[Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan

[Roger Helbig]

the Japanese like good liars like Christopher Charles Busby and Leuren K
Moret - anyone who pretends to be an academic who knows more than they do,
which is very little - presumably someone paid you to play the role of
expert - that's really defrauding the courts!  Busby does that too, but a
very high British Judge decided that he had enough of Busby's theater.

Roger

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> *The Japanese Peace Movement know full well that their stockpile of MOX is
> being used to manufacture nuclear weapons. They also knew of my expertise
> on MOX for having worked on this case in Michigan. They contacted me
> because they wanted to do something to stop their government’s use of MOX
> for weapons purposes. So they asked me to do this interview for them, and
> then did all the work to set it up including the translation. So maybe you
> should tell the Japanese Peace Movement that their MOX is not being used
> for weapons purposes. Maybe you should tell the Japanese Peace Movement
> that they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to their own
> MOX in Japan. I did not. I agreed to help them out and gave this interview
> which took quite some time to set up and because of the translation. Fab.*
>
>
>
> *Francis A. Boyle*
>
> *Law Building*
>
> *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.*
>
> *Champaign IL 61820 USA*
>
> *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)*
>
> *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)*
>
> *(personal comments only*)
>
>
>
> *From:* Boyle, Francis A
> *Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2017 9:39 PM
> *To:* Brussel, Morton K <brussel at illinois.edu>
> *Cc:* 'David Green' <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' <
> carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas <jtmiller at illinois.edu>;
> 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' <sherwoodross10 at gmail.com>; '
> peace-discuss at anti-war.net' <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; '
> a-fields at uiuc.edu' <a-fields at uiuc.edu>; Hoffman, Valerie J <
> vhoffman at illinois.edu>; 'Joe Lauria' <joelauria at gmail.com>; '
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; '
> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' <peace-discuss-request at lists.
> chambana.net>; Szoke, Ron <r-szoke at illinois.edu>; 'Arlene Hickory' <
> a23h23 at yahoo.com>; 'Karen Aram' <karenaram at hotmail.com>; '
> abass10 at gmail.com' <abass10 at gmail.com>; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' <
> mickalideh at gmail.com>; 'Lina Thorne' <lina at worldcantwait.net>; '
> chicago at worldcantwait.net' <chicago at worldcantwait.net>; 'Jay' <
> futureup2us at gmail.com>; 'David Johnson' <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>;
> 'Mildred O'brien' <moboct1 at aim.com>; Estabrook, Carl G <
> galliher at illinois.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan
>
>
>
> *And by the way, the reason Japanese Peace Movement had me interviewed is
> because they know full well that their MOX Stockpile is used for weapons
> purposes. fab*
>
>
>
> *Francis A. Boyle*
>
> *Law Building*
>
> *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.*
>
> *Champaign IL 61820 USA*
>
> *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)*
>
> *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)*
>
> *(personal comments only*)
>
>
>
> *From:* Boyle, Francis A
> *Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2017 9:30 PM
> *To:* Brussel, Morton K <brussel at illinois.edu>
> *Cc:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>; C. G. ESTABROOK <
> carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas <jtmiller at illinois.edu>;
> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu;
> Hoffman, Valerie J <vhoffman at illinois.edu>; Joe Lauria <
> joelauria at gmail.com>; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;
> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron <r-szoke at illinois.edu>;
> Arlene Hickory <a23h23 at yahoo.com>; Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com>;
> abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne <
> lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay <
> futureup2us at gmail.com>; David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>;
> Mildred O'brien <moboct1 at aim.com>; Estabrook, Carl G <
> galliher at illinois.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan
>
>
>
> *If you are not going to take the time to read these two  Testimonies
> under oath and subject to cross-examination by the Feds of two Experts on
> MOX  in United States Federal District, then you should stop impugning my
> integrity in favor of Wikipedia—pure guttersnipe! fab.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *Francis A. Boyle*
>
> *Law Building*
>
> *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.*
>
> *Champaign IL 61820 USA*
>
> *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)*
>
> *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)*
>
> *(personal comments only*)
>
>
>
> *From:* Brussel, Morton K
> *Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2017 9:13 PM
> *To:* Boyle, Francis A <fboyle at illinois.edu>
> *Cc:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>; C. G. ESTABROOK <
> carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas <jtmiller at illinois.edu>;
> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu;
> Hoffman, Valerie J <vhoffman at illinois.edu>; Joe Lauria <
> joelauria at gmail.com>; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;
> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron <r-szoke at illinois.edu>;
> Arlene Hickory <a23h23 at yahoo.com>; Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com>;
> abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne <
> lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay <
> futureup2us at gmail.com>; David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>;
> Mildred O'brien <moboct1 at aim.com>; Estabrook, Carl G <
> galliher at illinois.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan
>
>
>
> I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the
> nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your
>  statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone
> on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and
> noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of
> MOX, certainly not for bombs.
>
>
>
> Sorry,
>
>
>
> —mkb
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A <fboyle at illinois.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> *Well I have been qualified as an Expert on  MOX in United States Federal
> District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me
> in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge
> because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE.
> Fab.*
>
> *Subject:* Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc.
>
>
>
> 1
>
> 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>
> 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
>
> 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION
>
> 4
>
> 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER;
>
> CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES
>
> 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION;
>
> KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT
>
> 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER
>
> VERNON; and TERRY MILLER,
>
> 8
>
> Plaintiffs,
>
> 9
>
> v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933
>
> 10
>
> BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary,
>
> 11 United States Department
>
> of Energy; UNITED STATES
>
> 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN
>
> PART(Y)(IES), named as
>
> 13 "John and Jane Doe" on
>
> complaint,
>
> 14
>
> Defendants.
>
> 15
>
> ____________________________/
>
> 16
>
> * * * *
>
> 17
>
> 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE
>
> 19 * * * *
>
> 20
>
> 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN
>
> United States District Judge
>
> 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan
>
> April 7, 2000
>
> 23
>
> 24
>
> 25
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 2
>
> 1 APPEARANCES:
>
> 2
>
> APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
>
> 3
>
> MR. KARY LOVE
>
> 4 977 Butternut Drive
>
> PMB 128
>
> 5 Holland, Michigan 49424
>
> 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE
>
> 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520
>
> 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627
>
> 8
>
> APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
>
> 9
>
> MR. ROBERT I. DODGE
>
> 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS
>
> U.S. Attorney's Office
>
> 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501
>
> P.O. Box 208
>
> 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208
>
> 13
>
> 14
>
> 15
>
> 16
>
> 17
>
> 18
>
> 19
>
> 20
>
> 21
>
> 22
>
> 23
>
> 24
>
> 25
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 3
>
> 1 INDEX
>
> 2 WITNESS: Page
>
> 3 GORDON EDWARDS
>
> Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4
>
> 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17
>
> Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20
>
> 5
>
> 6
>
> FRANCIS BOYLE
>
> 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21
>
> Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67
>
> 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82
>
> 9
>
> 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd.
>
> 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87
>
> Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87
>
> 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31
>
> Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87
>
> 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87
>
> Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87
>
> 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87
>
> Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87
>
> 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87
>
> 16
>
> 17
>
> 18
>
> 19
>
> 20
>
> 21
>
> 22
>
> 23
>
> 24
>
> 25
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 4
>
> 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan
>
> 2 April 7, 2000
>
> 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M.
>
> 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS
>
> 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS
>
> 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening.
>
> 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you.
>
> 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards.
>
> 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN.
>
> 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name
>
> 11 for the record.
>
> 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards,
>
> 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s.
>
> 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION
>
> 15 BY MR. LODGE:
>
> 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding
>
> 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct?
>
> 18 A. That is correct.
>
> 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the
>
> 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or
>
> 21 profession?
>
> 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in
>
> 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for
>
> 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies.
>
> 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 5
>
> 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss
>
> 2 nuclear issues?
>
> 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for
>
> 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated
>
> 5 organization, since 1978.
>
> 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a
>
> 7 consultant on nuclear issues?
>
> 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of
>
> 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I
>
> 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also
>
> 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a
>
> 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board,
>
> 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the
>
> 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International
>
> 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear
>
> 16 weapons policies in Ottawa.
>
> 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the
>
> 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile
>
> 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the
>
> 20 Parallex Project?
>
> 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well.
>
> 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium
>
> 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that?
>
> 24 A. That is correct.
>
> 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 6
>
> 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be
>
> 2 brought from Russia?
>
> 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium
>
> 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American
>
> 5 shipment that proceeded in January.
>
> 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian
>
> 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978?
>
> 8 A. That's right.
>
> 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time?
>
> 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active
>
> 11 specifically on proliferation questions and
>
> 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975.
>
> 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach.
>
> 14 THE COURT: Of course.
>
> 15 BY MR. LODGE:
>
> 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the
>
> 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm
>
> 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here.
>
> 19 A. Yes.
>
> 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue
>
> 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium?
>
> 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for
>
> 23 harm.
>
> 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1?
>
> 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 7
>
> 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the
>
> 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with
>
> 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a
>
> 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective
>
> 5 maximum limits.
>
> 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999?
>
> 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago.
>
> 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the
>
> 9 limits are for both workers and for public?
>
> 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung
>
> 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and
>
> 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a
>
> 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we
>
> 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would
>
> 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum
>
> 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one
>
> 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to
>
> 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just
>
> 19 potential.
>
> 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have
>
> 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian
>
> 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American
>
> 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to
>
> 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is?
>
> 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 8
>
> 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as
>
> 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we
>
> 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119
>
> 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million
>
> 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible
>
> 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of
>
> 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general
>
> 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of
>
> 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is
>
> 10 quite significant.
>
> 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an
>
> 12 optimal dispersal?
>
> 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would
>
> 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into
>
> 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned.
>
> 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was
>
> 17 delivered to Chalk River?
>
> 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River.
>
> 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a
>
> 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was
>
> 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute
>
> 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the
>
> 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter
>
> 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from
>
> 25 there to Chalk River.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 9
>
> 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly
>
> 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform
>
> 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor
>
> 4 to start with for dispersal?
>
> 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about
>
> 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just
>
> 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event
>
> 8 of a serious accident.
>
> 9 Q. Are you saying how much?
>
> 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully
>
> 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only
>
> 12 that small fraction was disseminated.
>
> 13 Q. Okay.
>
> 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic
>
> 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the
>
> 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the
>
> 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even
>
> 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you
>
> 19 still have the potential for over a million
>
> 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference
>
> 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia
>
> 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional
>
> 23 maximum exposures for members of the public.
>
> 24 Q. How many for workers?
>
> 25 A. 11,428.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 10
>
> 1 Q. That's just --
>
> 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments,
>
> 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential
>
> 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public
>
> 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take
>
> 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport.
>
> 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage.
>
> 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting
>
> 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an
>
> 10 accident or an attack?
>
> 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is
>
> 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is
>
> 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have
>
> 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground
>
> 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or
>
> 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the
>
> 17 American side or from the Canadian side.
>
> 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex?
>
> 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex.
>
> 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and
>
> 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the
>
> 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a
>
> 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would
>
> 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my
>
> 25 knowledge, been performed.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 11
>
> 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel
>
> 2 form to be a weapons component?
>
> 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know,
>
> 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to
>
> 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that
>
> 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device
>
> 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable
>
> 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a
>
> 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make
>
> 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be
>
> 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very
>
> 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this
>
> 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be
>
> 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex
>
> 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to
>
> 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft
>
> 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons
>
> 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons
>
> 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic
>
> 20 bomb from that.
>
> 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or
>
> 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons
>
> 23 potential for plutonium?
>
> 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in
>
> 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 12
>
> 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian
>
> 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present
>
> 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that
>
> 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if
>
> 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the
>
> 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the
>
> 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the
>
> 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb.
>
> 9 Q. How do you know that?
>
> 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance,
>
> 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil
>
> 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that
>
> 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as
>
> 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material
>
> 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available
>
> 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the
>
> 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear
>
> 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium."
>
> 19 But if we just turn to the study that was
>
> 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the
>
> 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of
>
> 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report,
>
> 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report.
>
> 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a
>
> 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 13
>
> 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being
>
> 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key
>
> 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of
>
> 4 illicit groups.
>
> 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the
>
> 6 reprocessing of plutonium?
>
> 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World
>
> 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in
>
> 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian
>
> 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing
>
> 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as
>
> 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated
>
> 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of
>
> 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was
>
> 15 built according to a military decision taken in
>
> 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential.
>
> 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at
>
> 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built
>
> 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its
>
> 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from
>
> 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test.
>
> 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium
>
> 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples
>
> 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were
>
> 25 from Chalk River.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 14
>
> 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a
>
> 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option
>
> 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the
>
> 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes.
>
> 5 They do not have a policy which is against the
>
> 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they
>
> 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from
>
> 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is
>
> 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future
>
> 10 option.
>
> 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year
>
> 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level
>
> 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it
>
> 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by
>
> 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or
>
> 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a
>
> 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use
>
> 18 plutonium as a fuel.
>
> 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion
>
> 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please?
>
> 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British
>
> 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with
>
> 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and
>
> 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel
>
> 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 15
>
> 1 Cello Field in England.
>
> 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the
>
> 3 response by the British Government was?
>
> 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of
>
> 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has
>
> 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium
>
> 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of
>
> 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot
>
> 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since
>
> 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk
>
> 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of
>
> 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part
>
> 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as
>
> 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of
>
> 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for
>
> 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication.
>
> 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage
>
> 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in
>
> 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy,
>
> 20 since the Carter administration, successive
>
> 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not
>
> 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also
>
> 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as
>
> 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy
>
> 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 16
>
> 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent
>
> 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can
>
> 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling.
>
> 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan
>
> 5 respecting nuclear material?
>
> 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the
>
> 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the
>
> 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's
>
> 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements
>
> 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of
>
> 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used
>
> 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan
>
> 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of
>
> 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to
>
> 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do
>
> 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of
>
> 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese,
>
> 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the
>
> 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that.
>
> 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada?
>
> 21 A. Yes.
>
> 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further.
>
> 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
>
> 24 Sorry.
>
> 25 MR. LODGE: Yes?
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 17
>
> 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me.
>
> 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards.
>
> 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I
>
> 4 was jumping the gun a little.
>
> 5 CROSS EXAMINATION
>
> 6 BY MR. DODGE:
>
> 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have
>
> 8 met once before back in December.
>
> 9 A. That's right.
>
> 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of
>
> 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment.
>
> 12 A. Yes.
>
> 13 Q. Do you recall that?
>
> 14 A. Yes.
>
> 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams?
>
> 16 A. That's what was announced, yes.
>
> 17 Q. And how many ounces is that?
>
> 18 A. How many ounces is that?
>
> 19 Q. Yes.
>
> 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the
>
> 21 conversion.
>
> 22 Q. Can you do the conversion?
>
> 23 A. I don't have the --
>
> 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound
>
> 25 about right?
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 18
>
> 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system
>
> 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore.
>
> 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately
>
> 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that?
>
> 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that.
>
> 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that
>
> 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum
>
> 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations?
>
> 9 A. That is correct.
>
> 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption
>
> 11 you were making was that every single molecule of
>
> 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in
>
> 13 somebody's lungs; is that right?
>
> 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical
>
> 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario.
>
> 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in
>
> 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly
>
> 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of
>
> 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you
>
> 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in
>
> 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the
>
> 22 next person's lungs and so on?
>
> 23 A. That is correct.
>
> 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis
>
> 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 19
>
> 1 get?
>
> 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no.
>
> 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding
>
> 4 plutonium reprocessing.
>
> 5 A. Yes.
>
> 6 Q. Do you recall that?
>
> 7 A. Yes.
>
> 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in
>
> 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed
>
> 10 in Canada?
>
> 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be
>
> 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is
>
> 13 not decided.
>
> 14 Q. What is the basis for that last?
>
> 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future
>
> 16 they may reprocess.
>
> 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an
>
> 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the
>
> 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as
>
> 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be
>
> 21 reprocessed?
>
> 22 A. I do not, no.
>
> 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much.
>
> 24
>
> 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 20
>
> 1 BY MR. LODGE:
>
> 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do
>
> 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping
>
> 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello
>
> 5 Field?
>
> 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could
>
> 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some
>
> 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But
>
> 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of
>
> 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work
>
> 11 out approximately how much of that would contain
>
> 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming,
>
> 13 for example, three percent.
>
> 14 Q. Right.
>
> 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's
>
> 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have
>
> 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have
>
> 18 them here.
>
> 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy
>
> 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make
>
> 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were
>
> 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you
>
> 23 presume that would become public knowledge?
>
> 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would
>
> 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 21
>
> 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact,
>
> 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the
>
> 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it
>
> 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or
>
> 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental
>
> 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy
>
> 7 of Canada Limited makes public.
>
> 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you.
>
> 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor.
>
> 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards.
>
> 11 Thank you.
>
> 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court,
>
> 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand
>
> 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN
>
> 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and
>
> 16 spell your name for the record.
>
> 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle.
>
> 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e.
>
> 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION
>
> 20 BY MR. LOVE:
>
> 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed?
>
> 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the
>
> 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign.
>
> 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity?
>
> 25 A. 1978.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 22
>
> 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the
>
> 2 witness?
>
> 3 BY MR. LOVE:
>
> 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as
>
> 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs'
>
> 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document.
>
> 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume.
>
> 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction?
>
> 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've
>
> 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it.
>
> 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that
>
> 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars
>
> 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've
>
> 14 authored?
>
> 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many
>
> 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and
>
> 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice.
>
> 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well.
>
> 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your
>
> 20 educational background?
>
> 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied
>
> 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who
>
> 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was
>
> 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta
>
> 25 Kappa as a junior.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 23
>
> 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning
>
> 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's
>
> 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard.
>
> 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went
>
> 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from
>
> 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law.
>
> 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and
>
> 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I
>
> 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science
>
> 10 specializing in international relations, international
>
> 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced
>
> 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other
>
> 13 high level U.S. Government officials.
>
> 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International
>
> 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been
>
> 16 there before me.
>
> 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard
>
> 18 College undergraduates international law organizations,
>
> 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for
>
> 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did
>
> 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I
>
> 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure
>
> 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've
>
> 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years.
>
> 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois,
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 24
>
> 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to
>
> 2 particular research, writing and international law?
>
> 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I
>
> 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear
>
> 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms
>
> 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor
>
> 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these
>
> 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously
>
> 9 until today.
>
> 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of
>
> 11 laryngitis.
>
> 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem.
>
> 13 BY MR. LOVE:
>
> 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your
>
> 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On
>
> 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks
>
> 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and
>
> 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear
>
> 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in
>
> 20 1983.
>
> 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon,
>
> 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level
>
> 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with
>
> 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies,
>
> 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 25
>
> 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting
>
> 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star
>
> 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at
>
> 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read
>
> 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program
>
> 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts,
>
> 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a
>
> 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin
>
> 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations.
>
> 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of
>
> 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union
>
> 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers'
>
> 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet
>
> 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that?
>
> 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the
>
> 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet
>
> 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on
>
> 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite
>
> 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture
>
> 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related
>
> 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both
>
> 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over
>
> 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow,
>
> 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people,
>
> 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 26
>
> 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law
>
> 2 and, in general, nuclear policies.
>
> 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2
>
> 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author,
>
> 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law
>
> 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses
>
> 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please?
>
> 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the
>
> 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of
>
> 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the
>
> 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear
>
> 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent
>
> 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan
>
> 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you
>
> 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it
>
> 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working
>
> 17 with Congress.
>
> 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a
>
> 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction
>
> 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a
>
> 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic
>
> 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this
>
> 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called
>
> 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their
>
> 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 27
>
> 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing
>
> 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty.
>
> 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate
>
> 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing
>
> 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony
>
> 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan
>
> 7 administration was opposed to this implementing
>
> 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position
>
> 9 papers against it refuting these things.
>
> 10 Finally there was a change of policy when
>
> 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they
>
> 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved
>
> 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law
>
> 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called
>
> 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was
>
> 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death
>
> 17 Penalty Act of 1996.
>
> 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece
>
> 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological
>
> 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so
>
> 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the
>
> 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the
>
> 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85
>
> 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct
>
> 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 28
>
> 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are
>
> 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On
>
> 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue.
>
> 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the
>
> 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear
>
> 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but
>
> 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I
>
> 8 have an understanding how they relate to the
>
> 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this
>
> 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the
>
> 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and
>
> 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course
>
> 13 just devoted to this subject.
>
> 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before
>
> 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of
>
> 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct?
>
> 17 A. Yes, I have.
>
> 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that
>
> 19 experience?
>
> 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either
>
> 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that
>
> 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared
>
> 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those
>
> 24 matters that are in the public record.
>
> 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 29
>
> 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the--
>
> 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet
>
> 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb
>
> 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop
>
> 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed.
>
> 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic
>
> 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of
>
> 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to
>
> 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina,
>
> 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the
>
> 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders
>
> 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia.
>
> 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the
>
> 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting
>
> 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic
>
> 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against
>
> 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress,
>
> 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings.
>
> 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would
>
> 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two
>
> 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last
>
> 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law:
>
> 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that?
>
> 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point
>
> 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 30
>
> 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and
>
> 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my
>
> 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and
>
> 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto
>
> 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's
>
> 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have
>
> 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are
>
> 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that
>
> 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so
>
> 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back.
>
> 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note
>
> 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway
>
> 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox"
>
> 14 of Nuclear Deterrence.
>
> 15 A. That is correct.
>
> 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is?
>
> 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S.
>
> 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous
>
> 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate
>
> 20 between myself and these others led to this article that
>
> 21 was later published here in the United States and also
>
> 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it
>
> 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the
>
> 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under
>
> 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 31
>
> 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands.
>
> 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further
>
> 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and
>
> 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office
>
> 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into
>
> 6 evidence.
>
> 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission
>
> 8 of the C.V.
>
> 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3?
>
> 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3.
>
> 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to
>
> 12 ask either?
>
> 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I
>
> 14 may get into the resume on the cross.
>
> 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough.
>
> 16 Exhibit 3 is received.
>
> 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor.
>
> 18 BY MR. LOVE:
>
> 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today,
>
> 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have
>
> 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you
>
> 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in
>
> 23 preparing your testimony today?
>
> 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things
>
> 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 32
>
> 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in
>
> 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and
>
> 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear
>
> 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention
>
> 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large
>
> 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy
>
> 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental
>
> 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international
>
> 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the
>
> 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been
>
> 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there,
>
> 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an
>
> 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole
>
> 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the
>
> 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this
>
> 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance
>
> 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se.
>
> 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should
>
> 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas.
>
> 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents
>
> 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the
>
> 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of
>
> 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in
>
> 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should
>
> 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 33
>
> 1 go back and review all of those sources.
>
> 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just
>
> 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials
>
> 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the
>
> 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the
>
> 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally?
>
> 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact
>
> 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the
>
> 9 biological defense research program, the Council for
>
> 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire
>
> 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal
>
> 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they
>
> 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that
>
> 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in
>
> 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have
>
> 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons.
>
> 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for
>
> 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take
>
> 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a
>
> 20 chance to do so, please.
>
> 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of
>
> 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been
>
> 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation
>
> 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of
>
> 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 34
>
> 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this
>
> 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed
>
> 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this
>
> 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this
>
> 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department
>
> 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State
>
> 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we
>
> 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has
>
> 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well,
>
> 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation
>
> 11 is so important to the American people and our republic,
>
> 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of
>
> 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I
>
> 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down
>
> 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch
>
> 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read
>
> 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else,
>
> 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to
>
> 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear
>
> 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have
>
> 21 very little discretion.
>
> 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the
>
> 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the
>
> 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty?
>
> 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 35
>
> 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and
>
> 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've
>
> 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems,
>
> 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles
>
> 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as
>
> 6 interpreted by the United States Congress.
>
> 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the
>
> 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State
>
> 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not
>
> 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada,
>
> 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we
>
> 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this
>
> 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive
>
> 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this
>
> 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a
>
> 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons
>
> 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified
>
> 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for
>
> 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device.
>
> 20 Okay?
>
> 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the
>
> 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious
>
> 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not
>
> 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any
>
> 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 36
>
> 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we
>
> 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is
>
> 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion.
>
> 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which
>
> 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly
>
> 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you
>
> 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior
>
> 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were
>
> 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's
>
> 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was,
>
> 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the
>
> 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of
>
> 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans,
>
> 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court
>
> 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally
>
> 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident.
>
> 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the
>
> 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on
>
> 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United
>
> 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with
>
> 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might
>
> 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on
>
> 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your
>
> 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental
>
> 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 37
>
> 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not
>
> 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it
>
> 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that
>
> 4 they haven't looked at.
>
> 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or
>
> 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or
>
> 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear
>
> 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is
>
> 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says
>
> 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we
>
> 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again
>
> 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a
>
> 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive
>
> 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or
>
> 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade
>
> 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has
>
> 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components,
>
> 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to
>
> 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation
>
> 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means
>
> 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And
>
> 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by
>
> 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these
>
> 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current
>
> 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 38
>
> 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the
>
> 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers.
>
> 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II
>
> 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each
>
> 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes
>
> 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever
>
> 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."
>
> 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This
>
> 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards'
>
> 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon
>
> 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to
>
> 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material.
>
> 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your
>
> 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping
>
> 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason
>
> 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a
>
> 17 major dramatic change here in United States
>
> 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor,
>
> 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in
>
> 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of
>
> 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues
>
> 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of
>
> 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental
>
> 24 assessment at all.
>
> 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 39
>
> 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are
>
> 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or
>
> 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second
>
> 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or
>
> 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are
>
> 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting
>
> 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA
>
> 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to
>
> 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that
>
> 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and
>
> 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they
>
> 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other
>
> 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there
>
> 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on
>
> 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused,
>
> 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it.
>
> 17 There are no assurances about anything.
>
> 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire
>
> 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and
>
> 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture,"
>
> 21 etcetera, etcetera.
>
> 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard
>
> 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials
>
> 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously,
>
> 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 40
>
> 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International
>
> 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says
>
> 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't
>
> 4 in there.
>
> 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even
>
> 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there,
>
> 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are
>
> 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that
>
> 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we
>
> 10 simply don't have them.
>
> 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for
>
> 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to
>
> 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after
>
> 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please.
>
> 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my
>
> 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News.
>
> 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this
>
> 18 the type of information that an international law scholar
>
> 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or
>
> 20 nationally?
>
> 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of
>
> 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a
>
> 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and
>
> 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements
>
> 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed,
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 41
>
> 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents
>
> 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the
>
> 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field
>
> 4 would rely on this.
>
> 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared
>
> 6 in the Toronto --
>
> 7 A. News.
>
> 8 Q. -- News and it --
>
> 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like
>
> 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper
>
> 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or
>
> 12 something like this.
>
> 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column
>
> 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly
>
> 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see
>
> 16 that?
>
> 17 A. Yes.
>
> 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your
>
> 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports
>
> 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in
>
> 21 formulating use of international law?
>
> 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of
>
> 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear
>
> 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon
>
> 25 official statements made by Government officials acting
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 42
>
> 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli
>
> 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control
>
> 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this
>
> 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would
>
> 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the
>
> 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this
>
> 7 statement.
>
> 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute
>
> 9 to Miss Locatelli?
>
> 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We
>
> 11 aren't able to give out that information under our
>
> 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes
>
> 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it
>
> 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think
>
> 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even
>
> 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need
>
> 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under
>
> 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to
>
> 19 know how much fissile material Canada has.
>
> 20 And basically, we are just taking their,
>
> 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's
>
> 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have
>
> 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying
>
> 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And
>
> 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 43
>
> 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was
>
> 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE
>
> 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we
>
> 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory
>
> 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are
>
> 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And
>
> 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we
>
> 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what
>
> 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would
>
> 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade
>
> 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure
>
> 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and
>
> 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying
>
> 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again,
>
> 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been
>
> 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance
>
> 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely
>
> 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required
>
> 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I
>
> 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor,
>
> 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium
>
> 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is
>
> 23 concerned.
>
> 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other
>
> 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 44
>
> 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to
>
> 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and
>
> 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable
>
> 4 and there is an explanation here.
>
> 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion,
>
> 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not
>
> 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that
>
> 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state.
>
> 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms
>
> 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had
>
> 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter.
>
> 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the
>
> 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence
>
> 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet
>
> 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public
>
> 16 with it soon.
>
> 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40
>
> 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs,
>
> 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state
>
> 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent
>
> 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being
>
> 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress
>
> 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for
>
> 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position
>
> 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 45
>
> 1 violation of the NPT.
>
> 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations
>
> 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state
>
> 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a
>
> 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then
>
> 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we
>
> 7 haven't assembled the bomb.
>
> 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed,
>
> 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated
>
> 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons
>
> 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the
>
> 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to
>
> 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by
>
> 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments
>
> 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said
>
> 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States
>
> 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is
>
> 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian
>
> 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada.
>
> 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss
>
> 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of
>
> 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the
>
> 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on
>
> 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear
>
> 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978?
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 46
>
> 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional
>
> 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship
>
> 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to
>
> 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely
>
> 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is
>
> 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating
>
> 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is
>
> 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't
>
> 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the
>
> 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium
>
> 11 up in Canada.
>
> 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize
>
> 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United
>
> 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation
>
> 15 Treaty?
>
> 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183
>
> 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are
>
> 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is,
>
> 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear
>
> 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear
>
> 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this
>
> 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear
>
> 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to
>
> 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to
>
> 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 47
>
> 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the
>
> 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising
>
> 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious
>
> 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe
>
> 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress
>
> 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event
>
> 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to
>
> 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this
>
> 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the
>
> 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the
>
> 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere.
>
> 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to
>
> 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory
>
> 14 party to an international treaty such as the
>
> 15 Nonproliferation Treaty?
>
> 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt,
>
> 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a.
>
> 18 The other point -- there are two other points,
>
> 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any
>
> 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be
>
> 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here
>
> 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is
>
> 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation
>
> 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada.
>
> 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 48
>
> 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this
>
> 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again,
>
> 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion,
>
> 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which
>
> 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation.
>
> 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this
>
> 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and
>
> 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with
>
> 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with
>
> 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear
>
> 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear
>
> 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear
>
> 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure
>
> 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC
>
> 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear
>
> 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the
>
> 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this
>
> 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards
>
> 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American
>
> 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change
>
> 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components
>
> 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes
>
> 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very
>
> 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
>
> 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 49
>
> 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United
>
> 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a
>
> 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy
>
> 4 before there is any further movement on this project.
>
> 5 The implications here are enormous. They could
>
> 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full
>
> 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it
>
> 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of
>
> 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know
>
> 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide.
>
> 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or
>
> 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the
>
> 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you
>
> 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the
>
> 15 United States have a similar obligation?
>
> 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has
>
> 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my
>
> 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under
>
> 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the
>
> 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted
>
> 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978,
>
> 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the
>
> 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani
>
> 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this
>
> 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 50
>
> 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is
>
> 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from
>
> 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object
>
> 4 and purpose of the NPT.
>
> 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project?
>
> 6 A. Yes.
>
> 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the
>
> 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the
>
> 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of
>
> 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations?
>
> 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related
>
> 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international
>
> 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally
>
> 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and
>
> 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations
>
> 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State
>
> 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and
>
> 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to
>
> 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy.
>
> 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a
>
> 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is
>
> 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again
>
> 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States
>
> 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by
>
> 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 51
>
> 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation
>
> 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements,
>
> 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act,
>
> 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so
>
> 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control
>
> 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the
>
> 7 Department of State today. But if you read the
>
> 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very
>
> 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and
>
> 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not
>
> 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State
>
> 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times
>
> 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its
>
> 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department
>
> 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the
>
> 16 Department of Energy.
>
> 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by
>
> 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle,
>
> 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication
>
> 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the
>
> 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your
>
> 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously
>
> 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that.
>
> 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your
>
> 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 52
>
> 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of
>
> 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S.
>
> 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
>
> 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of
>
> 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of
>
> 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing
>
> 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you
>
> 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do
>
> 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the
>
> 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is
>
> 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they
>
> 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have
>
> 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not
>
> 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994
>
> 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is
>
> 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion,
>
> 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided
>
> 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or
>
> 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for
>
> 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues.
>
> 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State
>
> 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the
>
> 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through
>
> 24 the legislation you've indicated?
>
> 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 53
>
> 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you
>
> 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan,
>
> 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the
>
> 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem,
>
> 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute
>
> 6 over Casmir.
>
> 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the
>
> 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament
>
> 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and
>
> 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up
>
> 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to
>
> 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India
>
> 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United
>
> 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral
>
> 15 importance of safeguards.
>
> 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement
>
> 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the
>
> 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation
>
> 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is
>
> 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the
>
> 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the
>
> 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the
>
> 23 environmental assessment.
>
> 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as
>
> 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 54
>
> 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to
>
> 2 do so, please.
>
> 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State
>
> 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2
>
> 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw
>
> 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards
>
> 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern.
>
> 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet
>
> 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not
>
> 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal
>
> 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are
>
> 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The
>
> 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan
>
> 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international
>
> 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing
>
> 16 out we have United States law that deals with
>
> 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course,
>
> 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear
>
> 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and
>
> 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So
>
> 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as
>
> 22 well as our international obligation she points out.
>
> 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular
>
> 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to,
>
> 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 55
>
> 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of
>
> 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the
>
> 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental
>
> 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues
>
> 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none.
>
> 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations
>
> 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan
>
> 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors?
>
> 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian
>
> 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India
>
> 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU
>
> 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York
>
> 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of
>
> 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards
>
> 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I
>
> 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I
>
> 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to
>
> 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing
>
> 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add
>
> 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other
>
> 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been
>
> 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that
>
> 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation
>
> 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they
>
> 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 56
>
> 1 Canada.
>
> 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what,
>
> 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in
>
> 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South
>
> 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for
>
> 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a
>
> 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way
>
> 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we
>
> 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for
>
> 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and
>
> 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb.
>
> 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your
>
> 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very
>
> 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a
>
> 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium.
>
> 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he
>
> 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in
>
> 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone.
>
> 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's
>
> 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states
>
> 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort
>
> 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the
>
> 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the
>
> 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access
>
> 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 57
>
> 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the
>
> 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress
>
> 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components,
>
> 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is
>
> 5 that correct?
>
> 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good
>
> 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have
>
> 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear
>
> 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other
>
> 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to
>
> 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons
>
> 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this
>
> 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons
>
> 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and
>
> 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to
>
> 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted,
>
> 17 I think, the treaty properly.
>
> 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the
>
> 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program?
>
> 20 A. I am, yes.
>
> 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of
>
> 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium?
>
> 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in
>
> 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test
>
> 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 58
>
> 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently
>
> 2 doing this.
>
> 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of
>
> 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms.
>
> 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and
>
> 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So
>
> 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the
>
> 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's
>
> 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive
>
> 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT
>
> 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are
>
> 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates
>
> 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior.
>
> 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say
>
> 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons
>
> 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same
>
> 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium
>
> 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other
>
> 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I
>
> 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the
>
> 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are
>
> 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't
>
> 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT.
>
> 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research,
>
> 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 59
>
> 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996?
>
> 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort
>
> 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the
>
> 4 World Court.
>
> 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if
>
> 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex
>
> 7 project is, in your opinion?
>
> 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United
>
> 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire
>
> 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a
>
> 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the
>
> 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to
>
> 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this
>
> 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are
>
> 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the
>
> 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court
>
> 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area
>
> 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding
>
> 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada,
>
> 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion
>
> 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental
>
> 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in
>
> 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with
>
> 24 international environmental law applicable to this
>
> 25 transaction because it is an international transaction,
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 60
>
> 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada
>
> 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international
>
> 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done
>
> 4 nothing at all about it.
>
> 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact
>
> 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact
>
> 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law
>
> 8 that would apply?
>
> 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm
>
> 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy
>
> 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel
>
> 12 previously.
>
> 13 BY MR. LOVE:
>
> 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as
>
> 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that
>
> 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what
>
> 17 it is.
>
> 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so
>
> 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me.
>
> 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last
>
> 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the
>
> 22 relevant paragraphs.
>
> 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your
>
> 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please?
>
> 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 61
>
> 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27.
>
> 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously
>
> 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972,
>
> 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of
>
> 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not
>
> 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have
>
> 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their
>
> 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
>
> 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of
>
> 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of
>
> 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the
>
> 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance
>
> 13 here to this entire project. You've got international
>
> 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it
>
> 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of
>
> 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They
>
> 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they
>
> 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court
>
> 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read
>
> 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once
>
> 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again,
>
> 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It
>
> 23 is our problem.
>
> 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion,
>
> 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 62
>
> 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of
>
> 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the
>
> 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.
>
> 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court
>
> 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear
>
> 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the
>
> 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
>
> 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a
>
> 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102.
>
> 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102?
>
> 11 A. 102, right.
>
> 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99.
>
> 13 A. 99 and 102, right.
>
> 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion,
>
> 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article
>
> 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty
>
> 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on
>
> 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in
>
> 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of
>
> 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear
>
> 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete
>
> 22 disarmament under strict and effective international
>
> 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT
>
> 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a
>
> 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 63
>
> 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good
>
> 2 faith.
>
> 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador
>
> 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the
>
> 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue
>
> 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that
>
> 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as
>
> 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to
>
> 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just
>
> 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We
>
> 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of
>
> 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we
>
> 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations."
>
> 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a
>
> 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting
>
> 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World
>
> 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith.
>
> 18 And then the second component of the obligation
>
> 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament
>
> 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S.
>
> 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the
>
> 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it."
>
> 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that
>
> 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire
>
> 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 64
>
> 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith
>
> 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are
>
> 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear
>
> 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it,
>
> 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states,
>
> 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of
>
> 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear
>
> 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I
>
> 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a
>
> 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these
>
> 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not
>
> 12 currently doing.
>
> 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why
>
> 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all,
>
> 15 are binding on the U.S.?
>
> 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So
>
> 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know,
>
> 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you
>
> 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in
>
> 20 the United States that some states courts have authority
>
> 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious
>
> 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority
>
> 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not
>
> 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we
>
> 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 65
>
> 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were
>
> 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however,
>
> 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by
>
> 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it
>
> 5 clear that these rules are customary international law.
>
> 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United
>
> 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana,
>
> 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court
>
> 9 customarily international law binds the United States and
>
> 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is
>
> 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should
>
> 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two
>
> 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT
>
> 14 should be interpreted.
>
> 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy
>
> 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested
>
> 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really
>
> 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but
>
> 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law
>
> 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think
>
> 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I
>
> 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own
>
> 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think
>
> 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World
>
> 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 66
>
> 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of
>
> 2 the NPT.
>
> 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment
>
> 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not
>
> 5 taken into account the rules of international
>
> 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not
>
> 7 taken into account anything about the NPT.
>
> 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear
>
> 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the
>
> 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the
>
> 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S.
>
> 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty
>
> 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an
>
> 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign
>
> 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the
>
> 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S.
>
> 17 DOE?
>
> 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said.
>
> 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States
>
> 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the
>
> 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear
>
> 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely
>
> 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act
>
> 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major
>
> 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 67
>
> 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of
>
> 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we
>
> 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides
>
> 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority.
>
> 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for
>
> 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy
>
> 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78
>
> 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes.
>
> 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further
>
> 10 questions of this witness. Thank you.
>
> 11 CROSS EXAMINATION
>
> 12 BY MR. DODGE:
>
> 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle.
>
> 14 A. Morning.
>
> 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V.,
>
> 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of
>
> 17 you?
>
> 18 A. Sure.
>
> 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about
>
> 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya
>
> 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over
>
> 22 Lockerbie, Scotland.
>
> 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being
>
> 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya
>
> 25 because of my efforts.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 68
>
> 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from
>
> 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal
>
> 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization?
>
> 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the
>
> 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks
>
> 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes.
>
> 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel
>
> 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress
>
> 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President
>
> 10 George Bush?
>
> 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a
>
> 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated
>
> 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international
>
> 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And
>
> 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to
>
> 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve
>
> 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct.
>
> 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the
>
> 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as
>
> 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those
>
> 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with
>
> 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did
>
> 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989,
>
> 24 which is --
>
> 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 69
>
> 1 personally.
>
> 2 A. Pardon me?
>
> 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally.
>
> 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law
>
> 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems,
>
> 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological
>
> 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both
>
> 8 Houses of Congress.
>
> 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of
>
> 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on
>
> 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for
>
> 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation?
>
> 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian
>
> 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State
>
> 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the
>
> 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for
>
> 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that
>
> 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native
>
> 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent
>
> 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii
>
> 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing
>
> 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on
>
> 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with
>
> 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian
>
> 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 70
>
> 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I
>
> 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii
>
> 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of
>
> 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid
>
> 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes.
>
> 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified
>
> 7 about Article I. Do you recall that?
>
> 8 A. Yes.
>
> 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the
>
> 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view,
>
> 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is
>
> 12 that right? Explosive device?
>
> 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be
>
> 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a
>
> 15 nuclear explosive device.
>
> 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment
>
> 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct?
>
> 18 A. Right.
>
> 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel
>
> 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive
>
> 21 devices?
>
> 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium
>
> 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive
>
> 24 device.
>
> 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 71
>
> 1 question?
>
> 2 A. Well, I've given my answer.
>
> 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his
>
> 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the
>
> 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question
>
> 6 about rods.
>
> 7 BY MR. DODGE:
>
> 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you
>
> 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex
>
> 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or
>
> 11 explosive devices.
>
> 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or
>
> 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear
>
> 14 explosive devices.
>
> 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right?
>
> 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep.
>
> 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components
>
> 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices?
>
> 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium
>
> 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear
>
> 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I
>
> 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the
>
> 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position
>
> 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is
>
> 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 72
>
> 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they
>
> 2 dealt with the plutonium.
>
> 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly.
>
> 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any
>
> 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear
>
> 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the
>
> 7 treaty?
>
> 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved
>
> 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or
>
> 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade
>
> 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project.
>
> 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a
>
> 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all
>
> 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon
>
> 15 or explosive device under Article I?
>
> 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they
>
> 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I
>
> 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a
>
> 19 nuclear weapon --
>
> 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your
>
> 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you
>
> 22 answer that?
>
> 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is
>
> 24 based on --
>
> 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 73
>
> 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not
>
> 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight
>
> 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you
>
> 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it.
>
> 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
>
> 6 BY MR. DODGE:
>
> 7 Q. Do you understand the question?
>
> 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time,
>
> 9 ask it again.
>
> 10 BY MR. DODGE:
>
> 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component
>
> 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of
>
> 13 the treaty?
>
> 14 A. It can.
>
> 15 Q. It can?
>
> 16 A. Yes. Yes.
>
> 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether
>
> 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for
>
> 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify
>
> 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device?
>
> 21 A. It could.
>
> 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of
>
> 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any
>
> 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of
>
> 25 fuel rods containing plutonium?
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 74
>
> 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there
>
> 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress,
>
> 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against
>
> 4 international transport of plutonium," yes.
>
> 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the
>
> 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium?
>
> 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I
>
> 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has
>
> 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods.
>
> 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national
>
> 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct?
>
> 12 A. They are transported.
>
> 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported
>
> 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that
>
> 15 correct?
>
> 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject
>
> 17 to safeguards, yes.
>
> 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier
>
> 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at
>
> 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to
>
> 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony?
>
> 22 A. Yes.
>
> 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the
>
> 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the
>
> 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 75
>
> 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards?
>
> 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of
>
> 3 the movement of the shipments.
>
> 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of
>
> 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to
>
> 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with
>
> 7 that?
>
> 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the
>
> 9 validity of these assertions, yes.
>
> 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel
>
> 11 rods, was she?
>
> 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right.
>
> 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli?
>
> 14 A. No, I did not.
>
> 15 Q. About this or any--
>
> 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he
>
> 17 has similar concerns to me.
>
> 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin
>
> 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli?
>
> 20 A. No, I did not.
>
> 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not
>
> 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about;
>
> 23 is that right?
>
> 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public
>
> 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 76
>
> 1 Court for sure, yep.
>
> 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings?
>
> 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the
>
> 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely
>
> 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally
>
> 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have
>
> 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than
>
> 8 they do here in United States District Court.
>
> 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's
>
> 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that
>
> 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40
>
> 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right?
>
> 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail
>
> 14 correspondence with him about it.
>
> 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether --
>
> 16 A. No.
>
> 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question.
>
> 18 A. I did answer your question.
>
> 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you
>
> 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't
>
> 21 finished asking it.
>
> 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
>
> 23 BY MR. DODGE:
>
> 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in
>
> 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium?
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 77
>
> 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the
>
> 2 statement by Mr. Clemens.
>
> 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge
>
> 4 whether Canada has 40--
>
> 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail
>
> 6 correspondence with him, he does.
>
> 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium?
>
> 8 A. Pardon me?
>
> 9 Q. Has he seen it?
>
> 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he
>
> 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon.
>
> 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to
>
> 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds
>
> 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we?
>
> 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the
>
> 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to
>
> 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy.
>
> 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was
>
> 19 not his question.
>
> 20 Would you repeat your question, please?
>
> 21 BY MR. DODGE:
>
> 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he
>
> 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40
>
> 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this
>
> 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water,
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 78
>
> 1 we just don't know, correct?
>
> 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the
>
> 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review
>
> 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion.
>
> 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just
>
> 6 want to give up?
>
> 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is
>
> 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor.
>
> 9 BY MR. DODGE:
>
> 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State
>
> 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret
>
> 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right?
>
> 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in
>
> 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I
>
> 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes.
>
> 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood
>
> 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say
>
> 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying
>
> 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent
>
> 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the
>
> 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement?
>
> 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead
>
> 23 role in the United States Government with respect to
>
> 24 interpretation of treatises as well.
>
> 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 79
>
> 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant
>
> 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty?
>
> 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to
>
> 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and
>
> 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State
>
> 6 Department as to what their position is, no.
>
> 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document
>
> 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex
>
> 9 Project, you understand that?
>
> 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the
>
> 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by
>
> 12 the Department of State on this issue.
>
> 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was
>
> 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project?
>
> 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there.
>
> 16 Q. Do you know?
>
> 17 A. Myself personally?
>
> 18 Q. Yes.
>
> 19 A. I don't know for sure.
>
> 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State
>
> 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is
>
> 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of
>
> 23 the NPT?
>
> 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on
>
> 25 this issue.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 80
>
> 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that
>
> 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our
>
> 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to
>
> 4 quarrel with that?
>
> 5 A. I haven't seen it.
>
> 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor.
>
> 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen --
>
> 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor.
>
> 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and
>
> 10 evaluate it myself, sure.
>
> 11 BY MR. DODGE:
>
> 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation
>
> 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are
>
> 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to
>
> 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony?
>
> 16 A. Yes.
>
> 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program
>
> 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any
>
> 19 country other than Canada?
>
> 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there
>
> 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the
>
> 22 line.
>
> 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly?
>
> 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we
>
> 25 are talking about coming from Russia.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 81
>
> 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United
>
> 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government
>
> 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send
>
> 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada?
>
> 5 A. The United States?
>
> 6 Q. Right.
>
> 7 A. No.
>
> 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with
>
> 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country
>
> 10 other than Canada?
>
> 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons
>
> 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the
>
> 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United
>
> 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of
>
> 15 this stuff.
>
> 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there,
>
> 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has
>
> 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than
>
> 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't
>
> 20 address where. That was my question.
>
> 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or
>
> 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been
>
> 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage
>
> 24 now, yes.
>
> 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 82
>
> 1 fuel rods to Korea?
>
> 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be
>
> 3 sold anywhere.
>
> 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He
>
> 5 said: Did they propose it?
>
> 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now
>
> 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea.
>
> 8 BY MR. DODGE:
>
> 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan.
>
> 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to
>
> 11 Taiwan.
>
> 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time,
>
> 13 Your Honor.
>
> 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess.
>
> 15 COURT CLERK: All rise.
>
> 16 This court is in recess.
>
> 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.)
>
> 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next?
>
> 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor.
>
> 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
>
> 21 BY MR. LOVE:
>
> 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or
>
> 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf?
>
> 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic
>
> 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 83
>
> 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged
>
> 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and
>
> 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on
>
> 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a
>
> 5 Bosnian citizen too.
>
> 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian
>
> 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there
>
> 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your
>
> 9 knowledge, with respect to that?
>
> 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by
>
> 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native
>
> 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing
>
> 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a
>
> 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is
>
> 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved
>
> 16 in those matters.
>
> 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked
>
> 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that?
>
> 19 A. Yes, I have it here.
>
> 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control
>
> 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and
>
> 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January,
>
> 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy,
>
> 24 correct?
>
> 25 A. Yes.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 84
>
> 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in
>
> 2 preparing your testimony?
>
> 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until
>
> 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire
>
> 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to
>
> 6 me.
>
> 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the
>
> 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked
>
> 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future
>
> 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him
>
> 11 asking you about that?
>
> 12 A. Yes.
>
> 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility
>
> 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United
>
> 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the
>
> 16 question.
>
> 17 MR. LOVE: Okay.
>
> 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are
>
> 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are
>
> 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand
>
> 21 that.
>
> 22 BY MR. LOVE:
>
> 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the
>
> 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you
>
> 25 testified about?
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 85
>
> 1 A. Yes.
>
> 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my
>
> 3 time. There are possibilities.
>
> 4 BY MR. LOVE:
>
> 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the
>
> 6 large document that's in front of you. This is
>
> 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's
>
> 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing.
>
> 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony
>
> 10 here today.
>
> 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your
>
> 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report.
>
> 13 A. Yes.
>
> 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia
>
> 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy?
>
> 16 A. That is correct.
>
> 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under
>
> 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key
>
> 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that?
>
> 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages
>
> 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should
>
> 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should
>
> 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the
>
> 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and
>
> 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 86
>
> 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this
>
> 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony?
>
> 3 A. Yes.
>
> 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of
>
> 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes
>
> 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony?
>
> 7 A. I said there was some, yes.
>
> 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade
>
> 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the
>
> 10 United States?
>
> 11 A. No. No.
>
> 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions.
>
> 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor.
>
> 14 THE COURT: You may step down.
>
> 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
>
> 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions?
>
> 17 THE COURT: No, I don't.
>
> 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
>
> 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take
>
> 20 it you have no more witnesses.
>
> 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses
>
> 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5,
>
> 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14
>
> 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence.
>
> 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor.
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 87
>
> 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are
>
> 2 received.
>
> 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have
>
> 4 nothing further.
>
> 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do
>
> 6 you want them?
>
> 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here.
>
> 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested
>
> 9 transcribed.)
>
> 10
>
> 11
>
> 12
>
> 13
>
> 14
>
> 15
>
> 16
>
> 17
>
> 18
>
> 19
>
> 20
>
> 21
>
> 22
>
> 23
>
> 24
>
> 25
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> 88
>
> 1
>
> 2
>
> 3
>
> 4
>
> 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
>
> 6
>
> 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the
>
> 8 United States District Court for the Western District of
>
> 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28,
>
> 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the
>
> 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had
>
> 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date
>
> 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the
>
> 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my
>
> 15 direction.
>
> 16
>
> 17
>
> 18
>
> 19
>
> 20 __________________________________
>
> 21
>
> Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300
>
> 22 U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue
>
> 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> 24
>
> 25
>
> KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter
>
> 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
>
> (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050>
>
>
>
> Francis A. Boyle
>
> Law Building
>
> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
>
> Champaign, IL 61820 USA
>
> 217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (voice)
>
> 217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)
>
> fboyle at law.uiuc.edu
>
> (personal comments only)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Francis A. Boyle*
>
> *Law Building*
>
> *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.*
>
> *Champaign IL 61820 USA*
>
> *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)*
>
> *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)*
>
> *(personal comments only*)
>
>
>
> *From:* Brussel, Morton K
> *Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM
> *To:* Boyle, Francis A <fboyle at illinois.edu>
> *Cc:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>; C. G. ESTABROOK <
> carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas <jtmiller at illinois.edu>;
> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu;
> Hoffman, Valerie J <vhoffman at illinois.edu>; Joe Lauria <
> joelauria at gmail.com>; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;
> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron <r-szoke at illinois.edu>;
> Arlene Hickory <a23h23 at yahoo.com>; Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com>;
> abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne <
> lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay <
> futureup2us at gmail.com>; David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>;
> Mildred O'brien <moboct1 at aim.com>; Estabrook, Carl G <
> galliher at illinois.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan
>
>
>
> I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power
> reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly
> intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”.
>
>
>
> —mkb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace
> and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that
> Japan was using MOX to  make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan
> probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So
> when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me
> it was one of their leading bomb complexes.*
>
>
>
> *Fab.*
>
>
>
> *Francis A. Boyle*
>
> *Law Building*
>
> *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.*
>
> *Champaign, IL 61820 USA*
>
> *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)*
>
> *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)*
>
> *(personal comments only)*
>
>
>
> *From:* globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com
> <globenet at yahoogroups.com>]
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM
> *To:* globenet at yahoogroups.com
> *Cc:* 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran@
> yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen
> Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche'
> *Subject:* [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Francis A. Boyle*
>
> *Law Building*
>
> *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.*
>
> *Champaign, IL 61820 USA*
>
> *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)*
>
> *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)*
>
> *(personal comments only)*
>
>
>
> <Outlook.jpg>
>
>
>
> *Francis A. Boyle*
>
> *Law Building*
>
> *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.*
>
> *Champaign, IL 61820 USA*
>
> *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (Voice)*
>
> *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (Fax)*
>
> *(personal comments only)*
>
>
>
>
>
> __._,_.___
> ------------------------------
>
> Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" <fboyle at illinois.edu>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Reply via web post
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.yahoo.com_neo_groups_globenet_conversations_messages_29585-3B-5Fylc-3DX3oDMTJxcHU3ZGhvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwNTUwOTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NzU5MzM1BG1zZ0lkAzI5NTg1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTQyNjk0MzU3MQ-2D-2D-3Fact-3Dreply-26messageNum-3D29585&d=DwMGaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=9eBn2xukb4K19JC8Bn8zUQ&m=OaTh8WFgqJWZYb7IwRZgsmiGwx3RiKpv--clmHm7UP0&s=QWRjrwBHRLDXTAXzCwKZqiZWZGINL5AlM9eGsM2AW40&e=>*
>
> •
>
> Reply to sender
> <fboyle at illinois.edu?subject=Re%3A%20MOX%20for%20Bombs%20%20in%20Japan>
>
> •
>
> Reply to group
> <globenet at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20MOX%20for%20Bombs%20%20in%20Japan>
>
> •
>
> Start a New Topic
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.yahoo.com_neo_groups_globenet_conversations_newtopic-3B-5Fylc-3DX3oDMTJlZWFkbnBmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwNTUwOTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NzU5MzM1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQyNjk0MzU3MQ-2D-2D&d=DwMGaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=9eBn2xukb4K19JC8Bn8zUQ&m=OaTh8WFgqJWZYb7IwRZgsmiGwx3RiKpv--clmHm7UP0&s=JeV7HGEmhX5ZYEzAR-vTP0Q1g_Eh1T4V4Vvpv3aaYvI&e=>
>
> •
>
> Messages in this topic
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.yahoo.com_neo_groups_globenet_conversations_topics_29585-3B-5Fylc-3DX3oDMTM2dmIzZTJhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwNTUwOTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NzU5MzM1BG1zZ0lkAzI5NTg1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQyNjk0MzU3MQR0cGNJZAMyOTU4NQ-2D-2D&d=DwMGaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=9eBn2xukb4K19JC8Bn8zUQ&m=OaTh8WFgqJWZYb7IwRZgsmiGwx3RiKpv--clmHm7UP0&s=78sgZPN89VULG7M1KyraeAQ-eA8VDKAfonKW-e2htJs&e=>
>  (1)
>
> *VISIT YOUR GROUP
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.yahoo.com_neo_groups_globenet_info-3B-5Fylc-3DX3oDMTJlMGJlamhlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwNTUwOTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NzU5MzM1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTQyNjk0MzU3MQ-2D-2D&d=DwMGaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=9eBn2xukb4K19JC8Bn8zUQ&m=OaTh8WFgqJWZYb7IwRZgsmiGwx3RiKpv--clmHm7UP0&s=Cp2fudzWgC5Vop23jT6LeOncmnlHl7mzkOYG7d-Nw1s&e=>*
>
> [image: Yahoo! Groups]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.yahoo.com_neo-3B-5Fylc-3DX3oDMTJkZmU3djhrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwNTUwOTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NzU5MzM1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxNDI2OTQzNTcx&d=DwMGaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=9eBn2xukb4K19JC8Bn8zUQ&m=OaTh8WFgqJWZYb7IwRZgsmiGwx3RiKpv--clmHm7UP0&s=NrA9nFIYiUxY_DSo_lJU9yx2RtfJVsFTMvEWBZOwtU8&e=>
>
> • Privacy
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__info.yahoo.com_privacy_us_yahoo_groups_details.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=9eBn2xukb4K19JC8Bn8zUQ&m=OaTh8WFgqJWZYb7IwRZgsmiGwx3RiKpv--clmHm7UP0&s=mBRj99ZL2VY23km1GLi13bw-nfp5utelqVOpxe8jZk4&e=>
>  • Unsubscribe <globenet-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> • Terms of Use
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__info.yahoo.com_legal_us_yahoo_utos_terms_&d=DwMGaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=9eBn2xukb4K19JC8Bn8zUQ&m=OaTh8WFgqJWZYb7IwRZgsmiGwx3RiKpv--clmHm7UP0&s=AbG_zfqpXzgJP2YQ9cogi7Y73jnKHp-3N6OzLjFNubA&e=>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
> __,_._,___
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20171107/5fe3b75b/attachment-0001.html>