ML18187A343

From kanterella
Revision as of 21:59, 30 July 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comment (46) of James Garb on Draft Letter to the Nuclear Energy Institute Regarding the Clarification of Regulatory Paths for Lead Test Assemblies
ML18187A343
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 07/05/2018
From: Garb J R
Pilgrim Legislative Advisory Coalition
To:
Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch
References
83FR26305 00046, NRC-2018-0109
Download: ML18187A343 (1)


Text

SUNSI Review Complete Template=

ADM-013 E-RI DS=ADM-03 ADD= Sihan Ding, Kimberly PUBLIC SUBMISSJQNGreen&JanBurkhardt Docket: NRC-2018-0109 COMMENT (46) *PUBLICATION DATE: 6/7/2018 CITATION#

83 FR 26503 As of: 7/6/18 7:51 AM Received:

July 05, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. lk2-943z-hx5h Comments Due: July 23, 2018 Submission Type: Web Draft Letter to the Nuclear Energy Institute Regarding the Clarification of Regulatory Paths for Lead Test Assemblies Comment On: NRC-2018-0109-0002 Draft Letter to Nuclear Energy Institute Regarding Clarification of Regulatory Paths for Lead Test Assemblies Document:

NRC-2018-0109-DRAFT-0042 Comment on FR Doc# 2018-14121 Submitter Information Name: James Garb, MD Submitter's Representative:

James R. Garb, MD, Occupational and Environmental Medicine Consultant Organization:

Pilgrim Legislative Advisory Coalition General Comment I strongly oppose The NRC's proposal to set aside federal regulations and deprive members of the public their legal rights by using a letter to the Nuclear Energy Institute to permit nuclear plant owners to experiment with new fuel pellets and fuel rods in the nuclear power reactors in our backyards without prior NRC review and approval, and without getting broader input from nuclear scientists or giving the public a chance to agree or disagree with this experiment.

I do appreciate the extension of the comment period on this matter, however it is a reckless and unnecessary step that could have catastrophic outcomes.

This type of experimentation should be conducted in a rigorous scientific setting, far from the general pubic.