|
---|
Category:Rulemaking-Comment
MONTHYEARML22125A1502022-05-0303 May 2022 Comment (010) from the Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. on PR-20, 26, 50, 51, 52, 72, 73 and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning ML22138A1562022-04-29029 April 2022 Extension Request from Congresswoman Salud Carbajal on PR-20, 26, 50, 51, 52, 72, 73 and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning ML20119A5382020-04-27027 April 2020 Comment from Secretary Patrick Mcdonnell on the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment ML18157A3072018-06-0101 June 2018 Comment (035) of Anonymous Individual on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14007A0082013-12-21021 December 2013 Comment (00856) of Julie Gibson on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14001A0212013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00751) of Christopher Calnan on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13360A1022013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00661) of Carol Georgi on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13360A1132013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00665) of Peter Adam on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13360A1142013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00666) of Lisa Brown on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13360A1212013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00669) of Simone Malboeuf on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14002A0212013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00816) of Nancy Foley of PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14008A1702013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00820) of Jeannette Watson on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13357A8062013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00592) of Vicki Leon on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13354A0222013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00543) of Ray Johnson on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13354A0042013-12-18018 December 2013 Comment (00526) of Evelyn Justesen on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13354A0012013-12-18018 December 2013 Comment (00523) of Michelle Kaul on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14014A0962013-12-15015 December 2013 Comment (00912) of Marina Bethlenfalvay on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13351A1372013-12-14014 December 2013 Comment (00418) of Frank Zika on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13346A1892013-12-11011 December 2013 Comment (00361) of Walt French on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13345B2632013-12-0909 December 2013 Comment (00353) of Calvin Wilvert on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13346A2142013-12-0404 December 2013 Comment (00366) of Roger Emmons on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13339A1692013-12-0202 December 2013 Comment (00322) of Deborah Heald on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13346A1972013-12-0101 December 2013 Comment (00362) of Laura, Philip & Brandon Mordaunt on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13346A1862013-12-0101 December 2013 Comment (00360) of Randall Tognazzini on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13346A2022013-11-26026 November 2013 Comment (00364) of Jeffrey Buckingham on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13336A7322013-11-24024 November 2013 Comment (00286) of Lillian Light on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13336A7302013-11-24024 November 2013 Comment (00285)of Sally Hayati on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13336A7282013-11-22022 November 2013 Comment (00283) of Diane Smith on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13336A7272013-11-22022 November 2013 Comment (00282) of Ben Terra on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13346A2262013-11-21021 November 2013 Comment (00368) of Susan Atlee on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13336A7262013-11-21021 November 2013 Comment (00281) of Zelma Fishman on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13336A5702013-11-20020 November 2013 Comment (00275) of Gail Comer on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13336A5652013-11-20020 November 2013 Comment (00272) of Elizabeth Curren on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13329A6802013-11-20020 November 2013 Comment (00237) of Bill Denneen on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel NRC-2011-0299, Comment (14) of James Becker on Draft Regulatory Basis Document to Support Potential Amendment to Regulations Concerning Nuclear Power Plant Licensees' Station Blackout Mitigatin Strategies (10 CFR Parts 50 and 52), (NRC-2011-0299)2013-06-24024 June 2013 Comment (14) of James Becker on Draft Regulatory Basis Document to Support Potential Amendment to Regulations Concerning Nuclear Power Plant Licensees' Station Blackout Mitigatin Strategies (10 CFR Parts 50 and 52), (NRC-2011-0299) ML12200A3412012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (195) of Jan Clarridge on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12201A0092012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (242) of Quinn Montana on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12201A0082012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (241) of Richard Mathews on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12201A0072012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (240) of Carol Letson on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A4122012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (227) of Ken Deshaies on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12201A0112012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (244) of Sally Shaw on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12201A0122012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (245) of Gary Shaw on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12201A0132012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (246) of Mary Madigan on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12201A0152012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (248) of Loren Olson PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A2612012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (182) of Nancy Watts Supporting PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12201A0352012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (268) of Maureen Headington on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12202A0362012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (223) of Pete Mcnally, on Behalf of Polk County Emergency Management, on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A2932012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (203) of Jeanne Raymond on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Evacuation Planning Zone ML12200A2982012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (207) of Lewis Patrie on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A2972012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (206) of Linda Griggs on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone 2022-05-03
[Table view] |
Text
PRM-50-104 DOCKETED Iql Rulemaking Comments (77FR25375)
USNRC From: Richard Kranzdorf
[rkranzdo@calpoly.edu]
July 17, 2012 (1:35 pm)Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:41 PM OFFICE OF SECRETARY To: Rulemaking Comments RUILEMAKINGS AND
Subject:
Comments on PRM-50-104, Docket ID NRC-2012-0046 ADJUDICATIONS STAFF I live in the 10-mile emergency evacuation zone of Diablo Canyon! For more than 25 years I have commented every time the NRC comes to town that the Emergency Plan has rarely if everr included anyone other than First Responders!
Thus, our Emergency Plan is little more than a"paper plan." This is an outrage.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 16-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.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."/e rip I#.ef- oG 7 D&1O 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, Richard Kranzdorf San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 US