ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n267

Internet Message Format | 2000-03-06 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #267
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest       Monday, March 6 2000       Volume 01 : Number 267




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:44:35 -0800
From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: radioactive waste in SantaFe and Colorado

> This is a lengthy document but please read #2 on page 4.  "The City of
>Sante Fe New Mexico is currently being sued by NRC for trying to regulate
>radioactive discharge into the sewers.  NRC claims that radioactive
>discharge will not be regulated by USEPA, cities or the states."
>    If this is accurate, EPA has no intention to regulate radioactive
>discharges to sewers and NRC is suing to force sewer plants to take
>radioactive discharges.
>    There is something fishy here.  The GAO report said the extent of
>radioactive contamination at POTWs was not  known.  EPA granted anonymity
>to POTW's in order to gain their cooperation in assessing the extent of
>contamination.  Now NRC is suing to force POTWs to accept radioactive
>discharges.  Is this whole process nuts?  How would it ever be possible to
>do a FOIA request to determine what POTWs are receiving?
>    This can be another talking point for Alan Rubin.  "There has never
>been a documented case of radioactive material in soil being documented as
>coming from sludge." It just appears when airplanes fly over and detect it
>at the sewer plants.
>  next item-Colorado
>-
>
>> USEPA, Region 8
>> Project Manager Rocky Flats
>> Tim Rehder
>>
>> Dear Tim,
>>
>> The upcoming vegetation burn planned by the Department of Energy for the
>buffer
>> zone at Rocky Flats Superfund Site at the end of March must be better
>evaluated as
>> to the appropriateness; due to the close proximity to major cities and
>communities
>> that now surround this facility.  This proposed D.O.E. plan generates many
>> unanswered questions, and most importantly has NOT been demonstrated on any
>> Superfund Site nationwide. Also, the public is concerned about the DOE
>> contractor,  Kaiser Hill's recent statement at their presentation to the
>Citizens
>> Advisory Board on March 2, that  "this will be a great opportunity for
>> experiments".  Rocky Flats is a USEPA documented contaminated site of
>concern and
>> the clean-up is still being debated.  Sierra Club is concerned.   Members
>of the
>> SC asked that DOE provide for an extension on the Environmental Assessment
>> completed for this vegetation management plan and were turned down. The
>> information distributed by the DOE and Kaiser Hill is conflicting, and
>the publics
>> notification in case of a "burn out of control",  i.e. emergency
>notification, has
>> not been prepared by the DOE for the surrounding communities.  The DOE.
>and USEPA
>> should have provided more public input and involvement in preparation for
>this
>> annual event; especially in light of the fact presented at the Citizens
>Advisory
>> Board meeting 3-2-00, there will be future burns in what DOE claims ARE
>> contaminated areas.  To date the public has not been provided the
>Colorado Air
>> Quality Permit for this burn, formal assurances from USEPA, a CDPHE
>public meeting
>> for this application as requested by Sierra Club, no copy of the actual
>Forest
>> Service burn plan, and no emergency preparedness plan for the local
>communities.
>> This vegetation/fuel load and soil burn is scheduled for the end of March
>and
>> beginning of April according to the Environmental Assessment.  The DOE now
>> suggests from the CAB meeting that window for the burn  may change
>through to May.
>> Information must be consistent and available as essential tools to
>educate and
>> provide assurances to the public for their health and safety. These
>assurances
>> have not been provided.
>>
>> Your recent reply by e-mail suggested that I may not understand Global
>fallout.  I
>> am very aware of nuclear fallout and Colorado's proximity to the Nevada
>test site;
>> and did not make an uneducated comment.  My interest in making reference to
>> Savannah River was to compare contamination issues.  My homework is the
>result of
>> reviewing D.O.E. analysis and test results; not their assumptions.  The
>Colorado
>> reference to fallout used by D.O.E., USEPA and CDPHE of  .04 pci/g is for
>> background plutonium in the soil for Colorado from the 1970's. The recent
>> plutonium background numbers for Colorado reported by the Citizen Monitoring
>> results, 1996, show Platteville, Lafayette, and Genesee averaging
>approximately
>> .015 pci/g.  These numbers reflect background, 1996. Information regarding
>> background test results by the DOE and USEPA should be provided to the
>public
>>
>> The public understands fallout to be contamination from global fallout and
>> emissions from daily operations, fires, accidents, past waste disposal
>migration
>> etc.  The Savannah River location I mentioned  is one of the largest nuclear
>> complex's in the country with plutonium background from global fallout and
>> emissions from daily operations, accidents/upset conditions that report
>> measurements of plutonium background of only .0018 pci/g.  Compare this
>figure to
>> the reported .04pci/g by the D.O.E. for Colorado plutonium background; these
>> measurements are of considerable interest to residents in Colorado.  The
>upcoming
>> discussion/presentation from the agencies at the March 23 Soil Action
>Committee
>> meeting will be important.  The group will discuss an interim standard for
>> contamination on the buffer zone at Rocky Flats; which will impact the
>current
>> Colorado standard for plutonium in the soil; and perhaps set another SAFE
>standard
>> to build homes and recreation on or near Rocky Flats.  Many look forward
>to this
>> meeting.    Your input and comments in advance of this meeting would be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Your state in one of your e-mails that you "believe" that there is no
>> contamination in the area targeted for the prescribe burn. The USEPA's
>claim there
>> is no contamination, and the DOE's claim there is no KNOWN contamination is
>> misleading. Positive results were presented by DOE in their presentation
>at the
>> CAB in the area of the prescribed burn.  How they came to these
>conclusions is
>> most important (sampling protocol - depth into the soil- analysis for dust
>> resuspension which will determine if  plutonium concentrates in dust just
>above
>> the soil; other DOE locations have used portable vacuum cleaners to pick up
>> plutonium in resuspension!  Not penetrate the soil to10cm then average the
>> sample).  The fact that plutonium was found above background by the DOE
>should
>> indicate to USEPA  that, yes, plutonium is present.  Would you please
>provide
>> documentation that you have read that assisted you and supports your
>statement
>> that you "believe" that there is no contamination; especially in light of
>the
>> positive readings that were presented at the recent CAB meeting.   After
>the CAB
>> meeting I spoke with  DOE and Kaiser Hill .  representatives.  They were
>unable to
>> refer to the document that supported their tests results illustrated on
>their
>> maps. In addition, DOE provided a large comprehensive map of the sites
>tested for
>> plutonium, and there were a few samples taken from the north area
>targeted for the
>> prescribed burn, and no samples on the south side.  DOE presenters after the
>> meeting presented overheads that were more specific to test results, and
>noted
>> that had no explanation as to why no sampling was taken from the south
>side.  The
>> colorful maps that were presented for the entire buffer zone by DOE at
>the meeting
>> should have references. DOE presented incomplete information on the
>> characterization of the site; and had no answers as to why the Environmental
>> Assessment indicates that the annual burns will include the entire buffer
>zone!
>>
>>  Test results for plutonium, americium, uranium, and other radionuclides
>as well
>> as contaminates of concern such as arsenic, lead, beryllium have been
>inadequately
>> presented to the public for evaluation.  Soil, fuel load (25 years of dead
>> vegetation), and vegetation uptake information has NOT been adequately
>tested.
>> The Environmental Assessment authored by DOE indicated that there was
>vegetation
>> uptake found as high as 28 pci/g.  The DOE presenter at the CAB meeting
>indicated
>> that a factor of .034 x the soil levels will give you the level of
>radioactive
>> uptake into the vegetation.  How contaminated is the vegetation at the
>903 paid
>> location?  DOE stated they are just now testing the fuel load.  The combined
>> plutonium inventory from soil, vegetation, and fuel load has not been
>assessed as
>> to the risk to the public.
>>
>> What is your reaction to the statement by Kaiser Hill that they will
>conduct in
>> their words, "experiments" during and after the burn.  They referred to
>these
>> experiments and studies 3 times.  They presented vague information on
>what the
>> studies will include.  Resuspension of radioactive soil particles was
>presented in
>> their overheads to the governor's aid, Allard's aid and others on the
>tourof the
>> actual site.  What about the cumulative inventory of plutonium on the
>vegetation
>> of the leaves as well as uptake from the roots, the  ash that will be
>present in
>> the soil, and the winds that will resuspend the ash into the nearby
>communities.
>> Was this ash considered in the "Hypothetical, Risk Assessment for Worst Case
>> Scenario" on the controlled burn location for the future completed by Kaiser
>> Hill?  The public has not been presented this document for review.
>Certainly
>> there will be no tall stacks to disperse the airborne sub micron
>particulates that
>> will be present in the smoke and gases.  Include in this discussion the
>> possibility of surface water impacts to the major bodies of water used for
>> drinking water, and ground water impacts from the potential leaching of
>the ash.
>>
>> The public would appreciate facts that support your statement that there
>is NO
>> contamination at the site in the area of the present prescribed burn, and
>that the
>> public should not be concerned; please help distribute documented facts and
>> sources from USEPA literature for them to refer to in helping them
>understand this
>> issue. Also, if you wouldn't mind, please help with a response to the
>following
>> specific questions and document requests:
>>
>> 1.  Please provide the current radioactive "background" information that
>USEPA has
>> collected before the CAB meeting March 23; this would be helpful when the
>Rocky
>> Flats Soil Action Committee presents the new proposed interim standard for
>> plutonium of 35 pci/g.  What is USEPA's position on this new figure as
>compared to
>> the standard proposed at 1,429 pci/g for plutonium at Rocky Flats?
>> Certainly a discussion of the Colorado State Standard of .9 pci/g should be
>> mentioned. Offsite contamination found at the site of the Haystack Fire
>reveals
>> Colorado is not adhering to their own standard of .9 for plutonium in the
>soil.
>> The following levels were taken by CDPHE:
>>
>> Sampling Location        Period            Plutonium
>>
>> soil near haystack fire            5-30-91        3.97 plus or minus .09
>> hay from the haystack           5-30-91        .010 plus or minus .002
>> hay ash from haystack           5-30-91        .144 plus or minus .029
>> boots & bunker etc.              5-30-91        1.14 plus or minus .10
>> trouser wipes
>> (West Adams County FD)
>> Boots & bunkers
>> trouser wipes
>> (Westminster Fire Dept.)    5-30-91            .19 plus or minus .03
>>
>> Same as Above                Same as above        Uranium
>>                                                                    .91
>+/- .03
>>                                                                    1.48
>+/-.27
>>                                                                    1.00
>+/- .06
>>                                                                    1.14
>+/-.05
>>
>1.15+/-.03
>>
>> Dr. Ed Martell was involved in the Colorado discussions for setting the
>state soil
>> standard.   He determined that the initial standard discussed of .2 pci/g
>would be
>> more protective.
>>
>> 2. Please explain why it took ten years to get the NPDES permit from the
>DOE and
>> what was holding it back?  I've been told that the DOE/NRC will not have
>their
>> radioactive discharges permitted.  The City of Sante Fe New Mexico is
>currently
>> being sued by NRC for trying to regulate radioactive discharge into the
>sewers.
>> NRC claims that radioactive discharge will not be regulated by USEPA,
>cities or
>> the states.
>>
>> 3. Why will there be no split samples taken by the Colorado Department of
>Health
>> during the burn?  CDPHE, Arch Crouse stated roughly that they have only 1
>monitor
>> on the north, l south, 1 east and 2  west for particulate monitoring.  He
>said
>> these will not be used for the burn.  They have no funding for this
>proposal.
>>
>> 4. Why has there been no prescribed burn anywhere else in the United
>States on a
>> Superfund site if weed management is the targeted issue? Weeds grow
>everywhere!
>> Why have we not targeted prescribed burns throughout Colorado or for
>other federal
>> Superfund sites in Colorado?   DOE said the only federal  facility they have
>> burned vegetation at is Savannah River on 30,000 acres.  Doesn't this
>location
>> have miles of buffer that separate the public from the prescribed burns
>areas?
>> Was the USEPA involved in this prescribed burn?  Would you please provide
>USEPA
>> information and test results from these prescribed burns.  DOE has not
>shared this
>> with the public. Also, the Environmental Assessment presents maps of the
>future
>> burns in contaminated areas.  What is the USEPA position on this future
>plan?
>>
>> 5.  You implied at the CAB meeting that the Air Quality Control Division
>of the
>> Colorado Department of Health would have to permit the "contaminated"
>portions of
>> the Rocky Flats site differently than the "non-contaminated" areas?
>CDPHE  issues
>> an agricultural open burn permit.  The Colorado regulations for open
>burns do not
>> include in the application requirements and reference for air toxics of
>concern
>> i.e. plutonium, americium, arsenic, lead, beryllium etc.  They regulate
>the six
>> criteria pollutants i.e. particulates, carbon monoxide, etc.  NOTE:
>Kaiser Hill
>> said in their recent onsite tour for the Governors office, Allards aid
>etc.,  that
>> the Colorado Department of Health had issued an open burn air permit.  As
>of the
>> evening of the CAB 3-2-00 the permit  had not been issued.  It had been
>canceled
>> and a new application submitted by DOE.  The Forest Service cannot
>complete their
>> burn plan for the public's review due to this lack of air permit. What is
>USEPA's
>> position on this lack of information required for burn permits, and the
>lack of
>> permits and plans available for review so near the target date?
>>
>> 6.  There has been no Smoke Plume modeling study presented to the public.
> Kaiser
>> Hill stated that there is no such thing as prevailing winds; that this
>plume may
>> go in many directions.  Why has no smoke plume and or air modeling study
>been
>> presented to the public from a Major Air Pollution Source?  Will this
>annual burn
>> be required to be reported in the Colorado State Implementation Plan?
>>
>> 7.  Notification to the public is of great concern to the surrounding
>> communities.  The plan presented at the CAB indicates that the PA system
>will be
>> used for the employees on site.  Since wind conditions, etc. are
>important factor
>> in monitoring during the burn, the plan for the general public is
>inadequate.  How
>> will prompt notification be given to the public,  i.e. children on the
>> playgrounds, if there is a problem from an out of control burn into the most
>> contaminated areas?  DOE states that they have completed a "worst case
>scenario"
>> for the most contaminated area, the 903 pad.  This has NOT been made
>available for
>> the public's preview.
>> Please include this document to me.
>>
>>
>> 8.  The City of Westmister is opposed to this burn.  They requested at
>the CAB
>> meeting the DOE use a 1/4 acre burn area to experiment with first,
>instead of the
>> entire 500 acres.  Did you agree with DOE's reasoning that this was not
>> practicable?
>>
>> 9.  The Environmental Assessment states that there has never been a
>prescribed
>> burn at the Rocky Flats facility.  Yet, the Colorado Air Quality Control
>Division
>> recently informed Sierra Club that there have been prescribed burns in
>the past.
>> They have issued permits and confirm these burns. They have requested
>that Sierra
>> Club file a Freedom of Information request to get this information.
>CDPHE also
>> was recently informed by Kaiser Hill that NESHAPS for air quality state
>that 10
>> millirem is an acceptable exposure for nearby residents. Does the Air
>Quality burn
>> permit mention this?  This is not required.  A CAB member at the meeting
>stated
>> that there could be a possible exposure of 15 millirem during the burn
>according
>> to D.O.E. literature. I have not reviewed this information.
>>
>> 10.  Dr. Harvey Nichols from CU presented very pressing concerns
>regarding the
>> monitoring equipment and hot spots that have been determined to be in the
>vicinity
>> of the proposed burn.  He states:
>> a. There has been no independent testing of the areas in question;
>> b. High volume air samplers at or close to ground level are not adequate
>to record
>> airborne particulate contaminants such as plutonium;
>> c. Deposition of burned material on one or more of the surrounding
>communities due
>> to the size and duration of the fire will result.
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your assistance.   I look forward to your participation to
>educate
>> the public on this most urgent of issues confronting the Rocky Flats
>communities.
>> My address for receiving documents requested is:
>>
>> 6654 S. Buffalo Dr.
>> Littleton, Colorado   80120
>>
>> Joan Seeman
>> Sierra Club
>> Hazardous Waste Committee Chair
>> Rocky Mt. Chapter
>>
>> [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>> > The new npdes permit for Rocky Flats is goes out for public comment
>Monday.
>> > There was an announcement in the classifieds of today's Denver Post
>(see Legal
>> > Notices).
>



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:04:27 +1000
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Reaffirm Committment to NPT says UN Secy General

This statement was first downloaded by Felicity at WILPF.

I'm not sure how many people on Abolition have seen it, so downloaded it
again from the UN website.

I'm sure that we would all add to the Secy General's remarks 'Article VI'.

John Hallam

3 March 2000

                         Press Release
                         SG/SM/7323
                         DC/2686

SECRETARY-GENERAL, ON ANNIVERSARY OF NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION  TREATY,
URGES PARTIES TO REAFFIRM COMMITMENT AT UPCOMING REVIEW CONFERENCE

20000303

The following statement was issued today by the Spokesman for  Secretary-
General Kofi Annan:

Thirty years ago, on 5 March 1970, the Treaty on the  Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT) entered into force. The  event was acclaimed then as
the most important international agreement in the field of disarmament
since  the start of the nuclear age and a major success for the cause of
peace. The Treaty has since become and remains the cornerstone of the
global nuclear  non-proliferation regime. Its membership has steadily grown
to 187  States parties today.

On the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the NPT's entry into
force, the Secretary-General would like to stress that in order to  achieve
the ultimate objective of a world free of nuclear weapons, the
international community should  immediately start taking new and effective
measures to achieve the  inherently linked goals of nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation. Efforts to seek the  elimination of all nuclear weapons
must remain a high priority.

The Secretary-General hopes that all parties to the NTP will  rededicate
themselves to unceasing efforts to implement all of their  obligations
under the Treaty. The forthcoming 2000 NPT Review Conference (24 April to
19 May) would be  an excellent opportunity for all parties to reaffirm
their commitment  to the Treaty.




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:18:23 +1000
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Oh No! Not Another ' Write to your Government'! - NPT Letters to Foreign Ministers etc

(Sorry for duplicate copies caused by double- posting.)

PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR GOVT. RE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW

SAMPLE LETTER FOR EVERYONE TO SEND TO PRESIDENTS/PRIME MINISTERS/FOREIGN
MINISTERS

(This is for you or your organisation to send to your foreign minister, and
president or prime minister, and/or to presidents Putin and Clinton.)

(Please email/forward these 2 sample letters to everyone you know - and do
please actually send these letters to your foreign minister or prime
minister or president)

If you have already done it, congratulations. This is posted for those who
have not yet done it. If you haven't done it and you think the nuke weapons
states ought to fulfil their legal obligation to get rid of nuclear
weapons, do please do it. I'll be posting reminders asking you to do it
over the next few weeks.


Dear All who get these two sample letters,

The two sample letters below are a call for action consistent with the
Abolition statement, and with current NGO demands for the upcoming review
conference of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

They basically ask the nuclear weapons states to fulfil their obligations
under Article VI of the NPT, to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, and they
ask everyone else to press the nuclear weapons states to do just that.

I am posting these appeals to write to your government re the nuclear
nonproliferation treaty in the hope that you will actually do just that!

If you want to change anything that's just fine, just do it, if you think
the letters are better phrased some other way then thats great.  But
basically I am hoping that as many people as possible will write something
like this to your head of state or prime minister or foreign minister, and
that you will pass this message on to others who will do the same.

If you are an organisation and especially if you have already signed the
'Heads of State' letter that I posted some time ago, you may also want to
sign the letter to be found on the following URL:
<http://www.clw.org/coalition/nptsign-on0300.htm>

On 24 April-19May this year, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) will
go before its first review conference after being indefinitely extended in
1995.

As the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty covers every nation in the world
with the exception of Israel, India and Pakistan (all of whom have nuclear
weapons), the NPT Review Conference, which will be held at the UN in New
York will be one of the most important diplomatic events (if not THE most
important diplomatic event) of the year.

It has implications for the safety of the whole planet.

Article VI of the NPT which has been in force since 1970, obliges the
nuclear weapons states to negotiate away their nuclear arsenals yesterday.

The International Court of Justice in 1996, in a unanimous advisory
opinion, said that there exists an obligation, under article VI, to
negotiate away the nuclear arsenals of the nuclear weapons powers.

However, the opposite is what is happening.

As the Nuclear Nonproiferation treaty is in effect a deal whereby the nuke
weapons states agree to eliminate their nuclear arsenals in return for the
non- nuclear weapons states agreeing not to attempt to obtain nuclear
weapons, the failure of the nuclear weapons states to honour their part of
the deal means that the non-nuclear weapons states may start to withdraw
from their part of the deal as india, Israel and Pakistan in effect already
have done.

You are therefore strongly urged to write to your foreign minister, and
Prime Minister and/or Head of State, (whoever is the relevant decision-
maker) urging them to press the nuclear weapons states to keep their side
of the NPT 'Bargain' and fulfil the requirements of Article VI, or if you
live in a nuclear weapons state, ask them to fulfil their Article VI NPT
obligations immediately.

These two letters, one to all heads of state/prime ministers/foreign
ministers and one specifically to Russian President Putin, foreign Minister
Igor Ivanov, and copied to Clinton, are to give you an idea what to write.
Please don't follow them slavishly.

If you are an individual, I'd urge you to write HANDWRITTEN. Copied letters
get thrown away. Handwritten gets read.

If you are an organisation, please put this on your own letterhead and
CUSTOMISE IT.

These letters are deliberately too long. You may want to shorten them.

If you are in a non- english speaking country do please translate it and
make any changes you feel necessary when you translate it.

The NPT Review Conference is literally an event of global signficance, so
ask your head of state/foreign minister/prime minister to attend the NPT
Review in person.

Do please write. The fate of the world as a whole will quite literally
depend on the deliberations of the diplomats, foreign ministers, and heads
of state in the review conference in New York.

A shorter letter (very short) is available on:

Http://www.abolition2000.org.  Fax numbers of heads of state, foreign
ministers, and UN Missions  are also available on that URL.

Another URL that has the fax numbers of heads of state, foreign ministers
and UN missions and also has lots of information on the NPT Review is:
Http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org


TEXT OF GENERAL SAMPLE LETTER AND SAMPLE LETTER TO PUTIN AND IVANOV FOLLOWS

RE: NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE APRIL 24-MAY 19 2000
- - GETTING RID OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

TO: PRESIDENT, PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN MINISTER,


Your Excellency,
[0r]
Dear President, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister,

I am writing  to urge [your/our]  government to take a strong position at
the upcoming  Review Conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in
New York April 24 to May 19, 2000, and to urge [your/our] head of state or
of government to attend this  meeting.

It is vital that the governments of all nations   do their utmost to
pressure  the nuclear weapons states, especially the US and Russia, to do
more  to fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the NPT,  and
negotiate their nuclear weapons stockpiles down to zero.

The International Court of Justice reaffirmed in 1996, in a unanimous
advisory opinion that this is indeed a legal obligation.

The nuclear weapons states are currently making very little movement toward
fulfilling  this obligation.  Instead there have been many developments in
the opposite direction.

The US Senate has failed to ratify the CTBT,(Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty)
and the US is contemplating the deployment of a Ballistic Missile Defence
System in violation of the 1972 ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) treaty.

Talks between the US and Russia to make cuts in nuclear weapons are
stalled, as is implementation of  START II. Russia has changed its previous
policy of 'no first use' of nuclear weapons to one that mirrors those of
the western states, and its Duma has refused to ratify START-II.

Both the US and Russia continue to conduct 'subcritical' nuclear tests.
China is modernizing its nuclear arsenal, and India and Pakistan have
openly tested nuclear weapons. Israel,  in spite of a recent debate in the
Knessett, refuses to acknowledge its nuclear capabilities but may have as
many as 400 weapons.

On the other hand, the non nuclear weapons states with a few notable
exceptions, have adhered to their side of the bargain, while the NPT has
become nearly universal.

A successful outcome at the coming NPT Review Conference,  would explicitly
commit parties under Article VI to the elimination of nuclear weapons at an
early date,  and a global regime banning nuclear weapons, and would outline
the process for that to occur.

It is important that your government and every government, use its position
to push the nuclear weapon states and particularly the US and Russia, to
fulfill Article VI during the coming review conference.

A key preliminary step in this direction that would reduce the danger of
purely accidental war,  and improve the climate for further steps, would be
the abandonment of 'launch on warning' postures. This should be followed by
reduction of alert status of warheads, and the verifiable physical removal
of
warheads from delivery vehicles.

It is especially vital that [your/our] [head of government/head of state]
be present at the proceedings of this review conference. The decisions
taken at the coming NPT Review conference will literally determine the fate
of the world. Only by the authority lent by the presence of heads of State
or of Government can decisions be taken that will have the end result of
ridding the world of nuclear weapons and fulfilling the mandate of the
nuclear nonproliferation treaty over the last thirty years.

Signed...etc.



SAMPLE LETTER FOR EVERYONE TO SEND TO PRESIDENT PUTIN
AND
FOREIGN MINISTER IGOR IVANOV.

RE: NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE APRIL 24-MAY 19 2000
- - GETTING RID OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

TO: PRESIDENT PUTIN [phone],
FOREIGN MINISTER IVANOV [phone], [phone]
RUSSIAS UNITED NATIONS AMBASSADOR + 1 212 628 0252
cc
PRESIDENT CLINTON [phone]

Dear President Putin and Foreign Minister Ivanov,

I am writing  to urge Russia's government to fulfill its obligations under
Article VI of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

It is vital that we negotiate their nuclear weapons stockpiles down to zero
sooner rather than later.

The International Court of Justice reaffirmed in 1996, in a unanimous
judgment, that this is indeed a legal obligation.

It is now vital that the Russia and the US fulfill their clear obligations
under Article VI of the nonproliferation treaty. While arms reductions have
occurred since the 1980s, this process of reduction has now stalled and may
be going into reverse.

The US and Russia are both signed on to a treaty, article VI of which
demands that you negotiate to eliminate your nuclear arsenals. The binding
nature of Article VI was  reaffirmed by the 1996 unanimous advisory opinion
of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Russia and the US together, as well as China, the UK and France cannot
forever refuse to fulfill their clear legal obligations under the NPT while
expecting that other countries will continue to fulfill theirs. The
credibility of the NPT will disappear if the nuclear weapon states -
yourselves - do not fulfill your obligations. The eventual result of that
is likely to be much wider acquisition of nuclear weapons, with a vastly
increased likelihood of nuclear war.

While Russia may have been given reasons to distrust US and NATO
intentions, the stakes in getting rid of nuclear weapons are literally
ultimate. No political goal no matter how central it may seem to the
interests of either Russia or the US can justify the possible destruction
of human civilisation and life worldwide.

Public opinion in both your countries is strongly in favor of negotiating
to eliminate nuclear weapons. Global public opinion is overwhelmingly in
favor of this and indeed demands it, as do the overwhelming majority of
governments.

A successful outcome at the coming NPT Review Conference,  would explicitly
commit parties under Article VI to the elimination of nuclear weapons at an
early date,  and a global regime banning nuclear weapons, and would outline
the process for that to occur.

In this context, it is especially vital that the Russian and US Presidents
be present at the proceedings of the NPT  Review Conference, and be ready
to negotiate to eliminate your nuclear arsenals as you are obliged to do
under Article VI. The decisions taken at the coming NPT Review conference
will literally determine the fate of the world. Only by the authority lent
by the presence of heads of State or of Government can decisions be taken
that will have the end result of ridding the world of nuclear weapons and
fulfilling the mandate of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty over the last
thirty years.

Signed...etc.

John Hallam
Friends of the Earth Sydney,
17 Lord Street, Newtown, NSW, Australia, 2042
Fax [phone]  ph (61)(2)9517-3903
[e-mail]
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd





- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:45:55 -0800
From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Emergency Nuclear Free Zone Alert

>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Delivered-To: [e-mail]
>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:01:36 -0800 (PST)
>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>To: [e-mail]
>From: "." <[e-mail]>
>Subject: EMERGENCY NUCLEAR FREE ZONE ALERT
>Sender: [e-mail]
>
>EMERGENCY NUCLEAR FREE ZONE ALERT -----
>You may not be aware that a year ago the Berkeley City Council drastically
>weakened the Nuclear Free Zone law. There is a proposal coming before the
>City Council to reinstate and strengthen this law. IT IS VITAL THAT  DIANE
>WOOLLEY,  A SWING VOTE, BE CONTACTED. It's also important to call the Mayor,
>Dona Spring and, if you live in Berkeley,  your own City Council Member. The
>City Clerk can tell you the name of your Council Member. The details and
>additional contact information is provided below:
>
>NUCLEAR FREE ZONE ALERT
>An occasional newsletter about Berkeley's Nuclear Free Zone
>No. 2
>
>      1998 CITY COUNCIL ACTION VIRTUALLY REPEALS
>      ENFORCEABILITY OF NUCLEAR FREE ZONE LAW
>
>IN 1997 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) announced they would
>build DARHT, a device vital for designing new nuclear weapons. Berkeley
>responded by enforcing its Nuclear Free law three times in a six month
>period (organizing a forum attended by hundreds, passing a resolution
>opposing DARHT, and sending a formal request that U.C. and LBNL cease and
>desist all nuclear weapons work, including the DARHT project). It is illegal
>for the City Council to alter the voter created Nuclear Free law, but eight
>months after citizens seeking to enforce the nuclear free law delayed
>approval of a U.C. contract (the Nuclear Free law prohibits Berkeley from
>contracting with entities doing nuclear weapons work, unless there is no
>reasonable, cost effective, alternative) the City Council passed a "blanket
>waiver" that weakened the law by ending citizen commission review of
>proposals to waive the law, thus making enforcement of the nuclear free law
>virtually impossible. In the one year period since the blanket waiver passed
>not a single effort to enforce its nuclear free law has occurred - it's as
>if the Nuclear Free law has been repealed!
>
> CONTACT COUNCIL NOW TO REVIVE CITIZEN REVIEW AND REINSTATE ENFORCEMENT OF
>NUCLEAR FREE ZONE LAW
>
>IN JANUARY,  2000 the Peace & Justice Commission unanimously recommended
>that the City Council  reinstate the policy of having citizen commissions
>review proposals to waive the Nuclear Free law. But passage of the Peace and
>Justice proposal is uncertain. Linda Maio is likely vote against it. Vice
>Mayor Maudelle Shirek, Margaret Breland, and  Kriss Worthington are likely
>to support it. Ask Council Members Woolley, Spring and the Mayor  to support
>the Peace and Justice recommendation. Mayor Shirely Dean    [phone]
>[e-mail]
>
>Green Party Council Member Dona Spring           [phone]
>[e-mail]
>In the past Dona Spring has led efforts to oppose DARHT and enforce the
>Nuclear Free law, but in 1998 she agreed to compromises that weakened the
>law. She has said she will vote for the Peace and Justice Commission
>recommendation, ask her to resist pressure to weaken it.
>
>Council Member Diane. Woolley is a swing vote -  [phone]
>[e-mail]
>Woolley distinguished herself by abstaining from the vote to weaken the
>nuclear free law. Ask  her to vote for the Peace and Justice recommendation.
>
>Or write the Mayor & Council Members at: 1900 Addision St., Berkeley, Ca.
>94704.
>
>Although the cold war is behind us, the Nuclear Free law is still important.
>If India and Pakistan had signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty they
>could not have conducted nuclear weapons tests. India justifies refusing to
>sign the treaty because the test ban does not prohibit nuclear weapons
>states from using advanced technologies like DARHT to maintain and develop
>nuclear weapons. The treaty is thus viewed as a ploy by nuclear weapons
>states, instead of a sincere first step toward nuclear disarmament. By
>discouraging developing countries from signing the test ban treaty, DARHT,
>and related technologies, may be indirectly responsible the outbreak of the
>India-Pakistan nuclear arms race.
>
>
>TO HELP PLEASE CALL: [phone] or e-mail us at [e-mail]
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -----
>For more information visit Nuclear Free Berkeley - the web page:
>
>WWW.NUCLEARFREE.ORG
>
>
>NUCLEAR FREE ZONE ALERT, by  the publisher of KPFA Chronicles, was created
>to educate people about, and  encourage enforcement of,  the  Nuclear Free
>Berkeley Act.  Letters and donations can be sent to:
>Nuclear Free Berkeley, P.O. Box 851, Berkeley, Ca 94701
>
>
>
>



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:13:30 -0800
From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Countdown to the NPT

6 March 2000

Dear Friends and Activists,

    With only 49 more days until the 2000 Review Conference of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, momemtum in support of the Abolition 2000 Global
Network and for nuclear abolition is building.  There are now 1479
organizational endorsements of the Abolition 2000 Statement and 241
Municipal endorsements, for a total of 1720 endorsers.   We only need 280
more endorsers to reach our goal of 2000, which means that we nead to
receive aproximately SIX NEW endorsements, EVERYDAY, for the next 49 DAYS.
WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!  It is critical to reach our goal of 2000 endorsers
by the time of the 2000 NPT Review Conference (24 April-19 May). Please
make a comittment to enroll AT LEAST one new organization or municipality
this week.  With YOUR help, we will achieve our goal!

    Thank you for your continued support.  I look forward to hearing
from you.

In Peace and Solidarity,

Carah


Carah Lynn Ong
Coordinator, Abolition 2000
1187 Coast Village Road PMB 121, Suite 1
Santa Barbara CA 93108

Phone [phone]  FAX[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website http://www.abolition2000.org


Join the Abolition-USA or Abolition-Global Caucus list serve to regularly
receive updates about the Abolition movement.  Both caucus' also provide a
forum for conversation on nuclear-related issues as well as they are used
to post important articles and information pertaining to nuclear abolition.



To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, please do one of the following:

1. Send a message to the list moderator at [e-mail]

2. Visit the Abolition-caucus website at:
Http://www.egroups.com/list/abolition-caucus/ and submit a membership form.

3. Visit the Abolition 2000 website and submit a membership form.

4. Send an e-mail to:  [e-mail]  (leave the
subject line and body of the message blank).


To post a message to the Abolition Global Caucus, send your message to:

[e-mail]


To subscribe to the Abolition-USA listerve, send a message (with no
subject) to:
[e-mail]
In the body of the message, write:
"subscribe abolition-usa" (do not include quotation marks)

To post a message to the Abolition-USA list, mail your message to:
 [e-mail]



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #267
***********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.