|
|---|
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
-TOWN OF LEVERETT Massachusetts 01054 PRM-50-104 (77FR25375)
May 31, 2012 DOCKETED Chairman Gregory Jaczko USNRC US Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 28, 2012 (2:50 pm)
Washington, DC 20555-0001 OFFICE OF SECRETARY
Dear Chairman Jaczko:
- RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF On May 22, the Selectboard of the Town of Leverett voted to support the Resolution to Support Expansion of Emergency Planning Zones around Nuclear Power Reactors. A copy of the signed Resolution is attached.
Leverett is located approximately 40 miles from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant and we feel the current emergency planning regulations are inadequate and outdated especially given what has been learned from the Chernobyl accident in April 1986 and the March 2011 nuclear accident at Fukushima.
Ln signhig;this Reso.iuti&tn, we ask that you make the necessary changes to emergency regulations i.hat would hopefully provide a sufficient level of protection for the citizens of the Town of Leverett.
Letters have been sent to our elected state and federal officials asking them to support PRM-50-' 104.
In 1983 the Town of Leverett voted to be Nuclear Free Zone so the issue of nuclear safety has been a concern of the citizens for decades.
Simcerely,:."
Barbara 'Tin*pr Acting! Sekldcttbard ClrK
..TEMPLATE,: SECY-067 DS 10
8 "2*
Resolution to Support Expansion of Emergency Planning Zones around Nuclear Power Reactors Whereas the March 2011 nuclear accident at Fukushima resulted in a mandatory evacuation of a 12 mile radius around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear site, a recommended evacuation of an 18-mile radius, and actual evacuation of villages 25 miles away to the northwest of Fukushima Daiichi; Whereas the April 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident resulted in creation of a permanent 18-mile exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear site and actual evacuation of villages 100 miles and more away.
Whereas the March 2011 nuclear accident at Fukushima resulted in numerous documented instances of interdiction of contaminated food and livestock 100 miles and more from the Fukushima Daiichi site and widespread contamination of crops and other vegetation; Whereas the -April 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident resulted in interdiction of contaminated food and livestock hundreds of miles from the Chernobyl site (including continued interdiction of contaminated livestock in Wales-approximately 1,000 miles away) and widespread contamination of crops and other vegetation; Whereas current U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations establish a 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone for evacuations around U.S. nuclear reactors and a 50-mile Ingestion Pathway Zone to monitor and potentially interdict contaminated food, water, milk and livestock:
Whereas, based on the real-world experience of the Fukushima and Chemobyl nuclear accidents, the 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone and 50 mile Ingestion Pathway zones are inadequate and outdated:
Whereas the Fukushima nuclear accident was caused by an earthquake and ensuing tsunami, which knocked out critical offsite and onsite power sources, demonstrating that natural disasters can initiate severe nuclear accidents:
Whereas the August 2011 mid-Atlantic earthquake resulted in a ground speed motion double that which the nearby North Anna nuclear complex was designed to withstand, and knocked out offsite power to the site-Whereas tornadoes, hurricanes and floods during 2011 caused loss of offsite power and other damage to several nuclear reactor sites across the U.S., including Browns Ferry in Alabama, Surry in Virginia, Calvert Cliffs in Maryland and Fort Calhoun in Nebraska. demonstrating that natural disasters can challenge nuclear safety systems; Whereas current Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations do not require bi-annual emergency exercises to include scenarios of regionally-appropriate initiating or concurrent natural disasters:
W1hereas the citizens of the Town of Leverett deserve the greatest possible protection from nuclear power accidents and the greatest possible preparation to mitigate the effects of nuclear accidents:
Whereas current Nuclear Regulatory Commission emergency planning regulations are inadeauate to provide a sufficient level of protection for the citizens of the Town of Leverett; BE IT RESOLVED THAT THLE TOWN OF LEVERETT Supports the expansion of current Emergency Planning zones from 10 to 25 miles around U.S.
nuclear reactor sites:
Supports the creation of a new Emergency Response Zone of 25 to 50 miles around U.S. nuclear reactor sites that would require nuclear power utilities to identify evacuation routes and provide this information to the public within this zone; Supports the expansion of the Ingestion Pathway Zone from 50 miles to 100 miles around U.S.
nuclear reactor sites:
Supports emergency evacuation exercises that practice response to situations involving regionally appropriate initiating or concurrent natural disasters:
Supports the Petition for Rulemaking submitted by 38 organizations across the United States on February 15, 2012, since endorsed by more than 2700 organizations and individuals, and docketed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as PRM-50-104. which would make the necessary changes to emergency regulations detailed above; Be it further resolved that the Town of Leverett will send a copy of this approved resolution to our state and federal elected officials and calls on them to also support PRM-50-104. In addition, the Town of Leverett will inform the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the appointed Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners of its support for PRM-50-104.
Voted and Signed this - day of , .2012, T,everett eqlenthnpmd Richar razeau d"'Errico'JlSh, M Ju.,id S~~iv<A
