|
|---|
Category:Rulemaking-Comment
MONTHYEARML16081A4652016-03-21021 March 2016
Comment (072) of Beatrice Blake on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors
ML16085A3132016-03-18018 March 2016
Comment (154) of Sandra and Charles Kosterman on ANPR-26, 50, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors
ML16053A5152016-02-17017 February 2016
Comment (037) of Emma Stamas on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors
ML12200A2592012-07-16016 July 2012
Comment (180) of Peter Samal on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone
NRC-2012-0046, Comment (285) of Aliston Macmartin, Et Al on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone2012-07-12012 July 2012
Comment (285) of Aliston Macmartin, Et Al on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone
ML12181A3082012-05-31031 May 2012
Comment (158) of Barbara Tiner on Behalf of the Selectboard of the Town of Leverett, Ma on PRM-50-104, Regarding Emergency Planning Zone
NRC-2009-0554, Comment (9) of Mark Leyse on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-95 Requesting the NRC to Order Vermont Yankee to Lower the Licensing Basis Peak Cladding Temperature in Order to Provide a Necessary Margin of Safety in the Event of a LOCA2011-07-30030 July 2011
Comment (9) of Mark Leyse on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-95 Requesting the NRC to Order Vermont Yankee to Lower the Licensing Basis Peak Cladding Temperature in Order to Provide a Necessary Margin of Safety in the Event of a LOCA
ML1033402512010-11-24024 November 2010
2010/11/24-Comment (4) of John C. Butler, NEI, on New England Coalition PRM-50-95 Requesting the NRC to Order Vermont Yankee to Lower the Licensing Basis Peak Cladding Temperature in Order to Provide a Necessary Margin of Safety in the Even
ML0929309822009-10-19019 October 2009
2009/10/19-Comment (26) of Mary Lampert, Et. Al., on Behalf of Pilgrim Watch on Rules PR-50 and 50, Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations.
ML0909005812009-03-26026 March 2009
Comment (1) of George J. Silvestri, Jr. on ANPR 171, Variable Annual Fee Structure for Power Reactors
ML0904802662009-02-0505 February 2009
Comment (141) of Elizabeth Adams on Pr 51 Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, and Pr 51 Waste Confidence Decision Update
ML0904800492009-02-0303 February 2009
Comment (122) of Randy Kehler Pr 51 Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, and Pr 51 Waste Confidence Decision Update
ML0904402452009-01-29029 January 2009
Comment (44) of Scott Ainslie on Pr 51 Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, and Pr 51 Waste Confidence Decision Update
ML0904403152009-01-28028 January 2009
Comment (37) of Sally Newton on Pr 51 Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, and Pr 51 Waste Confidence Decision Update
ML0707906372007-03-19019 March 2007
Comment (50) Submitted by Sally Shaw on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re Amend 10 CFR Part 51 - Spent Fuel
ML0707906462007-03-19019 March 2007
Comment (52) Submitted by Joseph A. Parzych on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re Amend 10 CFR Part 51- Spent Fuel
ML0707906552007-03-19019 March 2007
Comment (54) Submitted by Scott Ainslie on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re Amend 10 CFR Part 51 - Spent Fuel
ML0707906712007-03-19019 March 2007
Comment (58) Submitted by William C Pearson on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re Amend of 10 CFR Part 51 - Spent Fuel
ML0707906742007-03-19019 March 2007
Comment (59) Submitted by Eleanor I. Gavin on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re Amend of 10 CFR Part 51 - Spent Fuel
ML0708103842007-03-19019 March 2007
Comment (64) Submitted by Paul A. Gaukler on Behalf of Entergy Corp. on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re Amend 10 CFR Part 51 - Spent Fuel
ML0707301562007-03-0707 March 2007
Comment (15) of Sunny Miller on Behalf of Traprock Peace Center on War with Iran and Hazards at the Vermont Yankee Reactor
ML0703703822007-02-0505 February 2007
Comment (57) Submitted by Maure Briggs-Carrington on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0703703772007-02-0505 February 2007
Comment (55) Submitted by Margaret Gundersen on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0703700752007-02-0303 February 2007
Comment (43) Submitted by Louanne Wilson on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0703006382007-01-28028 January 2007
Comment (31) Submitted by Judy Davidson on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0702603832007-01-24024 January 2007
Comment (26) Submitted by Hattie Nestel on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0701805132007-01-13013 January 2007
Comment (5) Submitted by Art Hanson on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0701805182007-01-13013 January 2007
Comment (9) Submitted by Sidney Goodman on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Aacdemy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0700804062007-01-0505 January 2007
Comment (9) Submitted by Nina Keller on Massachusetts Attorney General'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM-51-10 to Amend 10 CFR Part 51
ML0700804092007-01-0505 January 2007
Comment (10) Submitted by Lea Wood on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM 51-10, Regarding to Amend 10 CFR Part 51
ML0636300322006-12-24024 December 2006
Comment (5) Submitted by Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, Rochelle Becker on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Regarding to Amend 10 CFR Part 51
ML0636300292006-12-22022 December 2006
Comment (3) Submitted by Claire Chang on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Regarding to Amend 10 CFR Part 51
ML0626502212006-08-30030 August 2006
Comment from David R. Lewis of Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw and Pittman on Massachusetts Attorney General'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM-51-10 to Amend 10 CFR Part 51 (August 25, 2006)
ML0523604462005-08-23023 August 2005
Comment (5) Submitted by James Marc Leas Supporting Andrew Spano'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM-54-02 Re Amendment to 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants
ML0523604372005-08-23023 August 2005
Comment (4) Submitted by Ed Anthes, Nuclear Free Vermont by 2012, Supporting Andrew Spano'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM-54-02, Amendment to 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants
ML0327514662003-09-22022 September 2003
Comment (3) of Michael J. Colomb Re Proposed Generic Communication; Method for Estimating Effective Dose Equivalent from External Radiation Sources Using Two Dosimeters
ML0323904982003-08-19019 August 2003
Comment (12) Submitted by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Michael R. Kansler on Proposed Rule PR-50 Re Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors
ML0312800402003-05-0505 May 2003
Comment (16) Submitted by Energy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, James M. Devincentis, Supporting and Endorsing Comments Submitted by NEI Re Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fy 2003
JPN-03-001, Comment (36) Submitted by Entergy Nuclear Inc., J. Knubel, Re Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-79, Protection for Day Care Centers and Nursery Schools in Radiological Emergency2003-01-15015 January 2003
Comment (36) Submitted by Entergy Nuclear Inc., J. Knubel, Re Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-79, Protection for Day Care Centers and Nursery Schools in Radiological Emergency
2016-03-21
[Table view] |
Text
I 116EUY- Docket Number PRM 51 -11 I
Paue lii PRM-51-11 (71 FR67072)
From: LucialLouAnne Wilson <lucia@sover.net>
To: <SECY@nrc.gov>
Date: Sat, Feb 3, 2007 10:35 AM DOCKETED
Subject:
Docket Number PRM 51-11 USNRC As a citizen living within 10 miles of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, February 5, 2007 (10:40am)
I most sincerely urge you to be guided by the petition of Sally Shaw, Docket Number PRM-51 -11. I am extremely concerned about the dangers from OFFICE OF SECRETARY low level radiation as well as higher releases when accidents occur. The RULEMAKINGS AND relicensing of this older plant, which we all believed would be closed ADJUDICATIONS STAFF in 5 years, would be an extremely dangerous and short sighted move. I urge you to deny Entergy's request for a 20-year extension on their license.
Below is the gist of Sally Shaw's petition; please give it your utmost attention.
The petitioner requests that the NRC prepare a rulemaking that will require that the NRC reconcile its generic environmental impact statement for nuclear power plant operating license renewal applications with current scientific understanding of the health risks of low-level radiation, including but not limited to those discussed in the National Academy of Sciences Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII Phase 2 Report.
Exercise Precaution:
- 1) Protect the most vulnerable: Tell the NRC to exercise precaution by accounting for more vulnerable populations in their standards. Since no level of radiation dose is safe (see BEIR VII quote below), the best precaution would be no exposure. However recognizing and regulating for vulnerable populations is a start.
"In BEIR VII, the cancer mortality risks for females are 37.5 percent higher. The risks for all solid tumors, like lung, breast, and kidney, liver, and other solid tumors added together are almost 50 percent greater for women than men, though there are a few specific cancers, including leukemia, for which the risk estimates for men are higher."
The BEIR VII report estimates that the differential risk for children is even greater. For instance, the same radiation in the first year of life for boys produces three to four times the cancer risk as exposure between the ages of 20 and 50. Female infants have almost double the risk as male infants. (Table 12 D-1 and D-2, on pages 550-551 of the prepublication copy of the report, on the Web starting at http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091 56X/htm 1/550. html)." (excerpted from http://www.ieer.org/comments/beir/beir7pressrel.html)
- 2) Recognize "allowable" levels are not safe: Tell the NRC that their "allowable" levels of radionuclides are NOT conservative or protective enough. They are based only on the obsolete "standard man", a healthy, white male in the prime of life, and ignore the more vulnerable fetus, growing infant and child, the aged, those in poor health, and women who are, according to the BEIR VII report, 37- 50% more vulnerable than standard man to the harmful effects of ionizing radiation.
N-ECY7 D-o-cket Num,-berPRM51-_-_11_ If5Paa Paqe2I_e2 I, I~~O~V Docket Number PRM 51-11
- 3) Consider radiation damage from inhaling or ingesting radionuclides:
NRC does not consider the effects of internal radiation from ingested or inhaled alpha and beta emitters. The amount of polonium-21 0 that recently killed a former Russian intelligence officer was considered by IAEA and NRC to be of the lowest possible risk because they failed to account for internal radiation damage.
- 4) Recognize there is no safe dose: Further, regarding low dose radiation, the BEIR VII panel has concluded, "it is unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers... Further, there are extensive data on radiation-induced transmissible mutations in mice and other organisms. There is therefore no reason to believe that humans would be immune to this sort of harm."
Demand that the NRC protect all members of the public from all types of excess radiation exposure from nuclear power and its fuel cycle, gamma, alpha, beta, neutron, particulate, fission products, noble gases, etc.
and that measurement and monitoring should include all forms and pathways, not just gamma at the fence line. Argue that their radiation limits should include accidental releases as well as planned emissions.
The petitioner requests that the NRC prepare a rulemaking that would require that the NRC reconcile its GElS for nuclear power plant operating license renewal applications with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2 which was released in 2005. AND OTHER RECENT SCIENCE! The petitioner asserts that the GElS relies upon an earlier NAS report, the BEIR V, with was released in 1990. According to the NAS Web site, the BEIR VII updates the information contained in the BEIR V and draws upon new data in both epidemiologic and experimental research. The petitioner requests that NRC consider the NAS BEIR VII report as new and significant information and recalculate certain conclusions set forth in the GELS, including early fatalities, latent fatalities and any injury projections based on this information.
Thank you for making wise decisions in this matter.
LouAnne Wilson No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 2/1/2007
. . .......... .... Pa .M e 1 I c:\temp\GW)00001.TMP P:Ia ae 1Il I
Mail Envelope Properties (45C4ABB9.COO:10 :7168)
Subject:
Docket Number PRM 51-11 Creation Date Sat, Feb 3, 2007 10:42 AM From: Lucia/LouAnne Wilson <lucia@sover.net>
Created By: lucia@sover.net Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 SECY (SECY)
Post Office Route TWGWPO02.HQGWDOo1 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 5168 Saturday, February 3, 2007 10:42 AM Mime.822 6508 Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None Concealed
Subject:
No Security: Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled
