|
---|
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
PRM-50-104 DOCKETED Rulemaking Comments (77FR25375)
USNRC From: Peter Samal [psamal@comcast.net]
July 17, 2012 (1:35 pm)Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:05 PM OFFICE OF SECRETARY To: Rulemaking Comments RULEMAKINGS AND
Subject:
Comments on PRM-50-104, Docket ID NRC-2012-0046 ADJUDICATIONS STAFF I live about 16 miles south of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. The prevailing winds are from the north and west so any release of radiation is likely to adversely affect me directly.
If the NRC advised that the evacuation zone around Fukushima be 50 miles, why does the current U.S. 10 evacuation zone sound completely arbitrary, especially since the reactors at Fukushima and VT Yankee are the same and especially since the spent fuel pools at VY are well beyond their designed capacity and especially since VY has had so many technical and management problems?
The argument that a tsunami and earthquake cannot affect VY is specious.Connecticut River flooding and earthquakes, not to mention man made errors can happen here and can result in complete disaster.
Please extend the U.S. evacuation zones as recommended below.The on-going events at Fukushima demonstrate that nuclear power disasters can have sustained and far reaching effects. A major concern associated with Fukushima and other nuclear disasters is the evacuation of affected populations.
In the United States, emergency planning for nuclear emergencies has remained largely static since 1980, when regulations pertaining to emergency planning were initially enacted after the Three Mile Island accident.
These plans are outdated and do not adequately protect the health and safety of United States citizens.Specifically, the current 10-mile emergency evacuation zone does not. adequately protect from the effects of ionizing radiation, despite what computer modeling and simulations may demonstrate.
The real world experiences of Fukushima and Chernobyl are direct evidence that radiation releases from nuclear accidents can be greater than computer modeling or simulations suggest. Indeed, the accident at Fukushima resulted in sustained and large releases of radiation for a period of several weeks.More than 150,000 people evacuated near Fukushima, from as far as 25 miles away--50,000 of those, according to the Associated Press (5/16/12) evacuated from outside the mandatory evacuation zones. Meanwhile, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. State Department recommended that Americans within 50 miles of Fukushima evacuate.
Even so, as much as 80% of the airborne radiation released at Fukushima blew directly over the Pacific Ocean, rather than populated areas. The NRC cannot rely on favorable wind patterns to protect the American public.According to the National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report, there is no safe dose of radiation, and women and children are affected more by radiation than men. Evacuation regulations must be protective of the most vulnerable in the population.
The ingestion pathway EPZ is also grossly inadequate, and should be expanded to 100 miles.Food contamination at both Fukushima and Chernobyl has been far reaching and persistent.
In Chernobyl, radionuclides tainted crops and animal products hundreds of miles away. More than 25 years after that accident, sheep in Wales--hundreds of miles away--remain interdicted.
Similarly, in Fukushima contamination of rice, milk, and other food has been exhibited 100 miles and more from the site.__tmp adS = OCI-0 to7 3DS /oC Current NRC regulations do not require that emergency exercises take into consideration an initiating or concurrent natural disaster that might further complicate accidents and subsequent evacuation efforts. At Fukushima, a natural disaster (coupled with faulty reactor design) initiated the disaster.
Both Fukushima and the U.S. experience with Hurricane Katrina demonstrate the difficulties associated with evacuating when a natural disaster strikes that causes roadways to wash out.Weather patterns are growing more extreme and dangerous.
In 2011, hurricanes, earthquakes, and flooding caused damage to U.S. nuclear reactors.
As such, emergency preparedness drills and exercises should include regionally appropriate natural disasters such as droughts, flooding, blizzards, earthquakes, wildfires, and hurricanes.
It is for all these reasons that I request that the NRC adopt the proposed rule expanding emergency planning zones to the respective 25, 50, and 100 mile zones and add a new requirement that emergency exercises include scenarios of regionally appropriate intiating or concurrent natural disasters.
Thank you, Peter Samal Montague, MA 01351 US