GNEP PUBLIC COMMENT PREAMBLE

April, 2, 2007

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

Mr. Frazier:

I first found out about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) project on March 5, 2007.  Since then, I have been spending every possible moment preparing public comment for you.  It is my understanding that you are considering Chaves County, near Roswell, New Mexico as one of the candidates for being the unfortunate location for having a nuclear waste reprocessing plant and burner reactor for radiological materials.  

I have watched your grant money being unscrupulously spent by EnergySolutions Inc. and Gandy Marley Inc as they have used it to distribute false and misleading information.  I have found that all regulatory, environmental, and health agencies (except for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the US Department of Energy (DOE), and the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department) have been more than ready and willing to help me meet your deadline of April 4, 2007 as they have been providing information related to the backgrounds of EnergySolutions Inc. and Gandy Marley Inc., along with technical information, and toxicological information related to the threat of injury and loss of life that the GNEP project poses on people living within nuclear accident/leak/neglect/emission fallout range of the proposed facility in Chaves County. 

I can understand the NRC’s reluctance to help. It appears that employees of the NRC have a strong understanding about how their job security depends on the threats of injury and loss of life that are posed on the general public by the nuclear industry. The more threats of injury and loss of life there are, the more job security employees of the NRC will have. But even they came through with some information that helps show how harmful it would be to have your nuclear waste reprocessing plant and nuclear burner reactor in Chaves County, which I will share with you throughout the total compilation of my public comment. Someone needs to tell NRC employees that their job security already extends for several million years.

I am only speculating on this part, but I would be willing to bet that the people living under the same circumstances in the other 10 or 11 potential sites that you are considering for your GNEP project across the United States are running into problems that are similar to those that are causing great emotional stress for people in Chaves County.   

I just received a few emails messages, including one from the NM Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, on April 2, 2007, directing me to an article that says that you have extended the deadline to June 4.  The article says, "DOE is extending the time for submittal of comments on the proposed scope, alternatives, and environmental issues to be analyzed in the GNEP PEIS."
http://www.energy.gov/news/4923.htm

This is wonderful news!  It sounds like there is still hope for our country's survival.  

I would like to suggest that you hire some consultants with expertise in science and engineering, who have not been brainwashed into believing that it is okay to hurt people to benefit others like the nuclear industry does.  Then, ask your consultants to help you educate the employees of the Department of Energy about scientific studies and historical events that show how harmful the nuclear industry has been to the people living in the United States and the rest of the world, and how harmful the nuclear industry will, potentially, be to us, unless you take responsible actions, much like the following:

1.  Close all nuclear power plants in the United States unless you have 100 percent assurance that they pose no risk of exposure to radiological materials to anyone.

2.  Hold the nuclear industry accountable for cleaning up the mess it has made without posing a risk of exposure to radiological materials to anyone else.

3.  Use the money that you have been planning to spend to promote the nuclear industry on more practical and less expensive alternative energies, which already exist, work well, and don't have near to potential for making a small social group (mostly living in places like the United Kingdom and France) filthy rich while harming most everyone else in the world like nuclear energy does.  Some of these alternative energies are listed below.

You could do a lot in providing much needed infrastructure for the above listed alternative energies with the money that you appear to be planning to spend on nuclear energy.  If you did mitigate this wasteful spending, of hard earned American tax dollars, which is going toward building infrastructure for the international nuclear industry, I bet that the above listed alternative energies would reach a much higher level of energy independence for the United States than nuclear energy could.  

You may notice that I didn't mention Ethanol on the list.  The reason that I didn't mention it is two-fold.  First, it appears that the production of Ethanol and its uses for energy already have enough government support to be doing quite well.  Second, I am not sure about how good Ethanol emissions will be for our health and the environment.  If you read this document as it is posted on my web site, you will be able to go directly to toxicological studies that I have posted links to below to look at potential health and environmental risks posed by Ethanol, and compare it to the potential health and environmental risks posed by Hydrogen.  I am sure that, if you compare the potential health and environmental risk that Hydrogen or Ethanol pose on our health and the environment with toxicological studies and historical events related to nuclear energy, you will find the neither Hydrogen or Ethanol come anywhere close to being as harmful, or as potentially catastrophic as nuclear energy.

http://www.frankmckinnon.com/ethanol.htm

http://www.frankmckinnon.com/hydrogen.htm

I am sure that I am not alone in speculating that the DOE hasn't budgeted for the expenses of funding the massive amount of perpetual medical and psychological health care and the wide spread environmental clean up that would be necessary if the international nuclear industry continues operations on American soil.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is currently placing millions of Americans and people living in countries all over the world under the threat of injury, and of losing lives, families, properties, cultures, dignity, jobs, businesses, friends, and homes, while denying them the right to know, the right to due process, and the right to equal protection under the law. As long as this threat continues, I will do all that I can to stop it.  

You should soon be receiving more letters sent through email from me, and, hopefully, from others, for the purpose of public comment regarding the threat that is being posed by the GNEP project.  

Respectfully Submitted

Frank McKinnon
903 N. Missouri Ave
Roswell, NM 88201
(505) 627-2291
(505) 420-8199
www.frankmckinnon.com