|
A WORLD FOR OUR CHILDREN |
|
|
Frank McKinnon |
Office: (505) 627-3391 |
| What will the world of our children and grandchildren be like? The information within may be disturbing. | |
|
|
|
| http://www.johnnygreenseed.com/about.html | |
|
|
Dennis R. Spurgeon wants to build a large scale uranium enrichment plant (nuclear waste reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor) somewhere in the United States, while holding his public servant position that he recently obtained as an obvious result of many years of hard work, dedication, bribery, kickbacks, campaign contributions, lobbying, and distribution of false and misleading information from the nuclear industry. |
| http://www.military.com/... | |
|
|
|
| What You Need To Know About Leukemia | |
| Dennis
Spurgeon has targeted somewhere between 10 and 13 potential locations in
the United States with a plan of making one of them the unfortunate
recipient of his nuclear waste reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner
reactor. One of these potential
locations is about half way between Roswell and Tatum in Chaves County,
New Mexico.
Dennis Spurgeon was sworn in on April 3, 2006, as the first Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy (NE) at the Department of Energy in more than a decade. In this capacity, Mr. Spurgeon is the senior nuclear technology official in the U.S. Government. Mr. Spurgeon leads the recently–announced Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. When I first learned about the GNEP, I was told that it was an effort to create a monopoly on enriched uranium with the United States, England, and France, which appeared to be perceived by many as an act of aggression toward approximately 190 countries throughout the world. During the past few months, my understanding is that a few more countries have joined in the GNEP, while others are prohibited. GNEP is part of the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative. Most recently, Assistant Secretary Spurgeon served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Office for United States Encrichment Corporation (USEC, Inc.) an international supplier of enriched uranium for nuclear plants. |
|
|
|
|
| Photo
Date: January 1988 The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant site encompasses 300 hectares (750 acres) inside a 1,369-hectare (3,422-acre) reservation owned by the Department of Energy. It is located approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) west of the City of Paducah, Kentucky. Construction of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant began in 1951. Initial operations began in 1952, and full operations were initiated by 1955. Since 1991, the plant has only produced low-enriched uranium for use as fuel in commercial nuclear power plants. http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/doe_paducah_01.htm |
|
| Region 5 settles Clean Air
Act case against United States Enrichment Corp. / Piketon, Ohio IMPACT: On February 11, 1999, a fully executed Consent Agreement Consent Order ("CACO") was filed in the administrative proceeding captioned In the Matter of United States Enrichment Corporation, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Docket No.CAA-5-99-005. Pursuant to the CACO, the Respondent, the United States Enrichment Corporation, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant ("USEC") must pay a civil penalty of $56,000.00. http://www.epa.gov/reg5oorc/enfactions/enfactions1999/state-oh.htm#enrich030199 |
|
The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) is operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and uranium enrichment facilities involved in the production of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) are leased to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). RTS is one of the two operating uranium enrichment facilities owned by DOE. The other is in Paducah, Kentucky.... Residents living in the vicinity of the PORTS are concerned that their health has been adversely impacted by operations at the plant. During a preliminary visit to the area in September 1992, ATSDR staff members met area residents in a town meeting. Numerous concerns expressed during the site visits and during several public meetings and availability sessions include the following:
There was general concern over spills of uranium hexafluoride on site during the 1960s and 1970s. Also, there were concerns about worker exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), trichloroethylene (TCE), uranium hexafluoride (UF6), asbestos, and hydrogen fluoride (HF). A more extensive list of collected community concerns from site visits, public meetings, public availability sessions, newspaper articles, letters, phone calls and meetings with residents are addressed in the Community Health Concern Evaluation section... Source: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/portsmouthgas/pgd_p1.html
|
||||||||
|
April 8, 2007 I have searched far and wide through web pages published by the US EPA, the New Mexico Health and Environment Departments, and the US Public Health Services with its Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and its Center for Disease Control and Prevention. I have not found any of them implying that nuclear energy is safe and clean. -Frank McKinnon |
Nuclear
power is still as radioactive, dangerous and expensive as ever. But now
the uranium and nuclear industries want to increase their profits using
global warming as an excuse.
Nuclear power will not stop global
warming. Replacing polluting coal power with another environmental
disaster, nuclear power, is not the answer we need.
|
|
April 2,
2007 “Continuing the environmental scoping process means we will continue to better understand the environmental conditions under which we will be operating,” DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said. “We have seen strong support for GNEP all across the country and it’s encouraging to hear that an increasing number of Americans recognize the growing need for nuclear energy, a safe, affordable and emissions-free power source.” |
|
Considering what I have learned about EnergySolutions and Gandy Marley Inc., I don't expect them to pay much attention to laws and regulations. Even if I did, it appears that they would only have to maintain this radioactive plant for 50 years. Equal Funding? Health and Safety Education verses EnergySolutions March 23, 2007 Please consider the information that you received in your copy of the email that I sent to Tim Frazier entitled: "Equal Funding? Health and Safety Education verses EnergySolutions...," and let me know if you believe that the meeting that EnergySolutions has scheduled at the Roswell Convention and Civic Center can legitimately be called a Public Hearing being used by the government to determine public concern? If so, do you believe citizens with concerns about health and safety will have fair representation? The above paragraph was presented to Elizabeth (Liz) Ray, Chief of Staff, Office of Health, Safety and Security with the US Department of Energy on Friday March 23, 2007. Charles Miller, Ph.D., Chief, Radiation Studies Branch, Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the US Department of Health, told me that the US Department of Health does not have an opinion on a safe distance from a nuclear waste reprocessing plant, and told me that I could quote him as saying that he is not aware of a nuclear waste reprocessing plant that has ever successfully operated without hurting people in surrounding communities (March 21, 2007). This conversation with Charles Miller was after I had spent 7 hours, on March 20, talking on the telephone with several different people working for the US Department of Health, the New Mexico Health Department, and the New Mexico Environment Department. I wanted to find out how far away from a nuclear waste reprocessing plant they believed would be a safe distance to live. During this 7 hour quest for an answer, most of employees of the US Department of Health immediately transferred me to someone else as soon as they heard the word "nuclear." But there were two more health and environmental government employees that took the time to listen to my question. One anonymous employee of the New Mexico Environment Department said, "I can't put this in writing, but I would get as far away as I could!" Another anonymous employee of the US Public Health Services Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR), who has worked there for many years, said, "I am a contractor, so my words are not necessarily those of the ATSDR, but I would get as far away as I could!" They are planning to put
this nuclear waste reprocessing plant just a few miles east of |
|
Bottomless |
|
|
In 1933 the bottomless lakes area was set aside as New |
|
|
|
| Source: http://www.newmexico.org/place/loc/parks/page/DB-place/place/526.html |
|
The According to Gandy
Marley Inc., this facility would, also, be about 5 miles from the Ogallala
aquifer. The Ogallala Formation
in
Ogallala Aquifer Map Source: http://www.npwd.org/Ogallala.htm |
|
" Envirocare employees who have provided to governmental authorities
information adverse to Envirocare's interests fear
for their lives and the lives of their families, should their identities become
known to an officer of Envirocare." I have witnessed this
sort of thing happening to employees of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (Chemtura) as I have been studying the way Chemtura poisoned the community where I was born and where
my father built a camp for kids from |
|
EnergySolutions (Envirocare) in Court Cases EnergySolutions Employee Safety ...Leavitt's Division of
Radiation Control (DRC) has inadequately monitored this facility for its
environmental impact, only taking independent ground water samples 4 times
since 1991. 11 In December of 1995, the Utah DEQ issued a notice of Violation
to Envirocare for numerous violations including
improper storage, leaking containers, cracks in storage pads, and other
problems. The state settled these violations with a $35,000 fine; however, the
EPA was not satisfied with this settlement, so the DEQ raised the fine to
$79,000. The EPA, still unsatisfied with the settlement, eventually issued its
own Notice of Violation and fined Envirocare over
$600,000. Envirocare Faces State Fine Of $100,000 For
Waste Violations
|
| Source: http://www.envirocareutah.com/pdf/Closure.pdf |
|
Who would be responsible for the class B and C waste and the site if Envirocare dissolves or the site reaches capacity? Notice of Violation, Gandy Marley Inc.... Letters Faxed to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform To: Phil.Schiliro Letter to Mayor Sam LaGrone March 15, 2007 Follow-up on March 16 Meeting in Mayor's Office Notice of Violation, Gandy Marley Inc.... NUCLEAR WASTE REPROCESSING PLANT NUCLEAR POWER AND ITS POTENTIAL
IMPACT ON HEALTH IN Washington Sues DOE Over
Hodges sued the Energy
Department in U.S. District Court to block the plutonium shipments, but U.S.
District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed his suit last week. Hodges has appealed
the dismissal to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Monday, March 19, 2007 Environmental laws like
the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Food Quality Protection
Act improve "Pelosi seeks tougher
oversight on ethics" Judges David B. Sentelle, Karen L. Henderson, and Harry T. Edwards In FY 2006, the budget for GNEP was
$80M. DOE put in a request for $250M for 2007. At the end of the 109th
Congress, the House had approved $120M, a cut of more than half. The
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee had voted $279M but the full
Senate had not acted by the end of the session. According to E&E News
(Mary O’Driscoll, 16 March 2007), DOE has used its allocation
flexibility to put $167.5M into the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership for
this year, less than they asked for but most likely more than they would
have got had Congress passed a budget. Astonishingly, the E&E article
quotes Assistant Secretary Spurgeon as being either unable or unwilling to
account for the source of these additional funds, writing “’I can't
point to one particular spot’ as to the source of the additional GNEP
money, Spurgeon said. ‘It was a balancing of the overall energy supply
budget that was considered to be in the best interest of our energy
future.’” The money must legally come from the Energy and Conservation
Account. The new Congress was so concerned that DOE would raid the
renewable energy account that it specifically walled off research on wind
power, solar power, or improved efficiency to prohibit raids on those
budgets. EMAIL TO DATELINE ABOUT THREAT OF NUCLEAR WASTE REPROCESSING PLANT AND NUCLEAR INCINERATOR Petition
Opposing GNEP Petition for Those in Favor of GNEP, Deadline June 4
|