ANPR 50 and 52 Page 1 of 1 (77FR23161) As of: June 13, 2012 4 Received: June 13, 2012 r Status: Pending-Post PUBLIC SUBMISSION Tracking No. 8104863b Comments Due: June 18, 2012 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2012-0031 DOCKETED Emergency Onsite Response Capabilities USNRC June 13, 2012 (4:15 pm) Comment On: NRC-2012-0031-0002 Onsite Emergency Response Capabilities OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Document: NRC-2012-0031 -DRAFT-00 10 ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Comment on FR Doc # 2012-09336 Submitter Information Name: Richard Wilson Address: Jefferson Physical Laboratory Rm. 257 17 Oxford Street, Harvard University Cambridge, MA, 02138 Organization: Harvard University General Comment See attached file(s) Email Contact:
[email protected] Attachments pp229extra ppaper925 pp932 Comment by Richard Wilson https:=fdsg 5 6-ws7 P5010 htts//w('.fdms. gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=09000064... 06/13/2012 Comments by Richard Wilson on NRC-2012-0031-0002 Onsite Emergency Response Capabilities The document on which comments have been requested is about the response of licensees. I will address those, and then much more importantly address the response of the NRC itself. It has been said that "he who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it. I therefore applaud any NRC regulation and action that asks licensees to modify procedures in the light of experience. This seems to be the purpose and thrust of the proposed regulations. The questions which NRC ask those who comment to address are all sensible but they are not fundamental enough. There are two basic issues which NRC should have asked about.