Comments on: Tips On Writing a “WASL” Letter to the Editor http://valetc.com/2007/01/08/tips-on-writing-a-wasl-letter-to-the-editor/ News and resources for thoughtful educators Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:42:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Jacob Paz http://valetc.com/2007/01/08/tips-on-writing-a-wasl-letter-to-the-editor/comment-page-1/#comment-261 Jacob Paz Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:53:43 +0000 http://valetc.com/wordpress/2007/01/08/tips-on-writing-a-wasl-letter-to-the-editor/#comment-261 Letter to the editor, Dear Sir: In contrast to the opinion published on 03/07/2010 "Yucca Mountain testimony lacks scientific reasoning" It is my scientific and legal view are that Dr. Chu his with in his right to withdrew the YMP license application and why. On February 23rd and 26th 2010 the State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects web site reported the following that: Hanford area business, Aiken County S.C. and the Tri-City State of Washington leaders officially filed a lawsuits against President Obama and Secretary of Energy for scrapping plans to build the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) Nuclear Waste Facility in the Court of Appeals Washington D.C. The S.C. the lawsuit is seeking to stay the hearing of Yucca Mountain License Application. Akin S.C lawsuit alleged that withdrawal of the license application violated the Nuclear waste Act of 1982 and its Amendments. Additionally, it may also violate the National Environment Policy Act of 1969. While, the Tri-city lawsuit stated that the termination of the YMP license application could pose health risks to their community. My contention is that the Department of Energy - Yucca Mountain Project license application is incomplete since it failed to address health and Safety risk issues associated with metals and radionuclide exposure to groundwater which is mandated under NEPA Acts and its regulations. The NEPA Act clearly mandates regulatory agencies to prepare a detailed statement on significant environmental impact (EIS) of major federal actions, and to include reasonable alternative actions. Next, YMP official in Las Vegas, Review Journal 2004 stated that “to calculate health risks from the combine effects of heavy metals and radioactive materials when there is no requirement to do so would be “like challenging the speed limit.” The DOE position is in s both in contrast to NEPA Acts of (1969) since DOE have it failed properly to discuss the potential/probable significant environmental impact of radionuclide and heavy metals on the human environment in the EIS. In addition, 40 Code of Federal Regulation 1502.22 Cumulative effects that stats “when an agency is evaluating reasonably and foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment in the environmental impact statement and there is incomplete … the agency shall always make it clear that such information is lacking.” Furthermore, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a letter addressed to me dated March 30, 2009 stated that “With regard to your concern about the DOE’s, the DOE’s EIS the NRC staff agree that analysis did not provide an adequate discussion of the cumulative amounts of radiological and non-radiological contaminated that may enter groundwater over time, this contaminated would behave in the aquifer and related environment. We have found that this failure to adequately characterize potential contaminates releases to the groundwater and surface discharge renders that the portion of the EIS is inadequate. DOE’s discussion of these impacts in the EIS’s is not consistence with the NRC’s regulations for completeness and adequacy of discussion of environmental consequences of proposed action. The importance of this letter that is the NRC it has directed YMP to submit a supplement Environmental Impact statement “to ensure that 2002 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Supplement EIS are adequate.” The DOE is required to comply with regulations Section 10 CFR 63.10 (a) and (b), which stated the following it is “require the DOE to submit a complete and accurate license application; and Section 63.10 b) report a significant implication for public health and safety ... licensee fails to notify the Commission of information that the applicant or licensee has identified as having a significant implication for public.” Therefore, it is my opinion that the President of U.S. Mr. Obama and the Secretary of Energy within their right to withdraw the license application as incomplete. It did not violate any parts of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and its amendments o any section in 10 CFR 63 regulations. Yours, Dr. Jacob D Paz Letter to the editor,

Dear Sir:

In contrast to the opinion published on 03/07/2010 “Yucca Mountain testimony lacks scientific reasoning” It is my scientific and legal view are that Dr. Chu his with in his right to withdrew the YMP license application and why.

On February 23rd and 26th 2010 the State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects web site reported the following that: Hanford area business, Aiken County S.C. and the Tri-City State of Washington leaders officially filed a lawsuits against President Obama and Secretary of Energy for scrapping plans to build the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) Nuclear Waste Facility in the Court of Appeals Washington D.C. The S.C. the lawsuit is seeking to stay the hearing of Yucca Mountain License Application. Akin S.C lawsuit alleged that withdrawal of the license application violated the Nuclear waste Act of 1982 and its Amendments. Additionally, it may also violate the National Environment Policy Act of 1969.
While, the Tri-city lawsuit stated that the termination of the YMP license application could pose health risks to their community. My contention is that the Department of Energy – Yucca Mountain Project license application is incomplete since it failed to address health and Safety risk issues associated with metals and radionuclide exposure to groundwater which is mandated under NEPA Acts and its regulations. The NEPA Act clearly mandates regulatory agencies to prepare a detailed statement on significant environmental impact (EIS) of major federal actions, and to include reasonable alternative actions.
Next, YMP official in Las Vegas, Review Journal 2004 stated that “to calculate health risks from the combine effects of heavy metals and radioactive materials when there is no requirement to do so would be “like challenging the speed limit.”
The DOE position is in s both in contrast to NEPA Acts of (1969) since DOE have it failed properly to discuss the potential/probable significant environmental impact of radionuclide and heavy metals on the human environment in the EIS. In addition, 40 Code of Federal Regulation 1502.22 Cumulative effects that stats “when an agency is evaluating reasonably and foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment in the environmental impact statement and there is incomplete … the agency shall always make it clear that such information is lacking.”
Furthermore, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a letter addressed to me dated March 30, 2009 stated that “With regard to your concern about the DOE’s, the DOE’s EIS the NRC staff agree that analysis did not provide an adequate discussion of the cumulative amounts of radiological and non-radiological contaminated that may enter groundwater over time, this contaminated would behave in the aquifer and related environment. We have found that this failure to adequately characterize potential contaminates releases to the groundwater and surface discharge renders that the portion of the EIS is inadequate. DOE’s discussion of these impacts in the EIS’s is not consistence with the NRC’s regulations for completeness and adequacy of discussion of environmental consequences of proposed action. The importance of this letter that is the NRC it has directed YMP to submit a supplement Environmental Impact statement “to ensure that 2002 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Supplement EIS are adequate.”
The DOE is required to comply with regulations Section 10 CFR 63.10 (a) and (b), which stated the following it is “require the DOE to submit a complete and accurate license application; and Section 63.10 b) report a significant implication for public health and safety … licensee fails to notify the Commission of information that the applicant or licensee has identified as having a significant implication for public.”
Therefore, it is my opinion that the President of U.S. Mr. Obama and the Secretary of Energy within their right to withdraw the license application as incomplete. It did not violate any parts of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and its amendments o any section in 10 CFR 63 regulations.

Yours,

Dr. Jacob D Paz

]]>