|
|---|
Category:Rulemaking-Comment
MONTHYEARML13345B2782013-12-0909 December 2013
Comment (00355) of Lewis Cuthbert from the Alliance for a Clean Environment on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
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
ML0717804182007-06-25025 June 2007
Comment (9) Submitted by Exelon Generation Company LLC, Darin M. Benyak, on Ucs'S PRM-73-13 Regarding to Amend 10 CFR Part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials
ML0716305412007-06-12012 June 2007
Comment (9) Submitted by Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Darin M. Benyak on Pogo and Ucs Re Amend 10 CFR Part 50 Concerning Design Basis Threat
ML0703700772007-02-0303 February 2007
Comment (45) Submitted by Jean Flood on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0703700722007-02-0202 February 2007
Comment (42) Submitted by Katie Silberman and Ted Schettler on Behalf of Science and Environmental Health Network on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0703900422007-01-29029 January 2007
Comment (37) Submitted by Lisa Smoyer on Shaw'S Re Application of National of Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0703100792007-01-29029 January 2007
Comment (36) Submitted by M. L. Steiner on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Applicationo of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0703006632007-01-26026 January 2007
Comment (32) Submitted by Lewis Cuthbert on Behalf of Alliance for a Clean Environment on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0701807052007-01-14014 January 2007
Comment (11) Submitted by Jason Halteman on Shaw'S PRM-51-11 Re Application of National Academy of Science BEIR-VII Standard to Dose Radiation Calculation
ML0701804782007-01-13013 January 2007
Comment (1) Submitted by Three Mile Island Alert,L Inc., Eric Epstein on Massachusetts Attorney General'S PRM-51-10 Re to Amend 10 CFR Part 51
RS-04-059, Comment (8) Submitted by Exelon Generation, LLC and Amergen Energy Co., Kenneth A. Ainger, on Proposed Rules PR-19, 20 and 50, Re Collection, Reporting or Posting of Information; Availability of Draft Rule Language2004-04-0909 April 2004
Comment (8) Submitted by Exelon Generation, LLC and Amergen Energy Co., Kenneth A. Ainger, on Proposed Rules PR-19, 20 and 50, Re Collection, Reporting or Posting of Information; Availability of Draft Rule Language
ML0323201352003-08-0101 August 2003
Comment (9) Submitted by Morgan Lewis & Brockus, Llp, Steven P. Frantz, P.M. Bessette, on Behalf of Exelon Gen., S. Texas, on Proposed Rule PR-50 Re Risk-Informed Categorization & Treatment of Structures, Systems & Components for Nuclear Po
2013-12-09
[Table view] |
Text
SECY -PRM-51-11 Page 1]SECY -PRM-51-11 p~age 111 PRM-51-11 (71 FR67072)From: To: Date:
Subject:
DOCKETED USNRC<jhalteman
@ comcast.net>
<secy@ nrc.gov>Sun, Jan 14, 2007 8:33 PM PRM-51-11 January 16, 2007 (3:17pm)OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Please approve a petition for rulemaking that would improve radiation protection standards at older reactors.The petitioner requests that the NRC prepare a rulemaking that will require that the NRC reconcile its generic environmental impact statement for nuclear power plant operating license renewal applications with current scientific understanding of the health risks of low-level radiation, including but not limited to those discussed in the National Academy of Sciences Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation:
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII Phase 2 Report.I am a health care practioner in the surrounding area of the limerick generating plant. With the escalation in area growth I think it is imperative to take every precaution possible.
Is that not the reason for the NRC? Do you examine the relative rate of cancer and disease within a certain mile radius of every reactor as well as the safety of spent fuel rod storage? Are these studies unbiased and sent to area news outlets to be posted? We live with the reactor we should know all there is to know.Thanks for attention, Jason Halteman D.C.U0L PI evpaAe-e =SEcy-067 cAtemp\GW)00003.TMP Page 1!c\e pG 00 3... .P .. ge Mail Envelope Properties (45AAD9DA.27C
- 16 : 62076)
Subject:
Creation Date From: Created By: PRM-51-11 Sun, Jan 14, 2007 8:32 PM<jhalteman@comcast.net>
ihalteman
@comcast.net Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPO02.HQGWDOO1 SECY (SECY)Post Office TWGWPO02.HQGWDOO1 Route nrc.gov Files MESSAGE TEXT.htm Mime.822 Options Expiration Date: Priority: ReplyRequested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security: Size 1163 1843 4509 Date & Time Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:32 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
