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 N