Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 953

IN THE 10th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (With a Judge who was not nominated or appointed by any of the Defendants)

[For PETITION for Writ of Mandamus]; IN THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL (With a Attorney who was not nominated, appointed, or hired by a Defendant) [FOR NOTICE OF Constitutional Questions and REQUEST for OPINIONS and INTERVENTION]; IN THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY (U.S. Attorney who was not nominated or appointed by any of the Defendants ) [For MOTION for Victims' Assistance with Representation]; IN THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO (With a Judge who was not nominated or appointed by any of the Defendants) [For CRIMINAL COMPLAINT]; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO (With a Judge who was not nominated or appointed by any of the Defendants) [For DEMAND for Assistance with Representation and/or MOTION to Re-open Case to Consider Second Edition of [19] MOTION...] Frank McKinnon and 1,135 Concerned Citizens of southeastern New Mexico Petitioners (Plaintiffs), v. Dennis Spurgeon; Timothy Frazier; Tammy Way; Dale Gandy; Larry Gandy; Mike Marley; Peter Maggiore; Steve Creamer; Alan Dobson; and all others culpable in this matter, including but not all inclusive of George W. Bush, Pete V. Domenici, Samuel Bodman and anyone with the same intentions of the listed Defendants as described within this document, Respondents (Defendants). Amended PETITION for Writ of Mandamus; NOTICE of Constitutional Questions and REQUEST for Opinions and Intervention; DEMAND for Representation; CRIMINAL COMPLAINT; 3rd Edutition of [DEMAND] and/or MOTION to Re-open Case to Consider Amended Revision of [19] MOTION with DEMAND for Victims Rights and DEMAND for Trial by Grand Jury COME NOW pro se Frank McKinnon on behalf of myself, and, for, and with One Thousand McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 1 of 953 NO. 07-912 JH/LAM

One Hundred Thirty-Five (1,135) more concerned citizens of southeastern New Mexico (Plaintiffs), in allegiance and civic duty to, and for the defense and protection of, the State of New Mexico and the United States of America, to respectfully submit this PETITION for Writ of Mandamus, this NOTICE of these Constitutional Questions and REQUEST for Opinions and Intervention, this DEMAND for Assistance with Representation, this CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, and this DEMAND and/or MOTION to Re-open this Case to Reconsider this Amended Revision of [19] MOTION with DEMAND for Victims Rights and DEMAND for Trial by Grand Jury, which are as follows: RATIONAL OF THIS DOCUMENT (1) I am not a lawyer, and have no ambition to become one. The original document, which

started this case, was a poorly written 5 page Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction with a 1 page cover letter, which was seeking protection or injunctive relief from the threatening plans of the Defendants, which I filed in the Fifth Judicial District Court for the State of New Mexico, in Chaves County with 1,136 signatures. In more simple terms, I carried it into the Chaves County Courthouse, which is 5 blocks from my house, and handed it through the window to the clerk on July 13, 2007. (2) The only reason that I thought I knew how to file a Petition or Emergency Order of

Protection or Injunction was that I had an experience, in 2006, where it became necessary to file one to stop a corrupt County Commissioner (a real estate man who used to be a County Judge) from using FEMA money to pay a crew to illegally take (steal) some historic rock work out of the Spring River, just outside my living room window, with intentions of replacing it with offensive looking materials. The Petition was only one page. It was never officially served to the corrupt county official.. However, apparently, since the corrupt, retired county judge, was being caught manipulated the law in an abusive way, and his former peers saw it happening, I received responses from his attorney as if it he had been officially served with the Petition. His crew spent the next few weeks working hard to make a good McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 2 of 953

effort toward rectifying about $300,000.00 worth of damage they had done to the historic rock work. (3) The way that I learned that a Petition for Emergency Order for Protection or Injunction

was the appropriate legal action for stopping a corrupt government official from destroying public and personal property, and that it is a federal crime to talk in a way that causes somebody else to suffer emotional distress and reasonable fear of bodily injury and death, like the Defendants are talking, is described as follows: (a) My house is about 12 feet from the edge of the Spring River. During WWII, there was a

German POW camp south of Roswell. Prisoners from this POW camp did some beautiful rock work along the walls of the Spring River. In 2006, a person could look out my living room window to see this beautiful, historic, rock work. I listened to city officials talk expanding the rock work for the rest of the Spring River to look just like the historic rock work outside my window. (b) A few months later, I heard a loud repetitive, pounding, sound and my house was

shaking. It sounded like heavy equipment tearing up large concrete slab. The walls inside my house cracked in several places, and glass shattered in my cabinet doors. I looked out the window and saw a county crew using heavy equipment to tear out the rock work I immediately talked with the crew leader to find out what they were doing. He explained that they were stripping the rock off the wall of the river to replace it with material that he showed me, which looked like cat vomit. (c) I asked the crew to stop tearing out the historic rock work. They responded by laughing at

me and saying, "this isn't historic rock" as they continued loading the rocks from the historic rock work into dump trucks that were lined up to carry the rocks away. (d) Again, I asked the crew to stop tearing out the historic rock work. They responded in

exactly the same way. So I asked them who their boss was. They replied by saying "Bobby Ramirez." (c) I said, "please stop tearing out the historic rock work, until I have an opportunity to talk

with Bobby and the Mayor, because I know that the city and county would want to collaborate in fixing McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 3 of 953

what you have already done." They responded by laughing and throwing more rocks into the dump truck. (d) Then, I said: "I will shoot the next person who steals another rock from this historic rock

work, as I got into my pick-up truck to try find the Mayor and Bobby Ramirez. I was unable to find either of these men. So I drove to the Roswell Police station to report that the theft of the historic rock work. (e) While I was siting at a table, with a police officer, reporting the theft of the historic rock

work, another police officer approached me, and told me to come with him. I followed that officer to a room where he frisked and handcuffed me, read me my rights. He then, escorted me to a police car and drove me to the Roswell Municipal Court. On the way, he told me that I should have filed a "Petition for Injunction." (f) At the Municipal Court, I found out that I was being charged with assault. I pled not guilty.

Then, I was taken back to the police car and driven to the jail where I was frisked, again, allowed to use the telephone to call my wife, and then placed in a room where they handcuffed me to a bench. (g) It took my wife a couple of hours to withdraw a thousand dollars for bail, pay the

Municipal Court Clerk, and drive to the jail to pick me up. While I was waiting, I had plenty of time to think about figuring out what a "Petition for Injunction" was. (f) As we were driving back to town, my wife explained to me that the judge had said that I

could end up in prison for as long as 14 years if my case went to trial, or I could go back into the Municipal Court and plead guilty, and have a year of probation with my recored cleared at the end of that year. (g) I responded to this, by saying: "But I didn't assault anybody." She told me that the law

says that "you can't even say something to somebody that makes them feel threatened...it is considered an assault." McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 4 of 953

(h) (i) (j) (k)

So I walked into the Municipal Court and told the judge what my wife had told me. The judge responded to this by saying: And? I responded to this by saying: "I plead guilty." Then, I looked up the term "Petition for Injunction" on the Internet. I saw many different

forms of Petitions for Injunction. The form that seemed most appropriate for stopping a corrupt public official from destroying public and person property was a "Petition for Emergency Order for Proection or Injunction." (l) I spent the next day writing a Petition for Emergency Order for Protection or Injunction,

while the county crew continued with the pounding that shook my house, and loading the historic river rocks into dump trucks and hauling them away. (m) The next morning, I carried the Petition into the Chaves County Courthouse, and handed

it through the window to the clerk. (n) About an hour later, I noticed the pounding noise had stopped, and looked out the window

and saw the county crew standing on the bridge, talking, and looking at the destruction they had done. Then, they got into their cars and drove away. (o) A few days later, they started working on fixing the damage they had done to the Spring

River. It took them at least two weeks, maybe a month, to fix it. I still doesn't look as good as it did before they started tearing it up, but I believe that they put forth their best efforts. (p) I received a letter or two from Bobby Ramirez's lawyer, which appeared to be asking if I

was OK with the way they fixed the Spring River rock work. Then, I received a phone call asking the same thing. I told his lawyer that I was impressed with how hard the crew had worked at fixing it and that it was OK. As I am typing this document, today, I wish I had been more aware of how the legal system works, because I still have cracks my wall that need fixing, the glass in my cabinets has not been replaced, and my house is still going to need to be jacked up and leveled someday, which were all McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 5 of 953

caused by a corrupt politician who was manipulating the law to drain our federal government's money. (q) In the corrupt County Commissioner's case, it was FEMA money, that could have been

used to save more peoples' lives and homes in New Orleans. Even though the corrupt County Commissioner made the damage to the Spring River historic rock work something that will likely not be noticed by someone who never knew about it happening, it is still not as beautiful at it used to be, and there is still a few thousand dollars work of work that needs to be done to my house to bring it back to the condition it was in before the pounding of the heavy equipment damaged it. The corrupt county commissioner has since passed away. Therefore, even if I found that I still had a right to sue for damages to my house, there would be nobody to sue. (r) A year later, I visited with the Municipal Judge, and he said my that my record would be

"expunged." I assume that the meaning of "expunged" is cleared. (4) In the following pages you will read about two more situations that involve where corrupt

public officials have carelessly manipulated laws in ways that have had adverse effects on the lives of innocent, law abiding, people of the United States. (5) The first situation involves a group of people, who have bribed public officials to obtain

government contracts which have provided money to create fiscal infrastructure that made this group's government contracts and commercial activities extremely massive and profitable, which looked good on paper, as long as the person looking was not aware of the massive amount of bodily injuries, property damage, and deaths, that have been caused by the activities of this group, and as long as the person looking was not aware of the fact that this group obtained permits that allowed members of this group to break the laws that were made to protect people from bodily injury, property injury. and death; allowed members of this group to lie about breaking these laws; and allowed this members of this group to continue breaking these laws after this members of this group were caught breaking these laws, caught lying about breaking these laws, caught concealing where they had broken these laws, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 6 of 953

caught submitted false reports, caught injuring people, caught causing property damage, and caught carelessly killing people. This group of people was an organization called Great Lakes Chemical Corporation. This company was sold in 2005, and has been dwindling to almost no longer existing. (6) If the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as it is currently amended,

would not have guided people to disregard my rights to due process and equal protection of the law for the past 7 years, some people, who were in the organization called Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLCC), would have been held liable for the murder of Joe S. McKinnon, damage of my property, and injuries and deaths of many more uninformed people who have lived near and/or worked at GLCC Central Plant, including a few hundred kids, from New Mexico, who spent time at the Pathfinders Camp, which is briefly described on some of the following pages. (7) On January 23, 2009, while preparing to file what I hope will be the 3rd and final amended

edition of this document, I became aware that Great Lakes Chemical Corporation is actually part of the second group that is described in paragraphs 8 - 11. If I am ever provided with due process. I have the ability to provide some biological samples, which are being save by a legitimate third party, that would very likely cause people in the second group, who have made the irresponsible orders to have radioactive waste incinerated by ENSCO and/or to have it shipped directly to GLCC - Central to be deep well injected, liable for Felony murder and causing property damage, injuries, and deaths of the same people listed in paragraph 6 above. (8) The second situation involves a group of people, who have bribed public officials to obtain

government contracts which have provided money to create fiscal infrastructure that made this group's government contracts and commercial activities extremely massive and profitable, which would look good on paper, as long as the person looking is not aware of the massive amount of bodily injuries, property damage, and deaths, that have been caused by the activities of this group, and as long as the person looking is not aware of the fact the only reasons this group has made a profit, include the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 7 of 953

following: (a) (b) This group has received several $billions from the United States Government; This group has been allowed to avoid liability for its deadliest and most damaging

activities, which involve radioactive materials by operating with no impartial government agency monitoring or enforcing the law when it relates to these deadly and damaging radioactive activities. (c) In 1982, Congress made a promise that it could not keep, which was to take care of all of

the radioactive waste for the nuclear industry. (9) The second group includes a corrupt former United States Senator (Pete V. Domenici) and

corrupt former President of the United States (George W. Bush), who only played the part of aiding and abetting in the crimes committed by the first group, but accepted bribe money in trade of soliciting the continuation of the same sort of crimes, and in trade for soliciting even more insidious crimes that are being committed in the name of the Nuclear Renaissance and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and other names they are using to promote reprocessing nuclear fuel in the United States. Along with these solicitations of crimes in trade for bribes, Pete V. Domenici and George W. Bush accepted bribe money to funnel $billions into the pockets of people associated with nuclear energy, nuclear fuel reprocessing, and nuclear weapons industries, all of which have and will continue to cause bodily injury, property damage, and death to innocent people, while they could have used the same federal government's (Department of Energy (Department of Defense)) money to produce energy from renewable (nontoxic) sources, and could have used it to make even our older, currently owned, poorest peoples', automobiles run on hydrogen instead of gasoline, which would have taken away their justification for invading other countries and fighting wars, and would have put a lot more money in the average person's pocket instead of gas tanks. I know that these issues have been such integral parts of political campaigns that this could be perceived as a political statement. There is no political intent here. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 8 of 953

(10)

The statement made in paragraph 9 on page 8 is made to show that Pete V. Domenici and

George W. Bush made a choice between two options, which are as follows: (a) Option 1 was to use money of the United States Government's Department of Energy

(Department of Defense) to promote nuclear energy, nuclear fuel reprocessing, and the production of nuclear weapons, while they knew that these activities would cause bodily injury, property damage, and death to innocent, uninformed, people of the United States for more than a million years. Even though encouraging any country to build and operate nuclear power plants is encouraging irresponsible behavior that will result in bodily injury, property damage, and death of innocent people of that country, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) has been an aggressive act toward any country that has been excluded from GNEP, and has been an aggressive act toward all of the countries that would be prohibited from reprocessing their own nuclear fuel. This has resulted in rekindling the Cold War with its Nuclear Arms Race. (b) Option 2 was to use money of the United States Government's Department of Energy

(Department of Defense) for activities that produce energy from renewable (nontoxic) sources, and to make even our older, currently owned, poorest peoples', automobiles run on hydrogen instead of gasoline, which would have taken away their justification for invading other countries and fighting wars, and would have put a lot more money in the average person's pocket instead of gas tanks. This option had and continues to have greater potential than Option 1 for accomplishing the objectives of providing energy and national security for the people of the United States, and it doesn't cause anyone to suffer bodily injury, property damage, or death. (11) I believe what Pete V. Domenici and George W. Bush where they graduated from

universities. Therefore, I believe both of them have known better than to say that nuclear energy is clean, safe, and emissions free. (12) Prior to writing and filing the Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or injunction to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 9 of 953

stop the corrupt County Commissioner, and writing and filing the Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction to stop activities promoted and ordered by the corrupt Senator and President, my only reasons for studying law, included the following: (a) I taught courses that included curricula with the United States Constitution: 3 years to

students in grade 6, and 2 years to students in grades 7 - 12. (b) I spent 5 years studying the definitions of Murder and Felony Murder and how they related

to documents and human behavior that were based on or guided by the National Environmental Act of 1969 (NEPA). This study included studying documents, communicating with people, and studying the behavior of people in several entities, which have included the following: (b.1) (b.2) (b.3) (b.4) (b.4) (b.5) County Coroner's Office in Union County, El Dorado, Arkansas; Office of the Union County Sheriff in El Dorado, Arkansas; Office of the Union County Prosecuting Attorney in El Dorado, Arkansas; Office of the Union County Clerk in El Dorado, Arkansas; Headquarters of the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock Arkansas; Offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigations in Little Rock, Arkansas, in Roswell,

New Mexico, in Las Cruces, New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Dallas, Texas, and in Washington, DC; (b.6) (b.7) (b.8) (b.9) The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality in Little Rock and El Dorado; The Arkansas Department of Health in Little Rock and El Dorado; Offices of the Governors in Arkansas and New Mexico; United States Public Health Services Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry

in Dallas, Texas, and in Atlanta, Georgia; (b.10) The United States Environmental Protection Agency Offices in Dallas, Texas, in

Boulder, Colorado, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, in Arlington, Virginia, and in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 10 of 953

Washington, DC; (b.11) Offices of Occupational Health and Safety Administration Offices in Little Rock,

Arkansas, and in Washington, DC; (b.12) (b.13) (b.14) (b.15) (b.16) (b.17) (b.18) (b.19) (b.20) (13) The White House in Washington D.C. The United States House of Representatives in Washington, DC; The United States Senate in Washington, DC; The 9th Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, Central Plant, in El Dorado, Arkansas; ENSCO Incinerator New Mexico Environment Department Office in Roswell and Santa Fe; New Mexico Health Department Offices in Roswell and Santa Fe; United State Geological Survey Office The reason that I spent 5 years studying the definitions of Murder and Felony Murder and

how they related to documents and human behavior that were based on or guided by the National Environmental Act of 1969 (NEPA), was that the NEPA was used by people associated with Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLCC) to be permitted to murder my father, and to injure and/or kill some more members of my family, my friends, my neighbors, and a few hundred people who grew up in New Mexico and spent time at a summer camp for kids that is located 3 miles from El Dorado in Union County Arkansas. (14) The ENSCO incinerator was, and may be still, incinerating hazardous waste from about

49 of the United States, and for the Department of Energy. (15) There is a web page article that talks about ENSCO and the Department of Energy.

Because understanding how kids from New Mexico have been affected by Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, ENSCO, and the Department of Energy is pertinent to [1] PETITION to stop GNEP, I McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 11 of 953

have inserted, between paragraphs, some pictures of the camp that my father established in 1956, gave me the responsibility of running in 1987, and completely gave to me in his Will in 2000. This article about ENSCO and the Department of Energy says the following (quotation marks omitted): RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROBLEM GETS WORSE (a) Hazardous waste incineration got another black eye during a recent Congressional hearing.

It seems that for a decade--perhaps longer--hazardous waste incinerators have been illegally burning radioactive wastes shipped to them illegally by the federal Department of Energy (DOE), the agency responsible for managing the nation's atomic bomb factories.

(b)

It wasn't even the government that initially discovered this embarassment. Journalist Peter

Shinkle began a series of articles May 6, 1991, in the BATON ROUGE [LOUISIANA] TIMES about DOE shipping radioactively-contaminated chemical wastes to a Baton Rouge incinerator operated by Rollins Environmental Services--a facility not licensed to accept radioactive wastes. Shinkle's articles led first to a DOE investigation and later, on February 20, 1992, to a public hearing held by California Congressman George Miller and the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 12 of 953

(c )

Leo P. Duffy, a DOE assistant secretary, testified February 20 that between 1984 and 1991

some 113,000 cubic yards of radioactive wastes (about 200 boxcar-loads weighing 7000 tons) were shipped illegally to eleven chemical waste disposal facilities (incinerators and dumps): Aptus in Coffeeville, Kansas (1.6 million lb.); Chem Waste in Emelle, Alabama (4.2 million pounds); Chem Waste in Chicago (1.1 million lb.); Chem Waste in Sulpher, Louisiana (19,400 lb.); CECOS in Cincinnati, OH (133,000 lb.); ENSCO in El Dorado, Arkansas (3.6 million pounds); GSX (now Laidlaw) in Reidsville, North Carolina (18,766 lb.); LWD in Calvert City, Kentucky (86,440 lb.); Rollins in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (2.4 million lb.); Rollins in Deer Park, Texas (896,511 lb.); and SD Myers in Talmadge, Ohio (18,143 lb.). Duffy testified that 25 DOE sites had shipped illegal radioactive wastes and another 11 highly-suspect DOE sites remain to be checked. DOE hasn't had time to check the records from these additional sites because they have only known about the problem for nine months, he said. Duffy said, in all, perhaps 150 incinerators, landfills, fuel blending operations, recyclers and other waste facilities had accepted wastes from DOE but, so far, DOE has only confirmed that illegal RADIOACTIVE wastes went to 11 or 12 of them. DOE is continuing to investigate itself and its contractors, and Duffy promised to tell all as soon as all is known. (d) At the hearing February 20, various waste companies sent top officials to testify. George

VanderVelde, vice president of science and technology for Chemical Waste Management (Chem Waste) said his company has an extensive in-depth state-of-the-art program for analyzing incoming wastes for radioactivity and, he testified, "We have no indication that we received any undetected radioactive substances from DOE facilities." McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 13 of 953

(e)

The credibility of VanderVelde's testimony was undercut somewhat by subsequent

testimony from Illinois Attorney General Roland W. Burris, who presented an internal memo from a

Chem Waste employee dated February 6, 1992--two weeks before the hearing--saying that Chem Waste's Chicago incinerator was at that time holding 97 drums of illegal radioactive waste they had received a year earlier from DOE. Testimony indicated that Chem Waste had been unable to burn these

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 14 of 953

particular illegal radioactive wastes because its incinerator had been shut down by an explosion in early 1991. (f) Martin Marietta Energy Systems--the company that operates the Oak Ridge National

Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tennessee), the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Paducah, Kentucky), and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Portsmouth, Ohio)--sent its president, Clyde Hopkins, to

testify that his employees had been illegally shipping radioactive wastes to waste disposers like Rollins and Chem Waste for years. He said his employees used white-out illegally to delete information from McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 15 of 953

shipping manifests indicating that the wastes were radioactive because they believed "national security considerations" required them to. He said enemies of the United States might glean valuable information about U.S. atomic weapons by studying the wastes his staff had been shipping illegally to Chem Waste and Rollins and the others. He testified that his staff had been shipping uranium-238, uranium-235 and technetium-99 mixed in with chemical wastes. Additional information attached to his testimony indicated Martin Marietta had reason to believe iodine-129, neptunium-237, and thorium232 were also being shipped off-site to various incinerators and landfills. (It is worth noting that the

Camp Pond in late 1980s or early 1990s federal air pollution standard for thorium-232 is now five times stricter than the standard for plutonium-239, so tiny amounts of such wastes are dangerous.) (g) C. Randolph Warner, Jr., chairman of ENSCO, a major waste incinerator company in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 16 of 953

Arkansas, which burned nearly 4 million pounds of DOE's illegal radioactive wastes during the 1980s, testified there was no problem. All the wastes his company burned were safe, he said, including the illegal radioactive ones. (h) The total radioactivity shipped illegally by DOE was 1/10th of a Curie, the DOE testified,

and they trotted out a risk assessment to show that, on average, probably no one would have been harmed by dumping such small amounts of radioactivity into the environment. This is the old averaging trick, commonly used in risk assessments. Unfortunately, in the real world individuals don't

1980 Aerial Photo from Highway Department get exposed in an "average" way. Many may not be exposed at all; a few may be exposed a great deal; the average exposure remains low but those few people are in danger. It's like the fellow said: if all the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 17 of 953

air were removed from this room for 10 minutes, the average amount of air during the year would hardly change at all, but we would all be dead.

Camp Pond 1972 (i) The problem of radioactive waste gets worse every time anyone looks. April 9, Ohio's

Senator John Glenn (Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs) held a public hearing to announce that a draft study by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified a minimum of 45,361 potentially radioactively contaminated sites across the U.S. Every state has some. Colorado tops the list with 7,060 sites; Vermont has only 36. This includes every place EPA could figure out where radioactivity has ever been present. Not all these sites are contaminated in a serious way but most are and will require cleanup. Just the DOE's 108 facilities--many of which are large, complex and badly contaminated--are presently estimated to cost $160 billion to clean up over the next 30 years. This estimate is almost certainly low. (j) In addition to the 45,361 potentially contaminated sites--some 15 or 20 thousand of which

may actually require cleanup--there are another 1.5 million oil and gas wells where, it was discovered last year, radioactive radium-226 and radium-228 have been brought to the surface along with oil and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 18 of 953

gas. The insides of oil extraction pipes are coated with a "scale" containing radium up to 100,000 times higher than natural background levels. In addition, much radioactivity from oil and gas wells has been dumped into shallow pits. In some cases, oil companies have donated old oil pipes to schools and municipalities, which have made jungle gyms, swing sets and parking lot barriers out of them. If old oil pipes are recycled, along with their radioactivity, the radioactivity will be incorporated into new metal products.

Camp Lodge in early 1990s (k) At Senator Glenn's hearing April 9, Dan Reicher from Natural Resources Defense Council

(NRDC) noted that the government has never taken official notice of the radioactivity measurable in ash produced by burning coal. There are some 52,400 coal-burning power plants and industrial units, all of which are producing an ash elevated in radioactivity a few times higher than natural background levels. (l) EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator Michael Shapiro testified April 9 that 1.1 billion tons

of NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) wastes are produced each year by mineral processing, coal power production, oil and gas exploration and production, geothermal energy production, phosphorus and fertilizer production, and water treatment. Such wastes are entirely unregulated. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 19 of 953

(m)

Then there is wood ash, which, it was announced last year, is radioactive as well. During

the 1950s and 1960s, the United States tested atomic bombs above-ground in Nevada. The resulting radioactive fallout swept eastward, blowin' on the wind. The radioactive strontium and cesium settled out onto the ground and, as time passed, migrated into the soil. A-bomb enthusiasts assumed, optimistically, that it had gone away. (n) In 1989, Stewart A. Farber, who manages environmental monitoring for the Yankee Atomic

Electric Company in Bolton, Massachusetts, wondered if radioactive strontium and cesium from bomb fallout had been taken up by tree roots.[1] On a whim he took some ash from his home fireplace and tested it in his lab. It was about 100 times more radioactive than any other environmental sample he had ever checked. Now two years later, Farber has checked 47 samples gathered by 16 scientists in 14 states and he says wood ash "is a major source of radioactivity released into the environment." Only wood ash from California (upwind of the Nevada test site) seems free of radioactive fallout. (o) Industrial wood burning produces an estimated 900,000 tons of ash each year; residential

and utility wood burning generate another 543,000 tons. Many companies recycle their wood ash into fertilizer. (p) Farber says current regulations require wastes from a nuclear power plant to be disposed of

as radioactive wastes if they contain one percent as much radioactivity as is found in wood ash from New England. (q) Radioactivity is widely acknowledged to cause inheritable genetic changes, immune

system damage, reproductive damage, developmental disorders, and cancer. It is also widely acknowledged that the only truly safe dose of radiation is zero. (r) (16) See Reference 1,013 While studying documents from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and

the United States Environmental Protection Agency, I came across many documents that show how the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 20 of 953

aquifer that the Tailbrine Pond leaked into the same aquifer that fed the camp pond. The Tailbrine Pond was where Great Lakes Chemical Corporation would its waste that was too expensive to treat and recycle before it was shallow and deep well injected in to the ground water. Until today, Janaury 23, 2009, I was not aware that the Tailbrine Pond had radioactive materials. I had heard that it contained Department of Defense and Department of Energy waste. But I had no idea that it was radioactive. I have a strong feeling that most of the workers at GLCC - Central Plant have not been aware of this fact either, and even an stronger feeling that the people, who live above the contaminated ground water that flows south from the Tail Brine Pond, have not been told about the Department of Energy's radioactive materials that are in it. (17) Before finding out about the Department of Energy's radioactive material in the Tail Brine

Pond, on January 23, 2009, I had learned a lot about the the non-radioactive toxic substances that have been reported as being on-site at GLCC Central. I had learned that ENSCO incinerates hazardous materials from about 49 of the United States. I had learned that ENSCO scrubber brine was used to filter toxic substances that flowed through the ENSCO incinerator stack, in an effort to make the emissions from the ENSCO incinerator clean enough to be safely discharged into the air. I had learned that ENSCO scrubber brine contained Dioxin. I had leaned that the ENSCO scrubber brine was poured into the Tailbrine Pond that leaked into the aquifer that provides water for the spring fed Camp Pond. I had learned that the Tailbrine Pond was used to store toxic fluids before they were poured into the into injection wells that have leaked into the ground water. One of my last conversations on the last day that I spent visiting the EPA Region 6 in Dallas was with a person in charge if the injection well documents. I told him that I was concerned about the possibility of the leaking injection wells causing the contamination of the Camp Pond. His response was the question: "How can you tell which way the contamination came from." I don't remember if I had an opportunity to get back with that person to tell him about the graben fault runs through GLCC - Central that makes the injection wells unique in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 21 of 953

they are like a bottomless holes, and the fluid that is injected into them could pop up out of the ground several miles away. This graben fault that runs north and south for miles and goes through the middle of GLCC - Central Plant makes it very unlikely that the fluid that has been injected into the injection wells would stay in one designated area, even if the injection wells were not leaking. But he did have a point. It would be difficult to tell whether the contamination in the Camp Pond came from the leaking Tailbrine Pond of the leaking injection wells. Considering the high concentrations toxic substances in ground water that flows south from GLCC - Central, I suspect that the contamination in the Camp Pond has come from both the Tailbrine Pond and the injection wells. Either way, although I have seen no sampling data regarding radioactive materials, this recent discovery of the Department of Energy's radioactive materials being in the plume of contaminated ground water that feeds the Camp Pond is causing feelings that are almost like when I first found out about GLCC's poisons in 2002. (18) The only reason I started this 3rd Edition of this document was to fix some of the

typographical errors, like lines that needed spacing, to complete Section 21 to make sure that everyone that reads this document is aware of the way political campaign contributions to Pete V. Domenici match the definition of bribery that is presented in 18 U.S.C. Part 1 Chapter 11 203, and to write a Rational for this document with a brief description of my experience with the County Commissioner stealing rock from the Spring River, because it is what motivated me to write and file [1] Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction to stop the threatening behavior of the Defendants, and with a brief description of my experiences of dealing behavior that has been guided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as it is currently amended, when dealing with Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, because the Defendants are using the NEPA to justify their threatening behavior. I was not aware of the Department of Energy's radioactive waste in the ground water that flows south from GLCC - Central. Because my understanding is that the current behavior of the Defendants is merely a continuation of criminal behavior that caused the Department of Energy's McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 22 of 953

radioactive materials to be poured and/or injected into the ground water that provided water for the Camp Pond, I will present just a bit more information to better explain why it is terrible and shocking news. (19) The picture of a document on the next pages contain correspondences regarding GLCC

storing ENSCO scrubber brine in the Tailbrine Pond and deep well injecting it.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 23 of 953

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 24 of 953

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 25 of 953

(20)

This inadvertent discovery of Department of Energy's radioactive waste being in the

plume of contaminated ground water that fed the Camp Pond, and my vague memory of reading a 1997 correspondence between the Hanford facility in Washington State and Great Lakes Chemical Corporation in El Dorado, Arkansas gave me reason to spend some time, Friday January 23, 2009, observing some behavior that was guided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as it is currently amended, which was demonstrated by some good people and some not so good people, who work for the United States Government. It brought back memories of spending an excessive amount of time on the telephone with state and federal government employees between 2002 and 2005. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 26 of 953

Example of Behavior Guided by the NEPA on January 23, 2009 (21) When I found out about the Department of Energy's radioactive waste in the ENSCO, on

January 23, 2009, I remembered seeing at least one correspondence between Great Lakes Chemical Corporation somebody in Washington State. My research of the past couple of years has made me familiar with the Hanford nucler fuel reprocessing facility in Washington State. It could have been the Hanford facility. I think it was in the documents that the Region 6 EPA Superfund sent to me on a CD in 2004. I started making phone calls, which are described as follows: (a) I knew that Rick Ehrhart had done remediation work for the EPA Region 6 RCRA with

Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLCC), and that he understood the situation with the camp and GLCC - Central Plant. He understood my concerns with the plume of contamination that had been detected north, south, east and west of the camp that came from the Tailbrine Pond and the injection wells, and how GLCC had submitted had false reports, false maps that hid the fact that the camp existed, and so on... He had also been one of many EPA people, who told me that EPA really doesn't have enforcement authority over Department of Energy facilities. So, he was my first call. I wanted to ask him whether or not he had been aware of the radioactive materials, and, if he had not been aware, I wanted to make sure that he received this new information. I also thought that he might, as always, be helpful enough to tell me who in the EPA might know whether or not the Hanford nuclear fuel reprocessing facility had ever been permitted to shallow and deep well inject radioactive material at GLCC - Central, or to have nuclear waste incinerated at ENSCO. I left a message for him to call. (b) I know Mark Potts had done work for the EPA Region 6 Enforcement Branch regarding

GLCC-Central, and that he understood a lot of the same issues that Rich Ehrhart understood about GLCC - Central. So I called and left a message for him. (c) Then I called the switchboard operator for EPA Region 6 and described the information

that I was seeking. She gave me the number for Nick Stone, who deals with DOE facilities, and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 27 of 953

Charles Faultry of Superfund (d) Nick Stone and I have talked a few times, during the past couple of years, as I have been

studying the Department of Energy and the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor. He has explained to me that his job was basically work with the community surrounding the WIPP site, and that the EPA Region 6 did not have enforcement authority over DOE facilities. So he was my next call. While Nick Stone and I were talking, Mark Potts called, so I told Nick Stone that I would call him back, and talked with Mark Potts for a few minutes. (e) Mark Potts explained that his only memories of the EPA dealing with any radioactive

materials in general was mixed waste. I described to him what I had read in the 1998 NRC Memo that gives guidelines that show how the EPA will not even deal with mixed waste, which is presented later in this document. Mark Potts appeared to be in agreement with my findings. (d) My next call was to Charles Faultry of Superfund. I explained to him that GLCC - Central

had been a Superfund site between 1978 and 2000, and that the Region 6 Superfund office had provided me with a nice CD with many documents related to GLCC - Central that I had put in one of file boxes I have related to GLCC that would fill up a room of my house. I told him about a Superfund document that I have seen which involved GLCC - Central and Washington State. Then I explained that I was wanting to find out whether or this document was related to Hanford nuclear fuel reprocessing facility, so if my suspicions .are correct, I could include it in a document I needed to complete in the next couple of days. I described my findings regarding radioactive waste in the ENSCO scrubber brine that was poured into the Tailbrine Pond, which leaked in the aquifer that fed the spring fed Camp Pond, and then deep well injected in wells that had leaked and also contributed to plum of contaminated ground water. I asked him if Superfund ever collaborated with the NRC. I think I remember him telling me that there are times when they do. I continued by telling him that I wouild McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 28 of 953

like to send him a copy of this document, so that he could share it with someone from the NRC. He responded to this by saying: "You need to talk to a member of the NEPA group." Then, he suggested that Cathy Gilmore. (e) I called Cathy Gilmore and briefly described this entire matter to her. I believe that I told

her that I just found out about the Department of Energy radioactive materials in plume of contaminated ground water that fed the Camp Pond. Then I know that I said: "I would like to send you a copy of this document that I am filing on Monday, so you can share it with the...I started to say NRC, but I just realized that we are talking about Department of Energy radioactive waste, and the NRC and EPA don't deal with Department of Energy radioactive waste." She agreed with this fact. Then, I babbled on about needing to find out about the DOE radioactive was in the plume of contaminated ground water, and how the NRC and EPA had no authority to deal with radioactive materials at DOE facilities. Cathy responded to this by Gilmore saying that the Department of Energy still has to abide by the law. Then, I explained to her how ironic that I felt it was for me to be talking to a person in a group that deals with the NEPA. She agreed to let me email this document to her, and said she would do what she could do. (f) I tried to call Nick Stone, so I could finish asking him he knew where I could find

information that would determine whether or not the Hanford nuclear fuel reprocessing facility shipped radioactive waste to be shallow and deep well injected at GLCC - Central. He was no longer in to answer his phone. So I talked with a person who works with him. This conversation ended with this person suggesting that I search through the Department of Energy Web site. (g) The Department of Energy web site search engine does not pull up any pages with the key

words "Hanford and ENSCO," but it does have pages about ENSCO. Pertinent excerpts, from these DOE web pages, are as follows: (g.1) PDF] Final Site-Wide Environmental Assessment of the Sandia National ... McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 29 of 953

www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/nepa_documents/ea/ea1422/Chapter4-10.pdf - 2004-07-01 Chapter 4, Affected EnvironmentSection 4.10, Transportation[;] Final SNL/CA SWEA DOE/EA-1422 January 2003[:] "Table 4-9. Waste Shipments during Calendar Year 2000...Outbound Waste Shipments...Ensco, Inc., El Dorado, Arizona 4...Ensco West, Inc., Wilmington, California 6 (g.2) "TABLE B.4.14.21.Combined Livermore Site and Site 300 Hazardous Waste

Shipmentsa in CY2002 Treatment/Disposal Site State Number of shipments Waste Types... TABLE B.4.14.21.Combined Livermore Site and Site 300 Hazardous Waste Shipmentsa in CY2002...ENSCO West Inc...CA 5 RCRA hazardous and nonregulated waste..."

Source http://www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/nepa_documents/EIS/eis0348/Vol_2/appxb-4.pdf (h) With verification of Department of Energy' "nonregulated waste" being a part of the

plume of contaminated ground water that flows south from GLCC - Central's leaking Tailbrine Pond and leaking injection wells, my next objective is to make sure that I have the email address described in Rule 5.1(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, where it says the following: "Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute - Notice, Certification, and Intervention[:] (a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly: (2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose. (i) I spent the next 4 hours talking on the phone with Department of Justice employees in

Washington, DC. trying to obtain the above mentioned electric [email] address, because I have an excessive amount of bad memories about spending a lot of money to mail letters and booklets that I put together about GLCC to Administrators of federal government agencies. I mailed a booklet about the Crimes of GLCC to Christy Whitman once a week for a month before Don Maddox of EPA McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 30 of 953

Headquarters explained that she doesn't receive booklets like mine. I think I have a few recordings of Maurice Rawles of EPA Region 6 bragging about he was blocking my mail from the Region 6 Administrator. I should have had my recorder running today while listening to all the reasons Department of Justice employees gave for not providing the designated electronic [email] address mentioned in paragraph. My last hope in getting this to the Attorney General is Debbie Wheeler (Case Administrator) who wrote an email to me that says she will back in her office on January 26. (j) While calling all of the kids that I could to let them know that they had been swimming

poison, a few of them described glowing roots that they had played with in the Camp Pond. Until today, January 24, 2009, I assumed that the glowing roots contained phosphorus from fire flies, It was shocking when I found out about the poisons that Great Lakes Chemical Corporation put in the Camp Pond by way of the leaking Tailbrine Pond, shallow well injection, and deep well injection. But it is now even more shocking to find out about the Department of Energy radioactive waste in the ENSCO scrubber brine. I have some Superfund aerial photographs that show how large the chemical plant is, but I really did not intend to do more than a brief presentation about GLCC in the Rational or reason for filing this document to show how behavior guided by the NEPA disregards equal protection of the law. (k) If you look at the aerial photograph on the next page, you may notice that the Tailbrine

looks like it is boiling. I spent a lot more time at the camp than the rest of the kids, because I live in the house by the road southwest of the water tower when I was born. We moved to Roswell when I was 2 years old, but the Camp Lodge was like a second home for me. It was where I spent most midterm breaks, Spring breaks, and a good part of most summers until I was 28 years old. I took daily walks that involved walking to the railroad track next to the Tailbrine Pond, and then walking on the railroad track for a while. I had no idea that I was walking through a poisonous and radioactive area.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 31 of 953

1975 Aerial Photo from Highway Department (l) If you look at the picture of the Camp and the Tailbrine Pond, again, you may notice that

it looks like the poison is overflowing from the Tailbrine Pond and flowing along the ditch by the railroad track. I walked in that area, daily, between 1 and 4 weeks at a time in the 1970s and 1980s. Many of the kids, who spent time at the Camp, walked in that area too. But the person, who was hurt the most by the insidious activities of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation and the Department of

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 32 of 953

Energy was my father. He retired from teaching in Roswell in 1986. After he retired, he spent about 3 weeks of each month year round at the Camp until 1995 when his health got to where he could no longer take care of himself. His medical records look like toxicological studies of the toxic substances that are known to be on-site at GLCC-Central. (22) Although it will be impossible to have due process of having Plaintiffs' side of the story

being reasonably heard, unless it is heard by an impartial judge and a grand jury, and unless the United States Government analyzes the biological samples mentioned earlier. I believe that I would be breaking the law if I did not also provide the District Court with information that I suspect the Department of Energy could delete from its web site, which is related to bribery and Pete V. Domenici. I don't have the resources to continue researching this entire matter. Being deprived of equal protection of the law has made it impossible for me to teach full-time for the past 7 years. It has made it necessary for me to give up a business project, called MUSIC UNDER THE STARS, that I had been developing since 1996, and by 2007 had materialized into something that I am sure would have made my life much more prosperous, and would have done the same for many others. I know that I could

have been adding between $50 and $150 per day, 7 days per week, to income of my family's McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 33 of 953

locksmithing business since, March 7, 2007, when I found out about the threatening plans of the Defendants, if I wasn't spending all of my time trying to protect my home, family, friends, neighbors, and everyone from the threats that are being posed by the the Defendants. Protecting my home, family, friends, neighbors, and everyone else in New Mexico, the United States, and the rest of the world, from the effects of subversive crimes committed by Pete V. Domenici and George W. Bush should be done by the United States Government. This statement should not be interpreted as me saying that I am going to stop fulfilling my civic responsibilities of doing all that I can, because I anticipate (with dread of knowing it will take many more hours making duplicate copies of audio and video recordings) the opportunity to provide pertinent information to a federal criminal investigator and the U.S. Attorney that the impartial federal judge assigns help the victims in this case. (23) Pete V. Domenici, George W. Bush, and politicians, with similar character, have

manipulated laws and policies in a way that has made it a norm for people, who work for the some agencies of the United States Government, to provide free consulting services to help subversive, polluting, industries break the law, lie about it, and avoid being held liable. (24) With all of this in mind, I respectfully submit this 3rd Edition of this document to be

entered into the United States District Court through electronic mail through the Case Administrator, with hope that it will also be received to all other office listed on page 1, and with hope that people, who work for the United States Government, will fulfill their civic responsibilities. (25) Before I begin, I must respectfully state that the Defendants' behavior is causing me to

suffer an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and reasonable fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death of Plaintiffs and people that Plaintiffs care about. Even though the unethical behavior of Judge Judith Herrera causes me to suffer even more emotional distress and serious fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death, I am sensitive to the fact that part of her (unwritten) job description has been to turn a blind eye to dishonesty, abuse of power, disregard for human rights, and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 34 of 953

corruption, while holding loyalty to Pete V. Domenici and George W. Bush. I hold no ill will toward Judge Herrera, or toward the Defendants. But, if somebody doesn't do what I am doing here with this document, the damage that the Defendants have already done to New Mexico with the "Nuclear Renaissance," and the damage that corruption has done to federal courts, will be irreversible. I respectfully petition the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for Writ of Mandamus, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(B) and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, in the event that Plaintiffs' Victims Rights, Constitutional Rights, and facts of this case continue to be disregarded by the District Court. It may be necessary for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to mandate that the District Court properly address this rights of the Plaintiffs. I respectfully submit this NOTICE of Constitutional Questions and REQUEST for Opinions and Intervention to the Office of the United States Attorney General, pursuant to Rule 5.1 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, and pursuant to my desire to help our Country become a safe and civilized place for everybody, even common people like me. I respectfully submit this DEMAND for Victims' Assistance with Representation to the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the State of New Mexico, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771 and Rule 17(c )(2) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. I respectfully submit this CRIMINAL COMPLAINT to th United States Magistrate Court for New Mexico, pursuant to Rule 3 of Federal Rules for Criminal Procedures. AFFIRMATION OF OATH: I, Frank McKinnon, solemnly affirm that every statement that I

make in this document is the truth. I say this while knowing that making any untrue statements would be perjury, which should be punished by the law of the United States Government. I respectfully demand and/or move the District Court to re-open this case, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(A)(C), to reconsider this Amended Revision of [19] MOTION, pursuant to Rule 5(4), Rule 71A(a), and 71A(f) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, with this DEMAND for Victims Rights, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 35 of 953

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771 and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and with this DEMAND for Trial by Grand Jury, pursuant to Rule 38(a)(b)(c) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, 28 U.S.C. Part V Chapter 121 1861 and Rule 6(a)(1) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures, which are as follows: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS I respectfully petition the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for Writ of Mandamus, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(B), in the event that Plaintiffs Victims Rights, Constitutional Civil Rights, and facts of this entire matter continue to be disregarded by the District Court. It may be necessary for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to mandate that the District Court properly address this Rights of the Plaintiffs. My experiences give me a feeling that the 10 day rule actually means 10 working days, unless the person applying the 10 day rule is bamboozling. There is a good bit of bamboozling by the Defendants and Judge Judith Herrera in this case, so the First Edition of MOTION [to] Re-open this Case to Consider Amended Revision of [19] MOTION with DEMAND for Victims' Rights and DEMAND for Trial by Grand Jury was electronically mailed to the Case Administrator to be filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico at 5:05 PM; January 16, 2009. I electronically mailed it to be filed at that time, with some editing for errors and clarification still needed, because, at that time, my understanding was that the deadline for 18 U.S.C. 3771 Victims' Rights was 10 days from the last plea or sentencing, and the last pleas or sentences were Judge Judith Herrera's illegal document attempting to dismiss this case while saying it was "with prejudice," followed by her document that says "Case Closed." By the way, the second document was illegal too. These two, illegal, documents were filed at 5:06 PM on January 6 at 5:06 PM. Ten working days would make the deadline January 21, 2009 at 5:06 PM. Upon reviewing 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(A)(B)(C), I am, now, aware that it says the following: McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 36 of 953

(5) Limitation on relief. In no case shall a failure to afford a right under this chapter provide grounds for a new trial. A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or sentence only if (A) the victim has asserted the right to be heard before or during the proceeding at issue and such right was denied; (B) the victim petitions the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus within 10 days; and (C) in the case of a plea, the accused has not pled to the highest offense charged. I respectfully address these requirements as follows: 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(A ) says: A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or sentence only if (A) the victim has asserted the right to be heard before or during the proceeding at issue and such right was denied[.] Plaintiffs asserted our right to be heard in the [1] PETITION and in [19] MOTION in ways that follow: (1) While I wrote the phrase due process in [1] PETITION, the only definition of due

process that I was aware of was the right to be heard. As a teacher and educational administrator, the only time I had come across the term due process was when the term was used to describe a student's right to tell his/her side of the story in disciplinary procedures. (2) While writing about the term Due Process, Mark Stevens LtCol USMC (Ret.),

Assistant Professor of Criminology, California State University, Fresno, says the following: ...The ancient Egyptians, for example, required judges to hear at least both sides of a case. The Code of Hammurabi is a type of due process -- something written down so people would know what the laws are. Even the ancient Chinese had some minimal procedures for notice and hearing when people were charged with something. When Jesus was put on trial, He was given the opportunity to reply and present evidence. The Greeks and Romans offered juries and professional orators. In most cases, these were not formal processes; they were the unwritten rules of justice as fairness. They started as customs and became law over time. See Reference 1,007. (3) In [1] PETITION, I wrote the following: PETITION FOR EMERGENCY ORDER McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 37 of 953

OF PROTECTION OR INJUNCTION Claim: The respondents are posing threats to all persons living in [s]outheastern New Mexico, which include threats of damage to property and quality of life, threats of injury, and threats of loss of life. The respondents are doing this in a way that denies [c]oncerned [c]itizens of [s]outheastern New Mexico our right to due process, and denies all persons in [s]outheastern New Mexico our right to equal protection under the law. By writing, signing and filing [1] PETITION, I was asserting my right to be heard. By signing [1] PETITION, approximately 1,135 more Petitioners (Plaintiffs) were also asserting their right to be heard. (4) My writing and filing the original [19] MOTION TO DISQUALIFY, RECUSE

AND, OR, REMOVE JUDGE JUDITH HERRERA AND RELATED MOTIONS was an effort to assert Plaintiffs' right to be heard by an impartial judge. The motions and request made in [19] MOTION, include the following: .(4.a) (3.b) MOTION to Disqualify, Recuse, and, or, Remove Judge Judith Herrera; MOTION to Strike MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order, and to Strike any

Perceived Authority Held by Judge Judith Herrera; (4.c) (4.d) (4.e) (5) MOTION to Have an Impartial Judge Request to Save Criminal Evidence; MOTION to Expedite Injunctive Relief [and] Make it Permanent In the Request to Save Criminal Evidence of [19] MOTION, I asserted Plaintiff's right

to Trial by Grand Jury by writing the following: REQUEST TO SAVE CRIMINAL EVIDENCE[:] Petitioners respectfully request that the Court to save the content of Judge Judith Herrera's Memorandum Opinion and Order to be made available for evidence of her appearance of collusion with Respondents in criminal acts, in the event that it may be used for: potential criminal investigations regarding impropriety in Senator Pete Domenici's and President George W. Bush's hirings of federal judges, regarding impropriety in this case, or regarding criminal complaints against the Respondents, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 38 of 953

and regarding criminal trials related to the actions of the Respondents. (6) 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(B) says: A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or

sentence only if (B) the victim petitions the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus within 10 days[.] This is addressed on page 2 in paragraph (i) under the title: NOTE TO READER. (7) 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(C) says: A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or

sentence only if (C) in the case of a plea, the accused has not pled to the highest offense charged. The only accused Defendants that I remember seeing pleas to any offense in this case are: Mike Marley, Dale Gandy, Peter Maggiore. It is possible that I overlooked a plea to the offenses in this case by Larry Gandy, and one or two other accused Defendants. However, I am absolutely sure most of the accused Defendants in this case have not pled to the highest offense charged. (8) Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute Notice, Certification, and Intervention

says the following (quotation marks omitted): (a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing

into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly: (1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper

that raises it, if: (A) a federal statute is questioned and neither the United States nor any of its agencies,

officers, or employees is a party in an official capacity, or (B) a state statute is questioned and neither the state nor any of its agencies, officers,

or employees is a party in an official capacity; and (2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal

statute is challenged or on the state attorney general if a state statute is challenged either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 39 of 953

(b)

Certification by the Court. Certification by the Court. The court must, under

28 U.S.C. 2403, certify to the Attorney General of the United States that there is a constitutional challenge to a federal statute, or certify to the state attorney general that there is a constitutional challenge to a state statute. (c) Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits[:] Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney

general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional. (d) No Forfeiture[:] A partys failure to file and serve the notice, or the courts failure to

certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted. Rules 5.1(a)(1)(A)(B) do not appear to apply in this case, because, although the filing date of this document makes it appear like Pete V. Domenici and George W. Bush no longer work for the United States Government, there is an appearance of some Defendants still working for the United States Department of Energy. I can assure you that a proper criminal investigation would find that there are also Defendants working for the State of New Mexico. I will provide further information regarding this to U.S. Attorney who is assigned to represent the Plaintiffs. Rule 5.1(a)(2 ) appears to apply, and it says: "(2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose." Rule 5.1(b) "Certification by the Court." says: "The court must, under 28 U.S.C. 2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned. After Pete Domenici' Junior removed [1] PETITION from state court, he used the fact that it has a Constitutional question for his reason for entering this case into the United States District Court. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 40 of 953

I have seen no evidence of any communication between the United States Attorney General and the District Court regarding this matter. Judge Herrera pretended like she could not understand how having no protection of the law when it involves activities at the Department of Energy GNEP facility would be violating the 14th Amendment right of equal protection of the law in her [14] MEMORANDUM But I have seen nothing from the Attorney General. Rule 5.1(c) "Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits" says: Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional. I respectfully point out, here, that Judge Judith Herrera attempted to close this case while saying that she was doing so "with prejudice." All that I have been able to obtain about these documents is the electronically mailed notices of her filing her document to dismiss and her other document to close this case. I don't know if it is just my incompetence, or if I am actually being blocked from obtaining documents through the US Court's electronic filing system. It is possible that one of these documents has some information from the Attorney General. Even if the Attorney General has ruled on Pete Domenici's Junior's and Judge Judith Herrera's presentations of a Constitutional question(s). Even if one of these documents has a ruling from the Attorney General, Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to tell our side of the story (due process) and Rule 5.1(d) "No Forfeiture," says: A partys failure to file and serve the notice, or the courts failure to certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted. WHEREFORE, I respectfully demand and/or move the District Court to re-open this case. I also respectfully petition the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for Writ of Mandamus, in the event that Plaintiffs' Victims Rights, Constitutional civil rights, and the facts of this entire matter continue to disregarded by the District Court. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 41 of 953

For the Attorney General: NOTICE of Constitional Questions and Seeking Opinions and Intervention I respectfully submit this NOTICE of Constitutional Questions to the Office of the United States Attorney General, pursuant to Rule 5.1 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, which is as follows: The facts that I am presenting may need clarification and a presentation of supporting evidence to show that they are indisputable facts. I reserve the right of due process, which may involve providing a grand jury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a court, and/or the office of the Attorney General with documents, audio and video recordings of current and former federal employees, and summoned testimonies of current and former state and federal employees Understanding these Constitutional questions may also involve reading this entire document, but, in this section of this documents, facts and questions are presented in their most concise forms, which are as follows: According to Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Sec.202, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Definition for Solid Waste (42 U.S.C. 82 6903(27)), NRC Regulations 10 CFR 40.4, and NRC and EPA policies, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) have no authority to inspect and enforce the law at facilities associated with the United States Department of Energy when it involves radioactive materials. See Subsections 8.4 - 8.10.3 and Section 23. There are no state or federal health, environmental, or law enforcement agencies with any authority to inspect or enforce the law when it involves Department of Energy radioactive materials. Department of Energy facilities that handle harmful, radioactive, materials are operated by private companies. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant WIPP near Carlsbad, NM, has containers of radioactive materials buried in an area where there are underground streams and pockets corrosive brine (salt water). See Section 17.4. It is operated by a company (Westinghouse) which was a subsidiary of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 42 of 953

British Nuclear Fuels, which is the British Government. It is now owned by Toshiba, with corporate headquarters in Japan. See Section 23 and Reference 1,008. There are people in Japan who have good reason to have bad feelings about that fact that the United States dropped atomic (radioactive) bombs that injured them, and injured and killed their family members. Westinghouse is in charge of making sure that people in the United States are not injured or killed by emissions of radioactive materials that are buried in an area where there are underground streams and pockets of corrosive brine. Outfall from Chernobyl's radioactive emissions were detected about 1,400 miles away. from Chernobyl. Most of the activities being conducted at these Department of Energy facilities involve harmful, radioactive, materials. Some of the activities involve non-radioactive, hazardous, materials, which state and federal environmental agencies do have the authority to monitor.. Monitoring and enforcing the law with just non-radioactive materials at these facilities has resulted in a voluminous amount of records describing how these Department of Energy contractors have broken the law. It is a common practice for many of these private companies to merely pay the fines and continue breaking the law. This is much more profitable than abiding by the law. See Subsection 17.8 and Section 22. Westinghouse has been caught being dishonest and breaking the law many times by the NRC, EPA, OSHA, and Department of Justice. EnergySolutions (also called Envirocare) has been caught being dishonest and breaking the law many times by the NRC, the EPA, and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality The people, who running this company, have, often, just pay the fines and continued breaking the same laws. Defendant, Alan Dobson, says that he worked many years at Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing facility, while it was owned by British Nuclear Fuels (the British Government). He has presented the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 43 of 953

Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing facility as the model for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) "Nuclear Fuel Recycling Center." EnergySolution (Envirocare) plans to operate a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant that would receive spent nuclear fuel (high-level radioactive waste) from all over the world. The Department of Energy has spent $millions, and has given $millions to EnergySolutions (Envirocare), and given several more $millions to the other companies at other potential GNEP locations, to promote the GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor. The Defendants, who work for the Department of Energy, and Defendants who work for the private companies (EnergySolutions, Northwind, and Gandy Marley) are promoting nuclear energy as being clean, safe, and emissions free. It is unreasonable to expect the Department of Energy to accurately monitor emissions from a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant after spending so much money to promote it by telling the public that nuclear energy is clean, safe, and emissions free. People, who have worked at Department of Energy facilities, have emitted an enormous amount of harmful, radioactive, materials into the air, water, soil, homes, food, and bodies of uninformed people of the United States. I have not been able to find where these people, who have emitted harmful, radioactive, materials have faced any consequences for their actions other than adverse health effects (injuries and premature deaths). Since the establishment of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, every time a new set of pictures (President and Vice President) has been placed on the walls of lobbies at federal agencies, the levels of cognitive skills and clarity of vision held by people working in the [Law] Enforcement Branch of the EPA have fluctuated. At times, it has been necessary (to keep their jobs, in ways similar to Judge Judith Herrera's experience) for people, who have worked in the EPA [Law] Enforcement Branch, to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 44 of 953

play the part of complete stupidity, and to be willfully blind, while dealing with people associated with polluting companies that have given large political campaign contributions. There have been times when playing the part of complete stupidity and being willfully blind has resulted in many people, in the United States, being injured and killed by the actions of people who have been running polluting companies. Even with this flaws in the NEPA, the EPA hasprovided some form of monitoring and law enforcement protection to people living near and/or en route chemical plants, other polluting facilities, and hazardous waste dumps. There have been times when the same EPA employees have worked around the corruption of their superiors, and have accomplished much toward protecting many more people from being injured and killed by people who have been running the same polluting companies. I haven't studied the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) nearly as much as the EPA, but I am assuming that the same has happened with the NRC, and the NRC has done the same for people living near nuclear power plants. But the people, who live near and/or en route to and from these Department of Energy (Department of Defense) facilities, have no monitoring or law enforcement protection from from harmful emissions of radioactive materials. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." See Reference 1. Constitutional Question 1: Does the fact that people living near and/or en route to Department of Energy (Department of Defense) facilities have no monitoring or law enforcement protection from harmful emissions of radioactive materials violate the 14th Amendment right of equal protection of the laws? McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 45 of 953

The Plaintiffs have petitioned the state court and then the federal District Court for injunctive relief from the threatening behavior of the Defendants, because it is causing Plaintiffs to suffer an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and fear of bodily injury, property damage, death of Plaintiffs and people that Plaintiffs care about. Judge Judith Herrera (the presiding judge) was nominated by one of the Defendants, and was appointed by another Defendant to her position of District Judge. I have respectfully brought this conflict of interest to her attention, and have (as politely and respectfully as possible) asked her to disqualify herself and find an impartial judge for this case, so that Plaintiffs could have an opportunity to have our case appropriately heard . She has refused. Constitutional Question 2: Is Judge Herrera's behavior, which is described in the above paragraph, Constitutional? The Defendants plan to operate a nuclear waste reprocessing plant and a nuclear waste burner reactor (ADVANCE BURNER REACTOR). As previously mentioned, the Defendants are using Sellafield for a model for the GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Sellafield has had a severe injurious impact on many people, fish, domesticated mammals, and wildlife of the United Kingdom. I believe that the fact that the model for the Defendants GNEP "Nuclear Fuel Recycling Center" (nuclear waste reprocessing plant) would be modeled after Sellafield is a good reason to feel threatened. People running a company called Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLCC) broke the law and lied about it, on a routine basis, for about 40 years. GLCC was holding permits from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, based on the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for most of these 40 years. The criminal behavior people associated with GLCC resulted in my property being contaminated with many different kinds of very toxic materials, and injuries and deaths of my father McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 46 of 953

and some more of my family members. A FIOA request to the US EPA Region 6, seeking information related to any time the US EPA Region 6 had been aware of GLCC submitting false reports, breaking the law, and attempting to conceal breaking the law, resulted in more than Fifty Thousand pages of documents being placed in front of me on the FOIA room table. The NEPA, as it is currently amended, made it possible for me to understand how my property was poisoned, and how criminals, who worked for GLCC, were permitted and allowed to kill my father and injure an kill some more of my family members But it also did just that. It permitted and allowed criminals to kill my father and injure and kill some more of my family without facing consequences. I spent a few years doing nothing but learning about human behavior that has been guided by the NEPA, as it is currently amended. I have a digital audio recording (recorded June 2004 in the lobby of the EPA Region 6 office building in Dallas) of a person, who works for the U.S. Public Health Services Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR), in which he says that if they did would should be done about my situation, it would open the flood gates for a thousand more situations just like it. I have many other documents and recordings similar to this one of many state and federal health, environmental, and law enforcement agencies that could, someday, be presented to a grand jury, But stopping the Defendants from making history repeat itself is, currently, more important. I have another digital audio recording of an EPA employee telling that the reason he couldn't test for the toxic materials that they knew would be unique to the chemical plant that poisoned the camp pond was that his bosses would not let him. This recording was made while sitting in the FOIA room of the EPA Region 6. The biggest bosses at that time had their pictures on the wall in the lobby, and one of them (George W. Bush) is Defendant in this case. I have many more similar recordings. I had many conversations, between 2002 and 2007, with EPA employees who told me things (statements) that would help hold the criminals at GLCC accountable for killing my father. But when I asked if they could put these statements in writing and sign them. They explained that it would cause McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 47 of 953

them to be fired. The Defendants use a lot of the same rhetoric that criminals associated with GLCC used to justify disregarding the law as the Defendants are promoting the GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor. This makes me feel threatened. People, who have run for W.R. Grace and Company have been caught lying and breaking the law as much as GLCC (maybe more), and have injured and killed many people. See Section 9. A Department of Energy document entitled: "Assessment of Startup Fuel Options for the GNEP Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR) February 2008," says the following (quotation marks omitted): (1) The Global Nuclear Energy Program (GNEP) includes a program element for the

development and construction of an advanced sodium cooled fast reactor to demonstrate the burning (transmutation) of significant quantities of minor actinides obtained from a separations process and fabricated into a transuranic bearing fuel assembly. To demonstrate and qualify transuranic (TRU) fuel in a fast reactor, an Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR) prototype is needed. The ABR would necessarily be started up using conventional metal alloy or oxide (U or U, Pu) fuel. Startup fuel is needed for the ABR for the first 2 to 4 core loads of fuel in the ABR. Following start up, a series of advanced TRU bearing fuel assemblies will be irradiated in qualification lead test assemblies in the ABR. There are multiple options for this startup fuel. This report provides a description of the possible startup fuel options as well as possible fabrication alternatives available to the program in the current domestic and international facilities and infrastructure. (2) "As a licensed Category I processing facility, [W.R.Grace & Company] NFS owns and

operates the facilities and systems to receive, store, track, handle, process, and ship nuclear materials of all enrichments. Nuclear Regulatory Commission License Special Nuclear Material (SNM)-124 permits [W.R. Grace & Company] NFS to receive, store, and process a wide variety of enriched uranium materials (up to 100% U-235) in a manner that provides maximum safety and compliance. In McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 48 of 953

addition, NFS processes these materials to form final products that meet or exceed customer specifications for nuclear fuel applications. [W.R. Grace & Company] Nuclear Fuel Services successfully amended its NRC license to encompass four new facilities on its site within a four-year period. It is expected that HEU fuel fabrication for the Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR) would fit under the existing license." See Section 9.43 and Reference 30. I asked people, who work for the NRC, if the stacks on the "Advanced Burner Reactor" in the pictures it were for emissions of radioactive materials. They told me that they didn't understand how an "Advanced Burner Reactor" would work, and that I should talk to Timothy Frazier in the Department of Energy. I asked Mr. Frazier, and other people, who work for the Department of Energy the same question. They haven't responded to this question. My experiences with stacks involve emissions. I believe that the idea of emissions from a nuclear waste burner reactor operating under the license of W.R. Grace & Company, and the thought of W.R. Grace & Company being involved in receiving, storing, tracking, handling, processing, and shipping nuclear materials of all enrichments of the proposed GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor are good reasons to feel threatened. I am not a lawyer. I am a shining example of incompetence when it comes to court proceedings and legal court papers. But I am a citizen of the United States, and believe that guarantees that I have due process and equal protection of the laws. There is no money to be made here, so finding a private lawyer to do this was impossible, so I wrote and filed the [1] PETITON for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction with approximately 1,136 signatures, which is seeking injunctive relief from the threatening behavior of the Defendants. See Section 7. Judge Judith Herrera has denied the Plaintiffs [1] PETITION for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction to stop the Defendants threatening behavior that is involved in promoting the GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor. She says that the reasons she McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 49 of 953

has denied [1] PETITION are as follows: (1) REASON 1: "McKinnon has not demonstrated entitlement to injunctive relief[:] Because

McKinnons claim for injunctive relief arises under the United States Constitution and presents a federal question, the Court applies federal substantive law regarding injunctive relief It goes without saying that an injunction is an equitable remedy. It is not a remedy which issues as of course or to restrain an act the injurious consequences of which are merely trifling. An injunction should issue only where the intervention of a court of equity is essential in order effectually to protect property rights against injuries otherwise irremediable. The Court has repeatedly held that the basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies." (2) REASON 2: "Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311-12 (1982) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, McKinnon must show that there are no adequate legal remedies available to him in challenging the Defendants actions of conducting the requisite NEPA evaluations and studies. He must also prove: (1) actual success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm unless the injunction is issued; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm that the injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) the injunction, if issued, will not adversely affect the public interest. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Wagnon, 476 F.3d 818, 822 (10th Cir. 2007)." (3) REASON 3: "One of NEPAs primary purposes is to ensure that a federal agency

contemplating a major action that could affect the environment, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989). NEPA also guarantees that therelevant information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decision making process and the implementation of that decision. Id. The President and Congress need information concerning the environmental effects of the agencys proposed program to assist them in deciding whether to support or overrule the agencys action. NEPA documentation McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 50 of 953

and publication requirement also gives the public the assurance that the agency has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision[]making process, and, perhaps more significantly, provides a springboard for public comment. Id. at 349 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Clearly, McKinnon cannot establish that conducting NEPA studies to consider (i) whether to proceed with the construction and operation of nuclear fuel recycling facilities, and if so, (ii) where to build and operate such facilities, and (iii) what technologies and capacities to utilize is illegal, and cannot establish success on the merits or irreparable harm. Indeed, the Defendants must utilize the NEPA process before making such decisions. See, e.g., Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Andrus, 825 F. Supp. 1483, 1510 (D. Idaho1993) (enjoining the DOE from transporting, receiving, processing, or storing any additional nuclear waste of any kind, from any source, at [a location in Idaho] until it complies fully with the mandatory procedural requirements of NEPA); Sierra Club v. Watkins, 808 F. Supp. 852, 876 (D.D.C. 1991) (enjoining the DOE from continuing to import spent nuclear fuel because it had not filed an adequate environmental impact statement or completed an environmental assessment that included the full range of risks and alternatives). (4) REASON 4: "McKinnon has a legal remedy, which is to comment and/or participate in

the administrative NEPA review process and by presenting his alleged evidence and expert witness testimony at the NEPA hearings that the proposed plants and processes are ineffective and dangerous to operate in Chaves County. No court, whether it be state or federal, may enjoin the Defendants from engaging in the evaluations and studies that federal statutes such as NEPA require before the Defendants proceed with plans to dispose of spent nuclear fuel near a river. Compare TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 173 (1978) (holding that an imminent violation of the Endangered Species Act required injunctive relief) with Weinberger, 456 U.S at 314-20 (noting that the District Court found that the Navy had violated the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA); that the purpose and language of [a federal] statute limit[] the remedies available to the District Court; and that the FWPCA McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 51 of 953

gave the District Court discretion to allow the Navy to temporarily continue its activities while obtaining the requisite permit)." After this case was removed from state court and placed in federal court, in late September, 2007, people at the U.S. Court made it clear that filing in the U.S. Court was going to require that I attend training courses either in Albuquerque (240 miles from my house), Santa Fe (more than 180 miles from my house), or Las Cruces (180 miles from my house), and pay fees with money that I didn't have. I had just spent 5 years studying GLCC and government agencies that had permitted and allowed GLCC to maim and kill my loved ones. This had resulted in a fairly large debt that I am still a year and a half from paying off. I don't know whether or not the people at the U.S. Court intentionally led me to believe that I was going to be required to pay money to file, but I was left believing that it would be impossible to tell Plaintiffs' side of the story until after Judge Herrera filed her [14] MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. in mid October 2008. I respectfully bring to your attention the statement Judge Herrera's makes in her first reason for denying [1] PETITION where she says: "It goes without saying that an injunction is an equitable remedy. It is not a remedy which issues as of course or to restrain an act the injurious consequences of which are merely trifling." A web site at www.webster-dictionary.net defines trifling as: Being of small value or importance; trivial; paltry; as, a trifling debt, or trifling affair. It defines trivial as: found anywhere; common; ordinary; commonplace; trifling; vulgar; incapable of labor...petty... It defines paltry as: mean; vile; worthless; despicable; contemptible; pitiful; trifling. It defines vulgar as: (1) Of or pertaining to the mass, or multitude, of people; common; general... and (2) Belonging or related to the common people, as distinguished from the cultivated or educated; pertaining to common life; plebeian; not select or distinguished; hence, sometimes, of little or no value. It defines plabeian as: ...One of common people, or lower rank of men. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 52 of 953

Constitutional Question 3: If a law abiding citizen of the United States fits the description that Judge Herrera has used to describe the Plaintiffs, is this person disqualified from having the right to due process and equal protection of the laws as stated in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution? Most of the other reasons that Judge Judith Herrera gives for denying the Plaintiffs [1] PETITION are based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as it is currently amended. All of the statements that I make in this Document are true and made under oath. If you have read every statement that I have written prior to this statement of fact, you have read a brief description of a very long and sad story that involves the NEPA. I mention my experiences with the NEPA in the following pages. Not all people, who work in industries that potentially emit poison into the air, water, soil, homes, food, bodies of animals, and bodies of people, are unscrupulous. The way the NEPA is currently amended makes it much more profitable to break the law and just pay the fines than it is to abide by the law. The NEPA, as it is currently amended, makes it possible for unscrupulous people associated with polluting industries to break the law and lie about it, which has injured and killed many uninformed, innocent, people in the United States without facing consequences that are severe enough to stop the unscrupulous people from continuing with breaking the law and lying about it. A lot of money is spent by these unscrupulous people during political campaigns to make sure they can continue getting away with breaking the law and lying about it. It is much more profitable to break the law, lie about it, injure and kill neighbors with poisonous emissions make a than it is to abide by the law. The way that the NEPA, as it is currently amended, is being used by these unscrupulous people takes away protection of the laws from people, who live near chemical plants, hazardous waste dumps, and other polluting facilities. (3) Constitutional Question 4: Is the result that is described in the above paragraph McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 53 of 953

respecting the Constitutional rights of the people, who live near chemical plants, hazardous waste dumps, and other polluting facilities. If it isn't the deadliest, reprocessing nuclear fuel is very near the top of the list of deadliest polluting industries. Defendants have been provided with $millions to be used for promoting reprocessing nuclear fuel by telling the public that nuclear power is being clean, safe, and emissions free. Defendants know that their behavior is causing Plaintiffs to suffer an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and reasonable fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death. Some of the Defendants are making these death threats from across state lines. The behavior of the Defendants, which entails defrauding the People and Government of the United States, while making death threats across state lines, are crimes that , if federal laws were enforced to its fullest, would result in some long prison sentences for former President George W. Bush, former Senator Pete V. Domenici, and their gang of followers. The behavior of the Defendants matches behavior that is described in many federal criminal statutes, which have long prison sentences. I think I have addressed most of these crimes within the pages that follow. The Defendants are using the NEPA, as it is currently amended, to bully their way into being permitted by the Government of the United States to emit poison into the air, water, soil, homes, food, and bodies of the Plaintiffs. Constitutional Question 5: Is using the NEPA, as it is currently amended, the way the Defendants are using it Constitutional? Scenario 1: If the shoes were on the other feet, and the Plaintiffs were using $millions that were obtained by making false statements to the United States Government to promote an activity that Plaintiffs knew was causing George W. Bush, Pete V. Domenici and their gang to have good reason to suffer emotional distress and reasonable fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death, and Bush, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 54 of 953

Domenici and gang told Plaintiffs that they wanted the Plaintiffs to stop, but the Plaintiffs ignored the Bush, Domenici and gang and continued with the same threatening activities on a larger scale, so Bush, Domenici, and Gang filed a Petition for Injunction in the U.S. District Court to stop the threatening behavior, but the Plaintiffs continued to behave in a way that they knew was causing Bush, Domenici and Gang to suffer emotional distress and reasonable fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death,... Seeding Opinion 1: How long would it take for the Plaintiffs would be locked up in prison? Seeking Opinion 2: Would the Plaintiffs be locked up in prison without bail until a trial, and, if found guilty, be sentenced to the fullest extent of the law? Seeking Opinion 3: Would the Plaintiffs be locked up in prison with bail, but be required to wear ankle bracelets until a trial, and if found guilty, spend minimal time in prison? Seeking Opinion 4: Would the behavior of the Plaintiffs be ignored by the Court and law enforcement agencies? Constitutional Question 6: Are your opinions about the above Scenario 1 Constitutional? Defendants are using the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as it is currently amended, to justify their threatening behavior. The NEPA, as it is amended, has inadvertently become a tool for unscrupulous criminals to use for reaping fortune 500 profits by breaking the law, lying about, paying small fines and merely continuing as they were, which has resulted in many uninformed, innocent, citizens of the United States being maimed and killed. The Defendants are using the NEPA as a tool to bully their way into being permitted by the United States Government to turn southeastern New Mexico into the high-level radioactive waste dump for the rest of the world. Many people, who live in southeastern New Mexico feel threatened by the behavior of the Defendants. Constitutional Question 7: Is the NEPA, as it is currently amended, violating the 14th McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 55 of 953

Amendment of the United States Constitution? Please consider the facts that you have just read, and the facts that are on the following pages, and make rulings on the Constitutional Questions in this section, make note of any other ways that you can see where the Defendants and Judge Herrera are violating the United States Constitution. And please give your Opinions regarding the following questions. Seeking Opinion 5: Do you believe that it would be safe to live near the GNEP nuclear waste reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor? Seeking Opinion 6: What do you believe would be a safe distance to live from the GNEP

nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor?. Seeking Opinion 7: Do you believe that Plaintiffs have good reason to be suffering emotional

distress and serious fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death that could be caused by radioactive emissions from the GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, nuclear waste burner reactor, and trucks carrying high-level radioactive materials to and from the GNEP facility. Seeking Opinion 8: Is it legal for a District Judge to preside over a case when she was nominated by one Defendant and appointed by another Defendant? Seeking Intervention: I don't know how much authority the Attorney General has for issuing Orders, but if you can, please intervene to make it possible for the Plaintiffs to have our case heard by an impartial District Judge, or to alternatively be granted immediate permanent injunctive relief. If you don't have this authority, and if there is someone who does have the authority to do so, please pass this on them. Like people working at the EPA and other government agencies, Judge Herrera suggested Congress. I have done all that I can in trying to communicated with Congress. Maybe Congress would listen to you. For the U.S. District Court and District Attorney's Office: DEMAND and MOTION for Victims' Assistance for Representation I respectfully demand assistance with Representation by an impartial U.S. Attorney and any other McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 56 of 953

assistance from the U.S. Attorney's Office that Victims are supposed to receive, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771 and Rule 17(c )(2) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. 18 U.S.C. 3771 "Crime victims rights" says a lot. I am pressed for time, so I may give you more than you need. I copied it from the Cornell University Law web site, and pasted it on this document. Then, I deleted parts that I knew did not pertain. The pertinent parts that regard this demand of representation are included in the following (quotation marks omitted): (a) (1) (2) Rights of Crime Victims. A crime victim has the following rights: The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any

parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused. (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after

receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving

release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding. (5) (6) (7) (8) (b) (1) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case. The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victims dignity and privacy. Rights Afforded. In general. In any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the

court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a). Before making a determination described in subsection (a)(3), the court shall make every effort to permit the fullest attendance possible by the victim and shall consider reasonable alternatives to the exclusion of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 57 of 953

the victim from the criminal proceeding. The reasons for any decision denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on the record.... Enforcement. (i) In general. These rights may be enforced by the crime victim or the crime victims lawful

representative in the manner described in paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (d). (ii) Multiple victims. In a case involving multiple victims, subsection (d)(2) shall also apply.

(C) Limitation. This paragraph relates to the duties of a court in relation to the rights of a crime victim in Federal habeas corpus proceedings arising out of a State conviction, and does not give rise to any obligation or requirement applicable to personnel of any agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. (D) Definition. For purposes of this paragraph, the term crime victim means the person

against whom the State offense is committed or, if that person is killed or incapacitated, that persons family member or other lawful representative. (c) (1) Best Efforts To Accord Rights. Government. Officers and employees of the Department of Justice and other

departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a). (2) Advice of attorney. The prosecutor shall advise the crime victim that the crime victim

can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights described in subsection (a). (3) Notice. Notice of release otherwise required pursuant to this chapter shall not be given if

such notice may endanger the safety of any person. (d) (1) Enforcement and Limitations. Rights. The crime victim or the crime victims lawful representative, and the attorney for McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 58 of 953

the Government may assert the rights described in subsection (a). A person accused of the crime may not obtain any form of relief under this chapter. (2) Multiple crime victims. In a case where the court finds that the number of crime victims

makes it impracticable to accord all of the crime victims the rights described in subsection (a), the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings. (3) Motion for relief and writ of mandamus. The rights described in subsection (a) shall be

asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred. The district court shall take up and decide any motion asserting a victims right forthwith. If the district court denies the relief sought, the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals may issue the writ on the order of a single judge pursuant to circuit rule or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court of appeals shall take up and decide such application forthwith within 72 hours after the petition has been filed. In no event shall proceedings be stayed or subject to a continuance of more than five days for purposes of enforcing this chapter. If the court of appeals denies the relief sought, the reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated on the record in a written opinion. (4) Error. In any appeal in a criminal case, the Government may assert as error the district

courts denial of any crime victims right in the proceeding to which the appeal relates. (e) Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the term crime victim means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia. In the case of a crime victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardians of the crime victim or the representatives of the crime victims estate, family members, or any other persons appointed as suitable by the court, may assume the crime victims rights under this chapter, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 59 of 953

guardian or representative. (2) Contents. The regulations promulgated under paragraph (1) shall (A) designate an administrative authority within the Department of Justice to receive and investigate complaints relating to the provision or violation of the rights of a crime victim; (B) require a course of training for employees and offices of the Department of Justice that fail

to comply with provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims, and otherwise assist such employees and offices in responding more effectively to the needs of crime victims; (C) contain disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination from employment, for

employees of the Department of Justice who willfully or wantonly fail to comply with provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims; and (D) provide that the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, shall be the

final arbiter of the complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of the final decision of the Attorney General by a complainant. Rule 17(c )(2) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures says the following says the following (quotation marks omitted: (c) (2) Minor or Incompetent Person. Without a Representative.

A minor or an incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem or issue another appropriate order to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action. I respectfully move the Office of the United States Attorney for the State of New Mexico to provide representation for the Plaintiffs for reasons, which follow: (1) Some of the signatures on the original [1] PETITION for Emergency Order of Protection

or Injunction were minors. I don't know if Pete Domenici Junior's law office submitted the signatures McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 60 of 953

when he removed it from state court and entered it into the U.S. District Court more than a year ago. But, if the Clerk and/or Case Administrator U.S. District Court has the signatures, and you look at them, you will be able to see that some of the signatures have been made by children with their ages placed next to their names. (2) The victims that will feel the most damage from the projects that Pete V. Domenici and

George W. Bush have done to New Mexico for the purpose of promoting the "Nuclear Renaissance" are children, and it will get worse for each generation, especially if actions are not taken by the federal and state governments to rectify the damage that has been done, and put a stop to future damage. A good place to start would be to stop the truck from taking radioactive waste to be buried at WIPP in an area where there are underground streams and and pockets of corrosive brine (salt water). The damage that has been done to New Mexico by WIPP may already be irreversible. Mitigating further damage would not only be a wise thing to do, because it would also be irresponsible for the Department of Energy to continue hiding this fact, and for the Department of Justice to ignore this fact any longer. (1) I respectfully point out the fact that, even though the children of New Mexico do have

representation in this matter, the person representing them is incompetent when it comes to court papers, filing, and court procedures. I respectfully reiterate Rule 17(c)(2) where it says: "The court must appoint a guardian ad litem or issue another appropriate order to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action. WHEREFORE, I demand that the U.S. District Court appoint an impartial U.S. Attorney to help represent the Plaintiffs, and move the U.S. Attorney's Office to assign an impartial U.S. Attorney to start studying this entire matter, so that when the Court follows the law as it is stated in Rule 17(c)(2) and I demand that the Court follow this law to appoint a U.S. Attorney to represent the victims of this CRIMINAL COMPLAINT McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 61 of 953

I respectfully submit this CRIMINAL COMPLAINT to th United States Magistrate Court for New Mexico, pursuant to Rule 3 of Federal Rules for Criminal Procedures, which is as follows: Rule 3 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure says: "The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It must be made under oath before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer. I respectfully move the Magistrate to consider the facts that are presented in this document, and to provide someone in the Federal Bureau of Investigation to receive the rest of the pertinent information that I believe would give them the ability to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that that every statement that I have made in this document is true. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF DOCUMENT On or about May 30, 2002, I found out that people associated with Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLCC) had poisoned my land, and had caused bodily injury and death of my father, and some of my relatives, friends and neighbors. I spent a couple of years working on nothing else other than learning about how this had happened. Then, I worked on this part time until the first week of March 2007. During this time, I learned that state and federal health and environmental agencies had permitted and turned a blind eye to allow these people associated with GLCC to break the law and lie about it, on a routine basis, for a few decades. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as it is currently amended, made it possible for these people associated with GLCC to injure and kill other people, who lived in the United States of America, without facing any real consequences. While holding the position of Senator for New Mexico, Defendant, Pete V. Domenici, nominated Judith C. Herrera to fill the position of District Judge for New Mexico in September 2003. While holding the position of President of the United States, Defendant, George W. Bush, confirmed Judge C. Herrera's appointment of District Judge for New Mexico in June 2004. While holding the position of President of the United States, Defendant, George W. Bush McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 62 of 953

Signed the Class-Action Fairness Act of 2005 in the East Room of the White House. The transcript of this event, obtained from the White House web site, is as follows (quotation marks omitted): (1) (2) (3) 11:37 A.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thanks for coming. (Applause.) Please be seated. Thank you for coming.

Thanks for the warm welcome. Welcome to the people's house. Glad you're here for the first bill signing ceremony of 2005. (Applause.) (4) The bill I'm about to sign is a model of effective, bipartisan legislation. By working

together over several years, we have agreed on a practical way to begin restoring common sense and balance to America's legal system. The Class-Action Fairness Act of 2005 marks a critical step toward ending the lawsuit culture in our country. The bill will ease the needless burden of litigation on every American worker, business, and family. By beginning the important work of legal reform, we are meeting our duty to solve problems now, and not to pass them on to future generations. (5) I appreciate so very much the leadership that Senator Frist and Senator McConnell have

shown on this bill in the United States Senate. I want to thank Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Tom Carper and Senator Craig Thomas, as well for working in a bipartisan fashion to get this good bill to my desk. (6) I appreciate Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, as well as Congressman Lamar Smith,

joining us today. I particularly want to pay tribute to the bill sponsors -- Senator Grassley and Senator Kohl, as well as Congressman Bob Goodlatte and Congressman Rick Boucher, who are with us here today (7) Congress showed what is possible when we set aside partisan differences and focus

on what's doing right for Congress, and you all are to be -- I mean, for the country -- and you're to be credited for your good work. Thank you very much. (Applause.) McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 63 of 953

(8)

I welcome our new Attorney General -- oh, right there. (Laughter.) How quickly they

forget in Washington. (Laughter.) Al Gonzales. Proud you're up here, Al. Hector Barreto, the SBA. Thank you, all the business leaders, community leaders, consumer groups who care about this issue. Thanks for your hard work. Thanks for being patient. Thanks for not becoming discouraged. And thanks for witnessing the fruits of your labor as I sign this bill. (9) Class-actions can serve a valuable purpose in our legal system. They allow numerous

victims of the same wrong-doing to merge their claims into a single lawsuit. When used properly, classactions make the legal system more efficient and help guarantee that injured people receive proper compensation. That is an important principle of justice. So the bill I sign today maintains every victim's right to seek justice, and ensures that wrong-doers are held to account. (10) Class-actions can also be manipulated for personal gain. Lawyers who represent plaintiffs

from multiple states can shop around for the state court where they expect to win the most money. A few weeks ago, I visited Madison County, Illinois, where juries have earned a reputation for awarding large verdicts. The number of class-actions filed in Madison County has gone from two in 1998 to 82 in 2004 -- even though the vast majority of the defendants named in those suits are not from Madison County. Trial lawyers have already filed 24 class-actions in Madison County this year. We're in February. (Laughter.) Including 20 in the past week -- after Congress made it clear their chance to exploit the class-action system would soon be gone. (11) Before today, trial lawyers were able to drag defendants from all over the country into

sympathetic local courts, even if those businesses have done nothing wrong. Many businesses decided it was cheaper to settle the lawsuits, rather than risk a massive jury award. In many cases, lawyers went home with huge pay-outs, while the plaintiffs ended up with coupons worth only a few dollars. By the time the settlement in at least one case was finished, plaintiffs actually owed their lawyers money. (12) A newspaper editorial called the class-action system "an extortion racket that only McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 64 of 953

Congress can fix." This bill helps fix the system. Congress has done its duty, and I'm proud to sign it into law. (13) Over the past few years I've met people from all over the country who know the

importance of class-action reform firsthand, and three of them are with us today. Marylou Rigat lives in Connecticut, yet a class-action involving her faulty roof was resolved by a judge in Alabama. The award covered only a fraction of the cost of new shingles, but that wasn't Marylou's biggest problem. She had no idea she was part of the class-action in the first place, and no one contacted her about her award. She only learned by accident when she called the company about her warranty. And then she found out there was nothing more she could do. (14) Hilda Bankston is with us. And her late husband used to own a drugstore in Fayette,

Mississippi. Their business was doing well, until the store got swept up in massive litigation just because it dispensed prescription drugs for a certain drug -- prescriptions for a certain drug. She had to sell the pharmacy six years ago. But she's still getting dragged into court, again and again. Here's what she said: "My husband and I lived the American Dream until we were caught up in what has become an American nightmare." (15) Alita Ditkowsky is with us. She was part of a class-action against a company that made

faulty televisions. When the case was settled in Madison County, Illinois, Alita's lawyer took home a big check while she got a $50 rebate on another TV, built by the same company that had ruined the first TV. (Laughter.) Here's what she said: "I'm still left with a broken TV." (Laughter.) "He got $22 million. Where's the justice in this?" (16) I want to thank you all for letting me use your stories, not only here, but during different

events we've had in highlighting the need for class-action reform, because this act will help ensure justice by making two essential reforms. First, it moves most large, interstate class-actions into federal courts. This will prevent trial lawyers from shopping around for friendly local venues. The bill will McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 65 of 953

keep out-of-state businesses, workers, and shareholders from being dragged before unfriendly local juries, or forced into unfair settlements. And that's good for our system, and it's good for our economy. (17) Second, the bill provides new safeguards to ensure that plaintiffs and class-action lawsuits

are treated fairly. The bill requires judges to consider the real monetary value of coupons and discounts, so that victims can count on true compensation for their injuries. It demands settlements and rulings to be explained in plain English, so that class members understand their full rights. (18) These are needed reforms. It's an important piece of legislation. It shows we're making

important progress toward a better legal system. (19) There's more to do. Small business owners across America fear that one junk lawsuit

could force them to close their doors for good. Medical liability lawsuits are driving up the cost for doctors and patients and entrepreneurs around the country. Asbestos litigation alone has led to the bankruptcy of dozens of companies and cost tens of thousands of jobs, even though many asbestos claims are filed on behalf of people who aren't actually sick. (20) Overall, junk lawsuits have driven the total cost of America's tort system to more than

$240 billion a year, greater than any other major industrialized nation. It creates a needless disadvantage for America's workers and businesses in a global economy, imposes unfair costs on job creators, and raises prices to consumers. (21) We have a responsibility to confront frivolous litigation head on. I will continue working

with Congress to pass meaningful legal reforms, starting with reform in our asbestos and medical liability systems. (22) Once again, I want to thank you all for the hard work on this important legislation. Class-

action reform will help keep America the best place in the world to do business. It will help ensure justice for our citizens, and I'm confident that this bill will be the first of many bipartisan achievements in the year 2005. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 66 of 953

(23) (24)

And now it is my honor to sign the Class-Action Fairness law. (Applause.) END 11:46 A.M. EST

See Reference 1,012 This case was filed in the Fifth Judicial District Court of the State of New Mexico, in Chaves County, on July 13, 2007. Pete Domenici Junior, the son of Defendant, Pete V. Domenici, had this case removed from state and filed in United States District Court for the District of New Mexico [19] MOTION TO DISQUALIFY, RECUSE AND, OR, REMOVE JUDGE JUDITH HERRERA AND RELATED MOTIONS was written in response to Judge Judith Herrera's [14] MEMORANDUM of Opinion and Order that was served to me (Frank McKinnon) on 10/14/08, and was electronically mailed to be filed: From: Frank McKinnon (mckinnon89@hotmail.com) Sent: Fri 10/24/08 1:12 PM To: [Debbie Wheeler, Case Administrator] Debbie_Wheeler@nmcourt.fed.us. On 01/06/09, Frank McKinnon received electrically mailed notices from the U.S. District Court MOTION to Re-open Case to Consider Amended Revision of [19] MOTION with DEMAND for Victims Rights and DEMAND for Trial by Grand Jury SECTION 1 (1.1) Rule 5(4) says: The clerk must not refuse to file a paper solely because it is not in

the form prescribed by these rules or by a local rule or practice. See Reference 1. (1.2) Rule 71A(a) says: The Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts

govern the procedure for the condemnation of real and personal property under the power of eminent domain, except as otherwise provided in this rule. (1.3) Real and personal property in this case includes: 14th Amendment rights of due process

and equal protection of the law, homes, businesses, social standing in the world, dignity, and reputations of approximately 1,136 Plaintiffs as well as security, health, and life, of approximately McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 67 of 953

1,136 Plaintiffs and people that Plaintiffs care about, including: Plaintiffs' immediate families, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens of New Mexico, fellow citizens of the United States, and fellow human beings who live all over the world, who have the potential of being adversely affected by the behavior of the Defendants. (1.4) It should be clarified here that Plaintiffs care about the Defendants, and it grieves

Plaintiffs to see Defendants carelessly placing themselves in harms way. It probably wouldn't be appropriate for Plaintiffs to petition the court to stop the Defendants from hurting themselves. But, the behavior of the Defendants is placing Plaintiffs in harms way, and this shall not be tolerated. (1.5) Rule 71A(f) says: Without leave of court, the plaintiff may amend the complaint at any time before the trial of the issue of compensation and as many times as desired, but no amendment shall be made which will result in a dismissal forbidden by subdivision (i) of this rule. (1.6) (1.6.1) (1.6.1.1) Subdivision (i) says the following (quotation marks omitted): Dismissal of Action[:] As of Right. If no hearing has begun to determine the compensation to be paid for a

piece of property and the plaintiff has not acquired the title or a lesser interest in or taken possession, the plaintiff may dismiss the action as to that property, without an order of the court, by filing a notice of dismissal setting forth a brief description of the property as to which the action is dismissed. (1.6.1.2) By Stipulation. Before the entry of any judgment vesting the plaintiff with title or a

lesser interest in or possession of property, the action may be dismissed in whole or in part, without an order of the court, as to any property by filing a stipulation of dismissal by the plaintiff and the defendant affected thereby; and, if the parties so stipulate, the court may vacate any judgment that has been entered. (1.6.1.3) By Order of the Court. At any time before compensation for a piece of property has

been determined and paid and after motion and hearing, the court may dismiss the action as to that property, except that it shall not dismiss the action as to any part of the property of which the plaintiff McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 68 of 953

has taken possession or in which the plaintiff has taken title or a lesser interest, but shall award just compensation for the possession, title or lesser interest so taken. The court at any time may drop a defendant unnecessarily or improperly joined. (1.6.2) Effect. Except as otherwise provided in the notice, or stipulation of dismissal, or order

of the court, any dismissal is without prejudice. (1.7) A web page addressed as: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/without-

prejudice.htmldefines, the term without prejudice as: Legal term signifying that something is being done, proposed, or said without abandoning a claim, privilege, or right, and without implying an admission of liability. (1) When used in a document or letter, these words mean that what follows cannot (a) be used as an evidence in a court case, (b) be taken as the signatory's last word on the subject matter, and (c) be used as a precedence. Contents of such documents normally cannot be disclosed to the courts but, when a party proposes to settle a dispute out-of-court, it is the genuineness of the effort that determines whether the proposal can disclosed or not, and not if the words 'without prejudice' were used. (2) When a court case is dismissed, or a court order is issued, without prejudice, it means that a new case may be brought or a new order issued on the same basis as the dismissed case or the original order. (1.8) There has been no hearing to determine the compensation to be paid for the property in

dispute. The 14th Amendment rights of due process and equal protection of the law are still being violated by the Defendants, and by the presiding District Judge. The Defendants continue to behave in a way that causes Plaintiffs to suffer an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and serious fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death of Plaintiffs and people that Plaintiffs care about. The presiding District Judge (Judith C. Herrera) was nominated to her position by one of the Defendants (Pete V. Domenici), and was appointed to her position by another Defendant (George W. Bush). Judge Judith Herrera says injunctive relief is denied because It goes without saying that an injunction is an McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 69 of 953

equitable remedy. It is not a remedy which issues as of course or to restrain an act the injurious consequences of which are merely trifling. (1.9) A web site at www.webster-dictionary.net defines trifling as: Being of small value or

importance; trivial; paltry; as, a trifling debt, or trifling affair. It defines trivial as: found anywhere; common; ordinary; commonplace; trifling; vulgar; incapable of labor...petty... It defines paltry as: mean; vile; worthless; despicable; contemptible; pitiful; trifling. It defines vulgar as: (1) Of or pertaining to the mass, or multitude, of people; common; general... and (2) Belonging or related to the common people, as distinguished from the cultivated or educated; pertaining to common life; plebeian; not select or distinguished; hence, sometimes, of little or no value. It defines plabeian as: ...One of common people, or lower rank of men. (1.10) I am not in agreement with Judge Judith Herrera's description of the Plaintiffs. But,

even if her description would be accurate, Plaintiffs would still be guaranteed the 14th Amendment rights of due process and equal protection of the law. The property in dispute includes: 14th Amendment rights of due process and equal protection of the law, homes, businesses, social standing in the world, dignity, reputations, security, health, and life, of Plaintiffs, as well as security, health, and life of people that Plaintiffs care about. (1.11) The Defendants have expressed a desire conduct activities that would emit a wide

variety of hazardous and radioactive poisons into the air, water, soil, and food of southeastern New Mexico at a rapid pace and massive scale that would contaminate homes and food of the Plaintiffs. Based on reports of the Chernobyl accident, the Defendants could potentially contaminate the air, water, and soil, homes, and food of people who live within 1400 miles in every direction from the facility where they plan to emit these radioactive poisons. Based on the migration of Sandhill Crane, Snow Geese, Canada Geese, and a wide variety of migratory birds and ducks, who spend time in the Pecos River Valley near Roswell, there would no doubt that routine (permitted) emissions of the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 70 of 953

Defendants' hazardous and radioactive poisons would be quickly carried by migratory birds, ducks, cranes and geese to be delivered to homes and food of people who live as far north as Canada. The same migratory birds, ducks, cranes and geese quickly carry and deliver these radioactive poisons to homes and food of people living to the south as far as the southern coast of Texas and in Mexico. (1.12) A few telephone conversations with the United States Fish and Wildlife Services on

January 14, 2009, resulted in a ball park figure for a 2008 general head count of migratory cranes, geese, birds and ducks that spent time in the Pecos River Valley near Roswell is as follows: (1.12.1) (1.12.2) (1.12.3) (1.12.4) (1.12.5) migratory). (1.13) Based on the history of Sellafield, the model for the facility that the Defendants want Peak for 2008 was about 18,000 Sandhill Crane. Peak for 2008 was more than 10,000 Snow Geese. There were more then 2,300 Canada Geese in 2008. There were more than 20,000 ducks in 2008. There were several thousand of over 360 different species of birds (most are

to operate, the emissions of hazardous and radioactive poisons that the Defendants want to discharge into the air, water, soil and food would certainly cause bodily injury, property damage, and death to uninformed, innocent, people. The same emissions of hazardous and radioactive poisons would also certainly cause bodily injury and death to a wide variety of domesticated and wild mammals, nonmigratory birds, migratory birds, ducks, Sandhill Crane, Snow Geese, Canada Geese, and other wildlife who also spend time in the Pecos River Valley near Roswell. (1.14) There is a web site, entitled: "Alternative Tour of Sellafield" (see Reference 1,000),

which says the following (quotation marks omitted): (1.14.1) area. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 71 of 953 BNFL has its Visitors Centre - Now join Cores Alternative Tour of the Sellafield

(1.14.2)

Since 1990 CORE has conducted its own 'Alternative Tour of Sellafield' which

highlights some of the local problems that British Nuclear Fuels would rather ignore....you can find out more about the local effects of Sellafield.

IRISH SEA (1.14.3) Sellafield discharges two million gallons of radioactive water into the Irish Sea every

day at high tide. This includes a cocktail of over 30 alpha, beta and gamma radionuclides. BNFL admits that radioactive discharges in the 1970s were 100 times those of today. As a result of these discharges, which include around half a tonne of plutonium, the Irish Sea has become the most radioactively contaminated sea in the world. Caesium-137 and Iodine-129 from Sellafield have spread through the Arctic Ocean into the waters of northern Canada and are having a bigger impact on the Arctic than the Chernobyl accident. Sellafields gas discharges of Krypton can be measured in Miami. (1.14.4) The guinea pigs in a deliberate scientific experiment to find out levels of

contamination in the food chain, were the Cumbrian people and their environment. Claiming then that the radioactive materials discharged from the 2km pipeline would dilute and disperse into the wider oceans, the industry clearly got it wrong, with high levels of radioactive discharge material washed ashore and trapped in the coastal sands and sediments. (1.14.5) A leading government-backed scientist from East Anglia University discovered that

plutonium particles, concentrated in waves breaking on the shore, was being blown over West Cumbria,

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 72 of 953

as far as 37 miles inland.This was confirmed by analysis of vacuum cleaner house dust samples taken up and down the coast by a National Radiological Protection Board investigation. (1.14.6) That Sellafield plutonium gets everywhere was shown in post-mortem examinations

of former Sellafield workers. Concentrations of hundreds and in one case thousands of times higher than in the general population were found. Cumbrians who never worked at the plant had plutonium levels ranging from 50% to 250% above the average compared to elsewhere in Britain. Atomic Energy Authority scientist, Prof. Nick Priest, studied the teeth of over 3000 young people throughout Britain and Ireland. He found traces of Sellafield plutonium in varying doses, the highest doses being closest to Sellafield. (1.14.7) In November 1983 a team of Greenpeace divers tried to block the Sellafield

underwater discharge pipe. When they emerged from the water, their Geiger counters revealed that they were seriously contaminated. It was only when they publicised this fact that BNFL admitted to having problems with their radioactive discharges and that a tankfull of radioactive crud had been flushed out to sea. As radioactive flotsam was being washed ashore, posing a danger to health, the Department of the Environment effectively closed the beach and warned the public not to use the fifteen-mile stretch of shoreline north and south of Sellafield. This advice stayed in force for a full six months. In June 1985 BNFL faced a three-day trial, was found guilty and fined 10,000. (1.14.8) BNFLs own environmental monitoring figures for the first quarter of 1997 revealed

alarmingly raised levels of Technetium 99 in seaweed samples from the West Cumbrian coast. A Tc-99 level of 180,000 Bq/Kg in seaweed was sampled from Drigg, just south of the plant. This compared to a level of 71,000 Bq/Kg sampled in the previous quarter and to a level of just 800 Bq/Kg in 1992. Via the food chain Tc-99 is now found in duck eggs, and the use of locally harvested seaweed as a garden fertiliser has led to the discovery of Tc-99 in locally grown spinach. Irish Sea lobster have shown a similar alarming rise from 210 Bq/Kg in 1993 to 52,000 Bq/Kg in 1997 over 40 times the EU Food McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 73 of 953

Intervention Level set as a safety level for foodstuffs contaminated following a nuclear accident. Raised levels of Tc-99 were subsequently found in Norwegian lobsters. (1.14.9) A wide range of fish, shellfish and molluscs continue to show varying degrees of

radioactive contamination from Sellafields discharges. SELLAFIELD (1.14.10) Originally called Windscale, the nuclear site was renamed as Sellafield by BNFL in

1981, in what was considered to be a vain attempt to improve its poor public image after a string of accidents. A famous cartoon in the Guardian+ newspaper shortly after the Chernobyl nuclear accident showed one nuclear scientist from the former Soviet Union saying to another: "We have sought advice from the United Kingdom and they suggest we change the name." (1.14.11) The Windscale site was first cleared in 1947 for the building of two military

plutonium production reactors, the Windscale Piles, which reproduce plutonium for Britains first atomic bomb. The two contaminated 400-foot chimneys, now being dismantled, still dominate the Sellafield site. (1.14.12) The worst accident took place in 1957 when Pile No 1 caught fire, leading to a

major release of radioactivity into the environment, contaminating grassland to the extent that the Government introduced a ban on the consumption of milk within a 200 square mile area around the plant. The radioactive plume also spread to Europe. Although the authorities insisted at the time that no one would be harmed, the National Radiological Protection Board admitted in 1983 that the radioactive iodine released could in theory cause 260 thyroid cancers, 33 of them fatal. A commemorative plaque has been placed at the perimeter fence by CORE. (1.14.13) Today, Sellafield leads the world in only one aspect of civil nuclear power

pollution. For nearly 50 years it regularly and deliberately discharged more radioactivity into the environment than any other country, and Windscales discharges have often been greater than those McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 74 of 953

from all the rest of the worlds nuclear plants put together. BNFLs Visitor Centre and Public Relations. (1.14.14) The revamped Visitor Centre, costing over 5m of public money was opened in

summer 1995. Sellafield and its operational role were described in the Centres pre-opening publicity as being "a sort of health farm for atoms" BNFL admit the centre was based on the Walt Disney approach aimed very largely at young children who certainly appreciate the hands-on exhibits, the flashing lights and noise levels that would do justice to any rave party. (1.14.15) For those visitors who genuinely want to learn about Sellafield there is little in-

depth information. (1.14.16) From the comments book at the reception desk, disenchantment with the new centre

was clear. "Unbelievably dreadful" from a teacher who vowed never again to bring her class, as well as the comment "high on theatricals , low on science", which sums it up in one. The comments book has since been withdrawn. (1.14.17) A BNFL education pack came under fire from the National Consumer Council who

described it as "nothing more than classroom commercials". The pack, designed to teach primary school children about energy and the environment compared the Chernobyl disaster to a household accident and glossed over the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear waste problems. Seascale and Health (1.14.18) The village of Seascale, 2 miles south of Sellafield and with a population of around

2000, remains as a dormitory town for Sellafield. A deceptively pleasant stretch of sandy beach runs northwards towards the Sellafield plant with its sea discharge pipeline just 2km off the coast. Whereas many decades ago the beach was often crowded with bathers, the sands are today practically deserted, even on the hottest summer day. Local residents like to blame sewage contamination, but many guidebooks have made reference to the radioactive pollution from Sellafield. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 75 of 953

(1.14.19)

The incidence of childhood leukaemia and cancer around Sellafield has been one of

the most debated and researched issues in British medical history over the last 15 years. Although a statistically significant increased incidence of leukaemia and multiple myeloma (bone cancer) had been found in the late 70s, the most controversial discovery came in the 1983 Yorkshire television documentary Windscale-the Nuclear Laundry which found a ten times the national average childhood leukaemia incidence in Seascale. In other coastal parishes south of the plant cancer rates in young people was also found to be higher. (1.14.20) In 1993 the Governments Health and Safety Executive confirmed that in Seascale

the incidence of Leukaemia and Non Hodgkins Lymphoma was 14 times the national average and twice in other areas of West Cumbria. It also found a significantly increased risk between the leukaemias and a fathers pre-conceptional radiation dose (Gardner Hypothesis). (1.14.21) A year later the HSE published a review of its 1993 report and as a direct result of

intervention by BNFL two findings were taken out, thus weakening support for the Gardner theory. General Health Issues. (1.14.22) In spite of the prosperity Sellafield is supposed to have brought to the area, West

Cumbria has the worst health records for heart disease and cancers in the whole of the northern region of the UK. Health officials are also concerned about the high incidence of thyroid disorders and skin cancers. The area has been declared a health action zone. (1.14.23) On 8th October 1993 at the London High Court, two leukaemia victims lost their

four-year battle for damages against BNFL. The Judges dismissal of the case did not say that there was no connection between radioactive emissions from Sellafield and leukaemia in children, but pointed instead to the lack of supporting evidence for the parental irradiation theory. (1.14.24) Since then, the nuclear industry has considered itself cleared and has stated that

radioactivity from the Sellafield plant has nothing to do with the leukaemias in the area. Instead, they McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 76 of 953

actively promote the viral theory a virus brought in by workers from outside the area, or population mixing, as the cause of the childhood cancers. No virus has ever been identified and the only studies supporting the viral theory are those by the originator of the theory, Dr. Leo Kinlen. (1.14.25) Radiation is still one of the only known causes of childhood leukaemia. In

Sellafields in-house magazine BNFL News, workers were told: "With regard to clusters of leukaemia near nuclear installations, it has been clear for long enough that there is no connection. So people in the nuclear industry no longer view these subjects with much anxiety. But, for a number of reasons, not all of them sensible, it has taken everyone else a bit longer to get on board." Seascale Pigeons (1.14.26) Pigeons which roost at the Sellafield site have been found to carry levels of

radiation which even a BNFL spokeswoman described as significant. (1.14.27) CORE obtained 6 culled birds for Greenpeace who had them analysed at the French

ACRO laboratory. High levels of contamination were found on the birds feathers. Levels of radioactivity of 403,000 Bq/kg of Caesium137 and 21,300 Bq/kg of Americium 241 were found on the feathers, and 50,000 Bq/kg of Caesium 137 in the breast meat and 176,000 Bq/kg of Strontium 90 in the skull bone. Highlighting the serious health risk to the public, Greenpeace pointed to the requirement for the birds to be classified as Low Level Waste. Analysis of a sample of garden soil from the sanctuary also showed it to be of Low Level Waste classification. (1.14.28) The revelation followed the initial cull by the RSPCA of a flock of around 2000

feral pigeons at a sanctuary in the village of Seascale. In an unprecedented step, the Ministry of Agriculture issued a warning to the local media that "any pigeons found within a ten mile radius of Sellafield should not be handled, slaughtered or consumed" and that "provisional results of analysis by BNFL indicate that eating the breast meat of about six birds would give a radiation dose of 1mSv." - the dose limit for a member of the public for a whole year. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 77 of 953

(1.14.29)

With the entire flock culled by BNFL, the bodies were entombed in lead canisters

and buried at BNFLs nearby Drigg licensed waste dump. The garden and tarmac drive from the sanctuary where the pigeons had been fed, were dug up and also removed for disposal at Drigg as Low Level Waste together with garden furniture, bird houses, flowers, shrubs and garden-gnomes. (1.14.30) The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate letter ordered BNFL to initiate a limited cull

of a wide range of wildlife around the Sellafield site for testing. This included herring gulls, starlings, rooks, crows and sparrows together with cats, rabbits, mice and other small animals and even mosquitoes. Ravenglass (1.14.31) Dust from houses north and south of Sellafield is found to contain varying levels of

radioactive material. The most highly contaminated house dust was found in the Merlins family house Mountain Ash in the village of Ravenglass, just a few miles south of Sellafield. Levels of Plutonium 239 were found to be 905 times the background level from weapons fallout and levels of Americium 241 17,000 times higher than background. With the safety of their two very young sons in mind, they decided they had to move. With its radioactive content publicly known, they eventually sold their house for half of its market value to a Sellafield worker who may have been rather less concerned about a plutonium contaminated environment. (1.14.32) The Merlins decided to take BNFL to court for the loss on the sale of their house

and the radiation threat to them and their children. They lost - the Judge said that although he accepted the evidence of contamination, no damage had been done to the fabric of the house and no health detriment was proved and he refused to award any compensation. (1.14.33) The death of their two dogs from cancer of the nose was one factor which

convinced the Merlin family they had to move away. This particular cancer is rare in dogs and the Merlins could not help but think that radioactivity could be to blame, as the dogs had spent a lot of their McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 78 of 953

time on the contaminated shore directly in front of their house. (1.14.34) The village once boasted a small but flourishing fishing business, with locals and

tourists regularly queuing on the beach to buy locally caught sea fish landed from local boats. This trade has now disappeared because of public suspicion of levels of radioactivity in fish from Sellafields discharges. Ravenglass Gull Colony and Other Wildlife. (1.14.35) Ravenglass still hosts a nature reserve which, since Roman times, had housed a

colony of black-headed gulls on local sand dunes across the estuary. In 1981 nature reserve wardens noted a dramatic decline in the estimated 12,000 breeding pairs of black-headed gulls. By 1985 the colony was all but defunct. Many naturalists suspect that Sellafields high discharges of the late 1970s were responsible, in some way affecting marine life and the food chain. Terns also disappeared during the 70s and numbers of Oystercatchers, Shelduck and Ringed Plovers have also declined. (1.14.36) A local gun-dog trainer from a coastal village north of Sellafield found that animals,

from different litters and which he had sent away to the Midlands, were no longer in demand as they had all died of stomach cancer. He was concerned that pollution from Sellafield could be to blame as the only common link between the litters was that they were all trained and exercised on the local beach. (1.14.37) That Sellafield seagulls droppings are radioactive was revealed through the

Channel 4 Mark Thomas comedy programme. The contamination from Caesium-137 is believed to have come from two sources, their habit of swimming on Sellafields contaminated storage ponds,and from a diet of Irish Sea fish. Samples had been analysed at Manchester University. Newbiggin (1.14.38) Many areas of the West Cumbrian environment are contaminated by Sellafields

radioactive fingerprint, where radioactivity from the plants sea discharge material is trapped McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 79 of 953

particularly in the muddy docks, harbours and estuaries up and down the coast. Some of the highest levels of radioactive contamination are found in the publicly accessible saltmarshes at Newbiggin, south of Muncaster Bridge, where the River Esk flows into the Irish Sea via Ravenglass. The radionuclides found in the sediments and their levels of radioactivity provide a snap-shot in time of Sellafields excessive discharge history. (1.14.39) The extent of the pollution was brought home to Cumbrians by CORE in a protest

against Sellafields discharges. Campaigners took a dustbin full of silt and mud from the Ravenglass estuary, five miles south of Sellafield and dumped it in London, near the Prime Ministers official residence. The area was immediately cordoned off by police and the mud had to be disposed of as lowlevel radioactive waste. (1.14.40) Regular monitoring by CORE and others has revealed levels of Caesium 137 of

13000 Bq/kg, Americium 241 of 27000Bq/kg and Plutonium of over 10,000Bq/kg in sample materials analysed by independent hospital and university laboratories. These high levels significantly breach the 4000Bq/kg classification for low level waste (LLW), and should require the materials to be properly disposed of and safely contained in a licensed waste dump. By comparison, some of these local levels would not be permitted on working surfaces inside Sellafield, would exceed legal limits in BNFLs customer countries, and are greater than some levels found in the 30km exclusion zone around Chernobyl from which the public is banned and agricultural and general land use is forbidden. (1.14.41) In complete contrast, officialmonitoring figures provided by BNFL, MAFF and

the Environment Agency show greatly reduced levels, up to forty times less than CORE and other figures. Official sampling involves just a 2cm surface sample scrape of material which clearly cannot and does not reflect the significantly higher levels of radioactivity which, over the years, have been trapped and embedded in the silt to depths of over 30cm, but which remain accessible to the public via work and leisure activities. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 80 of 953

(1.14.42)

The estuary area, around 12km south of Sellafield and used by locals for grazing

livestock, fishing and bait-digging, and by visitors for horse-riding, bird watching, walking and cycling, also includes a nature reserve. Levels of radioactivity in material even at the public entrance to the reserve are such that it too is classified as LLW, yet no signs are provided at the reserve, or at any of the other contaminated areas in West Cumbria to warn of the radiation hazards. One local brochure even invites walkers, following the Cumbria Coastal Way footpath which passes around the estuary, to take a short cut across the River Esk at low tide through some of the most contaminated areas.

Contaminated public entrance to Nature Reserve. (1.15) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as it is currently amended,

makes it possible for the Defendants to obtain necessary permits to maim and kill people. Because it is a United States Department of Energy project, state and federal health and environmental agencies will have no monitoring or enforcement authority over the radioactive poisons that Defendant to want to discharge into the air, water, soil, homes and food of the Plaintiffs and anyone else who happens to be living in the route of the Defendants' emissions of hazardous and radioactive poisons. The fact that this project is a United States Department of Energy project makes the likelihood of the Defendants actually receiving necessary permits to maim and kill people without facing consequences is a fairly sure deal for the Defendants. Even if the NRC and EPA did have law enforcement authority, the way that the NEPA is currently amended, it would still make it possible for the Defendants to obtain necessary permits to maim and kill people without facing consequences. I make this statement with McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 81 of 953

personal experience of having family members, friends and neighbors maimed and killed, and having my property ruined, by people associated with Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (now called Chemtura), who were holding permits from the United States Government based on the NEPA, as it is currently amended. (1.16) There a web page, entitled: What is the Migratory Bird Treaty?(See Reference

1,001), which says the following (quotation marks omitted): (1.16.1) In the early twentieth century, several governments realized that the protection of migratory birds was not something one nation could accomplish alone, because birds do not respect national boundaries. The treaty was signed by the United States and Great Britain (on behalf of Canada) in 1916 and was implemented in the United States by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The United States has similar treaties with Mexico and Japan, and it also signed one with the Soviet Union. (1.16.2) ...The Act makes it illegal to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take,

capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import," etc., migratory birds, parts of their bodies, or their eggs or nests. Governmental authorities may make exceptions to allow, for example, hunting seasons or research work; in these cases, licenses or permits are involved. (1.16.3) In the United States, the Act appears in law at 16 USC 703-711 and is implemented

by regulation at 50 CFR 21.11, 10.12, 10.13. (1.17) 16 U.S.C. 703. says: ...Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as

hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, ...kill..., attempt to...kill...any migratory bird...in the terms of the conventions between the United States and Great Britain for the protection of migratory birds concluded August 16, 1916 (39 Stat.1702), the United States and the United Mexican States for the protection of migratory birds and game mammals concluded February 7, 1936, the United States and the Government of Japan for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction, and their environment concluded McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 82 of 953

March 4, 1972 [1] and the convention between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the conservation of migratory birds and their environments concluded November 19, 1976. See Reference 999. (1.18) The behavior of the Defendants has already caused condemnation of Plaintiffs'

property to a degree of damage that would be difficult to rectify by immediate injunctive relief from the Defendants' threating behavior of promoting the GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor. (1.19) Plaintiffs have a very strong understanding of the high degree of potential that the

Defendants' threating behavior has for causing irreversible, complete, condemnation of Plaintiffs' property (civil rights, homes, businesses, social standing in the world, dignity, reputation, security, health, life, etc...), if the Court continues to deny Plaintiffs injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from continuing their threatening behavior of promoting the GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor. Part of the damage, which has already been caused by the Defendants' threatening behavior of promoting their GNEP project, is that southeastern New Mexico is developing adverse appearances, which include the following: (1.19.1) (1.19.2) of the world; (1.19.3) (1.19.4) (1.19.5) having a future of being one of the most unhealthy places in the world; having no hope for a healthy, sustainable, economy; becoming a place where people are perceived as desperate, pathetic, lacking self having the future of becoming very high on the list for terrorists targets; becoming the location that will receive the high-level radioactive waste from the rest

respect, and stupid enough to live near a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant; (1.19.6) being a vulnerable target for insidious, polluting, companies like EnergySolutions,

and for projects of careless, inconsiderate, lawmakers; McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 83 of 953

(1.19.7) (1.19.8)

being a place with a future full of excessive sickness, death, and sadness; being a part of a nation with a government that is willing to cause its people to live

under conditions listed in 1 7 above. (1.20) Southeastern New Mexico had little, if any, reason to have the above listed

appearances before Pete V. Domenici and George W. Bush began executing a scheme of directing the the rest of the Defendants in turning southeastern New Mexico into a hazardous waste and nuclear waste dump for the rest of the world. (1.21) Furthermore, Roswell was experiencing healthy growth, which had the appearance of

growing at a healthy pace, and having a future of a healthy, sustainable, prosperity. The Defendants' threatening behavior has put a big damper on positive progress for Roswell. (1.22) The temperature, in Roswell, is not excessively cold or hot for any long periods of

time. The relatively dry air, in Roswell, is good for people, who would otherwise have respiratory problems. The air, in Roswell, has been unpolluted enough to cause people, with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and respiratory conditions, like Asthma, to move to Roswell for the purpose of healthier living. I know of several people who have moved to Roswell to improve these kind of health conditions, and know many more people who are very happy about living in Roswell because Roswell has good weather, and has very little pollution. (1.23) A member of my immediate family, who was diagnosed to have Asthma and air-way-

reactivity, while living in Wisconsin. Her Asthma is triggered by pollution and damp environments. She moved to Roswell from Wisconsin, in 1998. When she arrived, she was hacking and coughing so much that she had to use a steroid inhaler and a Ventolin rescue inhaler everyday. After the about a month of living in Roswell, she found she did not need use a steroid inhaler any more. She has only needed to use a Ventolin rescue inhaler about once a year. It has been 2 years since she has needed to use a Ventolin rescue inhaler. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 84 of 953

(1.24)

I grew up in Roswell, and have spent most of my life in Roswell. I have spent time in

49 of the United States, and in many parts of Canada, Mexico, South America, and Australia. Of all the places that I have lived and/or visited, Roswell is the place where I prefer to live. I believe that it is a good place to grow up, a good place to raise children, and a healthy place to live. I am quite certain that there are 1,135 more Plaintiffs, and many other people who live in Roswell, that feel the a lot like I do about Roswell. It is unreasonable to expect us to let anyone take this away from us. (1.25) If the Defendants are successful in bringing the GNEP nuclear waste reprocessing plant

and nuclear waste burner reactor to their desired location, it will force me and my family to give up our home, our businesses, our friends, and a lifetime of social and financial infrastructure. SECTION 2 (2) The purpose for my filing this Amended Revision of [19] Motion is two-fold. First, it is

the only legal course of action that I am aware of for protecting my family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, and fellow human from the threatening behavior of the Defendants. Second, is to provide the Court with an opportunity to clean up and straighten out an ugly mess that Pete V. Domenici, George W. Bush, the rest of the listed Defendants, and others with the same intentions, have made. Their behavior has caused the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to lose its integrity. This loss of integrity will be addressed throughout this Amended Revision [19] Motion. More specifically, I will address this loss of integrity in Sections 18, 19, AND 20 under the titles listed as follows: (2.1) Section 18: Amended Revision of [19] MOTION to Disqualify, Recuse and/or Remove

Judge Judith Herrera; (2.2) Section 19: Amended Revision of [19] MOTION to Strike [14] Memorandum

OPINION and ORDER and Any Perceived Authority held by Judge Judith Herrera; (2.3) Section 20: Amended Revision of [19] MOTION to Have an Impartial District Judge

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 85 of 953

Preside Over this Case. (2.4) The behavior of: Pete V. Domenici, George W. Bush, Samuel Bodman, the rest of the listed Defendants, and others with the same intentions, has caused the intent and purposes of the United States Constitution, as presented in its Preamble, to be forgotten. The Defendants are carelessly defrauding the People and the Government of the of the United States. The Defendants are engaging in conduct which is causing Plaintiffs to suffer an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and serious fear of bodily injury, property damage and death of Plaintiffs and people that Plaintiffs care about, including Plaintiffs' immediate family members, Plaintiffs' extended family members, and Plaintiffs' friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, and fellow human beings. This enormous amount of lying by the Defendants, along with the Defendants' threatening behavior, is causing disruption and growing destruction of the following: (2.4.1) (2.4.2) (2.4.3) (2.4.4) (2.4.5) (2.4.6) the union of the United States; domestic tranquility of the United States; the common defense of the United States; the general welfare of the people of the United States; blessing of liberty held by people of the United States; potential blessings of liberty to be held by our posterity, SECTION 3 (3) Defendants say that they are using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to justify

or defend their behavior. The behavior of the Defendants matches behavior that is described in the United States Code of Law in statutes, which include the following: (3.1) (3.2) (3.3) (3.4) 18 U.S.C. 13 241: CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS 18 U.S.C. 13 242: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW 18 U.S.C. 41 875( c ): Threats through interstate communications 18 U.S.C. 19 373: Solicitation to commit a crime of violence McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 86 of 953

(3.5) (3.9) (3.6) (3.7) (3.8) (3.10)

18 U.S.C. 1 16: Crime of violence defined 18 U.S.C. 110A 2261A(2)(B): Stalking 18 U.S.C. 1 2: Principals (offense against the United States) 18 U.S.C. 1 3 Assisting in offense against the United States 18 U.S.C. 1 25: Use of minors in crimes of violence Reckless Endangerment SECTION 4

(4)

The behavior of: Pete V. Domenici, George W. Bush, the rest of the listed Defendants, and

others with the same intentions, also matches behavior that is described in the United States Code of Law in statutes, which are listed as follows: (4.1) (4.2) (4.3) (4.4) (4.5) (4.6) (4.7) (4.8) (4.9) 18 U.S.C 63 1341: Frauds and swindles 18 U.S.C. 19 371: Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States 18 U.S.C. 47 1031: Major fraud against the United States 18 U.S.C. 211: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office 18 U.S.C. 11 201: Bribery of public officials and witnesses 18 U.S.C. 11 210: Offer to procure appointive public office 18 U.S.C. 47 1002: Possession of false papers to defraud United States 18 U.S.C. 47 1018: Fraud and False Statements, Official certificates or writings 18 U.S.C. 1 4: Misprision of felony SECTION 5 (5) 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(1) says: A crime victim has...(1) The right to be reasonably

protected from the accused. See Reference 23. (5.1) (5.2) WHEREFORE, I Demand the right for Plaintiffs to be reasonably protected. Each day that passes, with the Defendants free to continue their threatening behavior, is McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 87 of 953

another day of the following: (5.2.1) (5.2.2) another day of unreasonable emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs. another day of serious fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death of Plaintiffs

and Plaintiffs' immediate families (spouses, children, parents, grandparents, etc...), cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, and fellow human beings who live in places that the Defendants' behavior threatens with bodily injury, property damage, and death, including: southeastern New Mexico, in the rest of New Mexico, in the rest of the United States, and the rest of the world; (5.2.3) another day in which progress is being made by Defendants toward achieving their

threatening goals. (5.3) omitted): (5.3.1) (5.3.1) Rule 38. Right to a Jury Trial; Demand (a) Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment Rule 38 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures says the following (quotation marks

to the Constitution or as provided by a federal statute is preserved to the parties inviolate. (5.3.2) (b) Demand. On any issue triable of right by a jury, a party may demand a jury trial

by (1) serving the other parties with a written demand which may be included in a pleading no later than 10 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served; and (2) filing the demand in accordance with Rule 5(d). (5.3.3) (c) Specifying Issues. In its demand, a party may specify the issues that it wishes to

have tried by a jury; otherwise, it is considered to have demanded a jury trial on all the issues so triable. If the party has demanded a jury trial on only some issues, any other party may within 10 days after being served with the demand or within a shorter time ordered by the court serve a demand for a jury trial on any other or all factual issues triable by jury. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 88 of 953

(5.3.3) (5.4)

See Reference 1. WHEREFORE, I respectfully Demand that the Court conduct a jury trial which

addresses all factual issues within this document which are triable by jury. (5.5) Rule 5(d) (Filing) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures says the following (quotation

marks omitted): (5.5.1) (1) Required Filings; Certificate of Service[:] Any paper after the complaint that is

required to be served together with a certificate of service must be filed within a reasonable time after service. But disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) or (2) and the following discovery requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing: depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents or tangible things or to permit entry onto land, and requests for admission. (5.5.2) (2) How Filing Is Made In General[:] A paper is filed by delivering it:

(A) to the clerk; or (B) to a judge who agrees to accept it for filing, and who must then note the filing date on the paper and promptly send it to the clerk. (5.5.3) (3) Electronic Filing, Signing, or Verification[:] A court may, by local rule, allow

papers to be filed, signed, or verified by electronic means that are consistent with any technical standards established by the Judicial Conference of the United States. A local rule may require electronic filing only if reasonable exceptions are allowed. A paper filed electronically in compliance with a local rule is a written paper for purposes of these rules. (5.5.4) (4) Acceptance by the Clerk[:] The clerk must not refuse to file a paper solely because

it is not in the form prescribed by these rules or by a local rule or practice. (5.5.5) (5.6) See Reference 1 Considering the magnitude of the crimes being committed, considering the damage the

Defendants have already caused, and considering the injuries, damages, and deaths that will potentially McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 89 of 953

be caused by the Defendants if nothing is done by the Court, I respectfully Demand that the Court provide Plaintiffs with the assistance of a U.S Attorney, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771, and respectfully Demand the Court to convene a Grand Jury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Part V Chapter 121 1861, and pursuant to Rule 6(a)(1) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures. (5.7) 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(4) says: A crime victim has...The right to be reasonably heard at

any public proceeding in the district court involving...plea... See Reference 23. (5.8) Plaintiffs have not yet been reasonably heard. As soon as the Court provides Plaintiffs

with a U.S. Attorney, I will provide this U.S. Attorney with more pertinent information in the form of documents, audio recordings, video recordings, as well as introduce this U.S. Attorney to several witnesses who feel threatened by the behavior of the Defendants, and introduce him/her to several witnesses who work for state and federal health, environment, and law enforcement agencies. (5.9) 28 U.S.C. Part V Chapter 121 1861 says: It is the policy of the United States that all

litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is further the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose. See Reference 1. (5.10) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(a)(1), says: In General. When the

public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned. A grand jury must have 16 to 23 members, and the court must order that enough legally qualified persons be summoned to meet this requirement. (5.12) The behavior of the Defendants matches United States Code of Law descriptions of

criminal acts, which should result in criminal trials with criminal consequences. (5.11) WHEREFORE, I Demand that the Court convene a grand jury to hear the complaints of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 90 of 953

the Plaintiffs. SECTION 6 (6.1) On about March 5, 2007, I became aware that the Defendants are engaging in conduct

which gives me reasonable cause to suffer an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and serious fear of bodily injury, damage of property, and death of me and of my family, friends, neighbors, and anyone else who lives in southeastern New Mexico, so I sought help from the following: (6.1.1) (6.1.2) (6.1.3) (6.1.4) (6.1.5) (6.1.6) (6.1.7) (6.1.8) (6.1.9) (6.1.10) (6.1.11) (6.1.12) (6.1.13) (6.2) Roswell Police; Chaves County Sheriff; New Mexico State Police; Chaves County District Attorney's Office; New Mexico Environment Department; New Mexico Attorney General's Office; New Mexico Governor's Office; United States Environmental Protection Agency; United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission; United States Justice Department; United States Attorney General's Office; Department of Energy Inspector General's Office; United States Public Health Services; None of these agencies gave any indication that they could help. So I spent a couple of

months studying the behavior of the Defendants, and wrote [1] Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction. (6.3) I spent about a month and a half providing opportunities for concerned citizens of

southeastern New Mexico to sign [1] Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction, and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 91 of 953

filed it in the Chaves County Courthouse on July 13, 2007. (6.4) When I filed [1] Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction, I expected a

judge to read it, see the intolerable risk the Defendants were placing on the lives of everyone in the judge's jurisdiction, and immediately issue an Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction. (6.5) After Pete Domenici Jr. removed this case from state court and placed it in this United

States District Court, in September 2007, I tried to file in this Court the only way that I knew how: by carrying or mailing documents into the Courthouse. But I was told, by employees of this Court, that the only way could file would be through the electronic filing system. When I asked for help, I was told how to find the manuals on the U.S. Court's web site. I explored the manuals enough to understand that filing was going to require me to pay money that I did not have. Therefore, I didn't file, and gave up on the possibility of filing. (6.6) Soon after this case arrived in this Court, I received copies of documents filed in this

Court by the following: (6.6.1) Pete Domenicis Jr.'s law firm on behalf of Dale Gandy, Larry Gandy, Mike Marley,

and Peter Maggiore; (6.6.2) Tammy Way; (6.6.3) (6.4) A lawyer who is representing Steve Creamer and Alan Dobson of EnergySolutions. At that time, my understanding was that it would be impossible for me to respond to U.S. Attorney Andrew Smith on behalf of Dennis Spurgeon, Timothy Frazier, and

their documents. The most disturbing of these document was filed by U.S. Attorney Andrew Smith, because he starts his document out by saying that he is filing on behalf of the United States of America. He is not representing the United States of America. He is representing government employees who are behaving like criminals as they are posing threats of bodily injury, property damage, and death to citizens of the United States of America. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 92 of 953

(6.5) (6.6)

This case should be in Criminal Court. 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(7) says: A crime victim has...The right to proceedings free from

unreasonable delay. See Reference 23. (6.7) This case had no action of any kind taken by a District Judge between its arrival in the

United States District Court on in September 14, 2007 and May 14, 2008. (6.8) On May 14, 2008, in spite of her conflict of interest, Judge Judith Herrera issued [14]

Memorandum Opinion and Order. (6.9) On Wednesday, October 8, 2008, I received two email messages: One email message

was from Physicians for Social Responsibility in Washington, DC, and the other was from the United States District Court in Albuquerque, NM. (6.9.1) Wednesday, October 8, 2008 1:43 PM, I received an email message from a Michele

Boyd of the Physicians for Social Responsibility in Washington DC, which says the following (quotation marks omitted): (6.9.1.1) GNEP is going to be rearing its ugly head again next week when the DOE releases

the draft Programmatic EIS. There will be public meetings on this draft in November and December in all of the same locations as before. (6.9.1.2) I am trying to rejuvenate the reprocessing coalition that did such a great job the last

time around. DOE got 14,000 comments on GNEP and as a result, added several programmatic alternatives (i.e., alternative fuel cycles and technologies) AND eliminated the project-specific proposals for siting, constructing and operating a reprocessing plant, a fast reactor, and research facility from the GNEP PEIS. Just because DOE isnt naming sites, however, doesnt mean that they arent still considering your state. (6.9.1.3) Would you be interested in putting in a bit of time on this for the next couple of

months to prepare for the meeting? Our next reprocessing call is tomorrow at 2:30pm EST. Next week, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 93 of 953

we are going to be talking about a broader 4 month strategy on GNEP, including potential expert tours, media, etc, to finally put an end to this madness. (6.9.2) Wednesday, October 8, 2008 3:15 PM, I received another email message from the

United States District Court in Albuquerque, which says: Mr. McKinnon: We are trying to ascertain if this is an updated, correct e-mail for you; as the pleadings in this case reflect different addresses. Would you please contact me immediately upon receipt of this e-mai[l] at 348-2014. Thank you. Debbie Wheeler[,] Case Administrator (6.10) I called Debbie Wheeler. This call resulted in me being served with Judge Judith

Herrera's [14] Memorandum Opinion and Order, on October 14, 2008, and resulted in me finding out that I am not required to pay fees to file in this Court. (6.11) 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(4) says: A crime victim has...The reasonable right to confer with

the attorney for the Government in the case. See Reference 23. (6.12) 18 U.S.C. 3771(c)(2) says: ADVICE OF ATTORNEY.--The prosecutor shall advise

the crime victim that the crime victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights described in (a). (6.13) See Reference 23.

18 U.S.C. 3771(b) says: RIGHTS AFFORDED.--In any court proceeding involving

an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a)... See Reference 23. (6.14) 18 U.S.C. 3771(c)(1) says: ...Officers and employees of the Department of Justice

and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a). See Reference 23. (6.15) 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(1) says: The crime victim or the crime victim's lawful

representative, and the attorney for the Government may assert the rights described in subsection (a). A McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 94 of 953

person accused of the crime may not obtain any form of relief under this chapter. See Reference 23. (6.16) 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3) says: MOTION FOR RELIEF AND WRIT OF

MANDAMUS. --The rights described in subsection (a) shall be asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred. The district court shall take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith... See Reference 23. (6.17) [1] Petitioner for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction only focused stopping

the Defendants' threats for Chaves County, because it was filed in the Chaves County Courthouse, and my understanding was that the County Judge would only have jurisdiction over crimes being committed in Chaves County. (6.18) Now that this case is in the United States Court, my understanding is that this Court has

a much wider geographical area under its Jurisdiction, so I am expanding the scope of the Defendants' crimes accordingly. If I did anything less, I would be committing a felony as described in 18 U.S.C. 1 4, which says: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. See Reference 1. (6.19) I have seen no evidence of any other way to have the Plaintiffs reasonably heard in this

case other than by a grand jury. (6.20) WHEREFORE, again, I respectfully Demand that the Court to convene a grand jury, or,

alternatively, to eliminate the need for a grand jury, and to save tax payers' money, issue the following: (6.20.1) Because nuclear power plants are not clean, safe, and emissions free, because

there is no evidence that increasing the use of nuclear energy can be done without increasing the potential of causing bodily injury, property damage, and death of people living nearby (nearby meaning McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 95 of 953

within 1,400 miles) nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, and nuclear waste depositories, and because the nuclear industry has failed to figure out how to safely dispose of its lowlevel and high-level radioactive waste, during the past 70 years, issue an ORDER which prohibits building any new nuclear power plants anywhere in this Court's jurisdiction, and which mandates that all currently operating nuclear power plants are to stop operating soon as possible (no later than 5 years from now). (6.20.2) Because reprocessing nuclear fuel is not clean, safe, and emissions free, and

because reprocessing has extremely high potential (more than a 1,000 times higher than a regular nuclear power plant) for causing bodily injury, property damage, and death of people living nearby (nearby meaning within 1,400 miles), issue an ORDER of Permanent Injunction to prohibit reprocessing nuclear fuel anywhere in this Court's jurisdiction. (6.20.3) Because transporting radioactive waste (except for medical waste) places people,

unnecessarily, in harms way (in a position which has potential for bodily injury, property damage, and death), issue an ORDER of to permanently prohibit transporting nuclear waste from nuclear power plants and Department of Energy facilities to anywhere in this Court's jurisdiction, except for the purpose of cleaning up the WIPP facility and sending its radioactive materials back to where they originated, because there are brine pockets at WIPP, which makes WIPP an unsafe place to put any kind of radioactive waste. (6.20.4) Because Dale Gandy, Larry Gandy, and Mike Marley have made it clear that they

see nothing wrong with risking the lives of other people for profit, they can't be trusted with handling hazardous materials, which have the potential of causing other people to suffer bodily injury, damage to property, and death. For this reason, issue an ORDER for Gandy Marley Inc. to have all hazardous materials removed from their Triassic Park hazardous waste facility, and from their other hazardous waste storage facilities, and permanently prohibit them from receiving anymore similar permits for McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 96 of 953

receiving and storing hazardous waste and/or radioactive materials. (6.26.5) Because there is no need for expanding the production of nuclear fuel, and because

people, who live near a uranium enrichment plant, will be in a position which has a history of people suffering bodily injury, property damage, and death, issue an ORDER to prohibit the opening and operations of the LES uranium enrichment plant near Eunice. (6.26.6) Because there is no need for expanding any projects that involve radioactive materials

for nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons, and because the radioactive waste involved in continuing and/or expanding such projects places people in harms way (in a position with potential of bodily injury, property damage, and death), issue an Order to prohibit the continuance of these projects anywhere in this Court's jurisdiction. (6.26.7) Because the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as it is currently

amended, makes it possible for some people in the United States to receive permits from the United States Government which allow these people to damage property and maim and kill other people in the United States without real consequences, and because the NEPA (as it is currently amended) is used to defend deprivation of civil rights and the promotion of criminal behavior, issue an Order to Congress to start over with the NEPA in its original form, with future amendments having a standard which prohibits similar results in the future. (6.26.8) Because the The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the Definition for Solid Waste as

described in 42 U.S.C. 82 6903(27), and other definitions derived from these two statutes, result in the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the New Mexico Environment Department, in most cases, not having the authority to enforce the law at Department of Energy facilities, and because this deprives people, who live near DOE facilities, the 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law, issue an Order to Congress to amend Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 so that if will no longer deprive people of the right to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 97 of 953

equal protection of the law. (6.27) As long as progress is made in any direction other than the situations described in

paragraphs (6.20.1) through (6.20.9), the people living in southeastern New Mexico will have reasonable cause to suffer emotional distress and serious fear of bodily injury, property damage and death caused by irresponsible behavior of people working for the Department of Energy and careless abuse of power of government officials like that which has been demonstrated by Senator Pete Domenici and President George W. Bush. SECTION 7 (7) This Amended Revision [19] Motion with Demand of Victims Rights and Demand for Trial

by Grand Jury contains my Affirmation of Oath, because it contains Criminal Complaints, and because, at this point, [1] Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction has been disregarded by the Court, I am restating [1] Petition, which was signed by approximately 1,136 people who are identified as citizens of southeastern New Mexico. Restating the facts in [1] Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction is as follows: (7.1) The [Defendants are] planning to build and operate a nuclear waste burner reactor and

a nuclear waste reprocessing plant at a location east of Roswell where rainwater-runoff appears to flow into the Pecos River. Nuclear waste reprocessing plants have a history of causing long lasting damage and destruction to property and life for people that have lived near them. Scientific publications of many experts have a tone of expressing the belief that current technology related to nuclear waste reprocessing plants would result in similar damage and destruction for people living near the nuclear waste reprocessing plant that is being proposed by the respondents. The nuclear waste burner reactor appears to be a new idea that hasn't been tested. But commonsense tells me that it has as much or more potential to harm people. (7.2) I feel threatened by the plans that the [Defendants] have proposed, and by the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 98 of 953

misleading rhetoric they use to promote their project. The [Defendants] may argue that their plans are not posing a threat of imminent danger, because they will not begin emitting radioactive materials into the air and water until 2013. But I believe that decisions that are made in the very near future will determine whether or not they will be able to follow through with their threatening plans. (7.3) Enclosed you will find a petition for an emergency order of protection or injunction,

and approximately Eleven Hundred Thirty-six (1,136) signatures of persons that, also, feel threatened by the plans and behavior of the respondents. Some of the signatures on the first signature page are of persons living within 7 miles of the proposed facility's location. I am aware of several more pages of signatures that could still be gathered. I am submitting this petition, today, without the additional signatures, because the danger is imminent, and each day that passes without an emergency order of protection or injunction makes the [Defendants'] threat[s] more severe. If you need more signatures, please allow me to give them to you. (7.4) Claim [(Complaint)]: The [Defendants] are posing threats to all persons living in

[s]outheastern New Mexico, which include threats of damage to property and quality of life, threats of injury, and threats of loss of life. The [Defendants] are doing this in a way that denies [c]oncerned [c]itizens of [s]outheastern New Mexico our right to due process, and denies all persons in [s]outheastern New Mexico our right to equal protection under the law. These threats are ongoing. These threats will continue as long as Chaves County continues to be a potential location for the [Defendants'] nuclear waste burner reactor and nuclear waste reprocessing plant otherwise called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center (CFTC) and the Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR)) facilities. (7.5) We petition the [Court] to give an emergency order of protection or injunction to stop

the threats posed by the [Defendants]. There is a voluminous amount of scientific and historical information that supports this claim. The information that you are about to read has a few bits McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 99 of 953

and pieces of a much larger body of pertinent information. If it is insufficient for justifying your emergency order of protection or injunction, please give us an opportunity to submit more pertinent information to you. (7.6) Charles Miller, Ph.D., Chief, Radiation Studies Branch, Division of Environmental

Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the US Department of Health told me that I could quote him as saying that he is not aware of a nuclear waste reprocessing plant that has ever successfully operated without hurting people in surrounding communities. (7.7) According to the Federation of American Scientists, "The British recently awarded

the first contracts of 17-18 billion pounds to cover the costs of cleaning up the reprocessing facility at Sellafield. GNEP has the potential to become the greatest technological debacle in US history." (7.8) According to Al[a]n Dobson, General Manager, GNEP Program, EnergySolutions Inc.,

the above mentioned facility at Sellafield is the successful reprocessing plant that EnergySolutions Inc. is using as a model for the one they are proposing for Chaves County. (7.9) According to many [people who work for] the US Environmental Protection Agency,

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the New Mexico Environment Department, none of these agencies would have authority to inspect and enforce the law at the GNEP site. They say that the US Department of Energy would monitor itself. But, according to the Federation of American Scientists, and according to information published by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Public Health Services Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the US Department of Energy has shown repeatedly and consistently that it is incapable of managing such complex projects. (7.10) [Note to Judge Judith Herrera and anyone else, who has difficulty figuring out what I

mean by deprivation of equal protection of the law, paragraph (30.8) and the last sentence in paragraph 30.10 described one way the Defendants' GNEP project would deprive Plaintiffs of equal protection McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 100 of 953

of the law] if they are not prohibited from continuing with their threaten plans. (7.11) According to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the US

Environmental Protection Agency, EnergySolutions has a long history of violating laws. Inquiries with the New Mexico Environment Department have made it clear that Gandy Marley Inc., also, has a history of violating laws. Prior to being appointed to be the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy for the US Department of Energy, on April 3, 2006, Dennis R. Spurgeon was the Vice President and CEO of the United States Enrichment Corporation, which, according to environmental and health agencies, has a history of violating laws. The proposed facilities would be owned and operated by EnergySolutions Inc. and Gandy Marley Inc. for the US Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy with no other entity having authority to inspect or enforce the law. (7.12) Concerned [c]itizens of [s]outheastern New Mexico hold the opinion that the laws

violated by the above mentioned companies were designed and established by Congress in an effort to allow businesses to prosper while protecting Americans from harm, and, by violating these laws, the respondents have shown disregard to health, safety, and future prosperity of people in and around their facilities. Given their track records, it is unreasonable for them to expect us to trust them. (7.13) Again, we petition the [Court] to give an emergency order of protection or injunction

to stop the threats posed by the respondents. The information that you have just read only has a few bits and pieces of a much larger body of pertinent information. If it is insufficient for justifying your emergency order of protection or injunction, please give us an opportunity to submit more pertinent information to you. (7.14) (7.14.1) NOTE ABOUT SIGNATURES On June 1, I had gathered about 800 signatures from only people living in Chaves

County. More and more people from other parts of Southeastern New Mexico were asking if they could sign it, because they, also, felt threatened by GNEP. So I expanded the petition to include all McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 101 of 953

people living in Southeastern New Mexico. During the second week of June, approximately 120 signature pages were handed to concerned people throughout Southeastern New Mexico. I have received a few of these signature pages through the mail. Many are still being circulated, and more could be circulated if it is necessary. (7.14.2) On Monday and Tuesday of this week, I attempted to call all of the people that have

been carrying these petition signature pages. Many of them told me that they did have signatures that could be included, but only a couple of them have brought their signature pages to me. Like I mentioned in the cover letter for this petition, each day that passes without an emergency order of protection or injunction to stop GNEP, the more severe the threat will be, and I will submit more signatures if they are necessary. (7.14.3) According to several different neighborhood surveys that I conducted in Roswell, if

I had enough time and resources to knock on every door in Roswell, more than 90 percent of the people living here would sign this petition. I am fairly sure that the same could be done throughout [s]outheastern New Mexico. Furthermore, I believe the same would result with all persons living within radioactive fallout range. If my memory is correct, the radioactive fallout from Chernorbyl was about 1,400 miles. (7.14.4) While gathering signatures, two or three persons asked if it was necessary to be a

citizen. I told them that it was my understanding that all persons living here had the right to due process and equal protection under the law, and that I believed that it would be okay for them to sign the petition as long as they indicated that they were not a citizen by writing Resident by their names. (7.14.5) During the UFO Festival, I was approached by about a dozen persons visiting

Roswell from places that could not be considered as being a part of [s]outheastern New Mexico, who wanted to sign this petition. I responded by telling them that if they felt threatened by there being a nuclear waste reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor operating in [s]outheastern New McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 102 of 953

Mexico, or[,] if they felt threatened by the nuclear waste being transported from all over the world to this location, I believed that it would be okay them to sign it, while making sure that they wrote their address clearly to show where they were from, and by telling them that I would write a note on the petition to make sure that their signatures were not questioned or considered to be misrepresentation. One of these persons lives in Mexico. She feels threatened by having radioactive materials flowing in the Pecos River. (7.15) More than 520 days have passed since I filed the [1] Petition. As mentioned in the [1]

Petition, it only contained bits and pieces of a voluminous amount of pertinent information. Therefore, I am presenting the following, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(4), which says: A crime victim has...The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving...plea... See Reference 23. SECTION 8 (8) Defendants have expressed a desire to engage in behavior, which has a history of causing

damage of property by poisoning, and excessive rates of injuries, diseases, and deaths of people who were in the position of the Plaintiffs and people Plaintiffs care about, including Plaintiffs' immediate family members, Plaintiffs' extended family members, and Plaintiffs' friends, neighbors, fellow citizens of New Mexico, fellow citizens of the United States, and fellow human beings all over the world. (8.1) Defendants have used the United States Postal Service, publicly owned United States

Government web pages, public hearings and meetings which have been paid for by the United States Government, televisions, newspaper advertisements, and other effective ways of publicizing, to tell Plaintiffs (in many cases from across state border lines) about the Defendants' desire to engage in conduct which has a history of causing damage of property by poisoning, and excessive rates of injuries, diseases, and deaths of people who were in the position of the Plaintiffs and people that the Plaintiffs care about. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 103 of 953

(8.2)

Plaintiffs have told the Defendants that the Defendants' behavior of telling the Plaintiffs

about the Defendants' desire to engage in the conduct that is described in paragraphs (32) and (33) is causing Plaintiffs to suffer an unreasonable amount of emotional distress, because Plaintiffs feel threatened with serious fear of bodily injury, damage of property, and death of Plaintiffs and of people that Plaintiffs care about. Plaintiffs have told the Defendants that Plaintiffs want the Defendants to stop making these threats of bodily injury, damage of property, and death.. (8.3) Even though Plaintiffs have told Defendants that the Plaintiffs want the Defendants to

stop making these threats of bodily injury, damage of property, and death of Plaintiffs and people that Plaintiffs care about, Defendants are continuing to threaten the Plaintiffs with bodily injury, property damage, and death of Plaintiffs and people that the Plaintiffs care about. (8.4) Defendants are defrauding the People and the Government of the United States. The

ways in which the Defendants are defrauding the People and the Government of the United States include the following: (8.4.1) It is only partially true, therefor a false claim, to say that the United States

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) have regulatory authority or authority to inspect and enforce the law at United States Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. Saying that these agencies have regulatory authority at DOE facilities gives the people the United States, including uninformed people in the Government of the United States, a false sense of security. (8.4.2) It is a false claim to say activities being undertaken as part of the Global Nuclear

Energy Partnership (GNEP), . . . [which is] a comprehensive strategy to increase U.S. and global energy security, reduce the risk of nuclear nonproliferation, encourage clean development around the world, and improve the environment as Judge Judith Herrera quotes the Defendants in her [14] Memorandum. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 104 of 953

(8.4.3) (8.4.4) (8.4.5)

It is a false claim to say that WIPP is a dry, safe, place to store radioactive waste. It is a false claim to say that nuclear power is clean, safe, and emissions free. It is also a false claim to say that GNEP reduces the risk of nuclear proliferation as is

stated many times by the Defendants. (8.5) When the Defendants say or imply that the NRC, the EPA, and the NMED have

regulatory authority at Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, like: WIPP, Los Alamos, Sandia Labs, and the facilities related to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership GNEP, people are led to believe that the NRC, EPA, and the NMED have authority to inspect these facilities with the purpose of enforcing the law. But, for the most part, the Department of Energy self regulates. The NRC, the EPA, and the NMED, are, often, not allowed to enforce the law at DOE facilities. This practice of the DOE regulating itself, with conflict of interest, like a fox guarding the hen house, disregards the 14th Amendment Constitutional right of equal protection of the law for people who live near or in route to DOE facilities. (8.6) The EPA and the NMED are only able to enforce the law when it does not involve

radioactive materials. The NRC only gives some guidance at DOE facilities, but the NRC only enforces laws at commercial facilities that are not DOE facilities. (8.7) The law enforcement authority held by the EPA and the NMED is defined under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Definition for Solid Waste (42 U.S.C. 82 6903(27)) and further described in derivatives of this statute like the NRC-EPA Memo Regarding Guidance on Identifying Low-Level Mixed-Waste in paragraph (8.4.5) of this amended revision of [19] Motion. (8.8) 42 U.S.C. 82 6903(27) says: The term solid waste means any garbage, refuse,

sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 105 of 953

from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 1342 of title 33, or source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923) [42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.]. (8.9) The EPA has a web page, which has a documents entitled: NRC-EPA Memo

Regarding Guidance on Identifying Low-Level Mixed-Waste, says the following (quotation marks omitted): (8.9.1) The following memo was published with the NRC and EPA guidance for Low-Level

Mixed-Waste (LLMW) identification. It was signed by Jonathan Z. Cannon, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Robert Bernero, NRC Director for Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, on October 4, 1989. (8.9.2) (8.9.3) TO: ALL NRC LICENSEES SUBJECT: GUIDANCE ON THE DEFINITION AND IDENTIFICATION

COMMERCIAL MIXED LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ANSWERS TO ANTICIPATED QUESTIONS (8.9.4) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has jurisdiction under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) over the management of wastes with the exception of radioactive wastes subject to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). Accordingly, commercial use and disposal of source, byproduct and special nuclear material wastes are regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to meet EPA environmental standards. Under the AEA Low-Level Radioactive Wastes (LLW) contain source, byproduct, or special nuclear material, but they may also contain chemical constituents which are hazardous under EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 261. Such wastes are commonly referred to as Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (Mixed McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 106 of 953

LLW). (8.9.5) NRC regulations exist to control the byproduct, source, and special nuclear material

components of commercial Mixed LLW; EPA has the authority and continues to develop regulations to control the non-radioactive component of the Mixed LLW. Thus, the individual constituents of commercial Mixed LLW are subject to either NRC or EPA regulations. However, when the components are combined to become Mixed LLW, neither statute has exclusive jurisdiction. This has resulted in a situation of dual regulation where both NRC and EPA may regulate the same waste. (8.9.6) Enclosed is the revised guidance document entitled, "Guidance on the Definition

and Identification of Commercial Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste." This document was developed jointly by the NRC and EPA to aid commercial LLW generators in assessing whether they are currently generating Mixed LLW. It is based on NRC and EPA regulations in effect on December 31, 1988. Notice of availability of the guidance document and request for comments were published in the Federal Register on April ', 1987, and comments were subsequently received. We have addressed public comment in the question and answer-section of the guidance document to provide clarification on those major issues which were raised. (8.9.7) (8.10) See Reference 74 The EPA web page entitled: Guidance on the Definition and Identification of

Commercial Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste says the following (quotation marks omitted): (8.10.1) The following information is based on guidance for identifying low-level mixed-

waste developed jointly by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and EPA. A join NRC/EPA memo was published with the guidance. (8.10.2) Definition[:] Mixed, low-level radioactive and hazardous waste or more simply,

mixed, low-level waste (LLMW) has two components: McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 107 of 953

(8.10.2.1)

radioactively contaminated industrial or research waste such as paper, rags,

plastic bags, or water-treatment residues. Its categorization does not depend the level of radioactivity it contains. (See the regulatory definition in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA) It is waste that does not meet the criteria for any of three other categories of radioactive waste: spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste[;] transuranic radioactive waste[;] uranium mill tailings. (8.10.2.2) hazardous waste that falls into either of the following classes under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): listed hazardous wastes (Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261) [and] characteristic hazardous wastes (Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261). (8.10.3) (8.11) See Reference 75. Understanding why the NRC is prohibited from enforcing the law at DOE facilities,

may come from looking at the way the DOE was established. A web page published by the United States Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) describes the establishment of the DOE, in the following: (8.11.1) In 1942, the Manhattan Project was established by the United States Army to conduct

atomic research with the goal of ending World War II. This research was performed in a manner that helped to cement the ongoing bond between basic scientific research and national security. After the war, the authority to continue this research was transferred from the Army to the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) through the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. This Act was signed into law by President Harry S[.] Truman on August 1, 1946, and entrusted the AEC with the government monopoly in the field of atomic research and development. (8.11.2) The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 abolished the Atomic Energy Commission

(AEC) and established the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). ERDA was finds that it is in the public interest that the licensing and related regulatory functions of the Atomic McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 108 of 953

Energy Commission be separated from the performance of the other functions of the Commission, and that this separation be effected in an orderly manner, pursuant to this Act, assuring adequacy of technical and other resources necessary for the performance of each. (8.14) ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1974 Sec. 201(a)(1) says: There is

established an independent regulatory commission to be known as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be a citizen of the United States. (8.15) ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1974 Sec. 201(f) says: There are hereby

transferred to the Commission all the licensing and related regulatory functions of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Chairman and member of the Commission, the General Counsel, and other officers and components of the Commission-which functions, officers, components, and personnel are excepted from the transfer to the Administrator by section 104(c) of this Act. (8.16) ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1974 Sec. 201(g) says: In addition to

other functions and personnel transferred to the Commission, there are also transferred to the Commission- (1) the functions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board; (2) such personnel as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget determines are necessary for exercising responsibilities under section 205, relating to, research, for the purpose of confirmatory assessment relating to licensing and other regulation under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and of this Act. (8.17) ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1974 Sec. 104(c) says: (c) There are

hereby transferred to and vested in the Administrator all functions of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Chairman and members of the Commission, and the officers and components of the Commission, except as otherwise provided in this Act. (8.18) ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1974 Sec. 202 has the title: Licensing

and Related Regulatory Functions Respecting Selected Administration [DOE] Facilities McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 109 of 953

(8.19)

ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1974 Sec.202 says the following

(quotation marks omitted): Notwithstanding the exclusions provided for in section 110 a. or any other provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2140(a)), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall, except as otherwise specifically provided by section 110 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2140(b)), or other law, have licensing and related regulatory authority pursuant to chapters 6, 7, 8, and 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as to the following facilities of the [DOE] Administration: (8.19.1) Demonstration Liquid Metal Fast Breeder reactors when operated as part of the

power generation facilities of an electric utility system, or when operated in any other manner for the purpose of demonstrating the suitability for commercial application of such a reactor. (8.19.2) Other demonstration nuclear reactors-except those in existence on the effective

date of this Act-when operated as part of the power generation facilities of an electric utility system, or when operated in any other manner for the purpose of demonstrating the suitability for commercial application of such a reactor. (8.19.3) Facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive

wastes resulting from activities licensed under such Act. (8.19.4) Retrievable Surface Storage Facilities and other facilities authorized for the

express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste generated by the [DOE] Administration, which are not used for, or are part of, research and development activities. (8.19.5) Any facility under a contract with and for the account of the Department of

Energy that is utilized for the express purpose of fabricating mixed plutonium-uranium oxide nuclear reactor fuel for use in a commercial nuclear reactor licensed under such Act other than any such facility that is utilized for research, development, demonstration, testing, or analysis purposes. (8.19.6) See Reference 76. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 110 of 953

(8.20)

A web page entitled: Law SERVER Beta says that it is Current as of: 01/02/2006,

and says that 42 USC 2140, has the title: Exclusions from license requirement. It says the following (quotation marks omitted): (8.20.1) Nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed - (a) to require a license for (1) the

processing, fabricating, or refining of special nuclear material, or the separation of special nuclear material, or the separation of special nuclear material from other substances, under contract with and for the account of the Commission; or (2) the construction or operation of facilities under contract with and for the account of the Commission; or (b) to require a license for the manufacture, production, or acquisition by the Department of Defense of any utilization facility authorized pursuant to section 2121 of this title, or for the use of such facility by the Department of Defense or a contractor thereof. See Reference 77. (8.20.2) (8.20.2.1) 42 USC 2140 Legislative Notes says the following (quotation marks omitted): Sec. 2140. Exclusions from license requirement (Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, Sec.

110, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, Sec. 1, 68 Stat. 939; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102- 486, title IX, Sec. 902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.) (8.20.2.2) TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS Atomic Energy Commission abolished and

functions transferred by sections 5814 and 5841 of this title. See also Transfer of Functions notes set out under those sections. (8.20.3) (8.21) See Reference 78. I must reiterate that the EPA and the NMED are only allowed to enforce the law at

DOE facilities when it does not involve radioactive materials. The NRC only provides some guidance at DOE facilities, but only enforces the law at commercial facilities that are not tied to the DOE. Most of the laws violated at the WIPP facility and other DOE facilities, like GNEP, involve radioactive materials. Regardless of permits issued by the EPA, the NRC, and the NMED at these facilities, the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 111 of 953

EPA, NRC, and NMED are not allowed to enforce the law when it involves radioactive materials. The DOE's practice of self regulating, with conflict of interest, like a fox guarding the hen house, disregards the 14th Amendment right of equal protection of the law for people living near and/or in route to DOE facilities. (8.22) Defedndants are using U.S. Postal services, publicly owned U.S. Government web

pages, crossing many state border lines to hold public hearings in publicly owned buildings, and using television stations, newspaper, and other forms of communication to engage in a course of conduct which they know is causing substantial emotional distress and reasonable fear of bodily injury and death of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' immediate families, and Plaintiffs' spouses and intimate partners. 18 U.S.C. 110A 2261A (1)(2)(B) says: Whoever with the intent to place a person in another State...of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to (i) that person; (ii) a member of the immediate family of that person; or (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii)... shall be punished as provided in section 2261 (b) of this title, which says the following (quotation marks omitted): (8.22.1) (b) Penalties. A person who violates this section or section 2261A shall be fined

under this title, imprisoned (8.22.1.1) (8.22.1.2) for life or any term of years, if death of the victim results; for not more than 20 years if permanent disfigurement or life threatening bodily

injury to the victim results; (8.22.1.3) for not more than 10 years, if serious bodily injury to the victim results or if the

offender uses a dangerous weapon during the offense; McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 112 of 953

(8.22.1.4)

as provided for the applicable conduct under chapter 109A if the offense would

constitute an offense under chapter 109A (without regard to whether the offense was committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison); and (8.22.1.5) (8.22.2) (8.23) for not more than 5 years, in any other case, or both fined and imprisoned. See Reference 1. The Defendants are aware that the scheme, in which they are conspiring, will place the

Plaintiffs in a position where there is little, if any, doubt that it will cause injuries and deaths to occur to Plaintiffs, to Plaintiffs' immediate family members, to Plaintiffs' posterity, and to Plaintiffs' friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, and fellow human beings. The Defendants' behavior is resulting in Plaintiffs being oppressed, threatened, and intimidated while being deprived of rights and privileges secured to Plaintiffs by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 18 U.S.C. 13 241 says: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same...They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if...acts committed in violation of this section [are] an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. See Reference 1. (8.24) The Defendants are claiming that their threatening behavior of GNEP is justified by the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Some of the Defendants claim that their threatening behavior of GNEP has the intent of reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation, while other Defendants are claiming that their threatening behavior of GNEP is reducing the risk of non-proliferation. Either way, they are obviously implying that their behavior is justified by the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Some of the materials that the Defendants plan to manipulate with their nuclear fuel reprocessing plant is used for nuclear weapons. A good portion of the materials that the Defendants McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 113 of 953

plan to manipulate with their nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor is highly explosive. 18 U.S.C. 13 242 says: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if ...such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both... See Reference 24. (8.25) Defendants are transmitting communication through U.S. Postal, publicly owned U.S.

Government web pages, television, newspaper, public hearing in publicly owned buildings sponsored by the U.S. Government. The communication that they are transmitting contains threats of bodily injury, property damage, and death. 18 U.S.C. 41 875( c ) says: Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat...any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. See Reference 1. (8.26) Defendants are defrauding the People and Government of the United States. The

Defendants are also engaging in conduct which the Defendants know is causing Plaintiffs to suffer an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and serious fear of bodily injury, property damage and death of United States citizens. Defendants have known this for more than 513 days, and they have not stopped. 18 U.S.C. 1 2 says: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. See Reference 1. 18 U.S.C. 1 3 says: Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 114 of 953

punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years. (8.27) Defendants are defrauding the People and the Government of the United States by

making a false and deadly claim of nuclear power being clean, safe, and emissions free. Defendants know that the behavior that they are trying to defend with this false and deadly claim is causing an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and reasonable fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death for Plaintiffs in southeastern New Mexico and for similar groups located in about 10 other locations in the United States. This makes the fraud of the the Defendants a crime of violence. Defendants are using the money of the United States Government, which came from the People of the United States, to use minors to commit these crimes of violence. The way the Defendants are using minors is that the Defendants have set up educational curricula and research programs which are based on the Defendants' false and deadly claim of nuclear power being safe, clean, and emissions free,. which include the following: (8.27.1) The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has a web page entitled: Energy for

Kids Page which says ...nuclear energy is clean. Nuclear power plants produce no air pollution or carbon dioxide but a small amount of emissions result from processing the uranium that is used in nuclear reactors... See Reference 79. (8.27.2) The DOE has a web page entitled: Environmental Management which provides

educational resources related to nuclear energy. The educational materials which target children or minors, in grades K-6, is as follows: The Atoms Family.American Nuclear Society, 1991. (32-page booklet for grades K-6.). See Reference 80. The American Nuclear Society has a web page where McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 115 of 953

you can order this booklet, which contains information, which is as follows: (8.27.2.1) Atoms Family Activity Book[;] Item ID: 750055[;] 1 50: $3.50[;]

1 500: $2.00[;] 501 1000: $1.75[;] 1001 or more:$1.50 (8.27.2.2) A booklet for students from kindergarten through grade 5 provides learning

activities from simple counting and coloring projects to word puzzles and hands-on experiments. Children will learn what an atom is, how a nuclear plant makes electricity and how radiation is used. (Aimed at grades K-5). (8.27.2.3) Customers who purchased this item also purchased the following:

Source Energy Equivalents Pellet[;] Nuclear Energy Facts - Questions and Answers: Nuclear Energy and Electricity[;] The Greening of the Nuclear Age Brochure[;] Career Poster[;] Sustainable Development Brochure[;] Personal Radiation Dose Chart[;] Naturally Radioactive...You Are Too!'' Stickers[;] Nuclear Power: A Sustainable Source of Energy[;] The Atom and Society (8.27.2.4) Each of the items listed in (8.10.2.3) is linked to its own web page. The web page

for The Personal Radiation Dose Chart has a similar price list, and a description, which as follows: 1 100: $0.45; 101 300: $0.40; 301 500: $0.35; 501 or more: $0.30; Our daily exposure to radiation comes from numerous sources within our environment. The annual dose to which we are subjected depends upon where and how we live, and what we eat, drink, and breathe. This easy-to-use chart shows how to estimate that dose and compare it to the small amount of exposure found in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant. Suitable for student groups, discussion groups, exhibitions, and anywhere else that nuclear energy may be the topic of discussion. (Aimed at 5th grade through 12th grade levels.) All of these pages end in a similar way by saying: Customers who purchased this item also purchased the following: Source Energy Equivalents Pellet[;] Nuclear Energy Facts - Questions and Answers: Nuclear Energy... as listed in paragraph (8.27.2.3). (8.27.2.5) The web page for Nuclear Power: A Sustainable Source of Energy says: Color McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 116 of 953

brochure provides brief overview of growing demand for energy, problems encountered by using carbon-based energy, and the importance of sustainability. Gives attention to issues such as land use, waste disposal, greenhouse gases, and preservation of fossil resources. Notes that reserves of nuclear fuel and current technology provide for long-term sustainability of nuclear power. Special quantity pricing "combo offer" on Nuclear Power, Sustainable Development, and CO2 Emmissions Brochures. Contact the ANS orders department for details. (8.27.2.6) The web page for ''I'm Naturally Radioactive...You Are Too!'' Stickers says:

These are the three-inch blue and white stickers first handed out at the ANS exhibits at the 1982 and 1984 World's Fairs. A popular giveaway item for exhibit booths, legislator visits and at utility visitor centers. These stickers also are used by many teachers as classroom "awards" to the student" scientist of the day." Roll of 100 Stickers is $16.00. (8.27.2.7) See Reference 81 The DOE has a web page entitled: Environmental Management which provides

(8.27.3)

educational resources related to nuclear energy. The educational materials which target children or minors, in grades 7-12, is as follows: (8.27.3.1) Electricity from Nuclear Energy: The Economic Context. U.S. Council for Energy

Awareness, 1990. (8-page booklet for grades 7-12.) (8.27.3.2) Getting to Know Nuclear Energy. National Energy Foundation, 1984. (8-page

newsletter for grades 4-12.) (8.27.3.3) Nuclear Electricity and the Environment. U.S. Council for Energy Awareness,

1991. (4-page bochure for grades 7-12.) (8.27.3.4) Nuclear Energy Facts: Questions and Answers. American Nuclear Society, 1988.

(58-page booklet for grades 9-12.) (8.27.3.5) Nuclear Energy Glossary. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 1990. (28-page McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 117 of 953

booklet for grades 4-12.) (8.27.3.6) Nuclear Energy: Foundations of Excellence. U.S. Council for Energy Awareness,

1991. (8-page brochure for grades 4-12.) (8.27.3.7) Nuclear Power and the Environment: Book 1 Radiation Questions and Answers.

American Nuclear Society, 1982. (36-page booklet for grades 9-12.) (8.27.3.8) Nuclear Power and the Environment: Book 2 Fuel/Waste Questions and Answers.

American Nuclear Society, 1982. (49-page booklet for grades 9-12.) (8.27.3.9) Nuclear Power and the Environment: Book 3 Safety/Risks Questions and

Answers. American Nuclear Society, 1989. (46-page booklet for grades 9-12.) (8.27.3.10) Nuclear Power and the Environment: Book 4 Energy Alternatives. American

Nuclear Society, 1981. (52-page booklet for grades 9-12.) (8.27.3.11) Nuclear Power in Space. (DOE/NE-0071). U.S. Department of Energy: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1990. A detailed history of the applications of nuclear energy in space exploration. This pamphlet focuses on the different types of space power systems, the key events in the development of radioisotope power generators, and the systems that will be used in future planetary missions. (32-page booklet for grades 7-12.) (8.27.3.12) Nuclear Power Plant Safety: Design and Planning. (DOE/NE-0069) U.S.

Department of Energy: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985. An overview of the approaches to nuclear powerplant design--engineered safety systems, natural safeguards, physical containment--that help provide maximum plant safety and reliability. Included in this pamphlet is a discussion of the Federal regulations that govern plant siting, licensing, and emergency response planning. (20-page booklet for grades 7-12.) (8.27.3.13) Nuclear Power Plant Safety: Operations. (DOE/NE-0070) U.S. Department of

Energy: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985. A description of the powerplant systems and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 118 of 953

procedures that ensure the day-to-day health and safety of those in and around the plant. This pamphlet includes an overview of plant personnel training programs, plant security, the control of radiation releases, and the handling of spent fuel. (20-page booklet for grades 7-12.) (8.27.3.14) Nuclear Power Plant Safety: Source Terms. (DOE/NE-0087). U.S. Department of

Energy: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982. Defines the complex meaning of "source term' and applies its meaning to the overall goal of nuclear powerplant safety. (20-page booklet for grades 7-12.) (8.27.3.15) grades 3-12.) (8.27.3.16) Scientific American Energy for Planet Earth Special Issue. Scientific American Questions Kids Ask about Energy. Westinghouse, 1990. (48-page booklet for

(September 1990) 263 (3). (8-page reprint of article by the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness for grades 9-12.) (8.27.3.17) The First Reactor. (DOE/NE-0046). U.S. Department of Energy, 1982. (56-page

booklet describing the events leading to the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. This booklet contains the original essay, "The First Pile," a narrative history prepared for a press release by the Manhattan Engineering District. Included are firsthand reminiscences of Enrico Fermi and his wife, Laura.) (8.27.3.18) grades 4-12.) (8.27.4) The DOE has a web page entitled: Environmental Management which provides The Harnessed Atom. U.S. Department of Energy, 1987. (152-page book for

educational resources related to nuclear energy. The educational materials which target all ages, including children or minors, is as follows: (8.27.4.1) Radiation in Perspective. U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, 1990. (8-page

brochure for grades K-12.) (8.27.4.2) Answers to Questions. (DOE/NE-0088). U.S. Department of Energy: U.S. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 119 of 953

Government Printing Office, 1987. Provides concise answers to frequently asked questions about nuclear energy. Topics include uranium processing, reactor design and operation, radiation, safety, Three Mile Island, and nuclear waste. (26 pages) (8.27.4.3) Atoms to Electricity. (DOE/NE-0085). U.S. Department of Energy: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1987. (85-page booklet describing the nuclear fuel cycle and the role of nuclear energy as one of the domestic energy resources being developed to help meet our nation's energy demand. Included is a discussion of the role of electricity, how electricity is generated using the power of the atom, and the types of nuclear reactors that are used today. (85 pages) (8.27.4.4) How Nuclear Energy Plants Work. American Nuclear Society, 1991. (This 8-page

brochure details the chain reaction, water reactors, and fuel storage. Also an overview of nuclear energy and plant safety features is included. This brochure is recommended for all grades.) (8.27.4.5) Nuclear Energy: Low-Level Radioactive Wastes. American Nuclear Society,

1992.(12-page booklet.) (8.27.4.6) Nuclear Energy Plant Safety. U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, 1990. (This 8-

page brochure for all grades includes details of the multiple barriers to radioactivity release and the strict regulations nuclear energy entails. It also presents a brief description of the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents.) (8.27.4.7) Nuclear Power: Answers to Your Questions. Edison Electric Institute, 1988. (32-

page booklet for all grades.) (8.27.4.8) Sources of Electricity. Enterprise for Education, 1993. (16-page booklet for grades

1-12 by the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness.) (8.27.5) (8.27.6) Reference 80 An article published by the American Nuclear Society, dated September 1999, is

entitled: The American Nuclear Societys role in global climate change mitigation. It says the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 120 of 953

following: ...Congress is even unwilling to provide credits for emission-free portfolios. By any measure, the global climate change initiative is not working and can be safely described as a failure....What is the problem? Is not global climate change a serious problem that requires serious and determined action? Apparently not serious enough. One of the indications of the lack of a serious assessment of the issue is the reluctance of the sustainable development community in the United States to use the N word in discussions about either energy alternatives or nuclear applications... No one seems to consider the development of a carbon-free electric economy...Our challenge and opportunity is to bring the N word to the table by participating in the dialogue on a national, and then international, level. On a national level, we, each in our own country, should be seeking the same tax incentives and tax breaks that other non-CO2-emitting energy sources are getting. We should be developing proposals for emission credits for non-CO2-emitting sources. We should put nuclear energy, as a non-CO2-emitting source, on the same plane as solar and wind, since that is where it belongs. It is a renewable, sustainable energy source that is essentially CO2-emission-free. See Reference 83 (8.27.7) The American Nuclear Society published an article starts out like this. Presented at

the Virginia Local Section of the ANS by Larry R. Foulke[,] ANS Vice President/President Elect[,] May 15, 2003 Among a lot said by Larry Foulke, he says: As the nations only expandable source of emission-free, baseload electricity, nuclear energy must continue to play a critical role in our nations energy future. See Reference 84. . (8.27.8) Looking at statements made in 1999 (paragraph 8.27.6), and looking at Larry Foulke's

statement in 2003 (paragraph 8.27.7), you may notice that something happened between 1999 and 2003 to make nuclear energy go from being essentially CO2-emission-free to become emission-free in 2003. Nuclear energy is not CO2-emission-free. But saying so seems like a nearly harmless fib compared to the harmful, bold faced, lie of saying that it is emission-free. As you will see later in this amended [19] Motion, telling this harmful, bold faced, lie has become fashionable for people who McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 121 of 953

should be more responsible and know better. (8.27.8) The Christian Science Monitor published a web page article that questions the nuclear

industry's claim of being CO2-emission-free. This article says: Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true," says Uwe Fritsche, a researcher at the ko Institut in Darmstadt, Germany, who has conducted a life-cycle analysis of the plants. "It's less carbon-intensive than fossil fuel. But if you are honest, scientifically speaking, the truth is: There is no carbon-free energy...." Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse gas attached to it, when mining uranium ore, refining and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating it are included. A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year during its life, Dr. Fritsche says. See Reference (8.28) Along with the American Nuclear Society, other companies or organizations that

provide educational materials for the DOE web page entitled: Environmental Management which provides educational resources related to nuclear energy, which is targeting children minors include:: the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, Edison Electric Institute, and Westinghouse. (8.29) Greenpeace has a web page article entitled: The Nuclear Energy Institute - Green

Washing Nuclear Power Investigations Brief, which says the following (quotation marks omitted): (8.29.1) Public Relations dilemmas are nothing new for the nuclear industry. For more than

half a century, this industry has attempted to deflect attention away from the dirty and dangerous downsides of nuclear power technology. Over the years, the nuclear industry's propagandists have merged and morphed and changed their names, searching for something to hide the awful truth: the Atomic Industrial Forum, Committee for Energy Awareness, The U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, the Nuclear Energy Institute and the latest front group, CASEnergy- Clean And Safe Energy. Each manifestation of the industry front group has engaged in efforts to greenwash the truth about nuclear power. (8.29.2) Our investigation of nuclear greenwash will take several chapters. In this first essay, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 122 of 953

we will look at the history of this industry's tortured attempts to frame a highly dangerous technology as safe, friendly and environmentally beneficial. Starting with the Atoms for Peace program and the famous first big lie of energy, "too cheap to meter", the nuclear industry has flailed time and again as it tries to gain acceptance and work its way past the massive cost overruns, design errors and tragic accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernoby, amongst others. (8.29.3) The Campaign[:] In the late 20th century, an industry fraught with a legacy of

problems, with no hope of revival, desperate for a lifeboat, clung to the looming threat of global warming and sought to position itself as the magic bullet. They asked that we increase our dependence on nuclear power, ignore all the problems, the accidents, terror threats, proliferation and undelivered radioactive waste solutions, and continue to ask taxpayers to insure nuclear power against inevitable liability. (8.29.4) (8.29.5) Background 1953- Atomic Industrial Forum[:] The Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) was founded in

1953 and marked the beginnings of the commercial nuclear industry in the United States. (8.29.6) In December of that year President Eisenhower introduced the Atoms for Peace

program in a speech at the United Nations and in 1954 Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act which allowed corporations access to the materials and information acquired from the Manhattan Project's pursuit of the Atomic bomb. According to a nuclear industry's own documents, "AIF provided a forum to facilitate the government's transfer of nuclear technology to private industry." (8.29.7) As with its offspring, part of AIF's mission was to manage the nuclear industry's

image. After the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine, AIF's President Karl Walske attempted to defend the industry by challenging NRC Commissioner Asselstine's testimony before Congress. Walske claimed that the NRC Commissioner's testimony on the dangers of nuclear power may have been misinterpreted in the public arena. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 123 of 953

(8.29.8)

1979 - 1983 The Committees for Energy Awareness[:} The Committee for Energy

Awareness (CEA) was formed in 1979 as an adjunct to the Atomic Industrial Forum. CEA's role was to repair the tarnished image of the nuclear industry after Three Mile Island (TMI). When the industry realized that this effort wasn't enough to repair the PR damage caused by the meltdown and evacuation around TMI they split CEA and AIF and created the "independent" group, U.S. Committee for Energy Awareness in 1983. This new committee was funded by the private utilities. (8.29.9) According to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, the US Committee for Energy

Awareness launched a $30- million advertising and lobbying campaign in 1983. "What its slick, lowkey television ads failed to mention is that the group gets more than half its funding from 50 utilities, some of which have billed their unsuspecting customers for the media blitz. "These ads just wouldn't have the same reassuring tone if the tag line had been: 'Brought to you by America's nuclear utilities, makers of Three Mile Island. Energy for a Brighter Tomorrow.'" (8.29.10) Kurtz and the Post had access to the Committee's internal documents that detailed its

green washing campaign. As noted in the Post: "...training and placement of independent energy experts on local radio and television talk shows in priority regions ... letters to the editor by energy experts ... (and) op-ed columns and other bylined articles by nuclear supporters outside the industry." All of this was designed to 'establish the credibility of CEA as more than a propaganda organization.'" (8.29.11) 1987 - US Council for Energy Awareness[:] In a subtle re-branding exercise, the

U.S. Council for Energy Awareness (USCEA) was formed in 1987 after the nuclear industry recommended that the existing Washington nuclear associations reorganize. Shuffling staff around, most of the AIF staff to joined with the US Committee for Energy Awareness, while a third of AIF joined a new regulatory organization, The Nuclear Management and Resources Council. (8.29.12) This revised version of USCEA continued the advertising campaigns of its

predecessors. In 1988, the Council undertook some awkward attempts at greenwashing. One print ad McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 124 of 953

ran with the tag line "Nuclear energy for energy independence and a cleaner Earth" and featured picketing animals. The television and print ad campaign attempted to label nuclear power as "clean" and claimed that "nuclear power didn't contribute to the greenhouse effect, possible global warming and its adverse effect on the environment and our quality of life." See picture on next the next page. (8.29.13) ...The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the latest manifestation of the propaganda

wing of the nuclear industry. NEI was formed by the merger of the US Council for Energy Awareness, the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, the American Nuclear Energy Council, and the Nuclear Division of the Edison Electric Institute in 1994. (8.29.14) NEI has continued the media barrage of its predecessors prompting environmentalist

to challenge the ads before the Better Business Bureau (BBB). (8.29.15) In December 1998, the BBB found that NEI ads falsely claimed that nuclear reactors

make power without polluting the air and water or damaging the environment. According to the New York Times, the BBB said that, "The nuclear industry should stop calling itself 'environmentally clean' and should stop saying it makes power 'without polluting the environment.'" Andrea Levine, the director of the division, said such claims were "unsupportable." (8.29.16) Since then NEI has virtually ignored the BBB and has continued to run

advertisements touting the supposed environmental benefits of their technology. This brazen disregard for the BBB prompted the environmental groups to bring NEI before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). And in December 1999, the FTC found that "because the discharge of hot water from cooling systems is known to harm the environment, and given the unresolved issues surrounding disposal of radioactive waste, we think that NEI has failed to substantiate its general environmental benefit claim." (8.29.17) ...the FTC failed to rule on whether the NEI ads were commercial or political

speech and thus failed to exercise jurisdiction over the case...As a result of the FTC punting on the issue, NEI ads and claims have changed precious little. NEI continues to make the same claims that the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 125 of 953

BBB found to be false and misleading. In a new twist to tried and true propaganda ploys that the industry has used for decades, NEI has recently employed the use of new front groups to push the its message. (8.29.18) In 2006, NEI hired a former Greenpeace activist turned industry apologist, Patrick

Moore and former New Jersey Governor and US EPA chief Christie Todd Whitman as the lead public faces of the new CASEnergy Coalition.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 126 of 953

(8.29.19)

Given the nuclear industry's track record, you can understand why these McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 127 of 953

corporations would need the services of major PR firms and form front groups whose primary purpose is to inveigle and obfuscate. CASEnergy had a big roll out at the National Press Club in Washington, DC and a placed op-ed piece in the Washington Post entitled "Going Nuclear." (8.29.20) ...the major media outlets bought the industry line hook, line & sinker as they

pitched nuclear power as a global warming panacea and substitute for dirty coal power plants. It was left to the Columbia Journalism Review to call the media on their failure to accurately identify CASEnergy as a front group for NEI. (8.29.21) (8.30) See Reference 87

The United States Department of Energy has a web page entitled: Energy

Information Administration Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government Nuclear Energy Education Materials. This web page has descriptions of different companies and organizations that offer educational materials. On this web page is an advertisement targeting educators who are teaching children or minors, which is as follows: (8.30.1) Surry Nuclear Information Center[;] 5570 Hog Island Road[;] Surry, VA 23883[;]

(757) 357-5410[;] Fax: (757) 357-4711[;] Web: www.dom.com/about/stations/nuclear/surry/snic.jsp (8.30.2) Dominion is one of the nations leading energy companies, serving more than 5

million retail energy customer accounts in nine states. As one of the nations largest producers of natural gas and electric power, Dominion operates seven nuclear reactors in three states, Virginia, Connecticut and Wisconsin. (8.30.3) We live in a wired world. Electricity is vital to everyday lifepowering everything

from computers to air conditioners, lighting our homes and running our factories. Nuclear energy produces electricity for one in five homes and businesses, the largest emission-free source of energy used in the United States. To provide you with facts concerning nuclear energy and electricity, Dominion operates Energy Information Centers at both of its nuclear power stations in Virginia. The McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 128 of 953

North Anna and Surry Nuclear Information Centers offer interactive exhibits as well as high-energy presentations for groups of all ages. (8.30.3) Educational programs (scheduled in advance) are provided free of charge and are

designed to meet the Virginia Department of Educations Standards of Learning (SOLs). All programs are tailored to the needs of your group, no matter the age or experience level. These programs are offered to you as a field trip to one of our Centers, or as an Outreach Program in your classroom. Contact us for a list of our Energized Programs and to schedule the experience that will meet the energy educational needs of your students. (8.30.4) (8.31) See Reference 88 18 U.S.C. 1 25 Use of minors in crimes of violencesays the following (quotation

marks omitted): (8.31.1) (8.31.2) section 16. (8.31.3) (8.31.4) coerces. (8.31.5) (b) Penalties. Any person who is 18 years of age or older, who intentionally uses a (2) Minor. The term minor means a person who has not reached 18 years of age. (3) Uses. The term uses means employs, hires, persuades, induces, entices, or (a) Definitions. In this section, the following definitions shall apply: (1) Crime of violence. The term crime of violence has the meaning set forth in

minor to commit a crime of violence for which such person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, or to assist in avoiding detection or apprehension for such an offense, shall (1) for the first conviction, be subject to twice the maximum term of imprisonment and twice the maximum fine that would otherwise be authorized for the offense; and (8.31.6) (2) for each subsequent conviction, be subject to 3 times the maximum term of

imprisonment and 3 times the maximum fine that would otherwise be authorized for the offense. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 129 of 953

(8.31.7)

Section 16 of this title says: The term crime of violence means (a) an offense

that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. (8.31.8) (8.32) See Reference 1. 18 U.S.C. 19 373 Solicitation to commit a crime of violence says the following

(quotation marks omitted): (8.32.1) (a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony

that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years. (8.32.2) (b) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that, under

circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant prevented the commission of the crime solicited. A renunciation is not voluntary and complete if it is motivated in whole or in part by a decision to postpone the commission of the crime until another time or to substitute another victim or another but similar objective. If the defendant raises the affirmative defense at trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. (8.32.3) (c) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person solicited McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 130 of 953

could not be convicted of the crime because he lacked the state of mind required for its commission, because he was incompetent or irresponsible, or because he is immune from prosecution or is not subject to prosecution. (8.32.4) (8.32.5) See Reference 1. Defendants: George W. Bush, Samuel Bodman, and others, are soliciting crimes of

violence in a couple of ways. First, while knowing it would cause and is causing many citizens of the United States to be placed in a position of suffering an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and reasonable fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death, George W. Bush, Samuel Bodman, and others, have been soliciting victims like: Dale Gandy, Larry Gandy, Mike Marley to participate in conduct that causes this unreasonable amount of distress and reasonable fear. Second, is more insidious, threatening, and harmful, because George W. Bush, Samuel Bodman, and others, are targeting and defrauding vulnerable college students with solicitations of crimes of violence, in ways that are described on the United States Department of Energy (DOE) web site, which are as follows:. (8.32.6) August 22, 2007[:] Department of Energy Awards $3.8 Million in Funding to 38

U.S. Universities for Nuclear Research Infrastructure (8.32.7) WASHINGTON, DC The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today strengthened

its commitment to advancing nuclear power by awarding $100,000 to 38 universities to enhance nuclear research and development (R&D) under President Bushs Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The one-time GNEP University Readiness awards total $3.8 million in funding and will include upgrading laboratories; improving reactor facilities; purchasing state-of-the-art equipment; providing increased faculty support and further enhancing nuclear-related curricula. GNEP is part of a President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative and aims to close the nuclear fuel cycle by reducing proliferation risks, reducing waste and further increasing energy security around the world. (8.32.8) Increasing research expertise and bolstering infrastructure at Americas universities McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 131 of 953

will position our scientists and engineers to support the expansion of clean and economical nuclear power in the United States as well as to encourage the development of advanced fuel cycle technologies, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said. Supporting our educational institutions is essential to ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in development of safe and secure nuclear technology. (8.32.9) The GNEP University Readiness awards will directly enable a university to compete

in future GNEP R&D solicitations and contribute to a new generation of engineers and scientists necessary for expanding nuclear power - a safe, reliable source of emissions-free energy. These GNEP University Readiness awards follow the Departments funding opportunity announcement in March and DOEs thorough review of all applications since the June deadline. (8.32.10) This funding is part of $15.2 million that DOE has awarded to universities that

provide nuclear energy programs in fiscal year 2007. These awards also support President Bushs American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) announced in 2006, which commits to doubling the federal commitment to research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. ACI aims to increase investments in the next generation of scientists, engineers and educators to keep America at the forefront of science and innovation. (8.32.11) The universities receiving awards include: Clemson University[;] Colorado School

of Mines[;] Cornell University[;] Georgia Tech[;] Idaho State University[;] Kansas State University[;] Livingstone College[;] Massachusetts Institute of Technology[;] North Carolina State University[;] Ohio State University[;] Oregon State University[;] Pennsylvania State University[;] Prairie View A&M University[;] Purdue University[;] Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute[;] Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center[;] South Carolina State University[;] Texas A&M University-Kingsville[;] Texas Engineering Experiment Station[;] University of California, Berkeley[;] University of Cincinnati[;] University of Florida[;] University of Idaho[;] University of Illinois[;] University of Maryland[;] McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 132 of 953

University of Massachusetts Lowell[;] University of Michigan[;] University of Missouri, Columbia[;] University of Missouri, Rolla[;] University of Nevada Las Vegas[;] University of New Mexico[;] University of Pittsburgh[;] University of South Carolina[;] University of Tennessee[;] University of Texas at Austin[;] University of Utah[;] University of Wisconsin[;] Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University[.] (8.32.12) March 28, 2007[;] Department of Energy Issues $14 Million in Funding

Opportunity Announcements to U.S. Universities for Nuclear Research (8.32.13) WASHINGTON, DC The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced

two new Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA), valued up to $14 million to better integrate the United States universities into DOEs nuclear research and development (R&D) programs; and contribute to assuring a new generation of engineers and scientists necessary for pursuing nuclear power - a safe, reliable, affordable and emissions-free source of energy. These FOAs support the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) University Readiness and the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative for Consortia (NERI-C). These new awards will bring total Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 funding to universities that support nuclear energy programs to over $54 million. (8.32.14) These Funding Opportunity Announcements demonstrate our commitment to

pursuing nuclear research, and we are eager for our next generation of scientists and engineers to make scientific breakthroughs that will help diversify our nations energy sources, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said. Supporting education and training is critical to developing secure, competitive and environmentally responsible nuclear technologies to serve the United States present and future energy needs. (8.32.15) For the GNEP University Readiness FOA, DOE seeks applications from

universities for capability expansion that will directly support GNEP R&D programs. Capability expansion includes laboratory upgrades; faculty support; graduate fellowships; reactor improvements; McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 133 of 953

equipment purchases or upgrades; curriculum development and enhancement; and international student exchange or other similar activities that directly impact a universitys ability to compete in future GNEP R&D solicitations. Estimated funding for the one-time GNEP University Readiness awards total $4 million, with a maximum of $100,000 per award. (8.32.16) DOEs Funding Opportunity Announcement for NERI-C seeks applications from

university consortia for R&D that will directly support a broad range of programs in the Office of Nuclear Energy; including: the Advanced Fuel Cycle R&D Program, the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. Estimated funding for the NERI-C awards totals $10 million. This will be the first year funding for multi-year research grants that could receive total funding of about $30 million. Additional university grants are planned in subsequent years, subject to program requirements and congressional appropriations. (8.32.17) Applications for the NERI-C announcement are due May 23, 2007. Applications for

the GNEP University Readiness announcement are due by June 7, 2007. DOE anticipates announcing the selection later this year. Applications must be submitted through <http://www.grants.gov/> to be considered for award. (8.32.18) For additional information on this announcement, GNEP and nuclear R&D

programs, visit: http://www.nuclear.gov/.Media contact(s): (8.32.19) See Reference 89. SECTION 9 (9) The Federation of American Scientists published a pdf file on the Internet entitled CRS

[Congressional Research Services] Report for Congress. This report, dated March 27, 2008, says the following (quotation marks omitted): (9.1) Reprocessing refers to the chemical separation of fissionable uranium and plutonium

from irradiated nuclear fuel. The World War II-era Manhattan Project developed reprocessing McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 134 of 953

technology in the effort to build the first atomic bomb. With the development of commercial nuclear power after the war, reprocessing was considered necessary because of a perceived scarcity of uranium. Breeder reactor technology, which transmutes non-fissionable uranium into fissionable plutonium and thus produces more fuel than consumed, was envisioned as a promising solution to extending the nuclear fuel supply. Commercial reprocessing attempts, however, encountered technical, economic, and regulatory problems. In response to concern that reprocessing contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, President Carter terminated federal support for commercial reprocessing. Reprocessing for defense purposes continued, however, until the Soviet Unions collapse brought an end to the Cold War and the production of nuclear weapons. The Department of Energys latest initiative to promote new reactor technology using proliferation-resistant reprocessed fuel raises significant funding and policy issues for Congress. U.S. policies that have authorized and discouraged nuclear reprocessing are summarized, [as follows:] (9.2) 1946. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-585) defined fissionable materials

to include plutonium, uranium-235, and other materials determined to be capable of releasing substantial quantities of energy through nuclear fission.1 The act also created the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and transferred production and control of fissionable materials from the Manhattan Project. As the exclusive producer of fissionable material, the AEC originally retained title to all such material for national security reasons. (9.3) 1954. Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act, authorized the AEC to license

commercial reactors, and eased restrictions on private companies using special nuclear material (fissionable material). Section 183 (Terms of Licenses) of the act, however, kept government title to all special nuclear material utilized or produced by the licensed facilities in the United States. (9.4) 1956. Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the AEC, announced a program to encourage

private industrys entry into reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 135 of 953

(9.5)

1957. The AEC expressed its intent to withdraw from providing nuclear reprocessing

services for spent nuclear fuel in a Federal Register notice of March 22, 1957. (9.6) 1959. The [W.R. Grace & Co.] Davison Chemical Company, later called Nuclear Fuel

Services, began extensive discussions with the AEC on commercial reprocessing. (9.7) 1963. The AEC-sponsored Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR II), constructed at

the Argonne National Laboratory West near Idaho Falls, began operating. Irradiated fuel was reprocessed by melt-refining. (9.8) 1964. The AEC was authorized to issue commercial licenses to possess special

nuclear material subject to specific licensing conditions (P.L. 88-489). (9.9) 1966. The AEC granted an operating permit for commercial reprocessing to

[W.R. Grace Co.] Nuclear Fuel Services for the West Valley plant, near Buffalo, NY. The plant operated from 1966 until 1972, reprocessing spent fuel from the defense weapons program. Commercial spent fuel was never reprocessed. Stricter regulatory requirements forced the plants shutdown for upgrades. The plant was permanently shut down in 1976 after it was determined that the stricter regulatory requirements could not be met. (9.10) 1967. The AEC authorized General Electric Company (GE) to construct a spent

fuel reprocessing facility in Morris, IL.5. (9.11) 1969. The AEC invited public comment on a proposed policy in the form of

Appendix F to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 on siting a fuel reprocessing plant. (9.12) (9.13) 1969. EBRII fuel reprocessing and refabrication operations were suspended. 1970. Allied-General Nuclear Services began constructing a large commercial

reprocessing plant at Barnwell, SC. (9.14) 1972. GE halted construction and decided not to pursue an operating license for its

Morris reprocessing facility. Instead, GE applied for and received a license to store spent fuel. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 136 of 953

(9.15)

1974. The AEC determined that any decision to permit nuclear fuel reprocessing

on a large scale would require an environmental impact statement under Section 101(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)). (9.16) 1974. The Energy Reorganization Act (P.L. 93-438), October 11, 1974, split the

AEC into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). The responsibility for licensing nuclear facilities was transferred to the NRC. (9.17) 1976. Exxon applied for a license to construct a large reprocessing plant but received

no final action on its license application. (9.18) 1976. In an October 28 nuclear policy statement, President Ford announced his

decision that the reprocessing and recycling of plutonium should not proceed unless there is sound reason to conclude that the world community can effectively overcome the associated risks of proliferation ... that the United States should no longer regard reprocessing of used nuclear fuel to produce plutonium as a necessary and inevitable step in the nuclear fuel cycle, and that we should pursue reprocessing and recycling in the future only if they are found to be consistent with our international objectives. With that announcement, agencies of the executive branch were directed to delay commercialization of reprocessing activities in the United States until uncertainties were resolved. (9.19) 1977. In an April 7 press statement, President Carter announced, We will defer

indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium produced in the U.S. nuclear power programs. He went on to say, The plant at Barnwell, South Carolina, will receive neither federal encouragement nor funding for its completion as a reprocessing facility. (It was actually Carters veto of S. 1811, the ERDA Authorization Act of 1978, that prevented the legislative authorization necessary for constructing a breeder reactor and a reprocessing facility.) (9.20) 1977. The NRC issued an order terminating the proceedings on the Generic McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 137 of 953

Environmental Statement on Mixed Oxide Fuel and most license proceedings relating to plutonium recycling.11 It stated, however, that it would reexamine this decision after two studies of alternative fuel cycles were completed. (9.21) 1978. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act (P.L. 95-242), March 10, 1978, amended

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to establish export licensing criteria that govern peaceful nuclear exports by the United States, including a requirement of prior U.S. approval for re-transfers and reprocessing; and a guaranty that no material re-transferred will be reprocessed without prior U.S. consent. (9.22) 1980. President Carter signed Executive Order 12193, Nuclear Cooperation With

EURATOM (45 Federal Register 9885, February 14, 1980), which permitted nuclear cooperation with the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) to continue to March 10, 1981, despite the agreements lack of a provision consistent with the intent of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act requiring prior U.S. approval for reprocessing. This cooperation was extended through December 31, 1995, by a series of executive orders. It has since expired and been replaced by a new agreement. (9.23) 1981. President Reagan announced he was lifting the indefinite ban which previous

administrations placed on commercial reprocessing activities in the United States. (9.24) 1981. Convinced that the project could not proceed on a private basis and that

reprocessing was commercially impracticable, Allied halted the Barnwell project. (9.25) 1982. President Reagan approved the United States Policy on Foreign Reprocessing

of Plutonium Subject to U.S. Control as National Security Decision Directive 39 (June 4, 1982). Although specific details of the directive have not been declassified, the policies approved pertain to the nonproliferation and statutory conditions for safeguards and physical security for a continued commitment by Japan to nonproliferation efforts. (9.26) 1990. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (P.L. 101McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 138 of 953

510, Sec. 3142), Congress declared under Findings and Declaration of Policy that at the present time, the United States is observing a de facto moratorium on the production of fissile materials, with no production of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons since 1964. While the United States has ceased operation of all of its reactors used for the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union currently operates as many as nine reactors for the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Also, under Sec. 3143 Bilateral Moratorium on Production of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium for Nuclear Weapons and Disposal of Nuclear Stockpiles, the law urged an end by both the United States and the Soviet Union to the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. (9.27) (9.28) (In its fullest sense, plutonium production implies reprocessing.) 1992. President G. H. W. Bush disapproved Long Island Power Authoritys attempt to

enter into a contract with the French firm Cogema to reprocess the slightly irradiated initial core from the decommissioned Shoreham reactor. (9.29) 1992. President G. H. W. Bush halted weapons reprocessing in a policy statement

on nuclear nonproliferation declaring: I have set forth today a set of principles to guide our nonproliferation efforts in the years ahead and directed a number of steps to supplement our existing efforts. These steps include a decision not to produce plutonium and highly enriched uranium for nuclear explosive purposes.... (9.30) 1992. Energy Secretary Watkins announced the permanent closure of the Hanford,

WA, PUREX reprocessing plant in December. (9.31) 1993. President Clinton issued a policy statement on reprocessing stating that [t]he

United States does not encourage the civil use of plutonium and, accordingly, does not itself engage in plutonium reprocessing for either nuclear power or nuclear explosive purposes. The United States, however, will maintain its existing commitments regarding the use of plutonium in civil nuclear McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 139 of 953

programs in Western Europe and Japan.16 (9.32) 1995. On November 29, 1995, a new nuclear cooperation agreement with EURATOM

was submitted to Congress. Although the Clinton Administration determined it met all the requirements of Section 123 a. of the Atomic Energy Act, some Members believed it did not meet the requirement of prior consent for reprocessing. The agreement entered into effect in 1996 without a vote. (9.32) 2001. President Bushs National Energy Policy included the recommendation that

[t]he United States should also consider technologies (in collaboration with international partners with highly developed fuel cycles and a record of close cooperation) to develop reprocessing and fuel treatment technologies that are cleaner, more efficient, less waste intensive, and more proliferationresistant. (9.33) 2006. As part of the ongoing Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), the Department

of Energy announced that it will initiate work toward conducting an engineering scale demonstration of the UREX+ separation process (operation planned for 2011) and developing an advanced fuel cycle facility capable of laboratory development of advanced separation and fuel manufacturing technologies. UREX refers to the process of chemically separating uranium from spent nuclear fuel. The AFCI is intended to develop proliferation resistant nuclear technologies in association with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) for expanding nuclear power in the United States and around the world. The Department of Energy later requested an expression of interest from domestic and international industry in building a spent nuclear fuel recycling and transmutation facility that would meet GNEP goals. (9.34) 2007. In July 2007, DOE announced that four consortia had been selected to receive

up to $16 million for technical and supporting studies to support GNEP (AREVA Federal Services, LLC; EnergySolutions, LLC; GE-Hitachi Nuclear Americas, LLC; and General Atomics). DOE followed with an August announcement that it was making $20 million available to conduct detailed McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 140 of 953

siting studies for public or commercial entities interested in hosting GNEP facilities. The original GNEP partnership China, France, Japan, Russia and the United States expanded to include Australia, Bulgaria, Ghana, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Ukraine, South Korea, Italy, Canada, and Senegal by year end. (9.35) (9.36) See Reference 27 W.R. Grace & Co has a web page, which says that Grace acquires Davison Chemical

Company and Dewey & Almy Chemical Company in 1954. See Reference 28. (9.37) (9.37.1) As noted in paragraphs (9.5) and (9.6): 1957. The AEC expressed its intent to withdraw from providing nuclear reprocessing

services for spent nuclear fuel in a Federal Register notice of March 22, 1957. (9.37.2) 1959. The [W.R. Grace & Co.] Davison Chemical Company, later called Nuclear Fuel

Services, began extensive discussions with the AEC on commercial reprocessing. (9.38) The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) published a web page about W.R.Grace &

Company, which says the following (quotation marks omitted): (9.38.1) The W. R. Grace Company has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy for over six years. In

August 2003, a federal court ordered Grace to reimburse the EPA over $54.5 million for cleanup costs in Libby. In addition, the U.S. Justice Department intervened in the Grace bankruptcy proceedings, charging that Grace was responsible for transferring billions of dollars to companies it had recently bought shortly before declaring bankruptcy. According to Justice Department lawyers, this amounted to a "fraudulent transfer" of money in order to protect Grace from civil suits related to asbestos. The bankruptcy court ordered the companies to return nearly $1 billion to Grace, which will remain as part of the assets to consider in the bankruptcy hearings. But the court has yet to determine how much Grace will be compelled to pay for cleanup and health-related costs in Libby. (9.38.2) Despite its bankruptcy, W. R. Grace is far from out of business. In 2006, Grace McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 141 of 953

reported annual sales of $2.8 billion, with a net income of $18.3 million. Grace employs more than 6,400 employees in nearly 40 countries. Grace's website boasts that safety and health are a number-one priority for its workers. On its legacy of environment, health and safety, Grace has this to say: "We are dedicated to the highest standards of health and safety practices and realize our corporate responsibility to the environment. Our goal is to establish an outstanding record of leadership and strong corporate citizenship. We come to work each day with a focus and dedication to work smart, work safe and take care of each other." (9.38.3) In February 2005, seven executives and managers of W. R. Grace were indicted on ten

federal criminal counts of knowingly endangering residents of Libby, and concealing information about the health effects of its mining operations. The defendants are also accused of obstructing the government's cleanup efforts and wire fraud. "A human and environmental tragedy has occurred in Libby," said William W. Mercer, U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana. "This prosecution seeks to hold Grace and its executives responsible for the misconduct alleged." The criminal trial is scheduled to begin in September 2007. (9.38.4) Alan Stringer, Grace's sole remaining representative in Libby after 1990, was one of

the executives accused in the indictment. But Stringer died in February 2007 of cancer. He was 62. (9.38.5) Earl Lovick, the mine manager for Grace in Libby until 1983, died of asbestosis in

1999, just three years after his taped court deposition, which was highlighted in "Libby, Montana." (9.38.6) Former President Ronald Reagan turned a blind eye when news of the tragedy leaked

out during his term in office. (Reagan counted W. R. Grace's CEO, J. Peter Grace, among his close advisors and appointed Grace chairman of his Private Sector Survey on Cost Control.) (9.38.7) "Despite its bankruptcy, W. R. Grace is far from out of business. In 2006, Grace

reported annual sales of $2.8 billion, with a net income of $18.3 million." (9.38.8) See Reference 29. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 142 of 953

(9.39)

There is a document, published on the world wide web, regarding a court case in the

United States District Court for the Western District of New York, which involves W.R. Grace and its nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in West Valley in Cattaraugus County, New York. Some pertinent parts of that document are as follows (quotation marks omitted): (9.39.1) THE STATE OF NEW YORK, DENISE SHEEHAN AS COMMISSIONER OF THE

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, AND THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and SAMUEL BODMAN, SECRETARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Defendants. (9.39.2) ...Plaintiffs bring this action against the United States, seeking cost recovery,

damages and declaratory relief regarding the cleanup of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center at West Valley in Cattaraugus County, New York ("Center" or "Site"). As a part of the federal government's early atomic energy program, and to spur commercial nuclear power, the federal government promised commercial atomic energy producers that it would meet their fuel reprocessing needs. (Reprocessing removes the reusable portion of fuel from spent nuclear waste and prepares the rest for long-term storage and disposal.) To address these needs and because then-existing federal government facilities could not handle commercial atomic waste, the federal government assisted in the creation of the Center, at which [W.R. Grace & Co.] Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. ("NFS"), a private company, reprocessed spent nuclear fuel shipped to the Site by both federal defense and commercial nuclear facilities from 1966 to 1972. The federal government made available to [W.R. Grace] NFS and the State its expert staff as well as classified technological information developed from the federal defense program, and was the sole beneficiary of the uranium and plutonium recovered by reprocessing activities. In reliance on the federal government's assertion that a perpetual care fund to be paid by Site customers would be sufficient for the perpetual care of nuclear wastes, and in furtherance of the federal McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 143 of 953

government's program to create incentives for a private atomic energy industry, New York agreed to assume responsibility for long-term care of the nuclear wastes stored and disposed of at the Site. (9.39.3) [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS ceased operations in 1972, leaving behind several disposal

landfills, lagoons, contaminated buildings, and 600,000 gallons of high level radioactive waste ("HLRW") generated by reprocessing activities. Much of this waste will remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years and the "perpetual care" fund turned out to be wholly inadequate to address the long-term care of the nuclear wastes remaining at the Center after the cessation of the [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS operation. At the direction of Congress, the United States Department of Energy ("DOE") carried out an HLRW management demonstration project at the Center, solidifying the HLRW and preparing it for off-site disposal at a site to be developed for such wastes by the federal government. Pursuant to this federal program, New York pays ten per cent of the cost of the demonstration project the only state in the country to contribute to the cost of managing HLRW generated in conjunction with spent nuclear fuel reprocessing undertaken on behalf of the United States. The United States has yet to open a disposal facility to which such solidified HLRW can be sent for long-term storage or disposal. (9.39.4) Plaintiffs seek judicial relief under three federal statutes: the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq. ("CERCLA"); the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, Pub. L. 96-368 ("WVDPA"); and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 10101-10270 ("NWPA"). Under CERCLA, New York seeks recovery of the costs it has incurred and will incur in responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances (including radionuclides) at and from the Site, as well as compensation for damages to the State's natural resources. Under the WVDPA, the State seeks a ruling that the DOE's obligation to decontaminate and decommission all facilities, hardware and materials includes the obligation to decontaminate and decommission all of the facilities, hardware and materials specified in this complaint; to maintain, repair or replace and monitor any hardware, tank or McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 144 of 953

other facility containing any radioactive substance for so long as such hardware, tank or other facility remains at the Center in order to ensure that decontamination and decommissioning standards continue to be met at the Center; and to respond to releases and/or migration of any radioactive substance from such facilities and hardware whenever such migration occurs if such response is required in order to attain or maintain compliance with decontamination and decommissioning standards. Pursuant to the NWPA, New York seeks a ruling that the HLRW at the Center results from atomic energy defense activities and, therefore, the United States, not New York, must pay the cost of disposing those wastes at the HLRW repository developed by the federal government pursuant to the NWPA... (9.39.5) The citizens of New York have been and continue to be adversely affected and

aggrieved by the acts and omissions of the Defendants as alleged herein. (9.39.6) (9.39.7) FACTS General Description of the Site[:] The Center consists of approximately 3300 acres located mostly in the Town of

Ashford in Cattaraugus County, about 30 miles southeast of Buffalo, New York. (9.39.8) ...The Center is located within the glaciated portion of a geologic formation known

as the Appalachian Plateau. Underlying the Center is an ancient bedrock valley filled with approximately 500 feet of glacial deposits. The United States Environmental Protection Agencydesignated the Cattaraugus Creek Basin Aquifer System, including the Center, as a sole source aquifer; that is, an aquifer supplying at least 50% of the drinking water for the area overlying the aquifer... (9.39.9) [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS operated a nuclear waste reprocessing facility at the Center

from 1966 to 1972. The former reprocessing building and two closed radioactive waste disposal areas remain at the Center. In addition, the Center has a high-level radioactive waste tank farm, waste lagoons, above ground radioactive waste storage areas, radioactive waste processing areas, underground radioactively contaminated piping, and various levels of soil and groundwater McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 145 of 953

contamination in and around these facilities. Much of this waste will remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years... (9.39.10) ...As a result of [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS' operations, 1,926 kilograms of plutonium

were recovered. Almost 80 percent (1,530 kilograms) of the reprocessed plutonium was shipped to AEC's Hanford Reservation. Of the 1,530 kilograms of plutonium received by the AEC from [W.R. Grace & Co] NFS, 635 kilograms originated from fuel or reactors that were AEC-owned (534 kilograms came from Hanford's N Reactor), and 895 kilograms came from commercial power reactor fuel. Most of the remaining plutonium was also shipped to federal facilities... (9.39.11) ...The Center reprocessing facility was designed to process several different types of

spent nuclear fuel as there was not a sufficient volume of a single type of fuel to support the operation of the facility. The [W.R. Grace] NFS facility consisted of a main Process Building and independent support facilities, including utilities buildings, a plant warehouse, a maintenance shop, an office building annex and a gatehouse. The Process Building, which included approximately 70 rooms and cells, is arranged in a U shape with the Fuel Receiving and Storage Area at one end and the purified product removal facilities at the other. In the middle are the mechanical and chemical process cells. Each of these cells is adjacent to and shares a common wall with the next cell in sequence. [W.R. Grace] NFS also used a lagoon system for wastewater management, including wastewater treatment, and the burial grounds for disposal of radioactive materials and substances... (9.39.12) The spent nuclear fuel reprocessing process consisted of mechanical disassembly

and chopping, nitric acid dissolution, solvent extraction processing, evaporation, neutralization and liquid waste storage in underground tanks. (9.39.13) The spent nuclear fuel reprocessing operations began when the fuel was received,

by rail and by truck, at the Fuel Receiving and Storage Area. The spent fuel was transported in shipping casks that were specified by the AEC. The casks, railroad cars and trailers were washed down. The McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 146 of 953

casks were then placed in a 44foot deep cask unloading pool, where the spent fuel assemblies were removed from the casks and then loaded into storage cans. The empty casks were removed from the pool and placed in a decontamination stall for cleanup and preparation for return shipment. (9.39.14) The fuel assemblies were transferred via storage can to the Process Mechanical

Cell, where fuel rods were chopped into short segments and transferred via fuel baskets to the Chemical Processing Cell. The chopped fuel segments were then placed in dissolver tanks containing boiling nitric acid. Once the fuel was dissolved and separated from the metal cladding, the solutions were put through a solvent extraction process that separated out the fission products and recovered uranium and plutonium in nitrate solutions. The solution containing fission products was transferred to the high-level waste evaporator for concentration and the recovery of nitric acid for reuse. The concentrated fission product solution was neutralized and transferred to a 750,000 gallon underground carbon-steel storage tank. (9.39.15) The contracts between [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS and its customers and the contract

between the AEC and [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS provided that [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS would perform a cleanout of the plant before [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS began to process customer's shipments). During the cleanout period, all plant systems were operative in order to properly flush out the plant and to process the "cleanout" solutions. (9.39.16) During [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS' six years of operation, the reprocessing operation

generated approximately 2.3 million liters (approximately 600,000 gallons) of concentrated fission product solution, a high-level liquid radioactive waste, from the extraction of uranium and plutonium from spent nuclear rods. (9.39.17) Although this high-level liquid radioactive waste will remain radioactive for tens

of thousands of years, the expected useful life of the high-level radioactive waste carbon steel storage tanks is only 40 to 50 years. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 147 of 953

(9.39.18)

[W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS used various chemicals in the spent fuel recovery

processing, the cleaning and decontamination activities undertaken after each customer's lot was processed, and in the analytical chemistry laboratory and maintenance facilities. Various volatile organic compounds, acids, bases, metals and other chemicals were used. For example, trichloroethylene was used as a degreaser in the maintenance facilities. (9.39.19) ...The reprocessing of spent nuclear fuels at the Center generated several types of

waste. The wastes were stored or disposed of at the Center. For example, the leached fuel cladding, once separated from the fuel, was buried in the NDA along with other higher- radioactivity solid radioactive wastes originating from acid leaching during the fuel reprocessing Neutralized higherradioactivity waste consisting of alkaline supernatant, in liquid form, and sludge from the PUREX (Plutonium/Uranium Extraction) fuel reprocessing operations was held in a 750,000 gallon underground steel storage tank, which is enclosed within a reinforced concrete vault structure. Higherradioactivity wastes from THOREX (Thorium Extraction) fuel processing activities were sent to a 13,500 gallon tank that is located in a separate underground concrete vault. The byproducts of the reprocessing process that exhibited lower levels of radioactivity also were disposed of at the Center. The liquid byproducts were sent through the liquid waste stream management system, while the solid wastes were buried in the SDA. (9.39.20) The contracts between [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS and its customers and the contract

between the AEC and [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS provided that (W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS would perform a cleanout of the plant before [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS began to process. (9.39.21) The main sources of low-radioactivity liquid effluents during [W.R. Grace & Co.]

NFS' operations were the low[-radio]activity fraction from the acid recovery system, which contained dilute acids and traces of fission products, as well as various decontamination washdowns, solvent washers, laundry wastewaters and wastes from the Process Building and utility room floor drains, and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 148 of 953

laboratory drains. The liquid effluents were collected in the interceptors, which were concrete holding tanks, and released into the lagoon system through underground pipes. (9.39.22) In April 1969, with AEC approval, [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS buried 42 ruptured fuel

assemblies in the NDA. The fuel assemblies were buried because they could not be reprocessed. The fuel originated from AEC's New Production Reactor at the Hanford facility. (9.39.23) Solid radioactive wastes that were not considered to be higher-radioactivity wastes

were buried in the SDA. The trenches were opened as rnsde and then covered as they filled with lower-activity radioactive waste. Water held in the lagoons associated with the SDA was discharged into Erdman Brook or seeped into the surrounding soils. Subsequent to 1971, water from the SDA lagoons was transferred to the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility lagoons. In March 1975, following a burial trench overflow incident, the SDA lagoons were used to hold excess liquids pumped from the completed trenches. (9.39.24) The unlined 10-acre construction and demolition debris landfill, located northeast

of the Process Building, received solid waste, construction and demolition debris, miscellaneous steel and boiler parts, tires, incinerator ash, boiler blowdown, paint cans, batteries, and aintenance shop waste during [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS operations. Groundwater samples near the landfill indicate the presence of radionuclides and other hazardous substances. (9.39.25) Since at least 1988, the Liquid Waste Treatment System has been used to process

the low-level fraction of the supernatant and sludge wash solutions, as we[l]l as the melter-feed preparation stream condensates and vessel and equipment flushing solutions that were generated by the DOE during the vitrification of high-level waste. The Liquid Waste Treatment System produces a distillate waste stream and a radioactive concentrates stream. (9.39.26) During [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS' operations, the acid recovery equipment used to

separate and transport acids for reuse during reprocessing leaked approximately 200 gallons of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 149 of 953

recovered acid contaminated with strontium and cesium. Eventually, the contamination made its way through drains and into the plant's sewer system, including the Erdman Creek sewer outfall where it was found during routine AEC compliance inspections. The release or releases were not permitted under any license or permit held by [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS or any other entity. (9.39.27) The leaks from the acid recovery equipment also entered the groundwater and

spread, creating a source of the 15-acre North Plateau Groundwater Plume, which contains strontium90 and other hazardous substances. The Plume discharges into surface water flowing through the Center. (9.39.28) Each of the lagoons at the Center contains soil contamination as a result of releases

of liquids containing hazardous substances, including radionuclides, to each lagoon. Each lagoon is a source of groundwater contamination, in 1972, Lagoons 4 and 5 overflowed their banks and in 1974, those lagoons were identified as potential sources of tritium releases to the groundwater and subsequently were lined. The releases were not in compliance with the terms of [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS' AEC license or any other license or permit. (9.39.29) Lagoon 1 was removed from service in 1984. At that time, the DOE excavated

contaminated material from Lagoon 1 and placed it in Lagoon 2. Lagoon was filled with radiological debris from the Old Hardstand (a paved asphalt pad that was used to store radioactive equipment) and capped with clay and topsoil. Leaching from Lagoon 1 has been identified as a source of a plutonium, strontium and tritium groundwater plume that is moving in the direction of Erdman Brook. The leaching constitutes an unpermitted release. (9.39.30) Operations around the unlined interceptor resulted in strontium-90 contamination

in the surrounding soils and groundwater. These releases into the surrounding soils and groundwater were not permissible or authorized under any license or permit. (9.39.31) Spent filter media and ion exchange resin from the water treatment area were McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 150 of 953

collected in the resin pit, an in-ground concrete vault located outside the southeastern corner of the Fuel Receiving and Storage Area. Resin and filter media spilled within and outside of the resin pit, resulting in cesium and strontium contamination in the soil and the groundwater. These releases were not permissible or authorized under any permit or license issued for the Center. (9.39.32) The underground waste water transfer lines and process waste transfer lines in and

around the process buildings leaked during operations, resulting in soil and groundwater contamination. The storage of heavy shipping casks and washing of process equipment resulted in releases of contaminants to the soil around the Old Hardstand asphalt storage pad. The releases were not permissible or authorized under any license or permit. (9.39.33) In 1968, the air filters designed to reduce the release of radioactive gaseous

effluents failed on at least three occasions. On or about September 4, 1968, an unknown quantity of radioactive material was discharged through the stack when a filter in the vent exhaust cell ruptured, was pulled through the blower, and discharged through the stack. The filter failures are the main source of a greater than 1.5 mile-long area of cesium soil contamination that begins at the Process Building stacks and continues northwest through the Site and off-site. The releases were not in compliance with [W.R. Grace& Co.] NFS' AEC license or authorized under any other permit or license. (9.39.34) In 1975, the burial trenches at the SDA overflowed and excess water was pumped

into adjacent lagoons. Later that year, one of the lagoons overflowed, resulting in a release of between 6,000 and 8,000 gallons of untreated trench water into the environment. [T]he lagoons also resulted in contamination of surrounding soils and surface waters. Characterization of SDA trench water in 1994 indicates the presence of numerous hazardous substances, including, but not limited to, acetone, benzene, 1,4 dioxane, arsenic and chromium. None of the releases described above were permissible or authorized under any license or permit. (9.39.35) The soil contamination resulting from the SD A lagoon overflows and seepages have McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 151 of 953

resulted in contaminants being flushed into surface water ravines to the east of the NDA. (9.39.36) In the early 1990s, the DOE detected water contaminated with tributyl phosphate,

n-dodecane and several radionuclides, including plutoniurn-239, downgradient of the NDA. In 1991, the DOE installed an interceptor trench designed to collect the contaminated surface water and send it to the Low-Level Waste Treatment Facility. (9.39.37) Hazardous constituents are associated with materials buried in the NDA.

Hazardous chemicals disposed of in the NDA include fuel reprocessing chemicals, solvents used for decontamination, paint removers and paint residues. In 2003, the DOE found elevated beta levels in the swale at a parking lot outside the northeast slope, indicating that the NDA's holes are overflowing. (9.39.38) [W.R. Grace] NFS began a groundwater monitoring program at the Center in 1974

to find the source of tritium discovered in groundwater. NFS also took surface water samples and air samples as required by its AEC license. In [1]982, [(See Reference 35)] the DOE began an environmental sampling program. As a result of these activities and other assessment activities, releases of hazardous substances to groundwater, surface water, surrounding soils and air have been documented. Among the hazardous substances that have been detected are various radionuclides, metals, and various solvents including 1,1,1-trichloroethane and U-dichloroethane. (9.39.39) (9.40) See Reference 30.

A web page called Seattlepi.com has an article about W.R. Grace & Co., dated

November 18, 1999, which says the following (quotation marks omitted): (9.40.1) (9.40.2) Starting in 1995, Grace divested many of its larger businesses. In 1998, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Grace for manipulating

earnings in one of its divisions. To settle the suit, Grace set up a $1 million financial education fund. (9.40.3) (9.40.4) Grace has gone through elaborate reorganization in the past decade. Lawyers handling the asbestos suits against Grace say the shuffling was done to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 152 of 953

conceal assets and cloud the corporate lines of responsibility. Grace denies the charges and calls the moves "solid business decisions." (9.40.5) (9.40.6) Although it has downsized, Grace's sales are still about $1.4 billion a year. But like other giant companies that sold asbestos products during the heyday of the

flameproof fiber, Grace is still plagued by lawsuits filed by people allegedly harmed or killed by the fibers in the insulation, garden products and other applications it sold. (9.40.7) (9.40.8) More than 250,000 asbestos-related suits have been filed against Grace Almost all of them except the 187 involving the miners and the families from Libby

are personal-injury suits dealing with the hazards of asbestos products, said Jay Hughes, Grace's top litigation counsel. (9.40.9) remain, he said. (9.40.10) A spotlight was thrown on one of Grace's darkest moments when the movie "A Civil About 150,000 suits have been settled or dismissed. An estimated 102,000 cases

Action" was released in January. (9.40.11) ...Five Woburn children and one adult died of acute lymphocytic leukemia from

exposure to chemicals in their drinking water. Others were sickened. Grace and another company were found by the Environmental Protection Agency to be responsible for dumping the toxic chemicals that poisoned two of Woburn's wells. (9.40.12) had filed. (9.40.13) Later, Grace was indicted by the Department of Justice on two counts of lying to the Grace paid $8 million to eight families in return for the withdrawal of lawsuits they

EPA in 1982 about the amount of hazardous chemicals it used at its Woburn plant. In 1988, Grace pled guilty to one count and was fined the maximum -- $10,000. Today, the penalty for that charge is $500,000. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 153 of 953

(9.40.14) (9.41)

See Reference 31.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency says that Superfund is the federal

government's program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. See Reference 32. (9.42) The Center for Public Integrity says that W. R. Grace & Co. has been linked by the EPA

to polluted Superfund sites, which include the following: (9.42.1) Superfund Site Name: 29TH & MEAD GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION;

412 E 29TH N 26S 1E SW 1/4 S 33; WICHITA, KS 67219; EPA ID: KSD007241656; Site ID: 0700496; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 352,299; Size of site: 40 acres. (9.42.2) Superfund Site Name: AQUA-TECH ENVIRONMENTAL INC (GROCE LABS);

340 ROBINSON ROAD GREER, SC 29651; EPA ID: SCD058754789; Site ID: 0403310; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 127,948. (9.42.3) Superfund Site Name: AUBURN ROAD LANDFILL; AUBURN RD;

LONDONDERRY, NH 03053; EPA ID: NHD980524086; Site ID: 0101137; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 190,447; Size of site: 200 acres. (9.42.4) Superfund Site Name: BIO-ECOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC.; 4100 E JEFFERSON;

GRAND PRAIRIE, TX 75051; EPA ID: TXD980340889; Site ID: 0602464; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 743,922; Size of site: 11 acres. (9.42.5) Superfund Site Name: CANNON ENGINEERING CORP. (CEC); FIRST ST;

BRIDGEWATER, MA 02324; EPA ID: MAD079510780; Site ID: 0100585; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 257,187; Size of site: 6 acres. (9.42.6) Superfund Site Name: CAROLAWN, INC.; S. OF SC HWY 9 ON CO. RD 841;

FORT LAWN, SC 29714; EPA ID: SCD980558316; Site ID: 0403388; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 16,996; Size of site: 3 acres (9.42.7) Superfund Site Name: CHARLES-GEORGE RECLAMATION TRUST LANDFILL; McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 154 of 953

CORNER DUNSTABLE & CUMMINGS RD; TYNGSBOROUGH, MA 01879; EPA ID: MAD003809266; Site ID: 0100464; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 301,166; Size of site: 55 acres. (9.42.8) Superfund Site Name: CHEMSOL, INC.; FLEMING ST; PISCATAWAY, NJ 08854;

EPA ID: NJD980528889; Site ID: 0200607; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 663,646; Size of site: 40 acres. (9.42.9) Superfund Site Name: FRENCH, LTD.; SAN JACINTO RIVER CROSSING;

CROSBY, TX 77532; EPA ID: TXD980514814; Site ID: 0602498; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 138,388; Size of site: 15 acres. (9.42.10) Superfund Site Name: GEMS LANDFILL; ERIAL & HICKSTOWN ROADS;

GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP, NJ 08012; EPA ID: NJD980529192; Site ID: 0200627; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 490,653; Size of site: 60 acres. (9.42.11) HARDAGE/CRINER; 3/4 MI W OF TOWN ON HWY 122; CRINER, OK 73080

EPA ID: OKD000400093; Site ID: 0600988; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 8,278; Size of site: 60 acres. (9.42.12) IRON HORSE PARK; HIGH ST; BILLERICA, MA 01862; EPA ID:

MAD051787323 Site ID: 0100524; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 375,940; Size of site: 533 acres. (9.42.13) KEEFE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (KES); EXETER RD; EPPING, NH

03042; EPA ID: NHD092059112; Site ID: 0101114; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 64,040; Size of site: 7 acres. (9.42.14) LANDFILL & RESOURCE RECOVERY, INC. (L&RR); OXFORD RD;

NORTH SMITHFIELD, RI 02876; EPA ID: RID093212439; Site ID: 0101265; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 154,427; Size of site: 28 acres. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 155 of 953

(9.42.15)

LIBBY ASBESTOS SITE; 952 EAST SPRUCE STREET; LIBBY, MT 59923;

EPA ID: MT0009083840; Site ID: 0801744; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 9,115. (9.42.16) MAXEY FLATS NUCLEAR DISPOSAL; MAXEY FLATS RD;

HILLSBORO, KY 41049; EPA ID: KYD980729107; Site ID: 0402139; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 14,170; Size of site: 279 acres. (9.42.17) METAMORA LANDFILL; 1636 DRYDEN ROAD; METAMORA, MI 48455;

EPA ID: MID980506562; Site ID: 0502819; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 52,160; Size of site: 50 acres. (9.42.18) MOTOR WHEEL, INC.; 2401 N HIGH ST (REAR); LANSING TOWNSHIP, MI

48906; EPA ID: MID980702989; Site ID: 0502997; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 281,567; Size of site: 25 acres. (9.42.19) MOYERS LANDFILL; RD 2 MOYER RD; EAGLEVILLE, PA 19426;

EPA ID: PAD980508766; Site ID: 0301226; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 326,476; Size of site: 65 acres. (9.42.20) NOVAK SANITARY LANDFILL; PARKLAND TERRACE RD & LAPP RD;

SOUTH WHITEHALL TOWNSHIP, PA 18104; EPA ID: PAD079160842; Site ID: 0301109; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 284,112; Size of site: 65 acres. (9.42.21) Superfund site name: OPERATING INDUSTRIES, INC., LANDFILL;

900 N POTRERO GRANDE DR; MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754; EPA ID: CAT080012024; Site ID: 0902673; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 2,151,372. (9.42.22) Superfund site name: OTTATI & GOSS/KINGSTON STEEL DRUM;

HAVERHILL RD RTE 125; KINGSTON, NH 03848; EPA ID: NHD990717647; Site ID: 0101210; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 135,478; Size of site: 7 acres. (9.42.23) Superfund site name: PEAK OIL CO./BAY DRUM CO.; S.R. 574; McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 156 of 953

TAMPA, FL 33619; EPA ID: FLD004091807; Site ID: 0400536; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 450,757; Size of site: 15 acres. (9.42.24) Superfund site name: PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CORP.;

14000 BLOCK PEMBROKE ROAD; PEMBROKE PARK, FL 33024; EPA ID: FLD980798698; Site ID: 0400919; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 1,013,929; Size of site: 2 acres. (9.42.25) Superfund site name: PLYMOUTH HARBOR/CANNON ENGINEERING CORP.;

CORDAGE PARK; PLYMOUTH, MA 02360; EPA ID: MAD980525232; Site ID: 0100726; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 95,671; Size of site: 3 acres. (9.42.26) Superfund site name: POLLUTION ABATEMENT SERVICES; 55 SENECA ST;

OSWEGO, NY 13126; EPA ID: NYD000511659; Site ID: 0201196; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 40,187; Size of site: 16 acres. (9.42.27) Superfund site name: RENORA, INC.; 83 SOUTH MAIN ST;

EDISON TOWNSHIP, NJ 08837; EPA ID: NJD070415005; Site ID: 0200429; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 837,637; Size of site: 1 acres. (9.42.28) Superfund site name: RE-SOLVE, INC.; N HIXVILLE RD; DARTMOUTH, MA

02747; EPA ID: MAD980520621; Site ID: 0100682; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 265,280; Size of site: 6 acres. (9.42.29) Superfund site name: ROCK HILL CHEMICAL CO.; NORTH CHERRY RD;

ROCK HILL, SC 29730; EPA ID: SCD980844005; Site ID: 0403425; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 120,669; Size of site: 5 acres. (9.42.30) Superfund site name: SCIENTIFIC CHEMICAL PROCESSING;

216 PATERSON PLANK RD; CARLSTADT, NJ 07072; EPA ID: NJD070565403; Site ID: 0200431; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 3,184,042; Size of site: 6 acres. (9.42.31) Superfund site name: SCRDI BLUFF ROAD; 321 BLUFF RD S; McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 157 of 953

COLUMBIA, SC 29209; EPA ID: SCD000622787; Site ID: 0403212; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 74,643; Size of site: 4 acres. (9.42.32) Superfund site name: SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES; CLARK BOTTOM

RD; HEMPSTEAD, TX 77445; EPA ID: TXD062132147; Site ID: 0602108; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 12,620; Size of site: 110 acres. (9.42.33) Superfund site name: SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORP.; 86 TANNER ST;

LOWELL, MA 01853; EPA ID: MAD000192393; Site ID: 0100326; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 319,424; Size of site: 5 acres. (9.42.34) Superfund site name: Superfund site name: SOUTH 8TH STREET LANDFILL;

SOUTH EIGHTH STREET; WEST MEMPHIS, AR 72301; EPA ID: ARD980496723; Site ID: 0600184; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 129,014; Size of site: 30 acres. (9.42..35) Superfund site name: SPECTRON, INC.; 111 PROVIDENCE RD;

ELKTON, MD 21921; EPA ID: MDD000218008; Site ID: 0300192; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 124,197; Size of site: 8 acres. (9.42.36) Superfund site name: SYLVESTER; GILSON RD; NASHUA, NH 03062;

EPA ID: NHD099363541; Site ID: 0101115; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 172,999; Size of site: 6 acres. (9.42.37) Superfund site name: TAYLOR ROAD LANDFILL; TAYLOR RD; SEFFNER, FL

33619; EPA ID: FLD980494959; Site ID: 0400853; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 336,908; Size of site: 40 acres. (9.42.38) Superfund site name: TINKHAM GARAGE; RTE 102; LONDONDERRY, NH

03053; EPA ID: NHD062004569; Site ID: 0101106; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 153,189; Size of site: 375 acres. (9.42.39) Superfund site name: W.R. GRACE & CO., INC. (ACTON PLANT); 50 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 158 of 953

INDEPENDENCE RD; ACTON, MA 01720; EPA ID: MAD001002252; Site ID: 0100350; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 173,290; Size of site: 200 acres. (9.42.40) Superfund site name: W.R. GRACE & CO., INC./WAYNE INTERIM STORAGE

SITE (USDOE); 868 BLACK OAK RIDGE ROAD; WAYNE TOWNSHIP, NJ 07470; EPA ID: NJ1891837980; Site ID: 0202931; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 550,030; Size of site: 7 acres. (9.42.41) Superfund site name: WATSON JOHNSON LANDFILL; E PUMPING STA RD;

RICHLAND TOWNSHIP, PA 18951; EPA ID: PAD980706824; Site ID: 0301517; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 114,394; Size of site: 32 acres. (9.42.42) Superfund site name: WAUCONDA SAND & GRAVEL; BONNER & GARLAND

RD; WAUCONDA, IL 60084; EPA ID: ILD047019732; Site ID: 0500332; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census) 251,672; Size of site: 74 acres (9.42.43) WESTERN PROCESSING CO., INC.; 7215 S 196TH ST; KENT, WA 98031;

EPA ID: WAD009487513; Site ID: 1000662; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 542,562; Size of site: 13 acres (9.42.44) ZELLWOOD GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION; 803 JONES AVE;

ZELLWOOD, FL 32757; EPA ID: FLD049985302; Site ID: 0400655; Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 96,666; Size of site: 57 acres (9.42.45) (9.43) See Reference 33. People, who have run for W.R. Grace and Company have been caught breaking the

law more than any company I have ever been aware of, and have injured and killed many people. A Department of Energy document entitled: "Assessment of Startup Fuel Options for the GNEP Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR) February 2008," says that the GNEP Advanced Burner Reactor will be under the license of W.R. Grace & Company. This Department of Energy information regarding McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 159 of 953

W.R. Grace & Company is as follows (quotation marks omitted): (9.43.1) Nuclear Fuel Services (Erwin, TN)[:] Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) was established in

1957 and continues business today as a small business enterprise. Nuclear Fuel Services operates under a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Category 1 fuel fabrication license. This license allows the handling, use, and production of nuclear fuels having greater than 20% U235 enrichment. It was originally established by W. R. Grace as a nuclear component supplier to the developing United States commercial nuclear industry. (9.43.2) In the 1960s, [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS started supplying [Highly Enriched Uranium]

HEU fuel to the U.S. Department of Energy. Over the past 10 years, [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFS has applied its [Highly Enriched Uranium] HEU expertise to several [Highly Enriched Uranium] HEU recovery and downblending projects. [W.R. Grace & Co.] Nuclear Fuel Services downblends [Highly Enriched Uranium] HEU to low-enriched uranyl nitrate solution, which is converted to LEUO2 powder at the Erwin site and further processed into commercial nuclear fuel by [W.R. Grace & Co.] NFSs partner, AREVA. This experience provides a robust infrastructure for handling a variety of Highly Enriched Uranium] HEU materials, as well as [Highly Enriched Uranium] HEU technical processing know-how unparalleled in the nuclear industry. [W.R. Grace & Co. ] Nuclear Fuel Services has successfully applied continuous improvement programs driven by Lean Six Sigma and Value Stream Mapping protocols to achieve dramatic improvement in throughput and quality of product. The nature of its business demands a strong safety culture in manufacturing. (9.43.3) As a licensed Category I processing facility, NFS owns and operates the facilities and

systems to receive, store, track, handle, process, and ship nuclear materials of all enrichments. Nuclear Regulatory Commission License Special Nuclear Material (SNM)-124 permits NFS to receive, store, and process a wide variety of enriched uranium materials (up to 100% U-235) in a manner that provides maximum safety and compliance. In addition, NFS processes these materials to form final McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 160 of 953

products that meet or exceed customer specifications for nuclear fuel applications. Nuclear Fuel Services successfully amended its NRC license to encompass four new facilities on its site within a four-year period. It is expected that HEU fuel fabrication for the Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR) would fit under the existing license. (9.43.) (9.44) See Reference 30. An article on the Internet talks about how this ugly mess got started with a

movement called the Nuclear Renaissance. This article starts out like this: Nuclear Renaissance or Nuclear Nightmare?; Thought the Nuclear Power Industry was Dead? Guess again. The Bush Administration is Breathing New Life into Commercial Nukes. by Karl Grossman, Special to CorpWatch...October 23rd, 2002. The information in this article appears to be significant in why nuclear power is all of the sudden Clean Safe and Emissions Free. Pertinent parts of this article are as follows (quotation marks omitted): (9.44.1) Last month, nuclear industry executives and U.S. government officials got together in

Washington, D.C. for a conference called "The Nuclear Renaissance"-- a gathering boosting a comeback of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. (9.44.2) "Renaissance" has replaced "revival" as the word being used by nuclear proponents in

the U.S. and around the world to describe their desired recovery of the nuclear industry. There has not been an order of a new nuclear power plant in the U.S. since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident shattered public trust in nuclear technology. The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster damaged confidence in atomic energy worldwide. But the nuclear industry and its allies in government are back for a "renaissance." (9.44.3) In March 2003 there will be a Nuclear Renaissance Forum in Chicago sponsored by

the nuclear plant manufacturers Framatome and Westinghouse. A few days before last months Washington meeting, the World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium in London featured a session McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 161 of 953

on "Nuclear Renaissance." (9.44.4) At the session, Dr. Andrei Gagarinski, director of international affairs at Russias

Kurchatov Institute, said his atomic research facility had teamed with the U.S. Department of Energyowned Sandia National Laboratories to put together "a new Atoms for Peace and Prosperity Program." The program was considered at President George Bushs summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in May, according to Gagarinski. (9.44.5) In the U.K. in August, Robin Jeffrey, chairman of British Energy, called for a "nuclear

renaissance" telling the British Nuclear Engineering Society that "working in partnership [we can] create a financial and commercial framework for a programme of new build." (9.44.6) (9.44.7) globalized: (9.44.7.1) British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. has purchased Westinghouse (the worlds largest reactor Nuclear Globalization Meanwhile, as it prepares for its hoped-for "renaissance," the nuclear industry has

manufacturer) and ABB/Combustion Engineering (itself the product of an earlier merger of the Swedish ABB and the U.S. corporation Combustion Engineering). (9.44.7.2) Siemens, the largest reactor builder in Germany, and Framatome, with a monopoly

on construction of French reactors, announced their intent to merge most aspects of their nuclear businesses. (9.44.7.3) General Electric (the world's second largest reactor manufacturer after

Westinghouse) joined with Mitsubishi to build new atomic plants in Japan. (9.44.7.4) Minatom, the giant Russian state-owned nuclear entity, is moving to build new

nuclear plants in Russia and internationally. (9.44.7.5) A handful of giant multinational energy corporations are positioning themselves to

become "the robber barons of the 2lst Century," says Michael Mariotte, Executive Director of the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 162 of 953

Nuclear Information & Resource Service/World Information Service on Energy-Amsterdam (NIRSWISE Amsterdam). Mariotte added that "perhaps no industry is embracing globalization quite so fervently," in a field "where the stakes are highest, where the threats to all life are most at risk." (9.44.7.6) Paul Gunter Project, who attended the "Nuclear Renaissance" conference in

Washington, said rather than a renaissance, what is involved is "a relapse into the failed nuclear energy policy" of the past. (9.44.8) (9.44.9) George W. Bush: Nuclear President The "renaissance" also now comes with what Mariotte says "may be the most ardently

pro-nuclear power presidency in U.S. history." The Bush administrations stance on nuclear power is aggressive and minimizes the dangers of atomic technology. As Bushs Secretary of Treasury Paul ONeill has told The Wall Street Journal, "If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear is really is good." (9.44.10) The administration struck a close working relationship with the nuclear industry well

before taking office. Its energy "transition" advisors included: (9.44.10.1) Joseph Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the lead nuclear

industry-funded trade group. (9.44.10.2) J. Bennett Johnston who as a senator was a leading pro-nuclear power figure in

Congress and now runs a consulting firm that assists the nuclear industry. (9.44.10.3) Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute and former head of the

American Nuclear Energy Council, forerunner of the NEI, and a friend of Bush going back to their days at Yale Representatives of four U.S. utilities involved with nuclear power. (9.44.11) Two weeks after being sworn in, Bush set up a "National Energy Policy

Development Group" and appointed Vice President Dick Cheney as its chairman. Its members included ONeill and Andrew Lundquist, who also coordinated the energy "transition" team was named executive McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 163 of 953

director. (9.44.12) "The National Energy Policy Development Group supports the expansion of nuclear

energy in the United States as a major component of our National Energy Policy," declared the group's report, issued ten weeks later. (9.44.13) "America," said Bush in unveiling the plan, should "expand a clean and unlimited

source of energy: nuclear power." (9.44.14) This National Energy Policy whose recommendations were discussed at length at the

Nuclear Renaissance conference - would substantially increase the use of nuclear power in the U.S. both by building new nuclear power plants many on existing nuclear plant sites, and extending the 40year licenses of currently operating plants by another 20 years each. (9.44.15) (9.44.16) Nukes: Exception to the War on Terrorism? Some observers might think the September 11th terrorist attacks -- and the reported

plans by Al Qaeda to strike at U.S. nuclear plants -- might hold up plans for a "nuclear renaissance." (9.44.17) But Richard A. Meserve, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC), struck positive notes at the Nuclear Renaissance conference at which he was a keynote speaker. The NRC was created in 1975 to impartially regulate nuclear power replacing the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, which Congress deemed to be in conflict of interest being set up to both promote and regulate nuclear power. (9.44.18) "First, the physical protection at nuclear power plants was strong before September

11th. I am aware of no other industry that has had to satisfy the tough requirements that the NRC has had in place for a quarter of a century," stated Meserve. (9.44.19) "Secondly, there have been no specific credible threats of a terrorist attack on nuclear

power plants since September 11th," he added. (9.44.20) "Third" Meserve concluded, "in light of the events of September 11th, the NRC has McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 164 of 953

recognized the need to reexamine past security strategies to ensure that we have the right protections in place for the long term." (9.44.21) "The agency could not have presented the situation farther from the truth," noted

Gunter of the Reactor Watchdog Project. "Before September 11th, the industry and NRC were mired in an endless dialogue on security deficiencies and the rising cost of safeguarding nuclear power plants" he said. And federal security exercises conducted since 1991 led to "failing grades" half the time, according to Gunter. (9.44.22) Gunter said that after the September 11th attacks, the NRC closed down its formal

security exercise program. "The vulnerability of attacks from the air and the water were never evaluated," he explained. (9.44.23) "Contrary to Dr. Meserves remarks, nuclear power plants remain both structurally

and programmatically vulnerable to sophisticated and premeditated acts of terrorism," according to the head of the watchdog group. (9.44.24) (9.44.25) Corporate Welfare Also making a presentation at the "Nuclear Renaissance" conference was

Westinghouse Vice President for New Plants Ernie H. Kennedy who described "the post-TMI phase" for the nuclear industry as a "collapse of new plant orders, cancellation of existing orders" and "sharply increasing O&M [operation and maintenance] costs." But, he said, the nuclear industry in the 1990s had been busy "getting the house in order" and "preparing for the renaissance 2000s." Now, said Mr. Kennedy, there is "slow but sustained improvement in public acceptance" and "improved political support." (9.44.26) Gail H. Marcus, Bush administration appointee as principal deputy director of the

U.S. Department of Energy, who is also president of the pro-industry American Nuclear Society, began her presentation by quoting from report of the National Energy Policy Development Group. She said McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 165 of 953

new nuclear power plants would be built under a "cost-shared" arrangement between the federal government and utilities. This will be combined, she said, with the Department of Energys "Early Site Permit" or expedited nuclear plant process on three projects soon to be advanced. (9.44.27) construction by: (9.44.27.1) site in Virginia (9.44.27.2) (9.44.27.3) (9.44.28) Entergy for a new nuclear plant at the Grand Gulf nuclear plant site in Mississippi Excelon for a new nuclear plant at the Clinton nuclear plant site in Illinois. Marcus said the new plants were expected to come on line by 2005 and some, or all, Dominion Energy for new nuclear plant at the current North Anna nuclear plant The "cost-shared" and "Early Site Permit" arrangements will be initially used in

of the "advanced" nuclear plant would be deployed by 2010. (9.44.29) (9.45) See Reference 36.

An article on the world wide web is published by an organization called Public Citizen,

which says the following (quotation marks omitted): (9.45.1) The Money Behind the Madness: Campaign Contributions Grease the Skids for

Utilities[;] Contact: Brendan Hoffman, (202) 454-5130 (9.45.2) On March 31, 2004, three consortia made up of utilities and nuclear plant vendors

announced they were taking the U.S. Department of Energy up on its offer to pay half the cost for utilities top test a new system for approving nuclear plant construction, anticipated to cost upwards of $650 million. Why is the DOE being so generous? Why the focus on nuclear energy, the "clean air energy," from an administration that continues to deny the existence of global warming? Considering the ten public companies in the consortia had cumulative profits in 2003 of over $20 billion (about 75% of which was GE) [1] , it would seem at first glance that there's no reason to shower them with extra dollars. However, there is a logical explanation. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (see McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 166 of 953

Reference 941), the eleven US-based companies have given over $7 million to various electoral campaigns and the Democratic and Republican parties since the 2000 election cycle. [2] (9.45.3) Southern Company is the most generous donor of the bunch, giving over $1.6 million

since 2000, respectively. Dwight Evans, Executive Vice President at Southern Company, is a Pioneer in President Bushs reelection campaign meaning he has pledged to raise at least $100,000 in hardmoney donations. [3] Stephen Wakefield, a Southern Company Vice President, was a member of the Presidents Energy Department transition team. James Langdon, a Pioneer in 2000 and 2004, works at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm that has represented Southern Company. He was on the Energy Department transition team as well. Rob Leeburn, a 2004 Pioneer, works at Troutman Sanders, a lobbying firm that represents Southern Company. Lanny Griffith, a principal in the lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, which has lobbied on behalf of Southern Company, is a 2004 Ranger, meaning he has pledged to bundle $200,000 in contributions for Bush. His partner at the firm, Haley Barbour, met with Vice President Cheneys Energy Task Force and other senior Energy Department advisors during the time the national energy policy was being drafted. He is a former Republican National Committee chairman and is now Governor of Mississippi where Entergy has applied for an Early Site Permit to site a potential new reactor. [4] (9.45.4) According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Ed Lupberger, CEO of Entergy,

joined the Republicans Team 100, pledging to raise $175,000 in contribution to party coffers. In return, the then-party chairman, Haley Barbour, escorted the energy executive to four appointments that turned out to be very significant in the legislation affecting public utility holding companies. In fact it made Ed a hero in his industry. [5] (9.45.5) David Metzner, a 2000 and 2004 Pioneer, lobbies for American Continental Group,

which represents Exelon. Metzner was a member of the Commerce Department transition team. (9.45.6) The money trail doesnt end there. According to a 2003 Public Citizen report entitled McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 167 of 953

Hot Waste, Cold Cash: Nuclear Industry PAC Contributions to the Members of the 108th Congress,[6] nuclear industry Political Action Committees contributed over $5.8 million to congressional campaigns in the 2002 election cycle, with 65% going to Republicans. Exelon, Southern Company, Entergy, Duke, Progress, and Dominion are all in the top ten of industry contributors. (9.45.7) (9.46) See Reference 37 OMB Watch, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization, was formed in 1983 to

lift the veil of secrecy shrouding the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB oversees federal regulation, the budget, information collection and dissemination, proposed legislation, testimony by agencies, and much more. While OMB's actions were having an enormous impact on agency operations and the pursuit of social justice, it remained largely behind the scenes unaccountable and little understood by the public and public interest groups. By explaining governmental processes and monitoring OMB, OMB Watch helped bring sunshine to this powerful and secretive agency. OMB published an article on the world wide web, which says the following (quotation marks omitted): (9.46.1) (9.46.2) Gaps in Homeland Security Benefit Bush Campaign Funders The Bush administration has weakened, opposed, or failed to initiate proposals to

address security gaps that leave chemical and nuclear plants, hazardous material carriers, shipping ports, and drinking water facilities vulnerable to terrorist attacks, according to a new report that links these failures to Bush campaign funding from the very industries that oppose needed regulation. (9.46.3) According to the new Public Citizen report Homeland Unsecured: The Bush

Administration's Hostility to Regulation and Ties to Industry Leave America Vulnerable (see Reference 942), the Bush administration "has abdicated its responsibility to protect the American homeland from the risk of potentially catastrophic terrorist attacks upon chemical plants, nuclear reactors, hazardous materials transport, seaports and water systems." McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 168 of 953

(9.46.4)

"In many cases, the administration and its Republican allies in Congress have either

opposed security reforms or obstinately refused to act even though ready solutions are obvious," the report maintains. (9.46.5) (9.46.6) (9.46.7) Five Critical Infrastructure Vulnerabilities Chemical Plants Terrorist attacks on any of the nation's 15,000 chemical plants could kill millions.

The Army concluded in a 2001 study that an attack on a single plant could kill or injure 2.4 million people, and the Environmental Protection Agency has identified 123 plants that could, in the event of accident or attack, endanger one million people or more. (9.46.8) In fact, terrorists have already entertained these deadly possibilities, according to the

report. Evidence from the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers revealed that the terrorists had stolen cyanide from a chemical plant and planned to release it in the WTC ventilation system. The FBI learned that Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, landed a plane in Tennessee in March 2001 and asked a local man what chemicals were contained in the storage tanks he had flown over. Those tanks, it turns out, held more than 250 tons of sulfur dioxide. (9.46.9) Despite the obvious threat, the Bush administration has not begun to secure

chemical plant facilities and has in fact opposed measures to require security improvements: (9.46.9.1) The administration joined forces with the chemical industry to pressure Congress to

reject the Chemical Security Act (S.157), which would have phased out unsafe technologies and required chemical plants to use safer chemicals and technologies when available and feasible[;] (9.46.9.2) The administration scrapped an EPA effort to use its Clean Air Act authority to

increase security at chemical plants. The administration "totally overruled EPA's fledgling initiative by allocating responsibility for chemical security to the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), even though DHS has no authority to enforce the Clean Air Act or to establish and enforce new plant McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 169 of 953

security standards," the report added[;] (9.46.9.3) DHS has subsequently failed to issue mandatory security regulations. Instead, it has

promoted voluntary industry standards, despite its earlier admission in October 2002 that voluntary guidelines are insufficient. (9.46.10) (9.46.10.1) Nuclear Power Plants Although the phrases "dirty bomb" and "radiological device" began to achieve

wide circulation after 9/11, the administration has not addressed the over 100 potential dirty bombs already in the United States: the 103 nuclear reactors in 65 power plants across the country. In fact, according to the 9/11 Commission staff, nuclear power plants were among the ten targets originally planned by al Qaeda for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. (9.46.10.2) The safety gaps in nuclear power facilities are frightening, as are the

administration failures cited by the report: (9.46.10.3) Security guards failed to protect nuclear power plants nearly half the time in mock

terrorist attacks conducted from 1991 to 2001. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has subsequently allowed the nuclear power plants' own lobby to control terrorism preparedness tests, and the lobby has in turn contracted the tests to the same company that provides, in most nuclear facilities, the very security forces that must be tested. (9.26.10.4) The NRC proposed in March of this year to weaken, not strengthen, fire safety

regulations for nuclear power plants. (9.46.10.5) The Government Accountability Office identified three major security flaws that

remained unaddressed one year later. Among the flaws: the NRC assesses power plant security plans in an inadequate paper review without on-site visits, and it has no plan to conduct follow-up reviews of plants which the commission has cited for violating security requirements. (9.46.11) Hazardous Materials McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 170 of 953

(9.46.11.1)

The report also concentrates on the dangers that crisscross the country every day

on the highways and the rails: toxic chemicals and other hazardous materials (hazmats) that are routinely transported without post-9/11 security improvements, even through major metropolitan areas. (9.46.11.2) The numbers are staggering, as are their implications. Over a million carloads of

hazardous material traverse the rails annually, and over 75,000 trucks transport hazardous materials every day on the nation's roadways. These dangerous materials regularly pass through major population centers, including the nation's capital. "Ninety-ton rail cars that regularly pass within four blocks of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, DC, contain enough chlorine to kill 100,000 people within 30 minutes and could endanger 2.4 million people," the report adds. (9.46.11.3) The administration has squandered several opportunities for addressing the security

gaps in these areas, according to the report, especially in the area of hazmat truck transportation. The administration has failed to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the dangers in this area and has instead weakened or delayed regulations to improve hazmat truck security. The administration issued a final rule that exempted hazmat carriers from providing drivers with written routes and conducting pretrip inspections to ensure the integrity of the truck itself. Further, the administration has not mandated immediate background checks of hazmat drivers but, instead, delayed a proposal for fingerprint-based background checks until 2005. (9.46.11.4) Moreover, although Washington, DC obviously remains a prime target for terrorist

attack, the administration recently informed Congress that it intends to allow the 8,500 hazmat rail cars that pass through Washington every year to continue to do so. The report notes that a Transportation Security Agency official told Congress that "efforts to reroute trains away from major cities would be quite limited.'" (9.46.12) (9.46.12.1) Ports Long before ABC News exposed post-9/11 weaknesses in port security by shipping McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 171 of 953

a load of depleted uranium into the United States undetected, the lack of security in the country's 361 sea and river ports has been well known. The administration can verify the contents of only four to six percent of all containers, even three years after 9/11. Moreover, as revealed in a recent letter from Rep. Jim Turner (D-TX) to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, the administration has not satisfactorily implemented "key recommendations for correcting the identified deficiencies in inspections. In light of the fact that [a report by the DHS Inspector General] deals with the grave threat of a nuclear attack, and the Department has cited the interest of al-Qaeda in such an attack, the report requires immediate action by the Department." (9.46.12.2) The Public Citizen report identifies other administration failures that keep ports

unsecured. Among other things, the administration has failed to push for the funding needed to secure ports, and its 2005 budget proposal actually would zero out a pilot program for testing the security of containers entering the country. (9.46.13) (9.46.13.1) Water Systems Water systems are important, obviously for drinking water and use in agriculture

and the food industry, but water systems across the country also hold chemicals such as chlorine that are used to remove contaminants. Not only could water systems be threatened by contamination of the water itself, but there is also the deadly possibility that an attack on the stored chemicals would release toxic clouds into populated areas. (9.46.13.2) The administration is not adequately addressing the security of water systems,

according to the report. The president himself has opposed increased federal funding for water infrastructure, and the administration has tried to cut funding for the revolving loan funds that states need to upgrade water systems. The administration appears to have concentrated its efforts instead on measures to force local governments to sell off public water systems to private companies. (9.46.14) Follow the Money[:] Aside from compiling and documenting the administration's McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 172 of 953

failures to secure these five areas of critical infrastructure, the new report also makes the link between these failures and industry money flowing into Bush and Republican campaigns. The industries seeking to avoid security regulation -- chemical, nuclear, hazmat transport, ports and shipping, and water utility industries -- are major contributors to Bush and GOP campaign funds, number among the "Ranger" and "Pioneer" elite bundlers of campaign contributions, and have spent millions during the last two years on vigorous and successful lobbying. (9.46.15) See Reference 38. SECTION 10 (10) The Senior Editor for MSNBC News, Mike Stuckey, has a web page article that was

last updated on January 24, 2007, which says the following (quotation marks omitted): (10.1) Sen. Pete Domenici: nuclear renaissance man [--] Long-serving lawmaker is driving

force behind U.S. industry's rebirth (10.2) Sen. Pete Domenici presides over a September hearing on the Global Nuclear Energy

Partnership before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Water and Energy [in the picture below].

Katie Cannon / MSNBC.com

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 173 of 953

(10.3)

On a cool morning last August, the senior U.S. senator from New Mexico hefted a

shovel of desert earth and invited 800 onlookers to witness history. (10.4) I have been talking over the last several years about the coming of the nuclear

renaissance in commercial nuclear energy in America, the senator said, helping to dedicate a $1.5 billion uranium enrichment facility in his state's southeast corner, about five miles east of the small town of Eunice. I am delighted and proud that the renaissance is in New Mexico. (10.5) If the renaissance that the U.S. nuclear power industry predicts for itself is indeed

occurring, then Pietro Pete Vichy Domenici, the son of Italian immigrants, may be seen as both its Michelango and its Machiavelli. And the New Mexico uranium plant is just one piece of deft political artwork the conservative Republican has brought to a nuclear industry that has showered him with praise and hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. (10.6) Casting himself as Congress chief nuclear apostle, Domenici has for years painted

a glowing picture of nuclear energys potential to give Americans a cleaner, healthier, sustainable and self-sufficient energy future and even contribute to global peace, as he wrote in his 2004 book on the topic, A Brighter Tomorrow. To those ends, he worked tirelessly as the chairman of two powerful Senate committees with direct control of federal spending on nuclear energy and regulation. (10.7) For a New Mexico politician, a passion for nuclear power is as natural as sagebrush

on the mesa. The state has strong ties to all things nuclear: It is the birthplace of nuclear weapons, home to two national labs that provide 20,000 jobs and bring in billions of dollars a year in federal funds and is host to a Department of Energy nuclear waste site. It also has substantial uranium deposits and depends heavily on nuclear-generated electricity. (10.8) But Domenicis reach on nuclear matters has become ubiquitous. He boasts proudly

of how he brought an adversarial Nuclear Regulatory Commission to heel. He has helped broker U.S.-Russian deals to convert nuclear bomb materiel into fuel for nuclear plants. Hes the only McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 174 of 953

American to have been honored with the French Nuclear Energy Society's highest award. He has championed the Bush administrations controversial deal to conduct nuclear business with India and its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a plan to bring nuclear energy to developing nations. Captains of the industry sing his praises and his former aides have graduated to some of the most influential positions in the nuclear industry and the government agencies that work with it and oversee it. (10.9) The senators signature achievement was winning passage of the Energy Policy Act of

2005, which contained $85 billion in subsidies and tax breaks across all energy sectors, including $13 billion for nuclear power. (10.10) Money goes both ways[:] Its been a two-way street. Since 1989, Domenici has

received $1.2 million in campaign donations from individuals and political action committees in the energy and natural resources sector, well over a tenth of the total $10.8 million he has raised for his Senate campaigns in that time, according to federal election records. Electric utilities, with big stakes in the future of nuclear power and government subsidies for it, kicked in $384,923. The list of Domenicis campaign donors includes at least three dozen firms on the membership roster of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industrys main lobbying arm. (10.11) While Domenici is proud of his nuclear stewardship, as his book attests, his handlers

can be prickly when it comes to discussing his relationship with the industry. His staff refused repeated requests from MSNBC.com to speak to him for this series, in one case canceling an appointment after a reporter and photographer had flown across the country for an interview. (10.12) Now 74 and starting his 35th year in the Senate, the bespectacled, stern-faced

Domenici is at a crossroads as he contemplates the nature of his nuclear legacy. With both the House and Senate reverting to Democratic control earlier this month, he lost the chairmanships of the Energy Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Water and Energy. (10.13) Given that the Energy Policy Act had strong bipartisan support and that his successor McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 175 of 953

as chairman of the Energy Committee, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Bingaman's counterpart in the House, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., both are staunch supporters of nuclear power, there is no expectation that a legislative U-turn is in the cards... (10.14) (10.15) See Reference 39 A web site published by a Senator Pete V. Domenici, and/or somebody working on his

behalf, says the following (quotation marks omitted): (10.15.1) Domenici: Progress on New U.S. Uranium Enrichment Plan Solidifies N.M. role in

Nuke Energy Renaissance from the Office of Senator Pete V. Domenici[,] Friday, October 24, 2008-Senator Attends Dedication Ceremony for $2.0 Billion Lea County Plant -- EUNICE, N.M. U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today asserted that progress on construction of the National Enrichment Facility (NEF) in Lea County continues to move New Mexico to the center of the renaissance of American nuclear power, a goal considered crucial to Americas quest for greater energy independence. Domenici addressed the rebirth of the U.S. nuclear energy industry during the dedication of the NEFs main separations building, which has been designated as the Pete V. Domenici Separation Building. (10.15.2) NEF is the first U.S. enrichment plant brought into operation since the 1950s, and the

first commercial gas centrifuge facility to operate in the United States... (10.15.3) (10.16) See Reference 90. Pete V. Domenici, George W. Bush, the rest of the listed Defendants, and

others who have the same intentions, say that Nuclear Power is clean, safe, and emissions free. (10.17) omitted): (10.17.1) In Cibola Co., Domenici Says Nuclear Renaissance is Good for N.M. & U.S. Energy Pete Domenici's web site has a page, which says the following (quotation marks

Picture from the Office of Senator Pete V. Domenici Tuesday, October 31, 2006 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 176 of 953

(10.17.2)

GRANTS, N.M. U.S. Senator Pete Domenici told a Grants audience today that the

nuclear energy renaissance taking place across the country has positive implications not only globally or in the United States, but also regionally in New Mexico. (10.17.3) Domenici Tuesday addressed the Grants Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club

Joint Luncheon. The Senator focused his remarks on the nations energy picture, and pointed out the role that New Mexico will play as the nation moves forward to develop cleaner, alternative energy sources, including nuclear energy. (10.17.4) The last few years have marked a real turning point for those of us who believe that

nuclear energy should play a larger role in our nations energy future. The fact is that nuclear energy is also clean energy, totally free of emissions. That makes it not only essential to providing affordable and reliable energy, but also critical the fight to reduce carbon emissions, said Domenici, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. (10.17.5) (10.18) omitted): (10.18.1) We will build the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to work with other nations to See Reference 40 The White House (George W. Bush) web site says the following (quotation marks

develop and deploy advanced nuclear recycling and reactor technologies. This initiative will help provide reliable, emission-free energy with less of the waste burden of older technologies and without making available separated plutonium that could be used by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons. These new technologies will make possible a dramatic expansion of safe, clean nuclear energy to help meet the growing global energy demand. See Reference 41. (10.18.2) The Administration continues strong support for nuclear power, which offers an air

emissions-free, safe, and reliable source of energy, in several areas, including the Nuclear Power 2010 (NP 2010) program and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). NP 2010 will help private McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 177 of 953

industry obtain licenses for new designs that could result in a new power plant ordered by 2009 and operating by 2014. GNEP can help expand the safe use of nuclear power around the world, promote nuclear nonproliferation, and resolve nuclear waste disposal issues through an international framework that will eliminate the need for foreign countries to build enrichment and recycling capabilities, as well as develop technologies with much less proliferation risk and waste production. See Reference 42. (10.18.3) My administration established a new initiative called the Global Nuclear Energy

Partnership. This partnership will work with nations with advanced civilian nuclear energy programs, such as France and Japan and China and Russia. Together we will help developing nations obtain secure, cost-effective and proliferation-resistant nuclear power, so they can have a reliable source of zero-emissions energy. (10.18.4) Nuclear Power Is The Only Significant Emissions-Free Baseload Power Source That

Is Able To Expand To Meet America's Growing Need For Electricity. To maintain nuclear power's current twenty-percent share of electricity generation in the U.S., experts believe it will be necessary to build an average of three new plants per year, starting in 2015. Partially as a result of litigation and complex regulations, however, no new nuclear plants have been ordered in the U.S. since the 1970s. (10.18.5) In 2003, The Administration Launched The Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative. This

partnership between the U.S. government and industry is focused on reducing the technical, regulatory, and institutional barriers to deployment of new nuclear power plants. The President's 2008 budget will double the requested funding for this program to $114 million to help private industry obtain licenses for new designs. (10.18.6) By The End Of This Decade, America Should Be Able To Start Construction On

Several New Nuclear Plants. To date, 20 companies and consortia have announced their intent to file license applications over the next two years with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for as many as as 30 new reactors. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 178 of 953

(10.18.7)

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Is Working To Improve And Streamline

The Regulatory Process To Help Accelerate The Construction Of Nuclear Plants. Under the old system, the permitting process was slow and cumbersome because it limited builders to completing only one step at a time before moving on. The NRC is now implementing a more efficient review process that allows builders to complete several steps at a time without compromising safety. (10.18.8) The Energy Bill The President Signed In 2005 Provides Production Tax Credits And

Federal Risk Insurance For Builders Of New Nuclear Plants. Production tax credits will reward investments in the latest in advanced nuclear power generation, and Federal risk insurance helps protect the first builders of new nuclear plants against frivolous lawsuits, bureaucratic obstacles, and other delays beyond their control. (10.18.9) The Administration Has Repeatedly Proposed Legislation To Complete A Nuclear

Waste Repository Site At Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain is critical to expanding nuclear power in the United States because it will provide a safe geologic repository to store spent fuel and nuclear waste. The President's 2008 budget request devotes nearly $495 million to continue progress on licensing Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent fuel, and he urges Congress to pass this important legislation to move our efforts forward. (10.18.10) Under The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, America Will Work With Nations

That Have Advanced Civilian Nuclear Energy Programs - Such As France, China, Japan, And Russia. The partnership will work to provide the cheap and safe energy growing economies need, while reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation and avoiding greenhouse gas emissions. (10.19) The model or design, for the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant that the Defendants have

presented to be what they plan to do at the GNEP nuclear fuel recycling center, is a facility in the UK called Sellafield, which is also connected with and/or called: Thorp and Windscale. The picture on the next page was taken at a public information meeting held by EnvergySolution Inc., Gandy Marley McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 179 of 953

Inc., and North Wind Inc. Alan Dobson of Energysolutions is showing us the model they are using for what they plan to operate near Roswell.

(10.20)

A web page article, published by Environment News Services, is entitled:

Radioactive Leak Shuts Down UK Nuclear Reprocessing Plant. It says the following (quotation marks omitted): (10.20.1) LONDON, UK, May 11, 2005 (ENS) - Members of the European Parliament are

demanding that the United Kingdom government launch an immediate independent inquiry into the situation at the UK's Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) facility at Sellafield in Cumbria. The nuclear fuel reprocessing facility was closed down April 20 following a leak of radioactive fuel. (10.20.2) About 20 metric tons of plutonium and uranium fuel dissolved in nitric acid leaked

from a cracked pipe into an enormous secondary container that is too radioactive for workers to enter. Officials say specialized robots may have to be built to clean up the spill. (10.20.3) Plant managers maintain that no radioactive material has escaped into the

environment, although the exact details of the incident remain closely guarded. The European Commission has not received any information about the circumstances of the leak.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 180 of 953

(10.20.4)

Green MEP Dr. Caroline Lucas said the accident highlights the daily health, security

and environmental risks of the nuclear power industry. The reprocessing of spent fuel is just one aspect of an industry that is dangerous, dirty and expensive, said Lucas, who represents South-East England and is a member of the European Parliaments Environment Committee. (10.20.5) Sir Anthony Cleaver, chairman of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority which

took over ownership of the plant from British Nuclear Fuels on April 1, said, Our first priority is always safety, and we have been reassured that there is no immediate concern on that front." (10.20.6) The THORP facility was transferred to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority as

part of a reorganization of the UKs 40 billion nuclear waste liabilities. But the European Commission is investigating the transfer under rules governing illegal state aid, and THORPs future is uncertain. (10.20.7) The facility is designed to separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel for customers

from various countries, though it has been beset by problems and has never functioned at full capacity... (10.20.8) ...German Green MEP Rebecca Harms said, The European Commission and the UK

government must immediately launch an independent inquiry into both the causes and the consequences of the accident. Considering the inherent risks and the absence of any economic future of the plutonium industry, these plants in both the UK and in France should be abandoned. (10.20.9) The spill casts a shadow of doubt on the Blair government's renewed interest in

building nuclear power plants. (10.20.10) Lucas said, Tony Blair has raised the spectre of building new nuclear power

stations as a way of meeting the UKs international legal obligations to reduce CO2 emissions. Not only is this misguided - as this accident has amply demonstrated - it is based on a fallacious assumption that nuclear energy is carbon free." (10.20.11) The reality is that over its full life cycle a nuclear power plant is responsible for

significant CO2 emissions," said Lucas. "If he is serious about safely reducing greenhouse gas McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 181 of 953

emissions, Tony Blair must abandon the dirty and dangerous nuclear power industry in favor of renewable sources such as wind, wave and solar power - and invest heavily in energy conservation measures, she said. This incident has served to close the plant for the foreseeable future - the government must take the next step and keep it closed for good," said Lucas. "The government shouldnt even be talking about commissioning new nuclear plants while we remain stuck with the mess of the last 50 years, she said."The deadly by-products of the nuclear energy industry must in no way be used as a raw material for new industrial processes," said Lucas. (10.20.12) (10.21) See Reference 85.

A document entitled: Scientific and Technological Options Assessment: POSSIBLE

TOXIC EFFECTS FROM THE NUCLEAR REPROCESSING PLANTS AT SELLAFIELD (UK) AND CAP DE LA HAGUE (FRANCE), dated 2001, is published by European Parliament. It says the following (quotation marks omitted): (10.21.1) Only 5% to 10% of world annual spent fuel arisings is submitted for reprocessing,

with the rest stored pending final disposal in a repository. The largest centres in the world for commercial reprocessing remain Sellafield in the UK and La Hague in France. Reprocessing involves the dissolution of the spent fuel in boiling concentrated nitric acid and subsequent physico-chemical separations of uranium and plutonium. Multiple waste streams are created by these physical and chemical processes. While some wastes are retained and conditioned, considerable volumes of liquid and gaseous wastes are released to the environment. Reprocessing operations release considerably larger volumes of radioactivity than other nuclear activities, typically by factors of several 1,000 compared with nuclear reactors. (10.21.2) Between 1965 and the end of year 2000, about 26,000 tonnes of spent gas graphite

fuel were reprocessed by the B205 line at Sellafield. About 3,000 tonnes of spent light water reactor fuel have been reprocessed at THORP since 1994. Based on current contracts and annual throughput McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 182 of 953

rates, both plants are expected to shut down within the next 10 years or earlier. (10.21.3) ...The deposition of plutonium within 20 km of Sellafield attributable to aerial

emissions has been estimated at 160-280 GBq (billion becquerels), that is two or three times plutonium fallout from all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. In addition, significant quantities of radionuclides can become airborne in sea spray and be transported inland by the wind... (10.21.4) It has been estimated that over 40,000 TBq (trillion becquerels) of caesium-137,

113,000 TBq of beta emitters and 1,600 TBq of alpha emitters have been discharged into the Irish Sea since the inception of reprocessing at Sellafield. This means that between 250 and 500 kilograms of plutonium from Sellafield is now adsorbed on sediments on the bed of the Irish Sea. The migration of undersea deposits of actinides to coastal environments represents a long-term hazard of largely unknown proportions. (10.21.5) Technetium-99 (half-life 214,000 years) discharges have led to particular concern.

In 1997, technetium concentrations in crustacean particularly in lobster reached 13 times the European Council Food Intervention Level (CFIL) in the vicinity of Sellafield. Some technetium concentrations above CFIL limits have also been found in molluscs (winkles, mussels, limpets and whelks). Recent environmental surveys along the Norwegian coast indicate a six-fold increase in technetium concentrations in seaweed since 1996. Concentration factors are greater than 1,000 for some biota such as macrophytic brown algae, worms and lobsters and are particularly high for some seaweeds (around 100,000). In 1999, a number of high concentrations of various radionuclides were also recorded in fish, shellfish, sediments and aquatic plants, some exceeding CFILs several times... (10.21.6) A recent study commissioned by the German Federal Office for Radiation

Protection, using German statutory dose assessment assumptions, calculated that annual doses from consumption of contaminated foodstuffs were more than 5 times the annual limit imposed by the European legislation and about 20 times the annual dose constraint used in the UK and Germany. Most McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 183 of 953

of the dose was received via the technetium contaminated seaweed fertiliser/animal feed/meat consumption pathway. The conclusion of the German study was that the Sellafield reprocessing facilities would not be licensable in Germany. (10.21.7) The risk potential of certain hazards at Sellafield is very large. Liquid high level

wastes currently stored at Sellafield contains about 7 million TBq (2,100 kg) of caesium-137, which is about 80 times the amount released through the 1986 Chernobyl accident. Assuming a 50 percent release of caesium-137 in an accident at Sellafield, population dose commitment would range up to tens of millions of person-Sv resulting in over a million fatal cancer cases. (10.21.8) Conclusions on Hazards Posed by Liquid High Level Waste at Sellafield[:]

The hazard potential of liquid high level wastes in particular is very high. A serious accident might lead to large releases of radioactivity and on the long term globally to over one million fatal cancer cases. (10.21.9) Higher incidences of childhood leukaemia than expected were first identified near

Sellafield in 1983. The cause or causes of the observed increases in childhood leukaemia near Sellafield have not been determined, nor is it known whether a combination of factors is involved. The UK Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) has stated: As exposure to radiation is one of these factors, the possibility cannot be excluded that unidentified pathways or mechanisms involving environmental radiation are implicated. (10.21.10) Besides childhood leukaemia, other areas of concern have arisen, including reports

of increased incidence of retinoblastoma in children and a statistically significant increase in stillbirth risk in the Sellafield region. (10.21.11) Until 1992, Sellafield and La Hague released a total of some 1.2 tonnes of iodine-

129 to the environment. This is several hundred times that released at Chernobyl. In the period 19931998, a further 1.7 tonnes of iodine-129 were discharged (of which 80% from La Hague). Iodine-129 discharged from La Hague and Sellafield in 1999 alone was eight times greater than that released by McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 184 of 953

the fallout from all nuclear weapons testing. (10.21.12) The reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield (UK) and at La Hague (France)

leads to the largest man-made releases of radioactivity into the environment worldwide. The releases correspond to a large-scale nuclear accident every year. Some of the radionuclides released in great quantities have half-lives of millions of years. Concentrations identified in recent years in the environment repeatedly exceeded EU Community Food Intervention Levels (CFILs). (10.21.13) The discharge trends through the 1990s towards large increases in the releases of

certain key radionuclides at Sellafield and La Hague and further planned increases in releases constitute a violation of letter and spirit of the OSPAR Convention. (10.21.14) Accidental radionuclide releases from Sellafield and La Hague could be by two

orders of magnitude larger than in the case of the Chernobyl disaster and could lead globally over the long term in both cases to over one million fatal cancers. (10.21.15) In the surrounding regions of Sellafield and La Hague a statistically significant

increase in the incidence of leukaemia has been established. (10.21.16) The nuclear fuel cycle involves a number of steps from uranium mining and

milling, through enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor operations, spent fuel storage, radioactive waste conditioning and final disposal. Some nuclear operators have chosen to reprocess rather than store and condition their spent fuel. The single step of reprocessing emits considerably more radioactive discharges than all other steps combined. Reprocessing discharges from Sellafield and La Hague rank among the largest anthropogenic discharges of radioactivity throughout the world... (10.21.17) The reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel has been carried out since the 1950s in a

number of countries to retrieve fissile plutonium, originally for weapons purposes. Reprocessing has been also carried out by a few other countries in small amounts for fuel purposes (e.g. Japan and India). However clearly the largest centres in the world for commercial reprocessing remain Sellafield in the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 185 of 953

UK and La Hague in France. (10.21.18) Massive new uranium ore sources have been found much greater than had been

expected. Consequently the prices of natural uranium have been falling from one historical low to another. Breeder programs, which proved more expensive and less technically successful than anticipated, have been shelved. Germany abandoned its completed SNR-300 reactor at Kalkar in 1991 before it started up. The plant was turned into an amusement park. The UK shut down its PFR in 1994. The worlds only commercial-size breeder reactor, Superphnix in France, was shut down in 1996 after achieving a lifetime load factor of 6.3% (actual electricity generation as a fraction of the theoretical maximum). However plutonium production programs were not modified in response to these developments. Large reprocessing plants at Sellafield and La Hague were put into operation between 1989 and 1994 as if nothing had changed. As a result, large stockpiles of plutonium, reprocessed uranium and reprocessing wastes continue to build up in both countries. (10.21.19) (10.22) See Reference 9

Pete V. Domenici, George W. Bush, Samuel Bodman, the rest of the listed Defendants,

and others who have the same intentions, say that nuclear energy has no emissions. (10.23) The word emissions is defined by Merriam Webster on-line dictionary as:

substances discharged into the air. See Reference 46. (10.24) The word discharge is defined by Merriam Webster on-line dictionary as: to relieve of a charge, load, or burden...unload...to release from...to release...to let or put off...to release from confinement...to give outlet or vent to...emit... See Reference (10.25) The United States Environmental Protection Agency has a web site, which provides

many examples of the word emissions being used as a shorter way for saying substances released into the environment. Two examples are provided as follows: (10.25.1) Example 1: The Pollution Prevention Act defines "source reduction" to mean any McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 186 of 953

practice which: reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants. See Reference 47. (10.25.2) An emissions inventory is a database that lists, by source, the amount of air

pollutants discharged into the atmosphere of a community during a given time period. See Reference 52. (10.25.3) An EPA web page entitled: Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations and Emission: Pollution discharged into the atmosphere

Acronyms defines the word emission like this:

from smokestacks, other vents, and surface areas of commercial or industrial facilities; from residential chimneys; and from motor vehicle, locomotive, or aircraft exhausts. See Reference 94. (10.26) FEMA has a web page which says: The Clean Air Act (CAA), 1990 as amended,

requires federal agencies to assess the impact that projects will have on air quality and to take actions to prevent air quality degradation. The CAA sets forth air-quality standards and requirements to control pollutant release. Its goals are to use safe lower-emitting alternatives, employ low-emission practices, identify local air receptors, and conform with state and local requirements. (10.27) An article entitled: NRC NEWS[;] U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION ...No. 96-183 December 11, 1996, says the following (quotation marks omitted): (10.27.1) NRC REVISES REGULATIONS ON RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVE

MATERIALS FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES (10.27.2) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulation that governs release

of radioactive materials from NRC-licensed facilities other than nuclear power plants. (10.27.3) The changes are expected to eliminate unnecessary dual regulation by both the NRC

and the Environmental Protection Agency by providing a basis for EPA to rescind its regulations for McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 187 of 953

NRC non-reactor licensees. (10.27.4) The revisions will require affected NRC licensees to constrain air emissions of

radioactive materials from their facilities so that the highest radiation dose an individual member of the public would be likely to receive as a result of those emissions is 10 millirems per year. This proposal is part of NRC's program to maintain radiation doses from licensed facilities to levels that are as low as is reasonably achievable. (10.27.5) NRC requires its licensees to ensure that the dose to an individual member of the

public does not exceed 100 millirems per year from all pathways (including air emissions). The Commission believes that these current regulations provide adequate protection of the public health and safety. The revision will ensure that air emissions are maintained at a very low level, while eliminating dual regulation. (10.27.6) Under the NRC's revised regulations, if the 10 millirem per year constraint level is

exceeded, the licensee will have to report to the NRC and take prompt and appropriate corrective action to avoid recurrence. (10.27.7) The 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act required EPA to consider whether

radioactive materials should be identified as a hazardous air pollutant and, if so, to adopt standards to limit their emissions. EPA decided that radioactive materials are a hazardous pollutant and issued standards for their emission in air on October 31, 1989. Later that year, Congress enacted amendments to the Clean Air Act that said (in the Simpson amendment) EPA need not issue standards for emissions of radioactive material from facilities licensed by the NRC if the EPA Administrator determines that the regulatory program established by the NRC provides "an ample margin of safety to protect the public health." (10.27.8) EPA stayed the effectiveness of its regulations for a while, but its regulations are

now in effect for licensees other than nuclear power plants, which means that NRC-licensed facilities McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 188 of 953

are currently subject to dual regulation of air emissions by both the NRC and EPA. (For nuclear power plants, EPA has rescinded regulation of air emissions, based on NRC regulations already in place for power reactors and a history of more than 20 years of reported air emissions well below 10 millirems per year for these plants.) The EPA regulations state that emissions of radioactive materials to air from NRC-licensed facilities must not exceed amounts that would cause any member of the public to receive a radiation dose of 10 millirems per year. (10.27.9) EPA conducted two studies of air emissions from NRC non-reactor licensees. For

the more than 500 licensees evaluated, none exceeded 10 millirems per year. On the basis of these studies, it is evident that constraining air emissions of radioactive material to 10 millirems for the maximally exposed member of the public is reasonably achievable... (10.27.10) (10.27.11) See Reference 92. The statement made in paragraph (10.27.9) sounds a lot like part of a story that a

grand jury must hear from people that I know who have been involved in and/or witnessed the manipulation of EPA emissions testing. I will provide this information in the form of documents, audio recordings, notarized letters to the Arkansas Attorney General's office, and contact information for witnesses to the U.S. Attorney that helps the victims (Plaintiffs) as soon as he/she is helping us. (10.28) An article entitled: Current Issues and Actions, published by the NRC, says the

following (quotation marks omitted): (10.28.1) Dominion Energy Kewaunee Inc. (Kewaunee Power Station) EA-08-223[:] On

October 29, 2008, a Notice of Violation was issued for a violation associated with a White Significance Determination finding. Specifically, the licensee failed to identify that Kewaunees emergency plan emergency action levels specifying instrument threshold values were beyond the limits of the effluent radiation monitors capabilities to accurately measure and indicate. As a result, action directed by the State and local emergency response plans, which rely on information provided by the licensee, could McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 189 of 953

have potentially delayed minimum initial offsite response measures. (10.28.2) Global X-Ray & Testing Corporation (EA-08-008; EA-08-009; EA-08-010; EA-08-

011; EA-08-013)[;] On May 23, 2008, a Confirmatory Order (effective immediately) was issued to Global X-ray & Testing (Global) to confirm commitments made as a result of an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) settlement agreement. NRC identified four violations during inspection and investigation involving: 1) a willful failure to provide the NRC with complete and accurate information; 2) the failure to prevent workers from resuming work after their pocket dosimeters were found to be off-scale; 3) the failure to ensure that a radiographer was providing personal supervision of the radiographer's assistant through direct observation of the assistants performance of radiographic operations; and 4) allowing an individual who was not wearing a personal dosimeter to conduct radiographic operations... (10.28.3) (10.29) See Reference 93. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service published a web page, which says the

following (quotation marks omitted): (10.29.1) It doesnt take an accident for a nuclear power plant to release radioactivity into our

air, water and soil. All it takes is the plants everyday routine operation, and federal regulations permit these radioactive releases. (10.29.2) Radioactivity is measured in "curies." A large medical center, with as many as 1000

laboratories in which radioactive materials are used, may have a combined inventory of only about two curies. In contrast, an average operating nuclear power reactor will have approximately 16 billion curies in its reactor core. This is the equivalent long-lived radioactivity of at least 1,000 Hiroshima bombs. (10.29.3) A reactors fuel rods, pipes, tanks and valves can leak. Mechanical failure and

human error can also cause leaks. As a nuclear plant ages, so does its equipment - and leaks generally McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 190 of 953

increase. (10.29.4) Some contaminated water is intentionally removed from the reactor vessel to

reduce the amount of the radioactive and corrosive chemicals that damage valves and pipes. The water is filtered and then either recycled back into the cooling system or released into the environment. (10.29.5) A typical 1000-megawatt pressurized-water reactor (with a cooling tower) takes in

20,000 gallons of river, lake or ocean water per minute for cooling, circulates it through a 50-mile maze of pipes, returns 5,000 gallons per minute to the same body of water, and releases the remainder to the atmosphere as vapor. A 1000-megawatt reactor without a cooling tower takes in even more water--as much as one-half million gallons per minute. The discharge water is contaminated with radioactive elements in amounts that are not precisely known or knowable, but are biologically active. (10.29.6) Some radioactive fission gases, stripped from the reactor cooling water, are

contained in decay tanks for days before being released into the atmosphere through filtered rooftop vents. Some gases leak into the power plant buildings interiors and are released during periodic "purges" and "ventings." These airborne gases contaminate not only the air, but also soil and water. (10.29.7) Radioactive releases from a nuclear power reactors routine operation often are not

fully detected or reported. Accidental releases may not be completely verified or documented. (10.29.8) Accurate, economically-feasible filtering and monitoring technologies do not exist

for some of the major reactor by-products, such as radioactive hydrogen (tritium) and noble gases, such as krypton and xenon. Some liquids and gases are retained in tanks so that the shorter-lived radioactive materials can break down before the batch is released to the environment. (10.29.9) Government regulations allow radioactive water to be released to the environment

containing "permissible" levels of contamination. Permissible does not mean safe. Detectors at reactors are set to allow contaminated water to be released, unfiltered, if below "permissible" legal levels. (10.29.10) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission relies upon self-reporting and computer McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 191 of 953

modeling from reactor operators to track radioactive releases and their projected dispersion. A significant portion of the environmental monitoring data is extrapolated virtual, not real. (10.29.11) Accurate accounting of all radioactive wastes released to the air, water and soil

from the entire reactor fuel production system is simply not available. The system includes uranium mines and mills, chemical conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication plants, nuclear power reactors, and radioactive waste storage pools, casks, and trenches. (10.29.12) Increasing economic pressures to reduce costs, due to the deregulation of the

electric power industry, could further reduce the already unreliable monitoring and reporting of radioactive releases. Deferred maintenance can increase the radioactivity released - and the risks (10.29.13) Many of the reactors radioactive by-products continue giving off radioactive

particles and rays for enormously long periods described in terms of "half-lives." A radioactive material gives off hazardous radiation for at least ten half-lives. One of the radioactive isotopes of iodine (iodine- 129) has a half-life of 16 million years; technetium-99 = 211,000 years; and plutonium239 = 24,000 years. Xenon-135, a noble gas, decays into cesium-135, an isotope with a 2.3 millionyear half-life. (10.29.14) It is scientifically established that low-level radiation damages tissues, cells, DNA

and other vital molecules causing programmed cell death (apoptosis), genetic mutations, cancers, leukemia, birth defects, and reproductive, immune and endocrine system disorders. (10.29.15) (10.30) See Reference 329.

The World Nuclear Association published a web page, which says the following

(quotation marks omitted): (10.30.1) There are three kinds of radiation to consider: alpha, beta and gamma. A fourth

kind, neutron radiation, generally only occurs inside a nuclear reactor. Different types of radiation require different forms of protection: McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 192 of 953

(10.30.1.1)

Alpha radiation cannot penetrate the skin and can be blocked out by a sheet of

paper, but is dangerous in the lung. (10.30.1.2) aluminium foil. (10.30.1.3) Gamma radiation can go right through the body and requires several centimetres Beta radiation can penetrate into the body but can be blocked out by a sheet of

of lead or concrete, or a metre or so of water, to block it... (10.30.2) (10.30.2.1) (10.30.2.2) (10.30.2.3) Three general principles are employed in the management of radioactive wastes: concentrate-and-contain dilute-and-disperse delay-and-decay.

The first two are also used in the management of non-radioactive wastes. The waste is either concentrated and then isolated, or it is diluted to acceptable levels and then discharged to the environment. Delay-and-decay however is unique to radioactive waste management; it means that the waste is stored and its radioactivity is allowed to decrease naturally through decay of the radioisotopes in it. (10.30.4) (10.30.4.1) Types of radioactive waste (radwaste) [include the following:] Low-level Waste is generated from hospitals, laboratories and industry, as well as

the nuclear fuel cycle. It comprises paper, rags, tools, clothing, filters etc. which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity. It is not dangerous to handle, but must be disposed of more carefully than normal garbage. Usually it is buried in shallow landfill sites. To reduce its volume, it is often compacted or incinerated (in a closed container) before disposal. Worldwide it comprises 90% of the volume but only 1% of the radioactivity of all radwaste. (10.30.4.2) Intermediate-level Waste contains higher amounts of radioactivity and may

require special shielding. It typically comprises resins, chemical sludges and reactor components, as McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 193 of 953

well as contaminated materials from reactor decommissioning. Worldwide it makes up 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity of all radwaste. It may be solidified in concrete or bitumen for disposal. Generally short-lived waste (mainly from reactors) is buried, but long-lived waste (from reprocessing nuclear fuel) will be disposed of deep underground.

World Nuclear Association (10.30.4.3) High-level Waste may be the used fuel itself, or the principal waste from

reprocessing this. While only 3% of the volume of all radwaste, it holds 95% of the radioactivity. It contains the highly-radioactive fission products and some heavy elements with long-lived radioactivity. It generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling, as well as special shielding during handling and transport. If the used fuel is reprocessed, the separated waste is vitrified by incorporating it into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass which is sealed inside stainless steel canisters for eventual disposal deep underground. (10.30.4.4) Both high-level waste and used fuel are very radioactive and people handling

them must be shielded from their radiation. Such materials are shipped in special containers which prevent the radiation leaking out and which will not rupture in an accident. (10.30.4.5) Whether used fuel is reprocessed or not, the volume of high-level waste is...about

3 cubic metres per year of vitrified waste or 25-30 tonnes of used fuel for a typical large nuclear reactor... (10.30.5) Radioactive wastes occur at all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle - the process of

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 194 of 953

producing electricity from nuclear materials. The fuel cycle comprises the mining and milling of the uranium ore, its processing and fabrication into nuclear fuel, its use in the reactor, the treatment of the used fuel taken from the reactor after use and finally, disposal of the wastes. (10.30.6) The fuel cycle is often considered as two parts - the "front end" which stretches

from mining through to the use of uranium in the reactor - and the "back end" which covers the removal of used fuel from the reactor and its subsequent treatment and disposal. This is where radioactive wastes are a major issue. (10.30.7) (10.30.7.1) Residual materials from the "front end" of the fuel cycle[:] The annual fuel requirement for a l000 MWe light water reactor is about 25

tonnes of enriched uranium oxide. This requires the mining and milling of perhaps 50,000 tonnes of ore to provide about 200 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (U3O8) from the mine. (10.30.7.2) At uranium mines, dust is controlled to minimise inhalation of radioactive

minerals, while radon gas concentrations are kept to a minimum by good ventilation and dispersion in large volumes of air [emissions]. At the mill, dust is collected and fed back into the process, while radon gas is diluted and dispersed to the atmosphere in large volumes of air [emissions]. (10.30.7.3) At the mine, residual ground rock from the milling operation contain most of the

radioactive materials from the ore, such as radium. This material is discharged into tailings dams which retain the remaining solids and prevent any seepage of the liquid. The tailings contain about 70% of the radioactivity in the original ore. (10.30.7.4) Eventually these tailings may be put back into the mine or they may be covered

with rock and clay, then revegetated. In this case considerable care is taken to ensure their long-term stability and to avoid any environmental impact (which would be more from acid leaching or dust than from radioactivity as such). [In 2007, a permit for a landfill in Sunland Park, within 300 yards of some of the poorest people in New Mexico, includes uranium tailings.] McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 195 of 953

(10.30.7.5)

With in situ leach (ISL) mining, dissolved materials other than uranium are

simply returned underground from where they came, as the water is recirculated. (10.30.7.6) Uranium oxide (U3O8) produced from the mining and milling of uranium ore is

only mildly radioactive - most of the radioactivity in the original ore remains at the mine site in the tailings. (10.30.7.7) Turning uranium oxide concentrate into a useable fuel has no effect on levels of

radioactivity and does not produce significant waste. (10.30.7.8) First, the uranium oxide is converted into a gas, uranium hexafluoride (UF6), as

feedstock for the enrichment process. (10.30.7.9) Then, during enrichment, every tonne of uranium hexafluoride becomes separated

into about 130 kg of enriched UF6 (about 3.5% U-235) and 870 kg of 'depleted' UF6 (mostly U-238). The enriched UF6 is finally converted into uranium dioxide (UO2) powder and pressed into fuel pellets which are encased in zirconium alloy tubes to form fuel rods. (10.30.7.10) Depleted uranium has few uses, though with a high density (specific gravity of

18.7) it has found uses in the keels of yachts, aircraft control surface counterweights, anti-tank ammunition and radiation shielding. It is also a potential energy source for particular (fast neutron) reactors. (10.30.8) (10.30.8.1) Wastes from the "back end" of the fuel cycle[:] It is when uranium is used in the reactor that significant quantities of highly

radioactive wastes are created. When the uranium-235 atom is split it forms fission products, which are very radioactive and make up the main portion of nuclear wastes retained in the fuel rods. There is also a relatively small amount of radioactivity induced in the reactor components by neutron irradiation. (10.30.8.2) nuclear reactor... McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 196 of 953 About 25 tonnes of used fuel is taken each year from the core of a l000 MWe

(10.30.9)

See Reference 994. SECTION 11

(11)

The United States Library of Medicine publishes a web site entitled: TOXNET

It is a Toxicological Data Network. It contains information about emissions from nuclear energy. All of the information in Section 11 comes straight from TOXNET (quotation marks omitted), as follows. (11.1) Plutonium-239 and plutonium-240 cannot be distinguished by alpha spectroscopy and

are usually reported together(1). Plutonium concentrations in soils/sediment at 91 waste sites at 18 US Department of Energy facilities ranged from 0.00011 to 3.5X10+6 pCi/kg(2). Plutonium concentrations were measured in various environmental matrices collected from Antarctica at the Ross Sea region surrounding the Italian Terra Nova Base in 1989-96(3). Mean plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentrations ranged from 0.005-0.0969 and <0.0003-0.0806 Bq/kg in lacustrine and marine sediment, respectively(3). Mean plutonium-238 concentrations ranged from 0.0018-0.0199 and <0.0003-0.0125 Bq/kg in lacustrine (wetland associated with a lake) and marine sediment, respectively(3). The British Nuclear Fuels Ltd nuclear fuel reprocessing plants at Sellafield in Cumbria, UK discharge low level radioactive waste into the Irish Sea(4). Plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentrations in sediment cores samples collected in October 1994 from 9 sites around the intertidal area of the Irish Sea, UK ranged from 2.98 to 265 Bq/kg(4). Plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentrations in bottom sediments form the Fram Strait in the Arctic ranged from not detected to 2.264 Bq/kg(5). There are 4 nuclear power plants and one research institute with two small nuclear reactors along the river Elbe in Germany(6). Plutonium-238 and plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentrations in sediments collected between 1986-88 from the river Elbe ranged from 22-39 and 159181 mBq/kg, respectively(6). Plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentrations in sediment cores from Sagami Bay of the coast of Japan margin ranged from 0.94-2.89, 2.11-11.17, and 0.023-3.82 mBq/g dry weight in samples from Tokyo Canyon, Sagami Nada, and Sagami Trough, respectively(7). See McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 197 of 953

Reference 43. (11.2) Among the major effluents from the use and processing of nuclear fuel are ...

plutonium...Of these, only tritium and plutonium can possibly enter water supplies. The predominant form of plutonium release from nuclear power and processing plants is as an aerosol that will have little or no impact on drinking water. Although a single incident has occurred in which as much as 18,750 Ci of plutonium were released from liquid storage on a local basis, none apparently reached off site water supplies. The usual rate of release from liquid storage at a controlled sites is about 1 mCi/yr. See Reference 44. (11.3) SURFACE WATER: Plutonium-239 and plutonium-240...are usually reported

together(1). Plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentrations in filtered sea water from the Spanish Mediterranean coast averaged 12 mBq/cu m(2). The mean plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentration in the particulate fraction was 1.5 mBq/cu m(2). The Savannah River Plant, the principal plutonium production facility in for the US Department of Energy, is located about 256 km upstream from the mouth of the Savannah River(3). Plutonium-238 concentrations in the Savannah River Estuary ranged from 0.4 to 1.9 uBq/L and 26 to 100 mBq/kg in the dissolved phase and in suspended particulate, respectively(3). Plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentrations ranged from 1.9 to 5.2 uBq/L and 235 to 665 mBq/kg in the dissolved phase and in suspended particulate, respectively(3). There are 4 nuclear power plants and one research institute with two small nuclear reactors along the river Elbe in Germany(4). Plutonium-238 and plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentrations water collected between 1985-88 from the river Elbe ranged from 0.007-0.05 and 0.03-0.16 mBq/L, respectively(4). See Reference 45. (11.4) Fish/Seafood Concentrations: Plutonium-239 and plutonium-240...are usually reported

together(1). Plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentrations in mussels collected in 1977 and 1978 from Bodega Head, CA and from Narragansett Bay, RI ranged from 1.9 to 4.6 and 0.3 to 2.1 disintegrations McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 198 of 953

per minute per kg dry weight, respectively(2). There are 4 nuclear power plants and one research institute with two small nuclear reactors along the river Elbe in Germany(3). Plutonium-238 and plutonium-239+plutonium-240 was not detected (<0.1 mBq/kg) in fish collected from the river Elbe(3). See Reference 95 (11.5) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SEDIMENT: Plutonium-239+plutonium240,

plutonium-238, plutonium-241 concentrations were measured in intertidal sediment from the Irish Sea; concentrations ranged from for 2.3-1,804, 0.32-34.7, and 218-37,884 Bq/kg dry weight, respectively(1). Plutonium-238 and plutonium-239-plutonium-240 concentrations in surface sediments from the Mediterranean Sea near the Vandellos Nuclear Power Plant collected in 1989 ranged from 0.22-0.80 and 8.2-12.6 Bq/kg, respectively(2). See Reference 96. (11.6) Environmental Water Concentrations: GROUNDWATER: Plutonium-239 and

plutonium-240...are usually reported together(1). Plutonium-239+plutonium240 concentrations were measured in monitoring wells in a small aquifer in the Mortandad Canyon, which receives liquid wastes from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM in 1982 and 1983(2). Plutonium-239 + plutonium-240 was detectable in monitoring wells up to 3,390 meters downgradient from the discharge; decreasing from 1,400 to 0.55 mBq/L between the first and last monitoring well(2). Plutonium concentrations in groundwater at 91 waste sites at 18 US Department of Energy facilities ranged from 0.0009 to 12.8 pCi/L(3). Plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentrations in porewater collected over a year from an inter-tidal salt marsh in the Esk Estuary, West Cumbria, UK near the British Nuclear Fuel Ltd Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant ranged from 0.84 mBq/L in August to 3.21 mBq/L in April(4). See Reference 97. (11.7) Radiation Limits & Potential : EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED BY

THE NRC FOR SOME PLUTONIUM COMPOUNDS .

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 199 of 953

RADIONUCLIDE Plutonium-234 Plutonium-235 Plutonium-236 Plutonium-237 Plutonium-238 Plutonium-239 Plutonium-240 Plutonium-241 Plutonium-242 Plutonium-243 Plutonium-244 Plutonium-245 Plutonium-246 Y, PuO2 W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y See Reference 98. (11.8)

CLASS

AIR (uCi/mL) WATER (uCi/mL) 1E-4 1E-2 6E-8 2E-4 2E-8 2E-8 2E-8 1E-6 2E-8 2E-4 2E-8 3E-5 6E-6 3E-10 4E-6 3E-6 5E-14 6E-14 5E-9 4E-9 2E-14 2E-14 2E-14 2E-14 2E-14 2E-14 8E-13 1E-12 2E-14 2E-14 5E-8 5E-8 2E-14 2E-14 6E-9 6E-9 4E-10 4E-10

W, all compounds except PuO2 3E-10

Chromosomal aberrations in human peripheral blood lymphocytes are a recognized

indicator of exposure to ionizing radiation in vivo. An increase in the frequency of chromosomal aberrations above the background level reflects direct exposure of circulating lymphocytes and also

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 200 of 953

exposure of hematopoietic precursor cells in the bone marrow ... . A banding technique that allows recognition of many symmetrical aberrations which would be missed with conventional staining was used to analyze peripheral blood lymphocytes from 54 plutonium workers from the British Nuclear Fuels facility at Sellafield, United Kingdom. These workers had body burdens in excess of 296 Bq ... all had been exposed at least 10 years before the analysis. These workers had also been exposed to significant levels of external gamma-radiation. The controls were 39 newly hired workers with no known exposure to radiation or known clastogenic chemical ... /The/ ... plutonium workers showed increased frequencies of both symmetrical and asymmetrical chromosomal aberrations over those in controls. ... Twenty-four of the workers in the above study were still employed at Sellafield and therefore available for resampling 10 years later. Analysis of chromosomes in G-banded peripheral blood lymphocytes was performed on two groups of workers who had 20-50% and >50% of the maximum permissible body burden of plutonium. A significant increase was found in the frequencies of symmetrical aberrations in both groups when compared with workers with similar histories of exposure to mainly external gamma-radiation but with little or no intake of plutonium and with controls with negligible exposure, estimated to be < 50 mSv. /Plutonium, NOS/ See Reference 99. (11.9) Effluent Concentrations: Radioactive isotopes of cesium (e.g., cesium-137 and

cesium-134) have been released to the atmosphere from atmospheric weapons testing, accidents from nuclear reactors, and nuclear-powered satellites burning up in the atmosphere upon re-entry(1). The total amount of cesium-137 released from weapons testing through 1980 was estimated as 2.6X10+7 Ci, 76% of which was released in the northern hemisphere and 24% in the southern hemisphere(2). On April 26, 1986, a steam buildup caused an explosion and fire at a nuclear power generating plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine, releasing an estimated 5.4X10+5 Ci of cesium-134 and 1.1X10+6 Ci of cesium137 into the atmosphere over Europe(3). Long-range transport spread the radionuclides through the Northern Hemisphere; no airborne activity from Chernobyl has been reported south of the equator(4). McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 201 of 953

By early May 1986, these radionuclides were readily detectable in environmental samples collected in North America(5). More recent estimates have put the total activity of cesium-137 released from the Chernobyl power plant as 2.3X10+6 Ci and 1.2X10+6 Ci for cesium-134(6). On January 24, 1978, the Soviet nuclear-powered satellite Cosmos 954 re-entered earth's atmosphere over the Canadian Arctic, releasing an estimated 86 Ci of cesium-137(7). In October 1957, an accident at the Windscale nuclear weapons plant at Sellafield in the United Kingdom resulted in a release of 595 Ci of cesium-137(8). Routine activities at nuclear power plants and fuel-reprocessing stations also release cesium-137 and cesium-134 to the environment on a regular basis. Radiocesium released in airborne effluents from the normal operation of nuclear power plants is considered low in comparison to releases from atmospheric weapons testing and the major releases following accidents at nuclear power plants. In 1998, it was reported that 1.3X10-4 Ci of cesium-134 and 5.1X10-3 Ci of cesium-137 were released to the atmosphere from the Savannah River plutonium processing site in South Carolina(9). In 1993, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimated that 0.013 Ci of 134Ci and 0.023 Ci of cesium-137 were released in airborne effluents from 30 pressurize water reactor nuclear power plants operating in the United States(10). It was also estimated that 4.6X10-4 Ci of cesium-134 and 3.3X10-3 Ci of cesium137 were released in airborne effluents from 28 boiling water reactors nuclear power plants(10). See Reference 100. (11.10) Effluent Concentrations: The dumping of high and low level radioactive wastes into

the Arctic waters by the former Soviet Union has also led to the release of cesium-137 and cesium-134 as well as other radioactive nuclides into these waters(1). In the past, the majority of radioactive cesium released to water surfaces in North America arose from deposition following atmospheric nuclear weapons testing conducted by the United States, primarily during the 1960s(1). Radioactive cesium can be introduced to water from nuclear power plants (during accidents and normal operation) and at facilities that produce weapons grade plutonium and uranium. During the period of 1961-1973, it was McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 202 of 953

estimated that about 514 Ci of cesium-137 was emitted to the Savannah River, SC watershed due to activities at the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Plant(2). It was further noted that about 18% of this total (92 Ci) drained directly into the Savannah River(2). In 1998, it was reported that 1.0X10-4 Ci of cesium-134 and 0.19 Ci of cesium-137 were released in liquid effluents from the Savannah River plutonium processing site in South Carolina(3). In 1993, the NRC estimated that 1.88 Ci of cesium-134 and 2.85 Ci of cesium-137 were released in liquid effluents from 30 pressurized water reactor nuclear power plants operating in the United States(4). It was estimated that 0.12 Ci of cesium-134 and 0.58 Ci of cesium-137 were released in liquid effluents from 28 boiling water reactor nuclear power plants(4). EPA reported that the total on-site discharges of cesium-137 from containment ponds at the Nevada Test Site was 0.0017 Ci in 1997(5). It was estimated that 1,622 Ci of cesium-137 and 811 Ci of cesium134 were released to the cooling pond surrounding the Chernobyl, Ukraine nuclear power plant following the accident in 1986(6). See Reference 101. (11.11) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SOIL: Radioactive cesium has been released to soil

surfaces by underground nuclear weapons testing, fallout from the accident at the Chernobyl power plant and fallout from atmospheric weapons testing. About 1,400 underground test have been performed worldwide, with a total explosive yield of about 90 megatons(1). Small amounts of cesium137 and cesium-134 are also released to soil from the normal operation of nuclear power plants and the storage of spent fuel rods. Not including the 30-km exclusionary zone, an area of approximately 2.4X10+4 sq km near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was contaminated with cesium-137 at a deposition density >5.4X10-5 Ci/sq m following the accident in 1986(2). Within the exclusionary zone, the contamination density may have been 2 orders of magnitude greater in limited areas(2). The mean deposition density of cesium-137 and cesium-134 in four different soils in Devoke, United Kingdom for May 1986 were reported as 3.7X10-5 to 5.4X10-7 Ci/sq m and 1.0X10-7 to 1.8X10-7 Ci/sq m, respectively(3). The deposition density of cesium-137 in 123 soil core collected at the Idaho National McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 203 of 953

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory ranged from 1.6X10-8 to 3.4X10-7 Ci/sq m(6). The deposition density of cesium-137 in soils from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming ranged from 3.0X10-9 to 1.1X10-7 Ci/sq m, and it was assumed that its origin was fallout from the Nevada Test Site(4). The mean deposition density of cesium-137 in the top layer (0-8 cm) of soils near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1988 was 8.6X10-5 Ci/sq m and the mean deposition density of cesium-134 was 1.9X10-5 Ci/sq m(5). See Reference 102. (11.12) Artificial Pollution Sources: Radioactive cesium is released to the environment

during the normal operation of nuclear power plants, explosion of nuclear weapons, and accidents involving nuclear power plants or nuclear powered satellites or submarines. High levels of cesium-134 and cesium-137 have been released to the environment, as a result of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing (which has been discontinued for many years) or underground weapons testing and the accident at the Chernobyl, Ukraine nuclear reactor site in 1986. There have only been two major reactor accidents at nuclear plants where radiocesium was released in significant amounts. The two accidents occurred in Windscale, England in 1957 and Chernobyl, Russia in 1986(1). See Reference 103. (11.13) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SEDIMENT: The concns of cesium-137 in eight

sediment cores of the Danube River, Austria were about 540 pCi/kg in April 1985, but increased to approx 27,000-81,000 pCi/kg in October 1986, following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant(1). The deposition of cesium-137 attributed to the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in sediment at five different sites in Lake Constance, Germany ranged from 2.7X10-7 to 2.1X10-6 Ci/sq m, while the fallout from nuclear weapons testing since 1963 ranged from 1.4X10-7 to 5.4X10-7 Ci/sq m(2). It was estimated that 2,973 Ci of cesium-137 and 1,622 Ci of cesium-134 were released to the sediments in the cooling and surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear power plant following the accident in 1986(3). Surface sediment samples collected from the Spanish Mediterranean coast near the Vandellos nuclear power plant in 1989 contained cesium-137 and cesium-134 concentration ranges of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 204 of 953

0.47-16.7 Bq/kg and <0.05-1.14 Bq/kg, respectively(4). Twenty-seven surface sediment samples (upper 3 cm) collected from the Pechora Sea in July 1994 had concentration values for cesium-137 ranging from below the detection limit to 10.4 Bq/kg, with a mean of 3.13 Bq/kg(5). See Reference 104. (11.14) Fish/Seafood Concentrations: The concn of cesium-137 in bullhead catfish inhabiting

an abandoned nuclear reservoir at the Savannah River site in South Carolina were as high as 1.54X10+5 pCi/kg(1), but concns in various freshwater species of fish in the Ottawa River ranged from 54 to 351 pCi/kg(2). After the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the avg concns of cesium-137 in perch and pike obtained from 52 freshwater lakes in Finland were 55,811 and 66,297 pCi/kg, respectively, in 1988. By contrast, in 1992, the mean concns of cesium-137 in perch and pike had fallen to 14,324 and 18,567 pCi/kg, respectively(3). Mussels (Mytilus edulis (L.)) collected from 11 estuaries around the Irish coastline in August 1988 contained cesium-137 and cesium-134 concentration ranges of <0.5-9.8 and <0.4-<0.7 Bq/kg (dry weight), respectively(4). The mean activity concentrations of cesium-137 detected in the edible portion of 34 crabs and 37 lobsters caught commercially in the Sellafield coastal area offshore from the Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the northeast Irish Sea between May 25 and June 5, 1997 were 3.1 and 5.0 Bq/kg (wet), respectively(5). See Reference 105. (11.15) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SOIL: The concn of cesium-137 in soils of

Thessaloniki, Greece ranged from 1,440 to 35,324 pCi/kg (avg 8,154 pCi/kg) and the concn of cesium134 ranged from about 270 to 5,676 pCi/kg during the period of August 1986 to February 1989, with most of the fallout attributed to the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant(1). The concn of cesium-137 in 10 uncultivated fields from southern England ranged from 0 to 946 pCi/kg, with the highest levels contained in the top 10 cm of the soil surface(2). The concn of cesium-137 in five cultivated fields ranged from 0 to 540 pCi/kg, and the concns were well distributed from the surface to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 205 of 953

the plough layer(2). The concn of cesium-137 in three soils in Hong Kong receiving a large amount of rainfall ranged from 32 to 201 pCi/kg(3). The avg concn of cesium-137 in uncultivated soils in northern Poland ranged between 616 and 4,170 pCi/kg from 1988-1991(4). The mean concn of cesium137 in surface soils from the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory test site during the period of 1974-1996 was 611 pCi/kg(5). Concn of cesium-137 around the perimeter of the site and background concns off the site were 589 and 419 pCi/kg, respectively. The concn of cesium-137 and cesium-134 in soils and sediments at 18 US DOE facilities ranged from 20 to 4.69X10+7 pCi/kg(6). The mean concn of cesium-137 in soils taken from two high-elevation sites in northern Colorado ranged from 4,054 to 7,027 pCi/kg(7). Soil samples collected in 1994 and 1995 from the industrial area and residential area surrounding a plant for the utilization and repair of nuclear-powered submarines in the coastal area of Cut Bay in Olenjya Bay in the Kolsky Gulf, Russia contained cesium-137 in concentrations of 1-15 Bq/kg of air dry sample and 8-19 Bq/kg of air dry sample, respectively(8). See Reference 106. (11.16) Plant Concentrations: Aquatic moss (Cinclidotus riparius) were collected from

downstream following discharges from a nuclear plant at Bugey on the River Rhone, France(1). Sampled from 1986 to 1990, the mosses were shown to contain negligible levels of iodine-131, presumably due to loss volatilization during dessication and incineration of samples, and its short physical half-life(8 days)(1). Fontinalis antipyretica from the Sorgue River, upstream from any human activity, sampled on July 1 and 2, 1992, were used to determine background concentrations(1). See Reference 107. (11.17) /BIRDS and MAMMALS/ Liver and muscle tissue from dead seals and porpoises

found stranded around the UK coast have been analysed for the following radionuclides: cesium-134, cesium-137, plutonium-238, plutonium 239+240. Multifactor analysis of variance indicated that, for radiocesium, there was no significant difference for harbour seals, grey seals or porpoises in terms of species or gender; however, the tissue activity concentration increased with body weight and decreased McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 206 of 953

with distance from Sellafield, the major nuclear reprocessing plant in the UK. The levels of radiocesium in muscle were higher than those in liver, while there appeared to be a concentration factor of approximately 3-4 for muscle radiocesium when compared to radiocesium levels reported for fish, the main food source of the marine mammals under study. Approximate radiation dose calculations indicated that the average dose from radiocesium was less than 10% of the dose from the naturally occurring radioisotope of potassium, 40-K. ...The marine mammals concentrated radiocesium from their environment by a factor of 300 relative to the concentration in seawater indicating the value of using marine mammal tissue to measure radiocesium contamination in the marine environment. The maximum radiation dose to the marine mammals from radiocesium was higher than doses previously assessed for critical groups of humans living near Sellafield, while the maximum dose from plutonium was comparable to the doses for humans. /Cesium-134, cesium-137, plutonium-238, -239+240/ See Reference 49. (11.18) Environmental Bioconcentration: Daphnids (250 individuals/L) placed in 0.45 um

filtered river water (Vienne River, France; downstream from Civaux nuclear power plant) with a cesium-137 concentration of 6X10-2 ug/L (7X10+4 Bq/L) had an observed steady state concentration factor of 30 mL/g (wet weight) cesium-137(1). During the depuration phase, the half-life of cesium-137 from daphnids was very fast, 0.3 days, indicating that radionuclide absorption to the surface was the major process involved in the contamination of daphnids(1). See Reference 50. (11.19) Environmental Water Concentrations: GROUNDWATER: The concn of cesium-137

and cesium-134 in groundwater at 18 DOE facilities was reported in the range of 2.7X10-3 to 1.83X10+3 pCi/L(1). The concn of cesium-137 measured in groundwater wells at Carlsbad, NM (the site of project GNOME) ranged from 99 to 6.8X10+5 pCi/L in 1997(2). The concn of cesium-137 in groundwater at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was in the range of 40.5 to 1,100 pCi/L in 1988 and 29.7 to 129.7 pCi/L in 1989(3). See Reference 51. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 207 of 953

(11.19)

Environmental Water Concentrations: SURFACE WATER: High and low level

radioactive wastes have been dumped by the former Soviet Union into remote Arctic waters, leading to the release of radioactive cesium into the Kara and Barents Seas(1). The level of cesium-137 in the surface water of the Barents Sea and Kara Sea was 0.14 and 0.16 pCi/L, respectively(1). Cesium-137 was also detected in deep water of the Barents Sea a concn of 0.15 pCi/L(1). The concn of cesium-137 in the Black Sea was in the range of 2.7 to 8.1 pCi/L for the period 1991-1996, with the exception of the spring of 1992, when concns as high as 43 pCi/L were observed(2). From 1988 to 1991, the mean concns of cesium-137 and cesium-134 along the Spanish coast of the Mediterranean Sea were 0.13 and 0.0072 pCi/L, respectively(3). Due to its shorter half-life, cesium-134 was detected in all 14 samples collected in 1988 and 1989, but only in 3 samples collected in 1990 and 1991, suggesting that the cesium-134 levels observed in the surface Mediterranean waters were due exclusively to Chernobylrelated deposition. The 137Cs concn incorporated into the Mediterranean Sea near the Spanish coast from the post-Chernobyl fallout was about 0.032 pCi/L, which was approx a 33% increase over previous levels(3). Max cesium-137 and cesium-134 levels in the immediate vicinity of nuclear power plants located on the southern Catalan shore of the Mediterranean were 0.57 and 0.059 pCi/L, respectively(3). The concn of cesium-137 in lakes and streams in Devoke, UK decreased exponentially from a max concn of about 8.1 pCi/L on May 6, 1986 to about 0.027 pCi/L, 1,200 days later(4). The mean concn of cesium-137 in six lakes located in central Finland ranged from 111 pCi/L in 1987 to 8.1 pCi/L in 1989(5). See Reference 54. (11.20) Atmospheric Concentrations: URBAN/SUBURBAN: Radioactive cesium-134 and

cesium-137 were detected at various concns in the atmosphere following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant on April 26, 1986(1). The avg concns of cesium-134 and cesium-137 in eastern Canada were reported as 0.024 and 0.046 pCi/cu m, respectively, during May 10-24, 1986 (2). The max atmospheric concn of cesium-137 measured in New York City in May 1986 was 0.26 pCi/cu m (3). In McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 208 of 953

1975, the max concn of cesium-137 in the atmosphere, in Poland, was 1.89 pCi/cu m (4). The concn of cesium-137 in the atmosphere of Thessaloniki, Greece ranged from 8.1X10-4 to 0.044 pCi/cu m from July 1987 to Dec 1988(5). The concn of cesium-137 in Tsukuba, Japan during May 1986 ranged from about 0.054 to 1.6 pCi/cu m(6). See Reference 55. (11.21) The mean activity concentrations of cesium-137 detected in the edible portion of 34

crabs and 37 lobsters caught commercially in the Sellafield coastal area offshore from the Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the northeast Irish Sea between May 25 and June 5, 1997 were 3.1 and 5.0 Bq/kg (wet), respectively. See Reference 56. (11.22) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME CESIUM COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE Cesium-125 Cesium-127 Cesium-129 Cesium-130 Cesium-131 Cesium-132 Cesium-134 Cesium-134m Cesium-135 Cesium-135m Cesium-136 Cesium-137 Cesium-138 See Reference 57. (11.23) The following values may be used for determining if facilities are in compliance with EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Air (uCi/mL) 2E-7 1E-7 5E-8 3E-7 4E-8 6E-9 2E-10 2E-7 2E-9 3E-7 9E-10 2E-10 8E-8 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Water (uCi/mL) 1E-3 9E-4 3E-4 1E-3 3E-4 4E-5 9E-7 2E-3 1E-5 1E-3 6E-6 1E-6 4E-4

the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for Cs-134 and Cs-137 in the gaseous form:

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 209 of 953

5.2X-05 and 2.3X-05 Ci/yr; in the liquid/powder form: 5.2X-02 and 2.3X-02 Ci/yr; and in the solid form: 5.2X+01 and 2.3X+01 Ci/yr, respectively. Radionuclides with a boiling point at 100 deg C or less, or exposed to a temperature of 100 deg C, must be considered a gas. Capsules containing radionuclides in liquid or powder form can be considered to be solids. Concentration levels for environmental compliance include dose levels to members of the general public from emissions of radionuclides to the atmosphere for Cs-134 and Cs-137 are 2.7X-14 and 1.9X-14 Ci/cu m, respectively(1). See Reference 58. (11.24) The releases of radiation from the accident at the Three Mile Island reactor in

Pennsylvania, USA, in March 1979 were caused by failure to close a pressure relief valve, which led to melting of the uncooled fuel. The large release of radioactive material was dispersed to only a minor extent outside the containment building; however, xenon-133 (370x10+15 Bq) and iodine-131 (550x10+9 Bq) were released into the environment, leading to a total collective dose of 40 person-Sv and an average individual dose from external gamma-radiation of 15 uSv. No individual was considered to have received doses to the thyroid of > 850 uSv ...The nuclear reactor accident at ThreeMile Island, Pennsylvania (USA), released little radioactivity into the environment and resulted in doses to the population that were much lower than those received from the natural background. Any increase in the incidence of cancer would thus be expected to be negligible and undetectable. See Reference 60. (11.25) Chernobyl Radiation Incident/ The accident at the Chernobyl reactor happened

during an experimental test of the electrical control system as the reactor was being shut down for routine maintenance. The operators, in violation of safety regulations, had switched off important control systems and allowed the reactor to reach unstable, low-power conditions. A sudden power surge caused a steam explosion that ruptured the reactor vessel, allowing further violent fuel-steam interactions that destroyed the reactor core and severely damaged the reactor building. The radioactive McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 210 of 953

gases and particles released in the accident were initially carried by the wind in westerly and northerly directions. On subsequent days, the winds came from all directions. The deposition of radionuclides was governed primarily by precipitation occurring during the passage of the radioactive cloud, leading to a complex and variable exposure pattern throughout the affected region. The radionuclides released from the reactor that caused exposure of individual were mainly iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium137. Iodine-131 has a short radioactive half-life, but it can be transferred to humans relatively rapidly from the air and through milk and leafy vegetables. Iodine becomes localized in the thyroid gland. The isotopes of cesium have relatively longer half-lives. These radionuclides cause longer-term exposures through the ingestion pathway and through external exposure from their deposition on the ground. Average doses to those persons most affected by the accident were about 100 mSv for 240,000 recovery operation workers, 30 mSv for 116,000 evacuated persons and 10 mSv during the first decade after the accident to those who continued to reside in contaminated areas. Outside Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, other European countries were affected by the accident. Doses there were at most 1 mSv in the first year after the accident with the dose over a lifetime estimated to be 2-5 times the first year doses. The exposures were much higher for those involved in mitigating the effects of the accident and those who resided nearby. The Chernobyl accident caused many severe radiation effects almost immediately. Of 600 workers present on the site, 134 suffered from radiation sickness. Of these, 28 died in the first three months and another 2 soon afterwards. In addition, during 1986 and 1987, about 200,000 recovery operation workers received doses of between 0.01 Gy and 0.5 Gy. That cohort is at potential risk of late consequences such as cancer and other diseases. The Chernobyl accident also resulted in widespread radioactive contamination in areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine inhabited by several million people. In addition to causing radiation exposure, the accident caused long-term changes in the lives of the people living in the contaminated districts. For the last 14 years, attention has been focused on investigating the association between exposure caused by the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 211 of 953

radionuclides released in the Chernobyl accident and late effects, in particular thyroid cancer in children. The number of thyroid cancers (about 1,800) in individuals exposed in childhood is considerably greater than expected based on previous knowledge. Apart from the increase in thyroid cancer after childhood exposure, no increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality have been observed that could be attributed to ionizing radiation. See Reference 61. (11.26) The Chelyabinsk region of the southern Ural Mountains was one of the main military

production centers of the former USSR and included the Mayak nuclear materials production complex in the closed city of Ozersk. Accidents, nuclear waste disposal and day-to-day operation of the Mayak reactor and radiochemical plant contaminated the nearby Techa River. The period of most releases of radioactive material was 1949-56, with a peak in 1950-51. During the first years of the releases, 39 settlements were located along the banks of the Techa River, and the total population was about 28,000. Technical flaws and lack of expertise in radioactive waste management led to contamination of vast areas, and the population was not informed about the releases. The protective measures that were implemented (evacuations, restrictions on the use of flood lands and river water in agricultural production and for domestic purposes) proved to be ineffective, since they were implemented too late. Approximately 7,500 people were evacuated from villages near the River between 1953 and 1960. ... During 1949-56, 7.6x10+7 cubic meters of liquid wastes with a total radioactivity of 100 PBq were released into the Techa-Isset-Tobol river system. ... Large populations were exposed over long periods to external gamma radiation, due largely to cesium-137 but also to other gamma-emitting radionuclides such as zirconium-95, niobium-95 and ruthenium-106 present in the water and on the banks of the Techa River. The internal radiation dose was from ingestion of strontium-90 and cesium-137 over long periods... . Systematic follow up of a cohort of almost 30,000 individuals who received significant exposure from the releases was begun in 1967. ... The preliminary results of follow-up from 1950 through 1989, which were analyzed in linear dose-response models for excess relative risk, indicate an McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 212 of 953

increased rate of mortality from leukemia and solid tumors related to internal and external doses of ionizing radiation. See Reference 62. (11.27) /Windscale, United Kingdom Radiation Incident/ In October 1957, the first

substantially publicized release of radioactive material from a nuclear reactor accident occurred at the Windscale nuclear weapons plant at Sellafield in the United Kingdom. During a routine release of stored energy from the graphite core of a carbon dioxide-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor, operator error allowed the fuel to overheat. This led to uranium oxidation and a subsequent graphite fire. Attempts to extinguish the fire with carbon dioxide were ineffective. In the end, water was applied directly to the fuel channels but not before the fire had burned for 3 days, resulting in the release of iodine-131 (740 terrabecquerel; 20 kCi), cesium-137 (22 terrabecquerel; 0.6 kCi), polonium-210 (8.8 terrabecquerel; 0.2 kCi), ruthenium-106 (3 terrabecquerel; 0.08 kCi), and xenon-133 (1.2 petabecquerel; 32.4 kCi). The fire consumed much of the uranium fuel, and some of the resulting fallout was in the form of flake-like uranium oxide varying in size from 1 to 25 cm. The contamination of pastureland was widespread; for those in close proximity to the accident, the greatest threat of exposure was considered to be from iodine-131 via contaminated cow's milk. Those living farther from the accident were exposed to significant amounts of iodine-131 via milk consumption and air inhalation. The consumption of cow's milk was quickly banned; this lessened the exposure to iodine131. The highest individual doses (approximately 100 milligray) were to the thyroids of children living near the accident site. The collective dose equivalent received in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe was estimated to be 2,000 man-sieverts, of which 900 man-sieverts was from inhalation, 800 man-sieverts was from ingestion, and 300 man-sieverts was from external exposure. The main radionuclides contributing to the exposures were iodine-131 (37%), polonium-210 (37%), and cesium137 (15%). See Reference 63. (11.28) Soil Adsorption/Mobility: The vertical migration patterns of cesium-137 produced McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 213 of 953

from the atomic bomb that exploded in Nagasaki, Japan were studied over a 40-year period(1). Over this period, 95% of the cesium remained in the top 10 cm of the soil surface and no cesium was detected below a depth of 40 cm(1). The migration rate of cesim-137 was 0.10 cm/yr(1). Cesium-137 had the largest median distribution coefficient (Kd) of five radionuclides (manganese-54, cobalt-60, zinc-65, strontium-85, and cesium-137), and a positive correlation was observed between the adsorption coefficient and exchangeable potassium content in soil(2). In all 25 soil and sediment samples collected from a variety of contrasting locations in the Esk estuary on the Cumbrian coast in the United Kingdom (10 km south of the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd plant at Sellafield) in May 1990, >50% of cesium-137 appeared to be firmly bound within a residual phase(3). Four sediment samples (cesium-137 concentrations ranging from 1470 to 5680 kBq/kg)collected from Reservoir 10 in the Techa river near the Mayak Production Association in the Urals mountains were tested to determine the remobilization of cesium-137 using freshwater and seawater extractions(4). The total apparent distribution coefficient (Kd) values of cesium-137 in the four samples in a sediment-freshwater system ranged from 4,100 to 156,000 ml/g. In the seawater sediment system, the mean apparent Kd values decreased by 94% and remobilization in seawater was 5% of total activities (i.e. releases of 165 kBq/kg dry weight) for cesium-137(4). See Reference 64. (11.29) Plant Concentrations: Eight species of mushrooms collected in 1993 from the area

around the Nuclear Center of Mexico (average cesium-137 soil concentration of 1.112 kBq/sq m) were determined to have the following cesium-137 activities (Bq/kg dry weight) and Aggregated Transfer Coefficients (sq m/kg): Agaricus campestre, 2 and 0.002; Clitocybe gibba, 14 and 0.018; Lactarius salmonicolor, 9 and 0.029; Psathyrella spadicea, 16 and 0.12; Russula delicata, 11 and 0.011; Clavariadelphus truncatus, 12 and 1; Gomphus flocosus, 16 and 0.28; and Helvella lacunosa, 7 and 0.016(1). See Reference 65. (11.30) Wastes in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) are from the nuclear weapons McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 214 of 953

industry (plutonium) - research and development. For a waste to be accepted at WIPP it must be a transuranic "TRU" waste and: (1) </= 100 nanoCi/gram, (2) an alpha emitting transuranium isotope with atomic number greater than uranium, and (3) have a half life greater than 20 years. The wastes must be handled remotely if they produce >/= 200 millirems/hr; if less, they can be contact handled. See Reference 66. (11.31) A major study was performed on all 14,319 workers (11,635 men) employed at the

Sellafield fuel reprocessing plant of British Nuclear Fuels between 1947 and 1975 ... The mortality of these workers was studied up to the end of 1992, and cancer incidence was examined from 1971 through 1986. The study included 5,203 workers who were monitored for exposure to plutonium, of whom 4,609 were assessed for dose. The body burden of most workers was estimated to be < 50 Bq, and only a few had > 1 kBq. ... (In this cohort, the average cumulative doses from plutonium were 712 mSv to bone surfaces, 194 mSv to lung, 91 mSv to liver, and 58 mSv to red bone marrow ... ).... there were significant excesses of deaths among plutonium workers when compared with the rates in England and Wales from cancer of the pleura (SMR, 4.71; p < 0.001), breast cancer (SMR, 2.36; p < 0.05) and cancers of ill-defined and secondary sites (SMR, 1.44; p < 0.05). /Plutonium, NOS/ See Reference 67. (11.32) Environmental Water Concentrations: GROUNDWATER: Plutonium-239 and

plutonium-240 cannot be distinguished by alpha spectroscopy and are usually reported together(1). Plutonium-239+plutonium240 concentrations were measured in monitoring wells in a small aquifer in the Mortandad Canyon, which receives liquid wastes from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM in 1982 and 1983(2). Plutonium-239+plutonium-240 was detectable in monitoring wells up to 3,390 meters downgradient from the discharge; decreasing from 1,400 to 0.55 mBq/L between the first and last monitoring well(2). Plutonium concentrations in groundwater at 91 waste sites at 18 US Department of Energy facilities ranged from 0.0009 to 12.8 pCi/L(3). Plutonium-239+plutonium-240 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 215 of 953

concentrations in porewater collected over a year from an inter-tidal salt marsh in the Esk Estuary, West Cumbria, UK near the British Nuclear Fuel Ltd Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant ranged from 0.84 mBq/L in August to 3.21 mBq/L in April(4). See Reference 68. (11.33) /FIELD STUDIES/ Activity concentrations of radionuclides (cesium-134, cesium-

137, plutonium-238, plutonium-239,- 240 and americium-241) were measured in vegetation, invertebrates and wood mice, Apodemus sylvaticus, collected in Lady Wood, a coniferous woodland in the vicinity of the British Nuclear Fuels reprocessing plant at Sellafield, Cumbria, UK. Vegetation was of low diversity and biomass with activity concentrations ranging from 1 to 5 Bq kg-1 (cesium-134), 0.3-0.5 Bq kg-1 (plutonium-238), 0.8-8 Bq kg-1 (plutonium-239 + 240), and 0.6-16 Bq kg-1 (americium-241), dry wt. Cesium-137 activity concentrations were high compared to the reference site in Cheshire, varying between 65 and 280 Bq kg-1. Marked inter-specific and temporal differences in radionuclide activity concentrations were recorded for invertebrate populations. Cesium-137, plutonium-238, plutonium-239,-240 and americium-241 activity concentrations in detritivorous invertebrates were consistently higher than in all other invertebrate groups reflecting contamination of the leaf litter. The activity concentrations in detritivores increased during the autumn and winter, reflecting changes in diet as food sources varied throughout the year. Activity concentrations in invertebrates caught in Lady Wood were generally an order of magnitude higher than for the reference site. Activity concentrations in wood mice varied between 7 and 150 Bq kg-1 (cesium-137), 0.1-0.3 Bq kg-1 (plutonium-238), 0.1-0.6 Bq kg-1 (plutoniuim-239,-240) and 0.2-0.4 Bq kg-1 (americium-241). There were clear differences in the activity concentration of cesium-137 (P < 0.01), plutonium-239 + 240 (P < 0.05) and americium-241 (P < 0.05) in animals caught in Lady Wood compared to the reference site. However, the activity concentrations for plutonium-238 were similar at both sites, reflecting a low gastrointestinal transfer. Seasonal variation in activity concentrations was observed for cesium-137, plutonium-238 and americium-241. This variation is attributed to changes in the age McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 216 of 953

structure of the population and diet throughout the year. /Plutonium-238, Plutonium-239,-240/ See Reference 69. (11.34) Artificial Pollution Sources: Plutonium may be released to the environment by

nuclear weapons testing, accidents involving weapons transport, nuclear reactors, radioisotope generators, fuel processing and reprocessing, and fuel transport(1). Atmospheric nuclear weapons testing is the main source of plutonium in the environment, and is the largest source of plutonium-239 and plutonium-240 in the environment(1). An estimated 1.3X10+16 Bq of plutonium-239+plutonium240 have been released to the environment from atmospheric detonation of nuclear weapons(2). An estimated 7.9X10+14 Bq of plutonium-238 has been released, mostly from the burn-up of the nuclear powered satellite SNAP-9(2). An estimated 3.7X10+13 Bq of plutonium-239+plutonium-240 was released from the Chernobyl accident(2). Between 1954 and 1974 approximately 1.4X10+11 and 1.1X10+10 Bq of plutonium have been released into the atmosphere and surface waters, respectively, from fuel reprocessing operations at the Savannah River Plant, the principal plutonium production facility for the US Department of Energy(3). Plutonium was first discovered in 1940(2). Plutonium isotopes with mass numbers 232-246 have been identified and all are radioactive(2). Plutonium-239 is the most important isotope, as well as plutonium-238, plutonium-242, and plutonium-244(2). Plutonium forms compounds with many metallic elements and all of the nonmetallic elements, except those of the noble gas group(2). See Reference 70. (11.35) DECAY PATHWAY: Plutonium-236, half-life 2.851 years, decays via alpha emission,

5867 keV (69.3% 5767.7 keV; 30.6% 5721.0 keV) to uranium-232, half-life 68.9 years; decays via alpha emission, 5414 keV (68.2% 5320.1 keV; 31.6% 5263.4 keV) to thorium-228, half-life 1.9116 years; decays via alpha emission, 5520 keV (72.2% 5423.2 keV; 27.2% 5340.4 keV) to radium-224, half-life 3.66 days; decays via alpha emission, 5789 keV (94.9% 5685.4 keV; 5.06% 5448.6 keV) to radon-220, half-life 55.6 seconds; decays via alpha emission, 99.9% 6405 keV, to polonium-216, halfMcKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 217 of 953

life 0.145 seconds; decays via alpha emission, 99.998% 6778.3 keV, to lead-212, half-life 10.64 hours; decays via beta(-) emission (82.5% 335 keV maximum, 94.8 average energy; 12.3% 173.1 keV average energy)and gamma emission (abs intensity: 100% 238.6 keV) to bismuth-212, half-life 60.55 minutes; 64.06% of bismuth-212 decays via beta (-) emission (86.6%, 832.5 average energy; 6.81%, 531.5 keV average energy) to polonium-212, half-life 45.1 seconds; 35.94% of bismuth-212 decays via alpha emission, 6207 keV (69.9% 6050.8 keV; 27.1% 6089.9 keV) to thallium-208, half-life 3.053 minutes; polonium-212 decays via alpha emission, 8954 keV (96.9% 11650 keV) to lead-208, half life stable; thallium-208 decays via beta (-) emission (48.7%, 1796.3 keV maximum, 647.4 average energy; 24.5%, 1285.6 keV maximum, 439.6 keV; 21.8%, 1518.9 keV maximum, 533.3 keV average energy) and gamma emission (abs intensities: 85.2% 583.2 keV; 22.8% 510.8 keV; 12.5% 860.6 keV) to lead208, half-life stable. See Reference 71. (11.36) DECAY PATHWAY: Plutonium-241, half-life 14.35 years, decays via beta (-) emission

(100%, 20.8 keV maximum, 5.23 keV average energy) to americium-241, half-life 432.2 years; decays via alpha emission, 5683 keV (84.5% 5486 keV; 13.0% 5443keV) to neptunium-237, half-life 2,144,000 years. See Reference 72. (11.37) Commercial electric-power generating reactors generally produce plutonium by

irradiating uranium fuels to a total neutron exposure of more than 5000 megawatt days per ton. The recoverable plutonium contains a larger fraction of heavier isotopes. The rate of production and the isotopic composition depends on the reactor type and method of operation, which depend on economics. In boiling water reactors (BWR) and pressurized-water reactors (PWR), the rates of production are 270 and 360 g plutonium per electrical megawatt yr of operation, respectively. See Reference 73. (11.38) Animal Concentrations: In 1986, the concn of cesium-134 in animal muscle tissues

taken from Ireland was as follows: woodcock (N=24; range, 3.9-206.4 Bq/kg), duck (N=5; range, 2.2McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 218 of 953

14.3 Bq/kg), and snipe (N=5; range, 1.0-5.4 Bq/kg); the concn of cesium-137 was as follows: woodcock (N=24; range, 6.2-565.5 Bq/kg), duck (N=5; range, 6.4-18.0 Bq/kg), and snipe (N=5; range, 3.6-16.9 Bq/kg)(1). The mean concn of cesium-137 in the reindeer muscle tissue was 900 Bq/kg between 1986-1987 in Northern Sweden(2). Between 1991-1998, the mean concn of cesium-137 in deer muscle and bone (N=11) from Los Alamos were 2,516 Bq/kg and 888 Bq/kg, respectively(3). The mean concn of cesium-137 in bone, liver, muscle, and kidney tissue from caribou (N=18) taken from Saskatchewan in 1995 were 58, 228, 367, and 553 Bq/kg, respectively(4). The concn of cesium-137 in neck, shoulder, and back tissue from caribou (N=36) taken from Alaska in 1987 ranged from 26-232, 28.4-204.1, and 30.2-166.5 Bq/kg, respectively(5). Cesium-137 was detected in four of eight reindeer bone samples collected from before 1989 to 1993 from Archipelago Novaya Zemlya, Russia, a nuclear testing site, in concentrations of <0.005, 0.08, 0.08, and 0.09 Bq/g(6). See Reference 108. (11.39) Soil Standards: Environmental radiation protection standards for management and

disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level, and transuranic radioactive wastes include release limits for containment requirements (cumulative releases to the accessible soil environment for 10,000 years after disposal) per 1,000 metric tons of heavy metal or other unit of waste for Cs-137 is 1,000 curies(1). See Reference 109. (11.40) In 1957, a nuclear waste storage facility in the Chelyabinsk region, near the town of

Kyshtym, exploded (the Kyshtym accident) due to a chemical reaction, producing contamination referred to as the East Urals Radiation Trace (EURT). About 273, 000 people lived in the contaminated area. Ten years later, in 1967, after an exceptionally dry summer, the water of the Karachay Lake, an open depot of liquid radioactive waste, evaporated, and a storm transported radionuclides from the dry shores. Eleven thousand individuals were resettled as a result of the Kyshtym accident, of whom 1,500 had previously been resettled from the Techa River. See Reference 110. (11.41) Neutrons are primarily released from nuclear fission ... . The natural decay of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 219 of 953

radionuclides does not include emission of neutrons. This is mainly a health hazard for workers in a nuclear power facility or victims of a nuclear explosion. Unique among the particles of radioactivity, when neutrons are stopped or captured they can cause a previously stable atom to become radioactive. This is the principle behind radioactive fallout. See Reference 111. (11.42) In both nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel production, after being mined and milled,

uranium must be converted to uranium hexafluoride gas, which is then enriched and converted to uranium oxide or metal. If enrichment is carried to about 90%, the uranium may be used to make nuclear weapons or to fuel naval warships; alternatively, the uranium may be enriched by only a small percentage for use in civilian nuclear energy facilities. Metallic uranium is capable of reacting with both air and water exothermically; because of this reactivity, the more stable uranium oxide is the most commonly used fuel in reactors. While this form is more stable, it has poor thermal conductivity, necessitating the use of small-diameter fuel rods. The fuel is in the form of high melting point ceramic pellets, about 0.5 inches in diameter and 1 inch long, in which UO2-enriched to 3-4% uranium-235 is dispersed. These pellets are stacked end to end in zirconium alloy or stainless steel tubes about 12 feet long (called cladding) and then sealed to retain the fission products that are produced during operation. These fuel filled tubes are then assembled in groups of 8 x 8 to 17 x 17 arrays into fuel rod assemblies. About 500 of these assemblies make up the core of a nuclear power reactor. For a frame of reference, a single pellet contains the energy equivalent of about one ton of coal or 3 barrels of oil. /Uranium fuel/ See Reference 112. (11.43) An incident occurred at a plant near Tomsk in the Russian federation in 1993 in

which individual exposures were low and few in number. The Tomsk site featured one of Russia's three operating plutonium production reactors. The Tomsk reactors were built to produce plutonium and to supply steam for the city's district heating plant. Reprocessing, which involves the use of chemical processes to separate uranium and plutonium from spent nuclear fuel, occurs at the plant. Under certain McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 220 of 953

conditions, the chemical solutions can cause an explosion. In April 1993, a tank containing a blend of paraffin and tributyl phosphate chemically exploded, resulting in the involuntary release of uranium, plutonium, niobium, zirconium and ruthenium. The tank had a volume of 34.1 cu m, and held 25 cu m of solution. The solution contained 8,773 kg of uranium, and about 310 kg of plutonium. The total amount of radioactivity in the solution was approximately 20.7 TBq (559.3 Ci). The explosion caused substantial damage to the facility and contaminated a largely unpopulated area of about 123 sq km. The release from the tank was estimated to be 4.3 TBq (115 Ci) of long-lived isotopes. Radioactive material spread to the north-east and fallout was detected over an area of 120 cu km. Gamma radiation 20 times higher than the norm was measured in the area that received the most fallout. The personnel who assisted in putting out the flames received the maximum radiation dose of 2 mSv (200 mrem). The accident could have had more serious local consequences if the wind had carried the contamination to two large nearby cities. ...Several operational errors, such as improper mixing of chemicals in the reprocessing tank, and possible design flaws, such as inadequate tank ventilation, were identified as contributors to the accident. See Reference 113. (11.44) Artificial Pollution Sources: Contamination of surface water and groundwater by

effluents from uranium mining, milling, and production operations has been documented. Generation of liquid waste from the uranium conversion, enrichment, or fuel fabrication processes is generally small. Contamination of groundwater and surface water can also occur by water erosion of tailings piles. Uranium may also be released from radioactive waste disposal sites(1). See Reference 114. (11.45) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

ESTABLISHED BY THE NRC FOR SOME URANIUM COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE Uranium-natural CLASS W, UO3, UF4, UCl4 Y, UO2, U3O8 AIR (uCi/mL) WATER (uCi/mL) 3E-7 9E-13 9E-14

D, UF6, UO2F2, UO2(NO3)2 3E-12

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 221 of 953

Uranium-233

D W Y

3E-12 1E-12 5E-14 3E-12 1E-12 6E-14 3E-12 1E-12 6E-14

3E-7 3E-7 3E-7 -

Uranium-235

D W Y

Uranium-238

D W Y

See Reference 115. (11.46) Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, 16 June 1958 This accident occurred ... in a process designed

to recover enriched uranium, U(93) from various solid wastes. The solid wastes would be dissolved in nitric acid, purified, concentrated, and then converted to uranium tetrafluoride. A similar system, using newer technology, had been installed and was operating... . However, because of delays in the startup of the UF4 conversion equipment, the solution it produced was being transferred ... for final conversion. ... Unknown to anyone at the time /of the accident/, uranyl nitrate had been leaking /through a valve/ from the early hrs of the previous shift until early afternoon when one of the operators checked it. The operators completed the leak check and opened the valves to drain the water into a drum. One operator remained near the drum to monitor the situation for any unusual conditions. Because another valve was already ope, the flow pattern from the vessels permitted the uranyl nitrate solution to precede the water./ The operator looked into the drum and noticed yellow-brown fumes risking from the liquid. He stepped away from the drum and within a few seconds saw a flue flash indicating that an excursion had occurred. Almost immediately, the criticality alarm sounded, and the building was evacuated. ... The most likely source of initiation was neutrons from (alpha, neutron) with the oxygen in the water. ... A reasonable estimate is that the first spike contributed 6x10+16 fissions of the total yield of 1.3x10+18 fissions. The second excursion ... occurred in 14 seconds. ... The excursions for the next 2.6 minutes McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 222 of 953

appear to have been no greater than about 1.7 times the average power. ... Eight people received significant radiation doses (461 to 28.8 rem). At least one person owes his life to the fact that prompt and orderly evacuation plans were followed. See Reference 116. (11.47) Occupational exposure to uranium may occur through inhalation and dermal contact

with this compound at workplaces where uranium is produced or used(SRC). Some operations in which exposure to uranium compounds may occur is through the liberation of these compounds from mining, grinding, and milling of ores, use of insoluble compounds as chemical intermediates in preparation of uranium compounds, use for nuclear technology, use in nuclear reactors as fuel and to pack nuclear fuel rods, liberation from burning of uranium metal chips and smelting operations, use as catalysts for many reactions and in the production of fluorescent glass(1-3). The general population may be exposed to uranium via ingestion of food(4) and drinking water(5) with these compounds and from deployment of nuclear warheads containing uranium(SRC). See Reference 117. (11.48) With the beginning of the nuclear age also came criticality events of varying kinds

where individuals were exposed to large amounts of radiation. Criticality refers to the chain reaction of fissionable atoms that results in the release of energy. It is the basic operating principle behind fission bombs and nuclear reactors and is an efficient means of generating energy. Two criticality events occurred in Los Alamos in 1945 during experiments in which scientists performed what was called "tickling the dragon." In the 1940s determining the amount of fissionable material necessary to precipitate a chain reaction was less of a calculation and more trial and error. Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin, two scientists involved in the development of the first atomic bomb, were to bring subcritical amounts of fissionable material together to see if a reaction would occur. Both men died of ARS following exposure to high levels of radiation released during these experiments. Since 1945, there have been numerous criticality events, the most recent occurring in Tokaimura, Japan in 1999. In this instance, workers making fuel for nuclear reactors allowed too much uranium to enter an improper McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 223 of 953

container. The critical event that resulted killed one worker and caused the evacuation of all the people living within 350 meters of the manufacturing plant. See Reference 118. (11.49) Contamination of surface water and groundwater by effluents from uranium mining,

milling, and production operations has been documented. Generation of liquid waste from the uranium conversion, enrichment, or fuel fabrication processes is generally small. Contamination of groundwater and surface water can also occur by water erosion of tailings piles. Uranium may also be released from radioactive waste disposal sites(1). See Reference 119. (11.50) Monitoring frequency and compliance requirements for radionuclides in community

water systems (both surface and ground water) designated as utilizing waters contaminated by effluents from nuclear facilities must sample for beta particle and photon radioactivity. Systems must collect quarterly samples for beta emitters and iodine-131 and annual samples for tritium and strontium-90 at each entry point to the distribution system, beginning within one quarter after being notified by the State. Systems already designated by the State as systems using waters contaminated by effluents from nuclear facilities must continue to sample until the State reviews and either reaffirms or removes the designation. For iodine-131, a composite of five consecutive daily samples shall be analyzed once each quarter. As ordered by the State, more frequent monitoring shall be conducted when iodine-131 is identified in the finished water. See Reference 125. (11.51) Environmental Fate/Exposure Summary: Iodine-129 (half-life = 16 million years) is

the only naturally occurring radioisotope of iodine and is produced as a fission product of uranium and thorium in soils and oceans. Iodine-129 is also produced through the reaction of xenon with high energy particles in the upper atmosphere. Artificial sources of radioiodine include: exposure when 131I is administered to treat hyperthyroidism; exposures associated with clinical administration of 131-I for diagnosis of thyroid gland disorders; exposures to fallout from nuclear bomb tests; low to high doses from exposures to releases from nuclear power plant accidents; and low to high environmental McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 224 of 953

exposures from operational releases from nuclear fuel processing plants. The estimated global inventory of iodine-129 is approximately 9,600 Ci (5.4X10+7 grams of iodine-129). Iodine-125 (halflife = 60 days) and iodine-131 (half-life = 8.04 days) are produced in the fission of uranium and plutonium by neutron bombardment in reactors and particle accelerators. Since these isotopes of iodine have short half-lives, they do not have long residency times in the environment. See Reference 126. (11.52) Artificial Pollution Sources: There are 36 isotopes of iodine having masses between

108 and 143(1); 14 of these yield significant radiation(2). These iodine radioisotopes are of particular interest with respect to human exposures because iodine-123 and iodine-131 are used medically and all six are sufficiently long-lived to be transported to human receptors after their release into the environment(2). Artificial sources of radioiodine include: exposure when 131-I is administered to treat hyperthyroidism; exposures associated with clinical administration of 131-I for diagnosis of thyroid gland disorders; exposures to fallout from nuclear bomb tests; low to high doses from exposures to releases from nuclear power plant accidents; and low to high environmental exposures from operational releases from nuclear fuel processing plants(2). See Reference 127. (11.53) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME IODINE COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE Iodine-120 Iodine-120m Iodine-121 Iodine-123 Iodine-124 Iodine-125 Iodine-126 Iodine-128 Iodine-129 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Air (uCi/mL) 2E-8 3E-8 7E-8 2E-8 4E-10 3E-10 2E-10 2E-7 4E-11 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Water (uCi/mL) 1E-4 2E-4 4E-4 1E-4 2E-6 2E-6 1E-6 8E-4 2E-7

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 225 of 953

Iodine-130 Iodine-131 Iodine-132 Iodine-132m Iodine-133 Iodine-134 IOdine-135 See Reference 128. (11.54)

3E-9 2E-10 2E-8 3E-8 1E-9 6E-8 6E-9

2E-5 1E-6 1E-4 1E-4 7E-6 4E-4 3E-5

/Windscale, United Kingdow Radiation Incident/ In October 1957, the first

substantially publicized release of radioactive material from a nuclear reactor accident occurred at the Windscale nuclear weapons plant at Sellafield in the United Kingdom. During a routine release of stored energy from the graphite core of a carbon dioxide-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor, operator error allowed the fuel to overheat. This led to uranium oxidation and a subsequent graphite fire. Attempts to extinguish the fire with carbon dioxide were ineffective. In the end, water was applied directly to the fuel channels but not before the fire had burned for 3 days, resulting in the release of iodine-131 (740 terrabecquerel; 20 kCi), cesium-137 (22 terrabecquerel; 0.6 kCi), polonium- 210 (8.8 terrabecquerel; 0.2 kCi), ruthenium-106 (3 terrabecquerel; 0.08 kCi), and xenon-133 (1.2 petabecquerel; 32.4 kCi). The fire consumed much of the uranium fuel, and some of the resulting fallout was in the form of flake-like uranium oxide varying in size from 1 to 25 cm. The contamination of pastureland was widespread; for those in close proximity to the accident, the greatest threat of exposure was considered to be from iodine-131 via contaminated cow's milk. Those living farther from the accident were exposed to significant amounts of iodine-131 via milk consumption and air inhalation. The consumption of cow's milk was quickly banned; this lessened the exposure to iodine131. The highest individual doses (approximately 100 milligray) were to the thyroids of children living near the accident site. The collective dose equivalent received in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe was estimated to be 2,000 man-sieverts, of which 900 man-sieverts was from inhalation, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 226 of 953

800 man-sieverts was from ingestion, and 300 man-sieverts was from external exposure. The main radionuclides contributing to the exposures were iodine-131 (37%), polonium-210 (37%), and cesium137 (15%). See Reference 129. (11.55) Radiation Limits & Potential: Environmental radiation protection standards for

management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level, and transuranic radioactive wastes include release limits for containment requirements (cumulative releases to the accessible environment for 10,000 years after disposal) per 1,000 metric tons of heavy metal or other unit of waste for iodine-129 is 100 curies(1). See Reference 130. (11.56) Artificial Pollution Sources: Radioisotopes of mass less than 127 are produced in

particle accelerators (common examples are iodine-123 and iodine-125), while those greater than 127 are formed in neutron generators such as nuclear reactors and atomic bombs (common examples are iodine-129 and iodine-131)(1). See Reference 131. (11.57) Effluent Concentrations: The total iodine-131 concentration measured in liquid waste

released on July 1, 1992 from the nuclear plant at Bugey on the River Rhone, France was 6.5 Bq/L, corresponding to total radioactivity of 2.5 MBq(1). See Reference 132. (11.58) Atmospheric Concentrations: SOURCE DOMINATED: Iodine-127, iodine-129, and

iodine-131 have been identified in 2, 1, and 5 air samples, respectively, collected from the 1,636 NPL hazardous waste sites where they were detected in some environmental media(1). Iodine-131 was detected in surface air of Tsukuba, Japan on May 5, 1986, with a maximum concentration in airborne particulates of 494 mBq/cu m(2). Inherent barriers to iodine-121 transport through a boiling water nuclear reactor system (BWR) function with a high degree of efficiency, thereby reducing this nuclide in gaseous releases from this type of reactor(3). See Reference 133. (11.59) Food Survey Values: Iodine-131, -132, and -135 were identified, not quantified in

imported foods entering the United States following the Chernobyl Nuclear accident in 1986(1). Two McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 227 of 953

cheeses collected shortly after the accident had iodine-131 concentrations above the level of concern (LOC), 56 pCi/kg for infant foods and 300 pCi/kg for other foods(1). By the end of 1990, nearly all contamination was below the limit of detection of 2 Bq/kg(2). See Reference 134. (11.60) Plant Concentrations: Aquatic moss (Cinclidotus riparius) were collected from

downstream following discharges from a nuclear plant at Bugey on the River Rhone, France(1). Sampled from 1986 to 1990, the mosses were shown to contain negligible levels of iodine-131, presumably due to loss volatilization during dessication and incineration of samples, and its short physical half-life(8 days)(1). Fontinalis antipyretica from the Sorgue River, upstream from any human activity, sampled on July 1 and 2, 1992, were used to determine background concentrations(1). See Reference 135. (11.61) The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has set annual limits of inhalation intake

(ALI) for iodine-123, iodine-125 and iodine-131 at 6,000 uCi, 60 uCi and 50 uCi, respectively. See Reference 136. (11.62) Artificial Pollution Sources: ... Present in effluents from nuclear reactors and

weapons. Currently, the tritium present in the environment and the relative contribution of the sources have been estimated to be about 0.5 to 1 megacurie from nuclear reactors ... and about 1X10+3 megacuries from nuclear explosions. See Reference 137. (11.63) Food Survey Values: Tritium was detected in 4% of 200 portions of foods (raw

vegetables, fruits, fish, and milk) collected near 33 nuclear reactors from October 1986 to September 1992(1). The maximum concentration observed in these positive detections was 70 Bq/kg, and most of the positive detections occurred in fish and vegetables in the vicinity of 4 sites(1). See Reference 138. (11.64) Most of the radioactive strontium released to the environment occurred as a result of

atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons from 1945-1980. Nuclear weapon testing injects radioactive material into the stratosphere, which results in wide dispersal of radioactive strontium and other McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 228 of 953

radionuclides. The World Health Organization estimated the total amount of strontium-90 released to the atmosphere from weapons testing was 1.6X10+7 Ci (6X10+17 Bq) during the period of 1945-1980. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine (April 1986) also resulted in the release of about 2.2X10+6 Ci (8.1X10+16 Bq) of strontium-89 and 2.2X10+5 Ci (8.1X10+15 Bq) of strontium-90 into the atmosphere. Since the radioactive decay half-life of strontium-89 is relatively short (51 days), its global transport and the extent of human exposure is limited. The half-life of strontium-90 is much longer (29 years) and some strontium-90 reached the upper atmosphere and was subsequently transported around the world. Routine releases of radioactive strontium also occur from the operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants, but these levels are insignificant when compared to the levels released from the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons and the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The environmental fate of the radioactive forms of strontium is expected to be similar to those of the stable (non-radioactive) form. When released to the atmosphere, radioactive strontium exists in the particulate-phase and is removed by wet and dry deposition. Strontium has moderate mobility in soils and sediments, and adsorbs moderately to metal oxides and clays. Strontium bioconcentrates in aquatic organisms and accumulates in bones of both aquatic and terrestrial animals. BCF values for strontium-90 ranged from 48 to 3,400 in fish muscle, but were 2,400 to 63,000 in bones. Workers employed in the nuclear industry may be accidentally exposed to strontium-89 and strontium-90 through oral, dermal, and inhalation routes. Since atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons has been discontinued for many years and Chernobyl-related fallout was low in the US, current exposure of the general population of the US to radioactive strontium is expected to be low. The primary route of exposure to radioactive strontium for the general population is through ingestion of food, dairy products, and drinking water. Strontium-90 is deposited directly onto plant and soil surfaces and may be translocated to plants through foliar absorption and root uptake. Vegetation consumed by animals such as cows, goats, reindeer, etc, may eventually transfer strontium-90 to the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 229 of 953

human food chain through the ingestion of beef, milk, or other dairy products. The average daily intake for strontium-90 in the US peaked in 1968 at about 1.1 Bq/day and has slowly declined over the past 40 years to less than 0.05 Bq/day. See Reference 139. (11.65) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SEDIMENT: The annual mean level of strontium-90 in

sediment from a segment of the Danube River, Hungary ranged from 47.3 to 192.9 pCi/kg for samples collected from 1983 to 1988(1). The mean activity of strontium-90 in lucustrine and marine sediments from Antarctica in 1989-1996 ranged from 4.59 to 20.5 pCi/kg and <2.7 to 5.78 pCi/kg, respectively(2). Marine sediments in the vicinity of two nuclear power stations in South Korea had strontium-90 activities 3.16 to 48.6 pCi/kg(2). See Reference 140. (11.66) Strontium isotopes are some of the principal constituents of radioactive fallout

following detonation of nuclear weapons, and they are released in insignificant amounts during normal operations of reactors and fuel reprocessing operations. Their toxicity is higher, however, than that of other fission products, and strontium-90 represent a particular hazard because of its long half-life, energetic beta emission, tendency to contaminate food, especially milk, and high retention in bone structure. /Strontium isotopes/ See Reference 141. (11.67) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME STRONTIUM COMPOUNDS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Air (uCi/mL) 2E-8 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Water (uCi/mL) 6E-5

RADIONUCLIDE CLASS D, all soluble compounds except SrTiO3 Y, all insoluble compounds and DrTiO3 Strontium-81 D Y

Strontium-80

2E-8 1E-7 1E-7

3E-4 -

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 230 of 953

Strontium-82 Strontium-83 Strontium-85 Strontium-85m Strontium-87m Strontium-89 Strontium-90 Strontium-91 Strontium-92

D Y D Y D Y D Y D Y D Y D Y D Y D Y

6E-10 1E-10 1E-8 5E-9 4E-9 2E-9 9E-7 1E-6 2E-7 2E-7 1E-9 2E-10 3E-11 6E-12 8E-9 5E-9 1E-8 9E-9

3E-6 3E-5 4E-5 3E-3 6E-4 8E-6 5E-7 2E-5 4E-5 -

See Reference 142. (11.68) Radioactive strontium, strontium-89 and strontium-90, does not occur in nature, but

is the direct result of anthropogenic activity. Strontium-89 and strontium-90 are formed during nuclear reactor operations and during nuclear explosions by the nuclear fission of uranium-235, uranium-238, or plutonium-239. /Radioactive strontium/ Reference 143. (11.69) DECAY PATHWAY: Strontium-90, half-life 28.79 years, decays via beta(-) emission

(100%, 546.0 keV maximum; 195.8 keV average energy) to yttrium-90, half-life 64.00 hours; decays via beta (-) emission (99.989%, 2280.1 keV maximum, 933.7 keV average energy) to zirconium-90, half-life stable. See Reference 144. (11.70) Atmospheric Concentrations: Prior to the 1940's radioactive strontium was not

present in the air at any significant levels(1). Concentrations of strontium-90 peaked in 1963 at McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 231 of 953

approximately 1X10+7 Ci, coincident with the period of extensive nuclear weapons testing(1). Since the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963, atmospheric levels have steadily dropped. In 1975, the average concentration of strontium-90 in the air over Southwestern Poland was 1.62 pCi/cu m(2). See Reference 145. (11.71) Environmental Water Concentrations: DRINKING WATER: The EPA ERAMS

program monitors ambient concentrations of strontium-90 in drinking water at 78 sites in major population centers or near selected nuclear facilities. The median activity of strontium-90 in drinking water for 1995 was 0.1 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L)(1). Sites with the highest levels of strontium-90, Detroit and Niagara Falls, recorded activities of 0.4 and 0.5 pCi/L, respectively(1). In a 1974 study, 0.09 pCi/L of strontium-90 was measured in Los Angeles, California drinking water(1). In a survey that examined 169 wells used for public drinking water in California, 16 wells measured recordable concentrations of strontium-90, with a range of 8 to 330 pCi/L(2). See Reference 146. (11.72) Neutrons are primarily released from nuclear fission ... . The natural decay of

radionuclides does not include emission of neutrons. This is mainly a health hazard for workers in a nuclear power facility or victims of a nuclear explosion. Unique among the particles of radioactivity, when neutrons are stopped or captured they can cause a previously stable atom to become radioactive. This is the principle behind radioactive fallout. See Reference 147. (11.73) RCRA Requirements: Low-Activity Mixed Waste (LAMW) is produced

commercially at industrial, medical, and nuclear power facilities...This waste is being stored, indefinitely in many cases, by small commercial generators because the current regulatory framework severely limits disposal options. The U.S. EPA is working with NRC to develop a mixed waste rule for the management, storage, and disposal of commercially generated LLW mixed with RCRA hazardous waste. RCRA gives EPA the authority to regulate hazardous waste from "cradle-to-grave." The definition of hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Public Law 94-580, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 232 of 953

as amended, et seq., 1984, specifically excludes source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act. See Reference 148. (11.74) Radiation Limits & Potential: In addition to alpha particles, beta particles, and

gamma rays ... energy from radioactive atomic transformations can be emitted as protons, neutrons, neutrinos, internal bremsstrahlung, conversion electrons, X-rays, and Auger electrons. The beta particles can be either negative or positive electrons, negative electrons from neutron-rich and positrons from neutron-deficient nuclei. The emission of a positron from the nucleus is always simultaneously accompanied by the emission of a neutrino, and that of the electron by an antineutrino. The sharing of the available energy for decay between the beta particle and the neutrino accounts for the continuous beta-particle spectra; the sum of the energies of the beta particle and neutrino in a given transition is always constant, being equivalent to the mass difference between the parent and daughter atoms, less such energy as may be emitted in the form of gamma rays (or conversion electrons, X-rays, or Auger electrons) by the daughter atoms in their transitions from excited levels to the ground level. ... In alphaparticle decay no simultaneous radiation, comparable to the neutrino, is emitted from the parent nucleus and hence groups of alpha particles are always homogeneous in energy. Again, gamma rays may be emitted promptly from the daughter nucleus in its decay to the ground level. If the daughter nucleus does not decay promptly to its ground level, it may exist in a metastable state for a considerable time and exhibit radioactivity ... in its own right. The delayed transition of an excited daughter nucleus to a lower-energy level of the same nucleus is called an isomeric transition and such nuclear isomerism is denoted by the addition of the letter m (for metastable) after the atomic-mass number for the given nuclear species. See Reference 149. (11.75) Effluent Concentrations: An estimated 160 TBq (terabecquerel) (approximately 250

kg) of technetium-99 was released to the environment from previous atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons(1). By 1986 it was estimated that approximately 1000 TBq (approximately 1600 kg) were McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 233 of 953

released to the environment from nuclear fuel reprocessing activities and most of this was released to the sea(2). The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 released an estimated 30-40 TBq into the environment(3). See Reference 150. (11.76) Environmental Fate: The activity concentration of 99-Tc in brown seaweed (Fucus

vesiculosus and Fucus serratus) and seawater were analysed in samples collected in 1991, 1995 and 2001 at several stations along the Swedish west coast. In addition to these locations, a well-defined site (Sardal, 56.76 degrees N, 12.63 degrees E) was included with 99-Tc activity concentration data in seaweed from 1967 to 2000. Over the years, the major source of 99-Tc in the coastal waters of western Sweden has been the radioactive liquid discharge from the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Sellafield (UK) transported via ocean currents in the North Sea. The 99-Tc activity concentration in seaweed at the Sardal site increased from approximately 30 Bq/kg up to 230 Bq/kg (dry weight) between 1997 and 2000 due to the Sellafield EARP (Enhanced Actinide Removal Plant) discharges in 1995-1996, yielding an approximate transport time of 4-5 years between the Irish Sea and the Kattegat. Due to the very sharp gradient in 99-Tc concentration between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, 99-Tc is presently one of the best transit tracers for the recent ventilation events in the Baltic Sea. See Reference 151. (11.77) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

ESTABLISHED BY THE NRC FOR SOME TECHNETIUM COMPOUNDS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Air (uCi/mL) EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Water (uCi/mL) 4E-4

RADIONUCLIDE CLASS

Technetium-93

D, all compounds except those given 1E-7 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 1E-7

Technetium-93

Technetium-93m

D, all compounds 2E-7 except those given

1E-3

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 234 of 953

for W Technetium-93m W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 4E-7 -

Technetium-94

D, all compounds except those given 3E-8 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 3E-8

1E-4

Technetium-94

Technetium-94m

D, all compounds except those given 6E-8 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 8E-8

3E-4

Technetium-94m

Technetium-95

D, all compounds except those given 3E-8 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 3E-8

1E-4

Technetium-95

Technetium-95m

D, all compounds except those given 8E-9 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 3E-9

5E-5

Technetium-95m

Technetium-96

D, all compounds except those given 5E-9 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 3E-9

3E-5

Technetium-96

Technetium-96m

D, all compounds 4E-7 except those given

2E-3

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 235 of 953

for W Technetium-96m W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 3E-7 -

Technetium-97

D, all compounds except those given 7E-8 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 8E-9

5E-4

Technetium-97

Technetium-97m

D, all compounds except those given 1E-8 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 2E-9

6E-5

Technetium-97m

Technetium-98

D, all compounds except those given 2E-9 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 4E-10

1E-5

Technetium-98

Technetium-99

D, all compounds except those given 8E-9 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 9E-10

6E-5

Technetium-99

Technetium-99m

D, all compounds except those given 2E-7 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 3E-7

1E-3

Technetium-99m

Technetium-101

D, all compounds 5E-7 except those given

2E-3

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 236 of 953

for W Technetium-101 W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 5E-7 -

Technetium-104

D, all compounds except those given 1E-7 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 1E-7

4E-4

Technetium-104

See Reference 152. (11.78) /FIELD STUDIES/ ... Concentration factors (CF) from water to organisms were

generally very low (1 to 10); however, CF greater than 1000 have been observed for some biota such as macrophytic brown algae, worms and lobsters. Biochemical analysis showed that Tc was essentially free and partially bonded to proteins. The transfer factors between sediments and species were very low (TF less than 0.5). The biological half-time was determined in some marine organisms that had accumulated Tc from water, food or sediments; the loss is biphasic. Uptake in edible parts was low. The physiochemical form affects the accumulation and loss of Tc. Analyses have quantified 99Tc in marine fauna and biota in the English Channel in relation with releases of the reprocessing plant of La Hague. Brown algae are the best bioindicators for following 99Tc dispersion in marine ecosystems. See Reference 153. (11.79) Radiation Limits & Potential: Technetium, atomic number 43, has no stable isotopes.

Natural technetium is known to exist but only in negligibly small quantities resulting from the spontaneous fission of natural uranium. Technetium is chemically very similar to rhenium, but significant differences exist that cause them to behave quite differently under certain conditions. Thirtyone radioisotopes of technetium are known with mass numbers ranging from 86 to 113. The half-lives range from seconds to millions of years. The lower mass number isotopes decay by primarily by

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 237 of 953

electron capture and the higher mass number isotopes by beta emission. The significant isotopes (with half-lives/decay modes) are 95mTc (61 d/electron capture and isomeric transition), 99mTc (6.01 hr/isomeric transition by low-energy gamma), and 99Tc (2.13x10+5 y/beta to stable 99Ru). Other longlived isotopes are 97Tc (2.6x10+6/electron-capture) and 98Tc (4.2x10+6 y/?beta emission). See Reference 154. (11.80) Atmospheric Concentrations: SOURCE DOMINATED: The total estimated amount

of americium-241 released to the atmosphere from weapons testing was 130 kCi (4,800 TBq) during the period of 1951-1978. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine (April 1986) also resulted in the release of about 140 kCi (5,200 TBq) of plutonium-241, which is the radioactive precursor to americium-241, into the atmosphere(1). See Reference 154. (11.81) Artificial Pollution Sources: In the environment, americium is present as a result of

basically three sources: fallout from nuclear explosions, releases from nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants, and production and disposal of smoke detectors by producers and consumers(1). See Reference 155. (11.82) Environmental Fate/Exposure Summary: Most of the radioactive americium released

to the environment occurred as a result of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. Nuclear weapon testing injects radioactive material into the stratosphere, which results in wide dispersal of radioactive americium and other radionuclides. Routine releases of radioactive americium also occur from releases from nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants, and production and disposal of smoke detectors (americium-241, half-life=432.2 yrs) by producers and consumers. When released to the atmosphere, radioactive americium exists in the particulate-phase and is removed by wet and dry deposition. Americium has slight mobility in soils and sediments, and adsorbs strongly to metal oxides and clays, but may be transported on colloids. Americium occurs most commonly in the +3 oxidation state in the environment and the trivalent state is the only state of importance in biological systems. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 238 of 953

Americium bioconcentrates in aquatic organisms and accumulates in bones and muscles. Workers involved in producing ionization smoke detectors or other devices containing americium (americium dioxide), workers at nuclear reactors or Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, and workers who use americium-containing devices (neutron backscatter sources for checking roof leaks and road undermining, and well logging equipment) may be exposed to higher levels of americium. Since atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons has been discontinued for many years and Chernobyl-related fallout was low in the US, current exposure of the general population of the US to radioactive americium is expected to be low. The primary route of exposure to radioactive americium for the general population is through inhalation of dust and ingestion of foods. See Reference 156. (11.83) Fish/Seafood Concentrations: In a study performed in a nuclear waste pond where

the levels of americium-241 were about three orders of magnitude above background levels, concentrations in fish filet were rarely greater than ten times that of controls. In marine organisms consumed by humans, uptake is generally highest in mussels where the target organs are mainly the digestive gland, gill, and exoskeleton(1). The mean activity concentrations of americium-241 detected in the edible portion of 34 crabs and 35 lobsters caught commercially in the Sellafield coastal area offshore from the Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the northeast Irish Sea between May 25 and June 5, 1997 were 1.7 and 8.3 Bq/kg (wet), respectively(2). See Reference 157. (11.84) Effluent Concentrations: In nuclear reactors, americium-241 has been detected in

primary coolant water, stack aerosols, and waste water(1). Water sampling data were used to estimate effluent releases from the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site from the plant's startup in 1954 through 1989. From this monitoring, it was estimated that 290 mCi (11 GBq) of americium-241 was released into seepage basins between 1977 and 1989; however, no americium-241 was released directly into streams. In 1999, 1.34X10-5 Ci (0.496 MBq) of americium-241 was released from the Savannah River Site into surface waters(1). The annual liquid effluent discharges from a typical U.K. Magnox McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 239 of 953

Station contained 34.3?121 Bq/L (0.926?3.27 nCi/L) of americium-241 for the years 1991?1995(1). See Reference 158. (11.85) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME AMERICIUM COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE Americium-237 Americium-238 Americium-239 Americium-240 Americium-241 Americium-242 Americium-242m Americium-243 Americium-244 Americium-244m Americium-245 Americium-246 Americium-246m See Reference 159. (11.86) DECAY PATHWAY: Americium-242, half-life 16.02 hrs, 82.7% decays via beta(-) EFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Air (uCi/mL) 4E-7 9E-9 2E-8 4E-9 2E-14 1E-10 2E-14 2E-14 4E-10 1E-8 1E-7 1E-7 3E-7 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Water (uCi/mL) 1E-3 5E-4 7E-5 3E-5 2E-8 5E-5 2E-8 2E-8 4E-5 1E-3 4E-4 4E-4 8E-4

emission (46%, 662.5 keV maximum energy; 46%, 620 keV maximum energy) to curium-242, half-life 162.8 days, decays via alpha emission, 6216 keV (74% 6113 keV; 25% 6069 keV), to plutonium-238, half-life 87.7 yrs, decays via alpha emission, 5593 keV (70.9% 5499; 28.9% 5456 keV), to uranium234, half-life 245,500 years[.] See Reference 160. (11.87) DECAY PATHWAY: Americium-243, half-life 7,370 yrs, decays via alpha emission,

5438 keV (87.4% 5275 keV; 11.0% 5233 keV), and gamma emission (abs intensity: 68.2% 74.66 keV) to neptunium-239, half-life 2.36 days, decays via beta(-) emission (45%, 438 keV maximum, 126

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 240 of 953

keV average energy; 40%, 341 keV maximum, 93 keV average energy), to plutonium-239, half-life 24,100 years[.] See Reference 161. (11.88) Environmental Fate: AQUATIC FATE: Americium released to water in effluent,

runoff, or atmospheric deposition adsorbs to particulate matter and is rapidly depleted from the water column and deposited in sediment. Adsorption is very high with distribution coefficients between the particulate-associated phase and the dissolved phase in sediment and water of the order of 10X+5 to 10X+6. Colloidal materials can be mobile in groundwater systems for great distances and are capable of binding and transporting radionuclide contaminants, including americium, in subsurface systems. Americium forms stable americium-carbonate complexes in seawater(1). Americium(III) ions hydrolyze and form weak complexes with serum proteins and other ligands. Fish may take up americium, but little builds up in the fleshy tissue(1). See Reference 162. (11.89) Environmental Bioconcentration: In shellfish, americium is attached to the shell and

not to the parts normally consumed(1). BCF values for americium-241 measured for various plants and animals at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site were reported in 1996 as follows: Macroinvertebrates (larvae), 78,000-240,000; Turtle (muscle), 5,600; American coot (muscle), 650(1). In marine organisms, the target organs and tissues of americium bioaccumulation are mainly the digestive gland, gill, and exoskeleton. Uptake in mussels appears to be primarily from seawater rather than ingested sediment(1). The depuration profiles in mussel populations chronically exposed to radioactive waste discharges from the BNFL reprocessing plant at Sellafield, Cumbria, into the northeast Irish Sea were studied. Apart from clearance from the digestive tract (half-life of 0.9 hours), the half-time of americium-241 is 303 days. Essentially all of the americium-241 taken up by a euphausiid, a shrimp-like zooplankton, was by passive adsorption onto exoskeletons, so that negligible americium was retained by the animal after molting. Wet weight concentration factors were of the order of 100 after a week of exposure, with the BCFs varying linearly with the surface area-to-weight ratio of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 241 of 953

the organism. Americium was also taken up by feeding on suspensions of diatoms, but there was negligible assimilation and most americium passed through the gut and was defecated(1). Uptake and retention of americium by benthic organisms is quite variable. In general, filter feeders such as tunicates can clear particles containing americium-241 from seawater by filtration through the branchial basket and accumulate small amounts in internal tissue. Echinoderms and some large crustaceans assimilated americium with their ingested prey, although large differences in half times and assimilation efficiencies in different groups suggest different feeding-digestion physiologies. Uptake in benthic marine isopods, is to a great extent, by surface adsorption to the exoskeleton and to a lesser extent through the gut, digestive gland, muscle, and haemolymph. The half-time in the long-lived compartment was 261 days. Elimination from the internal tissue was more rapid than from the exoskeleton. The fraction assimilated into tissue from food was <5%(1). See Reference 163. (11.90) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: The general population may be exposed to

elevated levels of americium-241 from nuclear accidents or from residing in areas in the proximity of hazardous waste sites where this radionuclide is present. Exposure is generally through the inhalation and ingestion of dust from these sites. Workers involved in producing ionization smoke detectors or other devices containing americium-241, workers at nuclear reactors or Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, and workers who use americium-containing devices (neutron backscatter sources for checking roof leaks and road undermining, and well logging equipment) may also be exposed to higher levels of americium-241(1). See Reference 164. (11.91) Environmental Bioconcentration: Fish may take up americium, but little builds up in

the fleshy tissue(1). BCF values for americium-241 measured for various fish at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site, SC were reported in 1996 as follows: largemouth bass (muscle), 2,500; bullhead catfish (bone), 4,200. In a study performed at a nuclear waste pond at Hanford, WA, the maximum concentration of actinides, including americium-241, that would accumulate in the whole McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 242 of 953

fish and fish fillet were measured. In this waste pond, the sediment concentration of americium-241 was about 5.5 Bq/g, approximately 3 orders of magnitude above background levels. Both the bluegill and largemouth bass were studied. The concentration of americium-241 in the water was about 7 uBq/mL. The results from the Hanford study indicate that both short- and long-term uptakes of americium were low; that uptake was similar for short-term (5 days) and long-term (430 days) experiments; and that direct sediment-to-fish transfer was the primary route for americium uptake. In both species of fish, there were only a few cases where fillet concentrations were >10 times those in controls. The maximum concentration of americium-241 obtained in bass and bluegill were 1.1 and 1.0 mBq/mL dry weight in fillet and 2.5 and 74 mBq/mL in whole fish(1). See Reference 165. (11.92) Environmental Bioconcentration: BCF values for americium-241 measured for

various plants at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site were reported in 1996 as follows: Macrophyte (rooted vascular), 1,400-21,000; Macrophyte (floating vascular), 75,000; Bahia grass, 0.03-0.12; and Pine tree leaves, 0.0052-0.021(1). Various studies indicate that americium-241 uptake by plants is on the order of 10-2 to 10-6. Uptake is somewhat greater under acidic conditions and greater to the leaves than to the grain or fruit(1). Plant uptake experiments with potatoes, peas, and corn were performed using fallout background soil (low levels found in environmental media worldwide from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests are referred to as fallout background) in North Eastham, Massachusetts. The americium-241 in the plant was compared with the average activity in the upper 30 cm of dried soil, 0.0033 Bq/g. The concentration ratios (CRs) (activity per unit wet weight of plant/activity per unit dry weight of soil), also referred to as the transfer coefficient, were 1.7X10-3 for husked corn plus cob, 1.0X10-3 for peeled potatoes, and <1.6X10-3 for shelled peas(1). See Reference 166. (11.93) Soil Adsorption/Mobility: Americium has been shown to be largely associated with

the high molecular weight organic factions of dissolved organic matter in the soil solution of two McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 243 of 953

grassland soils, a soddy podzolic soil and a peat soil, in the vicinity of the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine. The distribution coefficients for americium-241 in these soils were (soil type (depth), Kd in mL/g): soddy podzolic-sod layer (0 to 2 cm), 1,220; soddy podzolic-mineral layer (2 to 5 cm), 810; peat (0 to 2 cm), 2,760; and peat (2 to 5 cm), 4,550(1). While it was similarly shown that the concentration of americium-241 was 2 to 3 times higher in organic matter than in whole sediment from Lake Michigan, organic matter was a very minor constituent of the sediment (<0.5%), so organic matter was associated with a smaller percentage of americium despite its higher concentration. The bulk of the americium-241 in Lake Michigan was found in the hydrous oxides fraction of both the sediment core samples and the suspended particulate matter(1). See Reference 167. (11.94) Soil Adsorption/Mobility: Fallout americium-241 (the low levels found in

environmental media worldwide from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests) is predominantly retained to the upper few centimeters of soil where it is associated with organic matter and bound to manganese and iron oxides(1). Leaching studies of surface-deposited americium-241 in three Indian soils of widely differing characteristics, namely laterite, medium black, and alluvial, were conducted in soil columns using simulated rain corresponding to the mean annual precipitation. It was found that 98% of the americium was retained in upper 2 cm of soil; amending the soil with organic matter only slightly reduced its mobility(1). In a study of the various soil components in six successive layer of undisturbed grassland in Germany the attachment of americium to soil component varied considerably with soil layer. The largest amount of americium-241 was attached to organic matter, 18-74%, depending on the soil layer. A substantial fraction, 12-64%, was bound to oxides. In the 5-10 cm layer, the americium241 in the readily exchangeable fraction was a minimum, 1.5%, while that attached to soil minerals was a maximum, 68%(1). See Reference 168. (11.95) Environmental Water Concentrations: SEAWATER: Americium-241 concentrations

in large volume water samples collected from the Catalan Sea in the northwestern Mediterranean in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 244 of 953

1991 at depths of 2-3 m (surface), 100 m, 500 m, and 1000 m were 1.0, 1.1, 1.9, and 1.5 mBq/cu m, respectively(1). Americium-241 levels in surface seawater of the North Sea and North Atlantic Ocean stayed around 10 Bq/cu m (270 pCi/cu m) between 1976 and 1988, but may be considerably higher near discharges from nuclear facilities(2). See Reference 169. (11.96) Artificial Pollution Sources: The production and use of technetium compounds in

nuclear medicine and as superconducting materials(1) may result in their release to the environment through various waste streams(SRC). Past atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, and emissions of Tc-99 from nuclear fuel reprocessing activities, have been the predominant source of technetium released into the environment(2-4). See Reference 170. (11.97) Environmental Fate/Exposure Summary: Technetium is a man-made element that is

not known to occur in the earth's crust except for minute quantities that may occur from the spontaneous fission of uranium. There are no stable isotopes of technetium. Forty-three isotopes and isomers are known, with atomic mass ranging from 86 to 113 with technetium-99 being the most common and readily available of all the isotopes as it is a major product of the fission of uranium-235. Technetium can form compounds with oxidation states ranging from -1 to +7, with the most common valances being +4 and +7. The production and use of technetium compounds in nuclear medicine and as superconducting materials may result in their release to the environment from various waste streams. An estimated 160 TBq (terabecquerel) (approximately 250 kg) of technetium-99 was released to the environment from previous atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. An additional 1000 TBq (approximately 1600 kg) was released (primarily to the sea) from nuclear reactors. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April, 1986 released an estimated 30-40 TBq into the environment. If released to air, technetium compounds would exist solely in the particulate phase. Particulate-phase technetium compounds may be removed from the air by wet and dry deposition. If released to soil, the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 245 of 953

mobility of technetium compounds is greatly dependent upon the speciation and complexation of technetium. Technetium produced by nuclear fission is oxidized to Tc2O7; however, when exposed to water this compound dissolves to form the weak acid HTcO4, which dissociates in the environment to TcO4(-). Under aerobic conditions, technetium is usually present in the environment in the thermodynamically stable anionic complex TcO4(-) (pertechnetate anion) which is soluble and highly mobile in soil surfaces. Under reducing conditions, technetium is transformed from its soluble form to lower oxidation forms such as TcO2, TcO(OH)2, TcS2 or forms complexes with humic material. These compounds are relatively insoluble, adsorb strongly to soils and have little mobility. The texture and physical characteristics of the soil also influences the mobility of technetium. In general, soils rich in organic matter tend to adsorb technetium stronger than soils with low amounts of organic material. The reactions of technetium in water are similar to those which occur in soils. Under aerobic conditions, the dominant species in natural aqueous solutions in equilibrium with the atmosphere is TcO4(-). At low pH and under anoxic conditions, technetium is reduced to its +4 valence state and may form various insoluble complexes, primarily TcO2. The reduced form is capable of binding to humic and fulvic acids in suspended solids and sediment forming stable complexes. Occupational exposure may occur at facilities where technetium is produced and used or at nuclear power facilities where technetium is produced as a byproduct of fission of uranium-235 and extracted from nuclear fuel rods. The general population may be exposed to low levels of technetium through the ingestion of contaminated water or food. Direct exposure may occur when technetium is administered medically as a radioactive tracer for imaging parts of the body. See Reference 171. (11.98) Effluent Concentrations: An estimated 160 TBq (terabecquerel) (approximately 250

kg) of technetium-99 was released to the environment from previous atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons(1). By 1986 it was estimated that approximately 1000 TBq (approximately 1600 kg) were released to the environment from nuclear fuel reprocessing activities and most of this was released to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 246 of 953

the sea(2). The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 released an estimated 30-40 TBq into the environment(3). See Reference 172. (11.99) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: NIOSH (NOES Survey 1981-1983) has

statistically estimated that 406 workers (298 of these are female) are potentially exposed to technetium in the US(1). Occupational exposure may occur at facilities where technetium is produced and used or at nuclear power facilities where technetium is produced as a byproduct of fission of uranium-235 and extracted from nuclear fuel rods(SRC). The general population may be exposed to low levels of technetium through the ingestion of contaminated water or food(SRC). Direct exposure may occur when technetium is administered medically as a radioactive tracer for imaging parts of the body(SRC). See Reference 171. (11.100) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SOIL: Soils samples obtained from the 30 km zone

around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant contained Tc-99 levels ranging from 1.1-14.1 Bq/kg by dry weight for the organic soil layers and 0.13-0.83 Bq/kg dry weight for the mineral layers(1). See Reference 174. (11.101) Environmental Water Concentrations: SURFACE WATER: Technetium was detected

in water from the Irish Sea, UK near the British Nuclear Fuel reprocessing plant in Sellafield at 0.87 ng/L(1). The average concn of technetium-99 in the Savannah River at four sites ranged from 0.42-0.58 picocuries/L(2). The level of technetium-99 in surface and bottom waters of the Baltic Sea were reported as 95 and 68 uBq/L(3). See Reference 175. (11.102) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SEDIMENT: Technetium-99 was detected in

sediment cores obtained from the Irish Sea, UK near the British Nuclear Fuel reprocessing plant in Sellafield at levels ranging from 0.95 to 14.9 Bq/kg(1). See Reference 176. (11.103) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SEDIMENT: The British Nuclear Fuels Ltd nuclear

fuel reprocessing plants at Sellafield in Cumbria, UK discharge low level radioactive waste into the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 247 of 953

Irish Sea(1). Neptunium-237 concentrations in sediment cores samples collected in October 1994 from 9 sites around the intertidal area of the Irish Sea, UK ranged from 13.1 to 412 mBq/kg(1). See Reference 176.. (11.104) Environmental Water Concentrations: Neptunium-237 concentrations in porewater

collected over a year from an inter-tidal salt marsh in the Esk Estuary, West Cumbria, UK near the British Nuclear Fuel Ltd Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant ranged from approximately 0.05 mBq/L in September to 0.56 mBq/L in March(1). See Reference 177. (11.105) Environmental Fate/Exposure Summary: Neptunium was the first synthetic

transuranium element of the actinide series discovered. Neptunium-239 (half-life = 2.4 days) was first produced in 1940 at Berkeley, CA by the bombardment of uranium-238 with cyclotron-produced neutrons. Seventeen isotopes of neptunium are known and all are radioactive. Neptunium-237 is obtained in gram quantities as the by-product from nuclear reactors in the production of plutonium. The longest lived isotope is Np-237; it is an alpha-emitter with a half-life of 2.14 million years. Neptunium is a by-product of plutonium production activities. Neptunium is present in spent nuclear fuel, highlevel radioactive wastes resulting from the processing of spent nuclear fuel, and radioactive wastes associated with operations of reactors and fuel reprocessing plants. A small amount of neptunium would have been generated by atmospheric nuclear weapon testing, which ceased worldwide by 1980. The amount of neptunium in soil from past nuclear testing is on the order of 0.0001 pCi/g. Releases of neptunium from weapons production facilities have cause localized contamination. There are no major commercial uses of neptunium. Trace quantities of neptunium are found in nature associated with uranium ores. Neptunium compounds are ionic and would not be volatile and would exist solely in the particulate phase in the ambient atmosphere. Particulate-phase neptunium compounds will be removed from the atmosphere by wet or dry deposition. In soil, neptunium is generally more mobile than other transuranic elements such as plutonium, americium, and curium, moving with percolating water to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 248 of 953

lower soil layers. Neptunium compounds bind to soil particles, and bind more tightly with clay soils as compared with sandy soils. Neptunium is readily taken up by plants, with plant concentrations similar to soil concentrations. Neptunium compounds are ionic and would not volatilize from moist or dry soil surfaces. Neptunium has 4 valence states in water: Np3+; Np4+; NpO+; and (NpO)2+. Neptunium forms tri- and tetrahalide compounds such as NpF3, NpF4, NpCl4, NpBr3, NpI3, and oxides of various compositions such as Np3O8 and NpO2. Reference 171. (11.106) Artificial Pollution Sources : Neptunium was the first synthetic transuranium element

of the actinide series discovered(1,2). Neptunium-239 (half-life = 2.4 days) was first produced in 1940 at Berkeley, CA by the bombardment of uranium-238 with cyclotron-produced neutrons(1,2). Seventeen isotopes of neptunium are known and all are radioactive(1). Neptunium-237 is obtained in gram quantities as the by-product from nuclear reactors in the production of plutonium(2). The longest lived isotope is neptunium-237; it is an alpha-emitter with a half-life of 2.14 million years(3). Neptunium is a by-product of plutonium production activities(1). Neptunium is present in spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive wastes resulting from the processing of spent nuclear fuel, and radioactive wastes associated with operations of reactors and fuel reprocessing plants(1). A small amount of neptunium would have been generated by atmospheric nuclear weapon testing, which ceased worldwide by 1980(1). The amount of neptunium in soil from past nuclear testing is on the order of 0.0001 pCi/g(1). Releases of neptunium from weapons production facilities have caused localized contamination(1). There are no major commercial uses of neptunium(1). Neptunium forms tri- and tetrahalide compounds such as NpF3, NpF4, NpCl4, NpBr3, NpI3, and oxides of various compositions such as Np3O8 and NpO2(2). Reference 178. (11.107) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME NEPTUNIUM COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 249 of 953

Air (uCi/mL) Neptunium-232 Neptunium-233 Neptunium-234 Neptunium-235 Neptunium-236 (1.15E+5 y) 6E-9 4E-6 4E-9 2E-9 8E-14

Water (uCi/mL) 2E-3 1E-2 3E-5 3E-4 9E-8 5E-5 2E-8 2E-5 2E-5 3E-4

Neptunium-236m (22.5 1E-10 hr) Neptunium-237 Neptunium-238 Neptunium-239 Neptunium-240 See Reference 179. (11.108) 1E-14 2E-10 3E-9 1E-7

DECAY PATHWAY: Neptunium-237, half-life 2,144,000 years, decays via alpha

emission, 4.959 MeV, to protactinium-233, half-life 26.967 days. Protactinium-233 decays via beta emission, 0.571 MeV, to uranium-233, half-life 159,200 years. See Reference 180. (11.109) DECAY PATHWAY: Neptunium-239, half-life 2.3565 days, decays via beta(-)

emission, 0.722 MeV, to plutonium-239, half-life 24,110 years. Plutonium-239 decays via alpha emission, 5.245 MeV, to uranium-235, half-life 703,800,000 years. See Reference 181. (11.110) In normal reprocessing of irradiated uranium fuel, neptunium appears in the high-

level wastes. Because of its long half-life of 2.14x10+6 years, neptunium-237 persists in these wastes long after most of the fission products and other actinides have decayed. It undergoes alpha decay in the 2n+1 decay chain to form protactinium-233, which subsequently decays to uranium-233. to thorium-229, and thence to radium-225 and its decay daughters. Because of its half-life and the radiotoxicity of its daughters, neptunium-237 is the source of important long-term toxicity in high-level wastes. If the radionuclides in these wastes ever become dissolved in groundwater, the chemistry of neptunium is such that it may not be as effectively retarded by sorption in geologic media as are the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 250 of 953

other actinides in these wastes. /Neptunium-237/ See Reference 182. (11.111) Neptunium-237 is obtained in gram quantities as the by-product from nuclear

reactors in the production of plutonium. See Reference 183. (11.112) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: Since neptunium has only been produced in

limited quantities(1) and it has few uses outside of research activities(2), exposure to neptunium compounds would be limited to individuals involved in scientific research using neptunium or at plutonium production or nuclear waste facilities(SRC). See Reference 184. (11.113) Hydrazine is employed during nuclear power plants start-up operations to ensure that

oxygen is not present to induce the stress-corrosion reaction. See Reference 185. (11.114) Cleanup Methods: Hydrazine removal from nuclear power plant wastewater using

activated carbon and copper ion catalysts. See Reference 186. (11.115) Major Uses [of Hydrazine]: Reducing agent for many transition metals and some

nonmetals (arsenic, selenium, tellurium), as well as uranium and plutonium; nuclear fuel reprocessing; redox reaction; polymerization catalyst; short stopping agent; component of high-energy fuels; corrosion inhibitor in boiler feedwater & reactor cooling water; wastewater treatment; electrolytic plating of metals on glass & plastics; rocket propellent; manufacture of drugs & agricultural chemicals (maleic hydrazide); scavenger for gases; fuel cells; blowing agent. (11.116) Atmospheric Standards [for Hydrazine]: Listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP)

generally known or suspected to cause serious health problems. The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, directs EPA to set standards requiring major sources to sharply reduce routine emissions of toxic pollutants. EPA is required to establish and phase in specific performance based standards for all air emission sources that emit one or more of the listed pollutants. Hydrazine is included on this list. See Reference 188. (11.117) Hydrazine is a waste chemical stream constituent which may be subjected to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 251 of 953

ultimate disposal by controlled incineration with facilities for effluent scrubbing to abate any ammonia formed in the combustion process. See Reference 189. (11.118) General Manufacturing Information [for Cobalt-60]: Corrosion product radionuclides

are created by neutron activation of reactor components such as piping or fuel element cladding. ... In addition, corrosion products can be found in workers who have had intakes at other nuclear facilities, notably nuclear power plants or naval shipyards servicing nuclear-powered vessels. ... Historically, fresh corrosion product radionuclides, regardless of origin, were usually a mixture of several radionuclides. The predominant radionuclide was usually cobalt-60, with cobalt-58, manganese-54, and iron-59 as the other significant constituents in a fresh mixture. Other radionuclides were often present in trace amounts, but they were generally of little dosimetric consequence. The relative abundance of the radionuclides varied from facility to facility. However, given the time elapsed since operation of the reactors at Hanford, the short-lived corrosion products have decayed away, leaving cobalt-60 as the nuclide of concern. ...Corrosion products are usually oxides. /Cobalt, manganese, and iron oxides/ See Reference 190. (11.119) Disposal Methods [for Cobalt-60]: Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) is a general

term for a wide range of wastes. Industries, hospitals and medical, educational, or research institutions; private or government laboratories; and nuclear fuel cycle facilities (e.g., nuclear power reactors and fuel fabrication plants) using radioactive materials generate low-level wastes as part of their normal operations. These wastes are generated in many physical and chemical forms and levels of contamination. See Reference 191. (11.120) Artificial Pollution Sources: Cobalt-60 is produced be neutron activation of

components of nuclear reactors; these components are made of various alloys of steel that contain metals that can absorb neutrons and produce cobalt-60(1). Cobalt-60 can also be produced in a particle accelerator(1). Trace amounts of cobalt-60 are present in the environment worldwide due to fallout McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 252 of 953

from past atmospheric nuclear weapons testing(1). Cobalt-60 may be released to the environment from nuclear reactors and facilities that process spent nuclear fuel, especially hardware associated with the spent fuel(1). Cobalt-60 may be release to the environment through discharges of low-level aqueous radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants(5). The highest annual discharge of cobalt-60 from the AEA Witfrith reactor in Dorset, UK was 20 TBq in 1980-81(2). Between 1986-90 approximately 270 GBq of cobalt-60 was discharged into the Rhone River in liquid wastes(3). Total releases of cobalt-60 to the atmosphere from the Savannah River Site (SRS), South Carolina between 1968 and 1996 were 0.092 Ci(4). Total releases of cobalt-60 to streams from the SRS between 1954-95 were 66 Ci(4). Cobalt-60 is used in brachytherapy to treat various types of cancer(1). In this application, cobalt-60 is contained within a sealed source, and the release of cobalt-60 to the environment would be expected to be minimal(SRC). See Reference 192. (11.121) Effluent Concentrations: On July 1, 1992, 68 MBq of cobalt-60 was released form

the nuclear power plant of Bugey located on the Rhone River, France; two of the reactors are cooled using water from the Rhone River(1). Between 1986-90 approximately 270 GBq of cobalt-60 was discharged into the Rhone River in liquid wastes(1). The highest annual discharge of cobalt-60 from the AEA Winfrith reactor in Dorset, UK was 20 TBq in 1980-81(2). Concentrations of cobalt-60 in the intertidal mudflat sediments, seaweed, and marine fauna declined following the closure of the nuclear reactor at AEA Winfrith in Dorset, UK in 1990(2). See Reference 193. (11.122) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: Occupational exposure to cobalt-60 may

occur for workers at nuclear facilities, irradiation facilities, and nuclear waste storage sites(1). According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the collective intake of cobalt-60 by ingestion and inhalation at power reactors in 1998 was 352 uCi for 25 intake records and 27,000 uCi for 281 intake records, respectively(1). The collective intake at fuel fabrication facilities was 0.486 uCi for 502 intake records(1). Cobalt-60 is used in brachytherapy to treat various types of cancer(2). In this McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 253 of 953

application, cobalt-60 is contained within a sealed source(2). Individuals may be exposed to cobalt57(SRC) through its use in diagnostic testing as a radiotracer in radioactive vitamin B12(3). See Reference 194. (11.123) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME COBALT COMPOUNDS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Air (uCi/mL) EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Water (uCi/mL) 2E-5

RADIONUCLIDE CLASS

Cobalt-55

W, all compounds except those 4E-9 given for Y Y, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 4E-9 4E-10 3E-10 4E-9 9E-10 2E-9 1E-9 1E-7 9E-8 2E-10 5E-11 6E-6 4E-6 9E-8 8E-8 2E-7 2E-7

6E-6 6E-5 2E-5 8E-4 3E-6 2E-2 3E-4 7E-4 -

Cobalt-56 Cobalt-57 Cobalt-58 Cobalt-58m Cobalt-60 Cobalt-60m Cobalt-61 Cobalt62m

W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y

See Reference 195 (11.124) DECAY PATHWAY: Cobalt-60, half-life 5.27 years, decays via beta(-) emission McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 254 of 953

(99.9%, 317.9 keV maximum, 95.8 keV average energy) and gamma emission (abs intensities: 99% 1173 keV; 100% 1332 keV) to nickel-60, half-life stable[.] See Reference 196. (11.125) Storage Conditions: The half-life of cobalt-60 (t1/2= 5.2 y), and its gamma

emissions make it a principal contributor to potential dose effects in storage and transport of radioactive waste. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 197. (11.126) Major Uses: Cobalt is also used in the cobalt bomb, a hydrogen bomb surrounded by

a cobalt metal shell. When the nuclear explosion occurs cobalt-60 is formed from cobalt-59 by neutron capture. Considered a dirty bomb because of long half-life and intense beta and gamma radiation. See Reference 198. (11.127) Radiation Limits & Potential: The Orphan Sources Initiative is designed to assist

states in retrieving and disposing of radioactive sources that find their way into non-nuclear facilities, particularly scrap yards, steel mills, and municipal waste disposal facilities. Specially licensed sources bear identifying markings that can be used to trace these sources to their original owners. However, some sources do not have these markings or the markings become obliterated. In these cases, the sources are referred to as orphan sources because no known owner can be identified. They are one of the most frequently reported radioactive contaminants in shipments received by scrap metal facilities. If a steel mill melts a source, it contaminates the entire batch of metal, the processing equipment, and the facility. More importantly, it can result in the exposure of workers to radiation. There have been at least 26 recorded accidental meltings of radioactive material in the United States since 1983. One such case happened in Texas in 1996 when a cobalt-60 source was stolen from a storage facility and sold as scrap metal. Workers and customers of the scrap yard and law enforcement officers who conducted investigations at the scrap yard were exposed to the source and may have received dangerous doses of radiation. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 199. (11.128) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SEDIMENT: Cobalt-60 concentration in surface McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 255 of 953

sediments from 4 sites in one of the reservoir created in the river Techna near the Mayak Production Association in the Urals mountains, which produced weapons-grade plutonium, ranged from 42 to 88 kBq/kg dry weight(1). Cobalt-60 concentrations in bottom sediments collected near the Vandellos Nuclear Plant (Spain) in 1989 ranged from <0.07 to 0.44 Bq/kg(2). Cobalt-60 concentrations in sediment samples from the Peconic River system, Long Island, NY, downstream from the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) were 9.6, 6.7, 9.6, and 10.5 Bq/kg dry weight at depth intervals of 0.00 to 0.06, 0.06 to 0.15, 0.15 to 0.24, and 0.24 to 0.37 meters, respectively(3). On the BNL property boundary, cobalt-60 concentrations in sediment were 5.8 Bq/kg dry weight (0.00-0.06 m) and <4 Bq/kg dry weight for the remaining depth intervals(3). Cobalt-60 concentrations in sediment samples from two locations from a control river, Connetquot River (Long Island, NY), were <4 Bq/kg at 0.00 to 0.06 and 0.06 to 0.15 m depths(3). See Reference 200. (11.129) Plant Concentrations: Cobalt-60 concentrations in sea grass (Possidonia oceanica)

collected near the Vandellos Nuclear Plant (Spain) collected in 1987 ranged from 0.70 to 7.66 Bq/kg dry weight, with a mean value of 1.6 Bq/kg dry weight(2). See Reference 201. (11.130) Threshold Limit Values [for Cobalt, Radioactive]: The Physical Agents TLV

Committee accepts the occupational exposure guidance of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Ionizing radiation includes particulate radiation (e.g., alpha particles and beta particles emitted from radioactive materials, and neutrons from nuclear reactors and accelerators) and electromagnetic radiation (e.g., gamma rays emitted from radioactive materials and xrays from electron accelerators and X-ray machines) with energy greater than 12.4 electron-volts (eV) ... The guiding principle of radiation protection is to avoid all unnecessary exposures. ICRP has established principles of radiological protection. There are (1) the justification of a work practice: No work practice involving exposure to ionizing radiation should be adopted unless it produces sufficient benefit to the exposed individuals or the society to offset the detriment it causes. (2) The optimization McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 256 of 953

of a workpractice: All radiation exposures must be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), economic and social factors being taken into account. (3) The individual dose limits: The radiation dose from all relevant sources should not exceed the /ICRP/ prescribed dose limits. See Reference 202. (11.131) Radiation Limits & Potential: Of the six major radioactive zirconium isotopes, only

one, zirconium-93, has a half-life long enough to warrant potential concern... . The half-lives of all other isotopes are <3 months. Zirconium-93 decays by emitting a beta particle with a half-life of 1.5 million years to niobium-93m (the m? means metastable), which in turn decays by isomeric transition with a half-life of 14 years. Zirconium-93 is present in spent nuclear fuel and the wastes resulting from reprocessing this fuel. The low-specific activity and low energy of its radiations limits the radioactive hazards of this isotope. See Reference 203. (11.132) OSHA estimates that approx 25,000 workers are exposed to beryllium. Among these

are beryllium ore miners, beryllium alloy makers and fabricators, phosphorus manufacturers, ceramic workers, missile technicians, nuclear reactor workers, electric and electronic equipment workers and jewelers. /Beryllium/ See Reference 204. (11.133) The use of excess formic acid to destroy excess nitric acid in nuclear fuel

reprocessing waste solutions at 100 deg C is potentially hazardous because of an induction period, high exothermicity and the evolution of large amounts of gas, mainly carbon dioxide, dinitrogen oxide and nitrogen oxide, with some nitrogen and dinitrogen tetroxide. See Reference 205. (11.134) Methods of Manufacturing [for PHOSPHORUS, RADIOACTIVE]: Produced by

pile irradiation of potassium dihydrogen phosphate or sulfur and sulfur compounds, usually in nuclear reactors. See Reference 206 (11.135) Disposal Methods [ for PHOSPHORUS, RADIOACTIVE]: Low-level radioactive

waste (LLW) is a general term for a wide range of wastes. Industries, hospitals and medical, educational, or research institutions; private or government laboratories; and nuclear fuel cycle McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 257 of 953

facilities (e.g., nuclear power reactors and fuel fabrication plants) using radioactive materials generate low-level wastes as part of their normal operations. These wastes are generated in many physical and chemical forms and levels of contamination. See Reference 207. (11.136) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: Depending on the quantities used and type of

operation, the emissions of phosphorus-32 may require appropriate shielding to minimize personnel exposure(1). Occupational exposure to phosphorus-32 may occur through dermal contact with this compound at workplaces where phosphorus-32 is produced or used(SRC). Exposure to the general population should be minimal and limited to its beta emission due to its short half-life of 14.3 days(SRC). Phosphorus-32 was one of the radionuclides released to the Columbia River from the Hanford Site near Richland in southcentral Washington State during the period of 1944-1992(2). The most significant Columbia River population exposure pathway was found to be consumption of resident fish containing phosphorus-32(2). See Reference 208. (11.137) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SEDIMENT: Concentrations of radium-226 in

sediment samples from the lock areas of the 8 Austrian Danube reservoirs collected in the Spring of 1985 were approximately 65-100, 45-55, and 35-40 Bq/kg in the <20, 20-63, and 63-200 um grainsize fractions, respectively(1). Radium-226 concentrations in surface sediments from the Mediterranean Sea near the Vandellos Nuclear Power Plant collected in 1989 ranged from 6.3 to 28.6 Bq/kg with a mean value of 14.8 Bq/kg(2). Radium-226 concentrations ranged from approximately 5-50 and 25-44 Bq/kg dry weight, in lake and river sediments in Macedonia, Greece(3). Radium-226 concentrations (dpm/g) in sediment core samples from Rice Creek, a small rural tributary of Lake Ontario in Oswego, NY, were 1.38 (0-2 cm core depth), 1.69 (2-4 cm), 1.98 (10-12 cm), 1.39 (30-32 cm)(4). See Reference 209. (11.138) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME RADIUM COMPOUNDS McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 258 of 953

RADIONUCLIDE Radium-223 Radium-224 Radium-225 Radium-226 Radium-227 Radium-228 See Reference 210. (11.139)

EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Air (uCi/mL) 9E-13 2E-12 9E-13 9E-13 3E-8 6E-8

EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Water (uCi/mL) 1E-7 2E-7 2E-7 6E-8 3E-4 6E-7

DECAY PATHWAY: Radium-228, half-life 5.75 years, decays via beta (-) emission,

(40%, 39.2 keV maximum, 9.94 keV average energy; 30%, 12.8 keV maximum, 3.21 keV average energy; 20%, 25.7 keV maximum, 3.21 keV average energy; 10%, 39.6 keV maximum, 10.04 keV average energy) and gamma emission (abs intensities: 100% 13.52 keV; 45% 16.2 keV; 19% 12.75 keV; 10% 15.5 keV) to actinium-228, 6.15 hours; decays via beta (-) emission (29.9%, 1158 keV maximum, 382.3 keV average energy; 11.66%, 1730 keV maximum, 606.9 keV average energy; 8.0%, 595.5 keV maximum, 178.7 average energy; 5.92%, 1004 keV maximum, 324.4 keV average energy) and gamma emission (abs intensities: 25.8% 911.2 keV; 15.8% 968.9 keV; 11.27% 338.2 keV; 4.99% 964.7 keV; 4.4% 463.0 keV; 4.25% 794.9 keV) to thorium-228, half-life 1.912 years; decays via alpha emission, 5520 keV (72.2% 5423 keV; 27.2% 5340 keV), to radium-224, half-life 3.66 days; decays via alpha emission, 5789 keV (94.9% 5685 keV; 5.1% 5448 keV), to radon-220, half-life 55.6 seconds; decays via alpha emission, 99.886% 6288 keV, to polonium-216, half-life 0.145 seconds; decays via alpha emission, 99.998% 6778 keV, to lead-212, half-life 10.64 hours; decays via beta (-) emission (82.5%, 335 keV maximum, 94.8 keV average energy; 12.3%, 173 keV average energy; 5.17%, 42.3 keV average energy) and gamma emission (abs intensity: 43.3% 238.6 keV) to bismuth-212, half-life 60.55 minutes; 64% decays via alpha emission, 96.9% 11650 keV, to lead-208, half-life stable; 36% decays via alpha emission, 6207 keV (69.9% 6050 keV; 27.1% 6090 keV) to thallium 208, half-life

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 259 of 953

3.053 minutes; decays via beta (-) emission (48.7%, 1796 keV maximum, 647.4 keV average energy; 24.5%, 1285 keV maximum, 439.6 keV average energy; 21.8%, 1518 keV maximum, 533.3 keV average energy) and gamma emission (abs intensities: 85.2% 583.2 keV; 22.8% 510.8 keV; 12.5% 860.6 keV) to lead-208, half-life stable. See Reference 211. (11.140) EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE NRC FOR SOME

YTTRIUM COMPOUNDS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Air (uCi/mL) EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Water (uCi/mL) 3E-4 2E-5 3E-5 1E-5 7E-6 1E-4 8E-6 2E-3 4E-5 2E-5 4E-4

RADIONUCLIDE CLASS

Yttrium-86m

W, all compounds except those 8E-8 given for Y Y, oxides and hydroxides 8E-8 5E-9 5E-9 5E-9 5E-9 3E-10 3E-10 9E-10 9E-10 2E-8 2E-8 2E-10 2E-10 3E-7 2E-7 1E-8 1E-8 4E-9 3E-9 1E-7

Yttrium-86 Yttrium-87 Yttrium-88 Yttrium-90 Yttrium-90m Yttrium-91 Yttrium-91m Yttrium-92 Yttrium-93 Yttrium-94

w Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 260 of 953

Y Yttrium-95 Y See Reference 212. (11.141) W 2E-7

1E-7 2E-7 -

7E-4

Naturally occurring yttrium is composed of only yttrium-89, which is not

radioactive(1). There are 43 other unstable isotopes and isomers of yttrium that have been characterized(1). Yttrium-90 exists in equilibrium with its parent, strontium-90, a product of atomic explosions(1). Yttrium-90 is used in nuclear medicine(2). Since it is a synthetic isotope and has limited uses, releases to the environment of yttrium-90 would be very limited(SRC). In the US, trace concentrations of yttrium-91 have been reported in barley and wheat, possibly as a result of the overground atomic bomb tests that took place during the 1950s(3). See Reference 213. (11.142) Plant Concentrations: Potassium-40 concentrations in plants collected from

Livingston Island (Antarctic Regions) were 34.7, 64, 374, and 131 Bq/kg wet weight, in mosses (genus Bryum), lichens (Usnea antarica), algae (Gigartina papillosa), and algae (genus Desmarestia), respectively(1). Potassium-40 levels in wild and edible plants in the vicinity of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant in Bulgaria were 950, 2130, and 1400 Bq/kg in Taraxacum officinale, Plantago lanceolata, and Populus nigras Italica, respectively, detection limit of 360 mBk/kg(2). See Reference 214. (11.143) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME POTASSIUM COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE Potassium-40 Potassium-42 Potassium-43 Potassium-44 Potassium-45 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Air (uCi/mL) 6E-10 7E-9 1E-8 9E-8 2E-7 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Water (uCi/mL) 4E-6 6E-5 9E-5 5E-4 7E-4

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 261 of 953

See Reference 216. (11.144) Food Survey Values: Potassium-40 is the predominant radioactive component in

most foods(1,2). Seafood collected from the Ligurian Sea (Northern Italy) after the Chernobyl accident contained mean potassium-40 concentrations ranging from 122.6 to 164.0 Bq/kg wet weight in Smallspotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula) and Hake (Merluccius merluccius), respectively(3). The mean concentration of potassium-40 in composite samples of wild edible mushrooms collected from 1985-1997 from coniferous forests around the Nuclear Centre of Mexico was 1,021 Bq/kg dry weight(4). A mean potassium-40 concentration of 83.1 Bq/kg (range 39.1 to 132.9 Bq/kg) was reported for 39 honey samples collected 12 years after the Chernobyl accident(5). Average potassium-40 concentrations of 22.0 and 23.6 Bq/kg were reported in honey from areas around Warsaw, Poland in 1989 and in the Piedmontese (Italy) in 1987(5). Foods purchased during the US FDA's Total Diet Study, conducted from 1991 to 1997 were analyzed for radionulcides, including potassium-40; results indicated trace amounts present consistent with the near disappearance of contamination from nuclear weapons testing conducted during the early 1960s(6). See Reference 217. (11.145) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR RADON COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE Radon-220 Radon-222 CLASS With daughters present With daughters present See Reference 218. (11.146) DECAY PRODUCTS (PROGENY) OF RADON-222 GAS. Radon-222 through AIR (uCi/mL) WATER (uCi/mL) 3E-11 1E-10

With daughters removed 2E-8 With daughters removed 1E-8

Polonium-214 are short-lived progeny (principal hazard to uranium workers); Lead-210 through Polonium-210 are long-lived radon progeny (principal hazard from fallout). McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 262 of 953

RADON PROGENY Radon-222 Polonium-218 Lead-214 Bismuth-214 Polonium-214 Lead-210 Bismuth-210 Polonium-210 Lead-206 See Reference 219. (11.147)

HALF LIFE 3.8 days 3 minutes 27 minutes 20 minutes 22 years 5 days 138 days stable

EMISSION alpha alpha beta beta beta beta alpha -

180 microseconds beta

Atmospheric Standards: Emissions of radon-222 to the ambient air from an

underground uranium mine shall not exceed those amounts that would cause any member of the public to receive in any year an effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem/y. /Radon-222/ See Reference 220. (11.148) Atmospheric Standards: (a) Radon-222 emissions to the ambient air from uranium

mill tailings pile that are no longer operational shall not exceed 20 pCi/(m 2 -sec) (1.9 pCi/(ft 2 -sec)) of radon-222. (b) Once a uranium mill tailings pile or impoundment ceases to be operational it must be disposed of and brought into compliance with this standard within two years of the effective date of the standard. If it is not physically possible for an owner or operator to complete disposal within that time, EPA shall, after consultation with the owner or operator, establish a compliance agreement which will assure that disposal will be completed as quickly as possible. /Radon-222/ See Reference 221. (11.149) Atmospheric Standards: Radon-222 emissions to the ambient air from an existing

uranium mill tailings pile shall not exceed 20 pCi/(m 2 -sec) (1.9 pCi/(ft 2 -sec)) of radon-222. /Radon222/ See Reference 222. (11.150) The first step in the process is mining; historically, this has involved subterranean or

open-pit ore rock removal and now also invovles liquid in-situ leaching of unconsolidated deposits. ... McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 263 of 953

The next steps in the production of uranium fuel, aimed at concentrating the uranium, are usually carried out near the mine to save on transportation costs. ... The product of these concentration steps contains perhaps 40-70% yranium by weight and is generally shipped to a central processing plant to be further refined. This purification is either by digestion with nitric acid and extraction of the resulting uranyl nitrate into an organic solvent, or by conversion to UF6 and fractional distillation of that volatile compound. At this stage, all naturally occurring radioactive progeny have been removed from the uranium which is considered to be chemically pure... . While some nuclear reactor types ... use natural uranium as fuel, others require enriched uranium. If such uranium-235 enrichment is required, the purified uranium in an appropriate chemical form is transferred to an isotope separation plant. Isotope separation of uranium-238, uranium-235, and uranium-234 may be achieved by a number of processes including gaseous diffusion, centrifugal or laser enrichment. The enriched uranium is then processed an fabricated into appropriate forms for use in nuclear reactors. The by-product of this enrichment process is depleted uranium, often in the form of UF6. See Reference 223. (11.151) Major Uses [URANYL NITRATE]: Recovery of uranium from process waste and

in the reprocessing of irradiated fuels. See Reference 224. (11.152) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SEDIMENT: Lead-210 concentrations in bottom

sediments collected in 1989 near the Vandellos Nuclear Power Plant, Spain ranged from 11.6-89 Bq/kg(1). See Reference 225. (11.153) EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE NRC FOR SOME

LEAD COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE Lead-199 Lead-200 Lead-201 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Air (uCi/mL) 1E-7 9E-9 3E-8 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Water (uCi/mL) 3E-4 4E-5 1E-4

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 264 of 953

Lead-202 Lead-202m Lead-203 Lead-205 Lead-209 Lead-210 Lead-211 Lead-212 Lead-214 See Reference 226. (11.154)

7E-11 4E-8 1E-8 2E-9 8E-8 6E-13 9E-10 5E-11 1E-9

2E-6 1E-4 7E-5 5E-5 3E-4 1E-8 2E-4 2E-6 1E-4

Artificial Pollution Sources: Polonium-210 is usually produced artificially by the

bombardment of the stable bismuth-209 isotope with neutrons in a nuclear reactor(1). This forms radioactive bismuth-210, which decays to polonium-210(1). Polonium-208 and -209 are also produced in reactors or particle accelerators, but are very expensive to produce(1). Polonium-210 is used mainly in static eliminators in a sealed source(1). Polonium-210 is released to the atmosphere during the calcining of phosphate rock during the production of elemental phosphorus(2). Polonium-210 is released to the atmosphere and water by various industries, such as elementary phosphorus production, phosphoric acid production, iron and steel production, coal tar treatment, coal-fired power plants, cokes production, cement industry, ceramics, mineral sands handling, and oil and gas extraction(3). The largest releases to air and water were reported for elementary phosphorus and phosphoric acid industries, respectively(3). See Reference 227. (11.155) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME POLONIUM COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE Polonium-203 Polonium-205 CLASS W, oxides, hydroxides, and nitrates D AIR (uCi/mL) WATER (uCi/mL) 3E-4 3E-4 1E-7 5E-8

D, all compounds except those given for W 9E-8

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 265 of 953

W Polonium-207 Polonium-210 D W D W See Reference 228. (11.156)

1E-7 3E-8 4E-8 9E-13 9E-13

1E-4 4E-8 -

Artificial Pollution Sources: Curium is artificially produced(1). Sixteen isotopes of

curium are known and all are radioactive(1). Curium-247 is the most stable isotope of curium with a half-life of 16 million years(1). Curium-242 was first produced at the University of California, Berkeley in 1944 by the bombardment of plutonium-239 with alpha particles in a cyclotron(1). Curium has few used outside of research activities and is only available in small quantities(1). Curium-242 and 244 are available in mutligram quantities; curium-248 has only been produced in milligram quantities(2). The release of curium compounds to the environment from research activities would likely be very limited(SRC). A small amount of curium would have been generated by atmospheric nuclear weapon testing, which ceased worldwide by 1980(1). A few curium compounds, including contaminants in the work area. Ventilation control of the contaminant as close to its point of generation is both the most economical and safest method to minimize personnel exposure to airborne contaminants. See Reference 233. (11.157) General Manufacturing Information [Nitric Acid]: Reaction of nitrogen and oxygen

in nuclear reactors; two tons of nitric acid are said to be produced from one gram of enriched uranium (not in commercial use). See Reference 234. (11.158) Consumption Patterns [Nitric Acid]: 58% IS USED TO PRODUCE AMMONIUM

NITRATE; 7% FOR ADIPIC ACID; 2% FOR ISOCYANATES, 6% FOR MILITARY USE IN EXPLOSIVES; 5% FOR PRODUCTION OF MISC FERTILIZERS; 1% TO MAKE NITROBENZENE; 3% IN MISC INDUSTRIAL EXPLOSIVES; 18% IN OTHER APPLICATIONS, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 266 of 953

INCLUDING PRODUCTION OF POTASSIUM NITRATE, NITROCELLULOSE LACQUERS, OTHER AROMATIC NITROGEN PRODUCTS AND NITROPARAFFINS, NUCLEAR FUEL, MISC ORGANIC CHEMICALS, AND STEEL PICKLING (1968). See Reference 235. (11.159) Artificial Pollution Sources: Iridium-192 (half-life 74 days)...Iridium-192 does not

occur in nature and is produced by neutron activation of iridium metal, usually in nuclear reactors(1). See Reference 236. (11.160) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR IRIDIUM RADIONUCLIDES EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Air (uCi/mL) EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS: Water (uCi/mL) 7E-5

RADIONUCLIDE CLASS

Iridium-185

D, all compounds except those given 2E-8 for W and Y W, halides, nitrates, and metallic iridium Y, oxides and hydroxides 2E-8 1E-8 1E-8 9E-9 8E-9 5E-8 4E-8 4E-8 6E-9 5E-9 5E-9 1E-9 1E-9 1E-9 3E-7

3E-5 1E-4 3E-5 1E-5 2E-3

Iridium-186

D W Y

Iridium-187

D W Y

Iridium-188

D W Y

Iridium-190

D W Y

Iridium-190m

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 267 of 953

W Y Iridium-192 D W Y Iridium-192m D W Y Iridium-194 D W Y Iridium-194m D W Y Iridium-195 D W Y Iridium-195m D W Y See Reference 237. (11.161)

3E-7 3E-7 4E-10 6E-10 3E-10 1E-10 3E-10 2E-11 4E-9 3E-9 3E-9 1E-10 2E-10 1E-10 6E-8 7E-8 6E-8 3E-8 4E-8 3E-8

1E-5 4E-5 1E-5 9E-6 1 2E-4 1E-4 -

DECAY PATHWAY: Iridium-192, half-life 73.83 days, 95.13% decays via beta(-)

emission (48.0%, 672 keV maximum, 209.9 keV average energy; 41.4%, 535 keV maximum, 162.1 keV, average energy) and gamma emission (abs intensities: 82.7% 316.5 keV; 47.8% 468.1 keV; 29.7% 308.5 keV; 28.7% 296 keV) to plutonium-192, half-life 6,564 years; decays via alpha emission, 5256 keV (72.8% 5168 keV; 27.1% 5134 keV), to platinum-192, half-life stable; 4.87% of iridium-192 decays via electron capture, 957.7 keV, and gamma emission (abs intensities: 68.5% 205.8 keV; 65.3% 484.6 keV) to osmium-192, half-life stable[.] See Reference 238. (11.162) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME ACTINIUM COMPOUNDS McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 268 of 953

RADIONUCLIDE Actinium-224

CLASS

AIR (uCi/mL) WATER (uCi/mL) 3E-5 7E-7 2E-6 5E-9 3E-5 -

D, all compounds except forthose given for W 5E-11 and Y W, halides and nitrates Y, oxides and hydroxides 7E-113 6E-11 7E-13 9E-13 9E-13 5E-12 7E-12 6E-12 1E-15 4E-15 6E-15 2E-11 8E-11 6E-11

Actinium-225

D W Y

Actinium-226

D W Y

Actinium-227

D W Y

Actinium-228

D W Y

See Reference 239. (11.163) DECAY PATHWAY: Actinium-227, half-life 21.77 years, decays via beta emission (98.62%), 0.045 MeV, to thorium-227, half-life 7,340 years. Thorium-227 decays via alpha emission, 6.146 MeV, to radium-223, half-life 11.425 days. Actinium-227 decays via alpha emission (1.38%), 5.043 MeV, to francium-223, half-life 22.00 minutes. Francium-223 decays via beta emission, 1.149 MeV, to radium-223. See Reference 240. (11.164) Major Uses [for Californium, Radioactive]: Californium-252 as neutron source;

startup source for nuclear reactors, in nuclear reactor fuel rod scanners. See Reference 241. (11.165) A shielded facility for storage and handling of up to 300 ug of californium-252

afterloading cells and tubes was designed and constructed. The main shield consists of a centrally located lead pot surrounded by borated water-extended-polyester. A built-in, curved personnel barrier with sliding Lucite eye shield enables safe and rapid handling of sources during calibration, inventory, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 269 of 953

cleaning operations and movement to and from the source storage rods. The design radiation levels for the mixed neutron-gamma field from californium-252 were 3 mrem/hr at the surface of the shield, less than 2 mrem/hr in the corridor and adjacent radiotherapy patient room, and less than 0.2 mrem/lir in the nursing office below and patient room above. The protection survey of the completed facility and its environs confirmed the calculations and adequacy of the constructed shield. /Californium-252/ See Reference 242. (11.166) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME CALIFORNIUM COMPOUNDS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Air (uCi/mL) EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Water (uCi/mL) 5E-6 2E-7 2E-8 3E-8 2E-8 7E-8 5E-6 3E-8 -

RADIONUCLIDE CLASS

Californium-244

W, all compounds except those given 8E-10 for Y Y, oxides and hydroxides 8E-10 1E-11 1E-11 2E-13 1E-13 1E-14 2E-14 3E-14 4E-14 1E-14 2E-14 5E-14 5E-14 3E-12 2E-12 3E-14 2E-14

Californium-246 Californium-248 Californium-249 Californium-250 Californium-251 Californium-252 Californium-253 Californium-254

W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y W Y

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 270 of 953

See Reference 243. (11.167) General Manufacturing Information [for Califounium, Radioactive]: Higher-

neutron-flux reactors, such as those at the Savannah River Plant in South Carolina and the High Flux Isotopes Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee produce gram quantities of californium. See Reference 244. (11.168) Because californium-252 does spontaneously fission, thereby releasing neutrons, it

can be used as a neutron source - a startup fuel - to initiate the uranium-235 chain reaction. One inserts the californium-252 into the reactor to "fire" it up and start the production of electricity. Californium252 is also used in security devices as a means to detect the presence of hidden explosives such as one might uncover in an airport. See Reference 245. (11.169) DECAY PATHWAY: Californium-249, half-life 351 yrs, via alpha emission, 6.295

MeV, to curium-245, half-life 8,500 years. See Reference 246. (11.170) DECAY PATHWAY: Californium-250, half-life 13.08 yrs, via alpha emission, 6.128 MeV, to curium-246, half-life 4,760 years. See Reference 247. (11.171) DECAY PATHWAY: Californium-251, half-life 898 yrs, via alpha emission, 6.176

MeV, to curium-247, half-life 15,600,000 years. See Reference 248. (11.172) DECAY PATHWAY: Californium-252, half-life 2.645 yrs, via alpha emission, 6.217

MeV (84.2% 6118 keV; 15.7% 6076 keV), to curium-248, half-life 348,000 years. See Reference 249. (11.173) Artificial Pollution Sources: Californium is artificially produced(1). Ten isotopes of

californium are known and all are radioactive(1). Californium-251 is the most stable isotope of californium with a half-life of 900 years(2). Californium-245 was first produced at the University of California, Berkeley in 1950 by the bombardment of curium-242 with alpha particles in a cyclotron(1). Californium-252 is the only isotope of californium that has commercial uses and its uses are limited since it is only available in very small quantities(1). Californium's production may result in the release McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 271 of 953

of californium compounds to the environment through various waste streams(SRC). Californium is used as a portable neutron source in core analysis in drilling oil wells and for the discovery of metals such as gold and silver(2); the production of these sources may result in the release of californium compounds to the environment through various waste streams(SRC). In addition, californium-252 is used in brachytherapy, where the californium-252 is in a sealed source, to treat various types of cancer(1). A small amount of californium would have been generated by atmospheric nuclear weapon testing, which ceased worldwide by 1980(1). A few californium compounds, including californium oxide (CfO3), californium trichloride (CfCl3) and californium oxychloride (CfOCl) have been produced and studied(2). See Reference 250. (11.174) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME ACTINIUM COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE Actinium-224 CLASS AIR (uCi/mL) WATER (uCi/mL) 3E-5 7E-7 2E-6 5E-9 3E-5 -

D, all compounds except forthose given for W 5E-11 and Y W, halides and nitrates Y, oxides and hydroxides 7E-113 6E-11 7E-13 9E-13 9E-13 5E-12 7E-12 6E-12 1E-15 4E-15 6E-15 2E-11 8E-11 6E-11

Actinium-225

D W Y

Actinium-226

D W Y

Actinium-227

D W Y

Actinium-228

D W Y

See Reference 251.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 272 of 953

(11.175)

DECAY PATHWAY: Actinium-227, half-life 21.77 years, decays via beta emission

(98.62%), 0.045 MeV, to thorium-227, half-life 7,340 years. Thorium-227 decays via alpha emission, 6.146 MeV, to radium-223, half-life 11.425 days. Actinium-227 decays via alpha emission (1.38%), 5.043 MeV, to francium-223, half-life 22.00 minutes. Francium-223 decays via beta emission, 1.149 MeV, to radium-223. See Reference 252. (11.176) DECAY PATHWAY: Actinium-225, half-life 10.0 days, decays via alpha emission,

5.935 MeV, to francium-221, half-life 4.9 minutes. Francium-221 decays via alpha emission, 6.458 MeV, to astatine-227, half-life 32.2 minutes; decays via beta emission, 0.312 MeV, to radium-221, halflife 28 seconds. See Reference 253. (11.177) Protective Equipment & Clothing [ACTINIUM, RADIOACTIVE]: /ALL USES/

/SRP/ Protective equipment and respirators do not provide protection against penetrating beta and gamma radiation. However, respirators prevent the inhalation of radioactive materials. Respirators should be tested and certified for the given use by NIOSH and persons using the respirator should have been fit tested before donning the equipment. See Reference 254. (11.178) Major Uses: Thorium-232 is a fuel in breeder reactors. The radionuclide absorbs

slow neutrons, and with the consecutive emission of two beta particles, it decays to 233U, a fissionable isotope of uranium with a half-life of 159,000 years. See Reference 255. (11.179) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME THORIUM COMPOUNDS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Air (uCi/mL) EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Water (uCi/mL) 7E-5 -

RADIONUCLIDE CLASS

Thorium-226 Thorium-226

W, all compounds except those given 2E-10 for Y Y, oxides and hydroxides 2E-10

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 273 of 953

Thorium-227 Thorium-227 Thorium-228 Thorium-228 Thorium-229 Thorium-229 Thorium-230 Thorium-230 Thorium-231 Thorium-231 Thorium-232 Thorium-232 Thorium-234 Thorium-234 See Reference 256.

W, all compounds except those given 5E-13 for Y Y, oxides and hydroxides 5E-13

2E-6 2E-7 2E-8 1E-7 5E-5 3E-8 5E-6 -

W, all compounds except those given 3E-14 for Y Y, oxides and hydroxides 2E-14

W, all compounds except those given 3E-15 for Y Y, oxides and hydroxides 4E-15

W, all compounds except those given 2E-14 for Y Y, oxides and hydroxides 3E-14

W, all compounds except those given 9E-9 for Y Y, oxides and hydroxides 9E-9

W, all compounds except those given 4E-15 for Y Y, oxides and hydroxides 6E-15

W, all compounds except those given 3E-10 for Y Y, oxides and hydroxides 2E-10

(11.180) Radiation Limits & Potential: Of the 26 known isotopes of thorium, only 12 have half-lives greater than one second, and of these only 3 have half-lives sufficiently long to warrant a concern. These key isotopes decay very slowly by emitting an alpha particle. The half-lives of thoriumMcKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 274 of 953

232 and thorium-230, the isotopes of most concern, are very long. Their low specific activity means these two isotopes are not highly radioactive. Both thorium-232 and thorium-230 are present in soil and ores in secular equilibrium with radium-228 and radium-226, respectively. The health risks for these two radium isotopes... must be added to those shown here to estimate the total risk. Thorium-229 is not generally associated with nuclear fuel cycle activities previously performed by the Department of Energy (DOE) ... The health risks associated with thorium-228, which has a half-life of 1.9 years, are commonly included with those for radium-228 because thorium-228 cannot persist for an extended period of time in the absence of radium-228. See Reference 257. (11.181) Artificial Pollution Sources: Thorium's production and use as fuel in nuclear reactors,

in the manufacture of incandescent gas-light mantles, welding electrodes and ceramics, as a hardener in Mg alloys and a chemical catalyst(1) and its use in sun lamps, photoelectric cells, and target materials for X-ray tubes(2) may result in release of thorium compounds to the environment through various waste streams(SRC). Emissions of thorium during mining and processing are generally low(3). Thorium has been recovered as a by-product of uranium production(4). Reference 258. (11.182) Environmental Fate/Exposure Summary: Thorium's production and use as fuel in

nuclear reactors, in the manufacture of incandescent gas-light mantles, welding electrodes and ceramics, as a hardener in Mg alloys and a chemical catalyst, and its use in sun lamps, photoelectric cells, and target materials for X-ray tubes may result in release of thorium compounds to the environment through various waste streams. Thorium is also found in the rare earth-thorium-phosphate mineral, monazite, the thorium silicate minerals, thorite and huttonite, and the hydrated thorium silicate mineral, thorogummite. Thorium is present at about 8 to 15 ppm in crust of earth. The chemistry of thorium is similar to that of the lanthanides and Group 4(IVB) elements (Ti, Zr, and Hf) and is dominated by the +4 oxidation state. If released to air, thorium compounds will exist in the particulate phase in the atmosphere and may be removed from the air by wet and dry deposition. If released to soil, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 275 of 953

thorium compounds are expected to have low mobility in soil. Thorium compounds will not volatilize from moist or dry soils or water surfaces. In water, soluble thorium ions will hydrolyze at pH 5 or greater forming Th(OH)4 precipitate or hydroxy complexes such as, Th(OH)2(2+), Th2(OH)2(+6), Th2(OH)5(+7). Kd values for thorium compounds are in the moderate to high range, indicating that adsorption to suspended solids and sediments will be an important process. A BCF value of 465 reported for thorium in rainbow trout, suggests bioconcentration in aquatic organisms is high. Occupational exposure via inhalation and dermal exposure may occur at facilities where thorium compounds are produced and used. The most likely pathway by which the general public is exposed to thorium is by ingestion of food items. (11.183) See Reference 259.

DOT Emergency Guidelines: /GUIDE 166: RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS -

CORROSIVE (URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE/WATER-SENSITIVE)/ Health: Radiation presents minimal risk to transport workers, emergency response personnel and the public during transportation accidents. Packaging durability increases as potential radiation and criticality hazards of the content increase. Chemical hazard greatly exceeds radiation hazard. Substance reacts with water and water vapor in air to form toxic and corrosive hydrogen fluoride gas and an extremely irritating and corrosive, white-colored, water-soluble residue. If inhaled, may be fatal. Direct contact causes burns to skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. Low-level radioactive material; very low radiation hazard to people. Runoff from control of cargo fire may cause low-level pollution. /Radioactive material, Uranium hexafluoride; Radioactive material, Uranium hexafluoride, fissile; Radioactive material, Uranium hexafluoride, non-fissile or fissile-excepted; Uranium hexafluoride; Uranium hexafluoride, fissile containing more than 1% Uranium-235; Uranium hexafluoride, fissile-excepted; Uranium hexafluoride, low specific activity; Uranium hexafluoride, non-fissile/ See Reference 260. (11.184) In uranium processes that create fluoride compounds (UF4, UF6, etc.), the a-n

reaction with this light nuclide can result in neutron radiation fields, the intensity of which are a McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 276 of 953

function of the compound, mixing, storage configuration, and enrichment. As indicated in Section 2.0, low enriched UF6 (< 5%) in large storage containers can result in neutron radiation in the 0.2 mrem/h range, while highly enriched (> 97%) UF6 can create fields in the 4 mrem/h range. At high enrichments, the neutron fields can be up to a factor of 2 higher than the gamma fields and be the limiting source of whole body exposure. /Uranium fluorides/ See Reference 261. (11.185) Other Standards Regulations and Guidelines: (i)(1) Each application to possess...

uranium hexafluoride in excess of 50 kilograms in a single container or 1000 kilograms total ... must contain either: 2. (i) An evaluation showing that the maximum dose to a member of the public offsite due to a release of radioactive materials would not exceed 1 rem effective dose equivalent or an intake of 2 milligrams of soluble uranium, or (ii) An emergency plan for responding to the radiological hazards of an accidental release of special nuclear material and to any associated chemical hazards directly incident thereto. See Reference 262. (11.186) There are two hazards connected with exposure to uranium compounds: the renal

damage caused by the chemical toxicity of soluble uranium compound, and the injury caused by the ionizing radiation resulting from the disintegration of uranium isotopes. Which of these two hazards will be limiting factor for exposure to uranium compounds depends on the solubility of the compound, its route of administration and its isotope composition. The isotope most dangerous from the point of view of radiation, 235-uranium comprises <1% of natural uranium, but is enriched during the production of nuclear fuels. Higher fractions of 235-uranium increase the irradiation risk. As retention time in the body is the important factor for the radiological damage, exposure to insoluble particles that are deposited and retained in lung for long time constitues a radiological hazard. ...Chemical toxicity... will be the limiting factor after exposure to soluble uranium compounds, when large quantities of the element will pass through the kidney. /Soluble uranium compounds/ See Reference 263. (11.187) Major Uses [for URANIUM OXYSULFATE]: Used in Nuclear reactors[.] See McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 277 of 953

Reference 264 (11.188) Major Uses [for THORIUM DIOXIDE]: Ceramic fuel rods (nuclear reactors); gas

mantles; refractory ceramics (crucibles) See Reference 265. (11.189) Probable Routes of Human Exposure [for THORIUM DIOXIDE]: Occupations at

greatest risk of possible exposure were ceramic makers, incandescent lamp makers, magnesium alloy makers, metal refiners, nuclear reactor workers, chemists, and vacuum tube makers. OSHA estimated that 128,500 workers were possibly exposed to the compound during its production and use. A number of patients were exposed to Thorotrast when it was administered for x-ray procedures. See Reference 266. (11.190) Use of thorium dioxide is now restricted to its use as a radiopaque medium for x-ray

imaging in certain medical diagnostic procedures, and to certain other purposes authorized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Formerly, thorium dioxide was mainly used in gas mantles because of its long life incandescent properties. The chemical was also used in the development of nuclear reactors, and in electrodes for arc welding. See 267. (11.191) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME MANGANESE COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE CLASS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Air (uCi/mL) EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Water (uCi/mL) 3E-4

Manganese-51

D, all compounds 7E-8 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 8E-8

Manganese-51 Manganese-52

1E-5

D, all compounds 2E-9 except those given for W

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 278 of 953

Manganese-52 Manganese-52m

W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates

1E-9

5E-4

D, all compounds 1E-7 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 1E-7

Manganese-52m Manganese-53

7E-4

D, all compounds 3E-8 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 2E-8

Manganese-53 Manganese-54

3E-5

D, all compounds 1E-9 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 1E-9

Manganese-54 Manganese-56

7E-5

D, all compounds 2E-8 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, halides, and nitrates 3E-8

Manganese-56

See Reference 268. (11.192) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME THALLIUM COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE CLASS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Air (uCi/mL) 8E-7 EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Water (uCi/mL) 4E-3

Thallium-194

D, all

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 279 of 953

compounds Thallium-194m Thallium-195 Thallium-197 Thallium-198 Thallium-198m Thallium-199 Thallium-200 Thallium-201 Thallium-202 Thallium-204 See Reference 269. (11.193) EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE NRC FOR SOME D, all compounds D, all compounds D, all compounds D, all compounds D, all compounds D, all compounds D, all compounds D, all compounds D, all compounds D, all compounds 2E-7 2E-7 2E-7 5E-8 8E-8 1E-7 2E-8 3E-8 7E-9 3E-9 1E-3 9E-4 1E-3 3E-4 4E-4 9E-4 1E-4 2E-4 5E-5 2E-5

MOLYBDENUM COMPOUNDS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Air (uCi/mL) EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Water (uCi/mL) 3E-5

RADIONUCLIDE CLASS

Molybdenum-90

D, all compounds except those given 1E-8 for Y Y, oxides, hydroxides, 6E-9 halides, and MoS2 D, all compounds except those given 8E-9 for Y Y, oxides, 2E-10

Molybdenum-90

Molybdenum-93 Molybdenum-93

5E-5 -

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 280 of 953

hydroxides, halides, and MoS2 Molybdenum-93m D, all compounds except those given 2E-8 for Y Y, oxides, hydroxides, 2E-8 halides, and MoS2 D, all compounds except those given 4E-9 for Y Y, oxides, hydroxides, 2E-9 halides, and MoS2 D, all compounds except those given 2E-7 for Y Y, oxides, hydroxides, 2E-7 halides, and MoS2 6E-5

Molybdenum-93m

Molybdenum-99

2E-5

Molybdenum-99

Molybdenum-101

7E-4

Molybdenum-101

See Reference 270. (11.194) Radiation Limits & Potential: EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ESTABLISHED

BY THE NRC FOR SOME GADOLINIUM COMPOUNDS RADIONUCLIDE CLASS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Air (uCi/mL) EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION: Water (uCi/mL) 6E-4

Gadolinium-145

D, all compounds 2E-7 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, and fluorides 2E-7

Gadolinium-146

D, all compounds 2E-10 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, and fluorides 4E-10

2E-5

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 281 of 953

Gadolinium-147

D, all compounds except those given 6E-9 for W W, oxides, hydroxides, and fluorides 5E-9

3E-5 -

Gadolinium-148

D, all compounds 2E-14 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, and fluorides 8E-14

3E-7

Gadolinium-149

D, all compounds 3E-9 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, and fluorides 3E-9

4E-5

Gadolinium-151

D, all compounds 9E-10 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, and fluorides 2E-9

9E-5

Gadolinium-152

D, all compounds 3E-14 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, and fluorides 1E-13

4E-7

Gadolinium-153

D, all compounds 3E-10 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, and fluorides 8E-10

6E-5

Gadolinium-159

D, all compounds 1E-8 except those given for W W, oxides, hydroxides, and fluorides 8E-9

4E-5

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 282 of 953

See Reference 271. (11.195) Atomic weight = 147.918111; half-life = 75 years; alpha emission, 3.27 MeV

/Gadolinium-148/ See Reference 272. (11.196) Technetium is a man-made element that is not known to occur in the earth's crust

except for minute quantities that may occur from the spontaneous fission of uranium. There are no stable isotopes of technetium. Forty-three isotopes and isomers are known, with atomic mass ranging from 86 to 113 with technetium-99 being the most common and readily available of all the isotopes as it is a major product of the fission of uranium-235. Technetium can form compounds with oxidation states ranging from -1 to +7, with the most common valances being +4 and +7. The production and use of technetium compounds in nuclear medicine and as superconducting materials may result in their release to the environment from various waste streams. An estimated 160 TBq (terabecquerel) (approximately 250 kg) of technetium-99 was released to the environment from previous atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. An additional 1000 TBq (approximately 1600 kg) was released (primarily to the sea) from nuclear reactors. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April, 1986 released an estimated 30-40 TBq into the environment. If released to air, technetium compounds would exist solely in the particulate phase. Particulate-phase technetium compounds may be removed from the air by wet and dry deposition. If released to soil, the mobility of technetium compounds is greatly dependent upon the speciation and complexation of technetium. Technetium produced by nuclear fission is oxidized to Tc2O7; however, when exposed to water this compound dissolves to form the weak acid HTcO4, which dissociates in the environment to TcO4(-). Under aerobic conditions, technetium is usually present in the environment in the thermodynamically stable anionic complex TcO4(-) (pertechnetate anion) which is soluble and highly mobile in soil surfaces. Under reducing conditions, technetium is transformed from its soluble form to lower oxidation forms such as TcO2, TcO(OH)2, TcS2 or forms complexes with humic material. These compounds are relatively insoluble, adsorb strongly to soils and have little mobility. The texture and physical characteristics of the soil also McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 283 of 953

influences the mobility of technetium. In general, soils rich in organic matter tend to adsorb technetium stronger than soils with low amounts of organic material. The reactions of technetium in water are similar to those which occur in soils. Under aerobic conditions, the dominant species in natural aqueous solutions in equilibrium with the atmosphere is TcO4(-). At low pH and under anoxic conditions, technetium is reduced to its +4 valence state and may form various insoluble complexes, primarily TcO2. The reduced form is capable of binding to humic and fulvic acids in suspended solids and sediment forming stable complexes. Occupational exposure may occur at facilities where technetium is produced and used or at nuclear power facilities where technetium is produced as a byproduct of fission of uranium-235 and extracted from nuclear fuel rods. See Reference 273. (11.197) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: NIOSH (NOES Survey 1981-1983) has

statistically estimated that 406 workers (298 of these are female) are potentially exposed to technetium in the US(1). Occupational exposure may occur at facilities where technetium is produced and used or at nuclear power facilities where technetium is produced as a byproduct of fission of uranium-235 and extracted from nuclear fuel rods(SRC). The general population may be exposed to low levels of technetium through the ingestion of contaminated water or food(SRC). Direct exposure may occur when technetium is administered medically as a radioactive tracer for imaging parts of the body(SRC). See Reference 274. (11.198) Artificial Pollution Sources: The production and use of technetium compounds in

nuclear medicine and as superconducting materials(1) may result in their release to the environment through various waste streams(SRC). Past atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, and emissions of Tc-99 from nuclear fuel reprocessing activities, have been the predominant source of technetium released into the environment(2-4). See Reference 275. (11.199) Effluent Concentrations: An estimated 160 TBq (terabecquerel) (approximately 250 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 284 of 953

kg) of technetium-99 was released to the environment from previous atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons(1). By 1986 it was estimated that approximately 1000 TBq (approximately 1600 kg) were released to the environment from nuclear fuel reprocessing activities and most of this was released to the sea(2). The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 released an estimated 30-40 TBq into the environment(3). See Reference 276. (11.200) Environmental Water Concentrations: SURFACE WATER: Technetium was detected

in water from the Irish Sea, UK near the British Nuclear Fuel reprocessing plant in Sellafield at 0.87 ng/L(1). The average concn of technetium-99 in the Savannah River at four sites ranged from 0.42-0.58 picocuries/L(2). The level of technetium-99 in surface and bottom waters of the Baltic Sea were reported as 95 and 68 uBq/L(3). See Reference 277. (11.201) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SEDIMENT: Technetium-99 was detected in

sediment cores obtained from the Irish Sea, UK near the British Nuclear Fuel reprocessing plant in Sellafield at levels ranging from 0.95 to 14.9 Bq/kg(1). See Reference 278. (11.202) Sediment/Soil Concentrations: SOIL: Soils samples obtained from the 30 km zone

around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant contained Tc-99 levels ranging from 1.1-14.1 Bq/kg by dry weight for the organic soil layers and 0.13-0.83 Bq/kg dry weight for the mineral layers(1). See Reference 279. (11.203) Artificial Pollution Sources: Methyl iodide's production and use as a methylating

agent and in organic synthesis(1) may result in its release to the environment through various waste streams. Methyl iodide can be formed in the environment of nuclear reactors and vented in exhaust gases(1). Anthropogenic sources have not been identified as major contributors of methyl iodide emissions(2). However, methyl iodide has been suggested as a replacement for methyl bromide as a soil fumigant(3). See Reference 279. (11.204) Sampling Procedures: (13)C NMR analysis of charcoal adsorbents: reaction of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 285 of 953

methyl iodide /from nuclear reactor waste gases/ with the impregnated tris(ethylene diamine). See Reference 280. (11.205) Environmental Abiotic Degradation: Methyl iodide hydrolyses slowly in water

yielding methanol(2). The half-life under neutral conditions is 110-251 days at 20-25 deg C(1,2), increasing to 4 yr and 23 yr at 10 and 0 deg C respectively(1). More recent measurements yielded a unimolecular hydrolysis rate constant of 7.1X10-8 1/sec at 25 deg C(6). This is equivalent to a half-life of 110 days(SRC). A base-catalyzed reaction is only important at higher pH's than are observed in the environment(2). However, methyl iodide is unstable in seawater, reacting primarily with the chloride ion to form methyl chloride(1). The half-life in seawater of 19.8 parts/thousand chlorinity is 20 and 58 days at 19.2 and 10.8 deg C, respectively(1). More recent studies of the reaction of chloride with methyl iodide reports rate constants for both seawater (33.3 parts/thousand chlorinity) and 0.5 M NaCl in distilled water of 1.0X10-6 L/mol-sec(7). The rate in NaCl corresponds to a half-life of 16 days. Methyl iodide absorbs UV radiation up to approximately 340 nm and photolyses(3). Photolysis occurs in both the gas phase and in solution. In water photohydrolysis occurs forming methanol and iodide ions; in air, iodine is formed(8). When irradiated in pure air (relative humidity 50%), methyl iodide's half-life was 7 hr(4); with added NO2 its half-life was a little over 3 hr(5). The dissipation half-life of methyl iodide from open surface water (30 cm-deep tank) with sunlight irradiation was 26 hours compared with 29 hours indoors. At the end of 6 days, 3.1% of the methyl iodide was recovered as I-; no iodine was detected(8). It was concluded that photodegradation was a minor loss mechanism compared with volatilization. See Reference 281. (11.206) Absorption, Distribution & Excretion: Internal radiation from inhalation of hafnium

tritide aerosols may be a significant radiation protection problem encountered by nuclear facility workers. Based on experimental results of the rat intratracheally instilled with hafnium tritide particles and on a self-absorption factor of beta particles determined by a numerical method, a biokinetic model McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 286 of 953

was developed for inhaled particles of hafnium tritide. ... The tritium clearance rate via urine or feces was described by bi-phase exponential components. At the end of the experiment (180 days after instillation), only approximately 30% of the initial lung burden of 3H had been eliminated, of which approximately 98% was excreted via feces and 2% in urine, but none through exhaled air. Results also showed that a large percentage (70%) of the hafnium tritide initially present in lung still remained in the organ 6 months after the exposure. The calculation of the radiation dose indicates that the cumulative dose to the lung directly from the tritide particles was approximately 10+6 times the lung dose from the dissolved tritium in the lung region. The committed effective dose to the lung was estimated to be 5.41 x 10-10 Sv/Bq, which is over 99% of that to the whole body. The dose to the liver was 6.00 x 10-15 Sv/Bq. This information will be useful in developing new guidelines for radiation protection purposes. /Hafnium tritide/ See Reference 282. (11.207) Artificial Pollution Sources: The use and production of hafnium in the manufacture

and use of alloys, superalloys, and control rod material for nuclear reactors(1) may result in the release of hafnium compounds to the environment through various waste streams(SRC). See Reference 283. (11.208) General Manufacturing Information [NITRIC ACID]: Reaction of nitrogen and

oxygen in nuclear reactors; two tons of nitric acid are said to be produced from one gram of enriched uranium (not in commercial use). See Reference 284. (11.209) 285. (11.210) Absorption, Distribution & Excretion [for TANTALUM COMPOUNDS]: : Major Uses [for Boric Acid]: Nuclear-reactor cooling water additive. See Reference

Distribution of 182Ta following contamination of a worker with an estimated 30 uCi of 115-day 182Ta and 150 uCi of 5-day 183Ta during a nuclear reactor accident was reported... . On the first day post exposure, the scan showed distinct maxima in the area of the nasopharynges and in the section from the lower end of the sternum to a point 10 in lower. On the second day after exposure the activity McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 287 of 953

had left the nasopharyngeal area and had centered in the midpoint of the sternum, with the larger percentage of activity in the vicinity of the lower GI tract in the descending colon. On the third day part of the activity was removed from the lower GI tract, but the remaining activity was still centered there. Of four addnl scans made at 8, 28, 35, and 63 days, each showed identical distribution patterns, indicating that the activity did not move or decr significantly during this time. Regarding elimination in the worker, 93% of the long-lived 182Ta component disappeared from the body in 7 days. In these 7 days, the total 182Ta activity decreased from 30 to 2 uCi, but only 5.5 uCi was excreted in the feces; the major part of the difference was attributed to external contamination. No tantalum activity could be detected in the urine even from 183Ta. The remaining activity, amounting to about 0.05%/day in the feces, showed a decr similar to the 115-day radiological half-life of 182Ta. /(182)Tantalum/ See Reference 286. (11.211) Environmental Fate/Exposure Summary: Potassium heptafluorotantalate(V)

(K2TaF7) is the most important tantalum compound produced at plant scale and is used in large quantities for tantalum metal production. Its use and production may result in release of tantalum compounds to the environment through various waste streams. The concentration of tantalum in the earth's crust is 1 ppm. Tantalum usually occurs most frequently with niobium and occurs with other metals and in the minerals columbite-tantalite ((Fe,Mn)(Ta,Nb)2O6)) and microlite ((Na,Ca)2Ta2O6(O,OH,F)). The most important tantalum containing minerals are tantalite, wodignite, microlite, and columbite. The most stable oxidation state of tantalum is 5+. In seawater, tantalum concentrations are <0.004 ppb, and tantalum is found as Ta(OH)5. Tantalum compounds will not volatilize from dry or moist soil surfaces or from water due to their ionic character. Tantalum compounds will exist solely in the particulate phase in the ambient atmosphere. Particulate-phase tantalum compounds will be removed from the atmosphere by wet and dry deposition. There is very little geographical variability or environmental mobilization of tantalum, possibly due it its very low McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 288 of 953

solubility. Tantalum begins to precipitate out of solution below pH 10. Occupational exposure to tantalum and tantalum compounds may occur through inhalation of dust, and by dermal contact with this compound at workplaces where tantalum is produced or used. See Reference 287. (11.212) Other Environmental Concentrations: The mean tantalum concentration in 16

pedestrian dust samples from various industrial, commercial-residential, transport areas, and highways in Nagpur City, Central India was 13.0 ug/g(1). Mean tantalum concentrations (ug/g) for each area were: 15.0 (residential-commercial, n=4); 15.6 (industrial, n=3); 12.0 (transport, n=6), and 10.0 (highway, n=3)(1). A sample of 20 g of aerosol taken from a filter mat in the air conditioning unit of the nuclear chemistry building at the Technical University of Darmstadt was found to contain 0.0001% tantalum(2). The efficiency of the industrial filter mat was 97% and 95% for 0.3 um and 5 um particles, respectively(2). See Reference 288. (11.213) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: NIOSH (NOES Survey 1981-1983) has

statistically estimated that 8016 workers (1831 of these are female) are potentially exposed to tantalum in the US(1). Occupational exposure to tantalum and tantalum compounds may occur through inhalation and dermal contact with this compound at workplaces where tantalum and tantalum compounds are produced or used(SRC). Industrial exposure to tantalum is limited(2). Tantalum metal exposures in the fabrication of ingots or metal parts constitute a certain hazard, as do the preparation and handling of TaCl5(2). See Reference 289. (11.214) Disposal Methods [for THORIUM NITRATE]: Disposal of ... wastes /containing

uranium/ should follow guidelines set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission & the EPA. /Uranium & cmpd/ See Reference 290. (11.215) DOT Emergency Guidelines [for THORIUM NITRATE]: /GUIDE 162:

RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS (LOW TO MODERATE LEVEL RADIATION)/ Health: Radiation presents minimal risk to transport workers, emergency response personnel and the public during McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 289 of 953

transportation accidents. Packaging durability increases as potential hazard of radioactive content increases. Undamaged packages are safe. Contents of damaged packages may cause higher external radiation exposure, or both external and internal radiation exposure if contents are released. Low radiation hazard when material is inside container. If material is released from package or bulk container, hazard will vary from low to moderate. Level of hazard will depend on the type and amount of radioactivity, the kind of material it is in, and/or the surfaces it is on. Some material may be released from packages during accidents of moderate severity but risks to people are not great. Released radioactive materials or contaminated objects usually will be visible if packaging fails. Some exclusive use shipments of bulk and packaged materials will not have "RADIOACTIVE" labels. Placards, markings and shipping papers provide identification. Some packages may have a "RADIOACTIVE" label and a second hazard label. The second hazard is usually greater than the radiation hazard; so follow this GUIDE as well as the response GUIDE for the second hazard class label. Some radioactive materials cannot be detected by commonly available instruments. Runoff from control of cargo fire may cause low-level pollution. /Thorium nitrate, solid/ See Reference 291. (11.216) Ionizing radiation may result from unstable atomic nuclei or from high energy

electron transitions. It includes electromagnetic radiation (e.g., gamma rays and X-rays) as well as particles (e.g., alpha particles, beta particles, high-speed neutrons, high-speed electrons, high-speed protons, etc.) having energies greater than 34 ev. Such electromagnetic radiation and particles are capable of producing charged particles (e.g., ions) that can impact matter, including tissue, where DNA strand breaks may be produced. For purposes of this record, a radiation event is defined as the accidental or intentional release of ionizing radiation or radioactive materials from nuclear reactors, industrial sources, medical sources, and terrorist devices that places victims at significant risk of developing deterministic effects, such as skin erythema (reddening) and radiation-induced cataract formation, or stochastic effects, especially cancer. See Reference 120. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 290 of 953

(11.217)

Neutrons are primarily released from nuclear fission ... . The natural decay of

radionuclides does not include emission of neutrons. This is mainly a health hazard for workers in a nuclear power facility or victims of a nuclear explosion. Unique among the particles of radioactivity, when neutrons are stopped or captured they can cause a previously stable atom to become radioactive. This is the principle behind radioactive fallout. See Reference 121. (11.218) Epidemiological studies of radiation exposure provide a consistent body of evidence

for the carcinogenicity of X-radiation and gamma radiation in humans. Exposure to X-radiation and gamma radiation is most strongly associated with leukemia and cancer of the thyroid, breast, and lung; associations have been reported at absorbed doses of less than 0.2 Gy. The risk of developing these cancers, however, depends to some extent on age at exposure. Childhood exposure is mainly responsible for increased leukemia and thyroid-cancer risks, and reproductive-age exposure for increased breast-cancer risk. In addition, some evidence suggests that lung-cancer risk may be most strongly related to exposure later in life. Associations between radiation exposure and cancer of the salivary glands, stomach, colon, bladder, ovary, central nervous system, and skin also have been reported, usually at higher doses of radiation (>1Gy). The first large study of sarcomas (using the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry) added angiosarcomas to the list of radiation-induced cancers occurring within the field of radiation at high therapeutic doses. Two studies, one of workers at a Russian nuclear bomb and fuel reprocessing plant and another of Japanese atomicbomb survivors, suggested that radiation exposure could cause liver cancer at doses above 100 mSv (in the worker population especially with concurrent exposure to radionuclides). Among the atomic-bomb survivors, the liver-cancer risk increased linearly with increasing radiation dose. A study of children medically exposed to radiation (other than for cancer treatment) provided some evidence that radiation exposure during childhood may increase the incidence of lymphomas and melanomas. In addition, chronic lymphatic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease (malignant lymphoma), and cancer of the cervix, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 291 of 953

prostate, testis, and pancreas are generally considered not to be associated with radiation exposure. Xradiation and gamma radiation are clearly carcinogenic in all species of experimental animals tested (mouse, rat, and monkey for X-radiation and mouse, rat, rabbit, and dog for gamma radiation). Among these species, radiation-induced tumors have been observed in about 17 tissues or organs, including those observed in humans (i.e., leukemia, thyroid gland, breast, and lung). X-radiation and gamma radiation have been shown to induce a broad spectrum of genetic effects, including gene mutations, minisatellite mutations (changes in numbers of tandem repeats of DNA sequences), micronucleus formation (a sign of chromosome damage or loss), chromosomal aberrations (changes in chromosome structure or number), ploidy changes (changes in the number of sets of chromosomes), DNA strand breaks, and chromosomal instability. Neutrons induce similar genetic effects as X-radiation and gamma radiation. They induce a broad spectrum of genetic damage, including gene mutations, micronucleus formation, sister chromatid exchange, chromosomal aberrations, DNA strand breaks, and chromosomal instability. Although the genetic damage caused by neutron radiation is qualitatively similar to that caused by X-radiation and gamma radiation, it differs quantitatively. In general, neutron radiation induces chromosomal aberrations, mutations, and DNA damage more efficiently than does low-LET radiation; DNA lesions caused by neutron radiation are more severe and are repaired less efficiently; and neutron radiation induces higher proportions of complex chromosomal aberrations. Neutrons are clearly carcinogenic in all species of experimental animals tested, including mouse, rat, rabbit, dog, and monkey. Among these species, radiation-induced tumors have been observed in at least 20 tissues or organs, including those observed in humans (i.e., leukemia, thyroid gland, breast, and lung). See Reference 122. (11.219) A combined cohort study of mortality from cancer among 95,673 nuclear industry

workers in Canada, the United Kingdom and the USA has been published. The persons had been employed for at least six months and had been monitored for external exposure. The activities of the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 292 of 953

nuclear facilities included power production, research, weapons production, reprocessing and waste management. The mean cumulative dose was 40 mSv. Data on socioeconomic status were available for all except the Canadian workers, and adjustment was made for this variable in the analysis. The combined analysis covered 2,124,526 person-years and 36,976 deaths from cancer. The risk for leukemia other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia was statistically significantly associated with the cumulative external dose of radiation (one-sided p value, 0.046). The excess relative risk estimate for leukemia other than the chronic lymphocytic type was 2.2 per Sv (90% CI 0.1-5.7; n=119). ... Of the 31 specific cancer types other than leukemia, only multiple myeloma was statistically significantly associated with the exposure (p=0.04; Excess relative risk per Sv, 4.2; 90% CI 0.3-14; n=44). See Reference 123. (11.220) Barium is a yellowish white soft metal that is strongly electropositive. In nature

barium occurs in a combined state, the principal forms being barite (barium sulfate) and witherite (barium carbonate). Barium is also present in small quantities in igneous rocks such as feldspar and micas. It may also be found as a natural component of fossil fuel and is present in the air, water and soil. HUMAN EXPOSURE: Exposure to barium can occur through the air, water or food. Another souce of barium is nuclear fallout. See Reference 241. (11.223) Windscale, United Kingdom Radiation Incident/ In October 1957, the first

substantially publicized release of radioactive material from a nuclear reactor accident occurred at the Windscale nuclear weapons plant at Sellafield in the United Kingdom. During a routine release of stored energy from the graphite core of a carbon dioxide-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor, operator error allowed the fuel to overheat. This led to uranium oxidation and a subsequent graphite fire. Attempts to extinguish the fire with carbon dioxide were ineffective. In the end, water was applied directly to the fuel channels but not before the fire had burned for 3 days, resulting in the release of iodine-131 (740 terrabecquerel; 20 kCi), cesium-137 (22 terrabecquerel; 0.6 kCi), polonium-210 (8.8 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 293 of 953

terrabecquerel; 0.2 kCi), ruthenium-106 (3 terrabecquerel; 0.08 kCi), and xenon-133 (1.2 petabecquerel; 32.4 kCi) SECTION 12 (12) The Davistown Museum publishes a web site, which addresses many of the reasons the

behavior of the Defendants is causing Plaintiffs to experience an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and reasonable fear of bodily injury, property damage and death of Plaintiffs and people that Plaintiffs care about. Section 12 is information taken directly from the Davistown Museum web site (quotation marks omitted) regarding emissions and contamination from commercial nuclear power facilities, and from Department of Energy (Department of Defense) facilities, which is as follows: The Context: Characteristics of nuclear accidents-in-progress (12.1) A nuclear accident-in-progress has two fundamental time components: the release

duration and the dose effect duration of the longer-lived radionuclides in the plume pulse. Isotopes with long radioactive half-lives are a component of most release plumes, ensuring the endurance of the plume movement long after the decay of the short-lived isotopes. Nuclear weapons tests are an example of a nuclear plume pulse with a very short source term release duration but with a very long-term health physics impact. Other types of nuclear accident plumes listed below are much less obvious as accidents-in-progress due, in part, to the lack of a spectacular, concise source term release, as exhibited by weapons testing or the Chernobyl accident. The slow chronic release of radioactivity at Rocky Flats, Hanford, Savannah River and other nuclear weapons production facilities will occur over periods of several hundreds of years; source term releases occur not only behind a curtain of secrecy but also as difficult to detect windblown dispersion of plutonium or relatively slow moving sub-surface pulses of liquid wastes. The health physics impact of these chronic releases, spread over millennia, is nearly invisible. (12.2) Chronic accidents-in-progress with long release durations are unlikely to be

characterized by plumes which exceed derived concentration radiation protection guidelines. Plume McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 294 of 953

pulse movement in most chronic release situations is difficult as well as costly to monitor. Accurate data characterizing the size and constituents of uncontained releases of radioactivity to the natural environment is usually not available, especially for weapons-production-derived pulses. In the early days of the operation of U.S. weapons production facilities, the federal government was particularly careful to destroy all records pertaining to the hundreds of millions of curies of spent-fuel-derived wastes which were released to the natural environment. The result of the deliberate destruction of these records is that not only is plume characterization difficult but also the information needed to assess dose effect in specific population groups is unavailable. When it is available, dose assessment is often made for large population groups, effectively masking the risk for individuals most exposed to a plume pulse. (12.3) Many nuclear accidents-in-progress are bioregional in their impact; plume movement

is characterized by a lack of public awareness. A shortage of public resources as well as ideological, political and commercial considerations lead to public unawareness of the presence of nuclear accident plumes. (12.4) Some chronic source points have sufficient fissile material to achieve criticality and

the rapid release of radioactivity. In situations where this is the case, usually weapons production waste accumulations, the resulting plumes could exceed the derived concentration guides for radiation protection, and would have much greater public visibility than the chronic release plumes which have no criticality potential. (12.5) TWO CERTAINTIES CHARACTERIZE ALL NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS-IN-

PROGRESS (THE OFFICIAL VIEW): (12.5.1) (12.5.2) "The dose and subsequent health risk are minimal" (EML, 1986). The health physics impact of a source term release will not have a significant impact

on the overall cancer rate (Goldman, 1987). McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 295 of 953

(12.6)

It is not now possible, nor may it ever be possible, to accurately assess which of the

following nuclear accidents contained or contains the largest inventory of radioactivity or poses the greatest threat to human health. Based on limited data and preliminary estimates of missing military high-level waste, the plume pulses described in this section constitute the largest nuclear accidents-inprogress. (12.7) International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) for nuclear installations[:] A new

international scale for the expression of incident severity in nuclear installations is internationally in tentative use since early 1990. Based on their relevance to plant safety, it distinguishes the following seven levels of incidents: Level Descriptor Criteria External release of a large fraction of the reactor core inventory typically involving a mixture of short- and longlived fission products (in quantities radiologically equivalent to more than tens of thousands of terabecquerels of iodine-131). Possibility of acute health effects. Delayed health effects over a wide area, possibly involving more than one country. Long term environmental consequences. External release of fission products (in quantities radiologically equivalent to the order of thousands to tens of thousands of terabecquerels of iodine131) Full implementation of local emergency plans probably needed to limit serious health effects. External release of fission products (in quantities radiologically equivalent to the order of hundreds to thousands of terabecquerels of iodine-131). Partial Windscale, UK (1957) Examples

Major accident

Chernobyl, USSR, (1986)

Serious accident

Accident with off-site risks

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 296 of 953

implementation of emergency plans (e.g. local sheltering and/or evacuation) required in some cases to lessen the likelihood of health effects. Three Mile Severe damage to a large fraction of Island, the core and major plant contamination. USA, (1979) External release of radioactivity resulting in a dose to the most exposed individual off-site of the order of a few millisieverts. Need for off-site protective actions generally unlikely except possibly for local food control. Some damage to reactor core as a result of mechanical effects and/or melting. Worker doses likely to have acute fatal consequences. Saint Laurent, France, (1980)

Accident without significant off-site risks

Level

Descriptor

Criteria External release of radioactivity above authorised limits, resulting in a dose to the most exposed individual off-site of the order of tenths of a millisievert. High radiation levels and/or contamination on-site as a result of workers likely to lead to acute health effects.

Examples

Serious incident

Incidents in which a further failure of Vandellos, Spain safety systems could lead to accident conditions, or a situation in which safety (1989) systems would be unable to prevent an accident if certain initiators were to occur.

Incident

Incidents with major failure of safety provisions, but still leaving sufficient safety margins to cope with additional

Sosnowy Bor, Russia (1992)

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 297 of 953

faults. Radiological incident with members of the personnel receiving doses in excess of the annual limit Significant contamination of the installation which was not to be expected on the design basis. Functional or operational anomalies which do not pose a risk but which indicate a lack of safety provisions. This may be due to equipment failure, human error or procedural inadequacies. Situations where operational limits and conditions are note exceeded and which are properly managed in accordance with adequate procedeures belong here. Examples: Individual failure in a redundant system. Single operational mistake without consequences. Faults (no multiple simultaneous failure) detected in periodic inspections or tests. Automatic reactor scram with normal plant behaviour. Reaching of limiting operation conditions, while adhering to the proper regulations.

Anomaly

No safety significance

(12.8) (12.8.1)

Accidents having a world wide impact Nuclear weapons test explosions[:] Is the sum total of all nuclear weapons test

explosions one large accident or a whole series of small accidents? The nearly instantaneous source term release durations of these explosions are now in the distant past; yet, the invisible recycling of the long-lived isotopes in the stratospheric fallout plumes continue today. As a current component of "background radiation," we do not usually differentiate weapons testing-derived contamination from natural background radiation levels. Nonetheless, weapons testing-derived radiocesium contamination

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 298 of 953

still exists in significant quantities. The cumulative deposition from weapons-testing-derived plutonium exists in bands of ground deposition with the greatest accumulation in mid-latitude locations. What are the cumulative ground deposition and isotopic profiles of the long-lived radionuclides which are the legacy of these tests? What are their pathways, and what population groups are most susceptible to exposure from these pathways? (12.8.2) Chernobyl[:] Which Chernobyl-derived long-lived radionuclides remain in

pathways to human exposure after the decay of the short-lived isotopes released from this accident? What are their elemental forms, their biogeochemical pathways, and what population groups are most susceptible to exposure from these pathways? The Chernobyl source term release occurred during just a few weeks. Will the remaining inventory of radionuclides in the Chernobyl sarcophagus constitute the basis for a second nuclear accident or just a footnote to the first? (12.8.3) Satellite accidents: SNAP 9A (1964)[:] This satellite failure occurred over the

Indian Ocean; 16,000 curies of 238Pu were efficiently spread throughout the southern and then the northern hemispheres. The entire human race bears traces of this accident in their biological tissues. What other satellite accidents have occurred that we don't know about? Is this the precursor of a much larger disaster in the future (the Cassini mission to Saturn)? (12.8.4) Major accidents within the US[:] The uncontained and undocumented release of

liquid spent fuel-derived wastes at locations now under remediation management by the Dept. of Energy exceed 4 billion curies. The following DNFSB overview summarizes the most important safety concerns pertaining to DOE facilities which continue to release anthropogenic radioactivity into the environment. There are 109 plume source points undergoing environmental remediation by the Dept. of Energy and several hundred other small nuclear accidents-in-progress (including commercial nuclear reactors as well as formerly utilized sites) all having the potential for continued or future release of anthropogenic radioactivity. The DOE's FPIMS (Facility Profile Information Management System) McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 299 of 953

database provides a window of opportunity for evaluating the 19 most important DOE environmental remediation management locations. FPIMS does not provide any data about the source term releases which originate from these facilities, but the existence of plumes of anthropogenic radioactivity are continually referenced and are, in fact, a principal (but not the only) reason why this Facility Information Profile Management System exists. The FPIMS database includes the "Tiger Team Assessments (Analysis of Findings From the First Sixteen Tiger Team Assessments, Tiger Team Assessments Seventeen through Thirty-Five: A Summary and Analysis)" about these source points. The FPIMS includes both non-site and site-specific documents, ranging from summaries and appraisals to corrective action plans, site environmental reports, trend analyses, and evaluations of the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act and other statutes. FPIMS represents the work of thousands of DOE employees spending millions of tax dollars documenting the nuclear accidents-in-progress which RADNET can only reference in brief and inadequate listings. Needless to say, nowhere in FPIMS are any DOE facilities described as a nuclear accident-in-progress, nor is any data provided that document uncontained releases of radioactivity at these locations. (12.8.5) Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board overview[:] The Defense Nuclear Facility

Safety Board which is in charge of oversight of all DOE weapon production facilities is an excellent source of site-specific information about the most important nuclear accidents-in-progress which have occurred or are occurring in the continental United States...Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board. (May 26, 1994). Improved Schedule for Remediation in Defense Nuclear Facilities Complex. Recommendation 94-1 to the Secretary of Energy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2286a(5) Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. (12.8.5.1) "We are especially concerned about specific liquids and solids containing fissile

materials and other radioactive substances in spent fuel storage pools, reactor basins, reprocessing canyons, processing lines, and various buildings once used for processing and weapons manufacture." McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 300 of 953

(12.8.5.2)

"Several large tanks in the F-Canyon at the Savannah River Site contain tens of

thousands of gallons of solutions of plutonium and trans-plutonium isotopes. The trans-plutonium solutions remain from californium-252 production; they include highly radioactive isotopes of americium and curium. These tanks, their appendages, and vital support systems are old, subject to deterioration, prone to leakage, and are not seismically qualified. If an earthquake or other accident were to breach the tanks, F-Canyon would become so contaminated that cleanup would be practically impossible. Containment of the radioactive material under such circumstances would be highly uncertain." (12.8.5.3) "The K-East Basin at the Hanford Site contains hundreds of tons of deteriorating

irradiated nuclear fuel from the N-Reactor. This fuel has been heavily corroded during its long period of storage under water, and the bottom of the basin is now covered by a thick deposit of sludge containing actinide compounds and fission products. The basin is near the Columbia River. It has leaked on several occasions, is likely to leak again, and has design and construction defects that make it seismically unsafe" (12.8.5.4) "The 603 Basin at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) contains

deteriorating irradiated reactor fuel from a number of sources. This basin also contains sludge from corrosion of the reactor fuel. The seismic competence of the 603 Basin is not established." "Processing canyons and reactor basins at the Savannah River Site contain large amounts of deteriorating irradiated reactor fuel stored under conditions similar to those at the 603 Basin at INEL." (12.8.5.5) "There are thousands of containers of plutonium-bearing liquids and solids at the

Rocky Flats Plant, the Hanford Site, the Savannah River Site, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. These materials were in the nuclear-weapons-manufacturing pipeline when manufacturing ended. Large quantities of plutonium solutions are stored in deteriorating tanks, piping, and plastic bottles. Thousands of containers at the Rocky Flats Plant hold miscellaneous plutonium-bearing materials McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 301 of 953

classed as 'residuals', some of which are chemically unstable. Many of the containers of plutonium metal also contain plastic and , in some at the Rocky Flats Plant, the plastic is believed to be in intimate contact with the plutonium. It is well known that plutonium in contact with plastic can cause formation of hydrogen gas and pyrophoric plutonium compounds leading to a high probability of plutonium fires." (12.8.6) Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board. (September 8, 1994). Low-Level Waste-

Disposal. Recommendation 94-2 to the Secretary of Energy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2286a(5) Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. (12.8.6.1) "The results of our review are summarized as follows: As of 1993, the DOE and its

predecessor agencies have buried approximately 2.8 million cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste. This waste has largely been disposed of at six sites through the use of shallow land burial -Savannah River Site, Hanford, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Nevada Test Site, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Low-level waste disposal as practiced by DOE contractors has not kept pace with the evolution of commercial practices. For example, DOE disposal programs are generally characterized by minimal barriers to infiltration and biologic intrusion, no requirements to protect inadvertent human intruders, and operational practices not geared toward maintaining integrity of the waste form and the cover. In 1988, DOE issued Order 5820.2A, Radioactive Waste Management, which adopted the basic performance objectives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 10 CFR 61. A key feature of the Order is the requirement to prepare a Performance Assessment (PA). This Performance Assessment is intended to demonstrate that the buried waste will remain sufficiently confined to pose no undue risk to public health and safety. Although the Order was issued six years ago, no defense nuclear facilities site has to date completed the performance assessment process." (12.8.6.2) "The high-level radioactive wastes that are a result of weapons material production McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 302 of 953

have been the strong focus of waste management activities of the Department of Energy (DOE). Considerably less attention has been placed upon the large volumes of low-level radioactive waste that have been generated to date and that are projected for the future. Operation of waste management facilities and the maintenance of the defense nuclear complex will continue to generate considerable low-level waste and the need for adequate waste storage and disposal facilities. This volume is likely to increase dramatically with the decommissioning and decontamination of excess facilities." (12.8.7) The Rocky Flats release of 239Pu during weapons production activities has the

potential to produce the largest death toll among all the plumes originating from the U.S. weapons production facilities, even though Rocky Flats does not come close to being the largest continental plume of anthropogenic radioactivity in the U.S.A. Until all onsite inventories of plutonium are actually removed from this location, the potential exists for significant plutonium releases in addition to those that have already occurred. The possibility of a criticality event or a serious fire continues to make this site the most dangerous nuclear accident-in-progress in the United States. Who will inhale the wind-driven particles of plutonium released from this site, now bound to the desiccated sediments which characterize the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains? How far afield from Rocky Flats, located so close to highly populated areas, will the high winds of the eastern slope spread this contamination? How many children will breathe in this plutonium and suffer a premature death? For how many millennia will this, the largest nuclear accident-in-progress in the United States, affect the populations of this region and the regions which will be the later recipients of this wind-blown plutonium (1/2 T = 24,400 years)? (12.8.8) Savannah River, South Carolina: liquid high-level waste[:] The DOE Integrated

Database (1994) lists the Savannah River facility as having the largest inventory of contained highlevel wastes of any DOE weapons production facility, 534,500,000 curies of liquid high-level wastes. These wastes derive from the production of spent fuel at this location and its reprocessing for the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 303 of 953

purpose of extracting the plutonium for weapons fabrication. During the period of weapons production, huge additional uncontained quantities of liquid high-level and low-level wastes were released to the natural environment. The curic inventory of these uncontained releases probably exceeded 1 billion curies. The Savannah River plume constitutes what is one of the two largest releases of anthropogenic radioactivity occurring in the United States during the Cold War. Only the uncontained releases at the Hanford, Washington Reservation, an isolated and desiccated environment, have the potential to exceed the size of the Savannah River plume. The Savannah River release is also that plume likely to have the second largest health physics impact during the next few millennium. Of particular concern are the plutonium storage tanks in the F-canyon of Savannah River, as well as the extensive uncontained releases of spent-fuel-derived wastes which have historically occurred at the other fuel processing canyons and reactor basins at this facility. How will the humid climate, high rainfall, and numerous wetlands assist the transport of the long-lived radionuclides in this plume? How far afield from the lagoons and holding ponds of the Savannah River reservation will this contamination travel? What natural processes will make the plutonium in this plume, now predominantly in a biologically inert form, more available for uptake in pathways to humans? How will continuing activities at SRP as well as the possibility of additional spent fuel reprocessing affect the size and duration of this plume? (12.8.9) (12.8.9.1) Hanford Reservation, Washington: liquid high-level waste[:] The Hanford Reservation in Washington State, and the Savannah River Plant in

South Carolina were the principal plutonium production facilities operated by the DOE for the purpose of fabricating nuclear weapons during the Cold War. The plutonium produced at Hanford Reservation was shipped to other weapons production facilities for refining and final fabrication into usable weapons. During this process, large quantities of spent fuel were created and then reprocessed to extract the plutonium, creating huge quantities of liquid high-level and low-level wastes. The DOE Integrated Database report (1994) lists a current inventory of 348 million curies of contained high-level McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 304 of 953

waste as well as additional quantities of stored or buried transuranic wastes at this site. As at the Savannah River facilities, huge additional quantities of uncontained liquid high-level and low-level wastes were produced and released to the natural environment. Not enough information is available to determine whether the uncontained releases at this location exceeded those at the Savannah River site which is closer to populated suburban and urban population centers. (12.8.9.2) The plutonium production facilities at Hanford lie alongside the Columbia River

which was the recipient of significant, but unknown, quantities of reactor-derived liquid wastes. Aside from the large quantities of liquid high-level wastes now residing in leaking steel tanks, significant uncontained quantities of liquid wastes were released in shallow holding ponds which later dried out, in pits, and via shallow well and deepwell injection. The total uncontained release of weaponsproduction-derived wastes may exceed the total release at the Savannah River facility. In view of the total amount of missing military high-level wastes, the uncontained release of radioactivity to the natural environment at this location may exceed 1 billion curies of reprocessed spent-fuel-derived wastes and hundreds of millions of curies of low-level wastes. The location of these huge releases in a desiccated environment with low rainfall, little surface water other than the Columbia River, the low water table, and the lack of nearby population centers may serve to mitigate the health physics impact of what is likely the largest uncontained release of weapons-production-derived contamination in the United States. Unfortunately, unlike the Rocky Flats plutonium plume, there are very few environmental remediation solutions available to mitigate previous uncontained releases of radioactivity at this location. If the DOE fails to secure the contained tank wastes at this location or if criticality is reached in these vulnerable tanks, this release plume, which will continue to spread for hundreds of years, will be greatly enhanced. (12.8.10) The Oak Ridge Reservation includes a multiplicity of important plume source

points, including the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, The K-25 Plant and the Y-12 Plant. The primary McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 305 of 953

function of the latter two sites was the production of enriched uranium for the purpose of nuclear weapons production. The Oak Ridge Reservation may be the most complex plume source point among all the DOE weapons production laboratories. Plume source points include the X-10 Graphite Reactor which operated in the early years of the Cold War, as well as uranium contamination deriving from the K-25 Plant and the Y-12 Plant. Two buildings at the Y-12 Plant are currently considered among the top ten most dangerous DOE sites for processing or storing uranium due to inadequately designed vaults containing bomb grade uranium. The Oak Ridge Reservation is the location of the infamous hydrofracture facility which was designed specifically for the injection of highly radioactive reprocessed spent fuel wastes into underlying shale deposits in the form of a grout containing the unwanted wastes. At least 1 1/2 million curies of waste, and possibly much more, are contained in this component of the Oak Ridge plume. Other undocumented injections of liquid wastes occurred in the early years of operation of this facility. Maps contained in the DOE BEMR provide a graphic illustration of a series of interconnected "waste area groups" (WAG) which resulted in so much radioactive contamination being released to surface water supplies (White Oak Creek, White Oak Lake, etc.) that not only have special dams been constructed to slow the movement of surface contamination, but the Clinch River Basin has been declared a superfund site and is listed in the BEMR publication as a subject of DOE remediation efforts. The total curic content of uncontained releases of radioactive effluents to the environment at this location may never be known but could easily be in excess of 200 million curies of uranium processing-derived wastes as well as of "low-level" and mixed low-level wastes originating from reprocessed spent fuel and other weapons production facilities. Contamination of underground aquifers in the relatively highly populated areas of this section of Tennessee could result in a plume which equals or exceeds the size and the significance of the other major underground plumes at Hanford, SRP and INEL. (12.8.11) Idaho National Engineering Laboratory[:] McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 306 of 953

(12.8.11.1)

The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) covers 890 sq. miles in

southern Idaho along the edge of the Snake River Plain. The INEL is an important nuclear accident-inprogress with a variety of constituents including ten major operating areas in addition to the Argonne National Laboratory West and the Naval Reactor Facility, which are, in themselves, important plume source points. Of particular concern is the presence of large quantities of deteriorating irradiated reactor fuel and related corrosion products (sludge) in the 603 basin which is a component of the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP). While removal of some of this deteriorating fuel has begun, this facility still remains the most dangerous of above ground plume source points among all the 98 operable units which are subject to environmental remediation at this facility. Numerous other storage tanks, pits, trenches, evaporation ponds, "French drains," waste sumps, storage tanks, chemical wash out areas, and other surface facilities and waste sites contribute to INEL as a plume source point with many constituents. The single largest component of INEL as a plume source point results, however, from shallow well and deep well injection of high-level as well as low-level mixed wastes which began with the establishment of this facility in the late 1940's. (12.8.11.2) Evaluation of the INEL site is complicated by continuing operations; a high level

of secrecy and lack of documentation of disposal techniques in its early years of operation; and the multiplicity of source points of radiological contamination. These include an experimental breeder reactor, the power burst facility reactor, three or more test reactor areas, the ICPP and related tank farm, the waste calcine facility, the test area north including a manufacturing assembly and hot shop, and a radioactive waste management complex. Not enough information is available to determine which of these facilities contributed the largest quantities of radioactive wastes to the injection wells and "French drains" which were formerly utilized at this location. The Baseline Environmental Management Report (BEMR) divides the ICPP into 14 units consisting of 93 potential release sites and then makes the following comment: "...most of the known contamination at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant is McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 307 of 953

below the surface of the soil..." (pg. Idaho-29). The assessment of contamination in the Snake River Plain Aquifer, which has just begun, has detected volatile organic compounds in the aquifer 600 feet below the surface of the ground. The INEL site environmental report for 1995 limits discussion of the extensive shallow and deep well injections that occurred at INEL in the past to a few disposal wells. The complex ground water monitoring program activities, illustrated in Figure 5.1, page 5.4 of this report, which were implemented by the United States Geological Survey, reference the extensive undocumented disposal of liquid radioactive wastes of the past. While some components of the INEL facility may be the subject of successful remediation efforts with respect to the transfer of transuranic wastes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in New Mexico, the huge INEL-derived Snake River aquifer plume will likely rate among the top ten most significant source points of radioactive contamination in the US in the next millennium. (12.8.12) (12.8.12.1) (12.8.12.2) (12.8.12.3) Other Accidents-in-progress, Continental USA: Fernald, Ohio (Feed Materials Production Center) Los Alamos National Laboratory A note on very small nuclear accidents-in-progress: The Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Station at Wiscasset, Maine, is an example of a very small nuclear accident-in-progress. Mandatory radiological effluent reports filed with the NRC indicate a total discharge of less than four curies of 137Cs into the environment in the vicinity of MYAPC since the beginning of plant operation in 1972. This contrasts with an onsite inventory of +/-20 million curies of 137Cs in the spent fuel pool and in the fuel rods in the reactor vessel. Total onsite inventories of spent fuel exceed 200 million curies; GTCC reactor vessel components exceed 4 million curies at 2 years cooling, and low-level wastes exceed one hundred thousand curies. If the licensee and the NRC are successful in ensuring that no significant additional discharges of radioactivity occur at this location, the primary impact of the MYAPC will be on the pocketbooks of the ratepayers and taxpayers who will have to fund this effort. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 308 of 953

This impact will include the high costs of safe decommissioning, monitored retrievable storage of GTCC and spent fuel wastes, and administrative and transportation costs prior to waste disposal in a final geological depository. In short, it will be a very high price to pay for assurance that a very small nuclear accident-in-progress doesn't grow larger. (12.8.13) Major accidents outside the US[:] There are thousands of other regional source

points of anthropogenic radioactivity; this is an attempt to list a few of the major source points which are ongoing accidents-in-progress. (12.8.13.1) Russian plume source points[:] The largest uncontained releases of weapons-

production-derived high-level wastes have occurred within the boundaries of the former USSR. (12.8.13.2) Sellafield (United Kingdom)[:] Sellafield is the largest nuclear accident-in-

progress outside of Russia and the continental United States. Total source term releases to date may be extrapolated from the records of British Nuclear Fuels, the site operator and other information sources such as MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries). Source term releases are now increasing with the recent inauguration of a new thermal oxide fuel reprocessing plant (THORP). The proposal to dispose of high-level wastes generated at this facility in underlying rock formations as uncontained releases may further exacerbate the size of the Sellafield plume. This disposal plan is reminiscent of the antiquated policies of uncontained release of high-level wastes at various US weapons productions facilities which now have been discontinued. (12.8.13.2) Update 1/20/99[:] Development of the underground high-level waste facility at

Sellafield appears to have been canceled entirely. Numerous developments have occurred in the last three years pertaining to Sellafield as an ongoing nuclear accident. The viability of fuel reprocessing as an industry is collapsing at the same time as the intermediate and high-level waste crisis is growing. Many of the political and economic issues pertaining to the Sellafield debacle are beyond the scope of RADNET, but important new information has emerged in the form of additional documentation of the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 309 of 953

Sellafield pulse. Of particular interest is the 99Tc plume in lobsters, the development of more comprehensive radiological surveillance programs as exemplified by the publications of MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries): Radiation in Food and the Environment (RIFE) and the documentation of extensive Sellafield-derived contamination in pigeons (see Greenpeace). The appalling size of the Sellafield plume is illustrated by F. Oldfield, et. al. with a peak of Sellafieldderived 241Am in salt marsh sediment observed of 434,000 bq/m2(1990). This observation was made several years prior to the opening of the THORP processing facility which has resulted in additional contamination of the North and Irish Seas. (12.8.14) (12.8.14.1) Dounreay (Scotland)[:] Recent news stories reveal the presence of a waste shaft at

Dounreay, which has been cut through bedrock and projects under the ocean. Substantial amounts of uncontained plutonium-bearing wastes have been discarded in this waste tunnel. In May of 1977, the combination of radionuclides, toxic chemicals, and odd components of plant equipment dumped in this shaft resulted in an explosion which spread contamination not only at the shaft entrance but also on local beaches. Plutonium contamination resulting from this explosion has now been documented on area beaches. The fuel reprocessing facilities at Dounreay are thus the source of a much larger plume of plutonium-bearing contamination than had previously been anticipated. Future fuel reprocessing activities at this location have the potential to greatly enlarge the Dounreay plume. (12.8.14.2) Update 1/20/99[:] The Dounreay facility has now been closed and no further fuel

reprocessing will occur there after 2000; the facility is now in the stage of environmental remediation. (12.8.15) Future nuclear accidents? In the following list, RADNET estimates the types of

uncontained releases of anthropogenic radioactivity that are most likely to occur in the future and the locations where they might occur. Unfortunately, there is the possibility that many ongoing releases of anthropogenic radioactivity are nuclear accidents-in-progress which are only in their initial stages. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 310 of 953

Additional suggestions, comments or criticisms of this preliminary listing are solicited. The most likely locations of the nuclear accidents of the future are: (12.8.15.1) A quick release accident(QRA) or a LORCA at an RBMK-type nuclear reactor in

Russia or Eastern Europe due to degradation of aging equipment or terrorism/sabotage. (12.8.15.2) A quick release accident(QRA) or a LORCA at other nuclear reactors located in

areas of political unrest and/or economic chaos due to degradation of aging equipment or terrorism/sabotage. (12.8.15.3) Russia: any number of accident scenarios are possible at existing weapons

production facilities and unsecured waste storage sites (Kola peninsula, Vladivostok, etc.). (12.8.15.4) (12.8.15.5) mission to Saturn. (12.8.15.6) Rocky Flats, Colorado, Technology Site: a serious fire event at one or more Sellafield, United Kingdom: fuel reprocessing facility accident. Major release of 238Pu resulting from an accident involving the upcoming Cassini

weapons production plutonium contaminated buildings or criticality event due to the accumulation of fissile plutonium. (12.8.15.7) Hanford Reservation: an accident at a storage tank containing high-level waste or

at the N-reactor fuel storage site in the K-East Basin. (12.8.15.8) United States: a major LORCA at any of the 109 NRC licensed commercial

nuclear power plants due to micro-degradation of aging equipment. (12.8.15.9) United States: an accident at a DOE weapons production facility (Pantex,

Savannah River Plant, Los Alamos National Laboratory, or Oak Ridge National Laboratory) due to the mishandling of fissile material. (12.8.16) Nuclear accident updates[:] (Small nuclear accidents which get wide publicity -

why only in Japan?)[:] Tokai Uranium Processing Plant (Japan)[:] September 30, 1999, 10:35 AM McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 311 of 953

Japanese standard time: Criticality accident at a Japanese Uranium Processing Plant. (12.8.16.1) French, Howard W. (October 1, 1999). Japanese fuel plant spews radiation after

accident. New York Times. (12.8.16.2) "In an indication that the accident was being brought under control, Japanese

television said that at 6:30 AM today, the Science and Technology Agency reported that no radiation could be detected at 14 monitoring sites around the plant." (12.8.16.3) One of many articles in the Washington Post and New York Times, this relatively

small accident has received a huge amount of publicity. The Washington Post indicates that approximately two dozen similar criticality accidents have taken place in the United States between 1945 and 1964. Estimates of fuel reprocessing accidents range up to at least 60 on a world-wide basis since the beginning of the nuclear age... (12.8.16.4) The wide publicity surrounding this accident has allowed the following

information to emerge: (12.8.16.4.1) Tokai is "a re-conversion plant, where they process enriched uranium

hexafluoride (UF6) to uranium dioxide (UO2) through various steps of chemical refinement. The criticality accident occurred in the process of converting uranyl nitrate solution (with 18.8% concentration of fissile 235U) to ammonium diranate (ADU) sediment." (personal communication, Dr. Hosokawa Komei, Dept of Resource Management & Society, Faculty of Agriculture, The University of Saga, 840-8502 Saga City, Japan). (12.8.16.4.2) The fissile mass was 16 kg of highly enriched uranium destined for a fast breeder research reactor somewhere in Japan. (12.8.16.4.3) The accident occurred when too much 235U was poured into a settling basin

designed for 2.4 kg -- a typical human error accident. (12.2.16.4.4) The accident lasted 17 hours before a water shield was drained which had McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 312 of 953

served to keep the accident going by directing neutrons back into the fissile material. Workers were unable to drain the water by remote control, so they broke the pipes open and stopped the accident. (12.2.16.4.5) An intense radiation field resulting from shine from the fissile material in the

settling basin surrounded the facility. The fact that significant civilian population lives close to the facility complicated the accident response and insured wide publicity. (12.8.16.4.6) The accident occurred during a rainfall event which would serve to localize

fallout from the plume which was produced by the accident. No information is yet available differentiating plume-derived shine from source point shine from the fissile material itself. (12.8.16.4.7) material involved... (12.8.17) March 11, 1997, fire and explosion at the Tokai Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant[:] The accident raises a number of questions despite the small quantity of fissile

Confusion and mis-information at a small nuclear accident: The following information documenting the March 11, 1997, fire and explosion at the Tokai Nuclear Reprocessing Plant is entirely derived from quotes taken from Lexis-Nexis news service reports in the days following the Tokai accident. The quotations are ordered by date and include quotations from Japan Economic News Wire, Associated Press, New York Times, Agence France Presse, Kyodo News Service, Mainichi Daily News, etc. Each bullet contains quotations from one or more news sources. (12.8.17.1) "Located at Tokaimura, 100 km (65 miles) northeast of Tokyo, the reprocessing

plant produces plutonium by recycling spent nuclear fuel." "Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is solidified by mixing with asphalt by remote control" "It handles 12 percent of Japan's total spent fuel, with the rest reprocessed at plants in France. An explosion at the plant's bituminisation facility, where low-level waste is mixed with asphalt for permanent storage, on March 11 exposed 37 workers to small doses of radiation." "The explosion occurred 10 hours after a fire broke out in the asphalt mixing cell Tuesday morning. ... Smoke went up for hours, and a small amount of radioactive leak was detected on McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 313 of 953

the premises." (12.8.17.2) March 11: "An explosion was heard Tuesday night at a nuclear reprocessing plant

in the village of Tokai ... but details were not immediately known ... A total of nine window panes were seen broken in the four-story building and white smoke was seen coming out from the roof of the plant's vitrification facility for liquid nuclear waste ... One of the radioactivity monitoring posts near the building showed an abnormal reading at 8:50 p.m. but normal readings after 9:00 p.m. ... The explosion occurred at about 8 p.m., hours after a small fire broke out in the plant and at least 10 workers were exposed to radioactivity, the officials said. ... amount of radioactivity released really poses no problem at all ... constituted just 0.2% of the legally admissible maximum." "At one of 12 radioactivity monitoring stations in the giant Tokaimura nuclear compound, a small abnormality was observed 26 minutes after the fire broke out at 8:14 p.m. ... only radioactivity observed was well within safe limits" (12.8.17.3) March 12: "Dozens of alarms shrieked and banks of lights flashed red as Japanese

investigators tentatively poked through scraps of twisted metal at a nuclear waste handling facility. ... officials said radiation levels remained well within safe limits around the plant." "Two workers were stuck on the roof of a Japanese nuclear plant for five hours after a fire and the state nuclear company waited two and a half hours to tell the fire brigade..." "Around 8:50p.m., radiation levels on the grounds were about 20% higher than usual..." "...that radioactivity levels had returned to normal following the explosion." "The radioactivity that escaped outside was estimated to total 38% of the permissible daily maximum dose, Donen officials said. Donen set a 60-meter off-limits cordon around the building after they detected a small amount of radioactivity around the facility. (12.8.17.4) March 13: "Officials ... said there was no danger of a plutonium radiation leak. ...

On Thursday, workers clad in protective suits with breathing filters used duct tape to seal 30 windows and three doors that were damaged by the blast Tuesday night." "Three days after the accident Power McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 314 of 953

Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corp. (Donen), the plant operator, has admitted it has been unable to completely seal off the radiation zone where the fire broke out, an asphalt solidification room of the plant. ... According to plant sources, government inspectors had 'overlooked' the possibility of an explosion of the kind that occurred there Tuesday night." "Agency finds no contamination from NPlant blast. ... No abnormality has been found in the area surrounding the plant... It is unthinkable that local residents are being exposed to radiation..." "35 people who had been exposed to the radiation ... the level of radiation they were exposed to was minimal and posed no danger to their health, ... The workers were exposed to a maximum of 2,700 becquerels of radiation, less than 0.2 percent of the permissible annual maximum, Donen officials said." "...prefectural officials failed to tell them of a radiation leak overnight at a local nuclear plant. ... 'caused no effect to the environment.' ... monitoring posts around the plant registered up to a 20 percent jump in radiation levels, but says the readings have since returned to normal. ... there is 'no need' to inform residents of the leak because radiation levels are 'not high enough to worry about.'" "Smoke and heat sensors in the plant shut off after the first fire and were unable to give a warning that the blaze was still smoldering out of sight, leading to the later explosion." (12.8.17.5) March 14: "Air radiation levels soared a hundredfold directly after Tuesday

night's explosion at a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture, 115 kilometers northeast of Tokyo, ... Officials of the state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corp. (Donen) said the radiation that leaked outside the plant was nonetheless far below the amount triggering alarms and 'for the most part did not affect the environment.'" "Japan's Science and Technology Agency admitted yesterday that it was not sure how much radiation had actually leaked from a building at a nuclear-fuel reprocessing facility where a fire and explosion had taken place earlier this week." "The state agency for science and technology has said there are no radioactive threat to the environment outside the reprocessing plant." McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 315 of 953

(12.8.17.6)

March 15: "Radioactive particles collected after an explosion at Japan's nuclear

reprocessing plant indicate that plutonium may have been released into the air, officials at the plant said on Saturday. However, the level of radioactive particles found was below the limit set for areas outside the plant and did not pose any risk to the environment or to living beings..." "...no risk to the environment or people, because the recorded level of radiation was slightly below the limit set for areas surrounding nuclear facilities." "Highly toxic plutonium is also suspected to have leaked and spread following the accident. ...there appeared to be no risks of further radioactive leakage. 'The nuclear substance in the facility has been cooled down and is in a stable condition'" "Radiation emitted after an explosion at a nuclear facility has turned out to be about 70 times greater than first reported. ...Donen said radioactive substances at the ventilator on the east side of the bituminization facility during the seven-day period leading up to Wednesday were far below the levels of such materials usually present in the air. But the corporation recalculated and found that, for example the density of the type of cesium that emits beta nuclide was 0.45-millionths of a becquerel per cubic meter, or about 70 times higher than the average for the past three months." (12.8.17.7) March 17: "Nuclear plant explosion catches experts totally off guard. ... Experts

suspect vaporized asphalt was the cause of the fire. ... The March 11 explosion was something Donen had never imagined possible." "...the 'luck' was that a fire and, 10 hours later, an explosion, occurred in the least dangerous - he said 'cleanest' - part of the plant." "...significant radiation levels were found in soil samples at two sites in the nuclear complex in Ibaraki Prefecture." "...the radiation that leaked outside the plant was nonetheless far below the amount triggering alarms and 'for the most part did not affect the environment.'" "A tiny amount of cesium was found in the vicinity of Tuesday's explosion site at a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant ... the amount of cesium was within a normal range which is seen in the environment and so limited it does not affect human health." "Officials disclosed on March 14 that about 10 times the regular levels of tiny particles of plutonium and uranium probably escaped McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 316 of 953

from the waste-handling facility ... one-twentieth of the environmental safety level, ... A monitor attached to an exhaust pipe detected an average density of plutonium and uranium of 3.8 trillionths of a becquerel per 1 cubic centimeter for three months prior to the accident, ... But the figure jumped to 49 trillionths of a becquerel per cubic centimeter on average for the week including March 11, ...Donen officials on March 14 reversed their earlier statements, admitting two more facilities connected to the bituminization plant by passageways are contaminated." "The amount of radioactivity released into the surrounding area by the March 11 explosion ... was 20 times the amount that Donen officials on March 14 said had been released and nearly equal to the environmental public health safety limit set by the government for residents in the vicinity of the plant. The officials explained that the conflicting figures resulted from a mistake in calculations. ...radioactive substances that escaped outside the plant could be the chemical elements of americium, plutonium, uranium and or other naturally occurring atoms. The officials said they have cleaned up about 90 percent of radioactive substances on the ground in the Tokai compound, but they have yet to clear the outer building surfaces at the plant." "...as the worst nuclear accident that has ever occurred in Japan, ...the International Atomic Energy Agency. ...gave the explosion a rating of 3 on the international scale of 0 to 7..." (12.8.17.8) March 18: "An elevated level of radioactive cesium, ...has been detected in

Tsukuba, 60 kilometers southwest of the plant, ... The reading in Tsukuba is several tens of times the level of cesium-137 that would typically be measured in the aftermath of a nuclear test conducted abroad, ... The amount of cesium-137 ...was measured at 84-millionths of a becquerel per cubic meter. But that is far smaller than the amount registered in the wake of the disastrous 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in the former Soviet Union, which posted a reading of 61,000-millionths of a becquerel per cubic meter [in Japan]." "A jump in radiation has been observed [35 miles] southwest of a damaged nuclear plant, officials said today, suggesting two fires at the plant spread radiation over a larger area than previously thought. ... Cesium levels in the air jumped 10-fold on March 11, compared McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 317 of 953

to the day before the fires and the day after, said Hisato Nishii, a Meteorological Research Institute spokesman. The level, however, is very low and is not harmful to humans, he said. ... 'It is unbelievable that your employees were playing golf at such a critical period of time.' Donen spokesman ... said the company had approved the golf tour and that the fires did not necessarily require all plant workers to be prohibited from playing golf." (12.8.17.9) March 19: "The discovery of relatively high levels of radiation is expected to

make it difficult to carry out studies on the actual cause of the accident." "A week after the fires yesterday, a jump in radiation was reported southwest of the plant. ...the two fires at the plant March 11 had spread radiation over a larger area than previously thought." "A small amount of cesium-137 was detected in the air at a pollution research centre in the city of Mito..." (12.8.17.10) March 24-25: "Donen informed the Science and Technology Agency that the

accident has been classified as a third degree accident on the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) seven-degree table of nuclear power plant failures. ... Radioactivity leaked outside the bituminization facility ... but there was no risk to the environment or people as the recorded level of radiation was slightly below the limit set for areas surrounding nuclear facilities..." "Some 37 workers were exposed to radiation, although it was far below levels that would be harmful ... Some radioactive materials, including plutonium, escaped into the atmosphere and were detected as far as 23 miles away, though at levels that the Government insisted posed no danger." (12.8.17.11) April 3: "Danger of leaked radiation unclear. ...more than eight times the normal

levels of plutonium and other alpha ray-emitting substances had escaped from an exhaust pipe at the accident ... 2,000 times the normal levels of gamma ray-emitting substances including cesium. ...total dose of radioactive emissions at about 60 million becquerel, but Donen described this as 'negligible,' ... As for plutonium, the annual emission level is several thousand times the leakage caused by the March explosion." McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 318 of 953

(12.8.17.12)

April 7: "...Radioactive emissions from Japan's worst nuclear accident ... were

below minimum safety ceilings..." (12.8.17.13) April 15: "...at least six people were involved in writing a distorted report about

a fire and explosion and in covering up the accident..." "The Japanese government will soon ask prosecutors to file charges against a state-run firm which has admitted a cover-up in its handling of the nation's worst nuclear accident..." (12.8.17.14) Conclusions: If this much confusion, mis-information and waffling can result

from one small nuclear mishap, what will be the case in the event of a major Chernobyl-type nuclear accident? [There is] No source term release information, no media specific accident-derived contamination data, very little nuclide specific accident-derived data, no ground deposition data, no mention of any plume pulse, no plume pulse pathway or exposure pathway analysis, no reference to any Japanese, U.S. government or International Atomic Energy Agency satellite-derived remote sensing data, etc. (12.8.18) Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company[:] RADNET has used the Maine Yankee

Atomic Power Company (MYAPC) in Wiscasset, Maine as a case study for analysis of safety, legal, economic and decommissioning issues pertaining to nuclear power plant operation. This facility may also be used as an example of a nuclear power plant as a small nuclear accident-in-progress. MYAPC began operation in 1972 and was closed in 1997. DEFINITIONS AND CONVERSION FACTORS (12.9) ACTIVATION PRODUCTS: nuclides formed through transformation of stable

reactor components into radioactive isotopes after intense bombardment with fission products. Radioactivity is thus induced through neutron bombardment or other types of radiation in reactor vessel components and corrosion products (and also in weapons casings) which were stable before the reactor vessel went on-line. The transuranic nuclides plutonium, americium, curium, etc., are also neutron McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 319 of 953

activation products, originating from neutron capture in uranium nuclides rather than from the fission of these nuclides. Other important activation products include carbon-14 and tritium as well as activation products derived from activated stainless steel and carbon steel, activated sludge, corrosion deposits and concrete, and contaminated building products e.g. 55Fe, 54Mn, 65Zn, 58Co and 60Co. An additional listing of activation products and corrosion products can be found after the checklist of biologically significant nuclides (see RADNET Section 5). (12.10) BECQUEREL (Bq): a less unwieldy measurement of radioactivity than curies: one

disintegration per second (d.p.s.). A picocurie is 0.037 d.p.s. or 0.03 Bq. The most common reporting unit outside the United States for radionuclide air concentrations is Bq/m3 (microbecquerels). (12.11) (12.11.1) (12.11.2) (12.11.3) (27.027). (12.11.4) To convert picocuries per cubic meter to becquerels per cubic meter, multiply CONVERSION FACTORS: To convert picocuries to becquerels, divide by 27 (27.027). To convert d.p.m. (disintegrations per minute) to becquerels, divide by 60. To convert becquerels to picocuries, multiply the number of becquerels by 27

pCi/m3 times 0.037. (12.11.5) To convert becquerels per cubic meter to microbecquerels per cubic meter, multiply

the Bq/m3 times 1 x 10-6. (12.11.6) These conversion factors are essential for interpreting baseline data contained in

this [Davistown Museum] Website because all European environmental monitoring data are expressed in becquerels (per square meter for ground deposition, per cubic meter for air concentration, per kilogram/year for total dietary intake, etc.) (12.12) CRITICAL MASS: the minimum mass of fissionable material which can achieve a

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 320 of 953

nuclear chain reaction with a specified geometrical arrangement and material composition. (Center for Disease Control (CDC), Savannah River Site (SRS) dose reconstruction, 1999). (12.13) CRUD: "...an acronym for 'Chalk River Unidentified Deposits.' ...black, highly

radioactive substances found on the inside of piping and components at the Chalk River nuclear reactor ... CRUD has now become a standard industry term referring to minute, solid, corrosion products that travel into the reactor core, become highly radioactive, and then flow out of the reactor into other systems in the plant. ... CRUD can settle out in crevices or plate-out on the inside of piping in considerable quantities ... The major components of CRUD are iron, cobalt, chrome, and manganese ... CRUD is a concentrated source of radiation and represents a significant radiological risk because of its insolubility." (United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Testimony of James K. Joosten, September 15, 1997, pg. 13-14). (12.14) CURIE: a measurement of radioactivity: the amount of radioactive material giving

off 3.7 x 1010 d.p.s., or 37 billion disintegrations per second. In the United States, the picocurie (1 pCi = 0.037 d.p.s. or 1 x 10-12 of a curie) is the unit used for many measurements of radioactive contamination. (12.15) ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (E.M.R.): energy radiated in the form of a

wave which can accelerate charged particles. Electromagnetic radiation can travel through a vacuum. Its energy varies greatly; radio waves have the longest wavelengths and the lowest frequency and energy (1.2398 x 10-10 to 1.2398 x 10-5electron volts. X-rays and gamma rays have the shortest wavelengths and highest frequencies and energies (up to and above 6 x 106 electron volts). For a comprehensive explanation of the public health consequences of ionizing radiation, i.e. electromagnetic radiation above 155 ev, see Gofman, 1981, Section 10. (12.16) FISSION: a process, which, along with fusion, releases energy stored in separated McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 321 of 953

nuclei. During fission, a fissionable nucleus such as plutonium absorbs a neutron, becomes unstable and splits into two nuclei, releasing energy. Nuclear power is a controlled, self-sustaining fission process; nuclear explosions are an uncontained chain reaction version of the fission process. In the detonation of thermonuclear (fusion or hydrogen) bombs, the fission process is the trigger for the more powerful fusion event. Fission products are the artificial radioactive offspring of nuclear industries and accidents; their inventories and pathways in the environment are the subject of this Website (Also see activation products, and naturally occurring radiation). (12.17) Gamma Camera: Remotely operated gamma ray imaging system that generates

photos showing radiation areas within the hot side of a nuclear power plant, fuel reprocessing facility or other nuclear installation. The gamma camera is particularly useful during decommissioning and remediation activities for identifying major hot spots in equipment such as reactor vessels, steam generators, or reactor water systems which may contribute to worker exposure. (12.18) Greater Than Class C (GTCC): low-level waste disposal criteria specified by the

NRC based on concentration of radionuclides (classes A, B and C) that exceed the low-level waste limits for class C and that are used to designate the waste as generally unacceptable for near-surface disposal. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-4). (12.19)
235U

HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM: uranium with more than 20 percent of the

isotope, used for making nuclear weapons and also as fuel for some isotope production, research

and power reactors. Weapons grade uranium is a subset of this group. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-4). (12.20) IONIZING RADIATION: radiation with energy above 155 ev which has the ability

to knock other electrons out of the orbits of atoms and molecules, often creating more ionizing radiation and adversely affecting living tissues. Biologically significant radiation is an ionizing dose of radiation above 155 ev which may have carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic health effects in

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 322 of 953

humans. (12.21) ISOTOPES: forms of the same chemical element that differ only by the number of

neutrons in their nucleus. Most elements have more than one naturally occurring isotope. Many isotopes have been produced in reactors and scientific laboratories. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-5). (12.22) (12.22.1) NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIATION: [C]osmogenic (extraterrestrial) and terrestrial radiation usually but not always with

an activity range of 5-10 micro roentgens per hour (Rh-1), and having the same biological consequences as artificial radiation (fission and activation products). Radon (1/2T = 3.82 d), one of many naturally occurring radionuclides, has been recently recognized as a significant source of exposure particularly in well insulated homes overlying geological formations which produce large quantities of radon within the uranium decay series. Radon achieves biological significance when inhaled if, instead of being exhaled, it decays into four short-lived nuclides followed by the long-lived
210Pb;

all of which are surface seeking particulates which become lodged in the lung. The daughter

products in the uranium-radon decay series then become the source of the radiation dose from radon. (12.22.2) The term "naturally occurring" needs to be differentiated from "background

radiation," which now includes the impact of the cumulative deposition from stratospheric fallout and nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl. In some contaminated areas, such accumulations of long-lived artificially produced radionuclides exceed natural background radiation levels. The term "background radiation," particularly when used by spokespersons for nuclear industries, can no longer be equated with the natural radiation background as it was before the advent of the nuclear age. (12.23) NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE: the primary source of the anthropogenic radionuclides documented in RADNET. The nuclear fuel cycle, which includes the WEAPONS PRODUCTION CYCLE, has eight primary components, all of which result in the accumulation or release of significant quantities of radioactivity. The cycle begins with the exploitation of a naturally occurring

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 323 of 953

radionuclide, uranium-238. The resulting contamination is "anthropogenic" in that it derives from human activities. The nuclear fuel cycle involves the following steps: (12.23.1) Uranium mining and milling: Approximately 60 million tons of uranium ore

were mined and milled in the United States for nuclear weapons production, resulting in the dispersion of toxic heavy metals as well as the natural radionuclides radium and thorium. (12.23.2)
235U

Uranium enrichment: 238U was enriched and separated to produce weapons grade

in the form of uranium hexafloride gas, producing radioactive and hazardous wastes (Ohio, KY,

TN). (12.23.3) Fuel and target fabrication: Uranium hexafloride gas was converted into metal

(uranium targets) at fuel fabrication facilities (SC and WA). (12.23.4) Reactor irradiation: The uranium targets were irradiated in 14 production reactors

to produce plutonium (SC and WA). (12.23.5) Chemical separation: The resulting spent fuel was reprocessed at chemical

separation facilities to produce fission products as well as weapons grade uranium and plutonium (WA, ID, SC). This stage in the weapons production cycle produced the greatest amount of highly radioactive and hazardous chemical waste (USA: 100 million gallons). (12.23.6) Fabrication of weapons components: The machining of plutonium into warhead

components (CO, WA, TN). (12.23.7) Weapons assembly, disassembly, and maintenance: Final assembling of nuclear

warheads as well as dismantling and research (TX, IO, 46 private sites in 14 states). (12.23.8) Research, development, and testing: Over 1,000 nuclear devices were exploded

between 1945 and 1992 (NV, NM, Alaska as well as Pacific and South Atlantic Ocean sites). (see BEMR Vol. 1 Appendix B). (12.24) PERIODIC TABLE: listing of all the elements - there is a nice visual periodic table McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 324 of 953

on the web at http://www.chemsoc.org/viselements/pages/periodic_table.html (12.25) PLUME: the concentration profile of an airborne or waterborne release of material

as it spreads from its source. (Center for Disease Control (CDC), Savannah River Site (SRS) dose reconstruction, 1999). (12.26) RADIOACTIVE HALF-LIFE (1/2T): the time required for one half the atoms in a

radioactive substance to decay. For example, the radioactive half-life of cesium is 30.174 years, 1/2T = 30.174 y. Radionuclides with short half-lives are hot, emitting large amounts of radiation but decaying quickly and contrast with radionuclides with longer half-lives whose energy is emitted over a longer period of time. The biological half-life is the time required for the body to eliminate 1/2 of a radioactive substance by regular physiological processes of elimination. This definition differs slightly from effective half-life which is the time required for 50% of the radioactive contamination to be diminished by both radioactive decay and biological elimination. (12.27) RADIOACTIVITY: spontaneous decay of the nucleus of an atom by the emission

of particles, usually accompanied by electromagnetic radiation. It is also defined as the mean number of nuclear transformations occurring in a given quantity of radioactive material per unit time, expressed in either becquerels (Bq) or curies (Ci). Most radionuclides (radioactive nuclides in contrast to stable nuclides) have multiple forms of radioactive emissions, and are classified according to their principal decay modes. The most common types of radiation are: (12.27.1) ALPHA RADIATION: e.g. emitted by plutonium-239: a nucleus of a helium

atom; large in mass, unable to penetrate more than a few microns of biological tissue. (e.g. cannot penetrate a piece of paper) (12.27.2) BETA RADIATION: e.g. emitted by tritium: a high speed electron, small in mass, moderate penetrating abilities, e.g. unable to penetrate more than a few millimeters of biological tissue. (12.27.3) GAMMA RADIATION: e.g. emitted by zirconium-95: electromagnetic McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 325 of 953

radiation; highly penetrating, very energetic x-rays emitted by an excited nucleus. Will often but not always exit living tissues without depositing its biologically significant electron voltage (ev). (12.28) (12.28.1) REPORTING UNITS: The principle reporting units used in the United States for the measurement of

radioactivity in the abiotic environment are: air: pCi/m3, water: pCi/l, precipitation: nCi/m2. In biological media, measurement is usually in picocuries per kilogram (pCi/kg) or picocuries per liter (pCi/l). Excessive levels of radioactivity in sediment and biological media are sometimes reported in picocuries per gram instead of per kilogram perhaps in the hope that no one will notice the elevated levels of contamination (See RAD 8; Noshkin, 1984). (12.28.2) In the European community, a different set of reporting units are used as a

component SI system (see definition of "becquerel"). The most common reporting units are Bq/kg for contamination of sediment and the biotic environment and microbecquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m3) for air concentration. The use of the cubic meter, a large reporting unit, allows observation of small changes in air concentrations which might be indicative of an active source point whose effluents are much more difficult to detect when the smaller reporting unit of Ci/mL, often utilized by the DOE, is used. (1 mL = 1 millionth of a cubic meter). Organizations, such as the DOE, responsible for environmental remediation in locations where hundreds of millions to billions of curies of radioactive wastes have been released to the natural environment, find it very useful to employ the smaller reporting unit which helps in obfuscating changing levels of environmental radiation. (12.29) SOURCE TERM: the quantity, chemical and physical form and time history

(release duration) of contaminates released to the environment from a facility. (Center for Disease Control (CDC), Savannah River Site (SRS) dose reconstruction, 1999). Also see source term release. (12.30) TRANSURANIC ELEMENTS: all elements beyond uranium on the periodic table,

that is, all elements with a number greater than 92. All transuranic elements are manmade. They include McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 326 of 953

neptunium, plutonium, americium and curium. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-9). (12.31) TRANSURANIC WASTE: waste material contaminated with 233U and its daughter

products, certain isotopes of plutonium, and nuclides with an atomic number greater than 92 (uranium); each with half-lives greater than 20 years and in concentrations of more than one ten-millionth of a curie per gram of waste. It is produced primarily by reprocessing spent fuel, by using plutonium to fabricate nuclear weapons and during commercial nuclear electricity production. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-9). (12.32) TRANSURANIUM NUCLIDES: elements of a higher atomic number than

uranium (92), most transuranic isotopes are highly toxic alpha-emitting radionuclides with great biological significance which do not occur naturally in any significant quantities, but which are an artificial product of the fission process and emit radiation having much higher energy than other radionuclides which are also produced in the fission process; e.g. tritium, carbon-14 and strontium-90 . The transuranic nuclides of the greatest significance are neptunium-237, plutonium-238, 239, 241, americium-241, and curium-242, 244 (See checklist of biologically significant radionuclides). (12.33) TRITIUM: the heaviest isotope of the element hydrogen. It is three times heavier

than hydrogen. Tritium gas is used to boost the explosive power of most modern nuclear weapons and has a half-life of over 12 years. (12.34) URANIUM: the basic material for nuclear technology. It is a slightly radioactive

naturally occurring heavy metal that is more dense than lead. Uranium is 40 times more common than silver. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-9). (12.35) VITRIFICATION: the process by which waste is transformed from a liquid or sludge into an immobile solid that traps radionuclides and prevents waste from contaminating soil, ground water and surface water. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-10). (12.36) VOC: Volatile Organic Compounds. The generic name for a variety of toxic

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 327 of 953

chemicals utilized in the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel as well as in other industrial applications pertaining to weapons production. The principal chemicals of interest include: trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, benzene, acetone, toluene, methalene chloride, xylenes, chlorobenzene, naphthalene, etc. etc. These and other chemicals characterize the hydrologic plumes of weapons production derived wastes now being monitored in confined and unconfined aquifers at many U.S. weapons production facilities. The large quantities of VOC's released to surface water supplies and evaporating ponds and pits were subject to rapid evaporation and redistribution as chemical fallout; only those VOC's which seeped into the soil and underlying aquifers, or which were deliberately released as shallow well or deep well injections, remain in the underground plumes now a component of DOE environmental remediation efforts and USGS ground water monitoring programs. See RAD 11: Sections 1 and 5: major plume source points. See especially the citations documenting the Hanford and Savannah River plumes. (12.37) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Register (ATSDR): THE ATSDR was

established as a component of the Superfund Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and has the mission of preparing toxicological profiles for hazardous substances most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priorities List. The ATSDR recently issued a draft for public comment of Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation and is a well-spring of important information on toxic substances in general. (12.38) Airborne Multisensor Pod System (AMPS): A recent technological innovation for

the collection of multisensor data for a variety of national security purposes. One component of remote sensing efforts, the AMPS is of particular interest because one of the pods to be used in aircraft utilizing this system will have high resolution spectral analysis capabilities pertaining to ground deposition of radioactivity deriving from nuclear accidents and nuclear waste plume source points. The following acronyms are of interest in defining and understanding remote sensing technologies which McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 328 of 953

relate to radiological surveillance programs. (12.38.1) (12.38.2) (12.38.3) (12.38.4) (12.38.5) (12.38.6) (12.38.7) (12.39) AMS: airborne multispectral scanner CASI: Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager ESI: Effluent Species Identification (pod) GRIS: Gamma Ray Imaging System MSI: multisensor imaging RSL: Remote Sensing Laboratory R-TARAC: Real-Time Airborne Radionuclide Analyzer and Collector ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELS: the prediction of concentrations

within a plume far downwind and far beyond the point at which a plume becomes invisible. Similar modeling for releases from nuclear facilities can estimate the impacts of releases long past by reconstructing exposure and dose estimates. (Center for Disease Control (CDC), Savannah River Site (SRS) dose reconstruction, 1999). (12.40) BIOINDICATORS: biological media which are the most susceptible to the

accumulation of biologically significant radionuclides. Many bioindicators are in pathways to human consumption, allowing rapid transfer of radioactivity from the abiotic environment (air, precipitation, freshwater, sea water, soil and marine sediments) to sentinel organisms as well as crops and crop products such as milk, cheese and meat. Most pathway analyses for the ecological cycling of radionuclides begin with soil or sediment as the repository of radioactive contamination. The process by which living organisms absorb radioactive contamination is called bioaccumulation; bioaccumulation may also be defined as the assimilation of contamination prior to its movement up the food chain. Among the most significant bioindicators are: (12.40.1) sea vegetables: Fucus vesiculosus, brown algae and other benthic algae are among

the most sensitive bioindicators and are often used to gauge weapons fallout contamination and nuclear McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 329 of 953

reactor pollution from many radionuclides which these media will readily absorb. The terrestrial counterpart to sea vegetables as sentinel organisms are lichens, moss, mushrooms, and grass. Leafy vegetables such as spinach are examples of bioindicators which humans consume directly and which quickly absorb foliar deposition of radiocesium as well as the short-lived radioiodine-131 (1/2T = 8.04 d.). Milk and milk products, as food crop products of the forage-livestock pathway, are bioindicators which concentrate the rapid transfer of radioactive contamination following nuclear accidents and releases. The presence of iodine-131 in milk is a key indicator of the magnitude of a nuclear accident. (12.40.2) benthic invertebrates: Mussels (mytilus edulis, c. virginica, etc.) are another

group of sensitive bioindicators and are also used to evaluate the impact of other types of chemical fallout (see U.S. Mussel Watch sec. 6b). (12.40.3) fish: Less sensitive than benthic algae (sea vegetables) as bioindicators, fish are an

important indicator of the level of human consumption of radioactive contamination. Freshwater fish often show much higher levels of the bioaccumulation of radionuclides and other forms of chemical fallout than marine specimens. (12.40.4) grazers: reindeer, sheep, goats and livestock: Products from these participants in

the forage-livestock pathway - reindeer (meat), sheep (mutton), goats (cheese and milk), and cattle (milk and meat) - often exhibit rapid bioaccumulation of radioactive contamination. (12.41) BEMR: Baseline Environmental Management Report (Baseline Report):

Congressionally mandated report prepared by the Secretary of Energy to estimate the cost and schedule of cleaning up the nation's nuclear weapons complex. (12.42) CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act. A federal law enacted in 1980 that governs the cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive substances. The Act and its amendments created a trust fund, commonly known as Superfund, to finance the investigation and cleanup of abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous waste McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 330 of 953

sites. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-2). (12.43) CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY: a type of survey that includes facility or site

sampling, monitoring and analysis activities to determine the extent and nature of contamination. (MARSSIM, pg. GL-3). (12.44) CHELATION: the process by which both naturally occurring and artificial agents

can be used as sequestering agents, thereby making radionuclides and other chemicals in a particular media available for transfer to another environment. Artificial chelating agents such as EDTA have a wide variety of industrial uses, and are often used to remove radioactive contamination. Unfortunately, natural chelating agents and chelating processes make plutonium oxide from stratospheric fallout and nuclear accidents which is usually in a biologically unreactive state in soils and sediment much more biologically available for uptake in pathways to human consumption. Almost no information is available about the long-term mobilization of plutonium isotopes by naturally occurring chelating agents (See Hanson, 1980, Section 10). (12.45) CONCENTRATION RATIOS: the tendency for many radionuclides to uniformly

migrate in one proportion or another in various media in the biotic and abiotic environments. Sediment is the repository of radioactive fallout in abiotic media and thus the point of origination for many pathway analyses. Biological media either concentrate radionuclides as they pass through water to sediment or concentrate radionuclides after they have been remobilized from sediment by various biogeochemical processes (water = 1). (12.46) DAUGHTER PRODUCTS: a synonym for decay products, resulting from the

radioactive disintegration of a radionuclide. Daughter products can either be stable or radioactive. Many important radionuclides are components of other nuclides' decay series: e.g. niobium-95 is a decay product of zirconium-95; neptunium-237 is a decay product of americium-241; americium-241 is a decay product of plutonium 241. Plutonium-238, the third most common constituent in spent fuel, is a McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 331 of 953

decay product of neptunium 238. All curium nuclides decay to plutonium isotopes. Also called "growing in." An important daughter product of ubiquitous gaseous stack releases of nuclear reactors is 134Cs, a daughter product of 133Xe. (12.47) DECAY IN STORAGE (DIS): An idea whose time has not yet come: instead of

dumping virtually uncontained 137Cs (1/2 T = 30 yr) and other intermediate-level wastes into near surface landfills, these wastes would be stored onsite at their point of generation for periods of 50 to 300 years. Now widely accepted by the European community as the only viable waste storage option for intermediate wastes, DIS is only coming to the US as a result of failure of the US government to develop a viable waste disposal policy for high-level wastes. As ISFSIs are constructed for spent fuel, it's only a small step to expand these facilities to add intermediate-level waste storage including GTCC wastes. (12.48) DOSE RECONSTRUCTION: a study process in which historical information is

used to estimate the amounts of toxic materials released from a facility, how the materials could have moved offsite and the exposure of the public to those materials. Dose reconstruction involves past releases, not present or future releases. (Center for Disease Control (CDC), Savannah River Site (SRS) dose reconstruction, 1999). (12.49) EFFECTIVE ACTION LEVEL (FDA): Following the Chernobyl accident, the

Food and Drug Administration implemented an unofficial protection action guideline when it observed high levels of Chernobyl-derived radiocesium contaminating imported foods approximately one year after the accident. THe FDA seized and destroyed foods contaminated in excess of 10,000 pCi/kg (370 Bq/kg) thereby setting an EFFECTIVE ACTION LEVEL which was significantly more conservative (lower) than the protection action guidelines promulgated by various U.S. government agencies before and after the Chernobyl accident. See RAD 6 for a more complete description of the wide variety of protection action guidelines. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 332 of 953

(12.50)

EXPOSURE PATHWAY: the route that links radioactive contamination from a

specific source point to a receptor population in a specific ecosystem. (12.51) Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP): a federal program

initiated in 1974 to identify and remediate sites around the country that were contaminated during the 1940's and 1950's as a result of researching, developing, processing and producing uranium and thorium and storing processing residues. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-4). (12.52) FRENCH DRAINS: Chemical disposal wells utilized between 1945 and the late

1960's at most US weapons productions facilities involving fuel fabrication and spent fuel reprocessing. These wells were utilized for the quick and convenient disposal of highly toxic mixed waste streams which included large quantities of radioactive effluents mixed with volatile organic compounds (VOC's). For national security reasons no (known) recordkeeping was maintained of the volume or curic content of the mixed wastes disposed of by this method. The resulting plumes, many in either perched aquifers or in underlying aquifers, are frequently referenced in the DOE BEMR as well as in the extensive groundwater surveys of the USGS. (12.53) FUEL CLADDING FAILURE: The most probable kind of nuclear accident (as in

"probabilistic risk assessment") and one that characterizes the operations of most nuclear reactors. Cladding failure begins with pin hole leaks that release some of the gasses within the fuel rods (called gap release; 3H, noble gasses, gaseous 131I are the most common stack effluents.) The most common cause of fuel failure is (fuel assembly) grid-to-(fuel)rod fretting that results from (a) vibrations within the reactor containment (b) differences in pressure caused by use of different types of fuel and (c) deformations in or damage to fuel assembly grids that then result in fuel failure which allows the spread of spent fuel pellets throughout the reactor containment. As fuel ages and undergoes long periods of burnup, it becomes much more vulnerable to fuel failure. Fuel failure can also result from defects in the manufacture of fuel rods; in the early days of the nuclear industry, aluminum cladding McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 333 of 953

resulted in frequent fuel cladding failure in both DOE weapons production reactors and facilities such as the notorious Connecticut Yankee reactor at Haddam Neck. The cumulative effect of fuel cladding failure at CT Yankee constitutes the largest known accident since the Three Mile Island LORCA. The NRC has made every effort to cover-up the ubiquitous nature of fuel cladding failure by labeling all failure as "leakage" and then asserting that this is a normal part of reactor operations. A more truthful way of stating the matter is that fuel failure is the most probable form of nuclear accident and can range from a few failed rods with small openings to large numbers of failed rods including those which split open and spill their entire contents in the reactor containment. What happens to the spilled fuel pellets after their release from the failed fuel rods is one of the most important issues facing the nuclear industry as it decommissions its aging reactors. For more information on the relatively small fuel failure accident at MYAPC see RAD12-5E: Maine Yankee Decommissioning Debacle: Decommissioning Chronicle Continued (January 1999 onward). (12.54) HISTORICAL SITE ASSESSMENT (HSA): a detailed investigation to collect

existing information, primarily historical information, on a site and its surroundings. (MARSSIM, pg. GL-8). (12.55) HOT PARTICLES: air-borne particles of partly volatilized fuel from nuclear

accidents or from defective fuel cladding which can also be carried by liquid effluents. Hot particles from leaking reactor fuel are also known as "fuel fleas" because they become electrically charged as a result of radioactive decay and "hop" from one surface to another. Typical hot particles are ~10 m in size and can contain nuclides ranging from activation products to reactor derived fission products (e.g.
95Nb, 95Zr, 103,106Ru, 141,144Ce,

etc.) which were widely dispersed after the Chernobyl accident. (For a

bibliography of articles on Chernobyl derived hot particles, see RADNET Section 10.) CRUD is another type of hot particle. (12.56) INDICATOR NUCLIDES: The principle radioactive products of nuclear industries McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 334 of 953

or accidents. In the first few days of a nuclear accident, radioiodine-131 dominates the activity release profile. Other longer-lived radionuclides such as 106Ru, 137Cs, 239Pu dominate the later time compartments of the release pulse, producing exposure long after media coverage of a nuclear accident has faded and radioiodine-131 levels have subsided (See plume pulse pathways, RADNET Section 7). Cesium-137 is the most significant of the many nuclides which remain after the short-lived radionuclides have decayed. (12.57) "IRON FENCE": the most restricted alternative case for land use. It is

characterized by containing, rather than actively remediating, contaminated sites. This means that soil and buried waste sites would be capped, ground-water contamination would be controlled from spreading by hydraulic controls and barriers, and facilities would be entombed. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-5). (12.58) INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION (ISFSI): These

are onsite dry cask storage facilities built at nuclear reactors to hold spent fuel when the spent fuel pool gets too full...Another word for the term ISFSI could be monitored retrievable storage, the only probable future solution to storing intermediate and high-level wastes that is safe, economical, politically viable, practical and likely to provide jobs for the next 10,000 years to former employees of nuclear power reactors and their descendants. (12.59) LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATE: a term used by the Department of Energy to

designate the cost of complete remediation of weapons production facilities within the Environmental Management program. This term also applies to the decommissioning of nuclear power facilities. It may also be used in reference to the life cycle disposal costs of specific components in a contaminated site, e.g. spent fuel from a nuclear power plant, GTCC reactor vessel wastes, etc. (12.60) LORCA (LOSS OF REACTOR COOLANT ACCIDENT): LORCAs occur when

the cooling water in the reactor containment drops below the level of the fuel and the fuel overheats McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 335 of 953

and melts. A LORCA can result in a catastrophic accident if enough overheating occurs and the containment fails. Three Mile Island is the most well known example of a LORCA in the United States. The accident was discovered in enough time to halt the melting process. Most of the radioactivity released in this accident remains within the reactor containment. It appears that the NRC does not yet have an accurate understanding of how much radioactivity was released due to this accident. (12.61) NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY (NIMA): Established within

the Department of Defense on October 1, 1996 as a component of the US intelligence community, NIMA represents a consolidation of previously existing intelligence agencies into one centralized agency. NIMA incorporates the Defense Mapping Agency, the Central Imagery Office (CIO), and other agencies as well as the functions of the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center. Also incorporated in NIMA are the imagery processing elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance. All these agencies are of particular interest with respect to radiological monitoring because they incorporate sophisticated remote sensing technologies, including remote sensing of spectral data that document the plume pulse movement of nuclear accidents-in-progress. Up to October 1, 1996, much of the remote sensing data of interest to RADNET had been collected by the NRO and collated by the CIO (until recently the existence of both of these offices had been classified information). The remote sensing data which documents the plume pulse movement of nuclear accidents-in-progress (and the presence of any above ground source point) is still classified information. Most remote sensing data in the electromagnetic energy spectrum between ultraviolet and microwave regions is becoming available to the general public through electronic means; only spectral data pertaining to national security concerns (nuclear data) remains classified (+155 Mev). How long can the intelligence community keep their fingers in the dike? RADNET warning: any person disseminating classified information is subject to prosecution and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 336 of 953

maximum sentence of life imprisonment. For more information on remote sensing technologies, visit RAD 13: RADLINKS: Part II-D: 1. US Intelligence Community Links and 2. US Department of Energy Laboratory Servers. See especially Sandia National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Laboratory and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Visitors to these sites will quickly discover the obstacle of "access denied"; nonetheless, the remote sensing technologies pertaining to radiological surveillance are often referenced in these sites. (12.63) NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST: The EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or

abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the CERCLA. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-6). (12.64) NEUTRON SOURCE: The catalyst needed to begin a chain reaction at a nuclear

power plant. After a few months, the neutrons emitted by irradiated fuel continue the chain reaction. Neutron sources eventually are removed from the core and end up in the spent fuel pool and constitute one more component of "orphan" high-level waste (not spent fuel and not high-level waste either.) (12.65) NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX: the chain of foundries, uranium enrichment

plants, reactors, chemical separation plants, factories, laboratories, assembly plants and test sites that produced nuclear weapons. Sixteen major U.S. facilities in 12 states formed the nuclear weapons complex. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-6). (12.66) PEAK CONCENTRATION / MEAN CONCENTRATION: the peak

concentration is the highest reading in a series of samples; the mean concentration is the average of readings in a series of samples. (12.67) RADIOLYSIS: a process by which radioactivity breaks down and hence changes

chemical compounds. It is a principal cause of certain kinds of waste management problems, notably in relation to liquid radioactive wastes and wastes containing mixtures of radioactive materials and non-radioactive chemicals. Chemicals present in the waste break down over time due to the action of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 337 of 953

radiation unless they are in very stable forms. The breakdown products in turn create new chemical reactions with each other and with pre-existing chemicals. These processes make estimation of the chemical make-up of the waste very difficult. They also frequently result in the generation of hydrogen gas. (Science for Democratic Action, January 1999, pg. 21). (12.68) RADIOMETRIC SURVEY: a radiological survey of a contaminated site,

especially sediments, soil or other media containing sufficient data points to characterize the spread of contamination from a particular source point isometrically, i.e. via contour maps using isopleths which express the values of the data points. Aerial radiometric surveys have been utilized since the 1950's to characterize oil bearing geological formations; by the defense department for analyses of Russian and other weapons production facilities, and after the Chernobyl accident to characterize fallout in Russia, Sweden and England. (12.69) RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION STANDARDS: the amount and concentrations

of contaminants in soil, water and other media that will remain following environmental management activities. (BEMR, June 1996, pg. GL-8). (12.70) RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA): a federal law

enacted in 1976 to address the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. (12.71) RUBBLE-IZATION: The most recent NRC and nuclear industry technique for

decommissioning nuclear reactors, rubble-ization is the deconstruction and onsite burial of reactor constituents such as the dome and other concrete structures as well as slightly to moderately contaminated steel beams and other equipment. This option is now well within dose based regulatory requirements for decommissioning nuclear reactors, and is currently proposed for decommissioning Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company in Wiscasset, Maine, as well as other New England reactors. There are now no volumetric contamination guidelines that would prevent onsite burial of reactor components possibly even including highly radioactive reactor vessels and their contents provided McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 338 of 953

sufficient quantities of uncontaminated topsoil are utilized to block the shine from the contaminated burial site. Current NRC regulations now theoretically permit onsite burial of an intact reactor vessel at the Wiscasset radioactive waste site, in the back yard of Governor King in Brunswick, Maine, or dumping the reactor vessel overboard in the Gulf of Maine or Cape Cod Bay. (12.72) SAMPLE: (as used in MARSSIM) a part or selection from a medium located in a

survey unit or reference area that represents the quality or quantity of a given parameter or nature of the whole area or unit; a portion serving as a specimen. (MARSSIM, pg. GL-15). RADNET note: another controversial MARSSIM definition. (12.73) reactors. (12.74) The following subset of definitions are used by the NRC in Draft Regulatory Guide STEAM GENERATOR TUBES: These tubes are part of pressurized water

DG-1074 for inspecting the integrity of these tubes. (12.74.1) ACCIDENT LEAKAGE RATE: The primary-to-secondary leakage rate

occurring during postulated accidents other than a steam generator tube rupture. (12.74.2) ACTIVE DEGRADATION MECHANISMS: New indications associated with

defect types that have been identified during inservice inspection. (12.74.3) (12.74.4) (12.74.5) BUFFER ZONE: A zone extending radially from the critical region. BURST: Gross structural failure of the tube wall. CRITICAL REGION: A region of the tube bundle that can be demonstrated to

bound the region where a specific defect type is active. (12.74.6) DEFECTIVE TUBE: A tube that exhibits an indication exceeding the applicable

tube repair criteria. (12.74.7) DEGRADATION MECHANISM: The general defect morphology and its

associated causes, e.g., wear-induced thinning of the tube wall caused by adjacent support structures, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 339 of 953

high cycle fatigue cracking caused by flow-induced vibration of the tube, intergranular stress corrosion cracking caused by stress, material susceptibility, and environment. (12.74.8) RUPTURE: Perforation of the tube wall such that the primary-to-secondary leak

rate exceeds the normal charging pump capacity of the primary coolant system. (12.75) URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT OF 1978

(UMTRA): This act directed the Dept. of Energy to stabilize and control 24 designated inactive uranium processing sites and an estimated 5,048 vicinity properties. These sites were and are the source point of significant quantities of radioactive contamination in the form of windblown sand-like ore tailings. An associated environmental remediation program is the FUSRAP: Formerly Utilized Sites Remediation Action Program of 1974, the purpose of which was to remediate sites associated with research, development, processing, and production of uranium and thorium. All of these important source points of anthropogenic radioactivity, which result from the first stage of weapons production cycle, are listed in the DOE Baseline Environmental Management Report (BEMR), which is cited and annotated as well as frequently referred to in RAD 11: Anthropogenic Radioactivity: Major Plume Source Points. (12.76) WET/DRY: a reference to characterization of contamination within a sample of any

media during laboratory analysis, especially spectroanalysis. Specimens being analyzed are either wet weight (ww) or dry weight (dw), meaning the wet samples have been ashed to remove all water. This results in dry samples having much more contamination per unit weight than wet samples: a convenient conversion factor is 8; that is, a dry sample will generally have 8 times the contamination per kg than a wet sample. (12.77) (12.77.1) (12.77.2) Conversion factors and other useful information[:] See RADNET Section 5 for a checklist of biologically significant radionuclides. TABLE OF PREFIXES: McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 340 of 953

multiple 1018 1015 1012 109 106 103 102 10 (12.77.3) Multiply Ci MCi kCi kCi pCi dps dpm dpm dpm mCi km-2 mCi/km2 pCi/g pCi L-1 pCi/L fCi m-3 nCi/m2 gray (Gy) rem

prefix exo peta tera giga mega kilo hecto deka

symbol E P T G M k h da

fraction 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-6 10-9 10-12 10-15 10-18

prefix deci centi milli micro nano pico femto atto

symbol d c m n p f a

CONVERSION TABLE: By 3.7 x 1010 37.0 0.037 37.0 0.037 1 0.0167 16.667 0.4509 37.0 2.59 37.0 37.0 37.0 0.037 1 100 1000 To Obtain Bq PBq PBq TBq Bq Bq dps or Bq mBq pCi Bq m-2 mCi/mi2 Bq/kg mBq L-1 Bq/m3 mBq m-3 mCi/km2 rad mrem Multiply Bq PBq PBq TBq Bq Bq dps or Bq mBq pCi Bq/m2 Bq m-2 mCi/mi2 Bq/kg mBq L-1 Bq/m3 Bq/m3 mBq m-3 mCi/km2 rad By 2.7 x 10-11 0.027 27.027 0.027 27 1 60.0 0.060 2.22 0.60 0.027 0.386 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.001 27.027 1 0.01 To Obtain Ci MCi kCi kCi pCi dps dpm dpm dpm dpm/100 cm2 mCi km-2 mCi/km2 pCi/g pCi L-1 pCi/L Bq/L fCi m-3 nCi/m2 gray (Gy)

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 341 of 953

rem rem Sv Sv mrem mrem/yr acre acre acre km meter (m) meter (m) meter (m) m2 m2 m2 km2 kg liter (L) liter (L) liter (L) liter (L)

10 0.01 1000 100,000 0.01 0.01 0.40468564 4046.8564 43560 0.621 39.370079 3.28 0.0001 10.76391 3.861 x 10-7 0.386 2.205 1000 0.001 33.814023 1.057

mSv Sv mSv mrem mSv mSv/y hectare m2 ft2 mile (mi) inch ft hectare ft2 sq. mile (mi2) sq. mile inch lb cm3 m3 ounce (fluid) m3 ounce (fluid) 1000 0.039572702 liter (L) liter (L) liter (L) sq. mile inch lb 2.59 2.54 0.4536 km2 cm kg ft 0.305 m mile (mi) 1.61 km mSv mSv/y hectare m2 100 100 2.4710538 mrem mrem/yr acre Sv 100 rem

0.00024710538 acre

0.000621371 mile

centimeter (cm) 0.39370079

quart (liquid-US) quart (liquid-US) 0.946

This link to a page at Queen's University at Kingston also gives some radiation measurement units conversion factors. (12.77.4) Radionuclide Fish
54Mn 58Co

Radionuclide Concentration Factors for Marine and Freshwater Media(1) Marine concentration factor (m3 t-1) Crustacea 10000 1000 Molluscs 10000 1000 Sediments 10000 1000 500 100 Freshwater concentration factor (m3 t-1) Seaweed 10000 1000 Sediments 10000 30000 Fish 300 300

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 342 of 953

60Co 65Zn 89Sr 90Sr 106Ru 110mAg 125Sb 131I 134Cs 137Cs 144Ce

100 1 1 1 500 10 50 50 10

1000 10 10 500 300 100 30 30 1000

1000 100000 10 10 2000 50000 100 100 30 30 1000

1000 1000 10 10 2000 1000 100 1000 30 30 1000

1000 1000 10 10 2000 1000 100 1000 30 30 1000

30000 1000 2000 2000 40000 200 300 200 30000 30000 30000

300 1000 30 30 10 3 1000 30 1000 1000 1000

2000 5000

1000 5000

(1)This table is adapted from UNSCEAR (1982), Annex F, Table 37, pg. 312.
(12.77.5) Material Sediment Plankton Benthic algae and macrophytes Benthic invertebrates Fish Bottom feeders Plankton feeders Piscivorous (fish eaters) 250 25 5 2,500 250 50 Marine Concentration Ratios for the Transuranics(2) Plutonium 100,000 5,000 5,000 1,000 Americium, curium and neptunium 100,000 50,000 50,000 10,000

(2) Taken from Hanson, W.C. ed. (1980). Transuranic Elements in the Environment. pg. 620
(12.78) ABSORBED DOSE: the energy imparted by ionizing radiation per unit mass of

irradiated material. the units of absorbed dose are called the gray (Gy). (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 305). (12.79) ACTION LEVEL: a derived media-specific radionuclide-specific concentration or

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 343 of 953

activity level of radioactivity that triggers a response such as seizure of contaminated foodstuffs following a nuclear accident (see FDA DIL). In the MARSSIM, the action level is called the investigation level and would trigger the response of further investigation or site cleanup if the release criterion is exceeded. (12.80) ANNUAL LIMIT ON INTAKE (ALI): the derived limit for the amount of

radioactive material taken into the body of an adult worker by inhalation or ingestion in a year. For a given radionuclide, ALI is defined as the smaller of the intakes that would result in a committed effective dose equivalent of 5 rems and a committed dose equivalent of 50 rems to any individual organ or tissue. (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 306). (12.81) AS LOW AS REASONABLY ACHIEVABLE (ALARA): thereduction of exposure

to ionizing radiation so as to reduce collective doses as far below regulatory limits as is reasonably possible. (12.82) (12.82.1) BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT RADIONUCLIDES: [R]adioactive substances such as plutonium, cesium, strontium, radioiodine, and

tritium, etc. which provide the most significant health hazards to humans among all nuclides released from anthropogenic sources. Biological significance is a result of a combination of high decay energy, biogeochemical availability, efficient energy transfer to biological systems, and ubiquitous production during nuclear accidents and from industries. In this Website, biologically significant radionuclides are noted as indicator nuclides and are used to characterize inventories and pathways of nuclear effluents in the biosphere. (12.82.2) The biological significance of radiation results from the enormous amount of

energy contained in each emission. Visible light has an energy range of 1.77 to 4.13 electron volts (ev). Most chemical changes occur within a range of 5 to 7 electron volts (ev). Biologically significant radiation levels range from 18,610 ev (0.01861 Mev) for the weak beta emitting tritium (1/2T = 12.346 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 344 of 953

yr.) to 511,630 ev (0.51163 Mev) for the ubiquitous cesium-137 (1/2T = 30.174 yr.) to 5,155,400 ev (5.1554 Mev) for the highly radiotoxic plutonium-239 (1/2T = 24,131 yr). These highly energetic emissions carry enough energy to tear electrons from neutral atoms and molecules. In delicate biological tissues, the impact of introducing radiation containing hundreds of thousands to millions of electron volts "can only be described as chemical and biological mayhem" (Gofman, 1981, p. 22). For example, the alpha radiation resulting from the decay of plutonium-239 has little penetrating power due to its large mass, but, if inhaled and deposited in the lung, is among the most radiotoxic of nuclides since its 5,155,000 ev (5.155 Mev) will be distributed within the area of only a few cells. (12.82.3) The weaker beta radiation of tritium (3H) is slightly more penetrating than alpha

radiation; its biological significance comes from its ubiquitous production during the fission process, its tendency to follow the water cycle in nature, and its ability to become tissue bound in humans and the biotic environment. Cesium-137, a beta emitter with a gamma component, is biologically significant due to its energy level, its long half-life, its ubiquitous production during the fission process, and its tendency to follow the potassium cycle in nature, giving a whole body dose to those who ingest it. (12.83) COMMITTED EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENT (CEDE): the effective dose

equivalent is the summation of the products of the dose equivalent received by specified tissues of the body and a tissue-specific weighting factor (HE50 = summation(WTHT50)). It is a risk-equivalent value, expressed in Sv or rem, that can be used to estimate the health-effects on an exposed individual. It is used in radiation safety because it implicitly includes the relative carcinogenic sensitivity of the various tissues. (MARSSIM, pg. GL-3). (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 307). (12.84) COMMITTED DOSE EQUIVALENT (HT50): the dose equivalent to organs or tissues of reference (T) that will be received from an intake of radioactive material by an individual during the 50-year period following the intake. (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 307). (12.85) CONTAMINATION: the presence of residual radioactivity in excess of levels McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 345 of 953

which are acceptable for release of a site or facility for unrestricted use. (MARSSIM, pg. GL-4). RADNET note: this is a particularly controversial definition of contamination in that it is predicated upon arbitrary release criteria which in effect allow significant levels of contamination to remain in a remediated or decommissioned site. (12.86) CRITICAL GROUP: the group of individuals reasonably expected to receive the

greatest exposure to residual radioactivity for any applicable set of circumstances. (MARSSIM, pg. GL-4). (12.87) DATA QUALITY INDICATORS: measurable attributes of the attainment of the

necessary quality for a particular decision. Data quality indicators include precision, bias, completeness, representativeness, reproducibility, comparability, and statistical confidence. (MARSSIM, pg. GL-5). (12.88) DERIVED AIR CONCENTRATION (DAC): the concentration of a given

radionuclide in the air which, if breathed by the reference man for one working year (2,000 hours) under conditions of light work, results in an intake of one ALI. (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 308). (12.89) DERIVED CONCENTRATION GUIDELINE LEVEL (DCGL): A derived,

radionuclide-specific activity concentration within a survey unit corresponding to the release criterion. The DCGL is based on the spatial distribution of the contaminant and hence is derived differently for the nonparametric statistical test (DCGLw) and the Elevated Measurement Comparison (DCGLEMC). DCGL's are derived from activity/dose relationships through various exposure pathway scenarios. (MARSSIM, pg. GL-5). (12.90) DERIVED CONCENTRATION GUIDES (DCGs): the concentration that would

result in a radiation dose equal to the DOE public dose limit of 100 millirems per year. "The DCGs consider only the inhalation of air, the ingestion of water, or submersion in air." The DOE DCGs raise McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 346 of 953

the question that, if individuals receive a dose equal to the DCG for a particular nuclide, wouldn't they also be receiving substantial exposure for the other nuclides listed in the guide? The DCGs have nothing to do with ground deposition or dietary intake of radionuclides which provide an additional source of exposure following a nuclear accident. See RAD 6: Radiation Protection Guidelines. (12.91) DERIVED INTERVENTION LEVEL (DIL): A protection action guideline issued

in draft form only by the Food and Drug Administration pertaining to contamination of human foodstuffs and based upon a committed effective dose equivalent of 5 mSv, or a committed dose equivalent to individual tissues and organs of 50 mSv, whichever is more limiting. The FDA DLL's are listed in RADNET Section 6: Radiation Protection Guidelines: Accidental Radioactive Contamination of Human Food and Animal Feeds: Recommendations for State and Local Agencies. Typical intervention levels expressed in Becquerels / kilogram (1 Bq = 1 disintegration per second = 27 picocuries) of contaminated foodstuffs are 131I: 167 Bq/kg (1 year old child), 137Cs: 1360 Bq/kg (adult), 239Pu: 2.2 Bq/kg (3 month old infant), 241Am: 2.0 Bq/kg (3 month old infant) The new FDA guideline is especially noteworthy in extending the DIL's to include a variety of radioisotopes not considered to be of much importance until after the Chernobyl accident (see table E6) e.g. 129I: 56 Bq/kg (10 year old child). (12.92) DOSE ASSESSMENT: an estimate of the radiation dose to an individual or a

population group usually by means of predictive modeling techniques, often supplemented by the results of measurement. (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 309). (12.93) DOSE COMMITMENT: the dose that an organ or tissue would receive during a

specified period of time (e.g., 50 or 70 years) as a result of intake (as by ingestion or inhalation) of one or more radionuclides from a given release. (MARSSIM, pg. GL-4). (12.94) DOSE CONVERSION FACTOR: a factor (Sv/Bq or rem/Ci) that is multiplied by

the intake quantity of a radionuclide (Bq or Ci) to estimate the committed dose equivalent from McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 347 of 953

radiation (Sv or rem). The dose conversion factor depends on the route of entry (inhalation or ingestion), the lung clearance class (D, W or Y) for inhalation, the fractional uptake from the small intestine to blood (f1) for ingestion, and the organ of interest. EPA provides separate dose conversion factor tables for inhalation and ingestion, and each provides factors for the gonads, breast, lung, red marrow, bone surface, thyroid, remainder, and effective whole body. (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 309). (12.95) DOSE EQUIVALENT (DE): a quantity used in radiation protection. It expresses all

radiation on a common scale for calculating the dose for purposes of radiation safety. It is defined as the product of the absorbed dose in rads and certain modifying factors. (The unit of dose equivalent is the rem. In SI units, the dose equivalent is the sievert, which equals 100 rem). (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 309). (12.96) EXPOSURE RATE: the amount of ionization produced per unit time in air by X-rays

or gamma rays. The unit of exposure rate is roentgens/hour (R/h); for decommissioning activities the typical units are microroentgens per hour (R/h), i.e. 10-6R/h. (MARSSIM, pg. GL-7). (12.97) GRAY (Gy): the SI unit of the absorbed dose. One Gy equals the absorption of

1 joule of energy (about 1/4 of a calorie) per kilogram of absorber. One gray equals 100 rad. (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 311). (12.98) High-LET: the characteristic ionization patterns by alpha particles, protons or fast

neutrons having a high relative specific ionization per unit path length. (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 311). (12.99) LINEAR ENERGY TRANSFER (LET): Another key concept in determining

biological effectiveness and significance, LET expresses the combination of charge and speed in effecting the efficiency of ionizing radiation. LET describes "the amount of energy transferred per unit of path traveled by the ionizing particle (electron, alpha particle or other)" (Gofman, 1981, p. 28). McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 348 of 953

Alpha particles have twice the charge of a beta particle and, therefore, four times the efficiency of ionizing radiation per collision. Alpha radiation is much slower than beta or gamma radiation; therefore, it is much more efficient than the faster radiation, causing more ionizations per millimeter of distance traveled (See Gofman, p. 26-28). The efficient LET of alpha isotopes such as 239Pu combine with their high decay energies to form the basis of their biological effectiveness. High radiotoxicity and great biological significance accompany these long-lived anthropogenic radionuclides in the environment. (12.100) MULTI-AGENCY RADIATION SURVEY AND SITE INVESTIGATION

MANUAL (MARSSIM): a controversial publication issued by the EPA, NRC and DOE which delineates the release criterion pertaining to the annual radiation dose that maximally exposed members of the public can receive, as a condition for decommissioning or remediating nuclear power plants or other NRC or DOE facilities. The MARSSIM is of particular importance now that the NRC has set 25 mrem/yr TEDE as the release criteria for decommissioning nuclear power plants under its jurisdiction. (12.101) NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIOACTIVITY (NOR): RADNET does not

cite or annotate most research articles on NOR. Check Section 13: RADLINKS for NORM and the Uranium Institute. Their Websites will bring you to comprehensive information sources on this important source of exposure to ionizing radiation. (12.102) QUALITY FACTOR (Q): The linear-energy-transfer-dependent factor by which

absorbed doses are multiplied to obtain (for radiation protection purposes) a quantity that expresses the biological effectiveness of the absorbed dose on a common scale for all ionizing radiation. (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 315). (12.103) RADON: RADNET does not cite or annotate most research articles on radon. Check

Section 13: RADLINKS for the EPA's National Radon Proficiency Program, University of Maine's Physics Department,NORM, OncoLink, the Environmental Measurements Laboratory and the Uranium McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 349 of 953

Institute. Their Websites will bring you to comprehensive information sources on this important source of exposure to ionizing radiation. (12.104) RELATIVE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS (RBE): A key component of the

biological significance of radiation, RBE expresses the phenomenon that one kind of radiation is more effective (damaging) than another. Gofman (1981, p. 47) notes, "the RBE for alpha particles may be 10 for one biological effect, whereas it may be 1 or 2 for some other biological effect... the RBE for one radiation compared to another is not a fixed quantity." (12.105) RADIATION EQUIVALENT MAN (rem): the conventional unit of dose

equivalent. The corresponding International System (SI) unit is the Sievert (Sv); 1 Sv = 100 rem. SIEVERT (Sv): the special name for the International System unit of dose equivalent. 1 Sv = 100 rem = 1 Joule per kilogram. (12.106) SOMATIC EFFECTS: effects of radiation limited to the exposed individual, as

distinguished from genetic effects, which may be expressed as Ci/gram, Bq/m3, etc. (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 317). (12.107) SOURCE TERM RELEASE: radioactive waste inventories discharged from a

particular nuclear accident orsource point, e.g. Chernobyl, Sellafield, weapons tests, etc. Each plume is characterized by a unique fingerprint of radioactive emissions which can be identified by a particular series of isotopic ratios. Weapons testing fallout was high in radiostrontium, low in cesium134, and, thus, differed from the Chernobyl source term which had much less radiostrontium and a higher ratio of cesium-134 to cesium-137 than weapons test fallout. Eisenbud (1987) and most early reports on the Chernobyl accident, in a classic example of misinformation, based the source term for Chernobyl upon Russian data which only included inventories of radionuclides deposited on Russian soil. Further research indicated that the source term release for Chernobyl included larger quantities of radioactive emissions than initially estimated and much higher levels of contamination than expected in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 350 of 953

locations which were a great distance from Chernobyl. An important study of the pre-Chernobyl sources of radioactivity, including naturally occurring, industrial, atomic power, weapons testing, and fuel reprocessing sources is the UNSCEAR Text (1982) (See RADNET Section 14); important U.S. and Russian military source points are excluded. A more detailed summary of the impact of the Chernobyl accident is contained in Section 10 of this website. (12.108) SOURCE TERM RELEASE DURATION: the source term release duration can

vary from a few seconds for a weapons test explosion to hundreds of years or more for chronic discharges from source points such as military weapons production facilities. For example, the January, 1968, crash of a United States bomber carrying nuclear weapons, into the ocean near Thule, Greenland, released an estimated inventory of 1 TBq 239,240Pu as well as smaller quantities of 238Pu and 241Am (Aarkrog, 1994: see RAD: 11 Part 12). The duration of this source term release was a matter of a few minutes; the duration of the plume movement is a function of the long radioactive half-lives of the isotopes in the source term release. The geographic magnitude of the plume pulse is a function of the chemical forms of the released isotopes and the biogeochemical cycles which may aid their spread in the biosphere: in the case of the Thule accident, the plutonium will tend to remain localized on the ocean sea bed unless it undergoes a change in chemical form from plutonium oxide to a form of plutonium more susceptible to bioaccumulation and transport by natural processes. The source term release duration from Chernobyl was measured in weeks; the biogeochemical cycling of the longest lived radionuclides within the source term pulse will be measured in millennia. These nuclear accidents have an obvious presence which contrasts with the much longer release duration of the source terms of less obvious accidents such as are now occurring at the Rocky Flats Technology site or the Hanford or Savannah River Reservations. We do not yet know when the slow chronic release of plutonium from the Rocky Flats weapons production facility, especially the existing buildings with their contaminated duct work, piping etc., will terminate. The effectiveness of the proposed environmental remediation of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 351 of 953

this site and its contaminated buildings and soil will determine the source term release duration of this accident which could continue for decades or centuries. The same paradox applies to any nuclear facility which is a source point of uncontained anthropogenic radioactivity; the source term release duration will continue for as long as anthropogenic radioactivity is released from that particular location. This raises a question for an accident such as Chernobyl: while the principal source term release occurred over a period of a few weeks, what is the duration of the secondary, chronic leakage of radioactivity from this unsecured source point? (See the source term citations at the end of this section.) (12.109) STOCHASTIC EFFECTS: health effects that occur randomly and for which the

probability of the effect occurring, rather than its severity, is assumed to be a linear function of dose without threshold (e.g. hereditary effects, cancer, etc.) (10 CFR 20.1003). (12.110) (TE)-NORM: "Technologically-Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive

Material, which are large-volume, low-activity waste streams produced by industries such as mineral mining, ore benefication, production of phosphate fertilizers, water treatment and purification, and oil and gas production. The majority of radionuclides in TENORM are found in the uranium and thorium decay chains. Radium and its subsequent decay products (radon) are the principal radionuclides used in characterizing the redistribution of TENORM in the environment by human activity. ... TENORM is found in many waste streams; for example, scrap metal, sludges, slags, fluids, and is being discovered in industries traditionally not thought of as affected by radionuclide contamination. Not only the forms and volumes, but the levels of radioactivity in TENORM vary." (http://www.normis.com/nrm101.htm) (12.111) TOTAL EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENT (TEDE): the sum of the deep dose

equivalent (from external exposures) and the committed effective dose equivalent (from internal exposures). (Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation, pg. 318). (12.112) Cesium-137 is the nuclide of choice used in this Website to characterize changing

patterns of the dietary intake of artificial radionuclides*. Other biologically significant radionuclides McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 352 of 953

and their sources of production include the following: *Prior to the first nuclear explosion at Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16, 1945, the dietary intake of radiocesium was zero. Naturally Occurring Radionuclides: Isotope Name Radium-226 Radon-222 Polonium-210 Half-life 1599.0 y 3.82351 d 138.3763 d Principle Decay Maximum Energy Product of: Mode alpha alpha alpha 4.78450 Mev 5.48966 Mev 5.30451 Mev Natural Source 238U decay scheme Same daughter 210Bi in radium decay scheme
6Li 14N 84Kr

Artificially Produced Radionuclides which also exist Naturally*: Tritium Carbon-14 Krypton-85 Strontium-89 Strontium-90 Iodine-129 Iodine-131 Cesium-134 Cesium-137 12.346 y 5730 y 10.701 y 50.55 d 28.82 y 157 x 107 y 8.040 d 2.062 y 30.174 y beta beta beta beta beta beta beta beta beta alpha alpha 0.018610 Mev 0.155 Mev 0.672 Mev 1.488 Mev 0.546 Mev 0.150 Mev 0.6065 Mev 1.454 Mev 0.51163 Mev 4.2 Mev 5.49921 Mev 5.1554 Mev 5.17 Mev 5.48574 Mev 6.1129 Mev 5.80496 Mev

Artificial Radionuclides Produced by the Fission Process:


88Sr

fission fission fission


133Cs

fission
241Am 238Np 235mU

Transuranic Nuclides Produced by the Fission Process: Neptunium-237 2.14 x 106 y Plutonium-238 Plutonium-239 Plutonium-241 87.71 y

2.4131 X 104 y alpha 14.355 y alpha alpha alpha alpha

Multiple n-capture from 238U, 239Pu


241Pu

Americium-241 432.0 y Curium-242 Curium-244 162.76 d 18.099 y

same as 241Pu same as 241Pu

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 353 of 953

Other Important Fission Products Include: Molybdemum99 Technetium-99 67 hr 2.12 x 105 y beta beta beta beta gamma beta beta beta beta 1.23 Mev 0.292 Mev 0.70 Mev 0.039 Mev 0.74 Mev 0.22 Mev 1.02 Mev 0.31 Mev 0.70 Mev

Ruthenium-103 39.8 d Ruthenium-106 1 y Silver-110m Tellurium-132 Barium-140 Cerium-144 Europium-154 252 d 78 hr. 12.8 d 290 d 8.2 y

Important Activation Products Include: Nickel-63 Nickel-59 Cobalt-58 Cobalt-60 Iron-55 Manganese-54 Niobium-95 Zirconium-95 100 y 76,000 y 0.194 y 5.2719 y 2.68 y 0.855 y 35 d 0.175 y beta e.c. and gamma beta e.c. gamma beta gamma 0.835 Mev 0.160 Mev 0.396 Mev 0.067 Mev 0.474 Mev 0.31788 Mev electron capture 1.06 Mev

Note: Most beta emitters have gamma emissions as a secondary mode of decay and vice versa (Exceptions: tritium, strontium-90, ruthinium-106). PLUME PULSE PATHWAYS (12.113) The first atomic explosion at Alamogordo, New Mexico at 5:29 A.M., July 16, 1945,

ushered in an era of the systemic release of biologically significant radionuclides from anthropogenic sources. Those who created these devices of destruction never imagined the silent efficiency or the hemispheric thoroughness of the biogeochemical cycling which now make these effluents available to all the inhabitants of the biosphere. (12.114) A proliferation of anthropogenic sources of nuclear contamination, including the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 354 of 953

development of nuclear weapons, followed this first test explosion in 1945. The most obvious sources of contamination were the many nuclear weapons tests (1945-1980), but equally significant release sources were the weapons production facilities and fuel reprocessing sites which evolved with the development of military nuclear capabilities (See RAD 11 for a summary of major nuclear waste source points). The creation of atomic power stations was the inexorable result of the exploitation of the fission process for military purposes and constitutes an unfortunate footnote to the Cold War. These nuclear generating facilities provide an additional opportunity for the release of low levels of radioactivity to the environment; whether there will be another accident at a nuclear power station as severe as the one that occurred at Chernobyl remains to be seen. (12.115) The nuclear effluents released from these anthropogenic source points follow

pathways, and create a baseline of nuclear contamination which can and must be documented to allow evaluation of the environmental impact of nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl as well as the future impact of releases from thousands of other potential source points of radioactive contamination. (12.116) PATHWAY MODELS: Nuclear weapons testing (1945-1978) resulted in local,

tropospheric and stratospheric fallout patterns. Initially the low-yield "fat man" atomic weapons had only a modest input on stratospheric transport routes, but after the development of more powerful thermonuclear weapons in the mid-1950's (hydrogen bombs), stratospheric fallout became the principle mode of hemispheric transport of weapons tests fallout. Weapons testing stratospheric fallout occurred not only in a primary pulse in conjunction with a tropospheric component, but also as longterm fallout which continued in decreasing intensity over a period of decades, as documented by the Riso National Laboratories (Denmark) summary of cumulative fallout data in the next section of RADNET (RAD 8: Baseline Data). (12.117) In contrast to weapons testing pathways, Chernobyl contamination occurred

primarily as a tropospheric injection of smoke and radionuclides which produced much higher than McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 355 of 953

expected contamination in distant locations, as well as less than expected close-in fallout at the reactor accident site. The Chernobyl accident, which was hemispheric in its impact, serves as a model for the tropospheric dispersion of any major nuclear accident plume, given the caveat that weather conditions and reactor design help dissipate the local impact of the fallout pattern. Weapons testing fallout, Sellafield fuel reprocessing facility effluents, and later, the Chernobyl plume illustrate a fundamental reality about the biogeochemical pathways of effluents from a nuclear accident: radioactive contamination occurs not as one incident but as a series of pulses in time and space, impacting pathways to human consumption primary pulse: direct deposition of anthropogenic nuclear effluents in the form of rapidly moving air-borne pulses of radioiodine and vaporized radionuclides (e.g. radiocesium) resulting from major nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl, with total global tropospheric transport times of as little as two weeks. Fallout from such events is associated with and maximized by rainfall (or snowfall) events which allow rapid transfer to human diet of radionuclides deposited directly in forage pathways (e.g. foliar deposition). Such transfer can occur within several days of the plume passage. Immersion, absorption and inhalation are other exposure pathways. See the EPA summary of pathway exposure in the previous section of RADNET, RAD 6. (12.118) [S]econdary pulse: the slower movement of radioactive contamination in the abiotic

environment including delayed particulate fallout, the mobilization and uptake of existing fallout, and its bioaccumulation in pathways to human consumption. Passage and uptake of the secondary (indirect) pulse of contamination from abiotic media to biological media can vary in time from weeks to years. (12.119) [T]ertiary pulse: the delayed redistribution of wind-blown deposition, the

remobilization of existing fallout, the transport of surface contamination by human activities (vehicles, foot traffic, train, marine, and air transport, on clothing, and in manufacturing processes, etc.), and the incorporation of multiple modes of pathway contamination into processed foods and consumer products which may be transferred to areas unaffected by the primary and secondary pulses of an McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 356 of 953

accident plume (For an example of a tertiary pulse, see the Peak Pulse Analysis of Chernobyl Derived Radiocesium in Imported Foods in Section 9: Dietary Intake). Redistribution of wind-blown plutonium and other long-lived radionuclides from Chernobyl and military source points will continue for millenniums (239Pu 1/2T = 24,131 years). (12.120) Liquid releases from facilities such as Sellafield follow plume pathways involving a

slower dispersion of the primary pulse with less obvious secondary and tertiary pulses of delayed contamination of pathways to human consumption. (12.121) Post-Chernobyl World Health Organization (WHO) Pathways Summary: Following

the Chernobyl accident, WHO issued this outline of pathways exposure: External: Ground shine Cloud shine Deposition on skin and clothing Internal: Ingestion Inhalation Absorption from skin

(12.122)

Cloud Shine-Ground Shine [are other] angle[s] from which to consider pathway

exposure, cloud shine and ground shine are airborne and deposited radioactivity characterizing a nuclear accident. They provide pathways to external exposure (skin irradiation and absorption). Cloud shine and ground shine assure the presence of internal exposure pathways (inhalation, ingestion). These rapidly moving pathway pulses, which have complex radionuclide composites, are a formidable challenge to accurate biological monitoring, the prerequisite of credible dose assessment. (12.123) Plume Pathway Model

Pathways of Nuclear Effluents to Humans Marine water sediments Terrestrial / Aquatic water sediments drinking water Atmospheric gaseous inhalation air particulate Terrestrial Crops soil crops Terrestrial Grazers soil forage crops and

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 357 of 953

inhalation phytoplankton benthic algae benthic invertebrates fish: bottom feeders fish: plankton feeders fish: piscivorous people (12.124) people people people people emergent vegetation phytoplankton invertebrates small fish large fish air external fallout exposure

natural food livestock, deer and small game

people

Nuclear effluents are deposited in the abiotic environment (air, water, sediment or

soil) and are soon transferred to biological media and follow one or more of the above pathways to human consumption. Radioactive contamination doesn't respect national or political boundaries; just because contamination is not reported by the media of a given country does not mean it is unable to cross national boundaries invisibly and impact widely separated and often isolated population groups. (12.125) Accident Plume Pathway Timetable[:] Nuclear effluents move not only in space

but also in time. The rapid tropospheric transfer of radionuclides as volatile gaseous and aerosol forms occurs much more quickly than the slower dispersion of stratospheric fallout. Resuspension and remobilization of long-lived radionuclides occur long after the shorter lived radionuclides have decayed, and their movement through the biosphere can continue for thousands of years. In the first few days of a nuclear accident, the presence of 131I and other short-lived nuclides overshadows the presence of all other radionuclides. As these nuclides decay, longer-lived isotopes such as 137Cs emerge as the principle source of exposure. The surprising lesson of the Chernobyl accident is that in between the overwhelming domination of the radioiodine isotopes and in conjunction with the dispersion of radiocesium (137Cs: 1/2T = 30.14 years), numerous other biologically significant radionuclides such as

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 358 of 953

ruthenium and tellurium also characterize an accident plume pathway as it silently moves across national boundaries. The list of indicator nuclides in the Plume Pathway Timetable, though incomplete, helps denote the complexity and duration of nuclear accidents which then can subject large population groups to low but biologically significant exposure to long-lived radionuclides for generations. The indicator nuclides listed in column one are present from the beginning of a release and provide exposure even while masked by the more intense activity levels of the shorter-lived nuclides. Long term exposure is a function of radioactive and biological half-life as well as biological and mercantile availability. In the secondary and tertiary stages of a plume pulse, exposure is primarily from inhalation and ingestion of long-lived radionuclides. The total nuclide inventory of any source term release in a major nuclear accident will vary widely depending on the type of facility at which the accident occurs. The total nuclide inventory listed below is within the same order of magnitude as the Chernobyl source term. Time 1 hour 1 day 1 week 1 month short-lived
131I, 132Te, 99Mo, 239Nep 103Ru, 140Ba, 95Zr 89Sr, 134Cs, 110mAg, 106Ru 154Eu, 154Ce, 90Sr, 137Cs, 241Pu 238,241Pu 241Am 239Pu 99Te, 237Nep

Indicator nuclides

Total nuclide inventory

Exposure mode <50 miles <1000 miles 2,000-5,000 miles hemispheric

Pathway distance

+/- 1x108 Ci Inhalation, immersion absorption Ingestion secondary pulse tertiary pulse: remobilized long-lived radionuclides

1 year 10 years 100 years 1000 years 10,000 years

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 359 of 953

100,000 years

129I

ANTHROPOGENIC RADIOACTIVITY: BASELINE DATA (12.126) Weapons testing radioactive contamination was spread world-wide not only in

tropospheric fallout (often associated with rainfall events but with extensive, close-in, dry deposition) but also in stratospheric fallout. The patterns of stratospheric fallout which provide a baseline of contamination against which to compare the impact of the Chernobyl accident resulted in a fairly even distribution of contamination over most of the earth's surface. Peak concentrations of stratospheric fallout were achieved between 1962 and 1964. The 1963 joint U.S.-Russian-British test ban treaty effectively ended atmospheric weapons testing, at which time fallout rates began declining, with occasional interruptions from Chinese weapons tests, until the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Prior to the Chernobyl accident, world-wide fallout levels had reached the lowest level of yearly accumulation since 1950. Other important source points of anthropogenic radioactive contamination include fuel reprocessing facilities such as Sellafield, the Savannah River Reservation, accidents such as the SNAP satellite failure in 1958, and the many other U.S. and Russian military weapons production sites, such as the Hanford Reservation in Washington. These sites are not only sources of significant releases in the past but they also pose a risk of substantial releases to the environment for centuries to come... (12.127) Summary of Atmospheric Nuclear Explosions (137Cs)[:] The following table gives a

quantitative description of the number and yield of nuclear explosions occurring before the Chernobyl accident. The baseline data which follow the list of weapons test explosions document the impact of these tests prior to the Chernobyl accident in 1986. The Chernobyl disaster marks the beginning of a second era in the anthropogenic contamination of the biosphere with nuclear effluents (See RAD 10); hopefully, Chernobyl was an isolated incident rather than the first in a series of serious nuclear accidents. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 360 of 953

Table 5: Number and yield of atmospheric nuclear explosions (1)


Year 1945-1951 1952-1954 1955-1956 1957-1958 1959-1960 1961-1962 1963 1964-1969 1970-1974 1975 1976-1980 1981-1990 1945-1990 Number 26 21 44 128 3 128 0 22 34 0 7 0 423 Estimated yield (Mt) Fission 0.8 37 14 40 0.1 102 0 10.6 10.0 0 2.9 No further tests 217.4 545.4 Total 0.8 60 31 81 0.1 340 0 15.5 12.2 0 4.8

(1)Aarkrog, A. (1991). Source terms and inventories of anthropogenic radionuclides. Roskilde


Denmark: Riso National Laboratory. ANTHROPOGENIC RADIONUCLIDES: DIETARY INTAKE (12.128) RAD 9 of this website reviews the impact of weapons tests fallout on the dietary

intake of artificial radionuclides of residents of the United States and Denmark for the purpose of providing an additional baseline for interpreting the impact of the Chernobyl accident. As a result of the many nuclear weapons detonations which began in 1950 and reached their peak in 1962 and which included large thermonuclear hydrogen bomb tests, world wide contamination from stratospheric fallout became an object of widespread concern and resulted in a variety of studies of the dietary intake of key fallout nuclides such as strontium 90 and cesium 137. This section summarizes a number of dietary intake studies, including Radiological Health and Data Reports, which became the U.S. Radiation Data Reports in the early 1970's. The second part of this section cites some of the extensive McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 361 of 953

research done by the Riso National Laboratory in Denmark, followed by selected data pertaining to body burdens (radiocesium, etc.), and, finally, the infamous USFDA survey of imported foods that documented a strong pulse of Chernobyl derived radiocesium, and was withheld from public circulation. The 1994 summary of radionuclides in domestic and imported foods, 1987-1992, annotated below (see Cunningham, 1994) contained the first announcement that 40% of targeted imported food samples were contaminated with Chernobyl derived radiocesium. (12.129) The public health service initiated its institutional diet sampling program in 1961.

The Atomic Energy Commission had already issued summaries of environmental radioactivity data for twenty two AEC installations in Radiological Health Data, beginning in November, 1960. This publication was a response to wide-spread public concern about elevated levels of weapons test derived radioactive contamination of the food supply. The high levels of contamination documented between 1957 and 1964 in the following reports were not reached again until the advent of Chernobyl derived contamination, the effect of which was felt primarily in foreign food supplies and had a minimal impact on domestic food production in the United States. Monitoring was discontinued in 1969 with the suspension of above ground weapons testing but was begun again in 1973 due to concerns about contamination from other sources. The publication of Radiation Data Reports was discontinued in 1976, with a more cursory and less detailed survey continued in the EPA publication Environmental Radiation Data which is still published and cited in several locations in this website (See RAD 10, U.S.A.) The following is a selection of diet surveys in order of their date of publication. (12.130) ...[U]nderestimation of the extent of the Chernobyl accident continues today in

most official versions in terms of where and in what quantity deposition from the accident occurred. Only a minimum of information has been collected about the actual levels of the dietary intake of Chernobyl-derived radionuclides for persons living in areas with high fallout greater than 1 Ci/km2 (37,000 Bq/m2)...A reconsideration of the accident ten years later can only conclude that accurate McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 362 of 953

information is still unavailable about actual deposition levels over vast areas of the Northern Hemisphere where millions of residents do not have access to accurate radiological monitoring data (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, North Africa, etc.)...Even in countries with modest to excellent radiological monitoring capabilities, accurate information about the impact of the accident was not available in a timely manner and, in some cases, has never been made available. (12.131) ...While most areas of the United States received only a minimum of Chernobyl-

derived fallout, some locations (See Dibbs, Maryland) received fallout which exceeded weapons testing deposition. (12.132) ESTIMATED RELEASE OF LONG-LIVED RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE

CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT[:] Aarkrog, A. (1994). Source terms and inventories of anthropogenic radionuclides. Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark. Radionuclide
137Cs 134Cs 90Sr 106Ru 144Ce 110mAg 125Sb 239,240Pu 238Pu

Total released radioactivity (Curies) 2,700,000 1,350,000 216,000 948,000 2,430,000 40,500 81,000 1,480 700 135,000 162 16,200 162

241Pu
241Am 242Cm 243,244Cm

...The current estimates listed above derive from a world health organization report in 1989 which may underestimate the actual release activity during the accident. Many earlier reports contain even larger McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 363 of 953

underestimations of the actual release during the accident, and, in fact, an exact source term estimate for all radionuclides released in the Chernobyl accident may never be possible. (12.133) SIZES OF CONTAMINATED TERRITORIES IN THE FORMER USSR

(Measured in thousands of curies per square meter)[:] Aarkrog, A., Tsaturov, Y. and Polikarpov, G.G. (1993). Sources to environmental radioactive contamination in the former USSR. Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark. Sizes of contaminated territories, km2 States Russia Byelorussia Ukraine Moldova Total (12.134) 37-185 kBqm2 48100 29920 37090 50 115160 185-555 kBqm-2 5450 10170 1990 17160 0.55-1.5 MBqm-2 2130 4210 820 7160 >1.5 MBq-2 310 2150 640 3100

The Chernobyl accident, if contaminated areas outside the USSR are included,

resulted in the deposition of long-lived radionuclides in excess of 37,000 Bq/m2 (1 Ci/km2) on +/200,000 km2 of the world's surface. Areas impacted by iodine-131, ruthenium-103, tellurium-132, barium-140, and other short-lived isotopes (1/2 T = 1 week to 1 yr.), along with the longer-lived isotopes, to levels exceeding 37,000 Bq/m2, may have exceeded 1,000,000 km2 in the weeks after the accident. (12.135) The maps reproduced in this publication show extensive contamination not only in

Byelorussia, but also throughout central Russia. With each passing year, our knowledge of the extent of the deposition from the Chernobyl accident grows larger as more information is collected and collated and the parameters of Chernobyl-derived deposition in excess of one curie per square kilometer are expanded. (12.136) The National Reconnaissance Office has extensive additional radiological McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 364 of 953

surveillance data pertaining to the Chernobyl accident which is not available to the general public because it is classified. (12.137) Aarkrog, A., Angelopoulos, A., Calmet, D., Delfanti, R., Florou, H., Permattei,

S., Risica, S. and Romero, L. (1993). Radioactivity in Mediterranean waters: Report of working group II of CEC project MARINA-MED. Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark. 1984 1984 1986 1986 1990 1985 1986 1990 1990 Aegean Sea Tryrhenian Sea Aegean Sea Black Sea Black Sea Tyrrhenian Sea Tyrrhenian Sea Tyrrhenian Sea Black Sea (12.137.1) Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Shellfish Shellfish Shellfish Surface sediments
137Cs 137Cs 137Cs 137Cs 137Cs 137Cs 137Cs 137Cs 137Cs

0.53 Bq/kg mean value 0.10 Bq/kg mean value 4.9 Bq/kg mean value 2.0 Bq/kg mean value 3.3 Bq/kg mean value 0.36 Bq/kg mean value 14.0 Bq/kg mean value 3.2 Bq/kg mean value 164.0 Bq/kg mean value

The Black Sea was more impacted by the Chernobyl accident than the

other Mediterranean sea basins; it was still showing the cumulative effects of the accident in 1990. (12.137.2) The data was collected by a number of countries adjacent to the

Mediterranean Sea, and is an extensive summary of the mean values, with a sea-by-sea survey of the major Mediterranean basins. (12.138) Aarkrog, A. (1988). The radiological impact of the Chernobyl debris compared

with that from nuclear weapons fallout. J. Environ. Radioactivity. 6. pg. 151-162. (12.138.1) "Transfer factors are strongly influenced by seasonal and geographical

distributions. For example, if 1,000 Bq of 137 per m2 are deposited over a barley field three months before harvest, the concentration in the mature grain will be 1 Bq 137Cs/kg. If on the other hand

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 365 of 953

contamination, with the same deposition, occurs one month before harvest, the mature grain will contain approximately 100 Bq 137Cs/kg." (pg.155). (12.138.2) "The mean concentration in Danish grain in 1962-74 was 7.1 Bq 137Cs/kg.

In 1986 the mean level was 3.3 Bq." (pg. 157) This illustrates the efficiency and uniformity of stratospheric fallout contamination compared to the erratic distribution patterns of Chernobylderived radiocesium, which did not significantly affect Denmark during the growing season. (12.139) Andersson, K.G. and Roed, J. (1994). The behavior of Chernobyl 137Cs, 134Cs

and 106Ru in undisturbed soil: Implications for external radiation. J. Environ. Radioactivity. 22. pg. 183-196. (12.139.1) "The URGENT computer model developed at Riso has shown that as much as

89% of the dose to urban populations came from contamination on the soil surface in open areas such as gardens and parks." (pg. 183) (12.139.2) Cesium remained strongly bound in the topmost 2 cm of soil associated with a

mineral fraction; ruthenium was associated with an organic fraction; external exposure is the primary exposure pathway four years after the initial deposition. (12.140) Anspaugh, L.R., Catlin, R.J. and Goldman, M. (1988). The global impact of the

Chernobyl reactor accident. Science. 242. pg. 1513-1519 [says:] "By means of an integration of the environmental data, it is estimated that ~100 petabecquerels of cesium-137 (1PBq = 1015 Bq) were released during and subsequent to the accident." (pg. 1513). (12.141) Apsimon, H.M., Gudiksen, P., Khitrov, L., Rodhe, H. and Yoshikawa, T. (1988).

Lessons from Chernobyl: Modeling the dispersal and deposition of radionuclides. Environment. 30(5) pg. 17-20. (12.141.1) "Localized peaks of wet deposition (in excess of 100 kilobecquerels per square

meter) occurred in parts of Central Scandinavia." (pg. 18). McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 366 of 953

(12.141.2)

"Deposition of the most important long-lived nuclide, 137Cs, did not decrease

smoothly with travel distance but was enhanced when rain or snow interrupted the plume." (pg. 18). (12.141.3) km. (pg. 19). (12.142) Apsimon, H.M., MacDonald, H.F. and Wilson, J.J.N. (1986). An initial assessment The estimate for plume transport atmospheric height ranged from 4 km to 10

of the Chernobyl-4 reactor accident release source. J. Soc. Radiol. Prot. 6(3) pg. 109-119. (12.142.1) Long range atmospheric dispersion model, MESOS, was used to provide a

preliminary estimate of the accident source term release; 15-20% of iodine, tellurium and cesium and 1% or less of ruthenium and other isotopes was the estimated release. (12.142.2) Relatively low airborne concentrations of Chernobyl-derived radionuclides

were observed in comparison to ground deposition levels noted by other researchers (See EML460). (12.142.3) This is another in a series of early underestimations of the severity of the

Chernobyl accident and the extent of the erratic fallout patterns which characterized the plume pulse pathway. (12.143) Balter, Michael. (December 15, 1995). Radiation biology: Chernobyl's thyroid

cancer toll. Science. 270(5243). pg. 1758 [says:] "Geneva--radiation scientists now accept that the large increase in childhood thyroid cancers, particularly in Belarus and Ukraine, is the result of radiation released by the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The new focus is on trying to explain why the cancer epidemic is so virulent." (abstract). (12.144) Beardsley, T. (1986). US analysis incomplete. Nature. 321 ...[says:] "One of the

highest atmospheric air concentrations recorded outside the Eastern Bloc, was in Stockholm, where a level of 5,130 pCi (190,000,000 micro becquerels) of 131I per cubic meter of air was found." (pg. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 367 of 953

187). (12.145) Dickerson, M.H. and Sullivan, T.J. (1986). ARAC response to the Chernobyl

reactor accident. (Under U.S. Department of Energy Contract W-7405-Eng-48). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA [says:] (12.145.1) (pg.12). (12.145.2) "An amount of 9000 pCi/l was estimated as the maximum expected I-131 "Detection of BA-140 and Zr-95 in Sweden implied a significant meltdown."

concentration in milk for the U.S..." (pg. 13). (12.146) (12.146.1) Dickman, S. (1988). IAEA's verdict on Chernobyl. Nature. 333. pg. 285. "According to one IAEA official... on the basis of a study of 30,000 people

living in the (Chernobyl) area, no adverse health effects on the general population had been attributed to the radiation." (pg. 285). (12.146.2) "Although there are still a few hot spots, most of the area within 10-30 km from

the reactor has returned to normal levels of activity." (pg. 285). (12.147) Goldman, M. (1987). Recalculating the cost of Chernobyl. Science. 236 pg. 658-

659. Global fatal cancers estimated at 39,000, most of them outside the Soviet Union. (12.148) 622-623. (12.148.1) (12.148.2) (12.149) Goldman, M. (1987). Chernobyl: A radiobiological perspective. Science. 238. pg. Radiocesium release was calculated to be 2.4 million curies (US DOE). Global fatal cancer ratio assessment of up to 28,000 deaths. The New York Times (1995, date unavailable) has reported a sharp drop in the

life expectancy of the Russian population since the Chernobyl accident. What role Chernobyl played in the drop is unknown. (12.150) Hohenemser, C., Deicher, M., Ernst, A., Hofsass, H., Lindner, G. and Recknagel,

E. (1986). Chernobyl: An early report. Environment. 28(5). pg. 6-43. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 368 of 953

April 28, 1986 April 28, 1986 April 28, 1986 April 30, 1986 (12.150.1)

Forsmark, Sweden Forsmark, Sweden Forsmark, Sweden Konstanz, Germany

Ground deposition Ground deposition Rainwater Ground deposition

132I 131I 132I 132Te

120,000 Bq/m2 4,000 Bq/m2 839,000 Bq/l 87,000 Bq/m2

"In Konstanz the current ground activity of cesium-137 is estimated at 8,000-

12,000 Bq/m2, whereas the global weapons-testing fallout peak in West Germany was 800 Bq/m2 in 1963." (pg. 36). (12.150.2) "During passage of the cloud peak air radionuclide concentrations reached

100,000 times background levels in Poland and as high as 10,000 times background in Scotland." (One million times background equals 2,000 Bq/m3.) (pg. 35). (12.151) Hotzl, H., Rosner, G. and Winkler, R. (1989). Long-term behavior of Chernobyl

fallout in air and precipitation. J. Environ. Radioactivity. 10. pg. 157-171. [says:] "Ground level air concentrations... of 137Cs in autumn 1986 were 100 times fallout values in 1985, and decreased by the end of 1987 to only 30 times the weapon fallout level. This very slow rate of decrease was not expected." (pg. 158). (12.152) Institut de Protection et de Surete Nucleaire. (1986.) The Tchernobyl accident.

Report No. IPSN 2/86, rev. 3. Institut de Protection et de Surete Nucleaire, Fontenay-aux-Roses. April 26-May 6 Chernobyl April 26-May 6 Chernobyl April 26-May 6 Chernobyl April 26-May 6 Chernobyl April 26-May 6 Chernobyl April 26-May 6 Chernobyl April 26-May 6 Chernobyl Total activity released per Noble gases family T.A.R.P.F. T.A.R.P.F. T.A.R.P.F. T.A.R.P.F. T.A.R.P.F. T.A.R.P.F. Iodine Cesium Tellurium Rutheniums and Rhodiums Lanthanides Zirconium 100%: 1x 108 Ci 20%: 8.4 x 106 15%: 1.2 x 106 15%: 1.0 x 107 4%: 1.6 x 107 3%: 1.2 x 107 3%: 3.9 x 106

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 369 of 953

April 26-May 6 Chernobyl

T.A.R.P.F.

Actinides: alpha activity beta activity

3%: 2.3 x 104 3%: 2.3 x 106

(12.152.1)

These preliminary source term estimates are for a core inventory with a cooling

time of one hour. Total released activity is estimated at 1.58 x 108 Ci (158,000,000 Ci) including the noble gases. (pg. 73). (12.152.2) days." (pg.71). (12.152.2.1) 107 Ci). (12.152.2.2) (2.2 x 107 Ci). (12.152.2.3) Phase Three: May 2-5: The core heats to a temperature exceeding 2000 Phase Two: April 27-May 1: Falling release level; diminishing graphite fire Phase One: April 26: Mechanical dispersion of slightly enriched fuel (2.2 x "The Soviets distinguish between 4 phases in the main release which lasted 9

degrees centigrade. Reactions occur between 2O and graphite, fission product aerosols combine with graphite particles (2.7 x 107 Ci). (12.152.2.4) Phase Four: May 5-6: Rapid falloff in fission product emission due to halting

of the fission process. (1 x 105 Ci). (12.152.3) "Discharge of radioactive products into the atmosphere continued through the

end of August at the rate of a few curies per day." (pg. 1). (12.152.4) This revised early report still underestimates the source term release but is

more accurate and comprehensive than the other reports presented at the IAEA conference at Vienna on August 25-29, 1986. (12.153) Morrey, M., Brown, J., Williams, J.A., Crick, M.J., Simmonds, J.R. and Hill,

M.D. (1987). A preliminary assessment of the radiological impact of the Chernobyl reactor accident McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 370 of 953

on the population of the European community. (Report from Health and Safety Directorate No. V/E/1 funded under CEC contract number 86 398). Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg. May 1986 May 1986 S. Germany S. Germany Ground deposition Milk
131I 131I

240,000 Bq/m2 17,000 Bq/l

17,000 Bq/l = 1,020,000 pCi/liter. (12.154) (12.154.1) Weapons testing fallout vs. Chernobyl fallout vs. US reactor accident: Maximum annual weapons testing derived 137Cs deposition: 1,000 Bq/m2 (See

Riso National Laboratory Cumulative Fallout Record: RAD 9:2) (12.154.2) Bq/m2 ... (12.154.3) FDA-FEMA Emergency Action Guideline for radiocesium ground deposition OECD-NEA definition of "main" 137Cs Chernobyl deposition: >555,000

following a nuclear reactor accident in the United States: 90 microcuries radiocesium/m2 = 3,308,323 Bq/m2 (begin destroying rather than storing contaminated food: RAD 6: 2-7 and RAD 12: 3) (12.155) OECD. (1996). The Chernobyl reactor accident source term. Report No.

OCDE/GD(96)12. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris [says that] Reactor inventories for 137Cs are estimated at between 2.2 x 1017 Bq and 2.9 x 1017 Bq; seven different reactor inventory estimates are included in this report. The percentage of the reactor inventory of cesium-137 estimated to have been released (source term release) is 33 + 10, indicating that, out of 6.95 x 106 to 7.84 x 106 curies of radiocesium, approximately 40% was released (12.156) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1987). Report on the accident at the

Chernobyl nuclear power station. Report No. NUREG-1250, Rev. 1. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. This report contains...data on Chernobyl fallout. Radionuclide deposition for Chester, NJ (5/6/86-6/2/86) is reported as (pCi/m2): 131I: 2,380; 137Cs: 650; 134Cs: 290; 103Ru 720.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 371 of 953

(pg. 8-3). (12.157) Warman, E.A. (1987). Soviet and far-field radiation measurements and an

inferred source term from Chernobyl. Report No. TP87-13. Stone and Webster Engineering Corp, Boston, MA. (12.157.1) "Approximately 30-60% of the available radiocesium and at least 40-60% of

the available radioiodine appear to have been released to the atmosphere from the accident." (pg. 1). (12.157.2) "The radionuclide compositions observed outside the Soviet Union differ

substantially from the Soviet source-term estimate, e.g., much more radioiodine and less nonvolatile radionuclides were observed in Europe than were estimated to have been released by the Soviets." (pg. 4). (12.157.3) This is the first report to identify a second phase in the accident characterized

by increased release of 132Te, 103Ru and 140Ba. Warman's revision of the inaccurate Soviet source term release estimates were based upon a number of "far field" measurements taken after the accident in Finland (2), West Germany, Hungary and Greece, and summarized in chart form at the end of this report. Close inspection of isotopic ratios present in ground depositions and air samples led Warman to question, correctly, as it turned out, the inaccurate Soviet data. (12.157.4) This is one of the few reports to include a core inventory of radionuclides at

Chernobyl at the time of the accident (Taken by Warman from the International Safety Advisory Group (1986) report listed above): (12.157.5) Radionuclide
85Kr 133Xe 131I 132Te

Core Inventory of Radionuclides Half-Life 3,930 5.27 8.04 3.25 Inventory @ April 26 3.3 x 1016 7.3 x 1018 3.1 x 1018 3.3 x 1018 0.89 196 85 90

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 372 of 953

134Cs 137Cs 99Mo 95Zr 103Ru 106Ru 140Ba 141Ce 144Ce 89Sr 90Sr 239Np 238Pu 239Pu 240Pu 241Pu 242Cm

750 1.1 x 104 2.8 65.6 39.5 368 12.8 32.5 284 53 1.02 x 104 2.35 3.15 x 104 8.9 x 106 2.4 x 106 4,800 164

1.9 x 1017 2.9 x 1017 7.3 x 1019 4.9 x 1018 5.0 x 1018 2.0 x 1018 5.3 x 1018 5.6 x 1018 3.2 x 1018 2.3 x 1018 2.0 x 1017 3.6 x 1018 1.0 x 1015 8.5 x 1014 1.2 x 1015 1.7 x 1017 2.5 x 1016

5.0 7.8 1,980 135 133 54 142 152 86 62 5.4 98 0.027 0.023 0.32 4.6 0.70

(12.158)

World Health Organization. Health hazards from radiocesium following the

Chernobyl nuclear accident: Report on a WHO meeting. Environmental Health. 24[:] (12.158.1) accident..." (pg. 4). External: Ground shine Cloud shine Deposition on skin and clothing (12.158.2) Internal: Ingestion Inhalation Absorption from skin "Six... pathways are possible by which exposure may occur following a nuclear

"... root uptake of cesium will be substantially higher for acid soils with a low

clay and a high organic matter content and may continue for many years in some soil conditions.... the external and internal doses will be roughly the same for the fifty year period after the accident." (pg. 8-9). McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 373 of 953

(12.158.3)

"Direct exposure from deposited radionuclides together with the ingestion

pathway was estimated to be three orders of magnitude greater than that from inhalation or exposure to airborne radionuclides (cloud shine)." (pg. 23). (12.159) World Health Organization. (September 8, 1986). Working group on assessment

of radiation dose commitment in Europe due to the Chernobyl accident: Bilthoven, 25-27 June 1986. Report No. ICP/COR 129(s) Rev 1. 5134V. World Health Organization, Copenhagen, Denmark.

May 1986 May 1986

W. Europe W. Europe

Ground deposition Ground deposition

131I 137Cs

+/- 1,000,000 Bq/m2 +/- 140,000 Bq/m2

(12.159.1)

Large scale computerized dispersion models (MESOS and GRID) were used to

reconstruct deposition patterns over Europe; these isolated areas of very high local deposition were located in the Ukraine, Central Scandinavia and Central Europe. (12.159.2) "Exposure of the population occurs through three main pathways: inhalation of

airborne material, external irradiation from material deposited on the ground and ingestion of contaminated foodstuff." (pg. 2). ANTHROPOGENIC RADIOACTIVITY: MAJOR PLUME SOURCE POINTS (12.160) The cumulative deposition in a wide mid-latitude band of the northern hemisphere of weapons testing derived 239,240Pu is now ~50 Bq/m2 (3,000 d.p.m./m2); testing derived 137Cs exceeding 1,000 Bq/m2 remains in many locations. Other long-lived radionuclides accompany these isotopes, some "growing in" as daughter products from inert gases; others such as 241Am "grow in" as daughter products of more dangerous isotopes such as 241Pu. The following activities, facilities, and locations are either (or both) past or future potential source points of the release of radioactivity into the environment, in some cases with the potential for the dispersion of anthropogenic radioactivity approaching or equaling the magnitude of the Chernobyl accident release.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 374 of 953

(12.161)

Memo: One PBq = 1x 1015 disintegration's per second (Becquerels) = 27,000 Curies.

With world wide inventories of spent fuel and weapons production high-level wastes now approaching 100 billion curies, use of the prefixes "P" (peta: 1015) and "E" (exo: 1018) to describe becquerels of waste is unwieldy and misleading. Expressing 100 billion curies of high-level waste as 3,700 EBq is not only absurd, it obfuscates the significance and the presence of these contained and uncontained wastes, especially for lay persons who are likely to suffer from psychic numbing while trying to differentiate the orders of magnitude implied by M,E,G,P,T. RADNET readers who can assign the proper order of magnitude to these letters without looking them up in RADNET Section 4, please send a postcard to the Center for Biological Monitoring: if you visit Mount Desert Island we will award you a free day pass to Acadia National Park. NUCLEAR WEAPONS TEST EXPLOSIONS (12.162) Weapons testing radioactive contamination was spread world-wide not only in

tropospheric fallout (often associated with rainfall events but with extensive, close-in, dry deposition) but also in stratospheric fallout. The patterns of stratospheric fallout which provide a baseline of contamination against which to compare the impact of the Chernobyl accident resulted in a fairly even distribution of contamination over most of the earth's surface. Peak concentrations of stratospheric fallout were achieved between 1962 and 1964. The 1963 joint U.S.-Russian-British test ban treaty effectively ended atmospheric weapons testing, at which time fallout rates began declining, with occasional interruptions from Chinese weapons tests, until the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Prior to the Chernobyl accident, world-wide fallout levels had reached the lowest level of yearly accumulation since 1950. Other important source points of anthropogenic radioactive contamination include fuel reprocessing facilities such as Sellafield, the Savannah River Reservation, accidents such as the SNAP satellite failure in 1958, and the many other U.S. and Russian military weapons production sites, such as the Hanford Reservation in Washington. These sites are not McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 375 of 953

only sources of significant releases in the past but they also pose a risk of substantial releases to the environment for centuries to come. (12.63) Marshall Islands[:] An entire issue of Health Physics (vol. 72 no. 7, July 1997) has

been devoted to the history of atomic weapons testing in the Marshall Islands, which include the Bikini Test Site, Enewetak Atoll, and other northern Marshall Islands atolls. Testing began in 1946 and lasted until 1958. Topics include the history of weapons testing, radiological monitoring, dose assessment, health effects and environmental studies at these test sites. Several of the contributed papers are cited below. See Reference 381. (12.164) (12.164.1) Johnston Atoll[:] Johnston Atoll consists of four islands 825 miles southwest of Hawaii. Currently,

it is managed by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Services as a National Wildlife Refuge. It has been used by the military since the mid-1930's, and was the site of several air atomic tests during the early 1960's. It is the site of JACADS (Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System) for the destruction of chemical weapons. JACADS is run by the U.S. Army's Chemical Stockpile Disposal Project, and expects its stockpile of chemical weapons to all be destroyed by 2000. (12.164.2) Field, Michael. (March 18, 1999). Lonely Pacific atolls deadly weapons nearly

gone but leakages remain. Agence France Presse..."The clean up has included scattered plutonium. A nuclear missile failed to lift-off from the Johnston pad and exploded. The plutonium core did not go critical but was scattered along a thousand metre (yard) length of shoreline." (12.65) Churchill, J.H., Hess, C.T. and Smith, C.W. (1980). Measurement and computer

modeling of radionuclide uptake by marine sediments near a nuclear power reactor. Health Physics. 38. pg. 327-340. (12.165.1) Isocuric mapping showed 137Cs concentration in sediment near the Maine

Yankee Atomic Power Company plant outflow (prior to its removal to the bottom of Montsweag Bay) McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 376 of 953

to 25,000 pCi/kg in sediment in June, 1975. (12.165.2) After removal of liquid effluent diffuser from Bailey's Cove, peak concentrations

of 137Cs in sediment dropped to 5000 pCi/kg. (12.166) Division of Health Engineering. (1996). Maine Yankee environmental monitoring:

Summary of other media. Unpublished, publicly available research, Augusta, ME. (12.166.1) In a split survey of 131 samples of sediment and other media (seaweed, shellfish,

etc.) where both the state and Maine Yankee report contamination in split samples, the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company radiological surveillance reported 16 examples of anthropogenic radioactivity between 1989 and 1995, all of 137Cs in sediments at one location, Foxbird Island. The peak concentration of 137Cs in sediment was reported as 495 pCi/kg. (12.166.2) The state of Maine, Division of Health Engineering reported slight levels of

contamination in 41 samples, noting the presence of 110mAg, 60Co, one sample with 131I, and 137Cs, which was the predominant anthropogenic nuclide. The peak concentrations of 137Cs in sediment was noted as 540 pCi/kg. (12.166.3) This survey, along with the NRC sponsored annual radiological reports issued by

Maine Yankee and other nuclear power generators, continue to document the pristine and nearly uncontaminated environments surrounding Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company and other United States reactors, which seemed to have escaped most, if not all, of weapons testing derived stratospheric fallout, as well as all Chernobyl derived contamination. (12.167) England, R.W. and Mitchell, E. (1987). Estimates of environmental accumulations

of radioactivity resulting from routine operation of New England nuclear power plants (1973-84). (Report No. 1). A report of the Nuclear Emissions Research Project, Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. (12.167.1) Total 137Cs release at 8 New England nuclear power plants: 1974: 86.73 Ci; McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 377 of 953

1979: 0.35 Ci; 1984: 2.70 Ci. (12.167.2) (12.167.3) (12.168) Total 3H release in 1977: 7,426.3 Ci. Total X-135 release in 1975: 830,093 Ci. Hess, C.T. and Smith, C.W. (1976). Radioactive isotopic characterization of the

environment near Wiscasset, Maine using pre and post-operational surveys in the vicinity of the Maine Yankee nuclear reactor. Technical Note ORP/EAD-76-3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (12.168.1) Pre-operational surveys of field soil and sediment samples in the Maine Yankee

Atomic Power Company vicinity revealed significantly higher levels of 137Cs in many samples than were found in many post-operational field soil and sediment samples. (12.168.2) Post-operational surveys of Bailey's Cove did record a significant impact from

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company derived activation products (58Co, 60Co), with peak concentrations of 58Co up to 5,620 pCi/kg near the plant outfall. (12.168.3) One hot particle was noted containing 7,700 pCi of 60Co, and had a total activity

of 9,000 pCi in a mass less than 20 g. (pg. 18) (12.168.4) Most of the extensive pre-operational nuclear weapons testing derived radiocesium as well as post-operational reactor derived radiocesium documented in this report have miraculously disappeared in later Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company environmental radiological summaries. (12.169) Lutz, R.A., Incze, L.S., and Hess, C.T. (1980). Mussel culture in heated effluents:

Biological and radiological implications. In: Mussel culture and harvest: A North American perspective (ed. R.A. Lutz). Elsevier, Amsterdam. June 1977-Jan. 1978 June 1977-Jan. 1978 Bailey's Cove, Wiscasset Maine Bailey's Cove, Wiscasset Maine Mytilus edulis, soft tissue Mytilus edulis, shells
134Cs 54Mn

320 pCi/kg mean 150 pCi/kg mean

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 378 of 953

June 1977-Jan. 1978 (12.169.1)

Bailey's Cove, Wiscasset Maine

Mytilus edulis, shells

95Zr

211 pCi/kg mean

"Among the problems associated with cultivation of bivalves in heated

discharge water is the accumulation within the soft tissues of these filter feeding mollusks of vast quantities of pollutants (viruses, bacteria, heavy metals, pesticides, radionuclides, etc.). Concentrations of such pollutants can reach levels several orders of magnitude above those encountered in the surrounding water." (pg. 167). (12.169.2) "...elevated temperatures encountered at varying distances from the discharge

waters of the studied nuclear generating facility had an adverse effect on the growth, survival and recruitment of the experimentally-cultured mussels." (pg. 183). (12.169.3) "...trace amounts of 58Co, 60Co, 134Cs, 137Cs, 54Mn, 95Zr, 95Nb and 40K were

detected in both the shells and soft tissues of the mussels cultured in these waters." (pg. 187). (12.170) Yankee Atomic Electric Company. (1991). Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station:

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company: Annual radiological environmental monitoring report: January - December 1990. Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Bolton, MA. (12.170.1) 1,000 Bq/m3. (12.170.2) background. (12.170.3) deviation. (12.170.4) Algae show trace amounts of 60Co and 110mAg on one occasion in 1990 out of a A positive measurement is defined as three times greater than the standard Typical gross beta air concentrations in January through December of 1991: +/-

Non-routine measurement in sediment and biotic media noted as ten times the

total of three samples for the year. (12.170.5) Six sediment samples were taken at each of two locations during 1990; all

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 379 of 953

showed slightly elevated levels of 137Cs (to 220 pCi/kg dry weight near the old plant outfall). (12.170.6) Sampling of bottom sediments near the plant diffuser discharge about 100 ft

below the surface of Montsweag Bay is habitually avoided in all reports. (12.170.7) locations in 1990. (12.170.8) No environmental samples are reported to have been tested by the licensee for No gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected in four fish samples from two

any alpha-emitting anthropogenic radionuclides in this or any other annual environmental monitoring report. (12.170.9) The annual radiological environmental monitoring reports issued since the plant

diffuser was moved to the bottom of Montsweag Bay indicate that the Maine Yankee area is nearly a pristine environment without deposition from nuclear weapons testing or Chernobyl fallout, and with almost no impact from plant discharges. (12.170.10) The laboratory testing for the environmental samples provided by Maine Yankee

for these annual reports was done by the Yankee Atomic Environmental Laboratory, a subsidiary of the Yankee Atomic Electric Company, the same company now embroiled in a controversy pertaining to falsified computer programs and emergency core cooling system capabilities at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company...It is extremely unlikely that nuclear power facilities under the supervision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are the sole locations in the northern hemisphere that have never been impacted by stratospheric fallout from the nuclear weapons tests of the 1950's and 1960's. (12.171) Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Decommissioning Plan[:] In early

September 1997, Connecticut Yankee filed a decommissioning plan with the NRC...Decommissioning this facility, which recently closed, is estimated to cost 426.7 million 1996 dollars and be completed by 2004. This decommissioning plan allegedly includes decontamination and removal of all plant structures and systems except for the spent fuel storage building. The site is supposed to be available McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 380 of 953

for unrestricted use in 2004. Recent revelations of extensive on-site contamination (see New York Times article on contamination at Connecticut Yankee) due to leaking spent fuel in the early years of operation may complicate this decommissioning plan. This 13 page proposal is extremely brief and provides only a sketchy description of decommissioning activities. One particularly interesting component of this brief proposal is that the reactor vessel may be removed with the highly active GTCC internals intact and then disposed of as low-level waste because the radioactivity in the entire vessel package averages out to a class C category. "This allows the vessel including the internals to be qualified for normal conditions of transport" i.e. as low-level waste. This is a good example of possible shortcuts to be used in getting rid of orphan GTCC wastes which are too radioactive to put in a lowlevel waste site by themselves: mix the GTCC wastes with enough low-level waste and presto, you have low-level waste. Three Mile Island (12.172) The Three Mile Island accident is a model of the misinformation pertaining to

NRC operated nuclear facilities, and provides a preview of the deceptions that can be expected in the documentation of future nuclear accidents in the U.S.A. (12.173) Immediately after the Three Mile Island accident, supposedly knowledgeable

officials released a statement, prior to any understanding of the release dynamics of the accident within the Three Mile Island reactor core, that the only radioisotope released, other than inert gases was 15 Ci of 131I. After a year or more of intense study, it was discovered that most of the fuel had melted into the lower reactor vessel core support area. Conditions which allow such melting would necessarily lead to a substantial vaporization and release of volatile radioisotopes such as cesium-137... (12.174) Major commercial radioactive waste disposal sites are listed as located at:

Barnwell, SC; Betty, NV; Salt Lake City, UT; Frankfurt, KY; Richland, WA; Sheffield, IL; and West Valley, NY....Domestic Commercial Light Water Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Inventories McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 381 of 953

(pg. 32-34): (12.174.1) Boiling water reactors: Jan. 1, 1996: cumulative inventory of long-lived

radionuclides: 8,100 x 106 Ci (8,100,000,000 Ci). (12.174.2) Pressurized water reactors: Jan. 1, 1996: cumulative inventory of long-lived

radionuclides: 22,100 x 106 Ci (22,100,000,000 Ci). (12.124.3) Total commercial light water reactor spent nuclear fuel inventories: Jan. 1,

1996: cumulative inventory of long-lived radionuclides: 30,200 x 106 Ci (30,200,000,000 Ci). (12.174.4) Total commercial light water reactor spent nuclear fuel inventories: 2008:

37,800 x 106 Ci (37,800,000,000 Ci), estimated. (12.174.5) (12.174.6) (12.174.7) (5,995,000 Ci). (12.174.8) A model U.S. light water reactor has now accumulated 276,200,000 curies of Permanently discharged spent nuclear fuel assemblies: Jan. 1, 1996: 103,944. Permanently discharged spent nuclear fuel assemblies: 2008: 200,000, estimated. Total commercial low-level waste generated as of Jan. 1, 1995: 5,995 x 103 Ci

spent fuel high-level waste as of Jan. 1, 1996. (12.175) Stellfox, David. (May 20, 1999). First-cycle fuel at River Bend affected by mystery

corrosion. Nucleonics Week. 40(20). pg. 2. (12.175.1) "The thickest deposition of crud and all the fuel cladding failures at Entergy's

River Bend occurred in first-cycle fuel, NRC said, adding the reason is 'not fully understood.'" (12.175.2) "River Bend licensee Entergy Operations Inc., NRC, and fuel manufacturer

General Electric are analyzing what caused the heavy crud buildup on the fuel during the unit's last operating cycle." (12.175.3) "The crud depositions 'were different from those previously seen at River Bend or

other GE facilities, in that the coating was less adherent and of much lower density, hence the greater McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 382 of 953

thickness, and more porous,' NRC said in a May 14 report. 'At the most affected locations, the crud thickness on adjacent fuel rods was such that the open flow channel between the rods was significantly reduced.'" (12.175.4) "Entergy spokeswoman Diane Park said 'actual leaks' were limited to seven fuel

bundles Entergy had tentatively identified before entering the April 3 outage." (12.175.5) "NRC said those failures were caused by 'deposition of an unusually thick layer of

crud on the fuel in areas of particularly high heat flux.'" (12.175.6) "Park said it was the amount of corrosion found on the other bundles, the non-

leakers, that prompted the conservative decision to acquire new fuel -- some 112 new assemblies, according the NRC -- before restarting the reactor." (12.176) Weil, Jenny and Stellfox, David. (January 4, 1999). AEOD abolished, research office

expanded under reorganization plan. Inside N.R.C. 21(1). pg. 1. (12.176.1) "As expected, the biggest shakeup was to the Office for Analysis and

Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) (INRC, 14 Sept. '98, 14). Created in 1979 after the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island-2 to independently assess operational events and provide feedback to NRC staff and licensees, AEOD was abolished last month and its functions redistributed to other existing offices. Because AEOD was not statutorily established, no legislative action is required to break up the office." (12.176.2) "Most of AEOD's functions will be moved to RES, but some responsibilities will

be transferred to the Office of Human Resources, NRR, NMSS and the Executive Director for Operations (EDO)." (12.176.3) "...today the kinds of problems being worked have more to do with aging of

components and operational issues and do not require the same degree of large scale experiments." (12.176.4) "Some former AEOD functions that will be moved to RES include the independent McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 383 of 953

analysis and evaluation of plant performance data; event assessment activities; performance indicators program; the accident precursor program; and reliability, initiating events and common cause failure studies. NMSS will pick up only one AEOD function -- responsibility of the nuclear materials event data base." (12.177) Yankee Nuclear Power Station. (1993). Supplement to Applicant's environmental

report post operating license stage: Decommissioning environmental report. Yankee Atomic Power Company, Rowe, MA. (12.177.1) These two reports provide a model for a licensee/NRC approach to

decommissioning a nuclear power plant which was closed several years ago due to embrittlement of the reactor vessel. (12.177.2) On site environmental surveillance notes soil core segments from seven locations

surveyed in 1987 with concentrations to 1,150 pCi/kg (wet). Low-level waste inventory is listed as 5,172 curies (Table 6.2-1, in Decommissioning Environmental Report). (12.177.3) While neither the Decommissioning Plan nor the Environmental Report notes

GTCCW or spent fuel inventories, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Integrated Data Base lists the following additional inventories of radioactive waste: (12.177.3.1) (12.177.3.2) (12.177.3.3) (12.177.3.4) (12.177.4) Reactor vessel internal components: 87 m3: 132,600 Ci Reactor core baffle: 2.1 m3: 1,020,000 Ci Reactor vessel: 187.9 m3: 4,700 Ci Total decommissioning wastes 1993-1999: 1,159,536 Ci These decommissioning waste inventories do not include spent fuel, which will

remain on site indefinitely as the Yankee Rowe facility follows the NRC "SAFESTOR" contingency plan for decommissioning: i.e. remove the low-level wastes and leave the spent fuel for the grandchildren. The spent fuel waste inventory for Yankee Rowe is not presently available, but since this

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 384 of 953

facility is smaller than Maine Yankee (spent fuel inventory as of 1996: +200,000,000 Ci), the accumulated on site spent fuel inventory would be considerably less than this figure. (12.177.5) Subtracting the 5,172 Ci of LLW from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory data

leaves an inventory of 1,154,364 Ci greater than class C (GTCC) wastes as the decommissioning inventory of "orphan wastes" (not spent fuel, nor low-level wastes) . After the Yankee Nuclear Power Station was closed, the majority of GTCC reactor vessel components were removed from the reactor vessel itself and are now stored in the spent fuel pool. (12.177.6) The 1982 nuclear waste policy act prohibits disposal of GTCC wastes as low-level

wastes, however it should be noted for the information of any persons concerned with the decommissioning of Yankee Rowe, that as of the late winter of 1996, the current arrangement for disposal of the remaining sections of the reactor vessel, core baffle and reactor vessel components involve shipping the reactor vessel in its entirety by train for disposal in Barnwell, S.C. as low-level waste. These remaining reactor vessel components now contain between 5,000 and 6,000 curies of radioactivity; the rational for the disposal of these highly radioactive components in a landfill is that the greater than class C wastes will become class C low-level wastes upon combining the greater than class C wastes with a sufficient volume of low-level waste to reduce the overall curic average to just below the GTCC cut off point. In the case of Yankee Atomic, this cutoff point with the reactor vessel has been reached by filling the reactor vessel with cement. Litigation and negotiations are still continuing as of Jan. 1, 1997 as to when the Yankee Atomic reactor vessel will be shipped to S. Carolina for land burial. Safety Issues at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (12.178) Nuclear Regulation: Strategy Needed to Regulate Safety Using Information

on Risk (Letter Report, 03/19/99, GAO/RCED-99-95). (12.178.1) Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined various issues related to the

safe operation of commercial nuclear power plants, focusing on: (1) some of the challenges that the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 385 of 953

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the nuclear power industry could experience in a competitive environment; (2) issues that NRC needs to resolve to implement a risk-informed regulatory approach; and (3) the status of NRC's efforts to apply a risk-informed regulatory approach to two of its oversight programs--plant safety assessments and enforcement. (12.178.2) GAO noted that: (1) Congress and the public need confidence in NRC's

ability to ensure that the nuclear industry performs to the highest safety standards; (2) as the electric utility industry is restructured, operating and maintenance costs will affect the competitiveness of nuclear power plants; (3) competition challenges NRC to ensure that safety margins are not compromised by utilities' cost-cutting measures and that the decisions utilities make in response to economic considerations are not detrimental to public health and safety; (4) NRC has not developed a comprehensive strategy that could move its regulation of the safety of nuclear plants from its traditional approach to an approach that considers risk information; (5) in addition, NRC has not resolved certain basic issues; (6) some utilities do not have current and accurate design information for their nuclear power plants, which is needed for a risk-informed approach; (7) neither NRC nor the nuclear utility industry has standards that define the quality or adequacy of the risk assessments that utilities use to identify and measure risks to public health and the environment; (8) furthermore, NRC has not determined the willingness of utilities to adopt a risk-informed approach; (9) according to NRC staff, they are aware of these and other issues and have undertaken activities to resolve them; (10) in January 1999, NRC released for comment a proposed risk-informed process to assess the overall safety of nuclear power plants; (11) this process would establish industrywide and plant-specific safety thresholds and indicators to help NRC assess plant safety; (12) NRC expects to phase in the new process over the next 2 years and evaluate it by June 2001, at which time NRC plans to propose any adjustments or modifications needed; (13) in addition, NRC has been examining its enforcement program to make it consistent with, among other things, the proposed process for assessing plant McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 386 of 953

safety; (14) the nuclear industry and public interest groups have criticized the enforcement program as subjective; and (15) in the spring of 1999, NRC staff expect to provide the Commission with recommendations for revising the enforcement program. (12.178.3) March 19, 1999[;] The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.[;] United States Senate[;]

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman[;] United States Senate (12.178.4) In the United States today, 103 operating nuclear power plants supply

electricity to about 65 million households, meeting about 20 percent of the nation's needs. Now, the entire electric utility industry is faced with an unprecedented development: the economic restructuring of the nation's electric power system, from a regulated industry to one driven by competition. The economics of plant operations will play a critical role as the nation moves to electricity deregulation and nuclear utilities compete for the first time with other forms of electricity generation. (12.178.5) To maintain safety in this changing environment, the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has been moving from its traditional regulatory approach, which was largely developed without the benefit of quantitative estimates of risk, to an approachtermed risk-informed regulation--that considers relative risk in conjunction with engineering analyses and operating experience to ensure that plants operate safely. NRC believes that a risk-informed approach would reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on utilities and their costs, without reducing safety. In some cases, NRC believes such an approach could improve safety. NRC differentiates between "risk-informed" and "risk-based" regulation, noting that the latter approach relies solely on the numerical results of risk assessments.\1 (12.178.6) You asked us to examine various issues related to the safe operation of commercial

nuclear power plants. As agreed with your offices, this report addresses (1) some of the challenges that NRC and the nuclear power industry could experience in a competitive environment, (2) issues that NRC needs to resolve to implement a risk-informed regulatory approach, and (3) the status of NRC's McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 387 of 953

efforts to apply a risk-informed regulatory approach to two of its oversight programs--plant safety assessments and enforcement.\2 (12.178.7) \1 Risk assessments systematically examine complex technical systems to identify

and measure the public health, environmental, and economic risks of nuclear plants. They attempt to quantify the probabilities and consequences of an accident's occurrence. By their nature, risk assessments are statements of uncertainty that identify and assign probabilities to events that rarely occur. (12.178.8) ...The Congress and the public need confidence in NRC's ability to ensure that the

nuclear industry performs to the highest safety standards.\3 As the electric utility industry is restructured, operating and maintenance costs will affect the competitiveness of nuclear power plants. Competition challenges NRC to ensure that safety is not compromised by utilities' cost-cutting measures and that the decisions utilities make in response to economic considerations are not detrimental to public health and safety. (12.178.9) NRC has not developed a comprehensive strategy that could move its regulation

of the safety of nuclear plants from its traditional approach to an approach that considers risk information. In addition, NRC has not resolved certain basic issues. First, some utilities do not have current and accurate design information for their nuclear power plants, which is needed for a riskinformed approach. Second, neither NRC nor the nuclear utility industry has standards that define the quality or adequacy of the risk assessments that utilities use to identify and measure risks to public health and the environment. Furthermore, NRC has not determined the willingness of utilities to adopt a risk-informed approach. According to NRC staff, they are aware of these and other issues and have undertaken activities to resolve them. (12.178.10) In January 1999, NRC released for comment a proposed risk-informed process to

assess the overall safety of nuclear power plants. This process would establish industrywide and plantMcKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 388 of 953

specific safety thresholds and indicators to help NRC assess plant safety. NRC expects to phase in the new process over the next 2 years and evaluate it by June 2001, at which time NRC plans to propose any adjustments or modifications needed. In addition, NRC has been examining its enforcement program to make it consistent with, among other things, the proposed process for assessing plant safety. The nuclear industry and public interest groups have criticized the enforcement program as subjective. In the spring of 1999, NRC staff expect to provide the Commission with recommendations for revising the enforcement program... (12.178.11) (12.179) See Reference 344. Lochbaum, David. (June 1998). A report on safety in America's nuclear power

industry. Union of Concerned Scientists. (12.179.1) "UCS [Union of Concerned Scientists] undertook a study to assess how the nuclear

power industry is handling the pressures of aging equipment and shrinking budgets. For our focus group, we selected 10 plants that represent a cross section of the nuclear industry." (Executive Summary, p. v). (12.179.2) "...plants' [NRC] internal auditors, a key element in the quality assurance programs

that federal law requires, found none of the more than 200 problems reported last year." (Executive Summary, p. v). (12.179.3) "A second significant finding was that far too many of the problems reported at

the monitored plants resulted from workers' mistakes (35 percent of reported problems) or poor procedures (44 percent)." (Executive Summary, p. v). (12.179.4) "At the LaSalle, Millstone, and Sequoyah plants, problems often remained

undetected or uncorrected over a long period of time." (Executive Summary, p. v). (12.179.5) This report is available on-line at http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/index.html.

Stellfox, David. (February 15, 1999). Database suggests electrical fires more common as plants age. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 389 of 953

Inside N.R.C. 21(4). pg. 3. (12.179.6) "As nuclear plants age, more fires associated with electrical circuits are

showing up in a fire incident database ... 'We're starting to see more electrical issues as plants get older,' said Wayne Sohlman of Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. (NEIL)." (12.179.7) "A NEIL-sponsored fire incident database, while limited at present, indicates

that electrical wiring was the single largest category of material that ignited at nuclear plants. Electrical cabling was also the first category for 'fire origin' in the database, and the first or largest category for fire ignition source was electrical malfunction." (12.179.8) "One potential surprise, however, is that a significant number of fires -- 41, or

the second largest category in the database -- are first reported by continuous fire watches, including hot-work watches, rather than automatic detection systems." Reactor Embrittlement (12.180) Curran, D. (August 1, 1991). Testimony of Diane Curran: Subject: Embrittlement of

the reactor vessel at the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant. Before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. (12.180.1) (12.180.2) This testimony refers to a petition cited below under Pollard, R. and Curran, D. "Yesterday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to deny a petition for

emergency enforcement action and request for an adjudicatory hearing, filed by UCS [Union of Concerned Scientists] and NECNP [New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution] on June 4, 1991, which charges that the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant violates NRC regulatory standards for pressure vessel integrity. Memorandum and Order, CLI-91-11. The petition was based on the NRC Staff's own documents, which demonstrate that the Yankee Rowe vessel has become seriously embrittled by exposure to neutron irradiation over the course of its 31-year operating history. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 390 of 953

According to the Staff documents, the vessel significantly exceeds NRC's 'reference temperature' criteria and fails to meet the Commission's fracture toughness standards. Moreover, for virtually its entire operating life, Yankee Rowe has failed to comply with NRC requirements for routine vessel testing and inspection to determine its condition." (pg. 1-2). (12.180.3) "The Commission has conceded that its calculations of the risk of operating

Yankee Rowe are not based on any current data about the composition or condition of the Yankee Rowe vessel; that the Staff's analysis is fraught with uncertainty; and that these uncertain risk estimates are higher than well established NRC standards for safe operation. The Commission has asked the public to accept this high level of risk at Yankee Rowe until the Staff and Yankee Atomic can come up with information about the vessel that would have been submitted years ago if the regulations for testing and surveillance of the vessel had been enforced. This approach to regulation of nuclear power plants stands the NRC's regulatory scheme on its head and undermines whatever small confidence the public has left in this agency." (pg. 10). (12.181) Pollard, R.D. and Curran, D. (June 4, 1991). Petition for emergency enforcement

action and request for public hearing. Before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Union of Concerned Scientists. (12.181.1) "Over the thirty years that the Yankee Rowe plant has operated, irradiation by the

reactor core has embrittled the pressure vessel steel, rendering it vulnerable to cracking and rupture. If such cracking and rupture occur, they will almost certainly lead to a meltdown and uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment. As discussed in detail below, the Yankee Rowe vessel violates the Commission's standards for pressure vessel toughness and ductility." (pg. 1). (12.181.2) "Moreover, the vessel has never been examined to determine the exact severity of

those violations; or to determine the existence and size of cracks or flaws in the vessel wall." (pg. 1). (12.181.3) "...the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant fails to comply with an array of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 391 of 953

fundamental requirements for maintaining pressure vessel integrity in pressurized water reactors. ...Yankee Rowe's noncompliance with NRC requirements for pressure vessel integrity poses a safety risk of commensurate, if not graver, dimension than the suspicion of ECCS pipe cracking that caused the Commission to order 23 plant shutdowns in 1975." (pg. 26). (12.181.4) "The issues raised by YAEC's [Yankee Atomic Electric Company] noncompliance

with NRC regulations raise grave safety questions of tremendous public importance." (pg. 27). (12.181.5) An important early warning of NRC failure to enforce its own regulations and of

the complicity and willingness of YAEC to operate unsafe nuclear power plants in violation of federal regulation. (12.181.6) This plant was later permanently shut due to these flaws in the reactor vessel.

This important report by Pollard and Curran is essential reading for anyone concerned about reactor vessel embrittlement... (12.182) Pollard, R. (September 1995). US nuclear power plants -- showing their age: Case

study: core shroud cracking. Union of Concerned Scientists. (12.182.1) "...the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) confirmed that age-related

degradation in boiling water reactors (BWRs) will damage or destroy vital internal components well before the standard 40-year BWR license expires, ... This paper focuses on ... degradation of the internal components in BWR pressure vessels. This study found that the nuclear industry -- the regulated and the regulators alike -- is not prepared to deal with the grave age-related problems that lie ahead." (abstract). (12.182.2) "Research has shown that a multitude of both large and small nuclear plant

components are susceptible to a staggering variety of aging mechanisms. Reactor vessels, steam generators, piping, valves, heat exchangers, pumps, motors, instrumentation, electrical cables, seals, and supports are all degraded by erosion, fatigue, corrosion, radiation and thermal embrittlement, and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 392 of 953

vibration. Studies have also demonstrated that some types of degradation cannot be detected using the established methods of periodic testing and inspection." (pg. 1). (12.182.3) "To date, the single most significant finding resulting from the NRC's research

program is that the essential conditions that produce stress corrosion cracking -- including corrosionsusceptible materials, a corrosive environment, and tensile stresses -- are all present in BWRs. So far, most of the documented cracking has been found in one component, the core shroud. But 18 other BWR internal components are also known to be susceptible to corrosion, fatigue, creep, embrittlement, and erosion, or to a combination of these degradative mechanisms." (pg. 1). (12.182.4) "Most BWRs experience core shroud cracking after only 20 years of operation --

not 40 or 60." (pg. 1). (12.182.5) "The synergistic effects of multiple degraded components is still a largely

unexplored but critical aspect of the BWR aging cycle." (pg. 1). (12.182.6) This report includes the following definitions of degradation mechanisms as

described in NUREG/CR-5754, 1993, (pg. 8): (12.182.5.1) Stress Corrosion Cracking: SCC refers to the weakening of a BWR internal

structural component because of deterioration caused by electrochemical reactions with the surrounding material. (12.182.5.2) known as creep. (12.182.5.3) Fatigue: As a structure vibrates in response to dynamic loads, cracks develop in Creep: The progressive deformation of a structure under constant stress is

certain BWR internal components. (12.182.5.4) Embrittlement: Exposure of internal components to high temperatures (thermal

embrittlement) and prolonged exposure to fast neutron fluxes (radiation embrittlement) make a material more brittle and vulnerable to cracking. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 393 of 953

(12.182.5.4)

Erosion: The abrasive effects of bubbles and droplets in a liquid flow can

weaken BWR internal components. Spent Fuel Cladding Failure (12.183) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (August 5, 1992). IE information

notice no. 82-27: Fuel rod degradation resulting from baffle water-jet impingement. IN 82-27. Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. (12.183.1) "On May 6, 1982, Portland General Electric submitted a Licensee Event Report

(LER) 344/82-06, describing abnormal fuel clad degradation identified during a pre-planned fuel inspection to locate suspected leaking fuel assemblies. Fuel rod damage involved 17 fuel assemblies examined at the end of Cycle 4 operation. Portions of fuel rods were found missing and loose fuel pellets were discovered and retrieved from reactor vessel internals and the refueling cavity. Visual inspections revealed severe perimeter fuel rod failures in 8 fuel assemblies. Failures in the remaining 9 assemblies were detected by sipping operations, but did not exhibit visual damage." (pg. 1). (12.183.2) "In general, the water-jetting-induced rod motion causes fuel rod fretting because

of abnormal clad wear against the Inconel grid assemblies, which consist of slotted straps interlocked in an "egg-crate" arrangement." (pg. 2). (12.183.3) "Coolant cross-flow through the enlarged baffle gaps results in high velocity

jetting because of this pressure differential. The baffle water-jet then impinges on fuel rods and induces excessive rod motion, producing severe clad degradation. " (pg. 3). (12.184) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (October 12, 1993). NRC

information notice 93-82: Recent fuel and core performance problems in operating reactors. IN 93-82. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. NRC, Washington, DC. (12.184.1) "During shutdown inspection activities after Cycle 7 at Salem Unit 2 and Cycle 9

at Beaver Valley Unit 1, the licensees at both plants discovered numerous fuel rods that had developed McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 394 of 953

fretting wear and perforation. The fuel vendor attributed the degradation to grid-to-rod fretting resulting from flow-induced vibration of the fuel bundles. All but one of the affected fuel assemblies were Westinghouse twice-burned VANTAGE 5H fuel located next to the core baffle or with a history of previous operation at a peripheral location. The fretting wear occurred at the zircaloy mid-grid spacers rather than at lower grid locations where debris-induced fretting wear typically occurs. In some of the affected assemblies, secondary hydriding also was evident." (pg. 1). (12.185.2) "Recent operating experience of pressurized-water reactors has identified debris-

induced fretting as a leading cause of fuel failure. However, current experience also indicates that a new type of vibrational fretting is emerging." (pg. 3). (12.185.3) "This vibrational fretting involves the natural frequency and flow condition for

fuel assemblies adjacent to the core baffle." (pg. 3). Steam Generator Degradation Mechanisms (12.186) Barbito, Karin and Rogosky, Donna. (January 31, 1999). Steam generators; remote

visual inspection; an eye for steam generator maintenance. Nuclear Engineering International. pg. 21. (12.186.1) "Westinghouse has developed Steam Generator Secondary Side Maintenance

Guidelines to encourage utilities to develop a plan to proactively monitor and maintain its steam generators. The emphasis is on visual inspection." (12.186.2) "In response to steam generator wrapper support structure failures in foreign plants

and degradation of tube support plates at US facilities, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) issued Information Notice 96-09 in February 1996 followed by a supplement in July 1996. In December 1997, Generic Letter 97-06 was issued concerning the same issue. These documents emphasise the importance of developing a maintenance plan, part of which includes thorough visual inspections of steam generator secondary side internals to evaluate structural integrity." (12.186.3) "Westinghouse Electric Company, a leader in outage services, developed the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 395 of 953

Steam Generator Secondary Side Maintenance Guidelines in response to degradation concerns, as discussed above, and including: (12.186.3.1) degradation. (12.186.3.2) (12.186.3.3) (12.186.3.4) (12.186.3.5) (12.186.3.6) (12.186.3.7) (12.186.4) Tube degradation (described in an NEI document). Loose parts. Corrosive deposits. Sludge accumulation. Fouling. Wear. These conditions can result in a reduction in main steam pressure, hydrodynamic Structural integrity issues (outlined in NRC letters) - wrapper support structure

instabilities, stress corrosion cracking, lower steam pressure, tube rupture, replacement of steam generators prior to expected life, plant shutdown etc." (12.186.5) "The top of the tubesheet, tubelane and annulus region can be a collection point

for foreign material. If not removed, these foreign objects can cause tube wear and potentially a primary to secondary leak." (12.186.6) "Visual inspections are required in the upper bundle region to determine their

general condition of the tubes and tube support plates. Plant operating data has confirmed approximately 80% of corrosion product transport deposits in the tube support plate/upper tube bundle region of the steam generator. These deposits can lead to the concentration of potentially aggressive chemical species or form a ledge type structure blocking flow holes which increases pressure drop." (12.187) Stellfox, David. (March 1, 1999). Staff search in vain for regulatory vehicle for

steam generator plans. Inside N.R.C. 21(5). pg. 2. (12.187.1) "NRC staff has been meeting with industry officials for months trying to iron out a McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 396 of 953

means to regulate steam generators that satisfies both the agency's statutory need for safety assurances and industry's economic need for flexibility to continue to run their generators with flawed tubes." (12.187.2) "For industry to obtain that flexibility, it needs to eliminate or change the current

requirement in PWR technical specifications requiring that all tubes be plugged or repaired if tube flaws (initially wastage, now stress corrosion cracking) exceed 40% to 50% throughwall." (12.187.3) "But trying to find a generic regulatory vehicle or mechanism which

accommodates both parties' needs, gets the parties out of cycle-by-cycle reviews, and passes legal muster has proven elusive." (12.188) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (February 3, 1997). Region IV

morning report, page 9, Subject: pressure test of ANO, unit 2, steam generator tubes. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. Licensee/Facility: Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear 2, Russelville, Arkansas. Dockets: 50-368 PWR/CE. Notification: MR Number: 4-97-0013. Date: 01/31/97 SRI. SUBJECT: PRESSURE TEST OF ANO, UNIT 2, STEAM GENERATOR TUBES. (12.188.1) "Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Unit 2, recently received the results of pressure

tests that were performed on two steam generator tubes (R70C98 and R16C56), which were removed from Steam Generator A during a recent forced outage to repair a steam generator tube leak (PNO-IV96-061, MR 4-96-0128). Both tubes burst at approximately 3200 psig, which was significantly below the test pressure of 4750 psig needed to satisfy the Regulatory Guide 1.121 structural integrity criteria of three times the primary-to-secondary normal operating differential pressure." (12.188.2) "Both tubes were found during the forced outage to contain single axial cracks at

the first eggcrate support on the hot-leg side of the steam generator. For Tube R70C98, analysts found the bobbin coil data showed the defect as a distorted support indication. The motorized rotating pancake coil (MRPC) examination data indicated a 1.15 inch long flaw, with a throughwall depth of 81 percent. The length of the flaw in Tube R16C56 was found by MRPC to be 1.13 inches, and the depth McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 397 of 953

was found to be 89 percent by bobbin coil and 78 percent by MRPC examination. Examination of these tubes during the previous refueling outage, 2R11, which was completed in November 1995, did not reveal any degradation." (12.189.3) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (February 6, 1997).

[published] Proposed generic communication: Degradation of steam generator internals. See complete citation in RAD12: Maine Yankee: Public Safety Bibliography. (12.190) United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (December 1998). Draft regulatory

guide DG-1074: Steam generator tube integrity. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. (12.190.1) "The steam generator (SG) tubes in pressurized water reactors have a number of

important safety functions. These tubes are an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) and, as such, are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the RCPB, the SG tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system; the SG tubes are also relied upon to isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. In addition, the SG tubes are relied upon to maintain their integrity, as necessary, to be consistent with the containment objectives of preventing uncontrolled fission product release under conditions resulting from core damage severe accidents." (12.190.2) "In this regulatory guide, tube integrity means that the tubes are capable of

performing their intended safety functions consistent with the licensing basis, including applicable regulatory requirements." (12.190.3) "Concerns relating to the integrity of the tubing stem from the fact that the SG

tubing is subject to a variety of corrosion and mechanically induced degradation mechanisms that are widespread throughout the industry. These degradation mechanisms can impair tube integrity if they McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 398 of 953

are not managed effectively." (12.190.4) "Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations establishes the fundamental

regulatory requirements with respect to the integrity of the SG tubing. Specifically, several General Design Criteria (GDC) in Appendix A, 'General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,' to 10 CFR Part 50, 'Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,' are applicable to the integrity of the steam generator tubes." (12.190.5) "These guidelines are intended to provide licensees with the flexibility to adjust

the specifics of the program elements within the constraints of these guidelines to reflect new information, new NDE technology, new degradation mechanisms or defect types, changes in flaw growth rates, and other changing circumstances. Licensees must develop and implement steam generator defect specific management (SGDSM) strategies to fully achieve this flexibility. SGDSM strategies involve an integrated set of program elements, paralleling those in this regulatory guide, that address specific defect types." (12.190.6) "The tube inspections are followed by assessments of tube integrity performance

relative to performance criteria. Performance criteria acceptable to the NRC staff are given in Regulatory Position 2 of this regulatory guide. These performance criteria address three areas of tube integrity performance: structural integrity, operational leakage integrity, and accident-induced leakage integrity." (12.190.7) "Performance criteria acceptable to the NRC for accident leakage integrity are

identified in Regulatory Position 2.3. These involve accident leakage rates consistent with those assumed in the licensing basis accident analyses for purposes of demonstrating that the accident consequences are in accordance with 10 CFR Part 100, or some fraction thereof, and GDC-19." (12.190.8) "The objective of SG tube inspection is to provide sufficient information

concerning the defect types present in the SGs, the tubes that contain defects, and the size of these McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 399 of 953

defects such that when implemented in conjunction with the other programmatic elements of this regulatory guide, there is reasonable assurance that the tube integrity performance criteria in Regulatory Position 2 are being maintained throughout the time period between SG tube inspections." LORCAs and Spent Fuel Cooling (12.191) Ibarra, J.G., Jones, W.R., Lanik, G.F., Ornstein, H.L. and Pullani, S.V. (July-

September, 1996). Assessment of spent fuel cooling. Nuclear Safety: Technical Progress Journal. s37(3). pg. 237-255. "This article presents the methodology, findings, and conclusions of a study conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operation Data (AEOD) on loss of spent fuel pool (SFP) cooling." (abstract, pg. 237). (12.192) [So far, all of the information in Section 12 has come directly from the Davistown

Museum. Spent fuel cooling is obviously a problem with nuclear industry safety. It would also, obviously, be a problem related to packaging, shipping, and storing spent fuel from nuclear power plants all over the world to the one GNEP reprocessing plant in the United States which the Defendants are talking about operating. Because the information from the Davistown Museum may not be the easiest place to find readily prepared information, so that this issue isn't overlooked by the Court or by a grand jury, this subsection (12.192) will provide information from other sources, which is as follows:] (12.192.1) Spent fuel pool (SFP) are storage pools for spent fuel from nuclear reactors.

Typically 40 or more feet deep, with the bottom 14 feet equipped with storage racks designed to hold fuel assemblies removed from the reactor. These fuel pools are specially designed at the reactor in which the fuel was used and situated at the reactor site. In many countries, the fuel assemblies, after being in the reactor for 3 to 6 years, are stored underwater for 10 to 20 years before being sent for reprocessing or dry cask storage. The water cools the fuel and provides shielding from radiation. ...About one-fourth to one-third of the total fuel load of a reactor is removed from the core every 12 to 18 months and replaced with fresh fuel. Spent fuel rods generate intense heat and dangerous radiation McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 400 of 953

that must be contained. Fuel is moved from the reactor and manipulated in the pool generally by automated handling systems, although some manual systems are still in use. The fuel bundles fresh from the core normally are segregated for several months for initial cooling before being sorted in to other parts of the pool to wait for final disposal. Metal racks keep the fuel in safe positions to avoid the possibility of a criticality a nuclear chain reaction occurring. Water quality is tightly controlled to prevent the fuel or its cladding from degrading. Current regulations permit re-arranging of the spent rods so that maximum efficiency of storage can be achieved... The maximum temperature of the spent fuel bundles decreases significantly between 2 and 4 years, and less from 4 to 6 years. The fuel pool water is continuously cooled to remove the heat produced by the spent fuel assemblies. Pumps circulate water from the spent fuel pool to heat exchangers then back to the spent fuel pool. Radiolysis, the dissociation of molecules by radiation, is of particular concern in wet storage, as water may be split by residual radiation and hydrogen gas may accumulate increasing the risk of explosions. For this reason the air in the room of the pools, as well as the water must permanently be monitored and treated. See Reference 348. (12.192.2) Friday, June 13, 2008[:] The N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network has

learned that Progress Energy recently halted shipments of spent nuclear fuel rods from other facilities for storage in water-filled cooling pools at the Shearon Harris nuclear plant 25 miles southwest of Raleigh. Instead, the company is now storing those rods on site at the Robinson plant near Florence, S.C. and the Brunswick plant near Wilmington, N.C...Under pressure from local government officials in Orange, Chatham and Durham counties and the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, Progress in 2003 announced that it would halt the spent-fuel shipments to Harris by the end of 2005. In an e-mail sent to those officials this week, N.C. WARN Executive Director Jim Warren said the fact that it took two additional years is "unfortunately consistent with Progress Energys pattern of prioritizing profits over regional safety, despite its public relations position."...Last October, a train delivering spent fuel to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 401 of 953

Harris derailed on the plant's property. Fortunately, no one was injured in the incident, and the waste was reportedly undamaged. The company blamed the mishap on human error....Adding to concerns about the spent fuel shipments to Harris is the plant's history of serious security problems exposed by whistle-blowing guards; those problems led the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to levy a $65,000 fine against the company last year. In addition, Harris is one of a number of nuclear power plants across the South and the nation that are failing to follow the letter of the law on fire prevention......N.C. WARN has long called on Progress Energy to lower the density of the spent-fuel cooling pools at Harris and to move all waste over five years old into more secure dry storage casks -- a plan endorsed in 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. See Reference 349. (12.192.3) August 18, 2006: A letter from the Governor's Office of the State of Nevada to the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (See Reference 350), says the following: (12.192.3.1) "...We would remind the Commission that the law clearly prohibits a spent fuel

storage facility in Nevada..." (12.192.3.2) ...The essential technical point is that fuel cooling is not integral to the

operation of a repository licensed for permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Fuel cooling begins with the removal of irradiated fuel from an operating reactor, and continues throughout the decay period of the radionuclides contained in the fuel. Thermal limits for a particular repository geologic setting and design may require control of the thermal impact of the irradiated fuel within the repository, but this does not require aging the fuel at the repository site. The aging facility as conceived for a Yucca Mountain repository is unquestionably interim storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel interim between removal from the reactor site and emplacement in the repository. This naturally falls under the scope of 10 C.F.R. Part 72, and is an activity prohibited in the State of Nevada. If the purpose of the facility were really to optimize repository loading operations, its capacity would be roughly comparable to its yearly intake instead of constituting a large fraction of the total legal spent fuel McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 402 of 953

capacity of the repository, so the nations spent fuel can conveniently be stored at Yucca Mountain rather than at reactor sites. (12.192.3.3) DOE gives away the facilitys real purpose by its title Aging Facility which

is distinctly separate from the purpose of operating the repository. The NRC staff should note this distinction and retract its prejudicial announcement that aging at the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository will be governed by 10 CFR Part 63. That determination is, at best, premature. (12.192.3.4) (12.192.4) See Reference 350. The Sierra Club published an article entitled: Deadly Nuclear Waste Transport,

which says the following (quotation marks omitted): (12.192.4.1) Background: The proposed Yucca Mountain Repository for High-Level Nuclear

Waste 90 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada is the only site being considered by the federal government for the storage of irradiated fuel from the nation's 131 commercial nuclear reactors, Navy ship reactors, and private research sites. (12.192.4.2) Transportation of irradiated fuel to Yucca Mountain would involve truck or rail

shipments through 43 states (many of which have chosen not to have nuclear facilities), within one half mile of the homes of tens of millions of people, and through over 100 of America's largest cities. Barge shipments would move through 17 port cities on the Atlantic seaboard and through the drinking water of the Great Lakes via Lake Michigan. The Facts (12.192.4.3) Dangerous Transport Proposal: The Department of Energy (DOE) is predicting

that 108,500 shipments will be required over 38 years. However, the exact routes to be used and the method of shipment have not been identified because they don't want the public to know. (12.192.4.4) Consequences from an Accident: According to Rail Watch, the number of

railroad accidents involving hazardous materials averaged about 33 accidents annually through the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 403 of 953

1990s. Approximately 10,000 people a year are evacuated from their homes or affected by contamination from hazardous materials spilled in train wrecks. (12.192.4.5) According to a report of experts (Lamb & Resnikoff, 2001), a severe rail

incident such as the Baltimore rail tunnel fire in July, 2001 would cause thousands of cancer deaths, and cost $10-$14 billion in clean-up costs. According to a 1985 DOE study, a similar accident in a rural area would contaminate 42 square miles (an area roughly the size of Washington, DC), and would take over 15 months and $600 million to clean up. (12.192.4.6) Emergency Preparedness: In a radiological emergency, local communities and

school districts would be immediately responsible in providing equipment, training, facilities and personnel. In the event of an emergency, the financial burden incurred by rural communities would be devastating and the required resources would be enormous. More importantly, before local emergency responders would be able to accurately assess the problem, the radioactive plume would have already have contaminated an extensive area. (12.192.4.7) Targets for Terrorism: Moving deadly shipments of nuclear cargo around the

country would create tens of thousands of viable targets for terrorists. Terrorists wielding armorpiercing weapons could penetrate a shipping cask, causing a lethal release that would cost billions of dollars to cleanup. After September 11th we know that we can't take risks with something so deadly. (12.192.4.8) Faulty Logic: DOE claims that radioactive waste stored around the country

cannot be adequately protected against terrorists and must be moved. At the same time, DOE's Director for Radioactive Waste Management has said that radioactive waste will remain at these sites for at least the next 40 years. In fact, nuclear waste has to cool for a certain period of time before it can be moved. As nuclear power plants continue to operate, there will always be stored waste at nuclear sites around the country, whether Yucca Mountain is built or not. (12.192.4.9) Access: DOE's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) includes proposed McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 404 of 953

rail routes approaching Yucca Mountain where a rail line does not currently exist. Construction of these rail lines would be the largest federal transportation undertaking since World War I and cost billions of dollars. (12.192.4.10) Mixed Rail Transport: The Department of Transportation (DOT) has refused to

require that spent nuclear fuel be restricted to dedicated trains. Amazingly, current regulations allow deadly spent nuclear fuel to be shipped in mixed-freight rail cars next to cars carrying flammable and explosive materials. In the event of an incident with flammable or explosive materials, the nuclear transport would be immediately affected. (12.192.4.11) Cask Durability: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not actually

tested the shipping casks to be used. Instead, they have used computer-simulated tests and NRC has declared these results to be safe. Further, NRC has no immediate plans to actually test the shipping containers durability against fire, sabotage, water immersion, puncture and impact. (12.192.4.12) The Risks of Being Wrong: This proposal is dangerous and irresponsible. Each

time a load of nuclear waste takes to America's highways, railways or waterways, there will be a chance that something can go wrong -- a high-speed collision, a dangerous fire, a submerged cask on a sunken barge, or a successful terrorist attack, a spill, a collision, a fire, or worse. One mistake is too many. And this chance isn't so small when you consider the tens of thousands of shipments they're planning. This is a risk we simply can't take. (12.192.4.13) (12.192.5) See Reference 351. The State of Nevada published a report entitled: Radiation Exposures From

Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Nuclear Waste Transportation to a Geologic Repository or Interim Storage Facility in Nevada By Robert J. Halstead. [While reading this, it may be worth noting that Spent Nuclear Fuel is classified High-Level Nuclear Waste.] This report is as follows (quotation marks omitted): McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 405 of 953

INTRODUCTION (12.192.5.1) Technical studies sponsored by DOE and NRC (Refs. 1,2, 3, 4, 5) have

identified three aspects of spent nuclear fuel(SNF) and high-level radioactive waste(HLW) transportation which could result in increased radiation exposures to transportation workers, members of the general public, and emergency response personnel: 1) during routine transportation operations, gamma and neutron radiation are continuously emitted through the cask walls; 2) a severe transportation accident could damage the cask radiation shielding, resulting in elevated gamma and neutron radiation levels around the damaged cask, and possibly release some portion of cask contents, resulting in contamination of a relatively large down-wind area with alpha-, beta,- and gammaemitting isotopes; and 3) a terrorist attack using high energy explosives could breach a cask and disperse a portion of its contents, resulting in elevated gamma and neutron radiation from the damaged cask, and contamination of the nearby area with alpha-, beta-, and gamma- emitting isotopes. (12.192.5.2) Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects staff and contractors have reviewed these

DOE- and NRC-sponsored research reports as part of the Agency's overall assessment of nuclear waste transportation risks and impacts.(Refs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) These studies are not sufficient for the assessment of potential health effects that must be addressed in the Yucca Mountain repository site environmental impact statement(EIS). As part of the EIS process, DOE must address potential radiological health effects for transportation along specific rail and highway routes likely to be used for shipments to a repository at Yucca Mountain and/or an interim storage facility at NTS. Nonetheless, the reports cited in the following discussion do at least provide a starting point for identification of the kinds of radiation exposures which could occur during SNF and HLW transportation, and suggest the kinds of baseline community health information which will need to be collected before, during, and after repository operations in the event that the Yucca Mountain project proceeds. RADIATION EXPOSURES AND HEALTH EFFECTS McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 406 of 953

(12.192.5.3)

In the United States, members of the general public annually receive an average

background radiation dose of about 360 millirem(mrem) from a combination of natural and man-made sources. The primary natural source, radon gas, contributes about 200 mrem, to the average annual dose equivalent, and medical x-rays, the primary man-made source, contribute about 40 mrem. (A typical chest x-ray results in a 10 mrem dose.) For purposes of this analysis, residents of Nevada are assumed to receive the national average annual dose. (12.192.5.4) The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) has established dose limits for

workers exposed to radiation as part of their jobs, and these limits have been adopted (where not otherwise required) by the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE). The annual dose limit for radiological workers overall is 5.0 rem (5,000 mrem) whole body, and for declared pregnant workers, 0.5 rem(500 mrem) to the unborn child (embryo/fetus) over the nine-month gestation period. The average annual dose to the general public from nuclear industry activities is limited to 0.1 rem (100 mrem). (12.192.5.5) The NRC limits reflect the prevailing assumption among government (and

industry and many academic) technical authorities that an individual must receive a whole-body dose of about 25,000 mrem (15,000 mrem for a pregnant woman) before there is a significant increase in the risk of serious human health effects, and a dose of about 500,000 mrem (500 rem) before probable death as a result of radiological health effects. On the other hand, government regulations also require that NRC licensees and DOE contractors follow the radiation control concept known as ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable). The ALARA objective is to attain worker and public doses as far below the applicable limits as reasonably achievable given social, technical, economic and policy considerations. The ALARA concept recognizes the uncertainties associated with the risk of low level exposure to ionizing radiation. It should also be remembered that there is considerable technical controversy about the individual health effects of any additional exposures beyond background levels, and mythological debate about the use of collective population-doses to calculate latent cancer fatalities McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 407 of 953

among the general population in probabilistic risk assessments. EXPOSURES AND DOSES RESULTING FROM ROUTINE TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS

(12.192.5.6)

This analysis of exposures resulting from routine(non-accident) transportation

focuses on radiation doses received by: (1) workers conducting safety inspections of casks and vehicles; (2) individuals residing, working, or institutionally confined at locations near shipping routes; and (3) drivers and passengers of vehicles in traffic gridlock incidents who may be stranded for an extended period of time very near an undamaged shipping cask. Appendix A provides a partial listing of other circumstances in which workers and/or members of the public may receive significant radiation exposures during routine transportation operations (12.192.5.7) The Sandquist report( Ref.1) evaluated exposures to the public and workers from

routine shipments of truck and rail casks containing five-year-old, medium-to-high burn up SNF. Specific fuel characteristics, cask designs, and cask capacities are less important for estimating routine exposures than the emission rate allowed under NRC regulations, 10 mrem/hour at 2 meters from the cask surface. Cask designs being developed for shipments to a repository assume the 10 mrem/hour emission rate. ( DOE considered and rejected the idea of limiting new cask design emissions to 2 mrem/hour at 2 meters, which would have cut the payload for the new truck casks in-half.) Using the PATHRAE model to estimate exposure rates (in microrem/minute) at various distances (in meters) from the cask center, Sandquist specified exposure times(in minutes) and distances(in meters) for various events (such as slow transit through residential areas), and calculated maximum individual exposures(in millirems) per event. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 408 of 953

(12.192.5.8)

Sandquist correctly cautions that: "These exposures should not be multiplied by

the expected number of shipments to a repository in an attempt to calculate total exposures to an individual; the same person would probably not be exposed for every shipment, nor would these maximum exposure circumstances necessarily arise during every shipment." With appropriate modifications and qualifications, however, Sandquist's approach and some of Sandquist's assumptions can be used to calculate cumulative exposures for certain individuals and groups of exposed individuals. Worker Exposures Due to Safety Inspections of Casks and Vehicles

(12.192.5.9)

Workers responsible for safety inspections of SNF and HLW shipments could

receive yearly occupational doses significantly in excess of annual background doses. Sandquist assumed each truck cask inspection would take about 12 minutes , at a distance of 3 meters from the cask center (near the personnel barrier), and result in a dose of 2 mrem per event. Inspections of truck casks entering Nevada will likely require 45 - 75 minutes, based on actual experience in other western states with the more rigorous inspection protocols developed by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance(CVSA), and may also involve swipe sampling inside the personnel barrier to determine cask surface contamination levels. Rigorous mechanical and radiological safety inspections at Nevada ports of entry could very well result in an average dose of 10 mrem per person per truck cask arrival. An

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 409 of 953

inspector who conducted two truck inspections per week could receive a cumulative annual dose ranging from 200 to 1,000 mrem. At one inspection per day, 5 days a week, an inspector could receive an annual dose of up to 2,500 mrem. Exposures to Members of the Public Residing, Working, or Institutionally Confined at Locations Near Shipping Routes (12.192.5.10) Individuals who reside, work, or are institutionally confined at certain locations

within 6 to 40 meters (20 to 130 feet) of a nuclear waste highway route, or within 6 to 50 meters (20 to 160 feet) of a nuclear waste rail route, could potentially receive yearly radiation doses equal to a significant percentage of, or even in excess of, average annual background doses. Such exposures could occur under circumstances where: (1) residences, workplaces, or certain institutions (especially schools, prisons, or long-term health care or retirement facilities) are located near route features or segments which would require nuclear waste trucks or trains to stop and start again, or travel at very slow speed; (2) the number of shipments is high enough, one to several casks per day, that opportunities for exposures occur frequently at the same locations, and (3) the individuals residing, working, or confined at near-route locations are regularly present to be exposed to a significant portion (if not all) of the shipments which occur annually. (12.192.5.11) Based on route-specific impact studies conducted by Agency contractors and

personnel, there is a high probability that all three circumstances exist along some of the routes likely to be used for shipments to a repository at Yucca Mountain or to an interim storage facility at the Nevada Test Site. Legal-weight truck (LWT) routes of special concern would include US 95 from the I15 interchange in downtown Las Vegas to Lathrop Wells, and the so-called NDOT B Route, US 93A, US 93, US 6, and US 95 from West Wendover to Lathrop Wells (especially where vehicle stops and/ or left turns are required in West Wendover, McGill, Ely, Tonopah, Goldfield, and Beatty).These routes could carry between 600 and 2,700 truck casks per year. Rail route locations of particular concern would potentially include areas in Jean, Arden, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Moapa, and Caliente along McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 410 of 953

the Union Pacific mainline from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles. These routes could carry between 300 and 500 rail casks per year. Heavy haul truck (HHT) route segments of special concern would include US 93 west from Caliente to Oak Springs Summit, State Route 375 through Rachel, US 6 intersection with US 95 in Tonopah, and US 95 through Tonopah, Goldfield, and Beatty. This route could carry an average of 500 - 600 slow-moving HHT shipments per year. (It is also possible that HHT shipments could be routed through North Las Vegas or Las Vegas). (Ref. 12.) (12.192.5.12) Using exposure rates (in microrem/minute) generated by the the PATHRAE

model, Sandquist specified exposure times(in minutes) and distances(in meters) for routine transportation events (such as slow transit through residential areas and areas with pedestrians, truck stops for driver's rest and refueling), and calculated maximum individual exposures(in millirems) per event. Although Sandquist cautioned against using these exposures to calculate 30 year cumulative doses, these exposures, when appropriately qualified, can be used to estimate maximum potential annual doses to individuals near truck cask shipping routes, as follows: (12.192.5.12.1) (12.192.5.12.2) (12.192.5.12.3) (12.192.5.12.4) (12.192.5.12.5) (12.192.5.12.6) (12.192.5.13) Distance from cask center 6 m/20 ft 10 m/33 ft 15 m/49 ft 40 m/131 ft Dose Rate(microrem/min.) 70 40 20 6 Maximum Dose, 6 min. exposure(mrem) 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.04 Maximum Dose, 2 min. exposure(mrem) 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.01 Max. Annual Ind. Dose, 600 trucks(mrem) 84-240 48-120 24-60 6-24 Max. Annual Ind. Dose, 2,400 trucks(mrem) 336-960 192-480 96-240 24-96 It is possible that there are locations along highway routes in Nevada where

exposure times could average 6 minutes per truck shipment. It is likely that there are locations where exposure times could average 2 minutes per truck shipment ( for example, major intersections along the NDOT B Route in West Wendover, Ely, and Tonopah). Depending upon the number of truck shipments and distance from the route, maximally exposed individuals near highway routes could potentially McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 411 of 953

receive annual doses ranging from 6 mrem to 960 mrem, equivalent to 2% to 266% of the average annual background radiation dose. Further study of route-specific details is necessary for more precise dose estimates. (12.192.5.14) Estimation of exposures from rail transportation is more difficult, primarily

because of uncertainties about service options (dedicated trains versus general freight service), number of casks per shipment, and continuous rail shipment or intermodal transfer to HHT. At various times, DOE has considered locations in Jean, Arden, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Caliente for rail spur origination and/or rail cask transfers. Maximally exposed individuals located within 20 meters (66 feet) of rail interchange/transfer points could potentially receive annual doses in the range of 150 mrem, assuming 500 rail cask/shipments per year and an average exposure time of 10 minutes per rail cask received. Further study is necessary for more precise dose estimates. Exposures to Occupants of Vehicles Trapped in Traffic Gridlock Incidents Near an Undamaged Shipping Cask. (12.192.5.14) Drivers and passengers of vehicles in traffic gridlock incidents could receive

potentially significant radiation doses as a result of being trapped next to or near an undamaged truck cask for an extended period of time. Sandquist evaluated such events, and concluded that occupants of stopped vehicles in lanes adjacent to the cask vehicle could receive a maximum dose of 3 mrem, assuming a distance of 5 meters from the cask center and an exposure time of 30 minutes. In response to inquiries from the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board(NWTRB), DOE personnel in 1990 prepared an analysis which concluded that the maximum dose from a gridlock incident could be as high as 40 mrem. DOE provided the following analysis to the NWTRB: Maximum Exposure of Critical Group in Gridlock (12.192.5.14.1) Assumptions - Group located 1m from vertical plane of trailer - 4-8 people in vehicles closest to trailer McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 412 of 953

- Gridlock lasts 2-4 hours - No remedial action to move group members - Exposure rate to group, 5-10 mrem/hr (12.192.5.14.2) Conclusions - Exposure to group member, 10-40 mrem - Exposure would be 2-8% of IAEA annual public dose equivalent limits (12.192.5.15) The risks associated with gridlock incidents involving SNF shipments, and

gridlock risk reduction strategies, have received little serious study and many questions relative to health effects remain unanswered. For example: (12.192.5.15.1) (12.192.5.15.2) interchanges... ? (12.192.5.15.3) Could gridlock involving a large number of vehicles occur in a rural area, for How often is gridlock expected to occur overall? Is gridlock likely to occur on a regular basis at congested urban

example, as a result of an accident in a highway construction zone? (12.192.5.15.4) How many people could be exposed to 10-40 mrem in a worst case gridlock

incident (e.g., cask jammed up against school bus, city bus, tour bus, etc.)? (12.192.5.15.5) What, if any, health risks would be expected among "average" members of

the public exposed to 40 mrem over 4 hours? (12.192.5.15.6) Would the same 40 mrem exposure over 4 hours pose greater health risks to

pregnant woman and unborn children, young children, or persons already exposed to higher than average levels of radiation ? (12.192.5.15.7) Should a health effects analysis address possible psychological

consequences, or trauma-related illnesses, which might result from a gridlock incident, or should such issues be considered as impacts of perceived risk? McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 413 of 953

Implications for Community Health Studies (12.192.5.16) Routine transportation operations could result in a variety of whole body

exposures to gamma and neutron radiation: (12.192.5.16.1) Vehicle inspectors could receive 100 to 250 or more exposures equivalent to

medical x-rays (10 mrem or more) per year, resulting in cumulative annual doses of 1,000 to 2,500 mrem, equal to as much as 50% of the occupational dose allowable for nuclear industry workers. The same inspectors could conceivably continue to receive the same annual dose for a period of 10, 20, or 30 years or even longer. (12.192.5.16.2) Persons who reside (or work or attend school or are institutionalized) at certain

locations very near nuclear waste highway routes could under certain circumstances receive hundreds or even thousands of very low-level exposures (ranging from 0.01 mrem to 0.4 mrem per shipment) per year, resulting in cumulative annual doses of 6 mrem to 960 mrem, equal to 10% to 250% of average annual background radiation dose. These maximally exposed individuals could theoretically continue to receive the same annual dose for a period of 10, 20, or 30 years or even longer. (12.192.5.16.3) Persons caught in gridlock incidents involving SNF shipments could receive

up to 40 mrem, a dose equivalent to four medical x-rays, over a period of 4 hours. It is unlikely (but certainly not impossible) that an individual would be caught in a gridlock incident involving SNF more than once. (12.192.5.16.4) These potential exposures and the resulting doses are lower than the thresholds

usually considered to cause a high probability of adverse health effects. However, the potential doses are high enough relative to normal background doses to justify consideration in planning for data collection as a part of community health studies. The following should be considered: (a) Vehicle inspectors should have complete medical examinations before beginning work

on SNF shipments, and should be reexamined annually. Monitoring of white blood cell and platelet McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 414 of 953

counts would be particularly important, although one would not necessarily expect to see impacts at exposures less than 10,000 mrem. (b) Vehicle inspectors should be equipped with personal dosimeters, and actual doses

should be monitored collectively and individually, probably at least monthly, depending upon the number of casks inspected. (c) Cask inspection records should be carefully monitored, and actual emission levels

should be tracked in aggregate, by cask type, and by individual cask. (d) An ALARA assessment should develop exposure reduction strategies for vehicle and

cask inspections (e.g., construction of specialized inspection bays at ports of entry, redesign hand-held instrumentation, and use of remote instrumentation and/or robots) (e) All potential rail and highway routes should be surveyed to identify locations where the

dose per shipment is likely to exceed some predetermined level (for example, 0.04 mrem/shipment, the calculated dose for a 2 minute exposure at 15 meters distance from the cask center). The traffic flow rates, demographics, building types, etc. at these locations should then be evaluated to determine the potential for actual exposures. The potential for human exposures could be much less than suggested, or it could be greater. This is one potential impact area where intuition should not be relied upon. (f) Depending upon the conclusions of the above route survey (item e above), it may be

useful to collect baseline data on cancers and genetic disorders in any corridor communities which appear to have potential for high exposures (for example, if an elementary school classroom is found to be located within 15 to 30 meters of a traffic light or stop or yield sign along a primary shipment route). (g) A system of fixed radiation monitors should be installed at various locations along

shipment routes, at various distances, to record actual exposure rates. Preferably this should be done before shipments begin to establish baseline data. (h) It should be assumed that gridlock incidents will occur during SNF transport. The State McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 415 of 953

should press DOE to develop a gridlock risk reduction strategy and to formulate a clear policy on response to gridlock incidents, including assessments of exposures. (12.192.5.17) (12.193) See Reference 352.

Maps of locations of Nuclear Power Reactors: WORLD MAP :

See Reference 338. (12.194) Maps of locations of Nuclear Power Reactors: NORTH AMERICA

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 416 of 953

See Reference 339. [While viewing the maps on the previous page, it is important to understand that the Defendants plan to have spent nuclear fuel and other high-level nuclear waste shipped from nuclear power plants from all over the world to be reprocessed at the one GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant of the United States, located at one place that is finally chosen in the United States. Two of these potential facility locations are in southeastern New Mexico. Knowing that there would be unavoidable leaks, and other permitted and unpermitted emissions from the GNEP facility causes Plaintiffs to suffer an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and serious fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death of Plaintiffs and people that Plaintiffs care about. But understanding the full potential for catastrophe also involves understanding the risks involved in routinely transporting this voluminous amount of high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants from all over the world to the GNEP facility.] Hot Particles (12.195) Airozo, Dave. (January 18, 1999). Agency staff says 'hot particle' rules do more McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 417 of 953

harm than good. Inside N.R.C. 21(2). pg. 4. (12.195.1) "Hot particles are tiny, usually microscopic, particles that most commonly contain

cobalt-60 or fission products. They apparently become electrically charged as a result of radioactive decay and tend to 'hop' from one surface to another. Particles from leaking reactor fuel, commonly known as 'fuel fleas,' are among the hot particles found at reactor sites." (12.195.2) "Because they are highly radioactive beta or beta-gamma emitters with relatively

high specific activity, the hot particles deposit very large, highly nonuniform doses to very small amounts of tissue if they land on a worker's skin." (12.195.3) "Because the [10 CFR] Part 20 worker whole-body skin exposure limit of 50 rem

per year is not particularly relevant to the type of exposure and consequences arising from hot particle skin contact, NRC has used enforcement discretion in deciding what to do about worker exposures that exceed the 50-rem limit when the exposure is caused by a hot particle." (12.195.4) "The overall cost of a hot particle control program runs from $200,000 to $2-

million annually per reactor site, according to an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report cited by the NRC staff." (12.195.5) "Under the staff's plan, the monitoring practices, which NRC and the industry say

add 3-5 person-rem per reactor outage per site, would be loosened and, instead of trying to meet the 50rem limit set in Part 20, utilities would shoot for limiting hot particle skin exposures to 300 rads averaged over an area of 1 cm2." (12.195.6) "If an exposure exceeded the 300-rad target, the utility would have to report that to

the NRC and tell the agency what steps would be taken to fix any problems that caused the excess exposure. The excess exposure would not, however, be considered an overexposure in regulatory terms." (12.195.7) "The staff also proposed an overall 1,000-rad dose cap, aimed at providing greater McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 418 of 953

assurance that extremely high hot particle doses don't occur." Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal (Dry Casks/Multi Purpose Casks, etc.) (12.196) Many controversial issues are part of the current debate on how and where to

dispose of reactor-derived spent fuel assemblies. Among the most important controversies, aside from the final location of spent fuel, involves the design of dry casks to hold spent fuel when reactor spent fuel pools become filled to capacity as is now the case at a number of U.S. reactors. As MYAPC, Connecticut Yankee and other facilities undergo decommissioning, spent fuel now stored underwater in fuel pools will be transferred to independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) while awaiting the unlikely construction of a final repository at Yucca Mt. One of the most important stages in this process of storing and/or disposing of spent fuel is the development of appropriate "dry casks" to replace wet storage, reactor spent fuel pools not being designed to hold spent fuel for long periods of time. A number of new dry cask designs are now being considered by the NRC for licensing. This new model of dry cask is called a multi-purpose container (MPC) and is meant to be used not only for onsite storage of spent fuel but for its transport and final geological emplacement. An important annoying detail for the nuclear industry is the fact that most dry casks now in use are obsolete and cannot be used for transport for final geological disposal. Rather, those utilities such as Northern States Power, which have already purchased and are using the older dry casks, will have to take the spent fuel out of these casks in an underwater environment and transfer the spent fuel into new multi-purpose casks prior to any transport of spent fuel to a monitored retrievable storage facility such as that now being proposed in [C]ongress as a temporary alternative to final geological disposal in Yucca Mt. (12.197) Numerous controversial issues attend spent fuel storage including spent fuel pool

safety, obsolete dry cask safety issues, NRC design and licensing criteria for new MPCs, transportation safety issues and final geological repository safety issues. Presently, there are no licensed multipurpose canisters available to transport spent fuel to a temporary monitored retrievable storage (MRS) McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 419 of 953

facility, if such a facility is authorized by congress. MPCs as well as ISFSIs are very expensive components of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, and even if the safety issues attending appropriate MPC design are resolved, the political issues of transport and disposal of spent fuel are not, and funding of new MPCs would greatly exceed all the funds collected to date by the Department of Energy for a final geological repository. Most controversial of all is the fact that the contents of the spent fuel pools at US reactors include a variety of highly radioactive wastes which cannot be sited as "standard spent fuel" in newly designed MPCs. Typical spent fuel pool contents that are not destined for MPCs include failed fuel assemblies, fuel assemblies which have been altered, fuel assemblies which have had significant damage but are not considered "failed," neutron sources initially used to start the chain reaction, highly radioactive filters which contain spent fuel pellets and activation products from the reactor containment and a wide variety of debris and other equipment which is too radioactive to site as low-level waste. One of the upcoming problems with any "low-level" waste facility is that NRC concentration averaging policies allow much of this GTCC waste and spent fuel debris to be diluted with class A low-level wastes and then sited as class C low-level waste. To review the contents of a relatively "clean" reactor's spent fuel pool, see Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company's recently released spent fuel pool inventory, much of which is not destined for a geological repository. At least MYAPC has the advantage of not being burdened with obsolete dry casks that will have to be replaced with much more expensive multi-purpose canisters as is the case at a number of other US reactors. MOX (12.198) Lyman, E.S. (January 21, 1999). Public health consequences of substituting mixed-

oxide for uranium fuel in light-water reactors. Nuclear Control Institute, Washington, DC. The following quotations are all from the Executive Summary of this report. (12.198.1) "Under one approach, known as "can-in-canister" immobilization (CIC),

plutonium will be incorporated into chemically stable ceramic discs. These discs will in turn be McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 420 of 953

embedded in canisters of 'vitrified' (glassified) high-level radioactive waste (VHLW) at the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina." (12.198.2) "Cost and public health impact were major considerations in the process that DOE

used to select MOX and immobilization from the large number of disposition options ... DOE argued that there are no decisive differences between the MOX [mixed plutonium-uranium oxide] and immobilization options with regard to any of its evaluation criteria ... However, this report concludes that DOE's evaluation is inaccurate. We find that the public health risks associated with the MOX approach are significantly greater than those associated with CIC. This is due primarily to our findings that the consequences of severe accidents involving LWRs [light-water reactors] with MOX cores are likely to be greater than those involving LEU [low-enriched uranium oxide] cores." (12.198.3) "The total inventory of highly radiotoxic actinides, including plutonium-239

(Pu-239), americium-241 (Am-241), and curium-242 (Cm-242), is significantly greater in MOX cores than in LEU cores throughout the operating cycle. Our analysis shows that the public health consequences of some severe accidents will be greater for reactors fueled with MOX." (12.198.4) "For the case considered in this study we find that, compared to an LEU core, a

full [weapons grade] WG-MOX core will contain about three times the amount of Pu-239, seven times as much Am-241 and seven times as much Cm-242 at the end of an operating cycle (i.e. just before the reactor is shut down for reloading). For MOX fabricated with reactor-grade plutonium (RG-Pu), Am241 and Cm-242 inventories are greater by additional factors of 4 and 3, respectively." (12.198.5) "The use of WG-MOX in U.S. PWRs is not likely to lower the probability

that a severe loss-of-containment accident may occur and may in fact increase it significantly." (12.198.6) "The ability of high-burnup MOX fuels in current use to withstand severe

accident conditions is inferior to that of LEU fuel." (12.198.7) "A MOX-fueled PWR may have a greater risk of experiencing pressurized McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 421 of 953

thermal shock of the pressure vessel." (12.198.8) "Ice-condenser containments may be more vulnerable to early failure in a severe

accident than large dry containments." (12.198.9) "A severe accident at a PWR with a reactor-grade MOX (RG-MOX) core would

cause up to twice as many latent cancer fatalities (LCFs) as would an accident at a PWR with a WGMOX core." (12.198.10) "Licensing of U.S. reactors to use MOX will have to take place primarily on a

site-specific level. In addition, an NRC finding that MOX use poses "no significant hazards" under 10 CFR 50.92 clearly would not be justified." (12.198.11) "Limitations on MOX fuel burnup to below 36 GWD/MT should be imposed

unless high burnup safety issues are resolved." (12.198.12) "The U.S. plan to encourage Russia to use WG-MOX in Russian and Ukrainian

VVER-1000 LWRs poses even greater risks than the plan for U.S. domestic use of WG-MOX." (12.198.13) "Risks associated with irradiation of WG-MOX in both U.S. LWRs and Russian

VVER-1000s could be averted if both nations implemented an all-immobilization policy for the entire stockpile of excess WG-Pu. The use of MOX is unnecessary and should be avoided. UNITED STATES [Department of Energy] MILITARY SOURCE POINTS (12.199) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (April 14, 1994). Plutonium storage

safety at major Department of Energy facilities. DNFSB/TECH-1. DNFSB, Washington, DC. (12.199.1) "The great majority of the plutonium in the shut-down plants--Rocky Flats,

Hanford, and Savannah River--is stored in conditions that are not safe for the long term. Most liquids remain in the same tanks and bottles where they happened to be located when the shutdown orders came. ... Most of the plutonium in the shut-down plants has been declared by DOE to be surplus, but virtually none of it has been readied for permanent disposal or long-term storage. Some is in forms that McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 422 of 953

are difficult to store safely even for short periods. The general conclusions are:" (Section I). (12.199.2) "A. With careful preparation and packaging, plutonium metal and stabilized

plutonium oxide can be stored safely over periods as long as a few decades. The draft DOE standard on storage of plutonium metal and oxide is a good guide to established storage practice for metal and oxide." (Section I). (12.199.3) "B. Most plutonium materials other than metal and oxide are not suitable for long-

term storage, and there are significant quantities of such materials at all four sites." (Section I). (12.199.4) "C. The high-concentration plutonium solutions and reactive plutonium scrap

stored at Rocky Flats pose the most severe and immediate safety risk of any stored plutonium in the DOE Weapons Complex (Complex). DOE is generally aware of the danger at Rocky Flats, but has done little so far to correct it." (Section I). (12.199.5) "D. Much of the plutonium at Hanford and Savannah River is reasonably safe for

short-term storage, but DOE is rapidly foreclosing plutonium processing options at those sites. If that trend continues, Hanford and Savannah River may develop some of the same safety problems as Rocky Flats." (Section I). (12.199.6) The summary of the very dangerous situation at Rocky Flats in this report has

been posted under Rocky Flats in Part 5 of this section of RADNET. (12.199.7) "Aside from irradiated fuel, almost all of Hanford's plutonium inventory is in the

Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP). There are more than 3,000 containers of plutonium oxides, 370 metal items, somewhat more than one thousand containers of plutonium scrap, and about 250 bottles of plutonium solution." (Section II-B). (12.199.8) "LANL stores a wide variety of plutonium materials, mostly in Technical Area

(TA)-55. LANL has around a thousand containers of plutonium oxides and other compounds. They also have close to a thousand metal plutonium items, most of them high-purity ingots originally intended for McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 423 of 953

shipment to Rocky Flats." (Section II-C). (12.199.9) "There are about 1200 containers of pyrochemical salt scrap, and a few hundred

containers of miscellaneous scrap. LANL has active capabilities for processing nearly all forms of plutonium scrap and, with the exception of salts, has generally not allowed a large backlog to accumulate." (Section II-C). "LANL has the only general purpose plutonium processing capability in the Complex that is fully operational at this time." (Section IV-B). (12.199.10) "SRS has a large quantity of plutonium solution in storage, far more than any

other site. There are about 380,000 liters stored in eighteen tanks in F-Canyon and two tanks in HCanyon (compared to around 20,000 liters at Rocky Flats and no more than 3,000 liters at Hanford). SRS has a significant amount of Pu-238, Pu-242, Am-243, and Cm-244 stored in solution form as well. Solution is not a suitable form for long-term, plutonium storage because of the strong potential for leakage and corrosion, and because of the difficulty (due to radiolysis and evaporation) of controlling solution chemistry sufficiently to prevent precipitation or polymerization." (Section II-D). (12.200) Fioravanti, M. and Makhijani, A. (1997). Containing the cold war mess. Institute for

Energy and Environmental Research, Takoma Park, Maryland. (12.200.1) "More than half-a-century of nuclear weapons production in the United States has

created tens of millions of cubic meters of long-lived radioactive waste, decommissioning problems associated with thousands of contaminated facilities, and environmental problems involving contaminated land and water. ...the neglect and mismanagement of radioactive and toxic wastes has created problems that are far more costly than they might have been; some appear to be intractable with current technology." (Summary). (12.200.2) (12.200.2.1) The main findings listed in th