EMAIL COMMUNICATION WITH THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY REGARDING ROSWELL'S PROPOSED NUCLEAR WASTE REPROCESSING PLANT

Frank,

I received your email.

Tim

Timothy A. Frazier
Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary (Acting)
Office of Fuel Cycle Management
Office of Nuclear Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, D.C.

Office: (202) 586-6630

March 13, 2007

Tim Frazier
Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary
Office of Nuclear Energy
Department of Energy

Dear Mr. Frazier,

I would like to thank you for talking with me on the telephone, last week, and for telling me that you would answer questions that I send to you through Email regarding Roswell, New Mexico’s proposed nuclear waste reprocessing plant.  I am requesting that you send this entire Email message back to me with your acknowledgment of receiving it (receipt), today, before you put any effort into answering the questions.  Please click the word “reply,” write a note to indicate that you received this Email message, and click the word “send.” I am requesting that you, also, include a copy this entire Email message in the Email message that you send to me to answer these questions.

My extra care in making sure that you receive this entire Email message has been motivated by Maurice Rawls of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Region 6.  On about February 4, 2003, the person, who typed Maurice’s reply to my Email message, deleted very important information from my Email message. Then, Maurice distributed copies of that damaged Email messages to many US EPA employees. The damage to my Email message impeded my ability to provide health care providers with information that they could use for diagnosis and treatment of many US citizens for the purpose of mitigating further injuries resulting from a chemical company’s deception and disregard for the law.  Even though I spent a lot of time and effort trying to get the US EPA to send me an undamaged copy, I did not receive an undamaged copy from the US EPA until the day after I provided the FBI with strong evidence that this damage was being done to my Email message.  I finally received an undamaged copy on March 21, 2003 from the US EPA, and am still waiting for a real response.

Again, I am requesting that you click the word “reply,” write a note to indicate that you received this Email message, and click the word “send” before putting any effort into answering my questions, and that you include this entire Email message in your written response.  In the event that I send you more Email message[s] regarding the proposed nuclear waste reprocessing plant, please follow this procedure.

Unlike my dealings with the US EPA where many injuries and deaths have already resulted from a chemical company’s deception and disregard for the law, I am communicating with you in an effort to mitigate the potential for future injuries and deaths which are likely to result from operations of a nuclear waste reprocessing plant.  I hope to have your answers to my questions before 9:00 AM Friday March 16, so that I may include them in a presentation that I am scheduled to give to the Mayor of Roswell regarding the proposed nuclear waste reprocessing plant. But, if you need more time, I am sure that Mayor LaGrone and the rest of us, who live within radioactive fallout range of the proposed site, will appreciate you putting serious thought into your answers.

My recent studies regarding the current status of nuclear energy with nuclear power plants popping up all over the United States, and with massive amounts of nuclear waste being generated daily have made me sensitive to the potential of you and your colleagues in the Office of Nuclear Energy having stressful days as you hold responsibility for so many potential catastrophes with little doubt that insidious injuries (diseases) resulting from the ambient releases of these nuclear power plants are already happening.    But I need your written answers to the following questions in a reasonable amount of time, so I am requesting that you take no longer than 2 weeks to send them, if you are unable to send them by March 16.

QUESTION 1: I have talked with several people at the US EPA, the New Mexico Environment Department, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to find out who would be inspecting this nuclear waste reprocessing plant with authority to enforce environmental laws.  Please correct me if I am incorrect, but after listening to several opinions, it appears that the proposed nuclear waste reprocessing plant would belong to the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, while the US EPA and the NRC would have no authority to enforce the law at this site.  The only authority that the New Mexico Environment Department would have would be to monitor ambient releases of radioactivity and other pollution outside of the nuclear waste reprocessing plant, which means that even the New Mexico Environment Department would have no authority to enforce environmental laws until after the damage is already done.  Is this an accurate assessment?

QUESTION 2: Would there be an impartial regulatory agency with authority to inspect operations and enforce environmental laws at this proposed nuclear waste reprocessing plant?  If your answer is yes, please identify the agency.

QUESTION 3: During the past few years, I have observed where the US EPA and the US Public Health Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) have relied, heavily, on environmental monitoring data received from companies that have polluted areas surrounding their production plants (self-monitoring), while the US EPA and state environmental agency have, occasionally, conducted ineffective inspections and done some environmental sampling.  Please correct me if I am incorrect, but it [is] my understanding that EnergySolutions (formerly called Envirocare) would be managing the proposed nuclear waste reprocessing plant.  If this nuclear waste reprocessing plant actually becomes more than a proposal, would an impartial regulatory agency rely on EnergySolutions’ environmental self-monitoring data? Or would the impartial regulatory agency have someone on site continuously?  If neither of your answers are yes, please describe how our government would oversee the operations of this proposed nuclear waste reprocessing plant.

QUESTION 4: Would the proposed nuclear waste reprocessing plant be exempt from environmental laws and regulations?

QUESTION 5: Have you and your colleagues in the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy studied the diseases and deaths that have resulted from incidents at nuclear waste storage facilities, nuclear power plants, and nuclear waste reprocessing plants?

QUESTION 6: Does the Department of Energy have an Office of Hydrogen Power, an Office of Solar Power, and an Office of Wind Power?  If so, are these offices offering grants like those that are being offered by the Department of Energy to conduct the feasibility studies for the proposed nuclear waste reprocessing plant?  If these other office[s] exist, and have the ability to offer such grants, please help me contact these offices.


Respectfully,

Frank McKinnon
903 N. Missouri Ave
Roswell, NM 88201
www.frankmckinnon.com