (see “Washington’s Secret Nuclear War”) using illegal DU dirty bombs, dirty missiles and dirty bullets as radiological weapons (see “Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs…”) and released an amount of radiation into the atmosphere which is at least 10 times more radiation than the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs, the amount released during atmospheric testing. In June 2003, the World Health Organization predicted in a press release that cancer will increase 50 percent globally by the year 2020, a result which can have only an environmental cause. Already, medical and scientific journals are reporting mysterious increases in infant mortality in 20 regions of Europe (Lancet, January 2004), the UK (Guardian, August 2004) and the U.S. (New Scientist, February 2004). Infant mortality should be decreasing now, as a trend continuing for more than a century due to improved education and prenatal care. Instead, it is increasing in the U.S. for the first time in 45 years, with no identified cause. For radiation specialists, infant mortality is the most sensitive indicator of radioactive pollution, a response researchers have identified as a result of exposure to low level radiation from atmospheric testing and nuclear power plant accidents, releases and startups. The story that dominates the front page of Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle, “Too young to die,” reports that the infant mortality rate in Bay View Hunters Point is more than twice as high as the rate for all of San Francisco. Especially hard hit are the parts of this traditionally Black neighborhood closest to the Hunters Point Shipyard, headquarters of the secret Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory from World War II until 1969. The Shipyard remains heavily contaminated with radioactive pollution. The global pollution from thousands of tons of DU in nano-size particles, traveling around the earth and being deposited in the global environment, will have a devastating long-term effect. Not only will it cause illnesses and genetic mutations in the future generations of those internally exposed, but it will have a depopulating effect long proposed by the U.S. military. DU is the perfect weapon, delivering nanoparticles of poison, radiation and particulate pollution - the real killer – directly into living cells where they cause the cells to go haywire and dysfunctional. As Marion Fulk, former Manhattan Project scientist and a Livermore Lab retired nuclear physical chemist, puts it, “Particulates are screwing up the strings (Master Code) that pull the puppet (the DNA).” If the development and escalation of technological wars between nation-states continues, radiological warfare may be an increasingly used strategy contributing to the extermination of large numbers of people, and an expedient way to empty out troublesome political centers in regions containing desired resources. It may be preferred over various biological alternatives now under intense development by the U.S. government. References for Part 4 “Conn. City Uses Scanners to Nab Criminals” by Diane Scarponi, Associated Press, Sept. 9, 2004, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040909/ap_on_ re_us/scanning_for_scofflaws. Summary of Thomas Young Report released on March 28, 2000, http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/news71.html. “When the Best Must Do Even Better,” remarks by NASA Administrator Dan Goldin at JPL on March 29, 2000, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/ftp/Goldin/00text/jpl_remarks.t xt. International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribuna l10mar04.htm, http://afghan-tribunal.3005.net/english/. “Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, and the Quest for Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons” by Andre Gsponer and J.-P. Hurni, 1999, http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/INESAPTR1.html. “A comparison of delayed radiobiological effects of depleted-uranium munitions versus fourth-generation nuclear weapons” by A. Gsponer, J.-P. Hurni, and B. Vitale, Fourth International Conference of the Yugoslav Nuclear Society, Belgrade, Sept. 30-Oct. 4, 2002, http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0210071. “Letter to Congressman McDermott from Leuren Moret – Feb. 21, 2003,” http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Leuren-Moret-Gen-Groves21feb03 .htm. “Preferential Staining of Nucleic Acid-Containing Structures For Electron Microscopy” by Huxley and Zubay, Journal of Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology (J. Cell Biol.) 11 (2): 273, November 1961, http://www.jcb.org/cgi/reprint/11/2/273.pdf. “Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War” by Leuren Moret, World Affairs Journal, August 2004, http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm. “Washington’s Secret Nuclear War” by Shaheen Chughtai, Al-Jazeera, Sept. 14, 2004, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2E2DF9B-1E0C-43F4-BBF6-07 4C1367E27C.htm. “Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets - A death sentence here and abroad” by Leuren Moret, San Francisco Bay View, Aug. 18, 2004, http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml. “Global cancer rates could increase by 50% to 15 million by 2020,” World Health Organization (WHO) press release, April 3, 2003, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/releases/2003/pr27/en/print.html. “Sudden unexplained infant death in 20 regions in Europe: case control study” by R.G. Carpenter et al, Lancet, Jan. 17, 2004, Vol. 363, p.185-191. “Rise in stillbirths prompts inquiry” by John Carvel, The Guardian, Aug. 20, 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1287041,00.html. “US infant deaths rise for first time in 45 years” by Shaoni Bhattacharya, New Scientist, Feb 12, 2003, http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99994675. “Three Mile Island: Health study meltdown” by Joseph Mangano, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, September-October 2004, Vol. 60, No. 5, pp. 30-35, http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2004/so04/so04mangano.html. “Smart dust, roboflies, microbugs: UC is spying on you” by Leuren Moret, San Francisco Bay View, Feb. 26, 2003, http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Berkeley-Library-Classified22f eb03.htm. “Too young to die, Part 1: Life’s toll” by Erin McCormick, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 3, 2004, p. A1, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/03/MNINF ANTMO.DTL. To read Parts 1, 2 and 3 of this series, go to http://www.sfbayview.com/091504/ucregents091504.shtml, http://www.sfbayview.com/092204/nuclearweapons092204.shtml and http://www.sfbayview.com/092904/nuclearweapons2092904.shtml. The rest of this exposé will appear in the Bay View in the coming weeks. Leuren Moret, a geoscientist who worked at the Livermore nuclear weapons lab where she became a whistleblower in 1991, has survived 13 years of retaliation from the Livermore Lab and the University of California and has lived firsthand the experiences of Karen Silkwood. A radiation specialist, she works around the world educating citizens, the media and lawmakers about the impact of radiation globally on the health of the public and the environment. She assisted with Al-Jazeera’s recent report on depleted uranium weapons which quickly became one of the most read articles produced by the website. “DU: Washington’s Secret Nuclear War” can be read at http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Secret-Nuclear-War14sep04.h tm. She is an independent scientist, an environmental commissioner for the City of Berkeley, and can be reached at leurenmoret@yahoo.com. San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper 4917 Third Street San Francisco California 94124 Phone: (415) 671-0789 Fax: (415) 671-0316 Email: editor@sfbayview.com [editor@sfbayview.com] ***************************************************************** 52 Corvallis Gazette-Times: Umatilla tribes file lawsuit notice [gazettetimes.com] Last modified Wednesday, October 6, 2004 11:35 PM PDT By The Associated Press YAKIMA, Wash. — The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have filed notice of intent to sue the U.S. Department of Energy, demanding the agency assess the harm that 40 years of plutonium production caused to natural resources at the Hanford nuclear site. In filing the notice, the tribes join the states of Washington and Oregon in seeking to have natural resource injuries assessed at Hanford. In July, the two states sought a court-ordered assessment of environmental harm at Hanford if the federal government does not conduct one. The tribe is not seeking monetary damages, said Armand Minthorn, a member of the tribe's board of trustees. "Only once we know the extent of the damage to natural resources, can we develop plans to restore those resources,'' Minthorn said in a news release Tuesday. On the Net: Hanford, www.hanford.gov/; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla, www.umatilla.nsn.us Copyright © 2004 • Lee Enterprises [http://www.lee.net] ***************************************************************** 53 UCS: Environmental Groups Demand Cape Wind Impact Statement [Union of Concerned Scientists] October 6, 2004 Groups file FOIA request to receive information WASHINGTON, Oct. 6Ten of New England's most prominent environmental groups have filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cape Wind project, as well as the correspondence surrounding the document and its continued delay. "We are deeply disturbed by this latest round of delays in releasing the DEIS," said Toni Hicks, Conservation Law Foundation Staff Attorney. "We know that the document has been completed, and we believe that the Army Corps is legally required to make the long-awaited environmental data and analysis available to the public ASAP." CLF along with the Union of Concerned Scientists, MASSPIRG, Clean Power Now, HealthLink, Wenham Lake Watershed Association, Massachusetts Climate Action Network, SmartPower, Cape and Islands Self-Reliance, and Clean Water Action have all sent FOIA requests in light of the recent news that the Cape Wind DEIS has been sitting on a Pentagon official's desk in Washington, D.C. without any momentum toward public release. The FOIA letters were addressed to the Army Corps, the US Department of Defense, and the Department of the Army. "The debate about the pros and cons of the Cape Wind project has gone on too long in the abstract. The Army Corps of Engineers has finished the draft EIS, and the Pentagon appears to be keeping it from the public. We hope the request for information that these groups are making today will shake the draft EIS loose or at a minimum explain why the Pentagon is holding it up. Playing politics with information is bad policy." Nathanael Greene, Senior Policy Analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council said. Spokesmen for the Army Corps of Engineers initially said the Cape Wind DEIS would be released by the end of August. Then, they changed the expected release to early September. "The Union of Concerned Scientists has repeatedly called for the immediate release of the draft Environmental Impact Statement, which is long overdue," said Deborah Donovan, UCS Senior Energy Analyst. "The public's access to important facts about the proposed Cape Wind project has been unnecessarily delayed, forcing us to now take legal steps to pry this document loose." Officials with the US Department of Defense say it is not outside the chain-of-command for an Army Corps DEIS to be reviewed in Washington. However, no one involved in this type of work can ever recall a DEIS winding up at the Pentagon. "The continued delay in the release of the DEIS is unconscionable," said Matt Palmer, Executive Director of Clean Power Now, a Cape-based renewable energy advocacy group with over 3,500 members. "The public has been waiting for over 2 years to have their questions about this vitally important project answered. The Department of Defense, which asked to review the completed DEIS very late in the process, should make the document available for immediate release." The mystery surrounding the delay in the Cape Wind DEIS has only worsened an already tense political issue on the Cape. Rumors about the alleged benefits or liabilities associated with Cape Wind can only be confirmed with the release of the DEIS. "Some people obviously don't want the findings of three years worth of rigorous reviews by numerous public and private entities to be released to the public, but we at Self-Reliance think that the completed DEIS should be released immediately so everyone can finally become informed about the realistic benefits and impacts of this unprecedented project being proposed for our community," Richard Lawrence of Cape & Islands Self-reliance said. "Everyone involved or interested in the Cape Wind debate should be demanding that this completed document be released for an open and transparent public review." The Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Defense, and the Department of the Army will now have 20 days to respond to these 10 Freedom of Information Act requests. For info on this release call: Deborah Donovan 617-547-5552 To set up interviews or for UCS info, contact: LINDA GUNTER Press Secretary 202-223-6133 [lgunter@ucsusa.org] RICH HAYES Media Director 202-223-6133 [rhayes@ucsusa.org]    © Union of Concerned Scientists Page Last Revised: 10.07.2004 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************