(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
|---|
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
Y:I support Andy Spano's Rulemaking Petition PRM-54-02 Page 1 From: <crotonshaw~optonhine.net> (70 F 3'7OO)
To: <SECY nrc.gov> DOCKETED Date: Mon. Aug 22, 2005 7:30 PM USNRC
Subject:
I support Andy Spano's Rulemaking Petition PRM-54-02 September 12, 2005 (3:45pm)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF
Dear Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
I am a resident living in the shadow of the Indian Point nuclear power plant located in Buchanan, New York. I am concerned that the current relicensing regulations are not in the best interest of the public - and our health and safety.
As far back as 1979, Robert Ryan, your own Director of State Programs, stated in public hearings that Indian Point is one of the most inappropriate sites in existence for a nuclear power plant. Since that time, population density has increased immensely, and the roadways around the plant, which I drive on a daily basis, have not been adequately updated to reflect this population increase. Further, the need to store high level wastes in an open platform on-site because the spent fuel storage facilities are full jeopardizes the New York metropolitan area and consequently the national economy.
I support Westchester County Executive Andy Spano's 2.802 petition PRM-54-02, which would require the NRC to take into account crucial components of public health and safety such as population density, infrastructure, and emergency planning during the license renewal process.
If the NRC is really concerned with public safety more than the iundustry's bottom line, the agency will set new standards for relicensing. Any other action would show that the NRC is just a sham and rubber stamp for private industry. It is no longer acceptable to base your policies on the premise that a major accident is unlikely. A major release is possible and a major release inthe New York metropolitan area is an unacceptable scenario. Have some guts and live up to your stated mission.
Sincerely, Gary Shaw 9 Van Cortlandt Place Crotorj on Hudson, New York 10520 Ee"IQ-SPYD7 IE1o
6iGM00061.!-Mp }OO .TM .nG Page P.g 11. ;1 Mail Envelope Properties (430A600E.893: 2: 22675)
Subject:
I support Andy Spano's Rulemaking Petition PRM-54-02 Creation Date: Mon, Aug 22, 2005 7:29 PM From: <crotonshaw@optonline.net>
Created By: crotonshaw @optonline.net Recipients nrc.gov owf5_po.OWFNDO SECY (SECY)
Post Office Route owf5_po.OWFN_DO nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1791 Monday, August 22, 2005 7:29 PM Mime.822 2483 Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed
Subject:
No Security: Standard
