|
|---|
Category:Rulemaking-Comment
MONTHYEARNRC-2015-0070, Comment (044) from Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch on PR-20, 26, 50, 51, 52, 72, 73 and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning2022-08-22022 August 2022
Comment (044) from Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch on PR-20, 26, 50, 51, 52, 72, 73 and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning
ML22138A4242022-05-0606 May 2022
Comment (011) from Andrea Altieri on PR-20, 26, 50, 51, 52, 72, 73 and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning
ML18157A3062018-06-0202 June 2018
Comment (036) from Betsy Smith on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
ML18157A3072018-06-0101 June 2018
Comment (035) of Anonymous Individual on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
ML18150A6382018-05-29029 May 2018
Comment (024) from Janet Azarovitz on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
ML17165A1972017-06-13013 June 2017
Comment (11) from Pilgrim Watch Regarding Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors Transitioning to Decommissioning
ML16084B0142016-03-18018 March 2016
Comment (142) of Susan Carpenter on Behalf of Cape Downwinders on ANPR-26, 50, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors
ML16084A9962016-03-17017 March 2016
Comment (127) of Susan Carpenter on Behalf of Cape Downwinders on ANPR-26, 50, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors
ML16081A4682016-03-15015 March 2016
Comment (075) of Rosanne Shapiro on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors
ML15349A8602015-12-11011 December 2015
Comment (007) of Rosemary and Cal Wilvert on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors
ML15342A0552015-11-21021 November 2015
Comment (003) of Janet Azarovitz on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors
ML13345A2672013-12-0505 December 2013
Comment (00351) of Brian O'Malley on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
ML13339A2982013-12-0404 December 2013
Comment (00330) of Lee Roscoe on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
ML12201A0292012-07-16016 July 2012
Comment (262) of Robert Holt on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone
ML12146A1862012-05-19019 May 2012
Comment (130) of Brooke Schoepf on PRM-50-104 Regarding Emergency Planning Zone
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
ML1125210392011-09-0909 September 2011
Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-11-05) Regarding Pr 52 AP1000 Design Certification Amendment
ML1125211062011-09-0909 September 2011
Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-11-05) Regarding Pr 52 ESBWR Design Certification Amendment
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
ML0813507272008-05-12012 May 2008
Comment (2) of Rochelle Becker, Glenn Carroll, & Mary Lampert on Behalf of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, Nuclear Waste South and Pilgrim Watch Regarding Pr 50, Power Reactor Security Requirements; Supplemental Proposed Rule
ML0726705742007-09-24024 September 2007
Comment (13) of Lisa Rainwater on Behalf of Riverkeeper on Epstein'S PRM-50-85 Re to Extend the Minimum Distance from Five to Ten Miles for Host School Pick-up Points Beyond Plume Exposure Boundary Line
ML0726702452007-09-23023 September 2007
Comment (12) of Mary Lampert on Behalf of Pilgrim Watch, Et. Al. on Epstein PRM-50-85 Re to Extend the Minimum Distance from Five to Ten Miles for Host School Pick-up Points Beyond Plume Exposure Boundary Line
ML0725405732007-09-10010 September 2007
Comment (9) of Mary Lampet on Behalf of Pilgrim Watch, Et. Al. Supporting Epstein'S PRM-50-85 to Extend the Minimum Distance from Five to Ten Miles for Host School Pick-up Points Beyond Plume Exposure Boundary Line
ML0708001252007-03-20020 March 2007
Comment (61) Submitted by Wedge Bramhall on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re Amend 10 CFR Part 51 - Spent Fuel
ML0707906682007-03-19019 March 2007
Comment (57) Submitted by Judy and Howard Hall on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re Amend of 10 CFR Part 51 - Spent Fuel
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
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
ML0707303452007-03-13013 March 2007
Comment (35) Submitted by Edward and Charlotte Russell Supporting Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re Spent Fuel at the Pilgrim
ML0707105622007-03-0909 March 2007
Comment (31) Submitted by Richard C. Diprima on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10, Re Amend 10 CFR Part 51
ML0706606322007-03-0707 March 2007
Comment (30) Submitted by Marilyn Harquail on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM 51-10 Re Amend 10 CFR Part 51
ML0706503682007-03-0404 March 2007
Comment (23) Submitted by Kevin W. Craig on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re to Amend 10 CFR Part 51
ML0706503632007-03-0202 March 2007
Comment (21) Submitted by Janice Nickerson on Massachusetts PRM-51-10 Re to Amend 10 CFR Part 51
ML0706503652007-03-0202 March 2007
Comment (22) Submitted by Barbara Hildt on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re to Amend 10 CFR Part 51
ML0706503602007-03-0202 March 2007
Comment (20) Submitted by C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Sandra Gavutis on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re to Amend 10 CFR Part 51
ML0706101902007-03-0101 March 2007
Letter Submitted by Wedge Bramhall on Proposed Rule Pr 73, Design Basis Threat
ML0705403032007-02-22022 February 2007
Comment (25) Submitted by Sheila Lynch on Proposed Rules PR-50, PR-72, and PR-73, Regarding Power Reactor Security Requirements
ML0705402992007-02-22022 February 2007
Comment (24) Submitted by Pilgrim Watch, Mary Lampert on Proposed Rules PR-50, PR-72, PR-73, Regarding Power Reactor Security Requirements
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
ML0703006712007-01-29029 January 2007
Comment (33) Submitted by Mary Lampert on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0701805042007-01-15015 January 2007
Comment (16) Submitted by Richard Diprima on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re to Amend 10 CFR Part 51
ML0701805202007-01-13013 January 2007
Comment (10) Submitted by Richard Diprima on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
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
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
ML0700403092006-12-26026 December 2006
Comment (6) Submitted by Rebecca J Chin 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)
ML0602405872006-01-20020 January 2006
Comment (31) Submitted by Pilgrim Security Watch, M. Lampert, Et Al. E. J. Epstein, N. Cohen, S. J. Goodman, R. Becker, D. Katz and H. Moyer on Proposed Rule PR-73 Regarding Design Basis Threat
ML0601801962006-01-13013 January 2006
Comment (4) Submitted by Wedge Bramhall on Proposed Rule PR-73 Regarding Design Basis Threat
2022-08-22
[Table view] |
Text
I SECY -Rulemaking-Public Opinion Page 1 1 I SC ueaig ulcOiinPg PRM-51 -10 (71 FR64169)From: To: Date:
Subject:
"Kevin W. Craig" <kevinwcraig@comcast.net>
<SECY@nrc.gov>
Sun, Mar 4, 2007 12:12 AM Rulemaking-Public Opinion DOCKETED USNRC March 5, 2007 (3:15pm)OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
Dear Mr. Secretary,
I wish to go on record as in support of the Massachusetts Attorney General's Petition for Rulemaking on Spent Fuel Storage. I believe that this is particularly important in decisions to relicense nuclear power plants with above ground, high-density spent fuel pools. Our citizens can no longer afford to allow this issue to be passed over in licensing renewals such as the one at the Pilgrim Nuclear Station, Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Plenty of studies have shown the dangers within the recent past. Terrorist attack strategies can be easily envisioned that result in partial or full drainage, or blockage of cooling capacity that will produce a major release of contaminants.
Recent conclusions that spent fuel pools are insignificant or that their environmental impacts are insignificant are very wrong. These recent conclusions, being promulgated as regulations for relicensing review, need to be revoked. All NRC licensing decisions that approve high-density pool storage need to have an EIS directly assessing and resolving the environmental impacts of high-density pool storage of spent fuel at that nuclear plant, as well as alternatives for avoiding and mitigating the impacts.Kevin W. Craig 626 Temple St.Duxbury, MA 02332 Cc. Matthew. Brock@ago.state.ma.us CC:<Matthew.
Brock@ago.
state. ma. us>1-Ferpla+S-
.6o'kO67 q cAtemp\GW)00001.TMP Page 1 1 I c:\temp\GW}OOO01 .TMP Page 1 1 Mail Envelope Properties (45EA5OCA.CFF:10:
11519)
Subject:
Creation Date From: Created By: Rulemaking-Public Opinion Sat, Mar 3, 2007 11:53 PM"Kevin W. Craig" <kevinweraig@comcast.net>
kevinwcraig@comcast.net Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPO02.HQGWDOO1 SECY (SECY)ago.state.ma.us Matthew.Brock CC Post Office TWGWPO02.HQGWDOO1 Files MESSAGE TEXT.htm Mime.822 Options Expiration Date: Priority: ReplyRequested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security: Route nrc.gov ago.state.ma.us Size 1435 5766 9328 Date & Time Saturday, March 3, 2007 11:53 PM None Standard No None No Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled 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