|
---|
Category:Rulemaking-Comment
MONTHYEARML24282B0252024-09-22022 September 2024 Comment (001) from Alan Blind on PRM-50-125 - Returning a Decommissioning Plant to Operating Status 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 ML14001A0212013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00751) of Christopher Calnan on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML12200A3212012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (221) of Priscilla Bradley 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 ML12200A3192012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (219) of Rachel Herbener on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A3142012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (217) Robert Tohe on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A3122012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (216) of Frank Snapp on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A3092012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (213) of Troy Lynn Hamzy on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A3082012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (212) of Charlene Woodcock on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A3042012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (208) of Oleh Sydor on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A2982012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (207) of Lewis Patrie on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A2962012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (205) of Tara Hands 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 ML12200A2922012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (202) of Steve Patton on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A2902012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (200) of Leonard Goodisman on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A2892012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (199) of Joe Weatherby on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A2882012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (198) of Tim Brainerd on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A2572012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (178) of Leonard Wheeler Supporting PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A3342012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (188) of Doug Brown 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 ML12200A3222012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (222) of Robert Heron 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 ML12201A0132012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (246) of Mary Madigan on 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 ML12201A0112012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (244) of Sally Shaw 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 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 ML12200A4122012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (227) of Ken Deshaies on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A3432012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (197) of Anne Bingham PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A3412012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (195) of Jan Clarridge on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A3392012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (193) of William Collins on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A3382012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (192) of John D. Calandrelli Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A3372012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (191) of Richard Kranzdorf Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A3352012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (189) of Lynn Crandall Supporting PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12195A2662012-07-11011 July 2012 Comment (162) Karen Fuller, on Behalf Tompkins County Legislature, on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12145A7272012-05-16016 May 2012 Comment (41) of Thomas Meacham on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12145A5392012-05-16016 May 2012 Comment (3) of Stephan Donovan on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12145A5412012-05-16016 May 2012 Comment (5) of John Papandrea on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12145A5472012-05-16016 May 2012 Comment (11) of Carol Savary on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12145A7162012-05-16016 May 2012 Comment (31) of Jordan Van Voast on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12145A7172012-05-16016 May 2012 Comment (32) of Robert Cerello on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML11175A3502011-06-21021 June 2011 Comment (28) of Harvey Reading Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-96, Regarding NRC Amends Its Regulations Regarding the Domestic Licensing of Special Material ML1033402502010-11-24024 November 2010 2010/11/24-Comment (3) of Aladar Stolmar, 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 Event of NRC-2010-0080, Comment (48) of Henry Tamanini on Behalf of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, on NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Supplement 3, Guidance for Protective Action Recommendations for General Emergencies2010-08-17017 August 2010 Comment (48) of Henry Tamanini on Behalf of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, on NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Supplement 3, Guidance for Protective Action Recommendations for General Emergencies ML1011801752010-04-27027 April 2010 Comment (19) of David Lochbaum, on Behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists, on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-93, Regarding NRC Revise Its Regulations Based on Data from Multi-Rod (Assembly) Severe Fuel Damage Experiments. ML1010301422010-04-12012 April 2010 Comment (15) of Paul Gunter on Behalf of Beyond Nuclear on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-93 Regarding NRC Revise Its Regulations Based on Data from multi-rod (Assembly) Severe Fuel Damage Experiments ML0929302762009-10-17017 October 2009 2009/10/17-Comment (24) of Scott D. Portzline, on Behalf of Three Mile Island Alert, on Proposed Rule Pr 50 and 52, Re Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations 2024-09-22
[Table view] |
Text
PRM-50-104 DOCKETED 1 iL 5 Rulemaking Comments (77FR25375)
USNRC 7-From: Gary Shaw [crotonshaw@aol.com]
July 17, 2012 (1:35 pm)Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 5:28 PM OFFICE OF SECRETARY To: Rulemaking Comments RULEMAKINGS AND
Subject:
Comments on PRM-50-104, Docket ID NRC-2012-0046 ADJUDICATIONS STAFF A look at the fallout patterns from Chernobyl and Fukushima clearly shows that a 10-mile EPZ around nuclear plants is woefully inadequate, and quite frankly, a cruel joke. It is time to be more realistic in the distances that should have emergency evacuation planning.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.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, Gary Shaw Croton on Hudson, NY 10520 us