|
|
Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | issue date = 10/31/2007 | | | issue date = 10/31/2007 |
| | title = 2007/10/31-Comment (2) of John Sweeney on Pr 52 Regarding Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for New Nuclear Power Reactor Designs | | | title = 2007/10/31-Comment (2) of John Sweeney on Pr 52 Regarding Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for New Nuclear Power Reactor Designs |
| | author name = Sweeney J E | | | author name = Sweeney J |
| | author affiliation = Entergy Corp | | | author affiliation = Entergy Corp |
| | addressee name = | | | addressee name = |
Line 32: |
Line 32: |
| Do not allow media, intervenors, or those of limited insight to intimidate NRC into mistakenly aping DoD, but without its wartime rigor, and thus granting national enemies open access to domestic target parameters. | | Do not allow media, intervenors, or those of limited insight to intimidate NRC into mistakenly aping DoD, but without its wartime rigor, and thus granting national enemies open access to domestic target parameters. |
| With greatest respect John Sweeney Designer, Entergy Indian Point Energy Center | | With greatest respect John Sweeney Designer, Entergy Indian Point Energy Center |
| - - - . -- - - - - . - - -- - -- -- I c:\temp\GW)00001 .TMP - -- - - - Page I 1 Mail Envelope Properties (4728B47F.lB8 | | - - - . -- - - - - . - - -- - -- -- I c:\temp\GW)00001 .TMP - -- - - - Page I 1 Mail Envelope Properties (4728B47F.lB8 |
| : 0 : 45496) | | : 0 : 45496) |
|
| |
|
|
---|
Category:Rulemaking-Comment
MONTHYEARML22215A2362022-07-28028 July 2022 Comment (037) from Peter Gebhardt on PR-20, 26, 50, 51, 52, 72, 73 and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning ML22215A0672022-07-26026 July 2022 Comment (032) from Jean Rivlin on PR-20, 26, 50, 51, 52, 72, 73 and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning ML22215A0652022-07-26026 July 2022 Comment (030) from Evie Horton on PR-20, 26, 50, 51, 52, 72, 73 and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning ML22215A0632022-07-26026 July 2022 Comment (028) from Emilia Silva on PR-20, 26, 50, 51, 52, 72, 73 and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning ML21076A5332021-03-16016 March 2021 4 Form Comments from Citizens Opposing the Indian Point License Transfer Application (NRC-2020-0021) - (Version 2) ML21076A5302021-02-25025 February 2021 1 Form Comment from Citizen Opposing the Indian Point License Transfer Application (NRC-2020-0021) ML21076A5322021-02-23023 February 2021 Comment from Sandy Lehrenbaum Re Indian Point Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Licenses & Conforming Amendments on Indian Point ML21076A5312021-02-23023 February 2021 Comment from Barbara and Edward O'Brien Re Indian Point Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Licenses & Conforming Amendments ML21076A5292021-01-29029 January 2021 4 Form Comments from Riverkeeper Constituents to Commissioner Hanson Regarding the Indian Point License Transfer Application (NRC-2020-0021)- Subject: Fully Adjudicate All Pending Petitions NRC-2011-0189, Comment (20) of Michel Lee on Behalf of the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition on the Proposed Rule for 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 - Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events2016-02-11011 February 2016 Comment (20) of Michel Lee on Behalf of the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition on the Proposed Rule for 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 - Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events ML14017A1212014-01-16016 January 2014 Comment (00924) of Riverside Church on Behalf of 132 Individuals on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14006A3862013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00838) of Sally Jane Gellert on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14002A0132013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00809) of Pam Krimsky on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13351A0032013-12-0707 December 2013 Comment (00394) of Mrs. Mary Ellen Kerr on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13336B4632013-11-29029 November 2013 Comment (00302) of Dale Saltzman on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13336A7232013-11-21021 November 2013 Comment (00279) of Grant Collier on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13336A5722013-11-21021 November 2013 Comment (00277) of Emily O'Mahony on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13320A0092013-11-15015 November 2013 Comment (00184) of Robert Tompkins on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13350A6512013-11-0606 November 2013 Comment (00378) of Jocelyn Decrecsenzo on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13308D0852013-11-0303 November 2013 Comment (00127) of Gary Shaw on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel NRC-2012-0246, Comment (00938) of the Raging Grannies on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel2013-10-30030 October 2013 Comment (00938) of the Raging Grannies on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML12300A4692012-10-0202 October 2012 Comment (290) of Barbara Lenniger, Et. Al. on Behalf of Women'S Committee of Blawelt and Sparhill Dominions on PRM-50-104, Emergency Planning Zone Re Indian Point ML12278A0542012-09-24024 September 2012 Comment (288) of Catherine Howard and Other Three Individuals on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone ML12283A2602012-09-24024 September 2012 Comment (289) of Diane Forrest, Cecelia Lavan Et. Al. of Blauvelt Dominican Social Justice Committee on PRM 50-104 Regarding Resolution for Public Health and Safety Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Plants on Emergency Planning Zone ML12256B0272012-08-23023 August 2012 Comment (287) of Marie Gertrude Haughney and Three Other Individuals on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-104 Emergency Planning Zone ML12200A2972012-07-16016 July 2012 Comment (206) of Linda Griggs 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 ML1125211062011-09-0909 September 2011 Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-11-05) Regarding Pr 52 ESBWR Design Certification Amendment ML1125210392011-09-0909 September 2011 Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-11-05) Regarding Pr 52 AP1000 Design Certification Amendment NRC-2010-0135, Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-11-05) Regarding Pr 52 AP1000 Design Certification Amendment2011-09-0909 September 2011 Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-11-05) Regarding Pr 52 AP1000 Design Certification Amendment ML11209C4892011-07-21021 July 2011 Comment (8) 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 LOCA ML11209C4902011-07-21021 July 2011 Comment (21) of Mark Leyse, on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-93, Regarding NRC Revise Its Regulations Based on Data from multi-rod (Assembly) Severe Fuel Damage Experiments ML11175A3542011-06-21021 June 2011 2011/06/21-Comment (32) of Edwin Bergmann in Support of Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-96, Regarding NRC Amends Its Regulations Regarding the Domestic Licensing of Special Material 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. ML0914806402009-05-28028 May 2009 Supplemental Comments of Janice A. Dean on Behalf of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York on Pr 20, 30, 40, 50, 70 and 72 Regarding Decommissioning Planning ML0904804002009-02-0202 February 2009 Comment (88) of Sally Shaw 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 ML0731002932007-10-31031 October 2007 Comment (2) of John Sweeney on Pr 52 Regarding Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for New Nuclear Power Reactor Designs ML0705104132007-02-16016 February 2007 Letter from Riverkeeper, Inc., Lisa Rainwater, Et. Al. on Proposed Rule Pr 50, 72 and 73 Re Requesting an Additional 60 Day Extension of the Comment Period ML0601905822006-01-19019 January 2006 Comment (27) Submitted by Jeff Wanshel on Proposed Rule PR-73 Regarding Design Basis Threat ML0524205852005-08-29029 August 2005 Comment (10) Submitted by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Travis C. Mccullough Opposing 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 ML0525602672005-08-23023 August 2005 Comment (21) Submitted by Jeffrey Wanshel Supporting Andy Spano'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM 54-02, Amendment to 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants ML0525604292005-08-22022 August 2005 Comment (20) Submitted by Gary Shaw Supporting Andy Spano'S Petition for Rulemaking PRM-54-02, Amendment to 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants ML0503102412005-01-24024 January 2005 Comment (200) Submitted by Felix Aguilar, Robert Gould and Jonathan Parfrey, on Behalf of the California Chapters of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-73-12, Upgrade the Design Basis Threat Regulat ML0503102292005-01-24024 January 2005 Comment (199) Submitted by Robert K. Musil, on Behalf of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-73-12, Upgrade the Design Basis Threat Regulations ML0504004342005-01-21021 January 2005 Comment (249) Submitted by Michael and Judy Hardy Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-73-12, Upgrade the Design Basis Threat Regulations ML0504003832005-01-20020 January 2005 Comment (240) Submitted by Cindy L. Nance Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-73-12, Upgrade the Design Basis Threat Regulations ML0502501652005-01-19019 January 2005 Comment (68) Submitted by Sallie and Otto Hunt Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM 73-12, Upgrade the Design Basis Threat Regulations ML0502501672005-01-19019 January 2005 Comment (69) Submitted by Allan Gill on Petition for Rulemaking PRM 73-12, Upgrade the Design Basis Threat Regulations ML0502503062005-01-19019 January 2005 Comment (86) Submitted by Dot Sulock on Petition for Rulemaking PRM 73-12, Upgrade the Design Basis Threat Regulations 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 2022-07-28
[Table view] |
Text
-- - - -- -- I SECY - ATTN: Rulemaklngs and Adjudications
-- Staff RE:
PROPOSED AIRCRAFT IMPACT ASSESSME'NT v -F , RULE Page I 1 (72FR56287)
From: "Sweeney, John E" <jsweene@entergy.com>
To: <SECY@nrc.gov>
Date: Wed, Oct 31, 2007 12:59 PM
Subject:
ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff RE: PROPOSED AIRCRAFT IMPACT ASSESSMENT RULE ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff RE: PROPOSED AIRCRAFT IMPACT ASSESSMENT RULE DOCKETED USNRC November 5,2007 (1 0:l Oam) Gentlemen:
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RLILEMAKINGS AND Consider an unquantified situation where no impact assessment figures ADJUDICATIONS STAFF are available in the public domain to allow potential terror perpetrators to judge the efficacy of proposed aircraft strikes upon nuclear power plants.We have already observed how the "fog of unknowing" led the Mohammed Atta group to allegedly bypass such an attack, and select a more easily approached target--the World Trade Center. Now consider a situation where design basis scenarios are written into NRC code, exactly describing the parameters to be protected against in aircraft attacks upon nuclear power plants, and the rule itself, if not cloaked as "Safeguards Information" would act as a simple defacto primer on just how strong nuclear installations can expected to be, or to not be, thus allowing perfect planning of future air attacks on these installations.
Even if cloaked as "Safeguards" or "Classified" information, the formation of a large group of practitioners versed in any such new rule, will undoubtedly tend to replicate elements of the information (short of outright dissemination), and to spread the information, making control of its particulars increasingly problematical with each new trainee, each new calculation performed.
There is also the distinct possibility of its outright dissemination by former practitioners, or by those cognizant of its details, if caught in an extortion or duress situation.
Therefore, the utmost weight must be given to the argument that the detailed analysis of aircraft-on-containment studies, or rules derived therefrom, ought never be available except under the strictest secrecy regime, involving the fewest people, and only at those few instances when needed to actually design robust features into proposed structures, and otherwise strictly witheld from all other people, at all other times.(Even agency people). In like fashion, all details of any installed features actually implemented must never be publicly revealed, or even mentioned, as all clues would lead to a situation where attack becomes more likely, and more likely to succeed. For those of malicious intent to be able to purchase a simple United States Government primer on just how fast just how large an aircraft must fly to damage a nuclear plant, or to be able to read a publicly disseminated open rule telling them essentially the same thing, would be the utmost in criminal folly and unforgiveable naivete on the part of those who would debate, expose, teach, develop, or argue such a rule in a public forum. If such considerations are to be taken out of the purview of the
.- -- I SECY - ATTN: ~ulema~~~and A&u~~~~~~~~sL~TRE~PROPOSED . - - -- - - AIRCRAFT - IMPACT ASSESSMENT RULE Page 2 1 Department of Defense, and newly placed within the Department of Energy (or NRC), the nation must not be made less secure by doing so. If indeed defending the nuclear plants from air attack is now to be a DoEINRC responsibility, then a new, increased defense rigor must be envisioned at DoEINRC, beyond the simplistic "domestic openness" previously allowable when DoE/NRC were not (yet) in the defense business.
Do not allow media, intervenors, or those of limited insight to intimidate NRC into mistakenly aping DoD, but without its wartime rigor, and thus granting national enemies open access to domestic target parameters.
With greatest respect John Sweeney Designer, Entergy Indian Point Energy Center
- - - . -- - - - - . - - -- - -- -- I c:\temp\GW)00001 .TMP - -- - - - Page I 1 Mail Envelope Properties (4728B47F.lB8
- 0 : 45496)
Subject:
ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff RE: PROPOSED AIRCRAFT IMPACT ASSESSMENT RULE Creation Date Wed, Oct 3 1,2007 12:59 PM From: "Sweeney, John El' <j sweene@entergy,com>
Created By: j sweene@entergy.coln Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPO02.I4Q(;WD001 SECY (SECY) Post Office TWGWPO02.HQGWD001 Files NIESSAGE TEXT.htm Mime.822 Size 3407 4518 10654 Route nrc.gov Options Expiration Date:
None Priority:
Standard ReplyRequested:
No Return Notification:
None Concealed
Subject:
No Security:
Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligiblc for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disablcd 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 Date & Time Wednesday, October 31,2007 1259 PM