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 the summary section of the report are: Nuclear weapons production and associated activities have created tens of

millions of cubic meters of dangerous wastes and roughly two billion cubic meters of contaminated soil McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 424 of 953

and water. (12.200.2.2) Since 1989, DOE has made considerable progress in characterizing many of the

crucial problems of environmental remediation and waste management in the nuclear weapons complex, but much remains to be done. (12.200.2.3) DOE is proceeding with the most expensive environmental program in history

without national remediation standards to govern and guide the process. (12.200.2.4) Despite about $40 billion dollars in expenditures since 1989, DOE does not

have a sound direction, plan, priorities, or implementation strategy for dealing with the remediation and waste management problems. Institutional factors are the single most crucial element in DOE's failure to achieve a sound direction. (12.200.2.5) The U.S. waste classification system is an unsound basis for implementing

waste management or environmental remediation decisions. (12.200.2.6) DOE is not holding contractors sufficiently accountable for project

mismanagement and poor technical decisions. (12.200.2.7) A number of problems cannot be satisfactorily solved with presently available

technology. Sound research and development and careful project planning will be needed over a long period... (12.201) U.S. Department of Energy. (February, 1995). Environmental Management 1994:

Progress and plans of the environmental management program. DOE/EM-0228. DOE, Washington, D.C. pp. 104. (12.201.1) "Environmental Restoration is managed as 17 primary projects throughout the

country, subdivided into smaller subprojects. These 850 subprojects include activities at National Priorities List sites, commonly referred to as Superfund sites; decontamination and decommissioning projects; Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project (UMTRA) sites; and Formerly Utilized Sites McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 425 of 953

Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) sites." (pg. 5). (12.201.2) "Most sites have insufficient information concerning the distribution and

concentration of uncontained hazardous and radioactive contaminants present in soil and ground water throughout the Department's weapons complex." (pg. 6). (12.201.3) "Many of the current characterization, containment, and treatment technologies are

either ineffective or too costly. Improvements are needed in characterization and data interpretation methods, containment systems, and in situ treatment of waste." (pg. 6). (12.201.4) "The Department faces major technical challenges in the management of low-level

radioactively contaminated mixed waste. Several conflicting regulations and a lack of definitive mixedwaste treatment standards hamper ongoing activities. In addition disposal capacity for mixed waste is expensive and severely limited." (pg. 6-7). (12.201.5) "Numerous Department of Energy landfills pose significant remediation challenges.

Some existing landfills have contaminants that are migrating, therefore requiring interim containment prior to final remediation. Materials buried in 'retrievable storage' pose another problem -- the need for retrieval systems that reduce worker exposure and the quantity of secondary waste. In addition development of in situ methods for both containment and treatment is a high-priority need." (pg. 7). (12.201.6) "It is not possible to immediately or simultaneously shut down, or decommission,

all of the approximately 21,000 surplus facilities the Department manages due to the tremendous financial resources needed, health and safety measures involved, and the economic impact on surrounding communities." (pg. 8). (12.202) The Oak Ridge National Laboratory Integrated Data Base for 1994 (U.S. Spent

Nuclear Fuel and Waste Inventories, Projections and Characteristics) lists the following annual and cumulative production of plutonium-239 in commercial nuclear power spent fuel (This is the same plutonium isotope the DOD report cited above has been tracking for weapons production plutonium McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 426 of 953

inventories): (12.202.1) (12.202.2) (12.202.3) Annual production of plutonium-239 in 1994: 585,000 curies Cummulative production of plutonium-239 as of Jan. 1, 1995: 9,000,000 curies Yearly average annual production of 239Pu for a model U.S. nuclear power plant:

5,367 Ci/year (585,000 curies divided by 109 reactors). (12.202.4) The Integrated Data Base also provides the following inventories of weapons

production high-level waste and transuranic waste: (12.202.4.1) (12.202.4.2) (12.202.4.3) Military high-level waste (as of 12/31/94): 958,800,000 Ci Stored transuranic wastes: 1,840,000 Ci Buried transuranic wastes including potentially contaminated soil: >830,000 Ci

The above data for weapons production wastes is too generalized to compare with the DOD data about
239Pu

production contained in the report Plutonium: The First Fifty Years as no specific data about

weapons production 239Pu is contained within the Integrated Data Base. Weapons production waste inventories contrast sharply with the huge quantities of spent fuel generated by the commercial nuclear power industry. (12.202.5) (12.202.5.1) RADNET [points out] the following: One curie of 239Pu = 16.2 g of 239Pu; the yearly plutonium-239 production of a

model U.S. nuclear power plant is therefore 86.96 kg per year (5,367 curies x 16.2 g = 86.96 kg) (12.202.5.2) (12.202.5.3) The DOD report lists plutonium in waste inventory at 3,919 kg (= 242,000 Ci) The typical U.S. nuclear power plant would therefore create in forty-five years

sufficient spent fuel 239Pu waste to approximately equal the total of all 239Pu in DOD waste inventories created since 1944. (12.202.5.4) Not only does the DOD report not include inventories of 238Pu, 241Pu or 242Pu,

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 427 of 953

it is unlikely that 3,919 kilograms (242,000 Ci) is the actual total of 239Pu waste created in the production of nuclear weapons, as a model U.S. commercial nuclear reactor has accumulated 82,568 curies of 239Pu as of Jan. 1, 1995 (1,337 kg). (12.202.5.5) It takes 3 kg of 239Pu to produce an average size nuclear weapon, therefore

sufficient plutonium-239 has accumulated in the typical U.S. commercial nuclear reactor to produce over 446 nuclear weapons. (12.202.5.6) To produce 446 nuclear weapons, the reactor grade plutonium would have to be

refined into weapons grade plutonium, but nonetheless, this data is sufficient to emphasize not only the great quantities of plutonium produced as waste by commercial nuclear reactors, but to illustrate the probability that weapons production has created large additional quantities of spent fuel, and other HLW, including wastes containing other plutonium isotopes which are not accounted for in the DOD report of Plutonium, the First 50 Years. (12.202.5.7) Evaluation of U.S. military source points of radioactive waste must include the

following discrepancy: The Oak Ridge National Laboratory Integrated Data Base for 1994 (U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste Inventories, Projections and Characteristics) lists military high-level wastes as 957,900,000 curies as of Jan. 1, 1995, as well as an additional 2,670,000 curies of transuranic wastes (TRUW) (pg. 15). These wastes are listed primarily as tank wastes(liquid and solid) at four U.S. locations: Hanford, WA; Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; the Savannah River site; and the West Valley, New York former fuel reprocessing facility (24,700,000 Ci is still at this location). In view of the 30,200,000,000 Ci of spent nuclear fuel accumulated by the commercial nuclear industry as of Jan. 1, 1996, a question for the next millennium is: Where are the other billions of curies of spent nuclear fuel derived liquid high-level wastes which the U.S. military (Department of Energy) has generated since the production of nuclear weapons began in 1945? (12.202.5.8) The ORNL data base only lists tank wastes; what happened to the millions of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 428 of 953

curies of high-level wastes discharged to waste ponds and holding lagoons at Savannah River, Hanford, and elsewhere which are not currently inside the tanks? (12.202.5.9) What are the on site inventories of uncontained waste at other locations not

noted in the ORNL data base, for example, in the canyons near Los Alamos, or at White Oak Canyon at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, itself a major dumping site in the early days of weapons production? (12.202.5.10) The ORNL report clearly notes that it does not include "inventories of

government production reactor spent nuclear fuels that have been reprocessed in the manufacture of nuclear weapons for national defense..." (ORNL Data Base, 1994, p. 2); it is highly unlikely that all
239Pu

produced by government reactors from 1944 to 1994 have been recycled into weapons grade

plutonium without creating more than 3,919 kg of waste as listed in the DOD report. (12.202.5.11) Even more revealing is the following discrepancy: commercial nuclear power

plants have created a cumulative total of 145.8 metric tons of 239Pu as of Jan. 1, 1996, while creating 30,200,000,000 curies of spent fuel HLW. Military weapons production has produced 111 metric tons of 239Pu, while producing only 957,900,000 curies of HLW. (12.202.5.12) Additional hints about the widespread, uncontained disposal of radioactive

wastes of every type and description can be gleaned from many of the U.S. military source point citations; the question now is what is the location and what are the quantities of other isotopes characterizing reprocessed spent fuel including 238Pu, 241Pu and 242Pu which have been produced as waste during the production of more than 30,000 nuclear weapons? When will the Department of Energy reconcile the ORNL Integrated Database (IDB) with the report Plutonium: The First 50 Years issued in February of this year? The necessity for this reconciliation is noted at the end of the report on page 79: "The Department has formed a working group to analyze NMMSS, IDB, and other Departmental tracking systems and to make recommendations on the appropriateness of integrating the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 429 of 953

various inventory systems or developing a new tracking system for all forms of plutonium." (12.202.6) Chia, Y., and Chiu, J. (1994). Groundwater monitoring for deep-well injection.

Report no. ANL/ES/PP--73641. NTIS order no. DE94019291. Argonne National Laboratory, IL [says:]. "A groundwater monitoring system for detecting waste migration would not only enhance confidence in the long-term containment of injected waste, but would also provide early warnings of contamination for prompt responses to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). Field experiences in Florida have demonstrated monitoring water quality and fluid pressure changes in overlying formations is useful in detecting the upward migration of injected waste." (abstract). (12.202.7) U.S. Department of Energy. (July, 1993). Recommended management practices for

operation and closure of shallow injection wells at DOE facilities. Report no. ANL/EA/RP--80447. NTIS order no. DE93019531. Argonne National Laboratory, IL and the Ground Water Protection Council, Oklahoma City, OK. 143 pp. [says:] "The Safe Drinking Water Act established the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program to ensure that underground injection of wastes does not endanger an underground source of drinking water. Under UIC regulations, an injection well is a hole in the ground, deeper than it is wide, that receives wastes or other fluid substances. Types of injection wells range from deep cased wells to shallow sumps, drywells, and drainfields. The report describes the five classes of UIC wells and summarizes relevant regulations for each class of wells and for the UIC program." (abstract). (12.202.8) Veil, J.A. and Grunewald, B. (1993). Closure of shallow underground injection

wells. Report no. ANL/EA/CP--79596. NTIS order no. DE94000445. Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC. pp. 11. [says:] "Shallow injection wells have long been used for disposing liquid wastes. Some of these wells have received hazardous or radioactive wastes. According to US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, Class IV wells are those injection wells through which hazardous or radioactive wastes are injected into or above an underground source of drinking McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 430 of 953

water (USDW). These wells must be closed." (abstract).

U.S. Military: Specific Source Points

(12.203) The following listing of US military source points is a summary of the most

important contaminated areas out of a total of 150 military facilities now undergoing environmental remediation under the Dept. of DOE Environmental Management program... (12.203.1) Argonne National Laboratory [:] A research facility located within the confines of

the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory covering 1 sq. mile and consisting of 40 buildings and associated discharge ditches, waste ponds, cooling towers, etc. "The primary mission of the Argonne National Laboratory West was to support liquid metal reactor research and development of the Integral Fast Reactor Program (IFRP)" (BEMR, pg. Idaho-4), a fast breeder reactor which has now been canceled. The site of current spent nuclear fuel and waste treatment, including pyroprocessing, a type of fuel reprocessing. Little or no information is currently available about ANL as a past or present plume source point. ANL is the likely location of some french drains; the BEMR indicates total life cycle environmental restoration and waste management costs are $357,482,000. Included in remediation efforts are radioactive wastes storage tanks and "waste water handling/disposal systems such as ditches, ponds, pits, and drains" (BEMR, pg. Idaho-7). Dick Lindsay, Director of Information, informs RADNET that the Argonne National Laboratory not only is not "top secret," as previously described by the Editor of RADNET, but that "it is not associated with the military nor has it been except in trivial or peripheral ways. ... If you are a U.S. citizen and wish to tour you may do so, and that has always been the case! Top secret indeed." For a non-top secret installation, not associated with weapons production activities, ANL has certainly run up a fairly large life-cycle environmental waste restoration and waste management bill. (12.203.2) Brookhaven National Laboratory[:] A U.S. DOE research and development

laboratory within 2,265 acres located 75 miles east of New York City in Upton, Long Island. This McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 431 of 953

laboratory contains 24 separate facilities and "approximately 80 areas of interest" (BEMR pg. New York-7) which are the subject of DOE environmental remediation efforts or have been identified for further study. "The principal environmental medium of concern at Brookhaven National Laboratory is ground water. Because the Laboratory is situated over a sole-source aquifer providing potable water for Long Island, the Environmental Protection Agency placed it on the National Priorities List in 1989. ... Contaminants of concern ... that may have migrated through soils, surface water, and related transport mechanisms into the aquifer ... include metals, organic compounds, and radionuclides such as tritium and cesium-137. Contamination occurred as a result of accidental spills and/or past operating practices." (BEMR pg. New York-6). The Brookhaven site is the location of two nuclear research reactors: the High Flux Beam Reactor and the Brookhaven Medical Research Reactor. The High Flux Beam Reactor is currently the topic of intense public EPA and DOE scrutiny due to the discovery of a tritium plume allegedly originating from leaks in the 68,000 gallon spent fuel pool in the reactor's lower level. Levels of tritium have been recorded as high as 651,000 picocuries per liter, or 32 times the U.S. drinking water standard of 20,000 picocuries per liter. (Lexis-Nexis: EPA update 2/6/97). This specific plume allegedly bears no relationship to a number of other tritium plumes in the Brookhaven area groundwater, all of which are supposedly below the EPA's drinking water standard and probably originate from earlier uncontained releases of radionuclides and mixed wastes. The Brookhaven facility is an example of a small DOE facility with multiple source points of contamination overlying an important aquifer and located in a highly populated area. Uncontained releases of contaminants, including ethylene dibromide (EDB), originating decades ago have the potential for significant impact on drinking water supplies on Long Island; the multiple Brookhaven plumes have resulted in the recent closing of hundreds of private wells and the transfer of these residences to public water supply. The BEMR report focuses on 24 specific sources of contamination grouped in five "operable units" as well as a number of aboveground and underground waste storage tanks and cesspools. Life cycle McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 432 of 953

remediation costs are estimated at $866,778,000 excluding the costs of disposing of spent fuel at the Savannah River facility. Brookhaven may be an example of where the High Flux Beam Reactor spent fuel pool leak may be used as a scapegoat to avoid the acknowledgment of the extensive uncontained releases of radioactivity and volatile chemicals of the past. No reference is made in the BEMR to a radiocesium source point, probably located in the biology forest in the southeastern part of the facility that was installed almost 40 years ago for the purpose of irradiating the forest and studying the resulting radiobiological effects. A number of the following citations reference this important and intense above ground installation, the current location and environmental impact of which are unknown. (12.204) (12.204.1) Fernald, Ohio (Feed Materials Production Center) This small facility (9 plants, 1,148 acres) was established in 1951 for the purpose

of processing uranium into a finished product suitable for weapons production. While no DOE highlevel wastes are located at this facility, extensive contamination of the groundwater, soil, and air resulted from the careless operation of this plant in the early years of the production of almost a half million metric tons of uranium metal. Waste disposal in pits and surface storage areas as well as in drums and silos resulted in huge quantities of mixed wastes containing as much as 5,000 metric tons of uranium (Makhijani, et. al., Nuclear Wastelands, 1995, pg. 214) This site also contains radium-226 wastes, as well as thorium and a variety of mixed wastes including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PCB's and trichloroethane. Of particular concern has been the huge quantities of uranium contaminated particulates released to the air during operation of this facility. Political pressures have resulted in Fernald's position among the top ranked DOE remediation sites; the result of the pressures to clean up this facility are unclear. (12.204.2) Makhijani (Nuclear Wastelands, 1995) reports the Minimum Additive Wastes

Stabilization (MAWS) program results in extensive "off/gas" contamination from the vitrification McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 433 of 953

process as well as the creation of "approximately half a million metric tons of radioactive marbles that would result from even partial conversions of Fernald's on-site contaminated materials." (pg. 215). (12.204.3) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (June 16, 1993). Health and safety

factors associated with DOE's management and direction of environmental restoration management contracts. Recommendation 93-4 to the Secretary of Energy. (12.204.3.1) "The Board and its staff have been monitoring the efforts of the Department of

Energy (DOE) in technically managing the Uranyl Nitrate Hexahydrate (UNH) stabilization project at the Fernald Environmental Management Project since DOE began preparations for operational testing in early 1992. ... The purpose of the project is to process the UNH into a filter cake for interim nuclear waste storage onsite pending final disposition." (pg. 1). (12.204.3.2) "... the Board has noted recent events at other facilities under the cognizance of

EM, including the Defense Waste Processing Facility at SRS and the Uranium Oxide Plant at Hanford, that appear to indicate fundamental safety problems resulting from defective discipline of operations." (pg. 2). (12.204.3.3) "... the Board has concern stemming from health and safety considerations that

(1) DOE may not have sufficient numbers of competent, trained headquarters and field personnel to technically manage such contracts, and (2) contracts may be negotiated and signed before DOE has developed internal plans on how to carry out its technical management and oversight responsibilities." (pg. 2). (12.204.4) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (September 29, 1994). Fernald

Environmental Management Project - Uranium/thorium interim storage safety review trip report (September 20-21, 1994). Memorandum for G. W. Cunningham, Technical Director. (12.204.4.1) "The DNFSB staff has some concerns about the pyrophoric and reactive

material stored at the FEMP. Hydrogen explosions caused two drums in 1989 and one in 1992 to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 434 of 953

violently rupture and blow their lids off. Corrosion of drums storing uranium and thorium is severe. Fernald Environmental Restoration Management Corporation (FERMCO) personnel believe that up to fourteen hundred drums may still be breached. As a result, FERMCO has overpacked or repacked thousands of drums since 1992." (12.204.4.2) "The FEMP uranium inventory, counting only material with uranium

concentrations above the economic discard limit, is about 6600 metric tons uranium (MTU), of which 90% is separated material and the remainder is recoverable residues. Of the separated material, 67% is depleted, 8% is natural, and 25% is enriched (up to 19.9%). The forms of the separated material are metal (54%), UF4 (33%), and UO3 (13%). An additional 1600 MTU is contained in over 11,000 MT of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). The total volume of uranium product, residues, and waste is equivalent to 147,000 55-gallon drums, of which 42% is LLRW. The uranium is predominately stored in 55-gallon drums and 10-gallon cans. Metal fuel element cores are stored in A1-lined wooden boxes and metal ingots (a casting product) and derbies (UF4 and Mg reaction product) are stored unpackaged on metal and wooden skids." (12.204.4.3) "The FEMP also has 927 MT of thorium in the forms of thorium nitrate gel

(contains 4.3 kg of U-233) and solution, residues, metal, oxides, and other miscellaneous compositions. All of this material is classified as LLRW." (12.204.4.4) The DNFSB staff believes that container degradation, especially for drums, is a

significant problem at FEMP because containers have been stored unprotected outside. FERMCO personnel stated that the median lifetime of these outside containers is only three years because of the high humidity. Although they are trying to transfer containers into buildings (especially those material types considered to be more hazardous), approximately 23,000 drums are still stored outside, often with little or no protection from the rain. In addition, uranium metal is allowed to be stored outside if it is under a shelter, but these shelters often consist of only a metal roof and minimal siding around the sides McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 435 of 953

which would probably not prevent rain from blowing onto the containers. Furthermore, there are leaks in the roof of Plant 6 which can allow rain to fall directly on the drums and materials below. The presence of leaks is a concern because unprotected uranium metal ingots and skulls were also stored in the same building." (12.204.4.5) "Preparations are being made to overpack approximately 5600 drums of thorium

hydroxides, oxides, and oxalate stored in Building 65 and ship them to the Nevada Test Site (NTS) for burial. These drums date from the 1970s and early 1980s and are in such poor condition that respirators are required in the building. The reason for the severe corrosion is that the drums were stored on plywood sheets rather than pallets. This allowed rain, which came in through holes in the roof and windows (no money was funded for repairs for eight years), to pool and collect around the drums. The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report estimates that up to 1400 drums may have been breached." (12.204.4.6) "The FEMP was not designed for extensive on-site storage of nuclear material

and no safety analysis reports examining uranium storage have been completed. The sheer volume of nuclear material and waste has resulted in containers being stored in the old plants, the pilot plant, warehouses, aluminum huts, tension support buildings, outside shelters, and any free space outside." (12.204.4.7) "The inventory has been reduced from 61 million pounds in 1991 to 43 million

pounds today. This is predominately due to shipping over 2,000 drum equivalents per week of LLRW to the NTS. FERMCO is also disposing of some mixed waste with Envirocare in Utah and shipping Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) waste (i.e., contaminated polychlorinated biphenyl and asbestos) to the Oak Ridge TSCA incinerator." (12.204.5) Makhijani, A. (October, 1996). Radioactivity in the Fernald neighborhood.

Science for Democratic Action. An IEER (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research) publication. 5(3). pp. 16. (12.204.5.1) This is the first in a series of 5 articles in vol. 5 no. 3 of the IEER series Science McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 436 of 953

for Democratic Action, the entire issue of which is devoted to the impact of the Fernald facility. (12.204.5.2) The first of the five articles includes a detailed description of the uranium

processing sequence at the 9 plants comprising the Fernald facility. (12.204.5.3) "The six waste pits at the site contain both radioactive and non-radioactive

chemicals, including uranium isotopes, thorium-230 (a waste material from the uranium production process), thorium-232, and barium salts. In addition, the K-65 silos located on the site contain radium226, a decay product of uranium which emits radon." (pg. 2). (12.204.5.4) Another article in this volume is entitled Radiation exposure at Fernald: the

dirty details: "Radon from the decay of radium-226 in the K-65 silos located on the site was the cause of the largest off-site doses. ... Inhalation of uranium dust was the next most important." (pg. 8). (12.204.5.5) "Between March 15, 1978 and June 14, 1978 'a significant dust loss occurred in

the Plant 9 dust collector serving the NPR furnace and the crucible burnout area.' The cause of the loss was 'extensive damage to the blow ring assembly and two bags pulled loose from their upper mountings.'" (pg. 9). (12.204.5.6) This is a particularly interesting report detailing the environmental

consequences of uranium metal production and the plumes and worker's radiation exposure which results from uranium releases during processing activities at this location. (12.204.5.7) This report includes a summary of uranium release estimates to the air and

surface water, and is another example of the clear and concise reporting of the IEER, the publications of which are among the most important documents pertaining to anthropogenic radioactivity. This IEER publication as well as other IEER reports on the uranium component of the weapons production cycle are important reminders that these plumes (thorium-230, 232, radium-226 and uranium-234, 235, 238, depleted uranium oxide, and depleted uranium hexafluoride) have a health physics significance equal to that of the fission products which also derive from the weapons production cycle. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 437 of 953

(12.205) (12.205.1)

Hanford Reservation, Washington State In January 1943 the Hanford Site was established as the nation's first full time

plutonium production facility. As part of the Manhattan project, plutonium production reactors were built along the Columbia River (100 Area); processing plants and associated facilities were constructed on a plateau in the center of the site (200 Areas); and fuel fabrication facilities were constructed in the southern component of the reservation (300 Area). The total size of the Hanford site is 560 sq. miles; the site is located in the southeastern part of the state of Washington in an isolated and desiccated area; the Columbia River forms the sites eastern boundary. An excellent site map is contained in the BEMR on page Washington 5; this report includes a summary of the stages of plutonium production at Hanford, including the fabrication of plutonium from uranium, fuel irradiation which converted small amounts of uranium to plutonium, and chemical processing in which the irradiated fuel elements were chemically processed to extract the plutonium. In the early days of operation of the Hanford facility, large amounts of uncontained radioactive wastes of every description were disposed of in the natural environment. Some effluents went directly into the Columbia River; other effluents went into burial trenches, partially lined underground vaults and other surface locations. Extensive use of deep well and shallow well injection technologies resulted in the disposal of unknown quantities of radioactive wastes in subsurface geological formations. By 1972 eight of nine production reactors had been shut down and most fuel separation facilities had also ceased operations. A fast flux test facility at the Hanford Reservation continues to be on hot standby (the facility is cooled by liquid sodium); the Clinton administration is considering restarting this facility to produce tritium for use in future nuclear weapons production. Radioactive wastes in contaminated material and liquid by-products are stored in 1,391 locations on this Reservation; "environmental contamination is found in surface and subsurface soils ... liquids (principally liquid low-level waste effluents) have been discharged into the soils and has contaminated 520 sq. km. of ground water ... the chemical processing of irradiated fuels generated the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 438 of 953

largest volume of Hanford's wastes" (BEMR, pg. Washington 6-7). Total life cycle remediation costs are estimated at $50,208,297,000. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory Integrated Data Base reports the Hanford Reservation inventory of high-level waste as of Jan. 1, 1996 at 347,900,000 Ci. (Also see additional comments on missing U.S. military (DOE) high-level wastes in part 14 of this section.) (12.205.2) The Panel on Radioactivity in the Marine Environment (1971) prepared an

incomplete list of Annual discharges of radioactivity from the Hanford Reactor Operations to the Pacific Ocean (Ci). (p.28) part of which is included below. Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967
239Nep

Beta 93,000 Ci grows into 239Pu.

32P

51Cr

65Zn

239Np

6,200 Ci 11,000 4,700 4,400 4,400 4,000 3,300 4,400

310,000 Ci 310,000 240,000 320,000 320,000 290,000 160,000 224,000

14,000 Ci 16,000 11,000 10,000 16,000 18,000 8,000 15,000

26,000 Ci 24,000 11,000 18,000 -

(12.205.3)

The Panel on Radioactivity in the Marine Environment (1971) prepared an

incomplete list of Annual average concentrations of several radionuclides in Columbia River Water, 1966. (p.29) part of which is included below. Radionuclides
24Na 32P 51Cr 64Cu 65Zn

Richland (pCi/liter) 2,600 140 3,600 1,400 200

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 439 of 953

76As 90Sr 131I 239Np

420 1 18 770

Since 1966 Columbia River concentrations have gradually fallen, but many of the long-lived radioisotopes generated at the time these activation products were released are still to be accounted for. (12.205.4) Beasley, T.M. (1986). Nickel-63 in Columbia River sediments below the Hanford

Reservation. J. Environ. Radioactivity. 4. 1-10[:] "Nickel-63 (t1/2=100 y) has been measured in Columbia River sediments below the Hanford Reservation. The present-day inventory between the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers and the Columbia River mouth is estimated at near 4.6 TBq (~125 Ci)." (pg. 1). (12.205.5) Beasley, T.M., Ball, L.A. and Andrews, J.E. (1981). Hanford-derived plutonium in

Columbia River sediments. Science. 214(20). 913-915. (12.205.5.1) "The lower Columbia River received large amounts of artificial radioactivity

during the period from 1944 to 1970 as a consequence of the operation of single-pass plutonium production reactors located on the Hanford Reservation." (pg. 913). (12.205.5.2) "...Additional plutonium-239 (in Columbia River sediments) arises from the

decay of neptunium-239 produced in reactor effluent water from the old plutonium production reactors located on the Hanford Reservation." (pg. 913). (12.205.6) Beasley, T.M., Ball, L.A., Andrews, J.E. and Halverson, J.E. (1980). 243,244Cm in

Columbia River sediments. Nature, 287(5783). 624-625[:] Even though the Columbia River received large amounts of radioactivity as a consequence of the operation of plutonium production reactors on the Hanford Reservation, we believe that the 243,244Cm reported here is entirely derived from fallout and that our ability to detect these isotopes in river sediment is due to the concentrating effect of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 440 of 953

erosional processes on land which mobilize material containing 243,244Cm (and other transuranic radionuclides) to the river, where they are subsequently sedimented." (pg. 624). (12.205.7) Benson, A.B. and Shook, L. (1985). Blowing in the wind: Radioactive

contamination of the soil around the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Hanford Education Action League, Spokane, WA. (12.205.7.1) New regulations change Hanford guidelines for plutonium in soil from 10

nanocuries per gram to 100 nanocuries per gram (0.1 millicuries/kg). (12.205.7.2) 12 million cubic meters of soil in the Hanford reservation had become "so

contaminated as to constitute high level waste." (pg. 1). (12.205.7.3) Americium-241, a decay product of 241Pu, is expected to become as much of a

radiation problem as total plutonium radioactivity in seventy to eighty years. (pg. 5). (12.205.8) Connor, T. (1986). Hot water: Groundwater contamination at the Hanford

Nuclear Reservation. Hanford Education Action League, Spokane, WA. (12.205.8.1) Naturally flowing groundwater provides a pathway for Hanford derived

radionuclides to travel to the Columbia River. (12.205.8.2) etc. (12.205.9) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (October 11, 1990). Safety at SingleIncludes tank waste inventories and PUREX tritium plume contamination data,

Shell Hanford Waste Tanks. Recommendation 90-7 to the Secretary of Energy pursuant to Section 312(5) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. [:] "Immediate steps should be taken to add instrumentation as necessary to the single shell tanks containing ferrocyanide that will establish whether hot spots exist or may develop in the future in the stored waste." (12.205.10) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (July 19, 1993). Hanford Waste Tanks

Characterization Studies. Recommendation 93-5 to the Secretary of Energy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 441 of 953

2286a(5) Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. (12.205.10.1) "In Recommendation 90-7, the Board emphasized the urgent need for more

rapid and complete sampling and analysis of tank wastes. The wastes in the Hanford tanks differ markedly from tank to tank. Identification of what specifically is in each tank is essential and urgent." (12.205.10.2) "The Board has repeatedly expressed its dismay at the continued slow rate of

conduct of this characterization program and has urged a greater rate of progress. At last count only 22 of the 177 tanks on the site have been sampled. Only four of those sampled were among the 54 tanks on the watch list of tanks that generate the greatest safety concerns." (12.205.10.3) "The Board notes that a recently released DOE/RL audit (DOE-RL/OPA Audit

93-02, April 1993) of the sampling programs revealed significant weaknesses in the control, management, and technical implementation of core sampling, laboratory, and supporting activities." (12.205.11) Robertson, D.E., Silker, W.B., Langford, J.C., Petersen, M.R. and Perkins, R.W.

(1973). Transport and depletion of radionuclides in the Columbia River. In: Radioactive Contamination of the Marine Environment. Report No. IAEA-SM-158/9. IAEA, Vienna. 141-158. (12.205.11.1) (12.205.11.2) The last of nine plutonium production reactors were shut in January of 1971. "Some long-lived radionuclides have remained, being associated mainly with

sedimentary deposits in the reservoir behind McNary Dam." (pg. 141). (12.205.11.3) Typical concentrations for the three most common isotopes in sediment (64%,

14% and 7% respectively) are: 55Fe: 1,100 d.p.m/g (18,300 Bq/kg); 65Zn: 240 d.p.m./g (4,000 Bq/kg);
46Sc:

120 d.p.m./g (2,000 Bq/kg). (12.205.12) Shook, L. and Benson, A. The storm of Hanford's radioactive iodine, "Ominous

implications". The Hanford Journal, 5, 1-3. [says:] "Between 1944 and 1956, Hanford plutonium production facilities released about 530,000 curies of radioactive iodine-131 to the atmosphere of Eastern Washington." (pg. 1). McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 442 of 953

(12.205.13)

U. S. Department of Energy. (1995). Hanford Site environmental report for

calendar year 1994. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. (12.205.13.1) Comprehensive description of the Hanford Site (560 sq. miles), its history, and

the principal installation and sites used for the production of nuclear material. (12.205.13.2) "Current waste management activities at the Hanford Site include primarily

managing wastes with high and low levels of radioactivity (from the nuclear materials production activities) in the 200-East and 200-West Areas. Key waste management facilities include the waste storage tanks, Plutonium Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Plant, Plutonium Finishing Plant, Central Waste complex, Low-Level Burial Grounds, B Plant, and 242-A Evaporator. In addition, irradiated nuclear fuel is stored in the 100-K Area in fuel storage basins." (12.205.13.3) "Environmental restoration includes activities to decontaminate and

decommission facilities and to clean up or restore inactive waste sites. The Hanford surplus facilities program conducts surveillance and maintenance of such facilities, and has begun to clean up and dispose of more than 100 facilities." (12.205.13.4) "The preliminary assessments conducted for the Hanford Site revealed

approximately 1,100 known individual waste sites where hazardous substances may have been disposed of in a manner that requires further evaluation to determine impact to the environment." (12.205.13.5) "Environmental monitoring of the Hanford Site consists of 1) effluent

monitoring and 2) environmental surveillance including ground-water monitoring. ... The MEI [maximally exposed individual] potentially received 0.05% of the DOE dose limit and 0.02% of the national average background dose from natural sources. ... Special exposure scenarios not included in the above dose estimates include the potential consumption of game residing on the Hanford Site and exposure to radiation at the publicly accessible location with the maximum exposure rate." (12.205.13.6) "Near-Facility Environmental Monitoring ... analytical results showed a large McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 443 of 953

degree of variability; in general, the samples collected from media located on or directly adjacent to the waste disposal and other nuclear facilities had significantly higher concentrations than those farther away. As expected, certain radionuclides were found in higher concentrations within different operational areas. Generally speaking, the predominant radionuclides were activation products/gamma emitters in the 100 Areas, fission products in the 200/600 Areas, and uranium in the 300 Area." (12.205.13.7) "Air Monitoring. ... Air samplers were primarily located at or near sites and/or

facilities having the potential or history for release, with an emphasis on the prevailing downwind directions. Of the radionuclide analyses performed, cesium-137, plutonium-239,240, strontium-90, and uranium were consistently detectable in the 200 Areas; cobalt-60 was detectable in the 100-N Area. Air concentrations for these radionuclides were elevated near facilities when compared to the concentrations measured offsite by the Surface Environmental Surveillance Project." (12.205.13.8) "Radiological Surveys. There were approximately 2,756 hectares (6,364 acres)

of outdoor posted surface contamination and 981 hectares (2,423 acres) of posted underground radioactive material sitewide in 1994. These areas were typically associated with cribs, burial grounds, tank farms, and covered ponds, trenches, and ditches. The number of posted surface contamination areas varied because of an ongoing effort to clean, stabilize, and remediate areas of known contamination while new areas of contamination were being identified. New areas may have been identified because of contamination migration or the increased effort being made to investigate outdoor areas for radiological contamination." (12.205.13.9) "The Columbia River was one of the primary environmental exposure

pathways to the public during 1994 as a result of operations at the Hanford Site. Radiological and chemical contaminants entered the river along the Hanford Reach primarily through the seepage of contaminated ground water." (12.205.13.10) "During 1994, samples were collected from seven Columbia River shoreline

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 444 of 953

springs, contaminated as a result of past waste disposal practices at the Hanford Site. Contaminant concentrations in the springs were similar to those found in the ground water. All radionuclide concentrations measured in riverbank springs in 1994 were less than applicable DOE Derived Concentration Guides. However, strontium-90 in the 100-D and 100-H Areas, tritium in the 100-N Area and along the old Hanford Townsite, and total alpha in the 300 Area exceeded Washington State and federal Drinking Water Standards." (12.205.13.11) "During 1994, approximately 800 Hanford Site wells were sampled to satisfy

ground-water monitoring needs. ... Radiological monitoring results indicated that cesium-137, cobalt60, iodine-129, strontium-90, technetium-99, total alpha, total beta, tritium, uranium, and plutonium concentrations were detected in levels greater than the Drinking Water Standard in one or more wells onsite." (12.205.13.12) "Extensive tritium plumes extend from the 200-East and 200-West Areas into

the 600 Area. The plume from the 200-East Area extends east and southeast, discharging to the Columbia River. This plume has impacted tritium concentrations in the 300 Area but at levels less than the Drinking Water Standard. The spread of this plume farther south than the 300 Area is restricted by the ground-water flow away from the Yakima River and the North Richland well field. Ground water with tritium at levels above the Drinking Water Standard also discharges to the Columbia River in the 100-N Area and immediate vicinity. A small but high concentration tritium plume near the 100-K East Reactor also may discharge to the river. Tritium at levels greater than the Drinking Water Standard was also found in the 100-D and 100-F Areas." (12.205.13.13) "An extensive plume of carbon tetrachloride at levels greater than the

Drinking Water Standard was found in ground water at the 200-West Area and extends into the 600 Area. This plume is associated with a less extensive plume of chloroform which may be a degradation product of the carbon tetrachloride. Maximum chloroform levels are also greater than its Drinking McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 445 of 953

Water Standard." (12.205.13.14) "Trichloroethylene was found at levels greater than the Drinking Water

Standard in the 100-F Area and in the 600 Area to the west. Trichloroethylene was also detected at levels greater than the Drinking Water Standard in the 100-K and 200-West Areas. (12.205.13.15) Trichloroethylene in the 300 Area was also measured at levels greater than the

Drinking Water Standard." (12.203.13.16) "A few wells [in the deeper confined aquifer] near source areas exhibited

impacts of past site disposal practices." (12.205.14) U. S. Department of Energy. (August, 1995). Registration of Hanford Site Class V

underground injection wells. Revision 1. Report no. DOE/RL--88-11-Rev.1. NTIS order no. DE95017148. Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, Washington. 59 pp [says:] "The purpose of this document ... to identify all injection wells on the Hanford Site. New injection wells will not be constructed on the Hanford Site except to receive uncontaminated stormwater or groundwater heatpump return flow." (abstract). (12.205.15) U. S. Department of Energy. (February 20, 1996). Request for proposals (RFP)

No. DE-RP06-96RL13308: Tank Waste Remediation System (TWAS). Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. (12.205.15.1) "The overall goal of the privatization framework embodied in the RFP is to

sharpen mission focus, improve performance, and save taxpayer dollars without, in any way, sacrificing the standards of radiological and industrial safety and environmental protection." (pg. 1). (12.205.15.2) Approximately 56 million gallons of waste containing approximately 240,000

metric tons of processed chemicals and 177 mega-curies of radionuclides are currently being stored in 177 tanks. These caustic wastes are in the form of liquids, slurries, saltcakes, and sludge. In 1991, the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Program was established to manage, retrieve, treat, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 446 of 953

immobilize, and dispose of these wastes in a safe, environmentally sound, and cost-effective manner." (pg. 2). (12.205.15.3) "DOE's approach is to utilize, to the extent possible, established and

functioning external regulatory authorities without requiring the contractor to go through DOE." (pg. 2). (12.205.15.4) "...current uncertainties [include] with regard to waste characteristics, the

effectiveness of [vendor] technology with Hanford waste, and the regulatory framework for protection of workers and the general public." (12.205.15.5) "...the approach to privatization will be conducted in two phases. The first

phase will be a Proof-of-Concept/Commercial Demonstration Phase. Based upon the feasibility study, the first phase would involve the pretreatment, low-level waste vitrification of approximately 6-13 percent of the waste over a five year period. ... The second phase will be the Full-Scale Production phase. Facilities will be sized so all of the remaining waste can be processed and immobilized on a schedule that will accommodate removing the waste in single-shell tanks by 2018." (12.205.15.6) "Within this context, the Department pays for and will continue to pay for

activities until the remediation process is complete, no matter how ineffectual the contractor is or how long it takes to complete the effort." (12.205.15.7) The DOE Integrated Database Report for 1994 indicates the total on-site

inventory of contained high-level waste is 348 megacuries. (pg. 15). The tank waste data is helpful in providing the information that 171 million curies of high-level waste is located somewhere on the Hanford Reservation other than in the 177 tanks now in the preliminary stages of remediation. (12.205.16) Wurstner, S.K. and Freshley, M.D. (December 1994). Predicted impacts of future

water level decline on monitoring wells using a ground-water model of the Hanford site. Report Number PNL-10196 UC-903. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Pacific Northwest McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 447 of 953

Laboratory, Richland, Washington[:] "Since Hanford Site operations were curtailed in 1987, and the Site mission has shifted from the production of nuclear materials to environmental restoration, waste management, and technology development, the volume of water discharged to the ground has been greatly reduced. As a result, the water table has begun to decline, potentially impacting existing monitoring wells used by contractors on the Hanford Site." (12.206) (12.206.1) Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Science and Research Foundation. (August 1996). Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1995. Environmental Science and Research Foundation Report Series, Number 014 (ISSN 1089-5469). Environmental Science and Research Foundation, Idaho Falls, ID. (12.206.1.1) Section 1.2 of this report lists INEL missions and facilities which include

Argonne National Laboratory West which is the Integral Fast (breeder) Reactor (IFR) located at the University of Chicago. On site facilities include: Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) (US Navy nuclear fuel storage facility); Test Area North (TAN) (former test site for nuclear powered airplanes; now houses TMI fuel rods); Test Reactor Area (TRA); Power Burst Facility (PBF) (low-level waste processing); Naval Reactors Facility (NRF); Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) (lowlevel waste and transuranic waste management); and a Central Facilities Area (CFA) (offices and laboratories). (12.206.1.2) Nowhere in this report does it mention any facilities utilized for the storage of

high-level waste; the INEL inventory as of December 31, 1994 is listed at 51.6 million curies in DOE's Integrated DataBase, pg. 15. (12.206.1.3) This report includes a detailed description of the environmental restoration

program without mentioning any specific locations of high-level waste, other than the dry rod consolidation project where radiation fields as high as 7,000 R/hr result from shearing fuel assembly McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 448 of 953

skeletons now stored in TAN hot shop north silo (pg. 3-24). (12.206.1.4) This report notes "the most economical option for dry storage of Three Mile

Island spent fuel stored at the INEL was to build a new facility at ICPP ... currently only industrial and low-level radioactive wastes are being disposed at the INEL. Other waste types are being stored for eventual disposal at the site or elsewhere, or until treatment technologies are available" (pg. 3-25). (12.206.1.5) Figure 4.16 illustrates average mesoscale dispersion isopleths of air

concentrations at ground level normalized to unit release. This figure, which uses the MESODIF model (see pg. 4-40) illustrates significant releases from the TRA (test reactor area) and the ICPP, although a PhD in advanced mathematics would be useful in interpreting the data illustrated. Table 4.13 gives the radionuclide composition of airborne effluents, the principle sources of which are also the TRA and the ICPP. Total 137Cs airborne emissions are listed as 3.0 x 10-4curies; 239Pu airborne emissions as 1.6 x 10-7 ci. (12.206.1.6) Figure 4.17 (pg. 4-43) illustrates radionuclides contributing to maximum

individual dose in 1995: 129I, 59.7%; 41Ar, 38.6%; other, 1.7%. (12.206.1.7) No specific mention is made of the locations of deep well injection sites for low-

level waste, but Fig. 5.1 plus 5.2 (pg. 5-4,5) contain a detailed map of US geological survey well locations for monitoring the Snake River plain aquifer. No USGS data is printed in this report pertaining to these test wells. Figure 5.3 provides a description of the distribution of tritium in the Snake River plain aquifer; Fig. 5.4 of the distribution of 90Sr (pg. 5-6,7). (12.206.1.8) One of the more bizarre aspects of the INEL annual Site Environmental Report,

as well as other National Laboratory reports, is the measurement of air concentrations of radioactive contaminants in millionths of curies per thousandths of liters. Traditionally air contamination has been measured in picocuries per cubic meter; the more up to date reporting units in use throughout European communities are microbecquerels per cubic meter. One milliliter equals one millionth of a cubic meter; McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 449 of 953

use of this much smaller reporting unit makes it almost impossible to record small changes in air concentrations in contaminants deriving from source points at INEL or elsewhere which might be indicative of ongoing releases. The minimum detectable air concentration for gross beta analysis is listed at 5x10-15Ci/ml; this data would be much easier to interpret if stated in microbecquerels / cubic meter, but ease of interpretation is the opposite of the goal of this and other site environmental reports. (12.206.2) Environmental Science and Research Foundation. (September 1996). In

Summary: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1995. Environmental Science and Research Foundation Report Series, Number 015 (ISSN 1089-5469). Environmental Science and Research Foundation, Idaho Falls, ID. (12.206.2.1) "Radiological environmental surveillance for 1995 found that most radioactivity

from INEL operations could not be distinguished from worldwide weapons testing fallout and natural radioactivity" (pg. 17). (12.206.2.2) A total of 1,380 curies of airborne radionuclides were released in 1995; 99% of

which was short-lived and nonreactive gasses. Of 84 curies released to seepage ponds, 80 curies were from tritium. "All discharges directly into the Snake River plains aquifer ceased in 1984" (pg. 17). (12.206.2.3) High volume air filters failed to detect any man-made radionuclides; low

volume air filters detected 12 man-made radionuclides at 9 locations (pg. 18). (12.206.2.4) Three on-site wells showed detectable concentrations of strontium; one food

sample showed a trace of radioactive iodine; INEL cesium and cobalt contaminated soils resulted in slight contamination of prong-horned antelope and mule deer. Waterfowl continued to show INEL derived cesium contamination, but at much lower levels than documented in earlier reports (pg. 20-22). (12.206.2.5) This report makes the following observation "most concentrations represented

background radiation the source of which is natural processes in world wide fallout" (pg. 22), another reminder that background radiation now includes weapons derived and Chernobyl derived fallout. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 450 of 953

(12.206.2.6)

Neither this nor the previous site environmental report contains any detailed

listing of nuclide specific or media specific data which would enable the reader to better understand the INEL source points which might contribute to the presence of anthropogenic radioactivity near this facility. No mention is made of the cumulative fallout record of strontium, cesium, or plutonium, nor is any necessary since the overall environmental monitoring report is not detailed enough to differentiate the source points of these radionuclides, nor to confirm the report observations that most contamination does not derive from INEL operations. (12.206.3) Ghuman, G.S. (1993). Distribution of Antimony-125, Cesium-137, and Iodine-129

in the soil-plant system around a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. J. Environ. Radioactivity, 21, 161176. 1987 I.N.E.L. Total activity (mean)
125Sb

1041.7 Bq/m2

(12.206.4)

Halford, D.K. et al. (February 1981). Radionuclide Concentrations in Waterfowl

using a Liquid Radioactive Disposal Area and the Potential Radiation Dose to Man. Health Physics. 40. p. 173-181. Unknown, before 1980 Unknown, before 1980 (12.206.4.1) Idaho National Waterfowl Engineering Laboratory Idaho National Waterfowl Engineering Laboratory
137Cs 51Cr

5,400,000 pCi/kg (200,000 Bq/kg fresh weight) 1,300,000,000 pCi/kg fresh weight (4,816,000 Bq/kg)

These are the highest levels ever recorded in unclassified literature for

contamination of waterfowl within the U.S.A. Prior to capture, these waterfowl had been feeding in the high-level waste effluent percolation ponds located in the Test Reactor Area at the INEL. (12.206.4.2) Deconstruction and deactivation of components of this Test Reactor Area

were begun in June of 1995 (see INEL Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1995 referenced below, page 3-14.) The TRA ponds are the probable locations of significant discharges of uncontained

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 451 of 953

high-level wastes during the early years of the operation of this facility. (12.206.5) (12.206.5.1) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Environmental Report 1995.

(September 3, 1996). Howard L. Lentzner, Editor. UCRL-50027-95, Distribution Category UC-702 . (12.206.5.2) One of a number of US DOE nuclear weapons research laboratories, the two

sites comprising the LLNL, while not probable locations of a significant quantity of missing military high-level wastes, are the subject of federally mandated environmental monitoring reports as a result of weapons research and testing activities. (12.206.5.3) "Typical gross alpha activity (median value) for the LLNL [air monitoring]

perimeter network is 2.2 x 10-13 Bq/mL (2.2 x 10-7 Bq/m3...) typical gross beta activity (median value) for the LLNL perimeter is 4.1 x 10-10 Bq/mL (4.1 x 10-4 Bq/m3)" (pg. 4-5). (12.206.5.4) Soil and sediment monitoring produced the following average values:

"Background levels of 239+240Pu are given as .22 x 10-3 Bq/gm (.22 Bq/Kg)." (pg. 10.5) (12.206.5.5) "The slightly higher values near the Livermore site have been attributed to

historic operations, which included the operation of solar evaporators for plutonium-containing liquid waste in the south east quadrant... LLNL no longer operates solar evaporators or any other open air treatment of plutonium containing waste, nonetheless, 239+240Pu from historic operations is carried off site by resuspension of soil by wind." (pg. 10.5) (12.206.5.6)
239+240Pu

levels are noted as follows: Livermore Valley .09 x 10-3 Bq/dry g (.09

Bq/Kg) median; 1.1 Bq/Kg maximum; Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP) 3.5 Bq/Kg median; 25 Bq/Kg maximum; Livermore site sediments .07 Bq/Kg median; 3.3 Bq/Kg maximum. (pg. 10.5). (12.206.5.7) While most plutonium is attributed to stratospheric weapons testing fallout, "an

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 452 of 953

estimated 1.2 x 109 Bq (32 mCi) plutonium released to the sewer in 1967 and first observed in soils near LWRP during the early 1970's again were detected at LWRP sampling locations." (pg. 10.5). One related location was identified in a 1993 EPA sampling "as containing more than the EPA industrial preliminary remediation goal (PRG) of 0.37 Bq/g (10 pCi/g); the location contained up to 11.5 pCi/g of 239/240Pu." (pg. 10.12). (12.206.5.8)
137Cs

levels are noted as follows: Livermore Valley soils 2.6 x 10-3 Bq/dry g

(2.6 Bq/Kg) median; 8.1 Bq/Kg maximum; LWRP and Livermore site sediment contamination is noted as slightly lower than the off site levels of contamination for this weapons fallout radionuclide. (pg. 10.6). (12.206.5.9) This detailed environmental report, along with providing excellent circa 1995

baseline data on levels of anthropogenic radioactivity in a California location upwind of most weapons testing sites, contains an extensive list of LLNL Environmental Protection Department publications which provide extensive documentation of the history of weapons testing contamination and monitoring at this location, as well as an excellent general bibliography. (12.206.5.10) Gallegos, G. (1995). Surveillance monitoring of soils for radioactivity:

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1976 to 1992. Health Physics. 69(4). pg. 487-493[:] "239+240Pu data for locations downwind from the Livermore site were found to be statistically significantly higher than for upwind locations." (pg. 487). (12.207) Los Alamos National Laboratory[:] This 43 square mile national laboratory was

established in 1943 to design develop and test nuclear weapons. The BEMR report (1996) cited at the beginning of this part of RADNET section 11 notes "an important function of the laboratory has been processing plutonium metal and alloys from nitrates solution feedstock provided by other production facilities ... 1945 - 1978. Other operations included reprocessing nuclear fuel, processing polonium and

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 453 of 953

actinium, and producing nuclear weapons components" (BEMR vol. 3, pg. New Mexico 26). "A major source of environmental contamination was waste being discharged into the environment or buried in material disposal areas ... residual contamination may exist in more than 7 million cubic meters, primarily soils and sediments ... in approximately 2100 potential release sites" (BEMR vol. 3, pg. New Mexico 27). The BEMR report divides major environmental restoration activities into six field units, with a detailed description of restoration activities in each unit. Total life cycle cost estimates for this location are $623,650,000. Excellent maps are included in the BEMR summary. (12.207.1) Graf, William L., (1994). Plutonium and the Rio Grande: Environmental Change

and Contamination in the Nuclear Age. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford. (12.207.1.1) An excellent bioregional survey of the plutonium inventory of sediments in the

northern Rio Grande system, with a central focus on the mass budgets of surface water and plutonium bearing river sediments. (12.207.1.2) Two primary source points of plutonium are considered in this study: the Los

Alamos National Laboratory, and the nearby (upwind) Nevada Test Site. (12.207.1.3) "between 1945 and 1952 LANL handled large amounts of plutonium as part of

the Manhattan project ... during this time the laboratory emptied untreated plutonium waste into the alluvium of Los Alamos Canyon. After 1952, the laboratory released relatively small amounts of treated plutonium waste ... the plutonium was absorbed onto sedimentary particles ... the fate of those sediments is also the fate of the plutonium" (pg. 3). (12.207.1.4) "Acid sewers, consisting mostly of buried pipes with some links above ground,

carried the untreated liquid across the mesa top at Los Alamos through a main line that ended on the north edge of Acid Canyon ... a short distance down stream it joins Pueblo Canyon ... to Los Alamos Canyon, which leads to the Rio Grande." (pg. 113). (12.207.1.5) 1943 - 1950 releases are possibly as high as 3,000 mCi (Lane, 1985) ... Graf McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 454 of 953

uses a minimum estimate of 150 mCi distributed at an average rate of 25 mCi/year .... "If the empirical data that Lane used are correct, the rate could have been 3 to 30 times higher than this minimum value" (pg. 123, 124). (12.207.1.6) Table 7.2 (pg. 125) summarizes Graf's release estimates; the text itself provides

a detailed history of LANL facility activities and waste processing treatment. (12.207.1.7) Contribution of Los Alamos' LANL to the annual plutonium flux in the entire

system is estimated at 9%. (pg. 149). "90% of the plutonium released at Los Alamos is still in the tributary canyon." (pg. 150). "The canyon will contribute plutonium from Los Alamos for another 100 to 600 years depending on the magnitude of the original inventory." (pg. 240). (12.207.2) Haagenstad, H.T., Gonzales, G., and Suazo, I. L., (November, 1993). Radioactive

liquid waste treatment facility: environmental information document. DOE Contract W7405ENG36. Sup.Doc.Num. E 1.99:DE95003618. NTIS Order Number DE95003618. Primary Report Number: LAUR--94-1507. 115 pp[:] "The RLWTF is 30 years old and nearing the end of its useful design life. The facility was designed at a time when environmental requirements, as well as more effective treatment technologies, were not inherent in engineering design criteria. The evolution of engineering design criteria has resulted in the older technology becoming less effective in treating radioactive liquid wastestreams in accordance with current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Department of Energy (DOE) regulatory requirements. Therefore, ... LANL is in need of capabilities to efficiently treat radioactive liquid waste onsite or to transport the waste off site for treatment and/or disposal." (abstract summary). (12.207.3) Hanson, W.C. (1975). Ecological considerations of the behavior of plutonium in

the environment. Health Physics, 28, 529-537[:] (12.207.3.1) "At Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory... three different canyons have received

Pu effluents at different time periods, providing study areas of various "environmental ages" of Pu up McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 455 of 953

to 30 yr." (p.533) (12.207.3.2) "The chronic input of low-level radioactive liquid effluent into one of the

canyons (Mortandad) over the past 10 yr has resulted in 238Pu and 239Pu concentrations in alluvial soils that are 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than background samples and about 1000 times the concentration in the discharge water." (p.533) (12.207.3.3) "Los Alamos Canyon, with the largest watershed of the three, essentially

"flushes" along its length each year. This apparently accounts for Pu transport throughout its length to the Rio Grande River." (p. 533) (12.207.3.4) "Resuspension of Pu into the air mass above contaminated soil occurs over a

highly variable range of 10-2 to 10-11m-1..." (p. 529) (12.207.4) Lane, L.J., Purtymun, W.D., and Becker, N.M. (1985). New Estimating

Procedures for Surface Runoff, Sediment Yield, and Contaminant Transport in Los Alamos County, New Mexico. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-10335-MS, UC-11. Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos, N.M. (12.207.5) Nyhan, J.W., Drennon, B.J., Abeele, W.V., Wheeler, M.L., Purtymun, W.D.,

Trujillo, G., Herrera, W.J., and Booth, J.W. (1985). Distribution of Plutonium and Americium Beneath a 33-Year-Old Liquid Waste Disposal Site. Journal of Environmental Quality. vol. 14. pg. 501-9. (12.207.6) Purtymun, W.D., Johnson, G.L., and John, E.C. (1966). Distribution of

Radioactivity in the Alluvium of a Disposal Area at Los Alamos, New Mexico. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 550-D. U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. (12.207.7) Purtymun, W.D. (1971). Plutonium in Stream Channel Alluvium in the Los

Alamos Area, New Mexico. (USAEC Report No. LA-4561). Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. (12.207.8) Purtymun, W.D. (1974). Storm Runoff and Transport of Radionuclides in DP McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 456 of 953

Canyon, Los Alamos County, New Mexico. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-5744. Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos, N.M. (12.207.9) Purtymun, W.D., Peters, R.J., Buhl, T.E., Maes, M.N., and Brown, F.H. (1987).

Background concentrations of Radionuclides in Soils and River Sediments in Northern New Mexico, 1974-1986. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-11134-MS, UC-11. Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos, N.M. (12.207.10) Purtymun, W.D., Peters, R.J., and Maes, M.N. (1990). Transport of Plutonium in

Snowmelt Runoff. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-11795-MS, UC-902. Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos, N.M. (12.207.11) Stoker, A., Ahlquist, A.J., Mayfield, D.L., Hanson, W.R., Talley, A.D., and

Purtymun, W.D. (1981). Radiological Survey of the Site of a Former Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Plant (TA-45) and the Effluent Receiving Areas of Acid, Pueblo, and Los Alamos Canyons, Los Alamos, New Mexico. Los Alamos National Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy Report LA-8890-ENV, UC-70. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, N.M. (12.208) Maxey Flats, Kentucky[:] Six month study of radiation concentrations and

transport mechanisms at the Maxey Flats area of Fleming County, Kentucky. (1974). Louisville, KY: Kentucky Department for Human Resources, Bureau for Health Services, Office of Consumer Health Protection, Radiation and Product Safety Branch[:] "All Test Well gross alpha analysis showed readily detectable alpha concentrations in the suspended portion of the sample." (p.5) (12.208) Moab, Utah[:] Moab, Utah is a typical uranium mill tailings plume source point,

one of hundreds of sites like this. It has been in the news because of possible leaking into groundwater. (12.208.1) "This uranium mill, which operated from 1956 until 1984, was purchased by Atlas

[Corp.] in 1962. Atlas completed demolition and disposal of the mill facilities in 1996. Under Atlas's proposed plan to cap the mill tailings pile in place, the pile will be recontoured and covered with McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 457 of 953

earthen material and rock to control radon emanations and prevent erosion." (PRNewswire, Denver, March 11, from Yahoo on the World Wide Web). (12.208.2) "In a draft environmental impact statement released in January [1997], the federal

agency [NRC] says reclaiming the tailings mountain on site - as the mining company has proposed - is the best option. But simply capping 130 acres of radioactive debris with earth and rock doesn't sit well with Grand County Councilman Bill Hedden. He, along with the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and the state of Utah, wants the sandy tailings moved away from the river. 'It's 11 million tons of really nasty junk and it's going right in the groundwater,' Hedden says. The nuclear agency says moving the pile will cost up to 10 times more than capping it." (High Country News, March 18, 1996). (12.208.3) Clifford, F. (April 20, 1997). Leaking nuclear waste imperils Colorado River;

pollution: U.S. Agency plans to cap 130-acre mound that lies near popular wilderness recreation area. Los Angeles Times. Part A, pg. 1. (12.208.4) "The owner of the mill site, Denver Atlas Corp., concedes that the plan to cap the

tailings pile in place won't entirely stop nuclear waste and other hazardous material from seeping into the river." (12.210) Mound Laboratory, Miamisburg, Ohio[:] Alberts, J.J., Bobula III, C.M. and Farrar,

D.T. A comparison of the distribution of industrially released 238Pu and fallout 239,240Pu in temperate, Northern United States soils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 9, 4, 592-596[:] "Studies of 238Pu dispersed from the stack of a nuclear fabrication facility in southwestern Ohio indicate that the predominant deposition occurs within 8 km of the site." (p. 592) (12.211) Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant (MFRP), Morris, Illinois[:] More information is

sought about this fuel reprocessing facility.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 458 of 953

(12.212) (12.212.1)

Nevada Test Site[:] The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is located approximately 65 miles northwest of Las

Vegas, Nevada, and it, along with the Tonopah Test Range, are situated approximately 150 miles northwest of Los Angeles, California. It was the scene of 100 atmospheric and 828 underground nuclear tests lasting from 1951 to 1992 (United States Nuclear Tests [DOE/NV-209 (Rev. 14) December 1994, pg. viii]). In August 1996 a final Environmental Impact Statement was completed for the NTS (NTS/EIS) and on December 13, 1996 the Record of Decision (ROD) for the NTS/EIS was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 65551). The decision allowed for the expanded use of the test site and leaves the option open to resume underground nuclear testing. The sites' primary mission continues to be associated with nuclear weapons issues. (12.212.2) Radioactive surface contamination is an issue that is briefly covered in the BEMR

report. The BEMR report indicates a total of 27,000 acres have been contaminated as a result of weapons tests, "safety shots and plutonium dispersion tests" (BEMR: Nevada 5). Total life cycle remediation costs are estimated at $3,644,434,000. (12.212.3) In 1994, the DOE announced the declassification of certain data categories which

appeared in RDD-3. Presently these items are listed in: Honeyman, B.D. (January 7, 1999). (12.212.4) Geochemistry: Colloidal culprits in contamination. Nature. 397(6714). pg. 23[:]

"Contaminant transport in ground water is a contentious issue -- especially when it comes to possible movement of radionuclides from nuclear test sites or storage facilities. Analyses carried out in Nevada now implicate colloids in the movement of plutonium from a nuclear detonation site. The case, however, has yet to be clinched, and the broader interest in this example lies in the questions it raises about identifying colloid-associated transport in general." (abstract). (12.212.5) "Trace amounts of plutonium were discovered in a well drilled four-fifths of a

mile from the site of an underground nuclear explosion at the Nevada Test Site." (Keay Davidson, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 459 of 953

January 6, 1999, San Francisco Examiner, pg. A-1). (12.212.6) U.S. Department of Energy. (August 1996). Final environmental impact statement

for the Nevada Test Site and off-site locations in the state of Nevada. (DOE/EIS-0243). Environmental Management, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. DOE, North Las Vegas, NV 89030-4134. Vol. 1. Chapters 1-9[:] (12.212.6.1) Discussions in the NTS/EIS, regarding the Benjamin memo, indicate that the

data is a list of the "...remaining radionuclide inventory in, or within, 100 m (328 ft) of the water table (as of January 1994..." It goes on to explain that this subset of tests represents approximately 38% of the underground nuclear tests that were performed at the NTS (pg. 4-84 and 4-85). (12.212.6.2) By assuming the data in this subset was representative of the radionuclides

deposited by the full set of underground nuclear tests, a rough estimate was calculated for the total radionuclides remaining as of January 1, 1994. The results follow. Curies remaining as of January 1, 1994 Isotope (Ci) (scaled data)
90Sr 3H 99Tc 129I 137Cs 238Pu 239Pu

5.039E+06 2.65E+08 1.31E+03 3.93E+00 6.378E+06 4.986E+04 1.27E+05 5.08E+05 3.025E+04

241Pu 241Am

Mass of 239Pu = 2,010 kg = ~ 2 metric tons.

(12.212.6.3)

The NTS/EIS contains an estimate of the total NTS inventory as of January 1, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 460 of 953

1994. This figure is 3.0E+08 Ci. This figure compares favorably with the independently derived value for tritium, shown above. (12.212.6.3) The above inventory resides in millions of tons of buried rock and water. None

of it appears in the DOE's Waste Management Integrated Data Base Report--1995, nor is this material scheduled for removal or treatment within the DOE's Environmental Restoration program. (12.213) Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee[:] The Oak Ridge site is one of the most

contaminated locations among the many weapons production sites being remediated by the Dept. of Energy. The 1996 DOE Baseline Environmental Management Report (BEMR) subdivides the Oak Ridge site into six sections including reservation off site sources, the laboratory grounds themselves, the K-25 site (this facility produced enriched uranium for weapons production, 1945-1987), and the Y12 plant (site of an electromagnetic process to separate uranium isotopes). The BEMR summary of Oak Ridge remediation sites runs to 130 pages of descriptions of contaminated buildings and waste disposal areas; a lifetime of research could be spent on this one military source point without a complete understanding of the impact of the activities carried out at this location. ORNL was the site of the controversial deep well injection of radioactive waste at the hydrofracturing facility at this location. Life cycle remediation costs are estimated in excess of 25 billion dollars in the BEMR, (Vol. 3, pg. Tennessee 2) excluding geological disposal and any future costs resulting from waste disposed in a manner that "no feasible remediation approach [is] available." (BEMR, Vol. 1, pg. 3.9). A recent report issued by the Dept. of Energy (Jan. 15, 1997) as a component of current declassification efforts, indicates the Oak Ridge complex is one of 22 sites where the storage of highly enriched uranium "could result in the exposure of workers or the public to radiation." Out of 250 tons of highly enriched uranium, three fourths of it is at the Oak Ridge Complex (Associated Press, Jan. 15, 1997). Very little additional information is available about the on site inventories of radioactive wastes at the Oak Ridge facilities, which remain, along with Los Alamos, SRP, and Pantex, among the most active weapons McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 461 of 953

production and research facilities in the United States. Important source points at Oak Ridge include the K25 plant which was constructed beginning in 1943 and was the first diffusion facility for large scale separation of 235U for nuclear weapons production, and the Y12 plant which used an electromagnetic process to separate uranium isotopes. Extensive contamination at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory grounds, which are separated from these two plants, has also occurred since its establishment in 1943. Environmental restoration activities at the Oak Ridge facilities are so complicated that the description of these activities in the BEMR report takes up a total of 128 pages. Total life cycle environmental remediation for the entire complex of facilities at Oak Ridge are $25,137,392,000 including over 6 billion for the Y12 plant and over 7 billion for the K25 site as well as over 9 billion for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory itself. ORNL is also the site of a recently constructed TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) incinerator which is now accepting mixed wastes for incineration from a variety of DOE facilities. The mixed wastes being burned in this controversial incinerator include some ORNL wastes contaminated by a huge mercury spill at ORNL which began in the 1950's and continued for over a decade, as well as wastes from off-site facilities also contaminated with mercury and heavy metals. The Oak Ridge Reservation is another example of a plume source point where the effluents include not only radioactive wastes, but also VOC's and heavy metals. The following descriptions and quotations pertaining to ORNL facilities are taken from the 1996 Baseline Environmental Management Report (BEMR) unless otherwise indicated. (12.213.1) (12.213.1.1) OAK RIDGE K-25 SITE: "Most of the K-25 Site's process facilities were constructed in the 1940s and

1950s. ... Environmental pollution resulted from accidental leaks, spills, and discharges of radionuclides or chemicals into the environment. It also resulted from the migration or deposition of contaminants from the K-25 Site during gaseous diffusion operations or from storage and burial grounds once deemed acceptable under standards in existence at that time. ... Some areas, such as old McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 462 of 953

waste disposal grounds, will not be available for other uses in the future." (pg. T-15, T-16). (12.213.1.2) "Major remedial action projects in the Main Plant are the K-1407 B and C

Ponds, the K-1070 C/D Burial Grounds, and the SW-31 Seep." These include "... several ponds, waste accumulation areas, cooling towers, acid pits, and burial grounds." (pg. T-17). The former ponds at K1407 are considered inactive "underground radioactive contamination areas. ... The assumed remedial action for the remaining trenches and pits is capping, ground-water monitoring, and institutional controls." (pg. T-18). (12.213.1.2) "The external plant area" includes two complex remediation sites, K-901 and K-

770. These include burial grounds, disposal areas, holding ponds, sludge beds, tanks, waste storage buildings, and other contaminated areas. (12.213.1.3) The pond waste management project includes dewatering, repacking and

disposing more than 70,000 drums of partially solidified sludge ... "remediation of soil contamination around the K-1417 and K-1419 facilities is deferred to future [C.E.R.C.L.A.] action." (pg. T-21). A summary of decommissioning activities including an extensive description of non-radiological contaminants is included on page T-23. (12.213.1.4) "In general order of priority, the wastestreams at the K-25 Site are (1) mixed

waste liquids to be treated in the Toxic Substances Control Act Incinerator; (2) combustible solids also to be treated in the Incinerator; (3) compressed gases; (4) aqueous liquids to be treated in existing facilities; (5) unstabilized Pond Waste Management Project sludges ..." as well as other wastes and toxic substance residues. (pg. T-29). (12.213.1.5) It is rather disconcerting to note that total life cycle remediation costs for this

component of the Oak Ridge Reservation drop from over 20 billion dollars in 1995 to just over 7 billion dollars in 1996. The BEMR report alleges that this saving is a result of accelerating the decommissioning activities in an era when virtually all other DOE remediation efforts are being McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 463 of 953

delayed, either due to reduced funding or the political and scientific difficulties of implementing a final geological repository for waste disposal. OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY: (12.213.1.6) "...the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Isotopes project, includes 19 former

isotope production facilities that contain contaminated hot cells, lab hoods, radioactive isotope inventories, radioactive waste, and active instrumentation and utilities systems. ... the Oak Ridge National Laboratory 'High Rankers' project, includes 31 facilities that received a high threat score in the Surplus Facilities Inventory Assessment. Major facilities include the Tower Shielding Facility and Reactor; the Bulk Shielding Reactor; the Integrated Processing Demonstration Facility; and the High Radiation Level Analytical Facility. The other 27 facilities are associated ancillary facilities." (PG. t44). (12.213.1.7) "...the Environmental Restoration Program has identified approximately 350

sites contaminated with radioactivity or hazardous chemicals. Because of the large number of contaminated sites and the complexity of the hydrologic conditions at Oak Ridge, these sites have been combined into 20 waste area groupings at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ... waste area groupings at the Laboratory are consolidated according to geographical location." (pg. T-46). A site map on page T-42 in the BEMR provides a graphic of the interconnected waste area groupings south of the main laboratory site and adjacent to or upstream from White Oak Lake. (12.213.1.8) "Although additional facilities may transfer to the Environmental Management

program over time, the [BEMR] report only makes estimates for those facilities that are now or are projected to be surpluses over the next five years." (pg. T-43). (12.213.1.9) Waste area grouping 1 for example includes "gunite and associated tanks,

surface impoundments, core hole 8 and liquid low-level radioactive waste tanks... including landfills and spill and leak sites ... contaminated groundwater from some of these sites reaches White Oak Creek McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 464 of 953

and its tributaries through seeps" (pg. T-47). (12.213.1.10) "Waste Area Grouping 3 includes Solid Waste Storage Area 3, a closed scrap-

metal yard, and an active landfill. Solid Waste Storage Area 3 and the closed scrap-metal yard are inactive landfills known to contain radioactive solid waste and surplus materials generated at Oak Ridge from 1946 to 1979. ... The Surface Impoundments Operable Unit consists of four surface impoundments located in the south central portion of the Bethel Valley Oak Ridge National Laboratory facilities complex. ... Principal radionuclide contaminants are strontium-90, cesium-137, and tritium. ... The Core Hole 8 plume of contaminated ground water was discovered during Phase I ground-water investigations." (pg. T-48, T-49). (12.213.1.11) "Contaminants of concern identified to date within Waste Area Grouping 2 are

strontium-90; cesium-137; cobalt-60; thorium; uranium; transuranics; metals (mercury, zinc, and chromium); and some organic compounds (including polychlorinated biphenyls) located primarily in bottom sediments. These contaminants have migrated from sources within Waste Area groupings 1 and 3 through 9. Consequently, Waste Area Grouping 2 is considered both an 'integrator' and conduit for contaminants moving through the surface-water system to White Oak Creek and to offsite areas." (pg. T-51). (12.213.1.11) "Waste Area Grouping 5 consists of Solid Waste Storage Area 5 and the

surrounding land. Solid Waste Storage Area 5 opened in 1959, when Solid Waste Storage Area 4 neared capacity, and closed in 1973. Although both the Old Hydrofracture Facility and the New Hydrofracture Facility are within this waste area grouping's boundaries, they are not included in its scope of work. Solid Waste Storage Area 5 includes two distinct areas: Storage Area 5 North and Storage Area 5 South. Storage Area 5 North is used mainly for long-term storage of legacy transuranic waste and is currently an active waste management facility operated by the Waste Management program. Before 1970, transuranic waste was buried in unlined trenches and auger holes. After 1970, retrievable storage McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 465 of 953

was required." (pg. T-52). (12.213.1.12) "Waste burials started at Solid Waste Storage Area 6 in 1969, and were

expanded to full-scale operation in 1973 when Solid Waste Storage Area 5 was closed. ... The major sites in Waste Area Grouping 7 are seven pits and trenches used from 1951 to 1966 to dispose of liquid low-level waste. ... Waste Area Grouping 8 consists of the inactive Molten-Salt Reactor (included in the Decontamination Section of this report) and the operating High Flux Isotope Reactor with associated tank and piping systems, six pipeline leak sites and an old transfer line, five surface impoundments, a spoils area, and waste storage facilities operated with a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permit." (pg. T-52, T-53). (12.213.1.13) "Waste Area Grouping 9 is composed of four primary contaminated sites: the

Homogeneous Reactor Experiment settling pond impoundment, two buried liquid low-level waste collection and evaporator tanks, a septic tank, and the Homogeneous Reactor Experiment parking lot." (pg. T-53, T-54). (12.213.1.14) "Waste Area Grouping 10 consists of injection wells and subsurface grout

sheets constructed for hydrofracturing experiments conducted in the late 1950s and 1960s, followed by waste disposal operations until 1984. Although the facilities built for these experiments, the Old Hydrofracture Facility and the New Hydrofracture Facility, are located in Waste Area Grouping 5, they are included in the scope of this waste area grouping. In 1959, grout consisting of diatomaceous earth and cement was experimentally injected into an underground shale formation to observe the fracture pattern created in the shale and to identify potential operating problems. The site of the second hydrofracture experiment is in Waste Area Grouping 8. This experiment was designed to duplicate and to scale actual disposal operation; however, radioactive tracers were used instead of actual waste. Bentonite, cement, and water tagged with cesium-137 were used in formulating the grout. ... Preliminary data indicate that three of these wells are under artesian pressure and may be providing a McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 466 of 953

pathway for contaminated deep ground water to reach zones overlying the waste injection zone, approximately 275 meters (900 feet) below ground surface." (pg. T-54). The Integrated DataBase (IDB), 1994 indicates that 1.5 million curies of radioactive waste were injected into the underground shale deposits as grout during the years of operation of the Old Hydrofracture Facility. There is currently no way to verify the accuracy of this estimate. Additional description of the Old Hydrofracture Facility is contained on page T-59. (12.213.1.15) A number of additional Oak Ridge facilities are the object of DOE remediation

efforts. The X-10 site was the location of a graphite pilot reactor which produced large quantities of lanthanum-140. Accidents involving the rupture of radioactive slugs and associated chemical processing effluents resulted in the release of substantial but unknown quantities of radioactive contamination; the X-10 facility may be the only reactor where a contractor has overestimated the reactor releases during the 1940's and 1950's (see comments in Nuclear Wastelands, 1995, p. 232-233 by Makhijani et. al.). Other facilities undergoing decommissioning at ORNL are the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment Facility, the Homogeneous Reactor Experiment, the Shielded Transfer Tanks Facility, the Oak Ridge Research Reactor, the Metal Recovery Facility "Building 3505", the Fission Product Development Laboratory "Building 3517", the Graphite Reactor "Building 3001", three buildings at the Low-intensity Test Reactor, the Fission Product Pilot Plant (currently entombed), and the High-level Chemical Development Laboratory "Building 4505". (12.213.1.16) A component of ORNL remediation includes in situ vitrification involving

"melting the entire mass of contaminated soil into a chemically homogeneous and durable glass microcrystalline waste form. The melt dissolves and incorporates radionuclides and nonvolatile hazardous elements such as heavy metals and destroys organic components. Most semivolatile organics are retained in the melt, and the small quantity of material escaping from the melt is captured and treated. In situ vitrification could be applied to other pits in Waste Area Grouping 7 and 'hot spots' in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 467 of 953

other burial areas on the Oak Ridge Reservation and across the Department of Energy complex to destroy organics and incorporate other components into the chemically homogeneous and durable glassy product." (pg. T-53). (12.213.1.17) "Spent nuclear fuel ... Currently, spent nuclear fuel is stored in underground

retrievable dry storage units, above-grade buildings, hot cells, and wet storage basins." (pg. T-69). The Integrated DataBase lists current inventories of DOE spent fuel at ORNL as 21,988 kg located in a total of 10 buildings or reactors; the BEMR lists 13 facilities as being used to store spent fuel. No final repository is yet available for the disposal of this spent fuel nor are any costs for this disposal included in the $9,351,000,000 remediation estimate for the ORNL laboratory component of the Oak Ridge Reservation. (12.213.1.18) Transuranic mixed and transuranic wastes is divided into 3 categories in the

BEMR: remote handled transuranic sludges; contact handled transuranic solids; and remote handled transuranic solids. No estimate of the radioactivity of these transuranic wastes is provided in this report. (12.213.1.19) Other Oak Ridge Reservation remediation sites include the downtown Oak

Ridge Operations Office (total life cycle costs estimated at 2 billion dollars) and the Oak Ridge Reservation Offsite Program involving the Clinch River and Watts Bar Reservoir system encompassing 120 river miles which has been contaminated by effluents from the White Oak Creek (life cycle costs estimated at 267 million dollars). Radionuclides of interest in the Clinch River included 60Co,137Cs, tritium, and 90Str. (12.213.2) (12.213.2.1) OAK RIDGE Y-12 PLANT: The Y-12 plant operated between 1943 and 1993 producing uranium isotopes for

weapons fabrication using an electromagnetic process which resulted in the contamination of 23 facilities. Since this facility is still in active use, the BEMR only estimates remediation costs in those buildings which have been declared surplus; this includes 3 buildings with 1 million sq. feet of floor McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 468 of 953

space which were used for weapons production functions. "Altogether over 200 areas of concern have been identified ... consolidated into three hydrologic, geographic units." (pg. T-105). (12.213.2.2) Access and use of the sites in the Chestnut Ridge Hydrologic Region "will

remain restricted for the life cycle of this estimate ... The Bear Creek Valley Watershed includes the following potential contaminant sources: the S-3 Ponds (four unlined surface impoundments used for disposal of process effluent), oil-retention ponds, an oil landfarm, waste burial grounds, a site used for a boneyard and burnyard, two spoil areas, and a storage yard. ... Numerous primary and secondary sources of contamination have been identified within the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Characterization Area. Infiltration from the S-3 Area dominates contamination in the western end of the area. The salvage yard, the S-2 Area, and the 81-10 Area have also been identified as potentially significant sources. In addition, over 200 areas of concern have been identified as low-priority contaminant sources." (pg. T-106, T-107, T-109). (12.213.2.3) "Low-level waste generated and managed at the Oak Ridge Y-12 plant is

predominantly contaminated with uranium isotopes ... This baseline report assumes that a total of 390,000 cubic meters (510,900 cubic yards) of solid low-level waste will transfer to the waste management program over the life cycle of this program." (pg. T-119). (12.213.3) An excellent summary of hazardous substances released to the environment at the

Oak Ridge Reservation is contained in Nuclear Wastelands p. 230-231, Table 6.6, (Makhijani et. al. 1995). These substances include groundwater contamination by a variety of radionuclides, heavy metals, and the numerous volatile organic compounds (VOC's) used in weapons production and fuel reprocessing and other activities at ORNL. (12.213.4) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (September 27, 1994). Y-12 Plant

Conduct of Operations. Recommendation 94-4 to the Secretary of Energy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2286a(5) Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 469 of 953

(12.213.4.1)

"...a number of recent events have led the Board to the conclusion that more

aggressive and comprehensive management actions are required to bring the level of conduct of operations at Y-12 to a satisfactory level." (12.213.4.2) "Most recently, the Board's staff identified a substantial violation of nuclear

criticality safety limits within a special nuclear material storage vault at Y-12." (12.213.4.3) "Reviews of compliance with nuclear criticality safety limits at the Y-12 Plant

revealed that a widespread level of non-compliance exists." (12.213.4.4) "An evaluation of compliance with Operational Safety Requirements and

Criticality Safety Approvals (CVAs), including a determination of the root cause of any identified violations. In performing this assessment, DOE should use the experience gained during similar reviews at the Los Alamos plutonium facility and during the recent 'maintenance mode' at the Pantex Plant." (12.213.4.1) "A comprehensive review of the nuclear criticality safety program at the Y-12

Plant, including: the adequacy of procedural controls, the utility of the nuclear criticality safety approvals, and a root cause analysis of the extensive level of non-compliance found in recent reviews." (12.213.5) Garten, C.T. (1990). Dispersal of radioactivity by wildlife from contaminated sites

in a forested landscape. J. Environ. Radioactivity. 29(2). 137-156. 1987-89 White Oak Lake (12.213.5.1) Mallards: breast muscle average
137Cs

700 Bq/kg (19,900 PCi/kg)

"The emigration of frogs and turtles from waste ponds also presents a potential

for dispersal of radioactivity but over distances < 5 km." (pg. 137). (12.213.5.2) "Radioactively contaminated areas at ORNL include floodplains which received

outfalls from past operations, sites of transfer line leaks, pits and trenches used 25 years ago for the disposal of liquid radioactive wastes, burial grounds for solid low-level radioactive wastes, and retired radioactive waste treatment ponds or retention basins." (pg. 139). McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 470 of 953

(12.213.6)

Stow, S.H. (July - September 1996). Attitudes and practices regarding disposal of

liquid nuclear waste at Clinton Laboratories in the very early years: A historical analysis. Nuclear Safety: Technical Progress Journal. 37(3). pg. 181-202. (12.213.6.1) "Liquid wastes were generated primarily from the separations building (Building

205) where neutron-irradiated slugs of uranium were dissolved to recover plutonium; resulting from this were liquid wastes rich in fission products, organics, uranium, some plutonium, and nitrate. In addition, similar wastes were produced at the research buildings (e.g., Building 706) and elsewhere. Amounts on the order of 30,000 gal/day were generated." (pg. 182). (12.213.6.2) "Lower activity wastes were then sent directly to a 1.6-million-gal settling

basin; higher activity wastes went to storage in a series of underground (gunite) tanks where radionuclides decayed and further precipitation occurred ... When the activity was low enough, the wastes were sent to retention ponds, held for an average of 3 days, and then sent to the settling basin. Out-flow from the basin was mixed (ratio 1:35) with clean process water and released to White Oak Creek, which flowed into White Oak Lake, an artificial lake specifically created to retain the drainage before controlled release to the Clinch River, where further dilution (about 500 000:1) occurred." (pg. 182-183). (12.213.6.3) "This method for disposal was used until the turn of the decade when an

evaporator was built to reduce total volume. Then wastes were disposed of directly into seepage pits in shale; in the mid-1960s, these liquids were mixed with cement and injected deep into the ground, a process known as 'hydrofracture.'" (pg. 183). (12.213.6.4) An important analysis of radioactive waste treatment policies at only one of the

hundreds of U.S. military radioactive waste source points. Great photos, especially of the first graphite reactor ("pile") at this facility. (12.214) Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 471 of 953

This is the largest U.S. facility for recycling plutonium from obsolete nuclear weapons; the DOD reports that the Pantex facility, as well as nuclear weapons in the field, have an inventory of 66 metric tons of 239Pu, but does not otherwise differentiate between the exact amount of plutonium at Pantex and the amount of plutonium in nuclear weapons at U.S. military bases throughout the world. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (November 25, 1997). Review of the safety of storing plutonium pits at the Pantex Plant. DNFSB, Washington, D.C. (12.214.1) "DOE is currently using a new container design for some pits, developing another,

less expensive container for the remaining pits, and making preparations to move thousands of pits to different storage facilities at Pantex. These efforts are not well integrated." (pg. iv). (12.214.2) "The lack of authorization basis controls for the storage of these pits renders at

least three temperature-sensitive designs vulnerable to cladding failure" (pg. iv). (12.214.3) "The relatively new surveillance program for pits stored at Pantex does not appear

to be sampling the pits at a rapid enough rate to characterize in a timely manner the real potential for corrosion of the stored pits. Only about 30 pits per year are inspected, even though more than 10,000 pits of various designs are stored at Pantex. the resolution of corrosion and packaging issues is hindered further by the lack of a formal project to improve understanding of pit cladding corrosion and identify corrective actions that may be required." (pg. iv). (12.215) (12.215.1) Rocky Flats, Colorado The Rocky Flats Environmental Technology site was built in 1951; it's primary

commission was to build nuclear weapons components. Additional plant missions included plutonium recovering and reprocessing and waste management. Production activities included metal fabrication and assembly and chemical recovery and purification of transuranic radionuclides. As a result of weapons production activities, large quantities of 239Pu were released to the environment not only from normal operating activities (stack releases), but also from chronic releases from leaking drums of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 472 of 953

contaminated cutting oil (1958-1968), as well as from a series of fires that occurred at the plant during the late 1960's. Additional significant quantities of plutonium have accumulated within a variety of buildings in air ducts (+500 kg 239Pu) and other locations which were formerly used to fabricate nuclear weapons. The DOE BEMR lists the current inventory of plutonium at 12.9 metric tons in nearly 15,000 items, and 6.7 metric tons of highly enriched uranium in nuclear weapons parts, materials, processed residues and wastes. "Much of this material has been stored in temporary packaging since 1989 when production operations involving radioactive materials were suspended. Approximately 30,000 liters of plutonium solutions and 2,700 liters of highly enriched uranium acid solution are stored in tanks that were not designed for long term storage." (BEMR, Vol. 2, pg. Colorado 21). Total life cycle remediation costs are estimated at $17,319,000,000 in the BEMR. RADNET considers this estimate extremely liberal (i.e. low). Due to the location of this facility adjacent to a rapidly growing population area (Denver), unfavorable climatic characteristics of this site (desiccated, subject to very high wind; most population is downwind from the site), and because of the chronic release of plutonium to the environment during the years of operation of this facility, this site is probably the most dangerous among all the DOE weapons production facilities (accidents-in-progress). An extensive series environmental compliance reports and assessments can be accessed via RAD 13: 2-D: see Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, as well as BEMR links. The Radiation Control Division of the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and the Environment also has extensive information about this source point.... (12.215.2) An April 14, 1994, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board report Plutonium

storage safety at major department of Energy facilities cited and reviewed in the General Bibliography at the beginning of this section (5) includes the following description of the situation at RFETS. (12.215.2.1) "Not counting encapsulated weapon components, Rocky Flats has several

thousand containers of plutonium metal, compounds, and mixtures. They have a significant quantity of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 473 of 953

plutonium solution stored in tanks and bottles. They have thousands of containers of scrap of various kinds (called 'residue' at Rocky Flats). The great majority of the inventory is either not in forms suitable for long-term storage or is not packaged correctly for long-term storage." (12.215.2.2) "Plutonium metal corrodes fairly rapidly in the presence of air or water vapor. It

corrodes very rapidly in the presence of hydrogen to form pyrophoric plutonium hydride.3,4 Some metal items stored at Rocky Flats may be in direct contact with plastic bags, an unsafe situation for storage periods extending beyond a few weeks or months. A plastic bag in direct contact with plutonium is subject to rapid radiolysis, which generates hydrogen gas and weakens the bag at the same time. Hydrogen gas will react rapidly with the plutonium metal to generate plutonium hydride. As long as there is free oxygen in the container, hydride will react with it to form oxides. When the free oxygen is depleted, hydride will start to accumulate. The weakened bag is likely to eventually break open and admit air; it is particularly likely to do so when it is handled, but it may do so spontaneously. Either way, there will be an exothermic reaction as the hydride oxidizes, possibly sparking and flaming, and the risk of a larger fire if combustibles are nearby. Other possible adverse chemical evolutions involving plutonium metal and plastic are discussed in Appendix B. (12.215.2.3) A great deal of plutonium scrap, some containing high concentrations of both

plutonium and americium, was also packaged without adequate consideration of long-term chemical and radiological effects. Some scrap was packaged directly in plastic bags or cartons, creating the possibility of high hydrogen generation rates, with the same adverse implications as apply to plutonium metal. (A considerable fraction of the plutonium in the scrap is in the form of metal, so some of the chemical issues are similar.) Many scrap packages are poorly vented. Hydrogen generation in poorly vented containers can create a fire hazard from the hydrogen itself, and can lead to the accumulation of pyrophoric forms of plutonium. Any mishap that results in the sudden introduction of air into such a container (a handling accident, for example, or corrosion of a container wall) could cause a fire or McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 474 of 953

small explosion. the scrap situation is complicated by the fact that the exact chemical composition and packaging arrangements are not known in many cases. there are thousands of scrap containers, mostly 55-gallon and 10-gallon drums, stored in several different buildings. They are generally located in operating areas. (12.215.2.4) There are approximately 11,000 liters of plutonium solutions stored at Rocky

Flats. There are twenty-four tanks of solution in Building 771 alone, with plutonium concentrations as high as 140 grams/liter. There are additional tanks in Building 371, plus several hundred plastic bottles of plutonium solution stored in six different buildings, plus an estimated 9,000 liters of plutoniumcontaminated liquid in process piping and tank heels. There have been dozens of leaks from the tanks since the 1989 shutdown. One of the most serious was the July 1993 rupture of an overhead oxalic acid line, which sprayed plutonium-contaminated liquid over a radius of 6-7 meters. Most of the tanks and process piping are in routinely occupied areas, although no one was injured by the July pipe rupture. The solutions are not well characterized. No samples have been taken from any of the tanks since 1989. Some of the tanks are not geometrically safe, and their Raschig rings have not been inspected since 1989. The accumulation of plutonium polymer, the extent of plutonium precipitation, and the severity of tank wall corrosion are all essentially unknown. The DNFSB staff considers DOE's plans for dealing with these problems greatly inadequate." (Section II-A). (12.215.2.5) "The continuing storage of plutonium solutions in tanks and piping is one of the

most severe hazards at Rocky Flats or anywhere in the Complex. The connections in the tanks and piping are already leaking. Criticality safety is increasingly difficult to guarantee. The Raschig rings in the non-geometrically favorable tanks, which are supposed to be inspected every year, have not been inspected for several years. The systems required for moving liquids have not been operational for several years and thus mixing of the liquids for proper sampling or concentration control can not be carried out. The tanks are in occupied areas; a criticality incident could cause fatalities. These liquids McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 475 of 953

should be processed to a stable solid form as a very high priority item. (12.215.2.6) There are so many types of solid materials that might not be stable in their

present storage form or packaging that it is difficult to choose the single most hazardous category. Salt residues are a major concern and should be repackaged to eliminate as much plastic material as possible. A second category of materials that should receive attention are the combustibles that may be nitrated." (Section III-A). (12.215.3) Colorado Committee for Environmental Information Subcommittee on Rocky Flats.

(1970). Report on the Dow Rocky Flats fire: Implications of plutonium releases to the public health and safety. Colorado Committee for Environmental Information Subcommittee on Rocky Flats, Boulder, CO. (12.215.3.1) August 1969 (12.215.3.2) Rocky Flats, CO Offsite soil
239Pu

13,500 d.p.m./kg (225 Bq/kg)

Global fallout: range of five samples from the Colorado Eastern Slope: 0.434-

0.903 Bq/kg (26-56 d.p.m./kg). (12.215.3.3) The plutonium fire of May 11, 1969 released a significant amount of 239Pu to the

environment (plus 10 Ci?); this enhanced deposition levels from previous airborne releases from Rocky Flats. (12.215.4) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (April 28, 1994). Trip report on

ventilation/filtration systems in Buildings 559 and 707 at the Rocky Flats Plant. Memorandum for G.W. Cunningham, Technical Director. (12.215.4.1) 559 and 707." (12.215.4.2) "Recent failures to meet operational safety requirements (OSR) at Buildings 559 "The scope of this review included the ventilation/filtration systems at Buildings

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 476 of 953

and 707 were reviewed. These failures are more important considering the unreviewed safety question determination for other buildings at Rocky Flats where all stages of filtration are not required to be periodically ascertained." (12.215.5) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (December 16, 1996). Review of

Deactivation and Decommissioning Plans for Buildings 771 and 779 at Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, September 17-19, 1996. Recommendation to G.W. Cunningham, Technical Director. (12.215.5.1) "The Board has identified B771 as one of the highest-priority facilities in the

DOE nuclear weapons complex to be deactivated and decommissioned, because of significant fissile material holdup and contamination from plutonium processing and research and development activities during a period of nearly 40 years. Many of the processes in B771 involved weapons-grade plutonium dissolved in strong acid solutions that have leaked from equipment during the years and contaminated numerous areas of the building. There is a significant amount of holdup in the production equipment including gloveboxes, ventilation ducting, and filters, as well as in inaccessible areas. Plutonium holdup in B771 ductwork alone is estimated to be more than 10 kg. with unknown quantities in equipment, tanks, and piping." (from cover letter and recommendation enclosed with report). (12.215.5.2) "Thousands of containers of waste chemicals are presently being stored in B771

(more than 5000) and B779 (about 4200). Many of these chemicals are flammable, explosive, corrosive, and/or toxic. They exist in open or degraded containers that are inconsistent with safe storage of hazardous materials as specified in RCRA 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 265 and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 231 standards. Numerous excess waste chemicals have been identified, but little effort appears to have been expended on their disposition; only 300 of 1000 chemicals in B779 alone have been disposed. Several large tanks of excess nitric acid and chemical makeup are stored on the second floor of B771. Most chemicals are managed as radioactive liquids and disposed as mixed waste, unless laboratory analysis and characterization prove otherwise. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 477 of 953

Disposition of the excess chemicals would reduce the clutter and remove the hazards they pose to workers." (12.215.6) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (July 15, 1996). Safety and Authorization

Basis Review at Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, May 23, 1996. Recommendation to G.W. Cunningham, Technical Director[:] "A significant number of transuranic (TRU) waste drums are stored in plutonium buildings and waste storage facilities at RFETS. An attendant safety issue for such storage is the potential for generation of flammable gases as a result of radiolytic decomposition of the waste forms. The site had scheduled all these drums to be vented by the end of fiscal year 1995 as part of the site risk reduction program. Although more than 500 drums remain unvented, venting of the drums was discontinued last year. The Board believes that venting of TRU waste drums, especially those containing ion exchange resins or cemented sludge, warrants a priority higher than the one currently assigned by the Department of Energy." (12.215.7) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (December 8, 1995). Nuclear and

Criticality Safety at Rocky Flats, Trip Report (November 28 - December 1, 1994). Recommendation to G.W. Cunningham, Technical Director[:] (12.215.7.1) "All the operations in Building 771 and operations involving more than 200

grams of plutonium in other buildings at RFETS have been suspended following the criticality infraction in Building 771 in September 1994." (12.215.7.2) "The detailed hazard analysis of Building 371 has identified 12.9 metric tons of

plutonium as the material at risk. Five metric tons of plutonium is in the form of dispersible powder with the rest as massive metals with significantly lower respirable release fractions." (12.215.7.3) "Following the criticality infraction in Building 771 in September 1994, a root

cause analysis, prepared by EG&G, identified several issues which contributed to the incident. Conduct of operation, training, supervision, and controls and barriers were identified as contributing factors McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 478 of 953

which led to the incident. Consequently, all operations in Building 771 and activities involving more than 200 grams of Pu in other buildings have been curtailed pending corrective actions." (12.215.7.4) ...hydrogen generation resulting from radiolysis of acidic solutions in the tanks

was a safety issue. According to LATO calculations, sufficient hydrogen could be generated in high plutonium concentration tanks to reach the lower explosive limit (LEL) in about 12 hours if the hydrogen was not vented. Due to significant consequences of a hydrogen explosion, LATO recommended that it was 'extremely important that ventilation be maintained on all solutions in tanks.'" (12.215.7.5) "Preliminary staff calculation shows that if the tanks were properly vented, there

should have been 1 to 3 percent annual reductions in the tank level due to evaporation. The tanks levels, however, have been steady according to the measurements over the last 5 years." (12.215.7.6) "Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) has identified similar

conditions in solution tanks at FB Line. WSRC, however, has implemented procedures to purge the tanks on a frequent basis (at least once a day) in order to prevent hydrogen generation from reaching the LEL." (12.215.8) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (December 8, 1995). Rocky Flats

Solution Tanks Safety Review - Trip Report (May 23-25, 1995). Recommendation to G.W. Cunningham, Technical Director[:] "Tank Sampling: As of May 23, 1995, EG&G had sampled nine tanks in Building 771 out of ten identified as potentially containing high hydrogen concentrations. Three of the tanks sampled, D550, D931, and D933, contained approximately 50, 50, and 40 volume percent hydrogen, respectively. These concentrations are well within the explosive range and 40-50 times higher than the hydrogen level allowed by Code 69 of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 69)." (12.215.9) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (August 14, 1995). Rocky Flats - Status of

Plutonium Residue Processing, May 22, 1995. Recommendation to G.W. Cunningham, Technical McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 479 of 953

Director[:] "Rocky Flats has a total of 106 metric tons of plutonium bearing residues which [fall] into five major categories: 1) salts, 2) combustibles, 3) ash, 4) wet/miscella [, 5)] inorganics. These residues contain about 3 weight percent of plutonium and app. one-half of the total residues are classified as high risk. ..." (12.215.10) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (July 21, 1995). Building 371 and 776

Ventilation at Rocky Flats. Recommendation to G.W. Cunningham, Technical Director. (12.215.10.1) "Building 371. Activities in building 371 were terminated on March 16, 1995,

based on numerous deficiencies with the ventilation systems. As of May 24, 1995, activities have not resumed. The contractor has stated that 'this termination is necessary because the impact of these deficiencies on the facility's authorization basis in unknown.' The major physical cause of the termination of operations can be traced to the malfunctioning of the instrument air system." (12.215.10.2) "Another important manifestation of the unacceptable level of material

condition of Building 371 is the frequency of alarms received in the Building. Prior to April 1990 this was running at approximately 500 per day and it is currently in excess of 2400. An acceptable level has not been established. At the 500 level, an adequate response to each alarm is beyond the resources and staffing for the facility." (12.215.10.3) "In its present configuration, the vast majority (several hundred) of the

instrumentation and controls in the Building 776 control room are out of service." (12.215.11) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (July 5, 1995). Trip Report to Rocky

Flats, January 3-6, 1995 - Review of Criticality Safety and Building 707 Thermal Stabilization Preparations. Recommendation to G.W. Cunningham, Technical Director. (12.215.11.1) "Procedures for draining tanks which have solutions with unconfirmed

plutonium concentrations allow the solution to be drained into three 4-liter bottles for sampling. A 12liter volume in a single spherical unit with moderate reflection could possibly pose a criticality concern McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 480 of 953

when the plutonium concentration is 100 g/liter. Highly concentrated solutions do exist in Building 771 and could accidentally be drained through valve misalignment. Limiting the sample volume to 10 liters or requiring physical separation of the bottles could eliminate any criticality concern even with solutions at 500 g/liter Pu concentration and fully reflected." (12.215.11.2) "The observations made by the staff during this trip and the one on November

28 through December 2, 1994 identify some concerns with the safety culture of the RFFO and EG&G Safety Engineering groups. It appears that the safety engineers are more willing to support the activities than questioning the safety issues related to the activities." (12.215.12) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (July 5, 1995). Radiolytic Hydrogen

Generation in Rocky Flats Plutonium-Nitric Acid Solution Tanks, November 28-December 1, 1994. Recommendation to G.W. Cunningham, Technical Director. (12.215.12.1) "Analysis shows that even though vent lines to the actinide solution tanks are

open, hydrogen and oxygen will accumulate in tank headspaces. Without headspace sampling, all tanks may be assumed to contain explosive mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen. ... Even if the tank wall remains intact, fittings and sight glasses may likely fail, breaching containment. The analysis indicates that within relatively short times hydrogen gas can build up to explosive concentrations. Due to the relatively long stagnant storage of these solutions, a hydrogen detonation in a tank is believed to be a credible hazard." (12.215.12.2) "This analysis assesses hydrogen generation in a total of 14 actinide solution

tanks in buildings 371 and 771." (12.215.13) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (May 15, 1995). Radioactive Waste

Management Review at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, January 9-12, 1995. Recommendation to G.W. Cunningham, Technical Director. (12.215.13.1) "Summary: The RFETS is having a difficult time shipping radioactive waste off McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 481 of 953

site because many of its waste containers cannot meet certification requirements for shipment to the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Because its waste generation rate exceeds its disposal rate, on-site storage capacity remains a serious issue. The increase in waste volumes resulting from decommissioning and environmental restoration activities, combined with a weak waste minimization program, will only worsen the situation in the next few years." (12.215.13.2) "Background: Low-level waste (LLW) and low-level mixed waste (LLMW) at

the RFETS are stored in buildings and under tents on the 750 and 904 pads. Currently, 80% of the onsite LLW storage capacity of 8000 yd3 is in use, while 98% of the 14,800 yd3 of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted LLMW storage capacity is in use." (12.215.13.3) "During FY94, RFETS only made ten LLW shipments to NTS (a shipment can

contain up to 57 yd3 of waste). This is contrasted to Fernald's 600 shipments. In FY95, RFETS anticipate shipping 395 yd3 to NTS and 168 yd3 to Hanford. However, this is only about half of their current generation rate of 1065 yd3 per year." (12.215.13.4) "Transuranic Waste Management: ... As with LLW, there is a lack of storage

space in both operating and long-term storage facilities. In particular, there is a lack of vacant floor space as well as a potential conflict of activities in Building 776. This is the building in which venting and gas sampling of TRU and TRU-M waste drums takes place; 1150 drums are left to be vented." (12.215.13.5) "It should be noted that current cost of disposal at the Nevada Test Site of low-

level waste generated by the RFETS is $10 per ft3 (as compared with an estimated commercial lowlevel waste disposal cost of $300 per ft3. This is not much of an incentive to minimize the waste generation rate." (12.215.14) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (September 26, 1994). Rocky Flats

Plutonium Storage. Recommendation 94-3 to the Secretary of Energy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2286a(5) Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended[:] "The Board has been informed in briefings by the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 482 of 953

Department of Energy (DOE) that Building 371 is considered to be structurally the best on-site facility for the storage of plutonium, and that steps are therefore scheduled that in time will move the major part of the Site's plutonium inventory into storage in this building. As a result, Building 371 will assume a unique role as the storehouse which contains the largest single accumulation of plutonium in the DOE complex. It follows that potential health and safety issues associated with this proposed use of the building also assume very high importance." (12.215.15) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (June 4, 1990). Criticality Safety at the

Rocky Flats Plant. Recommendation 90-6 to the Secretary of Energy pursuant to Section 312(5) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. (12.215.15.1) "...that fissile materials have accumulated in certain portions of these systems.

In addition, other more recent physical studies have confirmed fissile and other undefined debris exist in the ducts." (12.215.15.2) "As of this time, full characterization of the situation by DOE and its contractors

has not been completed; hence, all specific remediation measures have not yet been determined." (12.215.16) Hardy, E. and Krey, (1995). P. Comments on "Spatial analysis of plutonium-

239+240 and americium-241 in soils around Rocky Flats, Colorado," by M.I. Litaor. J. Environ. Qual. 24:506-516. J. Environ. Qual. 24(6), 1229[:] "He then extends this conclusion to say that if his assessment of the Pu and Am dispersal patterns is true, there was less public exposure to these actinides than previously suggested by Johnson in 1981. Since Litaor did not sample east of Indiana Avenue, this has no validity whatsoever." (pg. 1229). (12.215.17) Hardy, E.P., Volchok, H.L., Livingston, H.D. and Burke, J.C. (1980). Time pattern

of off-site plutonium deposition from Rocky Flats Plant by lake sediment analyses. Environment International, 4, 21-30. (12.215.17.1) "The 18 nCi 239,240Pu per m2 (665 Bq/m2) from the Plant that had accumulated McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 483 of 953

in the sediment is reasonable when compared to soil analyses." (p. 21) (12.215.17.2) (12.215.17.3) Additional deposition of 8000 pCi/m2 (296 Bq/m2) attributed to weapons fallout. Is this is a gross overestimation of actual weapons fallout plutonium ground

deposition, the worldwide cumulative average of which is 50-60 Bq/m2, or does this reflect the impact of upwind weapons testing in Nevada? (12.215.18) Ibrahim, S.A., Webb, S.B. and Whicker, F.W. (1997). Contributions of Rocky

Flats releases to the total plutonium in regional soils. Health Physics. 72(1). pg. 42-48. (12.215.19) "Total 239,240Pu and the 240Pu:239Pu atom ratio were measured in soil samples

from around the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) during 1992-1994." (abstract). (12.215.20) "Concentrations of 239,240Pu within this sample set ranged from 1.1 Bq kg-1

offsite to 57 Bq kg-1 onsite..." (abstract). (12.215.21) Johnson, C.J. (1988). Rocky Flats: Death Inc. New York Times, Dec. 18, 1988[:]

Local health inspector found 44 times more plutonium in soil near plant than had been reported earlier by the government. (12.215.22) Krey, P.W. and Hardy, E.P. (August 1970). Plutonium in soil around the Rocky

Flats Plant. Report of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Report No. HASL-235. Health and Safety Laboratory: New York, New York. (12.215.22.1) Feb 14, 1970 Rocky Flats, CO (12.215.22.2) On site soil
239Pu

171,000 d.p.m./kg dry soil (2,850 Bq/kg)

Soil Samples were collected to a depth of 20 cm at 33 sites extending as far as

40 miles from the plant site. (12.215.22.3) Deposition concentrations of 239Pu as high as 2,000 mCi/km2 were found off

the plant site: concentrations decreased rapidly with distance (pg. 1). (weapons testing fallout baseline

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 484 of 953

is 1.5 mCi/km2 ) (12.215.22.4) This report contains a graphic contour map; "the contamination pattern extends

eastward from the plant in the direction of the resultant wind vector and has virtually no westward component. The pattern is incompatible with the wind direction on the day of the May 11, 1969 fire. Leaking barrels of plutonium laden cutting oil stored in the southeast corner of the plant are the likely source of the contaminant." (pg. 1). (12.215.22.5) The May 11, 1969 fire as well as several others (Sept. 11, 1957; 1967) also

released substantial quantities of plutonium in the resulting smoke plume; while this report does not comment on the smoke plume's source term, it is likely this component of the Rocky Flat's release plume was dispersed to far field locations in quantities too small to significantly impact the deposition patterns documented in the contour map in this report which resulted from the leaking drums. The same observation may be made about the stack releases. (12.215.22.6) "Three mCi/km2 of 239Pu is the lowest contour readily discernible in the

contamination pattern and extends about 8 miles E and SE of the plant." (pg. 1). (12.215.23) Litaor, M. I., Thompson, M.L., Barth, G.R. and Molzer, P.C. (1994). Plutonium-

239+240 and Americium-241 in soils east of Rocky Flats, Colorado. J. Environ. Qual. 23(6), 12311239. (12.215.23.1) "Plutonium 239 + 240 and Am-241 activities in the soils ranged from 164 280

Bq/kg to 0.0037 Bq/kg, decreasing with distance from the source." (pg. 1231, abstract). (12.215.23.2) "More than 90% of the Pu-239 + 240 and Am-241 activities were confined to

the upper 12 cm of the soil, regardless of the soil characteristics, or distance and direction from the source." (pg. 1231, abstract). (12.215.23.3) "Earthworm activity is probably important in the redistribution of actinides in

the upper 40 cm of many of the soils investigated." (pg. 1231, abstract). McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 485 of 953

(12.215.23.4)

"Past cleanup operations have been limited to the upper 10 to 15 cm of the soil

(Baker, 1982). Earthworms and other soil fauna, however, may bring Pu-239 + 240 activity that will exceed the 33.3 Bq/kg guideline from depths > 15 cm. Hence, future cleanups to greater soil depth may be cost prohibitive because of the greater volume of contaminated soil." (Pg. 1238). (12.215.24) Litaor, M.I., et al. (1995). Comprehensive appraisal of 239+240Pu in soils around

Rocky Flats, Colorado. Health Physics, 69, 6, 923-935. (12.215.24.1)

1

"Plutonium activity reported in the exhaustive data set ranged from 0.03 Bq kg-

to 407,000 Bq/kg-1 with a mean of 1,443 Bq kg-1..." (p. 923). (12.215.24.2) Litaor cites several other studies of global fallout plutonium in Colorado which

suggest a large range of plutonium activities "probably due to weather patterns, surficial soil processes, and land-use practices in the last 30 years, as well as error associated with the various soil sampling techniques and laboratory methods employed." (pg. 933). (12.215.24.3) "In the present study, we selected a threshold of 2.96 Bq kg-1 as the uppermost

representation of global-fallout plutonium and 1.29 Bq kg-1 as its mean." (p. 933). (12.215.24.4) The use of the reporting unit of Bq/kg for denoting plutonium deposition is

extremely misleading; plutonium deposition is usually reported in Bq/m2, as the depth used for the kg soil samples can vary from researcher to researcher, and the kg soil samples are taken over a smaller area thereby allowing more impact from wind erosion processes. Multiple bioregional plutonium source points further complicate the attempt to pin down the specific contribution of weapons testing derived plutonium fallout. (12.215.24.4) It is obvious in this series of reports by Litaor and others that wind dispersion

mechanisms are spreading the RFETS derived plutonium over wide areas of the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains with the result that some of the deposition levels documented by the contour maps in

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 486 of 953

theses reports are declining. One may then incorrectly conclude that earlier reports of higher levels of plutonium deposition may have been incorrect when in fact these erosion mechanisms are rapidly and efficiently spreading this plutonium over wide areas in quantities which cannot be differentiated from either weapons test derived plutonium or other plume source points such as Los Alamos National Laboratory. In this desiccated environment, the efficiency of wind dispersion mechanisms cannot be underestimated. (12.215.24.5) "A PPRG of 126 Bq kg-1 of 239+240Pu in soil was computed to meet the

stringent requirements of a residential scenario." (p. 933). (12.215.25) Litaor, M. I. (1995). Spatial analysis of plutonium-239+240 and americium-241

in soils around Rocky Flats, Colorado. J. Environ. Qual. 24, 506-516. (12.215.25.1) "Soils were sampled from 118 plots ... by compositing 25 evenly spaced

samples..." (pg. 506, abstract). (12.215.25.2) "Plutonium-239+240 activity ranged from 1.85 to 53 560 Bq/kg with a mean of

1924 Bq/kg and a standard deviation of 6327 Bq/kg. Americium-241 activity ranged from 0.18 to 9990 Bq/kg with a mean of 321 Bq/kg and a standard deviation of 1143 Bq/kg." (pg. 506, abstract). (12.215.25.3) "The isopleth configuration was consistent with the hypothesis that the

dominant dispersal mechanism of Pu-239+240 was wind dispersion from west to east." (pg. 506, abstract). (12.215.25.4) "In general, Am-241 is more difficult to measure than Pu-239+240 due to the

elaborate extraction procedure required to separate Am-241 from lanthanides and Cm. The increase in analytical error resulted in anomaly of the Am-241/Pu-239+240 ratio." (pg. 515). (12.215.25.5) "These findings clearly demonstrated that the level of contamination in surface

soils near the eastern boundary of Rocky Flats and the exposure risk to Pu-239+240 and Am-241 are negligible." (pg. 515). McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 487 of 953

(12.215.26)

Litaor, M.I. (1995). Uranium isotopes distribution in soils at the Rocky Flats

Plant, Colorado. J. Environ. Qual. 24, 1-5. (12.215.26.1) "Uranium-234 activity ranged from 25.9 to 92.8 Bq kg-1, U-235 activity ranged

from 0.1 to 25.1 Bq kg-1, whereas U-238 activity ranged from 30.7 kg-1 to 286 Bq kg-1." (pg. 1, abstract). (12.215.26.2) "Most of the observed activities of U-234 and U-235 were well within the

natural range of U isotopes in soils." (pg. 1, abstract). (12.215.26.3) "The two soil plots with the highest U-235 activity (Fig. 3) were probably

resulted from surface flow and interflow from the east spray field (see Fig. 1). The east spray field received large amount of irrigation water from a series of holding ponds that between 1952 and 1979 received laundry waste water containing actinides." (pg. 3). (12.215.26.4) "These results suggest that the impact of RFP on U distribution in surficial soil

is limited. Hence, future remedial activities of U-isotopes in soils should focus on the directly impacted areas such as the East Trenches, the former storage site, and the few plots with elevated U activities." (pg. 4). (12.215.27) Litaor, M.I., Barth, G.R. and Zika, E.M. (July-August, 1996). Fate and transport of

Plutonium-239+240 and Americium-241 in the soil of Rocky Flats, Colorado. J. Environ. Qual. 25. (12.215.27.1) "Approximately 90% of the Pu-239+240 and Am-241 activity in the soils under

study was observed in the upper 12 cm, below which a rapid decrease of actinide activity occurred (Fig. 3). However, appreciable Pu-239_240 activities were observed at depths of 24 and 36 cm in Pit 5 (1032 and 895 Bq/kg, respectively), and increases in Pu and Am activities were also observed at 48 and 96 cm in Pit 4 (Fig. 3). These actinide activities are significantly higher than previously reported for soils at the Site. ... This apparent discrepancy can be explained by the edaphic factors observed in the study area. Pit 5 is located on a steep slope (12%) and its upper 48 cm exhibited a very coarse texture McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 488 of 953

(Table 2). Pits 1 through 5 exhibited high hydraulic conductivities in the A horizon, and occasionally, in the B horizons (Table 2)." (pg. 4). (12.215.27.2) "Plutonium-239+240 and Am-241 activities in the soil interstitial water

collected by the ZTS [Zero-Tension Sampler] showed a clear distribution with depth (Fig. 4). Actinide activities were significantly higher in the upper 20 cm than in the deeper sampling depths (Table 3)." (pg. 4). (12.215.27.3) "... Am-241/Pu-239+240 ratios did not increase significantly with depth ... The

results indicated that Am-241 does not move faster than Pu-239+240 in the soils of the Site." (pg. 4). (12.215.27.4) "The actinide activities in the soil interstitial water were completely

uncorrelated with the magnitude of volume flux (r2 = 0.006). This profound lack of correlation was consistent under all rain simulations." (pg. 5). (12.215.27.5) "This study has also demonstrated that our current understanding of the

edaphic [soil related] factors that control the fate and transport of actinides in the soil environs is limited." (pg. 6). (12.215.28)
241Am

Litaor, M.I. and Allen, L. (September, 1996). A comprehensive appraisal of

in soils around Rocky Flats, Colorado. Health Physics. 71(3). 347-357. "Weapons grade plutonium processed at RFETS was reported to have isotopic

(12.215.28.1)

composition of 0.04% 238Pu, 93.3% 239Pu, 6% 240Pu, 0.58% 241Pu, and 0.04% 242Pu (Krey and Krajewski 1972; Martell 1975). The initial 241Am activity in the weapons grade plutonium processed at RFETS did not exceed 10-4% (Krey et al. 1976). Consequently, nearly all the 241Am activity in the soil around RFETS resulted from radioactive decay of 241Pu (t1/2 = 14.4 y) to 241Am." (pg. 347). (12.215.28.2) "The physicochemical characteristics of 241Am in the environment are markedly

different than those of 239+240Pu. Fowler and Essington (1974) ascertained that americium is more

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 489 of 953

soluble than plutonium and may become the radionuclide of prime concern because it has a faster migration rate in soils. Romney et al. (1985) showed that root uptake of 241Am by various plants was consistently greater than that of plutonium. 241Am exhibited a higher solubility than did 238Pu and
239+240Pu,

as observed in rumen contents of cattle grazing on actinide-contaminated desert vegetation

(Barth et al. 1985)." (pg. 347). (12.215.28.3) "The major finding of this work was that the spatial distribution and dispersal

mechanisms of 241Am were similar to those of 239+240Pu. The area adjacent to the former storage site is the most significantly contaminated with 241Am in spite of several soil removal operations (Barker 1982)." (pg. 356). (12.215.28.4) This report includes interesting contour maps of 241Am distribution which

illustrate a more easterly rather than southeasterly pattern of RFETS effluent distribution as suggested by Krey and Hardy (1970). (12.215.29) Litaor, M.I. and Ibrahim, S.A. (September-October, 1996). Plutonium association

with selected solid phases in soils of Rocky Flats, Colorado, using sequential extraction technique. J. Environ. Qual. 25. (12.215.29.1) "Prediction of Pu transport in the soil and vadose zone will be significantly

improved if the Pu distribution and association with the various solid phases of the soil are well defined." (pg. 1). (12.215.29.2) "A sequential extraction experiment was conducted to assess the geochemical

association of Pu with selected mineralogical and chemical phases of the soil. In the surface horizons, Pu-239+240 was primarily associated with the organic C (45-65%), sesquioxides (20-40%), and the residual fraction (10-15%). A small portion of Pu-239+240 was associated with soluble (0.09-0.22%), exchangeable (0.04-0.08%), and carbonates (0.57-07.0%) phases. These results suggest that under the

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 490 of 953

observed pH and oxic conditions, relatively little Pu-239+240 is available for geochemically induced transport processes." (abstract). (12.215.29.3) "Uncommon hydrogeochemical conditions were observed during the spring of

1995, which may have facilitated a partial dissolution of sesquioxides followed by desorption of Pu resulting in increased Pu mobility." (abstract). (12.215.29.4) "... under ... anoxic conditions, certain bacteria may even dissolve the insoluble

Pu-oxides (Rusin et al., 1994), and may further enhance its mobility and bioavailability. This hydrogeochemically induced transport mechanism was not envisioned under any environmental condition or hyudrogeochemical modeling scenarios (USDOE, 1991)." (pg. 4). (12.215.29.5) "Plutonium-239+240 activity in the top soil horizons ranged from 3920 to 18

200 Bq kg-1, with mean activity of 8480 Bq kg-1. The distribution of Pu-239+240 activity in the samples collected from the five pits showed that >90% of the Pu isotopes is residing in the upper 18 cm of the soil (Table 2). The activity of Pu-239+240 at all locations decreased with depth to near background levels (i.e., global fallout ~ 1.5 Bq kg-1) in the deepest horizons (>1 m)." (pg. 2-3). Liator, M.I., Barth, G., Zika, E.M., Litus, G., Moffitt, J. and Daniels, H. (1998). The behavior of radionuclides in the soils of Rocky Flats, Colorado. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 38(1). pg. 17-46. (12.215.29.6) "The distribution of radionuclides during the monitoring period from 1993 to

1995 suggested that Pu-239 + 240 and Am-241 are largely immobile in semi-arid soils." (pg. 17). (12.215.30) Poet, S.E. and Martell, E.A. (1972). Plutonium-239 and americium-241

contamination in the Denver area. Health Physics, 23, 537-548. (12.215.30.1) "...the 239Pu contamination in off site areas just east of the Rocky Flats plant

ranges up to hundreds of times that from nuclear tests." (p. 537) (12.215.30.2) "Results for soils of known last date disturbance make it evident that most of the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 491 of 953

off site Pu accumulated between 1966 and 1969." (p. 537) (12.215.30.3) "241Am, which grows in from 241Pu present in the contaminant, now

contributes between 3 and 15% as much alpha activity as 239Pu and ultimately will approach comparable levels." (p. 537) (12.215.31) Thomas, R.S. and Ibrahim, S.A. (1995). Plutonium concentrations in lichens of

Rocky Flats environs. Health Physics. 68:3, 311-319. 1993 1993 Rocky Flats Rocky Flats Soil Lichen median (same plot)
239,240Pu 239,240Pu

35,600 Bq/kg 1,073 Bq/kg

Correlation of plutonium in lichen showed a direct relationship to soil concentrations. (12.215.32) 15,9, 549-624. June 1972 June 1972 Rocky Flats Miami, FL Air Concentration Air Concentration
239Pu 239Pu

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1974). Radiation Data and Reports,

6,610.00 aCi/m3 6.61 aCi/m3

The Miami levels are typical northern hemisphere concentration levels as noted in the HASL surveys. (12.216) Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico[:] An important research and

development laboratory located on 2,828 acres 6.5 miles east of Albuquerque, NM, total BEMR life cycle facility stabilization, environmental restoration and waste management costs are estimated at $1,591,074,000. (12.216.1) "The principal contamination sources include firings conducted over many years

to test weapons and weapons components; discharges of radioactive liquids and hazardous chemicals; oil spills; disposal of radioactive waste and hazardous chemicals in landfills; rocket launches; and burning of certain wastes, such as high explosives. The wide range of contaminated facilities includes reactors, artillery ranges, and scrap yards." (BEMR pg. New Mexico - 52). (12.216.2) Sandia is the location of 2,331 kg of spent nuclear fuel, and a possible site for some McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 492 of 953

undocumented historical disposal of missing military radioactive wastes. Sandia is of most interest, however as a principal component of DOE efforts to monitor and dispose of existing radioactive wastes. Sandia is the principle laboratory involved with the design and construction of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for disposal of weapons production derived transuranic wastes, as well as the location of the Cooperative Monitoring Center (CMC), which uses sophisticated remote sensing technologies as a component of nuclear non-proliferation research and investigation. See especially Sandia derived information pertaining to the Airborne Multisensor Pod System (AMPS). (12.217) (12.217.1) Savannah River Plant, S. Carolina The Oak Ridge National Laboratory Integrated DataBase reports the Savannah

River Site (SRS) inventory of high-level waste as of Jan. 1, 1996 at 502,200,000 Ci (See Oak Ridge citation under the subsection, U. S. Nuclear Power Plants; also see additional comments on missing U.S. military (DOE) high-level wastes in part 14 of this section). The DOE Baseline Environmental Management Report (BEMR) lists total life cycle remediation costs at $48,769,000,000, another example of DOE's liberal (i.e. low) estimates for one of the most contaminated weapons production sites in the world. Not enough data is available to determine whether the Savannah River site or the Hanford Reservation in Washington is the second largest nuclear accident-in-progress within the continental United States; the Rocky Flats site being the most dangerous in terms of the immediate potential health physics impact. (12.217.2) The Savannah River Site covers 310 sq. miles in west central South Carolina and is

separated from Georgia only by the Savannah River on its south west side. The DOE BEMR includes an extensive description of the facilities in this location including area maps. (12.217.3) Alberts, J.J., Halverson, J.E. and Orlandini, K.A. (1986). The distribution of

plutonium, americium and curium isotopes in pond and stream sediments of the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina, USA. J. Environ. Radioactivity, 3, 249-271. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 493 of 953

August 1979 December 1981 December 1981

Savannah River site Savannah River site Savannah River site

Pond sediments Pond sediments Pond sediments

239,240Pu 241Am 244Cm

1410 pCi/kg 4,360 pCi/kg 392 pCi/kg

Comparisons of the elemental and isotopic ratios of the sediments show that the majority of the sediments studied have been impacted upon by plant operations...Atom ratios of 240Pu/239Pu indicate that up to 86% of the Pu in these sediments is derived from plant operations." (pg. 249). (12.217.4) Alvarez, R. and Makhijani, A. (Aug./Sept., 1988). Hidden legacy of the arms race:

Radioactive waste. Technology Review. 42-51. (12.217.4.1) "The Savannah River plant discharges 180,000 gallons of radioactive and

hazardous waste into unlined seepage basins every day." (pg. 49). (12.217.4.2) "The amount of long-lived radionuclides and other toxic substances that seep

from these cement blocks over thousands of years will far exceed the amount already dumped into the ground." (pg. 50). (12.217.5) Carlton, W.H., Murphy, C.E. and Evans, A.G. (1994). Radiocesium in the

Savannah River site environment. Health Physics, 67, 3, 233-244. 1955-89 1955-89 Savannah R. site Savannah R. site Atmospheric release Liquid release
137Cs 137Cs

3.5 Ci (130 GBq) 600 Ci (22,000 GBq)

(12.217.6)

Centers for Disease Control. (February 1999). Savannah River Site (SRS) dose

reconstruction. Radiation Studies Branch, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC, Atlanta, GA. (12.217.6.1) "Despite the independence of this study, it has to rely on DOE sources," said

[Bob] Guild, who has represented former SRS employees in lawsuits. "The bottom line is the Department of Energy's own record keeping fails to account for some of their own radiation releases. There is evidence SRS suppressed some incidents." (Mark Pratt, February 2, 1999, Associated Press). McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 494 of 953

(12.217.6.2) (Results, Table I).

Median radionuclide releases from the SRS to air and surface water in curies.

Principal Radionuclide Releases to Air (in curies) Iodine-131 Tritium Argon-41 Iodine-129 Plutonium-238, 239, 240 (12.217.6.3) 57,000 6,400,000 5.6 16
137Cs

Principal Radionuclide Releases to Surface Water (in curies) Tritium Strontium-90 1,800,000 250 100

26,000,000 Cesium-137

Editorial note re:

releases to surface water: this dose reconstruction

project should be given no credibility in view of the following information: the DOE Integrated Database indicates domestic commercial light water reactors have produced 2,310,000,000 Ci of 137Cs as of 1994. US government military weapons production-derived 134Cs can be approximated as 1/5th of commercial reactor production. Almost all military weapons fuel was produced and reprocessed at the Hanford and Savannah River Reservations. During the reprocessing of fuel and the extraction of plutonium for weapons production, hundreds of millions of curies of radiocesium entered the waste stream. Only a small percentage of this total remains within (leaky) tanks at the Hanford Reservation and the Savannah River Plant. The above SRS dose reconstruction project lists only 250 Ci as being released into surface waters: this is misleading in that the amounts of 137Cs released at SRP via "french drains," leaky holding ponds and other uncontrolled liquid releases other than to surface waters is probably in the hundreds of thousands of curies. These effluents cannot be measured by taking grab samples from surface water bodies; their concentrations and their pathways are essentially unknown. No accurate dose reconstruction for these and many other effluents can ever be known. Similar observations can be made about all of the data in the above dose reconstruction project. This dose reconstruction project may be a laudable attempt to evaluate impact of SRP operations but it represents

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 495 of 953

a most primitive and, in fact, nearly stone age attempt to evaluate the health physics impact of emissions of which no accurate database exists. (12.217.7) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (August 14, 1996). In-tank precipitation

system at the Savannah River Site. Recommendation 96-1 to the Secretary of Energy. (12.217.7.1) "The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) has devoted substantial

attention to the planned use of the In-Tank Precipitation (ITP) System at the Savannah River Site, because of its importance to removal of high-level radioactive waste from storage tanks at that Site, and because certain unique hazards are associated with the ITP process." (12.217.7.1) "The hazards are a consequence of the volatile and flammable organic

compound benzene that is released during the process in amounts that must not exceed safe limits. The benzene is generated through decomposition of tetraphenylborate (TPB) compounds. These compounds are added in the process with the objective to precipitate and remove radioactive cesium from solution in the waste water destined for the saltstone process." (12.217.7.1) "The generation of benzene in the waste under treatment in Tank 48 was

unexpectedly rapid. A surprisingly large amount of the benzene remained captured in the waste, and that benzene was released through action of mixing pumps in the tank." (12.217.8) Fendley, T.T., Manlove, M.N. and Brisbin, I.L. (1977). The accumulation and

elimination of radiocesium by naturally contaminated Wood Ducks. Health Physics. 32, 415-422. (12.217.8.1) "Ducks... recaptured after attaining equilibrium concentrations in the field...

[averaged]...16.6 pCi (16,600 pCi/kg) radiocesium/g live body weight" (pg. 415). (12.217.8.2) weight. (12.217.9) Hayes, D.W. (1980). Tritium in the Savannah River estuary and adjacent marine Peak concentrations in recaptured wood ducks exceeded 100,000 pCi/kg live

waters. Report No. IAEA-SM-232/80. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna[:] "... the average McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 496 of 953

tritium concentration in this river is ~5 pCi/ml, whereas other rivers in the southeastern United States of America average less than 0.5 pCi/ml." (pg. 271). (12.217.10) McLendon, H.R. Soil monitoring for plutonium at the Savannah River Plant.

Health Physics, 28. 347-354. 1973 Savannah River site Soil

239Pu

535 mCi/km2

Baseline given as 2.0 mCi/km2. (12.217.11) Mohler, H.J., Whicker, F. W. and Hinton, T.G. (1997). Temporal trends of 137Cs

in an abandoned reactor cooling reservoir. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 37(3). pg. 251-268. (12.217.11.1) "A comprehensive resampling study was initiated for the purpose of gaining

insight into 137Cs mobility and retention in Pond B ... The total measured 137Cs inventory in Pond B decreased from 4.6 x 1011 Bq in 1984 to 2.3 x 1011 Bq in 1994." (pg. 251). (12.217.11.2) "Concentration ratios for the sediment and biota were very similar for both

studies. A general trend of 137Cs penetration into the sediment profile and of sediment transport to deeper water was observed." (pg. 251). (12.217.12) Newman, M.C. and Brisbin, I.L. (1990). Variation of 137Cs levels between sexes,

body sizes and collection localities of mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki (Girard 1859), inhabiting a reactor cooling reservoir. J. Environ. Radioactivity. 12:2. 131-142. April 1987 Savannah R. cooling reservoir Whole body concentration
137Cs

5.02 Bq/g

(12.217.12.1) (12.217.12.2)

Concentration factor of this sample was 11,215 (Bq/g dry / Bq liter). "These results suggest that radionuclide whole body concentrations may vary

in unexpected ways between sex or size classes within a given species and that such differences may also vary within microgeographic scales." (pg. 131). (12.217.13) Pinder, J.E., Alberts, J.J., Bowling, J.W., Nelson, D.M. and Orlandini, K.A. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 497 of 953

(1992). The annual cycle of plutonium in the water column of a warm, monomictic reservoir. J. Environ. Radioactivity. 17:1. 59-82. (12.217.13.1) "The pond has elevated concentrations of 238Pu and 239,240Pu in sediments due

to releases from former reactor operations." (pg. 59). (12.217.13.2) "Pond B is an 87-hectare impoundment constructed in 1961 and used as a

cooling reservoir for a nuclear production reactor until 1964. During this period, 5.7 TBq 137Cs, 0.44 TBq 90 Sr and undocumented quantities of Pu and other actinide elements were released from the reactor to several aquatic systems including Pond B." (pg. 61). (12.217.13.3) "Current inventories of Pu in the sediments of Pond B are approximately 33

MBq 238Pu and 430 MBq 239,240Pu and are >/= 5 times the inventories expected from global fallout in this region." (pg. 61). (12.217.14) Straney, D.O., Beaman, B., Brisbin, I.L. and Smith, M.H. (1975). Radiocesium in

birds of the Savannah River Plant. Health Physics.28. 341-345. Summer 1971+1972 (12.217.14.1) SRP, Aiken SC Kingbird (summer bird) Total body burden 2,992,700 pCi/kg live weight

"Significant levels of radiocesium were found in adult avian communities

inhabiting areas near a reactor waste effluent stream and adjacent to a radioactive waste burial ground." (pg. 341). (12.218) (12.218.1) West Valley, New York West Valley is the location of a facility constructed for the purpose of reprocessing

commercial spent fuel. The operation of this facility resulted in a debacle of major proportions as well as in the termination of attempts to reprocess spent fuel in the United States. West Valley is one of the oldest, best known and most thoroughly studied plume source points in the United States. Articles or

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 498 of 953

research papers discussing or documenting this plume source point run into the hundreds if not the thousands over a period of the last three decades. For a concise summary of this facility see the DOE BEMR, New York. West Valley is currently in the final stages of a 17 year effort by the DOE to solidify by glassification 600,000 gallons of radioactive waste left over from reprocessing efforts. Cost estimates for this vitrification program are 1.4 billion dollars for of 280 ten feet tall by 2 feet in diameter 2.5 ton waste casks which will be stored on-site indefinitely (until a permanent storage facility is identified and prepared.) (12.218.2) The Oak Ridge National Laboratory Integrated Data Base reports the former fuel

reprocessing facility at West Valley, NY inventory of high-level waste as of Jan. 1, 1996 at 24,700,000 Ci. Extensive surveys of the West Valley area have been conducted by the New York State Department of Conservation... UNITED KINGDOM SOURCE POINTS (12.219) The United Kingdom has numerous nuclear power stations which are not reported

on in this Website. The two major sources of radioactive contamination in the United Kingdom are the Dounreay Nuclear Facility on the North coast of Scotland, about which very little information is available, and the Sellafield fuel reprocessing facility in northern England, of which only a few of the most interesting studies pertaining to Sellafield effluents are cited below. Sellafield is anomalous in that it is the one major fuel reprocessing facility where the government has had the decency to document radioactive effluents and their environmental impact, as well as (since 1980) to attempt to mitigate the volume of these discharges. Unfortunately there has been significant increase in radioactive effluents from this location due to the new Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant, (THORP), now accepting commercial spent fuel from Japan, France and other locations for reprocessing. Sellafield is also the site of the 31 year old antiquated MAGNOX nuclear power facility and an associated reprocessing plant for MAGNOX fuel, where spent fuel is reprocessed in a weapons production complex, and which McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 499 of 953

was the source of most radioactive effluents prior to the construction of the new THROP facility. The fuel reprocessing facilities at Sellafield have the capacity to reprocess spent fuel from part or all of western Europe's 152 nuclear power plants. These reprocessing facilities create huge volumes of liquid high-level radioactive wastes and highly toxic mixed wastes; the current plan to dispose of most of these wastes in geological formations underlying the Sellafield facility have the potential to create a radioactive plume as large as any Russian or US weapons production plume of the 1960's. Such stone age radioactive waste disposal technology will constitute what is in essence the world's largest french drain... (12.220) Dounreay[:] Site of the world's first fast (breeder) reactor, this nuclear complex

plays a key role in producing plutonium for weapons production in Britain. All three reactors here are now closed, but a fuel reprocessing facility at this location will be accepting spent fuel from an Australian plant (Lucas Heights Research Reactor) for recycling. This location is the focus of extensive controversy pertaining to uncontained disposal of plutonium and other types of radioactive waste. During the operation of the original reactors a deep shaft was constructed within the research station's security fence to access a waste tunnel sloping out to sea; millions of curies or more of uncontained high-level waste generated at these facilities were disposed of in this shaft. In 1977 this shaft was the location of a hydrogen explosion which sent radioactive wastes into the environment; the shaft was then sealed, but leakage continues. A recent evaluation of this waste shaft indicates it will be breached by the ocean in approximately 200 years, allowing near total release of its radioactive contents. Recent reports documenting the widespread presence of plutonium on local beaches etc. will be posted by RADNET as soon as they are obtained from MAFF and/or environmental organizations located in Scotland. (12.221) (12.221.1) Sellafield (Windscale) Fuel Reprocessing Facility The nuclear fuel reprocessing facility at Sellafield, formerly called Windscale, has McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 500 of 953

been the source of enormous releases of radioactivity to the environment since it became operational in the early 1950's. In October of 1957 the Windscale facility, as it was called then, was the location of a nuclear accident which allegedly released the following inventories of radioactivity to the environment: 0.7 PBq 131I; 0.04 PBq 137Cs; 4 TBq 89Sr and 0.3 TBq 90Sr (Aarkrog, 1990). Asker Aarkrog gives the following encapsulation of Sellafield as a source point: (12.221.1.1) "... waterborne discharges of 137Cs from the nuclear reprocessing plant Sellafield

in the UK have varied throughout the years. Maximum releases occurred around 1975, when about 4-5 PBq were discharged annually. Since then, the releases have been reduced significantly....A substantial part of the radiocesium discharged from Sellafield (10-15 PBq 137Cs) is probably still to be found in the Arctic Ocean." (Aarkrog, 1990, p.25-26) (12.221.1.2) With the 1994 opening of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP) at

Sellafield, which is now reprocessing more than 200 tons of nuclear fuel from Japan and European countries annually, Asker Aarkrog's summary needs further updating, as what was a trend of declining discharges to the Irish Sea appears to have been reversed. A recent report by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has noted a sharp increase in levels of Technetium 99 in seaweed collected along the east coast of Ireland in August of 1994, according to a November 1, 1996 article in the Irish Times. RADNET is seeking, and will annotate and post a citation of this report as soon as it is obtained from the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. (12.221.2) The following is the mean activity discharges rates in curies per month to the

Irish Sea, 1957-1967 as provided by the Panel on Radioactivity in the Marine Environment (1971, pg. 32). Radionuclide
106Ru 103Ru

1957 2218 300

1958 3522 492

1959 2956 746

1960 3302 964

1961 2095 265

1962 1916 153

1963 2781 800

1964 1924 100

1965 1752 150

1966 2077 205

1967 1436 186

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 501 of 953

90Sr 89Sr 144Ce 91Y+rare 137Cs 95Zr 95Nb

137 248 215 earth 300 310 59 535 5366 4.8

210 72 497 567 516 210 510 6846 5.2

129 170 583 506 165 415 845 7659 5.6

43 82 74 83 76 196 523 6461 6.8

41 114 180 201 91 140 658 3981 11.1

85 42 200 125 92 78 356 3742 15.5

46 14 116 90 31 47 272 4020 19.0

81 16 267 90 111 1797 1735 5055 23.5

97 14 288 73 97 1479 2803 4560 33.8

76 7 571 75 100 1172 1947 5464 48.8

116 12 1142 203 132 1566 2143 6022 79.6

Total beta Total alpha

This data does not match Aarkrog's assertion that 4-5 PBq of 137Cs were discharged in 1975 (112,000 140,000 Ci). The 1958 maximum is 6,192 Ci, with Sellafield cesium discharges decreasing through 1967. The substantial increase of discharges in the 1970's is confirmed by the following citation (UNSCEAR, 1982). (12.221.3) The UNSCEAR report of 1982 updates liquid release data through 1979 with the

following yearly summaries: Annual discharge (TBq) Radionuclide

89Sr 90Sr 95Zr 95Nb

1977 427 92 203

1978 9.9 597 82 148 179 8.5

1979 7.5 250 60 98 43 5.8 390 14 0.12 240 2600

99Tc
103Ru 106Ru 125Sb 129I 134Cs 137Cs

816 0.11 594 4480

810 29 0.074 404 4090

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 502 of 953

144Ce 152Eu 154Eu 238Pu 239,240Pu 241Pu 241Am

152

104 10 38

83 3.7 1.9 12 37 1500 7.9

36 36 981 3.6

12 46 1773 7.9

(12.221.3.1)

4,480 TBq = 4.48 Pbq; this data is consistent with Aarkrog , but not with the

Panel on Radioactivity in the Marine Environment data. (12.221.3.2) These waste effluent inventories, though much reduced until the opening of the

THORP reprocessing plant, raise the issue of undocumented liquid releases from U.S.A. fuel reprocessing facilities in South Carolina, Washington State, Idaho, and at other locations. (12.221.4) Aarkrog, A., et. al. (1987). Technetium-99 and Cesium-134 as long distance

tracers in Arctic waters. Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci., 24, 637-647. (12.221.4.1) The transit times of 134Cs from Sellafield to Baffin Bay is approximately eight

years... with concentrations levels in Baffin Bay at approximately 1% of the levels in the North Sea. (pg. 637) (12.221.4.2) "Enhanced discharges of 99Tc apparently began in 1970.... the unreported,

annual 99Tc discharges (1970-1978) are estimated to be approximately 40 Tbq (~1 kCi). (12.221.5) Aston, S.R. and Stanners, D.A. (1981). Plutonium transport to and deposition and

immobility in Irish Sea intertidal sediments. Nature, 289, 581-582. June 1978 June 1978 River Esk, 10 km S. of Sediment profiles; total core Windscale inventory, 1-15 cm River Esk, 10 km S. of Sediment profiles; total core Windscale inventory, 1-15 cm
239,240Pu 238Pu

945,600 pCi/15 cm cone (34,814 Bq/kg) 191,500 pCi/15 cm cone (9,550 Bq/kg)

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 503 of 953

(12.221.5.1)

"The total 238Pu and 239,240Pu activities discharged over the period 1970-78

were 936, 1,128, 1,548, 1,776, 1,248, 1,195, 1,272, 984 and 1,572 Ci yr-1." (p. 581) (12.221.5.2) "Previous studies have shown that marine sediments very effectively and

quickly remove plutonium, and have suggested both immobile and mobile behavior of plutonium after deposition." (p. 581) (12.221.5.3) Brown, Paul. (January 2, 1999). British warned of nuclear waste leaks. The

Guardian. Saturday ROP Edition. pg. 31. (12.221.5.4) "Nuclear waste stored at 22 sites in Britain is in danger of leaking, the British

government's safety experts say in an unpublished report. In one case, at Sellafield, in northwest England, there is a risk of an uncontrolled nuclear reaction." (pg. 31). (12.221.5.5) "The strongest concern is for plutonium-contaminated waste stored in 52-gallon

drums, filters and crates in old and disused facilities. 'The crates represent the greater potential hazard as in some cases the plutonium content and form and internal geometry have never been established with any degree of confidence.'" (pg. 31). (12.221.6) Eakins, J.D., Lally, A.E., Cambray, R.S., Kilworth, D., Morrison, R.T. and Pratley,

F. (1984). Plutonium in sheep feces as an indicator of deposition on vegetation. J. Environ. Radioactivity, 1, 87-105. (12.221.6.1) "BNFL Sellafield have discharged about 18,000 Ci (670 TBQ) of alpha-emitting

plutonium from their pipeline into the Irish Sea since 1957. It has been shown that a very small fraction of this activity has been transported in sea spray back to the land, and maritime-derived plutonium from this source has been detected up to 10 km inland by the analysis of soil samples." (p. 89) (12.221.6.2) "Plutonium discharged from the Sellafield Works of British Nuclear Fuels

Limited can be detected 60 km from the site. On moorland pastures the concentration of 239+240Pu in feces, expressed as activity per gram of ash, is roughly equal numerically to the deposit of plutonium McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 504 of 953

on 1 m2 of vegetation." (p. 87) (12.221.6.3) "Some of the plutonium ingested by grazing sheep is absorbed and the highest

concentrations are found in liver... about 2 pCi (74 mBq) g-1 of ash.)" (p. 87) (12.221.7) Fulker, M.J., Jackson, D., Leonard, D.R., McKay, K. and John, C. (March 1998).

Doses due to man-made radionuclides in terrestrial wild foods near Sellafield. J. Radiological Protection. 18(1), pg. 3-13. (12.221.7.1) "Radiological dose implications for consumers of wild foods around Sellafield

have been assessed. Habits were surveyed from 72 households, mostly within a few kilometres of Sellafield." (abstract). (12.221.7.2) (12.221.7.3) "In all cases, doses were dominated by 137Cs." (abstract). "The extreme individual received a dose of 32 microSv a(-1) largely due to

consumption of honey that included contributions from the Chernobyl accident, and hedgerow fruits." (abstract). (12.221.7.4) "The 97.5th percentile dose, for all age groups of consumers taken together, was

16.6 microSv a(-1), or 6.2 microSv a(-1) if the contributions from Chernobyl are excluded. Considering the contributions from different foods to the whole group of 181 wild food consumers, the rank order is honey, blackberries and venison." (abstract). (12.221.8) Hallstadium, L., Aarkrog, A., Dahlgaard, H., Holm, E., Boelskifte, S., Duniec, S.

and Persson, B. (1986). Plutonium and americium in Arctic Waters, the North Sea and Scottish and Irish coastal zones. J. Environ. Radioactivity, 4, 11-30[:] "Fallout is found to dominate as a source of
239,240Pu

north of latitude 65(N, while for 238Pu a substantial fraction originates from European nuclear

fuel reprocessing facilities." (p. 11) (12.221.9) Hamilton-Taylor, J., Kelly, M., Mudge, S. and Bradshaw, K. (1987). Rapid

remobilization of plutonium from estuarine sediments. J. Environ. Radioactivity, 5, 409-423. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 505 of 953

(12.221.9.1) inflow." (p. 409) (12.221.9.2)

"Plutonium in the Irish Sea... is transported into the estuaries of the area by tidal

"Remobilisation is greatest at low salinites.. The remobilisation process appears

to be associated with a rapid (equilibrium achieved in 15 min.) exchange reaction involving competition between Pu species, protons and major cations for the available surface sites." (p. 409) (12.221.10) Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. (1987). Radionuclide concentrations in bird

tissues, their foods and feeding areas near Ravenglass. DOE Report No. DOE/RW/88029. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Cumbria, UK. 1986 Ravenglass, 10 km. S. of plant 1986 Ravenglass 1986 Ravenglass 1986 Ravenglass (12.221.11) Shelduck feces Shelduck feces Molluscs Molluscs
239,240Pu 239Pu 106Ru 137Cs

3,535 Bq/kg dry weight 887 Bq/kg dry weight 891.7 Bq/kg fresh weight 836.2 Bq/kg fresh weight

Livens, F.R. and Baxter, M.S. (1988). Particle size and radionuclide levels in

some West Cumbrian soils. The Science of the Total Environment. 70. pg. 1-17. (12.221.11.1) "A major exposure pathway to man for the actinide elements is wind-driven

resuspension of contaminated soil or sediment particles." (p. 13) (12.221.11.2) "... measured 239,240Pu concentrations in air in the Ravenglass area range from

4 to 2000 mBq m-3, with a mean of 260." (12.221.12) Livingston, H.D., Bowen, V.T. and Kupferman, S.L. (1982). Radionuclides from

Windscale discharges I: Non-equilibrium tracer experiments in high-latitude oceanography. Journal of Marine Research. 40(1). pg. 253-272[:] Windscale (Sellafield) derived radionuclides released in 197479 (only)... "would result, if mixed uniformly into the upper 150 m, in 137Cs concentrations seven times and in 90Sr concentrations three times those expected from fallout alone." (p. 253) (12.221.13) Mackenzie, A.B., Scott, R.D. and Williams, T.M. (1987). Mechanisms for

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 506 of 953

northwards dispersal of Sellafield waste. Nature, 329, 3, 42-44. 1985 1985 Wigtown Bay Wigtown Bay Sand + silt sediment Sand + silt sediment
239Pu 137Cs

194 Bq/kg 1030 Bq/kg

"Almost all of the plutonium and americium discharged as liquid effluent from Sellafield is retained in the sediments of the north east Irish Sea, whereas the waste radiocesium shows relatively conservative behavior in seawater and is mostly dispersed into more distant waters..." (p. 42) (12.221.14) McCarthy, W. and Nicholls, T.M. (1990). Mass-spectrometric analysis of

plutonium in soils near Sellafield. J. Environ. Radioactivity, 12, 1, 1-12. (12.221.14.1) Sept. 1985 Newbiggin Avg. of 7 silt samples
239,240Pu

2,563 Bq/kg

(12.221.14.2)

Between 1966 and 1984 Sellafield discharged 20,821 TBq 241Pu (566,000

curies) to the sea, with smaller amounts dispersed in the atmosphere. (12.221.14.3) (12.221.14.4) (12.221.15)
241Pu

"grows into" 241Am.

Liquid discharges of 239Pu amounted to 630.6 TBq in the same period. McKay, W.A., Bonnett, P.J.P., Barr, H.M. and Howorth, J.M. (1993). Radiological

assessment of radioactivity in tide washed pastures in South-West Scotland. J. Environ. Radioactivity, 21, 2, 77-106[:] "In tide washed pastures in south-west Scotland... The levels of 137Cs, 134Cs, 238Pu,
239+240Pu

and 241Am found, although small, were clearly in excess of the background from other

sources and confirmed that there was a significant contribution from Sellafield marine discharges." (p. 77) (12.221.16) O'Donnell, R.G., Mitchell, P.I., Priest, N.D., Strange, L., Fox, A., Henshaw, D.L.

and Long, S.C. (1997). Variations in the concentration of plutonium, strontium-90 and total alphaemitters in human teeth collected within the British Isles. The Science of the Total Environment. 201. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 507 of 953

pg. 235-243. (12.221.16.1) "Concentrations of plutonium-239, plutonium-240, strontium-90 and total

alpha-emitters have been measured in children's teeth collected throughout Great Britain and Ireland." (pg. 235). (12.221.16.2) "Regression analyses indicated that the concentrations of plutonium, but not

strontium-90 or total alpha-emitters, decreased with increasing distance from the Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant -- suggesting that this plant is a source of plutonium contamination in the wider population of the British Isles. Nevertheless, the measured absolute concentrations of plutonium (mean = 5 +/- 4 mBq kg-1 ash wt.) were so low that they are considered to present an insignificant radiological hazard." (pg. 235). (12.221.17) Oldfield, F., Richardson, N., Appleby, P.G. (1993). 241Am and 137Cs activity in

fine grained saltmarsh sediments from parts of the N.E. Irish Sea Shoreline. J. Environ. Radioactivity, 19, 1, 1-24. (12.221.17.1) 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 Galloway, Ireland Galloway, Ireland Galloway, Ireland Galloway, Ireland South Cumbria (12.221.17.2) Salt marsh sediment Salt marsh sediment Salt marsh sediment Salt marsh sediment Salt marsh sediment
241Am 241Am 137Cs 137Cs 241Am

2,166 Bq/kg 434,000 Bq/m2 5,159 Bq/kg 1,038,000 Bq/m2 783,000 Bq/m2

"At each site variations of 241Am and 137Cs are presented, and most appear to

show a more or less complete record of the history of discharges from Sellafield." (p. 1) (12.221.17.3) discharges to date. (12.221.18) Preston, A. and Jeffries, D.F. (1967). The assessment of the principal public These are the highest levels of farfield contamination recorded from Sellafield

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 508 of 953

radiation exposure from, and the resulting control of, discharges of aqueous radioactive waste from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority factory at Windscale, Cumberland. 1959 South Wales Porphyra (seaweed)
106Ru

40,000 Bq/kg

At the peak of Sellafield discharges, Sellafield derived 106Ru provided exposure to consumers of laverbread, which is made from this seaweed. (12.221.19) Stewart, S.P. and Wilkins, B.T. (1985). Aerial distributions of 129I in West

Cumbrian Soils. J. Environ. Radioactivity, 2, 175-182[:] "129I has been released during operations at the BNFL nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield in west Cumbria over the past thirty years with about 95% being discharged into the sea and 5% into the atmosphere." (p. 175). (12.221.20) Thompson, N., Cross, J.E., Miller, R.M. and Day, J.P. (1982). Alpha and gamma

radioactivity in Fucus vesiculosus from the Irish Sea. Environmental Pollution. 3. pg. 11-19. 1980 1980 1990 1990 5 km. N. of Sellafield 5 km. N. of Sellafield 8 km S. of Sellafield 8 km S. of Sellafield Fucus vesiculosus Fucus vesiculosus Fucus vesiculosus Fucus vesiculosus
239Pu 137Cs 106Ru 95Zr

57,230 pCi/kg wet weight 144,500 pCi/kg wet weight 161,900 pCi/kg 1,034,900 pCi/kg

...Significant decreases in activity were seen with increased distance from the source." (p. 11). (12.222) (12.222.1) PLUME PULSE PATHWAYS 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. (12.222.2) A proliferation of anthropogenic sources of nuclear contamination, including the

development of nuclear weapons, followed this first test explosion in 1945. The most obvious sources McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 509 of 953

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. (12.222.3) 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. (12.222.4) 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 long-term 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). (12.222.5) In contrast to weapons testing pathways, Chernobyl contamination occurred

primarily as a tropospheric injection of smoke and radionuclides which produced much higher than expected contamination in distant locations, as well as less than expected close-in fallout at the reactor McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 510 of 953

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 (12.222.6) 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. (12.222.7) Secondary 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. (12.222.8) Tertiary 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 511 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). (12.222.9) 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. (12.222.10) 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 (12.222.11) Internal: Ingestion Inhalation Absorption from skin

Cloud Shine-Ground Shine: Another angle 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.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 512 of 953

(12.222.12) Marine water sediments phytoplankton

Plume Pathway Model[:] Pathways of Nuclear Effluents to Humans[:] Terrestrial / Aquatic water sediments emergent vegetation phytoplankton invertebrates small fish large fish Atmospheric Terrestrial Crops soil air particulate inhalation Terrestrial Grazers soil crops forage crops and natural food livestock, deer and small game

drinking gaseous water inhalation air particulate inhalation air external fallout exposure

benthic algae benthic invertebrates fish: bottom feeders fish: plankton feeders fish: piscivorous people

people

people

people

people

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. (12.222.13) 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 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 513 of 953

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 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. (12.222.14) Time 1 hour 1 day 1 week 1 month 1 year Indicator nuclides short-lived
131I, 132Te, 99Mo, 239Nep 103Ru, 140Ba, 95Zr 89Sr, 134Cs, 110mAg, 106Ru 154Eu, 154Ce, 90Sr,

Total nuclide inventory +/- 1x108 Ci

Exposure mode Inhalation, immersion absorption Ingestion secondary pulse tertiary pulse: remobilized

Pathway distance <50 miles <1000 miles 2,000-5,000 miles hemispheric

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 514 of 953

137Cs, 241Pu

long-lived radionuclides

10 years 100 years 1000 years 100,000 years

238,241Pu 241Am 239Pu

10,000 years 99Te, 237Nep

129I

(12.222.15)

ESTIMATED RELEASE OF LONG-LIVED RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE

CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT[:] Krog, A. (1994). Source terms and inventories of anthropogenic radionuclides. Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark[, says:] 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

This incomplete source term release will be updated with a more complete description of the total nuclide inventories released from the Chernobyl accident if and when the tenth anniversary report of the Chernobyl accident listing the revised release estimates is received from the OECD/NEA. The current estimates listed above derive from a world health organization report in 1989 which may McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 515 of 953

underestimate the actual release activity during the accident. Many earlier reports contain even larger 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... (12.223) (12.223.1) ANTHROPOGENIC RADIOACTIVITY: MAJOR PLUME SOURCE POINTS[:] 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. Abstracts of all the papers in this and other Health Physics issues can be downloaded from http://www.wwilkins.com/. (12.223.2) 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. (12.223.3) Field, Michael. (March 18, 1999). Lonely Pacific atolls deadly weapons nearly

gone but leakages remain. Agence France Presse[ says:] "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." (12.223.4) 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[, says the following:] McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 516 of 953

(12.223.4.1)

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) to 25,000 pCi/kg in sediment in June, 1975. (12.223.4.2) After removal of liquid effluent diffuser from Bailey's Cove, peak concentrations

of 137Cs in sediment dropped to 5000 pCi/kg. (12.223.5) Division of Health Engineering. (1996). Maine Yankee environmental monitoring:

Summary of other media. Unpublished, publicly available research, Augusta, ME[, says the following:] (12.223.5.1) 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. (12.223.5.2) 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. (12.223.5.3) 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. (12.223.6) 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 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 517 of 953

and Economics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH[, says the following:] (12.223.6.1) Total 137Cs release at 8 New England nuclear power plants: 1974: 86.73 Ci;

1979: 0.35 Ci; 1984: 2.70 Ci. (12.223.6.2) (12.223.6.3) (12.223.7) 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. [, says the following:] (12.223.7.1) 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. (12.223.7.2) 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. (12.223.7.3) 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) (12.223.7.4) 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. (12.223.8) 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[, says the following:] McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 518 of 953

(12.223.8.1) June 1977-Jan. 1978 June 1977-Jan. 1978 June 1977-Jan. 1978 (12.223.8.2) Bailey's Cove, Wiscasset Maine Bailey's Cove, Wiscasset Maine Bailey's Cove, Wiscasset Maine Mytilus edulis, soft tissue Mytilus edulis, shells Mytilus edulis, shells
134Cs 54Mn 95Zr

320 pCi/kg mean 150 pCi/kg mean 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). (12.223.8.3) "...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). (12.223.8.4) "...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). (12.223.9) 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[, says the following:] (12.223.9.1) 1,000 Bq/m3. (12.223.9.2) background. (12.223.9.3) deviation. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 519 of 953 A positive measurement is defined as three times greater than the standard Non-routine measurement in sediment and biotic media noted as ten times the Typical gross beta air concentrations in January through December of 1991: +/-

(12.223.9.4)

Algae show trace amounts of 60Co and 110mAg on one occasion in 1990 out of a

total of three samples for the year. (12.223.9.5) Six sediment samples were taken at each of two locations during 1990; all

showed slightly elevated levels of 137Cs (to 220 pCi/kg dry weight near the old plant outfall). (12.223.9.6) Sampling of bottom sediments near the plant diffuser discharge about 100 ft

below the surface of Montsweag Bay is habitually avoided in all reports. (12.223.9.7) locations in 1990. (12.223.9.8) 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. (12.223.9.9) 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. (12.223.9.10) 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. (12.223.9.11) For more information on the allegations pertaining to Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Company and the Yankee Atomic Electric Company click on any of the following: Whistleblower's letter[;] Brief to Jay McCloskey[;] Letter to the FBI[;] Summary Notice for a Petition for Indictment... Yankee Atomic Power Company Decommissioning Plan[:] In early September 1997, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 520 of 953

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 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. (12.224) (12.224.1) [THREE MILE ISLAND:] 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. (12.224.2) 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. In view of the liquefaction of the reactor fuel during the TMI accident, it is extremely unlikely that the source term release for TMI was limited to only 15 Ci of 131I. (12.225) Linsalata, P., Wrenn, M.E., Cohen, N. and Singh, N.P. (1980). 239,240Pu and 238Pu

in sediments of the Hudson River estuary. Environmental Science and Technology. 14(2). pg. 15191523. 1976 Indian Point, NY River sediments
239,240Pu

236 pCi/kg dry sediment

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 521 of 953

Lower deposition levels away from plant, typically 14 - 64 pCi/kg. (12.226) 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 (pg. 32-34): (12.226.1) Boiling water reactors: Jan. 1, 1996: cumulative inventory of long-lived

radionuclides: 8,100 x 106 Ci (8,100,000,000 Ci). (12.226.2) Pressurized water reactors: Jan. 1, 1996: cumulative inventory of long-lived

radionuclides: 22,100 x 106 Ci (22,100,000,000 Ci). (12.226.3) 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). (12.226.4) Total commercial light water reactor spent nuclear fuel inventories: 2008:

37,800 x 106 Ci (37,800,000,000 Ci), estimated. (12.226.5) (12.226.7) (12.226.8) (5,995,000 Ci). (12.227) Stellfox, David. (May 20, 1999). First-cycle fuel at River Bend affected by mystery 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

corrosion. Nucleonics Week. 40(20). pg. 2. (12.227.1) "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.'" (12.227.2) "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." (12.227.3) "The crud depositions 'were different from those previously seen at River Bend or McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 522 of 953

other GE facilities, in that the coating was less adherent and of much lower density, hence the greater 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.'" (12.227.4) "Entergy spokeswoman Diane Park said 'actual leaks' were limited to seven fuel bundles Entergy had tentatively identified before entering the April 3 outage." (12.227.5) "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.'" (12.227.6) "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." (12.228) Weil, Jenny and Stellfox, David. (January 4, 1999). AEOD abolished, research office

expanded under reorganization plan. Inside N.R.C. 21(1). pg. 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... Deepwell Injection (12.229) Chia, Y., and Chiu, J. (1994). Groundwater monitoring for deep-well injection.

Report no. ANL/ES/PP--73641. NTIS order no. DE94019291. Argonne National Laboratory, IL. (12.229.1) "A groundwater monitoring system for detecting waste migration would not only

enhance confidence in the long-term containment of injected waste, but would also provide early warnings of contamination for prompt responses to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). Field experiences in Florida have demonstrated monitoring water quality and fluid pressure changes in overlying formations is useful in detecting the upward migration of injected waste." (abstract). McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 523 of 953

(12.229.2)

U.S. Department of Energy. (July, 1993). Recommended management practices

for operation and closure of shallow injection wells at DOE facilities. Report no. ANL/EA/RP--80447. NTIS order no. DE93019531. Argonne National Laboratory, IL and the Ground Water Protection Council, Oklahoma City, OK. 143 pp. (12.229.3) "The Safe Drinking Water Act established the Underground Injection Control

(UIC) program to ensure that underground injection of wastes does not endanger an underground source of drinking water. Under UIC regulations, an injection well is a hole in the ground, deeper than it is wide, that receives wastes or other fluid substances. Types of injection wells range from deep cased wells to shallow sumps, drywells, and drainfields. The report describes the five classes of UIC wells and summarizes relevant regulations for each class of wells and for the UIC program." (abstract). (12.230) Veil, J.A. and Grunewald, B. (1993). Closure of shallow underground injection

wells. Report no. ANL/EA/CP--79596. NTIS order no. DE94000445. Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC. pp. 11[:] "Shallow injection wells have long been used for disposing liquid wastes. Some of these wells have received hazardous or radioactive wastes. According to US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, Class IV wells are those injection wells through which hazardous or radioactive wastes are injected into or above an underground source of drinking water (USDW). These wells must be closed." (abstract) SECTION 13 (13) While obtaining information about emissions from nuclear power and nuclear

reprocessing in TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine, and from other credible souces, many toxic materials were found. Some of these toxic materials are included in the following: (13.1) (13.2) (13.3) PLUTONIUM, RADIOACTIVE CESIUM, RADIOACTIVE URANIUM, RADIOACTIVE McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 524 of 953

(13.4) (13.5) (13.6) (13.7) (13.8) (13.9) (13.10) (13.11) (13.12) (13.13) (13.14) (13.15) (13.16) (13.17) (13.18) (13.19) (13.20) (13.21) (13.22) (13.23) (13.24) (13.25) (13.26) (13.27)

IODINE, RADIOACTIVE TRITIUM, RADIOACTIVE STRONTIUM, RADIOACTIVE TECHNETIUM, RADIOACTIVE AMERICIUM, RADIOACTIVE NEPTUNIUM, RADIOACTIVE HYDRAZINE COBALT, RADIOACTIVE ZIRCONIUM, RADIOACTIVE PHOSPHORUS, RADIOACTIVE RADIUM, RADIOACTIVE YTTRIUM, RADIOACTIVE POTASSIUM, RADIOACTIVE RADON, RADIOACTIVE URANYL NITRATE LEAD, RADIOACTIVE LEAD COMPOUNDS POLONIUM, RADIOACTIVE CURIUM, RADIOACTIVE NITRIC ACID IRIDIUM, RADIOACTIVE METHYL IODIDE CALIFORNIUM, RADIOACTIVE ACTINIUM, RADIOACTIVE McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 525 of 953

(13.28) (13.29) (13.30) (13.31) (13.33) (13.34) (13.35) (13.36) (13.37) (13.38) (13.40) (13.41) (13.42) (13.43) (13.44) (13.45) (13.46) (13.47)

BERYLLIUM THORIUM, RADIOACTIVE THALLIUM, RADIOACTIVE MOLYBDENUM, RADIOACTIVE GADOLINIUM, RADIOACTIVE TECHNETIUM, COMPOUNDS URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE HEFNIUM TRITIDE TANTALUM COMPOUNDS THORIUM NITRATE SELENIUM TELLURIUM ARSENIC TRICHLORIDE DIETHYL ARSINE BARIUM RUTHENIUM IONIZING RADIATION NITRIC ACID PLUTONIUM

(13.48)

There is an organization called International Physicians for the Prevention of

Nuclear War, IPPNW. It is a world-wide federation of doctors and nurses. They campaign against plutonium because of its health risks. For its informative work the IPPNW received the Noble Peace Prize in 1985. An article by Jan A. Gevers Leuven, M.D., Ph.D and Akke Botzen-Gramsma, M.D entitled: Plutonium for Everybody[:] a medical look at this radioactive matter says that it is McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 526 of 953

based on a Dutch brochure entitled: "Plutonium voor Iedereen" NVMP, Gezondheidszorg en Vredesvraagstukken, Dutch Affiliate of the IPPNW December 1994, ISBN 90-75307-01-2. See Reference 124. This article contains some pertinent facts, which includes the following (quotation marks omitted): (13.48.1) Plutonium is born in every nuclear reactor. It is an art[i]fact of the nuclear industry,

a new metal akin to uranium. (13.48.2) Plutonium promised to be a clean and powerful "medicine" against electricity-

shortage and -by nuclear deterrence- a "preventive medicine" against war. (13.48.3) But no medicine is 100% effective and no medicine is totally without side effects:

plutonium has failed to prevent the many wars since 1945. And the production of electricity with plutonium is no longer considered "clean". (13.48.4) The adverse effects of plutonium are seen in its military use, or, possibly, its use by

terrorists. Lung cancer due to inhalation of plutonium dust is the threat posed by plutonium to the environment. Doctors cannot guarantee the safety of contaminated areas. (13.48.5) The mass of plutonium is growing fast. Its use as a fuel in the electricity generating

industry (in the form of so-called "MOX") is increasing, but this process creates more plutonium than it consumes. It has not been feasible to destroy plutonium up till now. It is a moral issue whether or not to leave the burden to our descendants. (13.48.6) In the environment man-made radioactivity is uncontrollable and uninvited. Living

nature may be damaged by radioactivity. The damage may last for ever when it is passed on from parent to child. (13.48.7) This danger sneaks up on us unnoticed. One cannot see, feel, or smell radioactivity,

and it may take 10-50 years before any cancer shows up. Still, this is not only characteristic of plutonium. Many other radioactive materials can cause this kind of damage and many chemical McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 527 of 953

substances too. However, inhaled plutonium dust is the most dangerous of them all, a few millionth of a gram being enough to produce cancer. (13.49) An article, dated 30 November 2003, entitled: Plutonium from Sellafield in all

children's teeth [ ] Government admits plant is the source of contamination but says risk is 'minute' says the following (quotation marks omitted): (13.49.1) The Government has admitted for the first time that Sellafield 'is a source of

plutonium contamination' across the country. Public Health Minister Melanie Johnson has revealed that a study funded by the Department of Health discovered that the closer a child lived to Sellafield, the higher the levels of plutonium found in their teeth. (13.49.2) Johnson said: 'Analysis indicated that concentrations of plutonium... decreased with

increasing distance from the west Cumbrian coast and its Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant suggesting this plant is a source of plutonium contamination in the wider population.' (13.49.3) Johnson claimed the levels of plutonium are so minute that there is no health risk to

the public. But this is disputed by scientists, MPs and environmental campaigners who have called for an immediate inquiry into how one of the world's most dangerous materials has been allowed to continue to contaminate children's teeth. There have long been claims of clusters of childhood leukaemia around Sellafield. (13.49.4) In the late 1990s researchers collected more than 3,000 molars extracted from

young teenagers across the country during dental treatment and analysed them. To their surprise they found traces of plutonium in all the teeth including those from children in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Alarmingly, they discovered that those living closer to Sellafield had more than twice the amount of those living 140 miles away. (13.49.5) Plutonium is a man-made radioactive material and the only source of it in Britain is

from Sellafield. The plant, which reprocesses nuclear fuel from reactors, still discharges plutonium into McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 528 of 953

the Irish Sea. (13.49.6) The original research was carried out in 1997 by Professor Nick Priest who was

working for the UK Atomic Energy Authority. At the time the conclusions of the research received little attention because the study concluded that the contamination levels were so minuscule they were thought to pose an 'insignificant' health risk. (13.49.7) But earlier this year the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal

Emitters, looking at health risks posed by radioactive materials, examined Priest's study. Some of the committee's members have now cast doubt on the conclusions that plutonium in children's teeth posed no health risk. (13.49.8) Professor Eric Wright, of Dundee University Medical School, is one of the country's

leading experts on blood disorders and a member of the committee. He believes that the tiny specks of plutonium in children's teeth caused by Sellafield radioactive pollution might lead to some people falling ill with cancer. (13.49.9) He said: 'There are genuine concerns that the risks from internal emitters of

radiation are more hazardous [than previously thought]. The real question is by how much. Is it two or three times more risky... or more than a hundred?' (13.49.10) (13.50) See Reference 292.

The United States National Institute of Standards and Technology published a web

page entitled: Information Update: June 27, 2008[;] Medical Tests Indicate Internal Contamination Due to June 9 Plutonium Incident. A paragraph in the middle of this article says: We are concerned for the health and safety of our personnel and deeply regret these results showing internal plutonium exposure, NIST Deputy Director James M. Turner said. We are getting advice from the best medical experts in the country and will do everything we can to ensure that the people affected get the best possible medical treatment. See Reference 293. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 529 of 953

(13.51)

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality published a web page, which says:

...quantities of plutonium have been detected in ground water beneath the INL. DOE acknowledges that injection wells at the INL disposed of 16 to 18 billion gallons of contaminated water directly into the aquifer. See Reference 294. (13.52) The Los Alamos National Laboratory published a web page, which says: The

analysis shows that about 50 percent of the plutonium-239 and 240 found in the sediments came from early Laboratory operations; the remaining plutonium came from fallout dispersed by above-ground nuclear tests. Most recent estimates indicated that Laboratory-derived plutonium ratios in Rio Grande sediments ranged from 10 to 20 percent. See Reference 295. (13.53) An web page article, apparently published by or on behalf of the Government

Accountability Project, dated July 9, 2007, entitled: LANL Plutonium Reported In Santa Fe Drinking Water. says the following (quotation marks omitted): (13.53.1) The Santa Fe Water Quality Report for 2006 was delivered with the June water

bills. The report stated that there was a "qualified detection of plutonium 238" in Buckman Well Number 1. This means that plutonium from the development and production of nuclear weapons at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) was detected in Santa Fe drinking water supplies. However, the actual amount of plutonium contamination could not be determined by the test performed. The Water Quality Report is issued each year as required by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. In 2006, all contamination detections were below federal and state drinking water quality limits. (13.53.2) Plutonium is the main ingredient in the core or trigger of a nuclear weapon, known

as a plutonium pit. At the same time that the detection of plutonium is being reported, LANL is once again taking its place as the nations plutonium pit manufacturing facility. Dignitaries were invited to a celebration for certifying the first plutonium pit to be accepted by the government for use in the nation's nuclear-weapons stockpile since 1989, when Rocky Flats was raided by the FBI for environmental McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 530 of 953

crimes. According to Nuclear Watch New Mexico, a Santa Fe based NGO, this new pit cost approximately $2.2 billion. (13.53.3) In the production of plutonium pits, contaminants are released into the environment

through air and water emissions and radioactive and hazardous waste is generated. The first plutonium pit was manufactured at LANL for use against Nagasaki, Japan during World War II. At that time, the waste was dumped in unlined and shallow trenches. (13.53.4) Approximately 12,000 cubic meters of plutonium contaminated waste remains in

unlined burial areas on the LANL site, which is a source of the groundwater contamination. LANL is located above the regional aquifer, which flows towards the Buckman Well Field, where the City of Santa Fe gets 40% of its drinking water. (13.53.5) Registered Geologist, Robert H. Gilkeson, said that intermittent and low level

detections can be an early indication of an approaching contaminant plume. (13.53.6) Gilkeson said, "There is an emerging environmental emergency. Detections of

LANL radionuclides in Santa Fe drinking water wells have been published by the Department of Energy in environmental reports since the late 1990s, but the detections have not been adequately investigated. The contamination must be addressed now with monthly sampling using the most sensitive analytical methods." (13.53.7) In addition, a recent independent study of the area surrounding LANL found

elevated and potentially harmful levels of radioactivity in materials which humans are routinely exposed to, such as dusts and plant life. The Government Accountability Project performed the study, with technical assistance from Boston Chemical Data, Inc. They will hold a public press conference to discuss these findings on Tuesday, July 10 at the Hotel Santa Fe, beginning at 10:30 am... (13.53.8) (13.54) See Reference 296 The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research published a web page, which McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 531 of 953

says: Plutonium in the water: More than a ton (literally) of plutonium, enough to make 200 bombs, and other radioactive materials were packed in cardboard boxes, drums, and wooden boxes and dumped in unlined trenches over the in the Snake River Plain aquifer, the largest aquifer in the Northwest. Some of the water on site is already contaminated well above drinking water standards. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is not remediating the dumps, but spending over $5 billion a year on new weapons design, laboratory testing of nuclear weapons, and plutonium component testing (without nuclear explosions) underground in Nevada. See Reference 329. (13.55) TOXNET provides information regarding ways that Plutonium has injured and killed

people in the past, and could injure and kill people in the future. This information is as follows: (13.55.1) There is sufficient evidence in humans that inhalation of plutonium-239 aerosols

causes lung cancer, liver cancer and bone sarcoma. Exposure to plutonium-239 also entails exposure to plutonium-240 and other isotopes. /Plutonium-239/ See Reference 297. (13.55.2) This record contains information specific for compounds containing plutonium and

plutonium in the zero valence state; all plutonium nuclides are radioactive. For general information on radiation, such as transportation, sampling, analytical methods, regulations, and spill clean-up, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.55.3) There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of

mixed alpha-particle emitters (radium-224, radium-226, thorium-227, thorium-228, thorium-230, thorium-232, neptunium-237, plutonium-238, plutonium-239 (together with plutonium-240), americium-241, curium-244, californium-249 and californium-252). /Mixed-alpha particle emitters/ See Reference 298. (13.55.4) Plutonium-239 (239-Pu) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). In making this overall

evaluation, the Working Group noted that human exposure to 239-Pu may also include exposure to 240-Pu. See Reference 299. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 532 of 953

(13.55.5)

/CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ ... An operator was

adding tungsten carbide bricks to a plutonium assembly when the neutron flux began to increase rapidly. He accidentally dropped a brick onto the center of the assembly and a flash occurred that was easily visible to a guard 12 ft away. For such a glow to be visible, the radiation intensity must have been on the order of 7 million R/s. The operator then removed the last brick with his right hand and partially dismantled the assembly. He was seen at the hospital 30 min after the accident and complained of numbness and tingling of his swollen hands. The operator received an estimated dose of 2 Gy (neutrons) and 1.1 Gy (gamma). He died 24 days postexposure from the acute radiation syndrome (hematological). The guard received 0.08 Gy (neutrons) and 0.001 Gy (gamma). He died at age 62 (32 years post exposure) from acute myeloblastic leukemia. His brother also died of leukemia (and three other siblings are believed to have had cancer), so a familial component may have contributed to the disease. /Fissionable plutonium/ See Reference 300. (13.55.6) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ The accident occurred ...

in a building where processing was being carried out to recover plutonium from irradiated uranium rods. Transfer of plutonium solution was made between two vessels assuming that one was empty (which was not the case). The vessel became hot, there was a gas release and the solution foamed. The yield was estimated to be about 2X10+17 fissions. This was not recognized as a criticality accident by the two workers and they continued to carry precipitate and put it back into the filter vessel. Within seconds, /one/ became ill. Within 17 hr after the accident, the specific activity of sodium-24 in the operator's blood was 245 Bq/cu m. This correlated to an estimated dose of about 30 Gy. The operator died 12 days after the accident. There were five other workers in the room, and they received doses upward of 3 Gy and all suffered from radiation sickness but recovered. /Fissionable plutonium/ See Reference 301. (13.55.7) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ The accident resulted McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 533 of 953

from unfavorable geometry in a vessel containing plutonium-bearing organic liquids. There were two critical excursions about 1 hour apart. A 20-L bottle was emptied into a 60-L vessel when the operator saw a flash of light and felt a pulse of heat. He immediately left the area and informed his supervisor. The excursion was estimated to have resulted in about 3x10+16 fissions. An hour later, a shift supervisor entered the area against instructions and attempted to manipulate the vessel when another excursion occurred. The second excursion yield was estimated at 1x10+17 fissions. Both men were flown to Moscow for medical treatment. Blood samples (adjusted to the time of exposure) showed 5,000 decays/min/mL (83 Bq/cu m) for the operator and 15,800 decays/min/mL (263 Bq/Cu m) for the shift supervisor. The total absorbed neutron and gamma doses were estimated to be 7 Sv for the operator and 24.5 for the shift supervisor. The shift supervisor had acute severe radiation sickness and he died about a month after the accident. The operator also had acute severe radiation sickness and survived but had to have amputations of both legs and one hand. He was still alive 31 years later. /Fissionable plutonium/ See Reference 302. (13.55.8) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ The accident occurred in

a facility dealing with plutonium metal ingots. In violation of procedures, multiple metal ingots of about 11 kg (in excess of the administrative limit of 4 kg or less) were put into a glove box. Operator A saw a flash of light and noted an instantaneous rise in the temperature near his hands. As a result of thermal expansion, one ingot was expelled and the operator removed two more. The yield of the excursion was estimated to be 3x10+15 fissions. The operator received an estimated whole-body dose of 2.5 Gy and more than 20 Gy to the hands and forearms. Ultimately, amputation up to the elbows was necessary. Later he developed cataracts. Seven other workers received doses from 0.05 to 0.50 Gy. /Fissionable plutonium/ See Reference 303. (13.55.9) /CASE REPORTS/ /EYE/ The case of a worker who had been potentially exposed

to external beta- and gamma-radiation and had possibly ingested or inhaled plutonium and other McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 534 of 953

radionuclides /was described/. In three known incidents, his face had been contaminated with plutonium, some of which must have reached the bloodstream. After 24 years of work, the man had developed impaired vision due to cataracts. The estimated radiation dose to the eye, measured by external dosimeters, was approximately 0.8 Sv, which is below the threshold for this effect derived for gamma-radiation in the atomic bomb survivors ... /Plutonium, NOS/ See Reference 304. (13.55.10) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ In /this/ ... accident,

criticality occurred in a plutonium sphere when two beryllium hemispheres accidentally surrounded the plutonium mass. The operator was attempting to teach another individual how to do experiments even though there were six other people in the area. Even in a sunlit room, a blue glow was easily visible as criticality occurred. The yield was about 3x10+15 fissions. The eight people in the room received 15 to 21, 3.6, 2.5, 1.6, 1.1, 0.65, 0.47, and 0.37 Sv, respectively. The operator received an estimated 15 to 21 Gy and died 9 days postexposure from the gastrointestinal type of the acute radiation syndrome. Of the seven initial survivors, one refused to participate in long-term follow-up but was alive as of 1978. Of the others, one patient who received 1.66 Gy (neutrons) and 0.26 Gy (gamma) experienced moderate to severe fatigue for 6 months, epilation, and aspermia. He died 20 years later of a myocardial infarction. Another who received 0.51 Gy (neutrons) and 0.11 Gy (gamma) had no acute radiation response but died 29 years later with clinical aplastic anemia and bacterial endocarditis. Another individual who had received 12 rad (neutrons) and 4 rad (gamma) died 18 years later of acute myelocytic leukemia. /Fissionable plutonium/ See Reference 305. (13.55.11) /CASE REPORTS/ /WHOLE BODY IRRADIATION/ Another accidental

exposure ... involved a glovebox explosion that released ... plutonium-239 and americium-241 /nitrates/. ... The external contamination was spectacular. Alpha count rates on the patient ... were up to 10+6 counts per minute, ... as high as we could read. Removable contamination was all over the body, with maxima of 10,000 alpha cpm on the face and 20,000 on the legs ... , after /initial decontamination/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 535 of 953

....The contamination was finally reduced very sharply with the use of Schubert's solution /3.0 g/L tartaric acid, 4.2 g/L citric acid, 8.0 g/L disodium DTPA or EDTA, 2.2 g/L calcium chloride adjusted to pH 7 with NaOH/ ...This patient had the additional complication of wounds that ... served as a residual depot of the radioactive material. ... The scar tissue was subsequently excised because there was continued high activity in the area /and/ a very diffuse distribution of the material. Our initial in vivo measurements made 1 day after the incident ... /showed a / burden ... projected to produce ... an initial bone dose of about 1,500 rem per year. Thus, DTPA treatment was ... medically indicated, if effective. The next measurements presented are at 60 days and over the time period from 70 to 130 days, during which the body content fell gradually. Repeated DTPA treatments were given during this time /but/ the lung component of this body burden could still be measured by localized external counting for up to 1 yr after the accident. Thus, the rapid translocation from the lung expected from nitrate compounds of plutonium and americium did not materialize. ... Initial estimates of plutonium uptake into blood were obtained under the assumption ... that DTPA increased plutonium excretion by about a factor of 50 on the day following treatment. The increase in urinary excretion of americium was a much lower factor (about 5 to 7); americium was later found to be more transportable from lung to systemic circulation and into urine than oxides of plutonium...There were long time periods between some of the urinary measurements, due to overloading of commercial laboratories that were not accustomed to analyzing many samples containing high amounts of plutonium and americium... See Reference 307. (13.55.12) /CASE REPORTS/ /WOUND CONTAMINATION/ Glovebox Accident Involving

Plutonium-Americium Contamination and Hand Amputation. An employee ... in plutonium fuel fabrication reached for an item in his glovebox and his glove was caught by a milling machine that tore off his right hand. /An hour later/ ... patient /arrived at the treatment center. ... The patient was surveyed for external contamination while in the ambulance. No widespread removable contamination was found, so the patient was brought in and placed on a decontamination table /at which time the attending McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 536 of 953

physician/ learned that the patient had lost his right hand at the wrist. /A half-hr later/ the plant health physics supervisor arrived with the contaminated hand wrapped in plastic in an ice bucket. The hand was immediately counted ... and the patient's stump was counted ... with a ... NaI crystal. An initial estimate ... indicated ... an amount, if entering bone, /that/ could result in bone dose commitments in the tens of millions of rem ... Additional measurements /after ....debridements/ indicated that ... remaining contamination on the hand and stump was still more than 100 times the Maximum Permissible Body Burden (MPBB). .... The difficult decision was made by the patient and his family, as well as the involved physicians and health physicists, to reattach the hand despite its excessive residual radioactivity. Considerations included the youth of the worker, his right-handedness, location of the radioactivity, the availability of DTPA chelation therapy, and the likelihood of the patient's availability of multiyear observation. ... Unfortunately, circulation in the fingers of the reattached hand did not improve quickly enough for tissue survival, so the hand was reamputated, ... infused with formaldehyde and recounted ... showing about 4 uCi (about 100 MPBB) still on the surface. ... Since reamputation of the hand was done approximately an inch higher than the original accidental amputation, the reamputated hand turned out to contain practically all of the remaining contamination. ...contamination with americium-plutonium mixtures... See Reference 308. (13.55.13) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ 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 ... ). The number of deaths /and death rates/ from all cancers in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 537 of 953

plutonium workers is not excessive ... . The numbers of deaths from cancers of the liver, lung, and bone were not in excess, but 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 309. (13.55.14) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Prompted by a case of lung fibrosis in a retired

plutonium worker, /the authors/ tested the hypothesis that plutonium inhalation increases the risk for developing chest radiograph abnormalities consistent with pulmonary fibrosis. /The authors/ conducted a retrospective study of nuclear weapons workers that included estimating absorbed doses to the lung with an internal dosimetry model. /The/ study population consisted of 326 plutonium-exposed workers with absorbed lung doses from 0 to 28 Sv and 194 unexposed workers. ...The severity of chest radiograph interstitial abnormalities /were compared/ between the two groups using the International Labour Organization profusion scoring system. There was a significantly higher proportion of abnormal profusion scores among plutonium-exposed workers (17.5%) than among unexposed workers (7.2%), P < 0.01. Lung doses of 10 Sv or greater conferred a 5.3-fold risk (95% CI 1.2-23.4) of having an abnormal chest X ray consistent with pulmonary fibrosis when compared with unexposed individuals after controlling for the effects of age, smoking and asbestos exposure. This study shows that plutonium may cause lung fibrosis in humans at absorbed lung doses above 10 Sv. /Plutonium, NOS/ See Reference 310. (13.55.15) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ A cohort of about 21,000 Russian nuclear workers

who worked at the Mayak plutonium production complex between 1948 and 1972 is under study. The Mayak complex, which is located in the Chelyabinsk region of the Russian Federation, includes three main plants; a reactor complex, a radiochemical separation plant, and a plutonium production plant. Workers at all three plants had potential for exposure to external radiation, and workers at the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 538 of 953

radiochemical and plutonium production plants also had potential for exposure to plutonium. Recently, data on workers at two auxiliary plants, who had much less potential for exposure, have been added to the cohort under study to expand the comparison group. As is the case for other nuclear worker cohorts, estimates of annual external doses are available from individual film badge monitoring data. Some workers were also monitored for plutonium exposure; however, since routine testing based on large urine samples did not begin until about 1970, only about 40% of workers with potential for such exposure have been monitored. External exposure and exposure to plutonium for Mayak workers far exceed those of other nuclear worker cohorts discussed previously... . For example, for the nearly 11,000 monitored workers hired before 1959, the mean cumulative external dose was 1.2 Gy, more than an order of magnitude higher than any of the cohorts described /previously/... . Analyses focused on leukemia (excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia); cancers of the lung, liver, and bone (analyzed as a group); and solid cancers excluding lung, liver, and bone cancers (also analyzed as a group). The lung, liver and bone are the organs that receive the largest doses from plutonium, and excess cancers in all three organs have been clearly linked to plutonium exposure among Mayak workers. Analyses were adjusted for internal exposure from plutonium by using the estimated body burden for workers who had plutonium-monitoring data and by using a plutonium surrogate variable for workers who were not monitored for plutonium. The plutonium surrogate variable was recently developed from detailed work histories. For leukemia, the estimated /excess risk ratio/ (ERR)/Gy was 6.9 (90% CI 2.9, 15) for the period 3-5 years after exposure and 0.5 (90% CI 0.1, 1.1) for the period 5 or more years after exposure. The estimate based on the entire period was 1.0 (90% CI 0.5, 2.0). There were no statistically significant departures from linearity and no evidence of modification by sex or age at hire. Estimates for the solid cancer endpoints are /as follows:/ lung, liver or bone (linear model) ERR/Sv 0.30 (90% CI 0.18, 0.46); other solid cancers (linear model) ERR/Sv 0.08 (90% CI 0.03, 0.14); all solid cancers (linear model) ERR/Sv 0.15 (90% CI 0.09, 0.20); lung, liver, or bone (linear-quadratic model) ERR/Sv McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 539 of 953

0.54 (90% CI 0.27, 0.89); other solid cancers (linear-quadratic model) ERR/Sv 0.21 (90% CI 0.06, 0.37); all solid cancers (linear-quadratic model) ERR/Sv 0.30 (90% CI 0.18, 0.43). /from table/ /Plutonium, NOS/ See Reference 311. (13.55.16) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Cases of lung cancer among Mayak workers who

were exposed to plutonium were described ... . The incidence in workers who received cumulative doses of external gamma-radiation higher than those permissible at the time (most received doses > 100 roentgen (about 1 Gy) and > 0.02 uCi [740 Bq] plutonium to the lung) 20 years after the beginning of exposure was significantly higher than that in workers exposed to the same types of radiation within permissible dose limits or in those who had never worked at Mayak. Since that time, three epidemiological studies have been conducted ... a cohort study by the epidemiology department, a cohort study by the internal dosimetry laboratory, and a case-control study by the clinical department. These studies are based on partially overlapping material. ... In the study by the epidemiology department, mortality ... from lung cancer was analyzed only for workers who were hired during the first decade of operations at Mayak (1948-58) ... . The number of lung cancer deaths observed in the cohort was 105, and the expected numbers calculated from national statistics and for the internal control group were 42.18 and 40.67, respectively. The risk for lung cancer increased with the total dose of alpha-particles to the lung .... A significantly elevated rate of mortality from lung cancer over the national average was ... /also/ reported ... among 666 women hired at the radiochemical and plutonium production plant in 1948-58. ... The number of observed cases (15) was significantly higher than that expected (2.57), and the risk for cancer mortality was associated with the total dose of alpharadiation to the lung. Most of the deaths occurred among workers with the highest equivalent dose of alpha particles to the lung (> 100 Sv). ... Another cohort study was conducted at the ... internal dosimetry laboratory ... /and/ 80 lung cancer deaths /were reported/, while 48.17 were expected (31.83 excess deaths). All the excess deaths were concentrated in the dose category > 4.0 Sv ... . The results of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 540 of 953

the case-control study of lung cancer in Mayak workers conducted at the ... clinical department ... /which identified/ 11 potential risk factors /with/ six significant ones. One was plutonium deposition in body. ... /Examination of the distribution of lung cancers by lobe in 131 male workers at Mayak and in 178 men who had never worked at Mayak ... /found/ ... the lung cancers in the study subjects were located in the lower lobe more frequently (45%) than in ... the control groups (25%), although the lung content of plutonium is higher in the upper lobe of the lung. Mayak workers (168 cases: 154 men, 14 women) /were compared with/ ... unexposed population controls (157 control cases: 144 men, 13 women) ... the percentage of adenocarcinomas was higher in the workers (46%) than in the unexposed population (33%), and the highest percentage of adenocarcinomas (74%) was found among workers with plutonium body burdens of > 11.0 kBq. /Plutonium, NOS/ See Reference 312. (13.55.17) /BIOMONITORING/ 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 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 Gbanded peripheral blood lymphocytes was performed on two groups of workers who had 20-50% and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 541 of 953

>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 313. (13.55.18) /BIOMONITORING/ /GENOTOXICITY/ A fluorescence in situ hybridization

(FISH) method was used to measure chromosome aberration rates in lymphocytes of 30 retired plutonium workers with combined internal and external radiation doses greater than 0.5 Sv along with 17 additional workers with predominantly external doses below 0.1 Sv. The former group was defined as high-dose and the latter as low-dose with respect to occupational radiation exposure. The two groups were compared to each other and also to 21 control subjects having no history of occupational radiation exposure. Radiation exposures to the high-dose group were primarily the result of internal depositions of plutonium and its radioactive decay products resulting from various work-related activities and accidents. The median external dose for the high-dose group was 280 mSv (range 10-730) compared to a median of 22 mSv (range 10-76) for the low-dose group. The median internal dose to the bone marrow for the high-dose group was 168 mSv (range 29-20,904) while that of the low-dose group was considered negligible. Over 200,000 metaphase cells were analyzed for chromosome aberrations by painting pairs 1, 4 and 12 in combination with a pancentromeric probe. Additionally, 136,000 binucleated lymphocytes were analyzed for micronuclei in parallel cultures to assess mitotic abnormalities arising from damaged chromosomes. The results showed that the frequency of structural aberrations affecting any of the painted chromosomes in the high-dose group correlated with the bone marrow dose but not with the external dose. In contrast, the frequency of micronuclei did not vary significantly between the study groups. The total translocation frequency per genome equivalent x 103+/-SE was 4.0+/-0.6, 9.0+/-1.1 and 17.0+/-2.1 for the control, low-dose and high-dose groups, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 542 of 953

respectively. Statistical analysis of the data showed that the frequency of total translocations and S-cells correlated with the bone marrow dose, with P values of 0.005 and 0.004, respectively. In contrast, these two end points did not correlate with the external dose, with P values of 0.45 and 0.39, respectively. In conclusion, elevated rates of stable chromosome aberrations were found in lymphocytes of former workers decades after plutonium intakes, providing evidence that chronic irradiation of hematopoietic precursor cells in the bone marrow induces cytogenetically altered cells that persist in peripheral blood. /Plutonium, NOS/ See Reference 314. (13.55.19) /BIOMONITORING/ /GENOTOXICITY/ /The authors/ recently demonstrated that

a significant proportion of apparently stable insertions induced after exposure to a mean of one alpha particle/cell, detected using three-color FISH, were part of larger unstable complexes when visualized by 24-color FISH. Interestingly, regardless of the long-term persistence capability of the cell, the complexity of each alpha-particle-induced complex appeared to be specific to the nuclear traversal of a single alpha particle. To assess whether aberrations of a similar complexity are observed in vivo and also to examine the usefulness of detecting such aberrations as a biomarker of chronic exposure to alpha particles, /they/ have carried out a limited pilot study of Russian workers with large body burdens of alpha-particle-emitting plutonium. ... Uunstable cells containing non-transmissible complex aberrations /were found/ in all of the plutonium-exposed subjects analyzed by mFISH. In addition, all of the complexes seen were consistent with those previously observed in vitro. Non-transmissible complex aberrations were more common than transmissible-type complexes, consistent with ongoing/chronic exposure, and insertions were dominant features of both types of complex. Accordingly, this preliminary study supports the proposal that aberration complexity and nontransmissibility are the major cytogenetic features of alpha-particle exposure that could potentially be exploited as a specific indicator of chronic exposures to high-LET alpha particles. /Plutonium, NOS/ See Reference 315. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 543 of 953

(13.55.20)

/OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ /BONE/ An extremely poisonous

radioactive material. The permissible levels for plutonium are the lowest for any of the radioactive elements. This is occasioned by the concentration of plutonium directly on bone surfaces, rather than the more uniform bone distribution shown by other heavy elements. /Plutonium, NOS/ See Reference 316. (13.55.21) /OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ /BONE/ ... effects observed after intakes

of... plutonium-239 include significant peritrabecular fibrosis and the formation of a fibrotic layer between the mineralized endosteal bone surface and marrow cells. ... /Plutonium-239/ See Reference 317. (13.55.22) /OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ RADIOLOGICAL RISK

COEFFICIENTS. This table provides selected risk coefficients for inhalation and ingestion. Recommmended default absorption types were used for inhalation, and dietary values were used for ingestion. Risks are for lifetime cancer mortality per unit intake (pCi), averaged over all ages and both genders. ISOTOPE Plutonium238 Plutonium239 Plutonium240 Plutonium241 Plutonium242 LIFETIME CANCER MORTALITY RISK LIFETIME CANCER MORTALITY RISK for Inhalation (pCi-1) for Ingestion (pCi-1) 3.0x10-8 2.9x10-8 2.9x10-8 2.8x10-10 2.8x10-8 1.3x10-10 1.3x10-10 1.3x10-10 1.9x10-12 1.3x10-10

See Reference 318. (13.55.23) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: Absorption through the skin can occur

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 544 of 953

through occupational exposure. Experiments show that the skin is an effective barrier and the percentage absorbed /seldom/ exceeds 0.05% for intact skin. See Reference 319. (13.55.24) Contamination of food, water, hands, or careless handling are the main causes of

radionuclide ingestion. /Radionuclides/ See Reference 320. (13.55.25) In the USA, about 17,000 persons are estimated to have worked with plutonium

since 1943-1944. In France, the number in 1986 was about 1000. See Reference 321. (13.55.26) Individuals working at facilities using or processing plutonium or uranium may be

exposed to plutonium compounds(1). As plutonium is dispersed throughout the environment due to past atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, the general population will have some exposure to plutonium compounds(SRC). An estimated 50-year dose from plutonium due to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing conducted before 1973 is 0.2 millirad for individuals living in the north temperate zone of the earth(1). Individual living near facilities that use or process plutonium may have higher exposures to plutonium compounds than the general population(SRC). See Reference 322. (13.55.27) Body Burden: /Plutonium/ was first produced in 1940 ... the adult human probably

has about 2 pCi plutonium in his total body. See Reference 323. (13.55.28) Plutonium-239 and plutonium-240 cannot be distinguished by alpha spectroscopy

and are usually reported together(1). Plutonium-239 concentrations in tissues from 12 autopsy cases in New York City (1973-76) were 0.00024, 0.0007, 0.00017, and 0.0004 pCi/g in lung, liver, vertebrae, and gonads, respectively(2). Median plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentrations of 0.00016, 0.00012, 0.000095, 0.0007 and 0.000049 pCi/g in ribs, vertebrae, femur, liver and lungs, respectively, were reported in tissues samples from autopsy cases of non-occupationally exposed individuals from Great Britain(2). Plutonium-239+plutonium-240 concentrations of 0.00022, 0.00019, 0.00015, 0.00014, and 0.00018 pCi/g in ribs, vertebrae, femur, liver and lungs, respectively, were reported in tissues samples from autopsy cases of individuals living near a plutonium processing plant in Great McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 545 of 953

Britain(2). See Reference 324. (13.55.29) ... The radioactivity /of plutonium/ (mainly due to fallout) measured in autopsied

human tissues of nonoccupationally exposed persons ranged, at the beginning of the 1980s, from 1 to 10 mBq/kg for lung for populations as different as those of the United States, Finland, Western Europe, and Japan. The values for the liver and vertebra burdens ranged from 10 to 40 and 3 to 40 mBecqueral/kg, respectively. For tracheobronchial lymph nodes, the burden may be as much as 100 mBq/kg. See Reference 325. (13.55.30) Average Daily Intake: An estimated daily ingestion of 0.0045 pCi/day of

plutonium-239+plutonium240 was reported for in food in Japan (1978-80) due to atmospheric fallout(1). A mean intake of 0.0044 pCi/day of plutonium was reported in New York City (1974) from all sources including tap water(1). CESIUM (13.56) The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (National Center for Scientific

Research) is a government-funded research organization, under the administrative authority of France's Ministry of Research. It has a web page entitled: Cesium-137 and strontium-90 contamination of

water bodies in the areas affected by releases from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident: an overview, which has an abstract which says: Results of observations the contamination of the Ukrainian, Byelorussian and Russian Federation rivers, the Dnieper reservoir chain, the Dnieper reservoir chain, the Dnieper estuary and the Black, Baltic and Azov Seas by cesium-137 and strontium90 after the Chernobyl accident, carried out in 1986-1991 by the Institutions of the USSR State Committee for Hydrometeorology, are presented and discussed. The dynamics of contamination levels and radionuclide removal into the Kiev reservoir are studied. It is shown that the primary sources (over 90 %) of cesium-137 and strontium-90 fluxes into the Kiev reservoir are the Pripyat and Dnieper Rivers. See Reference 327. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 546 of 953

(13.57)

An article, entitled: Radiation Situation in Oblast Requires Permanent

Surveillance by Volodymyr Kuznetsov, M.D., Head Radiation Hygiene Department; Rivne Regional Sanitary and Epidemiologic Station Ukraine, April 27, 2007, says the following (quotation marks omitted): (13.57.1) Elimination of Chornobyl disaster (the biggest ecological catastrophe of the XX

century) consequences is directly associated with ecological policy of our state. It anticipates rehabilitation of radiation polluted territories, recovery of soil, woods, water reservoirs, solving problems of the abandoned territories, closing the Chornobyl nuclear power station and its transformation into an ecologically safe system. (13.57.2) ...Officers of the Oblast Sanitary-and-Epidemiologic Station Radiation Hygiene

Department and radiological groups of the regional sanitary-and-epidemiologic stations constantly control foods, food raw materials, drinking water and environment. During 2006 they conducted 13054 radiometric and spectrometric tests of foods and food raw materials. In 1386 samples (10.6%) they registered exceeding of acceptable levels of radionuclides (DR-2006)... (13.57.3) ...Besides, last year they conducted 5083 tests of milk from individual sector to

contain cesium-137. 1141 (22.4%) samples did not correspond to standards. It appeared that in the north districts of Rivne Oblast the level of radionuclide pollution is still high. The most polluted milk of the individual sector is from Volodymyrets, Rokytne and Zarichne rayons. (13.57.4) Also there were tested mushrooms and wild berries to contain cesium-137. In total

there were conducted 947 tests, including 282 by the department of radioation hygiene. According to the tests, 41.5% of mushrooms and 7.8% of berries do not correspond to standards. The most polluted mushrooms and berries were in Dubrovytsya, Zarichne, Berezne, Volodymyrets, Sarny, and Rokytne rayons. (13.57.5) There was registered considerable exceeding over the current norms in potato from McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 547 of 953

Rokytne rayon: 32 samples out of 155 were considerably polluted (20.6%). (13.57.6) According to the Settlement Dosimetry Certification Program being realized in cities

and villages polluted by Chornobyl radiation, there were calculated levels of incorporated cesium by people in northern rayons. Last year the Radiation Hygiene Department and Rokytne District Sanitaryand-Epidemiologic Station examined 108 settlements in Volodymyrets, Zarichne, Dubrovytsya, Rokytne and Berezne rayons. There was measured Cs-137 radioactivity in 11242 persons. Year irradiation dose 0.5-1.0 mSv was registered in 337 persons (adults and children); 1.0-2.0 mSv in 71 persons (Rokytne, Dubrovytsya, Zarichne rayons), over 2 mSv in 3 persons including 3 children (Rokytne rayon). Maximum activity indices were in: Rokytne rayon 66715 Bq (equivalent of 2.1 mSv); Zarichne rayon (Bir and Sernyky villages) 47504 Bq (1.68 mSv); Dubrovytsya rayon (Budymlya, Verbivka, Velyky Cheremel villages) 48992 Bq (1.54 mSv)... (13.57.7) (13.58) See Reference 328. A web page article, entitled: Radioactive isotope found near Oyster Creek nuclear

power plant, published by the Alliance of Nuclear Responsibility, says the following (quotation marks omitted): (13.58.1) The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant reported Friday it has detected elevated

levels of the radioactive isotope Cesium-137 in leaf and soil samples near the plant. NOTE: Cesium137 and strontium-90 are the most dangerous radioisotopes to the environment in terms of their longterm effects. Their intermediate half-lives of about 30 years suggests that they are not only highly radioactive but that they have a long enough halflife to be around for hundreds of years. Iodine-131 may give a higher initial dose, but its short halflife of 8 days ensures that it will soon be gone. Besides its persistence and high activity, cesium-137 has the further insidious property of being mistaken for potassium by living organisms and taken up as part of the fluid electrolytes. This means that it is passed on up the food chain and reconcentrated from the environment by that process. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 548 of 953

(13.58.2)

The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant reported Friday it has detected elevated

levels of the radioactive isotope Cesium-137 in leaf and soil samples near the plant. (13.58.3) The amounts detected were within a range typically found in the general

environment and pose no health or safety threat to people or wildlife, plant officials said. The amounts found were also below levels that would require them to report their findings to federal regulators, plant officials reported in a prepared statement. (12.58.4) However, exposure to radiation from Cesium-137 can result in increased risk of

cancer, according to information on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Web site (13.58.5) Oyster Creek's technical staff "will get to the bottom of this," said Tim Rausch, the

plant's chief executive. "We will find out the source and extent of the Cesium-137 we are seeing, and we'll continue to keep the community informed as information becomes available." (13.58.6) The test was part of the plant's routine monthly monitoring program, said Rachelle

Benson, a plant spokeswoman. (13.58.7) Cesium-137 in the environment comes from a variety of sources, according to the

EPA. The largest single source was fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s and 1960s, which dispersed and deposited Cesium-137 worldwide. However, much of the Cesium-137 from testing has now decayed. (13.58.8) (13.59) See Reference 329. TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Cesium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which is as follows: (13.59.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of cesium and its

compounds. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of cesium ions and cesium compounds, refer to the CESIUM COMPOUNDS record. For general toxicological, safety and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 549 of 953

handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including cesium, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.59.2) TOXICITY SUMMARY: The element cesium exists in several forms known as

isotopes. In nature, cesium exists only as a non-radioactive (or stable) isotope known as cesium-133 (Cs-133); however, there exist several cesium isotopes that are radioactive. The radioactive isotopes of cesium are formed during nuclear fission, in commercial applications such as the generation of electricity at nuclear power plants. The most important cesium isotopes in terms of their potential effects on human health are cesium-134 (Cs-134) and cesium-137 (Cs-137). In this summary, the most pertinent information on the radiation toxicity of Cs-134 and Cs-137 are presented. Both Cs-137 and Cs-134 emit beta radiation and gamma radiation. Beta radiation travels short distances and can penetrate the skin and superficial body tissues while gamma radiation can travel great distances and penetrate the entire body. The radiation dose from these radionuclides can be classified as either external (if the radiation source is outside the body) or internal (if the radiation source is inside the body). Beta radiation emitted outside the body is normally of little health concern unless the radioactive material contacts the skin. Skin contact can allow the beta radiation to pass through the epidermis to live dermal tissue where it becomes a major contributor to the radiation dose to the skin. Beta and gamma radiation may induce tissue damage and disruption of cellular function. The half-lives of Cs134 and Cs-137 are approximately 2 years and 30 years, respectively. Because of the continual emission of radiation, people could be exposed to radiation from Cs-137 or Cs-134 released to the environment. High levels of Cs-134 and Cs-137 have been released to the environment from nuclear weapons testing and incidents such as the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine. In these cases, cesium was one of many radionuclides present in the release. It is, thus, not possible to ascribe any of the observed health effects to radioactive cesium specifically. There are, however, documented reports of health effects in humans exposed to radioactive cesium. These reports arise from McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 550 of 953

the accidental exposure of civilians to Cs-137 sources in Goiania, Brazil, in 1987 and Tammiku, Estonia, in 1994 and from the exposure of military personnel to Cs-137 during 1996 and 1997 in Lilo, Republic of Georgia. External and internal exposures of humans to radiocesium have resulted in a spectrum of adverse health effects that range from nausea to death. In 1987, approximately 250 persons, including children, were exposed externally and internally to radiation from a scavenged medical source with an activity of 50.9 TBq (1,375 Ci) 137-CsCl. Some of the exposed individuals showed signs of acute radiation syndrome, such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. A large number of the individuals with acute radiation syndrome developed bone marrow failure and 4 of these died. Dermal injuries observed among the exposed individuals ranged from radiation dermatitis to severe radiation injuries leading to an amputation. Ocular and reproductive effects were also reported. Two incidents of external exposure to radiation from Cs-137 have demonstrated that serious adverse effects may also be expected when individuals are exposed only externally to high levels of radiation from Cs137. In 1997 it was discovered that military recruits had been accidentally exposed to several sealed Cs-137 radioactive sources at a training facility in Lilo, Republic of Georgia. Nausea, weakness, headaches, and loss of appetite were the most commonly reported symptoms among the exposed recruits. Vomiting was reported by three of the patients, two of whom received the highest estimated doses. The exposures of the recruits occurred over several months. Although accurate information on the duration of the exposure was not available, doses were estimated by scoring unstable chromosome aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes and by electron spin resonance dosimetry of teeth of the exposed individuals. The estimated mean doses ranged from 0.2 to 5.9 Gy (The radiological event at Lilo. International Atomic Energy Agency (2000). Vienna). In 1994, several individuals (aged 13 to 78) were exposed to a sealed Cs-137 source stolen from a waste repository in Tammiku, Estonia. The observed health effects in the exposed individuals ranged from a relatively mild case of radiation sickness to death. Solid state dosimetry techniques were applied for reconstruction of the doses of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 551 of 953

several individuals exposed in the house where the stolen Cs-137 source was kept. The estimated whole body radiation doses ranged from 0.1 Gy to 4 Gy. The individual with the highest estimated whole body dose also had an estimated localized radiation exposure to the thigh of 1,830 Gy. The latter individual died 12 days after the initial exposure event. The survivors showed dermal effects and effects in blood. A 13-year old male was the most exposed among the survivors (estimated whole-body dose of 1.5-5.5 Gy). He suffered severe and prolonged bone marrow aplasia and radiation burns. (The Radiological Accident in Tammiku (1998). The International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. 4 November 1998). See Reference 330. (13.59.3) There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of

mixed beta-particle emitters (iodine-131, cesium-137, cerium-144 and radium-228). /Iodine, Cesium, Cerium, Radium/ See Reference 331. (13.59.4) Evaluation. There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of X-

radiation and gamma-radiation. There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of X-radiation and gamma-radiation. Overall evaluation. X-radiation and gammaradiation are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). (13.59.5) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ Fifty persons

involved in the cesium-137 accident in Goiania showed symptoms of whole-body and local acute irradiation and also external or internal contamination mainly due to ingestion or absorption of cesium137. Fourteen of the 50 developed severe bone marrow depression characterized by neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Eight of these 14 received GM-CSF intravenously. None were submitted to bone marrow transplantation. Four of the 14 died due to hemorrhage and infection. For those with significant internal contamination evaluated by in-vitro and in-vivo assays, Prussian Blue was administered with doses ranging from 1.5 to 10 g/day. Besides Prussian Blue, other measures were taken to increase decorporation of cesium-137, including administration of diuretics, water overload, and ergometric McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 552 of 953

exercises. From 50 to 100 persons are being followed in a medical protocol. /Cesium-137/ See Reference 383. (13.59.6) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ Approximately

250 individuals were exposed externally to an open 50.9 TBq (1,375 Ci) 137-cesium chloride radioactive source in Goiania, Brazil, in 1987. Many of these individuals also experienced oral and dermal exposure. The estimated absorbed doses ranged from 1 to 7 Gy (100 to 700 rad). The exposed individuals showed signs and symptoms of acute radiation syndrome including vomiting, diarrhea, and nausea, as well as skin lesions from radiation burns, orofacial lesions, ocular injury, hematological effects (bone marrow aplasia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, neutropenia), mild elevations of some liver enzymes, and reduced sperm counts. Twenty individuals developed the acute radiation syndrome, 14 (70%) of whom developed bone marrow failure after having received wholebody radiation doses ranging from 1 to 7.0 Gy (100 to 700 rad). Four (29%) of these 14 individuals died. The adverse effects were the result of beta and gamma radiation, not cesium per se. /Cesium-137 chloride/ See Reference 384. (13.59.7) /CASE REPORTS/ /LIVER/ Mild elevations of aminotransferases (ALT/AST) were

seen in a few patients hospitalized following radiation exposure to an opened cesium-137 chloride radioactive source in Goiania, Brazil, in 1987. /Cesium-137 chloride/ See Reference 385. (13.59.8) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ On 13 September 1987,

a radiation accident occurred in the city of Goiania in Central Brazil. Approximately 250 people were exposed to a cesium-137 source from an abandoned radiotherapy unit. At least 14 patients showed some degree of bone marrow depression, and eight developed the classical signs and symptoms of acute radiation syndrome (ARS). Twenty-eight people presented local radiation injuries ranging from first to third degree, and 104 individuals showed evidence of internal contamination. This paper describes the circumstances of the event, the first-aid measures taken, the criteria adopted for triage of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 553 of 953

the exposed population, and the radiation protection procedures used during the clinical management of the irradiated individuals. /Cesium-137/ See Reference 386. (13.59.9) /CASE REPORTS/ /SKIN/ A case of child abuse involving industrial radiography

sources has been reported ... . A petroleum engineer had possession of at least a 37GBq (1Ci) cesium137 source used for oil and gas well logging. The dose rate at contact for such a source is approximately 5 Gy/min. One of the engineer's sons was subjected to various occasions in which "shiny silver pellets" were in the earpieces of headphones that he was told to wear, in a pillow he was told to use, and in a sock he found on his bed. It was also assumed that while under sedation, he was exposed at other times of which he was unaware. He was first seen by a family physician for what appeared to be bruises and reddish-brown blisters. These were assumed to be infections, but over succeeding weeks and months, new lesions appeared on the medial aspects of the thighs, right ankle, right hand, and left side of his forehead. ... Over the next 6 months, persistent, ulcerating lesions of the right thigh kept the child out of school. ... A plastic surgeon recognized the lesions as radiation necrosis. Both testes had been effectively destroyed, and the boy was functionally castrated. /Cesium-137/ See Reference 387. (13.59.10) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ In Tammiku, Estonia,

in 1994, a cesium-137 source (a few terabecquerels) thought to have been part of an irradiator was disposed of as scrap metal. It was recovered and stored in a source store with limited security. The store was broken into and the source removed. Six people, exposed to varying degrees up to 4 Gy whole body, developed a variety of lesions. One localized exposure was up to 1,800 Gy and the person died. /Cesium-137/ See Reference 388. (13.59.11) /CASE REPORTS/ /SKIN/ Eleven frontier guards were exposed to one or more

sources of cesium-137 with activities up to 150 GBq at the Lilo Training Center near Tbilisi, Georgia. The incident occurred over a period spanning 1996 and 1997. The sources were intended for training McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 554 of 953

civil defense specialists or for calibration. Some of the sources had been removed from their containers, either still fixed in the source holder or separate from it. Information on the irradiation is incomplete, but it appears that at least one source was kept in the pocket of a coat. Each of the guards suffered from one or more acute localized irradiation lesions of varying seriousness; several suffered from nausea and vomiting. /Cesium-137/ See Reference 389. (13.59.12) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ In an accident

involving the stealing and breaching of a radiotherapy source in Goiania, Brazil, 39 individuals had a high level of cesium-137 internal contamination. Prussian Blue was used, in doses that varied from 310 g/day for adults, to enhance the elimination of cesium-137 from the body. The total internal committed doses and the effect of Prussian Blue treatment for 15 contaminated adults involved in this accident have been evaluated in this paper. Prussian Blue caused dose reductions in the range of 5184%, with an average of 71%. This reduction was shown to be independent of the dosage of Prussian Blue. ... See Reference 390. (13.59.13) /CASE REPORTS/ /EYE/ Among 20 patients hospitalized following mixed

external and internal exposure to an opened cesium-137 chloride radioactive source in Goiania, Brazil, in 1987, a few patients complained of lacrimation, hyperemia and edema of the conjunctiva, and ocular pain. A few cases of protracted reduction in visual capacity were also reported, among which retinal injury was documented... /Cesium-137 chloride / See Reference 391. (13.59.14) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ More than 25,000 residents were exposed to

external gamma radiation as well as internally from fission products (primarily from cesium-137, strontium-90, ruthenium-106, and zirconium-95) released into the Techa river from the nearby Mayak plutonium production facility, predominately in the early 1950s...There is some evidence of a statistically significant increase in total cancer mortality. Current estimates of the excess absolute risk (EAR) of leukemia in this cohort is 0.85 per 10,000 person-year Gy (95% confidence interval 0.2, 1.5), McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 555 of 953

and for solid tumors the relative risk estimate is 0.65 per Gy (95% confidence interval -0.3, 1.0). Median dose estimates for soft tissue in this cohort are 7 mSv (maximum 456 mSv), and for bone marrow are 253 mSv (maximum 2021 mSv). Estimates of the relative risk for cancer of the esophagus, stomach and lung are similar to those reported for atomic bomb survivors...There has also been one study of persons living in the town of Ozyorsk exposed to fallout from the nearby Mayak nuclear facility. An excess of thyroid cancer 3-4 times expected relative to rates for all of Russia has been observed... /Cesium-137, strontium-90, ruthenium-106, and zirconium-95 contamination/ See Reference 392. (13.59.15) In Ukraine, ...incidence rates for leukemia and lymphoma in the most highly

contaminated areas of the Zhytomir and Kiev districts /were examined/ before and after the Chernobyl accident. Total incidence in adults increased from 5.1 per 100,000 during 1980-1985 to 11 per 100,000 person-years during 1992-1996 but there was no excess in contaminated areas of the regions. Similarly, ...the incidence of leukemia and lymphoma /was investigated/ in the three most contaminated regions of Ukraine. There was a steady increase in leukemia and lymphoma rates for both men and women between 1980 and 1993, but there was no evidence of a more pronounced increase after the accident. /Cesium-137 fallout/ See Reference 393. (13.59.16) The mean estimated dose to the bone marrow among study subjects was 4.5 mSv

and the maximum was 101 mSv. the study found a statistically significant increased risk of acute leukemia among males with cumulative doses above 10 mSv and diagnosed form 1993-1997. A similar association was found for acute myeloid leukemia diagnosed in the period 1987-1992. /Cesium-137 fallout/ See Referemce 394. (13.59.17) The initial study compared rates for temporal cohorts born during "exposed" and

"unexposed" periods in Greece and found a 2.6-fold increase in leukemia risk and elevated rates for those born in regions with higher levels of radioactive fallout...The ongoing European Childhood McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 556 of 953

Leukemia-Lymphoma Incidence Study (ECLIS) has evaluated the risk of leukemia by age using data from population-based cancer registries in Europe (including Belarus and Ukraine). Focusing on the risk of leukemia by age of diagnosis in 6 month intervals in relation to the estimated doses from the Chernobyl fallout received in utero, preliminary results suggest a small increase in risk in infant leukemia and leukemia diagnosed between 24-29 months. /Cesium-137 fallout/ See Reference 395. (13.59.18) /BIOMONITORING/ /GENOTOXICITY/ The results of... three post-Chernobyl

studies (two in Belarus and one in Ukraine) and for the one conducted on the populations in the vicinity of the nuclear test site in Semipalatinsk (Kazakhstan) provide evidence that mutations at minisatellite loci can be induced by radiation in human germ cells. The dose-response relationships, however, remain uncertain because of considerable difficulties in the estimation of parental gonadal doses. For example, in the first Belarus study the level of surface contamination by cesium-137 was used as a broad dose measure, and the children of parents inhabiting heavily contaminate areas (>250 kBq/sq m) were found to have twice the frequency of mutations compared to those of parents from less contaminated areas (<250 kBq/sq m). In the second Belarus study (with more exposed families and more loci sampled), based on estimates of individual doses, two groups were defined <20 mSv and >20 mSv. The mutation frequency in the children from the latter group was 1.35 times that in the former and that from both groups was about 2-fold higher than in the unexposed U.K. controls. In the Ukraine study, a 1.6-fold increase in mutation rate in the exposed fathers but not in exposed mothers (both relative to unexposed controls) was found, but again, the dose-response relationship is uncertain. The authors noted that the dose from external chronic irradiation and internal exposures together were of the order of approx. 100 mSv (excluding short-lived isotopes). In the Semipalatinsk study, again, there was a 1.8-fold increase in the first generation progeny of parents receiving relatively high doses of radiation (cited as >1.0 Sv, but could have been lower or higher). In this study, through the use of threegeneration families, the authors obtained evidence for a decline in mutation frequency as population McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 557 of 953

doses decreased. /Cesium-137 fallout/ See Reference 396. (13.59.19) /BIOMONITORING/ /GENOTOXICITY/ Following the Goiania radiation

accident, lymphocytes from 110 exposed or potentially exposed individuals were analyzed for the frequencies of chromosomal aberrations (dicentrics and centric rings) to estimate absorbed radiation dose. Dose estimates for 21 subjects exceeded 1.0 Gy, and for eight subjects they exceeded 4.0 Gy. Four of the subjects died... /Cesium-137 chloride/ See Reference 397. (13.59.20) /BIOMONITORING/ /GENOTOXICITY/ Five years after the initial exposure to

radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident of 1986, slightly greater frequencies of chromosomal aberrations were observed in peripheral blood lymphocytes of three groups of Byelorussian children (41 total) living in areas with ground contamination from cesium-137 fallout than in those of an Italian control group of 10 children. /Cesium-137 fallout/ See Reference 398. (13.59.21) /BIOMONITORING/ /GENOTOXICITY/ Results of multiyear cytogenetic study

of children and teenagers living in areas, radioactive by contaminated after Chernobyl accident, were adduced. Mean density of cesium-137 contamination in two compared living areas were 111 and 200 kBq/sq m and mean external doses accumulated for 1986-2001 were 6.7 and 11.4 mGy correspondingly. Averaged thyroid doses received by subjects of all age groups in the second area were approximately 1.5 times higher than in the first area; in the youngest group (0-1 year) the doses were 114.3 and 174.3 mGy. During 17 years cytogenetic investigation approximately from 30% to 60% of examined persons were observed the increased level of chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes of peripheral blood. Average frequency of unstable aberrations (acentrics, dicentrics and centric rings) constituted about 0.4 per 100 cells (0.22 per 100 cells in controls) during all period of observation. Level of marker aberrations (dicentrics and centric rings) was increased almost all times of study and varied within 0.04-0.19 per 100 cell (0.03 in control group). The parallel investigation of frequency of stable aberrations by FISH method showed up their level about 3 times exceeding observed dicentrics McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 558 of 953

level. Comparably higher indexes of cytogenetic disturbances were revealed in group exposed in utero during period of accident. /Cesium-137 fallout/ See Reference 399. (13.59.22) /OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ /SKIN/ ...Skin contact can allow the beta

radiation to pass through the epidermis to live dermal tissue where it becomes a major contributor to a radiocesium-generated radiation dose to the skin. At very high doses, the beta and gamma radiation can cause such adverse effects as erythema, ulceration, or even tissue necrosis. /Cesium radionuclides/ See Reference 400. (13.59.23) ...Relatively little has been published regarding thyroid outcomes other than

thyroid cancer, although one study has reported an elevated risk of benign thyroid tumors. There have been reports of increases in autoimmune disease and antithyroid antibodies following childhood exposure to Chernobyl. However, a study by the Sasakawa Foundation which screened 114,000 children found no association between a surrogate for thyroid dose (cesium-137) and thyroid antibodies, hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, or goiter. /Cesium-137/ See Reference 401. (13.59.24) Body Burden: Concns of cesium-137 in human milk samples from several US

cities from 1956 to 1961 were <20 pCi/L(1). The overall cesium-137 concn in milk taken 7 days postpartum from 37 mothers in two Italian hospitals were 5.8 to 115 pCi/L(1). In a study of females from northern Sweden, cesium-136 was detected in breast milk from 8 out of 12 mothers at concns of 7.3 to 178.4 pCi/kg(2). The infants of these mothers who were breast-fed had whole-body levels of cesium-137 in the range 45.9 to 675.7 pCi/kg(2). See Reference 402. (13.59.25) Average Daily Intake: The avg daily intake of cesium-137 and cesium-134 was estimated for adult males residing in the Ukraine in 1994, based upon total diet samples(1). The mean intake of cesium-137 was estimated as 109 pCi/day and the mean intake of cesium-134 was estimated as 8.1 pCi/day(1). Based on dietary patterns and the concn of radiocesium in food sources, the total dietary intakes of cesium-134 and cesium-137 for typical adults residing in Croatia for the month of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 559 of 953

May 1986 were estimated as 2.8X10+4 and 5.9X10+4 pCi, respectively(2). Based on dietary patterns and the concn of radiocesium in food sources, the total dietary intakes of cesium-134 and cesium-137 for children (10 yrs old) residing in Croatia for May-June 1986 were estimated as 43,000 and 190,000 pCi, respectively(2). For infants (1 yr old), it was estimated that the total intakes of cesium-134 and cesium-137 were 46,000 and 170,000 pCi, respectively(2). The total intakes of cesium-134 and cesium137 for adults during this same time period were estimated as 40,000 and 84,000 pCi, respectively(2). The higher intakes of cesium-134 and cesium-137 for infants and children were traced to a much greater consumption of contaminated milk(2). See Reference 403. RADIOACTIVE URANIUM (13.60) Nuclear Free Queensland is an initiative of The Queensland Nuclear Free Alliance

The Queensland Conservation Council and Friends of the Earth Brisbane and made possible by the Beyond Nuclear Initiative. Under these circumstances, Nuclear Free Queensland published an article related to radioactive uranium contamination in water on a web site. Pertinent information from this article is as follows (quotation marks omitted):: (13.60.1) In 1994 Olympic Dam uranium mine tailings dams were found to have been

leaking, perhaps for two years, releasing up to five million cubic metres of contaminated water into subsoil (13.60.2) The waste slurry from uranium milling is dumped in huge tailings dams, a toxic

mix of acids, lead, arsenic and leftover uranium still 85% as radioactive as what was extracted and also poisonous. (13.60.3) The dams kill local wildlife that drink or swim in them. Despite the precautions of air guns and floating obstacles to make Olympic Dam tailings dams unattractive to birds, in 2004 hundreds of birds and other wildlife were killed in one mass poisoning incident. (13.60.4) Tailings dams do contaminate local ground and surface water trough leaks, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 560 of 953

overflows during rain and dam failure. In 1979 a tailings dam at Church Rock in Arizona collapse spewing 370,000 m3 of radioactive water, and 1,000 tonnes of contaminated sediment the local river (13.60.5) Despite the rhetoric of the pro-nuclear lobby, like other nuclear industries, nuclear

power plants are contaminating local water sources and putting peoples health and food sources at risk. (13.60.6) In January 2006 the Union of Concerned Scientists petitioned the US Nuclear

Regulatory Commission to act on the thousands of millions of litres of radioactive water leaking from the nations many nuclear power plants. Even if the leaks are discovered and stopped, the USNRC has little power to prosecute the companies concerned (UCS 2006). (13.60.7) In one important case in Connecticut (US) three nuclear power plants were shut

down n 1996 after 29 years of unreported and underestimated contamination of local water. On closing of the plants the Connecticut Attorney General said the local pollution from the plants was so severe that, The goal is no longer to decommission a nuclear power plant, but rather to decontaminate a nuclear waste dump. Levels of two radioactive substances, Cobalt 60 and Cesium 137, were found to be three and six times, respectively, above federal limits, a local drinking well was discovered contaminated with tritium and it emerged that during the 1980s and into the 1990s the company had been giving away soil, asphalt, and concrete blocks from the site to local residents. (13.60.8) In another incident a nuclear power plant in Mississippi accidentally dumped about 3

190 thousand litres of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River which feeds the local drinking water system. In many other cases drinking water has been under the spotlight in 2006, with at least two major leaks being discovered. In Normandy, local dairy cows had been consuming the water and in the Champagne region, the leaks put at risk Frances important wine industry. The storage facilities house waste from Frances 77 nuclear power reactors as well as waste from reprocessing. A May 2006 Greenpeace report found that, evidence is emerging that a new nuclear dumpsite in the Champagne region of France is leaking radioactivity into the ground water threatening contamination of tritium and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 561 of 953

at a later stage other radionuclides. The French nuclear waste authority contaminated by human error and construction failure. In other cases radioactive water has been released into the environment on purpose, such as at Lake Ontario, New York. The extent of the radioactivity was not revealed to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the company for 8 years. (13.60.9) (13.60.9.1) WATER CONTAMINATION - A VERY REAL RISK 1960 A nuclear missile melted, causing plutonium contamination in the ground

water below, New Jersey (13.60.9.2) (13.60.9.3) 1964 fish contaminated by uranium found in Colorado rivers 1961 A B52 carrying nuclear weapons crashed into North Carolina farmland,

where it still contaminates (13.60.9.4) 1971 Minnesota Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) spills 190,000 litres radioactive

water into Mississippi River (13.60.9.5) 1978 Dr William Lochstet of Pennsylvania State U argued that the operation of a

single uranium mine could result in 8.5 million deaths over time through local water contamination. Substantiated by US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (13.60.9.6) 1979 Tailings dam collapses at Church Rock, New Mexico. Contaminates local

rivers with thorium and radium to this day (13.60.9.7) (13.59.9.8) 1981 birth defect in Shiprock, New Mexico linked to tailings piles 1983 208,000 gallons of water with low-level radioactive contamination was

accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River (13.60.9.9) 2006 The Union of Concerned Scientists, a coalition of 22 organizations

petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take action on the many radioactive leaks contaminating water around US NPPs. (13.60.9.10) 2006 substantial leaks from two separate waste storage facilities in France McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 562 of 953

discoverd to be affecting grondwater and risk to farming (13.60.9.11) (13.60.10) 2006 uranium discovered in drinking water of Burdekin, QLD primary schools. Nuclear waste remains dangerous for millions of years. Despite 50 years of the

nuclear industry, no safe disposal method has yet been found and evidence is mounting that current storage methods have been contaminating local ground and surface water for some time (13.60.11) 50 years of nuclear waste storage in France has come under the spotlight in 2006,

with at least two major leaks being discovered. In Normandy, local dairy cows had been consuming the water and in the Champagne region, the leaks put at risk Frances important wine industry. The storage facilities house waste from Frances 77 nuclear power reactors as well as waste from reprocessing. (13.60.12) A May 2006 Greenpeace report found that, evidence is emerging that a new

nuclear dumpsite in the Champagne region of France is leaking radioactivity into the ground water threatening contamination of tritium and at a later stage other radionuclides. The French nuclear waste authority ANDRA has only a partial inventory of the multitude of existing waste categories, as large quantities have not yet been declared by the main waste producers EDF and Cogema, including spent nuclear fuel or waste from the uranium enrichment industry. (13.60.13) Other forms of nuclear industry including enrichment facilities, weapons

manufacturers and irradiation plants have released radioactivity into local water. (13.60.14) In 1982 a food irradiation plant in Dover, New Jersey USA was flooded with

contaminated water when a pump malfunctioned. The water drained into the sewer of the heavily populated local area. The company did not tell the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the accident until 10 months later. (13.60.15) There have been hundreds of US and Russian nuclear submarine accidents and

sinking, leaving a legacy of nuclear waste dumps under the worlds oceans. Until recently, US submarines and ships were also likely to discharge large amounts of radioactive coolant into the oceans McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 563 of 953

as standard operational practice. (13.60.16) Oak Ridge nuclear weapons plant in the US has contaminated local groundwater

not only with r a d i o a c t i v e substances, but also PCBs, heavy metals, and 1,200 tons of mercury. US Bases leave a similar legacy of pollution. (13.60.17) US military policy of not declaring nuclear material on board their vessels means

that sunken planes, submarines and ships may cont[ai]n much more nuclear material undersea. The 2005 crash of a US jet 300km off the coast of Brisbane is one nearby example of an undersea unrecovered potential nuclear hazard. (13.60.18) (13.61) See Reference 332.

TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Cesium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which is as follows: (13.61.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of uranium and its

compounds. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of uranium ions and uranium compounds, refer to the URANIUM COMPOUNDS record. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including uranium, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.61.2) The relative importance of the two hazards connected with exposure to uranium

compounds, renal damage caused by chemical toxicity and injury caused by ionizing radiation, depend on the solubility of the compound, its route of administration and its isotope composition. Information on the chemical hazards associated with uranium compounds is presented in the URANIUM COMPOUNDS record; information on the injury caused by ionizing radiation from uranium isotopes is presented in the URANIUM, RADIOACTIVE record. See Reference 333. (13.61.3) Uranium occurs in granite, metamorphic rock, lignite, monazite sand, and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 564 of 953

phosphate deposits at concentrations on the order of 0.5 to 5 ppm. All uranium isotopes are radioactive. Uranium nitrate, sulfate, chloride, fluoride, and acetate are either soluble in water or dissolved by dilute acids. Several uanium oxides (e.g., uranium dioxide (UO2), uranyl oxide (UO3), uranium octoxide (U3O8) have very low solubility in water. ... Uranium can exist in valences of +3, +4, +5, or +6, but U+6 is the most stable, and it exists principally as the uranyl cation (UO2)+2. The uranyl compounds (+6) are of most importance biologically because the uranic compounds (+4) are usually oxidized to +6 during absorption into the body. Natural uranium, by itself, will not sustain a nuclear chain reaction; however, in the presence of a moderator or enrichment with less stable nuclides such as uranium-235, it may do so (2). Daily intake of uranium in food and water varies from approximately 1- 5 ug U/d daily in uncontaminated regions to 13-18 ug/d or more in uranium mining areas. A 70 kg, non-occupationally exposed 'Reference Man' living in Europe or in the United States has an estimated total body uranium content of about 22 ug. Uranium is absorbed from the intestine or by the lungs, enters the bloodstream, and is rapidly deposited in the tissues, predominantly kidney and bone, or excreted in the urine. Renal toxicity is a major adverse effect of uranium, but the metal has toxic effects on the cardiovascular system, liver, muscle and nervous system as well (1). Uranium accumulates in bone in a manner similar to that of radium; therefore, its alpha particles would presumably be nearly as effective in the production of osteogenic sarcomas. Sarcomas have been produced in mice after exposures to high specific activity uranium-232 and uranium-233 (2). According to the ACGIH, there is debate as to what acute concentration of uranium in the kidney constitutes the NOAEL. Substantial damage has been found when the renal uranium concentration exceeded 3 ug/g in rodents. Other studies indicate that 2 ug/g in the rat kidney causes transient proteinuria. Morrow and associates in 1982 calculated that 0.3 ug/g was a threshold concentration for acute renal injury in the dog. This value has been challenged on the grounds that the half-life value used by Morrow et al was too long. Renal toxicity in rats... has been detected at 1 ug U/g wet weight after treatment with 5 ug U/day for 14 days. The basis of the uraniumMcKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 565 of 953

induced renal toxicity is related to (UO2)+2 competition for Mg+2 and Ca+2 adenosine-5'triphosphate (ATP) binding sites and subsequent disruption of active transport in the cells of the proximal tubule and associated structures. Toxicity to the lungs may also be associated with alpha radiation from inhalation of insoluble forms of uranium. Chronic inhalation by monkeys, dogs, and rats of natural uranium as UO2 at 25 mg/cu m resulted in pulmonary fibrosis and malignant pulmonary neoplasia; the latter appeared to be a direct result of alpha radiation. A series of studies at a uranium enrichment plant noted an excess of lung cancer deaths among 18,869 white male workers and an excess of death from central nervous system (CNS) cancer. Subsequent case-control studies found a relationship between lung cancer and work exposure but failed to find such a relationship with cancer of thee CNS. A more recent follow-up confirmed the excess deaths from lung and CNS cancers in this cohort and found excess deaths from renal cancer, lymphosarcomas and multiple myeloma. For lung cancer, but not for the other cancers, a dose-response relationship was found, an observation consistent with the lung cancers among dogs chronically exposed to uranium. These data suggest that radiation is the limiting factor for enriched or insoluble uranium (2). One effect of exposure to ionizing radiation is to reduce regeneration of injured tissue, an observation that may account for the finding that radiation enhances the toxicity of uranium for the kidneys of mice and dogs (2). According to Taylor and Taylor, any possible direct risk of cancer or other chemical- or radiation-induced health detriments from uranium deposited in the human body is probably less than 0.005% in contrast to an expected indirect risk of 0.2% to 3% through inhaling the radioactive inert gas radon, which is produced by the decay of environmental uranium-238 (1). See Reference 404. (13.61.4) ...There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of

natural uranium.... See Reference 405. (13.61.5) Internalized radionuclides that emit alpha-particles are carcinogenic to humans

(Group 1). See Reference 406. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 566 of 953

(13.61.6)

A1; Confirmed human carcinogen. /Uranium (natural), soluble and insoluble

compounds, as U/ See Reference 407. (13.61.7) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ At the highest doses in

the domain of 10,000 rads (100 gray), the reaction is immediate. One example is that of an individual who worked in a uranium-235 recovery plant ... He inadvertently poured a container held under his left arm, filled with a solution of uranium-235-enriched uranium, into a barrel already containing a similar solution. He apparently lost track of how much fissionable material the barrel contained. The amount he added exceeded criticality. There was a blue flash as the liquid exploded, and he was drenched with the radioactive fluid. He immediately became disoriented. His coworkers did a partial decontamination. He was taken by ambulance to a series of hospitals which refused admission. An admitting hospital was finally located, and he was installed in an evacuated emergency ward, placed on a rubber sheet and further decontaminated by sponging with wet towels. During the night, his blood pressure dropped sufficiently to warrant continuous intravenous vasopressor medication. The next morning, his left arm and the left side of his face abruptly became severely edematous. In spite of the vasopressor medication, he went into irreversible shock and died that afternoon about 22 hr after exposure. This pattern is known as the central nervous system/cardiovascular syndrome. /U-235 enriched uranium/ See Reference 408. (13.61.8) /CASE REPORTS/ /KIDNEY/ A small cohort of Gulf War veterans involved in

friendly fire incidents where DU shells (penetrators) were used is being followed prospectively to assess the health effects from inhalation, wound contamination, and systemic absorption of retained DU metal fragments. A group of 33 soldiers was first evaluated in 1993/1994 ... They had elevated concentrations of urinary uranium, and mean urine uranium excretion was significantly higher in soldiers with retained metal fragments compared to those without fragments (4.47 vs. 0.03 ug/g creatinine). No evidence of a relationship between urine uranium and abnormal renal function could be McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 567 of 953

demonstrated. In a subsequent follow-up of the same cohort, 29 of the original 33 were examined in 1997 and their results compared to 38 non-DU exposed, but Gulf War deployed soldiers. The correlation between 1994 and 1997 24-hr urinary uranium determinations was highly significant (Rsq = 0.8623) and urine uranium was again correlated with the presence of retained DU fragments. Exposed soldiers (with and without fragments) had 24-hr urinary uranium results ranging from 0.01 to 30.74 ug/g creatinine, whereas the nonexposed group's results ranged from 0.01 to 0.047 ug/g creatinine. The persistence of elevated uranium excretion suggests ongoing mobilization from a storage depot and results in chronic systemic exposure. Again, no renal abnormalities were found but neurocognitive examinations demonstrated a statistical relationship between urine uranium levels and lowered performance on computerized tests assessing performance efficiency. Elevated urinary uranium was also statistically related to a high prolactin level (> 1.6 ng/mL; p = .04). Uranium was also detected in the semen of 5 of 17 exposed veterans, but in none of 5 nonexposed veterans ... These findings ... document elevated urinary uranium excretion and small, but measurable, biochemical effects on the neuroendocrine and central nervous systems 7 yr after first exposure. /Depleted uranium/ See Reference 409. (13.61.9) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ A criticality accident

occurred on September 30, 1999, at the uranium conversion plant in Tokai-mura (Tokai-village), Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan. When the criticality occurred, three workers saw a "blue-white glow," and a radiation monitor alarm was sounded. They were severely exposed to neutron and gamma-ray irradiation, and subsequently developed acute radiation syndrome (ARS). One worker reported vomiting within minutes and loss of consciousness for 10 to 20 seconds. This worker also had diarrhea an hour after the exposure. The other worker started to vomit almost an hour after the exposure. The three workers, including their supervisor, who had no symptoms at the time, were brought to the National Mito Hospital by ambulance. Because of the detection of gamma-rays from their body surface McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 568 of 953

by preliminary surveys and decreased numbers of lymphocytes in peripheral blood, they were transferred to the National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS), which has been designated as a hospital responsible for radiation emergencies. Dose estimations for the three workers were performed by prodromal symptoms, serial changes of lymphocyte numbers, chromosomal analysis, and sodium-24 activity. The results obtained from these methods were fairly consistent. Most of the data, such as the dose rate of radiation, its distribution, and the quality needed to evaluate the average dose, were not available when the decision for hematopoitic stem cell transplantation had to be made. Therefore, prodromal symptoms may be important in making decisions for therapeutic strategies, such as stem-cell transplantation in heavily exposed victims. /Enriched uranium/ See Reference 410. (13.61.10) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ The accident /in a

reactor using ... uranium rods moderated by heavy water/ exposed six individuals and resulted in one fatality. The individuals were designated H, V, G, M, D, and B. The total doses they received were 3.23, 4.36, 4.14, 4.26, 4.19, and 2.07 Gy, respectively. Exposure was relatively uniform over the body. By day 10 postexposure all patients except Patient B had granulocyte levels between 800 and 1500/uL and by day 20 the values had fallen to 20 to 100. For Patient B with a dose of 2.07 Gy (207 rad) the granulocyte level had decreased to 1000/uL by day 20. /Enriched uranium/ See Reference 411. (13.61.11) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ The accident occurred

in a gaseous diffusion facility as a result of enriched uranium accumulation in oil in a vacuum pump. When an operator turned on the pump, the criticality alarm sounded and he saw a flash of light. Fission yield for two excursions was estimated to be 1.2X10+15. the operator was sent to the hospital with an estimated dose of about 2 Gy. He experienced mild radiation sickness. /Enriched uranium/ See Reference 412. (13.61.12) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ ... There was an

accident in a building that housed various operations concerning highly enriched uranium. The accident McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 569 of 953

occurred in a glove box in which there was an excess accumulation of uranium during filtration of uranyl oxalate precipitate. The operator was looking through the glove box window and saw a bulge in the vessel fabric and there was a release of gas and precipitate. The yield was estimated to be about 1X10+17 fissions. The operator picked up the precipitate and put it back into the filter vessel. Within seconds he became ill. Within 17 hours after the accident the specific activity of sodium-24 in the operator's blood was 245 Bq/cu cm. This correlated to an estimated dose of about 30 Gy. The operator died 12 days after the accident. There were five other workders in the room, and they received dose upward of 3 Gy and all suffered from radiation sickness but recovered. /Enriched uranium/ (13.61.13) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ /Three workers were

involved in an accident occuring when enriched uranyl nitrate solution was being poured manually from one vessel into other bottles/. There was an immediate blue flash and fissile material was ejected about 5 m above the vessel. Yield was estimated to be about 2 X 10+17 fissions. A fourth worker, who was 2.5 m away, was also exposed. They were all decontaminated and transferred to a hospital. The estimated exposures were 60 Gy for the three workers who lifted the tank and 6 Gy for the fourth worker. The three massively exposed workers died in 5 to 6 days. The fourth worker was exposed to a very heterogeneous gamma and neutron radiation (20 Gy on the left side of the body and 3 Gy on the right) and developed an acute radiation sickness and subsequently suffered a number of health problems, including cataracts. She survived more than 25 years after exposure. /Enriched uranyl nitrate/ See Reference 414. (13.61.14) /CASE REPORTS/ /KIDNEY/ Only a few studies on renal tubular dysfunction in

chronically exposed workers have been conducted. ...Increased tubular enzyme catalase /was reported/ in the urine of 46 exposed chemical workers, but the results were not controlled for differences in urinary concentration. ...Increased excretion of total amino-nitrogen and some individual amino acids /was measured/ in 18 exposed workers. ...Low-level beta2-microglobulinuria and aminoaciduria /was McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 570 of 953

found/ in 39 uranium mill workers. /Uranium compounds/ See Reference 415. (13.61.15) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ This accident occurred

in a copper-reflected 90% enriched uranium core assembly. The operator incorrectly transcribed the thickness of the reflector to be used and dropped the upper copper hemisphere onto the bottom assembly. When this happened, he saw a flash of light. He then left the area and reported the accident to the engineer and health physicist. The fission yield was estimated to be about 2X10+17 in one burst and a total of 1X10+19 fissions. The experimenter received an unusually high neutron/gamma ratio (about 15) with estimated doses of 45 Gy from neutrons and 3.5 Gy from gamma rays. Doses to the hands were estimated to be 200 to 300 Gy. ... Edema on the hands and forearms, as well as pain, was severe and by 24 hours there was moist desquamation. Also at 24 hours postexposure the chest radiograph indicated interstitial edema. At the end of the second day, there was marked hypotension and oliguria ... . Because of the life-threatening nature of the combined local and whole-body injuries, amputation of both arms at the mid-humeral level was performed on the third day. After this, there was continued hypotension ... . The patient died 66 hours postexposure. /Enriched uranium/ See Reference 416. (13.61.16) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ The accident occurred

in ... 1999 during preparation of ... enriched uranium oxide powder... . There was a blue flash... ; Patient S recalls feeling pain in the neck, chest, arms, and hands and had numbness in some fingers. Patients O an S left for a decontamination shower ... . Patient O vomited several times with in 5 to 25 minures and lost consciousness for about 2 to 3 minutes. During transport /to a regional hospital/ Patient O vomited twice and had two episodes of diarrhea. Patient O was hypotensive .... All three patients were transferred /5 hr after the incident to a hospital specializing in radiological sciences/. Upon arrival, Patient O had erythema of the arms, face, and trunk and complained of pain in the jaw and abdomen. His blood pressure recovered /with treatment/. Diarrhea continued for 4 days ... The dose was estimated McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 571 of 953

/to be 16 to > 20 Gy/. Patient S felt nausea within an hr and vomited several times in the ambulance. Upon arrival at the hospital, his face was tender and swollen and there was salivary inflammation. His dose was estimated /to be 6 to 10.4 Gy/. ... Patient Y had slight nausea on the way to the hospital ... /and/ transient hypoxemia. There was never any epilation. /The estimated dose was 1to 4.5 Gy./ He had mild bone marrow depression that recovered and he was discharged on day 82 postexposure. Treatment ... during the first 3 days was directed at inhalation of uranium, control of the gastrointestinal syndrome, electrolyte and fluid balance, prevention of bone marrow failure by administration of G-CSF (200 to 500 ug/day), and control of vascular injury by administration of pentoxifylline (900 mg/day orally). /Despite a peripheral bone marrow stem cell transplant from a sister and other treatments, Patient O/died from multiple organ failure on day 83 postexposure. Patient S received a female fetal cord blood transplant /and medications/ to prevent graft-vs.-host disease. ... He was also given rG-CSF (5 to 10 ug/kg) and erythropoietin (100 IU/kg) ... and thrombopoietin (5 ug/kg) ... Radiation stomatitis appeared at day 10 postexposure and erythema and blistering of the hands and feet began on day 21. Epilation also occurred ... . /Six to seven months post-exposure he developed chronic, antibioticresistant pneumonia and severe radiation fibrosis of the skin ... He developed renal failure and died 211 days postexposure. /Enriched uranium oxide/ See Reference 417. (13.61.17) /CASE REPORTS/ /KIDNEY/ Delayed renal effects were observed after a male

worker at a uranium enrichment plant was accidentally exposed to a high concentration of uranium tetrafluoride powder for about 5 minutes in a closed room. While renal parameters were normal during an initial 30-day observation period, the patient showed signs of nephrotoxicity beginning at postaccident day 68 as indicated by significantly elevated levels of urinary proteins, nonprotein nitrogen, amino acid nitrogen/creatinine, and decreased phenolsulfonpthalein excretion rate. These abnormalities persisted through day 1,065 but gradually returned to normal values. The authors used uranium urinalysis data and a pharmacokinetic model to estimate a kidney dose of 2.6 ug uranium/g kidney on McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 572 of 953

post-accident day 1. /Uranium tetrafluoride powder/ See Reference 418. (13.61.18) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ A retrospective cohort study was conducted among

6,781 white male employees who had worked at /an/ Oak Ridge ... nuclear material fabrication plant for at least 30 days during 1947-74; vital status was determined for 6477 workers, and the cohort was followed-up until the end of 1979. Among 3,490 monitored workers, the mean cumulative alphaparticle dose to the lung was 82 mSv (range, 0-3.1 Sv), and the mean cumulative external whole-body penetrating dose from gamma-radiation was 9.6 mSv (0-4.3 Sv). When compared with the rates for white men in the USA, the mortality rates from all causes combined, cardiovascular diseases and from most site-specific cancers were decreased. Increased rates of cancers of the lung, brain and central nervous system were seen in comparison with national and state rates... /Enriched uranium/ See Reference 419. (13.61.19) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ It is well known that uranium miners are at an

increased risk of lung cancer. Whether they also have an increased risk for other cancer sites remains under discussion. The aim of this study was to examine the leukemia risk among miners. ... An individually matched case-control study of former uranium miners in East Germany was conducted with 377 cases and 980 controls. ... Using conditional logistic regression models, a dose-response relationship between leukemia risk and radon progeny could not be confirmed. Yet, a significantly elevated risk is seen in the category > or = 400 mSv when combining gamma-radiation and long-lived radionuclides. /The authors concluded that/ the results suggest that an elevated risk for leukemia is restricted to employees with a very long occupational career in underground uranium mining or uranium processing... /Uranium mining/ See Reference 420. (13.61.20) EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ In a population based retrospective cohort study

/the authors/ studied cancer risk in Danish soldiers deployed to the war in the Balkans. In particular, leukemia, earlier linked to ammunition enforced with depleted uranium (DU) in other deployed McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 573 of 953

soldiers, was a concern. Military personnel, 13,552 men and 460 women, without known cancer at first deployment to the Balkans, January 1, 1992 to December 31, 2001 were followed through December 2002. ...96 cases of cancer, 84 among men (standardized incidence ratio (SIR) 0.9) and 12 among women (SIR 1.7) /were found/ . Only four male bone cancers (SIR 6.0), with three during the first year of follow-up, exceeded expectations. Earlier reports on increased risk of leukemia and testis cancer among deployed military personnel to the Balkans are not corroborated by /this/ study. /Depleted uranium/ See Reference 241. (13.61.21) /BIOMONITORING/ /GENOTOXICITY/One of the negative environmental

impacts of the last armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the use of radioactive ammunition containing depleted uranium. The United Nations Environment Programme measurements detected higher radioactivity at several examined sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina. One of those places is in the area of Hadzici, close to Sarajevo. This research included an evaluation of genetic load in human lymphocytes due to exposure to depleted uranium. The study included individuals who were located in the area of Hadzici and who were directly exposed to depleted uranium. The control blood samples were taken from individuals who lived in West Herzegovina which is considered environmentally uncontaminated. The results of the micronucleus cytochalasin-B test in peripheral blood lymphocytes showed increased micronuclei frequencies in the exposed group. /Depleted uranium/ See Reference 422. (13.61.22) Inhalation of poorly solubilizable uranium particles results in a radiologic risk to

the lung. Other target organs for radiation effects are tracheobronchial lymph nodes, bone, bone marrow, and kidney. It has generally been estimated that the radiation risk does not exceed the chemical nephrotoxicity for soluble uranium until the enrichment is 5% to 8% uranium-235 by weight, but the relative risk between chemical and radiation risks continues to be an open question. /Poorly soluble uranium particles/ See Reference 423. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 574 of 953

(13.61.23)

Prolonged contact with the skin might cause radiation damage to the skin.

/Uranium and insol cmpd as uranium/ See Reference 424. (13.61.24) 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, uranium-235 comprises <1% of natural uranium, but is enriched during the production of nuclear fuels. Higher fractions of uranium-235 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. /Uranium compounds/ See Reference 425. (13.61.25) Uranium from the environment enters the human body by ingestion with food and

drink and by inhalation of respirable airborne uranium-containing dust particles or aerosols. Daily intake of uranium in food and water varies from approximately 1 to approximately 5 micrograms U/d daily in uncontaminated regions to 13-18 micrograms/d or more in uranium mining areas. A 70 kg, non-occupationally exposed 'Reference Man' living in Europe or in the United States has an estimated total body uranium content of about 22 micrograms. Uranium is absorbed from the intestine or by the lungs, enters the bloodstream, and is rapidly deposited in the tissues, predominantly kidney and bone, or excreted in the urine. In the bloodstream, uranium is associated with red cells, and its clearance is relatively rapid. Renal toxicity is a major adverse effect of uranium, but the metal has toxic effects on the cardiovascular system, liver, muscle and nervous system as well. Any possible direct risk of cancer or other chemical- or radiation-induced health detriments from uranium deposited in the human body is McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 575 of 953

probably less than 0.005% in contrast to an expected indirect risk of 0.2% to 3% through inhaling the radioactive inert gas radon, which is produced by the decay of environmental uranium-238 ... /Uranium compounds/ See Reference 426. (13.61.26) A chronic kidney burden of 3 mg-U/g-kidney has historically been the basis for

development of action levels for bioassay monitoring of workers who are chronically exposed to uranium (Hursh and Spoor 1973). Studies by Morrow et al. (1982) with the highly transportable and toxic form of uranium, UO2F2, indicated that steady-state kidney concentrations of 3 mg/g in dogs were sufficient to produce indications of uranium poisoning...See Reference 427. (13.61.27) A complete history and physical examination: The purpose is to detect existing

conditions that might place the exposed employee at increased risk, and to establish a baseline for future health monitoring. Exam of respiratory system, blood, liver, lymphatic system, and kidneys should be stressed. Skin should be examined for evidence of chronic disorders. A complete blood count: Since uranium is deposited in the bone & is an alpha particle emitter, the function of the bone marrow is at risk. A complete blood count should be performed incl a red cell count, a white cell count, a differential count of a stained smear, as well as hemoglobin and hematocrit. ... Surveillance of the lung is indicated. Urinalysis: Although not reported with insol uranium cmpd, kidney damage has been reported due to uranium exposure. A urinalysis should be performed, including at a minimum specific gravity, albumin, glucose, & microscopic of centrifuged sediment. Periodic medical exam: The aforementioned medical examination should be repeated on an annual basis. In addition, a determination of urinary uranium levels should be performed at any time overexposure is suspected or signs and symptoms of toxicity occur. /Uranium and sol and insol compounds (as uranium)/ See Reference 428. (13.61.28) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: Human exposure to uranium occurs

primarily in the workplace by inhaling dust and other small particles. Exposure to insoluble uranium McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 576 of 953

oxides and uranium metal via inhalation results in retention of these forms of uranium in the lungs and other tissues with little excretion in the urine. Soluble forms of uranium salts are poorly absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract, but these small amounts can be reflected in urinary measurements. Some uranium can be absorbed from food and water, especially in areas where large amounts of uranium occur naturally. Soluble uranium compounds may exhibit some dermal absorption. Exposure to depleted uranium (DU) can occur after internal contact with DU-containing shrapnel or dust(1). See Reference 429. (13.61.29) 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 430. IODINE, RADIOACTIVE (13.62) The Online Magazine of the Institute for Southern Studies published web page article,

entitled: Radioactive water contamination found at N.C. nuke plant, dated June 2007, which says the following (quotation marks omitted): (13.62.1) The nuclear industry likes to promote itself as a clean energy source -- a message

that's a key theme in its current public-relations offensive promoting its product as the environmentally benign alternative to dirty coal-fired power plants (13.62.2) But if nuclear energy is so "clean" and "non-polluting," how do its promoters McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 577 of 953

explain the discovery this week of tritium-contaminated water on the grounds of Progress Energy's Brunswick nuclear power plant on the Cape Fear River south of Wilmington, N.C.? (13.62.3) A radioactive isotope of hydrogen, tritium occurs naturally in the environment at

very low levels. It's also emitted during the operation of nuclear reactors, along with other radionuclides including cesium-137, iodine-131 and strontium-90. Biologically, tritium behaves like water, dispersing throughout the body and entering cells where it can have serious health effects, according to the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service (13.62.4) Exposure to tritium has been clinically proven to cause cancer, genetic mutations

and birth defects in laboratory animals. In studies conducted by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in 1991, a comprehensive review of the carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects of tritium exposure revealed that tritium packs 1.5 to 5 times more relative biological effectiveness (RBE), or biological change per unit of radiation (one rad or 0.01 gray), than gamma radiation or X-rays (13.62.5) The tritium at Brunswick was discovered during a routine environmental check by

Progress, in manholes near a pond that collects condensation from the plant's reactor cooling system and storm drain runoff, the State Port Pilot reports. While Progress employees work to trace the tritium to its source, a process expected to take about six weeks, company spokesperson Rick Kimble assures nearby residents there's nothing to worry about: (13.62.6) Kimble said Tuesday that, so far, there is no evidence that the radioactive element

has made its way off plant property and into area waters (13.62.7) "Tests from drinking water wells on-site show no traces of tritium, and we have no

evidence that drinking water has been affected," Kimble said in a company statement e-mailed Tuesday. "The discovery of tritium in the areas identified does not pose a health or safety hazard to the public. Tests also indicate that the measurable tritium is confined within the plants property boundaries." McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 578 of 953

(13.62.8)

However, that the contamination is limited to the plant property probably does little

to ease the concerns of those who have to work there, including contract security guards responsible for patrolling the entire property. (13.62.9) The news comes the same week the environmental group Greenpeace released a

report that found tritium from Canadian nuclear power plants is putting people at risk -- particularly young children and pregnant women. Because of the way they're designed and regulated, Canadian reactors release far more tritium into the environment than reactors in other countries -- 10 times higher than the release rates allowed in the United States and 100 times higher than allowed in Europe (13.62.10) (13.63) See Reference 334.

A web page article, entitled: FARMER EMERGENCY INFORMATION

REGARDING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT INCIDENTS, apparently published by the State of Pennsylvania, says: The radioactive materials having the greatest impact on agriculture are the radioiodines. Radioactive iodine is important because of its abundance in a reactor and its affinity for the pasture-cow-milk-food chain. Accidents not requiring protective action by the general public may still require removal of dairy cattle and/or feed from the contaminated area. See Reference 335. (13.63) A web page article, entitled: Radioactive milk found on farm near Sellafield, dated

16 April 2008, published by the Whitehaven News, says the following (quotation marks omitted): (13.63.1) MILK on a local farm in the Sellafield area has been contaminated by higher levels

of radioactivity which has entered the food chain. (13.63.2) Abnormal concentrations of iodine-129 have been detected and sampling is taking

place at other farms in the area to see if there are any traces of the same contamination. (13.63.3) The Environment Agency has given an assurance that there has been no health risk

from the radioactive iodine but how the increased amounts have got into the milk is still a mystery. (13.63.4) The contamination was picked up by Sellafields own monitoring team, which McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 579 of 953

routinely samples milk around local farms. (13.63.5) Iodine 129 is said to be present already in local milk but in very low

concentrations, sometimes undetectable. The higher levels have since gone down on the farm concerned. (13.63.6) There is no obvious explanation for the increase, the Environment Agencys

Andrew Mayall told the West Cumbria Sites Stakeholder Group, the independent health and safety watchdog for Sellafield. (13.63.7) Concentrations of iodine-129 in samples of milk from a local farm have

significantly increased in recent months but it is significant only in terms of it being an unusual trend, not in radiation doses to the public, he told the meeting in Whitehaven. (13.63.8) After the meeting, chairman David Moore, himself a former Sellafield milkman,

told The Whitehaven News: There has been no health risk whatsoever, but there was a significant increase for a short period of time and it is still a matter for concern. (13.63.9) We need to know where this has come from, how it has got into the food chain. It

could even have come from a cow which might have eaten a particle lying in a field. (13.63.10) Sellafield brought it to light themselves. Nobody is trying to hide anything and

the last thing we want is people not buying local milk, but at the same time the local community needs some more reassurance. (13.63.11) The Environment Agency says it is still carrying out investigations which include

analysing samples from another nearby farm. (13.63.12) Samples are normally taken on Mondays in an area stretching from Drigg to

Egremont but no further increased levels have yet been detected. (12.60.13) sea. (13.63.14) Sellafield Ltd said: Any presence of iodine-120 in milk could be down to either McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 580 of 953 Iodine-129 is released as a result of fuel reprocessing at Sellafield, but mostly to

historic or existing discharges from the site. (13.63.15) Asked what levels would be dangerous to humans, spokeswoman Ali McKibbin

said: At the levels we have monitored a person would have to drink 75,000 litres of milk to receive the dose limit for members of the public. (13.63.16) David Moore added I have been selling milk all my life and I had no idea that

iodine-129 was already there. We rely on the Environment Agency and the Food Standards Agency to keep us abreast of situations like this. (13.63.17) Many gallons of milk on local farms had to be poured away after the 1957

Windscale Fire but Sellafield say that only small amounts of iodine-129 was released then, the majority from the plutonium Windscale pile reactor was iodine-131. (13.63.18) (13.64) See Reference 336.

TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Iodine has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which is as follows: (13.64.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of iodine and its

compounds. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of iodine, refer to the IODINE, ELEMENTAL record. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including iodine, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.64.2) Radioactive iodine is usually emitted as a gas, but may contaminate liquids or solid

materials as well. It dissolves in water so it moves easily from the atmosphere into humans and other living organisms. Radioactive iodine can be inhaled as a gas or ingested in food or water. For example, iodine-129 and iodine-131 can settle on grass where cows can eat it and pass it to humans through their milk. See Reference 431. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 581 of 953

(13.64.3)

There is sufficient evidence in humans that exposure during childhood to short-

lived radioisotopes of iodine, including iodine-131, in fall-out from reactor accidents and nuclear weapons detonations causes thyroid cancer. /Iodine-131/ See Reference 432. (13.64.4) There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of

mixed beta-particle emitters (iodine-131, cesium-137, cerium-144 and radium-228). /Iodine, Cesium, Cerium, Radium/ See Reference 433. (13.64.5) /CASE REPORTS/... /Iodine-131/ given in millicurie doses can damage or ablate

the developing thyroid of the human fetus. Hypothyroidism, either congenital or of late onset, has been reported in at least 5 children whose mothers were treated with iodine-131 during pregnancy. /Iodine131/ See Reference 434. (13.64.6) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Cancer/ .../A study/ based on 107 cases /of thyroid

cancer/ diagnosed in Belarus /was conducted/. Although a strong relationship between estimated radiation dose and thyroid cancer was found, thyroid doses were inferred for children from estimates for adults who lived in the same villages. The second /study/ is based on confirmed cases of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents aged 0-19 years at the times of the accident, residing in the more highly contaminated areas of the Bryansk Oblast of Russia. Based on 26 cases and 52 controls /(randomly selected from the same region as the case, matched on age, sex, and type of settlement)/ and using a log-linear dose-response model treating estimated individual thyroid radiation dose as a continuous variable, the trend of increasing risk with increasing dose was statistically significant (onesided p=0.009). /The major contributor to thyroid dose from the Chernobyl fallout is iodine-131. Lesser contributions from iodine-132 and iodine-133 external radiation. Individual accumulated dose to the thyroid estimated based on environmental measurements and individual dosimetry interviews./ The third /study/ is a population-based case-control study of thyroid cancer carried out in contaminated regions of Belarus and the Russian Federation. The study included 276 cases and 1300 /age and sex/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 582 of 953

matched controls aged <15 years at the time of the accident. Individual doses were calculated for each subject. A very strong dose-response relationship was observed in this study (p<0.0001). At one Gy, the odds ratio (OR) varied form 5.5 (95% confidence interval 3.1, 9.5) to 8.4 (95% confidence interval 4.1, 17.3) depending on the form of the risk model used. A clear linear dose-response relationship was observed up to about one Gy, followed by a marked flattening. The risk appeared to be mainly related to exposure to iodine-131. Collectively, data from these studies suggest that exposure to radiation from Chernobyl is associated with an increased risk of thyroid cancer, and that the relationship is dosedependent. These findings are consistent with descriptive reports from contaminated areas of Ukraine and Belarus, and the quantitative estimate of thyroid cancer risk is generally consistent with estimates from other radiation-exposed populations. /Iodine-131 fallout/ See Reference 435. (13.64.7) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /THYROID/ Extensive evaluation of the population

of the Marshall Islands has shown an increase in benign and malignant thyroid nodules in residents of the northern atolls of Rongelap and Utirik. In addition, a retrospective cohort study of over 7,000 Marshall Islanders showed that the prevalence of palpable thyroid nodularity (>/ =1.0 cm) decreased linearly with increased distance from the Bikini test site. /Radioactive fallout containing iodine/ See Reference 436. (13.64.8) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /Acute Radiation Syndrome and Thyroid Effects/

Marshall Islands BRAVO Test. Shortly after the BRAVO test, residents on three of the Marshall Islands were identified as having been exposed to external gamma radiation during the 2 days prior to their evacuation : 64 residents of Rongelap (1.90 Gy, 190 rad), 18 residents of Ailingnae (1.10 Gy, 110 rad) and 150 residents of Utrik (0.11 Gy, 11 rad) ? .Estimated total absorbed doses to the thyroid gland (external and internal) were 3.3 to 20 Gy (330 to 2,000 rad) on Rongelap (highest doses in children), 1.3 to 4.5 Gy (130 to 450 rad) on Ailingnae, and 0.3 to 0.95 Gy (30-95 rad) on Utrik. As part of a medical evaluation program, these individuals, the so-called BRAVO cohort, were evaluated McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 583 of 953

periodically for health consequences of their exposures. Evidence of acute radiation sickness was prevalent early after exposures, including nausea and vomiting, hematological suppression, and dermal radiation burns. Cases of thyroid gland disorders began to be detected in the exposed population in 1964, 10 years after the exposure, particularly in exposed children; these included cases of apparent growth retardation, myxedema, and thyroid gland neoplasms. In 1981, when the children from Rongelap island were screened, it was discovered that 83% of the children who were <1 year of age at the time of the BRAVO test were found to have evidence of hypothyroidism (i.e., a serum concentration of TSH >5 mU/L). This group of children had received an estimated thyroid dose exceeding 1,500 rad (15 Gy). Prevalence of hypothyroidism and thyroid radiation dose decreased with exposure age: 25% for ages 2 to 10 years (800 to 1,500 rad, 8 to15 Gy) and 9% for ages > or = to 10 years (335 to 800 rad, 3.35 to 8.00 Gy). Prevalences in the exposed groups from Ailignae were 8% for exposure ages >10 years (135 to 190 rad, 1.35 to 1.90 Gy) and 1% on Utrik (30 to 60 rad, 0.3 to 0.6 Gy). In an unexposed group (Rongelap residents who were not on the island at the time of the BRAVO test), the prevalence was 0.3 to 0.4%. At about the same time, in 1964, cases of palpable thyroid gland nodules began to be identified in health screening programs. The prevalence of thyroid nodularity had an age/dose profile similar to that of thyroid hypofunction (i.e., elevated serum TSH). In 1981, thyroid nodules were found in 77% Rongelap residents exposed before the age of 10 years and in 13% of those exposed after 10 years. Prevalence in the Ailingnae populations was 29% in the population of children exposed before age 10 years and 33% in the population exposed after age 10 years. In the Utrik population, the prevalence of thyroid nodules was 8% in the population of children exposed before age 10 years and 12% in the population exposed after age 10 years. The prevalence of thyroid gland carcinoma, mainly papillary carcinomas, also appeared to be elevated in the exposed Rongelap population (6%) compared to the unexposed group (1%). ... /Radioactive fallout containing iodine/ See Reference 437. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 584 of 953

(13.64.9)

/EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /THYROID/ Subsequent to the release of

radioactive materials from the Chernobyl power plant in 1986, an increased prevalence of thyroid nodules in children of the Belarus region was reported. An analysis of the results of ultrasound screening of 20,785 people in Belarus conducted during the period 1990-1995 revealed a prevalence of thyroid gland nodules that ranged from 4 to 22 per 1,000. Prevalence was highest (16 to 22 per 1,000) among residents from districts in which thyroid radiation doses were estimated to have been above 1 Gy (1.3 to 1.6 Gy, 130 to 160 rad). Verified diagnoses from patients who were referred for further examination as a result of ultrasound results revealed a prevalence of thyroid cancer of 2.5 to 6.2 per 1,000, or approximately 13 to 50% of nodule cases, among cases from districts where thyroid radiation doses were estimated to have been above 1 Gy (1.3 to 1.6 Gy, 130 to160 rad). Adenoma was diagnosed in 7 to 12% of thyroid nodule cases, nodular goiter was diagnosed in 5 to 22% of the thyroid nodule cases, and 7 to 64% of the nodule cases were diagnosed as benign cysts. ? The results of other thyroid screening programs (e.g., the Chernobyl Sasakawa Health and Medical Cooperation Project) also suggest a high prevalence of goiter among people born in Belarus between the years 1976 and 1986, which would be consistent with a high prevalence of iodine deficiency in the population. Therefore, iodine deficiency may have contributed to the observed thyroid nodularity and also may be a confounding variable in susceptibility to thyroid cancer. /Radioactive iodine and thyroid deficiencies/ See Reference 438. (13.64.10) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /THYROID CANCER/ The thyroid gland receives

the highest radiation dose of any organ or tissue following an internal exposure to radioiodine and, therefore, cancer of the thyroid gland is the major health concern associated with radioiodine exposures. Children, in particular, are highly vulnerable to radioiodine toxicity. Cancer morbidity and mortality among populations that received exposures to radioiodine have been examined in several large-scale epidemiology studies. In general, these studies fall into several categories that can be McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 585 of 953

distinguished by the sources of exposure and estimated radiation doses to the thyroid gland and include: (1) exposure to high doses (10 to 20 mCi, 370 to 740 MBq; >10,000 rad, >100 Gy) achieved when iodine-131 is administered to treat hyperthyroidism ...; (2) exposures to moderately high doses (40 to 70 ?Ci, 1.5-2.6 MBq; 80 to 130 rad, cGy) associated with clinical administration of iodine-131 for diagnosis of thyroid gland disorders; (3) low doses from exposures to fallout from nuclear bomb tests (BRAVO test, 300 to 2,000 rad, cGy; Nevada Test Site, 1 to 40 rad, cGy); (4) low to high doses from exposures to releases from nuclear power plant accidents (Chernobyl, 10 to 500 rad, cGy); and (5) low to high environmental exposures from operational releases from nuclear fuel processing plants (Hanford Nuclear Site, 0.0001 to 284 rad, cGy). As a point of reference, the dose-response relationship for thyroid cancer and external radiation appears to extend down to thyroid doses of 0.1 Gy (10 rad) and predicts an excess relative risk (ERR) of 7/Gy for ages <15 years at exposure. Studies of thyroid cancers and external radiation exposure have found a strong dependence of thyroid cancer risk on age at exposure ? and this increased risk persists, possibly for the lifetime. This same general trend in agedependence would be expected for internal exposures to radioiodine? . Breast cancer is also a concern with exposures to high levels of radioiodine after ablative therapy for hyperthyroidism because breast expresses NIS and can transport and accumulate iodide. However, the epidemiological literature to date has not implicated such exposures as a significant risk factor for breast cancer. /Radioactive iodine from medical tests and fallout/ See Reference 439. (13.64.11) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ THYROID/ Within nine years after the

thermonuclear explosion at Bikini in 1954, thyroid nodules were noted in children on Rongelap atoll, who had received the highest dose. Of those aged < 10 years, 67% developed nodules. The doses to the thyroid were estimated to be 10-43 Gy. Five children who were exposed when below the age of five years showed growth retardation, which was most prominent among children aged 1-1.5 at the time of exposure. The incidence of subclinical hypothyroidism was 31% among children who were < 10 years McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 586 of 953

old at the time of exposure to estimated doses of > 2 Gy from iodine-131. /Radioiodine fallout/ See Reference 440. (13.64.12) Radioactive fall-out from a thermonuclear explosion at Bikini in the Pacific Ocean

was deposited on the Marshall Islands in 1954. Inhalation and ingestion of radioactive iodine (mainly iodine-131, iodine-132, iodine-133, iodine-134) by the population resulted in significant internal exposure. Twenty-five years later, the population on the nearby atoll of Rongelap still showed a significantly impaired thyroid reserve, while at least four of 43 persons suffered from thyroid malfunction. Three of these were estimated to have received doses < 3.5 Gy. /Iodine radioisotopes/ See Reference 441. (13.64.13) Radioiodine not only locally irradiates the thyroid gland but also becomes

associated with thyroid hormones, thus influencing other organs of the body. Thyroid cancers can be differentiated (papillary, follicular and medullary) or undifferentiated (anaplastic carcinoma). The thyroid cancer known to be caused by ionizing radiation is papillary carcinoma, as shown among the atomic bomb survivors and recently in the Chernobyl area. In a study of 577 Ukrainian patients less than 19 years of age in whom thyroid cancer was diagnosed, 290 cases were evaluated histopathologically and > 90% were found to be papillary carcinomas. Similar frequencies were seen in a study in the USA of 4,296 patients previously irradiated for benign disorders: thyroid cancers were found in 41 children (mean age at diagnosis, 16 years), of which 95% were papillary carcinomas. Thyroid nodules have also been related to exposure to radioiodine. /Radioiodine/ See Reference 442. (13.64.14) Results from studies of atomic bomb survivors and persons exposed to external

irradiation have shown that exposure at the youngest ages is associated with the greatest risk of thyroid cancer. The available data on exposure from the Chernobyl accident are largely in agreement with this observation. For example, a recent paper found the highest incidence of thyroid cancer among those exposed at ages 0-4, who also had the highest doses. See Reference 443. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 587 of 953

(13.64.15)

It has also been postulated that the risk of thyroid cancer may be especially high

among persons exposed in utero, as developing fetal thyroid tissue may be highly susceptible to thyroid cancer induction by iodine-131 exposure. /Iodine-131/ See Reference 444. TRITIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.65) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Tritium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.65.1) This record contains information for tritium, an isotope of hydrogen. For general

information on radiation, such as transportation, sampling, analytical methods, regulations, and spill clean-up, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.65.2) /HUMAN EXPOSURE STUDIES/ The body does not readily absorb H2, HT, HD,

D2, DT, or T2 from inhaled gases or through the skin. If inhaled in elemental form, almost all tritium in the gas is exhaled. Only a very small fraction is retained in the lungs. Tritium in the form of water (HTO, DTO, and T2O) is adsorbed through the skin and in the lungs from inhaled gases. Tritium in water form is readily retained in the body and remains with a biological half-life of approximately 10 days. Due to the body's ready adsorption of tritium in the form of tritiated water, exposure to tritiated water in air is on the order of 15,000 to 25,000 times more hazardous than exposure to gaseous tritium (HT, DT, and T2). See Reference 445. (13.65.3) /CASE REPORTS/ A woman was accidentally exposed to tritiated gas that escaped

from glass capillary tubes. She incorporated about 35 GBq (1 Ci) of tritiated water. After several hours of delay, treatment was initiated to reduce the exposure by enhanced fluid intakes and forced diuresis. She was followed for chromosomal aberrations for 11 years. The authors monitored the number of dicentric chromosomes found in lymphocytes, and found that they have fallen over the years with a half-time of 3.3 years... See Reference 446. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 588 of 953

(13.65.4)

/BIOMONITORING/ /GENOTOXICITY/ Tritium is a radionuclide uniformly

absorbed by the body. The purpose of cytomorphological and cytochemical leukocytes examination in tritium-affected workers was early detection of initial health disorder caused by tritium contamination. Cytoplasm and nuclear morphological changes were analyzed by colored blood smear microscopy. The enzyme activity in granulocytes was examined by cytochemical methods. Morphological changes were found in 47.17% of the subjects (N=53) and in 2% (N=52) of the controls. Chromosomal aberrations in lymphocytes were found in 49.05% of the exposed workers and in 2% of the controls. The granulocytes enzyme activities were significantly diminished in the exposed workers (p < or =0.001). The average level of beta radiation found in the urine of those affected by tritium was 3.46 kBq/L, while it was significantly lower in the others: 0.35 kBq/L. The enzyme activity decreases after 5 yr of tritium exposure. Nuclear and cytoplasm changes as well as lowered enzyme activity in granulocytes were found in tritium-contaminated workers. Interdependence of cytomorphological and cytochemical changes was established. There was no correlation between cytochemical changes and granulocytes count. See Reference 447. (13.65.5) Tritium ... does not constitute an external radiation hazard. However, tritium

presents a serious hazard through ingestion and subsequent exposure of vital body tissue to internal radiation. See Reference 448. (13.65.6) The median lethal dose (LD50) of tritium assimilated by the body is estimated to be

370 GBq (10 Ci). Higher doses can be tolerated with forced fluid intake to reduce the biological half life. See Reference 449. (13.65.7) Risk coefficients for inhalation of radionuclides are expressed as the probability of

radiogenic cancer mortality or mobidity per unit intake, where the intake is averaged over all ages and both genders. ...Mortality and morbidity risk coefficients for inhalation /of Hydrogen (H-3, particulate), fast absorption type and gastrointestinal uptake of 1.0 are/ 3.61X10-13 Bq-1 and 5.28X10-13 Bq-1, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 589 of 953

/respectively/. /For medium absorption type and GI uptake of 0.1 the risk coefficients are/ 4.58X10-12 Bq-1 and 5.38X10-12 Bq-1. /For slow absorption and GI uptake of 0.01 the risk coefficients are/ 2.12X10-11 Bq-1 and 2.30X10-11 Bq-1. Mortality and morbidity risk coefficients for inhalation /of Hydrogen (H-3, water vapor) with GI uptake of 1.0 are/ 1.04X10-12 Bq-1 and 1.52X10-12 Bq-1 /respectively/. /For Hydrogen (H-3, elemental gas) with GI uptake of 1.0 are/ 1.04X10-16 Bq-1 and 1.52X10-16 Bq-1. /from table/ See Reference 450. (13.65.8) Risk coefficients for ingestion of radionuclides in tap water or food are expressed as

the probability of radiogenic cancer mortality or morbidity per unit intake, where the intake is averaged over all ages and both genders. ...Mortality and morbidity risk coefficients for ingestion of water and food /for Hydrogen (H-3, tritiated water) with a gastrointestinal uptake of 1.0:/ Tap water intakes9.44X10-13 Bq-1 and 1.37X10-12 Bq-1 /respectively/; Dietary intakes- 1.20X10-12 Bq-1 and 1.76X10-12 Bq-1. Mortality and morbidiey risk coefficients for ingestion of water and food /for Hydrogen (H-3, organically bound) with a GI uptake of 1.0:/ Tap water intakes- 2.09X10-12 Bq-1 and 3.03X10-12 Bq-1, /respectively/; Dietary intakes- 2.66X10-12 Bq-1 and 3.89X10-12 Bq-1. /from table/ See Reference 451. (13.65.9) Tritium is a radionuclide uniformly absorbed by the body. The purpose of

cytomorphological and cytochemical leukocytes examination in tritium-affected workers was early detection of initial health disorder caused by tritium contamination. Cytoplasm and nuclear morphological changes were analyzed by colored blood smear microscopy. The enzyme activity in granulocytes was examined by cytochemical methods. Morphological changes were found in 47.17% of the subjects (N=53) and in 2% (N=52) of the controls. Chromosomal aberrations in lymphocytes were found in 49.05% of the exposed workers and in 2% of the controls. The granulocytes enzyme activities were significantly diminished in the exposed workers (p < or =0.001). The average level of beta radiation found in the urine of those affected by tritium was 3.46 kBq/L, while it was significantly McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 590 of 953

lower in the others: 0.35 kBq/L. The enzyme activity decreases after 5 yr of tritium exposure. Nuclear and cytoplasm changes as well as lowered enzyme activity in granulocytes were found in tritiumcontaminated workers. Interdependence of cytomorphological and cytochemical changes was established. There was no correlation between cytochemical changes and granulocytes count. See Reference 452. (13.65.10) Tritium is a weak beta emitter that is not detectable by normal survey instruments

or by whole body counting. Detection of exposure is by urine samples, which show excretion immediately after exposure. The first voiding water exposure should not be used because dilution by preexposure urine may cause a falsely low reading. The sample is counted by liquid scintillation techniques. A conservative rough rule of thumb based on the peak urine concentration after a single acute exposure, is that 37 Bq (1 nCi)/L of tritum equates to a total integrated whole-body dose of about 100 uSv, if the person is not treated by forcing fluids. See 453. (13.65.13) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: NIOSH (NOES Survey 1981-1983) has

statistically estimated that 5,947 workers (1,110 of these are female) are potentially exposed to tritium in the US(1). Occupational exposure may occur through inhalation and dermal contact with this compound at workplaces where tritium is produced or used(SRC). Monitoring data indicate that the general population may be exposed to tritium via ingestion of water and food, and dermal contact with tritium in rainfall and atmospheric samples(SRC). Human exposure to tritium most often occurs in the form of tritiated water, THO(2). See Reference 454. STRONTIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.66) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Tritium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.66.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of strontium and its McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 591 of 953

compounds. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of strontium ions and strontium compounds, refer to the STRONTIUM COMPOUNDS record. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including strontium, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.66.2) Toxicity Summary: The beta-particle emitters strontium-90, yttrium-90 and 32-P-

phosphate ... are bone-seeking radionuclides that attach to bone surfaces, from which they irradiate the marrow, and the depth of penetration of the radiation often exceeds that of similarly located alphaparticle emitters. Beta emissions from strontium-90 have a limited ability to penetrate through tissue. For that reason, radiostrontium must be internalized or placed in close contact with skin before adverse health effects will occur. The "bone-seeking" behavior of strontium is the basis for concern regarding oral or inhalation exposures to the radioactive isotopes, particularly strontium-90, with its long half-life of 29 years and highly energetic 0.546 MeV beta particles, plus the 2.2 MeV beta particles of its shortlived yttrium-90 decay product isotope. /Srontium-90, yttrium-90 and 32-P-phosphate/ See Reference 455. (13.66.3) There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of pure beta-particle emitters (hydrogen-3, phosphorus-32, strontium-90, yttrium-90, yttrium-91 and promethium-147). /Tritium, phosphorus-32, strontium-90, yttrium-91, promethium-147/ See Reference 456. (13.66.4) More than 25,000 residents were exposed to external gamma radiation as well as

internally from fission products (primarily from cesium-137, strontium-90, ruthinium-106, and zirconium-95) released into the Techa river from the nearby Mayak plutonium production facility, predominately in the early 1950s. There is some evidence of a statistically significant increase in total cancer mortality. Current estimates of the excess absolute risk (EAR) of leukemia in this cohort is 0.85 per 10,000 person-year Gy (95% confidence interval 0.2, 1.5), and for solid tumors the relative risk McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 592 of 953

estimate is 0.65 per Gy (95% confidence interval -0.3, 1.0). Median dose estimates for soft tissue in this cohort are 7 mSv (maximum 456 mSv), and for bone marrow are 253 mSv (maximum 2021 mSv). Estimates of the relative risk for cancer of the esophagus, stomach and lung are similar to those reported for atomic bomb survivors...An excess of thyroid cancer, 3-4 times expected relative to rates for all of Russia, has been observed... /Cesium-137, strontium-90, ruthinium-106, and zirconium-95 fission products/ See Reference 457. (13.66.5) Perinatal mortality rates in the regions of Ukraine and Belarus surrounding the

Chernobyl site increased in 1987, the year following the Chernobyl accident. The same year, increases of perinatal mortality were also observed in Germany and Poland, and the effect can be associated with the cesium burden in pregnant women. After 1989, there is an unexpected second rise of perinatal mortality in Belarus and Ukraine. This increase is shown to correlate with the strontium content in pregnant women. The findings parallel an increase of perinatal mortality in Germany following the atmospheric bomb tests in the 1950's and 1960's. While the effect from cesium is essentially limited to 1987, the effect from strontium persists until the end of the study period in 1998. The cumulative effect from strontium around Chernobyl outweighs the effect from cesium by at least a factor of 10. This is contrary to the assertion that the cesium content in the Chernobyl fallout was more than 10-times greater than the strontium content. Thus, the dose factor presently used seems to severely underestimate the effect of strontium on perinatal mortality. /Cesium and strontium fallout/ See Reference 458. (13.66.6) In the Techa River population that was exposed to radiostrontium and radiocesium

in drinking water and food between 1949 and 1956, an increase in the number of deaths from leukemia and solid cancers was reported. In the exposed group, the standardized mortality rate was 140 (95% CI: 131-150) per 100,000 compared to 105 (95% CI: 101-109) per 100,000 in the control group during the followup period (1950-1982). Absorbed doses to the red bone marrow in the study group were between 17.6 and 164 rad (0.176 and 1.64 Gy). No increase in cancer mortality was observed among offspring McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 593 of 953

of exposed individuals. /Radiostrontium and radiocesium/ 459. (13.66.7) /BIOMONITORING/ The results of a follow up of a group of fifty-two persons

carrying body burdens of strontium-90 and radium-226 for a period of about 2500 days are given...A significant increase in the rate of chromosomal aberrations could be demonstrated in cases with cumulative body burdens higher than 10 per cent of the maximum permissible... /Strontium-90 and radium-226/ See Reference 460.. (13.66.8) The hazard of strontium-90 is primarily that of internal contamination. In the body,

it is deposited mainly in the bones and due to its long biological half-life, it may result in beta-ray induced hemopoietic tissue lesions and malignant bone growth. /Strontium-90/ See Reference 461. (13.66.9) The Techa River population exposed to chronic combined external gamma radiation

and internal radiation due to strontium-90 and cesium-137 exhibited alterations in hematological parameters, including leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and granulocytopenia. These effects were observed in a portion of the exposed population that received radiation doses to the bone marrow at rates in excess of 30-50 rem (0.3-0.5 Sv) per year. These ... exposures were to multiple sources of radiation. /Strontium-90 and cesium-137/ See Reference 462. (13.66.10) Radioactive strontium has been shown to be genotoxic to human cells in vitro. In

lymphocytes from freshly-drawn human blood, doses of 0.2 to 5.0 Gy (0.002 to 0.05 rad) increased the frequency of chromosomal aberrations. Acentric aberrations (acentrics and double minutes) increased at > or = to 0.2 Gy (0.002 rad), dicentric aberrations increased at > or = to 0.5 Gy (0.005 rad), and there was a slight indication that the frequency of centric rings increased at > or = to 3.0 Gy (0.03). In the same study, results of an electrophoretic assay (comet assay) on single exposed lymphocytes revealed that DNA damage ... occurred at doses as low as 0.2 Gy (0.002 rad)... . Dose-related increases in micronucleus formation, predominantly derived from acentric chromosomes, were reported in human lymphocytes irradiated at doses between 0.3 and 3.0 Gy (0.003 and 0.030 rad). /Radioactive strontium/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 594 of 953

See Reference 463. (13.66.11) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: NIOSH (NOES Survey 1981-1983) has

statistically estimated that 4,656 workers (533 of these are female) are potentially exposed to strontium-90 in the US(1). Workers employed in the nuclear industry may be exposed to strontium-89 and strontium-90 through oral, dermal, and inhalation routes(2). The radioactive half-life of strontium89 is short in comparison to strontium-90; therefore, the potential exposure to workers and the general population is considerably lower for strontium-89 as compared to strontium-90. A case of accidental inhalation and dermal exposure to strontium-90 was reported for two workers handling waste containers holding strontium-90 waste(3). The strontium-90 intake for one of the workers was estimated as 2.6X10+5 Bq and was 6.6X10+4 Bq for the second employee(3). (13.66.12) Plants acquire strontium-90 through atmospheric deposition and uptake through

the roots. Root uptake from soil is the primary pathway. Cows, reindeer and other animals consume vegetation containing strontium-90 and ultimately it may be transferred to the human food chain via milk, beef, etc(1). (13.66.13) Body Burden: The distributions of strontium-90 in the body are significantly

different for males and females(1). As expected, the highest concentrations of strontium-90 are measured in the boney tissue. Males averaged and females averaged 10.4 and 65 pCi/kg (0.38 and 2.4 Bq/kg) wet weight, respectively(1). Males had a much higher concentration of strontium-90 in muscle tissue compared to females. The heart and psoas muscles had respective concentrations of strontium-90 for men averaging 13.9 and 18.7 pCi/kg (0.51 and 0.69 Bq) wet weight versus respective concentrations of 7.4 and 1.9 pCi/kg (0.27 Bq/kg and 70 mBq/kg) wet weight for females (1). The strontium-90 activities in teeth collected from the Ukraine ranged from 0.027 to 0.44 pCi/g(1). A worker that was accidently exposed to strontium-90 while handling waste containers had a strontium90 urinary excretion rate of approximately 544 Bq/day, one day post exposure(2). The urinary excretion McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 595 of 953

rate decreased exponentially and was <1 Bq/day 212 days later(2). See Reference 466. TECHNETIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.67) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Technetium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.67.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of technetium

compounds and technetium in the zero valance state; all technetium nuclides are radioactive. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including technetium, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of technetium and technetium compounds, refer to the TECHNETIUM ELEMENTAL and TECHNETIUM COMPOUNDS records. (13.67.2) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Special Considerations. Most symptoms from

radioactive product exposure are delayed; treat other medical or trauma problems according to normal protocols. An accurate history of the exposure is essential to determine risk and proper treatment modalities. The dose of radiation determines the type and clinical course of exposure: 100 rads: GI symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea). Symptom onset within a few hours. 600 rads: Several GI symptoms (necrotic gastroenteritis) may result in dehydration and death within a few days. Several thousand rads: neurological/cardiovascular symptoms (confusion, lethargy, ataxia, seizures, coma, cardiovascular collapse) within minutes to hours. Bone marrow depression, leukopenia, and infections usually follow severe exposures./Radioactives I, II, and III/ (13.67.3) Lifetime cancer mortality risk coefficients have been calculated for nearly all

radionuclides, including technetium. See table [on next page]. While the coefficients for ingestion are somewhat lower than for inhalation, ingestion is generally the most common means of entry into the body. Similar to other radionuclides, the risk coefficients for tap water are about 70% of those for McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 596 of 953

dietary ingestion. Radiological Risk Coefficients for Lifetime Cancer Mortality Risk Isotope Techetium-97 Inhalation (pCi-1) 7.6x10-13 Ingestion (pCi-1) 2.3x10-13 6.0x10-12 2.3x10-12

Technetium-98 2.6x10-11 Technetium-99 1.3x10-11

See Reference 468. (13.67.4) TECHNETIUM COMPOUNDS[:] 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 469. AMERICIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.68) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Americium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.68.1) This record contains information specific for compounds containing americium and

americium in the zero valence state; all americium nuclides are radioactive. For general information on radiation, such as transportation, sampling, analytical methods, regulations, and spill clean-up, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.68.2) There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 597 of 953

mixed alpha-particle emitters (radium-224, radium-226, thorium-227, thorium-228, thorium-230, thorium-232, neptunium-237, plutonium-238, plutonium-239 (together with plutonium- 240), americium-241, curium-244, californium-249 and californium-252). /Radium, Plutonium, Americium, Curium, Californium/ See Reference 470. (13.68.3) Internalized radionuclides that emit alpha-particles are carcinogenic to humans

(Group 1). In making this overall evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration the following: Alpha-particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, produce the same pattern of secondary ionizations and the same pattern of localized damage to biological molecules, including DNA. These effects, observed in vitro, include DNA doublestrand breaks, chromosomal aberrations, gene mutations and cell transformation. All radionuclides that emit alpha-particles and that have been adequately studied, including radon-222 and its decay products, have been shown to cause cancer in humans and in experimental animals. Alpha-particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, have been shown to cause chromosomal aberrations in circulating lymphocytes and gene mutations in humans in vivo. The evidence from studies in humans and experimental animals suggests that similar doses to the same tissues - for example lung cells or bone surfaces - from alpha- particles emitted during the decay of different radionuclides produce the same types of non-neoplastic effects and cancers. /Internalized alpha-emitters/ See Reference 471. (13.68.4) CASE REPORTS/ /WHOLE BODY IRRADIATION, Acute Effects/ In 1976, a 64-

yr-old operator was injured by a chemical explosion in a glove box used for americium-241 recovery /USTUR Case 246/. As a result of the accident, he was heavily contaminated with americium, sustained a substantial internal deposition of this isotope, was burned with nitric acid, and injured by flying debris about the face and neck. He was assisted from the accident scene by co-workers. His contaminated clothing was removed and decontamination begun by flushing his face and eyes with water. He was transported to an Emergency Decontamination Facility (EDF) by about 2 hr after the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 598 of 953

accident. Upon arrival, he was administered 1 g of calcium diethylenetriamine pentate (CaDTPA) iv and further decontaminated in a shower. Removal of superficial foreign matter from the face and neck and irrigation of the eyes with normal saline were carried out. Initial medical appraisal revealed nitric acid burns of the face, neck, and upper back permitting internal deposition of americium-241 in addition to the americium-241 inhaled. He had a productive cough associated with the inhaled acid fumes. The following is a summary of the medical care and evaluation during his stay at the EDF and transition discharge. Iv administration of DTPA continued with several daily doses for the first month, although the form was switched to ZnDTPA. Decontamination was undertaken twice daily for the first week and then once a day until discharge approximately 5 months after the accident. Fluid intake was encouraged to promote urinary excretion; all urine and fecal specimens were collected for radiobioassay. The principal medical problem was the patient's eyes, which had corneal nitric acid burns with superficial corneal and conjunctival foreign bodies which were excised or spontaneously extruded over a period of months. For the first 4 months, daily superficial debridement of the face and neck was performed without anesthesia to remove scales, crusts, scabs, and extruding bodies. The frequency of debridement was then decreased. Over several months, foreign bodies measuring up to 0.5 cm were extruded spontaneously or removed with forceps. Laboratory studies were conducted daily for the first 3 months and less frequently thereafter. These included a CBC, urinalysis, blood chemistry tests, and fecal occult blood. The results were normal except for a decline in the peripheral lymphocyte count on the day of the accident. It remained depressed for several months. Chest radiographs, pulmonary function tests, and electrocardiograms were normal (the patient had a history of acute myocardial infarction). Special studies included analyses of peripheral lymphocyte chromosomes, a facial skin biopsy, and a bone marrow aspiration. Radiation-induced cytogenetic lesions in lymphocytes were observed. The skin biopsy revealed scattered alpha "gistars". The bone marrow, examined 2 weeks after the accident, was normal, as were all other tests. A staff psychologist was involved in the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 599 of 953

care of the patient; after 2 1/2 months, the patient was transferred to a travel trailer adjacent to the EDF, which provided a transitional environment before discharge. After discharge, the patient received daily DTPA iv therapy by local medical professionals. In the summer after the accident, the patient developed acute iritis. A cataract was removed about 18 mo after the incident; it contained 0.019 Bq (0.5 pCi) of americium-241 but was thought to be traumatic in origin. A right cataract was extracted surgically one year later along with five small foreign bodies from the cornea and conjunctiva. About 6 1/2 yrs after the accident, drainage occurred from his right forehead. A corneal transplant was performed about 7 1/3 yrs after the accident. Bilateral glaucoma developed later. Eleven years after the accident, the man died of congestive heart failure with chronic coronary artery disease. Based on samples collected after his death, the estimated cumulative bone surface dose ranged from 120 to 510 Gy. The dose rate to the lungs varied from 0.12 Gy per day for the first day of exposure to 0.0001 Gy per day at death. The liver rate varied from 0.36 Gy per day to 0.0017 Gy per day at death. The bone dose was initially 0.011 Gy per day, dropping to 0.0038 Gy per day until 900 days post exposure when it gradually increased to 0.0051 Gy per day. During the years 6 to 10, the skin lost about 93 kBq (2.5 uCi) of americium-241, the bone gained about 67 Bq (1.8 uCi), the liver gained about 7.4 kBq (0.2 uCi), and about 30 Bq (0.8 uCi) was excreted. The total americium-241 excreted was 41 MBq (1.1 uCi) with almost half excreted in the first 3 days and DTPA therapy was judged to be very effective in preventing the deposition of life threatening doses of americium-241 to the bone and liver. DTPA was also effective in reducing the clearance half-time of the liver activity to about 20 days as compared with a predicted 20 years. The effect of DTPA therapy on lung clearance was not measurable. Clearance of americium-241 from the bone was not affected by DTPA except possibly during the first week. /Americium-241/ See Reference 472. (13.68.5) /CASE REPORTS/ /BONE/ Pathological changes ... were found in the bones of a

worker at the Hanford nuclear weapons plant who had been extensively contaminated with americiumMcKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 600 of 953

241 /USTUR Case 246/. When he died 11 years after his accident from a pre-existing heart condition, his skeleton contained an estimated 500 kBq of radionuclide - an amount that had already been much reduced by decorporation therapy from an initial estimated intake of 185 MBq. The bones examined were the patella, clavicle, sternum, rib, vertebral body and ossified thyroid cartilage; all showed evidence of radiation damage. The cellularity of most bones was reduced, and little evidence of recent active bone remodeling was seen in any bone other than the vertebra, as concluded from the redistribution of the americium in the vertebral body. In several bones, the architecture was disrupted, with woven bone, abnormal appositional bone deposits, bizarre trabecular structures and marked peritrabecular fibrosis. Growth arrest lines were common. When compared with trabecular bone modeling, that of cortical bone in the rib appeared less disrupted. Overall, the results obtained are consistent with those observed in dogs at a similar level of actinide intake. /Americium-241/ See Reference 473. (13.68.6) /CASE REPORTS/ /HEMATOPOIETIC SYSTEM/ /Eight yrs after a 64-year old

man was exposed to americium-241 in a chemical explosion/, leukopenia was evaluated by a hematologist. Diagnosis of a possible hypoproliferative, myeloproliferative, or myelodysplastic syndrome was considered. /USTUR Case 246/ /Americium-241/ (13.68.7) /CASE REPORTS/ /HEMATOPOIETIC SYSTEM/ ... The bone marrow of

/USTUR Case 246/ had been substantially damaged by alpha-irradiation from americium, principally on the bone surfaces. A ... finding was a marked decrease in bone marrow cellularity associated with dilatation of blood sinusoids. The severity of these effects varied according to site and was greatest in the vertebral body, where the marrow was almost acellular, and least in the clavicle. In addition, extensive peritrabecular marrow fibrosis was present in some bones, including the rib and clavicle. ... Fibrosis is a common observation in bones irradiated by bone-seeking radionuclides and has been linked to bone sarcoma induction. /Americium-241/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 601 of 953

(13.68.8)

/CASE REPORTS/ /WOUND CONTAMINATION/ Glovebox Accident Involving

Plutonium-Americium Contamination and Hand Amputation. An employee ... in plutonium fuel fabrication reached for an item in his glovebox and his glove was caught by a milling machine that tore off his right hand. /An hour later/ ... patient /arrived at the treatment center. ... The patient was surveyed for external contamination while in the ambulance. No widespread removable contamination was found, so the patient was brought in and placed on a decontamination table /at which time the attending physician/ learned that the patient had lost his right hand at the wrist. /A half-hr later/ the plant health physics supervisor arrived with the contaminated hand wrapped in plastic in an ice bucket. The hand was immediately counted ... and the patient's stump was counted ... with a ... NaI crystal. An initial estimate ... indicated ... an amount, if entering bone, /that/ could result in bone dose commitments in the tens of millions of rem ... Additional measurements /after ... debridements/ indicated that ... remaining contamination on the hand and stump was still more than 100 times the Maximum Permissible Body Burden (MPBB). .... The difficult decision was made by the patient and his family, as well as the involved physicians and health physicists, to reattach the hand despite its excessive residual radioactivity. Considerations included the youth of the worker, his right-handedness, location of the radioactivity, the availability of DTPA chelation therapy, and the likelihood of the patient's availability of multiyear observation. ... Unfortunately, circulation in the fingers of the reattached hand did not improve quickly enough for tissue survival, so the hand was reamputated, ... infused with formaldehyde and recounted ... showing about 4 uCi (about 100 MPBB) still on the surface. ... Since reamputation of the hand was done approximately an inch higher than the original accidental amputation, the reamputated hand turned out to contain practically all of the remaining contamination. ... The medical management of an injured and contaminated patient in this case required at least about two person-days of professional dedication of a medical-health physics team already experienced with accidents involving external and internal contamination with americium-plutonium mixtures; this input was in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 602 of 953

addition to collaboration with a number of other physicians and medical and health physics technicians. The average medical institution likely to receive contaminated victims of a terrorist attack will not have such personnel or equipment resources. Any expectation of a medical capacity for triage and management of such patients requires prior training and equipping of personnel in each medical institution for the simplest counting and spectrometric measurements, and ready-made methods of data interpretation. /Plutonium-239 and americium-241 nitrates/ See Reference 476. (13.68.9) /CASE REPORTS/ /WHOLE BODY IRRADIATION/ Another accidental exposure

... involved a glovebox explosion that released ... plutonium-239 and americium-241 /nitrates/. ... The external contamination was spectacular. Alpha count rates on the patient ... were up to 10+6 counts per minute, ... as high as we could read. Removable contamination was all over the body, with maxima of 10,000 alpha cpm on the face and 20,000 on the legs ... , after /initial decontamination/... . The contamination was finally reduced very sharply with the use of Schubert's solution /3.0 g/L tartaric acid, 4.2 g/L citric acid, 8.0 g/L disodium DTPA or EDTA, 2.2 g/L calcium chloride adjusted to pH 7 with NaOH/ ...This patient had the additional complication of wounds that ... served as a residual depot of the radioactive material. ... The scar tissue was subsequently excised because there was continued high activity in the area /and/ a very diffuse distribution of the material. Our initial in vivo measurements made one day after the incident ... /showed a / burden ... projected to produce ... an initial bone dose of about 1,500 rem per year. Thus, DTPA treatment was ... medically indicated, if effective. The next measurements presented are at 60 days and over the time period from 70 to 130 days, during which the body content fell gradually. Repeated DTPA treatments were given during this time /but/ the lung component of this body burden could still be measured by localized external counting for up to 1 yr after the accident. Thus, the rapid translocation from the lung expected from nitrate compounds of plutonium and americium did not materialize. ... Initial estimates of plutonium uptake into blood were obtained under the assumption ... that DTPA increased plutonium excretion by McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 603 of 953

about a factor of 50 on the day following treatment. The increase in urinary excretion of americium was a much lower factor (about 5 to 7); americium was later found to be more transportable from lung to systemic circulation and into urine than oxides of plutonium, even without treatment. Management lessons learned from this case ... are pertinent to the preparation of medical facilities expecting to evaluate and care for persons severely contaminated by a terrorist attack. There were long time periods between some of the urinary measurements, due to overloading of commercial laboratories that were not accustomed to analyzing many samples containing high amounts of plutonium and americium. This delayed decisions about DTPA effectiveness to some degree. In addition, the patient developed a paranoid outlook and ... underwent an episode that required psychiatric treatment. A suspected contributor to this complication was the fact that a number of different physicians ... might have presented different versions of his prognosis and consequent treatment. /Plutonium-239 and americium241 nitrates/ See Reference 477. (13.68.10) /CASE REPORTS/ The examinees demonstrated definite effects caused by total

influence of americium-241 and plutonium-239: chronic radiation sickness with diffuse pneumosclerosis, chronic toxic radiation bronchitis and peripheral blood changes (reactive alterations and stable lower platelets and reticulocytes count), microfocal hypoplasia, osteodysplasia, and reactive hepatopathy. Frequency of these effects increased with higher radiation exposure and did not depend on the age. /Americium-241 and plutonium-239/ See Reference 478. (13.68.11) /CASE REPORTS/ Histopathology and qualitative autoradiography studies were

undertaken on bone removed at autopsy from USTUR Case 246. The histopathology examination revealed extensive bone marrow peritrabecular fibrosis and decreased cellularity in most samples. In addition, histological indicators suggest that bone cell turnover was suppressed at most sites, although turnover was found to be essentially normal in a vertebral body sample. The autoradiographic studies showed that bone turnover that had occurred resulted in the redistribution of americium within bone. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 604 of 953

However, surface deposits of americium remained conspicuous at many sites, particularly those with low bone growth activity. A few percent of the americium was present in the bone marrow. The dosimetric and toxicology findings indicate that current assumptions about the metabolic behavior of bone-seeking radionuclides are likely to be unrealistically simplistic. /Americium-241/ See Reference 479. (13.68.12) /BIOMONITORING/ A radiation worker and his wife, college-age daughter, and

10-yr-old son ... were exposed for several yrs in their house to elevated levels of americium-241 that resulted in body burdens of 6.5 to 89 nCi (0.24 to 3.3 kBq) from a source used by the father for private experiments. Chromosomal aberrations in isolated leukocytes were noted to be similar to those observed in other cases of accidental or therapeutic exposure to external radiation sources. /Americium241/ See Reference 480. (13.68.13) /BIOMONITORING/ Chromosomal aberrations (symmetrical translocations and

dicentrics and ring chromosomes) in lymphocyte preparations were elevated for an entire group of 7 nuclear fuel production workers who were exposed for 11-22 yrs to external gamma radiation, with an additional internal exposure for 6 of these workers to americium-241 5 yrs prior to the analysis. The total effective dose equivalent from exposure to external gamma radiation and internal contamination with americium-241 /ranged from 29 to 393 mSv./ /Americium-241/ See Reference 480. (13.68.14) Populations at Special Risk: Infants exposed to levels of americium in food or

water similar as adults, or who ingest similar amounts of americium subsequent to an inhalation exposure, may absorb more americium and acquire a higher internal burden of americium. The ICRP assumes age-related differences in intestinal absorption of americium swallowed following clearance from the lungs. The fractional absorption value employed for a 3-month-old infant is a factor of 10 higher than for an adult. See Reference 481. (13.68.15) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: The general population may be exposed to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 605 of 953

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 482. NEPTUNIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.69) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Neptunium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.69.1) This record contains information for neptunium; all of its nuclides are radioactive. It

contains information for neptunium in the zero valence state as well as in compounds containing neptunium. For general information on radiation, such as transportation, sampling, analytical methods, regulations, and spill clean-up, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.69.2) ...There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of

neutrons. Overall evaluation. Neutrons are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). In making the overall evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration the following: When interacting with biological material, fission neutrons generate protons, and the higher-energy neutrons used in therapy generate protons and alpha particles. Alpha Particle-emitting radionuclides (e.g. radon) are known to be human carcinogens. The linear energy transfer of protons overlaps with that of the lower-energy electrons produced by gamma-radiation. Neutron interactions also generate gamma-radiation, which is a human carcinogen. Gross chromosomal aberrations (including rings, dicentrics and acentric fragments) and numerical chromosomal aberrations are induced in the lymphocytes of people exposed to neutrons. The McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 606 of 953

spectrum of DNA damage induced by neutrons is similar to that induced by X-radiation but contains relatively more of the serious (i.e. less readily repairable) types. Every relevant biological effect of gamma- or X-radiation that has been examined has been found to be induced by neutrons. Neutrons are several times more effective than X- and gamma-radiation in inducing neoplastic cell transformation, mutation in vitro, germ-cell mutation in vivo, chromosomal aberrations in vivo and in vitro and cancer in experimental animals. See Reference 483. (13.69.3) Internalized radionuclides that emit alpha-particles are carcinogenic to humans

(Group 1). In making this overall evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration the following: (1) Alpha-Particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, produce the same pattern of secondary ionizations and the same pattern of localized damage to biological molecules, including DNA. These effects, observed in vitro, include DNA double-strand breaks, chromosomal aberrations, gene mutations and cell transformation. (2) All radionuclides that emit alpha-particles and that have been adequately studied, including radon-222 and its decay products, have been shown to cause cancer in humans and in experimental animals. (3) Alpha-Particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, have been shown to cause chromosomal aberrations in circulating lymphocytes and gene mutations in humans in vivo. (4) The evidence from studies in humans and experimental animals suggests that similar doses to the same tissues, for example lung cells or bone surfaces, from alpha particles emitted during the decay of different radionuclides produce the same types of non-neoplastic effects and cancers. See Reference 484. (13.69.4) In the nuclear fuel cycle the transuranic radionuclides plutonium-239, americium-

s241 and neptunium-237 would probably present the most serious hazard to human health if released into the environment. ... The principal late effects of all three radionuclides are the induction of cancers of bone, lung or liver. For the latter tumors the induction risk per unit radiation dose appears similar for the three radionuclides. But in bone there are indications that, due to microscopic differences in the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 607 of 953

distribution of the alpha-particle radiation dose, the efficiency of bone cancer induction may increase in the order americium-241 less than plutonium-239 less than neptunium-237. No case of human cancer induced by these radionuclides is known. /Plutonium-239, americium-241 and neptunium-237/ See Reference 485. (13.69.5) LIFETIME CANCER MORTALITY RISK. Risks are for lifetime cancer mortality

per unit intake (pCi) averaged over all ages and both genders. /Neptunium isotopes/ ISOTOPE Inhalation (pCi-1) Ingestion (pCi-1) 2.8x10-13 1.5x10-11 5.8x10-11

Neptunium-235 1.0x10-12 Neptunium-236 2.6x10-9 Neptunium-237 1.5x10-8 See Reference 486.

HYDRAZINE (13.70) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Hydrazine has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.70.1) ...There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of

hydrazine. Overall evaluation: Hydrazine is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). (13.70.2) CLASSIFICATION: B2; probable human carcinogen. BASIS FOR

CLASSIFICATION: Tumors have been induced in mice, rats and hamsters following oral, inhalation or intraperitoneal administration of hydrazine and hydrazine sulfate. Hydrazine is mutagenic in numerous assays. HUMAN CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Inadequate. ANIMAL CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Sufficient. (13.70.3) Skin contact with anhydrous hydrazine leads to caustic-like burns and dissolves

hair ... See Reference 489. (13.70.4) The liquid is corrosive, producing penetrating burns & severe dermatitis... See McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 608 of 953

Reference 490 (13.70.5) In cases of acute human poisoning, vomiting, severe irritation of the respiratory

tract with the development of pulmonary edema, central nervous system depression, and hepatic and renal damage have been reported. See Reference 491. (13.70.6) Toxic effects of hydrazine /routes not specified/ include conjunctivitis, pulmonary

edema, anemia (hemolytic), ataxia, convulsions, kidney toxicity, and liver toxicity...See Reference 492. (13.70.7) Skin and eye irritation has occurred in humans, and allergic contact dermatitis has

been reported. No systemic responses were described in any of these reported exposures. Several incidents of systemic poisoning have been reported, mainly showing effects on the CNS, respiratory system, and stomach. Vomiting, weakness, and irregular breathing, with recovery in 5 days, occurred following ingestion of 20-30 mL of a 6% aqueous solution. See Reference 493. (13.70.8) Exposure to the eyes can produce temporary blindness. Liquid splashes to the eyes

can produce corneal injury and burns. Liquid splashes to the skin can also produce severe burns. Hydrazine can also produce dermatitis and skin sensitization. See Reference 494. (13.70.9) /CASE REPORTS/ An occupational exposure (both skin contact and inhalation) at

an unknown concentration over a 6-month period produced conjunctivitis, tremor, and lethargy. Lung and liver damage occurred, and the individual died 21 days after the last exposure. See Reference 495. (13.70.10) /CASE REPORTS/ A case of residual neurobehavioral impairment possibly

related to occupational exposure to hydrazine was described. A 38 year old Israeli male was treated for repeated complaints of sore throat and colds. His wife noticed that he had difficulties remembering things that she had asked him to do. He became impotent. He had similar difficulties at work in performing tasks that he had previously done effortlessly. He had been employed as a water technician at a hospital for 7 years. His job activities involved monitoring water quality, adding hydrazine mixtures when necessary, and overseeing the workings of the hospital pumping system. He had intense McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 609 of 953

intermittent inhalation and skin exposure to hydrazine while mixing and pouring hydrazine preparations, and almost constant inhalation exposure to hydrazine vapors in his workplace. He developed thrombocytopenia which was treated with steroids. He returned briefly to work, but had to be discharged because of recurring episodes of colds and malaise. His memory and concentration problems persisted and he became unable to work or understand and remember material he had read. Neuropsychological testing revealed deficits in specific task performance, memory, concentration, learning, judgment, and abstraction and mood problems. A computed tomographic examination showed no signs of brain damage. Over the next 4 years the patient showed a gradual improvement in his general well being, mood status, and ability to carry out some tasks. He was unable to hold down jobs or perform tasks commensurate with his previous level of technical and organizational skills. He eventually found work as a part time gardener. /It was/ concluded that exposure to hydrazine during his work as a water technician is the most likely explanation for the neurobehavioral impairment. The case illustrates the need to be aware that exposure to hydrazine can cause neurobehavioral problems as sequelae. See Reference 496. (13.70.11) /CASE REPORTS/ A case of an epithelioid sarcoma developing in the thumb of a

patient after repeated exposure to hydrazine fuel /is presented/. /The authors/ hypothesize that the epithelioid sarcoma is a consequence of cutaneous exposure to hydrazine fuel. See Reference 497. (13.70.12) /CASE REPORTS/ One person accidentally drank "between a mouthful and a

cupful." He immediately vomited and lost consciousness. Hospitalized, he was flushed, but afebrile, unconscious, and vomiting; pupils were dilated but central and light reactive. Within 12 hr vomiting ceased ...and he was sporadically violent. Later, his memory and voluntary movements were normal but he was ataxic and unable to write. There was lateral nystagmus to the right and his ability to sense vibration was lost. See Reference 498. (13.70.13) /CASE REPORTS/ ...Worker handled hydrazine hydrate once a week for 6 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 610 of 953

months. Early signs were lethargy, conjunctivitis, and tremors. On last day of exposure he developed fever, vomiting, and diarrhea. Later he developed abdominal pains... and became incoherent. His abdomen was enlarged and liver was palpable and tender. There was fluid in chest cavity and lung shadowing. Bilirubin and creatinine levels were increased. ...He ...died 20 days after the last exposure to hydrazine. Autopsy revealed severe tracheitis, bronchitis, lungs filled with exudate, enlarged kidneys with... necrosis and granular cytoplasmic degeneration, and enlarged heart with muscle fiber degeneration and hyperemia. /Hydrazine hydrate/ See Reference 499. (13.70.14) /CASE REPORTS/ Choroidal melanoma was observed in one man who had been

exposed to hydrazine for six years. See Reference 500. (13.70.15) /CASE REPORTS/ After a laboratory technician had drunk 20-30 mL of a 6%

aqueous solution of hydrazine (free base), he immediately vomited. Four hours later, weakness, somnolence, and arrhythmia were observed. Laboratory findings showed a slight but persistent leukocytosis. The serum-albumin fraction was decreased with an increase in the urine noted, while the patient showed irregular breathing. Five days after exposure, the patient had recovered. See Reference 501. (13.70.16) /CASE REPORTS/ The case of a 24-yr-old man who accidentally ingested a

mouthful of hydrazine successfully treated with megadoses of intravenous pyridoxine hydrochloride (vitamin B6) injection, 10 g over a few hr, who subsequently developed sensory polyneuropathy, is reported. The neuropathy spontaneously resolved over the next 6 months. It was concluded that although part of the peripheral neuropathy could have been due to hydrazine toxicity, the predominantly sensory neuropathy with axonal degeneration and spontaneous recovery is due to pyridoxine hydrochloride (vitamin B6) induced peripheral neuropathy. See Reference 502. (13.70.17) /CASE REPORTS/ Contact dermatitis caused by hydrazine was reported in two

patients who worked in a gold plating factory. The workers wore gloves when carrying baskets between McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 611 of 953

the different plating baths, but they had frequent spills over their hands and arms and were exposed to the vapor. The first case was a 54 year old man who worked for 20 years in the plating industry. After three weeks in the gold plating department the worker developed a recurrent hand eczema. It was located on the dorsal side of the hands and spread to the forearms. The patient recovered completely after changing his work responsibilities. The second case was a 23 year old worker in the same gold plating department who developed periorbital eczema four months after starting work in the gold plating department. The worker recovered completely after changing the working environment. The standard ICORG test procedures was used in performing the patch testing. In both workers, 1% hydrazine sulfate, and 1 and 10% gold plating stabilizer gave positive epicutaneous test reactions and potassium dicyanoaurate gave a negative reaction. /Observations indicated that/ there was evidence that hydrazine in the gold plating baths caused the dermatitis. See Reference 503. (13.70.18) /CASE REPORTS/ An accidental swallowing of a mouthful of hydrazine led to

confusion, lethargy, and restlessness in a 24-yr old man. Clinical liver damage was detected, but other signs of systemic toxicity appear to have been masked by the aggressive management of the patient. See Reference 504. (13.70.19) /CASE REPORTS/ A male worker sustained severe chemical burns (involving

22% of the body surface) following a hydrazine explosion. After a comatose period and with biochemical indicators of liver malfunction, recovery was seen in 5 weeks. See Reference 504. (13.70.20) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Hydrazine was produced at a factory in the East

Midlands of the United Kingdom between 1945 and 1971. The cohort of all 427 men who were employed there for at least six months with varying degrees of occupational exposure to hydrazine was followed up until the end of January 1992. By the end of July 1982 49 deaths had occurred and the observed mortality was close to that expected at each level of exposure. By the end of January 1992 a further 37 deaths had occurred. Again the observed mortality was close to that expected for all causes McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 612 of 953

and also for lung cancer, cancers of the digestive system, other cancers, and all other causes, respective of the level of exposure. The results weigh against there having been any material hazard of occupational exposure to hydrazine. The small number of men studied means, however, that a relative risk as high as 3.5 for lung cancer cannot confidently be excluded. See Reference 505. (13.70.21) Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations: Vapors are very irritating to the mucous

membranes, nose, throat, and upper respiratory tract. See Reference 506. COBALT, RADIOACTIVE (13.71) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Cobalt has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.71.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of cobalt and its

compounds. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of cobalt ions and cobalt compounds, refer to the COBALT COMPOUNDS record. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including cobalt, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.71.2) There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of X-radiation and

gamma-radiation. There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of Xradiation and gamma-radiation. Overall evaluation. X-radiation and gamma-radiation are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). See Reference 507. (13.71.3) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ The accident occurred in

Northern Italy ... .The source was cobalt-60. The operator entered the room and was not wearing a film badge. Of particular note was the rapid drop in white blood cells and lymphocytes and the onset of nausea and vomiting in less than 30 min. ... After an initial fever, the patient experienced a latent period for approximately 6 days, after which time fever rapidly rose and the patient died 12 days McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 613 of 953

postexposure. The terminal event was listed as dramatic deregulation of the cardiac rhythm with extreme tachycardia, very high central temperature oscillations, and a Cheyne-Stokes rhythm. /Cobalt60/ See Reference 508. (13.71.4) /CASE REPORTS/ /EYE/ Exposure of a male worker to a whole-body dose of 159

rad (1.59 Gy) of cobalt-60 radiation resulted in a progressive deterioration of visual acuity, due to cataract development, in the left eye (which was more exposed than the right) over time. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 509. (13.71.5) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ A fatal radiation

accident with a 2.43pentaBq (65 kCi) cobalt-60 radiation source occurred in Norway in 1982. The patient was estimated to have received an inhomogeneous whole body dose of approximately 10-30 Gy and he died on day 13 after the accident. The clinical features in general were consistent with a hematological syndrome variant of the acute radiation syndrome (ARS). Gastrointestinal symptoms were modest compared with the estimated dose. More recent insights cast doubt about the classical descriptions and interpretation of ARS, which show many similarities to the multi-organ failure (MOF) of otherwise severely traumatized patients. This report discusses the features of ARS in this case in relation to commonly accepted features of MOF, based on clinical and autopsy data. /Cobalt-60/ (13.71.6) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ On 25 June 1990 in

Shanghai, two men (Shi, a 56-year-old male, and Wan, a 53-year-old male) were accidentally exposed to homogeneous high dose and high dose rate cobalt-60 irradiation (total activity 0.85 PBq, at the time of delivery from the manufacturing factory in June 1960) up to 12 Gy and 11 Gy, respectively. Both suffered from an extremely severe hematopoietic form of acute radiation sickness. Through energetic salvage and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haploidentical bone marrow transplantation, their survival times were prolonged to 25 days and 90 days, respectively. In the case of Wan, the implanted bone marrow resided and engrafted completely, and hematopoiesis was restored. However, the patient died McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 614 of 953

of interstitial pneumonia 90 days after exposure to radiation. The clinical course of multi-organ failure and the valuable experience obtained from the management of these patients is of great significance in directing the prevention of multi-organ failure and the treatment of such patients in the future. Pathological findings from these two autopsy cases are helpful in elucidating the underlying pathogenesis of clinical multi-organ failure, the cause of death and especially, the pathogenesis and morphogenesis of lung fibrosis. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 511. (13.71.7) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ In Istanbul, Turkey in

1998, a 3 TBq cobalt-60 therapy source inside a shielded transport container was sold as scrap. The individuals who purchased the source were unaware of the radiation hazard and proceeded to break open and dismantle the container in a residential area of Istanbul. A total of 18 persons, including 7 children, were admitted to hospital. Five exhibited clinical effects of acute radiation exposure, with one person having signs of radiation-induced skin injuries on the fingers of one hand. /Cobalt-60/ (13.71.8) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ In Bangkok, Thailand in

February 2000, three old radiotherapy heads /were/ taken to a scrap yard. One source, estimated to be about 15.5 TBq cobalt-60, was removed from its shielding. The resulting exposure caused 10 persons to be hospitalized, and three of these subsequently died. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 513. (13.71.9) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ /A/ fatal accident in

Israel involved an irradiator facility (12.6 PBq cobalt-60) used for sterilizing medical products and spices for the food industry. A distorted carton became jammed on the conveyor transport system while the source was in the exposed position. The operator disregarded the warning signal and entered the irradiation room. His whole-body dose was estimated to be about 10-15 Gy. Despite intensive medical care, he died of radiation effects 36 days after exposure. /Cobalt-60/ (13.71.10) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ In /a/ fatal accident in

Belarus, an operator was exposed to radiation in an industrial irradiator, following a jam in the product McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 615 of 953

transport system, with the source (30 PBq cobalt-60) in the exposed position. A mean whole-body dose of approximately 11Gy, with localized areas of up to 18 Gy, was estimated. Despite intensive medical treatment, the operator died 113 days after exposure. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 517. (13.71.11) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ /A/ fatal accident in

China involved an irradiation facility (0.85 PBq cobalt-60) used for sterilizing traditional Chinese medicines. One of the two doors in the entry route had been out of commission. Seven workers entered to rearrange the product boxes/and/ two of the workers received doses of 11 and 12 Gy and subsequently died. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 516. (13.71.12) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ ... /Seven workers were

exposed to a 8.5X10+14 Bq cobalt-60 gamma source at a radiological medicine laboratory in Shanghai/. The seven workers suffered acute external radiation exposure of the whole body at widely varying degrees at different distances from the source in a short time. Within 30 min after the accident, one worker felt nauseated and within 7 hours, the other began vomiting. ... Dose reconstruction was made for the measurement and estimation of the radiation doses received by the seven workers, along with biological dose measurements. ... Chromosome aberration analysis and physical measurements agree within 10%. Two of the seven workers, who received 12 and 11 Gy radiation exposure, respectively, died after being treated for 25 and 90 days. The other five workers /who received between 2.0 and 5.2 Gy radiation exposure/ recovered after treatment. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 517. (13.71.13) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Following the observation of increased prostate

cancer mortality related with cumulative external radiation dose in the UK Atomic Energy Authority... a nested case control study of prostate cancer risk among employees of the facility /was conducted/. The study showed that exposure to 5 radionuclides (tritium, chromium-51, iron-59, cobalt-60, zinc-65), evaluated separately, was associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Analyses of the association between external radiation dose and prostate cancer risk were carried out both for workers McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 616 of 953

with probably exposure to the radionuclides and for those who had no such exposure. The association between external dose and prostate cancer was restricted to those with radionuclide exposure. /Tritium, chromium-51, iron-59, cobalt-60, zinc-65/ See Reference 518. (13.71.14) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Children who once resided in radiocontaminated

apartments since early 1983 were examined for height and body weight status from age 1 month to 18 years and before they moved out of the apartments. The physical heights and body weights of 21,898 age- and sex-matched non-exposed children from a nationwide school surveillance in 1997-98 were taken as controls. The physical height data were shown as height percentiles (HP) compared with reference children and age-specific relative height differences (RHD). RESULTS: HP and RHD in 48 exposed boys and 37 girls were analysed using generalized estimating equations (GEE), which accounted for multiple measurements and correlation between these measurements in the same individuals during this period. After adjusting for effects from parental heights and body mass index (BMI), clear dose-related decreases in HP and RHD were observed in the exposed boys with a cumulative exposure > 60 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged low dose-rate y-radiation exposure was associated with adverse effects on the physical heights of growing boys, but were less apparent in the exposed girls. /Low dose gamma radiation/ See Reference 519. (13.71.15) /BIOMONITORING/ /GENOTOXICITY/ Increased micronucleus frequency,

both of single and multiple nucleates, /was found/ in 48 people who had been exposed to 0.12-16 Gy over a 2 to 10 year period as a result of a building contaminated with cobalt-60-containing steel. Subjects who lad left the building showed a decrease in micronucleus formation that correlated with time since cessation of exposure. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 520. (13.71.16) /BIOMONITORING/ Many people in Taiwan have been living in buildings

constructed with cobalt-60-contaminated steel rods. To study the biological effects of chronic low-dose ionising radiation on the residents of one such building, micronucleus formation in these individuals McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 617 of 953

was compared with that in controls. ... The 73 residents had 77 age-and-sex-matched controls: 31 had 31 close relatives as controls (group A controls); eight of the 31 had a second set of close relatives; and the other controls were 38 residents in neighboring buildings. Two micronucleus assays were used - a cytochalasin B (CBMN) assay and another involving incubation with cytarabine (CBMNA). Assay results are given as frequency, or the number of binucleate cells containing one micronucleus per 1000 randomly examined binucleate cells. Findings The CBMN and CBMNA mean (SD) frequencies for 31 exposed individuals (0.016 +/-0.009 and 0.025 +/-0.013 respectively) were greater than those for their group A controls (0.009 +/-0.004 and 0.016 +/-0.009, respectively) (p=0.0006 and 0.0002, respectively). The mean CBMN and CBMNA frequencies for all the exposed individuals (0.017+/0.011 and 0.030 +/-0.014, respectively) were significantly greater than those for all controls (0.011+/0.008 and 0.019+/-0.01; p=0?0001 for both comparisons). The ranges of the differences in CBMN or CBMNA frequencies between 31 exposed individuals and their group A controls were 0.003 to 0.020 and 0.001 to 0.032, respectively. After adjustment for age, sex, and cigarette smoking, the adjusted relative risks of micronucleus formation from radiation exposure in all 73 residents was 1.56 (95% CI 1.42-1.71; p=0?0001) by the CBMN assay and 1.64 (1.53-1.77; p=0?0001) by the CBMNA assay. ... These findings suggest that chronic low-dose and low-dose-rate gamma-ray environmental exposure may induce cytogenetic damage in human beings. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 521. (13.71.17) Workers in commercial nuclear power plants are typically exposed to gamma

radiation. The main routes of exposures are from fission products and activation products. The activation product of greatest concern is cobalt-60, which emits energetic gamma-rays of 1.15 and 1.33 MeV per nuclear transformation. The average annual effective dose of monitored workers in the commercial fuel cycle between 1985 and 1989 was 2.9 mSv and the annual average collective dose was 2,500 person-Sv. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 522. (13.71.18) Excess heart disease mortality has been observed among women with breast McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 618 of 953

cancer who were irradiated... /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 523. (13.71.19) Exposure of both humans and animals to high doses of cobalt radiation has been

shown to result in damage to nervous tissue, particularly peripheral nerves. /Cobalt radiation/ See Reference 524. (13.71.20) Exposure to high-dose radiation from cobalt sources has been shown to result in

effects on the eye, in particular the development of cataracts. ... In 13 patients who developed cataracts following cobalt-60 plaque radiotherapy; estimated doses to the eyes ranged from 2,000 to 10,000 rad (20 - 100 Gy). Ttwo patients who received head-only cobalt-60 radiotherapy, in combination with chemotherapy, for the treatment of acute lymphocytic leukemia ... . developed progressively severe vision disorders, resulting in partial or total blindness. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 525. (13.71.21) /In/ a cohort of patients who had received radiotherapy for carcinoma of the

cervix, 8 of 2,674 patients developed bladder tumors within 6 months to 20 years following irradiation; the incidence rate was over 57 times greater than the general female population. All eight patients had received high (therapeutic) doses of cobalt-60 irradiation, though five of the eight also received radium therapy in conjunction with cobalt-60 irradiation. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 526. (13.71.22) 86% of women who had been treated with 5,400 to 5,700 rad (54 -57 Gy) after a

radical mastectomy developed fibrosis of the skin of the treated area. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 527. (13.71.23) The accident involved 426 patients treated on a cobalt teletherapy unit over a 16

month period from 1974 to 1976. During this time, the dose rate had been underestimated by a factor ranging between 10 and 45% of the true value. ... The over dose was approximately 10% at 5.5 months and was as high as 50% at the end of 16.5 months. Of 183 patients who survived beyond 1 year, 34% had severe complications, some of which lead to death. At the end of 5 years, 78 patients remained alive of whom 42% had severe complications. At 15 years after the accident, 10% of the patients remained alive with 41% having severe complications. In general, those patients who received target McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 619 of 953

absorbed doses of 50 to 70 Gy had complication rates of approximately 15%, whereas those who received 70 to 90 Gy had a complication rate of close to 40%. The site of the complications was related to the original site of the tumor and the distribution of these tumors in the patient population. Crude complication rates indicated that for treatment of the had and neck, the complication rate was 12 to 13%, the thorax 16%, the abdomen 18%, and for the pelvis 29%. ... Complications included severe skin reactions with ulceration, mucosal reactions with necrosis, stenosis of the pharynx, and esophagus, as well as ulceration of the stomach and bowel, bone necrosis, and myelopathy. /Cobalt-60/ See Reference 528. (13.71.24) Ionizing radiation in general, and gamma-emitting isotopes in particular, is known

to have profound effects on reproductive tissues, with effects seen primarily in rapidly-dividing germ cells resulting in temporary or permanent sterility in both sexes, as well as other effects. These effects are usually observed only at high radiation doses. A case of a man who, as treatment for a prostate tumor, received an estimated dose of 6,600 rad (66 Gy) to the prostate over a 47-day period, and who later developed a severe prostatic calcification necessitating surgical correction /has been reported/. /Gamma-emitting isotopes/ See Reference 529. (13.71.24) 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 application, cobalt-60 is contained within a sealed source(2). Individuals may be exposed to cobalt-57(SRC) through its use in diagnostic testing as a radiotracer in radioactive vitamin B12(3). See Reference 530.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 620 of 953

ZIRCONIUM COMPOUNDS (13.72) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Zirconium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.72.1) Zirconium has been surveyed during recent years as part of the general survey of

nuclear fission products, with particular reference to its capacity for displacement of radioactive plutonium ... See Reference 531. (13.72.2) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Acute poisoning: (From ingestion). Burning pain in

mouth and throat, vomiting, watery or bloody diarrhea, tenesmus, retching, hemolysis, hematuria, anuria, liver damage with jaundice, hypotension, collapse, and convulsions. /Zirconium salts/ See Reference 532. (13.72.3) /CASE REPORTS/ /Investigators/ studied a likely case of zirconium compound-

induced (unspecified) pulmonary fibrosis. Their diagnosis was based on the following: a history of gradual increase in symptoms and slowly progressing pulmonary fibrosis identified by chest roentgenograms compatible with pneumoconiosis; an appropriate history of exposure and a latency period of about 15 years before the onset of dyspnea and of roentgenographic changes; an analysis of open-lung biopsy material revealing end-stage fibrosis and honeycombing, a moderate number of birefringent particles, and extremely high levels of a variety of zirconium compounds; and no other potential cause of fibrosis. /Investigators/ concluded that zirconium should be considered a likely cause of pneumoconiosis and that appropriate precautions should be taken to limit exposures in the workplace. /Zirconium and compounds/ See Reference 533. (13.72.4) /CASE REPORTS/ A case of hypersensitivity pneumonitis in a ceramic tile worker

exposed to zirconium was reported. A 25 yr old previously healthy female presented with a history of 2 months of dry cough and dyspnea upon exertion. Coarse crepitations were heard in both lungs and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 621 of 953

bilateral interstitial fibrosis and discrete nodules were seen in a chest radiograph. Marked decreases in respiratory function were seen on pulmonary function tests. Chest radiographs and lung function tests had been normal 7 years earlier. The patient had a 3.5 year history of working in a ceramic tile factory as a glazer and sorter and had not generally used personal protective equipment. Up to 30% zirconiumsilicate was found in the glazing material used in the tile factory along with dust concentrations up to s5.8 mg/cu m. Silicate particles were identified in factory air samples. Treatment of the patient with prednisolone for 9 months was ineffective and the patient died 1 week after an open lung biopsy. Interstitial inflammation along with fibrosis of the alveolar walls was seen in biopsy and autopsy samples. The walls of the terminal and respiratory bronchioli were severely inflamed with ulceration of the epithelium and granulomas were seen close to the lumen of the airway and in the alveolar parenchyma. No evidence of an infectious process or systemic disorders was seen. Particle analysis of lung tissue samples demonstrated an inhaled dust burden consisting primarily of clay particles and zirconium-silicate that was almost 100 times that of the normal background level. The authors conclude that zirconium exposure can cause an acute allergic alveolitis like hypersensitivity reaction. /Zirconium silicate/ See Reference 534. (13.72.5) /CASE REPORTS/ A case of interstitial lung granulomas is described in a worker

exposed to zirconium compounds. Chest X-rays revealed diffuse slight reticular interstitial radioopacities (ILO classification, 1/0 s/t). Histological examination of transbronchial biopsy tissue revealed small interstitial nonconfluent granulomas with epithelioid and giant cells showing no central necrosis, with PAS-positive diastase-resistant small weakly birefringent particles in interstitial histiocytes. These histological and stain findings, which are characteristic of zirconium skin lesions and granulomas, suggest zirconium interstitial lung disease. /Zirconium and compounds/ See Reference 535. (13.72.6) /CASE REPORTS/ A 27 year-old woman developed a right axillary mass after

some two years use of an antiperspirant containing aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex glycerine. A McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 622 of 953

year after its development the mass became acutely inflamed and was excised. Histological examination showed typical features of zirconium-induced granulomas and chemical analysis confirmed the presence of zirconium. The use of the antiperspirant was discontinued and no recurrence was reported after one year. /Aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex glycerine/ See Reference 536. (13.72.7) /CASE REPORTS/ Two case reports pertaining to zirconium-related interstitial

lung disease were presented. The first case was a 49-year-old male admitted to the hospital with suspected pneumoconiosis. He had been employed at a refractory brick production factory for 28 years since the age of 20 and had worked on furnaces and on refractory lining production. (Zirconium compounds have been found in foundry sands, refractory brick, abrasives, and ceramics.) Chest X-rays revealed diffuse bilateral opacities. Neutron activation analysis (NAA) of particles showed Zr levels of 715 ppm. Histological study of biopsy tissue showed fibrosis and hyperplasia and weakly birefringent particles in alveolar and interstitial histiocytes. The second case was a 29-year-old male who had worked as a coremaker in a foundry for 8 years. He was admitted for suspected pneumoconiosis. Xrays showed diffuse opacities, and histology revealed granulomas and birefringent particles in histiocytes. NAA showed that Zr levels in a lung biopsy were <5 ppm. The authors concluded that even though it was not possible to definitely confirm that Zr exposure produced the lung disease in these patients, it seemed the most likely cause. /Zirconium and compounds/ See Reference 537. (13.72.8) /CASE REPORTS/ .../Dermal/ lesions were reported in a 15 year old girl following

treatment of poison ivy dermatitis with 4% zirconium oxide cream. No granulomas appeared on intact skin areas indicating dermal damage is necessary for zirconium penetration. Oral prednisone (dose not stated), topical fluocinolone and intralesional injection of triamcinolone (6 mg/mL) each cleared the lesions leaving only areas of pigmentation. However, there was a complete recurrence on cessation of treatment and untreated granulomas showed no evidence of improvement over 20 months). /It was/ noted that although cutaneous reactions to zirconium seemed less common following exposure to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 623 of 953

insoluble (e.g. zirconium oxide) than soluble (e.g. zirconium lactate) salts, once initiated reactions to insoluble salts were more likely to persist due to prolonged retention in dermal tissue. /Zirconium oxide/ See Referebce 538. (13.72.9) Pulmonary granuloma in zirconium workers have been reported; however, the

reports do not specify whether it was due to zirconium metal or a specific compound of zirconium. In addition, dermal granulomatous lesions, probably of allergic epithelioid origin, have been observed following the use of deodorant sticks and poison ivy lotions containing zirconium; the latter chemical may have been used as a compound and not as the metal per se. /Zirconium and compounds/ See Reference 539. (13.72.10) When the skin had been cut or abraded, a few users developed granulomas ... as a

delayed hypersensitivity to zirconium. These may take several weeks to develop, and commonly persist for six months to over a year. /Zirconium hydroxy oxide chloride, 18428-88-1/ See Reference 540. (13.72.11) Zirconium produces hypersensitivity and granulomatous skin disease. Granulomas

occur after contact with zirconium salts. Granulomas caused by soluble salts tend to disappear in a few months. Those caused by insoluble zirconium salts persist for years. /Zirconium salts/ See Reference 542. (13.72.12) Zirconium and its salts generally have low systemic toxicity. Granulomatous

disease of skin, particularly in axilla has been reported in users of deodorant containing sodium zirconium lactate. /Sodium zirconium lactate/ See Reference 543. (13.72.13) The new and unique entity of zirconium granulomas of allergic epithelioid origin

in humans, ... in 1956 has been reported repeatedly, both clinically and experimentally. Grossly, they consist of dusky, reddish brown, discrete papule 1 to 4 mm in diameter, closely set in the domes of axillae, and sparsely at the periphery. Histologically, they are granulomas composed of epithelioid cells and Langerhans' giant cells surrounded by lymphocytes in a typical tuberculoid pattern. Problems also McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 624 of 953

arose from the use of a deodorant containing an organic zirconium salt, commonly NaZr lactate. Removal of the sensitizing zirconium salt resulted in healing. See Reference 543. (13.72.14) Pulmonary granuloma in zirconium workers has been reported... . Avoid

inhalation of zirconium-containing aerosols, which can cause lung granulomas. /Zirconium and compounds/ See Reference 544. (13.72.15) irconium compounds can cause closure of the sweat duct as a result of protein

precipitation. /Zirconium compounds/ See Reference 545. (13.72.16) Populations at Special Risk: ...persons who have shown it should avoid inhalation

of zirconium dusts which might be present in certain chemical plants. /Zirconium compounds/ See Reference 546. (13.72.17) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: NIOSH (NOES Survey 1981-1983) has

statistically estimated that 64,142 workers (1,956 of these are female) are potentially exposed to zirconium in the US(1). Occupational exposure to zirconium compounds may occur through inhalation and dermal contact with these compounds at workplaces where zirconium or zirconium compounds are produced or used(SRC). Mean zirconium concentration in the interior of highway trooper patrol cars monitored for 25 days during August, September, and October of 2001 was 2.0 ng/cu m; ambient and roadside concentrations were each 1.8 ng/cu m(2). Aluminum/zirconium compounds are used in antiperspirants and zirconium silicates are used in powder cosmetics(3). Zirconium compounds are ubiquitous in the environment and monitoring data indicate that the general population may be exposed to zirconium compounds via inhalation of ambient air, ingestion of food, and dermal contact with consumer products containing zirconium compounds, such as cosmetics(SRC). See Reference 547. (13.72.18) Body Burden: HE AVG BODY BURDEN IS 250 MG. ... SIGNIFICANT AMT ...

ARE FOUND IN FETUSES. See 548.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 625 of 953

PHOSPHORUS, RADIOACTIVE (13.73) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Phosphorus has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.73.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of phosphorus and its

compounds. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of phosphorus ions and phosphorus compounds, refer to the PHOSPHORUS COMPOUNDS record. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including phosphorus, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.73.2) There is sufficient evidence in humans that therapeutic ingestion or injection of

phosphorus-32 administered as inorganic phosphate causes acute leukemia. /Phosphorus-32/ See Reference 549. (13.73.3) There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of pure

beta-particle emitters (hydrogen-3, phosphorus-32, strontium-90, yttrium-90, yttrium-91 and promethium-147). /Tritium, phosphorus-32, strontium-90, yttrium-90, promethium-147/ See Reference 550. (13.73.4) (13.73.5) Phosphorus-32 (32P) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). See Reference 551. /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /HEMATOPOIETIC SYSTEM/ It is now

established that polycythemia vera is a clonal malignancy of the pluripotent hematological stem cell. An increased risk for leukemia may therefore be a consequence of the natural course of polycythemia vera. Alternatively, patients with this disease may be more sensitive to the leukemogenic effects of irradiation than the general population. ... Observational follow-up studies of series of patients with polycythemia vera and treated with 32-PO4 show a clear increase in the incidence of acute leukemia. ... The incidence of acute leukemia in series of patients treated with phosphorous-32 is of the order of 10 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 626 of 953

to 20% of cases during the 10 years after administration in all the studies. Furthermore, in two series, there was a clear dose-response relationship between the frequency of acute leukemia and the dose of phosphorous-32 administered. In these observational studies, patients with more severe disease may have been more likely to have been treated with radiation and higher doses./32-PO4/ See Reference 552. (13.73.6) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /HEMATOPOIETIC SYSTEM/ After 10 to 18

years of follow-up in the trial of the Polycythemia Vera Study Group, two cases of acute leukemia had been reported in 134 patients treated by phlebotomy, 16 cases of acute leukemia among 156 patients treated with phosphorus-32 ... . Thus there was a clear increase in the incidence of acute leukemia in the group treated with phosphorus-32 compared with that treated by phlebotomy. In spite of this, the overall survival of phlebotomy-treated and phosphorous-32-treated patients was similar, owing to the complication of thrombosis that affects the former group. /Phosphorus-32/ See Reference 553. (13.73.7) /BIOMONITORING//GENOTOXICITY/ The presence of chromosomal

aberrations in human peripheral blood lymphocytes is a recognized indicator of exposure to radiation in vivo, an increase in the frequency of chromosomal aberrations above the background level reflecting direct exposure of circulating lymphocytes and/or hematopoietic precursor cells in the bone marrow. Chromosomal aberrations and gene mutations were also observed in many studies in cells of people exposed internally to specific radionuclides, including the beta-particle emitter ... phosphorus-32 ... /Phosphorus-32/ See Reference 554. (13.73.8) On September 30,1999, three workers were severely exposed to neutrons and

gamma rays in a criticality accident that occurred at a uranium conversion facility in Tokai-mura, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan. Radiochemical analyses of phosphorus-32 and calcium-45 induced by neutrons in bone matrix were carried out after the deaths of two of the victims. It was found that more than several million becquerels of both nuclides had been produced in their body skeletons. Results McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 627 of 953

showed non-homogeneous distributions of neutron fluence in the bodies, from which it could be deduced how both workers were positioned relative to the fission source during exposure, i.e., at the moment of the first nuclear excursion. For the victim who died first, the activities in the central part of his body were more than those of his extremities. Also, in the central part of his body, the right side showed more activities than the left side. As for the second man, the activities indicated rather uniform exposure to neutrons to the whole body although the geometrical distribution of the activity varied enough to assume his orientation. Such information on the geometrical distribution of neutron-induced radioactivities in the skeleton can be used to reconstruct the posturing of the victims, which is necessary to estimate their apparent absorbed doses. /Phosporus-32 formed internally in a criticality accident/ See Reference 555. (13.73.9) 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 556. RADIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.74) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that Radioactive Radium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.74.1) This record contains information specific for compounds containing radium and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 628 of 953

radium in the zero valence state; all radium nuclides are radioactive. For general information on radiation, such as transportation, sampling, analytical methods, regulations, and spill clean-up, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.74.2) There is sufficient evidence in humans that therapeutic injection of radium-224

causes bone sarcomas. There is sufficient evidence in humans that ingestion of radium-226 causes bone sarcomas and carcinomas of the paranasal sinuses and mastoid process. There is sufficient evidence in humans that ingestion of radium-228 causes bone sarcomas. /Radium-224 and radium-228/ See Reference 557. (13.74.3) There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of mixed

alpha-particle emitters (radium-224, radium-226, thorium-227, thorium-228, thorium-230, thoriums232, neptunium-237, plutonium-238, plutonium-239 (together with plutonium-240), americium-241, curium-244, californium-249 and californium-252). /Radium, Plutonium, Americium, Curium, Californium/ See Reference 558. (13.74.4) There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of

mixed beta-particle emitters (iodine-131, cesium-137, cerium-144 and radium-228). /Iodine, Cesium, Cerium, Radium/ See Reference 559. (13.74.5) Radium-224 (224-Ra) and its decay products are carcinogenic to humans (Group

1). Radium-226 (226-Ra) and its decay products are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Radium-228 (228-Ra) and its decay products are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). /Radium-224, radium-228/ See Reference 560. (13.74.6) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Deterministic effects of radionuclides incorporated

within the human skeleton were first described in the late 1920s after observation of osteonecrosis and fractures in the bones of dial painters who had ingested ... radium-226. ... Since then, studies of the skeletons of dial painters and of experimental animals exposed to alpha-particle-emitting, bone-seeking McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 629 of 953

radionuclides have demonstrated many radiation induced changes, including areas of bone sclerosis, abnormally large resorption cavities and blocked haversian canals within individual osteons. Other disparate effects observed after intakes of both radium-226 and plutonium-239 include significant peritrabecular fibrosis and the formation of a fibrotic layer between the mineralized endosteal bone surface and marrow cells ... . The filling of osteocyte lacunae, the presence of hypermineralized osteons and new regenerative bone production have also been described after contamination with radium. /radium-226 and plutonium-239/ See Reference 561. (13.74.7) SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /BONE; Teeth/ The term radium jaw was coined /in

1924/ to describe the tooth loss that was common in the radium-dial painters. Radiation damage to either dental tissues or to their blood supply initiates excessive resorption of dentine, particularly around the gum line, causing teeth to break with a minimum of trauma. In the dial painters, one tooth after another broke until all were lost. A similar loss was seen in young persons injected with the shortlived alpha-particle emitter radium-224 ... . /Radium-224/ See Reference 562. (13.74.8) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Growth retardation has also been demonstrated in ...

boys and girls injected with this short-lived, alpha-particle-emitting isotope for the treatment of tuberculosis during the period 1946-50. Significant growth inhibition was observed among these children at a mean skeletal dose of 3-25 Gy. /Radium-224/ See Reference 563. (13.74.9) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /EYE/ Cataracts were described in 119 of 813 women

who were radium-dial painters before 1930 and in 58 of 831 patients injected with high doses of radium-224. In the dial painters, latency was negatively correlated with accumulated radiation dose; in the radium-224-injected patients, the incidence was dose-dependent, with a 14% incidence in those patients receiving the highest doses of radium and an overall mean of 5-6% for patients injected either as children or as adults. In this population, about 55-60% of the cataracts were thought to be associated with irradiation; the remainder was accounted for by the normal age-related incidence. ... /Radium-224/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 630 of 953

See Reference 564. (13.74.10) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ At the Center for Human Radiobiology (Argonne

National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New Jersey Radium Research Project) measurements were made of radium body content in 2,259 occupationally or iatrogenically exposed persons. Of these, 1,768 had skeletal radiography (one or more times). In humans, the radiographic changes were, in decreasing order of frequency, osteolytic cortical and cancellous bone destruction, bone sclerosis, pathological fracture, and avascular necrosis of bone. In beagles, osteolytic destruction and pathological fractures were common, avascular necrosis was not observed, but there was frequently cortical thickening and new-bone formation in cancellous bone. In bath population groups, there was a high incidence of bone sarcoma. In the beagles, one high-dosage group numbering 38 dogs had 49 malignant bone tumors. Among the 2259 measured persons, there were 60 who had bone sarcoma, and 29 who had cancer of the mastoids or paranasal sinuses. No significant skeletal effects have been diagnosed radiologically in persons with systemic intakes of radium-226 or radium-228 below about 10 uCi or with skeletal doses below about 100 rad. In humans, the lowest skeletal dose at which a bone sarcoma has been diagnosed is 890 rad, and the lowest intake associated with a bone sarcoma is 96 uCi radium-226 or about 1.7 uCi per kg body weight /Radium-226/ See Reference 565. (13.74.11) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /BONE; Teeth/ Radiation damage to dental tissue, or

perhaps to its blood supply, initiates extensive resorption of the dentine, especially at the gum line. These radiation induced caries weaken teeth and cause them to fracture easily. Such tooth breakage has been reported in 12% (27/128) of patients injected with radium-224 as children (20-yr old and younger) and by 2% (17/681) of patients injected as adults (21-yr old and older). The highest incidence occurred in adolescents injected at 16 to 20 yr of age (15/61 or 25%). Combining results from all age groups, the incidence of tooth fracture increased significantly with dose (p= 0.01). /Radium-224/ See Reference 566. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 631 of 953

(13.74.12)

/SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /HEMATOPOIETIC SYSTEM/ Diseases of the

hematopoietic tissues have been reported in patients given repeated injections of radium-224. Anemia, panmyelophthisis, and chronic myeloid leukemia were seen in excess of the control levels in these cases (compared with a higher incidence of acute leukemia in the control group). /Radium-224/ See Reference 567. (13.74.13) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Radiation osteitis, osteodystrophy and osteodysplasia

are terms used to describe the entire spectrum of radiation-induced disturbances to the remodeling mechanism of bone tissue. The process is characterized by areas of bone infarction, i.e. bone necrosis, vascular damage, peritrabecular fibrosis and new bone formation. A proliferative fibro-osseous response is frequently seen in the marrow. This response resembles those seen in the active phases of Paget disease and fibrous dysplasia. The pathology of these deterministic bone lesions has been described in detail in persons exposed to radium-226. /Radium-226/ See Reference 568. (13.74.14) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ A U.S. cohort of 4,153 women treated with

intrauterine radium-226 between 1925 and 1965 for uterine bleeding disorders was followed-up for an average of 27 years up to 1983. Individual organ doses were estimated based on detailed radiotherapy records and simulations of the pelvic irradiation treatment on phantoms. A significantly increased /standardized mortality ratio/ (SMR) for death from all cancers was seen in this population compared to the general population. In addition, significant increases were observed for deaths from colon and uterine cancer, cancers of the female genital organs, and leukemia. Estimated /excess relative risk/ (ERR) per Gy were 0.006 (90% confidence interval -0.01, 0.05) for cancer of the uterus, 0.41 (90% confidence interval -0.69, 1.51) for other genital organs, 0.51 (90% confidence interval -0.08, 5.61) for colon cancer and 0.20 (90% confidence interval 0.08, 0.35) for bladder cancer. ...The risk of leukemia in relation to radiation dose among 4,483 of these women /was also studied/. Individual doses to various sections of the red bone marrow were calculated from detailed radiotherapy records. The McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 632 of 953

median dose to red bone marrow was 0.53 Gy. A significant excess of leukemia was seen; the risk was highest 2-5 years following treatment (SMR 8.1, 95% confidence interval 2.6, 18.8 compared to the general population) and among women over 55 years at irradiation (SMR 5.8, 95% confidence interval 2.5, 11.3). The average ERR in this study was 0.19 per Gy (95% confidence interval 0.08, 0.32) for intrauterine 226-Ra exposure and the average absolute excess mortality from leukemia 2.6 per 10+4PY per Gy. /Radium-226/ See Reference 570. (13.74.15) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Two Swedish cohort studies have been performed

of patients treated for skin hemangioma in infancy. In the first study, the cohort consisted of 14,351 infants (<18 months of age) treated between 1920 and 1959 at Radiumhemmet, Stockholm, who were followed up for cancer incidence over the period 1958-1986. Radiotherapy was given with beta particles, X and or gamma rays and, usually, with some type of radium-226 applicator. Individual organ doses were calculated using treatment information and, for radium-226 needles and tubes, phantom simulations. 17 thyroid cancers were registered in this cohort during the follow-up period. The mean dose to the thyroid was 1.07 Gy (range <0.01, 4.34 Gy). A significant excess thyroid cancer incidence was seen in this cohort, starting 19 years after treatment and persisting at least 40 years after irradiation. A significant dose-relationship was observed, with an /excess relative risk/ (ERR) of 4.92 per Gy (95% confidence interval 1.26, 10.2) and an /excess absolute risk/ (EAR) of 0.90 per 10+4PY/Gy. ...The risk of other solid tumors /was also studied/ in this cohort. Statistically significantly increased SIRs were seen for cancer of the pancreas and tumors of the endocrine glands, based on small numbers of cases (9 and 16, respectively). For lung cancer (mean dose 0.12 Gy), a non-significant ERR of 1.4 per Gy was reported (confidence interval not given) and an EAR of 0.33 per 10+4PY/Gy, based on 11 cases. For stomach cancer (mean dose 0.09 Gy) both the ERR and EAR were negative (values not reported), based on five cases. ...The risk of breast cancer among women from this cohort /was also reported/. The mean absorbed dose to the breast was 0.39 Gy (range <0.01, 35.8 Gy). 75 breast cancer McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 633 of 953

cases were found in the cohort during the follow-up period. A significant linear dose-response relationship was observed, with an ERR of 0.38 per Gy (95% CI 0.09, 0.85) and an EAR of 0.41 per 10+4PY/Gy. This was not modified by age at exposure or by dose to the ovaries. The ERR increased significantly with time since exposure, however, with an ERR at one Gy of 2.25 (95% CI 0.59, 5.62) 50 years or more after exposure. The EAR was 22.9 per 10+4PY/Gy. In an analysis of leukemia mortality in the same cohort, 20 deaths from leukemia were observed (11 in childhood and 9 among adults). The weighted bone marrow dose was 0.13 Gy on average (range <0.01-4.6 Gy). There was no association between radiation dose and leukemia (childhood or adult in this cohort). Among those who received more than 0.1 Gy, the ERR was estimated to be 5.1 per Gy (95% CI -0.8, 1.9) for adult leukemia and 1.6 per Gy (95% CI -0.6, 5.5) overall. /radium-226/ See Reference 571. (13.74.16) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ The second Swedish hemangioma study included

11,807 patients treated with radium-226 between 1930 and 1965 in Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Goteborg. The cohort was followed up for cancer incidence over the period 1958-1989. Doses to 11 organs were calculated on the basis of 226-Ra activity, location of the hemangioma and estimated absorbed dose rate in these organs per unit activity in a phantom of the size of a 5-6 months old child. No correction was made for different body sizes according to the age of the child at time of treatment. A total of 248 malignancies were observed during the study period. A significantly increased risk of cancer was seen overall, as well as tumors of the CNS (34 cases), thyroid (15 cases) and other endocrine glands (23 cases). The mean absorbed dose to the thyroid in this cohort was 0.12 Gy; the /excess relative risk/ (ERR) for thyroid cancer was estimated to be 7.5 per Gy (95% CI 0.4, 18.1) and the /excess absolute risk/ (EAR) 1.6/10+4PY/Gy. ...The risk of intracranial tumors in this cohort /was studied/ further in a cohort and case-control study. Dose estimation was similar to that described above for subjects in the cohort study although a correction was made for different age groups (0-4, 5-11, 1218, and 18+ months). Activity was considered to be uniformly distributed over the treatment area. In McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 634 of 953

the case-control study, the dose at the exact tumor site was calculated considering the exact distance between the treatment location according to the record and the site of the tumor. For the controls, the dose was calculated at the location of the tumor of the corresponding case. In the cohort, 47 intracranial tumors developed in 46 individuals. An excess was found for many histopathological subgroups but was significant only for gliomas and meningiomas. The mean dose to the brain was 0.072 Gy (median 0.023 Gy; range <0.001-2.4 Gy). There was an excess of brain tumors in all dose categories, but no clear dose-response relationship. When analyses were restricted to subjects treated before the age of seven months, both a linear and a linear-quadratic model described the data. The estimated ERR for the entire cohort was 1.05 per Gy; the EAR was 1.20/10+PY/Gy. In the case-control study, the mean absorbed dose at the site of the tumor was 0.031 Gy for cases and 0.09 for controls. The estimated OR per Gy was 1.65 (95% CI 0.63, 4.32). /Radium-226/ See Reference 572. (13.74.17) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ The hazard model approach with time dependent

covariates was used to analyze mortality due to bone sarcoma or head carcinoma among women occupationally exposed to radium in the radium dial industry. Women who began employment as luminizers prior to 1930 were included in the study and were followed until 1990. Both multiplicative and additive models were fitted to mortality data for deaths due to bone sarcoma or to head carcinoma. The additive models provided a better fit to the data than multiplicative models. Accumulating dose to the skeleton from radium-226 and radium-228 was an important predictor of the time of death for women with bone sarcoma. Exposure to radium during the teenage years was associated with a greater risk of bone sarcoma than exposure as an adult using the multiplicative, but not the additive, models. Only the accumulation of dose to the skeleton from radium-226 was found to be a significant risk factor for death from carcinoma. All of the women diagnosed with either bone sarcoma or head carcinoma were estimated to have increased risks and nearly all of these women had cumulative exposures in excess of 20 grays. /Radium-226; radium-228/ See Reference 573. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 635 of 953

(13.74.18)

/EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ The medical record registries of 9 hospitals were

used to identify a radium-exposed group (n = 5,358) and a control group of unexposed patients (n = 5,265), who were treated by an otolaryngologist in the period 1945-1981. The vital status of the subjects was determined using municipal resident registries, and the cause of death of decedents was retrieved from Statistics Netherlands (1950-1997). The data was also coupled with the Netherlands Cancer Registry (1989-1996). For the subjects still alive in 1997, the prevalence of relevant disorders was determined using a self-administered questionnaire and disorders reported by the participants were medically verified. The risk of disease in the radium group was then compared with that of the control group. RESULTS: The average radiation doses were 2.75, 0.109 and 0.015 Gy for nasopharynx, pituitary, and thyroid, respectively. There was no statistically significantly elevated risk for malignancies of the head and neck area (radium-exposed group; n = 14; control group: n = 11 (relative risk (RR): 1.2; 95% CI: 0.6-2.8)). Four of the five thyroid carcinomas were found in the radiumexposed group (RR: 3.8; 0.5-76). Elevated risks were observed for breast cancer (RR: 1.6; 0.9-2.7) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (RR: 2.7; 1.0-8.7). There was an increased risk for skin basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the head and neck (odds ratio (OR): 2.6; 1.0-6.7), but the risk of BCC of other body parts was lower (OR: 0.3; 0.1-1.3). There were no major differences between radium and control subjects with respect to benign head and neck tumours (OR: 1.0; 0.5-1.7) or hormonal disorders. Exposed men reported slightly more fertility disorders than men in the control group (OR: 1.4; 1.0-2.1), but there was no clear dose-response relationship. ... See Reference 574. (13.74.19) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ There is a high incidence of oral, pharynx and

esophagus cancer among males in Na Mom district in Songkhla Province in Thailand, an area where radium concentration in shallow well water is found to be higher than other areas in this province. A population-based case control study was conducted from June to November 2004 to determine the association of oral exposure to radium-contaminated water and cancer of the upper digestive tract in the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 636 of 953

district.Thirty-two confirmed cases and 128 sex and five-year birth cohort matched neighborhood controls were selected by multistage sampling from six villages in four sub-districts. All subjects were verified to have been permanent residents in the district for more than 10 years. Thirty cases were dead at the time of the study, thus their relatives were interviewed to determine their amount of water drinking, tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking, betel chewing and exposure to other potential risk factors in the past. The other two cases and all controls were directly interviewed.The concentration of radium in shallow well water at the subject's houses was estimated using a contour map of Ra-226 in the water at the location of their residence. The results showed a strong and dose-dependent associationb etween consumption of radium-contaminated shallow well water and cancer of the upper digestive tract. In multivariate analysis controlled for important risk factors of the cancer, the odds ratios for exposure to oral radium consumption 50-100 mBq/day and >100 mBq/day compared with <50 mBq/day were 2.83 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50-16.19) and 29.76 (95% CI: 4.39-201.6) respectively. The risk also increased with consumption of fresh water fish which might have been contaminated by dissolved radium in the water. This study offers the first evidence of the association between radium and cancer of the upper digestive tract to the world literature. See Reference 575. (13.74.20) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /REPRODUCTIVE RESPONSES/ The fertility of

women who had been employed as radium-dial painters was investigated in epidemiological studies. The study population consisted of 199 women who had been employed in the dial-painting industry in Illinois between 1916 and 1929. The doses of alpha and gamma-radiation /from the luminous paint/ ... were combined ... . The mean of the natural logarithm of the live-birth rate decreased with increasing ovarian dose. Multiple linear regression analyses showed that the body burden, but not duration of employment, was a significant predictor of the live-birth rate. The study was expanded to include women who had been employed as dial painters in Connecticut and New Jersey. Their exposure involved not only radium-226 but also radium-228 and larger doses to the ovary ... . The mean numbers McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 637 of 953

of pregnancies (1.2) and live-births (1.1) were significantly reduced in women in categories of internal dose to the ovary >/ = 5 Sv. ... There was no indication of an increased fetal death rate, suggesting that the findings for the live-birth rate did not involve post-implantation dominant lethal mutations ... . /Radium-226-, radium-228/ See Reference 576. (13.74.21) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Bone sarcomas associated with internal irradiation

from radium-226 and radium-228 were first reported /in 1925/ as an industrial hazard in radium-dial workers ... . The long-term analysis of bone sarcomas in radium dial-painters is a classic epidemiological study in occupational medicine. In studies in the US covering about 2600 individuals, 64 cases of malignant bone tumors were observed ... . There appears to be a practical threshold dose of 10 Gy for bone sarcomas in radium-dial painters. /Radium-226, -228/ See Reference 577. (13.74.22) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Bone sarcomas have been induced in humans after

incorporation of the short-lived alpha-particle-emitting radium-224. In the most recent reports on a group of 899 patients treated with radium-224 in Germany (1945-55), 56 malignant bone tumors were described in 55 patients ... (one person developed a second bone sarcoma ...). Most of the cases occurred within the first 25 years after exposure ... . The expected number of bone sarcomas in a group of this size would have been < 1 (about 0.3) over the entire observation period. The age at first injection of the patients who developed bone sarcomas ranged between 2 and 55 years. The time to tumor appearance peaked eight years after exposure. Thirty-seven bone sarcomas were reported in the 217 patients under the age of 21, whereas only 19 bone sarcomas occurred in 18 patients among the 682 adults. /Radium-224/ See Reference 578. (13.74.23) /BIOMONITORING/ /GENOTOXICITY/ Chromosomes were studied in blood

cultures from 62 women who had been radium-dial painters ... . Body burdens ... ranged from undetectable to as much as 0.56 uCi (20.7 kBq); the women were allocated to one of three groups: 00.04 uCi (0-1.5 kBq) (nine women), 0.05-0.09 uCi (1.9-3.3 kBq) (20 women) and 0.10-0.56 uCi (3.7McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 638 of 953

20.7 kBq) (33 women). ... The proportion of cells with structurally abnormal chromosomes was higher in the luminizer population than among the sample of /57/ women without luminizing experience. The study also showed a consistent gradient of increasing structural abnormality with increasing body burden of radium. (The ... exposure during the painting of dials with radium also involved direct exposure to gamma-radiation from the pots containing the paint and that the body burdens of radium would also be directly correlated to gamma-ray exposure. Therefore, the association might be partly or entirely explained by occupational exposure to gamma-rays.) See Reference 579. (13.74.24) A previous study of 25 radium workers reported radium osteonecrosis to be

common down to that study's lower limit of detection of radium-226. This paper reanalyzes those data using Poisson and linear regression to obtain quantitative dose response estimates for radium osteonecrosis. A quadratic, supralinear response of the necrosis ratio to skeletal dose and preterminal radium-226 burden was observed at a high level of statistical significance. At low dose the response was linear. Clearly observable necrosis, that appearing in 4% of tissue blocks, was seen ... . Prediction equations are presented for preterminal radium-226 burden, for skeletal dose, and, at low doses where the response can be taken as linear, for dose from and uptakes of both radium-226 and radium-228. Male New Jersey workers in the radium refinery were observed to have necrosis not explained by the radium-226 uptakes, but compatible with skeletal doses from other internal emitters, in the range 0.251.2 Gy lifetime dose acquired per year of employment. Polonium-210, inhaled directly or from inhaled polonium-210, is the most likely source of this dose. /Radium/ See Reference 580. (13.74.25) Morphologic changes resulting from the effects of ... radium-226 in the skeletons

of workers in the radioluminescent dial painting industry with preterminal body burdens ranging from about 1.5 to 0.042 uCi were compared with the pathologic alterations in the skeletons of a group of 38 beagle dogs injected with 1.12 uCi/kg. Similarities observed in the skeletal responses of the two species were the presence of (1) dead bone tissue with delayed resolution, (2) a chronic disturbance in the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 639 of 953

remodeling mechanism of bone tissue, and (3) radiation-induced bone sarcomas. A detailed analysis of sequential changes in radiographic lesions arising in the beagle skeletons, complemented by histopathologic evaluation at the time of limb amputation or at necropsy, has enabled us to examine the disturbance in the bone remodeling process. The perturbation of critical importance in the generation of primary bone tumors appears to lie in the bone tissue formation and deposition phase of the bone remodeling process and gives rise to a spectrum of histologic patterns which we have termed radiation osteodystrophy. While some of the newly generated patterns demonstrate indolent behavior with fibrous tissue replacement and bone marrow refill, other sites of bone resorption are replaced by a unique fibro-osseous tissue response resembling fibrous dysplasia or osteoblastoma. Some of these proliferative lesions may. undergo progressive malignant degeneration. While the more indolent part of the spectrum was also seen in human skeletal tissues, only premalignant and early sarcomatous stages were seen in canine tissues. /Radium-226/ See Reference 581. (13.74.26) In humans, radium-224 is known to induce bone sarcomas, and it is strongly

suspected of inducing breast cancer in females who received this isotope when younger than 21 years of age at total doses greater than 12 uCi/kg (444 kBq/kg). Liver and kidney cancers are also possibly induced by radium-224. /Radium-224/ See Reference 582. (13.74.27) A review of bone tumor pathology in patients treated with radium-224 revealed an

unexpectedly high proportion of bone sarcomas of the fibrous connective tissue type, including the first case of malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) of bone described after internal irradiation. Out of 46 bone tumors in the radium-224 patients, osteosarcoma was the most common histological type (48% of cases), but 30% of these were fibrosarcoma-MFHs and the remainder were chondrosarcomas, malignant lymphomas, myelomas, and malignant chordomas. /Radium-224/ See Reference 583. (13.74.28) In a retrospective study of patients who developed histopathologically confirmed

bone tumors after receiving radium-224, the two commonest histological types were bone producing McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 640 of 953

osteosarcomas and non-bone-producing sarcomas of the fibrocytic and fibrohistiocytic type. ... The unusually high incidence of this tumor type in radium-224 patients, with a ratio of osteosarcoma: fibrosarcoma or malignant fibrous histiocytoma of 1.9:1 differs significantly from that among spontaneously occurring skeletal tumors (ratio, 5.9:1) ... /Radium-224/ See Reference 584. (13.74.29) Benign radiation-induced tumors such as osteochondromas (cartilaginous

exostosis) usually arise in growing bone and cartilage. They are recorded in children who have received external irradition and have also been observed in children and adolescents treated with radium-224 for osteoarticular tuberculosis. /Radium-224/ See Reference 585. (13.74.30) There is some evidence of leukemia among patients injected with radium-224,

with one of these studies indicating an excess more than 30 years after the first injection of radium-224. ... Among radium dial workers in the United States, the number of leukemias observed was close to that expected in the general population. /Radium-224/ See Reference 586. (13.74.31) ...A revision of bone tumor pathology in patients treated with multiple injections of

the short-lived alpha-particle emitter radium-224, predominantly for tuberculosis and ankylosing spondylitis, revealed an unexpectedly high proportion of bone sarcomas of the fibrous connective tissue type. This included the first case of malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone described after internal irradiation. A comparison of bone tumor types in the radium-224 patients and bone sarcoma after incorporation of radium-226 and radium-228 and external irradiation and in tumors arising at sites of pre-existing bone lesions showed the same spectrum of tumors. The high incidence of bone tumors of the fibroblastic and fibrohistiocytic type was observed in all these secondary bone sarcomas. These results suggest that a close histogenetic relationship exists between disorder of the local milieu caused by deterministic radiation damage accompanied by disturbances of the remodeling process. The reactive proliferation of the predominantly fibroblastic tissue could be the presumptive origin of these special types of radiation-induced bone sarcomas. /Radium-224/ See Reference 587. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 641 of 953

(13.74.32)

Probable Routes of Human Exposure: ... Radium ... /has/ been implicated in the

occurrence of lung cancer in individuals engaged in mining ores. See Referemce 588. (13.74.33) Contamination of food, water, hands, or careless handling are the main causes of

radionuclide ingestion. See Reference 589. (13.74.34) Body Burden: Although the radium content of the human body depends on

location and diet, the average content for a standard man would be 31 picogram; 27 picogram of this is deposited in the bones. YTTRIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.75) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Yttrium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.75.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of yttrium and its

compounds. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of yttrium, refer to the YTTRIUM, ELEMENTAL record. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including yttrium, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.75.2) There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of pure

beta-particle emitters (hydrogen-3, phosphorus-32, strontium-90, yttrium-90, yttrium-91 and promethium-147). /Hydrogen, Phosphorus, Strontium, Yttrium, Promethium/ (13.75.3) For most internal dosimetry purposes, strontium-90 and yttrium-90 are the nuclides

of concern. These nuclides are found in equilibrium in virtually all circumstances under which exposure is likely. Although strontium separation operations have been performed in which pure strontium-90 might be obtained, the rapid ingrowth of the yttrium-90 decay product results in the secular equilibrium condition being achieved within about 2 weeks after separation. Thus, even if an McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 642 of 953

exposure to pure strontium-90 occurred involving significant metabolic uptake and internal deposition, within about 2 weeks of exposure equal quantities of both nuclides would be present in the body. /Strontium-90 and Yttrium-90/ See Reference 592. (13.75.4) Drug Warnings: Eighty-eight TheraSphere-treated patients with low 90-day

mortality risk were selected for analysis, with liver toxicities coded with use of standard oncology criteria. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were applied to estimate the incidence of liver toxicities and to evaluate the influence of liver radiation dose and various pretreatment factors on the risk of their occurrence. ... Sixty-eight liver toxicities occurred in 37 of the 88 patients (42%). Thirtytwo patients (36%) experienced 50 liver toxicities after the first treatment and nine of 23 patients (39%) who received a second treatment experienced 18 liver toxicities. Pretreatment total bilirubin and liver radiation dose were found to be associated with the risk of at least one liver toxicity and with the time to first occurrence of a liver toxicity after first treatment. Pretreatment total bilirubin also was associated with liver toxicities after the second treatment. Most of the toxicities resolved; however, those that did not resolve were attributed to tumor progression or advancing cirrhosis... /Yttrium-90 microspheres/ See Reference 593. YTTRIUM, ELEMENTAL (13.75.5) Antidote and Emergency Treatment: Basic treatment: Establish a patent airway.

Suction if necessary. Watch for signs of respiratory insufficiency and assist ventilations if needed. Administer oxygen by nonrebreather mask at 10 to 15 L/min. Monitor for pulmonary edema and treat if necessary ... . Monitor for shock and treat if necessary ... . Anticipate seizures and treat if necessary ... . For eye contamination, flush eyes immediately with water. Irrigate each eye continuously with normal saline during transport ... . Do not use emetics. For ingestion, rinse mouth and administer 5 mL/kg up to 200 mL of water for dilution if the patient can swallow, has a strong gag reflex, and does not drool ... . Cover skin burns with dry sterile dressings after decontamination ... . /Poison A and B/ See Reference McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 643 of 953

594. (13.75.6) Advanced treatment: Consider orotracheal or nasotracheal intubation for airway

control in the patient who is unconscious, has severe pulmonary edema, or is in respiratory arrest. Positive pressure ventilation techniques with a bag valve mask device may be beneficial. Consider drug therapy for pulmonary edema ... . Monitor cardiac rhythm and treat arrhythmias as necessary ... . Start an IV with D5W TKO /"To keep open", minimal flow rate/. Use lactated Ringer's if signs of hypovolemia are present. Watch for signs of fluid overload. For hypotension with signs of hypovolemia, administer fluid cautiously. Watch for signs of fluid overload ... . Treat seizures with diazepam (Valium) ... . Use proparacaine hydrochloride to assist eye irrigation ... . /Poison A and B/ See Reference 595. RADON, RADIOACTIVE (13.76) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Radon has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.76.1) This record contains information specific for compounds containing radon and

radon in the zero valence state; all radon nuclides are radioactive. For general information on radiation, such as transportation, sampling, analytical methods, regulations, and spill clean-up, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.76.2) Radon decays to a number of short lived decay products (progeny) that are

themselves radioactive. These may attach to available aerosol particles in the atmosphere, thereby forming "attached" radon progeny. Radon progeny that do not attach to aerosols are in the "unattached" state. If inhaled, both unattached and attached radon progeny may irradiate lung tissue as they decay. While it is the radon progeny rather than radon gas that presents the greater risk, the word radon is also used generally for both the gas and its progeny. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 644 of 953

(13.76.3)

Radon, a naturally occurring gas formed from the decay of uranium in the earth,

has been conclusively shown in epidemiologic studies of underground miners to cause lung-cancer. There is supporting evidence from experimental studies of animals that confirm radon as a cause of lung-cancer and from molecular and cellular studies that provide an understanding of the mechanisms by which radon causes lung-cancer. In addition to being present at high concentrations in many types of underground mines, radon is found in homes and is also present outdoors. Extensive measurements of radon concentrations in homes show that although concentrations vary widely, radon is universally present, raising concerns that radon in homes increases lung-cancer risk for the general population, especially those who spend a majority of their time indoors at home. ... Risk models, which mathematically represent the relationship between exposure and risk, have been developed and used to assess the lung-cancer risks associated with indoor radon. For example, ... the BEIR IV committee, developed one such model on the basis of statistical analysis of data from 4 epidemiologic studies of underground miners. The BEIR IV model has been widely used to estimate the risk posed by indoor radon. Since the 1988 publication of the BEIR IV report, substantial new evidence on radon has become available: new epidemiologic studies of miners have been completed, existing studies have been extended, and analysis of the pooled data from 11 principal epidemiologic studies of underground miners has been conducted involving a total of 68,000 miners and to date, 2,700 deaths from lungcancer. Other lines of scientific evidence relevant to assessing radon risks have also advanced, including findings on the molecular and cellular basis of carcinogenesis by alpha particles. Radon itself does not directly cause lung-cancer but alpha particles from radon progeny directly damage target lung cells to cause cancer. ... Radiation carcinogenesis, in common with any other form of cancer induction, is likely to be a complex multistep process that can be influenced by other agents and genetic factors at each step. Since our current state of knowledge precludes a systematic quantitative description of all steps from early subcellular lesions to observed malignancy, the committee used epidemiologic data to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 645 of 953

develop and quantify an empirical model of the exposure-risk relationship for lung-cancer. The /BEIR VI/ committee did draw extensively, however, on findings from molecular, cellular, and animal studies in developing its risk assessment for the general population. The committee's review of the cellular and molecular evidence was central to the specification of the risk model. This review led to the selection of a linear-nonthreshold relation between lung-cancer risk and radon exposure. However, the committee acknowledged that other relationships, including threshold and curvilinear relationships, cannot be excluded with complete confidence, particularly at the lowest levels of exposure. At low radon exposures, typical of those in homes, a lung epithelial cell would rarely be traversed by more than one alpha particle per human lifespan. As exposure decreases, the insult to cell nuclei that are traversed by alpha particles remains the same as at higher exposures, but the number of traversed nuclei decreases proportionally. There is good evidence that a single alpha particle can cause major genomic changes in a cell, including mutation and transformation. Even allowing for a substantial degree of repair, the passage of a single alpha particle has the potential to cause irreparable damage in cells that are not killed. In addition, there is convincing evidence that most cancers are of monoclonal origin, that is, they originate from damage to a single cell. These observations provide a mechanistic basis for a linear relationship between alpha-particle dose and cancer risk at exposure levels at which the probability of the traversal of a cell by more than one alpha particle is very small, that is, at exposure levels at which most cells are never traversed by even one alpha particle. On the basis of these mechanistic considerations, and in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, the committee adopted a linear-nonthreshold model for the relationship between radon exposure and lung-cancer risk. However, the committee recognized that it could not exclude the possibility of a threshold relationship between exposure and lung-cancer risk at very low levels of radon exposure. See Reference 597. (13.76.4) There is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of radon and its decay products

in experimental animals. There is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of radon and its decay McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 646 of 953

products in humans. Overall evaluation: Radon and its decay products are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). See Reference 598. (13.76.5) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ ... The pathogenesis of respiratory cancers in the

population of 2,500 to 3,500 American uranium miners was reported on studies beginning in 1957. From repeated sputum samples and from biopsies, surgery, and autopsies of miner patients, the course of the development of bronchogenic epidermoid carcinoma from squamous cell metaplasia of the bronchi arises as small patches from normal, tall, columnar epithelium. Many years may elapse before these patches develop into carcinoma, for example, about 15 years for epidermoid carcinoma; but the average time is about 4 years from the marked atypia stage to an invasive tumor. On occasion, concomitant tumors, such as small-cell carcinoma, may develop very rapidly and terminate in death. On the other hand, an in situ lesion may remain in its early developmental state, identified only at autopsy. /Radon progeny/ See Reference 599. (13.76.6) CASE REPORTS/ Multiple localized bone densities were radiographically spotted

in a 68-year-old male patient who had worked for 5 years in uranium mines (Joachimsthal); they were diagnosed as metastases of a prostate carcinoma. After the autopsy /the authors/ found by histological, radiochemical and autoradiographic investigations that a metastasizing prostatic carcinoma had not existed, but osteodystrophia caused by deposits of radioactive decay products of inhaled radon-222. Decay products are also likely to deposit in calcified atheroslerotic plaques. /Radon progeny/ See Reference 600. (13.76.7) /CASE REPORTS/ Most of the uranium mining in the United States took place in

the Four Corners region of the Southwest (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah) and on Native American lands. Although the uranium industry collapsed in the late 1980s, the industry employed several thousand individuals who continue to be at increased risk for developing lung cancers. We present the case of a 72-year-old Navajo male who worked for 17 years as an underground uranium McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 647 of 953

miner and who developed lung cancer 22 years after leaving the industry. His total occupational exposure to radon progeny was estimated at 506 working level months. The miner was a life-long nonsmoker and had no other significant occupational or environmental exposures. On the chest X-ray taken at admission into the hospital, a right lower lung zone infiltrate was detected. The patient was treated for community-acquired pneumonia and developed respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Respiratory failure worsened and the patient died 19 days after presenting. On autopsy, a 2.5 cm squamous cell carcinoma of the right lung arising from the lower lobe bronchus, a right broncho-esophageal fistula, and a right lower lung abscess were found. Malignant respiratory disease in uranium miners may be from several occupational exposures; for example, radon decay products, silica, and possibly diesel exhaust are respiratory carcinogens that were commonly encountered. In response to a growing number of affected uranium miners, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1990 to make partial restitution to individuals harmed by radiation exposure resulting from underground uranium mining and above-ground nuclear tests in Nevada. /Radon progeny/ See Reference 601. (13.76.8) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Indoor radon concentrations seem to depend on

both building material and leakage of radon from the ground. This study, in a rural area, is a further attempt to elucidate the etiology of lung cancer, taking into consideration type of house and ground conditions, as well as smoking habits. Although the choice of a rural study population helped to eliminate various confounding exposures in the urban environment, it limited the size of the study because of the rareness of lung cancer in rural populations. Long term residents, 30 yr or more in the same houses, were studied, and again an association was found between lung cancer and estimated exposure to radon and radon daughters in homes. The data also seem to indicate the possibility of a multiplicative effect between smoking and exposure to radon and radon daughters in homes, but there was also some confounding between these factors in the data. See Reference 602. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 648 of 953

(13.76.9)

/EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Residential radon has been shown to be a risk factor

for lung cancer in several studies-but with limited power in each single study. The data of two casecontrol studies performed during 1990-1997 in Germany and used for previous publications have been extended and pooled. Both studies have identical study designs. In total, data of 2,963 incident lung cancer cases and 4,232 population controls are analyzed here. One-year radon measurements were performed in houses occupied during the 5-35 y prior to the interview. Conditional logistic and linear relative risk regression was used for the analysis. Measurements covered on average 70% of the exposure time window, with an average radon exposure of 61 Bq m(-3). The smoking and asbestosadjusted ORs were 0.97 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.11] for 50-80 Bq m(-3), 1.06 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.30) for 80-140 Bq m(-3) and 1.40 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.89) for radon concentrations above 140 Bq m(-3), compared to the reference category <50 Bq m(-3). The linear increase in the odds ratio per 100 Bq m(-3) was 0.10 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.30) for all subjects and 0.14 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.55) for less mobile subjects who lived in only one home in the last 5-35 y. The risk coefficients generally were higher when measurement error in the radon concentrations was reduced by restricting the population. With respect to histopathology, the risk for small cell carcinoma was higher than for other subtypes. This analysis strengthens the evidence that residential radon is a relevant risk factor for lung cancer. See Reference 603. (13.76.10) EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ This study investigated residential radon exposure

and lung cancer risk, using both standard radon dosimetry and a new radon monitoring technology that, evidence suggests, is a better measure of cumulative radon exposure. Missouri women (aged 30 to 84 years) newly diagnosed with primary lung cancer during the period January 1, 1993, to January 31, 1994, were invited to participate in this population-based case-control study. Both indoor air radon detectors and CR-39 alpha-particle detectors (surface monitors) were used. When surface monitors were used, a significant trend in lung cancer odds ratios was observed for 20-year time-weightedMcKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 649 of 953

average radon concentrations. When surface monitors were used, but not when standard radon dosimetry was used, a significant lung cancer risk was found for radon concentrations at and above the action level for mitigation of houses currently used in the United States (148 Bqm-3). The risk was below the action level used in Canada (750 Bqm-3) and many European countries (200-400 Bqm-3). See Reference 604. (13.76.11) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ In East Germany, uranium mining was undertaken

on a large scale from 1946 to 1990. Poor working conditions led to a high level of exposure to ionizing radiation and quartz dust. This analysis evaluates the histopathology of lung carcinoma in uranium miners in relation to radon exposure and silicosis. ... A database developed for autopsy cases ascertained in a pathological tissue repository of German uranium miners was used to estimate odds ratios for developing lung carcinoma by major cell type with regard to radon exposure and silicosis. Silicosis information was extracted from autopsy protocols. Working level months (WLM) were calculated with a job-exposure matrix to assess lifetime radon exposure. Risk estimates were based on 3414 male miners who died from small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC, n = 1446), squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC, n = 1006), or adenocarcinoma (AC, n = 962) between 1957 and 1990. ... SCLC and SqCC seem more likely to be associated with high radon exposure than AC. Mean cumulative radon exposure was 868 (SD 631) WLM in SCLC, 871 (SD 652) WLM in SqCC, and 743 (SD 598) WLM in AC. Silicosis prevalence was 26% in SCLC, 38% in SqCC, and 30% in AC. In silicotics, AC and SqCC had a relatively higher frequency at the expense of SCLC. SCLC occurred earlier than AC and SqCC. CONCLUSION: High radon exposure was associated with a higher relative frequency of SCLC and SqCC than AC. Silicosis tended to increase the appearance of SqCC and AC. /Radon, radon progeny, and silica/ See Reference 605. (13.76.12) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ In the general population, evaluation of lung

cancer risk from radon in houses is hampered by low levels of exposure and by dosimetric uncertainties McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 650 of 953

due to residential mobility. To address these limitations, the authors conducted a case-control study in a predominantly rural area of China with low mobility and high radon levels. Included were all lung cancer cases diagnosed between January 1994 and April 1998, aged 30-75 years, and residing in two prefectures. Randomly selected, population-based controls were matched on age, sex, and prefecture. Radon detectors were placed in all houses occupied for 2 or more years during the 5-30 years prior to enrollment. Measurements covered 77% of the possible exposure time. Mean radon concentrations were 230.4 Bq/cu m for cases (n = 768) and 222.2 Bq/cu m for controls (n = 1,659). Lung cancer risk increased with increasing radon level (p < 0.001). When a linear model was used, the excess odds ratios at 100 Bq/cu m were 0.19 (95% confidence interval: 0.05, 0.47) for all subjects and 0.31 (95% confidence interval: 0.10, 0.81) for subjects for whom coverage of the exposure interval was 100%. Adjusting for exposure uncertainties increased estimates by 50%. Results support increased lung cancer risks with indoor radon exposures that may equal or exceed extrapolations based on miner data. See Reference 606. (13.76.13) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ The objective of this study was to evaluate the

ecological association between indoor radon concentration and acute leukemia incidence among children under 15 years of age in the 348 geographical units (zones d'emploi, ZE) of France between 1990 and 1998. During that period, 4015 cases were registered by the French National Registry of Childhood Leukemia and Lymphoma. Exposure assessment was based on a campaign of 13 240 measurements covering the whole country. The arithmetic mean radon concentration was 85 Bq/m (range, 15-387 Bq/m) and the geometric mean, 59 Bq/m (range: 13-228 Bq/m). A positive ecological association, on the borderline of statistical significance (P=0.053), was observed between indoor radon concentration and childhood leukemia incidence. The association was highly significant for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (P=0.004) but not for acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) (P=0.49). The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) increased by 7, 3 and 24% for all acute leukemia, ALL and AML, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 651 of 953

respectively, when radon concentration increased by 100 Bq/m. In conclusion, the present ecological study supports the hypothesis of a moderate association between indoor radon concentration and childhood acute myeloid leukemia. It is consistent with most previous ecological studies. Since the association is moderate, this result does not appear inconsistent with the five published case-control studies, most of which found no significant association. See Reference 607. (13.76.14) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ OBJECTIVES. To update mortality risks for

Navajo uranium miners, a retrospective cohort mortality study was conducted of 757 Navajos from the cohort of Colorado Plateau uranium miners. METHODS. Vital status was followed from 1960 to 1990. Standardized mortality ratios were estimated, with combined New Mexico and Arizona non-White mortality rates used for comparison. Cox regression models were used to evaluate exposure-response relationships. RESULTS. Elevated standardized mortality ratios were found for lung cancer (3.3), tuberculosis (2.6), and pneumoconioses and other respiratory diseases (2.6). Lowered ratios were found for heart disease (0.6), circulatory disease (0.4), and liver cirrhosis (0.5). The estimated relative risk for a 5-year duration of exposure vs none was 3.7 for lung cancer, 2.1 for pneumoconioses and other respiratory diseases, and 2.0 for tuberculosis. The relative risk for lung cancer was 6.9 for the midrange of cumulative exposure to radon progeny compared with the least exposed. CONCLUSIONS. Findings were consistent with those from previous studies. Twenty-three years after their last exposure to radon progeny, these light-smoking Navajo miners continue to face excess mortality risks from lung cancer and pneumoconioses and other respiratory diseases. /Radon progeny/ See Reference 608. (13.76.15) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Navajo men who were underground miners have

excess risk of lung cancer. To further characterize the long-term consequences of uranium mining in this high-risk population, we examined lung cancer incidence among Navajo men residing in New Mexico and Arizona from 1969 to 1993 and conducted a population-based case-control study to estimate the risk of lung cancer for Navajo uranium miners. Uranium mining contributed substantially McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 652 of 953

to lung cancer among Navajo men over the 25-year period following the end of mining for the Navajo Nation. Sixty-three (67%) of the 94-incident lung cancers among Navajo men occurred in former uranium miners. The relative risk for a history of mining was 28.6 (95% confidence interval, 13.2s61.7). Smoking did not account for the strong relationship between lung cancer and uranium mining. The Navajo experience with uranium mining is a unique example of exposure in a single occupation accounting for the majority of lung cancers in an entire population. /Radon progeny/ See Reference 609. (13.76.16) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ Studies seeking direct estimates of the lung cancer

risk associated with residential radon exposure lasting several decades have been conducted in many European countries. Individually these studies have not been large enough to assess moderate risks reliably. Therefore data from all 13 European studies of residential radon and lung cancer satisfying certain pre-specified criteria have been brought together and analyzed. ... Data were available for 7,148 persons with lung cancer and 14,208 controls, all with individual smoking histories and residential radon histories determined by long-term radon gas measurements. ... The excess relative risk of lung cancer per 100 Bq/m3 increase in the observed radon concentration was 0.08 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.03-0.16; P=0.0007) after control for confounding. The dose-response relationship was linear with no evidence of a threshold, and it remained significant when only persons with observed radon concentrations of <200 Bq/m3 were included. There was no evidence that the excess relative risk varied with age, sex, or smoking history. Removing the bias induced by random uncertainties related to radon exposure assessment increased the excess relative risk of lung cancer to 0.16 (95% CI 0.05-0.31) per 100 Bq/m3. With this correction, estimated risks at 0, 100, and 400 Bq/m3, relative to lifelong nonsmokers with no radon exposure, were 1.0, 1.2, and 1.6 for lifelong nonsmokers and 25.8, 29.9, and 42.3 for continuing smokers of 15-24 cigarettes/day. ...These data provide firm evidence that residential radon acts as a cause of lung cancer in the general population. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 653 of 953

(13.76.17)

/BIOMONITORING/ /GENOTOXICITY/ ... A higher incidence of chromosomal

aberrations /was reported/ among uranium miners exposed to radon and radon daughters at cumulative exposures ranging from <100 to >3,000 WLM, as compared to their matched controls. A clear exposure related increase was observed for the groups exposed to 770 to 2,890 WLM with a sharp decrease at the highest dose group (>3,000 WLM). See Referebce 611. (13.76.18) /BIOMONITORING/ /GENOTOXICITY/ Peripheral lymphocyte chromosomes

from 80 underground uranium miners and 20 male controls in the Colorado plateau, USA, were studied, taking into account confounding factors such as smoking habits and diagnostic radiation. Five groups with increasing cumulative exposure to radon and radon decay products were selected. Peripheral lymphocytes were cultured for 68-72 hr. Pericentric inversions and translocations showed the most consistent pattern of increase with estimated radiation dose. All aberration categories, except dicentrics and rings, demonstrated a significant, uniform increase with dose from < 100 to 1,740-2,890 working level month, but not at >3,000 working level month. Significantly more chromosomal aberrations were observed among workers with markedly atypical bronchial cell cytology, suspected carcinoma, or carcinoma in situ than among miners with regular or mildly atypical cells, as evaluated by sputum cell cytology. /Radon and radon progeny/ See Reference 612. URANYL NITRATE (13.77) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Uranyl Nitrate has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.77.1) This record contains information specific to the title compound. Users with an

interest in this substance are strongly encouraged to retrieve the URANIUM COMPOUNDS record, which has additional information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of uranium ions and uranium compounds; the URANIUM, RADIOACTIVE record, which contains information on the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 654 of 953

radiological aspects of uranium and its compounds; and the IONIZING RADIATION record which contains toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including uranium. (13.77.1) Evidence for Carcinogenicity: A1; Confirmed human carcinogen. /Uranium

(natural), soluble & insoluble compounds, as U/ See Reference 613. (13.77.2) /HUMAN EXPOSURE STUDIES/ A human volunteer ingested 1 g uranyl nitrate

hexahydrate in 200 ml of water (about 470 mg uranium or 6.71 mg uranium/kg for a 70 kg man) and experienced violent vomiting, diarrhea, and slight albuminuria. In the first seven days he excreted 2.5 mg uranium in his urine which represents an excretion of less than 1% of the ingested dose. Proteinuria was absent on the third day of posttreatment. /Uranyl nitrate hexahydrate/ See Reference 614. (13.77.3) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Onset of symptoms depends on oxidizing power of

the agent, the amount, & the power of delivery. ... Signs & symptoms of nitrite- & nitrate-induced vasodilation range from headache, nausea, vomiting, postural lightheadedness, orthostatic warm flushed skin, sweating, syncope, & tachycardia to hypotension, decr peripheral vascular resistance, & cardiovascular collapse. The presence of these effects depends on the methemoglobin concn & patient`s susceptibility to hypoxia. ... /Nitrates/ See Reference 615. (13.77.4) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ For sol uranium cmpd: lacrimation, conjunctivitis;

short breath, coughing, chest rales; nausea, vomiting; skin burns ... albuminuria, lymphatic cancer. /Sol uranium cmpd/ See Reference 616. (13.77.5) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ The high chemical toxicity of uranium and its salts is

largely shown in kidney damage, which may not be reversible. Acute arterial lesions may occur after acute exposures. /Uranium and salts/ See Reference 617. (13.77.6) Reference 618. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 655 of 953 Skin contact (burned skin) with uranyl nitrate has resulted in nephritis. See

(13.77.7)

/Uranyl nitrate/ ... produces severe kidney tubular degeneration and renal failure.

Other water- & acid-sol uranyl salts such as the acetate, chlorine, phosphate & sulfate share the nephrotoxicity of uranyl nitrate. See Reference 619. (13.77.8) 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 620. (13.77.9) From August 1946 to January 1947, the University of Rochester conducted toxicity

studies on uranium, using hospital patients as subjects. The purpose of the studies was to determine the dose level at which renal injury is first detectable, measure the rate at which uranium is eliminated from the body once it enters the bloodstream, and observe the effect of measures intended to alter the excretion rate. Human subjects included four males and two females, all with good kidney function, ranging in age from 24 to 61 years. All had medical conditions, such as undernutrition, alcoholism, or heart disease. Highly enriched uranium (uranium-234 and uranium-235) was administered intravenously as uranyl nitrate in amounts ranging from 6.4 to 70.9 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. At levels approaching 50 micrograms per kilogram, the preparation was diluted with natural uranyl acetate (U-238) to limit the potential radiotoxicity associated with systemic enriched uranium. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 656 of 953

Five subjects received a single injection and experienced no kidney damage. The sixth subject experienced slight kidney tissue toxicity at the 70.9 microgram/kg level, suggesting that the human tolerance level had been reached. This patient was administered ammonium chloride to induce an acidosis condition (a decrease in alkali relative to acid in bodily fluids), then received a second injection of uranyl nitrate at a dose of 56.6 microgram per kilogram. These studies showed that the tolerance level for uranium in the human circulation was about 70 micrograms per kilogram of body weight, that uranium excretion occurred mainly through urine, that 70 to 85 percent was eliminated in the first 24 hours, and that acidosis decreased the rate of uranium excretion. /Uranyl nitrate/ See Reference 621. (13.77.10) Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations: Dust: Irritating to eyes, nose, and throat.

Solid: Irritating to skin and eyes. /Uranyl nitrate hexahydrate/ See Reference 622. (13.77.11) Soluble compounds of uranium as dust or mist are respiratory irritants. ... /Soluble

uranium compounds (as uranium)/ See Reference 623. (13.77.12) A complete history and physical examination: The purpose is to detect existing

conditions that might place the exposed employee at increased risk, and to establish a baseline for future health monitoring. Exam of respiratory system, blood, liver, lymphatic system, and kidneys should be stressed. Skin should be examined for evidence of chronic disorders. A complete blood count: Since uranium is deposited in the bone & is an alpha particle emitter, the function of the bone marrow is at risk. A complete blood count should be performed incl a red cell count, a white cell count, a differential count of a stained smear, as well as hemoglobin and hematocrit. ... Surveillance of the lung is indicated. Urinalysis: Although not reported with insol uranium cmpd, kidney damage has been reported due to uranium exposure. A urinalysis should be performed, including at a minimum specific gravity, albumin, glucose, & microscopic of centrifuged sediment. Periodic medical exam: The aforementioned medical examination should be repeated on an annual basis. In addition, a McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 657 of 953

determination of urinary uranium levels should be performed at any time overexposure is suspected or signs and symptoms of toxicity occur. /Uranium and insol compounds (as uranium)/ See Reference 624. (13.77.13) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: Inhalation of fume, dust, or gas, ingestion,

skin & eye contact. The following uranium salts are reported to be capable of penetrating intact skin: uranyl nitrate, UO2(NO3)2.6H2O; uranyl fluoride, UO2F2; uranium pentachloride, UCl5; uranium trioxide (uranyl oxide) ... uranium hexafluoride, UF6. See Reference 625. (13.77.14) The following uranium salts are reported to be capable of penetrating intact skin:

uranyl nitrate, uranyl fluoride, uranium pentachloride, uranium trioxide and uranium hexafluoride(1). LEAD, RADIOACTIVE (13.78) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Lead has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.78.1) This record contains information specific to radioactive forms of lead. For general

toxicity and environmental fate of lead ions and lead compounds, refer to the LEAD COMPOUNDS record. For general information on radiation, such as transportation, sampling, analytical methods, regulations, and spill clean-up, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.78.2) Radon-222 has a half-life of 3.8 days and its decay progeny (polonium-218, lead-

214, bismuth-214, and polonium-214) have half lives of less than 30 min. Unlike radon, which is almost chemically inert, the decay products tend to adhere to dust particles and surfaces including those in the lung. Thus, although an inhaled radon atom is likely to be exhaled before it decays, inhaled radon progeny will likely decay (emit alpha or beta particles or gamma rays) before they can be removed by normal lung clearance mechanisms. ... There may be a significant distinction in health risk from radon progeny that attach to dust particles (attached decay products) and those progeny that do not attach McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 658 of 953

(unattached decay products). The latter agglomerate to form very small particles (ranging from 0.002 to 0.02 mm), which have a higher probability of being deposited deep in the lung. Radon decay products attached to dust particles are more likely deposited in the moist epithelial lining of the bronchi. Some mathematical models indicate that a higher lung dose of alpha emissions is associated with deposition of unattached radon decay products. /Radon progeny/ See Reference 627. (13.78.3) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: Since trace amounts of lead-210 are found

in all environmental media, the general population is exposed to small amounts of lead-210 via inhalation of ambient air and ingestion of food and water(SRC). The presence of lead-210 in tobacco increases the intake of lead-210 by smokers(2). The ribs of smokers were found to contain about twice the amount of lead-210 as compared to nonsmokers(1). Ashed ribs from smokers contained 0.28 pCi/g of lead-210(1). Ingestion of food and water is a more important contributor to lead-210 blood levels than inhalation, even in smokers(1). Individuals living near uranium mining operations may be exposed to increased levels of lead-210(SRC). Occupational exposure to lead-210 may also occur to individuals involved in uranium mining(SRC). See Reference 628. (13.78.4) Body Burden: Lead-210 concentration in various human tissues from Europe,

Japan, and the US ranged from 230-240, 90-560, 160-430, 30-270, and 2,400-5,000 mBq/kg in lung, liver, kidney, muscle and other tissues, and bone, respectively(1). Lead-210 concentration in various human tissues from the US were 230, 340, 160, and 140 mBq/kg in lung, liver, kidney, and muscle and other tissues, respectively(1). POLONIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.79) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Polonium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.79.1) This record contains information specific for compounds containing polonium and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 659 of 953

polonium in the zero valence state; all polonium nuclides are radioactive. For general information on radiation, such as transportation, sampling, analytical methods, regulations, and spill clean-up, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.79.2) /CASE REPORTS/ /Researchers/ summarized changes in the livers of 10 children

and four adolescents exposed accidentally to polonium from polonium-beryllium sources. The amounts of polonium deposited in these two groups ranged from 18.5 kBq to over 370 kBq. Transitory changes were observed in liver function, and decreased numbers of leukocytes and platelets was seen during the first few month after exposure. /Polonium-beryllium/ See Reference 630. (13.79.3) Body Burden: The average amount of polonium-210 in the human body is

approximately 1X10-9 curie(1). Polonium-210 concentration in various human tissues from Europe, Japan, and the US ranged from 190-370, 410-970, 420-1,200, 40-310, and 2,200-2,900 mBq/kg in lung, liver, kidney, muscle and other tissues, and bone, respectively(2). Polonium-210 concentration in various human tissues from the US were 190, 410-540, 420, 130-220, and 2,900 mBq/kg in lung, liver, kidney, muscle and other tissues, and bone, respectively(2). See Reference 631. CURIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.80) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Curium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.80.1) This record contains information specific for compounds containing curium and

curium in the zero valence state; all curium nuclides are radioactive. For general information on radiation, such as transportation, sampling, analytical methods, regulations, and spill clean-up, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.80.2) There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of

mixed alpha-particle emitters (radium-224, radium-226, thorium-227, thorium-228, thorium-230, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 660 of 953

thorium-232, neptunium-237, plutonium-238, plutonium-239 (together with plutonium- 240), americium-241, curium-244, californium-249 and californium-252). /Radium, Plutonium, Americium, Curium, Californium/ See Reference 632. (13.80.3) Internalized radionuclides that emit alpha-particles are carcinogenic to humans

(Group 1). In making this overall evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration the following: Alpha-particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, produce the same pattern of secondary ionizations and the same pattern of localized damage to biological molecules, including DNA. These effects, observed in vitro, include DNA doublestrand breaks, chromosomal aberrations, gene mutations and cell transformation. All radionuclides that emit alpha-particles and that have been adequately studied, including radon-222 and its decay products, have been shown to cause cancer in humans and in experimental animals. Alpha-particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, have been shown to cause chromosomal aberrations in circulating lymphocytes and gene mutations in humans in vivo. The evidence from studies in humans and experimental animals suggests that similar doses to the same tissues - for example lung cells or bone surfaces - from alpha- particles emitted during the decay of different radionuclides produce the same types of non-neoplastic effects and cancers. /Americium, Plutonium, and all other alpha-emitters/ (13.80.4) Evaluation. There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of

neutrons. There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of neutrons. Overall evaluation. Neutrons are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). In making the overall evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration the following: When interacting with biological material, fission neutrons generate protons, and the higher-energy neutrons used in therapy generate protons and alpha particles. Alpha Particle-emitting radionuclides (e.g. radon) are known to be human carcinogens. The linear energy transfer of protons overlaps with that of the lower-energy electrons produced by gamma-radiation. Neutron interactions also generate gamma-radiation, which is a human carcinogen. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 661 of 953

Gross chromosomal aberrations (including rings, dicentrics and acentric fragments) and numerical chromosomal aberrations are induced in the lymphocytes of people exposed to neutrons. The spectrum of DNA damage induced by neutrons is similar to that induced by X-radiation but contains relatively more of the serious (i.e. less readily repairable) types. Every relevant biological effect of gamma- or Xradiation that has been examined has been found to be induced by neutrons. Neutrons are several times more effective than X- and gamma-radiation in inducing neoplastic cell transformation, mutation in vitro, germ-cell mutation in vivo, chromosomal aberrations in vivo and in vitro and cancer in experimental animals. See Reference 634. (13.80.5) Internalized radionuclides that emit alpha-particles are carcinogenic to humans

(Group 1). In making this overall evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration the following: (1) Alpha-Particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, produce the same pattern of secondary ionizations and the same pattern of localized damage to biological molecules, including DNA. These effects, observed in vitro, include DNA double-strand breaks, chromosomal aberrations, gene mutations and cell transformation. (2) All radionuclides that emit alpha-particles and that have been adequately studied, including radon-222 and its decay products, have been shown to cause cancer in humans and in experimental animals. (3) Alpha-Particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, have been shown to cause chromosomal aberrations in circulating lymphocytes and gene mutations in humans in vivo. (4) The evidence from studies in humans and experimental animals suggests that similar doses to the same tissues, for example lung cells or bone surfaces, from alpha particles emitted during the decay of different radionuclides produce the same types of non-neoplastic effects and cancers. IRIDIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.81) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that Radioactive Iridium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 662 of 953

people, which are as follows: (13.81.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of iridium and its

compounds. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of iridium ions and iridium compounds, refer to the IRIDIUM COMPOUNDS record. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including iridium, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.81.2) /CASE REPORTS/ /SKIN/ A 32-year-old industrial radiographer presented with

skin changes involving the distal aspects of the first three digits of both hands. There was deformity of the left distal third digit and ulceration of the distal second digit. The patient had been an industrial radiographer for approximately 10 years. Approximately 2 years prior to presentation, the patient had knowingly handled an industrial radiography camera in which the 3.1x10+12 Bq (85 Ci) iridium-192 source had become disconnected from the cable and remained in the source tube. ... He noted erythema and blistering of the first three digits of the left hand 2 to 4 weeks post-exposure. His fingernails came off 4 to 5 weeks post-exposure. ... Healing occurred over the next 1 to 3 months. Approximately 18 months after exposure, the distal second digit become ulcerated and did not heal over the next 6 months. ... The ulceration was clearly visible as were skin thinning and loss of the normal fingerprint pattern. A radiograph of the hand revealed a lytic destructive lesion of the bone in the distal phalanx. Three-phase radionuclide bone scanning was performed and demonstrated little blood flow to the area. As a result, amputation of the distal phalanx was performed and pathological examination revealed both osteonecrosis as a result of radiation injury and concurrent osteomyelitis. The lesion healed satisfactorily after surgery. /Iridium-192/ See Reference 636. (13.81.3) /CASE REPORTS/ /SKIN/ A worker was contaminated following a chemical

explosion that splashed an HNO3 radioactive solution containing approximately 180 MBq (5 mCi) iridium-192 onto the left side of his face. Initial efforts reduced the contamination at least five-fold. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 663 of 953

Removal of a patch of contaminated hair was necessary. Most of the contamination was fixed to the skin; only a small amount of contamination was absorbed. /Iridium-192/ See Reference 637. (13.81.4) /CASE REPORTS/ /SKIN/ Industrial radiography using the man-made radioisotope

iridium-192 is commonplace in the southern states. Despite established procedures and safeguards, accidental exposure may result in typical acute radiodermatitis. /The authors/ have presented a clinical example of this phenomenon. /Iridium-192/ (13.81.5) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ This paper describes the

sequence of events, medical aspects and dose estimations for two radiographers and their driver who were seriously exposed to an iridium-192 industrial radiography source that became detached from its wind-out cable. The men came to medical attention about 1 month later by which time all three were severely leukopenic and one had skin burns on both hands. Doses were estimated by (i) physics calculations combined with their accounts of the event. (ii) the levels of depression of their blood neutrophils, (iii) electron spin resonance on tooth enamel and (iv) blood lymphocyte chromosomal analyses by the conventional dicentric and the fluorescence in situ hybridisation methods. Intercomparison of these methods for estimating doses showed a good level of agreement. In brief, the averaged whole body dose for the most seriously exposed man was about 2.5-3.0 Gy and for the others it was 1.0-2.0 Gy. /Iridium-192/ See 639. (13.81.6) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ An industrial source

(6x10+11 Bq (16.3 Ci)) was taken home by a worker and remained undiscovered for 80 days, the approximate half life of iridium-192. The father placed the source on a shelf near his bed in a room where he, his wife, and four children, 4, 5, 7, and 8, slept on floor mats. The grandparents slept in a second room. A cousin was also present. One month after the father brought the source home, he started to have nosebleeds, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; he stopped working and stayed home. He rapidly exhibited alopecia and erythema of the right thigh which worsened in a few days and were later McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 664 of 953

described as necrotic by his relatives. The situation worsened until he was so weak that he stayed in bed 24 hr/day. He died 44 days after the beginning of his exposure. The main cause of death appeared to be sudden and massive pulmonary bleeding. The whole family was rapidly decimated. The youngest daughter died a month after the father's first symptoms, followed by the pregnant mother and the remaining three children within the next 10 days. After the father's death, two relatives came for the funeral and stayed in the house for a significant period, and both died. The three surviving members of the family, the grandparents and cousin, were hospitalized. The grandmother presented clinical symptoms of aplasia, paleness, and hematomas; she had a total alopecia and her hematopoiesis was significantly depressed; she developed severe bacteremia in the hospital probably related to the iv line. The grandfather did not present any clinical signs related to irradiation although his blood counts were subnormal. The cousin's hematological findings showed signs of moderate hypoplasia with slight anemia and neutropenia. It was estimated that 90% of the grandmother's marrow received > 3 Gy with a mean dose of 7 Gy and a cephalic dose of 12-14 Gy. The cousin had a much lower dose, with a mean of 3 Gy. The prognosis was optimistic for the cousin but more reserved for the grandmother because of her age, clinical conditions, and the severity of aplasia. After 60 units of platelet transfusion and 6 units of red blood cell concentrates, signs of bone marrow repair began to appear; hematopoiesis was finally stabilized on day 50 after her last exposure. The cousin's peripheral reticulocytes and neutrophil counts improved within a few days although repair was still incomplete after 2 weeks. /Iridium-192/ See Reference 640. (13.81.7) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ In Algeria, in 1978 an

iridium source of about 1x10+11 Bq (5.4 Ci) fell from a truck and was found by two boys aged 3 and 7 who played with the object for a few hours. The 47-yr-old grandmother confiscated the source and hid it in the kitchen where it remained for 5 to 6 wks. Five members of the family were exposed under various conditions depending on time spent in the kitchen. The grandmother and four females, 14-20 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 665 of 953

years of age, spent most of their time at home. After 4 weeks, the eldest sister, who was pregnant, suffered malaise and decided to go elsewhere. The two boys rapidly exhibited skin injuries, localized on the mouth and both hands of the younger one, and on both hands, buttocks, and thighs of the older one. A country physician, alerted by authorities about the missing source, heard of a family presenting clinical signs that might be associated with radiation. Local authorities were alerted and the source was located 38 days after it fell from the truck. The victims were hospitalized, eventually in Paris. The five female patients were in a bad general state when they arrived, with prostration, anorexia, and nausea. They exhibited hemorrhagic and digestive syndrome, with severe mucous bleeding, ecchymotic suffusion, and purpura. In addition, the grandmother had severe radiation skin burns over a large area of her back. The five patients had profound hematological changes. The bone marrow examinations from various areas showed zero cellularity. The grandmother progressively deteriorated and died 2 wks after the source had been found. Her death seems to have been caused by an hemoptysis related to both bone marrow aplasia and lung exposure complicated by extensive superinfected burns. The two boys, who did not present signs of acute radiation syndrome, had severe disseminated skin lesions. Biological dosimetry based on chromosome analysis was difficult; the boys only received localized exposure and the three youngest girls were given a total blood transfusion before their transport to Paris. Preliminary evaluations estimated doses of 3.7 Gy for the grandmother and 4 Gy for the sisters; reevaluation 10 years later gave more realistic doses of 10 Gy for the oldest sister, nearly 20 Gy for the second oldest, and around 5 Gy for the two youngest sisters. ... Despite the fact that each whole-body-overexposed patient was given several bags of red cells and platelets daily, the critical period lasted for 30-60 days and necessitated a constant, long-term therapeutic effort, including maintenance of fluid and electrolyte balance and liquid compensation often exceeding 5 L/day. ... In general, it was difficult to maintain potassium at a normal level. Intensive care, anti-infection treatment, and daily balance of the hematological deficiency were applied. Despite patient isolation for 7 wks, the four daughters McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 666 of 953

developed local infections and septicemia, which necessitated major antibiotic and antimycotic treatment. Although bone-marrow transplantations were considered for two patients, the procedure was not carried out because of a slight positive response in reticulocyte counts. The eldest daughter was pregnant, and the fetus died during the hematological recovery period. For the boys, all efforts were devoted to avoid amputation as far as feasible. The hematological recovery period started late with myelocytes and metamyelocytes not reaching stabilized (but low) levels after 4 to 5 wks. The eldest sister and her two brothers returned home more than a year later. One sister stayed in France, married and gave birth to three normal children; she remains in good state except for a previously diagnosed thyroid nodule. /Iridium-192/ See Reference 641. (13.81.8) /CASE REPORTS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ High dose rate

brachytherapy involves placement of intense radioactive sources inside the patient for short periods of time. This particular accident involved a 16 GBq (4.3 Ci) iridium-192 source. The prescribed dose was 18 Gy in three fractions. Five catheters were used and placed in the tumor, and there was difficulty placing the radioactive source wire into the fifth catheter. The source became dislodged and remained in the patient. The patient was transported to a nursing home and remained there for 4 days, at which time the catheter fell out. The patient was estimated to have received a dose of 16,000 Gy at 1 cm from the source instead of the prescribed 18 Gy. The source in the catheter that fell out was sent off with typical medical waste to be incinerated; however, it was discovered when it tripped a radiation monitor at the incinerator. The patient died shortly after, and radiation was the major contributing cause of death. In all, 94 other individuals had been exposed to the source at the clinic, at the nursing home, and other areas. /Iridium-192/ See 642. (13.81.9) /CASE REPORTS/ /GENOTOXICITY/ PURPOSE: To report 18 months of

cytogenetic follow-up for an Iranian worker accidentally overexposed to iridium-192, the mathematical extrapolation and comparison with clinical data. ... Unstable chromosome aberrations were measured McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 667 of 953

using conventional cytogenetic tests by French and Iranian biological dosimetry laboratories on five occasions after the exposure. The decrease in dicentrics over time was analysed mathematically. In addition, Dolphin and Qdr extrapolations were applied to the data to check the exposure estimates. FISH determination of translocation yields was performed twice by the French laboratory and the results compared with the Dolphin and Qdr corrected values. ... Dose estimates based on dicentrics decreased from 3.1+/-0.4 Gy at 5 days after the accident to 0.8+/-0.2 Gy at 529 days. This could be fitted by double-exponential regression with an inflexion point between rapid and slow decrease of dicentrics after about 40 days. Dose estimates of 3.4+/-0.4 Gy for the Qdr model and 3.6+/-0.5 Gy for the Dolphin model were calculated during the post-exposure period and were remarkably stable. FISH translocation data at 26 and 61 days appeared consistent with the Dolphin and Qdr estimates. /The authors concluded that/ dose correction by the Qdr and Dolphin models and translocation scoring appeared consistent with the clinical data and provided better information about the radiation injury than did crude estimates from dicentric scoring alone. Estimation by the Dolphin model of the irradiated fraction of the body seemed unreliable: it correlated better with the fraction of originally irradiated lymphocytes. /Iridium-192/ See Reference 643. METHYL IODIDE (13.82) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Methyl Iodide has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.82.1) Human Toxicity Excerpts: MAY PRODUCE SEVERE ... /SRP: CNS

DEPRESSION/; LUNG IRRITATION FROM ACUTE EXPOSURE. PROLONGED CONTACT WITH SKIN CAN CAUSE VESICANT BURNS. See Reference 644. (13.82.2) APPLICATION OF 1 ML ... UNDER GAUZE DRESSING TO SKIN OF

VOLUNTEER FOR 1/2 HR PRODUCED ERYTHEMATOUS REACTION WITH VESICLES 19 HR McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 668 of 953

AFTER APPLICATION ... . See Reference 645. (13.82.3) A 41 YR OLD CHEMIST DEVELOPED METHYL IODIDE INTOXICATION.

CHARACTERISTICS OF METHYL IODIDE POISONING INCLUDE DELAY BETWEEN EXPOSURE & ONSET OF SYMPTOMS, EARLY SYSTEMIC TOXICITY WITH CONGESTIVE CHANGES IN LUNGS & OLIGURIC RENAL FAILURE, PROMINENT CEREBELLAR & PARKINSONIAN NEUROLOGIC SYMPTOMS AS WELL AS SEIZURES & COMA IN SEVERE CASES, & PSYCHIATRIC DISTURBANCES THAT LAST FROM MONTHS TO YEARS. See Reference 646. (13.82.4) ... FROM INHALATION OF VAPOR ... ONE PATIENT FELT WEAK & DIZZY,

WALKING AS THOUGH DRUNK. ... /SRP: DIPLOPIA DEVELOPED HORIZONTALLY & VERTICALLY/ & HE STUMBLED OVER OBSTACLES ... INTERMITTENTLY HE THOUGHT HE COULD NOT SEE. ... 8 DAYS LATER EYES WERE ... FOUND NORMAL, & HE ... HAD NO FURTHER VISUAL TROUBLES. See Reference 647. (13.82.5) /IN FATAL POISONING/ ONLY DESCRIPTION CONCERNING EYES WAS OF

NYSTAGMOID MOVEMENTS & SLIGHT RIGHT INTERNAL STRABISMUS ... FUNDI ... SAID TO BE NORMAL. VISION WAS NOT EVALUATED. See Reference 647. (13.82.6) Methyl iodide may cause nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, slurred speech,

visual disturbances, staggering, shaking, irritability, drowsiness, coma, and death. It may irritate the eyes and lungs. Contact with the liquid may cause irritation and blistering of the skin. See Reference 648. (13.82.7) THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF LUNG IRRITATION & KIDNEY

INVOLVEMENT FROM ACUTE EXPOSURES. See Reference 649. (13.82.8) Iodomethane acts as a poison attacking the skin, eyes and the CNS via inhalation,

ingestion, eye and skin contact. See Reference 650. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 669 of 953

(13.82.9) (13.82.10)

A CNS depressant. See Reference 651. Methyl iodide induced DNA repair synthesis in cultured human lymphoblastoid

cells, as measured by caesium chloride-gradient centrifugation. See Reference 652. (13.82.11) /In/ a fatal case of poisoning in a worker exposed to methyl iodide fumes during

its manufacture: severe neurological symptoms preceded death; all organs showed congestion at autopsy. See Reference 653. (13.82.12) Non-fatal poisonings affecting workers in methyl iodide manufacture were

characterized by the onset of neurological symptoms (such as vertigo, visual disturbances and weakness); these were followed by psychological disturbances and intellectual impairment, which had not been resolved entirely even after several months or years. See Reference 654. (13.82.13) Massive exposure has led to pulmonary edema; prolonged or repeated exposure

may cause CNS effects; prolonged contact may cause skin burns. See Reference 655. (13.82.14) /Researchers/ reported a fatal case of poisoning from methyl iodide in a chemical

plant worker. The signs and symptoms included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and oliguria, vertigo, slurred speech, visual disturbances, ataxia, tremor, irritability, drowsiness, and coma. See Reference 656. (13.82.15) Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations: Contact with the liquid may cause irritation

... of the skin. See Reference 657. (13.82.16) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: NIOSH (NOES Survey 1981-1983) has

statistically estimated that 2182 workers (439 of these are female) are potentially exposed to methyl iodide in the US(1). Occupational exposure to methyl iodide may occur through inhalation and dermal contact with this compound at workplaces where it is produced or used(SRC). The general population may be exposed to methyl iodide via inhalation of ambient air or ingestion of food, primarily marine seafood(SRC). See Reference 658. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 670 of 953

CALIFORNIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.83) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that Radioactive Californium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.83.1) This record contains information specific for compounds containing californium

and californium in the zero valence state; all californium nuclides are radioactive. For general information on radiation, such as transportation, sampling, analytical methods, regulations, and spill clean-up, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.83.2) ...There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of

neutrons. Overall evaluation. Neutrons are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). In making the overall evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration the following: When interacting with biological material, fission neutrons generate protons, and the higher-energy neutrons used in therapy generate protons and alpha particles. Alpha Particle-emitting radionuclides (e.g. radon) are known to be human carcinogens. The linear energy transfer of protons overlaps with that of the lower-energy electrons produced by gamma-radiation. Neutron interactions also generate gamma-radiation, which is a human carcinogen. Gross chromosomal aberrations (including rings, dicentrics and acentric fragments) and numerical chromosomal aberrations are induced in the lymphocytes of people exposed to neutrons. The spectrum of DNA damage induced by neutrons is similar to that induced by X-radiation but contains relatively more of the serious (i.e. less readily repairable) types. Every relevant biological effect of gamma- or X-radiation that has been examined has been found to be induced by neutrons. Neutrons are several times more effective than X- and gamma-radiation in inducing neoplastic cell transformation, mutation in vitro, germ-cell mutation in vivo, chromosomal aberrations in vivo and in vitro and cancer in experimental animals. See Reference 659. (13.83.3) ...There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of X-radiation and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 671 of 953

gamma-radiation. There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of Xradiation and gamma-radiation. Overall evaluation. X-radiation and gamma-radiation are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). See Reference 660. (13.83.4) There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of

mixed alpha-particle emitters (radium-224, radium-226, thorium-227, thorium-228, thorium-230, thorium-232, neptunium-237, plutonium-238, plutonium-239 (together with plutonium-240), americium-241, curium-244, californium-249 and californium-252). /Radium, Plutonium, Americium, Curium, Californium/ See Reference 661. (13.83.5) Internalized radionuclides that emit alpha-particles are carcinogenic to humans

(Group 1). In making this overall evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration the following: Alpha-particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, produce the same pattern of secondary ionizations and the same pattern of localized damage to biological molecules, including DNA. These effects, observed in vitro, include DNA doublestrand breaks, chromosomal aberrations, gene mutations and cell transformation. All radionuclides that emit alpha-particles and that have been adequately studied, including radon-222 and its decay products, have been shown to cause cancer in humans and in experimental animals. Alpha-particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, have been shown to cause chromosomal aberrations in circulating lymphocytes and gene mutations in humans in vivo. The evidence from studies in humans and experimental animals suggests that similar doses to the same tissues - for example lung cells or bone surfaces - from alpha- particles emitted during the decay of different radionuclides produce the same types of non-neoplastic effects and cancers. /Americium, Plutonium, and all other alpha-emitters/ See Reference 662. (13.83.6) /CASE REPORTS/ A general description of a californium-252 inhalation incident,

personnel decontamination and precautionary medical treatment are presented in this paper. Californium urinary excretion was followed, some fecal analyses were carried out and in vivo McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 672 of 953

measurements were made with a 4x8 inch NaI(Tl) detector. Bioassay data are evaluated to indicate gastrointestinal and urinary clearance rates. The effects of DTPA chelation and catharsis are discussed. /Californium-252/ See Reference 663. (13.83.7) Effects of cobalt-60 gamma-rays and californium-252 neutrons on human sperm

chromosomes were studied using an interspecific in vitro fertilization system to estimate relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of neutrons. Semen samples were exposed to 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 Gy of cobalt-60 gamma-rays at 1.7 centaGy/ min and 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 Gy of californium-252 radiation at 1.3-1.7 cGy/ min. In the cobalt-60 experiment, 509 spermatozoa from controls and 902 spermatozoa from the irradiated groups were karyotyped, while in the californium-252 experiment 460 control and 804 irradiated spermatozoa were analysed. In both ... experiments, incidences of spermatozoa with radiation-induced structural chromosome aberrations increased linearly with increase of dosage. The RBE of californium-252 neutrons for the induction of chromosomally abnormal spermatozoa was estimated to be 1.6. The number of induced structural chromosome aberrations per spermatozoon also increased linearly. The RBE of neutrons for this index was 2.0. Among structural chromosome aberrations observed, chromosome-type breaks were predominant in both cobalt-60 and californium252 experiments, and they showed a significant linear dose-dependent increase. Other types of aberrations such as chromosome-type exchanges and chromatid-type breaks also increased linearly with increase in dose. The RBEs of californium-252 neutrons for the induction of these three types of aberrations were 1.6, 3.2 and 3.9, respectively. Thus, the RBEs of neutrons for the induction of chromosome aberrations were smaller in human spermatozoa than in human lymphocytes, and mouse spermatogonia and embryos. ... /Californium-252 and cobalt-60/ See Reference 664. BERYLLIUM (13.84) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Beryllium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 673 of 953

people, which are as follows: (13.84.1) This record contains information for beryllium in its zero valence state only. For

general information on the toxicity and environmental fate of beryllium ion and beryllium compounds, refer to the BERYLLIUM COMPOUNDS record; for compound-specific information, refer to the appropriate individual records, e.g., beryllium oxide, beryllium sulfate, etc. (13.84.2) Exposure of people to relatively high concentrations of beryllium (greater than 100

ug cu m) causes acute beryllium disease, characterized by chemical pneumonitis. ... Some people inhaling low concentrations of beryllium develop chronic beryllium disease, a granulomatous lung disease characterized by dyspnea, cough, reduced pulmonary function, and a variety of other symptoms, including weight loss. ... The lack of a dose-response relationship between the extent of exposure and development of the disease, long latency period between exposure and onset, and the low incidence among beryllium-exposed individuals suggests that the disease is immune mediated. ... Occupational risk associated with exposure to beryllium-containing alloys has been documented for individuals exposed to beryllium-copper and beryllium-nickel alloys. Beryllium is a suspected human carcinogen, based on results of animal data. Epidemiologic evidence relating beryllium exposure to cancer in humans is inadequate to demonstrate or refute that beryllium is carcinogenic in humans, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer lists the evidence for beryllium induced carcinogenicity in humans as "limited". ... The pulmonary effects of inhaled beryllium have also been evaluated in a variety of laboratory animal species. ... monkeys exposed to relatively high concentrations of beryllium compounds developed symptoms and histopathological findings consistent with acute beryllium disease. ... Granulomatous lung disease has also been produced in guinea pigs exposed to beryllium compounds by inhalation or by intratracheal instillation. ... Repeated inhalation of beryllium-containing materials, including soluble beryllium compounds by various strains of laboratory rats has resulted in development of inflammatory and proliferative changes, granulomatous lung McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 674 of 953

changes, and the development of lung tumors. Although beryllium- exposed rats have developed various degrees of granulomatous lung disease, none have developed immunopathological responses in lung or beryllium hypersensitivity. ... studies have shown that several strains of mice inhaling beryllium develop pulmonary lesions with features consistent with chronic beryllium disease. Lung lesions consisted of infiltration of lymphocytes into the lung interstitium, development of microgranulomas consisting of T lymphocytes and macrophages, and the presence of some pulmonary fibrosis. Under certain exposure conditions, increased numbers of lymphocytes were recovered in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from exposed animals. See Reference 665. (13.84.2) Evidence for Carcinogenicity: WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE

CHARACTERIZATION: B1; probable human carcinogen. Based on the limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans exposed to airborne beryllium (lung cancer) and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals (lung cancer in rats and monkeys inhaling beryllium, lung tumors in rats exposed to beryllium via intratracheal instillation, and osteosarcomas in rabbits and possibly mice receiving intravenous or intramedullary injection), beryllium is reclassified from a B2 (inadequate human data) to a B1 probable human carcinogen (limited human data) using criteria of the 1986 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Using the proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, inhaled beryllium would be characterized as a "likely" carcinogen in humans, and the human carcinogenic potential of ingested beryllium cannot be determined. Studies regarding the potential carcinogenicity of ingested beryllium to humans were not available. Increases in lung cancer mortality have been observed in cohort mortality studies of beryllium processing workers ... and in studies of entrants on the BCR. No increases in other types of cancer were found, but increases in deaths from nonmalignant respiratory disease were also observed. Newer studies ... have been considered as the basis for a dose-response assessment, but share a limitatiion ... lack of individul exposure monitoring or job history data that would support a more definitive exposure assessment. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 675 of 953

NIOSH has recently completed a lung cancer case-control study nested within a cohort mortality study of beryllium manufacturing workers at the Reading beryllium processing facility. The study developed an exposure matrix and calculated airborne exposure concentration and thus may provide the best available basis for a quantitative cancer estimate. ... Chronic oral studies of the potential carcinogenicity of beryllium in animals were conducted at dose levels below the /Maximum Tolerated Dose/, and therefore are inadequate for the assessment of carcinogenicity. Beryllium has been shown to induce lung cancer in rats exposed to beryllium by both inhalation and intratracheal instillation and in monkeys by inhalation. Osteosarcomas have been produced in rabbits and possibly in mice by intravenous and intramedullary injection using a variety of beryllium compounds and beryllium metal. No tumors were produced by intracutaneous or percutaneous injections of beryllium compounds. The majority of studies do not induce gene mutation in bacterial assays with or without metabolic activation. Gene mutations have been observed in mammalian cells cultured with beryllium chloride. Culturing mammalian cells with beryllium chloride, beryllium sulfate, or beryllium nitrate has resulted in clastogenic alterations. HUMAN CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Limited. ANIMAL CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Sufficient. See Reference 666. (13.84.2) Evaluation: There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of

beryllium and beryllium compounds. There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of beryllium and beryllium compounds. Overall evaluation: Beryllium and beryllium compounds are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). /Beryllium and beryllium compounds/ See Reference 667. (13.84.3) Reference 668. (13.84.4) Human Toxicity Excerpts: THE ATTACK RATE FOR ACUTE PNEUMONITIS A1: Confirmed human carcinogen. /Beryllium and compounds, as Be/ See

IN AN ORE REDUCTION OPERATION WITH HIGHER EXPOSURES, WAS GREATER THAN McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 676 of 953

10% IN 1950, VERSUS 3% IN ALL EMPLOYEES. SYMPTOMS FROM A FRANK EXPOSURE MAY APPEAR IN A FEW HR, & RECOVERY IN FROM 1 TO 12 WK, RARELY WITH ANY RESIDUAL. THE TYPICAL SIGNS OF CHEMICAL PNEUMONITIS APPEAR AS ANOREXIA, WEIGHT LOSS, WEAKNESS & VARYING DEGREES OF CYANOSIS. THE PHYSICAL SIGNS INCLUDE LOWERED VITAL CAPACITY, FINE TO COARSE SIBILANT RALES, & RAPID PULSE. X-RAY FINDINGS ARE USUALLY A PERIBRONCHIAL HAZINESS & PUNCTATE INFILTRATION THROUGHOUT THE LOWER LUNG FIELDS, OR IN SEVERE CASES, CONSOLIDATION. See Reference 669. (13.84.5) FUMES OF BERYLLIUM ... IN REFINING OR MFR PRODUCE METAL

FUME FEVER, CORYZA, BRONCHITIS. ... See Reference 670. (13.84.6) DEATH MAY RESULT FROM SHORT EXPOSURE TO VERY LOW CONCN

OF THE ELEMENT & ITS SALTS. CONTACT DERMATITIS, CHEMICAL CONJUNCTIVITIS, CORNEAL BURNS, NON HEALING ULCERATION AT SITE OF INJURY, SUBCUTANEOUS NODULES MAY OCCUR FOLLOWING EXPOSURE. ACUTE: PNEUMONITIS MAY RESULT FROM SINGLE EXPOSURE TO BERYLLIUM & OCCASIONALLY IS FATAL. CHRONIC: PULMONARY GRANULOMATOUS DISEASE MAY APPEAR IN 3 MO TO 15 YR, OFTEN AFTER SHORT EXPOSURE TO LOW CONCN. UNCERTAINTY AS TO COMPLETE RECOVERY. DEATH RATE ABOUT 25%. See Reference 671. (13.84.7) ... CHRONIC ... TOXICITY /CAUSED BY AIRBORNE DUST OF BERYLLIUM/

... IN SOME CASES YR AFTER CHRONIC INHALATION EXPOSURE ... HEART ENLARGEMENT & CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE ... ENLARGEMENT OF LIVER & SPLEEN ... CELLULAR INFILTRATION IN INTERSTICES OF VARIOUS ORGANS & TISSUES, & CALCIFIC INCLUSIONS IN CELLS & TISSUES. See Reference 672. (13.84.8) IN MEN OCCUPATIONALLY BERYLLIUM EXPOSED (LESS THAN 8 NG McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 677 of 953

BE/CU M, 4-6 HR/DAY), BERYLLIUM CONCN IN BLOOD & URINE SHOWED MEAN INCR OF A FACTOR OF 4 OVER CONTROL SUBJECTS. BERYLLIUM SPECIFIC STIMULATION OF THYMUS DERIVED LYMPHOCYTES OF THE EXPOSED MEN WAS INCR SIGNIFICANTLY. See Reference 673. (13.84.9) ACUTE ... 1. INHALATION- ACUTE PNEUMONITIS ... CHEST PAIN,

BRONCHIAL SPASM, FEVER, DYSPNEA, CYANOSIS, COUGH, BLOOD TINGED SPUTUM, & NASAL DISCHARGE. RIGHT HEART FAILURE MAY OCCUR AS RESULT OF INCR PULMONARY ARTERIAL RESISTANCE. ONSET OF SYMPTOMS ... 2-5 WK AFTER EXPOSURE OF 1-20 DAYS. ... 2. SKIN CONTACT ... ACUTE DERMATITIS FROM CONTACT WITH DUST SIMULATES FIRST & SECOND DEGREE BURNS. 3. EYE CONTACT- DUST CONTAMINATION CAUSES ACUTE CONJUNCTIVITIS WITH CORNEAL MACULAE & DIFFUSE ERYTHEMA. See Reference 674. (13.84.10) CHRONIC ... 1. INHALATION ... WT LOSS & MARKED DYSPNEA ... 3 MO

TO 11 YR AFTER FIRST EXPOSURE. DISEASE ... DOWNHILL COURSE OR MAY BE MARKED BY EXACERBATIONS & REMISSIONS. RIGHT HEART FAILURE ... FEVER IS VARIABLE. ... 2. SKIN CONTACT- ECZEMATOUS DERMATITIS WITH MACULOPAPULAR, ERYTHEMATOUS, VESICULAR RASH ... IN LARGE PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS EXPOSED TO BERYLLIUM DUSTS. See Reference 675. (13.84.11) ... 60 ... CASES OF CHRONIC BERYLLIUM DISEASE ... 18 PATIENTS HAD

DIED: 13 FROM COR PULMONALE, 1 ... RESP INSUFFICIENCY, 1 ... CARDIAC ARREST, 1 ... VIRUS PNEUMONIA, 1 ... RENAL INSUFFICIENCY & 1 ... UNSTATED CAUSE. See Reference 676. (13.84.12) IN CHRONIC SYSTEMIC BERYLLIUM POISONING ... THERE MAY BE

CLINICAL RESEMBLANCE TO BOECK'S SARCOID. RARELY THIS MAY BE ACCOMPANIED McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 678 of 953

BY CALCIFICATION OF CORNEA IN FORM OF BAND KERATOPATHY SUCH AS DEVELOPS IN HYPERCALCEMIA ... See Reference 677. (13.84.13) OCULAR IRRITATION FROM INDUSTRIAL EXPOSURE ...

CONJUNCTIVITIS ... SCARCELY EVER INVOLVING CORNEA. HYPEREMIA OF CONJUNCTIVA & EDEMA OF LIDS ... FROM EXPOSURE TO DUST OR DIRECT CONTAMINATION BY PARTICLES ... CAUSE RATHER PERSISTENT BURNING SENSATION & PHOTOPHOBIA ... RECOVERY ... 5-10 DAYS. See Reference 678. (13.84.14) ... STUDIED THE INCIDENCE OF CANCER IN WORKERS IN TWO

SEPARATE BERYLLIUM COMPANIES BUT COULD NOT CONCLUDE THAT CANCER AT ANY PARTICULAR SITE COULD BE CORRELATED WITH THE WORKER'S EXPOSURE TO BERYLLIUM. See Reference 679. (13.84.15) BECAUSE OF DELAY IN ONSET, CASES OF CHRONIC BERYLLIUM

DISEASE FROM OLD EXPOSURES CONTINUE TO DEVELOP. See Reference 680. (13.84.16) THE LACK OF SIGNIFICANT ORAL ABSORPTION, ALONG WITH OTHER

EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE TOXICITY OF BERYLLIUM, SUGGESTS THAT THE AIRBORNE CONCN ARE MOST HAZARDOUS. See Reference 681. (13.84.17) The first case of chronic beryllium disease at the Rocky Flats Environmental

Technology Site (Rocky Flats) was diagnosed in a machinist in 1984. Rocky Flats, located 16 miles northwest of Denver, CO, is part of the US DOE nuclear weapons complex. Research and development operations using beryllium began at Rocky Flats in 1953, and beryllium production operations began in 1957. Exposures could have occurred during foundry operations, casting, shearing, rolling, cutting, welding, machining, sanding, polishing, assembly, and chemical analysis operations. The Beryllium Health Surveillance Program (BHSP) was established in June 1991 at Rocky Flats to provide health surveillance for beryllium exposed employees using the Lymphocyte Proliferation Test to identify McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 679 of 953

sensitized individuals. Of the 29 cases of chronic beryllium disease and 76 cases of beryllium sensitization identified since 1991, several cases appear to have had only minimal opportunistic exposures to beryllium, since they were employed in admin functions rather than primary beryllium operations. In conjunction with other health surveillance programs, a questionnaire and interview are admin to obtain detailed work and health histories. These histories, along with other data, are utilized to estimate the extent of an individual's exposure. See Reference 682. (13.84.18) The definition of cor pulmonale is heart failure caused by lung disease. Acute cor

pulmonale is associated with disorders that induce severe alveolar hypoxia including pulmonary edema associated with toxic exposures to beryllium. Occupational exposures associated with emboli and obliterative lesions have also been identified as contributing to the disease. Complications of the disease are difficult to treat when the increase in pulmonary vascular resistance is due to blood vessel destruction as in cases of silicosis. The most definitive method for detection, cardiac catheterization, is unsuitable for mass screening. Other methods such as echo cardiography, x-rays, and physical examination are appropriate only late in the progression of the disease. (13.84.19) Chronic beryllium disease is the pulmonary and systemic granulomatous disease

caused by exposure to beryllium by inhalation. In most cases, the duration of exposure is several months to years. The interval between initial exposure and the clinical manifestations of disease varies. Some patients become symptomatic while actively working; others, as late as 25 years after their last exposure. The average latency period is 10 to 15 years. Exertional dyspnea is the most common symptom of chronic beryllium disease. Other symptoms are cough, fatigue, weight loss, chest pain, and arthralgias. Physical findings may be entirely normal or may include bibasilar crackles, lymphadenopathy, skin lesions, hepatosplenomegaly, and clubbing. Signs of pulmonary hypertension may be present in severe, long-standing disease. Parotid gland enlargement was reported in one patient with chronic beryllium disease. /Beryllium and compounds/ See Reference 684. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 680 of 953

(13.84.20)

Nodular skin lesions have been described in patients with chronic beryllium

disease whose beryllium exposure was by inhalation only, not be direct skin contact. Biopsies in these cases have shown noncaseating granulomas. Beryllium also causes contact dermatitis by both direct irritation and sensitization. The use of patch testing has been curtailed because of reports of exacerbations of respiratory disease related to this test. Conjunctivitis, periorbital edema, and upper respiratory tract involvement may accompany dermatitis. Beryllium ulcers caused by implantation of a soluble beryllium compound in a skin abrasion and requiring curettage of the ulcer base for treatment have also been reported. /Beryllium and compounds/ See Reference 685. (13.84.21) Acting as a direct irritant, beryllium may cause acute nasopharyngitis,

tracheobronchitis, or chemical pneumonitis. The severity of the clinical disease depends largely on the dose of beryllium exposure. Chemical pneumonitis may be severe after a brief exposure to high concentrations of beryllium or subacute in onset and course after prolonged exposure to lower concentrations. Symptoms and signs are nonspecific, identical to those found in any case of chemical pneumonitis secondary to a lung irritant, and include dyspnea, cough, chest pain, blood-tinged sputum, tachycardia, crackles, and in severe cases cyanosis. Radiographs show diffuse or localized infiltrates, and pulmonary function tests show reduced lung volumes and hypoxemia. /Beryllium and compounds/ See Reference 686. (13.84.22) Exposure to beryllium compounds may cause an acute chemical pneumonitis,

tracheobronchitis, conjunctivitis, dermatitis and chronic granulomatous pulmonary disease with systemic manifestations. The acute pulmonary disease was first described in Germany in 1933 and the chronic form in the USA in 1946. /Beryllium and beryllium compounds/ See Reference 687. (13.84.23) Acute beryllium disease, most frequently related to intense but brief exposure,

consists of respiratory tract irritation and dermatitis, sometimes with conjunctivitis. The respiratory tract symptoms range from mild nasopharyngitis to a severe chemical pulmonitis, which may be fatal. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 681 of 953

In fatal cases, histopathological findings in the lungs have included interstitial oedema, cellular infiltration, elevated numbers of plasma cells, alveolar cell proliferation or desquamation and, sometimes, interalveolar oedema, hyaline membranes and organizing pneumonia. /Beryllium and beryllium compounds/ See Reference 688. (13.84.24) Chronic beryllium disease is a systemic disorder with primary manifestations in

the lung, characterized by a decrease in transfer factor with restrictive and obstructive ventilatory function. Histopathologically, the disease is characterized by non-caseating granuloma formation with giant cells, as in sarcoidosis, primarily seen in the lungs but also in other tissues. Chest radiography usually shows diffuse infiltrates and hilar adenopathy. An improvement in lung function and even in lung radiographic findings was reported after a significant decrease in the air concentration of beryllium due to improved engineering and ventilation in plants. /Beryllium and beryllium compounds/ See Reference 689. (13.84.25) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: NIOSH (NOES Survey 1981-1983) has

statistically estimated that 14,000 workers (740 of these are female) are potentially exposed to beryllium in the USA(1). Occupational exposure to beryllium may be through inhalation of airborne dust and dermal contact with beryllium at workplaces where it is produced or used(SRC). Limited monitoring data indicate that the general population will be exposed to beryllium via inhalation of ambient air, and ingestion of contaminated food and drinking water. The most probable human exposure would be occupational exposure(SRC). See Reference 690. (13.84.26) 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 691. (13.84.27) Body Burden: STORAGE OF BERYLLIUM IN ALL MAJOR TISSUE SITES IS McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 682 of 953

OF LONG DURATION, PARTICULARLY IN THE PULMONARY LYMPH NODES & BONE. HENCE ELIMINATION OF BERYLLIUM FROM THE BODY IS EXTREMELY SLOW, & THE LAST 5% REQUIRING MANY MONTHS OR YEARS TO DISAPPEAR COMPLETELY FROM THESE LATTER TWO SITES. See Reference 692. BERYLLIUM COMPOUNDS (13.84.28) Exposure of people to relatively high concentrations of beryllium (greater than

100 ug cu m) causes acute beryllium disease, characterized by chemical pneumonitis. ... Some people inhaling low concentrations of beryllium develop chronic beryllium disease, a granulomatous lung disease characterized by dyspnea, cough, reduced pulmonary function, and a variety of other symptoms, including weight loss. ... The lack of a dose-response relationship between the extent of exposure and development of the disease, long latency period between exposure and onset, and the low incidence among beryllium-exposed individuals suggests that the disease is immune mediated. ... Occupational risk associated with exposure to beryllium-containing alloys has been documented for individuals exposed to beryllium-copper and beryllium-nickel alloys. Beryllium is a suspected human carcinogen, based on results of animal data. Epidemiologic evidence relating beryllium exposure to cancer in humans is inadequate to demonstrate or refute that beryllium is carcinogenic in humans, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer lists the evidence for beryllium induced carcinogenicity in humans as "limited". ... The pulmonary effects of inhaled beryllium have also been evaluated in a variety of laboratory animal species. ... monkeys exposed to relatively high concentrations of beryllium compounds developed symptoms and histopathological findings consistent with acute beryllium disease. ... Granulomatous lung disease has also been produced in guinea pigs exposed to beryllium compounds by inhalation or by intratracheal instillation. ... Repeated inhalation of beryllium-containing materials, including soluble beryllium compounds by various strains of laboratory rats has resulted in development of inflammatory and proliferative changes, granulomatous lung McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 683 of 953

changes, and the development of lung tumors. Although beryllium- exposed rats have developed various degrees of granulomatous lung disease, none have developed immunopathological responses in lung or beryllium hypersensitivity. ... studies have shown that several strains of mice inhaling beryllium develop pulmonary lesions with features consistent with chronic beryllium disease. Lung lesions consisted of infiltration of lymphocytes into the lung interstitium, development of microgranulomas consisting of T lymphocytes and macrophages, and the presence of some pulmonary fibrosis. Under certain exposure conditions, increased numbers of lymphocytes were recovered in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from exposed animals. See Reference 693. THORIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.85) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Thorium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.85.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of thorium compounds

and thorium in the zero valance state; all thorium nuclides are radioactive. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including thorium, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of thorium and thorium compounds, refer to the THORIUM ELEMENTAL and THORIUM COMPOUNDS records. For additional information on Thorotrast, refer to the THORIUM DIOXIDE record. (13.85.2) Evidence for Carcinogenicity: Thorium dioxide is known to be a human

carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Evidence for the carcinogenicity of thorium dioxide comes from follow-up studies of patients who were injected (intravascularly) with Thorotrast ... See Reference 694. (13.85.3) There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 684 of 953

mixed alpha-particle emitters (radium-224, radium-226, thorium-227, thorium-228, thorium-230, thorium-232, neptunium-237, plutonium-238, plutonium-239 (together with plutonium- 240), americium-241, curium-244, californium-249 and californium-252). See Reference 695. (13.85.4) Internalized radionuclides that emit alpha-particles are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). In making this overall evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration the following: Alpha-particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, produce the same pattern of secondary ionizations and the same pattern of localized damage to biological molecules, including DNA. These effects, observed in vitro, include DNA doublestrand breaks, chromosomal aberrations, gene mutations and cell transformation. All radionuclides that emit alpha-particles and that have been adequately studied, including radon-222 and its decay products, have been shown to cause cancer in humans and in experimental animals. Alpha-particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, have been shown to cause chromosomal aberrations in circulating lymphocytes and gene mutations in humans in vivo. The evidence from studies in humans and experimental animals suggests that similar doses to the same tissues - for example lung cells or bone surfaces - from alpha- particles emitted during the decay of different radionuclides produce the same types of non-neoplastic effects and cancers. /Internalized alpha-emitters/ See Reference 696. (13.85.5) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Special Considerations. Most symptoms from

radioactive product exposure are delayed; treat other medical or trauma problems according to normal protocols. An accurate history of the exposure is essential to determine risk and proper treatment modalities. The dose of radiation determines the type and clinical course of exposure: 100 rads: GI symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea). Symptom onset within a few hours. 600 rads: Several GI symptoms (necrotic gastroenteritis) may result in dehydration and death within a few days. Several thousand rads: neurological/cardiovascular symptoms (confusion, lethargy, ataxia, seizures, coma, cardiovascular collapse) within minutes to hours. Bone marrow depression, leukopenia, and infections usually follow severe exposures./Radioactives I, II, and III/ See Reference 697. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 685 of 953

(13.85.5)

/SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Rare tumors of the liver are occasionally seen;

thorium dioxide-related hemangiosarcoma of the liver, with an estimated frequency of 0.14 to 0.25 per million in the normal population, is one of these. Causes, epidemiology and pathobiology are described related to a clinical case of angiosarcoma. A differentiation of hepatic tumors with imaging techniques is presented. Last, a short review on up-to-date treatment of hemangiosarcoma is discussed. ... /Thorium-232/ See Reference 698. (13.85.6) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ The deposition of Thorotrast depends on its

radiological use, its method of preparation, and the age of the preparation; however, the major site is the reticulo-endothelial system, where it is retained for long times. Some of its decay products, principally 228-Ra and 224-Ra, escape from the colloidal particles and deposit in the skeleton. The biological end-points that have been observed in the several human populations that are known to have received Thorotrast are Thorotrastomas, malignant hepatic neoplasms, and other neoplasms of the reticulo-endothelial system (RES), skeletal sarcomas, and leukemias in excess of the number expected. ... See Reference 700. (13.85.7) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/Characteristic effects of the activity of thorium and its

disintegration products are changes in blood forming, nervous & reticuloendothelial systems, & functional and morphological damage to lung & bone tissue. Only much later do illness and symptoms characteristic of chronic radiation disease appear. After a considerable time, neoplasms may occur & the immunological activity of the body may be reduced. /Thorium & cmpd/ [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, See Reference 701. (13.85.8) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Radiopaque x-ray media have caused a large number

of ocular complications when injected for angiography of the arteries of the neck & head. ... The principal radiopaque x-ray media encountered in studies of ocular complications /include/ ... Thorium McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 686 of 953

dioxide (Thorotrast) See Reference 701. . (13.85.9) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Severe cirrhosis of the liver was one of the primary systemic effects seen following injection of Thorotrast in humans. Cases of fibrosis, veno-occlusive disease, and blood-filled cavities were also found in the livers of Thorotrast patients. The latency period for the appearance of the cirrhosis was not clear, but was probably comparable to the latency period for liver tumors (25-30 years) since the two effects were often found together. See Reference 702. (13.85.10) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Localized fibrosis infiltrated with macrophages was

often found surrounding deposits of Thorotrast at the point of intravenous injection. These granulomas were termed Thorotrastoma and resulted from fibroblastic proliferation due to the extravascular deposition of Thorotrast. Histologically, the Thorotrastoma consisted of dense, hyalinized connective tissue with Thorotrast found both free and in the cytoplasm of macrophages. The Thorotrastoma most commonly occurred in the neck after a cerebral angiography and appeared 4-6 years after intravenous injection. See Reference 703. (13.85.11) /CASE REPORTS/ Radioactive measurements and histopathologic findings are

described in a patient administered Thorotrast, a radiographic contrast agent, 36 y prior to death ... . This person [designated as U.S. Uranium Registry (USUR) Case 1001] had prearranged for donation of her body to the USUR and the National Cancer Institute for study. Elevated levels of radioactivity were noted in those organs in which excess cancers have been reported in epidemiologic surveys of Thorotrast-exposed subjects. Hepatic tissue in USUR Case 1001 was estimated to have received an average lifetime absorbed dose of 16.2 Gy, based on radiochemical analyses, consistent with the high risks for liver tumors reported in all studied populations. Thorotrast was present throughout the bone marrow of USUR Case 1001, who died secondary to complications of refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB). Elevated risks for acute myeloid leukemia have been noted in Thorotrast patients, and more recently, cases of RAEB and RAEB in transformation have been reported. The thorium decay McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 687 of 953

series includes the bone-seeking radionuclides 224-Ra and 228-Ra, which have been associated with high risks for osteosarcomas, although the association between Thorotrast and bone cancer is not as convincing. The skeleton of USUR Case 1001, however, contained significant levels of radioactivity. Other tissues evaluated in USUR Case 1001 included lung, eye, kidney, and breast, which did not contain elevated levels of radioactivity. See Reference 704. (13.85.12) /CASE REPORTS/ This case history presents the clinical events in the last 10 y of

life in a patient injected with Thorotrast in 1953. This patient developed three previously described Thorotrast-associated morbidities: pneumococcus sepsis due to functional asplenia and reticuloendothelial system blockade, an enlarging Thorotrastoma (inflammatory mass) at the injection site, and a fatal blood dyscrasia. In addition, she developed three clinical syndromes where a Thorotrast association may exist. She suffered from severe spinal column osteoarthritis and vertebral collapse. An abnormal bone-density measurement implies the presence of radiodense radioactive thorium or its degradation products as potentially responsible. She had evidence of chronic immune system disregulation with immunoglobulin excess, auto antibodies, and cell-mediated immunity deficiency. This condition is similar to that found in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus and may suggest a shared etiology in reticuloendothelial system damage. Lastly, she developed dense bilateral cataracts. This case history illustrates the temporal relationship of a variety of symptoms. See Reference 705. (13.85.13) /CASE REPORTS/ The use of Thorotrast as a contrast medium is now of

historical interest. Thorotrast-induced angiosarcoma, though rare, still generates considerable clinical interest because of the characteristic opacification of the liver, spleen, and lymph nodes, and the long latency period between exposure and the onset of the tumor. ... A case of hepatic angiosarcoma which developed 37 years after the administration of Thorotrast /is presented/. See Reference 706. (13.85.14) /CASE REPORTS/ A 49 year old woman developed hepatic cholangiocarcinoma McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 688 of 953

and angiosarcoma 22 years after the administration of Thorotrast. The etiologic association between Thorotrast and a variety of malignant hepatic neoplasms is well known, but the simultaneous occurrence of two different hepatic neoplasms has not been previously reported. See Reference 707. (13.85.15) /CASE REPORTS/ A 64-year-old man developed hepatic angiosarcoma, and

combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma, 36 years after Thorotrast administration. The patient presented with a large mass in the right upper quadrant. His serum alpha-fetoprotein increased from 800 ng/ml to 51.2 micrograms/ml, and liver biopsy disclosed hepatocellular carcinoma. At autopsy, the liver had two different malignant neoplasms; angiosarcoma and combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma. Metastases of angiosarcoma to both lungs and of cholangiocarcinoma to periaortic lymph nodes were also seen. Interestingly, some neoplastic cells of angiosarcoma exhibited globular hyaline inclusions, which were Periodic-Acid-Schiff reaction positive and diastase-resistant. See Reference 708. (13.85.16) /CASE REPORTS/ During the period 1949 to 1974, 45 cases of tumors of the

renal pelvis alone, mostly squamous cell or transitional cell types, were found in patients injected with Thorotrast for pyelography. ... The latent period of the tumors varied from 16 to 37 yr (in 1974) after Thorotrast pyelography, with a mean of 27 yr. See Reference 709. (13.85.17) /CASE REPORTS/ Plain radiography and CT of the abdomen were reviewed in

four patients who had undergone angiography with thorium dioxide (Thorotrast). In three patients CT showed irregularly scattered focal punctate collections of Thorotrast in the liver parenchyma, predominantly in the subcapsular zone, associated with areas of low or nonhomogeneous attenuation. These areas of low attenuation were identified on microscopic studies as sites of hepatic fibrosis or neoplasia. Computed tomography identified intrahepatic Thorotrast deposits more definitively than plain radiography. (13.85.18) /CASE REPORTS/ A 79 yr old man developed small cell carcinoma in the lung 43 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 689 of 953

years after Thorotrast injection. The tumor with interstitial fibrosis arose in the periphery of the lung. Thorotrast particles were observed in the liver, spleen, bone marrow, and lymph nodes but not in the lung. See Reference 711. (13.85.19) /CASE REPORTS/ A patient underwent cerebral angiography with thorium

dioxide (Thorotrast). Six years later, an acne-like eruption of the face and scalp occurred which persisted despite aggressive treatment. Twenty-six years after the angiography he developed chronic lymphcytic leukemia with massive lymphadenopathy. Review of three facial biopsies revealed collections of Thorotrast-laden histiocytes and free thorium dioxide within a background of chronic inflammation and dermal fibrosis. These changes are of the same type described in Thorotrast granulomas of the subcutaneous tissues. See Reference 712. (13.85.20) /CASE REPORTS/ The occurrence of a glioblastoma with sarcoma, a

giliosarcoma, in the left frontal temporal area of a 49 yr old woman with a history of Thorotrast exposure, is described. Thorotrast laden histiocytes and free Thorotrast material were found in both components of the tumor. An overlying, adherent dural cranial lesion was found to contain massive deposits of Thorotrast embedded in a dense fibrotic and sclerotic stroma with focal calcification. These features are typical of "Thorotrastoma." Thorotrast stains greenish-brown with hematoxylin and eosin and appears as refractile granular particles of relatively uniform size either within histiocytes or as free material. The radioactivity of the deposits was confirmed through the use of a scintillation counter, and (232)thorium was definitively identified though the use of scanning electron microscopy with energydispersive X-ray analysis. Immunohistochemical studies of the tumor demonstrated glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP) immunoreactivity in areas of glioma and focal vimentin and actin immunoreactivity in areas of sarcoma. Thorotrast-associated lesions of the central nervous system (CNS) are infrequently reported, and a Thorotrast-associated gliosarcoma has not yet been reported. See Reference 712. (13.85.21) /CASE REPORTS/ Fifty seven cases of late sequelae after diagnostic Thorotrast McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 690 of 953

exposure (recorded between 1944 and 1982 in Zurich) are presented. The alpha ray emitting contrast medium Thorotrast is carcinogenic and fibrogenic. Malignant tumors occurred in about half of /the/ cases after a latency period of 14 to 44 years, comprising 8 primary liver carcinomas, 2 carcinomas of the bile ducts, 3 malignant hemagioendotheliomas of the liver, 10 renal pelvic carcinomas and sarcomas, and one acute myelogenous leukemia. Furthermore, cirrhosis and fibrosis of the liver and paravascular "thorotrastoma" were observed. See Reference 713. (13.85.22) /CASE REPORTS/ Myocardial infarction, severe coronary luminal narrowing,

and internal alteration of the carotid artery were found in two patients injected 21-30 years before with an unreported amount of Thorotrast. /It was/ concluded that the vascular effects were the result of chronic alpha irradiation. The patients were injected in the carotid artery, and thorotrastoma was found in both patients. See Reference 714. (13.85.23) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ The most consistent finding was that the incidence

of and mortality from liver cancer in all the studies was highly significantly increased by up to more than 100-fold... . Almost 800 cases of Thorotrast related primary liver cancer have been reported in the cohort studies, and approximately 400 cases, not included in the cohort studies, have been reported. The difference in the relative risk in the Japanese study (36 for mortality) and in the three European studies (71-129; two of mortality and one of incidence) may reflect the fact that the mortality rate from liver cancer is much higher in Japan (annual age-standardized rate per 10(+5) among men in 1990, 21) than in Europe (Germany, 4.4; Portugal, 4.1; Denmark, 2.2), and the values for incidence are: Japan, 27.6; Germany, 3.4; Portugal, 4.0; Denmark, 3.9. Liver cancers are usually diagnosed 15 years after Thorotrast administration, and they continue to be the leading cause of death among such patients. In the Danish (incidence), German and Japanese studies, the histological distribution of liver cancer was approximately two-thirds carcinoma (predominantly cholangiocarcinoma) and one-third hemangiosarcoma, which is usually an extremely rare tumor. ...If a 10-year ?wasted? dose is assumed, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 691 of 953

i.e. patients who died within the first 10 years after Thorotrast injection were excluded since they had no chance to develop liver malignancies, the cumulative risk estimates are 510 per 10(+4) person-Gy in the Danish study, 607 per 10(+4) person-Gy (405 with ... new dosimetry) in the German study and 523 per 10(+4) person-Gy in the Japanese study... . A significantly elevated increase (6-13-fold) in the rate of mortality from nonmalignant liver disorders (cirrhosis) was reported in all these studies ... . The German and Japanese studies showed a statistically significant decrease in survival, even after exclusion of the major Thorotrast-related causes of death, liver cancer, liver cirrhosis and hematopoietic malignancies including myelodysplastic syndrome ... . See Reference 715. (13.85.24) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ A case study of 112 New Jersey households in the

vicinity of a thorium waste disposal site found a higher prevalence of birth defects (relative risk 2.1) and liver disease (relative risk 2.3) among the exposed population than the unexposed group. See Reference 716. (13.85.25) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ In a follow up mortality study carried out for 3796

workers (3119 men and 677 women) employed in a US thorium-processing plant between 1915 and 1973, 2620 (2,161 men and 459 women) were still alive. The SMR for the male workers was also significantly increased for all cancers (SMR 1.23) and lung cancers (SMR 1.36). For the female workers the SMR was 0.53 for all cancers (1264). An increase in pancreatic cancer was also reported among male US workers at a thorium-processing plant. See Reference 716. (13.85.26) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ To evaluate the effects of continous low-level

ionizing radiation on humans, the follow-up data (1980-85) on Japanese Thorotrast exposed patients were analyzed. ... Compared with the expected number of deaths calculated from age and cause specific death rates in Japan during the same period, the Thorotrast exposed patients were at three times greater risk of death from all causes (p< 0.001), had 47 times the risk of liver cancer (p< 0.001), 12 times the risk of leukemia (p< 0.05), and 20 times the risk of liver cirrhosis (p< 0.001). Age at time of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 692 of 953

Thorotrast injection, drinking and smoking habits had little effect on these statistics. Analyses of 30 autopsied patients with liver cancer showed statistically significantly increases in hemangiosarcoma and cholangiocarcinoma. The Thorotrast exposed patients' estimated risk of liver cancer by histological type was 21 times that of the general population for hepatocellular carcinoma, 303 times that for cholangiocarcinoma and 3129 times that for hemangiosarcoma. See Reference 718. (13.85.27) /SURVEILLANCE/ /The/ .... study of chronic somatic diseases in workers

engaged into thorium production (main group) in short-term period revealed significantly higher prevalence of vegetative neurosis, asthenic state, chronic gastritis, arterial hypotension, chronic nasopharyngitis and higher risk of those conditions, if compared to reference group over the period since 1947 to 1959. These findings are caused by combined exposure to occupational hazards: outer and inner radiation due to long-lived thorium, thoron and their radioactive products, associated exposure to toxic chemicals. Chronic radiation sickness was diagnosed only in individuals who worked over the period since 1947 to 1959 and demonstrated hemopoietic disorders associated with functional neural system impairment. Better sanitary and hygienic work conditions and more efficient individual protective means (Lepestok respirator) resulted in reliably decreased risk of chronic somatic diseases among thorium production workers employed since 1960 to 1972. See Reference 719. (13.85.28) /SURVEILLANCE/ The authors studied peripheral blood parameters in thorium

production workers. Separate analysis covered a group of subjects with chronic radiation sickness. Reliably more pronounced in the chronic radiation sickness group, disposition to thrombocytopenia and leucopenia could be caused by occupational factors. Anemia associated with disposition to erythrocytopenia and increased ESR could be caused by malnutrition. See Reference 720. Radiological Risk Coefficients. Lifetime Cancer Mortality Risk Isotope Inhalation (pCi-1) Th-229 2.2x10-7 Ingestion (pCi-1) 4.7x10-10

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 693 of 953

Th-230 2.7x10-8 Th-232 4.1x10-8

8.0x10-11 9.1x10-11

See Reference 721. (13.85.29) Prolonged retention of thorium in the body, particularly in a fixed location, allows

the possibility of radiation damage by the energetic alpha particles of some of the short lived daughter members of the decay chain, of which there are 5 for every thorium alpha. /Thorium & cmpd/ See Reference 722. MOLYBDENUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.86) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Molybdenum has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.86.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of molybdenum

compounds and radioactive molybdenum in the zero valance state. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of molybdenum and molybdenum compounds, refer to the MOLYBDENUM ELEMENTAL and MOLYBDENUM COMPOUNDS records. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including molybdenum, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.86.2) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Special Considerations. Most symptoms from

radioactive product exposure are delayed; treat other medical or trauma problems according to normal protocols. An accurate history of the exposure is essential to determine risk and proper treatment modalities. The dose of radiation determines the type and clinical course of exposure: 100 rads: GI symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea). Symptom onset within a few hours. 600 rads: Several GI symptoms (necrotic gastroenteritis) may result in dehydration and death within a few McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 694 of 953

days. Several thousand rads: neurological/cardiovascular symptoms (confusion, lethargy, ataxia, seizures, coma, cardiovascular collapse) within minutes to hours. Bone marrow depression, leukopenia, and infections usually follow severe exposures./Radioactives I, II, and III/ See Reference 723. GADOLINIUM, RADIOACTIVE (13.87) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Gadolinium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.87.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of gadolinium

compounds and radioactive gadolinium in the zero valance state. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of gadolinium and gadolinium compounds, refer to the GADOLINIUM ELEMENTAL and GADOLINIUM COMPOUNDS records. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including gadolinium, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.87.2) Human Toxicity Excerpts: /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Special Considerations.

Most symptoms from radioactive product exposure are delayed; treat other medical or trauma problems according to normal protocols. An accurate history of the exposure is essential to determine risk and proper treatment modalities. The dose of radiation determines the type and clinical course of exposure: 100 rads: GI symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea). Symptom onset within a few hours. 600 rads: Several GI symptoms (necrotic gastroenteritis) may result in dehydration and death within a few days. Several thousand rads: neurological/cardiovascular symptoms (confusion, lethargy, ataxia, seizures, coma, cardiovascular collapse) within minutes to hours. Bone marrow depression, leukopenia, and infections usually follow severe exposures./Radioactives I, II, and III/ See Reference 24. TECHNETIUM, RADIOACTIVE McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 695 of 953

(13.88)

TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Radioactive Technetium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.88.1) This record contains information on the radiological aspects of technetium

compounds and technetium in the zero valance state; all technetium nuclides are radioactive. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including technetium, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. For information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of technetium and technetium compounds, refer to the TECHNETIUM ELEMENTAL and TECHNETIUM COMPOUNDS records. (13.88.2) Human Toxicity Excerpts: /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Special Considerations.

Most symptoms from radioactive product exposure are delayed; treat other medical or trauma problems according to normal protocols. An accurate history of the exposure is essential to determine risk and proper treatment modalities. The dose of radiation determines the type and clinical course of exposure: 100 rads: GI symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea). Symptom onset within a few hours. 600 rads: Several GI symptoms (necrotic gastroenteritis) may result in dehydration and death within a few days. Several thousand rads: neurological/cardiovascular symptoms (confusion, lethargy, ataxia, seizures, coma, cardiovascular collapse) within minutes to hours. Bone marrow depression, leukopenia, and infections usually follow severe exposures./Radioactives I, II, and III/ See Reference 725. (13.88.3) Lifetime cancer mortality risk coefficients have been calculated for nearly all

radionuclides, including technetium (see table). While the coefficients for ingestion are somewhat lower than for inhalation, ingestion is generally the most common means of entry into the body. Similar to other radionuclides, the risk coefficients for tap water are about 70% of those for dietary ingestion. Radiological Risk Coefficients for Lifetime Cancer Mortality Risk McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 696 of 953

Isotope Techetium-97 Technetium-98 Technetium-99

Inhalation (pCi-1) 7.6x10-13 2.6x10-11 1.3x10-11

Ingestion (pCi-1) 2.3x10-13 6.0x10-12 2.3x10-12

Technetium-99 is a health hazard only if it is taken into the body. It does not pose an external hazard because it decays by emitting a relatively low-energy beta particle with no gamma radiation. The main concern is cancer induction from the beta particles associated with its radioactive decay. Technetium can concentrate in several organs depending on its chemical form, so there is no primary organ of concern. This is one reason why the short-lived isotope technetium-99m has such wide usage in nuclear medicine as a diagnostic tool. The low energy of the beta particle, the lack of significant gamma or Xrays, and the rapid excretion of technetium-99 from the body limit the potential for health effects. See Reference 726. URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE (13.89) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Uranium Hexafluoride has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.89.1) This record contains information specific to the title compound. Users with an

interest in this substance are strongly encouraged to retrieve the URANIUM COMPOUNDS record, which has additional information on the general toxicity and environmental fate of uranium ions and uranium compounds; the URANIUM, RADIOACTIVE record, which contains information on the radiological aspects of uranium and its compounds; and the IONIZING RADIATION record which contains toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including uranium. (13.89.2) Evidence for Carcinogenicity: 1; Confirmed human carcinogen. /Uranium McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 697 of 953

(natural), soluble and insoluble compounds, as U/ See Reference 727. (13.89.3) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Accidental exposure of workers to a mixture of

uranium hexafluoride, uranium oxyfluoride, hydrofluoric acid, and live steam caused lacrimation, conjunctivitis, shortness of breath, paroxysmal cough, rales in the chest, nausea, vomiting, skin burns, transitory albuminaria, and elevation of blood urea nitrogen. ... Injurious effects ... on skin, eyes, and resp tract apparently caused by irritant action of fluoride ion ... uranium responsible for transient renal changes. /Uranium fluorides/ See Reference 728. (13.89.4) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ In ... a case of accidental exposure to UF6, important

findings were related to the eyes (chem conjunctivitis & corneal necrosis), the respiratory tract (incr density of bronchovascular markings and hilar shadows), and the urinary tract (incr amt of urinary solids). In 5 days with treatment, the corneal epithelium had almost completely regenerated, and at time of discharge, visual acuity was normal. In 10 days the chest was clear; in 13 days the hemorrhages of the larynx had disappeared. The urinary signs cleared with improvement of the patient. Some mental derangement, restlessness, and nervous tension accompanied the early responses, but these disappeared in 1 wk. See Reference 729. (13.89.5) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ ... Dermatitis has occurred as a result of handling

uranium hexafluoride. See Reference 730. (13.89.6) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Symptoms of fluoride intoxication, usually occurring

within 1 hr, range from salivation, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, & diarrhea in cases of minor poisoning, to hyperactive reflexes, tonic & clonic convulsions, & ultimately, in severe cases, death occurs, usually from respiratory or cardiac failure. /Fluorides/ See Reference 731. (13.89.7) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ In the ...case of accidental inhalation of high

concentrations of uranium hexafluoride, signs, and symptoms of pulmonary edema from hydrogen fluoride will dominate the clinical course. Significant irritation of the eyes and skin from the fluoride McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 698 of 953

ion may also be present after such exposure. See Reference 732. (13.89.8) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ The high chemical toxicity of uranium and its salts is

largely shown in kidney damage, which may not be reversible. Acute arterial lesions may occur after acute exposures. /Uranium and salts/ See Reference 733. (13.89.9) /CASE REPORTS/ Accidental exposures to UF6 have resulted in fatalities on at

least three occasions. The primary cause of injuries and fatalities has been HF that was formed by hydrolysis of UF6, rather than exposure to UF6 itself. Several individuals who received high, non-fatal exposures experienced pulmonary edema, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, and chemical burns on the skin due to HF exposure. In addition, urinary abnormalities, such as transient albuminuria (albumin in urine) and the presence of red cells and casts, were observed, as was retention of nitrogenous products such as urea and non-protein nitrogen in the blood. The urinary and blood abnormalities are indicators of kidney damage, and are the result of inhibited resorption in the tubules. See Reference 734. (13.89.10) /CASE REPORTS/ The effects of uranium hexafluoride exposures were

impressively displayed in a 1944 accident involving 21 workers. One individual died in 15 minutes due to severe steam burns and the effects of uranium hexafluoride and its degradation products, hydrogen fluoride and uranium oxyfluoride. Another worker died 70 minutes after exposure due to progressive respiratory distress. Most of the other 14 persons requiring hospitalization had corrosive irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract but were well enough to be released in 48 hours. Three more seriously exposed individuals were retained for observation for 10-14 days owing to pulmonary edema and nephrotoxicity. The peak urinary uranium excretion values in these three patients ranged from 0.15 to 0.50 mg/L. All three persons experienced some urine volume suppression for 3 days, and albumin, red cells, and casts were found in their urine. In one of these patients, mild elevation of blood urea and nonprotein nitrogen was seen for 3 weeks after the accident. Two of the three individuals with acute McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 699 of 953

toxicity were examined 38 years later. No physical changes related to their exposure and no uranium deposition were detected. An observation from these cases and other exposed workers suggests that the pulmonary edema may have slowed the absorption of uranium from the lungs and lengthened its biological half-life. See Reference 735. (13.89.11) /CASE REPORTS/ Renal effects were not observed in another accidental

exposure in which 24 of 31initially exposed workers were followed for 2 years. Estimated airborne concentrations were 20 mg uranium hexafluoride/cu m for a 1-minute exposure and 120 mg uranium hexafluoride/ cu m for a 60-minute exposure (15.2 and 91 mg U/cu m, respectively). Initial intakes of workers involved in the accident were estimated from uranium excretion data and ranged from 47024,000 ug uranium. Maximum uranium concentrations in the kidney were estimated by a kinetic model to be 0.048-2.5 ug U/g tissue. See Reference 736. (13.89.12) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ The results presented here are from the follow-up

of the cohort of workers ever employed at the Springfields site of British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) between 1946 and 1995. The main activity of the site is uranium fuel fabrication and uranium hexafluoride production. The study cohort consists of 19454 current and former employees, 13,960 of which were classified as radiation workers, and contains 479,146 person-years of follow-up. The mean follow-up period is 24.6 years. To the end of 1995 there have been 4832 deaths recorded for this cohort, 3476 of which were among radiation workers and 1356 were among non-radiation workers. The standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for all causes were 84 and 98 for radiation workers and nonradiation workers, respectively. For all cancers the SMRs were 86 and 96 respectively. For cancer morbidity the standardized registration ratios (SRRs) for all cancers were 81 and 81 respectively. Significant associations were noted for both mortality and morbidity due to Hodgkin's disease and cumulative external dose. A strong association was also noted for morbidity, but not mortality, due to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. These associations, however, are unlikely to be causal. The excess relative McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 700 of 953

risk estimates for cancer other than leukemia and for leukemia excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia are consistent with other occupationally exposed cohorts and estimates from the high-dose studies. /Uranium compounds incl hexafluoride/ See Reference 737. (13.89.13) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ The relationship between exposure to low level

ionizing radiation and health among uranium processing workers was studied. The facility was in operation between 1943 and 1949. Workers were exposed to chlorine, hydrofluoric acid, lead sulfate, nickel, nitric acid and nitrogen oxides, silicon dioxide, sulfuric acid, uranium dust, and uranium hexafluoride. The study cohort consisted of 995 white male workers employed longer than 30 days. Radiation hazards were assessed by measurement of radon-222 and airborne uranium, surface contamination, analysis of urine, and film badge records. Workers were allowed to work 2 hr per day when processing ores with a high radon-222 content. The data for the last 24 mo of operation indicated the highest cumulative dose for a worker was about 20 millisieverts (mSv). Long term occupational exposure was evaluated in a subcohort that received 150 mSv/year or more. Statistically significant increases in death from all causes were found. The mortality pattern among 149 workers who were exposed for more than 1 yr to radiation above 100 mSv/yr was the same as that for the entire study group. No significant deviation from expected rates were observed for any specific cause of death in this subcohort. Significantly increased mortality was seen in the entire worker population for cancer of the larynx and for pneumonia. No healthy worker effect was seen when standardized mortality ratios were analyzed for selected causes of death using cutoff dates at the end of 1950, 1960, and 1970. The length of employment in the most hazardous sites of the facility had no effect on mortality outcome. /Uranium dust, hexafluoride, and other compounds/ See Reference 738. (13.89.14) 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 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 701 of 953

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, uranium-235 comprises <1% of natural uranium, but is enriched during the production of nuclear fuels. Higher fractions of uranium-235 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 739. (13.89.15) The toxicity of uranium varies according to its chemical form and route of

exposure. ... The relatively more water-soluble compounds (uranyl nitrate hexahydrate, uranium hexafluoride, uranyl fluoride, uranium tetrachloride, uranium pentachloride) were the most potent renal toxicants. The less water-soluble compounds (sodium diuranate, ammonium diuranate) were of moderate-to-low renal toxicity, and the insoluble compounds (uranium tetrafluoride, uranium trioxide, uranium dioxide, uranium peroxide, triuranium octaoxide) had little potential to cause renal toxicity but could cause pulmonary toxicity when exposure was by inhalation. /Uranium compounds/ See Reference 740. (13.89.16) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: Inhalation of fume, dust, or gas, ingestion,

skin, & eye contact. The following uranium salts are reported to be capable of penetrating intact skin: uranyl nitrate, UO2(NO3)2.6H2O; uranyl fluoride, UO2F2; uranium pentachloride, UCl5; uranium trioxide (uranyl oxide) ... uranium hexafluoride, UF6. See Reference 741. (13.89.17) In the 1940s, an accident involving the sudden release of gaseous uranium

fluoride resulted in the death of two people, serious injury of three others, and minor injury to 13 others(1). Those affected experienced renal lesions and diffuse inflammatory changes in the lungs and gastrointestinal tract. The renal damage was thought to be caused by adsorbed uranium while skin, eye McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 702 of 953

and respiratory effects were attributed to the direct action of fluorine(1). In another study, the exposure to an accidental release of uranium fluoride and its hydrolysis products to 31 workers in 1986 was investigated. The study indicated that none of the 31 workers sustained any observable health effects from exposure to uranium even though an exposure limit of 9.6 mg was exceeded by eight of the workers(1). See Reference 742. THORIUM NITRATE (13.90) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that Thorium Nitrate has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.90.1) This record contains information specific to the title compound. Those users with

an interest in this record are strongly encouraged also to retrieve the record on THORIUM COMPOUNDS which has additional, general information relevant to the toxicity and environmental fate of thorium ions and thorium compounds. For information on the metal itself, refer to the THORIUM, ELEMENTAL record. (13.90.2) Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations: Dust: Irritating to eyes, nose and throat. ...

Solid: Irritating to skin and eyes. /Thorium nitrate tetrahydrate/ See Reference 743. (13.90.3) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: Workers in plants where ... thorium nitrate is

used in the manufacture of gas mantles, have not experienced effects attributable to chemical toxicity or radiation injury. See Reference 744. THORIUM COMPOUNDS (13.90.4) This record contains general information for thorium ions and compounds,

including statements in the literature referenced to thorium compounds, thorium salts, etc. For compound-specific information, refer to the appropriate individual records as listed in the RELATED HSDB RECORDS field; for information on the metal itself, refer to the THORIUM, ELEMENTAL McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 703 of 953

record. All thorium is radioactive. For information on the radiological aspects of thorium and its compounds, refer to the THORIUM, RADIOACTIVE record. For general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources including thorium, refer to the IONIZING RADIATION RECORD. (13.90.5) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Special Considerations. Most symptoms from

radioactive product exposure are delayed; treat other medical or trauma problems according to normal protocols. An accurate history of the exposure is essential to determine risk and proper treatment modalities. The dose of radiation determines the type and clinical course of exposure: 100 rads: GI symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea). Symptom onset within a few hours. 600 rads: Several GI symptoms (necrotic gastroenteritis) may result in dehydration and death within a few days. Several thousand rads: neurological/cardiovascular symptoms (confusion, lethargy, ataxia, seizures, coma, cardiovascular collapse) within minutes to hours. Bone marrow depression, leukopenia, and infections usually follow severe exposures./Radioactives I, II, and III/ See Reference 745. (13.90.6) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ ... On an acute basis it has caused dermatitis.

/Thorium, NOS/ See Reference 746. (13.90.7) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Selected immumotoxiants and associated

immunotoxicity: Thorium: Immune alteration: immunosuppression /Thorium; from table/ [Sullivan, J.B. Jr., G.R. Krieger (eds.). Hazardous Materials Toxicology-Clinical Principles of Environmental Health. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1992., p. 195]**PEER REVIEWED** (13.90.8) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ Characteristic effects of the activity of thorium and its

disintegration products are changes in blood forming, nervous & reticuloendothelial systems, & functional and morphological damage to lung & bone tissue. Only much later do illness and symptoms characteristic of chronic radiation disease appear. After a considerable time, neoplasms may occur & the immunological activity of the body may be reduced. /Thorium & cmpd/ See Reference 747. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 704 of 953

(13.90.9)

/SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ A case study of 112 New Jersey households in the

vicinity of a thorium waste disposal site found a higher prevalence of birth defects (relative risk 2.1) and liver disease (relative risk 2.3) among the exposed population than the unexposed group. /Thorium/ See Reference 748. (13.90.10) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ The effect of thorium exposure on hepatic function

was investigated in 275 former workers of a thorium refinery. The results showed the means of aspartate aminotransferase & alkaline phosphatase to be significantly higher (p= 0.0001) in the thorium exposed workers when corrected for age, alcohol use and weight. The changes observed in liver function may be compatible with a toxic effect of thorium or daughter products on hepatocytes. The correlation of some hepatic function tests with body burden of radioactivity suggests a radiation effect of thorium although a chemical toxic effect cannot be ruled out. /Thorium and compounds/ See Reference 749. (13.90.11) See Reference 750. (13.90.12) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: NIOSH (NOES Survey 1981-1983) has Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations: Irritates the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.

statistically estimated that 7784 workers (1097 of these are female) are potentially exposed to thorium compounds in the US(1). Occupational exposure via inhalation and dermal exposure may occur at facilities where thorium compounds are produced and used(SRC). SELENIUM (13.91) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Selenium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.91.1) This record contains information for selenium in its zero valence state only. For

general toxicology and environmental fate of selenium ions and selenium compounds, refer to the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 705 of 953

SELENIUM COMPOUNDS record; for compound-specific information, refer to the appropriate individual records, e.g., hydrogen selenide, selenium hexafluoride, etc. (13.91.2) Selenium is an essential trace element and has been shown to be a natural

component in the enzyme glutathione peroxidase and other proteins. Most selenium compounds are water-soluble and can efficiently be taken up in the intestine. Soluble as well as non-soluble compounds can be taken up by the lungs. When given in excess, selenium compounds are rapidly distributed to major organs of the body. ... Identified metabolites are trimethylselenide in urine and dimethylselenide in breath. ... in man ... toxic effects have been reported at 1 mg/dl. ... Toxic effects have been seen at blood levels ranging from 0.179 ug/ml-7.5 ug/ml. In most parts of the world normal urine levels do not exceed 0.03 ug/ml. Occupationally exposed workers usually excrete less than 0.1 ug/ml. The LD50 ranges between 1.5 and 6 mg/kg for many selenium compounds and animal species. The CNS seems to be the target organ ... but the liver, heart, and lungs may also be affected. A few cases of selenium poisoning in humans have been described ... either after consumption of selenium or after exposure via inhalation. Gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms predominated. Chronic poisoning due to long term exposure has been reported in livestock and humans from geographical areas where soil contains high levels of selenium. In rodent liver cirrhosis is a common effect while typical effects in domestic animals are: emaciation, deformation of hooves, loss of hair, and joint erosions. In humans consuming 5 mg selenium per day, hair and nail problems are very common. Skin lesions and depigmentation are also common signs of intoxication. In more severe cases neurological and gastrointestinal symptoms predominate. ... Several selenium compounds have been tested for possible carcinogenic potential. Selenium sulfide has been shown to induce liver cancer in two species while no convincing evidence of carcinogenicity has been presented for other selenium compounds. ... Some selenium compounds may induce DNA damage and some previous reports indicate a teratogenic potential ... . Selenium may prevent or alleviate toxic effects of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, platinum, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 706 of 953

and silver. Conversely, some of these metals protect against selenium toxicity. See Reference 752. SELENIUM COMPOUNDS (13.91.3) ACUTE POISONING THROUGH INHALATION MAY OCCUR IN INDUSTRY

(SELENIUM DUST & FUMES, SELENIUM DIOXIDE & HYDROGEN SELENIDE). ... GARLICKY BREATH ODOR... IRRITATION OF MUCOUS MEMBRANES OF EYES, THROAT & LUNGS, & SKIN DAMAGE...FROM DIRECT CONTACT (BURNS, DERMATITIS). NO INCR OR DECR IN INCIDENCE OF CANCER... /SELENIUM COMPOUNDS/ See Reference 753. (13.91.4) ...SELENIUM POISONING /SYMPTOMS/ DUE TO INHALATION OF

SELENIUM FUMES OR... DUST...INCL...NAUSEA & VOMITING, INDIGESTION & OTHER INTERNAL DISTURBANCES; INCR BODY TEMP, HEADACHE, LASSITUDE & ILL-DEFINED PSYCHONEUROTIC SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS IRRITABILITY. UNSTABLE BLOOD PRESSURE ...LYMPHOCYTOSIS...YELLOWISH SKIN... /SELENIUM COMPD/ See Reference 754. (13.91.5) Routes of entry: Inhalation of dust or vapor, percutaneous absorption of liquid,

ingestion, eye and skin contact. /Selenium and cmpds/ See Reference 755. (13.91.6) Poisoning may result from diets that contain as little as 4 ppm of selenium.

/Selenium cmpd/ See Reference 756. (13.91.7) IN MAN, A CONCN OF 5 PPM IN FOOD OR 0.5 PPM IN MILK OR WATER

HAS BEEN ESTIMATED TO BE DANGEROUS. /SELENIUM CMPD/ See Reference 757. (13.91.8) Potential symptoms as a result of exposure /to selenium compounds/: Irritation to

eyes, nose, throat, disturbed vision, headache, chill, fever, dyspnea, bronchitis, metal taste, garlic breath, gastrointestinal, dermatitis, blurred eyes, skin. /Selenium compounds/ See Reference 758. (13.91.9) ... High dietary intakes of selenium ... in selenium-rich areas of South Dakota

/revealed/ most common symptoms in people with high urinary levels (0.20-1.98 ug/ml) were GI disturbances, icteroid discoloration of the skin, and decayed bad teeth. Less frequent symptoms were McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 707 of 953

recurrent jaundice, dermatitis, and pathological nails. /Selenium compounds/ See Reference 759. (13.91.10) Chronic selenium toxicity: this syndrome resembles arsenic toxicity. Hair loss,

white horizontal streaking on fingernails, paronychia, fatigue, irritability, hyperflexia, nausea, vomiting, garlic odor on breath, and metallic taste characterize toxicity. Serum selenium levels are elevated but do not correlate well with symptoms. Blood chemistries, hematology, and liver and renal function tests are usually normal. Fatal cardiomyopathy has been reported in long-term parenteral nutrition patients who developed low selenium levels (5%-12%). /Selenium compounds/ See Reference 760. (13.91.11) Symptoms demonstrated by humans suffering from chronic selenium intoxication

include depression, languor, nervousness, dermatitis, gastrointestinal disturbances, giddiness, garlic odor of the breath and sweat, moderate emotional instability, excess dental caries, and in extreme cases, loss of fingernails and partial alopecia. /Selenium and cmpd/ See Reference 761. (13.91.12) The elemental forms of selenium are probably completely harmless to man; its

compounds, however, are dangerous and their action resembles that of sulfur compounds. /Selenium compounds/ See Reference 762. (13.91.13) Many selenium compounds will cause intense burns of skin and mucous

membranes and chronic skin exposure to light concn of dust from certain cmpd may produce dermatitis and paronychia. /Selenium cmpd/ See Reference 763. (13.91.14) Populations at Special Risk: ...CAREFUL CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN

TO EMPLOYING WOMEN DURING THEIR CHILD-BEARING PERIOD, SINCE...IRREGULAR MENSES & MENOSTASIS /HAVE BEEN REPORTED/ IN JAPANESE SELENIUM RECTIFIER WORKERS. /SELENIUM COMPD/ See Reference 764. (13.91.15) The transfer of selenium from general environmental sources to man occurs

primarily through inhalation and ingestion(1). Occupational exposure to selenium is expected to occur McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 708 of 953

from mining and milling operations(SRC). The general population may be exposed to selenium via inhalation of ambient air, ingestion of food, milk, and drinking water, and dermal contact with consumer products, such as anti-dandruff shampoos, containing selenium(SRC). See Reference 765. TELLURIUM (13.92) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Tellurium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.92.1) This record contains information for tellurium in its zero valence state only. For

general toxicity and environmental fate of tellurium ions and tellurium compounds, refer to the TELLURIUM COMPOUNDS record; for compound specific information, refer to the appropriate individual records, e.g., tellurium hexafluoride, ethyl tellurac, etc. There are radioactive forms of tellurium; for general toxicological, safety and handling, and environmental information on ionizing radiation refer to the IONIZING RADIATION record. (13.92.2) Human Toxicity Excerpts: ... EXPOSURE TO TELLURIUM FUME OCCURRED

... POURING ... TELLURIUM-COPPER ALLOY ... ONLY ... SYMPTOM ... GARLIC ODOR. TELLURIUM WAS PRESENT IN URINE IN AMT FROM 0.008 TO 0.106 MG/L. SKIN LESIONS ... DRY, SCALY ITCHING PATCHES & LOSS OF SWEAT FUNCTION ... . See Reference 766. (13.92.3) Tellurium is one of the rarest elements on earth. Intoxications are rare & almost

exclusively occupationally exposed workers are affected. Only a few cases of non- occupational poisoning have been reported so far. Severe poisoning results in respiratory depression & circulatory collapse. After occupational exposure main symptoms & signs include loss of appetite, dryness of the mouth, suppression of sweating, a metallic taste in the mouth, & most notable, a sharp garlic odor of the breath, sweat & urine. See Reference 767. (13.92.4) THE GARLIC ODOR OF SWEAT WAS A GOOD INDICATOR OF THE McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 709 of 953

ABSORPTION OF TELLURIUM. See Reference 768. (13.92.5) Exposure of iron foundry workers to concns of 0.01 & 0.1 mg Te/cu m for 22

months produced mild GI distress, the characteristic garlic odor, dryness of the mouth, metallic taste, & somnolence. See Reference 769. (13.92.6) May cause irritation of the respiratory system & lead to bronchitis & pneumonia.

/Tellurium (dust or fume)/ See Reference 770. (13.92.7) EFFECTS: GARLIC ODOR OF BREATH, METALLIC TASTE, NAUSEA, LOSS

OF APPETITE, LIVER INJURY. /TELLURIUM FUMES/ See Reference 771 (13.92.8) Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations: May cause irritation of the respiratory

system & lead to bronchitis & pneumonia. /Tellurium (dust or fume)/ See Reference 772. (13.92.9) METALLIC DUSTS & FUMES ... NOT ... ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH

TOXICITY. ... FINDINGS IN CHRONICALLY EXPOSED WORKMEN INCLUDE GARLIC ODOR TO BREATH & SWEAT, DRYNESS OF MOUTH, METALLIC TASTE & SOMNOLENCE. /TELLURIUM DERIV/ See Reference 773. (13.92.10) Human workers exposed to excess tellurite during industrial operations show

chronic toxicity symptoms such as nausea, somnolence, and loss of appetite. /Tellurite/ See Reference 774. (13.92.11) Some of the frequently handled tellurium cmpd give rise to skin burns ... .

/Tellurium compounds/ See Reference 775. (13.92.12) Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations: Some of the frequently handled tellurium

cmpd give rise to skin burns ... /Tellurium compounds/ See Reference 776. (13.92.13) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: MILD TELLURISM /OCCURS/

PRINCIPALLY WHERE FUMES OF TELLURIUM, PROBABLY IN FORM OF HYDROGEN TELLURIDE, ARE GIVEN OFF. See Reference 777. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 710 of 953

(13.92.14)

Occupational exposure to tellurium compounds may occur through inhalation of

dust (e.g., tellurium oxide) or vapor (e.g., tellurium hexafluoride), and dermal contact with this compound at workplaces where they are produced or used. The general population may be exposed to tellurium compounds via inhalation of ambient air and ingestion of food containing tellurium compounds. (SRC) See Reference 778. ARSENIC TRICHLORIDE (13.93) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Arsenic Trichloride has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.93.1) This record contains information specific to the title compound. Users with an

interest in this substance are strongly encouraged to retrieve the Arsenic Compounds record, which has additional information on toxicity and environmental fate of arsenic ions and compounds. See Reference 778. (13.93.1) Evidence for Carcinogenicity: Classification of carcinogenicity: 1) evidence in

humans: sufficient; 2) evidence in animals: limited. Overall summary evaluation of carcinogenic risk to humans is Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans. NOTE: This evaluation applies to the group of chemicals as a whole and not necessarily to all individual chemicals within the group. /Arsenic and arsenic compounds/ See Reference 779. (13.93.2) Reference 780. (13.93.3) CLASSIFICATION: A; human carcinogen. BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION: A1: Confirmed human carcinogen. /Arsenic and inorganic compounds, as As/ See

Based on sufficient evidence from human data. An increased lung cancer mortality was observed in multiple human populations exposed primarily through inhalation. Also, increased mortality from multiple internal organ cancers (liver, kidney, lung, and bladder) and an increased incidence of skin McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 711 of 953

cancer were observed in populations consuming drinking water high in inorganic arsenic. HUMAN CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Sufficient. ANIMAL CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Inadequate. /Inorganic Arsenic/ See Reference 781. (13.93.4) IT IS EXTREMELY TOXIC & CAUSTIC, OWING NOT ONLY TO

POISONOUS NATURE OF ARSENIC BUT ALSO TO RELEASE OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID IN PRESENCE OF WATER. ... INDUSTRIALLY /VAPOR/ HAS BEEN OBSERVED TO CAUSE BLEPHAROSPASM, PHOTOPHOBIA, & LACRIMATION IN WORKMEN, RESULTING IN TEMPORARY REDDENING OF CONJUNCTIVA, BUT NO CORNEAL INJURY. See Reference 782. (13.93.5) AUTOPSY ON 24 YR OLD CHEM ENGINEER WHO COMMITTED SUICIDE

BY MEANS OF ARSENIC TRICHLORIDE REVEALED ACUTE ARSENIC POISONING. EXTREME CORROSION FOUND, ESPECIALLY IN REGION OF ESOPHAGUS. See Reference 783. (13.93.6) Arsenic trichloride was tested in human leukocyte cultures at concn of 6, 24, and

72x10-7 M. It significantly incr the number of chromosomal aberrations in a concn dependent manner producing 11.7, 70.5 and 125.0 aberrations per 100 cells, respectively. See Reference 784. (13.93.7) Arsenic trichloride was /accidentally/ spilled on one leg of a worker. After death,

arsenic was found in high concentrations in all tissues examined (lung, liver, kidney, pancreas, stomach, heart, and blood), and it appeared that the trichloride had been inhaled as well as absorbed through the skin. The heart, liver, kidneys, pancreas, and stomach were in a state of acute granulo-fatty degeneration. The direct cause of death was kidney failure, but the damage to the lung, liver, pancreas, and heart also would have been fatal. See Reference 785. (13.93.8) Exposure to arsenic trichloride, which has a vapor pressure at 25C sufficient to

produce an air concn of 140,000 mg/m3, can cause irritation or ulceration on contact or may be McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 712 of 953

absorbed through the skin, with fatal results ... . See Reference 786. (13.93.9) Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations: It is irritating to skin, eyes and mucous

membranes. See Reference 787. (13.93.10) (13.93.11) See Reference 789. (13.93.12) ARSENICAL DUSTS ... ARE IRRITATING TO UPPER RESP TRACT & EYES. Inhalation causes irritation of nose and throat. See Reference 788. Trivalent arsenic compounds are corrosive to the skin. /Trivalent arsenic cmpd/

CONJUNCTIVITIS PRODUCED BY ... THESE SUBSTANCES ARE CHARACTERIZED BY ITCHING, BURNING, & WATERING OF EYES. ... /INORGANIC ARSENIC DUSTS/ See Reference 790. (13.93.13) Populations at Special Risk: /Protect/ from exposure those individuals with

diseases of skin, blood, liver, kidney, and central nervous system. See Reference 799. DIETHYL ARSINE (DIETHYLARSINE) (13.94) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

DIETHYLARSINE has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.94.1) This record contains information specific to the title compound. Users with an

interest in this substance are strongly encouraged to retrieve the Arsenic Compounds record, which has additional information on toxicity and environmental fate of arsenic ions and compounds. (13.94.2) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: Occupational exposure to diethylarsine may

have occurred through inhalation and dermal contact with this compound at workplaces where diethylarsine was produced or used. (SRC) See Reference 778. ARSENIC COMPOUNDS (13.95) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 713 of 953

Arsenic Compounds have injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.95.1) Toxicology: Effects: Vesicants affect both exterior and interior parts of the body.

Vesicants cause inflammation, blisters, and general destruction of tissues. Vapors have a greater impact on moist areas of the body. Eyes are especially susceptible to Vesicants. Inhalation of Vesicants can cause lung membranes to swell and become filled with liquid (pulmonary edema). Death may result from lack of oxygen. Arsenical Vesicants are also systemic agents and readily pass through the skin to affect susceptible tissue including blood cells and the liver. Arsenical Vesicants also act as vomiting agents ... and produce violent sneezing and regurgitation. Arsenical Vesicants should be considered carcinogenic. Pathways: Vesicants are hazardous through inhalation, skin and eye exposure, ingestion, and abraded skin (e.g., breaks in the skin or penetration of skin by debris). Liquid agents are much more hazardous than their vapors. /Vesicants - Arsenic Based/ See Reference 791. (13.95.2) Latency Period: Arsenical vesicants produce pain immediately. Skin impacts begin

appearing within minutes of exposure, although it may be up to 18 hours before the full lesion develops. Inhalation of high concentrations may be fatal in as short a time as 10 minutes. Pulmonary edema caused by inhalation of the agent vapor may be delayed for several hours. /Vesicants - Arsenic Based/ See Reference 792. (13.95.3) Evidence for Carcinogenicity: Classification of carcinogenicity: 1) evidence in

humans: sufficient; 2) evidence in animals: limited. Overall summary evaluation of carcinogenic risk to humans is Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans. NOTE: This evaluation applies to the group of chemicals as a whole and not necessarily to all individual chemicals within the group. /Arsenic and arsenic compounds/ See Reference 793. (13.95.4) A1. A1= Confirmed human carcinogen. (1993) /Arsenic, elemental and inorganic

cmpd (except Arsine), as As/ See Reference 794. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 714 of 953

(13.95.5)

CLASSIFICATION: A; human carcinogen. BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION:

Based on sufficient evidence from human data. An increased lung cancer mortality was observed in multiple human populations exposed primarily through inhalation. Also, increased mortality from multiple internal organ cancers (liver, kidney, lung, and bladder) and an increased incidence of skin cancer were observed in populations consuming drinking water high in inorganic arsenic. HUMAN CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Sufficient. ANIMAL CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Inadequate. /Inorganic Arsenic/ (13.95.6) SYMPTOMATOLOGY (Acute poisoning only): 1. Symptoms usually appear 1/2 to

1 hr after ingestion but may be delayed many hr, esp when arsenic is taken with food. 2. Sweetish metallic taste; garlicky odor of breath and feces. 3. Constriction in throat & difficulty in swallowing. Burning & colicky pains in esophagus, stomach & bowel. 4. Vomiting & profuse painful diarrhea. Often excreta resmeble "rice water" stools of cholera; later feces become bloody. 5. Dehydration with intense thirst & muscular cramps. 6. Hematatueia, albuminuria, glycosuria. Elevation of liver enzymes in the plasma. 7. Initial sinus tachycardia and occasionally ventricular arrhythmias, followed by cyanosis, feeble pulse and cold extremities. 8. Vertigo, frontal headache. In some cases ("cerebral type") vertigo, stupor, delirium, & even mania develop without prominent GI signs. 9. Syncope, coma, occasionally convulsions, general paralysis & death. 10. If acute phase is survived, peripheral ... /neuropathy/ with sensory & motor involvement ... 11. Various skin eruptions ... 12. During recovery, weakness & diarrhea may persist for wk, & occasionally syndrome indistinguishable from chronic poisoning evolves ... /Arsenic cmpd, ingestion/ See Reference 796. (13.95.7) The effects of trivalent & pentavalent arsenic on the synthesis of DNA, RNA, &

protein in cultured human cells were compared. The clastogenicity of these cmpds were also compared. The chromosome-breaking activity in cultured (human) leukocytes was significantly higher for the cmpds with trivalent than with pentavalent arsenic The activity in cultured human skin fibroblasts was McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 715 of 953

similar to that in leukocyte cultures. The colony-forming capacity after exposure to arsenic cmpd indicated that trivalent cmpd were more toxic than pentavalent cmpd. Both trivalent & pentavalent arsenic inhibited DNA & protein synthesis in leukocytes. /Trivalent and pentavalent arsenic/ See Reference 797. (13.95.8) Arsenicals may act as contact allergens. Thus, low concn which ordinarily would

not result in local irritation caused allergic reactions (eg folliculitis) in sensitized individuals. /Arsenicals/ See Reference 798. (13.95.9) The toxicity of arsenical compounds decreases as follows: arsine (-III) > organo-

arsine derivatives > arsenites (+III) > arsenoxides > (+III) > arsenates (+V) > pentavalent organic compounds (+V) > arsonium metals (+I) > metallic arsenic (0). /Arsenical cmpd/ See Reference 800. (13.95.10) The wrists are common sites of dermatitis, as are the genitalia if personal hygiene

is poor. /Arsenic and arsenic cmpd/ See Reference 801. (13.95.11) Chronic arsenical poisoning due to ingestion is rare and generally confined to

patients taking prescribed medications. However, it can be a concomitant of inhaled inorganic arsenic from swallowed sputum and improper eating habits. /Arsenic and arsenic cmpd/ See Reference 802. (13.95.12) Trivalent arsenic compounds are corrosive to the skin. /Inorganic arsenic

compounds/ See Reference 803. (13.95.13) Cases of acute arsenical poisoning due to inhalation are exceedingly rare in

industry. ... Resp tract symptoms: cough, chest pain, dyspnea-giddiness, headache, and extreme general weakness precede GI symptoms. The acute toxic symptoms of trivalent arsenicals poisoning are due to severe inflammation of the mucous membranes and greatly incr permeability of the blood capillaries. /Inorganic arsenic compounds/ See Reference 804. (13.95.14) CHRONIC POISONING CAN RESULT IN EXFOLIATION &

PIGMENTATION OF SKIN, HERPES, ... /SRP: POLYNEUROPATHY/ ALTERED McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 716 of 953

HEMATOPOIESIS, DEGENERATION OF LIVER & KIDNEYS. /ARSENIC/ See Reference 805. (13.95.15) Arsenical dusts ... encountered in smelting of ores & ... agriculturally, are irritating

to upper resp tract & eyes. The conjunctivitis produced ... is characterized by itching, burning, & watering of the eyes, with photophobia & sometimes hyperemia & chemosis. ... In chronic ... poisoning ... rarely ... keratitis ... accompanying conjunctivitis and exfoliative dermatitis. /Arsenic & Arsenical dust/ See Reference 806. (13.95.16) ... PERIPHERAL DISTURBANCES INDICATIVE OF ENDO ANGIITIS--

GANGRENE OF EXTREMITIES, ATROPHIC ACRODERMATITIS ... . /ARSENIC/ See Reference 807. S (13.95.17) MOST FORMS OF ARSENIC ARE HIGHLY TOXIC. /ARSENIC/ See

Reference 808. (13.95.18) Sister chromatid exchanges (SCE) do not seem to be a substantial endpoint for

assessing the action of metals on human genetic material, although significantly increased sister chromatid exchange rates have been reported in persons exposed to arsenic compounds. /Arsenic cmpd/ See Reference 809. (13.95.19) Arsenic is the most common cause of pesticide-induced deaths in children and is

the most common cause of heavy-metal related death, second only to lead. Ant pastes are a major source of exposure. /Arsenic/ See Reference 810. (13.95.20) SMALL DOSES OF INORG ARSENIC INDUCE MILD VASODILATION. ...

LARGER DOSES EVOKE CAPILLARY DILATATION; INCREASED CAPILLARY PERMEABILITY MAY OCCUR IN ALL CAPILLARY BEDS, BUT IT IS MOST PRONOUNCED IN THE SPLANCHNIC AREA. TRANSUDATION OF PLASMA MAY ALSO OCCUR, AND THE DECR IN INTRAVASCULAR VOLUME MAY BE SIGNIFICANT. MYOCARDIAL DAMAGE AND HYPOTENSION APPEAR LATER. ECG ABNORMALITIES MAY PERSIST FOR MONTHS McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 717 of 953

AFTER RECOVERY FROM ACUTE INTOXICATION. /INORGANIC ARSENIC COMPOUNDS/ See Reference 811. (13.95.21) CHRONIC EXPOSURE TO INORG ... ARSENICALS MAY CAUSE

PERIPHERAL ... /NEUROPATHY/ IN SEVERE CASES, SPINAL CORD MAY ALSO BE INVOLVED. AFTER ACUTE INGESTION OF TOXIC DOSES OF INORG ARSENIC, APPROX 5% OF THE PATIENTS HAVE CENTRAL DEPRESSION WITHOUT GI SYMPTOMS. /INORGANIC ARSENIC COMPOUNDS/ See Reference 812. (13.95.22) Inorganic arsenicals affects the bone marrow & alter the cellular composition of

the blood. Hematological evaluation usually reveals anemia with slight to moderate leukopenia; eosinophilia may also be present. Anisocytosis becomes evident with incr exposure to arsenic. The vascularity of bone marrow is incr. Some of the chronic hematological effects may result from impaired absorption of folic acid. /Inorganic arsenic compounds/ See Reference 813. (13.95.23) INORG ARSENICALS ... ARE PARTICULARLY TOXIC TO THE LIVER &

PRODUCE FATTY INFILTRATION, CENTRAL NECROSIS, & CIRRHOSIS ... DAMAGE MAY BE MILD OR SO SEVERE THAT ACUTE YELLOW ATROPHY & DEATH ENSUE. THE INJURY IS GENERALLY TO HEPATIC PARENCHYMA. ... /INORGANIC ARSENIC COMPOUNDS/ See Reference 814. (13.95.24) Arsenic causes chromosomal breaks in cultured human leukocytes. ... There is ...

epidemiological evidence that chronic ingestion of arsenic in drinking water or chronic exposure from the use of inorganic arsenicals in sheep dip or vineyard sprays predisposes to intraepidermal squamous cell and superficial basal cell carcinomas of the skin. Among metal workers, there is a strong correlation between the intensity and duration of exposure to arsenic and lung cancer. ... hemangiosarcoma has been found to occur in vineyard workers who are chronically exposed to arsenic. /Inorganic arsenic compounds/ See Reference 815. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 718 of 953

(13.95.25)

/ACUTE POISONING EFFECTS:/ BURNING LIPS, CONSTRICTION OF THE

THROAT, AND DIFFICULTY IN SWALLOWING MAY BE THE FIRST SYMPTOMS, FOLLOWED BY EXCRUCIATING GASTRIC PAIN, PROJECTILE VOMITING, AND SEVERE DIARRHEA. OLIGURIA WITH PROTEINURIA AND HEMATURIA IS USUALLY PRESENT; EVENTUALLY ANURIA MAY OCCUR. THE PATIENT OFTEN COMPLAINS OF MARKED SKELETAL MUSCLE CRAMPS AND SEVERE THIRST. AS THE LOSS OF FLUID PROCEEDS, SYMPTOMS OF SHOCK APPEAR. HYPOXIC CONVULSIONS MAY OCCUR TERMINALLY, & COMA & DEATH ENSUE. IN SEVERE POISONING, DEATH CAN OCCUR WITHIN AN HR, BUT THE USUAL INTERVAL IS 24 HR. /INORGANIC ARSENIC COMPOUNDS/ See Reference 816. (13.95.26) The most common early signs of chronic arsenic poisoning are muscle weakness

& aching, skin pigmentation ... hyperkeratosis, & edema. ... Garlic odor of the breath & perspiration, excessive salivation & sweating, stomatitis, generalized itching, sore throat, coryza, lacrimation, numbness, burning or tingling of the extremities, dermatitis, vitiligo, & alopecia. /Inorganic arsenic compounds/ See Reference 816. (13.95.27) CHRONIC ... POISONING, WHETHER BY INGESTION OR INHALATION,

MAY MANIFEST ITSELF IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. THERE MAY BE DISTURBANCES OF DIGESTIVE SYSTEM ... CRAMPS, NAUSEA, CONSTIPATION OR DIARRHEA. LIVER DAMAGE MAY OCCUR, RESULTING IN JAUNDICE. /INORGANIC ARSENIC COMPOUNDS/ See Reference 817. (13.95.28) Acute arsenic poisoning, by interfering with cellular respiration, may produce an

electrocardiographic picture of mycocardial ischemia and may be associated with focal myocardial hemorrhage, although in pt who recover there are no cardiac symptoms. /Inorganic Arsenic compounds/ See Reference 818. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 719 of 953

(13.95.29)

Congenital malformations were observed in children whose mothers worked,

during pregnancy, at a Swedish copper smelter and were exposed to arsenic, other heavy metals and sulfur dioxide. The observed incidence /of malformations/ was 5 times higher than that in children born to other mothers from the same region. /Inorganic arsenic compounds/ See Reference 819. (13.95.30) LIVER HEMANGIOENDOTHELIOMA WAS REPORTED ... /IN CASE

WHERE ARSENIC WAS FOUND IN DRINKING WATER/. /INORGANIC ARSENIC COMPOUNDS/ See Reference 820. (13.95.31) ... A PROPORTIONATE MORTALITY OF WORKERS INVOLVED IN MFR OF

SHEEP-DIP CONTAINING INORG ARSENICALS ... HAD MEDIAN ARSENIC EXPOSURES RANGING FROM 71-696 UG/M3. ... EXCESS OF DEATHS FROM CANCERS OF LUNG & SKIN WAS OBSERVED AMONG HEAVILY-EXPOSED BUT NOT AMONG UNEXPOSED WORKERS IN THE FACTORY. /INORGANIC ARSENIC COMPOUNDS/ See Reference 821. (13.95.32) CANCERS RESULTING FROM EXPOSURE TO ARSENIC USUALLY

INVOLVE ... BONE STRUCTURE & LUNG. DESPITE PREDOMINANCE ... IN LUNG & FACE, TUMORS ARE ALSO LIKELY TO OCCUR IN SCROTUM, BUTTOCKS, ABDOMEN, CLAVICLE, & LOWER CHEST. /INORGANIC ARSENIC COMPOUNDS/ See Reference 822. (13.95.33) INGESTION CAUSES IRRITATION OF STOMACH, WEAKNESS, OTHER GI

SYMPTOMS. OVERDOSE CAN CAUSE ARSENIC POISONING, BUT SYMPTOMS ARE DELAYED. /INORGANIC ARSENIC COMPOUNDS/ See Reference 823. (13.95.34) SMALL DOSES OF INORG ARSENIC INDUCE MILD VASODILATION.

LARGE DOSES EVOKE CAPILLARY DILATATION; INCREASED CAPILLARY PERMEABILITY MAY OCCUR IN ALL CAPILLARY BEDS, BUT IT IS MOST PRONOUNCED IN THE SPLANCHNIC AREA. TRANSUDATION OF PLASMA AND A SHARP DIMINUTION IN BLOOD VOLUME RESULT. ARTERIOLAR AND MYOCARDIAL DAMAGE APPEARS LATER, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 720 of 953

AND THE BLOOD PRESSURE FALLS PROFOUNDLY. ECG ABNORMALITIES MAY PERSIST FOR MONTHS AFTER RECOVERY FROM ACUTE INTOXICATION. /INORGANIC ARSENIC/ See Reference 824. (13.95.35) INORG ARSENICALS AFFECT BONE MARROW & ALTER CELLULAR

COMPOSITION OF BLOOD. VASCULARITY OF BONE MARROW IS INCREASED. MODERATE DOSES ... LOWER ERYTHROCYTE COUNT & LARGE DOSES CAUSE MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES WITH APPEARANCE OF MEGALOCYTES & MICROCYTES. INORGANIC ARSENICALS ALSO SUPPRESS PRODUCTION OF LEUKOCYTES. SOME OF THE CHRONIC HEMATOLOGICAL EFFECTS MAY RESULT FROM IMPAIRED ABSORPTION OF FOLIC ACID. /INORGANIC ARSENICALS/ See Reference 824. (13.95.36) INORG ARSENICALS ... ARE PARTICULARLY TOXIC TO LIVER &

PRODUCE FATTY INFILTRATION, CENTRAL NECROSIS, & CIRRHOSIS ... DAMAGE MAY BE MILD OR SO SEVERE THAT ACUTE YELLOW ATROPHY & DEATH ENSUE. INJURY IS GENERALLY TO THE HEPATIC PARENCHYMA ... . /INORG ARSENICALS/ See Reference 824. (13.95.37) EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT LONG TERM INGESTION OF

ARSENIC IN DRINKING WATER ... PREDISPOSES TO INTRAEPIDERMAL SQUAMOUS CELL & SUPERFICIAL BASAL CELL CARCINOMAS OF THE SKIN ... . /ARSENIC/ See Reference 824. (13.95.38) MOST COMMON EARLY SIGNS OF CHRONIC ARSENIC POISONING ARE

... GARLIC ODOR OF BREATH & PERSPIRATION, EXCESSIVE SALIVATION & SWEATING, STOMATITIS, GENERALIZED ITCHING, SORE THROAT, CORYZA, LACRIMATION, NUMBNESS, BURNING OR TINGLING OF EXTREMITIES, DERMATITIS, VITILIGO, & ALOPECIA. ... BONE MARROW IS SERIOUSLY INJURED BY ARSENIC. WITH SEVERE EXPOSURE, ALL HEMATOLOGICAL ELEMENTS MAY BE AFFECTED. /ARSENIC/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 721 of 953

See Reference 824. (13.95.39) In all cases the toxic moiety is presumably trivalent arsenic, in the form of

inorganic arsenious acid (arsenite) or an organic arsenoxide, rather than the element itself. ... In vivo conversion /of pentavalent arsenicals/ may explain why all chemical forms of arsenic eventually produce the same toxic syndrome. /Arsenic/ See Reference 825. (13.95.40) IRRITANT & VESICANT ARSENICAL COMPOUNDS, SUCH AS ARSENIC

TRIOXIDE, ARSENIC TRICHLORIDE, & THE ARSENICAL WAR GASES, HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO CAUSE SEVERE DAMAGE TO THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM UPON INHALATION. SYMPTOMS INCLUDE COUGH, DYSPNEA, & PAIN IN THE CHEST. /ARSENIC COMPD/ See Reference 826. (13.95.41) /ACUTE POISONING EFFECTS:/ URINE IS SCANTY, ALBUMINOUS, &

BLOODY; EVENTUALLY ANURIA MAY OCCUR. ... AS FLUID LOSS PROCEEDS, SYMPTOMS OF SHOCK APPEAR. HYPOXIC CONVULSIONS MAY OCCUR TERMINALLY, & COMA & DEATH ENSUE. IN SEVERE POISONING, DEATH CAN OCCUR WITHIN AN HOUR, BUT THE USUAL INTERVAL IS 24 HR. /ARSENIC/ See Reference 827. (13.95.42) If ocular exposure occurs, they cause immediate pain, blepharospasm, and rapid

formation of eyelid edema. /Arsenical vesicants/ See Reference 828. (13.95.43) A follow-up study of the population living in the area of Taiwan, where a high

prevalence of skin cancer was associated with arsenic contamination in the water supply, also found significantly elevated standard mortality ratios for cancers of the bladder, lung, liver, kidney, and colon. Like skin cancer, the incidence of bladder, liver, and lung cancer cases in this study showed a doserelated increase with arsenic exposure. These studies strongly suggest that ingestion of inorganic arsenic is associated with cancers in the bladder, kidney, lung, liver, and possibly other sites. /Arsenic compounds/ See Reference 829. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 722 of 953

(13.95.44)

Sublethal arsenic poisoning has resulted in renal necrosis and insufficiency. In the

contaminated powered milk incident in Mormaga, renal injury was diagnosed by the presence of hematuria, leukocytaria, and glycosuria ... . Proteinuria has also been described secondary to ingestion of ground water contaminated by an arsenic plant. /Arsenic cmpds/ See Reference 943. (13.95.45) Liver enlargement was reported in 35.5% of individuals exposed to an average As

concentration of 0.64 mg/l in drinking water, whereas people exposed to 0.2 1 mg/l were unaffected ... . Histological examination of livers of individuals chronically exposed to similar levels has revealed a consistent finding of portal tract fibrosis ... leading, in some cases, to portal hypertension and bleeding from esophageal varices. This effect may also occur after acute exposures to higher doses. ... It has been suggested that these hepatic effects are secondary to damage to the hepatic blood vessels. /Arsenic compounds/ See Reference 944. (13.95.46) Clinical signs of gastrointestinal irritation, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea,

and abdominal pain have been reported in most cases of acute high dose exposure to inorganic arsenic ... . Less severe symptoms are also frequently observed in individuals with longer term lower dose exposures via drinking water ... . These effects are usually not detectable at medium term As exposure levels between 0.050 and 0.393 mg/l ... and generally decline within a short time after exposure ceases. /Inorganic arsenic/ See Reference 955. (13.95.47) Anemia and leukopenia are common effects of arsenic poisoning in humans and

have been reported following acute, subchronic, and chronic oral exposures. ... Arsenic intoxication also causes myelodysplastic syndrome involving dysmyelopoietic changes in all three marrow cell lines. Hematological effects are usually not observed in humans exposed to As levels of 0.07 mg/kg/day or less, although subacute exposure for 2 to 3 weeks to 0.05 mg/kg/day resulted in mild anemia. /Arsenic cmpd/ See Reference 946. (13.95.48) Workers exposed to arsenic dusts in air often experience irritation to the mucous McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 723 of 953

membranes of the nose and throat. This may lead to laryngitis, bronchitis, or rhinitis ... and very high exposures (characteristic of workplace exposures in the past) can cause perforation of the nasal septum ... . /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 947. (13.95.49) A cross-sectional study incl 46 workers in Denmark with varying, unquantified

occupational exposure to arsenic in different occupations found that systolic blood pressure was significantly incr in the arsenic workers (median = 125 mmHg) compared with controls (median = 117 mmHg) ... . /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 948. (13.95.50) ... reported a significant incr in respiratory cancer mortality (standard mortality

ratio [SMR] = 189.4) based on 104 observed respiratory cancer deaths and only 54.9 expected over the years 1941-1976 in a cohort of 2,802 male workers employed for at least 1 yr between 1940 and 1964 at the ASARCO smelter. When the cohort was separated into low and high arsenic exposure groups, with mean estimated time-weighted avg arsenic exposures of 0.054 and 0.157 mg As/m3, respectively ... respiratory cancer mortality was significantly incr in both groups in a concn-related fashion (SMR = 227.7 and 291.4 in the low and high groups, respectively). /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 949. (13.95.51) Respiratory cancer mortality was significantly incr (SMR = 285) based on 302

observed respiratory deaths between 1938 and 1977 in a cohort of 8,045 white male workers employed for at least 1 yr between 1938 and 1956 at the Anaconda smelter ... . When workers were categorized according to cumulative arsenic exposure and date of hire, lung cancer mortality was significantly incr in all groups hired between 1925 and 1947. Workers in the lowest cumulative exposure group (<10 mgmo/cu m) were reported to have had less than 2 yr exposure at an avg arsenic concn of 0.38 mg/cu m. /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 950. (13.95.52) ... studied the mortality experience from 1949 to 1980 of a cohort of 6,078 white

males who had worked for 3 yr or more between 1946 and 1976 at one of eight US copper smelters in AZ, UT, TN, and NV. Lung cancer mortality was significantly incr only in the Utah smelter (SMR = McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 724 of 953

226.7), which had the highest avg arsenic exposure concn (0.069 mg/cu m vs 0.007=0.013 mg/cu m in the other smelters) and also contributed the largest number of cohort members (n=2,288 vs 189-965 from the other smelters). /Inorganic arsenicals/ (13.95.53) ... reported significantly incr lung cancer mortality (SMR = 372, 95% CI = 304-

450) based on 106 lung cancer deaths in a cohort of 3,916 male workers employed for at least 3 mo between 1928 and 1967 at the Ronnskar smelter and followed for mortality through 1981. Workers were separated into low, medium, and high arsenic exposure groups with mean time-weighted avg exposure estimates of 0.05, 0.2, and 0.4 mg/cu m, respectively. Lung cancer mortality was significantly incr in all three exposure groups in a concn-related fashion (SMR = 201, 353, and 480, respectively). /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 952. (13.95.54) Two people in a family of eight died from ingestion of water containing about 110

ppm of arsenic for a week ... . This corresponded to a dose of about 2 mg As/kg/day. /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 953. (13.95.55) Five children between the ages of 2 and 7 yr died from late sequelae of chronic

arsenic poisoning after drinking contaminated water throughout their lives at est avg doses of 0.05-0.1 mg As/kg/day ... . /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 954. (13.95.56) A 22-yr old man with chronic arsenical dermatosis died from arsenic-related

effects after lifetime exposure to an est avg dose of 0.014 mg As/kg/day in the drinking water ... . /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 955. (13.95.57) Serious respiratory effects, incl respiratory distress, hemorrhagic bronchitis, and

pulmonary edema, have been reported in some cases of acute oral arsenic poisoning at doses of 8 mg As/kg and above ... . These effects may be secondary to injury to the pulmonary vasculature ... . In addition, bronchitis and sequelae ... have been observed at autopsy in some chronic poisoning cases ... . Bronchopneumonia secondary to arsenic-induced bronchitis was considered to be the cause of death in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 725 of 953

one young child who died after several yr of exposure to an avg dose of 0.08 mg As/kg/day ... . In general, however, respiratory effects have not been widely assoc with repeated oral ingestion of low arsenic doses. Nevertheless, a few studies have reported minor respiratory symptoms, such as cough, sputum, rhinorrhea, and sore throat, in people with repeated oral exposure to 0.03-0.05 mg As/kg/day ... . /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 956. (13.95.58) Characteristic effects on the heart from both acute and long-term /oral/ exposure

incl altered myocardial depolarization (prolonged Q-T interval, nonspecific S-T segment changes) and cardiac arrhythmias ... . Hypertrophy of the ventricular wall was observed at autopsy after acute exposure to 93 mg As ... . Long-term low-level exposures may also lead to damage to the vascular system. The most dramatic example of this is "Blackfoot disease", a condition that is endemic in an area of Taiwan where avg drinking water levels of arsenic range from 0.17 to 0.80 ppm ... corresponding to doses of about 0.014-0.065 mg As/kg/day ... The disease is characterized by a progressive loss of circulation in the hands and feet, leading ultimately to necrosis and gangrene ... . /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 957. (13.95.59) Clinical signs of GI irritation, incl nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal

pain, are observed in essentially all cases of acute high-dose /oral/ exposures to inorganic arsenic ... . Similar signs are also frequently observed in groups or individuals with longer-term lower-dose exposures ..., but effects are usually not detectable at exposure levels below about 0.01 mg As/kg/day ... These symptoms generally decline within a short time after exposure ceases. ... More severe symptoms (hematemesis, hemoperitoneum, GI hemorrhage, and necrosis) have been reported in some cases with acute exposure to 8 mg As/kg or more ... and also in some people with long-term ingestion of 0.03-0.05 mg As/kg/day as a medicinal preparation ... . /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 958. (13.95.60) Anemia and leukopenia are common effects of /oral/ arsenic poisoning in humans,

and have been reported following acute ... intermediate ... and chronic oral exposure ... at doses of 0.05 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 726 of 953

mg As/kg/day or more. These effects may be due to both a direct cytotoxic or hemolytic effect on the blood cells ... and a suppression of erythropoiesis ... . However, hematological effects are not observed in all cases of arsenic exposure ... or even all acute poisoning cases ... . /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 959. (13.95.61) A number of studies in humans exposed to inorganic arsenic by the oral route have

noted signs or symptoms of hepatic injury. Clinical exam often reveals that the liver is swollen and tender ... and analysis of blood sometimes shows elevated levels of heptic enzymes ... . These effects are most often observed after repeated exposure to doses of 0.01-0.1 mg As/kg/day ... although doses as low as 0.006 mg As/kg/day have been reported to be effective with chronic exposure ... . Hepatic effects have also been reported in acute bolus poisoning cases at doses of 2 mg As/kg/day or more ... although acute exposure to 19 mg As/kg did not cause hepatic effects in an infant ... . Histological exam of the livers of persons chronically exposed to similar doses has revealed a consistent finding of portal tract fibrosis ... leading in some cases to portal hypertension and bleeding from esophageal varices ... . Several researchers consider that these hepatic effects are secondary to damage to the hepatic blood vessels ... but this is not directly established. /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 960. (13.95.62) One of the most common and characteristic effects of arsenic ingestion is a pattern

of skin changes that incl generalized hyperkeratosis and formation of hyperkeratotic warts or corns on the palms and soles, along with areas of hyperpigmentation interspersed with small areas of hyperpigmentation on the face, neck, and back. ... In cases of low-level chronic exposure (usually from water), these skin lesions appear to be the most sensitive indication of effect, so this end point is considered to be the most appropriate basis for establishing a chronic oral MRL. This is supported by the finding that other effects (hepatic injury, vascular disease, neurological effects) also appear to have similar thresholds. ... numerous studies in humans have reported dermal effects at chronic dose levels ranging from about 0.01 to 0.1 mg As/kg/day ... .Several epidemiological studies of moderately sized McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 727 of 953

populations (20-200 people) exposed to arsenic through drinking water have detected no dermal or other effects at avg chronic doses of 0.0004-0.01 mg As/kg/day ... and one very large study (based on 17,000 people) detected no effects in any person at an avg total daily intake (from water plus food) of 0.0008 mg As/kg/day ... . This value has been used to calculate a chronic oral MRL for inorganic arsenic of 0.0003 mg/kg/day ... . /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 961. (13.95.63) Periorbital swelling was reported in people drinking contaminated well water at an

approx dose of 0.2 mg As/kg for 1 wk ... . Facial edema, generally involving the eyelids, was a prominent feature of arsenic poisoning among 220 cases assoc with an episode of arsenic contamination of soy sauce in Japan ... . Exposure was to an est dose of 0.05 mg/kg/day and lasted for up to 2-3 wk. The edema developed soon after the initial exposure and then subsided. This effects forms the basis (in part) for the provisional acute oral MRL of 0.005 mg/kg/day for inorganic arsenic ... . /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 962. (13.95.64) A large number of epidemiological studies and case reports indicate that ingestion

of inorganic arsenic can cause injury to the nervous system. Acute, high-dose exposures (2 mg As/kg/day of above) often lead to encephalopathy, with signs and symptoms such as headache, lethargy, mental confusion, hallucination, seizures, and coma ... . Repeated exposures to lower levels (0.03-0.01 mg As/kg/day) are typically characterized by a symmetrical peripheral neuropathy ... . This neuropathy usualy begins as a numbness in the hands and feet, but later may develop into a painful "pins and needles" sensation. Both sensory and motor nerves are affected, and muscle weakness often develops, sometimes leading to wrist-drop or ankle-drop ... . Diminished sensitivity to stimulation and abnormal patellar reflexes have also been reported ... . Histological exam of nerves from affected individuals reveals a dying-back axonopathy with demyelination ... . Some recovery may occur following cessation of exposure, but this is a slow process and recovery is usually incomplete ... . Peripheral neuropathy is also sometimes seen following acute high-dose eposures, with or without the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 728 of 953

previously described encephalopathy ... . Neurological effects were not generally found in populations chronically exposed to doses of 0.006 mg As/kg/day or less ... although fatigue, headache, dizziness, insomnia, nightmare, and numbness of the extremities were among the symptoms reported at 0.005, but not 0.004 mg As/kg/day in a study of 31,141 inhabitants of 77 villages in Xinjiang, China ... . /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 963. (13.95.65) There is convincing evidence from a large number of epidemiological studies and

case reports that ingestion of inorganic arsenic incr the risk of developing skin cancer ... . Lesions commonly observed are multiple squamous cel carcinomas, which appear to develop from some of the hyperkeratotic warts or corns ... . In addition, multiple basal cell carcinomas may occur, typically arising from cells not assoc with hyperkeratinization. In most cases, skin cancer develops only after prolonged exposure, but several studies have reported skin cancer in people exposed for less than 1 yr ... . /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 964. (13.95.66) .. investigated bladder cancer mortality for the years 1986-1991 in the 26 counties

of Cordoba, Argentina. Rates for all of Argentina were used as the standard for comparison. Several areas of Argentina have had high exposure to arsenic from naturally contaminated drinking water, particularly the eastern region of the province of Cordoba. Bladder cancer SMRs were consistently higher in counties with documented arsenic exposure. The clear trends found in this Argentina population with different genetic composition and a high-protein diet support the findings in Taiwan of dose-response relation between ingestion of inorganic arsenic from drinking water and bladder cancer. /Inorganic arsenicals/ See Reference 965. (13.95.67) Dilation of splanchnic vessels causes submucosal vesicle formation. Rupture of

these vesicles leads to rice-water stools & bleeding. Subsequently, a protein-losing enteropathy may develop. Despite aggressive management of arsenic intoxication & a rapid decr in blood & urine arsenic levels, neurologic defects may persist. It appears that distribution into neural tissue is rapid & McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 729 of 953

may be irreversible even with chelation. /Arsenic/ See Reference 966. (13.95.68) Arsenic exposure has been associated with 3 types of skin cancer: Bowen's

disease, basal cell carcinoma, & squamous cell carcinoma. These cancers are frequently multiple in origin & develop primarily from arsenical keratoses. the prevalence of arsenic-related skin cancer appears to be related to the total absorbed dose. Excess mortality form arsenic-induced skin cancer has been observed in the chemical & wine-producing industries & as a result of consumption of contaminated water. Numerous cases of skin cancer have been attributed to the use of medications containing arsenic. /Arsenic/ See Reference 967. (13.95.69) In September 1987, a previously healthy 43-yr old woman & her 45-yr old

husband purchased a home in rural upstate NY. Water was supplied from a deep private well, & the water was free of bacterial contamination. In the 3 months that elapsed between the purchase of the home & moving in, the patient would drink 1 or 2 glasses of water on each visit to the property. She noticed the onset of nausea, diarrhea, & abdominal cramps. After she moved into the house, she continued her long-standing habit of drinking 8-10 glasses of water/day. Her GI symptoms worsened, & she also began to experience occasional parenthesis in the lower extremities & the right hand. Diarrhea became continuous & showed traces of blood. A diffuse, erythematous & scaly rash developed. Routine exam of stool for ova, parasites, & common infectious agents was negative. In November 1987, her laboratory testing showed leukopenia (white blood count 900 cells/dl), macrocytic anemia, & elevated liver enzymes. The platelet count was normal. Eventually; heavy metal toxicity was suspected, & a 24 hr urine sample was analyzed for arsenic on December 7, 1987. It showed a urinary arsenic concn of 2260 mg/L; the patient had stopped drinking the well water 1 day before the urine collection. On December 10, 1987 the patient was admitted to a hospital for chelation therapy with 2,3di-mercapto-1-propanol (BAL). Treatment lasted 11 days. The GI & mucous membrane symptoms abated during hospitalization. the skin rash disappeared after a few more weeks. Symptoms suggestive McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 730 of 953

of neuropathy persisted many months. The index patient's husband, previously healthy, had a similar exposure history but consumed less water. His initial findings included GI symptoms, muscle pain in the lower extremities, generalized weakness, & tremor in the fingers. Additionally he experienced intermittent episodes of confusion & disorientation, mental sluggishness, & unusual visual sensations consisting of unformed images in the peripheral fields. He stopped drinking the water at approx. the same time as his wife. He also received chelation therapy with BAL. His symptoms diminished during chelation therapy, but trembling of the extremities persisted for a number of weeks. Results of EKG performed during hospitalization were normal. Environmental assessment consisted of testing the well water at the home for arsenic. In eight measurements undertaken between December 1987 & February 1988 inorganic arsenic concns ranged from 9000-10,900 mg/L. It was learned that the well drew its water from an abandoned iron-mining operation, & the arsenic appeared to have leaked into the water from the tailings from the mine. /Arsenic/ See Reference 967. (13.95.70) Peripheral vascular disease has been observed among persons in Chile & Taiwan

whose drinking water contained arsenic & also in smelter workers exposed long term to inorganic arsenic. Early symptoms include acrocyanosis & Reynaud's phenomenon. Those changes are associated with hyperpigmentation & hyperkeratosis & progress, in severe cases, to endarteritis obliterans, with frank gangrene of the extremities (black foot disease). In Chile, infants & children showed more pronounced vascular symptoms than adults, & myocardial infarction has been reported even in children. The prevalence & severity of peripheral vascular disease appears to be related to arsenic concn in water. Pathologic studies indicate that approx 30% of patients with black foot disease had thromboangitis obliterans & 70% showed evidence of atherosclerosis. Undernutrition may contribute to the development of black foot disease. Long-term arsenic ingestion appears also to be associated with cardiac disease. Case reports have been published of arsenic-associated myocarditis with arrhythmias. Mortality from cardiovascular disease, but not from cerebrovascular disease, is elevated in the arsenicMcKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 731 of 953

exposed population in Taiwan. /Arsenic/ See Referemce 968.

BARIUM (13.96) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Barium has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.96.1) This record contains information for barium in its zero valence state only. For

general toxicology and environmental fate of barium ion and barium compounds, refer to the BARIUM COMPOUNDS record; for compound-specific information, refer to the appropriate individual records, e.g., barium sulfate, barium chloride, etc. (13.96.2) 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. The average person accumulates 91% of barium in bones. Trace quantities are found in various tissues such as the aorta, brain, heart, kidney, spleen, pancreas and lung. Total barium in human beings tends to increase with age and the levels in the body depend on the geographical location of the individual. Barium has also been found in all samples of stillborn babies, suggesting it can cross the placenta. Inhaled barium can be absorbed through the lung or directly from the nasal membrane into the blood. Barium is eliminated in the urine and feces, the rates varying with the route of administration. Within 24 hr approximately 20% of the barium dose, injected into humans was eliminated in the feces and approxinately 5% in the urine. Plasma barium is almost eliminated from the blood stream within 24 hr. ANIMAL/PLANT STUDIES: In general, barium does not McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 732 of 953

accumulate in common plants in sufficient quantities to be toxic to animals. Large quantities of barium (as high as 1260 mg/kg) accumulated in legumes, alfalfa and soybeans. The elimination of ingested barium in animals occurs mainly in the feces rather than in the urine. An estimated of the biological half-life for barium in the rat is 90-120 days. The acute effects of barium ingestion in animals includes salivation, nausea, diarrhea, tachycardia, hypokalaemia, twitching, flacid paralysis of skeletal muscle, respiratory muscle paralysis and ventricular fibrillation may lead to death. Various studies have demonstrated the detremental effect of barium upon ventricular automaticity and pacemaker current in the heart. IV barium injections to anesthetized dogs indicated that these acute effects were due to prompt and substantial hypokalemia. Barium causes mild skin and eye irritation. No conclusive association was found between the level of barium in the drinking water and the incidence of congenital malformations. There is no evidence that barium is carcinogenic. Rats given 10 or 100 mg barium/l in their drinking water for 16 months experienced hypertension, but at a level of 1 mg/l did not induce any blood pressure changes. Analysis of myocardial function at 16 months (100 mg barium/l) revealed significantly altered cardiac contractility and excitability, myocardial metabolic disturbances and hypersensitivity of the cardiovascular system to sodium pentobarbital. Barium posesses chemical and physiological properties that allow it to compete with and replace calcium, particularly those relating to the release of adrenal catecholamines and neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine and norepinephrine. Barium affects the development of germinating bacterial spores and has a variety of specific effects on different microorganisms including the inhibition of cellular processes. Little information is available on the effects of barium on aquatic organisms. There were no effects on survival of fish following exposure for 30 days. However, in a 21 day study, impairment of reproduction and reduction in growth in daphnids. Marine plants as well as invertebrates may actively accumulate barium from sea water. See Reference 969. (13.96.3) Evidence for Carcinogenicity: WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 733 of 953

CHARACTERIZATION: Under EPA's 1986 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, barium would be classified as Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. Although adequate chronic oral exposure studies in rats and mice have not demonstrated carcinogenic effects, the lack of adequate inhalation studies precludes assessing the carcinogenic potential of inhaled barium. Under the Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment, barium is considered not likely to be carcinogenic to humans following oral exposure and its carcinogenic potential cannot be determined following inhalation exposure. Basis - Oral exposure studies in rats and mice ... did not find significant increases in tumor incidence following chronic exposure. In the 1994 NTP rat study /National Toxicology Program Technical Report Series #432 on Barium Chloride Dihydrate (10326-27-9)/, statistically significant negative trends in the incidence of leukemia, adrenal tumors, and mammary gland tumors were observed. The design of the rat and mouse NTP studies was adequate to assess carcinogenicity. These studies used an adequate number of animals per group, exposed animals for 2 years, tested several dosage levels, and examined an extensive number of tissues. The inhalation exposure and intratracheal studies ... are inadequate for subchronic exposure carcinogenicity evaluation because of several deficiencies in the design and reporting ... HUMAN CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Inadequate. ANIMAL CARCINOGENICITY DATA: Oral Exposure - Sufficient; Inhalation Studies Inadequate. See Reference 970 (13.96.4) The rapid onset of reflex paralysis was reported in a chrome-plating worker

following the inhalation of barium powder. Complete recovery occurred during the 5-day period that followed exposure. (13.96.5) Several hundred cases of acute or subacute barium poisoning occurred in the

Kiating district of China, where table salt contained a large amt of barium (up to 26%). The victims suffered sudden attacks of paralysis, ranging from mild to severe, paraesthesia, and cardiac symptoms, but recovery was usually rapid ... See Reference 971.. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 734 of 953

(13.96.6)

The prolonged contact of barium containing contraceptive devices with cervical

cells presented a potential cancer risk in susceptible individuals. See Reference 792. (13.96.6) or eye contact. Probable Routes of Human Exposure: Ingestion or inhalation of dust or fume, skin See Reference 973. BARIUM COMPOUNDS (13.97) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Barium Compounds have injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows: (13.97.1) This record contains general information for barium ions and compounds, including

statements in the literature referenced to barium compounds, barium salts, etc. For compound-specific information, refer to the appropriate individual records as listed in the RELATED HSDB RECORDS field; for information on the metal itself, refer to the BARIUM, ELEMENTAL record. (13.97.2) Toxicity Summary: Like calcium, barium accumulates in bone. It is deposited

preferentially in the most active areas of bone growth, primarily at the periosteal surfaces. Other factors important in absorption and deposition include age and dietary restrictions. ... Inhaled barium can be absorbed through the lung or directly from the nasal membrane into the bloodstream. ... Insoluble compounds, such as barium sulfate, accumulate in the lungs and are cleared slowly by ciliary action. Barium is eliminated in the urine and in the feces, the rates varying with the route of administration. ... Barium possesses chemical and physiological properties that allow it to compete with and replace calcium in processes mediated normally by calcium, particularly those relating to the release of adrenal catecholamines and neurotransmitters, such as acetylcholine and noradrenaline. ... Barium doses as low as 0.2-0.5 mg/kg body weight, generally resulting from the ingestion of barium chloride or carbonate, have been found to lead to toxic effects in adult humans. Clinical features of barium poisoning include acute gastroenteritis, loss of deep reflexes with onset of muscular paralysis and progressive muscular McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 735 of 953

paralysis. The muscular paralysis appears to be related to severe hypokalemia. ... Baritosis has been observed in individuals occupationally exposed to barium compounds. ... There is no evidence that barium is carcinogenic. See Reference 974. (13.97.3) INGESTION OF GRAM QUANTITIES OF SOL BARIUM SALTS MAY BE

FATAL, WITH DEATH RESULTING FROM CARDIAC ARREST. MUSCLE TREMORS ARE FREQUENT. RESPIRATORY FAILURE & CONVULSIONS FOLLOWED BY PARALYSIS OF EXTREMITIES MAY ALSO OCCUR. ... BARIUM CAUSES INCR IN CELL-MEMBRANE RESISTANCE, A PROLONGATION OF ACTION POTENTIALS, & DEPOLARIZATION OF SMOOTH & SKELETAL MUSCLE. IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED THAT THESE CHANGES ARE DUE TO BARIUM INDUCED DECR IN POTASSIUM CONDUCTANCE ... . /SOL BARIUM SALTS/ See Reference 975. (13.97.4) BARIUM SALTS THAT ARE SOL IN WATER OR ACID ARE POISONOUS

WHEN SWALLOWED, CAUSING SEVERE IRRITATION OF GI TRACT, PROSTRATION, PARALYSIS & CONVULSIONS. /SOLUBLE BARIUM SALTS/ See Reference 976. (13.97.5) ... Human poisonings by soluble barium salts are uncommon ... . The acid soluble

barium salts ... are highly toxic ... . For most of acid soluble salts of barium the lethal dose for adults appears to lie between 1 & 15 g. Death occurs within few hr or few days. ... Barium ion stimulates smooth, striated & cardiac muscle; result is violent peristalsis, arterial hypertension, muscle twitching & disturbances in cardiac action. Motor disorders incl stiffness & immobility of limbs & sometimes of the trunk, leg cramps, twitching of facial muscles, & paralysis of tongue & pharynx with attendant loss or impairment of speech & deglutition. CNS may be first stimulated & then depressed. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias (incl ventricular fibrillation) & transient asystole have been observed. Kidney damage has been described as a late complication, probably as result of circulatory insufficiency. /Sol barium salts/ See Reference 977. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 736 of 953

(13.97.6)

SYMPTOMATOLOGY: 1. EXCESSIVE SALIVATION, VOMITING, SEVERE

ABDOMINAL PAIN AND VIOLENT PURGING WITH WATERY & BLOODY STOOLS. 2. SLOW & OFTEN IRREGULAR PULSE DUE TO VENTRICULAR PREMATURE CONTRACTIONS & TRANSIENT ELEVATION IN ARTERIAL BLOOD PRESSURE. 3. TINNITUS, GIDDINESS & VERTIGO. 4. MUSCLE TWITCHING, PROGRESSING TO CONVULSIONS AND/OR PARALYSIS. 5. DILATED PUPILS WITH IMPAIRED ACCOMMODATION. 6. CONFUSION & INCR SOMNOLENCE, WITHOUT COMA. 7. COLLAPSE & DEATH FROM RESP FAILURE, APPARENTLY DUE TO FLACCID PARALYSIS OF RESP MUSCLES. 8. CARDIAC ARREST AFTER PERIODS OF VENTRICULAR TACHYCARDIA AND FIBRILLATION. /SOLUBLE BARIUM CMPD/ See Reference 978. (13.97.7) ACCIDENTAL POISONING FROM INGESTION OF SOL BARIUM SALTS

HAS RESULTED IN GASTROENTERITIS, MUSCULAR PARALYSIS, DECR PULSE RATE, & VENTRICULAR FIBRILLATION & EXTRASYSTOLES. POTASSIUM DEFICIENCY OCCURS IN ACUTE POISONING ... DIGITALIS-LIKE TOXICITY, MUSCLE STIMULATION, & CNS EFFECTS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED ... . /SOL BARIUM SALTS/ See Reference 979. (13.97.8) Threshold of a toxic dose in adult humans is about 0.2-0.5 g barium; lethal in

untreated cases is 3-4 g barium (LD50 about 66 mg/kg). These figures apply to the portion absorbed from the gut. /Soluble barium cmpd/ See Reference 980. (13.97.9) The organs which are affected by exposure to barium sol cmpd, as Ba are heart,

CNS, skin, resp system, eyes. /Soluble barium cmpd, as Ba/ 981 (13.97.10) Potential symptoms as a result of exposure /to barium sol cmpd, as Ba/: Upper

resp irritation; GI; muscle spasm; slow pulse, extrasystoles; hypokalemia; irritation of eyes; skin burns. /Sol barium cmpd, as Ba/ See Reference 982. (13.97.11) Symptoms of acute barium toxicity in humans after oral ingestion are ... McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 737 of 953

pronounced stimulation of cardiac, smooth, or striated muscle. Effects on the cardiovascular system include premature ectopic ventricular contractions, leading progressively to tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation and death. Hypertension is also common, stemming from increased cardiac contractility and/or increased peripheral resistance (arteriolar constriction). Hypokalemia occurs as a result of abnormal potassium permeability. Gastrointestinal abnormalities include salivation and diarrhea. Skeletal muscles are initially stimulated, but later enter a state of flaccid paralysis. /Barium ion/ See Reference 983. (13.97.12) Barium poisoning results in a rapid onset of gastrointestinal symptoms, paralysis,

cardiac dysrhythmias, hypertension, and often severe hypokalemia. The acute syndrome can be fatal. /Barium/ See Reference 984. (13.97.13) Within 1 or 2 hours after ingestion of the poison /barium/, patients experience

tingling around the mouth, diarrhea, vomiting, and colicky abdominal pain. Arterial hypertension is usually observed. In 2 to 3 hours the tingling moves from the face to the hands, pupillary reactions are impaired, muscle stretch reflexes become depressed, muscle twitching is noticeable, and flaccid weakness begins to spread through the muscles of the upper and lower extremities. In some cases, complete flaccid quadriplegia develops within a few hours; in others, paralysis becomes severe on the second day of illness. Sensation is always preserved despite subjective paresthesias. In most cases symptoms abate by 24 hours and patients can be ambulatory within 48 hours. In some patients muscle paralysis and weakness can persist for more than a week. ... Long-term prognosis is favorable, but the acute syndrome, which can also include cardiac dysrhythmia, can be fatal and must be treated promptly. Death may ensue in a few hours from cardiac arrest or respiratory paralysis, unless vigorous therapy is administered with intravenous potassium. /Barium/ See Reference 985. (13.97.14) It is important to recognize soluble barium salts as potentially dangerous materials

when ingested, since they are rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal system and are fatal to humans McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 738 of 953

in amounts less than 1 g. /Soluble barium salts/ See Reference 986. (13.97.15) There are three stages of barium poisoning: a) acute gastroenteritis; b) loss of deep

reflexes with onset of muscular paralysis; and c) progressive muscular paralysis. The muscular paralysis seems to be related to severe hypokalemia ... In most cases, recovery is rapid and uneventful. /Barium/ See Reference 987. (13.97.16) Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for inorganic chemicals in drinking water

/for/ Barium /is/ 1.0 mg/l /due to/ recognized toxic effects on heart, blood vessels, and nerves from accidental perimental, and therapeutic ingestion. /from table/ See Reference 988. (13.97.17) Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations: Soluble barium compounds may cause

local irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, bronchial tubes, and skin. /Soluble barium cmpd (as barium)/ See Reference 989. (13.97.18) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: [1977] Small numbers of people are

known to be consuming well waters in Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, & New Mexico that are at, or exceed by 10 times, the standard for barium. /Total barium/ See Reference 990. (13.97.19) The toxicologically important routes of entry for barium sol cmpd, as Ba are

inhalation, ingestion, and skin and/or eye contact. /Barium sol cmpd, as Ba/ [NIOSH. Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. 2nd Printing. DHHS (NIOSH) Publ. No. 85-114. See Reference 991. (13.97.20) Food represents a primary source of barium for the general population. /Total

barium/ See Reference 992. (13.97.21) NIOSH (NOES Survey 1981-1983) has statistically estimated that 554,784

workers (129,535 of these are female) are potentially exposed to barium and barium compounds in the US(1). Occupational exposure to barium may occur through inhalation and dermal contact with this compound at workplaces where barium is produced or used(SRC). The general population may be McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 739 of 953

exposed to barium via inhalation of ambient air, ingestion of food and drinking water(SRC). See Reference 993. RUTHENIUM (13.98) Toxnet only mentions Ruthenium, but does not explore its health effects. The Hanford Health Information Network (HHIN) closed in May, 2000. HHIN Web pages are provided as archived information only, and are not currently maintained. On one of these web pages, Ruthenium is described as follows (quotation marks omitted): (13.98.1) (13.98.1.1) (13.98.1.2) (13.98.1.3) ruthenium-106. (13.98.1.4) (13.98.1.4.1) (13.98.1.4.2) (13.98.1.4.3) (13.98.1.4.4) (13.98.2) (13.98.2.1) Estimated Amount Released from Hanford: ruthenium-103: 1,160 curies ruthenium-106: 388 curies Chemical Form of Release: unknown Range of Representative Dose Estimates: 0.009 mrem EDE to 0.89 mrem EDE Ruthenium Possible Health Effects: Cancer, skin burns Description: There are two isotopes of ruthenium for which the Dose Reconstruction Project is calculating dose estimates: ruthenium-103 and

Summary of Scientific Studies[:] RUTHENIUM[:] Cancer[:] Very little information is available on the potential

for ruthenium to induce cancers. One study that considered the possible health effects from ruthenium did not distinguish between ruthenium-103 and ruthenium-106. In animals exposed to ruthenium, cancers did develop. However, a report on the study by R. Masse, a veterinarian and Chief of the Experimental Toxicology Laboratory in Montrouge, France, did not specify where in the body the cancers developed.21 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 740 of 953

(13.98.2.2)

RUTHENIUM[:] Skin Burns[:] Ruthenium particles released from Hanford

posed a hazard if any of the particles had fallen onto a person's exposed skin. This could have caused skin burns. (13.98.2.3) Ruthenium[:] After World War II, a new type of chemical process was

developed to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. An unintended effect of this process was that flakes of material, including ruthenium, accumulated on the inside lining of the stack at Hanford's Redox plant. "Redox" stood for "reduction-oxidation" and described the kind of chemistry used to separate the plutonium. As in the case of plutonium particles, the ruthenium built up within the process ventilation system, which was separate from the building ventilation system. (13.98.2.4) The Redox plant began operations in 1952. Shortly afterward, technicians

discovered the ruthenium particle problem. Material containing ruthenium had deposited on the inside of the stack. As the material built up on the stack lining, some of it broke off in the form of flakes and was carried up and out the stack. Radiation surveys found very large flakes, some several inches across, on the ground around the base of the stack. (13.98.2.5) The largest reported release was in January 1954 when about 200 curies of

ruthenium were released. Hanford radiation technicians tracked the particles as far as Spokane, Washington, about 150 miles to the northeast. In April 1954, airborne radiation equipment tracked the particles as far as northeastern Montana. (13.98.2.6) Inhaling ruthenium particles posed a health danger. In addition, the ruthenium

particles posed a hazard if any of the large particles had fallen onto a person's exposed skin. (13.98.2.7) See Reference 347. NITRIC ACID (13.99) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that

Nitric Acid has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 741 of 953

are as follows: (13.99.1) A case of acute inhalation injury of nitric acid in a 56-year old white male /was

reported/. The patient presented conscious and dyspnoic at the emergency department after cleaning a copper chandelier with nitric acid. He had to be intubated 2 h after admission and mechanically ventilated because of fulminant respiratory insufficiency. As all sources of mechanical ventilation failed, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation had to be established 7 h after admission. With the additional use of surfactant and low dose inhalation therapy with nitric oxide (NO), the patient could be stabilised for 3 days and lung function improved temporarily. Despite all efforts the patient died at the fourth day from refactory respiratory failure. Pathologic examination revealed massive pulmonary edema without signs of inflammation. Thus, nitric acid inhalation induced pulmonary edema appears to be a most severe situation in which even most modern therapeutic interventions fail. See Reference 842. (13.99.2) IN CONTACT WITH EYE ... CAUSES IMMEDIATE OPACIFICATION OF

CORNEAL & CONJUNCTIVAL EPITHELIUM, IMPARTING YELLOW COLOR WHEN ACID IS CONCN. ... IN ... ACCIDENTAL APPLICATION ... TO EYES OF NEWBORN CHILDREN ... SEVERAL EYES HAVE BEEN LOST AS RESULT OF CORNEAL OPACIFICATION, SYMBLEPHARON, & SHRINKAGE OF GLOBE. See Reference 843. (13.99.3) A 25 YR OLD TRUCK DRIVER DEVELOPED, & 4 DAYS AFTER

SUCCUMBED TO, ACUTE DYSPNEA SOME 3 WK AFTER INHALING A CONSIDERABLE AMT OF FUMES WHILE CLEANING UP SPILLED 60% NITRIC ACID. ALL STAGES OF EXTENSIVE BRONCHIOLITIS & ALVEOLITIS OBLITERANS WERE FOUND. See Reference 844. (13.99.4) SYMPTOMATOLOGY (after ingestion or skin contact): 1) Corrosion of mucous

membranes of mouth, throat, and esophagus, with immediate pain and dysphagia. The necrotic areas McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 742 of 953

are at first grayish white but soon acquire a blackish discoloration and sometimes a shrunken or wrinkled texture; The process is described as a "coagulation necrosis." 2) Epigastric pain, which may be associated with nausea and the vomiting of mucoid and "coffee-ground" material. At times, gastric hemorrhage may be intense, and the vomitus then contains fresh blood. Profound thirst. 3) Ulceration of all membranes and tissues with which the acid comes in contact ... . /Acids/ See Reference 845. (13.99.5) A 42 year old male worker was accidentally sprayed in the face with concn nitric

acid. Immediately after the accident, his face was bathed with water, and he was rushed to /a hospital/ within 30 min. On admission, he was diagnosed as having a burn injury of the face and right cornea. Prolonged wound irrigation using normal saline was started immediately and continued for 24 hr. The burned skin and the corneal ulcer healed without any serious complications, except for some spotted, full thickness skin loss on the left auricle, since moist gauze that had been placed on the auricle slipped off before completion of the hydrotherapy. Yet, even these ulcers epithelialized within 10 days after this injury. See Reference 846. (13.99.6) Reference 847. (13.99.7) Nitric acid levels in the range of 250-500 ug/cu m (97-194 ppb) may cause some Skin contact with concn nitric acid will produce burns at the site of contact. See

pulmonary function responses in adolescent asthmatics, but not in healthy adults. See Reference 848. (13.99.8) membranes. IONIZING RADIATION (13.100) TOXNET of the United States Library of Medicine describes some ways that Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations: A corrosive irritant to skin, eyes, and mucous

Nitric Acid has injured and killed people, and ways that it could injure and kill more people, which are as follows (quotation marks omitted): (13.100.1) Ionizing radiation may result from unstable atomic nuclei or from high energy McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 743 of 953

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. This record contains general toxicological, safety and handling, measurement, and environmental information on ionizing radiation emitted from chemical sources, whether these sources are compounds or metals. For information on specific radionuclides, refer to the appropriate individual records (13.100.2) 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. (13.100.3) Toxicity Summary: 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 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 744 of 953

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 atomic-bomb 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, prostate, testis, and pancreas are generally considered not to be associated with radiation exposure. X-radiation 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 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 745 of 953

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 830. (13.100.4) ...There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of X-

radiation and gamma-radiation. There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of X-radiation and gamma-radiation. Overall evaluation. X-radiation and gammaradiation are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). See Reference 831. (13.100.5) ...There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of neutrons.

There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of neutrons. Overall evaluation. Neutrons are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). In making the overall evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration the following: When interacting with biological material, fission neutrons generate protons, and the higher-energy neutrons used in therapy generate protons and alpha particles. Alpha Particle-emitting radionuclides (e.g. radon) are known to be human carcinogens. The linear energy transfer of protons overlaps with that of the lower-energy electrons produced by gamma-radiation. Neutron interactions also generate gamma-radiation, which is a human carcinogen. Gross chromosomal aberrations (including rings, dicentrics and acentric fragments) and numerical chromosomal aberrations are induced in the lymphocytes of people exposed to neutrons. The spectrum of DNA damage induced by neutrons is similar to that induced by X-radiation but contains relatively more of the serious (i.e. less readily repairable) types. Every relevant biological effect of gamma- or Xradiation that has been examined has been found to be induced by neutrons. Neutrons are several times more effective than X- and gamma-radiation in inducing neoplastic cell transformation, mutation in vitro, germ-cell mutation in vivo, chromosomal aberrations in vivo and in vitro and cancer in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 746 of 953

experimental animals. See Reference 832. (13.100.6) Internalized radionuclides that emit alpha-particles are carcinogenic to humans

(Group 1). In making this overall evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration the following: (1) Alpha-Particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, produce the same pattern of secondary ionizations and the same pattern of localized damage to biological molecules, including DNA. These effects, observed in vitro, include DNA double-strand breaks, chromosomal aberrations, gene mutations and cell transformation. (2) All radionuclides that emit alpha-particles and that have been adequately studied, including radon-222 and its decay products, have been shown to cause cancer in humans and in experimental animals. (3) Alpha-Particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, have been shown to cause chromosomal aberrations in circulating lymphocytes and gene mutations in humans in vivo. (4) The evidence from studies in humans and experimental animals suggests that similar doses to the same tissues, for example lung cells or bone surfaces, from alpha particles emitted during the decay of different radionuclides produce the same types of non-neoplastic effects and cancers. See Reference 833. (13.100.7) Internalized radionuclides that emit beta-particles are carcinogenic to humans

(Group 1). In making this overall evaluation, the Working Group took into consideration the following: (1) Beta-Particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, produce the same pattern of secondary ionizations and the same pattern of localized damage to biological molecules, including DNA. These effects, observed in vitro, include DNA double-strand breaks, chromosomal aberrations, gene mutations and cell transformation. (2) All radionuclides that emit beta-particles and that have been adequately studied, have been shown to cause cancer in humans and in experimental animals. This includes hydrogen-3 /tritium/, which produces beta-particles of very low energy, but for which there is nonetheless sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. beta-Particles emitted by radionuclides, irrespective of their source, have been shown to cause chromosomal aberrations in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 747 of 953

circulating lymphocytes and gene mutations in humans in vivo. (3) The evidence from studies in humans and experimental animals suggests that similar doses to the same tissues, for example lung cells or bone surfaces, from beta particles emitted during the decay of different radionuclides produce the same types of non-neoplastic effects and cancers. (13.100.8) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /LOCALIZED RADIATION INJURIES/

Deterministic thresholds /for localized radiation injuries/ exist as follows for certain clinical signs: (1) 3-Gy (300 rad) threshold for epilation, beginning 14 to 21 days post accident. (2) 6-Gy (600 rad) threshold for erythema, soon postaccident and possibly again 14 to 21 days thereafter. (3) 10-15-Gy (1,000 to 1,500 rad) threshold for dry desquamation of the skin secondary to radiation to the germinal layer. (4) 20-50-Gy (2,000 to 5,000 rad) threshold for wet desquamation (partial-thickness injury) at least 2 to 3 weeks postexposure, depending on dose. (5) For doses significantly greater than 50 Gy (5,000 rad), overt radionecrosis and ulceration, resulting from endothelial cell damage and fibrinoid necrosis of the arterioles and venules in the affected area (a cutaneous syndrome, arising from highlevel whole-body along with local injury, has also been described). See Reference 835. (13.100.8) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ At doses

between 500 and 800 centiGy, the victims will present moderate to severe vomiting, fatigue and weakness in almost all those exposed. These symptoms will appear quickly, within the first hour of exposure. Bed rest, electrolyte replacement, antibiotics, and general supportive care are called for. Deaths will occur in some 50% at the low end of the range within six weeks. The clinical results will show almost no lymphocytes after two days. There will be a subsequent severe drop in platelet and granulocyte counts a few days later. See Reference 836. (13.100.9) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME, GI

Syndrome/ The gastrointestinal syndrome occurs from acute whole-body doses of approximately 6 to 20 Gy (600 to 2,000 rad), primarily because of death of intestinal mucosal stem cells. In this syndrome, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 748 of 953

there is prompt onset of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. There is a latent period of approximately 1 week and then recurrence of gastrointestinal symptoms, sepsis, electrolyte imbalance, and ultimately death. See Reference 837. (13.100.10) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME: SKIN/

Radiation accidents that involve localized irradiation to small parts of the body are much more frequent than those that result in whole-body radiation. ... Most cases of localized overexposure are usually compatible with life because of the small volume of tissue irradiated; however, highly penetrating localized irradiation injury (LRI) to /vital/ organs ... can lead to death. ...The clinical course of LRI in a specific case depends upon ... the kind for radiation ... and its penetrating ability; type of source ...; dose including dose rate characteristics; duration of exposure ..., distribution within the tissue exposed; part of body and size of area exposed. ...The visible clinical changes in LRI relate to the skin. ...Massive death of the stem cells of the skin is the basic process underlying the main clinical manifestations that are seen, particularly dry and moist desquamation. The threshold doses for these effects are 8 to 12 Gy and 15 to 20 Gy, respectively. Death of skin cells is not the only process responsible ... . Early and secondary erythema depend on the functional changes in the blood vessels and the appearance of ulcers may be due to necrosis /or/ injury to blood vessels and underlying connective tissue elements. See Reference 838. (13.100.11) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/

Cardiovascular & CNS System Syndrome/ At dose levels greater than 30 Gy (3,000 rad) of whole-body penetrating radiation, the cardiovascular/central nervous system syndrome occurs primarily as a result of hypotension and cerebral edema. There is almost immediate nausea, vomiting, prostration, hypotension, ataxia, and convulsion. These casualties should receive palliative treatment only because death invariably occurs within several days. Events that have produced this dose level are extremely rare, having occurred in only a handful of accident victims worldwide. See Reference 839. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 749 of 953

(13.100.12)

/SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME: SKIN/

Local radiation injury (LRI) progresses in a sequence... . The first phase of LRI is initial erythema. Skin reddening may occur in the first minutes or hours after exposure and is usually observed for at least 1 to 2 days. ... The latent phase occurs after the initial erythema. The duration ... is longer as the dose is decreased although this dependence is ... shorter for skin of the face, neck, and chest, and longer for palmar surfaces of the hands and feet. ... The latent period ends when the second (or main) erythema appears. The time of its appearance corresponds to the renewal of the epidermal cells at about 2 to 3 weeks. ... In many cases the color of the skin becomes somewhat brown. After 1 to 2 weeks dry desquamation then develops. This is grade I LRI. If edema occurs, not only of the skin, but also of subcutaneous tissues, and blisters develop with resultant moist desquamation, this is characterized as grade II LRI. If secondary erythema ... is followed by erosions and ulceration, as well as severe pain, this is grade III in severity. The healing of ulcers formed with this type of injury is very difficult and takes a long time. ... When the dose of ... highly penetrating radiation is 800 Gy and higher, there is an early erythema accompanied by swelling, no latent phase occurs, and a secondary erythema and blisters appear within day 3 or 5. ...There is substantial pain, and tissues become necrotic within the first week. In most severe cases, there is early ischemia of tissue; the tissue turns white and then dark blue or black with substantial pain. This is a grade IV injury. See Reference 850. (13.100.13) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ Acute

Radiation Syndrome (ARS) (sometimes known as radiation toxicity or radiation sickness) is an acute illness caused by irradiation of the entire body (or most of the body) by a high dose of penetrating radiation in a very short period of time (usually a matter of minutes). The major cause of this syndrome is depletion of immature parenchymal stem cells in specific tissues. ...The required conditions for Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS) are: (1) The radiation dose must be large (i.e., greater than 0.7 Gray (Gy) (70 rads). ... (2) The dose usually must be external (i.e., the source of radiation is outside of the patient's McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 750 of 953

body). ... (3) The radiation must be penetrating (i.e., able to reach the internal organs). ... (4) The entire body (or a significant portion of it) must have received the dose. ... (5) The dose must have been delivered in a short time (usually a matter of minutes). ... The three classic ARS Syndromes are: (1)Bone marrow syndrome (sometimes referred to as hematopoietic syndrome): the full syndrome will usually occur with a dose greater than approximately 0.7 Gy (70 rads) although mild symptoms may occur as low as 0.3 Gy or 30 rads. The survival rate of patients with this syndrome decreases with increasing dose. The primary cause of death is the destruction of the bone marrow, resulting in infection and hemorrhage. (2) Gastrointestinal (GI) syndrome: the full syndrome will usually occur with a dose greater than approximately 10 Gy (1,000 rads) although some symptoms may occur as low as 6 Gy or 600 rads. Children and infants are especially sensitive. Survival is extremely unlikely with this syndrome. Destructive and irreparable changes in the GI tract and bone marrow usually cause infection, dehydration, and electrolyte imbalance. Death usually occurs within 2 weeks. (3) Cardiovascular (CV)/ Central Nervous System (CNS) syndrome: the full syndrome will usually occur with a dose greater than approximately 50 Gy (5,000 rads) although some symptoms may occur as low as 20 Gy or 2,000 rads. Death occurs within 3 days. Death likely is due to collapse of the circulatory system as well as increased pressure in the confining cranial vault as the result of increased fluid content caused by edema, vasculitis, and meningitis. See Reference 851. (13.100.14) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ For doses

greater than 800 centiGy (cGy), severe nausea, vomiting, fatigue, weakness, dizziness, and disorientation will be present. There will be moderate to severe fluid and electrolyte imbalance with high fever and collapse within the first few minutes of exposure and lasting until death. At about 1,000 cGy, there will be 100% fatalities at two to three weeks, even with supportive care. Clinically, the bone marrow will be totally depleted in two days. See Reference 852. (13.100.15) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ For doses McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 751 of 953

between 300 and 500 centiGy, there will be transient moderate nausea and vomiting in up to 80% of the victims. Moderate fatigue and weakness will be common in up to 90% of those exposed. These symptoms will usually appear rapidly, within two hours. Later symptoms include bleeding, ulcers, loss of appetite, and diarrhea. After about two weeks, there may be hair loss. Opportunistic infection will be likely, even up to five weeks following exposure. Death will range from less than 10% at the lower end of the range to as many as 50% at the upper end. Clinically, there will be moderate to severe depression of the lymphocyte count with moderate drop in platelet an granulocyte counts. See Reference 853. (13.100.16) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ For doses

between 150 and 300 centiGy, there will present transient mild to moderate nausea with vomiting in up to 70% of the victims. 25% to 60% of those exposed will show mild to moderate fatigue and weakness. A few deaths may occur, especially at the upper range of exposure, ranging from 5% to 10% of the victims. Opportunistic infections, with attendant fever and bleeding, are very possible for the survivors, even as delayed as much as a month. Symptoms may appear as soon as two hours and last as long as two days. Bed rest and supportive care should be provided. Antibiotics should be administered unless otherwise contraindicated. Clinically, if there are more than 1.7x10+9 lymphocytes per liter at two days after the exposure, it is unlikely that the individual has received a lethal dose. See Reference 854. (13.100.17) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ For doses

between 0 and 70 centigray (cGy), initial symptoms will be none to slight incidence of transient headache and nausea with up to 5% of the victims vomiting, especially at the high end of the range. ... These symptoms, when present, will appear in about six hours and begin subsiding in about twelve hours. The only clinical manifestation is a mild depression of lymphocyte counts at the upper range of the dosage. Patients should receive rest and, possibly, electrolytes. See Reference 855. (13.100.18) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME//ARS is a

sequence of phased symptoms.... Prodromal Phase: The prodrome is characterized by the relatively McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 752 of 953

rapid onset of nausea, vomiting, and malaise. This is a nonspecific clinical response to acute radiation exposure. An early onset of symptoms in the absence of associated trauma suggests a large radiation exposure. ... Latent Period: Following recovery from the prodromal phase, the exposed individual will be relatively symptom free. The length of this phase varies with the dose. The latent phase is longest preceding the bone-marrow depression of the hematopoietic syndrome and may vary between 2 and 6 weeks. The latent period is somewhat shorter prior to the gastrointestinal syndrome, lasting from a few days to a week. It is shortest of all preceding the neurovascular syndrome, lasting only a matter of hours. These times are exceedingly variable and may be modified by the presence of other disease or injury. ... Manifest Illness: This phase presents with the clinical symptoms associated with the major organ system injured (marrow, intestinal, neurovascular). ... Acute Radiation Syndrome patients who have received doses of radiation between 0.7 and 4 Gy will have depression of bone-marrow function leading to pancytopenia. Changes within the peripheral blood profile will occur as early as 24 hours postirradiation. Lymphocytes will be depressed most rapidly; other leukocytes and thrombocytes will be depressed somewhat less rapidly. Decreased resistance to infection and anemia will vary considerably from as early as 10 days to as much as 6 to 8 weeks after exposure. Erythrocytes are least affected due to their useful lifespan in circulation. The average time of onset of clinical problems of bleeding and anemia and decreased resistance to infection is 2 to 3 weeks. Even potentially lethal cases of bone-marrow depression may not occur until 6 weeks after exposure. The presence of other injuries will increase the severity and accelerate the time of maximum bone-marrow depression. See Reference 840. (13.100.19) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ Radiation-

Induced Early Transient Incapacitation: Early transient incapacitation (ETI) is associated with very high acute doses of radiation. In humans, it has occurred only during fuel reprocessing accidents. The lower limit is probably 20 to 40 Gy. The latent period, a return of partial functionality, is very short, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 753 of 953

varying from several hours to 1 to 3 days. Subsequently, a deteriorating state of consciousness with vascular instability and death is typical. See Reference 856. (13.100.20) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ The four

stages of ARS are: (1) Prodromal stage (N-V-D stage): The classic symptoms for this stage are nausea, vomiting, as well as anorexia and possibly diarrhea (depending on dose), which occur from minutes to days following exposure. The symptoms may last (episodically) for minutes up to several days. (2) Latent stage: In this stage, the patient looks and feels generally healthy for a few hours or even up to a few weeks. (3) Manifest illness stage: In this stage, the symptoms depend on the specific syndrome and last from hours up to several months. (4) Recovery or death: Most patients who do not recover will die within several months of exposure. The recovery process lasts from several weeks up to two years. See Reference 857. (13.100.21) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /SKIN/ The signs and symptoms of /cutaneous

radiation injury/ CRI are as follows: Intensely painful burn-like skin injuries (including itching, tingling, erythema, or edema) without a history of exposure to heat or caustic chemicals (Note: Erythema will not be seen for hours to days following exposure, and its appearance is cyclic); epilation; a tendency to bleed, possible signs and symptoms of acute radiation syndrome. ? local injuries to the skin from acute radiation exposure evolve slowly over time, and symptoms may not manifest for days to weeks after exposure. See Reference 841. (13.100.22) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME, Transient

Psychological Incapacitation/ At doses beginning at about 100 centaGy (cGy), depending upon the rate at which the dose is received, a condition known as transient psychological incapacitation may appear. In this condition, higher levels of brain activity (e.g., reasoning, detailed study) may be diminished. Lower-level functions, like breathing or rote activities, are not as affected. This is important in a combat situation in which nuclear weapons are used. Soldiers, but more especially pilots, might find McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 754 of 953

themselves unable to make critical decisions involving intense thought. They might still be able to fly the aircraft, but be unable to calculate the exact time to release a bomb or missile. Studies are continuing into these radiation effects, and much of the data are classified. See Reference 858. (13.100.23) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /SKIN/Cutaneous Radiation Syndrome (CRS):The

concept of CRS was introduced in recent years to describe the complex pathological syndrome that results from acute radiation exposure to the skin. Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS) usually will be accompanied by some skin damage. It is also possible to receive a damaging dose to the skin without symptoms of ARS, especially with acute exposures to beta radiation or X-rays. Sometimes this occurs when radioactive materials contaminate a patient's skin or clothes. When the basal cell layer of the skin is damaged by radiation, inflammation, erythema, and dry or moist desquamation can occur. Also, hair follicles may be damaged, causing epilation. Within a few hours after irradiation, a transient and inconsistent erythema (associated with itching) can occur. Then, a latent phase may occur and last from a few days up to several weeks, when intense reddening, blistering, and ulceration of the irradiated site are visible. In most cases, healing occurs by regenerative means; however, very large skin doses can cause permanent hair loss, damaged sebaceous and sweat glands, atrophy, fibrosis, decreased or increased skin pigmentation, and ulceration or necrosis of the exposed tissue. See Reference 859. (13.100.24) /SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME,

Hematopoietic Syndrome/ The hematopoietic syndrome occurs from acute whole-body doses of approximately 2 to 10 Gy (200 to 1,000 rad) as a result of bone marrow depression. After prodromal symptoms, there is a latent period of 2 to 3 weeks during which the patient may feel well. During this time, arrangements for medical care at an appropriate center should be coordinated. Lymphocyte depression can occur within 48 hours and is a useful indicator of dose. Maximal bone marrow depression with leukopenia and thrombocytopenia occurs several weeks after exposure; hemorrhage and infection can be major clinical problems. See Reference 860. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 755 of 953

(13.100.25)

/SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS/ /ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME/ Early

Effects of Ionizing Radiation in Humans. Nonlife-threatening effects include temporary or permanent sterility, depression of rapidly proliferating cell types (e.g., bone marrow stem cells), vomiting, skin reddening, hair loss, and cataracts. ... See Reference 861. (13.100.26) /CASE REPORTS/ /EYES/ At least 17 of the /Chernobyl/ survivors who

developed acute radiation sickness have developed radiation cataracts. All of these patients (excluding one) had gamma radiation doses over 2 Gy. The cataracts formed 3 to 8 years postexposure. See Reference 682. (13.100.27) /CASE REPORTS/ /CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, OTHER LOCAL

EFFECTS/ An accident occurred with the Alycon II radiotherapy unit at San Juan de Dios Hospital in San Jose, Costa Rica /from August 24 to September 27, 1996. ... As a result the dose rate was underestimated by a factor of 1.66. ... In the course of this accident, 114 patients were treated. In July 1997, the medical team examined 70 of the 73 surviving patients, and in October 1998, the same team examined 51 of the surviving patients. There were five general categories of effects as follows: 1. Nervous system: Brain: Atrophy, necrosis, decreased cognitive function, headaches, mood alteration, seizures, decreased intellectual function. Spinal cord: Paralysis, quadriplegia, paraplegia. 2. Skin: Fibrosis, atrophy, contraction, induration, edema, pigmentation, puritis, hypersensitivity, pain. 3. Lower gastrointestinal: Chronic or bloody diarrhea, bowel stenosis, stricture, fibrosis, obstruction, fistula perforation. 4. Bladder: Dysuria, hematuria, contracture, incontinence. 5. Vascular and lymphatic: Stenosis and premature atherosclerosis. The team also reviewed the available autopsy and histological data on patients who had died. ... Autopsy data were available on 41 of 61 patients (67%) who had died. ... The 17 patients for whom there were sufficient data to think that they died from radiation-related injuries can be divided into three general categories, as follows: 1. Central nervous system: Brain necrosis and complications of quadriplegia. 2. Neck and upper mediastinal: Pharynx, tracheal, and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 756 of 953

bronchial necrosis, tracheoesophageal fistula. 3. Lower gastrointestinal: Colitis, hemorrhage, obstruction, fistula, perforation, peritonitis. During the course of the accident, there were 125 different anatomical sites treated /head, neck, spine, chest or shoulder, abdomen, pelvis, and extremity/. See Reference 863. (13.100.28) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /HEMATOPOIETIC or LYMPHATIC SYSTEM/

The European Childhood Leukemia-Lymphoma Incidence Study was designed to address concerns about a possible increase in the risk for cancer in Europe after the Chernobyl accident... . During the period 1980-91, 23,756 cases of leukemia were diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 ... . Although there was a slight increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia in Europe during the period studied, the overall geographical pattern of change bears no relation to estimated exposure to radiation from the Chernobyl fall-out. See Reference 864. (13.100.29) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /ENDOCRINE ORGANS/ A highly significant,

dose-related excess risk of thyroid cancer was observed among 10,834 Israeli patients treated as children by X-ray depilation for ringworm of the scalp (tinea capitis), with estimated (fractionated) dose to the thyroid gland averaging 90 mGy (range 40-500 mGy) ... No significant excess was observed among 2,224 patients given similar treatment (average thyroid dose 60 mGy) in the United States. See Reference 865. (13.100.30) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /BRAIN, DIGESTIVE SYSTEM,

HEMATOPOIETIC or LYMPHATIC SYSTEM/ A cohort study of mortality among 15,727 employees at the Los Alamos National Laboratory ... between 1947 and 1990, who had been hired in 1943-77 showed an association between the dose of radiation and cancers of the esophagus and brain and Hodgkin disease, but not for leukemia or all cancers combined). See Reference 866. (13.100.31) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM/ Colon

cancer risks have been examined in various epidemiological studies of radiation-exposed groups. ... McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 757 of 953

Data on the Japanese atomic bomb survivors are consistent with a linear dose response. The effect of gender, age at exposure, and time since exposure on the excess relative risk per Sv is not clear, although the excess relative risk per Sv does increase with increasing time since exposure in the Life Span Study. Changes over time in baseline rates in Japan make it difficult to decide how to transfer risk across populations. See Reference 867. (13.100.32) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /LIVER/ ... the mortality data from the Life Span

Study of survivors of the atomic bombings indicate a significant dose response /for liver cancer/. This relationship is strengthened by the analysis of incidence data based on histologically and clinically verified primary liver cancer cases. Studies of thorotrast-exposed patients consistently show increased risks of liver cancer from alpha-radiation exposure. While the types of liver cancer associated with thorotrast exposure are typically cholangiocarcinoma, followed by angiosarcoma and hepatocellular carcinoma, the excess risk associated with low-LET exposure in Japanese atomic bomb survivors is primarily hepatocellular carcinoma. See Reference 868. (13.100.33) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /SOLID CANCERS; HEMATOPOIETIC

SYSTEM/ The 15-Country Study included almost 600,000 individually monitored workers from 15 countries. ...The main analysis included 407,391 nuclear industry workers who were employed for at least one year in a participating facility and who were monitored individually for external radiation. The total duration of follow-up was 5,192,710 person-years, and the total collective recorded dose was 7,892 Sv, almost exclusively from external photon exposure. Most workers in the study were men (90%), who received 98% of the collective dose. The overall average cumulative recorded dose was 19.4 mSv. ... The excess relative risk estimate for all cancers excluding leukemia was reported as 0.97 per Gy (95% CI 0.14-1.97), and that for all solid cancers was 0.87 per Gy (95% CI 0.03-1.88). See Reference 869. (13.100.34) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /HEMATOPOIETIC or LYMPHATIC SYSTEM; McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 758 of 953

ENDOCRINE SYSTEM/ In a follow-up /to the Chernobyl accident/ in the Ukraine, the incidences of leukemia and lymphoma in the three most heavily contaminated regions (oblasts) ... increased during the period 1980-93; however, the incidences of leukemia ... and other cancers in countries of the former USSR had shown an increasing trend before the accident, in 1981... . In a study of the population of Kaluga oblast, the part of the Russian Federation nearest Chernobyl ...no statistically significant increase in trends of cancer incidence or mortality was seen after the accident, although a statistically significant increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer was observed in women. See Reference 870. (13.100.35) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /LUNG/ Results from the Japanese atomic bomb

survivors and from several groups of patients with acute high-dose exposures show elevated risks of lung cancer associated with external low-LET radiation. ... Studies of tuberculosis patients who received multiple chest fluoroscopies have not demonstrated increased risks of lung cancer, in spite of the large number of patients with moderate or high lung doses. ... In contrast to internal low-LET irradiation, there is a substantial amount of information on lung cancer in relation to internal high-LET exposure. Most of this information comes from studies of radon-exposed miners. In particular, the risk appears to increase linearly with cumulative radon exposure, measured in WLM (working-level months), but the excess relative risk per WLM decreases with increasing attained age and time since exposure. ... Findings from case-control studies of domestic radon exposure have been variable but are consistent with predictions from the miner studies. Among studies of other types of high-LET exposure, the most informative are those of workers at the Mayak plant in the Russian Federation, which show an elevated risk for high lung doses from plutonium ... . See Reference 871.. (13.100.36) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /BREAST CANCER/ Extensive information from

the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and several medically exposed groups demonstrates elevated risks of female breast cancer following external low-LET irradiation. The trend in risk with dose is consistent with linearity, and the excess relative risk per Sv is particularly high for exposure at young McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 759 of 953

ages. In contrast, there is little evidence of increased risks for exposure at ages of more than 40 years... . Examination of data for the atomic bomb survivors and some of the medical studies tend to suggest that dose fractionation has little influence on the risk per unit dose. See Reference 872. (13.100.37) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM/ Much of the

information on stomach cancer risks following radiation exposure comes from the Life Span Study of survivors of the atomic bombings. ...The Life Span Study indicates that the dose response is consistent with linearity and that the excess relative risk per Sv decreases with increasing age at exposure, does not appear to vary with time since exposure, and may be higher for females than for males. ... Some but not all, studies of external low-LET medical irradiation also show an association between radiation exposure and stomach cancer risk. See Reference 873. (13.100.38) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /URINARY BLADDER/ Statistically significant

excess risks of cancer of the urinary bladder are seen in several population exposed to low-LET radiation. The Life Span Study risk estimates are somewhat greater than those seen for cancer patients; however, since the cancer patient studies involve extremely high doses, the differences may reflect cell killing. See Reference 874. (13.100.39) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /LUNG/ A cohort study of mortality among

106,020 persons employed in 1943-85 at the four nuclear plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, showed a slight excess of deaths from lung cancer among white male employees. In a dose response analysis restricted to 28,347 white men at two plants who had received a mean dose of 10 mSv, significant positive relationships were found with deaths from all causes (Excess relative risk per Sv, 0.31; 95% CI 0.1 -1.01), deaths from all cancers (Excess relative risk per Sv, 1.45; 95% CI 0.15-3.5; n=4673) and lung cancer (Excess relative risk per Sv, 1.7; 95% CI 0.03-4.9; n=1848) after adjustment for age, year of birth, socioeconomic status, facility and length of employment; however, no information on smoking was available. For leukemia, the excess relative risk per sievert was negative (upper 95% confidence McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 760 of 953

limit 6.5; n = 180). See Reference 875. (13.100.40) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /HEMATOPOIETIC or LYMPHATIC SYSTEM/

A cohort study of people who had worked at the Mayak nuclear complex in the early years of its operation showed an increased mortality rate from all cancers and from leukemia (44 cases; 38 men). See Reference 876. (13.100.41) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /HEMATOPOIETIC or LYMPHATIC SYSTEM;

ENDOCRINE SYSTEM; SKIN/ The Life Span Study is /investigating/.. the long-term health effects of exposure to radiation during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945. ... The subjects were all Japanese exposed during wartime, and host and environmental factors may have modified their risk for cancer. In addition, the study sample includes only those still alive five years after the bombings. ...The Life Span Study cohort consists of approximately 120,000 people who were identified at the time of the 1950 census, and individual doses have been reconstructed. ... The latest published data on mortality from cancer cover the period 1950-90. An additional source of information on leukemia and related hematological disease is the Leukemia Registry. It /is/ ... possible to analyze cancer incidence by linkage to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tumor registries... . /although/... these data ... do not include diagnoses of cancers before 1958 or for persons who migrated from the two cities. ...(a) Leukemia: Leukemia was the first cancer to be linked with exposure to radiation after the atomic bombings, and the Excess relative risk for this malignancy is by far the highest, /with/ ... a clear increase in risk with increasing dose over the range 0-2.5 Sv. ...Although the temporal patterns of leukemia risk are more complex than those of solid tumors, the largest excess risks were generally seen in the early years of follow-up. For people exposed as children, essentially all of the excess deaths appear to have occurred early in the follow-up. For people exposed as adults, the excess risk was lower than that of people exposed as children and appears to have persisted throughout the follow-up. ...The other major type of leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, is infrequent in Japan, and no excess was McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 761 of 953

seen in the Life Span Study cohort. ... (b) All solid tumors: ... As for leukemia, an increase in risk with increasing dose over the range 0-2.5 Sv is seen. ... The attributable risk for solid tumors is estimated to be 8%, much smaller than the estimate of 44% for leukemia. The temporal pattern of solid tumors differs from that of leukemia as it includes a longer minimal latent period. .... For people who were exposed when they were under the age of 30, nearly half of the excess deaths during the entire 40 years of follow-up have occurred in the last five years. Of the 86,572 subjects for whom ... dose estimates are available, 56% were still alive at the end of 1990, the end of the period for which mortality has been reported. Of the 46,263 subjects who were under the age of 30 at the time of the bombings, 87% were still alive at the end of 1990. ...(c) Site-specific cancer risks: ... The following discussion of sitespecific cancer risks is ... based primarily on incidence. (i) Female breast cancer: The risk for breast cancer among women in the Life Span Study shows a strong linear dose-response relationship and a remarkable age dependence. The Excess Relative Risk (ERR) for this cancer is one of the largest of those for solid tumors, but it decreases smoothly and significantly with increasing age at the time of exposure. Figures on incidence from the tumor registries showed, for example, that the ERR of women who were under 10 years of age at the time of exposure was five times that of women who were over 40 years of age at that time. ... (ii) Thyroid cancer: ... a dose-related increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer was demonstrated in the early 1960s from the results of periodic clinical examinations of a subcohort of approximately 20,000 persons (the 'Adult Health Study'). More detailed analyses based on incidence in the Life Span Study cohort showed a strong dependence of risk with age at exposure, the risk being higher among people who had been less than 19 years old at the time of the bombings. ...Among children who were under 15 at the time of the bombings, a steep decrease in risk with age at exposure was found, and children who were exposed between the ages of 10 and 14 had one-fifth the risk of those exposed when they were under 5. (iii) Other sites: Cancers at other sites that are clearly linked with exposure to radiation in the Life Span Study include those of the salivary glands, stomach, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 762 of 953

colon, lung, liver, ovary, and urinary bladder, and nonmelanoma skin cancer. For most of these sites, statistically significant associations were found for both mortality and incidence. ... The evidence for an association with exposure to radiation is equivocal for cancers of the esophagus, gall-bladder, kidney and nervous system and for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma, as the results are either of borderline statistical significance or those for incidence and mortality conflict. Cancers for which there is little evidence of an association with exposure to radiation include those of the oral cavity (except salivary glands), rectum, pancreas, uterus, and prostate, and Hodgkin disease. See Reference 877. (13.100.42) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /HEMATOPOIETIC or LYMPHATIC SYSTEM/

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 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 878. (13.100.43) /EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES/ /HEMATOPOIETIC or LYMPHATIC SYSTEM/

In 1949, the Semipalatinsk test site was created in northeastern Kazakhstan, then part of the USSR, and 118 atmospheric nuclear and thermonuclear devices were exploded before 1962, 26 of which were near the ground ... . The estimated effective doses from external and internal exposure attributable to the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 763 of 953

1949 and 1953 tests (the two largest atmospheric tests) in villages near the test site range from 70 to 4,470 mSv, most local residents being exposed to an effective dose of 100 mSv. ... Among children under the age of 15 during 1981-90 in four administrative zones of Khazakhstan ...: the risk for acute leukemia rose significantly with increasing proximity of residence to the testing areas, although the absolute value of the risk gradient was relatively small. See Reference 879. (13.100.44) /BIOMONITORING/ A group of children exposed to the ionizing radiation

released during the Chernobyl accident had an appreciable number of chromosomal breaks and rearrangements several years later, reflecting the persistence of the radiation-induced damage. ... In a follow-up study, 31 exposed children were compared with a control group of 11 children. ... The frequency of chromosomal aberrations in the exposed children was significantly greater than that in the control group, confirming the earlier report that a persistently abnormal cytogenetic pattern was still present many years after the accident. See Reference 880. (13.100.45) /BIOMONITORING/ A group of 125 workers involved in the initial /Chernobyl/

clean-up operation (called 'liquidators', exposed mainly in 1986) and 42 people recovering from acute radiation sickness of second- and third-degree severity were examined in 1992-93 for cytogenetic effects. Increased frequencies of unstable and stable markers of exposure to radiation were found in all groups, showing a positive correlation with the initial exposure even as long as six to seven years after the accident. ... Cytogenetic monitoring was also conducted among children, tractor drivers and foresters living in areas of the Ukraine contaminated by radionuclides released after the Chernobyl accident. All groups showed significantly increased frequencies of aberrant metaphases, chromosomal aberrations (both unstable and stable) and chromatid aberrations, and the number of aberrations in the children's cells correlated to the duration of exposure. See Reference 881. (13.100.46) /BIOMONITORING/ After the Chernobyl accident, germ-line mutations at

human minisatellite loci were studied among children born in heavily polluted areas of the Mogilev McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 764 of 953

district of Belarus. ... Blood samples were collected from 79 families (father, mother, child) of children born between February and September 1994 whose parents had both lived in the Mogilev district since the time of the Chernobyl accident. The control sample consisted of 105 unirradiated white families in the United Kingdom ... . The mutation frequency was found to be twice as high in the exposed families as in the control group. When the exposed families were divided into those that lived in an area with less than the median level of cesium-137 surface contamination and those that lived in more contaminated areas, the mutation rate in people in more contaminated areas was 1.5 times higher than that in those in the less contaminated areas. See Reference 882. (13.100.47) /BIOMONITORING/ Chromosomal aberrations were examined in lymphocytes

from eight men aged 24 to 56 who were exposed during a criticality accident ... . The blood samples were drawn about 2.5 years after the irradiation; blood from five unirradiated subjects was used as a control. Only chromatid-type aberrations were found in the controls. In the subjects exposed to the higher doses, the frequency of aneuploid cells was 7 to 23%, and gross aberrations, such as rings, dicentrics and minutes, were found in 2 to 20% of the cells. The men who received doses of 0.23 to 0.69 Gy /mixed gamma radiation and fission neutrons/ also had abnormalities but at a much lower frequency. ...The men were further examined 7 and 16 and 17 year after the accident. At 16 to 17 years, six of the men still had residual chromosomal aberrations. See Reference 883. (13.100.48) /BIOMONITORING/ The induction of chromosomal aberrations, particularly

dicentrics, in human lymphocytes has been well established in vitro and has been used as a biological dosimeter in a variety of situations of exposure in which induction of aberrations has occurred. The persons exposed include inhabitants of areas with a high background level of natural radiation, survivors of the atomic bombings, workers involved in cleaning-up after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Chernobyl, Ukraine, and people accidentally exposed to a discarded source of cesium-137 in Goiania, Brazil. See Reference 884. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 765 of 953

(13.100.49)

/BIOMONITORING/ Between 1986 and 1992, peripheral blood samples were

obtained from 102 workers who were on the site during the Chernobyl emergency or arrived there shortly thereafter to assist in the clean-up ... . Blood was also taken from 13 unexposed individuals. ... The frequency of N/O variant red cells increased in proportion to the estimated exposure to radiation of each individual. The dose-response function derived for this population closely resembled that determined previously for atomic bomb survivors whose blood samples were obtained and analyzed 40 years after exposure ... . Measurements on multiple blood samples from each of 10 donors taken over seven years showed no significant change in N/O variant cell frequency, confirming the persistence of radiation-induced somatic mutations in long-lived bone-marrow stem cells. See Reference 885. (13.100.50) /OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ /BONE MARROW/ The erythropoietic

system ... has a marked propensity for regeneration following irradiation. ... Although anemia may be evident in the later stages of the bone-marrow syndrome, it should not be considered a survival-limiting factor. The function of the myelopoietic cell renewal system is mainly to produce mature granulocytes ... . Neutrophils are the most important cell type in this cell line because of their role in combating infection. ... Because of the rapid turnover in the granulocyte cell renewal system (approximately 8-day cellular life cycle), evidence of radiation damage to marrow myelopoiesis occurs in the peripheral blood within 2 to 4 days after whole-body irradiation. Recovery of myelopoiesis lags slightly behind erythropoiesis ... Platelets are produced by megakaryocytes in the bone marrow. Both platelets and mature megakaryocytes are relatively radioresistant; however, the stem cells and immature stages are very radiosensitive. ... Thrombocytopenia is reached by 3 to 4 weeks after midlethal-range doses and occurs from the killing of stem cells and immature megakaryocyte stages, with subsequent maturational depletion of functional megakaryocytes. Regeneration of thrombocytopoiesis after sublethal irradiation normally lags behind both erythropoiesis and myelopoiesis. ... Blood coagulation defects with concomitant hemorrhage constitute important clinical sequelae during the thrombocytopenic phase of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 766 of 953

bone-marrow and gastrointestinal syndromes. See Reference 886. (13.100.51) /OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ /GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM/

Gastrointestinal Kinetics: The vulnerability of the small intestine to radiation is primarily in the cell renewal system of the intestinal villi... . Because of the high turnover rate occurring within the stem cell and proliferating cell compartment of the crypt, marked damage occurs in this region from whole-body radiation doses above the midlethal range. Destruction as well as mitotic inhibition occurs within the highly radiosensitive crypt cells within hours after high doses. Maturing and functional epithelial cells continue to migrate up the villus wall and are extruded, albeit the process is slowed. Shrinkage of villi and morphological changes in mucosal cells occur as new cell production is diminished within the crypts. Continued loss of epithelial cells in the absence of cell production results in denudation of the intestinal mucosa. Concomitant injury to the microvasculature of the mucosa results in hemorrhage and marked fluid and electrolyte loss contributing to shock. These events normally occur within 1 to 2 weeks after irradiation. See Reference 887. (13.100.52) /OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ /FETUS/The sensitivity of the embryo-

fetus for both mental retardation and cancer should be considered in all situations involving irradiation of the embryo-fetus. See Reference 888. (13.100.53) /OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ /SKIN/The most common type of

radiation injury in the United States has been a local injury to some part of the body. Of all documented local injuries, 77% involved the fingers and hands. Another 6% were extremity injuries involving the arms, legs, or feet. A further 9% of local injuries involved the head or neck, and the remainder was injuries to the thorax and other areas. The radiation sources in these cases of local injury were predominantly sealed sources of iridium-192 and cobalt-60. (13.100.54) /OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ /IMMUNE SYSTEM/ /Chernobyl/

Patients with grade III to IV acute radiation sickness (ARS) were initially severely McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 767 of 953

immunocompromised. While hematopoietic recovery in the survivors occurred within a matter of weeks, or at most months, future reconstitution of functional immunity may take at least half a year and may not be normal for several years. Studies of the immune status have revealed abnormalities in T-cell immunity for patients who received high doses of radiation. These abnormalities, however, have not been clearly associated with clinically manifest immunodeficiency. (13.100.55) See Reference 890.

/OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ /FETUS/Potential Health Effects of

Prenatal Radiation Exposure (Other than Cancer). Acute Radiation Dose to Embryo or Fetus: < 0.05 Gy (5 rads): noncancer health effects not detectable. 0.05-0.50 Gy (5-50 rads), blastogenesis (up to 2 weeks) incidence of failure to implant may increase slightly; organogenesis (2-7 weeks) incidence of major malformations may increase slightly and growth retardation possible; Fetogenesis (8-15 wks) growth retardation possible, ... incidence of severe mental retardation up to 20%; Fetogenesis (16-38 wks) noncancer health effects unlikely. >0.50 Gy (50 rads), blastogenesis incidence of failure to implant likely to be large, organogenesis indicine of miscarriage may increase, substantial risk of major malformations such as neurological and motor deficiencies, growth retardation. Fetogenesis (8-15 wks) incidence of miscarriage probably will increase, growth retardation likely, ... incidence of severe mental retardation >20%, incidence of major malformations will probably increase. Fetogenesis (16-25 wks) incidence of miscarriage may increase, growth retardation possible, reduction in IQ possible, severe mental retardation possible, incidence of major malformation may increase. Fetogenesis (26-38 wks) Incidence of miscarriage and neonatal death will probably increase.... See Reference 891. (13.100.56) /OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ /SKIN/ Ionizing radiation can induce

non-melanoma skin cancer, but the relationship is almost entirely due to a strong association with basal-cell carcinoma. ... When radiation exposure occurs during childhood, the excess relative risk for basal-cell carcinoma is considerably larger than when the exposure occurs during adulthood. See Reference 892. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 768 of 953

(13.100.57)

/OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ /CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM/

Ionizing radiation can induce tumors of the CNS, although the relationship is not as strong as for many other tumors, and most of the observed radiation-associated tumors are benign. Indeed, neurilemmomas, which are highly curable, are the only tumors that consistently exhibit risks. Overall, exposure during childhood appears to be more effective in tumor induction than adult exposure, but the data on adult exposure are fairly sparse, and the most recent study of atomic bomb survivors demonstrate an excess relative risk for neurilemmomas following exposure at all ages. ... The association between benign tumors, particularly meningiomas and neurilemmomas, and radiation appears to be substantially stronger than with malignant tumors. Malignant brain tumors are seen only after radiotherapy. (13.100.58) /OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ /THYROID/ The thyroid gland is highly

susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of external radiation during childhood. Age at exposure is an important modifier of risk, and a very strong tendency for risk to decrease with increasing age at exposure is observed in most studies. Although thyroid cancer occurs naturally more frequently among women, the excess relative risk does not appear to differ significantly for men and women. Among people exposed during childhood, the excess relative risk of thyroid cancer is highest 15-29 years after exposure, but elevated risks persist even 40 years after exposure. The carcinogenic effects of iodine131 are less well understood. Most epidemiological studies have shown little risk following a wide range of exposure levels, but almost all of them looked at adult exposures. Recent results from Chernobyl indicate that radioactive iodine exposure during childhood is linked to thyroid cancer development, but the level of risk is not yet well quantified. See Reference 894. (13.100.59) /OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ Ionizing radiation represents a possible

teratogen for the fetus, but this risk has been found to be dependent on the dosage and the effects correlatable to the gestational age at exposure. Recently, of particular note is the fact that maternal McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 769 of 953

thyroid exposure to diagnostic radiation has been associated with a slight reduction in the birth weight. Inadvertent exposure from diagnostic procedures in pregnancy does not usually increase the natural risk of congenital anomalies but creates a considerable state of maternal anxiety. Diagnostic radiological procedures should be avoided in pregnant women unless the information cannot be obtained by other techniques. See Reference 895. (13.100.60) /OTHER TOXICITY INFORMATION/ Second cancer incidence /was studied/

in a multinational cohort study of 28,843 men who had been diagnosed with testicular cancer between 1935 and 1993 ... .Cases of second cancer occurring between 1965 and 1994 were significantly increased ... in general, as well as of leukemia (64 cases) and of stomach cancer (93 cases). /In a/ casecontrol study of leukemia nested within a multinational cohort of 18,567 patients diagnosed with testicular cancer ... men who did not receive chemotherapy (mean radiation dose to 12.6 Gy) had a 3.1fold elevation of leukemia risk. See Reference 896. SECTION 14 (14) The United States Department of Energy web site has approximately 4,560 web pages

promoting GNEP. Many of these GNEP web pages are several regular pages long. Many of these GNEP web pages say that nuclear energy is clean, safe and emissions free. Some of these false and misleading statements are presented in this section, as follows: (14.1) Global Nuclear Renaissance Summit[;] The U.S. GNEP Approach[;] Assistant

Secretary for Nuclear Energy[;] Dennis Spurgeon[;] December 6, 2006[:]... The United States will build the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to work with other nations to 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 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 770 of 953

growing global energy demand. See Reference 353. (14.2) The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Program Overview/University Programs[,]

Paul Lisowski[,] GNEP Deputy Program Manager and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fuel Cycle Management[;] Office of Nuclear Energy[,] March 20, 2007[:] "...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..." See Reference 354. (14.3) Public Hearing Agenda[,] November 2008 GNEP Draft PEIS Public Hearings[:]

"...Nuclear power reactors do not emit air pollution or greenhouse gases and provide 70% of emission free electricity generation..." See Reference 355. (14.4) National Security Strategy of the United States, March 16, 2006[:]...The United States

will build the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to work with other nations to 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 356. (14.5) August 30, 2007[,] Department of Energy Selects U.S. University-led Teams for

$30.7 Million in Nuclear Research Grants[:] ... The Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative seeks to demonstrate the economic, commercial-scale production of hydrogen using nuclear energy. If successful, this research could lead to a large-scale, emission-free, domestic hydrogen production capability to fuel a hydrogen economy... See Reference 357. (14.6) ...Nuclear Power Option for Developing Nations Gaining Steam Raising the Global

Standard of Living with an Emissions-free Energy Source... A team at the Department of Energys Oak McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 771 of 953

Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is developing nuclear reactors that are cost-effective and a betterfit for developing nationsgiving them the exciting prospect of access to clean, safe, and reliable nuclear power. Widely known as grid-appropriate reactors, these nuclear reactors are smaller in size, ... Making nuclear power an option for developing countries is of great importance; the developing world will act to meet its growing energy demand, but may pursue less environmentally-friendly sources of energy. By gaining access to affordable nuclear energy, countries can offset negative environmental consequences through investing in the only near-term option for producing large amounts of emissionfree electricity... These reactors hold the promise of economic development by introducing a clean and affordable source of electricity to a developing nation .... See Reference 358. (14.7) Nuclear Energy: Investing In Our Energy Security [,] Dennis R. Spurgeon

Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy[:] The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which will 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... (14.8) August 30, 2007 Department of Energy Selects U.S. University-led Teams for $30.7

Million in Nuclear Research Grants[:] These awards will strengthen DOEs commitment to expanding the vital role Americas universities play in supporting the advancement and expansion of nuclear power, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said. Developing stronger research partnerships with our educational institutions is a priority for developing environmentally responsible, reliable, and safe nuclear power to serve the United States future energy needs...this research could lead to a large-scale, emission-free, domestic hydrogen production capability to fuel a hydrogen economy... See Reference 360. I must point out here that using government money to develop the use of nuclear generated electricity for making hydrogen, instead of using the wind and the sun to generated electricity is certainly a lot more expensive. Furthermore, the term emission-free McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 772 of 953

would be the truth if they would take the nuclear generated part out of the equation. But the fact is, they are falsely saying that nuclear energy is emission-free, and they are using public money to fund public education to develop curriculum that is based on false and misleading information. If they are not stopped, there is little doubt that a lot of people will be injured and killed by this. (14.10) STATEMENT OF DENNIS R. SPURGEON ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

NUCLEAR ENERGY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE NOVEMBER 14, 2007[:] "...As this Committee knows well, the Department of Energy (DOE) is tasked with promoting Americas energy supply through reliable, clean, and affordable energy...Nuclear power is the only large scale, emissions-free source of baseload electricity currently available capable of meeting the growing demand..." See Reference 361. (14.11) GNEP-167312, Rev. 0[;] Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Strategic Plan[:]

The United States will build the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to work with other nations to 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... See Reference Reference 362. (14.12) May 12, 2008[,] 16th Annual International Conference On Nuclear Engineering[,]

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery for Assistant Secretary Spurgeon[:] ...The President understands what our nation is confronting and is committed to expanding all sources of energy, and a cornerstone of that expansion is nuclear power. He has stated many times that nuclear power is the only near-term option for producing significant amounts of emissions-free baseload electricity...Nuclear power makes up 72% of all emission free electricity generated in the United States. This is no trivial statistic considering electricity production makes up 40% of all the worlds carbon dioxide emissions. See Reference 363. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 773 of 953

(14.13)

October 8, 2008[,] Renewing Americas Nuclear Power Partnership for Energy

Security and Economic Growth Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Secretary Bodman[:] "...This is serious business, and it demands collective action: we must expand access to safe, emissions-free, lowcost nuclear power..." (14.14) October 8, 2008[,] Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by U.S. Secretary of Energy

Samuel W. Bodman Renewing America's Nuclear Power Partnership for Energy Security and Economic Growth U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, D.C.[:] "...This is serious business, and it demands collective action: we must expand access to safe, emissions-free, low-cost nuclear power..." (14.15) September 18, 2007[,] Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Assistant Secretary for

Nuclear Energy Dennis R. Spurgeon IAEA Scientific Forum Vienna, Austria[:] "...Nuclear Power innovations necessitate steady incremental advancements coupled with ingenuity in a range of technologies to further expand nuclear power as the most significant source of emission-free energy in the world..." See Reference 365. (14.16) Prepared Statement of Dennis R. Spurgeon[,] Assistant Secretary for Nuclear

Energy[,] U.S. Department of Energy[,] On the FY 2008 Budget Request Before the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water[,] April 11, 2007[;] ...The Department of Energys strategic plan portrays a long-term vision of a zero-emission future, free from the reliance on imported energy. A portfolio of nuclear programs is provided for in this plan for nearterm, medium-term, and long-term sustained advances in nuclear technology... See Reference 366. (14.17) Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Notices [:] ...The

Presidents Advanced Energy Initiative has identified three ways to meet the challenge of generating more electricity: ...advanced emission-free nuclear power... See Reference 367. (14.18) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GNEP PEIS PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

March 1, 2007 10 6:00 p.m.[,] Hilltop House Best Western 11 400 Trinity Drive Los Alamos, New McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 774 of 953

Mexico[:]... Mr. Richard Black who is the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy for the Department of Energy [says]...And the nuclear power reactors provide 70 percent of such emission free production electricity in the United States..." See Reference 368. (14.19) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY OFFICE

OF FUEL CYCLE MANAGEMENT[,] GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT[,] PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING February 26, 2007 6:00 p.m.[,] 5101 N. Lovington-Hobbs Highway Hobbs, New Mexico[:] Mr. Richard Black, the associate deputy assistant secretary for nuclear energy for the Department of Energy [says] Nuclear power in the United States now provides about 20 percent of the power. Power reactors, as ssistant Secretary Spurgeon said, do not emit air pollution or greenhouse gases and, basically, they provide 70 percent of the emission-free electricity in the United States... See Reference 369. (14.20) Detailed Site Report for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Roswell, New

Mexico Site DE-FG07-07ID14802 May 1, 2007[:] ...EXECUTIVE SUMMARY[:] The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is an initiative of the United States to work with other nations to develop and deploy advanced nuclear recycling and reactor technologies. The purpose of this initiative is to help provide reliable, emission-free energy with less 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 the use of safe, clean nuclear energy to help meet the growing global energy demand...To meet growing demands for electricity, both nationally and globally, the Department of Energy (DOE) has established the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The goal of GNEP is to develop a worldwide consensus on expanding the use of economical, carbon-free nuclear energy. A plentiful, reliable supply of energy is the cornerstone of sustained economic growth and prosperity. Nuclear power is the only proven technology that can provide abundant supplies of base-load electricity without air pollution or emissions of greenhouse McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 775 of 953

gases... See Reference 370. (14.21) Nuclear Power Partnerships ANS Presidents Special Session: DOE Perspectives on

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Implementation Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon[,] November 13, 2006[:] ... However, we still have more operating nuclear reactors than any other nation; we have a vision of a future world that can universally enjoy the benefits of safe, economical, emission-free energy... (14.22) As part of the Presidents Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI)5, the United States

would work with other nations through the GNEP Program to develop and deploy advanced nuclear recycling and reactor technologies. The Initiative would help provide reliable, emission-free energy with less of the waste impact of older technologies and without making available separated plutonium that could be used by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons. These new technologies would make possible a dramatic expansion of safe, clean nuclear energy to help meet the growing global energy demand (Bush 2006). See Reference Reference 272. (14.23) Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Notices[;] For

Immediate Release November 29, 2006[,] Department of Energy Selects Recipients of GNEP Siting Grants Eleven sites to be analyzed for potential nuclear recycling facilities[;] ...As our economy grows so will the need for reliable, emissions-free energy generation. Nuclear energy can help meet that need and GNEP can do it in a way that maximizes the benefit of nuclear fuel while minimizing the risk of nuclear proliferation, DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said. That is why we are pleased that so many communities across the country are interested in hosting the initial facilities necessary to support this exciting project. These selections are an important initial step in proceeding to evaluate and select locations to host GNEP facilities.... The Presidents Advanced Energy Initiative has identified...ways to meet the challenge of generating more electricity...advanced emission-free nuclear power...For Immediate Release January 10, 2007 Department of Energy Releases McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 776 of 953

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Strategic Plan WASHINGTON, DC The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon today released the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Strategic Plan, which details the Initiatives purpose, principles and implementation strategy. The Plan outlines a path forward to enable worldwide increase in the use of safe, emissions-free nuclear energy...Releasing GNEPs Strategic Plan demonstrates the seriousness DOE places on this Initiative as well as the seriousness of our nations need to incorporate safe, emissions-free nuclear power into our nations energy mix...For Immediate Release April 17, 2008 DOE Seeks to Invest up to $15 Million in Funding for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technology Research and Development...To ensure that we have enough energy to meet growing demands, DOE is partnering with experts across the board to develop the necessary technology to advance the current state of nuclear energy and close the nuclear fuel cycle, said Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon. Harnessing the power of technology will bring about the solutions to decrease the quantity and radiotoxicity of spent fuel, reduce the proliferation risk and lower greenhouse gas emissions while enhancing our nations energy security.... See Reference 373. (14.24) IAEA SCIENTIFIC[,] FORUM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY[,] ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY DENNIS R. SPURGEON[,] INNOVATION, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NEXT QUARTER CENTURY[,] SEPTEMBER 18, 2007[:] ... Nuclear Power innovations necessitate steady incremental advancements coupled with ingenuity in a range of technologies to further expand nuclear power as the most significant source of emission-free energy in the world... See Reference 374 (14.25) For Immediate Release September 18, 2007[,] Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by

Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis R. Spurgeon IAEA Scientific Forum Vienna, Austria[:] ...Nuclear Power innovations necessitate steady incremental advancements coupled with ingenuity in a range of technologies to further expand nuclear power as the most significant source of emission-free McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 777 of 953

energy in the world..." See Reference 375. SECTION 15 (15) While looking through the Department of Energy web site at the bold faced lies about

nuclear energy being emission free, I came across one GNEP Detailed Site Report that takes a more honest approach, which is as follows: (15.1) DOE GNEP Detailed Site Report[;] Portsmouth Reservation, Piketon, Ohio[;]

Affected Environment and Regulatory and Environmental Permitting/Licensing Requirements[,] Prepared for US Department of Energy Idaho Operations Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Siting Studies Award Number : DE-FG07-07ID14795 Prepared by Piketon Initiative for Nuclear Independence (ePIFNI) 127 Public Square #2700 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 May 1, 2007 [:] ...6.3.4.3 Existing Air Emissions Non-radiological air emissions from USEC are predominant sources in Pike County. Currently, USEC has three OEPA operating permits. The Title V permit for USEC operations has been issued and was effective August 21, 2003, which is a sitewide, federally enforceable operating permit to cover emissions of all regulated air pollutants at the facility. In submissions to the OEPA, USEC reported the following criteria pollutant emissions for the year 2001: 59.86 tons of particulate matter with a mean diameter of 10m or less (PM10), 1.42 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 2,627.64 tons of SO2, and 362.05 tons of NOx. These emissions are associated with the boilers at the steam plant (which provides steam for the Portsmouth reservation), a boiler at the water treatment plant, an emergency generator, and a trash pump. (15.2) Table 6-1 Annual Criteria Pollutant and Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from

USEC and DOE Sources at PORTS in 2001[:]

Major Emission Source

SO2

NOx

CO

PM 10

PM 10

PM2.5

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 778 of 953

USEC Facilities DOE Facilities1

2,627.64 21.5

362.05 93.6

NA 58.5

1.42 5.7

59.86 5.3

NA NA

Proposed maximum annual emissions based on the assumption that two boilers would operate full time. (15.3) Airborne discharges of radionuclides from the Portsmouth site are regulated in

accordance with 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). Currently, USEC is responsible for most of the sources that emit radionuclides because DOE leased the production facilities to USEC. In 2001, USEC and DOE reported emissions of 0.2 and 0.00063 Curies (Ci) from their radionuclide emission sources, respectively. (15.4) Surface water quality is ensured by monitoring for the OEPA required chemical

parameters and DOE or NRC required radionuclides; monitoring is based on the chemical and radiological characteristics of the water that flows into the outfall. Permitted outfalls managed by the United States Enrichment Corporation were in compliance with contaminant concentration discharge limits in 2002. Permitted outfalls managed by DOE were in compliance with contaminant concentration discharge limits in 2003. In addition to the characteristics of the water the flows into the outfall, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits consider the designated use and the associated water quality of the receiving water body. Total radioactivity released from the DOE external outfalls was 0.0049 Curie of uranium isotopes and 0.00004 Curie of technetium-99. Total radioactivity released from the United States Enrichment Corporation external outfalls was 0.0296 Curies of uranium and 0.0335 Curies of technetium-99. In 2003, an estimated 9.5 pounds of uranium were discharged from DOE National Pollution Discharge Elimination System outfalls and 46 pounds were discharged from United States Enrichment Corporation outfalls, for a total of 55.5 pounds. The analytical results were compared to appropriate standards which require that off-site radiation doses do not exceed for all exposure pathways 100 millirem per year above background. All analytical results

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 779 of 953

from the external NPDES outfalls are well below these DOE standards. (15.5) Sediment samples are also collected at the locations where surface water samples are

collected by the United States Enrichment Corporation, and at the permitted outfalls on the east and west sides of the DOE reservation. In 2001, the maximum uranium concentration in sediment was 5.6 micrograms per gram, at background sampling location (RM-10W). The maximum technetium-99 concentration was 16 picoCuries per gram, at location RM-7 downstream on Little Beaver Creek. Several inorganic substances and polychlorinated biphenyls are also monitored; results of the monitoring indicate no major difference between upstream and downstream concentrations. Polychlorinated biphenyls were not detected in sediments. (15.6) Groundwater quality has been studied extensively as part of DOEs environmental

restoration activities. Groundwater quality is monitored for radioactive and nonradioactive constituents in 11 areas at and near the facility using more than 400 wells. On site, five areas of groundwater contamination have been identified that contain contaminants. The main contaminants are volatile organic compounds (mostly trichloroethylene) and radionuclides (e.g., uranium, technetium-99). Data from the 2000 annual groundwater monitoring showed that five contaminants exceeded primary drinking water standards at the DOE reservation: beryllium, chloroethane, americium, richloroethylene, and uranium. Alpha and beta activity also exceeded the standards. The concentration of contaminants and the lateral extent of the plume did not significantly increase in 2001. See Reference 371. SECTION 16 (16) So that the information in Sections 14 and 15 is clearly understood, an analysis of that

information is presented, including evidence that Dennis R. Spurgeon is knowingly defrauding the People and the Government of the United States, which is as follows:

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 780 of 953

Dennis R. Spurgeon (16.1) From the White House web site: For Immediate Release[,] Office of the Press

Secretary[,] February 13, 2006 The President intends to nominate Dennis R. Spurgeon, of Florida, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy (Nuclear Energy). Mr. Spurgeon most recently served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for USEC, Inc [(United States Enrichment Corporation)]. Prior to that, he served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for Swift Group, LLC. Earlier in his career, he served as Chief Operating Officer for UNC Resources. Mr. Spurgeon also served in the United States Navy and retired as a Captain. He received his bachelor's degree from the United States Naval Academy and his master's degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. See Reference 379. (16.2) The Center for Responsive Politics publishes:

See Reference 380. (16.3) Table 6-1 Annual Criteria Pollutant and Volatile Organic Compound Emissions McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 781 of 953

from USEC and DOE Sources at PORTS in 2001[:] . Major CO SO2 NOx Emission Source USEC Facilities
DOE Facilities1 2,627.64 21.5 362.05 93.6 NA 58.5

VOCs

PM 10

PM2.5

1.42
5.7

59.86 5.3

NA NA

(16.1) (16.2) (16.3)

One ton per year = 2000 pounds per year. SO2 is Sulfur Dioxide. See Reference 377. 2,625.64 X 2000 pounds of Sulfur Dioxide = 5,251,280 or FIVE MILLION TWO

HUNDRED FIFTY-ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY pounds of Sulfur Dioxide emissions in 2001 from USEC. (16.4) (16.5) NO is Nitric Oxide. NOx are nitrogen oxides. See Reference 376. 362.05 X 2000 pounds of nitrogen oxides = 724,100 or SEVEN HUNDRED

TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED pounds of nitrogen oxides emissions in 2001 from USEC. (16.6) (16.7) VOCs are Volatile Organic Compounds, See Reference 378. 1.42 X 2000 = 2,840 or TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY pounds of

Volatile Organic Compounds emissions in 2001 from USEC (United States Enrichment Corporation). (16.8) Sulfur Dioxide is apparently emitted while enriching uranium. TOXNET of the United

States Library of Medicine does not present a relationship between Sulfur Dioxide and nuclea power, nuclear fuel reprocessing, or enrichment of uranium. But there is a web page published by Multinational Monitor, January 1993, entitled: The Price of Power[,] Atomic Energy's Free Ride, by David Lapp, which gives a believable relationship between enriching uranium and Sulfur Dioxide. It also addresses a few issues that, with more elaboration through fact finding, would be helpful in for a grand jury understand the insidiousness of the crimes being committed by the Defendants. A major McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 782 of 953

factual issue that should be addressed further is the promise that Congress made, in 1982, to take care of the nuclear industry's waste, which resulted in the irresponsible behavior that has brought us to the conflict of this case. This issue is briefly mentioned in this web page article. As soon as the Plaintiffs have a U.S. Attorney helping us, I will provide the U.S. Attorney with more about this issue. This web page says the following (quotation marks omitted): (16.8.1) The 1992 Energy Policy Act guarantees that the U.S. government will continue to

massively subsidize the nuclear power industry well into the next millennium. Given the opportunity to force nuclear companies to pay the cost of enriching the uranium that fuels their plants, Congress instead capped the companies liability for cleaning up uranium enrichment facilities at an amount far below the expected cost of decontamination. Given the chance to make the industry pay for disposal of its waste, Congress took steps to ensure that a proposed government-operated, government-subsidized radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada will go forward. (16.8.2) Government subsidies and caps on liability are nothing new for the nuclear industry.

It has been coddled since its founding almost 40 years ago and would almost certainly have shut down were it not the beneficiary of federal largesse. (16.8.3) Over the last four decades, the nuclear industry has been an enormous drain on the

U.S. public treasury. Fiscal Fission: The Economic Failure of Nuclear Power, a Greenpeace study released last December, estimates that federal outlays from 1950 to 1990 for nuclear power totaled $97 billion in 1990 dollars. This estimate relates to costs of R&D and regulation, construction costs, uranium enrichment program costs and costs of the nuclear waste fund. It does not take into account costs associated with insuring the nuclear industry against accidents, costs relating to environmental damage, state government appropriations to the industry or federal appropriations to non-nuclear agencies that benefit the nuclear industry. (16.8.4) The cost of four decades of nuclear subsidies cannot be measured solely in monetary McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 783 of 953

terms. Government subsidies have made nuclear power artificially competitive with cleaner energy sources like renewables and efficiency and have diverted research and development (R&D) away from alternative energy sources. "Without all this federal money going to nuclear power, we would have much greater implementation of efficiency and renewable energy technologies," says Peter Grinspoon, director of Greenpeace's energy program. "I believe we would have a much cleaner environment." History of Reliance (16.8.5) The nuclear industry has relied on government support from its infancy. When the

private nuclear industry was created in 1954, following President Dwight Eisenhower's notorious Atoms for Peace speech and proposals for allowing private ownership of nuclear materials, it built on a foundation of government-created scientific and technological knowledge. Democrats and organized labor unsuccessfully opposed the legislation to create a private nuclear industry, contending that it would unfairly subsidize big business. "The people of the United States have already invested over $12 billion in the course of acquiring the technical and scientific knowledge concerning the production of atomic energy," warned Benjamin Sigal of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). "If the proposed amendments are adopted, ... the know-how will be placed at the disposal of a few fortunate companies." (16.8.6) The government continued to pour money into nuclear power R&D throughout the

1950s and beyond, and it was not until 1973 that industry spent more on nuclear power than the government, according to the Greenpeace report. Congressional Research Service analysis estimates R&D support at $39.8 billion (in constant 1982 dollars) for the period between 1948 and 1990. Factoring in the substantial costs of regulating the industry, Cora Roelofs of Komanoff Energy Associates (KEA), the consulting firm that authored the Greenpeace report, estimates total R&D support to be $59.7 billion as of 1990.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 784 of 953

Covering the Cost of a Meltdown (16.8.7) In 1957, Congress eliminated the first major roadblock to the development of nuclear

power -- paying for the high risks to the public of a major accident. Responding to the demands of companies like General Electric that were unable to obtain commercial insurance for nuclear energy projects, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Indemnity Act, which limited the liability of the nuclear industry in the event of a major nuclear accident. (The law also indemnifies suppliers and vendors of commercial nuclear facilities such as General Electric, Westinghouse and Bechtel -- even if their negligence or willful misconduct causes a nuclear accident.) (16.8.8) Under the most recent amendments to Price-Anderson, utilities are required to

maintain $200 million in insurance to cover public liability. If claims for an accident exceed that amount, each nuclear utility is required to contribute up to $63 million for each reactor they operate. This arrangement caps the liability of any given utility at $200 million, and of the entire industry at under $7 billion. (16.8.9) Estimates of the costs of a major nuclear accident vary, but virtually all analysts

agree that the $7 billion made available by nuclear utilities falls far short of meeting the human health and property damages that would result. The General Accounting Office (GAO) estimated in 1987 that, under average weather conditions, losses from a major nuclear accident could be as high as $15 billion. A 1982 analysis by the Sandia National Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) found that, under a worst-case scenario, financial losses (not including on-site damages) could range from $56 billion to $314 billion. The possibility of a large-scale accident occurring is not remote; the NRC itself estimates there is a 45 percent chance of a major "core melt" nuclear accident occurring in the United States within the next 20 years. (16.8.10) Several environmental and public interest organizations have attempted to estimate

the annual value of Price-Anderson to nuclear utilities. A 1987 report by Public Citizen McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 785 of 953

"conservatively" estimates that in the absence of Price-Anderson, utilities would pay at least $1 billion and possibly over $5 billion for commercial insurance each year -- if they found willing insurers. A 1984 study by the National Audubon Society estimated the cost at $10 billion annually. (16.8.11) Although the government does not transfer taxpayer dollars directly into the nuclear

industry's coffers, "Price-Anderson is an important benefit because all of a sudden industry has a predictable price put on something that it previously didn't know how to handle," says Doug Koplow, a consultant studying energy subsidies for the Alliance for Safe Energy (ASE). "Alternative forms of energy don't have those uncertain risks. A free market would place a premium on avoiding these types of risks, which would certainly [make it] more difficult [for fission power] to compete." (16.8.12) Others place even greater importance on the liability cap. "Without Price-Anderson

the nuclear industry would have gotten nowhere," says Roelofs. "There was an essential barrier to the marketplace because nuclear power was too risky for any person to want to invest." Feeding Nuclear Utilities (16.8.13) Even before passing Price-Anderson, the federal government assumed

responsibility for providing nuclear utilities with a steady supply of nuclear reactor fuel -- enriched uranium. Although the Department of Energy (DOE) is required by law to set the price of enriched uranium "on the basis of recovery of the Government's costs," the DOE's enrichment enterprise sets its uranium price far below cost. (16.8.14) According to a 1989 GAO study, the DOE has failed to collect over $11 billion in

past costs accumulated largely by underselling its enriched uranium. Since the DOE sells approximately one-third of its uranium to non-U.S. companies, taxpayer dollars also subsidize foreign nuclear programs. (16.8.15) "Taxpayer losses are real and mounting daily," concludes Stopping a Budget

Meltdown, a 1990 study on the enrichment program by the National Taxpayers Union. Charles McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 786 of 953

Montange, the author of the study, says taxpayer losses from the program increased dramatically in 1984 when Reagan's DOE overhauled the program, guaranteeing a subsidized price for enriched uranium. "Reagan cut prices nuclear utilities were paying with no cost recovery," says Montange. (16.8.16) As part of the overhaul, the DOE permanently closed its enrichment facility in Oak

Ridge, Tennessee and curtailed operations at two of its other plants run by the Martin Marietta Corporation in Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio. According to Jim Bird, a DOE official at Oak Ridge, the enrichment enterprise will pay $160 million this year to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for electricity it will not use. The payment is part of a $1.8 billion settlement with the TVA to fulfill electricity contracts developed after nuclear utilities lobbied for greater enrichment capacity, based on hopes of having 1,000 reactors in operation by the year 2000. (There are now 108 reactors in operation.) The DOE also began selling enriched uranium out of its stockpile at a fraction of its market price. It booked these sales as a savings which it passed to nuclear utilities. (16.8.17) The DOE's charges for enrichment services have also failed to include the future

costs of decommissioning, or dismantling, the enrichment facilities -- costs one DOE contractor estimates at $16 to $36 billion. Congress eliminated the possibility of taxpayer recovery of decommissioning and past uranium costs in last fall's energy bill, which requires utilities to pay only $2.25 billion of decommissioning costs. "The net effect of the uranium enrichment provisions in the energy bill was similar to Chapter 11 bankruptcy," says Montange. "Taxpayers will bear essentially all unrecovered, decommissioning and cleanup costs." (16.8.18) The enrichment process also carries high indirect environmental costs. Sixty-seven

percent of the cost of running the enrichment facilities comes from operating three huge coal-burning power plants built exclusively to supply electricity for the enrichment facilities, according to the DOE's Bird. (16.8.19) "All you have to do is go within 15 miles of these power plants and you can see a McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 787 of 953

large brown plume of sulfur dioxide going up into the air, headed right for the northeast," says David Kinloch, a utility analyst and member of the Paddlewheel Alliance, an environmental group active in Ohio and Kentucky. According to Kinloch, in 1990, 10.7 million tons of coal were burned to power the enrichment facilities, resulting in the release of 661,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 195,000 tons of nitric oxides into the air. These plants release 22 million tons of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, each year. (16.8.20) Not only does the government help provide the nuclear industry with its most

important input, it also massively subsidizes the disposal of its unwanted waste output. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, utilities are required to pay only 0.1 cent per kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity into a federal fund to cover costs of nuclear waste disposal, and the DOE takes possession of the highly radioactive waste. (16.8.21) A June 1992 GAO report estimates that unless the fee is raised, DOE will spend

$4.1 billion (in 1988 dollars) more than it collects to dispose of high-level waste. The subsidy will be even greater if, as is likely, the DOE's one planned repository is insufficient for the 87,000 metric tons of waste which currently operating plants are expected to generate in their lifetime. The GAO report points to yet another potential financial problem, warning that the financial conditions of 11 of the 17 utilities that owe one-time fees of $2 billion to the waste fund "cast serious doubt on their ability to pay." (16.8.22) The DOE's disposal plans have sparked intense public opposition because of the

environmental dangers they pose. The DOE proposes to store the waste for tens of thousands of years in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, risking environmental and health impacts of unknowable magnitude. In a 1990 article in Science magazine, Stanford University geologist Conrad Krauskoph wrote, "No scientist or engineer can give an absolute guarantee that radioactive waste will not some day leak in dangerous quantities from even the best of repositories." Nicholas Lenssen of the Worldwatch Institute McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 788 of 953

says that radioactive waste disposal of this type "is nothing more than calculated risk." (16.8.23) Objections from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were a significant

obstacle to DOE's Yucca Mountain plans because the EPA could find the risk of contamination too high to allow the plan to go forward. Congress removed this hurdle in the 1992 Energy Bill, however, by usurping the EPA's authority to set health standards for radiation exposure at the Yucca Mountain waste dump and transferring it to the non-governmental and unaccountable National Academy of Sciences. Reaping the Benefits (16.8.24) The nuclear industry has reaped numerous other benefits, many of which are

difficult to calculate. "Many of the subsidies for the nuclear industry are not in the tax code, making them hard to quantify despite their tremendous value," says Dawn Ehrlenson, who directs a tax project for Friends of the Earth. Other subsidies and benefits relate to: (16.8.25) Nuclear plant decommissioning. Nuclear utilities are required to set aside funds for

dismantling reactors after ceasing operation. Public Citizen reported in 1990 that utilities on average had operated reactors for about one-third of their expected lives, but had allocated only 14 percent of decommissioning funds. (16.8.26) Moreover, true decommissioning costs have been drastically underestimated. Last

summer, for example, the owners of the Yankee Rowe nuclear reactor raised the estimated cost of dismantling the reactor to three times what had been placed in its decommissioning trust fund. Even Yankee Rowe's new figure is a "dubious estimate, because no one knows what it will cost in two or five years to get rid of high-level nuclear waste," says Jeff Sosland of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS). Skyrocketing decommissioning costs could be paid by ratepayers, shareholders or taxpayers. (16.8.27) Investment and accelerated depreciation tax credits. Investment tax credits

especially benefit utilities because of the capital-intensive nature of nuclear programs. KEA estimates McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 789 of 953

tax breaks to the nuclear industry were worth $26.1 billion (in 1990 dollars) from 1950 to 1990. Bailout of public utilities. Many utilities obtained tax-exempt municipal bonds for nuclear power plant construction by forming partnerships with rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities, according to ASE's Koplow. Some of these loans pushed rural cooperatives and municipal utilities into bankruptcy, forcing taxpayer bailouts. (16.8.28) Federal power agency losses. The Bonneville Power Administration and the TVA --

federally owned sellers of wholesale electricity -- "invested heavily in nuclear and lost heavily in nuclear," says Koplow. State expenditures. Taxpayers also have paid for nuclear energy through their state taxes. For example, the New York Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Commission budgeted $900,000 for a public relations campaign "to convince New York State residents that low-level nuclear waste facilities are not harmful," according to a public relations industry trade newsletter. Legislators on the Dole (16.8.29) Environmental and public interest groups have long attempted to force nuclear

utilities to pay their share of the costs of nuclear power and to divert government spending toward clean energy sources. Their efforts have been hampered by the nuclear industry's grip on Congress, a result of the industry's hefty and across-the-board campaign contributions to House and Senate members. "The people who benefit from government support invest at least a portion of that support to ensure the support continues," says Koplow. Nowhere was the power of the industry's political influence more evident than in last fall's energy bill. The nuclear industry was able to claim major victories on uranium enrichment, nuclear plant licensing and high-level waste disposal. Montange attributes the taxpayer "bailout" of the industry's uranium enrichment costs to the influence of nuclear utilities over key legislators. (16.8.30) According to License to Spend, a 1992 report by NIRS and the U.S. Public Interest

Research Group on nuclear power industry campaign contributions, Representative Dan Rostenkowski, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 790 of 953

D-Illinois, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee and a key player in the bill's uranium enrichment title, has received $104,000 from nuclear industry political action committees (PACs) since 1985. But Rostenkowski was not even among the top recipients of nuclear PAC contributions. The report, based on Federal Election Commission figures, shows that only three members of the Senate and seven members of the House took no money from nuclear industry PACs since 1985. Nuke's Uncertain Future (16.8.31) Despite the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies of the last four decades, the

nuclear industry is in deep trouble. "Nukes face a new crisis: competitive markets," asserts the headline to a recent article in Public Utilities Fortnightly, a trade publication. No new reactors have been ordered in over a decade, in part because of high costs associated with construction, operation and maintenance, skepticism on the part of Wall Street financiers about decommissioning costs and public opposition to nuclear energy. Ratepayer costs from 1984 to 1990 jumped considerably to average 8.08 cents per kilowatt hour. (16.8.32) To survive, the nuclear industry must overcome the doubts of Wall Street, state

utility regulators and the public. Industry officials hope environmental concerns over fossil fuels will spur the comeback of nuclear energy. "Renewable energy and nuclear power have much in common," writes Richard Myers, a vice-president of the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, the nuclear industry trade association, in a recent issue of the association's magazine. "[They] both have passed through similar developmental cycles ... Today, the nuclear power industry, well-schooled by this experience, with a realistic sense of its strengths and weaknesses, stands at the threshold of maturity, ready for a new generation of plants." (16.8.33) Whether the nuclear CEOs will be able to salvage the industry based on the

environmental ploy or other schemes depends largely on their ability to ensure a continuing flow of public subsidies into the industry's coffers. Decades of experience have demonstrated conclusively that McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 791 of 953

nuclear power is simply too unsafe, too inefficient and too expensive to be commercially viable on its own. (16.8.34) (16.9) See Reference 995.

The article in subsection (16.8) was published in 1993; 16 years ago. I haven't

calculated or seen calculations of our tax dollars being spent to promote nuclear energy since then, but I have no doubt that we could have made a lot more progress with wind energy, solar energy, tidal energy, and hydrogen powered internal combustion engines. And we wouldn't be dealing with the threatening behavior of the Defendants that comes with the GNEP nuclear waste reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor. (16.10) TOXNET provides information which shows how Sulfur Dioxide has caused bodily

injury and death to people, and how it could cause bodily injury and death to people, who live near a uranium enrichment plant,which is as follows (quotation marks omitted): Human Toxicity Excerpts: (16.10.1) SEVERE INJURIES OF HUMAN EYES BY SULFUR DIOXIDE HAVE BEEN

PRODUCED ONLY BY LIQUIFIED FORM. ... IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EYE HAS BEEN SPRAYED ... THE CORNEAL EPITHELIUM BECOMES GRAY & IRREGULAR, BUT REMAINS ADHERENT TO STROMA ... SEVERAL HR LATER LIDS BECOME SWOLLEN. CONJUNCTIVAL EPITHELIUM APPEARS WHITE & RATHER OPAQUE. VESSELS ... MAY BE ... THROMBOSED. (16.10.2) A PERIOD OF ... EXPOSURE OF OVER 2 YR TO VARIABLE CONCN ON THE

ORDER OF 30 PPM WITH OCCASIONAL PEAKS OF UP TO 100 PPM ... PRODUCED ... AN ALTERATION OF SENSES OF SMELL & TASTE, HIGH URINARY ACIDITY, & INCREASED FATIGUE. See Reference 898. (16.10.3) ... DESTRUCTION OF PROTECTIVE CILIATED EPITHELIUM, & INVASION McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 792 of 953

OF LUNG BY BACTERIA ARE CONQUENCES OF ACUTE SULFUR DIOXIDE POISONING. See Reference 899. (16.10.4) INHALATION PRODUCES ALL GRADES OF RESPIRATORY TRACT

IRRITATION SOMETIMES WITH PULMONARY EDEMA. VAPOR CONCN PROBABLY DETERMINES MODE OF DEATH: EG, SUFFOCATION FROM REFLEX RESP ARREST (VERY HIGH CONCN), PULMONARY EDEMA (MODERATE CONCN), OR SYSTEMIC ACIDOSIS (LOW CONCN). THERE IS SOME INDICATION OF SIGNIFICANT VARIATION IN INDIVIDUAL SUSCEPTIBILITY. See Reference 900. (16.10.5) WITH ACUTE EXPOSURE, 5 PPM CAUSES DRYNESS OF NOSE & THROAT

AND A MEASUREABLE INCR IN RESISTANCE TO BRONCHIAL AIR FLOW; 6 TO 8 PPM CAUSES A DECR IN TIDAL RESP VOLUME. SNEEZING, COUGH & EYE IRRITATION OCCUR AT 10 PPM; 20 PPM CAUSED BRONCHOSPASM; 50 PPM CAUSES EXTREME DISCOMFORT BUT NO INJURY IN LESS THAN A 30-MIN EXPOSURE ... 1000 PPM CAUSES DEATH IN FROM 10 MIN TO SEVERAL HR BY RESP DEPRESSION. See Reference 901. (16.10.6) EXPOSURE TO HIGH CONCN CAUSE REFLEX CLOSURE OF GLOTTIS FOR

SEVERAL MINUTES. ... PERSONS SUBJECT TO ASTHMATIC ATTACKS WILL EXPERIENCE ASTHMATIC PAROXYSM WHICH MAY PERSIST FOR SEVERAL DAYS FOLLOWING EXPOSURE. See Reference 902 (16.10.7) IN THE MORE ADVANCED STAGES, ... DILATION OF BLOOD VESSELS IN

CERTAIN REGIONS. ULCERATION OF NASAL SEPTUM, WHICH BLEEDS READILY, MAY ... BE OBSERVED. See Reference 903. (16.10.8) THERE MAY ALSO BE THORACIC PAIN & STRICTION, DYSPNEA,

LACRIMATION ... BURNING SENSATION & PAIN IN ESOPHAGUS & STOMACH, NAUSEA & (ALTHOUGH RARELY) VOMITING. See Reference 904. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 793 of 953

(16.10.9)

INHIBITION OF THYROID FUNCTION & IN WOMEN, MENSTRUAL

DISORDERS ... . See Reference 905. (16.10.10) PERSONS WHO HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF EXPOSURE TO HIGH CONCN

OF SULFUR DIOXIDE MAY SUFFER FROM CHRONIC BRONCHITIS ACCOMPANIED BY EMPHYSEMA. ... NERVOUS SYSTEM DISORDERS ARE OF A FUNCTIONAL NATURENEUROTIC & VEGETO-ASTHENIC-PROBABLY DUE TO THE GENERAL TOXICITY OF SULFUR DIOXIDE ON THE BODY. STOMATOLOGICAL EXAM MAY REVEAL DENTAL CARIES, & PERIDONTAL & GINGIVAL DISORDERS. PATIENTS MAY COMPLAIN OF RAPID & PAINLESS DENTAL DESTRUCTION, LOSS OF FILLINGS, & INCR TOOTH SENSITIVITY TO TEMP CHANGES. See Reference 906. (16.10.11) DUE TO ITS HIGH SOLUBILITY, SULFUR DIOXIDE IS RAPIDLY

DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE BODY, PRODUCING METABOLIC ACIDOSIS WITH A REDUCTION IN BLOOD ALKALI RESERVE & COMPENSATORY ELIMINATION OF AMMONIA IN URINE & ALKALI IN SALIVA. THE GENERAL TOXIC ACTION IS DEMONSTRATED BY PROTEIN & CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM DISORDERS. IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE ABSORPTION OF LARGE QUANTITIES ... HAS A PATHOLOGICAL EFFECT ON HEMOPOIETIC SYSTEM AND MAY PRODUCE METHEMOGLOBIN. See Reference 907. (16.10.12) Delayed particle clearance times have been observed at low levels of sulfur dioxide

exposure. This indicates an impairment of the lung to function properly. This effect is more prominent with prolonged exposure to low concentrations than for short exposures to high concentrations. See Reference 908. (16.10.13) Exposures of less than an hour to sulfur dioxide at levels above 10 ppm in air are

irritating to the nose and throat, sometimes causing a choking sensation followed by nasal discharge, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 794 of 953

sneezing, coughing, and increased mucous secretion. See Reference 909. (16.10.14) Twenty five healthy adults were tested and found to have increased airway

resistance (determined in a body plethysmograph) at 5 ppm (13 mg/cu m) of sulfur dioxide and at higher levels when breathing normally for 10 min, but not at lower levels. After 25 deep breaths, as might occur in laborers doing hard physical work, the subjects had a statistically significant increase in airway resistance at 1 ppm and after 8 deep breaths at 3 ppm. See Reference 910. (16.10.15) ... Sulfur dioxide together with particulate matter and photochemical pollutants

aggravate chronic pulmonary disease and incr the risk of acute and chronic resp illness. These compounds impair pulmonary mucociliary clearance, primarily in those pt with persisting pulmonary disease, probably as a result of hydrogen ion deposition on the bronchial lining. See Reference 911. (16.10.16) 6-12 ppm: May cause nasal and throat irritation. 10 ppm: Upper resp irritation,

some nosebleeds. 20 ppm: Definitely irritating to eyes. Chronic resp symptoms develop at this level. See Reference 912. (16.10.17) Acute effects: Direct resp tract irritation, cough, burning, lacrimation, conjunctival

injection, difficulty in swallowing, and oropharyngeal erythema occur after substantial exposures. Vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, headache, vertigo, agitation, tremor, convulsions, and peripheral neuritis also have been noted. Acute high-dose exposures may produce immediate bronchospasm and pulmonary edema with subsequent resp failure. Clinical severity usually is readily apparent. Acute high-dose sulfur dioxide exposures have resulted in severe obstructive and restrictive defects 3 months postexposure, which failed to respond to bronchodilators. Rarely, such exposures have been associated with long-term, moderately severe, obstructive defects and persistent, productive cough. See Reference 913. (16.10.18) High concentrations of sulfur dioxide may cause respiratory paralysis and

pulmonary edema. In addition, about 10 to 20% of the adult population is estimated to be McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 795 of 953

hypersensitive to the adverse respiratory effects of sulfur dioxide; however, workers regularly exposed to compound show an adaptation effect. Even though olfactory fatigue is a reported effect of exposure, the compound is so irritating that it is considered to have good warning properties. See Reference 914. (16.10.21) Symptomology: Inhalation: Irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and skin; cough;

sneezing and lacrimation; rhinorrhea; anosmia; reflex bronchoconstriction; increased pulmonary resistance to air flow; bronchial asthma; high pitched rales; thoracic pain and struction; nasopharyingitis; tracheitis, laryngeal edema; chemical bronchopneumonia; pulmonary edema; cyanosis; systemic acidosis; asphyxia; death. Ingestion: Irritation, lacrimation, iritis, burns, corneal damage, blindness. Skin contact: Irritation, Urticaria, lesions, burns. (16.10.22) Men working in a refrigerator company in the USA where sulfur dioxide was the

refrigerant /were studied/. Exposures averaged 60-90 mg/cu m (20-32 ppm) with peaks as high as 200 mg/cu m (70 ppm). These peaks had probably been higher in the past ranging up to 290 mg/cu m (100 ppm) or more. The exposed group had significantly more respiratory symptoms and colds. They also complained more of fatigue and shortness of breath on exertion. Chest X-rays of the exposed and unexposed groups showed the same distribution of abnormalities. /It was concluded that/ there was no injury to the tracheobronchial tree or alveoli. See Reference 916. (16.10.25) The effects of sulfur dioxide and ozone alone and in combinations /were studied/,

on young normal subjects under conditions of light exercise. When breathed alone, 0.37 ppm of sulfur dioxide had no effect on any measurement of lung function; 0.37 ppm of ozone produced a just significant decline of ventilatory function at the end of a 2 hour exposure. However, when the two gases were present together in eight normal young subjects who were non-smokers, the maximal midexpiratory flow rate dropped to 67% of its initial value at the end of 2 hours; the forced expiratory volume was 78% of its initial value, and the mid-expiratory flow rate (50% vital capacity) was only 54% of the initial value. A 2 hour exposure to 0.75 ppm of Sulfur dioxide alone dropped the maximal McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 796 of 953

mid-expiratory flow rate to 90% of its control value. /It was/ concluded that sulfur dioxide and ozone are exceedingly corrosive when present together, that "standard" must specify the presence or absence of the other, and that there is a growing incidence of the joint presence of the two pollutants in urban environments. (16.10.28) The 0.75 second forced expiratory volume of school children in Cincinnati,

Chattanooga, and New York City, was studied, and examined differences by race, sex, socioeconomic levels, and exposure to total particulates, suspended sulfates, and sulfur dioxide. These authors were able to demonstrate differences in forced expiratory volume to support a relationship between suspended sulfates, other particulates and impaired function; the diference was apparent only after matching for age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status and when no overt clinical manifestations were present. The most dramatic difference occurred in Cincinnati, where children in "clean" neighborhoods had similar levels of sulfur dioxide but different levels of total particulates (61-85 ug/cu m in the clean area vs 96-133 ug/cu m polluted areas) and in suspended sulfates (7.7-9.1 ug/cu m vs. 8.9-10.1 ug/cu m). See Reference 918. (16.10.29) A combination of 0.37 ppm sulfur dioxide with 0.037 ppm ozone decr the human

midexpiratory flow rate to almost half ... . See Reference 819. (16.10.30) A basic physiological response to inhalation of sulfur dioxide is a mild degree of

bronchial constriction that is dependent on intact parasympathetic innervation. When exposed to 5 ppm of sulfur dioxide for 10 minutes, most human subjects show increased resistance to the flow of air. Asthmatics have an increased sensitivity to sulfur dioxide; bronchoconstriction may occur at concentrations as low as 0.25 ppm. See Reference 920. (16.10.31) In humans, survivors of massive sulfur dioxide exposure have shown a chronic,

obstructive defect in serial pulmonary function studies, along with bronchial hyperreactivity. The extent to which recurrent occupational or environmental exposures to sulfur dioxide produce adverse effects McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 797 of 953

in humans is not clear, however, in part because in both contexts there are usually confounding exposures to particulates or other irritants. Although some investigations suggest that occupational sulfur dioxide exposure (even at levels below the current TLV) is associated with increased upper and lower respiratory symptoms and decrements in various spirometric indices, others have not. (16.10.32) The frequency of chromosomal aberrations in cultured lymphocytes from seven

workers exposed to sulfur dioxide in a sulfite pulp mill in Sweden was compared with that of 15 controls. The exposed subjects had been employed for > 15 years at the mill, and one was a smoker. The controls were healthy men from Umea, Sweden, five of whom were smokers. The mean numbers of breaks/100 cells were 3.72 + or - 0.31 (standard deviations) for the sulfur dioxide exposed workers and 0.66 + or - 0.81 for the controls, analyzed on the basis of individual values (t = 5.79; p < 0.001). The frequency of gaps was also increased in the exposed workers (p < 0.01). See Reference 922. (16.10.40) Skin, Eye and Respiratory Irritations: VAPORS CAUSE SEVERE IRRITATION

OF EYES & THROAT ... . See Reference 923. (16.10.41) (16.10.42) (16.10.43) ... Strong irritant to eyes & mucous membranes ... . See Reference 924. Irritating to ... resp system & skin. See Reference 925. HAZARD WARNING: Because of the high solubility of sulfur dioxide, it is

extremely irritating to the eyes and upper respiratory tract. See Reference 926. (16.10.44) Clear cut evidence has ... been obtained that asthmatic individuals are especially

sensitive to sulfur dioxide. ... The degree of sensitivity to Sulfur dioxide appears to depend on the magnitude of preexisting airway hypersensitivity. See Reference 927. (16.10.48) Probable Routes of Human Exposure: Inhalation ... /or/ direct contact of gas or

liquid phase on ... mucous membranes. See Reference 928.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 798 of 953

SECTION 17 (17) Southeastern New Mexico had little, if any, reason to have the negative appearances listed

on page 5 and 6, before Pete V. Domenici and George W. Bush began executing a scheme of directing the rest of the Defendants in turning southeastern New Mexico into a hazardous waste and nuclear waste dump for the rest of the world. (17.1) Respondent, Peter Maggiore, issued the permit for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

WIPP on October 27, 1999, ignoring the studies that show brine pockets at the WIPP site location, while he was holding the position of Environment Secretary under Governor Gary Johnson. See References 10 and 16. (17.2) On August 9, 2000, under the direction of George W. Bush and Pete V.

Domenici, Peter Maggiore, withdrew a Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) permit requirement for US Department of Energy contractor Westinghouse to post $20 million guarantee for cleanup at the site after closure. This irresponsible behavior is published on a web page by the Energy Communities Alliance Bulletin, dated August 2000, which says the following (quotation marks omitted): NEW MEXICO DROPS WIPP PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR DOE (17.2.1) The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) withdrew a Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) permit requirement August 9, 2000, because of language in the Military Construction Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 106-246 (the Act). NMED issued the WIPP permit last year, which included a provision requiring DOEs contractor for WIPP to post a $20 million guarantee for cleanup at the site after closure (See ECA November 1999 Bulletin). The Act, signed by the President on July 13, 2000, contained language submitted by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) which barred NMED from issuing such a guarantee. (17.2.2) NMED is now looking for DOE to release $20 million in state impact aid that was

initially held up by the Department to pay for the WIPP contractors guarantee. The withdrawal of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 799 of 953

financial assurance provisions should once and for all remove any impediments to the State of New Mexico receiving the promised $20 million in economic assistance, in the form of highway funds, that the Federal government has been withholding, said NMED Secretary Peter Maggiore. (17.2.3)
The DOE lawsuit filed against New Mexico, which was brought when the permit was issued,

may be dropped by the end of August, according to recent statements from DOE and NMED officials.

DOE and NMED may also resolve other provisions of the permit which DOE objected to, including the requirements for: (17.2.3.1) (17.2.3.2) (17.2.3.3) (17.2.3.4) (17.2.3.5) (17.2.4) (17.2.5) (17.3) Disposal of non-mixed transuranic waste; Visual examination of sealed waste containers, rather than X-ray examination; Sampling of mixed and non-mixed wastes for volatile organic compounds; and DOE groundwater monitoring for alpha and beta radiation. Information taken from Inside Energy/with Federal Lands, August 21, 2000. See Reference 11. I had a digital audio recorder running in my pocket when Peter Maggiore was talking

to me about how he was "the one who approved WIPP" as if it was an accomplishment for which he should be proud. If the recorder was working correctly, I very likely have a recording of this that I would like to provide to the U.S. Attorney who helps the victims (Plaintiffs) as soon as this U.S. Attorney is helping us. (17.4) My understanding is that the Court was just getting ready to address a study done by

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. on the day they ran the first truck loaded with radioactive waste across New Mexico to the WIPP site. This study is as follows (quotation marks omitted): THE TRUTH ABOUT WIPP GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 800 of 953

(17.4.1)

The WIPP site is wet. It was supposed to be dry. This was the rationale behind

disposing of nuclear waste in salt beds. The very fact that salt beds still exist is proof that they have been isolated from circulating groundwater ever since they were deposited. But the salt beds of the Salado Formation were formed when an ancient sea evaporated, leaving the salt behind. Trapped within the salt beds are pockets of brine that never evaporated. These brine pockets migrate toward areas of low pressure. As soon as the WIPP tunnels were excavated, brine began seeping into the roof and walls. This was unexpected. (17.4.2) The waste brought to WIPP would be buried in steel drums placed in direct contact

with the salt beds. Those fancy containers you have heard about are for transportation only. When the waste gets to WIPP, the DOE will unpack the transportation containers and bury the waste in steel drums, just like they always do. Brine will continue to seep into the WIPP repository. In a matter of years the steel drums will corrode, and the brine will begin dissolving the waste, creating a slurry of radioactive waste and water. (17.4.2) The WIPP site is already breached. The Salado salt beds are deep underground,

beneath the water table. When the DOE drilled the WIPP access shafts, they had to drill through groundwater aquifers in order to reach the salt beds. Also within the WIPP site are four deep boreholes penetrating deeper than the waste repository. These shafts and boreholes are ready-made pathways for contaminated water. DOE must be able to seal the shafts and plug the boreholes perfectly, forever, and we doubt that they can do it. (17.4.3) There is pressurized brine beneath the WIPP repository. This is not to be confused

with the brine pockets in the Salado Formation. This is a brine reservoir, beneath the Salado, in the Castile Formation. When this brine reservoir was encountered at a borehole called WIPP-12, located one-half mile north of the waste repository, 1500 barrels a day flowed for forty days, all the way to the land surface. This is because the brine is under artesian pressure, and it is the geologic mechanism, the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 801 of 953

driving force, which could bring the slurry of radioactive waste and salt water to the overlying aquifers or to the land surface. (17.4.4) The WIPP site is vulnerable to human intrusion. There are extensive deposits of oil,

gas and potash at the WIPP site. Oil and gas wells now surround the site, and the oil and gas fields extend directly beneath the waste repository. As long as DOE controls the site, oil and gas exploration can be prevented. But when institutional controls fail, someone searching for oil will drill directly through the waste repository and into the pressurized brine reservoir, creating an instant breach of containment. The brine will flow to the land surface if the oil well is cased, and into the groundwater aquifers if the oil well is not cased. (17.4.5) The WIPP site is in karst. In most cases, groundwater moves through porous rocks,

like sandstone, flowing uniformly and predictably. The problem with karst is that groundwater flows more rapidly through less space, through fractures enlarged by solution, or through underground caverns. The aquifers above the Salado Formation, both the Rustler Formation and the Dewey Lake Redbeds, are karst, with caverns in dolomite and gypsum, even in sandstone and shale. The caverns get larger with time; and the larger the caverns, the less the amount of radiation that sticks to the rocks as contaminated water flows through them. (17.4.6) Drinking water will be contaminated. There are wells in the Dewey Lake Redbeds

and the Rustler Formation, within and near the WIPP site, which contain potable, drinkable water. These aquifers discharge in Nash Draw, where salt lakes will be contaminated, and they will overflow eventually into the Pecos River. (17.4.7) The WIPP site will get worse over time. As more and more potash is mined in the

Salado Formation, the overlying aquifers will slump and fracture. Every major rainstorm will recharge the Rustler Formation with fresh water to dissolve more dolomite and gypsum. The waste will be radioactive for a very long time. Ice ages, which are cyclical, are inevitable. The climate will change McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 802 of 953

when the glacier advances. There will be more rainfall, less evaporation, and more groundwater, and the rocks will dissolve more rapidly. (17.4.8) Richard Hayes Phillips holds a Ph.D. in karst geomorphology from the University

of Oregon. His dissertation is entitled: The Prospects for Regional Groundwater Contamination due to Karst Landforms in Mescalero Caliche at the WIPP Site near Carlsbad, New Mexico. During his field work he camped at the WIPP site for eight months and dug one thousand auger holes and ten backhoe trenches, exposing holes of all sizes in the Mescalero caliche and demonstrating that rainwater readily reaches the Dewey Lake Redbeds. See Reference 16. (17.4.9) On March 18, 2002, Environment Secretary Peter Maggiore issued the 10-year

permit for the hazardous waste facility called Triassic Park, which is owned and operated by Respondents: Dale Gandy, Larry Gandy, and Mike Marley with the Pete Domenici Jr. doing their legal paper work. See References 12 and 13. (17.5) The text from a copy of a document, dated May 9, 2005, is entitled: RE: Notice of

Violation, Gandy Marley Inc. Landfarm, DP-1041 says that they did not submit required monitoring reports for 5 years. The New Mexico Environment Department sent me all documents related to the Notice of Violation. What I received made very clear that Gandy Marley Inc. did not comply with this notice either. I will provide what I received from the New Mexico Environment Department regarding this Notice of Violation to the U.S. Attorney that the Court appoints to represent the victims (Plaintiffs). The Notice of Violation says the following (quotation marks omitted): (17.5.1) 88267 (17.5.2) (17.5.3) RE: Notice of Violation, Gandy Marley Inc. Landfarm, DP-1041 Dear Mr. Gandy. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 803 of 953 Larry Gandy[:] Gandy Marley Inc. Landfarm[;}1109 East Broadway[;} Tatum, NM

(17.5.4)

This letter is to notify you that the above referenced facility is operating in violation

of its Discharge Permit, DP-1041 which was issued by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) to Larry Gandy on August 24, 2000. (17.5.5) You are required by Section 20.6.2.3104 NMAC of the New Mexico Water Quality

Control Commission Regulations (20.6.2 NMAC) to comply with the terms and conditions of this Discharge Permit, including the monitoring and reporting requirements which are summarized on the enclosed sheet. You have violated your Discharge Permit by failing to submit the monitoring reports which were due on September 1, 2000; December 1, 2000; March 1, 2001; June 1, 2001; December 1, 2001; March 1, 2002; June 1, 2002; September 1, 2002; December 1, 2002; June 1, 2003; September 1, 2003; December 1, 2003; March 1, 2004; September 1, 2004; December 1, 2004; and March 1, 2005. (17.5.6) In order to correct these violations, you must submit the past-due monitoring reports

within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. (17.5.7) Nothing in this letter shall be construed as relieving the permittee of its obligation to

comply with all requirements in this permit and other applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, permits or orders. This letter is intended to address violations of certain requirements of your permit and may not address all violations. It is the responsibility of the permittee to be familiar with and comply in full with its discharge permit. (17.5.8) This letter is NMED's attempt to gain your voluntary compliance. Failure to comply

with this letter may result in the issuance of a compliance order, civil penalties, or the filing of a civil action in district court. (17.5.9) If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 505-827-2919 or

George Schuman, Program Manager of the Ground Water Pollution Prevention Section, at 505-8272945. (17.5.10) Sincerely, William C. Olson[;] Bureau Chief Ground Water Pollution Prevention McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 804 of 953

Section (17.5.11) (17.6) See Reference 996 Defendant, Dennis R. Spurgeon, is looking at two potential locations in southeastern

New Mexico for Pete Domenici's and George W. Bush's GNEP facility. One of these potential locations about 18 miles east of Bottomless Lakes State Park, right next to the Mescalero Sands Recreation Area, at a location where the rainwater runoff flows into the Pecos River. The other potential location in southeastern New Mexico is in Lea County midway between Hobbs and Carlsbad. (17.7) The name of the company that is receiving $millions directly from the United States

Department of Energy to promote the idea of Reswell having the GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor is EnergySolutions. EnergySolutions is also called Envirocare. (17.8) EnergySolutions Inspection Records (List of Violations) from the Utah Department of

Environmental Quality 1999-2006 provide a good look at the sort of operation EnergySolutions would run. These Inspection Records are at a low-level nuclear waste dump that they operate in Utah. While viewing these violations, please visualize the effect such carelessness could have at a nuclear fuel (high-level nuclear waste) reprocessing plant. The List of Violations is on pages 731 - 739, as follows: EnergySolutions Inspection Records (List of Violations) from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality 1999-2006 LEVEL OF SEVERITY III III 5,000.00 3,125.00 3,125.00 for all 1/20/99 violations Repeat Repeat AGENCY ISSUEING NOV DRC DRC DRC DRC

DATE

VIOLATION Lids on containers not maintained in in a closed water tight condition. Failure to maintain free flowing conditions

$ PENALTY COMENTS

01/20/99 01/20/99 07/16/99 07/16/99

Modification of engineering design without III prior approval BAT failure -Free draining III

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 805 of 953

conditions 07/16/99 07/16/99 07/16/99 07/16/99 07/16/99 07/16/99 07/16/99 07/16/99 07/16/99 07/16/99 Written records not maintained Daily inspection records not complying with content requirements BAT containment failure -wash bay Failure to notify BAT Failure Monthly GW measurements not done Failure to monitor mixed waste cell leachate Late submittal of reports and plans IV IV 937.50 937.50 750.00 2,500.00 3,125.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 Repeat Repeat Repeat DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC

BAT Failures - 1995 Pond IV III III III III III

Failure to submit required III plans and reports Failure to construct with approved engineering design and specifications Failure to remove and dispose of contact storm water Failure to properly place radon barrier III

07/16/99 07/16/99 07/16/99 07/28/99 10/01/99 10/19/99

III III

2,500.00 2,500.00

DRC DRC DRC

Placement of mobile waste III in unauthorized locations. Significant MDL and GWPL Violations Self-identified Self-identified placement of Mobile Waste Self-Identified exceed 300,000 cubic yards not disposed Failure to meet holding III IV III (repeat) 17,812.50 0.00 2,500.00 n/a

DRC DRC

Repeat mitigated due to DRC self-identify (paid in full) Increase by 25% because of DRC repeat 15 events DRC

03/07/00 03/22/00

III (repeat) III

3,125.00 2,500.00

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 806 of 953

times in WMQAP 3/22/00 06/28/00 06/28/00 06/28/00 06/28/00 06/28/00 06/28/00 06/27/00 Failure to meet analytical V requirements of WMQAP liquids testing IV Documentation of leaking IV shipments Management of Winddispursed materials Aisle space requirements Containers not properly labeled with unloading date Run-off Control Seavans not Properly labeled with unloading date III V V V V 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

grouped as one violation and escalated to III DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC

08/28/00

Tempory storage tank not properly labeled (out of IV Service) Tempory storage tank not properly labeled (clean IV water) Temporary tank not funded IV by surety Tracking system for temporary tanks Tracking system for temporary tanks IV IV

0.00

DRC

08/28/00 08/28/00 08/28/00 08/28/00 09/20/00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated due to licensee actions

DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC

Disposal of class C waste III (self ID) Detection limits exceeded for environmental samples (3) III for slol, surface water, air (Module 4) Methods for surface water III analysis Placement of waste not in n/a

10/13/00

1,250.00

Mitigated from $8,750 (penalty DRC paid) DRC Issued DRC

10/13/00 12/05/00

Repeat n/a

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 807 of 953

accordance with waste management plan (Resins) 01/20/00 12/20/00 07/10/01 07/10/01 07/17/01 09/09/01 09/09/01 06/24/02 06/24/02 06/24/02 06/24/02 06/24/02 06/24/02 06/24/02 06/24/02 08/07/02 08/23/02 08/23/02 working in restricted area without required radiation III safety support personnel No Radiaiton Supervision III as required MOD 3 Inspection Fail to IV Fence as required MOD 3 inspectrion Fail fo label waste Mgmt V equipment as required Forklift Contamination Fail to sign RWP Fail to file RWP as Required III III V 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 0.00

Corrective Action Order Paid in full Paid DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC Retracted DRC DRC Retracted DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC DRC Paid in full Self Identified Self Identified DRC DRC DRC

Fail to identify Bulk Waste V as required Fail to manage Liquid in waste as required (ph) Fail to document corrective action IV IV

Fail to control WindIII dispersed Debris (Repeat) Container MGMT Isle spacing Fail to label waste as required Fail to lable for Segregation and tracking Fail to construct Runoff control on ramps Module 7 Fail to Train as required Accept Waste containing chelating agents V V V IV III

Accept liquid waste (Paint) III III

ABBREVIATION NOTICE OF VIOLATION IS "NOV" 11/22/02 Storage in wrong location. III 2,500.00 Self Identified DRC

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 808 of 953

Longer than 365 days, fail to inspect daily 05/03/03 08/12/03 4 Findings and 4 Observation DRC review of QA/QC Activities Module 9 Failed to Mark had tools as required Module 4 Environmental Mon. Notice of Enforcement Discretion 9 Items listed Storage in excess of 11,250 Cu yd.(Surety) BAT Failure 4 Violations CLSM Fail to Monitor Tempertaure 2 Violations CLSM Triaxil Failure Fail to meet GSAP requirements Permit Number not valid III IV $2,500.00 0.00 IV 0.00 Enforcement Discretion Letter Issued 1st offense Enforcement Discretion Letter Issued DRC DRC

09/23/03

DRC

03/09/04 03/18/04 04/01/04 04/02/04 04/07/04

NOV and CAL DRC NOV and Order DRC NOV OPEN NOV DRC DRC DRC

05/24/04

Licensed activities conducted outside section 32 Observed on July 16, IV 2003 NOV was never mailed out MOD 9 Unmarked tools in IV buffer Zone Fail to meet GSAP requirements accepted IV waste without a valid GSA Permit Number GW Report Stormwater MGMT Failure $750.00

NOV

DRC

05/24/04

NOV

DRC

08/03/04

$1,406.25

NOV

DRC

08/03/04

10,000/day

NOV and Order DWQ

I received the above List of Violations records from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality in March 2007 in a form that allowed me to copy and paste from the document I received to this document. The rest of the List of Violations records came in the form of pictures, which are on pages 735 - 739, as follows:

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 809 of 953

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 810 of 953

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 811 of 953

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 812 of 953

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 813 of 953

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 814 of 953

(17.9)

Understanding the factual issues of this case requires the reader of this document to

understand that, although culpability for this matter is held by the Defendants listed at the beginning of this document, culpability is also held by a much larger group of people, including, but not all inclusive of, the following: (17.9.1) (17.9.2) (17.9.3) (17.9.4) (17.9.5) (17.9.6) (17.9.7) (17.9.8) (17.10) omitted): People Associated with the Uranium Mining Industry People Associated with the Nuclear Power Industry People Associated with a Movement Called the Nuclear Renaissance Lobbyists of the Uranium, Nuclear Power, and Nuclear Weapons Industries Late President Ronald Reagan People in Charge of the National Republican Party Platform Some Influential People in the New Mexico Democratic Party Senator Orin Hatch A United States Department of Justice web page says the following (quotation marks

ALLIED-GENERAL NUCLEAR SERVICES, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA[;] No. 87-1902[;] In The Supreme Court Of The United States[;} October Term, 1988[;] On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit[;] Brief For The United States In Opposition[:] (17.10.1) QUESTION PRESENTED[:] Whether petitioner's property was taken without just

compensation when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, acting in accordance with its mandate under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, did not grant petitioners a license in the late 1970s to operate a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.... ...STATEMENT (17.10.2) 1. At the end of World War II, Congress adopted the Atomic Energy Act of 1946,

ch. 724, 60 Stat. 755, which prohibited the private possession and use of nuclear energy technology. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 815 of 953

Eight years later, however, Congress enacted the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. (AEA), which provides that private entities may possess and use "special nuclear material" if they obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission). /1/ See 42 U.S.C. 2014(v)(l), 2131. The AEA defines "special nuclear material" as plutonium, enriched uranium, and other substances that are capable of releasing substantial quantities of atomic energy. See 42 U.S.C 2014(aa). (17.10.3) 2. This case concerns nuclear fuel. Most nuclear power plants in this country are

fueled by slightly enriched uranium dioxide. As the fuel enters the reactor, the uranium consists of about three percent uranium-235 and 97% uranium-238. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. NRC, 598 F.2d 759, 762 n.4 (3d Cir. 1979). During the controlled nuclear chain reaction, the uranium-235 atoms fission into lighter atoms and some of the uranium-238 atoms transmute into plutonium, which also may fission (ibid.). Fission products impede the nuclear chain reaction. Accordingly, nuclear fuel must be removed from the reactor as "spent" and replaced with fresh fuel before the uranium and plutonium in the fuel are completely expended. Ibid. Spent nuclear fuel, therefore, contains uranium and plutonium that may be separated from the fission waste products and made into new nuclear fuel (ibid.). In the separation process, plutonium must be isolated from the radioactive waste. This fact gives rise to great concern because plutonium may be used by foreign governments or terrorists to build nuclear weapons. Id. at 763. (17.10.4) On February 1, 1970, petitioner Allied-General Nuclear Services (AGNS) was

formed to construct a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Barnwell, South Carolina. The Commission granted AGNS a construction permit for the plant on December 18, 1970. AGNS began construction in February 1971. In July 1971, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set aside many of the Commission's rules implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (NEPA). See Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Comm. v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 816 of 953

(1971). The Commission promptly adopted new rules to provide for complete environmental reviews of nuclear projects. See 10 C.F.R. Pt. 50, App. E (1972). The Commission also set forth criteria by which to judge whether to suspend construction on projects before a NEPA review could be completed (id., Para. E). Petitioners asked the Commission not to suspend construction on the Barnwell reprocessing plant. On November 30, 1971, the Commission granted petitioners' request and allowed petitioners to "proceed with construction at their own risk" (36 Fed. Reg. 23333). (17.10.5) In February 1974, the Commission determined that any decision to permit nuclear

fuel reprocessing on a large scale would require an environmental impact statement under Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. NRC, 598 F.2d at 763. Thus, the Commission began work on a Generic Environmental Statement on Mixed Oxide Fuel (GESMO). See 39 Fed. Reg. 5356 (1974). The Commission published its first draft of GESMO in August 1974. See 39 Fed. Reg. 30186. (17.10.6) The Commission's draft GESMO prompted a number of critical comments. The

President's Council on Environmental Quality stated that the draft was "incomplete because it fails to present a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts of potential diversion of special nuclear materials and of alternatives safeguard programs to protect the public from such a threat" (C.A. App. 84). The Council noted that the threat from the illicit use of plutonium "is so grave that it could determine the acceptability of plutonium recycle as a viable component of this Nation's nuclear electric power system" (ibid.). The Commission essentially agreed with those comments. In November 1975, therefore, the Commission announced that it would conduct a full assessment of issues regarding plutonium security before it decided whether to approve wide-scale nuclear fuel reprocessing. See 45 Fed. Reg. 53056-53057, 53059 (1980). Shortly thereafter, President Ford stated that the nation "should pursue reprocessing and recycling in the future only if they are found to be consistent with our international objectives" concerning the spread of nuclear weapons. Statement by McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 817 of 953

the President on Nuclear Policy, 12 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1624, 1626 (Oct. 28, 1976). (17.10.7) 3. President Carter outlined his policy on plutonium recycling on April 7, 1977.

President Carter expressed deep concern about the risk that plutonium could be obtained from the recycling process and be used by foreign governments to make nuclear weapons. See statement on Nuclear Power Policy, 13 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 506. President Carter stated that, in order to promote the government's international non-proliferation goals, his policy was to "defer indefinitely" domestic commercial plutonium recycling and to initiate a multinational evaluation of alternative fuel cycles. (17.10.8) In light of President Carter's statement, the Commission announced its intent to

reassess "the future course and scope of GESMO, the review of recycle-related license applications, and the matter of interim licensing." 42 Fed. Reg. 22964 (1977). The Chairman of the Commission sought the President's views on those matters. A White House official responded that "the President believes that his non-proliferation initiatives would be assisted both domestically and internationally if the Commission were to terminate the GESMO proceedings . . ." (id. at 57186). On December 23, 1977, after receiving comments from interested parties, the Commission issued an order terminating the GESMO proceedings and most license proceedings relating to plutonium recycling. See id. at 65334. The Commission, however, stated that it would reexamine this decision after two studies of alternative fuel cycles were completed (ibid.; Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. NRC, 598 F.2d at 765). (17.10.9) Petitioners and others sought judicial review of the Commission's order. The

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the Commission's action. The Third Circuit stated that, "(g)iven th(e) broad delegation of authority to the NRC to choose the necessary means by which to implement the general policy objectives of the AEA, we cannot say that the NRC must inexorably proceed with the processing of license applications and the development of a final GESMO when in its judgment to do so would endanger the attainment of its statutory objectives." McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 818 of 953

Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. NRC, 598 F.2d 761, 771. (17.10.10) In early 1980, when the two studies regarding fuel cycles were complete, the

Chairman of the Commission asked the President whether the Administration's views had changed. The White House responded that President Carter believed "that the GESMO proceedings should remain terminated and that a reopening of GESMO would be inimical to national security . . . ." The Commission published this response and sought public comments on whether the Commission should reopen its GESMO and license proceedings. See 45 Fed. Reg. 53933 (1980) Neither petitioners nor any other applicant for a license to construct or operate a reprocessing facility responded. (17.10.11) In early 1981, President Reagan announced that he was "lifting the indefinite ban

which previous administrations placed on commercial reprocessing activities in the United States." Statement Announcing a Series of Policy Initiatives on Nuclear Energy, Pub. Papers 903 (Oct 8, 1981). President Reagan stated that it is "important that the private sector take the lead in developing commercial reprocessing services" (ibid.). Petitioners, however, have not sought to reopen either the GESMO proceedings or the proceeding concerning its application for a license to operate the Barnwell plant. Petitioners instead filed this suit alleging that the Commission's actions constitute a taking of the Barnwell reprocessing plant for public use without just compensation (C.A. App. 48, 51, 54, 55). (17.10.12) 4. The United States Claims Court granted the government's motion for summary

judment. The court held that petitioners' complaint is premature because petitioners have not sought to obtain a final ruling on their application for an operationg license (Pet. App. 32a-36a). Alternatively, the court held that petitioners' property has not been taken without just compenstation. The Claims Court noted that "the regulatory framework of the AEA was in place when (petitioners) acquired or generated the property interest which (they) allege() has not been taken" (id. at 26a n.7). The court reasoned that the "regulatory action here, presumed to be valid, cannot be said to have involved McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 819 of 953

considerations so unforeseeable that the public, rather than the plaintiff, should bear the burden of the loss" (id. at 31a). (17.10.13) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that

petitioners' Barnwell plant had not been taken without just compensation. /2/ The court noted that the Commission suspended licensing proceedings because President Carter viewed the processing of spent fuel at Barnwell as a threat to the common defense of the United States (Pet. App. 9a). The court, relying on this Court's opinion in Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, No. 85-1092 (Mar. 9, 1987), held that in uncompensated taking did not occur because the government used its police powers to protect the public from the threat of the spread of nuclear weapons. The court of appeals found "dispositive" the "basic rule that . . . as against reasonable state regulation, no one has a legally protected right to use property in a manner that is injurious to the safety of the general public" (Pet. App. 8a). (17.10.14) The court of appeals also based its judgment on an independent ground. The court observed that petitioners built the Barnwell plant under a regulatory scheme that forbids the unlicensed operation of the plant and that requires the Commission "to take into account the common defense and security of the nation in passing on the licenses" (Pet. App. 10a). Petitioners built the plant with the knowledge that the Commission could use its licensing power in "unforeseen" circumstances -- here, to prevent the risk of nuclear weapons (ibid.). The court of appeals stated that "the novelty of nuclear fission, the fearsome effect of its use in war, the public fears, all forbid us to suppose that the government had committed itself to use of its licensing power not to respond to some new ground of hesitiation just because it was not originally foreseen" (ibid.). (17.10.15) Lastly, the court of appeals rejected petitioners' argument that there was a taking

because the government encouraged petitioners to build the Barnwell plant (Pet. App. 11a-12a). The court noted that, although government employees engaged in "jawboning" to encourage the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 820 of 953

construction, the government did not guarantee petitioners an operating license and never entered into a contract (express or implied) with petitioners. In the absence of such a contract or promise, the court held, the government is not liable for petitioners' losses. ARGUMENT (17.10.16) The judgment of the court of appeals is correct. Its decision does not conflict with

any decision of this Court or any other court of appeals. Thus, no further review is warranted. (17.10.17) 1. The government "did not occupy, use, or in any manner take physical

possession of the (Barnwell plant)." United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155, 165166 (1958). /3/ Nor has the Commission issued a final order denying petitoners' application for an operating license. At bottom, therefore, petitioners' claim is that they expected to receive an operating license in the late 1970s when the Barnwell plant was nearing completion, and that the Commission's failure to issue a license at that time was a taking of the Barnwell plant. Petitioners' claim is meritless because they knowingly assumed the investment risk that the Commission, acting within its statutory mandate, would not issue an operating permit when the plant reached completion. (17.10.18) The AEA (42 U.S.C. 2131) prohibits the operation of a nuclear fuel

reprocessing plant without a license from the Commission. When Congress adopted the AEA in 1954, it was aware that companies wishing to build nuclear facilities would have to make substantial investments in construction with no assurance of an operating permit. Congress enacted the law over the objection of witnesses who complained that "a company might invest large sums in construction of a (facility), and then be denied the right to operate it." Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electrical Workers, 367 U.S. 396, 410 (1961). Consequently, as this Court observed in Power Reactor Development Co., a holder of a construction permit is "on notice that it proceeds with construction at its own risk, and that all its funds may go for naught" (id. at 415 (emphasis added)). In McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 821 of 953

this case, petitioners "willingly accepted that risk, however great" (ibid). /4/ (17.10.19) Furthermore, petitioners had notice that the Commission has broad authority to

issue any order "to promote the common defense and security or to protect health or to minimize danger to life or property" (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)). And the Commission, in reviewing applications for operating licenses, is required under the AEA to deny the license if "the issuance of a license . . . would be inimical to the common defense and security . . . of the public" (42 U.S.C. 2133(d)). Thus, petitioners were fully aware that the Commission could deny an operating license on the ground that nuclear fuel reprocessing creates an unacceptable risk of the spread of nuclear weapons. Accordingly, the Commission's decision not to issue a permit to operate the Barnwell plant in the late 1970s, while the Commission studied the proliferation risk, was well within the range of the Commission's discretion as defined by the AEA and substantially advanced the statutory policies of the AEA. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. United States, supra. (17.10.20) Indeed, petitioners had particular notice of the risk associated with building the

Barnwell plant. Shortly after construction began in 1971, the Commission allowed petitioners to "proceed with construction at their own risk" while the Commission considered the environmental impact of the plant (36 Fed. Reg. 23333 (1971)). The Commission's review of the widespread implications of plutonium reprocessing continued throughout the 1970s. During that process, the Commission's attention was focused on the danger that the plutonium could be diverted and used to build nuclear weapons. See page 4, supra. Thus, the Commission's decision in late 1977 to suspend licensing proceedings on reprocessing facilities had deep and public roots. Petitioners' investment in the Barnwell plant was surely affected. But petitioners never had the right to use its Barnwell plant to reprocess nuclear fuel. The value of petitioners' investment in the facility was always dependent on petitioners securing an operating license. And petitioners "willingly accepted th(e) risk" (Power Reactor Development Co., 367 U.S. at 415) that the Commission would not issue such a license at the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 822 of 953

time of petitioners' choice. (17.10.21) This Court's decision in Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto, 467 U.S. 986 (1984), forecloses

petitioners' argument that its property has been taken. In Monsanto the Court addressed a claim that the government took Monsanto's property interest in trade secrets, submitted to the government by Monsanto to register its pesticides, when the government considered those secrets in evaluating other applications for registrations. The Court rejected the takings claim specifically on the ground that a federal statute authorized the government to use and disclose trade secrets admitted in connection with an application to register pesticides. The Court stated that "as long as Monsanto is aware of the conditions under which the (trade secret) data are submitted, . . . a voluntary submission of data by an applicant . . .can hardly be called a taking" (467 U.S. at 1007). (17.10.22) /5/ The Court observed that "Monsanto could not have had a reasonable,

investment-backed expectation that EPA would keep the data confidential beyond the limits prescribed in the . . . statute" (id.at 1006). /6/ See also Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 475 U.S. 211, 226-277 (1986) (prior notice weighs against the finding of a taking). (17.10.23) Here, petitioners built the Barnwell plant while they were fully "aware of the

conditions under which" (Monsanto, 467 U.S. at 1007) they could operate the plant. They were aware that the Commission, acting in accordance with the provisions of the AEA, might not issue an operating permit. Petitioners, therefore, "could not have had a reasonable, investment-backed expectation that" (id. at 1006) the Commission would necessarily permit operation of the plant once it was constructed. See generally Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 64-65 n.21 (1979) ("(t)he timing of acquisition of (property) is relevant to a takings analysis of (the owner's) investment-backed expectations"). Accordingly, the Commission's actions did not constitute a taking of petitioners' property. /7/ (17.10.24) 2. Petitioners primarily challenge (Pet. 12-16) an independent ground of the court McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 823 of 953

of appeals' judgment. They assert that the court of appeals erred in stating that there was no taking of petitioners' property because the Commission's moratorium on licensing nuclear fuel reprocessing plants was prompted by concerns for public safety and was designed to avoid a public nuisance -- i.e., the spread of nuclear weapons. Petitoners' assertion, however, is not squarely presented for review because the court of appeals' independent ground for its judgment, discussed in point 1, supra, is plainly correct. (17.10.24) In any event, the court of appeals' alternative reasoning is also supported by this

Court's precedents. In Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887), this Court considered a takings claim by owners of breweries. They claimed that their property had been taken when Kansas adopted a constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquors. In rejecting the takings claim, the Court stated: "A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for the public benefit" (id. at 668-669). (17.10.25) In Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, No. 85-1092 (Mar. 9, 1987),

slip op. 17, this Court rejected a claim that Mugler and its progeny had been implicitly overruled. The Court reaffirmed those decisions "which focus() so heavily on the nature of the (government's) interest in the regulation" (ibid.). Accordingly, the court of appeals followed this Court's decisions in Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n and Mugler in ruling that the Commission's actions, which were authorized by the AEA and were designed to protect the public from the spread of nuclear weapons, did not constitute a taking of private property. Cf. United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155 (1958) (government order closing gold mines during World War II was not a taking). /8/ CONCLUSION The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 824 of 953

Respectfully submitted. CHARLES FRIED Solicitor General JOHN R. BOLTON Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN DOUGLAS LETTER TERRENCE S. HARTMAN Attorneys AUGUST 1988 (17.10.26) /1/ The AEA created the Atomic Energy Commission to administer the statute. In 1975, Congress abolished the Atomic Energy Commission and created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to assume all licensing and related regulatory functions. See 42 U.S.C. 5814(a), 5841(f). We use the word "Commission" to refer to either the Atomic Energy Commission or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (17.10.27) /2/ The court of appeals ordered the Claims Court to dismiss petitioners' complaint

with prejudice (Pet. App. 12a). (17.10.28) /3/ The AEA expressly provides that the Commission must pay just

compensation if it occupies or operates a private nuclear facility. See 42 U.S.C. 2236(c), 2238. (17.10.29) /4/ We do not dispute that the Barnwell plant is property. But

that plant's value as a reprocessing facility has always been dependent on the Commission's issuance of a license. (17.10.30) /5/ The Court concluded that Monsanto did not have sufficient notice of the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 825 of 953

government's use of Monsanto's data for the period between October 22, 1972, and September 30, 1978. Thus, the Court held that the government's use of data submitted during that period may constitute a taking. See 467 U.S. at 1010-1014. (17.10.31) /6/ In Monsanto, the government appropriated private property but the Court held

that there was no taking because Monsanto knowingly accepted such appropriate in return for the benefit of a pesticide registration. In this case, petitioners similarly sought a license that would enhance the value of their property, but -- in contrast to the situation in Monsanto -- the government has not in any way appropriated any of petitioners' property. Thus, there plainly is no requirement that petitioners receive something of value in exchange for the Commission's decision not to issue an operating license in the late 1970s. (17.10.32) /7/ Contrary to petitioners' suggestion (Pet. 17-18), this Court's decision in United

States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (1985), is not inconsistent with this result. In Riverside, the Court observed that a taking may occur when a landowner is denied permission to put his land to any "productive use" (id. at 127 n.4). In this case, petitioners have not shown that they were denied all productive use of their land. Rather, they assert (Pet. 18-19) that the Barnwell plant's value was affected by the Commission's actions. But the plant's value as a reprocessing facility was always dependent on petitioners obtaining an operating license. Thus, unlike the situation contemplated in Riverside Bayview Homes, the plant never had an independent market value that was affected by the Commission's actons. (17.10.33) /8/ Petitioners argue (Pet. 15-16) that the Commission's actions cannot be justified

as designed to promote public safety and the nation's defense because President Reagan changed presidential policy in 1981 when he supported nuclear fuel reprocessing. As we have noted, however, petitioners have not renewed their efforts to obtain an operating license and have apparently abandoned the Barnwell project for economic reasons. See C.A. App. 317. Petitioners have not sought judicial McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 826 of 953

review of the Commission's actions since the Third Circuit's decision in Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. NRC, supra. And, of course, the mere fact that there has been a change of presidential policy does not mean that the preceding policies were not valid and lawful. For present purposes, therefore, the Court must assume that the Commission has always acted reasonably and within the confines of the AEA. See Reference 998. (17.11) I would like to respectfully suggest that the Court put an end to the threat of

reprocessing nuclear fuel in New Mexico or anywhere else in the United States, right now, to save tax payers an enormous amount of legal, health and environmental costs. (17.12) England and France, which once embraced this desperate 1940s wartime technology,

have recently rejected reprocessing nuclear fuel, and have started very expensive clean up efforts. (17.13) Since reprocessing has not been able to maintain its false image of safety in England

and France, they have been sending their reprocessing experts to the United States in an effort to use our land to do it here. Defendant and others working for EnergySolutions used to run Sellafield for British Nuclear Fuels. SECTION 18: Amended Revision of [19] MOTION to Disqualify, Recuse and/or Remove Judge Judith Herrera (18) I respectfully move the Court to disqualify, recuse, and, or, remove Judge Judith C.

Herrera from this case, because there is a substantial amount of information which makes evident an appearance of her conflict of interest with the Respondents of this case. I make this motion pursuant to: 28 U.S.C. 455(a), 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4), and the CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES: Canon 7; Canon 7(A)(3); Canon 3(C)(1)(a); Canon 3(C)(1)(b); Canon 3(C)(1)(e), and COMMENTARY of Canon 3, COMMENTARY of Canon 3(A)(1 which is as follows. (18.1) A reasonable person can understand that, if Judge Judith Herrera had put the time and

effort that would be necessary to prudently consider these facts in the matter of the Petitioners' (Plaintiffs) Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction, which was filed for the purpose McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 827 of 953

of seeking injunctive relief from the threats that are posed by the Defendants as the Defendants are promoting reprocessing spent nuclear fuel with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), she would have become aware of the culpability held by Senator Pete Domenici and President George W. Bush. (18.2) It could be argued that, because reprocessing nuclear fuel is a major part of the

Republican platform, a person, who has contributed as much money to the Republican Party as Judge Herrera, would either believe the false and misleading rhetoric of Senator Domenici and President Bush, while they have described nuclear energy as being "clean," "safe," and "emissions free" or believe that disregarding civil rights and human life, and sacrificing humans are acceptable behaviors. But, this argument could be rebutted with the fact that, even though reprocessing nuclear fuel is a major part of the Republican platform, many Republicans, Democrats and members of less powerful political parties really don't pay attention to their parties' platforms, as long as less insidious issues are addressed. There are many Republicans, Democrats and members of less powerful political parties who have fallen into the trap of believing the nuclear industry's false and misleading rhetoric. There are also Republicans, Democrats and members of less powerful political parties who believe that it is acceptable to disregard civil rights and human life, and acceptable to sacrifice humans in ways that match the result of Senator Domenici's and President Bush's Nuclear Renaissance with reprocessing nuclear fuel, burying radioactive waste in a place like WIPP where the corrosive brine will eventually cause devastating consequences, and other deadly practices that involve uranium, like: large scale mining, milling, enrichment, and dumping waste. But certain facts still remain, which include the following: (18.2.1) There is what appears to be credible information, which says that Judge Herrera paid

money to promote the Republican Party before and after she became a federal district judge. (18.2.2) There is information published by Senator Domenici, by President Bush, and by

people who have been working for them, which makes clear that they are promoting the Nuclear McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 828 of 953

Renaissance, with its GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor. (18.2.3) Money paid to promote the Republican Party has been spent to promote Senator

Domenici and President Bush. This has caused Judge Herrera's money to be spent on promoting the Nuclear Renaissance with its GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor. (18.2.4) The original [1] Petition is seeking injunctive relief from the GNEP nuclear fuel

reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor: the project that Judge Herrera has been spending her money to promote. (18.2.4) There is credible information, which says that Senator Domenici nominated Judith

Herrera to her current position of District Judge. (18.2.5) There is credible information, which says that President Bush appointed Judith

Herrera to her current position of District Judge. (18.2.6) The end of the list of Respondents on the original [1] Petition says: "...All Others

Culpable for this Matter..." (18.2.7) By the time the Court properly convenes a grand jury, Mr. Pete V. Domenici and Mr.

George W. Bush will no longer be in positions of authority, and they are the most culpable persons listed as Respondents (Defendants) so far, which makes them Defendants. (18.2.8) I presented the fact that Mr. Pete V. Domenici and Mr. George W. Bush are

Defendants to Judge Judith Herrera, and that her being nominated and appointed to her current position of District Judge by Defendants in this case is conflict of interest that disqualifies her from presiding over this case. Her response is as follows: (18.2.8.1) I received an email From: cmecfbb@nmcourt.fed.us[;] Sent: Tue 1/06/09 5:06

PM[;] To: cmecfto@nmcourt.fed.us [I must be on the Bcc list] Activity in Case 1:07-cv-00912-JCHLAM McKinnon v. Spurgeon et al Order Dismissing Case[:] (18.2.8.2) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 829 of 953

DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. (18.2.8.3) ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United

States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. (18.2.8.4) U.S. District Court[;] District of New Mexico - Version 3.2.1[;] Notice of

Electronic Filing[;] The following transaction was entered on 1/6/2009 at 5:00 PM MST and filed on 1/6/2009[;] Case Name: McKinnon v. Spurgeon et al[;] Case Number: 1:07-cv-912 Filer[;] WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/06/2009[;] Document Number: 22 (18.2.8.5) Docket Text: ORDER by District Judge Judith C. Herrera granting [15] Motion to

Dismiss filed by Mike Marley, denying [19] MOTION to Disqualify Judge ad Motion to Strike Memorandum Opinion and Order #14 and dismissing this matter with prejudice (baw) (18.2.8.6) (18.2.8.6.1) (18.2.8.6.2) (18.2.8.6.3) (18.2.8.6.4) (18.2.8.6.5) (18.2.8.6.6) (18.2.8.7) 1:07-cv-912 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Pete Domenici, Jr pdomenici@domenicilaw.com R. Nelson Franse nfranse@rodey.com, gsedillo@rodey.com Lorraine Hollingsworth lhollingsworth@domenicilaw.com Frank McKinnon mckinnon89@hotmail.com Andrew A Smith andrew.smith@usdoj.gov, andrew.smith6@usdoj.gov, efile_nrs.enrd@usdoj.gov 1:07-cv-912 Notice has been delivered by fax to: [;] 1:07-cv-912 Notice has been

delivered by USPS to: [;] The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:[;] Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a[;] Electronic document Stamp: McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 830 of 953

[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1167529506 [Date=1/6/2009] [FileNumber=2040990-0] 5233bb53d19cbb40eb8f71373b2cfd77a17807013403104d5d1096e3c09766f9161d f7a97c3cbbc039ffcf2f8c58ab24bca7c590aa0c684273da7646a315987c]] (18.2.9) (18.2.9.1) I also received this email, which says the following: From: cmecfbb@nmcourt.fed.us[;] Sent: Tue 1/06/09 5:06 PM[;]

To: cmecfto@nmcourt.fed.us[;] Activity in Case 1:07-cv-00912-JCH-LAM McKinnon v. Spurgeon et al Judgment (18.2.9.2) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please

DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. (18.2.9.3) ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United

States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. (18.2.9.4) U.S. District Court[;] District of New Mexico - Version 3.2.1[;] Notice of

Electronic Filing[;] The following transaction was entered on 1/6/2009 at 5:04 PM MST and filed on 1/6/2009[;] Case Name: McKinnon v. Spurgeon et al[;] Case Number: 1:07-cv-912[;] Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/06/2009[;] Document Number: 23 (18.2.9.5) Docket Text[;] FINAL JUDGMENT by District Judge Judith C. Herrera (baw)[;]

1:07-cv-912 Notice has been electronically mailed to: (18.2.9.5.1) (18.2.9.5.2) (18.2.9.5.3) Pete Domenici, Jr pdomenici@domenicilaw.com R. Nelson Franse nfranse@rodey.com, gsedillo@rodey.com Lorraine Hollingsworth lhollingsworth@domenicilaw.com McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 831 of 953

(18.2.9.5.4) (18.2.9.5.5) (18.2.9.5.5) (18.2.9.5.7)

Frank McKinnon mckinnon89@hotmail.com Andrew A Smith andrew.smith@usdoj.gov, andrew.smith6@usdoj.gov, efile_nrs.enrd@usdoj.gov 1:07-cv-912 Notice has been delivered by fax to: [;] 1:07-cv-912 Notice has

been delivered by USPS to: [;] The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: [;] Document description:Main Document[;] Original filename:n/a[;] Electronic[;] document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1167529506 [Date=1/6/2009] [FileNumber=2041010-0][;] [83b96d062b98a146ad39db427e0ba9618b48c4bf34984c6e0c32c5c4b48d8c040138 ca37e254975407d210af9eba48241c4dbbcd569e5b9a2dedfdb2afa9a481]] (18.2.10) I was working on this Amended Revision of [19] MOTION, when I received the

above email message. As mentioned earlier in Section 1: 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. (18.2.10.1) (18.2.10.1.1) (18.2.10.1.2) 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. (18.2.10.2) 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 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 832 of 953

defendant affected thereby; and, if the parties so stipulate, the court may vacate any judgment that has been entered. (18.2.10.3) 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 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. (18.2.10.4) Effect. Except as otherwise provided in the notice, or stipulation of dismissal, or

order of the court, any dismissal is without prejudice. (18.2.11) 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. (18.2.12) 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 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 833 of 953

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 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. (18.2.13) 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. (18.2.14) 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. (18.2.15) 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. (18.2.16) While considering 71A(f) as presented in Subsection (18.2.8) through (18.2.15) and

considering Rule 38 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, which says: "(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 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 834 of 953

demand which may be included in a pleading no later than 10 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served..., I continued working on this Amended Revision of [19] MOTION, with a goal of filing within 10 days after January 6, when Judge Judith Herrera committed the unlawful acts of continuing to preside over this case and filing Documents 22 and 23. (18.2.17) On the January 15, 2009, the 9th day, I attempted to obtain the Documents 22 and

23, so that I could include a response to them in this Amended Revision of [19] MOTION. I was able to log in to CM/ECF electronic filing system. But I was unable to obtain any documents. To make sure that I could at least file this document, I immediately called and left a message for Debbie Wheeler (Case Administrator) to call me back. Fortunately, she received the message, called me back, and agreed to let me email this Amended Revision of [19] MOTION to her so that it could be filed.. (18.2.18) Because there is no more time to figure out why I am blocked from obtaining

documents through the CM/ECF system, and considering the titles of the above mentioned email messages, I will assume that Judge Herrera was not sending me an apology for her illegal act of writing and filing [14] Memorandum of Opinion and Order. (18.2.18) Without reading the content of Judge Herrera's Documents 22 and 24, and just

going by the email messages titles and Docket Text: (1) "WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/06/2009[;] Document Number: 22 [;] Docket Text: ORDER by District Judge Judith C. Herrera granting [15] Motion to Dismiss filed by Mike Marley, denying [19] MOTION to Disqualify Judge ad Motion to Strike Memorandum Opinion and Order #14 and dismissing this matter with prejudice (baw)" and (2) "WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/06/2009[;] Document Number: 23[;] Docket Text[;] FINAL JUDGMENT by District Judge Judith C. Herrera (baw), it appears that Judge Herrera has attempted to dismiss this matter "with prejudice." (18.2.19) I must reiterate, here, that Rule 71A(f) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures says:

Without leave of court, the plaintiff may amend the complaint at any time before the trial of the issue McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 835 of 953

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. (18.2.19.1) (18.2.19.1.1) (18.2.19.1.2) 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. (18.2.19.2) 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. (18.2.19.3) 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 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. (18.2.19.4) Effect. Except as otherwise provided in the notice, or stipulation of dismissal, or

order of the court, any dismissal is without prejudice. (18.2.20) 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 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 836 of 953

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. (18.2.21) 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 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. (18.2.22) 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 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 837 of 953

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. (18.2.23) 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. (18.2.24) 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. It is unreasonable and illegal for Judge Herrera to issue an Order for Plaintiffs to give up this property. (18.2.25) (18.2.25.1) (18.2.25.2) The compensation that Plaintiffs are seeking is as follows: Plaintiffs' 14th Amendment rights of due process and equal protection of the law. Victims' Rights as stated in 18 U.S.C. 3771, which is as follows:

(a) RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS.--A crime victim has the following rights: (18.2.25.2.1) (18.2.25.2.2) (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. (2) 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. (18.2.25.2.3) (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. (18.2.25.2.4) (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district

court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding. (18.2.25.2.5) case. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 838 of 953 (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the

(18.2.25.2.6) (18.2.25.2.7) (18.2.25.2.8) and privacy. (18.2.25.2.9)

(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity

(b) 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). 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 the victim from the criminal proceeding. The reasons for any decision denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on the record. (18.2.25.2.10) (18.2.25.2.11) (c) BEST EFFORTS TO ACCORD RIGHTS.-(1) 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). (18.2.25.2.12) (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). (18.2.25.2.13) (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. (18.2.25.2.13) (18.2.25.2.15) (d) ENFORCEMENT AND LIMITATIONS.-(1) RIGHTS.--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 person accused of the crime may not obtain any form of relief under this chapter. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 839 of 953

(18.2.25.2.16)

(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. (18.2.25.2.17) (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 victim's 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. (18.2.25.2.18) (4) ERROR.--In any appeal in a criminal case, the Government may assert as

error the district court's denial of any crime victim's right in the proceeding to which the appeal relates. (18.2.25.2.19) (5) LIMITATION ON RELIEF.--In no case shall a failure to afford a right under

this chapter provide grounds for a 2263 new trial. A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or sentence only if-(18.2.25.2.20) (A) the victim has asserted the right to be heard before or during the proceeding

at issue and such right was denied; (18.2.25.2.21) days; and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 840 of 953 (B) the victim petitions the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus within 10

(18.2.25.2.22)

(C) in the case of a plea, the accused has not pled to the highest offense

charged. This paragraph does not affect the victim's right to restitution as provided in title 18, United States Code. (18.2.25.2.23) (6) NO CAUSE OF ACTION.--Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to

authorize a cause of action for damages or to create, to enlarge, or to imply any duty or obligation to any victim or other person for the breach of which the United States or any of its officers or employees could be held liable in damages. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction. (18.2.25.2.24) (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 victim's estate, family members, or any other persons appointed as suitable by the court, may assume the crime victim's rights under this chapter, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such guardian or representative. (18.2.25.2.25) (18.2.25.2.26) (f) PROCEDURES TO PROMOTE COMPLIANCE.-(1) REGULATIONS.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this

chapter, the Attorney General of the United States shall promulgate regulations to enforce the rights of crime victims and to ensure compliance by responsible officials with the obligations described in law respecting crime victims. (18.2.25.2.27) (18.2.25.2.28) (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; (18.2.25.2.29) (B) require a course of training for employees and offices of the Department of

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 841 of 953

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; (18.2.25.2.30) (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 (18.2.25.2.31) (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." NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION (18.2.25.32) This case was removed from state court and placed in federal district court,

because there is a CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. The Constitutional Question that the Court recognized was: Do the Defendants have the authority to deprive Plaintiffs of our 14th Amendment rights of due process and equal protection of the law? Judge Judith Herrera's [14] Memorandum gives her the appearance of not really wanting to understand how the Plaintiffs' rights of due process and equal protection of the law are being violated. (18.2.25.33) Another Constitutional question that should be recognized by the Court

is: Do the Defendants have the authority to behave in a way that gives Plaintiffs good reason to suffer emotional distress and reasonable fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death? (18.2.25.34) Judge Herrera has caused three more Constitutional questions to become a part of

this case when she says that (1) Plaintiffs are denied injunctive relief, because Plaintiffs are common people of the vulgar masses and the lower rank of man and (2) when she says that the NEPA justifies the Defendants behavior as she illegally wrote and illegally filed [14] MEMORANDUM of Opinion and Order, which are now stated as follows: McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 842 of 953

(18.2.25.34.1) (18.2.25.34.2)

Do common people of the United States have Constitutional rights. Since the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as it is currently

amended, provides permits that are used for avoiding liability by people that produce, store, and/or use hazardous and/or radioactive materials, which has resulted in permitting and allowing people to maim and kill other people without facing consequences, is the NEPA (as it is currently amended) Constitutional? (18.2.25.4) TITLE 28 App. FEDERAL II. Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute

says the following (quotation marks omitted): (18.2.25.4.1) (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: (18.2.25.4.2) (1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying

the paper that raises it, if: (18.2.25.4.3) (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 (18.2.25.4.4) (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 (18.2.25.4.5) (2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a

federal statute is challengedor on the state attorney general if a state statute is challengedeither by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose. (18.2.25.4.6) (b) 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. (18.2.25.4.7) (c) Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits. Unless the court sets a later time, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 843 of 953

the attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice of constitutional question 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. (18.2.25.4.8) (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. (18.2.25.4.9) (18.2.25.5) See Reference 1. The first Constitutional question has not been addressed by an impartial judge. It

has not been addressed by the United States Attorney General. Needless to say, but the same circumstances surrounding the second, third, and fourth Constitutional questions. (18.2.25.6) judge. (18.2.26) WHEREFORE, even if Judge Herrera's act of presiding over a case with Defendants Plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to have our case heard by an impartial

being the people who gave her the job of being the Judge was legal , she could not dismiss this case with prejudice. (18.2.27) THEREFORE, I will continue this Amended Revision of [19] MOTION with the following: (18.3) 28 U.S.C. 455(a) to says that any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the

United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. I respectfully point out to the Court that there is a substantial amount of credible information which makes evident that Judge Judith Herrera's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and that the only legal remedy is for the Court to disqualify, recuse, and, or remove her from this case. In addition to, and potentially in reiteration of, pertinent information that has been presented in Sections 1 through 17, and subsection (18.2), I respectfully submit the following: McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 844 of 953

(18.3.1)

A reasonable person can understand that, if Judge Judith Herrera had put the time

and effort that would be necessary to prudently consider the facts in the matter of [1) Petition, which was filed for the purpose of seeking injunctive relief from the threats that are posed by the Defendants, while the Defendants are promoting reprocessing nuclear fuel with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), she would have certainly become aware of the culpability held by Senator Pete Domenici and President George W. Bush. The original [19] MOTION pointed out to Judge Herrera the fact that Senator Domenici and President Bush are Defendants in this case. It pointed out the fact that the way in which she obtained her current position of District Judge gives her an appearance of conflict of interest. It pointed the fact that her financial relationship with Senator Pete Domenici, President \ George W. Bush, and the Republican Party would give her an appearance of conflict of interest in this Court case. The only change in this amended revision is the fact that Judge Herrera has attempted to place herself and the Defendants above the law by continuing to preside over this case, while she attempted to dismiss and close this case while saying it was being done with prejudice. (18.3.2) By the time a grand jury is properly set up to hear this case, Mr. Domenici and Mr.

Bush will no longer be in positions of authority, but the damage they have done will still be here. Mr. Domenici and Mr. Bush have set things up so that, unless Justice is properly served, people all over New Mexico will very like face a lot of unnecessary sickness, death and sadness. Furthermore, if Justice is not properly served, there will be nothing stopping the next dishonest, inconsiderate, irresponsible, politician from doing the same as Mr. Domenici and Mr. Bush have done. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is supposed to play a part in protecting the People of New Mexico from harm. Justice cannot be properly served with a judge, who was nominated and appoint to the judgeship by the Defendants, is presiding over a case involves threats if bodily injury, property damage, and death. (18.4) A document entitled: Money Trails to the Federal Bench, published by the Center McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 845 of 953

for Investigative Reporting, says the following (quotation marks omitted): (18.4.1) (18.4.2) (18.4.3) Herrera, Judith C.[,] U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico Nominated: September 23, 2003 | Confirmed: June 3, 2004 Summary: A former attorney in private practice, Herrera contributed $2,000 to the

Republican Campaign Committee of New Mexico in 2001. Using her married name, Judy Baird, she gave $300 more to the federal Republican committee on September 23, 2003, the day of her nomination. Herrera also gave $500 to a Democrats congressional campaign in 1999-2000. (18.4.4) (18.4.4.1) Chronology: Jan. 15, 2001: The Albuquerque Tribune reports that Herrera is being mentioned

as a possible candidate for a district judgeship. (18.4.4.2) April 5, 2001: The Republican Campaign Committee of New Mexico receives

$2,000 from Herrera. (18.4.4.3) May 30, 2003: Herrera is asked to submit a resume to Sen. Domenici to be

considered for a judgeship. (18.4.4.4) (18.4.4.5) Sept. 23, 2003: Bush nominates Herrera The Republican Campaign Committee of New Mexico, which supports federal

candidates, receives $300 from Herrera, under her married name, Judy Baird. (18.4.4.6) (18.5) See Reference 9.

A web site called govtrack.us a civic project to track Congress, says the following

(quotation marks omitted): (18.5.1) Congress>>Congressional Record>>June 3, 2004...NOMINATION OF

JUDITH C. HERRERA TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE...The United States Senate... Jun 3, 2004...Section 18...Record Text...See Reference 8. (18.5.2) Chair: The Clerk will report the next nomination. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 846 of 953

(18.5.3) (18.5.4)

Sen. Pete Domenici [R-NM]: Mr. President, I rise in support of a New Mexican named Judith Herrera to be

United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico. I believe everyone knows that the administration of justice is one of the most significant pillars of good government. I think in this instance the President has sent us an extraordinary person to be a judge in the District of New Mexico (18.5.5) We have a vacancy there because of a justice who took senior status. We have a

tremendous overload, and I am very pleased that we finally got to the point where we could have another judge. Maybe we can begin to take care of this enormous overload. I thank everyone who worked on this nomination. Her credentials are impeccable. Every group that needed to recommended her. (18.5.6) New Mexico. (18.5.7) law degree. (18.5.8) We, in New Mexico, are fortunate that Judy decided to return to New Mexico upon She then attended the Georgetown University Law Center where she earned her Judith Herrera is a resident of Santa Fe, NM. She attended the University of

completion of her law degree. (18.5.9) She began her career in public service shortly after returning to New Mexico,

serving on the Santa Fe City Council from 1981 to 1986. (18.5.10) She continued her service by sitting on the boards of St. Vincent Hospital in

Santa Fe, St. Michael's High School Foundation, also in Santa Fe, and the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. (18.5.11) She has practiced law for more than 20 years in New Mexico, amassing in

impressive resume and reputation in the legal community. (18.5.12) I am confident she will be an outstanding member of the federal judiciary. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 847 of 953

(18.5.13) (18.5.14) (18.5.15) (18.5.16)

I look forward to Judy Herrera's tenure on the bench. Chair: The Senator from New Mexico. Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D-NM] Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Domenici, in urging the Senate to

support this nomination. Judith Herrera is very qualified. I compliment the President for nominating her for this position. I compliment my colleague for recommending that nomination. She will serve us well on the district court in New Mexico. (18.5.17) Ms. Herrera began her career as a prosecutor, and has spent many years in private

practice. Currently, she is a partner at Herrera, Long, Pound & Komer in Santa Fe, NM. She has also served on the Santa Fe City Council and on the University of New Mexico's Board of Regents. Mrs. Herrera has served with distinction in all of these positions. (18.5.18) (18.5.19) (18.5.20) I urge my fellow Senators to support her nomination. Sen. Orin Hatch [R-UT]: Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the confirmation of

Judith Herrera, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. (18.5.21) Ms. Herrera is an exceptional nominee and has a distinguished record of service

in both the private and public sectors. After graduating from Georgetown Law School, Ms. Herrera worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Santa Fe, New Mexico where she prosecuted a variety of misdemeanor and felony offenses. She later entered the private sector and practiced in the areas of education and employment law. (18.5.22) Ms. Herrera distinguished herself as one of the most effective advocates in New

Mexico for employers defending wrongful discharge and discrimination cases. She later founded her own law firm, and currently serves as shareholder and president of that firm. Ms. Herrera has also McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 848 of 953

served the local community of Santa Fe in a variety of ways. She was a member of the Santa Fe City Council, the Board of Trustees for St. Vincent Hospital, and the Board of Regents for the University of New Mexico. Ms. Herrera's broad experience as a trial attorney and her many hours of community service have prepared her for the challenges she will face as a Federal judge. I am confident that she will make a fine addition to the federal bench in the District of New Mexico. (18.6) The fact that Judge Judith Herrera was nominated by one Defendant (Mr. Pete

Domenici) and appointed by another Defendant (Mr. George W. Bush) makes Judge Judith Herrera's impartiality reasonably questioned. (18.7) 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4) says that a judge shall also disqualify himself if He knows

that he...has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding... I must respectfully state here that, if Judge Herrera didn't know before, she knows now. (18.8) Canon 7 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges says that A JUDGE

SHOULD REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITY. (18.9) Canon 7 (A)(3) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges is that it says that a

Judge should not make a contribution to a political organization or candidate... (18.10) Canon 3(C)(1)(b) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges is that it says that

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: the judge knows that the judge...has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding. (18.11) Canon 3(C)(1)(e) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges is that it says that

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which the judge has served in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 849 of 953

governmental employment...or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy. (18.12) COMMENTARY of Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges is that

it says that The duty under Canon 2 to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge's activities, including the discharge of the judge's adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. For example, the duty to be respectful of others includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that can reasonably be interpreted as manifesting prejudice... (18.13) COMMENTARY Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges says that

A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY. (18.14) COMMENTARY Canon 3(A)(1) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

says that A judge should be faithful to and maintain professional competence in the law, and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism. (18.15) WHEREFORE, I respectfully move the Court to disqualify, recuse, and remove

Judge Judith Herrera from this case. SECTION 19: Amended Revision of [19] MOTION to Strike [14] Memorandum OPINION and ORDER and Any Perceived Authority held by Judge Judith Herrera (19) I respectfully move the Court to strike Judge Judith Herrera's [14] MEMORANDUM of

Opinion and Order, and to strike any perception or information, which is said in any forum or written in any document that gives her Opinion and Order, or any other decision, order, or comment regarding this case, made by Judge Judith Herrera, any credibility. I make this motion, pursuant to all information in this Amended Revision of [19] MOTION, in addition to, and, or in reiteration of, the following: Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution; 28 U.S.C. 455(a); 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4), 28 U.S.C. 455(5)(ii)(iii), 28 U.S.C. 455( c ), 28 U.S.C. 455(d)(4), 18 U.S.C. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 850 of 953

19 371; Code of Conduct for United States Judges: Canon 1; Canon 2; Canon 2(A); COMMENTARY of Canon 2(A); Canon 2(B); Canon 3; Canon 3(A)(1); Canon 3(B)(3); Canon 7(A)(3); 18 U.S.C. 211, which is as follows: (19.1) A reasonable person can understand that Judge Judith Herrera would have come across

enough information regarding her appearance of conflict of interest within minutes of studying the matter of the Petitioners Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction to give her reason to understand that she has an appearance of conflict of interest with this case. Furthermore, a reasonable person can understand that it would not have taken very long in reading through 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges for Judge Judith Herrera to understand that she would be required to automatically recuse herself from this case. (19.2) A reasonable person can understand that it is a well established that Judge Judith

Herrera's appearance of conflict of interest might reasonably be questioned in this case. But a reasonable person knows that a conclusion, about her appearance of being in collusion with the Respondents, should not be made, even if there is a substantial amount credible evidence, unless there are no other possible conclusions. So, although there is a substantial amount of of credible evidence which makes the appearance of Judge Judith Herrera being in collusion with the Respondents, while the Respondents are defrauding, and stealing the future from, the People and Government of the United States, a reasonable person cannot, at this point, conclude that Judge Judith Herrera was aware of her conflict of interest when she wrote, issued, or filed her [14 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. But, a reasonable person understands that, if Judge Judith Herrera was aware of her appearance of conflict of interest prior to her writing, issuing, or filing, her [14] MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order, she would be in collusion with the Respondents as they are defrauding, and stealing the future from, the People and Government of the United States and committing several other federal crimes. (19.3) Petitioners (Plaintiffs) respect the civil rights that are granted in the United States McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 851 of 953

Constitution, and believe that, even though Judge Judith Herrera clearly believes Petitioners, and the rest of the people living in southeastern New Mexico, should be excluded from these civil rights, she should not be denied her rights to due process and equal protection of the law as I understand the 14th Amendment to say that ...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. Therefore, I make no motion or request for the Court to force Judge Judith Herrera to incriminate herself, because I believe that the Fifth Amendment grants her to right to avoid self incrimination. (19.4) If you go back a few pages in this amended revision of [19] motion you will see

information which makes evident that Judge Judith Herrera may have been overwhelmed by her caseload, which may have caused her to be prohibited from spending the time that it would take to understand the facts in the matter of the [1] Petition in the text record of the United States Senate to have Senator Pete Domenici saying We have a tremendous overload, and I am very pleased that we finally got to the point where we could have another judge. as he is recommending Judge Judith Herrera's appointment to her current position of District Judge. (19.5) Considering Senator Pete Domenici's statement in the above paragraph, a reasonable

person can understand how it may have been possible that Judge Judith Herrera have been overwhelmed by her caseload, which may have prohibited her from spending the time it would take for her to understand the facts in the matter of the [1] Petition. This would have made it possible for her not to be aware of her conflict of interest with the Respondents of this case when she wrote, issued and filed her [14] Memorandum. (19.6) A reasonable person, who has, prudently, studied the the facts in the matter of the

[1] Petition, can understand that Judge Judith Herrera did not spend much time considering the facts of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 852 of 953

this matter. (19.7) Regardless of whether or not Judge Judith Herrera was aware of her conflict of interest

when she wrote, issued, and filed her [14] Memorandum, a reasonable person, who has studied the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, can understand that Judge Judith Herrera had no authority to make any official Opinion or Order in this case, and can understand that she will never have such authority in this case. (19.8) I respectfully submit information which makes evident that Judge Judith Herrera's acts

of issuing and, or, filing her [14] Memorandum were illegal acts, which make it an illegal document, as I respectfully move the Court to strike Judge Judith Herrera's [14] Memorandum, and to strike any perception or information, which is said in any forum or written in any document that gives her Opinion and Order any credibility, pursuant to all information in this amended revision of [19] Motion, in addition to, and, or the reiteration of the following: (19.9) Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges says that A JUDGE

SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. (19.10) Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges says that A JUDGE

SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES. (19.11) Petitioners' understanding is that Canon 2(A) of the Code of Conduct for United

States Judges says that A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (19.12) Canon 2(A) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges says that A judge

should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment... (19.13) COMMENTARY of Canon 2(A) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

says that ...Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 853 of 953

judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.....The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. ..The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired... (19.14) COMMENTARY Canon 2(B) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges says

that ...a judge should not use the judge's judicial position to gain advantage in litigation involving a friend or a member of the judge's family... (19.15) COMMENTARY Canon 3(B)(3) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

says that A judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomes aware of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of unprofessional conduct by a judge... (19.16) 18 U.S.C. 211 is that it says that Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political

contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both... Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both... (19.17) 28 U.S.C. 455(5)(ii)(iii) is that it says that He shall also disqualify himself if

He...[i]s known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. (19.18) WHEREFORE, since it has been established that Judge Judith Herrera has the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 854 of 953

appearance of conflict of interest, and that she did not spend much time working on this case, she has no authority or right to have any authority in this case. With this in mind, Petitioners respectfully move the Court to strike Judge Judith Herrera's MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, and to strike any perception or information, which is said in any forum or written in any document that gives her Opinion and Order, or any other decision, order, or comment regarding this case, made by Judge Judith Herrera, any credibility. SECTION 20: Amended Revision of [19] MOTION to Have an Impartial District Judge Preside Over this Case (20) I respectfully move the Court to assign this case to an impartial judge, pursuant to the

following: Code of Conduct for United States Judges: COMMENTARY for Canon 1, Canon 2(A), COMMENTARY of Canon 2(A), Canon 3, which is as follows: (20.1) COMMENTARY for Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges says:

Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they should comply with the law, as well as the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law. (20.2) Canon 2(A) of the Code of Conduct of United States Judges says: A judge should

respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (20.3) COMMENTARY for Canon 2(A) of the Conduct of United States Judges to says:

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety... A judge must ... accept restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. The McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 855 of 953

prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. (20.4) Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct of United States Judges to says: A JUDGE

SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY. (20.5) WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully move the Court to assign this case to an

impartial judge. SECTION 21: Political Contributions Related to this Case: (21) The fact that Judge Judith Herrera was nominated by Senator Pete V. Domenici and

appointed by President George W. Bush is enough conflict of interest to justify Plaintiffs demanding proper public service from the Court, which would be to disqualify, recuse, and/or remove her from presiding over this case, to strike all of her Opinions and Orders, and to provide the Plaintiffs with an impartial District Judge to preside over this case. But the political campaign contributions related to this case will help the Grand Jury and U.S Prosecuting Attorney better understand the insidiousness of the crimes being committed by the Defendants. The following information is only the tip of the ice burg regarding political campaign contributions related to the fraudulent and threatening behavior of the Defendants. (21.1) An web page has an article entitled: So How Will Hatch Spend All That Cash?

Deseret News > Salt Lake City > December 12, 2006, which says: And [Senator Orin Hatch] had to refund contributions from some well-known Utahns who donated in excess of FEC rules, including banker Spence Eccles ($3,800), and the son of Steve Creamer ($800), head of EnergySolutions, formerly Envirocare. See Reference 7. (21.2) According to a web page entitled: NEWS MEAT AMERICA'S MOST

POPULAR CAMPAIGN DONER SEARCH ENGINE, Senator Orin Hatch received a campaign contribution of $1,000.00 from Charles Judd of Envirocare in 1999. See Reference 6. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 856 of 953

(21.3)

A web page entitled: CampaignMoney.com says that the Hatch Campaign

Committee received $500.00 from Kenneth Lee Alkema of Envirocare in 2000. See Reference 5. (21.4) A web page has an article entitled: Envirocare owner assumes positions of

president, CEO , Deseret News > Salt Lake City > July 17, 2003 says: Envirocare owner Khosrow B. Semnani has assumed the positions of president and chief executive officer of the company. Semnani takes over from Dwayne Nielson, who has resigned as president and CEO effective immediately, according to a company statement Tuesday. Nielson has accepted a position on the Envirocare board of directors. Semnani will continue to serve as chairman of the Envirocare board, as well as president of SK Hart Management and the Semnani Foundation. See Reference 4. (21.5) CampaignMoney.com published that Khosrow B. Semnani of SK HART

MANAGEMENT contributed $1,750 to the Hatch Election Committee, contributed $1,000 to Bush for President Inc., and contibuted $200.00 to McCain 2000 Inc. in 2000. See Reference 3. (21.6) CampaignMoney.com published a web page entitled: "Khosrow Semnani

Political Campaign Contributions 2008 Election Cycle" says the following (quotation marks omitted):
Name & Location Semnani, Khosrow SALT LAKE CITY, UT84111 Employer/Occupation SK Hart/President Dollar Amount $1,000 Date 07/05/2008 Contibuted To ROB BISHOP FOR CONGRESS - Republican CANNON FOR CONGRESS - Republican MCCAIN VICTORY 2008 Republican

Semnani, Khosrow B. SALT LAKE CITY, UT Sk Hart 84111 Management/Owner SEMNANI, KHOSROW B. MR. SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84147 SEMNANI, KHOSROW B SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84147 SEMNANI, KHOSROW B SK HART MR SALT LAKE CITY, UT MANAGEMENT/ 84147 PRESIDENT SK HART MANAGEMENT/ EXECUTIVE

$2,000

06/21/2008

$1,000

06/09/2008

$-2,300

03/31/2008

JOHN MCCAIN 2008 INC. - Republican NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE - Republican

$28,500

03/12/2008

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 857 of 953

Semnani, Khosrow Mr. SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 Semnani, Khosrow B. Mr. SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 SEMNANI, KHOSROW SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101

Envirocare of Utah/Owner SK Hart Management/ President

$500

01/23/2008

UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY (FEDERAL ACCOUNT) - Republican RON PAUL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE - Republican FRED THOMPSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE - Republican NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE - Republican ROB BISHOP FOR CONGRESS - Republican UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY (FEDERAL ACCOUNT) - Republican JOHN MCCAIN 2008 INC. - Republican JOHN MCCAIN 2008 INC. - Republican

$500

01/16/2008

S.K. HART MANAGEMENT LLC/BUSINESS O

$1,000

11/28/2007

SEMNANI, KHOSROW SK HART MR SALT LAKE CITY, UT MANAGEMENT/ 84147 PRESIDENT Semnani, Khosrow SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 Semnani, Khosrow MR. SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 SK Hart/President

$25,000

10/12/2007

$400

09/04/2007

Envirocare of Utah/Owner

$5,000

06/07/2007

SEMNANI, KHOSROW B. SK HART MR. SALT LAKE CITY, UT MANAGEMENT/ 84147 EXECUTIVE SEMNANI, KHOSROW B. SK HART MR. SALT LAKE CITY, UT MANAGEMENT/ 84147 EXECUTIVE SEMNANI, KHOSROW B. SK HART MR. SALT LAKE CITY, UT MANAGEMENT/ 84147 EXECUTIVE SEMNANI, KHOSROW B SELF-EMPLOYED/ MR.SALT LAKE CITY, UT BUSINESS OWNER 84147 Semnani, Khosrow MR. SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 Semnani, Khosrow SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84147 Envirocare of Utah/Owner Information Requested

$-2,300

05/29/2007

$2,300

05/29/2007

$4,600

03/30/2007

JOHN MCCAIN 2008 INC. - Republican

ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT INC. Republican UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY (FEDERAL ACCOUNT) - Republican BROWNBACK FOR PRESIDENT INC Republican

$2,300

03/19/2007

$1,500

01/18/2007

$500

02/17/2005

See Reference 1,003. (21.7) A web page published by Friends of the Earth, November 4, 2003, Volume VIII, says

the following (quotation marks omitted): (21.7.1) Power Politics: Linking Congress, Campaign Contributions and Energy Policy

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 858 of 953

(21.7.2)

The Nuclear Power Renaissance [:] Twenty-four years after Three Mile Island,

17 years after Chernobyl, and two years after discovering that terrorists were planning to target U.S. nuclear power facilities, Congress is attempting to resurrect the nuclear power industry. Under President Bushs National Energy Policy and an energy bill being debated by a House-Senate conference committee, nuclear power would receive a $4 billion cash infusion, as well as other yet-tobe released subsidies to encourage new nuclear power plant construction. (21.7.3) Background[:] For more than 50 years, the nuclear power industry has been the

recipient of significant federal support. Since 1948, the federal government has spent $73.4 billion on research and development for the nuclear power industry. Congress also wrote the Price-Anderson Act, which caps the liability of the nuclear power industry at $10 billion in the event of an accident. Studies conducted by the governments Sandia National Laboratory projected worst case scenarios that cost more than $300 billion more than 30 times greater than the liability limits under the Price-Anderson Act. Despite these handouts, no nuclear power plants have been ordered since 1978, and more than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. In 2003, three companies - Dominion, Entergy and Exelon - applied with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency responsible for overseeing the nuclear power, for early site review to build new nuclear power facilities. New Nuclear Power Tax Breaks (21.7.4) Perhaps the most costly subsidies for the nuclear power industry may be found in

the yet to be released energy tax breaks. According to a Sept. 12, 2003 article in Environment and Energy Daily, the nuclear power industry is seeking three types of tax breaks from the energy bill conference. The tax credits are being proposed to make nuclear power economically viable for investors. While the credits may make investing in nuclear power more attractive, the cost of the tax breaks will remain relatively unknown for the coming decade, because the costs may exist outside Congresss estimating window. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 859 of 953

(21.7.5)

Two of the proposed tax credits would mirror incentives available to renewable

energy. The first and according to industry most important is a 10 percent investment tax credit. The credit allows a company to deduct 10 percent of the cost of construction from their taxable income. The credit increases the rate of investment return. Unlike solar and geothermal energy, which must wait until they are producing energy to take the credit, the nuclear industry may be pushing for a progress payment from the federal treasury. Progress payments would allow nuclear companies to take tax deductions the year in which the construction expense occurred, instead of once the plant is operational. Clean coal tax breaks in the Senate legislations contain a similar provision. According a document prepared by Rep. Bill Thomas (RCalif.), the Senate has proposed the tax break, and the House of Representatives is ready to concede to the request. The credit could be worth an estimated $200 to $230 million for a 1000-megawatt power plant. (21.7.6) According to Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade

group promoting new nuclear power plants, "By having investment tax credits, it's not only an active incentive to the industry going ahead with a new plant, but it also sends a message to Wall Street that the government is serious about this, having a diversified energy source."1 (21.7.7) The second proposal would give companies a $.018 per a kilowatt-hour

production credit for nuclear power generation. This proposal was described in a Massachusetts Institute of Technology2 report released in 2003 examining the future of nuclear power. A nuclear power production credit is similar to a credit wind energy receives and would subsidize every kilowatt of power produced from a nuclear power facility over a ten year period. A 1000-megawatt plant operating at 90 percent capacity could be reap more than $1.4 billion in benefits over the ten years from a production tax credit. (21.7.8) Radioactive Politics[:] The nuclear power industry, led by Exelon, Southern

Company and TXU, gave $4.09 million to members of the House of Representatives during the 2002 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 860 of 953

election cycle. Of the $4.09 million, $922,124 went to members of Congress serving as House conferees to the energy bill. Between the 1998 and 2002, political action committees run by the nuclear power industry gave more than $3.24 million to senators running for re-election. Of this total, $654,889 went to senators currently serving on the energy conference committee. These donations and some sleek public relations are buying them congressional support for a federal backed resurrection of the nuclear power industry. (21.7.9) Conclusion[:] After more than 50 years of federal subsidies, the nuclear power

industry is still unable to make it on their own. Instead of developing a business plan to convince Wall Street that they are economically viable, they have poured millions of dollars into political campaigns to get federal subsidies. Whether these subsidies will encourage new investment in nuclear power is still unclear, but what is clear is the fact that nuclear power remains a national security threat as well as an environmentally dangerous energy source. Top Five Senate Recipients of Nuclear Contributions on Energy Conference Committee (1998-2002) (21.7.10) (21.7.11) (21.7.12) (21.7.13) (21.7.14) Larry Craig (R-Idaho) $107,750 Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) $81,499 Max Baucus (D-Mont.) $69,499 Trent Lott (R-Miss.) $67,000 Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) $58,000

Top 10 House of Representatives Recipients of Nuclear Contributions on Energy Conference Committee (21.7.15) (21.7.16) (21.7.17) (21.7.18) John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) $124,750 Billy Tauzin (R-La.) $98,152 Joe Barton (R-Texas) $904,85 Rick Boucher (D-Va.) $78,080 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 861 of 953

(21.7.19) (21.7.20) (21.7.21) (21.7.22) (21.7.23) (21.7.24) (21.7.25) (21.7.26)

John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) $76,000 Ralph M. Hall (D-Texas) $51,758 Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio) $36,500 Jim McCrery (R-La.) $28,000 Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla.) 25,500 Charles W. Stenholm (D-Texas) $25,500 See Reference 1,005. A web page published by USA Today, dated April 16, 2008, says the following

(quotation marks omitted): (21.7.27) SALT LAKE CITY A Utah disposal company seeking federal permission to

import more than 20,000 tons of nuclear waste from Italy has raised its campaign contributions to lawmakers by hundreds of thousands of dollars. (21.7.28) Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions Inc. is aggressively donating to members

of key energy committees in Congress as it increasingly seeks lucrative federal contracts and legislation beneficial to the nuclear power industry. (21.7.29) Since 2005, the company's political action committee, executives and investors

have poured nearly $400,000 into congressional campaigns through January, up from about $40,000 in the four previous years, Federal Election Commission reports show. (21.7.30) The company's growing influence in Washington will be tested this year as it tries

to kill a bill that would ban the importation of low-level radioactive foreign waste, which would be disposed at its dump in western Utah's desert. See Reference 1,004. (21.7.31) A web site called OpenSecrets.org publishes the following (quotation marks

omitted): PACs Senator Pete V. Domenici 1997 - 2002[;] Total PAC Money for 2002: $1,059,589 [;] McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 862 of 953

Number of Contributions: 807[:] American Electric Power American Public Power Assn BWX Technologies [DOE Contractor] Cinergy Corp CMS Energy Constellation Energy Dominion Resources DTE Energy Duke Energy Edison Electric Institute Edison International Entergy Corp Exelon Corp FirstEnergy Corp Florida Power & Light General Atomics Mirant Corp National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn NiSource Inc Northeast Utilities Service Co NRG Energy Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Management Co Oncor Group PG&E Corp Pinnacle West Capital PNM Resources PPL Corp Progress Energy Reliant Resources Sempra Energy Southern Co Southern Nuclear Operating Co Southwestern Public Service Co TECO Energy Texas-New Mexico Power USEC Inc Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power $2,000 $500 $4,500 $2,500 $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $2,000 $7,000 $1,206 $4,000 $6,000 $9,000 $10,000 $3,000 $9,500 $3,000 $6,000 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $4,999 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 $6,000 $10,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 $6,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $250 $500 $1,000

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 863 of 953

Westinghouse Electric Xcel Energy

$1,000 $2,500

Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, June 09, 2003. PACs Senator Pete V. Domenici 1999 - 2004[;] Total PAC Money for 2004: $44,500[;] Number of Contributions: 41[:] American Public Power Assn Cinergy Corp CMS Energy Kansas City Power & Light New York State Electric & Gas Northeast Utilities Service Co Nuclear Management Co PEPCO Holdings Reliant Energy Southwestern Public Service Co TXU Corp $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $1,000

Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, May 16, 2005. PACs Senator Pete V. Domenici 2001 - 2006[;] Total PAC Money for 2006: $264,500[;] Number of Contributions: 179[:] Barrick Goldstrike Mines $1,000 Peabody Energy $5,000 Phelps Dodge Corp $1,000 Covanta Energy Corp FuelCell Energy Salt River Valley Water User's Assn Shaw Group Waste Management Inc $5,000 Allegheny Energy Ameren Corp American Electric Power American Public Power Assn AREVA Group $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $5,000 $1,000 $3,000 $1,000 $4,500

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 864 of 953

Black Hills Corp BWX Technologies Calpine Corp CMS Energy Constellation Energy Dominion Resources DTE Energy Duke Energy Edison Electric Institute Electric Power Supply Assn Energy East Entergy Corp Exelon Corp FirstEnergy Corp Florida Power & Light General Atomics MidAmerican Energy National Grid USA NiSource Inc NRG Energy Nuclear Energy Institute PG&E Corp Pinnacle West Capital PNM Resources PPL Corp Progress Energy Reliant Energy Southern Co Southern Nuclear Operating Co USEC Inc We Energies Westinghouse Electric Xcel Energy

$2,000 $2,000 $4,000 $1,000 $2,500 $2,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $1,000 $2,500 $3,500 $1,000 $5,000 $4,500 $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $2,000 $2,500 $3,500 $4,000 $1,000 $6,000 $5,500 $3,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $1,000 $2,500 $3,500 $6,000

Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, June 04, 2007. PACs[;] Senator Pete V. Domenici 2003 - 2008[;] Total PAC Money for 2008: $645,901[;] Number of Contributions: 503[:]

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 865 of 953

Alliant Energy $1,000 Ameren Corp $3,500 American Electric Power $1,000 American Public Power Assn $-500 AREVA Group $0 Babcock & Wilcox $1,000 Calpine Corp $1,000 Constellation Energy $2,500 Dominion Resources $3,000 DTE Energy $1,500 Duke Energy $1,000 Duke Energy $2,500 Edison Electric Institute $5,000 Edison International $1,000 Electric Power Supply Assn $1,000 Entergy Corp $1,000 Exelon Corp $4,000 FirstEnergy Corp $0 Florida Power & Light $500 General Atomics $3,000 MidAmerican Energy $1,000 National Grid USA $2,000 National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn $8,000 NiSource Inc $2,000 NRG Energy $2,000 Nuclear Energy Institute $1,500 PG&E Corp $1,000 Pinnacle West Capital $1,000 PNM Resources $4,000 PPL Corp $2,000 Progress Energy $1,000 Public Service Enterprise Group $1,000 Southern Co $0 Southern Nuclear Operating Co $2,500 TECO Energy $4,500 TXU Electric Delivery $1,500 USEC Inc $0 Westinghouse Electric $1,500 Xcel Energy $-1,000

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 866 of 953

Arch Coal Foundation Coal Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Joy Global Inc National Mining Assn National Mining Assn Peabody Energy Bechtel Group Covanta Energy Corp Fluor Corp Salt River Valley Water User's Assn Shaw Group Arcadis G&M $1,000 CH2M HILL $0 EnergySolutions LLC $1,000

$2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,250 $2,250 $0 $4,500 $4,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000

Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, January 05, 2009. See Reference 1,006 CONNECTING BRIBE MONEY TO NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE Some Department of Energy web site articles show a connection between campaign contributions given to Pete V. Domenici that are connected to promoting the Nuclear Renaissance. (a) (a.1) 1997 - 2002 BWX Technologies [DOE Contractor] gave $4,500 to Pete V. Domenici July 13, 2006[:] U.S. Nuclear Weapons-Grade Material Converted into Electricity

NNSA, USEC & BWXT Complete Nonproliferation Program WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), USEC Inc. and BWX Technologies, Inc. (BWXT) announced that enough material for 800 nuclear weapons has been converted into commercial nuclear reactor fuel. This conversation produced enough fuel to power a typical commercial nuclear reactor for approximately 34 years, generating enough electricity for power every U.S. household for 81 days or meeting 22 percent of U.S. annual household electricity needs. (a.2) As a part of the NNSA's nuclear nonproliferation mission to reduce excess quantities of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 867 of 953

weapons-grade materials, approximately 50 metric tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) was converted into nearly 660 metric tons of low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. Conversion to LEU makes the material proliferation-proof because it cannot be used to make a nuclear weapon, and it also significantly reduces the storage and security costs of the material. (a.3) Known as the U.S. HEU Downblending Program, the U.S. Department of Energy first

transferred the HEU to USEC for disposition in the commercial fuel market as a part of USEC's privatization from the U.S. government. USEC contracted with BWXT to downblend the surplus HEU with natural uranium at BWXT's facility in Lynchburg, VA. The conversion process began in 1999 with HEU shipments from DOE's Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and NNSA's Y-12 National Security Complex managed by BWXT, where the material was securely stored. USEC sold the resulting commercial reactor-grade LEU fuel to its nuclear utility customers. (a.4) (a.5) (b) This is a major accomplishment. We have successfully turned weapons material http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/news/1029.htm 1997 - 2002 Constellation Energy gave Pete V. Domenici $5,000...comments on the

Interim Final Rule (Interim Rule) published by the Department of Energy (71 Fed. Reg. 28200, May 15, 2006). This Interim Rule implements Section 638 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which authorizes the Secretary of Energy to enter into Standby Support Contracts with sponsors of advanced nuclear power facilities to provide risk insurance for certain delays attributed to the regulatory process or litigation. Constellation is a member of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and of NEIs New Plant Oversight Committee. "We are an industry leader in the effort to develop and deploy a standardized fleet of new nuclear power plants in North America. Accordingly, we fully endorse the comments provided by NEI, on behalf of the nuclear energy industry, on the Interim Rule. The Standby Support Contracts and other incentives provided in the Energy Policy Act are critical to our ability to develop and deploy new nuclear power plants. We look forward to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 868 of 953

continuing to work with the Department of Energy, the NRC and others on implementation of the advanced nuclear facilities related provisions in the Energy Policy Act, such as the Section 638 Standby Support that is the subject of the Departments Interim Rule." http://www.nuclear.energy.gov/pdfFiles/_WS-WDC_LEGAL_USE_71016482_1.PDF (c) I had planned on inserting into this section some information that the Department of

Energy web site search engine has from each of the listed Pete V. Domenici's campaign contributors that shows how they would benefit from the "Nuclear Renaissance" and/or the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to make it easy for a federal investigator to see the bribery that has occurred. But I have run out of time again, because, even though I have met all deadlines so far, and the next deadline is actually a few days from now, I have a goal of entering this into the United States District Court through the email of Case Administrator, Debbie Wheeler, this morning (January 26, 2009) before she gets to her office and sees Editions 1 and 2 of this document waiting for her. I am not sure if she will have to direct the filing of all three amended editions or if she will be able to just file this one, but I want to make her job as easy as possible, and if getting it to her before she has to deal with the first two amended editions will make her job easier, this is my goal.. With this in mind, I will merely suggest that an investigator go through the list of campaign contributors for Pete V. Domenici and see what the Department of Energy web site says about them, and how they would benefit from Pete V. Domenici's "Nuclear Renaissance" with its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. While doing this, you may notice that many of these contributions are coming from foreign owned companies. (21.7.31) A web page entitled: ST. GEORGE, UT Political Contributions by Individuals

publishes the following (quotation marks omitted): (21.7.33) 1981 / 1982 Contributions: R STEVE CREAMER (CREAMER NOBLE), (Zip

code: 84770) $500 to FRIENDS OF ORRIN HATCH COMMITTEE on 02/19/82 (21.7.34) K REED NOBLE (CREAMER NOBLE), (Zip code: 84770) $500 to FRIENDS McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 869 of 953

OF ORRIN HATCH COMMITTEE on 02/19/82 (21.7.34) A web page entitled: NEWS MEAT AMERICA'S MOST POPULAR

CAMPAIGN DONER SEARCH ENGINE, says the following: Contributor Herrera, Judith Santa Fe, NM 87502 Herrera, Judith Santa Fe, NM 87502 BEST EFFORT MADE See Reference 1,002. (21.7.35) A web page published by CampaignMoney.com, entitled: Judith Herrera Candidate or PAC Amount Date

$1,000 REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF 04/05/01 primary NEW MEXICO (R) REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF $1,000 NEW MEXICO (R) 04/05/01 primary

Political Campaign Contributions 2002 Election Cycle says the following:

Name & Location Herrera, Judith SANTA FE, NM 87502 Herrera, Judith SANTA FE, NM 87502 (21.7.36)

Employer/Occupati Dollar on Amount Date

Primary/ General Contibuted To REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF NEW MEXICO REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF NEW MEXICO

04/05/20 $1,000 01 P

BEST EFFORT MADE

04/05/20 $1,000 01 P

A web page publishing the Republican Platform of 1980, says the following

(quotation marks omitted): Nuclear power development requires sound plans for nuclear waste disposal and storage and reprocessing of spent fuel. Technical solutions to these problems exist, and decisive federal action to choose and implement solutions is essential. The Democratic-controlled Congress and Administration have failed to address the spent fuel problem. A Republican Congress and Administration will immediately begin to implement plans for regional away away-from-reactor McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 870 of 953

storage of spent fuel with the goal of implementation of a program no later than 1984....Republicans are committed to the rapid development of permanent storage facilities for nuclear wastes. Since waste disposal is a national responsibility, no state should bear an unacceptable share of this responsibility. Republicans will also move toward reprocessing of spent fuel. See Reference 2. (21.7.37) A web page with the 2004 Republican Platform, says: ...Nuclear power provides

America with affordable, emissions-free energy. We believe nuclear power can help reduce our dependence on foreign energy and play an invaluable role in addressing global climate change. President Bush supports construction of new nuclear power plants through the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, and continues to move forward on creating an environmentally sound nuclear waste repository..... See Reference 997. (21.7.38) A United States Department of Energy web page says: New baseload nuclear

generating capacity is required to enhance U.S. energy supply diversity and energy security, a key National Energy Policy (NEP) objective. The Nuclear Power 2010 program, unveiled by the Secretary on February 14, 2002... See Reference 18. (21.7.39) A United States Department of Energy web page says: The National Energy

Policy (NEP) recommends that the United States "develop reprocessing and fuel treatment technologies... See Reference 19. (21.7.40) In early 1981, President Reagan announced that he was "lifting the indefinite ban

which previous administrations placed on commercial reprocessing activities in the United States." Statement Announcing a Series of Policy Initiatives on Nuclear Energy, Pub. Papers 903 (Oct 8, 1981). President Reagan stated that it is "important that the private sector take the lead in developing commercial reprocessing services..." See Reference 20. SECTION 22 (22) Section 22 presents a few ways that private companies that contract for the Department McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 871 of 953

of Energy have been caught breaking the law. (22) 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 that can be monitored by state and federal environmental protection agencies. 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 following the law. SECTION 23 (23) Section 23 presents some more ways that people working for the Department of Energy

are allowed to disregard laws. (23.1) omitted): (23.1.1) London, UK February 6, 2006 Toshiba Corporation announced today that it has A press release Toshiba (a company in Japan) says the following (quotation marks

entered into a definitive agreement with British Nuclear Fuels plc, under which Toshiba will acquire BNFL USA Group Inc. and Westinghouse Electric UK Limited (collectively Westinghouse hereafter). The acquisition, valued at 5.4 billion US dollars (approximately 621 billion yen), substantially expands the scale of Toshiba's nuclear systems business, positioning the company as a global competitor with world-class capabilities in the two most important standards for nuclear power systems: the BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) and the PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor). (23.1.2) Under the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement signed today, Toshiba will

acquire 100% of Westinghouse. The extraordinary potential of this powerful combination has been met with immediate and positive reactions from several international companies involved in energy-related businesses. Toshiba expects to have several minority investors who wish to participate in this McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 872 of 953

opportunity. Toshiba will retain more than 51% capital interest and remain the majority and controlling shareholder. (23.1.3) (23.2) See Reference 1,008. A web page, "NRC Regulations...DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE

MATERIAL," published by the NRC, says the following: (23.2.1) 10 CFR 40.38(a) says: "Ineligibility of certain applicants: A license may not be

issued to the Corporation if the Commission determines that (a) The Corporation is owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign government[.] (23.2.2) 10 CFR 40.4 Definitions[,] says: Persons means: (1) Any individual, corporation,

partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, group, Government agency other than the Commission or the Department of Energy except that the Department of Energy shall be considered a person within the meaning of the regulations in this part to the extent that its facilities and activities are subject to the licensing and related regulatory authority of the Commission pursuant to section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1244) and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 3021), any State or any political subdivision of, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal successor, representative, agent or agency of the foregoing.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 873 of 953

Even though this document has not succeeded in completely telling the Plaintiffs' side of the story, and it could still use some editing, I respectfully submit it to all Whom are listed on page 1.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________________ Frank McKinnon on behalf of himself, and, for, and with One Thousand One Hundred ThirtyFive 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 Mailing Address: 903 N. Missouri Ave. Roswell, New Mexico 88201 Office Phone: (575) 627-3391 Cell Phone: (575) 420-8199

I have noticed an error in the numbering of the following references. If any of them are challenged, I will respond accordingly by fixing all numbering errors. REFERENCES Reference 1: Reference 2: Reference 3: Reference 4: Reference 5: Reference 6: www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25844 http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/utah_salt_lake_city_ 84111.asp?cycle=00 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20030717/ai_n11407438 http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/ utah_layton_84040.asp?cycle=00 http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_ detail.php?zip=84101&last=Judd&first=Charles McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 874 of 953

Reference 7: Reference 8: Reference 9: Reference 10: Reference 11: Reference 12: Reference 13: Reference 14: Reference 15: Reference 16: Reference 17: Reference 18: Reference 19: Reference 20: Reference 21: Reference 22: Reference 23: Reference 24: Reference 25: Reference 26:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n16906755 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=108-s20040603-18 www.centerforinvestigativereporting.org/files/MoneyTrails_FullReport.pdf http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/wipp/oldnews.html http://www.energyca.org/PDF/augustbulletin.pdf http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/OOTS/PR/TriassicPermit.PDF http://www.domenicilaw.com/projects/triassic.pdf http://www.urenco.com/Content/33/LES.aspx http://domenici.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=304562 http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/truth.htm http://www.nuclearactive.org/news/050908.html http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/nenp2010a.html http://www.ne.doe.gov/AFCI/neAFCI.html http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1988/sg880467.txt http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/crim2007.pdf http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/vr/cvra/18_USC_3771.html http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/241fin.php SOURCE (Added Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 1003(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2138; amended Pub. L. 99-646, Sec. 26, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3597; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(2)(A), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.) http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC00373.html 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, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS22542.pdf http://www.grace.com/About/History.aspx?timeframe=1900 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 875 of 953

Reference 27:

Reference 28:

Reference 29: Reference 30: Reference 31: Reference 32: Reference 33: Reference 34: Reference 35: Reference 36: Reference 37: Reference 38: Reference 39: Reference 40: Reference 41: Reference 42: Reference 43:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2007/libbymontana/update_wrgrace.html http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/3952794.pdf http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/uncivilaction/grac19.shtml http://epa.gov/superfund/ http://projects.publicintegrity.org/superfund/Company.aspx?act=10486#grid http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/commsecy/2006/2006-0003comexm.html http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap/nfss/index.htm http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=4528 http://www.tradewatch.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/ newnukes/articles.cfm?ID=11328 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2468/1/219?TopicID=1 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15922365/ http://domenici.senate.gov/news/ regionrecord.cfm?id=265622&region=RegionNWNM http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionVI.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/energy.html [(1) Eisenbud M, Gesell T, eds; Environmental radioactivity. 4th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 310-311 (1997) (2) Riley RG, Zachara JM; Chemical Contaminants on DOE Lands and Selection of Contaminant Mixtures for Subsurface Science Research. U.S. Dept Energy, Off Energy Res, Subsurface Science Prog, Washington, DC. DOE/ER-0547T DE92014826, 77 pp. (1992) (3) Jia G et al; Biol Trace Elem Res 71-72: 349-57 (1999) (4) Kuwabara J et al; J Radioanal Nucl Chem 240: 593-601 (1999) (5) Masque P et al; Environ Sci Technol 37: 4848-54 (2003) (6) Wilken RD, Diehl R; pp. 295-200 in Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Michaelis W, ed. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg (1990) (7) Zheng J, Yamada M; Environ Sci Technol 38: 3498-504 (2004) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [National Research Council. Drinking Water & Health Volume 1. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1977., p. 865]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 876 of 953

Reference 44:

Reference 45:

[(1) Eisenbud M, Gesell T, eds; Environmental radioactivity. 4th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 310-311 (1997) (2) Molero J et al; J Environ Radiat 28: 271-83 (1995) (3) Olsen CR et al; Environ Sci Technol 23: 1475-81 (1989) (4) Wilken RD, Diehl R; pp. 295-300 in Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Michaelis W, ed. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg (1990) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emission http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/p2policy/definitions.htm http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1996/June/Day-20/pr-23439.txt.html [Watson WS et al; Sci Total Environ 234 (1-3): 1-13 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Adam C et al; Water Air Soil Pollut 125: 171-88 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) DOE; Chemical Contaminants on DOE Lands and Selection of Contaminant Mixtures for Subsurface Science Research. Washington DC: USDOE. DE92-014826 (1992) (2) USEPA; Offsite Environmental Monitoring Report: Radiation Monitoring Around the United States Nuclear Test Areas, Calender Year 1997. Washington DC: Office of Radiation and Indoor Air USEPA. USEPA 402/R-98-013 (1998) (3) Prister BS et al; Sov Soil Sci 23: 7686 (1990) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ http://www.epa.gov/air/aqmportal/management/emissions_inventory/ http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/about.jsp#1 [(1) Fisher NS et al; Environ Sci Technol 33: 1979-82 (1999) (2) Strezov A et al; Water Sci Technol 39: 21-6 (1999) (3) Molero J et al; J Environ Radioact 43: 357-70 (1999) (4) Hilton J et al; Sci Total Environ 129: 253-66 (1993) (5) Penttila S et al; Environ Pollut 82: 47-55 (1993) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cesium (Draft for Public Comment). Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2001) (2) Huda M et al; J Can Assoc Radiol 39: 37-41 (1988) (3) Feely HW et al; J Environ Radioact 7: 177-91 (1988) (4) Glowiak BJ et al; Environ Pollut 14: 101-11 (1977) (5) Papastefanou C et al; Sci Total Environ 84: 283-9 (1989) (6) Hirose K et al; J Atmos Chem 17: 61-71 (1993) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Swift DJ, Nicholson MD; J Environ Radioact 54: 311-26 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 877 of 953

Reference 46: Reference 47: Reference 48: Reference 49: Reference 50: Reference 51:

Reference 52: Reference 53: Reference 54:

Reference 55:

Reference 56: Reference 57:

Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Cesium-125.html et seq as of October 11, 2006 ] **PEER REVIEWED**http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 58: [(1) EPA; Part 61 National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants; Appendix E to Part 61 Compliance procedures methods for determining compliance with Subpart I; 40CFR 61, Appendix E; Environmental Protection Agency; (2005) Available from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html as of August 17, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. v75 p. 95-6 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. v75 p. 95-6 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [UNSCEAR; Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation - Volume I: Sources: UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annex. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. NY, NY: United Nations (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. v75 p. 154-5 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Mahara Y; J Environ Qual 22: 722-30 (1993) (2) Yasuda H et al; Water Air Soil Pollut 83: 85-96 (1995) (3) Davies KS, Shaw G; Sci Total Environ 132: 7192 (1993) (4) Standring WJF et al; Environ Sci Technol 36: 2330-7 (2002) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Gaso MI et al; Environ Interntl 22: 5365-68 (1996) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 188-91 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 878 of 953

Reference 59:

Reference 60:

Reference 61:

Reference 62:

Reference 63:

Reference 64:

Reference 65:

Reference 66: Reference 67:

(2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Referemce 68: [(1) Eisenbud M, Gesell T, eds; Environmental radioactivity. 4th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 310-311 (1997) (2) Penrose WR et al; Environ Sci Technol 24: 228-34 (1990) (3)Riley RG, Zachara JM; Chemical Contaminants on DOE Lands and Selection of Contaminant Mixtures for Subsurface Science Research. U.S. Dept. Energy, Off Energy Res, Subsurface Science Prog, Washington, DC. DOE/ER-0547T DE92014826, 77 pp. (1992) (4) Keith-Roach MJ et al; Environ Sci Technol 34: 4273-7 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [Copplestone D et al; Sci Total Environ 239 (1-3): 95-109 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Plutonium. December 1990. Dept Hlth Human Serv., Public Hlth Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry pp. 87-106 (1990) (2) Morss LR; in Kirk-Othmer Encycl Chem Technol. Kroschwitz JI, ed. 4th ed. NY, NY: John Wiley & Sons 19: 407-43 (1996) (3) Olsen CR et al; Environ Sci Technol 23: 1475-81 (1989) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Nov 18, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Nov 18, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 4th ed. Volumes 1: New York, NY. John Wiley and Sons, 1991-Present., p. V19: 409 (1996)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/mixed-waste/ guidance-llmw-identification-memo.html http://www.epa.gov/radiation/mixed-waste/guidance-identification-llmw.html
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/ staff/sr0980/rev1/vol-1-sec-2-to-5.pdf

Reference 69: Reference 70:

Reference 71:

Reference 72:

Reference 73:

Reference 74: Reference 75: Reference 76: Reference 77: Reference 78: Reference 79:

http://www.lawserver.com/articles/us_code_42_usc_2140 http://www.lawserver.com/articles/articles/us_code_42_usc_2140_notes http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/nuclear.html

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 879 of 953

Reference 80: Reference 81: Reference 82: Reference 83: Reference 84:

http://www.em.doe.gov/Publications/timeline_resource.aspx http://www.new.ans.org/ http://www.energy.gov/news/5170.htm http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/docs/1999-9-2.pdf http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:HkIcosqJjEcJ:local.ans.org/virginia/ meetings/2003/Foulke2003-05.ppt+American+Nuclear+Society+educational+ clean+safe+emissions+free&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-11-02.asp http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.html http://www.stopgreenwash.org/electricity http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/eer/nuclear.html http://www.energy.gov/ http://domenici.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=304562 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discharge[1] http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/1996/96-183.html http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/current.html#reactor http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/eterms.html [(1) Eisenbud M, Gesell T, eds; Environmental radioactivity. 4th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 310-311 (1997) (2) Goldberg ED; Environ Monit Assess 7: 91-103 (1986) (3) Wilken RD, Diehl R; pp. 295-200 in Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Michaelis W, ed. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg (1990) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Assinder DJ et al; J Radioanal Nucl Chem 170: 333-46 (1993) (2) SanchezCabeza JA, Molero J; J Environ Radioact 51: 211-28 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Eisenbud M, Gesell T, eds; Environmental radioactivity. 4th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 310-311 (1997) (2) Penrose WR et al; Environ Sci Technol 24: 228-34 (1990) (3)Riley RG, Zachara JM; Chemical Contaminants on DOE Lands and Selection of Contaminant Mixtures for Subsurface Science Research. U.S. Dept. Energy, Off Energy Res, Subsurface Science Prog, Washington, DC. DOE/ER-0547T DE92014826, 77 pp. (1992) (4) Keith-Roach McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 880 of 953

Reference 85: Reference 86: Reference 87: Reference 88: Reference 89: Reference 90: Reference 91: Reference 92: Reference 93: Reference 94: Reference 95:

Reference 96:

Reference 97:

MJ et al; Environ Sci Technol 34: 4273-7 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 98: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Plutonium-234.html et seq as of October 5, 2006 ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 445 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

Reference 99:

Reference 100: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cesium (Draft for Public Comment). Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2001) (2) WHO; Environmental Health Criteria 25. Geneva, Switzerland, WHO (1983) (3) Watson WS; pp. 232-236 in Trace Substances in Environmental Health-XXI: Proc Univ MO's 21st Ann Conf Trace Sub Environ Health. Columbia, MO: Univ Missouri (1987) (4) Eisler R; p. 15 in Handbook of Ecotoxicology. Hoffman DJ et al, eds. Tokyo, Japan: Lewis Pub (1995) (5) Huda M et al; J Can Assoc Radiol 39: 37-41 (1988) (6) Buzulukov YP, Dobrynin YL; pp. 3-21 in The Chernobyl Papers. Merwin SE, Balonov NI, eds. Richland, WA: Research Enterprises, Inc. Vol I (1993) (7) Barrie LA et al; Sci Total Environ 122: 1-74 (1992) (8) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation. Atlanta, GA: ATSDR (1999) (9) DOE; Savannah River Site Environmental Report for 1998. Aiken, SC: USDOE. WSRC-TR-98-00312. DE-ACO9-96SR18500 (1998) (10) NRC; Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants: Annual Report 1993. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Committee. NUREG/CR-2907. BNL-NUREG-51581 (1993) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 101: [(1) Robbins JA et al; Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47: 572-87 (1990) (2) Olsen CR et al; Environ Sci Technol 23: 1475-81 (1989) (3) DOE; Savannah River Site Environmental Report for 1998. Aiken, SC: USDOE WSRC-TR-98-00312. DE-ACO9-96SR18500 (1998) (4) NRC; Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants: Annual Report 1993. Washington, DC: US NRC. NUREG/CR-2907. BNL-NUREG-51581 (1993) (5) USEPA; Offsite Environmental Monitoring Report: Radiation Monitoring Around United States Nuclear Test Areas, Calender Year 1997. Washington, DC: Off Rad Indoor Air. USEPA402/R-98-013 (1999) (6) UNSCEAR; Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: UNSCEAR 1996 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annex. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. NY, NY: United Nations (1996) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 102: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (1999) (2) UNSCEAR; Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: UNSCEAR 1996 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annex. United Nations Scientific

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 881 of 953

Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. NY, NY: United Nations (1996) (3) Hilton J et al; Sci Total Environ 129: 253-66 (1993) (4) DOE; Heavy Element Radionuclides (Pu, Np, U) and 137Cs in Soils Collected from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. NY,NY: Environ, Meas Lab, USDOE EML599 (1998) (5) Mikhaylovskaya LN et al; Euras Soil Sci 25: 103-7 (1993) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 103: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cesium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Rank D et al; Water Sci Technol 22: 211-8 (1990) (2) Richter T et al; Water Sci Technol 28: 117-21 (1993) (3) UNSCEAR; Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: UNSCEAR 1996 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annex. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. NY, NY: United Nations (1996) (4) Sanchez-Cabeza JA, Molero J; J Environ Radioact 51: 211-28 (2000) (5) Baskaran M et al; Mar Pollut Bull 40: 830-38 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) McCreedy CD et al; Environ Toxicol Chem 16: 328-35 (1997) (2) Rowan DJ et al; J Environ Radioact 40: 15-36 (1998) (3) Sarkka J et al; Sci Total Environ 191: 125-36 (1996) (4) Crowley M et al; Ocean Shore Manag 13: 14961 (1990) (5) Swift DJ, Nicholson MD; J Environ Radioact 54: 311-26 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Papastefanou C et al; Sci Total Environ 84: 283-9 (1989) (2) Owens PN et al; J Environ Radioact 32: 169-91 (1996) (3) Ruse ME, Peart MR; Chemosphere 41: 45-51 (2000) (4) Pietrzak-Flis Z et al; Radiat Prot Dosim 25: 101-5 (1988) (5) Fresquez PR et al; Mutat Res 415: 151-8 (1998) (6) Olsen CR et al 1989; Environ Sci Technol 23: 1475-81 (1989) (7) Ulsh B et al; J Environ Radioact 47: 57-70 (2000) (8) Dovgusha VV et al; Chemosphere 42: 69-72 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Beaugelin-Sseiller K et al; J Environ Radioact. 24:217-33 (1994) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Pearce J; Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 54: 805-11 (1995) (2) Ahman B, Ahman G; Health Phys 66: 503-12 (1994) (3) Fresquez PR et al; J Environ Sci Health B 34: 901-15 (1999) (4) Thomas PA, Gates TE; Environ Health Perspect 107: 527-37 (1999) (5) Allaye-Chan AC et al; Rangifer 3: 17-24 (1990) (6) Klevezal GA et al; Chemosphere 42: 61-7 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) USEPA; Part 191 Environmental radiation protection standards for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level and transuranic radioactive wastes; 40CFR191, Appendix A, Table 1. Release Limits for Containment Requirements. Washington, DC, Environmental Protection

Reference 104:

Reference 105:

Reference 106:

Reference 107: Reference 108:

Reference 109:

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 882 of 953

Agency. (rev July 1, 2003). Available from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html as of August 17, 2005.] ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 110: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. v75 p. 155 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [Goldfrank, L.R. (ed). Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies. 7th Edition McGraw-Hill New York, New York 2002., p. 1516]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation p.256 (PB/99/163388) (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation p.209 (PB/99/163388) (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Uranium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (1999) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Uranium-230.html et seq as of September 6, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [McLaughlin TP et al; A Review of Criticality Accidents - 2000 revision. p. 13 Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-13638. Available at http://www.eh.doe.gov/paa/nsr/nsrsearch/catalog/758324.pdf as of October 4, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Budavari S ed; The Merck Index. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck and Co., Inc., p. 1681-2 (1996) (2) Burkart W; pp. 1274-87 in Metals and Their Compounds in the Environment. Merian E, ed. NY, NY: Weinheim (1991) (3) Mackison FW et al, eds; NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Pub. No. 81-123 Washington, DC: U.S. Gov Printing Off, Jan (1981) (4) National Research Council; Drinking Water and Health Vol. 5. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (1983) (5) National Research Council; Drinking Water and Health. Vol 1 Washington, DC: National Academy Press (1977) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [Goldfrank, L.R. (ed). Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies. 7th Edition

Reference 111:

Reference 112: Reference 113: Reference 114:

Reference 115:

Reference 116:

Reference 117:

Reference 118:

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 883 of 953

McGraw-Hill New York, New York 2002., p. 1515]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 119: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Uranium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (1999) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [Goldfrank, L.R. (ed). Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies. 7th Edition McGraw-Hill New York, New York 2002. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [NTP, 11th Report on Carcinogens p. 147-51(2004) Available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s097zird.pdf as of March 28, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 199-200 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Correspondence to: J. Gevers Leuven, NVMP, Bosschastraat 17, 3514 HN Utrecht, Holland tel. +31-30-2722940; Fax ---3173 E-mail: nvmpsecr@antenna.nl http://www.antenna.nl/nvmp/pluto1.htm [U.S. EPA; National primary drinking water regulations; Section 141.26 Monitoring frequency and compliance requirements for radionuclides in community water systems; 40CFR141.26; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC; (2005); Available from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html as of August 11, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Chu SYF et al; Isotope Explorer. Nuclear data a mouse-click away. Ver 2.23. (1999) (2) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Iodine; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Atlanta, GA (2004); Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp158.html as of August 15, 2005. ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Iodine-120.html et seq as of October 10, 2006 ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED**

Reference 120: Reference 121:

Reference 122:

Reference 123:

Reference 124:

Reference 125:

Reference 126: Reference 127:

Reference 128:

Reference 129:

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 884 of 953

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 130: [(1) U.S. EPA; Part 191 Environmental radiation protection standards for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level and transuranic radioactive wastes; 40CFR191, Appendix A; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC; (2005); Available from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html as of August 11, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Iodine; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Atlanta, GA (2004); Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp158.html as of August 15, 2005. ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Beaugelin-Sseiller K et al; J Environ Radioact. 24:217-33 (1994) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Iodine; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Atlanta, GA (2004); Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp158.html as of August 15, 2005. (2) Hirose K et al; J Atmos Chem 17: 61-71 (1993) (3) Eisenbud M, Gesell T, eds; Environmental Radioactivity. 4th ed. NY, NY: Academic Press p. 241 (1997) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Cunningham WC et al; J Assoc Off Anal Chem 72: 15-8 (1989) (2) Cunningham WC et al; J Assoc Off Anal Chem 77: 1422-7 (1994) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Beaugelin-Sseiller K et al; J Environ Radioact. 24:217-33 (1994) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Iodine; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Atlanta, GA (2004); Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp158.html as of August 15, 2005. ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [Doull, J., C.D.Klassen, and M.D. Amdur (eds.). Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. 3rd ed., New York: Macmillan Co., Inc., 1986., p. 697]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Cunningham WC et al; J AOAC Int 77: 1422-1427 (1994) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ (SRC) **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Conkic L et al; Water Si Technol 22: 195-2002 (1990) (2) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Strontium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

Reference 131:

Reference 132: Reference 133:

Reference 134:

Reference 135: Reference 136:

Reference 137:

Reference 138: Reference 139: Reference 140:

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 885 of 953

Reference 141:

[Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols Manual Volume II: Chapters 10-17 and Appendix F. (July 2004) p 14-156 NUREG-1576, EPA 402-B-04-001B, NTIS PB2004-105421. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1576/sr1576v2.pdf as of October 12, 2006 ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Strontium-80.html et seq as of October 11, 2006 ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Strontium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [IAEA; NuDat 2.1. Brookhaven National Laboratory. National Nuclear Data Center. Inter Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Data Sect. Vienna, Austria. Available at http://www-nds.iaea.org/nudat2/index.jsp as of Aug 28, 2006. ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Strontium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) (2) Glowiak BJ et al; Environ Pollut 14: 101-111 (1977) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Strontium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) (2) Storm DL;in Water contamination and health: Integration of exposure assessment, toxicology, and risk assessment. Wang RGM, ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc: New York, NY (1994) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [Goldfrank, L.R. (ed). Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies. 7th Edition McGraw-Hill New York, New York 2002. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [ USEPA; Radiation Protection at EPA - The First 30 Years p. 21-2 (2000) 402B-00-001 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP Report No. 58, A Handbook of Radioactivity Measurements Procedures p. 3-5 (1985) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

Reference 142:

Reference 143:

Reference 144:

Reference 145:

Reference 146:

Reference 147:

Reference 148: Reference 149:

Reference 150: [(1) Wear SE et al; J Radioanal Nuclear Chem 157: 314 (2005) (2) Tagami K et al; Cyclotron and Radioisotope Center. Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. CYRIC Annual Report pp. 93-97 (2005) (3) Uchida S et al; Chemosphere 39: 2757McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 886 of 953

2766 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 151: [Lindahl P et al; J Environ Radioact 67 (2): 145-56 (2003) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 152: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/ as of August 31, 2007 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 153: [Masson M et al; Health Phys 57 (2): 269-79 (1989) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 154: [Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols Manual Volume II: Chapter 14-163. (July 2004) NUREG-1576, EPA 402-B-04-001B, NTIS PB2004-105421. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1576/sr1576v2.pdf as of October 12, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 155: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 156: (SRC) **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

Reference 157: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) (2) Swift DJ, Nicholson MD; J Environ Radioact 54: 311-26 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 158: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 159: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Americium-237.html et seq as of September 27, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 160: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Nov 18, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 161: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Nov 17, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 162: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 163: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 887 of 953

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 164: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 165: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 166: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 167: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 168: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 169: [(1) Molero J et al; J Environ Radioact 26: 205-16 (1995) (2) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 170: [(1) Lewis RJ; Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. 14th ed. NY, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., p. 1071 (2001) (2) Wear SE et al; J Radioanal Nuclear Chem 157: 3-14 (2005) (3) Tagami K et al; CYRIC Annual Report pp. 93-97 (2005) (4) Uchida S et al; Chemosphere 39: 2757-2766 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 171: (SRC) **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

Reference 172: [(1) Wear SE et al; J Radioanal Nuclear Chem 157: 3-14 (2005) (2) Tagami K et al; Cyclotron and Radioisotope Center. Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. CYRIC Annual Report pp. 93-97 (2005) (3) Uchida S et al; Chemosphere 39: 2757-2766 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 173: [(1) NIOSH; NOES. National Occupational Exposure Survey conducted from 1981-1983. Estimated numbers of employees potentially exposed to specific agents by 2-digit standard industrial classification (SIC). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/noes/ as of Oct 15, 2007. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 174: [(1) Uchida S et al; Chemosphere 39: 2757-2766 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 888 of 953

Reference 175: [(1) Eroglu AE et al; J Anal Atom Spec13: 875-878 (1998) (2) Carleton WH et al; Assessment of Technetium at the Savannah River Site Environment. WSRC-TR-93-217 July 1993. (3) Schulte EH, Scoppa P; Sci Total Environ 54: 163-181 (1987) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 176: [(1) Kuwabara J et al; J Radioanal Nucl Chem 240: 593-601 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 177: [(1) Keith-Roach MJ, et al; Environ Sci Technol 34: 4273-7 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 178: [(1) Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Neptunium. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Neptunium.pdf as of Jan 24, 2006. (2) Lide DR; CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 86th ed. 2005-2006. CRC Press, Talyor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL p. 4-24 (3) O'Neil MJ, ed; The Merck Index. 13th ed Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck and Co, Inc, p. 1160 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 179: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Neptunium-232.html et seq as of October 10, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 180: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Feb 9, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 181: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Feb 9, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 182: [Benedict, Manson; Pigford, Thomas H.; Levi, Hans Wolfgang Nuclear Chemical Engineering (2nd Edition). p 424 McGraw-Hill. Online version available at: http://www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp? http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 183: [Lide, D.R. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 86TH Edition 20052006. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL 2005, p. 4-24]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 184: [(1) Lide DR; CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 86th ed. 2005-2006. CRC Press, Talyor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL p. 4-24 (2005) (2) Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Neptunium. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/neptunium.pdf as of Jan 24, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 185: [CONSIDINE. CHEMICAL AND PROCESS TECHNOL ENCYC 1974 p.782]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 889 of 953

Reference 186: [BRUNNER A ET AL; GER OFFEN PATENT 3119707 12/02/82 (KRAFTWERK UNION AG) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 187: [Lewis, R.J., Sr (Ed.). Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. 13th ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1997., p. 585]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 188: [Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, Sect. 112 (b) (1) Public Law 101-549 Nov. 15, 1990]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 189: [USEPA; Engineering Handbook for Hazardous Waste Incineration p.2-10 (1981) EPA 68-03-3025]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 190: [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; HANFORD: Radiation and Health Technology Methods and Models of the Hanford Internal Dosimetry Program. p. 11-1, PNNL-MA-860 (2003) Available at http://www.pnl.gov/eshs/pub/pnnl860/pnnl860.pdf as of October 4, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 191: [Health Physics Society, Radiation Terms and Definitions: Low-level Radioactive Waste (2005). Available from http://hps.org/publicinformation/radterms/ as of November 28, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 192: [(1) Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Cobalt. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/cobalt.pdf as of Nov 3, 2005. (2) Cundy AB et al; Environ Sci Technol 33: 2841-49 (1999) (3) Beaugelin-Seiller K et al; J Environ Radioact 24: 217-23 (1994) (4) DOE; Assessment of radionuclides in the Savannah River Site. Environmental summary DE-AC09-96SR18500 . WSRC-TR-98-00162 (1998) (5) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cobalt. April 2004. Dept Hlth Human Service, Public Hlth Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry pp. 207-264 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 193: [(1) Beaugelin-Seiller K et al; J Environ Radioact 24: 217-23 (1994) (2) Cundy AB et al; Environ Sci Technol 33: 2841-49 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 194: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cobalt. April 2004. Dept Hlth Human Service, Public Hlth Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry pp. 207-264 (2004) (2) Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Cobalt. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/cobalt.pdf as of Nov 3, 2005. (3) O'Neil MJ, ed; The Merck Index. 13th ed., Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck and Co., Inc., p. MISC-43 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 195: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Cobalt-55.html et seq as of October 12, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 196: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 890 of 953

Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Nov 18, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 197: [Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols Manual Volume II: Chapters 10-17 and Appendix F. (July 2004) p 14-120 NUREG-1576, EPA 402-B-04-001B, NTIS PB2004-105421. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1576/sr1576v2.pdf as of October 12, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 198: [O'Neil, M.J. (ed.). The Merck Index - An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals. 13th Edition, Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck and Co., Inc., 2001., p. 426]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 199: [EPA, Office of Air and Radiation; Orphan Sources Initiative. Last updated: January 21, 2003. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanmetals/orphan.htm as of August 22, 2003. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 200: [(1) Standring WJF et al; Environ Sci Technol 36: 2330-7 (2002) (2) SanchezCabeza JA, Molero J; J Environ Radioact 51: 211-28 (2000) (3) Rapiejko A et al; Health Phys 81: 698703 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 201: [(1) Sanchez-Cabeza JA, Molero J; J Environ Radioact 51: 211-28 (2000) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 202: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH 2006, p. 140]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 203: [DOE, Argonne Natl Lab; Human Health Fact Sheet- Zirconium p.1 (October 2001). Available from: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/zirconium.pdf as of July 27, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 204: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 126]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 205: [Bretherick, L. Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., 1990, p. 1162]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 206: [Lewis, R.J. Sr.; Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary 14th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY 2001., p. 872]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 207: [Health Physics Society, Radiation Terms and Definitions: Low-level Radioactive Waste (2005). Available from http://hps.org/publicinformation/radterms/ as of November 28, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 208: [(1) Beres L; Radioactive Elements. in Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 891 of 953

Chemical Technology. (2005). NY, NY: John Wiley & Sons; Radioactive Elements. Online Posting Date: Dec 4, 2000. (2) Farris WT et al; Health Phys 71: 588-601 (1996) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 209: [(1) Rank D et al; Water Sci Technol 22: 211-8 (1990) (2) Sanchez-Cabeza JA, Molero J; J Environ Radioact 51: 211-28 (2000) (3) Sawidis T; Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 30: 1006 (1996) (4) Chiarenzelli JR et al; Environ Sci Technol 35: 2903-8 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 210: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Radium-223.html et seq as of October 15, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 211: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Nov 18, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 212: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Yttrium-95.html et seq as of October 11, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 213: [(1) Lide DR; CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 86th ed, 2005-2006. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL p.4-41 (2005) (2) Milenic DE, et al; Nature Reviews 3: 488-498 (2004) (3) Deuber R, Heim T; pp. 1299-308 in Metals and Their Compounds in the Environment, Merian E, ed., VCH: Weinheim, Fed. Rep Ger (1991) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 214: [(1) Baeza A et al; Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 25: 117-24 (1994) (2) Djingova R, Kuleff I; J Environ Radioactvity 59: 61-73 (2002) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 215: [(1) Eisenbud M, Gesell T, eds; Environmental radioactivity. 4th ed. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 134-200 (1997) (2) Mejstrik V, Svacha J; Environ Geol 36: 305-19 (1988) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 216: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Potassium-40.html et seq as of October 19, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 217: [(1) Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Potassium-40. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/potassium.pdf as of Dec 29, 2005. (2) Eisenbud M, Gesell T, eds; Environmental radioactivity. 4th ed. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 171-172 (1997) (3) Gallelli G et al; Sci Total Environ 196: 163-70 (1997) (4) Gaso MI et al; Sci Total Environ 223: 119-29 (1998) (5) Borawska MH et al; Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 64: 617-21 (2000) (6) Capar SG et al; J AOAC Int 83: 157-77 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 892 of 953

Reference 218: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Radon-220.html et seq as of October 15, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 219: [Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility; Introducing the Radon Progeny (formerly called Radon Daughters). Available at http://www.ccnr.org/radon_chart.html as of October 22, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 220: [40 CFR 61.22; U.S. National Archives and Records Administration's Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Available from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr as of October 24, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 221: [40 CFR 61.222; U.S. National Archives and Records Administration's Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Available from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr as of October 24, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 222: [40 CFR 61.252; U.S. National Archives and Records Administration's Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Available from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr as of October 24, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 223: [WHO Department of Protection of the Human Environment; Depleted Uranium Sources, Exposure and Health Effects. p. 24 , April 2001 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 224: [Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed., Volumes 1-26. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1978-1984., p. 23(83) 541]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 225: [(1) Sanchez-Cabeza JA et al; J Environ Radioact 51: 211-28 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 226: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Lead-199.html et seq as of October 15, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 227: [(1) Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Polonium. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Polonium.pdf as of Jan 24, 2006. (2) Eisenbud M, Gesell T, eds; Environmental radioactivity. 4th ed. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 134200 (1997) (3) UNSCEAR. 2000. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 report. Volume 1. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Annex B: Exposures from natural radiation sources. Available at: http://www.unscear.org as of Jan 25, 2006. ] **PEER REVIEWED http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 228: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Polonium-203.html et seq as of October 15, 2006 ]**PEER McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 893 of 953

REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 229: [(1) Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Curium. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/curium.pdf as of Nov 1, 2005. (2) Lide DR; CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 86th ed. 2005-2006. CRC Press, Talyor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL p. 4-11 (2005) (3) US DOE; Radioactive releases at the Savannah River site, 19541989. An environmental protection department summary. US Dept Energy. Document Number: DE 92 009 983 (1991) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 230: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Curium-238.html et seq as of October 10, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 231: [Lewis, R.J., Sr (Ed.). Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. 12th ed. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Rheinhold Co., 1993, p. 823]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 232: [Bretherick, L. Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., 1990, p. 1170]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 233: **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

Reference 234: [Lewis, R.J., Sr (Ed.). Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. 12th ed. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Rheinhold Co., 1993, p. 823]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 235: **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

Reference 236: [(1) Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, March 2005. Iridium. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/iridium.pdf as of Oct 26, 2005. (2) Seymour RJ et al; Kirk-Othmer Encycl Chem Technol 4th ed. NY, NY: John Wiley and Sons 19: 34774 (1997) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 237: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Iridium-185.html et seq as of October 20, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 238: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Nov 18, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 239: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Actinium-224.html et seq as of September 27, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 894 of 953

Reference 240: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Feb 9, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 241: [O'Neil, M.J. (ed.). The Merck Index - An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals. 13th Edition, Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck and Co., Inc., 2001., p. 286]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 242: [Veerling JP Jr et al; Health Phys 25 (2): 163-7 (1973) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 243: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Californium-244.html et seq as of September 27, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 244: [Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 4th ed. Volumes 1: New York, NY. John Wiley and Sons, 1991-Present., p. V1: 415 (1991)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 245: [U.S. Department of Energy Office of Isotope Programs; Industrial Uses of Radioisotopes. Available at http://www.ne.doe.gov/isotopes/neIsotopes2eIndustry.html as of October 6, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 246: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Apr 20, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 247: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Apr 20, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 248: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Apr 20, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 249: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Nov 18, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 250: [(1) Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Californium. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/californium.pdf as of Nov 1, 2005. (2) Lide DR; CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 86th ed. 2005-2006. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL pp. 4-8, 11-178 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 251: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/appb/Actinium-224.html et seq as of September 27, 2006 ]**PEER McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 895 of 953

REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 252: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Feb 9, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 253: [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. Nuclear Data Evaluation Lab. 2000. Nuclide Table. Available from the database query page at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/ as of Feb 9, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 254: [ ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

Reference 255: [Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols Manual Volume II: Chapter 14-170. (July 2004) NUREG-1576, EPA 402-B-04-001B, NTIS PB2004-105421. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1576/sr1576v2.pdf as of October 12, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 256: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/ as of August 31, 2007 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 257: [Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Thorium. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/thorium.pdf as of Nov 24, 2007 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 258: [(1) O'Neil MJ, ed; The Merck Index. 13th ed. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck and Co., Inc., p. 1671 (2001) (2) Lewis RJ Sr, ed; Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. 14th ed. NY, NY: John Wiley and Sons, p. 1099 (2001) (3) Burkart W; pp. 1275-1287 in Metals and their compounds in the environment. Merian E, ed. NY, NY: VCH (1991) (4) Benedict M et al; Nuclear Chemical Engineering. 2nd ed. NY, NY: McGraw-Hill pp. 283-317 (1981) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 259: **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

Reference 260: [U.S. Department of Transportation. 2004 Emergency Response Guidebook. A Guide book for First Responders During the Initial Phase of a Dangerous Goods/Hazardous Materials Incident. Washington, D.C. 2004]**QC REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 261: [U.S. Department of Energy; DOE Standard Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Uranium Facilities p. 6-8 (2004) DOE-STD-1136-2004 ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 262: [Nuclear Regulatory Commission; NRC Regulations 10 CFR Part 70Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part070/full-text.html#part070-0007 as of September 7, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 263: [Friberg, L., Nordberg, G.F., Kessler, E. and Vouk, V.B. (eds). Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals. 2nd ed. Vols I, II.: Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1986., p. V2 McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 896 of 953

631]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 264: [Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 4th ed. Volumes 1: New York, NY. John Wiley and Sons, 1991-Present., p. V17 455 (1996)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 265: [Ashford, R.D. Ashford's Dictionary of Industrial Chemicals. London, England: Wavelength Publications Ltd., 1994., p. 888]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 266: [DHHS/NTP; Fourth Annual Report On Carcinogens p.189 (1985) NTP 85002]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 267: [DHHS/NTP; Fourth Annual Report On Carcinogens p.189 (1985) NTP 85002]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 268: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/ as of August 29, 2007 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 269: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/ as of August 31, 2007 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 270: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/ as of August 29, 2007 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 271: [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Table 2, Appendix B to Part 20-Effluent Concentrations Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/ as of August 28, 2007 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 272: [Lide, D.R. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 86TH Edition 20052006. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL 2005, p. 11-124]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 273: **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

Reference 274: [(1) NIOSH; NOES. National Occupational Exposure Survey conducted from 1981-1983. Estimated numbers of employees potentially exposed to specific agents by 2-digit standard industrial classification (SIC). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/noes/ as of Oct 15, 2007. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 275: [(1) Lewis RJ; Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. 14th ed. NY, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., p. 1071 (2001) (2) Wear SE et al; J Radioanal Nuclear Chem 157: 3-14 (2005) (3) Tagami K et al; CYRIC Annual Report pp. 93-97 (2005) (4) Uchida S et al; Chemosphere 39: 2757-2766 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 897 of 953

Reference 276: [(1) Wear SE et al; J Radioanal Nuclear Chem 157: 3-14 (2005) (2) Tagami K et al; Cyclotron and Radioisotope Center. Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. CYRIC Annual Report pp. 93-97 (2005) (3) Uchida S et al; Chemosphere 39: 2757-2766 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 277: [(1) Eroglu AE et al; J Anal Atom Spec13: 875-878 (1998) (2) Carleton WH et al; Assessment of Technetium at the Savannah River Site Environment. WSRC-TR-93-217 July 1993. (3) Schulte EH, Scoppa P; Sci Total Environ 54: 163-181 (1987) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 278: [(1) Kuwabara J et al; J Radioanal Nucl Chem 240: 593-601 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 279: [(1) Uchida S et al; Chemosphere 39: 2757-2766 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 280: [Resing HA et al; Ext Abstr Program-Bienn Conf Carbon 16: 319-20 (1983)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 281: [(1) Zafiriou OC; J Mar Res 33: 75-81 (1975) (2) Mabey W, Mill T; J Chem Ref Data 7: 383-415 (1978) (3) Calvert JG, Pitts JM Jr; Photochemistry. NY, NY: John Wiley and Sons pp. 522-8 (1966) (4) Lillian D et al; Amer Chem Soc Symp Ser 17: 152-8 (1975) (5) Lillian D et al; Environ Sci Technol 9: 1042-8 (1975) (6) Elliott S, Rowland FS; J. Atmos Chem 20: 229-36 (1995) (7) Elliott S, Rowland FS; Geophys Res Let 20: 1043-6 (1993) (8) Gan J, Yates SR; J Agric Food Chem 44: 4001-8 (1996)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 282: [Zhou Y et al; Health Phys 84 (4): 469-76 (2003) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 283: [(1) Nielsen RH; Hafnium and Hafnium Compounds. (2002) in Ullmann's Encycl Indust Chem. 7th ed. (2005). NY, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Online Posting Date: June 15, 2000. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 284: [Lewis, R.J., Sr (Ed.). Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. 12th ed. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Rheinhold Co., 1993, p. 823]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 285: [Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed., Volumes 1-26. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1978-1984., p. 19(85) 177]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 286: [Bingham, E.; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, C.H.; Patty's Toxicology Volumes 1-9 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. (2001)., p. V3 59]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 287: Reference 288: **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ [(1) Chutke NL et al; Sci Total Environ 164: 185-194 (1995) (2) Hoffmann P et

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 898 of 953

al; Atmos Environ 31: 2777-85 (1997)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 289: [(1) NIOSH; National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES) (1983) (2) Bingham E et al; Patty's Toxicology Vol 1-9. 5th ed. NY, NY: John Wiley & Sons 3: 52 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 290: [Brown, K.W., G. B. Evans, Jr., B.D. Frentrup (eds.). Hazardous Waste Land Treatment. Boston, MA: Butterworth Publishers, 1983., p. 296]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 291: [U.S. Department of Transportation. 2004 Emergency Response Guidebook. A Guide book for First Responders During the Initial Phase of a Dangerous Goods/Hazardous Materials Incident. Washington, D.C. 2004]**QC REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 292: Reference 293: Reference 294: Reference 295: Reference 296: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/30/greenpolitics.health http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/plutonium062708.html http://www.deq.idaho.gov/inl_oversight/ contamination/plutonium/overview.cfm http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/1661 http://www.rense.com/general77/santa.htm

Reference 297: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 298: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 299: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 300: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 174]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 301: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 176]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 302: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 899 of 953

Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 176]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 303: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 190]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 304: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 394 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 305: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 175]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 306: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 187]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 307: [Brodsky, A., et al; Chapter 20 in Public Protection from Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Terrorism p 3438-8. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, Wisconsin (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 308: [Brodsky, A., et al; Chapter 20 in Public Protection from Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Terrorism p 353-7. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, Wisconsin (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 309: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 188-91 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 310: [Newman LS et al; Radiat Res 164 (2): 123-31(2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract Reference 311: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII- Phase 2. p. 357 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 312: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 195-206 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 313: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 445 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 314: [Livingston GK et al; Radiat Res 166 (1 Pt 1): 89-97 (2006) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 900 of 953

Reference 315: [Anderson RM et al; Radiat Res 163 (1): 26-35 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract Reference 316: [Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996., p. 2724]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 317: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 390 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 318: [ANL; Human Health Fact Sheet - Plutonium. 2 p (2001). Available at http://consolidationeis.doe.gov/PDFs/PlutoniumANLFactSheetOct2001.pdf as of October 2, 2006 ] **PEER REVIEWED** Reference 319: [Seiler, H.G., H. Sigel and A. Sigel (eds.). Handbook on the Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1988., p. 724]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 320: [Seiler, H.G., H. Sigel and A. Sigel (eds.). Handbook on the Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1988., p. 811]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 321: [Seiler, H.G., H. Sigel and A. Sigel (eds.). Handbook on the Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1988., p. 720]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 322: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Plutonium. December 1990. Dept Hlth Human Serv., Public Hlth Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry pp. 87-106 (1990) ]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 323: [Venugopal, B. and T.D. Luckey. Metal Toxicity in Mammals, 2. New York: Plenum Press, 1978., p. 169]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 324: [(1) Eisenbud M, Gesell T, eds; Environmental radioactivity. 4th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 310-311 (1997) (2) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Plutonium. December 1990. Dept Hlth Human Serv., Public Hlth Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry pp. 87-106 (1990) ]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 325: [Seiler, H.G., H. Sigel and A. Sigel (eds.). Handbook on the Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1988., p. 726]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 326: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Plutonium. December 1990. Dept Hlth Human Serv., Public Hlth Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry pp. 87-106 (1990) ]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 327: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4078853Also there were tested mushrooms and wild berries to contain cesium-137. In total there were conducted 947 tests, including 282 by the department of radioation hygiene. According to the tests, 41.5% of mushrooms and 7.8% of berries do not correspond to standards. The most polluted mushrooms and berries were in Dubrovytsya, Zarichne, Berezne, Volodymyrets, Sarny, and Rokytne rayons McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 901 of 953

Reference 328: Reference 329: Reference 330:

http://www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/cspolissia.htm http://a4nr.org/library/failures/12.16.06-asburyparkpress (SRC) [ ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

Reference 331: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 332: Reference 333: Reference 334: Reference 335: Reference 336: Reference 337: Reference 338: Reference 339: Reference 340: http://www.nuclearfreequeensland.org/pdf/NFQwater.pdf http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ http://www.southernstudies.org/2007/06/ radioactive-water-contamination-found.html http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agriculture/lib/agriculture/ pdageneral/farmer_emergency_information_1.pdf http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/news/1.83652 http://www.davistownmuseum.org/ http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/world_map.html http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/north_america.html Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food & Scottish Environment Protection Agency. (September 1997). Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 1996. RIFE-2. MAFF and SEPA, London, UK. http://www.davistownmuseum.org/ cbm/Rad8d.html#UNITED%20KINGDOM%20SOURCE%20POINTS

Reference 341: [Environmental Health Criteria 107 Barium. pp.13-19 (1990) by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organization.]**QC REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 342: Reference 343: Reference 344: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/GENACT/GC/IN/1982/in82027.txt. http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/GENACT/GC/IN/1993/in93082.txt. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid=f:rc99095.txt

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 902 of 953

Reference 345: Reference 346: Reference 347: Reference 348: Reference 349: Reference 350: Reference 351: Reference 352: Reference 353: Reference 354: Reference 355: Reference 356: Reference 357: Reference 358: Reference 359: Reference 360: Reference 361: Reference 362: Reference 363: Reference 364: Reference 365: Reference 366:

http://www.chernobyl.info/files/doc/UNRepOptimizingIntEff.pdf. http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl.html http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/overview/radionuclides.htmL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool http://www.raleigheconews.com/2008/06/ progress-energy-halts-spent-fuel.html http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2006/pdf/nv060818nrc.pdf http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwaste/yucca_factsheet.asp http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/trans/radexp.htm http://www.nuclear.energy.gov/pdfFiles/neSpeeches/ spurgeonWeaponsComplexMonitor120606.pdf http://www.nuclear.energy.gov/ neri/07MarchWorkshop/GNEP%20(Lisowski).pdf http://www.gnep.energy.gov/pdfs/PublicHearingPresentation.pdf http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/factSheets/RecyclingSpentNuclearFuel.pdf http://www.energy.gov/news/5348.htm http://www.energy.gov/news/6484.htm http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/fy09ne1budgetRolloutPresentation020507.pdf http://www.ne.doe.gov/newsroom/2007PRs/nePR083007.html http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/testimony/Spurgeon_SENR_111407_Final.pdf http://www.gnep.energy.gov/peis/references/RM792_DOE_2007l.pdf http://www.energy.gov/news/6252.htm http://www.energy.gov/nationalsecurity/6646.htm http://www.gnep.energy.gov/media/PRs/gnepPR091807.html http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/testimony/Spurgeon_SEW_041107.pdf

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 903 of 953

Reference 367: Reference 368:

http://www.gnep.energy.gov/pdfs/NoticeofIntent.pdf http://www.gnep.energy.gov/peis/meetingTranscripts/GNEP _LosAlamos_20070301.pdf http://www.gnep.energy.gov/peis/ meetingTranscripts/GNEP_Hobbs_20070226.pdf http://www.gnep.energy.gov/peis/ sitingStudies/siteReport_Roswell_summary.pdf http://www.gnep.energy.gov/peis/sitingStudies/ siteReport_Portsmouth_detailed.pdf http://www.gnep.energy.gov/peis/Draft_PEIS/Chapter_1.pdf http://www.gnep.energy.gov/peis/Draft_PEIS/Appendix_G.pdf http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/neSpeeches/ spurgeonIAEAScientificForumSpeech091807.pdf http://www.ne.doe.gov/newsroom/2007PRs/nePR091807print.htm

Reference 369: Reference 370: Reference 371: Reference 372: Reference 373: Reference 374: Reference 375:

Reference 376: Arroyo PL et al; Mutat Res 281 (3): 193-202 (1992)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 377: National Research Council. Prudent Practices for Handling Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981., p. 101]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 378: [USEPA; EMMI. EPA's Environmental Monitoring Methods Index. Version 1.1. PC#4082. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes (1997)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 379: Reference 380: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060213-8.html http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/ clientsum.php?lname=USEC+Inc&year=2004

Reference 381: Abstracts of all the papers in this and other Health Physics issues can be downloaded from http://www.wwilkins.com/.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 904 of 953

Reference 382: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 304 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 383: [Brandao-Mello CE et al; Health Physics 60 (1): 31-9 (1991) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 384: [ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cesium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** Reference 385: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cesium p.38 (2004). Available from: www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp157.pdf as of November 30, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 386: [Oliveira AR et al; Health Physics 60 (1): 17-24 (1991) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 387: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 224]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 388: [UNSCEAR; Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation - Volume I: Sources: UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annex. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. NY, NY: United Nations (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 389: [UNSCEAR; Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation - Volume I: Sources: UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annex. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. NY, NY: United Nations (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 390: [Melo DR et al; Health Physics 66 (3): 245-52 (1994) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 391: [ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cesium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 392: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII- Phase 2. p. 380 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 393: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 398 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 394: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 905 of 953

of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 397 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 395: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 396-7 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 396: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 200-1 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 397: [Ramalho AT, Nascimento ACH; Health Physics 60 (1): 67-70 (1991) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 398: [ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cesium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ Reference 399: [Sevan'kaev AV et al; Radiats Biol Radioecol 45 (1): 5-15 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 400: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cesium p.20 (2004). Available from: www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp157.pdf as of November 30, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 401: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 396 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 402: [(1) Eaman M; Transfer of Radionuclides from the Environment to Human Milk - a Review. Ottawa, Canada: Atomic Energy Control Board DE88705117 (1986) (2) Johansson L et al; Radiat Prot Dosim 79: 165-7 (1998) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 403: [(1) Shiraishi K et al; Health Phys 73: 814-9 (1997) (2) Lokobauer N et al; Environ Int 14: 137-43 (1988) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 404: [(1) Taylor DM, Taylor SK; Rev Environ Health 12 (3): 147-57 (1997); (2) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Documentation of the TLV's and BEI's with Other World Wide Occupational Exposure Values. CD-ROM Cincinnati, OH 45240-1634 2005. ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 405: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 906 of 953

s Reference 406: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 407: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH 2006, p. 58]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 408: [Bingham, E.; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, C.H.; Patty's Toxicology Volumes 1-9 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. (2001)., p. 2:17]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 409: [Bingham, E.; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, C.H.; Patty's Toxicology Volumes 1-9 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. (2001)., p. 3:401]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 410: [Akashi M et al; J Radiat Res (Tokyo) 42 (Suppl S): 157-66 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 411: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 185]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 412: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 187]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 413: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 181]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 414: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 183]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 415: [Sullivan, J.B., Krieger G.R. (eds). Clinical Environmental Health and Toxic Exposures. Second edition. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1999., p. 1271]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 416: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 190]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 417: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 17]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 907 of 953

s Reference 418: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Uranium p. 75 (PB/99/163362) (September 1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 419: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 220-1 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 420: [Mohner M et al; Am J Ind Med 49 (4): 238-48 (2006) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 421: [Storm HH; Eur J Cancer 42 (14): 2355-8 (2006) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 422: [Krunic A et al; Arh Hig Rada Toksikol 56 (3): 227-32 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 423: [Sullivan, J.B., Krieger G.R. (eds). Clinical Environmental Health and Toxic Exposures. Second edition. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1999., p. 1271]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 424: [Mackison, F. W., R. S. Stricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 (3 VOLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1981., p. 1]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 425: [Friberg, L., Nordberg, G.F., Kessler, E. and Vouk, V.B. (eds). Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals. 2nd ed. Vols I, II.: Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1986., p. V2 631]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 426: [Taylor DM, Taylor SK; Rev Environ Health 12 (3): 147-57 (1997) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 427: [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; HANFORD: Radiation and Health Technology Methods and Models of the Hanford Internal Dosimetry Program. p 7-20 PNNL-MA-860 (2003) Available at http://www.pnl.gov/eshs/pub/pnnl860/pnnl860.pdf as of October 4, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 428: [Mackison, F. W., R. S. Stricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 (3 VOLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1981., p. 1]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 429: [(1) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, Division of Laboratory Sciences. Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Department of Health and Human Services. NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570. July 2005. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/3rd/pdf/thirdreport.pdf as of Nov 23, 2005. ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 908 of 953

s Reference 430: [(1) Budavari S ed; The Merck Index. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck and Co., Inc., p. 1681-2 (1996) (2) Burkart W; pp. 1274-87 in Metals and Their Compounds in the Environment. Merian E, ed. NY, NY: Weinheim (1991) (3) Mackison FW et al, eds; NIOSH/OSHA Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Pub. No. 81-123 Washington, DC: U.S. Gov Printing Off, Jan (1981) (4) National Research Council; Drinking Water and Health Vol. 5. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (1983) (5) National Research Council; Drinking Water and Health. Vol 1 Washington, DC: National Academy Press (1977) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 431: [EPA; Radiation Information - Iodine (2005) Available from http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/iodine.htm as of November 30, 2005 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 432: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 433: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 434: [Shepard, T.H. Catalog of Teratogenic Agents. 5th ed. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986., p. 828]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 435: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 392-5 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 436: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 413 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 437: [ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Iodine; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Atlanta, GA; (2004); p. 90-92; Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp158.html as of August 15, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 438: [ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Iodine; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Atlanta, GA; (2004); p. 94-95; Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp158.html as of August 15, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 439: [ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Iodine; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Atlanta, GA; (2004); p. 109-111; Available from: McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 909 of 953

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp158.html as of August 15, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 440: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 405 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 441: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 405 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 442: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 70 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 443: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 395 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 444: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 395 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 445: [USDOE; DOE Handbook Tritium Handling and Safe Storage DOE-HDBK11290YrXXXX-YR p. 5 (December 1991). Available from http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/tsdrafts/doe-hdbk-1129-yr.pdf as of July 29, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 446: [CaEPA/OEHHA; Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water: Tritium p.16 (March 2006). Available from: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/PHGtritium030306.pdf as of July 25, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 447: [Milacic S; Hlth Phys 86 (5): 457-9 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 448: [Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed., Volumes 1-26. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1978-1984., p. 7(79) 561]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 449: [Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed., Volumes 1-26. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1978-1984., p. 7(79) 561]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 450: [USEPA/Air and Radiation; Fed Guidance Rpt No. 13: Cancer Risk

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 910 of 953

Coefficients for Environmental Expsoure to Radionuclides EPA 402-R-99-001 p.21-22 (September 1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 451: [USEPA/Air and Radiation; Fed Guidance Rpt No. 13: Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Expsoure to Radionuclides EPA 402-R-99-001 p.83-84 (September 1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 452: [Milacic S; Health Phys 86 (5): 457-9 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 453: [Voelz GL; p. 323 in Medical Management of Radiation Accidents, 2nd ed; Gusev IA, Guskova, AK, Mettler, FA, eds (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 454: [(1) NIOSH; NOES. National Occupational Exposure Survey conducted from 1981-1983. Estimated numbers of employees potentially exposed to specific agents by 2-digit standard industrial classification (SIC). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/noes/ as of Jul 25, 2006. (2) WHO; Environmental Health Criteria 25. Geneva, Switzerland, WHO (1983) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 455: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. v78 399, 477 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 456: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 457: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 380 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 458: [Korblein A; Radiats Biol Radioecol 43 (2): 197-202 (2003) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 459: [DHHS/ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Strontium p 77 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 460: [Muller J et al; Hlth Phys 12 (8): 993-1006 (1966) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 461: [International Labour Office. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Vols. I&II. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, 1983., p. 2112]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 911 of 953

s Reference 462: [DHHS/ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Strontium p 89 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 463: [DHHS/ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Strontium p 117 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 464: [(1) NIOSH; National Occupational Exposure Survey. Sr-90. 10098-97-2. Available http://www.cdc.gov/noes/noes1/x3148sic.html as of Sept 30, 2005. (2) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Strontium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) (3) Navarro T, Lopez MA; Radiat Prot Dosim 79: 67-70 (1998) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 465: [(1) WHO; Selected radionuclides: Tritium, carbon-14, krypton-85, strontium-90, iodine, caesium-137, radon, plutonium. Environmental Health Criteria 25. Geneva: World Health Organization. (1983) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 466: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Strontium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) (2) Navarro T, Lopez MA; Radiat Prot Dosim 79: 67-70 (1998) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 467: [Currance, P.L. Clements, B., Bronstein, A.C. (Eds).; Emergency Care For Hazardous Materials Exposure. 3Rd edition, Elsevier Mosby, St. Louis, MO 2005, p. 167]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 468: [Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Technetium. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/technetium.pdf as of Nov 24, 2007 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 469: [(1) NIOSH; NOES. National Occupational Exposure Survey conducted from 1981-1983. Estimated numbers of employees potentially exposed to specific agents by 2-digit standard industrial classification (SIC). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/noes/ as of Oct 15, 2007. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 470: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 471: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 472: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 337]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 473: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 912 of 953

Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 392 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 474: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 337]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 475: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 397 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 476: [Brodsky, A., et al; Chapter 20 in Public Protection from Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Terrorism. p 353-7. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, Wisconsin (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 477: [Brodsky, A., et al; Chapter 20 in Public Protection from Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Terrorism. p 3438-8. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, Wisconsin (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 478: [Gasteva GN et al; Med Tr Prom Ekol 3: 25-30 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 479: [Priest ND et al; Health Phys 69 (3): 330-7 (1995) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 480: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium p.31 (April 2004). Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp156.html as of November 23, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 481: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium p.86-7 (April 2004). Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp156.html as of November 28, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 482: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Americium. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Service (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 483: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 431 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 484: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 479 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 913 of 953

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 485: [Taylor DM; Sci Total Environ 83(3): 217-25 (1989) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 486: [Argonne National Laboratory; EVS Human Health Fact Sheet, Neptunium. August 2005. Available at http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/neptunium.pdf as of October 10, 2006 ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 487: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V71 1006 (1999)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 488: [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Hydrazine/Hydrazine sulfate (302-01-2) Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris on the Substance File List as of March 15, 2000]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 489: [Seiler, H.G., H. Sigel and A. Sigel (eds.). Handbook on the Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1988., p. 481]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 490: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 502]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 491: [WHO; Environ Health Criteria: Hydrazine p.62 (1987) Available from: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc68.htm#PartNumber:6 as of April 19, 2004. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 492: [Kimbrough, R.D., P. Grandjean, D.D. Rutstein. Clinical Effects of Environmental Chemicals. New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corp., 1989., p. 22]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 493: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Documentation of Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices for 2001. Cincinnati, OH. 2001., p. 3]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 494: [Sullivan, J.B. Jr., G.R. Krieger (eds.). Hazardous Materials ToxicologyClinical Principles of Environmental Health. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1992., p. 1198]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 495: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Documentation of Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices for 2001. Cincinnati, OH. 2001., p. 3]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 914 of 953

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 496: [Richter ED et al; Israel J of Med Sci 28 (8/9) 598-602 (1992) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 497: [Helmers S et al; Mil Med.169 (1): 41-4 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 498: [Clayton, G. D. and F. E. Clayton (eds.). Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology: Volume 2A, 2B, 2C: Toxicology. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley Sons, 1981-1982., p. 2800]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 499: [Clayton, G. D. and F. E. Clayton (eds.). Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology: Volume 2A, 2B, 2C: Toxicology. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley Sons, 1981-1982., p. 2800]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 500: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V71 992 (1999)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 501: [WHO; Environ Health Criteria: Hydrazine p.57 (1987) Available from: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc68.htm#PartNumber:6 as of April 19, 2004. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 502: [Harati Y Niakane; Ann Intern Med 104: 728-29 (1986) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 503: [Wrangsjo K, Martensson A; Contact Dermatitis 15 (4) 244-5 (1986) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 504: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Documentation of Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices for 2001. Cincinnati, OH. 2001., p. 3]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 505: [Morris J et al; Occupational and Environmental Medicine 52 (1): 43-5 (1995) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 506: [Sullivan, J.B. Jr., G.R. Krieger (eds.). Hazardous Materials ToxicologyClinical Principles of Environmental Health. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1992., p. 1198]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 507: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 304 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 915 of 953

s Reference 508: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 214]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 509: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cobalt p. 112 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 510: [Reitan JB et al; BJR Suppl 27: 36-40 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 511: [Changlin Y, Genyao Y; BJR Suppl 27: 47-54 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 512: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation V.1: Sources p. 549 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 513: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation V.1: Sources p. 549 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 514: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation V.1: Sources p. 549 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 515: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation V.1: Sources p. 549 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 516: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation V.1: Sources p. 549 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 517: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 152]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 518: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 355 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 519: [Wang JC et al; Int J Radiat Biol 77 (1): 117-25 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 520: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cobalt p. 121 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 916 of 953

s Reference 521: [Chang WP et al; Lancet 350 (9074):330-3 (1009) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 522: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 70 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 523: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 327 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 524: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cobalt p. 113 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 525: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cobalt p. 111-2 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 526: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cobalt p. 117 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 527: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cobalt p. 111 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 528: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 293]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 529: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cobalt p. 114 (2004) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 530: [(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cobalt. April 2004. Dept Hlth Human Service, Public Hlth Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry pp. 207-264 (2004) (2) Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Cobalt. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/cobalt.pdf as of Nov 3, 2005. (3) O'Neil MJ, ed; The Merck Index. 13th ed., Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck and Co., Inc., p. MISC-43 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 531: [Browning, E. Toxicity of Industrial Metals. 2nd ed. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1969., p. 357]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 532: [Dreisbach, R. H. Handbook of Poisoning. 9th ed. Los Altos, California: Lange Medical Publications, 1977., p. 406]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 533: [Bingham, E.; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, C.H.; Patty's Toxicology Volumes 1-9

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 917 of 953

5th ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. (2001)., p. 701]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 534: [Liippo KK et al; Am Rev of Respir Dis 148 (4): 1089-92 (1993) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 535: [Romeo L et al; Med Lav 85 (3): 219-22 (1994) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 536: [National Poisons Information Service; UKPID Monograph for Zirconium (1998). Available from: http://www.intox.org/databank/documents/chemical/zirc/ukpid90.htm as of July 22, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 537: [Bingham, E.; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, C.H.; Patty's Toxicology Volumes 1-9 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. (2001)., p. 702]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 538: [National Poisons Information Service; UKPID Monograph for Zirconium (1998). Available from: http://www.intox.org/databank/documents/chemical/zirc/ukpid90.htm as of July 22, 2005. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 539: [Bingham, E.; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, C.H.; Patty's Toxicology Volumes 1-9 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. (2001)., p. 702]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 540: [Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed., Volumes 1-26. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1978-1984., p. 24(84) 877]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 541: [Sullivan, J.B., Krieger G.R. (eds). Clinical Environmental Health and Toxic Exposures. Second edition. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1999., p. 195]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 542: [O'Neil, M.J. (ed.). The Merck Index - An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals. 13th Edition, Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck and Co., Inc., 2001., p. 1814]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 543: [Bingham, E.; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, C.H.; Patty's Toxicology Volumes 1-9 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. (2001)., p. 701]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 544: [Sax, N.I. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 6th ed. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984., p. 2759]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 545: [Sullivan, J.B., Krieger G.R. (eds). Clinical Environmental Health and Toxic Exposures. Second edition. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1999., p. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 918 of 953

333]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 546: [Browning, E. Toxicity of Industrial Metals. 2nd ed. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1969., p. 359]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 547: [(1) NIOSH; International Safety Cards. Zirconium. 7699-43-6. Available at http//www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcs/nicstart.html as of Apr 20, 2005. (2) Riediker M et al; Environ Sci Technol 37: 2084-93 (2003) (3) Rieger MM; in Kirk-Othmer Encycl Chem Technol. 4th ed. Kroschwitz JI, ed. NY, NY: John Wiley & Sons 7: 572-619 (1993) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 548: [Doull, J., C.D. Klaassen, and M. D. Amdur (eds.). Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1980., p. 462]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 549: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 550: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 551: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 552: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 240. 242 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 553: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 242 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 554: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 477 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 555: [Miyamoto, K et al; Hlth Phys 83 (1): 19-25 (2002) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 919 of 953

s Reference 556: [(1) Beres L; Radioactive Elements. in Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. (2005). NY, NY: John Wiley & Sons; Radioactive Elements. Online Posting Date: Dec 4, 2000. (2) Farris WT et al; Health Phys 71: 588-601 (1996) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 557: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 558: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 559: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 560: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 561: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 390 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 562: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 393 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 563: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 392 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 564: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 394 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 565: [Morgan JP et al; Health Phys 44 (Suppl 1): 353-63 (1983) ]**PEER

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 920 of 953

REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 566: [Sonnabend E et al; Strahlentherapie (Sonderb) 80: 60-64 ((1986) as cited in U.S. Dept Health & Human Services/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Radium p.16 (1990) PB91180414 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 567: [Wick RR et al; Strahlentherapie (Sonderb) 80: 38-44 (1986) as cited in U.S. Dept Health & Human Services/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Radium p.24 (1990) PB91-180414 ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 568: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 391 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 569: [Simmons DJ, Holtzman RB; Hlth Phys 44 (Suppl 1) : 179-86 (1983) ] **PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 570: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 287 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 571: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 276 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 572: [NAS/BRER; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII-Phase 2. p. 297 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 573: [Carnes BA et al; Radiation Research 147 (6): 707-14 (1997) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 574: [Ronckers CM et al; Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 148 (36):1 775-80 (2004) ] **PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 575: [Hirunwatthanakul P et al; Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 7 (2): 295-8 (2006) ] **PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 576: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 415 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 577: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 408 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 921 of 953

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 578: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 408 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 579: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 448 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 580: [Stebbings JH; Hlth Phys 74 (5): 602-7 (1998) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 581: [Pool RR et al; Hlth Phys 44 (Suppl 1): 155-77 (1983) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 582: [Spiess H et al; Br J Radiol 21: 7-11 (1989) as cited in U.S. Dept Health & Human Services/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Radium p.25 (1990) PB91-180414 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 583: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes: Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Vol 2: Effects, p.113. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 584: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 409 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 585: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 392 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 586: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes: Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Vol 2: Effects, p.352. ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 587: [Gossner W; Radiat Res 152 (Suppl 6): S12-5 (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 588: [Doull, J., C.D.Klassen, and M.D. Amdur (eds.). Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. 3rd ed., New York: Macmillan Co., Inc., 1986., p. 128]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 922 of 953

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 589: [Seiler, H.G., H. Sigel and A. Sigel (eds.). Handbook on the Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1988., p. 811]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 590: [International Labour Office. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Vols. I&II. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, 1983., p. 1895]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 591: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 592: [ Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; HANFORD: Radiation and Health Technology Methods and Models of the Hanford Internal Dosimetry Program. PNNL-MA-860 (2003) Available at http://www.pnl.gov/eshs/pub/pnnl860/pnnl860.pdf as of October 4, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 593: [Goin JE et al; J Vasc Interv Radiol 16(2 Pt 1): 205-13 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 594: [Currance, P.L. Clements, B., Bronstein, A.C. (Eds).; Emergency Care For Hazardous Materials Exposure. 3Rd edition, Elsevier Mosby, St. Louis, MO 2005, p. 169]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 595: [Currance, P.L. Clements, B., Bronstein, A.C. (Eds).; Emergency Care For Hazardous Materials Exposure. 3Rd edition, Elsevier Mosby, St. Louis, MO 2005, p. 160]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 596: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation p.153 (PB/99/163388) (1999) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 597: [Committee on Health Risks of Exposure to Radon (BEIR VI), National Research Council, The National Academies Press. 516 p (1999) Available at http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/5499.html ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 598: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V43 241 (1988)]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 599: [Bingham, E.; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, C.H.; Patty's Toxicology Volumes 1-9 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. (2001)., p. 3:404]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 923 of 953

s Reference 600: [Wegener K; Virchows Archiv 350 (2): 179-82 (1970) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 601: [Mulloy KB et al; Environ Health Perspect 109 (3): 305-9 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ s Reference 602: REVIEWED** s Reference 603: REVIEWED** s Reference 604: REVIEWED** s Reference 605: [Edling C; Scand J Work Environ Health 10 (1): 25-34 (1984) ]**PEER [Wichmann HE et al; Health Phys 88 (1): 71-9 (2005) ]**PEER [Alavanja MC et al; Am J Public Health 89 (7): 1042-8 (1999) ]**PEER [Taeger D et al; Cancer 106 (4): 881-9 (2006) ]**PEER REVIEWED** [Wang Z et al; Am J Epidemiol 155 (6): 554-64 (2002) ]**PEER [Evraed AS et al; Eur J Cancer Prev 14 (2):147-57 (2005) ]**PEER

s Reference 606: REVIEWED** s Reference 607: REVIEWED**

s Reference 608: [Roscoe RJ et al; Am J Public Health 85 (4): 535-40 (1995) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract s Reference 609: [Gilliland FD et al; J Occup Environ Med 42 (3):278-83 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract s Reference 610: [Darby S et al; Scand J Work Environ Health 32 Suppl 1: 1-83 (2006) ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 611: [Brandom W et al; Radiat Res 76: 159-171 (1978) as cited in U.S. Dept Health & Human Services/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Radon p.23 (1990) PB91-180422 ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 612: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V43 212 (1988)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 613: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH 2006, p. 58]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 614: [Voegtlin C, Hodge HC (eds); Pharmacology and Toxicology of Uranium

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 924 of 953

Compounds p.VI-1 (1953) ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 615: [Ellenhorn, M.J. and D.G. Barceloux. Medical Toxicology - Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1988., p. 848]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 616: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 910]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 617: [Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996., p. 3349]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 618: [Klaassen, C.D., M.O. Amdur, Doull J. (eds.). Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. The Basic Science of Poisons. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1995., p. 729]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 619: [Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984., p. II-148]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 620: [Friberg, L., Nordberg, G.F., Kessler, E. and Vouk, V.B. (eds). Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals. 2nd ed. Vols I, II.: Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1986., p. V2 631]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 621: [DOE; Chapter 3. Human Radiation Experiments Associated With DOE and Its Predecessors. DOE Openness: Human Radiation Experiments: Roadmap to the Project. Available at http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/roadmap/part3.html#UR as of September 8, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 622: [U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation. CHRIS - Hazardous Chemical Data. Volume II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984-5., p. ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 623: [Mackison, F. W., R. S. Stricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 (3 VOLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1981., p. 2]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 624: [Mackison, F. W., R. S. Stricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 (3 VOLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1981., p. 1]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 625: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 910]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 626: [(1) Sittig M; Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corp (1985)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 627: [Harris, Robert L. (2000). Patty's Industrial Hygiene (5th Edition) Volumes 14. John Wiley & Sons. Online version available at: McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 925 of 953

http://www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID=709&VerticalID=0 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 628: [(1) Eisenbud M, Gesell T, eds; Environmental radioactivity. 4th ed. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 134-200 (1997) (2) UNSCEAR. 2000. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 report. Volume 1. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Annex B: Exposures from natural radiation sources. Available at: http://www.unscear.org as of Jan 25, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 629: [(1) UNSCEAR. 2000. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 report. Volume 1. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Annex B: Exposures from natural radiation sources. Available at: http://www.unscear.org as of Jan 25, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 630: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V. 78 396 (2001) Part 2]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 631: [(1) Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Polonium. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Polonium.pdf as of Jan 24, 2006. (2) UNSCEAR. 2000. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2000 report. Volume 1. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Annex B: Exposures from natural radiation sources. Available at: http://www.unscear.org as of Jan 25, 2006. ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 632: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 633: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 634: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 431 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 635: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 479 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 636: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 246]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 637: [Kelsey C et al; Hlth Phys 74 (5): 610-612 (1998) ]**PEER REVIEWED** [Becker J, Rosen T; South Med J 82 (12): 1561-1563 (1989) ]**PEER

s Reference 638: REVIEWED**

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 926 of 953

s Reference 639: [Sevan'kaev AV et al; Radiat Prot Dosimetry 102 (3): 201-6 (2002) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract s Reference 640: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 253]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 641: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 248]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 642: [Gusev, I.A., Guskova, A.K., Mettler, F.A. (eds) Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2001, p. 294]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 643: [Voisin P et al; Int J Radiat Biol 76 (11): 1545-54 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract s Reference 644: [The Merck Index. 10th ed. Rahway, New Jersey: Merck Co., Inc., 1983., p. 872]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 645: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V15 251 (1977)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 646: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V15 250 (1977)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 647: [Grant, W.M. Toxicology of the Eye. 3rd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1986., p. 620]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 648: [Mackison, F. W., R. S. Stricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 (3 VOLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1981., p. 1]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 649: [Clayton, G.D., F.E. Clayton (eds.) Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Volumes 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F: Toxicology. 4th ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 19931994., p. 4031]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 650: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic And Hazardous Chemicals. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1981., p. 455]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 651: [Clayton, G.D., F.E. Clayton (eds.) Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Volumes 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F: Toxicology. 4th ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 19931994., p. 4031]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 927 of 953

s Reference 652: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V41 220 (1986)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 653: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V41 221 (1986)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 654: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V41 221 (1986)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 655: [Budavari, S. (ed.). The Merck Index - Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs and Biologicals. Rahway, NJ: Merck and Co., Inc., 1989., p. 957]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 656: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. 6th ed. Volumes I, II, III. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH, 1991., p. 1013]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 657: [Mackison, F. W., R. S. Stricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 (3 VOLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1981., p. 1]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 658: [(1) NIOSH; National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES) (1983)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 659: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 431 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 660: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 304 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 661: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 662: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 663: REVIEWED** [Poda G A, Hall R M; Health Phys 29 (3): 407-9 (1975) ]**PEER

s Reference 664: [Tateno H et al; Int J Radiat Biol 70 (2): 229-35 (1996) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 928 of 953

s Reference 665: [Chang, L.W. (ed.). Toxicology of Metals. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 1996, p. 929-30]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 666: [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) for Beryllium and compounds (7440-41-7) Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris on the Substance File List as of March 15, 2000]**QC REVIEWED** s Reference 667: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. 58 103 (1993)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 668: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists TLVs and BEIs. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH, 2008, p. 14]**QC REVIEWED** s Reference 669: [Clayton, G. D. and F. E. Clayton (eds.). Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology: Volume 2A, 2B, 2C: Toxicology. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley Sons, 1981-1982., p. 1551]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 670: [Thienes, C., and T.J. Haley. Clinical Toxicology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1972., p. 186]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 671: [The Merck Index. 10th ed. Rahway, New Jersey: Merck Co., Inc., 1983., p. 166]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 672: [Venugopal, B. and T.D. Luckey. Metal Toxicity in Mammals, 2. New York: Plenum Press, 1978., p. 46]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 673: REVIEWED** [STIEFEL T ET AL; ARCH TOXICOL 45 (2): 81 (1980)]**PEER

s Reference 674: [Dreisbach, R.H. Handbook of Poisoning. 12th ed. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange, 1987., p. 225]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 675: [Dreisbach, R.H. Handbook of Poisoning. 12th ed. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange, 1987., p. 225]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 676: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V1 25 (1972)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 677: [Grant, W.M. Toxicology of the Eye. 3rd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1986., p. 145]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 678: [Grant, W.M. Toxicology of the Eye. 3rd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1986., p. 144]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 679: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 929 of 953

Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V1 25 (1972)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 680: [Hamilton, A., and H. L. Hardy. Industrial Toxicology. 3rd ed. Acton, Mass.: Publishing Sciences Group, Inc., 1974., p. 57]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 681: [Casarett, L.J., and J. Doull. Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1975., p. 462]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 682: [Stange AW et al; Toxicol 111 (1-3): 213-24 (1996)]**PEER REVIEWED**

s Reference 683: [NIOSH; Occupational Respiratory Diseases (1986) DHHS Pub. NIOSH 86102]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 684: [Rom, W.N. (ed.). Environmental and Occupational Medicine. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1992., p. 782]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 685: [Rom, W.N. (ed.). Environmental and Occupational Medicine. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1992., p. 787]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 686: [Rom, W.N. (ed.). Environmental and Occupational Medicine. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1992., p. 786]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 687: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V58 88 (1993)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 688: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V58 88 (1993)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 689: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V58 88 (1993)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 690: [(1) NIOSH; National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES) (1983)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 691: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 126]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 692: [Clayton, G. D. and F. E. Clayton (eds.). Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology: Volume 2A, 2B, 2C: Toxicology. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley Sons, 1981-1982., p. 1546]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 693: [Chang, L.W. (ed.). Toxicology of Metals. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 1996, p. 929-30]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 930 of 953

s Reference 694: [U.S. Department of Health & Human Services/National Toxicology Program; 11th Report on Carcinogens. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC. (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 695: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 696: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 478 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 697: [Currance, P.L. Clements, B., Bronstein, A.C. (Eds).; Emergency Care For Hazardous Materials Exposure. 3Rd edition, Elsevier Mosby, St. Louis, MO 2005, p. 167]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 698: [van Kampen RJ et al; Neth J Med 65 (8): 279-82 (2007) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract s Reference 699: REVIEWED** s Reference 700: [Stover BJ; Health Phys 44 (Suppl 1): 253-257 (1983) ]**PEER NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 861]**PEER REVIEWED**

s Reference 701: [Grant, W.M. Toxicology of the Eye. 3rd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1986., p. 786]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 702: [Baxter PJ Br J Cancer 41: 446-53 (1980) as cited in U.S. Dept Health & Human Services/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Thorium p.28 (1990) PB91-180448 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 703: [Coorey KD; Med J Aust 2:580-1 (1983) as cited in U.S. Dept Health & Human Services/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Thorium p.29 (1990) PB91-180448 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s s Reference 704: Reference 705: [Travis LB et al; Health Phys 63 (1): 89-97 (1992) ]**PEER REVIEWED** [Tauber WB; Health Phys 63 (1): 13-9 (1992) ]**PEER REVIEWED**

s Reference 706: [Azodo MV et al; Abdom Imaging 18 (1): 78-81 (1993) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract s Reference 707: [Winberg CD, Ranchod Ml Hum Pathol 10 (1): 108-12 (1979) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract s Reference 708: PubMed Abstract [Kojiro M et al; Cancer 49 (10): 2161-4 (1982) ]**PEER REVIEWED**

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 931 of 953

s Reference 709: [Clayton, G.D., F.E. Clayton (eds.) Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Volumes 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F: Toxicology. 4th ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 19931994., p. 2255]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 710: REVIEWED** s Reference 711: REVIEWED** s Reference 711: REVIEWED** s Reference 712: [Rao BK et al; J Comp Assist Tomogr 10 (1): 57-61 (1986) ]**PEER [Sadahira Y et al; Acta Pathol Jpn 35 (6): 1467-73 (1985) ]**PEER [Wargotz ES; Am J Surg Pathol 9 (11): 835-41 (1985) ]**PEER [Wargotz ES et al; Cancer 62 (1): 58-66 (1988) ]**PEER REVIEWED**

s Reference 713: [Morant R, Rutner JR; Schweiz Med Wochrnschr 117 (25): 952-57 (1987) ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 714: [Isner JM et al; Am J MEd 67: 1069-74 (1978) as cited in U.S. Dept Health & Human Services/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Thorium p.28 (1990) PB91-180448 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 715: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 182 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 716: [Clayton, G.D., F.E. Clayton (eds.) Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Volumes 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F: Toxicology. 4th ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 19931994., p. 2257]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 717: [Clayton, G.D., F.E. Clayton (eds.) Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Volumes 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F: Toxicology. 4th ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 19931994., p. 2256-7]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 718: REVIEWED** [Kato I, Kido C; Jpn J Cancer Res 78 (11): 1187-92 (1987) ]**PEER

s Reference 719: [Zapadinskaia EE et al; Med Tr Prom Ekol 11: 14-9 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract s Reference 720: [Zapadinskaia EE, Gasteva GN; Med Tr Prom Ekol 3:13-21 (2005) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract s Reference 721: [Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Thorium. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/thorium.pdf as of Nov 24, 2007 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 722: [Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed., Volumes 1-26.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 932 of 953

New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1978-1984., p. 22(83) 1000]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 723: [Currance, P.L. Clements, B., Bronstein, A.C. (Eds).; Emergency Care For Hazardous Materials Exposure. 3Rd edition, Elsevier Mosby, St. Louis, MO 2005, p. 167]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 724: [Currance, P.L. Clements, B., Bronstein, A.C. (Eds).; Emergency Care For Hazardous Materials Exposure. 3Rd edition, Elsevier Mosby, St. Louis, MO 2005, p. 167]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 725: [Currance, P.L. Clements, B., Bronstein, A.C. (Eds).; Emergency Care For Hazardous Materials Exposure. 3Rd edition, Elsevier Mosby, St. Louis, MO 2005, p. 167]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 726: [Argonne National Laboratory/EVS. Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005. Technetium. Available at: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/technetium.pdf as of Nov 24, 2007 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 727: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH 2006, p. 58]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 728: [Mackison, F. W., R. S. Stricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 (3 VOLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1981., p. 2]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 729: [Bingham, E.; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, C.H.; Patty's Toxicology Volumes 1-9 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. (2001)., p. 3:399]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 730: [Mackison, F. W., R. S. Stricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 (3 VOLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1981., p. 2]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 731: [Seiler, H.G., H. Sigel and A. Sigel (eds.). Handbook on the Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1988., p. 288]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 732: [Sullivan, J.B., Krieger G.R. (eds). Clinical Environmental Health and Toxic Exposures. Second edition. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1999., p. 1272]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 733: [Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996., p. 3349]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 734: [U.S. Department of Energy; DOE Standard Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Uranium Facilities p. 2-24 (2004) DOE-STD-1136-2004 ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 735: [Sullivan, J.B., Krieger G.R. (eds). Clinical Environmental Health and Toxic

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 933 of 953

Exposures. Second edition. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1999., p. 1271]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 736: REVIEWED** [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Uranium p. 75 (1999) ]**PEER

s Reference 737: [McGeoghegan D, Binks K. J Radiol Prot.20 (2):111-37 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract s Reference 738: [Dupree EA et al; Scandinavian J Work Environ Health 13 (2): 100-7 (1987) ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 739: [Friberg, L., Nordberg, G.F., Kessler, E. and Vouk, V.B. (eds). Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals. 2nd ed. Vols I, II.: Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1986., p. V2 631]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 740: REVIEWED** [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Uranium p. 21 (1999) ]**PEER

s Reference 741: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 910]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 742: [(1) Clark DL et al; Kirk-Othmer Encycl Chem Technol. 4th ed. NY, NY: John Wiley and Sons 24: 638-694 (1997) ]**PEER REVIEWED** HEFNIUM TRITIDE s Reference 743: [U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation. CHRIS - Hazardous Chemical Data. Volume II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984-5., p. ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 744: [International Labour Office. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Vols. I&II. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, 1983., p. 2174]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 745: [Currance, P.L. Clements, B., Bronstein, A.C. (Eds).; Emergency Care For Hazardous Materials Exposure. 3Rd edition, Elsevier Mosby, St. Louis, MO 2005, p. 167]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 746: [Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996., p. 3168]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 747: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 861]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 748: [Clayton, G.D., F.E. Clayton (eds.) Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Volumes 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F: Toxicology. 4th ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 19931994., p. 2257]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 934 of 953

s Reference 749: REVIEWED**

[Farid I, Conibear SA; Health Phys 44 Suppl 1: 221-30 (1983) ]**PEER

s Reference 750: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 2002. 4th ed.Vol 1 A-H Norwich, NY: Noyes Publications, 2002., p. 2210]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 751: [(1) NIOSH; NOES. National Occupational Exposure Survey conducted from 1981-1983. Estimated numbers of employees potentially exposed to specific agents by 2-digit standard industrial classification (SIC). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/noes/ as of Oct 25, 2007. ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 752: [J. Hogberg and J. Alexander. "Selenium" p 482 in Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals, 2nd edition, ed by L. Friberg et al. Elsevier Science Publishers (1986)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 753: [Friberg, L., G.R. Nordberg, and V.B. Vouk. Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals. New York: Elsevier North Holland, 1979., p. 556]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 754: [Friberg, L., G.R. Nordberg, and V.B. Vouk. Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals. New York: Elsevier North Holland, 1979., p. 568]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 755: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 778]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 756: [Clayton, G.D., F.E. Clayton (eds.) Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Volumes 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F: Toxicology. 4th ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 19931994., p. 797]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 757: [Wilber CG; Clin Toxicol 17 (2): 171-230 (1980)]**PEER REVIEWED**

s Reference 758: [Clarke, M. L., D. G. Harvey and D. J. Humphreys. Veterinary Toxicology. 2nd ed. London: Bailliere Tindall, 1981., p. 70]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 759: [Friberg, L., Nordberg, G.F., Kessler, E. and Vouk, V.B. (eds). Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals. 2nd ed. Vols I, II.: Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1986., p. V2 501]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 760: [Ellenhorn, M.J., S. Schonwald, G. Ordog, J. Wasserberger. Ellenhorn's Medical Toxicology: Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1997., p. 1607]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 761: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. 6th ed. Volumes I, II, III. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH, 1991., p. 1354]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 762: [International Labour Office. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Vols. I&II. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, 1983., p. 2018]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 935 of 953

s Reference 763: [International Labour Office. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Vols. I&II. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, 1983., p. 2018]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 764: [Friberg, L., G.R. Nordberg, and V.B. Vouk. Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals. New York: Elsevier North Holland, 1979., p. 572]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 765: [(1) Fishbein L; pp. 1153-90 in Metals and Their Compounds in the Environment, Merian E, ed., Weinheim, Fed. Rep Ger: VCH (1991)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 766: [Browning, E. Toxicity of Industrial Metals. 2nd ed. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1969., p. 315]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 767: REVIEWED** s Reference 768: [Muller R et al; Klin Wochenschr 67 (22): 1152-5 (1989)]**PEER [COOPER WC; TELLURIUM 313-21 (1971)]**PEER REVIEWED**

s Reference 769: [Bingham, E.; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, C.H.; Patty's Toxicology Volumes 1-9 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. (2001)., p. 486]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 770: [Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996., p. 3068]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 771: [Dreisbach, R.H. Handbook of Poisoning. 12th ed. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange, 1987., p. 239]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 772: [Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996., p. 3068]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 773: [Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984., p. II-129]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 774: [Venugopal, B. and T.D. Luckey. Metal Toxicity in Mammals, 2. New York: Plenum Press, 1978., p. 247]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 775: [Friberg, L., Nordberg, G.F., Kessler, E. and Vouk, V.B. (eds). Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals. 2nd ed. Vols I, II.: Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1986., p. V2 537]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 776: [Friberg, L., Nordberg, G.F., Kessler, E. and Vouk, V.B. (eds). Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals. 2nd ed. Vols I, II.: Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1986., p. V2 537]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 777: [Browning, E. Toxicity of Industrial Metals. 2nd ed. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1969., p. 314]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 936 of 953

Reference 778:

**PEER REVIEWED**

s Reference 779: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. S7 57 (1987)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 781: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists TLVs and BEIs. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH, 2008, p. 12]**QC REVIEWED** s Reference 782: [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Arsenic, inorganic (7440-38-2) Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris on the Substance File List as of March 15, 2000]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 783: REVIEWED** s Reference 784: REVIEWED** [SCHNEIDER V ET AL; Z RECHTSMED 78 (1): 83-90 (1976)]**PEER [Nakamuro K, Sayato Y; Mutat Res 88 (1): 73-80 (1981)]**PEER

s Reference 785: [Delepine S; J Ind Hyg 4: 346-64, 410-23 (1923) as cited in NIOSH; Criteria Document: Inorganic Arsenic p.17 (1975) DHEW Pub. NIOSH 75-149]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 786: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V23 96 (1980)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 787: [Association of American Railroads. Emergency Handling of Hazardous Materials in Surface Transportation. Washington, DC: Association of American Railroads, Bureau of Explosives, 1994., p. 102]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 788: [U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation. CHRIS - Hazardous Chemical Data. Volume II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984-5., p. ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 789: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic And Hazardous Chemicals. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1981., p. 58]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 790: [Grant, W.M. Toxicology of the Eye. 3rd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1986., p. 115]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 791: [Ellison, D.H., Emergency Action for Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 1999., p. 52]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 792: [Ellison, D.H., Emergency Action for Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 1999., p. 53]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 793: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 937 of 953

Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. S7 57 (1987)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 794: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs) for 1995-1996. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH, 1995., p. 13]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 795: [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Arsenic, inorganic (7440-38-2) Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris on the Substance File List as of March 15, 2000]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 796: [Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984., p. III-44]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 797: REVIEWED** [Nakamuro K, Sayato Y; Mutat Res 88 (1): 73-80 (1981)]**PEER

s Reference 798: [Nat'l Research Council Canada; Effects of Arsenic in the Canadian Environment p.258 (1978) NRCC No.15391]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 799: [ITII. Toxic and Hazarous Industrial Chemicals Safety Manual. Tokyo, Japan: The International Technical Information Institute, 1982., p. 52]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 800: [Nat'l Research Council Canada; Effects of Arsenic in the Canadian Environment p.20 (1978) NRCC No. 15391]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 801: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic And Hazardous Chemicals. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1981., p. 59]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 802: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic And Hazardous Chemicals. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1981., p. 59]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 803: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 87]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 804: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 88]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 805: [Budavari, S. (ed.). The Merck Index - Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs and Biologicals. Rahway, NJ: Merck and Co., Inc., 1989., p. 126]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 806: [Grant, W.M. Toxicology of the Eye. 3rd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1986., p. 115]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 807: [Browning, E. Toxicity of Industrial Metals. 2nd ed. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1969., p. 51]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 938 of 953

s Reference 808: [The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals and Drugs 8th ed. Rahway, New Jersey: Merck and Co., Inc., 1968., p. 953]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 809: REVIEWED** [Gebhart E; Carcinogen Mut Metal Cmpd 213-25 (1985)]**PEER

s Reference 810: [Ellenhorn, M.J. and D.G. Barceloux. Medical Toxicology - Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1988., p. 101]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 811: [Hardman, J.G., L.E. Limbird, P.B. Molinoff, R.W. Ruddon, A.G. Goodman (eds.). Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1996., p. 1660]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 812: [Hardman, J.G., L.E. Limbird, P.B. Molinoff, R.W. Ruddon, A.G. Goodman (eds.). Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1996., p. 1661]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 813: [Hardman, J.G., L.E. Limbird, P.B. Molinoff, R.W. Ruddon, A.G. Goodman (eds.). Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1996., p. 1661]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 814: [Hardman, J.G., L.E. Limbird, P.B. Molinoff, R.W. Ruddon, A.G. Goodman (eds.). Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1996., p. 1661]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 815: [Hardman, J.G., L.E. Limbird, P.B. Molinoff, R.W. Ruddon, A.G. Goodman (eds.). Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1996., p. 1661]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 816: [Hardman, J.G., L.E. Limbird, P.B. Molinoff, R.W. Ruddon, A.G. Goodman (eds.). Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1996., p. 1661]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 817: [Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996., p. 275]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 818: [Haddad, L.M. and Winchester, J.F. Clinical Management of Poisoning and Drug Overdosage. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co., 1983., p. 95]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 819: [Friberg, L., Nordberg, G.F., Kessler, E. and Vouk, V.B. (eds). Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals. 2nd ed. Vols I, II.: Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1986., p. V2 66]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 820: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V23 103 (1980)]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 939 of 953

s Reference 821: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V23 105 (1980)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 822: [Casarett, L.J., and J. Doull. Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1975., p. 219]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 823: [U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation. CHRIS - Hazardous Chemical Data. Volume II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984-5., p. ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 824: [Hardman, J.G., L.E. Limbird, P.B. Molinoff, R.W. Ruddon, A.G. Goodman (eds.). Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1996., p. 1660]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 825: [Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984., p. III-43]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 826: [Friberg, L., G.R. Nordberg, and V.B. Vouk. Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals. New York: Elsevier North Holland, 1979., p. 304]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 827: [Gilman, A. G., L. S. Goodman, and A. Gilman. (eds.). Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 6th ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 1980., p. 1631]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 828: [Sullivan, J.B. Jr., G.R. Krieger (eds.). Hazardous Materials ToxicologyClinical Principles of Environmental Health. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1992., p. 995]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 829: [Chang, L.W. (ed.). Toxicology of Metals. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 1996, p. 222-3]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 830: [NTP, 11th Report on Carcinogens p. 147-51(2004) Available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s097zird.pdf as of March 28, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 831: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 304 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 832: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 431 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 833: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 479 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 940 of 953

s Reference 834: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V78 479 (2001)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 835: REVIEWED** [Koenig, KL et al; Ann Emerg Med 45 (6): 643-52 (2005) ]**PEER

s Reference 836: [Langford, R.E.; Introduction to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Radiological, Chemical, and Biological. Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ 2004 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 837: REVIEWED** [Koenig, KL et al; Ann Emerg Med 45 (6): 643-52 (2005) ]**PEER

s Reference 838: [Medical Management of Radiation Accidents, 2nd ed. Ed: Igor A. Gusev. Angelina K. Guskova, and Fred A. Mettler. 2001. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL Chapter 14 Local Radiation Injury by Anjekika B. Barabanova, pp 223-5 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 839: REVIEWED** [Koenig, KL et al; Ann Emerg Med 45 (6): 643-52 (2005) ]**PEER

s Reference 840: [Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. Handbook. Medical Management of Radiological Casualties, 2nd edition, p. 13-16 (April 2003). Available at http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/2edmmrchandbook.pdf as of February 2, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 841: Centers for Disease Control; Radiation Emergencies. Cutaneous Radiation Injury: Fact Sheet for Physicians p.6. Available at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/criphysicianfactsheet.asp as of February 23, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 842: [Bur A et al; Resuscitation 35 (1): 33-6 (1997)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 843: [Grant, W.M. Toxicology of the Eye. 3rd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1986., p. 662]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 844: REVIEWED** [SCHMID KO; PNEUMONOLOGIE 150 (2-4): 133-7 (1974)]**PEER

s Reference 845: [Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984., p. II-102]**PEER REVIEWED**

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 941 of 953

s Reference 846: [Sano Y et al; Jpn J Plast Reconstr Surg 31 (9): 811-14 (1988)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 847: [NIOSH; Criteria Document: Nitric Acid p.4 (1976) DHEW Pub NIOSH 76-141]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 848: REVIEWED** [WHO; Environ Health Criteria 188: Nitric acid p.15 (1997)]**PEER

s Reference 849: [Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996., p. 2418]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 850: [Medical Management of Radiation Accidents, 2nd ed. Ed: Igor A. Gusev. Angelina K. Guskova, and Fred A. Mettler. 2001. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL Chapter 14 Local Radiation Injury by Anjekika B. Barabanova, pp 223-5 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 851: [CDC. Acute Radiation Syndrome: A Fact Sheet for Physicians ( March 18, 2005) Available at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/arsphysicianfactsheet.asp as of March 27, 2006 ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 852: [Langford, R.E.; Introduction to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Radiological, Chemical, and Biological. Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ 2004 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 853: [Langford, R.E.; Introduction to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Radiological, Chemical, and Biological. Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ 2004 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 854: [Langford, R.E.; Introduction to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Radiological, Chemical, and Biological. Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ 2004 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 855: [Langford, R.E.; Introduction to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Radiological, Chemical, and Biological. Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ 2004 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 856: [Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. Handbook. Medical Management of Radiological Casualties, 2nd edition, p. 12-13 (April 2003). Available at http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/2edmmrchandbook.pdf as of February 2, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 857: [CDC. Acute Radiation Syndrome: A Fact Sheet for Physicians ( March 18, 2005) Available at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/arsphysicianfactsheet.asp as of March 27, 2006 ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 858: [Langford, R.E.; Introduction to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Radiological,

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 942 of 953

Chemical, and Biological. Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ 200 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 859: [CDC. Acute Radiation Syndrome: A Fact Sheet for Physicians ( March 18, 2005) Available at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/arsphysicianfactsheet.asp as of March 27, 2006 ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 860: REVIEWED** [Koenig, KL et al; Ann Emerg Med 45 (6): 643-52 (2005) ]**PEER

s Reference 861: [National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP Report No. 138, Management of Terrorist Events Involving Radioactive Material p.30 (2001) ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 862: [Gusev I.A. et al (ed). Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. 2nd Edition CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 204, 2001 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 863: [Gusev I.A. et al (ed). Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. 2nd Edition CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 299-311, 2001 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 864: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. 75 206 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 865: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 300 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 866: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 198 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 867: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000, Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Volume 2. p. 315-16 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 868: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000, Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Volume 2. p. 318-9 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 869: [National Research Council/National Academies Press; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2, p 586 (2005). Available at http://www.nap.edu/books/030909156X/html as of February 10, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 870: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 206 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 943 of 953

s Reference 871: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000, Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Volume 2. p. 325 (2000) ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 872: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000, Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Volume 2. p. 333-4 (2000) ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 873: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000, Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Volume 2. p. 314 (2000) ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 874: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000, Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Volume 2. p. 336 (2000) ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 875: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 198 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 876: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 199 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 877: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. 75 142 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 878: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 199-200 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 879: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 153 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 880: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 282 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 881: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 282 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 882: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 282 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 944 of 953

s Reference 883: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 410-2 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 884: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 303 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 885: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V75 281 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 886: [Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. Handbook. Medical Management of Radiological Casualties, 2nd edition, p.9-10 (April 2003). Available at http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/2edmmrchandbook.pdf as of February 2, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 887: [Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. Handbook. Medical Management of Radiological Casualties, 2nd edition, p.11 (April 2003). Available at http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/2edmmrchandbook.pdf as of February 2, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 888: [National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP Report No. 116, Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation p. 38 (1993) ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 889: [Gusev I.A. et al (ed). Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. 2nd Edition CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 171, 2001 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 890: [Gusev I.A. et al (ed). Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. 2nd Edition CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 205, 2001 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 891: [Centers for Disease Control; Prenatal Radiation Exposure: A Fact Sheet for Physicians p.3. Available at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/prenatalphysician.asp as of February 23, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 892: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000, Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Volume 2. p. 330 (2000) ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 893: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000, Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Volume 2. p. 338 (2000) ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 894: [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2000, Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Volume 2. p. 343 (2000) ] **PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 895: [De Santis M et al; Reproductive Toxicol. 20 (3): 323-9 (2005) ]**PEER

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 945 of 953

REVIEWED** s Reference 896: [National Research Council/National Academies Press; Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2, p.282 (2005). Available at http://www.nap.edu/books/030909156X/html as of February 10, 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 897: [Grant, W.M. Toxicology of the Eye. 3rd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1986., p. 863]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 898: [Patty, F. (ed.). Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology: Volume II: Toxicology. 2nd ed. New York: Interscience Publishers, 1963., p. 894]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 899: [Hamilton, A., and H. L. Hardy. Industrial Toxicology. 3rd ed. Acton, Mass.: Publishing Sciences Group, Inc., 1974., p. 210]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 900: [Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984., p. II-96]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 901: [Thienes, C., and T.J. Haley. Clinical Toxicology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1972., p. 198]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 902: [Thienes, C., and T.J. Haley. Clinical Toxicology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1972., p. 198]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 903: [International Labour Office. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Vols. I&II. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, 1983., p. 2122]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 904: [International Labour Office. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Volumes I and II. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971., p. 1370]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 905: [International Labour Office. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Volumes I and II. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971., p. 1370]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 906: [International Labour Office. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Vols. I&II. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, 1983., p. 2122]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 907: [International Labour Office. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Vols. I&II. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, 1983., p. 2122]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 908: [OSHA; Public Hearing on Occupational Standard for Sulfur Dioxide: Statement of Edward Baier (NIOSH) (May 1977) PB 83-182485]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 909: [OSHA; Public Hearing on Occupational Standard for Sulfur Dioxide: Statement of Edward Baier (NIOSH) (May 1977) PB 83-182485]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 946 of 953

s Reference 910: [Lawther PG et al; Environ Res 10: 335 (1975) as cited in OSHA; Public Hearing on Occupational Standard for Sulfur Dioxide: Statement of Edward Baier (NIOSH) (May 1977) PB 83-182485]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 911: [Ellenhorn, M.J., S. Schonwald, G. Ordog, J. Wasserberger. Ellenhorn's Medical Toxicology: Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1997., p. 1461]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 912: [Ellenhorn, M.J. and D.G. Barceloux. Medical Toxicology - Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1988., p. 874]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 913: [Ellenhorn, M.J. and D.G. Barceloux. Medical Toxicology - Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1988., p. 875]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 914: [Environment Canada; Tech Info for Problem Spills: Sulfur Dioxide (Draft) p.74 (1985)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 915: [Environment Canada; Tech Info for Problem Spills: Sulfur Dioxide (Draft) p.82-82 (1985)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 916: [Kehoe R et a; J Ind Hyg 14: 159-73 (1932) as cited in WHO; Environ Health Criteria: Sulfur Oxides and Suspended Particulate Matter p.64 (1979)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 917: [Bates DV, Hazucha M; Paris Vol IV: 1977 (1974) as cited in Nat'l Research Council Canada; Sulphur and its Inorganic Derivatives in the Canadian Environment p.294 (1974) NRCC No. 15015]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 918: [Shy CM et al; Arch Environ Health 27: 124 (1973) as cited in Nat'l Research Council Canada; Sulphur and its Inorganic Derivatives in the Canadian Environment p.297 (1977) NRCC No. 15015]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 919: [Seiler, H.G., H. Sigel and A. Sigel (eds.). Handbook on the Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1988., p. 655]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 920: [Hardman, J.G., L.E. Limbird, P.B. Molinoff, R.W. Ruddon, A.G. Goodman (eds.). Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1996., p. 1674-5]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 921: [Sullivan, J.B. Jr., G.R. Krieger (eds.). Hazardous Materials ToxicologyClinical Principles of Environmental Health. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1992., p. 969]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 922: [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work)., p. V54 170-1 (1992)]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 947 of 953

s Reference 923: [U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation. CHRIS - Hazardous Chemical Data. Volume II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984-5., p. ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 924: [Sax, N.I. and R.J. Lewis, Sr. (eds.). Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. 11th ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1987., p. 1107]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 925: [Commission of the European Communities. Legislation on Dangerous Substances - Classification and Labelling in the European Communities. Vol. II. London and Trotman Ltd., 1989., p. 138]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 926: [Sullivan, J.B. Jr., G.R. Krieger (eds.). Hazardous Materials ToxicologyClinical Principles of Environmental Health. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1992., p. 969]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 927: [Doull, J., C.D.Klassen, and M.D. Amdur (eds.). Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. 3rd ed., New York: Macmillan Co., Inc., 1986., p. 807]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 928: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 813]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 929: [World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety. Environmental Health Criteria 188. Nitrogen oxides. pp. 1-18, 270-276, 331 (1997)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 930: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. 6th ed. Volumes I, II, III. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH, 1991., p. 1090]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 931: [Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984., p. III-323]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 932: [Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984., p. III-320]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 933: [U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation. CHRIS - Hazardous Chemical Data. Volume II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984-5., p. ]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 934: [American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. 6th ed. Volumes I, II, III. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH, 1991., p. 1091]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 935: [Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984., p. III-320]**PEER REVIEWED** McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 948 of 953

s Reference 936: [Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996., p. 534]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 937: [Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996., p. 2419]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 938: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 649]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 939: [Environment Canada; Tech Info for Problem Spills: Nitric Acid (Draft) p.98 (1985)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 940: [Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996., p. 2419]**PEER REVIEWED** s s Reference 941: Reference 942: http://www.opensecrets.org/ http://www.homelandunsecured.org

s Reference 943: [Chang, L.W. (ed.). Toxicology of Metals. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 1996, p. 427-8]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 944: [Chang, L.W. (ed.). Toxicology of Metals. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 1996, p. 427]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 945: [Chang, L.W. (ed.). Toxicology of Metals. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 1996, p. 427]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 946: [Chang, L.W. (ed.). Toxicology of Metals. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 1996, p. 428]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 947: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic (Update) p.32 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 948: [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic (Update) p.34 (2000)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 949: REVIEWED** s Reference 950: REVIEWED** [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 44 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 44 (2000)]**PEER

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 949 of 953

s Reference 951: REVIEWED** s Reference 952: REVIEWED** s Reference 953: REVIEWED** s Reference 954: REVIEWED** s Reference 955: REVIEWED** s Reference 956: REVIEWED** s Reference 957:

[DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 45 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 45 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 103 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 103 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 103 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 104 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 105 (2000)]**PEER

REVIEWED** s Reference 958: REVIEWED** s Reference 959: REVIEWED** s Reference 960: REVIEWED** s Reference 961: REVIEWED** s Reference 962: REVIEWED** s Reference 963: REVIEWED** s Reference 964: REVIEWED** s Reference 965: REVIEWED** [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 106 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 108 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 109 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 112 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 113 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 115 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 120 (2000)]**PEER [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Arsenic p. 125 (2000)]**PEER

s Reference 966: [Ellenhorn, M.J., S. Schonwald, G. Ordog, J. Wasserberger. Ellenhorn's Medical Toxicology: Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 950 of 953

and Wilkins, 1997., p. 1541]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 967: [Rom, W.N. (ed.). Environmental and Occupational Medicine. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1992., p. 774]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 968: [Rom, W.N. (ed.). Environmental and Occupational Medicine. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1992., p. 775]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 969: [Environmental Health Criteria 107 Barium. pp.13-19 (1990) by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organization.]**QC REVIEWED** s Reference 970: [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) for Barium and compounds (7440-39-3) Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris on the Substance File List as of August 10, 1998]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 971: REVIEWED** [WHO; Environ Health Criteria 107: Barium p.90 (1990)]**PEER

s Reference 972: [Reynolds, J.E.F., Prasad, A.B. (eds.) Martindale-The Extra Pharmacopoeia. 28th ed. London: The Pharmaceutical Press, 1982., p. 926]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 973: [Sittig, M. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, 1985. 2nd ed. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1985., p. 105]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 974: [Environmental Health Criteria 107: Barium pp. 16-19 (1990) by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labor Organisation and the World Health Organization.]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 975: [Goodman, L.S., and A. Gilman. (eds.) The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 5th ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1975., p. 791]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 976: [Grant, W. M. Toxicology of the Eye. 2nd ed. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1974., p. 173]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 977: [Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984., p. III-61]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 978: [Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984., p. III-62]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 979: [Doull, J., C.D.Klassen, and M.D. Amdur (eds.). Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. 3rd ed., New York: Macmillan Co., Inc., 1986., p. 624]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 980: [Friberg, L., Nordberg, G.F., Kessler, E. and Vouk, V.B. (eds). Handbook of

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 951 of 953

the Toxicology of Metals. 2nd ed. Vols I, II.: Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1986., p. V2 90]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 981: [NIOSH. Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. 2nd Printing. DHHS (NIOSH) Publ. No. 85-114. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, NIOSH/Supt. of Documents, GPO, February 1987., p. 57]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 982: [NIOSH. Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. 2nd Printing. DHHS (NIOSH) Publ. No. 85-114. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, NIOSH/Supt. of Documents, GPO, February 1987., p. 57]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 983: [USEPA; Drinking Water Criteria Document for Barium (Draft) p.I-5 (1985) TR-540-60F]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 984: [Ellenhorn, M.J., S. Schonwald, G. Ordog, J. Wasserberger. Ellenhorn's Medical Toxicology: Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1997., p. 1543]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 985: [Ellenhorn, M.J., S. Schonwald, G. Ordog, J. Wasserberger. Ellenhorn's Medical Toxicology: Diagnosis and Treatment of Human Poisoning. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1997., p. 1545]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 986: [Zenz, C., O.B. Dickerson, E.P. Horvath. Occupational Medicine. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO., 1994, p. 598]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 987: REVIEWED** [WHO; Environ Health Criteria 107: Barium p.91 (1990)]**PEER

s Reference 988: [Rom, W.N. (ed.). Environmental and Occupational Medicine. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1992., p. 1259]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 989: [Mackison, F. W., R. S. Stricoff, and L. J. Partridge, Jr. (eds.). NIOSH/OSHA - Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 (3 VOLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1981., p. 1]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 990: [National Research Council. Drinking Water & Health Volume 1. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1977., p. 231]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 991: Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, NIOSH/Supt. of Documents, GPO, February 1987., p. 57]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 992: [USEPA; Drinking Water Criteria Document for Barium (Draft) p. I-1 (1985) TR-540-60F]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 993: [(1) NIOSH; National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES) (1983)]**PEER REVIEWED** s Reference 994: http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/wast.htm

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 952 of 953

Reference 995: Reference 996: Reference 997: Reference 998: Reference 999:

http://www.geocities.com/priceanderson/pricepower.html http://www.frankmckinnon.com/notice_of_violation.htm http://www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1988/sg880467.txt http://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/MBTA.pdf

Reference 1,000: http://www.corecumbria.co.uk/tour/tour.htm Reference 1,001: http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/birds/1-7-What-is-the-Migratory-BirdTreaty.html Reference 1,002: http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?zip=02&last= Herrera&first=Judith Reference 1,003: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/khosrowsemnani.asp?cycle=08 s s s Reference 1,004: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-16-2263572427_x.htm Reference 1,005: http://www.foe.org/powerpolitics/11.4.pdf Reference 1,006: https://opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs... Reference 1,007: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect06.htm Reference 1,008: http://uk.computers.toshibaeurope.com/innovation/NEWSARCHIVE/archived_news_article.jsp?ID=0000 006709 Reference 1,009: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s3225/show Reference 1,010: http://alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= Speeches.Detail&Speech_id=e44e158b-61f5-4ef6-91f93a92f992bc34&Month=4&Year=2008 Reference 1,011: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part040/full-text.html Reference 1,012: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050218-11.html Reference 1,013: http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn282.htm Reference 1,014: McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 953 of 953