Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 1 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

1

A Stable 

Regulator in a 

Dynamic 

Environment

External 

Stakeholder

**One of the major criticisms of how the Japanese government 

handled Fukushima is how unregulated and unsupervised its 

nuclear plants were. This is a step in that same direction!! **

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.

2

A Stable 

Regulator in a 

Dynamic 

Environment

External 

Stakeholder

I've been advised that the NRC is moving ahead with attempts to 

redefine the principles of nuclear regulation. This is unacceptable.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

3 Organizational 

Excellence OE and HR

Page 24, under Operational Excellence Strategies and Means to 

Support the Strategies

Safety Culture 

1. Promote an organizational culture with a strong emphasis on

safety culture and an open, collaborative work environment where 

individuals are comfortable speaking up and sharing concerns and 

differing views without fear of negative consequences. 

• Means—provide training as needed and strengthen 

communication to support an organizational culture with a strong 

emphasis on safety culture and an open, collaborative work 

environment, conduct assessment and evaluation activities to 

identify areas for continuous improvement, and coordinate with the 

agency’s outwardly focused safety culture activities (see Safety 

Strategy 7).

Comment accepted

4 Safety NRC 

Employee

The safety-goal strategic outcomes (see page 7) give the 

impression that the NRC only desires to prevent radiological 

hazards of licensed materials. It should be noted that we desire to 

prevent exposures to hazardous chemicals used with, or produced 

from, licensed material.

My suggestion is to add a footnote to the third and fourth safety-goal 

strategic outcomes that reads, “For fuel cycle facilities, this extends 

to hazardous chemicals used with, or produced from, radioactive 

material consistent with 10 CFR Part 70 and proposed amendments 

to 10 CFR Part 40.”

Comment not accepted –

chemical safety is not a 

strategic-level concern of 

the NRC. NRC works with 

the Environmental 

Protection Agency, other 

Federal agencies, and the 

States to address a variety 

of risks, including chemical 

contaminants. 
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 2 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

5 Safety NRC 

Employee

It would be appropriate to include language to acknowledge the 

NRC safety objectives in the area of chemical safety. One specific 

insert to the list of bullets for the safety goal strategic outcomes is 

suggested as shown below.

Safety Goal Strategic Outcomes 

• Prevent the occurrence of nuclear reactor accidents. 

• Prevent the occurrence of inadvertent criticality events.

• Prevent the occurrence of acute chemical exposures from 

hazardous chemicals produced by licensed material or produced by 

a source which results in increased radiation risk

• Prevent the occurrence of acute radiation exposures resulting in 

fatalities. 

• Prevent the occurrence of releases of radioactive materials that 

result in significant radiation exposures. 

• Prevent the occurrence of releases of radioactive materials that 

cause significant adverse environmental impacts. 

Including this bullet would keep chemical safety on a par with 

radiological safety and criticality prevention consistent with the NRC 

policy. The suggested language is an adaptation of language in the 

1988 MOU between NRC and OSHA. The suggested additional 

bullet reflects the balance presented in specific requirements of 10 

CFR Part 70.61.

Comment not accepted –

chemical safety is not a 

strategic-level concern of 

the NRC. NRC works with 

the Environmental 

Protection Agency, other 

Federal agencies, and the 

States to address a variety 

of risks, including chemical 

contaminants. 

6 Safety

External 

Stakeholders 

(Numerous)

While the NRC is dragging its feet implementing needed postFukushima safety modifications, it is moving ahead with attempts to 

redefine the very principles of nuclear regulation. This is 

unacceptable.

Specifically, in its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says, 

on page 5, that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the use 

of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels.

Actually, the purpose of NRC regulations is to protect the public 

health and safety. We need honest information that takes into 

account the long-term cost/benefit analylsis of nuclear power and 

which assumes safety and health are more important than 

economics. Pull no punches.

This is more than just semantics: if the purpose of NRC regulation is 

to enable use of nuclear power, then how could the agency ever 

shut down a nuclear reactor, no matter how dangerous it might be? 

And given this language, if the NRC ever did try to do that, would a 

utility be able to sue the agency for preventing, rather than enabling, 

a reactor's operation?

For too long, the government has been putting the interests and 

profits of large corporations ahead of the public's interest. In the 

NRC's case, this has meant putting nuclear utilities ahead of people. 

This must stop. Now.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

7 Safety External 

Stakeholder

We need honest information that takes into account the long-term 

cost/benefit analylsis of nuclear power and which assumes safety 

and health are more important than economics. Pull no punches.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 3 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

8 Safety External 

Stakeholder

I just want to add to this letter a few questions. Is there any one in 

this goverment who is really concerned about the health and safety 

of people who live within a 50 mile radius of a nuclear power plant? 

Is there anyone in this goverment who really cares that people living 

in the service area of for -profit monoply energy companies are 

forced to pay moeny to these monoplies every month? Is there 

anyone in this goverment concerened about longterm national 

security for everyone in this contry? It seems to me and a lot of 

other people that no one is this goverment cares about the "regular" 

citizens anymore! If any of you really do care then you will stand up 

for the "regular " citizens and not allow this change to occur!! In fact 

it would be GREAT if you all were forward thinkers for all of the US 

citizens and pushed for the implementation of truly safe and 

afforadable renewable forms of energy production.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

9 Safety External 

Stakeholder

WE NEED CLEAN ENERGY NOW! Nuclear energy is dangerous! 

Stop the foolishness - get real and PROTECT THE PEOPLE & OUR 

LANDS!

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

10 Safety External 

Stakeholder

I wanted to urge the NRC to put the public health and safety first, 

and require a license amendment to address the processing of 

uranium from municipal water systems. The disposal of spent 

nuclear fuel and other civilian radioactive waste requires more study 

before any new uranium processing facilities or nuclear power 

reactors are licensed.

The conventional uranium mines and mills being proposed in the 

Grants Mineral District of New Mexico are destined to repeat the 

environmental degradation of the last century. Our ground water 

resources, traditional cultures and the public health deserve more 

protection. We need to enlarge the debate on nuclear issues toward 

a nuclear-free carbon-free energy system.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

11 Safety External 

Stakeholder

The insane and brain-dead Congress has and will stop any 

legislation against the NRC, thus the idea of dumping the NRC is 

moot. If my government was responsive to constituents, we would 

have stopped nuclear waste production by reactors, stopped killing 

people with radiation sickness and come into the 21st Century clean 

of such a killing and stupid idea of energy production. Not to 

mention the past of bombs and bomb making. You are on the line, 

Congresspeople, because you will not get re-elected if you fail to 

stop nuclear waste and create an agency that will supervise nuclear 

activities for the people, not for richy riches who do not care about 

us.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

12 Safety External 

Stakeholder

The whole world watched last spring as the earthquake and tsunami 

in Japan caused a catastrophic failure at the Fukishima power plant. 

The effects of this failure will continue to be felt for decades. Lives 

will be lost, illness will affect both Japan's citizens and those around 

the world. At the same time, the NRC drags its feet on dealing with 

safety of American citizens.

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 4 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

13 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Language on this page should be changed to:

The safe and secure use of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels 

for beneficial civilian purposes is ensured by thoroughly regulating 

the nuclear industr. Regulations stress independence, openness, 

efficiency, clarity, and reliability.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

14 Safety External 

Stakeholder

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ought to change its focus 

away from what it can do for nuclear utilities and toward a new 

emphasis on public health and safety, as was intended by Congress 

when the agency was created in 1974 from the old Atomic Energy 

Commission, which had the dual and conflicting mission of both 

promoting and regulating nuclear power. 

The new Strategic Plan is the ideal platform to do so.

 

But the proposed Plan does not do this. On the very first page of 

this new plan (page 5 of the document), the following paragraph 

appears:

Principles of Good Regulation 

The safe and secure use of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels 

for beneficial civilian purposes is enabled by the agency's 

adherence to the following principles of good regulation: 

independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and reliability. In 

addition, regulatory actions are effective, realistic, and timely.

Nowhere in any of the NRC's statutory documents is it stated that 

the purpose of NRC regulation is to "enable" the use of radioactive 

materials and nuclear fuels

I believe that the first page of the Strategic Plan should state clearly 

that the agency's purpose is to regulate for the protection of public 

health and safety.

The Strategic Plan should say that the purpose of NRC regulations 

is to protect the public health and safety. Oddly, this statement is not 

included in the Plan, and this omission should be fixed before the 

Plan is adopted.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

15 Safety External 

Stakeholder

STOP THE CONTINUING DEATH AND DESTRUCTION OF THE 

PLANET FROM FUTURE NUCLEAR MELTDOWNS AND DEADLY 

NUCLEAR WASTE PRODUCTS AND POLLUTION.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 5 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

16 Safety External 

Stakeholder

The NRC...an agency whose commission is to regulate the nuclear 

industry.

Yet the NRC blatantly ignores, dismisses and worse-laughs off, 

abundant proof that most reactors currently licensed in this country 

are extremely and inherently dangerous to significant segments of 

the population. By continuing to license these facilities without 

properly and fully re-evaluating them in light of new information and 

public concern, they are failing in the performance of their 

commission.

They should not make claims of "safety" which they cannot back up. 

It is NOT their job to protect and defend the nuclear industry. Their 

job is to REGULATE. Yet now they want to enable the industry they 

are commissioned to regulate?!! This is a blatant conflict of interest!

It is well known that two reactors in my region in California are in 

very active earthquake territories. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to 

safely evacuate the population for 50 miles around either of these 

facilities in the event of an emergency. In the name of public safety, 

they should be closed immediately.

They cannot play ostrich forever. Will it take a domestic disaster on 

the order of Fukushima to get their attention? What will you say 

then? For it is not a question of maybe....it is a matter of time.

What should the NRC be doing? Learning from the lessons of 

Fukushima. Listening to the nuclear experts, not the industry.

Fire any greedy commissioner or staff member who would put 

personal gain above the public good. This issue is NOT about 

profits; it is about Public Safety and fulfilling their commission to 

regulate the nuclear industry - NOT to enable it. Surely they are not 

so ignorant as to believe that the nuclear industry is not about 

profits. Their job is the public safety part of the equation. Please 

ensure that they fulfill it with vigorous diligence.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 6 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

17 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Let me begin by saying that I have been an anti-nuclear activist for 

over thirty years. I worked at the NJ SANE office in Montclair and 

with NJ SEA Alliance, as well. 

I have watched the NRC conscientiously register every incident from 

the smallest to the gravest while rubber-stamping all applications for 

relicensing and approving proposals for new reactors to be built and 

come on-line--despite Three-mile Island, Chernobyl, and even 

Fukushima. As much of the commission's work is finished by the 

time the news hits the papers--if it gets printed at all--I have always 

considered the functions of the NRC to be likened to covert 

operations: appearing to regulate but proliferating behind closed 

doors. And now, in its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC 

says, on page 5, that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the 

use of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels, thereby coming out of 

the closet.

Isn't it now high time that, as overseers to the NRC, you demand 

that we join Italy, and Germany, and Belgium, and Japan in 

decommissioning all operating nuclear plants, closing down nuclear 

facilities, and turning to safe, green--AND NUCLEAR IS NOT 

GREEN--energy alternatives? 

Haven't we wasted enough time with the investigations and 

discussions of possible post-Fukushima safety modifications to the 

Mark I boiling water reactor, of which we have 23 here in the U.S., 

given that it's biggest design flaw is that its fuel rods are inserted 

through gaping holes at the bottom of the reactor? What 

modification, other than a complete re-design of the reactor, would 

stop molten fuel from pouring through those holes in the event of a 

melt-down? And what work-around would prevent the consequent, 

inevitable containment melt-through? 

The NRC has never operated with the goal of protecting public 

health and safety. At last, they have announced that they are 

suspending the illusion of regulating this industry and from now on 

will do everything in their power to enable business as usual. It 

seems to me that you, as our representatives in Washington, are 

our last chance to end the insanity of splitting atoms to boil water.

I have spoken before the NRC on numerous occasions, specifically 

to shut down Indian Point, the closest reactors not only to my home 

in northern NJ but also to the residents of, and the daily commuters 

to, Manhattan. I did so because I knew the NRC had the power, at 

anytime, to do just that. Now, if NUREG-1614, Vol. 5 goes through 

unheeded, dear legislators, the NRC--overtly empowered and 

committed to enabling the industry-- would lose this never tested 

ability. Indeed, if the NRC ever did try to shut a reactor down, a 

utility might be able to sue the commission for preventing, rather 

than enabling, that reactor's operation.

For too long, the government has been putting the interests and 

profits of large corporations ahead of the public's interest. In the 

NRC's case, this has meant putting nuclear utilities ahead of people. 

This must stop. Help protect the people in New Jersey. Shut down 

Oyster Creek, Salem and Hope Creek now. And join with Governor 

Cuomo in calling for the shut down of Indian Point. 

The mission of the NRC 

continues to be the 

protection of the health and 

safety of the public and the 

environment. In addition, 

the agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 7 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

18 Safety External 

Stakeholder

We should not be enabling nuclear energy, we should be regulating 

it for its safest possible use as we consider phasing it out. We 

should be supporting the development of a new future in safer, 

renewable energy.

The choices made today should be defensible to the seventh 

generation in the future. Choices made for wealth and power are 

not defensible, not to this generation nor to those in future. 

Decisions made on behalf of nuclear utilities and corporate intrests 

serve only short-sighted purposes and are not worthy decisions of 

those in whom the people have granted power. Stop this shortsighted 'Strategic Plan' proposal.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

19 Safety External 

Stakeholder

My family and I are extremely upset to learn that the NRC is 

attempting to redefine what the regulation of the nuclear industry is 

all about. In the aftermath of Fukushima and other nuclear 

accidents, most unreported, we find this an abomination. The whole

point of regulations is to protect the public - our safety and our 

health. This must at all times come first.

Yet, in its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says, on 

page 5, that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the use of 

radioactive materials and nuclear fuels. This wording is not about 

protecting us, the public, but finding ways for the nuclear industry to 

market its destructive and dangerous byproducts - to spread the 

toxics around in other shapes and forms. This is totally 

unacceptable and it is a betrayal of the public trust in the NRC to be 

watchdogs over the industry and protectors of public well-being.

For far too long, government agencies, corrupted by corporate 

influence buying and takeover, have been putting the interests and 

profits of large corporations ahead of the interest and well-being of 

We, the People. In regard to the nuclear industry, the NRC has put 

the nuclear utilities ahead of We, the People. This must stop and it 

must stop NOW. 

The safe future for all of humanity must be one that is nuclear-free 

and carbon-free. We can do it by taking a few basic first steps - first 

- stopping the corruption of our government agencies that are meant 

to protect us, not the nuclear industry and its profits.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

Furthermore, the updated 

Strategic Plan reads: “The 

safe and secure use of 

radioactive materials and 

nuclear fuels for beneficial 

civilian purposes is made 

possible by the agency's 

adherence to the following 

principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.” (page #) In 

addition, the agency’s NearTerm Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations

20 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Are people incapable of imagining that disaster can strike here just 

as easily as it does elsewhere? This is a worldwide problem. There 

is NO reason to relax standards: given the proliferation going on in 

more places and at more levels than before, it's clear that we need 

to go in the other direction and stiffen our resolve.

I understand that in the NRC draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the 

purpose of NRC regulations is defined (p. 5) as "enabling" the use of 

radioactive materials and nuclear fuels. What?!?!? I thought you 

were supposed to be protecting us all! And the only way to do that is 

by decreasing the use of nuclear power.

I believe that once again money is being considered more important 

than human lives. 

Please don't give in and please don't sit by while your colleagues 

give in.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 8 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

21 Safety External 

Stakeholder

We can not beleive after the recent events in Japan that the US 

would be concidering any for of Fiscal Nuclear energy. Building new 

nuclear plants are so oputdated. Wjhen we we get the message 

Nuclear is obsolete for so many reasons. Working with nature in 

solar wind and hydro energy is the future energy. We must embrace 

nature and work together.

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.

22 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Nuclear energy is not clean energy since the production and 

disposal of nuclar energy and highly contaminating and that 

contamination lasts indefinitely. Nuclear energy is not safe since it is 

a source for nuclear arsenal. Nuclear energy is not cheap, it is 

extraordinarily expensive: cheap means without including costs of 

construction, safety monitoring, and waste handling, which if 

included as it must be, makes nuclear energy the most expensive 

energy, and the bill is on the shoulders of taxpayers. 

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

23 Safety External 

Stakeholder

The purpose of the NRC regulations is to "enable" the use of 

radioactive materials and nuclear fuels?

What the hell do you people think you're doing? The purpose of the 

NRC regulations are to protect the public health and safety.

Obama is on shaky ground already. This may well push him off the 

edge into total un-electability. Not that I'm personally going to vote 

for ANY incumbent. You've all betrayed us.

The real question is who I will be supporting. Right now I'm working 

on a write in candidacy for Bernie Sanders. All it will take is 4,000 

votes and I KNOW I can get them!

Just how stupid are you people? Herrera is already down the tube, 

Murray is in swirling around in the toilet due to the Death Committee 

decision to cut medicare and medicaid. Cantwell is a lost cause to 

due to her constant personal-pocketbook voting.

You guys really know how to screw the nation, don't you?

WE DO NOT WANT MORE NUCLEAR POWER!

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

24 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Actually, the purpose of NRC regulations is to protect the public 

health and safety. This is why the original AEC was disbanded and 

regulatory authority was moved to the NRC.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

25 Safety External 

Stakeholder

We should be closing down nuclear power and investing in 

alternative power asap. That's the only sane thing to do, no matter 

how inconvenient it is.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

26 Safety External 

Stakeholder

THE DANGERS OF NUCLEAR POWER/WEAPONS HAS FAR 

OUT WEIGHED THEIR NECESSITY. THEIR DEVELOPMENT HAS 

BEEN BASED MORE ON UNREASONABLE FEAR. SCIENCE IS 

CAPABLE OF BETTER DEVELOPMENTS.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 9 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

27 Safety External 

Stakeholder

I wish to share with you an open letter to the NRC concerning its 

proposed new strategic plan:

Dear NRC,

As you very well know, nuclear power plants come in two varieties: 

those that are dangerous and those that are less dangerous. 

However, as you also know, there are no SAFE uses of radioactive 

and nuclear fuels. They are inherently dangerous (UNSAFE) in all 

their capacities. If they weren't, there would be no need to regulate 

them.

Up until now, the NRC (established with the split of the old AEC into 

ERDA for promotion and the NRC for regulation) has been fulfilling 

its role as the regulating functionary for nuclear power with the idea 

that uses be as safe as possible while remaining inherently unsafe 

because supposedly there were no adequate alternative sources of 

energy. This prior approach of the NRC benefitted the industry but 

jeopardized public safety immensely; Chernobyl and Fukushima are 

prime examples of the very real and inevitable consequences of 

using old-but-still-used nuclear power to fulfill American powergenerating needs instead of using new, green and safe 

technologies.

So it comes as a great relief that your new strategic plan includes 

the "safe and secure" clause as fundamental to the NRC's purpose.

How soon after the adoption of this new plan can I expect you to 

begin shutting down the most unsafe nuclear power plants--the 

Mark I designs? And then how much later will you begin to shut 

down the "safer"--but still inherently unsafe--plants? I can't wait until 

all nuclear power plants are shut down and we finally have only 

"safe and secure" plants left--that is, none.

Also, I wish to applaud your effort to not give in to the enormous 

pressure and bribes you are exposed to from the nuclear industry. 

Their offers to you of money and jobs must be intensely attractive; I 

don't know how you withstand them. Nevertheless, congratulations 

on withstanding these bribes and insisting that all uses of nuclear 

energy be safe and secure. We welcome the day when these lastcentury nightmares will be gone and forgotten along with their 

corrupting (and dangerous) corporate influence on government. 

These corporations risk the health and safety of human beings in 

deference to their sociopathic drive to accumulate endless wealth 

for themselves at any cost to others. Again, congratulations on 

withstanding their bribes and being "realistic" and holding onto 

"clarity" concerning the inherent inability of nuclear power to be safe 

and secure

For too long, the government has been putting the interests and 

profits of large corporations ahead of the public's interest. In the 

NRC's case, this has meant putting nuclear utilities ahead of people. 

This must stop. Now. And I am glad that this new strategic plan 

insists that nuclear power be safe and secure--something that is 

impossible for the industry to achieve--and will lead to the closing of 

all nuclear power plants.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

In addition, the agency’s 

Near-Term Japan Task 

Force conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations

28 Safety External 

Stakeholder

How many tragic warnings do we need? 

I urge you to make sure the public interest and safety are FIRST, 

not BEHIND the industry's desire to make a buck.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 10 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

29 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Dear Sir or Madam:"

In its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says, on page 5, 

that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the use of 

radioactive materials and nuclear fuels.

What is this about "enabling"? Here we are, a society that has been 

unable to come up with a safe, permanent disposal of our nuclear 

waste, what we already have. How can we talk about adding to this 

waste without first resolving our present disposal problem? I don't 

get it! Please send me somebody who does.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

30 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Please DO NOT assume that the NRC's role is to permit the use of 

nuclear fuels. Its role is to oversee any current use and PROHIBIT 

any use that endangers people. 

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

31 Safety External 

Stakeholder

At the same time that NRC is delaying implementing postFukushima safety modifications, it is redefining principles of nuclear 

regulation. In its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says 

on page 5, the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" use of 

radioactive materials & nuclear fuels. No, that isn't the purpose. The 

purpose of NRC regulations is to protect public health & safety.

If the purpose of NRC regulation is to enable use of nuclear power, 

how could the agency ever shut down a nuclear reactor, no matter 

how dangerous? Given this language, if NRC did try to do that, 

would a utility be able to sue it for preventing, rather than enabling, 

a reactor's operation?

For too long government has been putting interests & profits of large 

corporations ahead of the public's interest. That's what the whole 

#OWS movement is about now. In the NRC's case, this has meant 

putting nuclear utilities ahead of the citizenry.

I write as an emeritus member of the American Institute of Biological 

Sciences (AIBS).

Reference:

"Summary for Decision-makers", /Millennium Ecosystem 

Assessment Synthesis/ (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005).

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 11 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

32 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Dear Elected Representative,

When one observes the statistics provided by Department of Labor 

concerning the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program (EEOICP) of which the mission states: "The 

mission of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program is to deliver benefits to eligible employees 

and former employees of the Department of Energy, its contractors 

and subcontractors or to certain survivors of such individuals, as 

provided in the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act. The mission also includes delivering 

benefits to certain beneficiaries of Section five of the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Act." The statistics demonstrate nuclear 

power and its fuels are dangerous and causes death and sickness.

There have been false claims made that there have been no deaths 

as a result of civilian nuclear power generation. This claim which 

has been made by some of the Tennessee Valley area's politicians 

is false and very misleading. Unless one contends that nuclear fuels 

are not part of the nuclear power generation process. 

Currently EEOICP Department of Labor statistics demonstrate 

there have been $7,527,979,657 in claims paid to 87,219 unique 

individual workers represented by 148,091 cases reported. The 

conclusion, nuclear fuels have killed and sickened thousands of 

workers, it is killing and sickening thousands of good working folks 

now.

The continued false mantra that nuclear power is clean and safe is 

to deny the facts. Facts which demonstrate an intentional planned 

deceitful policy developed by the nuclear industry and adopted by 

not only politicians such as yourself but the Regulatory Agency 

which is sworn to protect the public's health and welfare, the NRC. 

The NRC and supporting politicians should be ashamed of their 

deceitful and false mantra designed to support the nuclear industry 

and thus telling citizens you don't matter as long as the nuclear 

industry reaps billions of dollars in profits.

The purpose of a regulator is to regulate an industry to prevent 

threats to the citizenry's health and welfare. Not justify the continued 

practice of the industry's lobby working to determine enforcement 

actions and providing payola to politicians via PACs hidden 

contribution sources. Not to mention the nuclear industry's hundreds 

of millions of dollars in lobby efforts to justify nuclear power which 

more often than not is a tirade of false mantras and propaganda.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

33 Safety External 

Stakeholder What is happening to our protection??? NO NUKES!

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

34 Safety External 

Stakeholder

"Isn't it OBVIOUS by now? Radioactive substances and nuclear 

power/weapons are BAD IDEAS all the way from uranium mining to 

waste disposal. BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE close and dismantle ALL 

existing nuclear applications and BUILD NO MORE!"

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

35 Safety External 

Stakeholder

I am particularly concerned about the unstable era we are entering. 

In addition to terrorists who might target nuclear facilities, there are 

the dangers of extreme storms (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods) 

disrupting the support structures and personnel who maintain 

reactors. In addition, we are entering unstable financial periods. 

What happens were nuclear reactor workers are not paid? 

It is most important that the tons and tons of spent fuels now sitting 

in open pools of circulating water outside of containment, that these 

be put into secure dry cask storage. Please assure that the NRC 

will make nuclear utilities do this.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

The NRC’s mission includes 

ensuring the safe and 

secure storage of spent 

fuel. 
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 12 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

36 Safety External 

Stakeholder

WE HAVE SEEN TOO MANY EXAMPLES OF UNSAFE AND 

DANGEROUS SITUATIONS WITH NUCLEAR POWER. WE DO 

NOT NEED ANY MORE.

There are other much safer power sources available that should be 

developed. Until these are fully implemented and used there is no 

need for nuclear power, and it should definitely be left alone.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

37 Safety External 

Stakeholder

We need a Regulator, who is focused on safety, safety, and safety; 

and acting (would you believe acting rather than studying?) on any 

step likely to improve safety not confusing its role with that of an 

enabler intent on getting more industry. 

My view of history - removing that role confusion was why we 

stopped the AEC, and divided its conflicting functions between the 

DOE and the NRC.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

38 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Eliminating nuclear power, regardless of the time frame, is the goal. 

It is too dangerous, and we have something called wastes that take 

thousands of years to become nontoxic. Wake up and regulate the 

nuclear power industry with the goal of elimination before your 

children reach adulthood. This is for them.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

39 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Although nuclear energy is touted as clean energy, the extremely 

slowly deteriorating waste created and the lack of places that are 

willing to be a dumping ground for this waste make it far "dirtier" 

than even coal. We need to focus our contry's energy future on 

harnessing the tides as is happening now in Eastport, Maine and on 

wind energy. Nuclear energy is as expensive as it is dangerous 

when all factors are considered.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

40 Safety External 

Stakeholder

THERE IS NO SAFE USE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS. iF

THERE IS ANY INTELLIGENCE, INDEED ANY CONCERN FOR 

LIFE OUT THERE, THE ONLY SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE 

ATTITUDE IS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM TAMPERING WITH 

IT.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

41 Safety External 

Stakeholder

I find it interesting to note that in your actions you seem to disregard 

the truth that you are also a member of the public. Or does your 

exalted position in the government grant you an automatic cloak of 

anti-radioactive layers that will protect you from radioactive fallout 

and pollution, etc. If so , you are truly lax in presenting this to your 

constituents who elected you to preserve and protect.

If not, preserving and protecting means to de-regulate because it 

has been proven over and over that nuclear anything is unsafe. 

Even the discoverers of this energy wrote to discourage the 

government from using the knowledge at all, Even trying to use it 

safely - does not work! Example - Chernobyl, Fukushima. How 

many accidents will have to occur before you get it. Or are you 

getting money from the nuclear industry who cares not a fig who will 

be harmed or destroyed in some horrible way. Is this ethical?" Are 

you being ethical in your decision making. Get rid of it. It is not 

necessary for the good of mankind. it may destroy our very 

environment. And if the environment dies, we all die - gasping, 

choking, screaming with pain of radiation burns. Is this what you 

want for your children?

Well, you should be looking ahead to your re-election. If you

continue along these lines, we will find someone else for your office.

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 13 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

42 Safety External 

Stakeholder

I empathically insist that we must have regulation and not enabling 

of this inherently dangerous industry.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

43 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Public safety should ALWAYS trump corporate profits. Nuclear 

material is NEVER safe and has no place near human habitationand that includes the entire earth.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

44 Safety External 

Stakeholder

You need -- the public DEMANDS - that you start paying attention to 

us. Public health comes before all of your other concerns. After all, 

it's YOUR children and grandchildren as well as mine. 

In its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says, on page 5, 

that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the use of 

radioactive materials and nuclear fuels. This is absurd. There is 

absolutely nothing in your mandate that asks you to do anything but 

protect the public from the dark side of nuclear energy production. 

It's insulting that you are now straying so far from your mandate. 

Have you been bought out by lobbyists and industry reps? What 

happens when there is no regulation? Mass suicide by design?

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

45 Safety External 

Stakeholder

IT IS unconscionable to do anything other than to put the safety of 

citizens first! 

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

46 Safety External 

Stakeholder

The NRC must be the agency which first protects public health and 

safety. Only when a particular nuclear application including any 

waste generated can be shown to be absolutely safe and harmless 

should any nuclear applications or facilities be permitted to exist. 

There are safe, economically viable and clean energy producing 

technologies which can generate electricity. Nuclear energy 

generation and use should only be approved when it is as safe as 

alternate means of generating electricity.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

47 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Many of our nuclear reactors are either old and have had known 

safety issues or are located in geographic areas at risk for damage 

due to earthquakes or flooding.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

48 Safety External 

Stakeholder

The safety of the American people should come first - and that 

should be the bottom line. If nuclear power can not be made safe 

then it should not be made and the NRC should be in charge of 

making that decision.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

49 Safety External 

Stakeholder

In actuality, no amount of nuclear power is ultimately safe for our 

planet. All resources are better used investing in safe, renewable 

technologies, but in the meantime the NRC should be first and 

foremost making sure the existing facilities stay as safe as possible

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 14 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

50 Safety External 

Stakeholder

I am very concerned about the dangers of Nuclear Power. In Japan 

large areas have been contaminated where food was grown. It has 

devastated the local regions near the nuclear power plant. I don't 

see any protections from the NRC that would prevent this from 

happening in the United States.

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.

51 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Nuclear power is NOT safe. No one wants the resulting waste 

buried in their neighborhood. To "educate and give incentives" to 

folks who will allow nuclear waste in their neighborhoods is wrong. 

If the truth is told and people aren't propagandized in to accepting 

nuclear wastes in their neighborhoods, no one will welcome it. To 

give "incentives" for allowing nuclear wastes into ones 

neighborhoods is bribery. 

To continue to punch holes in the earth and bury nuclear wastes is 

irresponsible. (Out of sight out of mind). It's a disservice to future 

generations and is poisoning the environment and us with new 

pollutants which never existed is these forms in our environment 

before nuclear power came on the scene.

Nuclear is NOT safe. Admit it and move on to wind and solar. Use 

the "education and incentive" money to educate people on the value 

of conserving energy and spending less!

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

52 Safety External 

Stakeholder

PUBLIC HEALTH is FIRST in importance simultaneous with 

ECOSYSTEM HEALTH...no nuclear regulatory organization should 

ever be allowed to advocate for anything to do with nuclear power or 

weapons, neither of which are ecologically or socially sustainable 

enterprises. The nuclear power industry has repeatedly proven itself 

to be criminally corrupt, covert and bad for the integrity of the 

ecosystem and for the public good. Civil service demands that you 

do everything you can to undermine the nuclear industry by ANY 

MEANS NECESSARY!!! We will remember your actions and will 

hold you directly accountable as a decision maker in a party that is a 

corporation supporting nuclear power itself. Don't forget!

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

53 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Nuclear energy simply cannot be made safe enough considering the 

consequences of even one catastrophe. It just isn;t worth the risk. 

This is especially true because the taxpayers will be footing the bill 

for the great majority of any accident and our fellow Americans the 

affects of radiation.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

54 Safety External 

Stakeholder

SHIFT THE NRC AWAY FROM WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN 

DO FOR NUCLEAR UTILITIES AND TOWARD A NEW EMPHASIS 

ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY! 

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 15 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

55 Safety External 

Stakeholder

We have nuclear power plants in this country with the same design 

as Fukishima, and we have the same chance of disasters caused 

from earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding, and equipment malfunction. 

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.

56 Safety External 

Stakeholder

I lived and worked in Japan and knew many Hibakusha - survivors 

who were struck down with cancers and did not survive a second 

time. There are no safe nuclear materials, nuclear bombs, nor 

reactors for that matter. This organization is all we have between us 

and corporations thirsting for profits from nuclear industries. Please 

re-enforce its moral and civic purpose of NRC and its regulations.

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.

57 Safety External 

Stakeholder

Health and safety come first, not as an after thought. The NRC 

already is the handmaiden of the nuclear industry kowtowing to 

every shortcut and pie in the sky scheme they come up with. 

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 16 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

58 Safety External 

Stakeholder

It is essential that leaders, like yourself, in a position to influence 

"peacetime" nuclear energy projects, overseen by the NRC, become 

informed about the information highlighted by the Nuclear 

Inform./Resource Service ("Atomic Radiation is More Harmful to 

Women") citing a 2006 report from the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS), showing that women, as well as children, are at 

much greater risk of dying from "peacetime" radiation-induced 

cancer) than men. The world's radiation standards were originally 

developed to ALLOW exposure rather than to prevent it (i.e., 

"permissible" levels of radiation exposure for a male worker at the 

Manhattan Project). The formula vastly under-calculates the health 

risks today: The radiation levels to the general public, allowed by the 

NRC standards, would actually result in 1 FATAL cancer in every 

286 people (adult men) and worse for women. Consequently, we 

are less protected by the NRC radiation standards than the 

regulation of other toxic hazards by the EPA ! 

In its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says, on page 5, 

that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the use of 

radioactive materials and nuclear fuels. The purpose of NRC 

regulations is to protect the public health and safety. If the purpose 

of NRC regulation is to enable use of nuclear power, then how could 

the agency ever shut down a nuclear reactor, no matter how 

dangerous it might be? If the NRC ever did try to do that, would a 

utility be able to sue the agency for preventing, rather than enabling, 

a reactor's operation?

Given that the NRC's present actions, it appears more invested in 

protecting/enabling the nuclear industry than safeguarding the well 

being of ordinary Americans re: nuclear energy and radiation 

exposures. This seemed especially true during the first six months 

of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, in which the NRC website issued 

no real or useful information about the fallout which came to our 

shores; rather, the information appeared to protect the image of the 

industry and downplay the out and out disaster of nuclear facilities 

run on the profit motive by a corporation. It is essential that the 

actions of the NRC receive intelligent review and regulation by our 

leaders, like yourself. Please-become better informed about the 

health risk to the public by peacetime radiation exposures in our 

own backyard. Thank You.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

59 Safety External 

Stakeholder

And there are far to many problems with San Onofre, in particular. It 

should not be re licensed. Evacuation proposals are not realistic. It's 

inherent reliability under potential environmental stress is not nearly 

sufficient for public safety. And the influence of the nuclear industry 

on decision making is unacceptable.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 17 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

60 Safety and 

Security

External 

Stakeholder

On Page 7, it defines nuclear safety with regards to public health, as 

just to "Prevent the occurrence of acute radiation exposures 

resulting in fatalities.", as though any other radiation exposure, short 

of fatalities is not their concern or of concern. This is completely 

unacceptable. Lower levels of radiation have long been know to 

cause all sorts of health problems, and they should be regulating to 

a higher degree than simply preventing fatalities.

On Page 15, one of the security outcomes it to prevent public 

disclosure of safeguards. That seems to me to be counter 

productive, and not something that a this agency should be doing. It 

would make more sense if they publicly disclosed safeguards 

standards, and that those were designed to ensure security rather 

than trying to prevent them from being made public and making 

security through obscurity their practice (which is really not security).

Anyway, I believe that nuclear materials bring us great benefits, but 

they are also extremely dangerous and need a greater than normal 

amount of regulation, control and concern. Understanding this, I 

hope you agree that this agency's priorities should be in protecting 

the health and safety of the public through regulating the usage of 

these materials. 

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

61 Openness External 

Stakeholder

Opportunities for public involvement and public input in NRC's 

licensing decisions should be improved by making the agency's 

website more user friendly. I was unable to access the federal 

rulemaking website recently by reference to the NRC docket 

number and missed the deadline for registering my comments on 

the NRC's draft guidance that would allow uranium recovery 

facilities to accept and process resins used to remove uranium from 

municipal water systems.

These issues are addressed 

under Openness with 

greater detailed provided in 

the under “The NRC 

Approach to Open 

Government” on the NRC 

public Website. 

62 Openness External 

Stakeholder

While the NRC is dragging its feet implementing needed postFukushima safety modifications, it is moving ahead with attempts to 

redefine the very principles of nuclear regulation. This is 

unacceptable. Where is the TRANSPARENCY officials keep 

promising?

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.

63 Openness OIS

Pg. 16 – “Openness:” should read as, “The NRC increases 

openness by conducting its business in a transparent manner, 

enabling stakeholder participation, and enhancing collaboration with 

other Federal agencies, State, local, and Tribal governments,and 

international regulatory authorities.”

Comment accepted

64 Openness OIS

Pg. 16 – “Collaboration:” should read as, “Collaboration improves 

the effectiveness of government by encouraging partnerships and 

cooperation within the Federal government, with State, local, and 

Tribal governments, and with international regulatory authorities.”

Comment accepted

65 Openness OIS

Pg. 17 – for second bullet under “Transparency,” change to read as,

Increase public access to data that are collected or generated in 

the course of NRC activities and that are of significant interest to the 

public.

• Means—stakeholder consultation, publication at the 

NRC’s public website and at http://www.data.gov.

Comment accepted
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 18 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

66 Operational 

Excellence OIS

Pg. 23 – change narrative under “Information Management and 

Information Technology” to read as follows, “Manage information 

and employ technology to enhance information access and 

strengthen agency performance. 

• Means—carry out a modernization program to streamline 

key business processes, reduce the number of legacy 

systems, standardize the application infrastructure, 

improve mobile and remote access, and complete work 

enabling secure information technology systems access 

through the use of the Government wide personal identity 

verification cards; enhance the information management 

program to ensure that information is available in a 

complete and timely manner and improve search 

capabilities.” 

Comment accepted

67

Planned 

Program 

Evaluations

NRC 

Employee

Page 31:

Corporate Support 

Expected Completion Date: Annually 

Objective: Each program evaluation will determine whether the 

corporate support services (e.g., administrative services, human 

capital management, financial management (including contract 

management), and information technology and information 

management) are being delivered consistent with the overall goals 

and whether internal and external customer needs and 

requirements are met. 

Scope: The annual evaluation will be focused on one corporate 

support service area through a questionnaire, survey or checklist to 

determine: (1) did the program deliver the promised results, (2) 

customer satisfaction, (3) strengthen and weaknesses and (4) are 

staff resources adequately qualified.

The objective seems to indicate that there would be 3 program 

evaluations (one each for the Operator Licensing Program, the 

ROP, and the IMPEP). Shouldn’t the scope refer to “evaluations” or 

that an evaluation is done annually for each program? Otherwise it’s 

a little confusing. Perhaps scope could be revised as follows:

Scope: The annual evaluation for each planned program will be 

focused on one corporate support service area through a 

questionnaire, survey or checklist to determine: (1) did if the 

program delivered the promised results, (2) customer satisfaction, 

(3) strengthens and weaknesses and (4) are whether staff 

resources are adequately qualified. (And do we really need the 

word “resources” here? It just sounds a little awkward.)

Comment not accepted; 

evaluations are set 

programs for evaluation of 

specific agency 

responsibilities as opposed 

to any for support functions. 

68 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

One place to put a permanent storage bunker might be someplace 

in West Virginia already ruined by mountaintop removal coal mining 

in a 300 foot deep hole in the already ruined area and once the 

concrete bunker is made and filled with nuclear waste, dump the 

excavated dirt back on top of it. Appakachia is old enough and 

geologically stable enough, it might very well last the 3000 years 

you need to store it,

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

69 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

No matter what big nuclear energy investors tell you, the NRC is 

NOT owned by them...! No wonder ordinary people are Occupying 

the Streets!!

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

70 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

BTW (Steve) you are on the wrong side of the nuclear power issue, 

and those of us fighting against this wrong-headed human 

experiment will continue to point your position out to Huntington 

citizens. Please start to show some common sense. Cancer rates 

skyrocketed with nuclear testing in this country and continue to be 

high due to legally allowed releases. The inevitable accidents both 

large and small continue to damage and kill people world-wide.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 19 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

71 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

We need to close all nuke plants and refocus our spending on 

alternative renewable sources to create new jobs and a safe future 

for US and everyone else!

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

72 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

I AM ABSOLUTELY 100% [EXPLETIVE DELETED] ABOUT THIS 

GOVERNMENT'S INABILITY TO DO ANYTHING. WHY THE 

[EXPLETIVE DELETED] DON'T YOU ALL JUST GET THE 

[EXPLETIVE DELETED] OUT OF WASHINGTON? IT WOULD BE 

BETTER RUN WITHOUT YOU [EXPLETIVE DELETED] 

HYPOCRITES ANYWHERE NEAR THE CAPITOL!!! NO WONDER 

"OCCUPY" WILL CONTINUE TO GROW.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

73 General 

Comment

External

Stakeholder

As an architect working on DoD projects I'm familiar with arguments 

promoting "clean" nuclear energy. What no one seems capable of 

answering are three simple questions: sustainable projects with 

timely results leading to jobs, jobs, jobs; what to do with planning 

and safety issues post-Fukushima; and the cost-analysis short & 

long term compared to developing alternative energy solutions. I 

know for a fact that we do not have the nuclear know-how to design 

& build right now and where they do the "state of th e art" projects 

are still running way over budgets and schedules taking on average 

12-14 years to construct. Nuclear is not an option. 

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the

public and the environment. 

74 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

I realize that your are somewhat pro-nuclear, but I also know that 

you are intelligent enough to know that the NRC is foolish to act in 

this irresponsible manner!

Please do the right thing in preventing our NRC from minimizing 

their responsibilties to Americans in this manner!

Protecting the public is their duty and doing this fully, is what we 

demand!

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

75 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

In the present day, it is true that we are faced with tremendous 

energy needs. We are also faced with a very sluggish economy that 

is need of a kickstart. 

There are many who feel that this is an appropriate time for the 

resurgence of nuclear power. I believe that this is exactly the wrong 

path to pursue, considering the great costs of nuclear power. These 

costs range from the actual cost of construction, to the costs of 

maintenance, to the even large costs of safe transportation and 

storage of waste products, not to mention the instability of nuclear 

power in areas that have any kind of seismic activity. 

Study after study have shown that nuclear power is very, very 

expensive. But more importantly, we all will pay a high price for the 

expansion of nuclear power. Alternatives to nuclear power are 

available. They are less costly and they steer our society in a safer, 

more economically and ecologically stable direction.

I implore you to consider the great cost of nuclear power expansion 

to our nation and our society. Our present technological knowledge 

does not make it safe or cost-efficient. 

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

76 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

The purpose of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to keep us 

safe from the very serious threat that nuclear power poses to a 

civilian consumer society. The risk is not worth taking the chance of 

meltdowns, explosions, and on-ste waste deposition (due to no 

place else). The climate crisis is here and real--nuclear is 

incompatible with hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, 

and the tectonic movements we are just beginning to undergo.

Tell the NRC to shut down nuclear plants that age out or destabilize 

with changing weather and global warming patterns.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 20 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

77 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

We cannot allow men to determine what women do with their bodies 

in terms of reproduction. Historically, religiously, and ethically, we 

have allowed men to determine the fate of our existence locally and 

globally and we have but to look around and see the pollution, the 

destruction; thedeserts, the explosion of human population by the 

billions, and the horror unleashed on men by other men. 

Therefore, we, the people cannot continue to allow men to move 

forward on the mutually assured mental illness and dementia that 

personifies the majority of Congressional criminal politicians in every 

level of power possessing positons and control over every aspect of 

our lives, including the nuclear industry. On the micro level-it is 

unconscionable that democrats continue to imitate every aspect of 

republican tyranny towards the people/citizens and complete 

obedience to core capitalist interest from abortion to nuclear energy 

and unsustainable energy products with half-lives, that are 

destroying not only people but the air, water, and land as well. 

There has to be a moratorium what men can do to the world and its' 

people. Having so stated with all the conviction of a Martin Luther 

King, I implore you to, for once in your testosterone driven existence 

to think beyond your gender and actually put yourselves in the 

shoes of women, children, the planet, and of course powerful men 

who cannot shape lobbies or decision on their own and who rely on 

your representation to be moral, ethical, compassionate, and 

egalitarian. Therefore; I agree and I concur with the following 

scripted message regarding nuclear regulation. We must have 

green energy and it must begin today. Our planet cannot wait for 

corrupt politicians to determine our fate any longer. I am in full 

accord with the 99% and it is time for you to represent our interest 

and not the interest of the transnational corporate fascist who really 

run this government and use politicians like call girls; that have, are, 

and continue to screw their constituency. It is a new day and the 

disappointment I feel particularly with Durbin is making it possible 

that we will see another person in his place/office. We don't need 

democratic who are more republican than tea-party scum bags! The 

rise of electrical rates in Illinois and the monopoly on energy by this 

take over electrical company Ameren is the same corruption as 

Enron in California and it is an abomination, and wholly an 

egregious act of anti-trust violation...and I have heard not one of 

you say anything to prohibit this monopoly take over!:

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

78 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Dear Rep. Shuler, Sen. Burr, and Sen. Hagan,

We need a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that will implement 

post-Fukushima safety modifications, not to "enable" the use of 

radioactive materials and nuclear fuels. The NRC's draft Strategic 

Plan for 2012-2016, says, on page 5, that the purpose of its 

regulations is to "enable" the use of radioactive materials and 

nuclear fuels.

Actually, the purpose of NRC regulations is to protect the public 

health and safety.

This is a matter of conflict of interest: if the purpose of NRC 

regulation is to enable use of nuclear power, then how could the 

agency ever shut down a nuclear reactor, no matter how dangerous 

it might be? And given this language, if the NRC ever did try to do 

that, would a utility be able to sue the agency for preventing, rather 

than enabling, a reactor's operation?

For too long, the government has been putting the interests and 

profits of large corporations ahead of the public's interest. In the 

NRC's case, this has meant putting nuclear utilities ahead of people. 

Please put people first!!

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 21 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

79 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

The NRC is an industry puppet. It is co-option and corruption at the 

highest level of regulatory authority. The current NRC members 

must be replaced by NON-INDUSTRY-CONNECTED science 

professionals who understand the mission of the NRC--which is 

PRIMARILY to regulate nuclear operations for public health and 

safety, rather than to protect the financial and political interests of 

the industry it is supposed to be regulating.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

80 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Phasing out nuclear power generation in favor of truly sustainable 

technologies must be seen as deserving of consideration --

assuming the safe use of nuclear power generation if regulations 

are in place is not an assumption to be made ab initio.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

81 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY. 

IT IT TOO EXPENSIVE TO BUILD NUCLEAR PLANTS, TO 

POLICE THEM, TOT HANDLE THE WASTE FROM THEM. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY POISONS OUR GROUNDS, OUR WATERS. 

AND ACCIDENTS POISON ALL OF US AROUND THE WORLD.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

82 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

This was a frightening wakeup call I received from NIRS. The NRC 

must, first and foremost, protect the American people and indeed, 

protect the world population from the dangers of nuclear energy 

production. The industry has had more than 40 years to perfect it's 

technology to reduce risk and dispose of it's waste but it can't do it! 

And nuclear power will never be produced without huge donations 

from the People's treasury! Do not permit any change to the 

purpose of the NRC. It's job is not now and never has been, to 

promote the use of nuclear power.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

83 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Our government has devoted our tax dollars to subsidize nuclear 

power AND made laws that absolve nuclear plant owners of any 

responsibility if nuclear catastrophe happens. The owners regularly 

ignore safety regulations to make more profit, and they have 

virtually no incentive to keep us safe.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

84 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

WHEN ??? Will you lawyers / politicians ever take the healthof the 

people and the planet before your greed. We ll know how it works. 

Your masters tell you to o your work to scam the public and protect 

them so you keep getting that $$$$ off shore acounts . Fake 

patriots!

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

85 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

The NRC is the classic 1% example of pathological sociopathy 

where life is irrelevant and profit is all - historically 1,000,000's have 

died from nuclear power from Chernobyl and now Fukushima - the 

cancers from Fukushima will show up in a few years - time enough 

fo the Bpoehner's and the Faustian Bargainers to escalte the 

"DESTROYER OF THE WORLDS" (Oppenheimer KNEW!) Already 

people and children are saturated with radiation and uranium 

throughout out country and just because you will be the last man 

standing while the rest of us die, is diabolical.

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 22 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

86 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

The people do not want nuclear power at all because whenever 

nuclear power is allowed to charge off its real costs to ratepayers, 

the electricity costs too much compared to alternatives. Nuclear 

power began with a mammoth deception saying it could produce 

power too cheap to meter. Now that everyone knows nuclear 

power has just cost Japan its healthy future, forever, it is clear no 

society can afford nuclear energy programs, not only because the 

electicity rates cost more but because the radioactivity destroys the 

entire nation surrounding these plants, which are scattered along 

the eastern seabord of the US and in other heavily populated areas. 

 

 Only by shutting down the entire industry and burying all the waste 

can societies guarantee their descendents a future in good health. 

We do not need the heavy costs of nuclear power and we must not 

permanently contaminate our nation as Japan has just done. 

The NRC should be accountable to the people not to industry. It is 

past time to bury the nuclear waste. Get the waste out of the 

cooling pools and into dry casks and then into underground 

repositories. Place these repositories in crystalline rock like granite 

and do not produce any more nuclear waste. Stop broadcasting 

US nuclear waste in Depleted Uranium munitions. You people 

holding office are the greatest frauds the world has ever known. 

You should look at your approval ratings and get a clue. You 

should be ashamed of the US nuclear weapons program and the 

use of DU weapons on civilian populations. The ongoing war 

crimes by the US come right out of the nuclear energy and weapons 

programs which should be shut down. We the people will 

remember how you in Congress betrayed us by promoting the great 

sin of nuclear contamination around the world. What other species 

goes so far out of its way to contaminate the one planet in space 

possible for our home and does it continually lying and trying to 

deceive the victims? 

Shut down the NRC if it has become nothing more than a tool of the 

nuclear industry. If you cannot serve the people and you deserve 

the low ratings of Congress, get your selves out of office and go find 

some honest employment or at least get off our payroll as you do 

not deserve a cent of our money and do not serve our interests.

When is the NRC going to call for entombing Daiichi and stopping 

the enormous radioactive releases? That would be something 

worthy of doing instead of propping up this horrible, expensive and 

deadly nuclear industry.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

87 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Actually, the purpose of NRC regulations is to protect the public 

health and safety... not to protect the nuclear industry from financial 

bankruptcy and default.

This is more than just semantics: if the purpose of NRC regulation is 

to enable use of nuclear power, then how could the agency ever 

shut down a nuclear reactor, no matter how dangerous it might be? 

And given this language, if the NRC ever did try to do that, would a 

utility be able to sue the agency for preventing, rather than enabling, 

a reactor's operation?

For FAR too long, the government has been putting the interests 

and profits of large corporations ahead of the public's interest. In the 

NRC's case, this has meant putting nuclear utilities ahead of people. 

This must stop. Now. We aren't going to just sit around while fools 

run the world into the ground.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 23 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

88 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Have you learned nothing from Japan? How can you want more 

nuclear power?

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.

89 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

The United States population has little faith in regulatory bodies 

these days, and actions like this give good reason. I have long joked 

that the NRC should be called the "Nuclear Romance Commission" 

after attending many meetings that clearly illustrated the cozy 

relationship between industry and regulators. Now, we see the NRC 

attempting to reemerge as a promoter of radioactive products, 

rather than a regulator. This is a dangerous conflict of interest that 

puts the public in grave danger.

NRC: Regulate. That is what you are supposed to do. No more 

pandering to an industry that has proven nothing more than its 

allegiance to the bottom line. Just another corporation putting profits 

over people. 

Let's do the right thing and REGULATE this inherently dangerous 

industry. No more R & D, no more subsidies, no more preemptive 

bailouts, loan guarantees, and CWIP. The nuke lovers have bled us 

dry and its time to end it.

The Principles of Good 

Regulation Statement now 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

90 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Japan's Atomic Energy Commission reports (today) that it will take 

30 years to shut down the Fukashima Daichai plant. People will 

slowly and painfully die for years and years. If you vote for 

continued nuclear power, you are liable to your Maker for maiming 

and killing people. You must stop this now.

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.

91 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Now. Are you going to keep voting the opposite way your people , 

we the people want you to vote??? nuclear will be the death of this 

planet. duh

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 24 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

92 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Our concerns about the country's energy needs should not result in 

less stringent agency policies for an industry with serious safety 

issues.

Actually, the purpose of NRC regulations is to protect the public 

health and safety. The DOE is the agency charged with promoting 

nuclear energy. One such agency is plenty.

Also, for too long, the government has continued to devote our 

increasingly scarce resources in support of nuclear power, when 

equal support of renewable energy would result in net energy 

increases much more quickly than nuclear power could ever hope to 

deliver.

I urge you to insist that the "enable" language in NRC's Strategic 

Plan be removed. But even more than that, I ask that you replace 

support for nuclear power, with support for renewable energy in its 

many forms.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

93 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

The nuclear industry has depended on U.S. taxpayers since its 

beginnings in 1939. To this day, despite assurances about how 

safe nuclear power is, nuclear reactors cannot obtain private 

insurance. This is because an accident at a single nuclear facility 

could cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars in damage, 

as a recent European study found, and as we have seen at 

Fukushima.

After almost 3/4 of a century, there is no acceptable disposal option 

for nuclear waste, much of which will remain highly toxic for 

millennia. 

It's time to let the nuclear industry pay for itself. It probably cannot, 

and its demise would bring a cleaner planet and healthier 

inhabitants.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

94 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST, NOT THE BUCK IN YOUR POCKETS 

CORPORATE [EXPLETIVE DELETED]. GOT CHRISTIAN?????

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

95 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Please read the article in the Wall Street Journal published today 

about the issues facing Japan's clean up efforts after their nuclear 

accident. Can we really afford a smilar fate in the US (isn't the 

deficit large enough)? Can you honestly tell your state that we have 

plans in place to prevent a similar accident, or even worse some 

accident that we haven't anticipated? Do you honestly believe that 

we have plans in place to recover from such a disaster? Clearly 

nuclear power isn't as safe as we've all been lead to believe. 

Clearly any accident will become the burden of the citizens and not 

the company who causes the accident. 

Consider how history proves that greed is king and safety takes a 

back seat when money is involved. All we need to do is look at the 

gulf oil spill, the Exon Valdez, the drug companies with their leathal 

drugs to see that safety is a secondary consideration when it comes 

to making a buck. 

Japan lacked the political will to put good effective regulations in 

place to protect their citizens. They now face billions of dollars of 

clean up and untold health issues for the poor people who live near 

the reactors. Please show us that you have the political will to make 

good choices that protect the citizens of the state of Idaho and our 

country. 

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 25 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

96 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

In reality, NRC was created by Congress to rectify the promotional 

abuses of the AEC. And so, in 1974 Congress intent for NRC 

regulations was to protect the public health and safety and 

internalize all the costs of nuclear power including waste 

management in perpetuity, not simply to enable nuclear power 

plants, as had been AEC's practice. 

This is more than just semantics: if the purpose of NRC regulation is 

to enable use of nuclear power, then the agency is in a conflict of 

interest position, much as its predecessor, and it is unlikely to shut 

down a nuclear reactor, no matter how dangerous it might be. 

For too long, our special interest controlled government has been 

putting the interests and profits of large corporations ahead of the 

public's interest. In the NRC's case, this has meant putting nuclear 

utilities bottom line ahead of public safety and the public's majority 

desire for clean energy.. This must stop. Now.

On a related matter, the President's Blue Ribbon Commission seeks 

to establish more nuclear power and reprocessing by offering an 

"incentive" (bribe) program to entice communities to offer 

themselves as (both interim and permanent) repository sites and 

take the vast amounts of HLW already sitting in dangerously 

crowded storage at nuclear plants around the country. NYS's 

experience with LLRW siting in the 1990s - notably in Allegheny 

County - is clearly a lesson that Washington has not taken seriously. 

The BRC has largely ignored the important legacy issues here in 

NY: the failed West Valley commercial reprocessing venture, the 

Niagara Falls Storage Site, the Tonawanda Site, Colonie, etc. 

It's NRC's and DOE's job to learn these lessons and to properly 

address all the legacy wastes before any new nuclear power 

enterprises are advanced. That has not happened.

It's fairly obvious that the White House is in bed with the nuclear 

industry. I will vote accordingly in 2012

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

97 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

The days of nuclear energy will end as soon as our tax dollars stop 

funding reactors and disposal sites. They are no longer profitable in 

any way which is why speculators won't invest in them. Now we the 

tax payers are forced to support this dying filthy dangerous monster 

called nuclear energy. It is just a matter of how much health damage 

we will all be subjected to while they die out,will we be another 

Japan? Murphys law says YES ,DEFINITELY and anyone w/ a half 

a brain can figure this out. This industry is nothing more than a 

group of mafia like thugs stealing money from the public when our 

dollars should be going to wind,solar energy,IT IS AN OUTRAGE! 

How dare this govt. continue to put us all in the highest form of 

danger against our will!

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

98 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMNISSION IS SUPPOSED 

TO BE THE WATCHDOG OVER NUCLEAR POWER - NOT THE 

ENABLER OF NUCLEAR POWER.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 26 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

99 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

So they get to promote what may be a possibly dangerous nuclear 

agenda?

The Principles of Good 

Regulation Statement now 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

100 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Actually, the entire nuclear energy program was designed to put 

lipstick on the pig of ongoing nuclear weapons development.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

101 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Get away from nuclear power and move solidly toward a nuclearfree and a carbon-free energy system. Get going on it Now.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

102 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Colorado already has nuclear waste that has not been handled 

properly.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

103 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

I used to be completely against nuclear power but then I looked at 

France. They use nuclear power extensively in France with 

seemingly little health consequences. So I've changed my mind 

about nuclear power being 100% bad news. But the radioactive 

waste is very bad news. We must find a way to recycle the 

radioactive by-products of nuclear power.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

104 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

I was arrested in front of Diablo in 1978 because PG&E did not 

know what they would do with their terrible nuclear waste---they still 

DO NOT KNOW----storage on site is NOT acceptable.

The NRC is dragging its feet. This has meant putting nuclear utilities 

ahead of people. Store Diablo's nuclear waste in the backyards of 

PG&E's CEOs----not upwind to where I live.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

105 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Since there is no solution to protect the public from uncontainable 

radioactive fuel and waste, all nuclear plants must be shut down and 

the radioactive materials contained as safely as possible to protect 

our next generations far into the future.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 27 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

106 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

REGULATION requires independent evaluation, where 

representatives of those agencies DO NOT DEPEND on the very 

industry they are regulating for livlihood...we have a SERIOUS 

problem in the US. PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELL BEING HAVE 

BEEN LOST TO CORPORATE PROFITS. i demand an immediate 

STOP to all unsafe industries...OUR INVESTMENT MUST BE IN 

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY NO MORE DRILLING, NO MORE 

NUCLEAR..NO MORE WIRELESS..ALL THESE TECHNOLOGIES 

ARE KILLING HUMANS, OUR CITIZENS AND OUR 

GOVERNMENT IS SUPPORTING IT! Who is liable to the 

people...we are being fed toxic food, given toxic medicines, denied 

the truth of fukishima fall out, and constantly now in the microwave 

soup of wireless radiation...DEATH DUE TO CANCER, TUMOR 

GROWTH, NEUROLOGICAL DECLINE, DEMENTIA LIES 

AROUND THE CORNER...LIFE SPAN IS ALREADY 

DECLINING...WHEN WILL OUR REPRESENTATIVES SHOW ANY 

COMPASSION AND CARE...

IF NOTHING IS DONE, SEND THEM HOME...NO MORE LIES! We 

might as well call it like it is, they are not representatives...they are 

corporate cronies...prostitutes selling themselves to the highest 

bidder...DEMOCRACY IS DEAD, TYRANNY REIGNS IN 

WASHINGTON...TYRANNY OF THE DOLLAR, OF CORP. 

GREED...where are the ethics in politics? I VOTE TO OCCUPY 

THE WHITE HOUSE, OCCUPY CONGRESS, SEND THEM ALL 

HOME!

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

107 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

I SEE THERE ARE NO WORKING BRAINS, NO INTELLIGENCE 

IN CONGRESS, IN THE GOVERNMENT!!!! NUKE POWER IS 

NOT SAFE, THERE IS NO PLACE TO PUT THE WASTE, AND 

LOOK AT THE DESTRUCTION FROM THE JAPAN PROBLEM. IT 

TAKES MILLIONS OF YEARS TO GET OVER A NUKE 

POSIONING!!! WE ARE ALREADY ON THE ROAD TO 

DESTRUCTION, SO MUCH OF THE SOIL OF THE WORLD IS 

ALREADY POISIONED WITH CHEMICALS, NUKE, AND OTHER 

POISIONS THAT ARE IN THE AIR, WATER, SOIL, WHICH FOOD 

GROWS IN, AND ANIMALS THAT ARE CONSUMED EAT AND 

PASS ON TO HUMANS. AIR, WATER, AND FOOD ARE 

ESSENTIAL FOR ALL LIVING SPECIES TO HAVE IN ORDER TO 

LIVE--HUMANS TOO, AND ALL THE DRUGS HUMANS MAY 

CREATE WILL NOT, CAN NOT, DO ANYTHING TO REMEDY THE 

POISIONING, AND THE DRUGS DO MORE DAMAGE THAN 

GOOD ANYWAY!!!!

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.

108 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

We have far too many rogue agencies and this one is absolutely the 

worst. It does NOT provide for safe energy and is NOT in the best 

interest of the people of the United States. Do NOT support any 

type of Nuclear energy programs with my tax dollars.

Alternatives is the smart, clean, safe way to go with NO storage 

problems with the waste. How can we waste sunshine? Answer: 

By NOT using it for more than just growing children and food!!!!! 

That's how!

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

109 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder Nuclear power is not clean and is not safe!

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

110 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

For too long, the government has been putting the collusive nuclear 

weapons industry interests and profits of large energy/defense 

corporations ahead of the public's safety and impassioned stated 

interests. In the NRC's case, this has meant putting nuclear 

utilities/weapons corps ahead of actual, real, bonafide people (the 

biological persons who have always been so, before corporations 

were granted such titles.) This must stop. Now.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 28 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

111 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

In the alternative, all spent nuclear material must be disposed of on 

the property those infavor of expanding nuclear facilities live, and 

moved to any new residance that they may move to in the future!!!

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

112 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

(That's correct!! Nuclear fuel, processing, and waste constitute 

some of the most toxic substances in existence, and even in tiny 

amounts. The infiltration of nuclear materials in the environment is 

extremely easy to occur. We are witnessing te decline of Japan due 

to the Fukushima disaster, as a result of human negligence and 

greed, and the unpredictably of natural events-- as opposed to the 

hubris of so-called 'safety experts.' The NRC should be 

reconstituted, far away from the cozy inbreeding with nuclear power 

operators that currently exists in its daily business.)

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

113 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Start shutting down all the nuclear power plants. We know they are 

not safe and it is time to develop alternatives such as solar, wind 

and geothermal power. No more nukes! None!

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

114 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

I grew up under threat of nuclear bombs and now my children are 

under threat from nuclear reactors, nobody wants this except those 

few individuals making money from this, let's wake up!!!

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

115 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

WE, THE PEOPLE, DESERVE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT & THAT 

DOES NOT INCLUDE NUCLEAR POWER. YOU KNOW IN YOUR 

HEART OF HEARTS IT IS GOING TO RUIN OUR WORLD. 

PLEASE DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE THIS TIME.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

116 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

I live near an earthquake fault line. If my parents and other activists 

had not stopped the construction of the Bodega Head nuclear plant 

in the sixties, I would also be living near a nuclear plant that was 

near a fault line. 

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

117 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

YES, JUST ANOTHER BUNCH OF OPPORTU,NISTS THAT ARE 

TOO STUPID, TO MONEY MOTIVATED,, TO DO A 

RESPONSIBLE AND PROPER JOB. GOD KNOWS THIS SOUNDS 

LIKE WASHINGTON DC DOE IT NOT ! ! ! ! ! 

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

118 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

While the NRC is dragging its feet implementing needed postFukushima safety modifications, it is moving ahead with attempts to 

redefine the very principles of nuclear regulation. This is 

unacceptable, ridiculous, akin to the "we had to destroy the village 

to save it" mentality which did us so much good in Vietnam only 

here we're playing with nuclear materials!

The agency’s Near-Term 

Japan Task Force 

conducted a thorough 

review of all available 

information from the 

Fukushima-Daichii events 

and developed a 

comprehensive set of 

recommendations for 

strengthening nuclear 

safety. The staff is working 

towards the implementation 

of those recommendations.

119 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

We have no way to safely dispose of nuclear waste. That should be 

enough reason to not use nuclear power for anything!!! 

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

120 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Nuclear power is highly dangerous: from the mining, to the 

processing, to the generation of power, and to the disposal of waste. 

NRC's regulations are to protect public health and safety not to 

enable the use of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 29 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

121 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

I notice that there is no discussion in the NRC's draft strategic plan 

about the testing of plutonium fuel (MOX) made from weaponsgrade plutonium that will be required for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission to license MOX use in boiling water reactors (BWRS) 

and which will be needed to license MOX use for three cycles in 

pressurized water reactors (PWRs). I believe this issue and 

problems associated with it are worthy of mention in the strategic 

plan, as preparations for this test may well begin by 2016.

Given that the U.S. Department of Energy is considering MOX use 

in the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry reactors (GE Mark 

I BWRs) and Energy Northwest's Columbia Generating Station (GE 

Mark II BWR) as well as in TVA's Sequoyah PWRs (ice condenser 

design, with thin containment), the NRC will be intimately involved in 

the licensing of these tests and subsequently in any licensing of 

batch use if such a license request goes forward. A discussion of 

the task in front of the NRC to license the MOX tests is worthy of 

discussion in the plan and though no request are now before

the NRC construction of the MOX plant at the DOE's Savannah 

River Site implies such requests if the facility is finished and can 

operate per NRC license requirements.

As there has been no testing at all of weapons-grade MOX in BWRs 

- a fact which some in the plutonium industry have attempted to 

cloud - a test for a full three 2-year fuel cycles will be necessary to 

license MOX for three cycles of irradiation. After the irradiation, the 

NRC will have to be involved in post irradiation examination, if it is 

decided to review the results of any test that might take place.

Likewise, in order to license MOX for three 18-month cycles in the 

Sequoyah PWRs, a three-cycle test will be necessary. As a test of 

weapons-grade MOX was aborted in Duke Energy's Catawba 

reactor after only two cycles in which the fuel assemblies did not 

perform as planned, a successful third cycle of MOX assemblies will 

be necessary if MOX will be used for the normal three cycles for 

uranium fuel. 

Obviously, there may be decisions not to proceed with MOX use 

given exorbitant costs of the program, proliferation implications 

associated with introducing plutonium into commerce, the stresses it 

places on reactor operation and given the more serious radiation 

release in case of an accident involving containment breach. 

While the licensing review of the MOX plant under construction at 

the DOE's Savannah River Site is mentioned in the draft plan, it 

must be noted that operation of the plant, if it were to receive an 

operating license, will be curtailed during testing of weapons-grade 

MOX in BWRs and PWRs. As the MOX plant is at risk of sitting idle 

or operating at reduced capacity after initial fabrication of the MOX 

"lead test assemblies" (LTAs), the NRC must take this into account 

as it considers the operating license. The SRS MOX plant will be, if 

completed and if operable, the only place in the world which could 

be available to fabricate MOX fuel from weapons-grade plutonium, 

so the only option will be that the LTAs be fabricated there. 

Fabrication of the LTAs could only take place after successful startup of the MOX plant and production of batch quantities of fuel will 

likely not be able to proceed given the necessity of lengthy NRClicensed MOX testing in a BWR and a PWR, which will have 

unknown results. Lacking licensing confirmation of batch MOX use 

at the time of initial operation of the MOX plant dictates that no 

production can take place until multi-year testing of LTAs has fully 

concluded. That the MOX plant may sit idle or will operate at 

reduced capacity needs to be considered during licensing review of 

the facility. 

I request that this comment be made a part of the official record and 

that it also be placed in ADAMS.

Comment not accepted; the 

NRC’s annual Performance 

Budget and Performance 

Reports provide more detail. 
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 30 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

122 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

It was most distressing to learn today that the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is seeking to change its mission from protecting 

the public health and safety to enabling the use of radioactive 

materials. How much have nuclear industry lobbyists been paying 

off members of the NRC? Please stop the NRC from making such a 

change in its mission. Please also make it implement needed postFukushima safety modifications to reactors and improvements to 

monitoring, control, and emergency response processes.

Time is of the essence because the NRC is moving ahead with 

attempts to redefine the very principles of nuclear regulation. 

Specifically, in its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says, 

on page 5, that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the use 

of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels. This is unacceptable. 

The purpose of NRC regulations must remain "to protect the public 

health and safety."

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence

123 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Specifically, in its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says, 

on page 5, that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the use 

of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels.

 Consider the madness: to let those who can't even regulate get the 

option to enable !!!!! 

Actually, the purpose of NRC regulations is to protect the public 

health and safety.

( This is an internal NRC joke )

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence

124 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder GET US OFF THE NUCLEAR ENEGY BANDWAGON!

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

125 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Radioisotopes are poisons that spread throughout the environment 

and cause cancers and other organ diseases as well as genetic 

malformations in babies. The results of Chernobyl were as horrific 

as the lies told about it by organizations that refuse to acknowledge 

the human devastation. Foremost among them the IAEA has 

blocked investigations into radioactive poisoning, specifically the 

WHO study of 1995 which was blocked from publishing its findings.

Nuclear power is immoral in the extreme and hazardous to all of us. 

It needs to be abolished immediately and replaced by clean 

renewable technologies. Geothermal heat mining is the most 

promising of these, and mines the earth's unlimited heat to produce 

electricity. Look it up.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

126 General 

Comment

External 

Stakeholder

Like other pseudoregulatory agencies, NRC are in bed with 

corporate interests, as are the Wyoming Triplets. You will gladly 

bend over as your corporate masters slide into you. There're a 

reasons the pro-nuke bastards cannot get private funding: nuclear 

power is too dangerous and the costs of cleanup far exceed any 

expected returns on investment, including insurance investments. 

Tell the nuclear interests to [EXPLETIVE DELETED] off.

The comment is unrelated 

to the update of the NRC’s 

Strategic Plan.

127 Mission NRC 

Employee

On page 5, Mission, suggest that byproduct, source, and special 

nuclear material be defined either in footnote or in Glossary since 

most the general public doesn’t know what theses terms mean. 

Comment accepted
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 31 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

128 Mission NRC 

Employee

According to the NRC’s public website (http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc.html) the NRC’s mission is, “To regulate the nation’s civilian use 

of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure 

adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the 

common defense and security, and protect the environment.”

Whereas the Strategic Plan states (see page 5), “The mission of the 

NRC is to license and regulate the Nation’s civilian use of 

byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials in order to ensure 

the adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the 

common defense and security, and protect the environment.”

My comment is that the mission statement in the NRC’s Strategic 

Plan and public website should be made consistent. My suggestion 

is to add the words “license and” before the word “regulate” in the 

mission statement on the NRC’s public website to make it consistent 

with the Strategic Plan.

Comment acknowledged; 

change to be made to NRC 

website. 

129 Mission External 

Stakeholder

In 1974, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was disbanded by 

Congress, because it had the dual and conflicting mission of both 

promoting and regulating nuclear power. It's not possible to do both.

The promotional side of the AEC was moved to the Energy 

Research and Development Administration (which later became the 

Department of Energy). The NRC was created to fulfill the 

regulatory mission. It is NOT its purpose to 'enable'.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

130 Mission External 

Stakeholder

The purpose of regulatory agencies is to PROTECT PEOPLE 

FROM INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT, not the other way around. 

NRC, please do your job! After Fukushima, we need to start moving 

away from nuclear power, not enabling their further development.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

131 Mission External 

Stakeholder

I am writing about a very serious matter that I sincerely hope you 

will please pay attention to - the NRC is trying to pull a 'fast one' by 

sematically altering the mission of their agency -to perpetuate the 

proliferation of nuclear materials - forever!

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

132 Mission External 

Stakeholder

I am very concerned about some of the wording in the mission 

statement of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's new strategic 

plan. 

Specifically, in its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says, 

on page 5, that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the safe 

& secure use of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels.

The specific wording is: 

"Principles of Good Regulation

The safe and secure use of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels 

for beneficial civilian purposes is enabled by the agency's 

adherence to the following principles of good regulation: 

independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and reliability. In 

addition, regulatory actions are effective, realistic, and timely."

The word "enable" is a very poor choice (even if it's meant to modify 

"safe and secure use." ) A far better choice of wording would be 

"enforce" safe and secure use. That's what being a regulatory 

commission means.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 32 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

133 Mission External 

Stakeholder

The NRC was created in 1974, its purpose was to fulfill a regulatory 

mission. The DOE is supposed to do the "enabling". NRC stands for 

"Nuclear Regulatory Commission", not "Nuclear Enabling 

Commission".

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

134 Mission External 

Stakeholder

The NRC needs to have its promotional and enabling functions 

separated from its regulatory ones.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

135 Mission External 

Stakeholder

It appears to me that the NRC has taken over the mandate of the 

AEC "to ensure public health and safety from the hazards of nuclear 

power (but) without imposing excessive requirements that would 

inhibit the growth of the industry."

Also, it should be noted that part of the Mission Statement of the 

NRC is "to provide for the common defense." What does the 

common defense have to do with civilian nuclear power? The 

common defense can only refer to nuclear weaponry. The U.S. still 

has 5,000 nuclear warheads. Some 1,800 of them are targeted on 

the Soviet Union...oooops Russia....ready to be launched at a 

moment's notice.

A coalition of anti-VY groups just had a rally (10.30) at the gates of 

VY. I counted 200 young and old from VT., N.H., and Mass. I'd say 

all want VY to close ASAP.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

136 Mission External 

Stakeholder

We want the NRC to protect the public and the environment, not 

promote and enable the industry it regulates.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 

137 Mission External 

Stakeholder

Specifically, in its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says, 

on page 5, that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the use 

of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels: THIS IS A FALSEHOOD.

Actually, the PURPOSE OF NRC REGULATIONS IS TO PROTECT 

THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, NOT TO TOADY UP TO 

CORPORATE OWNERS.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

138 Mission External 

Stakeholder

If the purpose of NRC regulations is to protect public health and 

safety, the NRC should NOT be committed to protecting the interest 

of its use as a power source! They should function as an objective 

"outsider". There are far too many public health dangers and safety 

liabilities in fueling nuclear power plants and disposing of radioactive 

waste for the NRC to allow continuation of the industry. If the NRC 

was functioning as they are suppose to be, they would weigh on the 

side of the public interest.

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the 

public and the environment. 
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 33 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

139 Mission External 

Stakeholder

I BELIEVE THE NRC SHOULD WORK TO PROTECT HUMANS 

AND OUR ECOSYSTEMS, NOT "ENABLE" UTILITIES IN THEIR 

MISSION TO PRODUCE ENERGY AT THE HIGHEST PROFIT 

WITH NO REGARD TO SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence

140 Mission External 

Stakeholder

It is very disturbing to learn that instead of assessing the dangers to 

public health and life itself demonstrated by the Fukushima 

accident, the 3-Mile Island crisis, the Chernobyl tragedy, the NRC is 

proposing to redefine the purpose of nuclear regulation. 

In its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says, on page 5, 

that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the use of 

radioactive materials and nuclear fuels. This is what the industry 

wants but it is NOT what the US public, we taxpayers, want from the 

NRC. We want regulation and protection, not the facilitation of 

profits for the nuclear industry.

NRC regulations are to protect the public health and safety.

Members of the NRC must removed if they are so mistaken about 

what their purpose is.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence

141 Mission External 

Stakeholder

I am writing to express my outrage that the NRC is attempting to 

turn its mission from one of protecting the people from the dangers 

of radiation to one of promoting the nuclear industries. 

As a scientist with knowledge of the dangers of radiation, especially 

the internal radiation so often neglected in news reports, I am 

appalled by the horror story going on in Japan and by the realization 

that nuclear plants in the US are "sitting ducks," ripe for similar 

catastrophic crises. 

The main role of the NRC, protecting the population from nuclear 

plants of every kind, is being distorted before our very eyes. 

Attention should be placed on the phased decommissioning of all 

nuclear plants and storage of wastes in the safest manner possible. 

Unless the money involved has removed all semblance of 

rationality, how else could members of this comission consider 

going forward with business as usual? Sheer insanity!

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the

public and the environment. 

142 Mission External 

Stakeholder

The NRC's proposed post-Fukushima redefinition of the very 

principles of nuclear regulation is shameful. 

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

143 Mission External 

Stakeholder

The NRC is apparently attempting to redefine the principles of 

nuclear regulation from citizen protection to enabling. This is 

unacceptable.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 34 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

144 Mission External 

Stakeholder

I am writing to express my outrage that the NRC is attempting to 

turn its mission from one of protecting the people from the dangers 

of radiation to one of promoting the nuclear industries. 

As a scientist with knowledge of the dangers of radiation, especially 

the internal radiation so often neglected in news reports, I am 

appalled by the horror story going on in Japan and by the realization 

that nuclear plants in the US are "sitting ducks," ripe for similar 

catastrophic crises. 

The main role of the NRC, protecting the population from nuclear 

plants of every kind, is being distorted before our very eyes. 

Attention should be placed on the phased decommissioning of all 

nuclear plants and storage of wastes in the safest manner possible. 

Unless the money involved has removed all semblance of 

rationality, how else could members of this comission consider 

going forward with business as usual? Sheer insanity!

The updated Strategic Plan 

emphasizes the NRC’s 

continued mission to protect 

the health and safety of the

public and the environment. 

145 Mission External 

Stakeholder

I am a Professor of physics and astronomy and the natural sciences 

at Carleton College and an analyst of energy issues.

I am very concerned that the NRC draft Strategic Plan for 2012-

2016, says, on page 5, that the purpose of its regulations is to 

"enable" the use of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels. I 

thought the purpose of NRC regulations is to protect the public 

health and safety. Isn't this why the NRC was split off from the 

AEC? Isn't this why there is an "R" in NRC? 

I hope you will urge the NRC to go back to its main mission of 

protecting our health and safety. This is particularly relevant in 

Minnesota, with a GE Mark I reactor upwind from the Twin Cities.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity,

and reliability.”

146 Mission External 

Stakeholder

The NRC must not be allowed to redefine its mission on a spurious 

basis - certainly not in a time of post Fukushima radiation crisis. 

Even as it is dragging its feet on post-Fukushima safety 

modifications, it is also trying to redefine the very principles of 

nuclear regulation. This is completely unacceptable.

In the draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says, on page 5, 

that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the use of 

radioactive materials and nuclear fuels; however, the purpose of 

NRC regulations is, in fact, to protect the public health and safety. 

This should invalidate the draft from the start as it is conflict with 

enabling legislation.

The function of shutting down a reactor that is dangerous would be 

contravened by such wording, and is antithetical to what the nation 

needs from the NRC.

People are in the streets all over the country because they are fed 

up with either corporations, or the collusion between regulatory 

agencies in our government and corporations. In WWII it was called 

fascism. Now we don't care what it's called, we just want it to stop 

before we all have cancer. And who was talking about lowering 

medical costs? 

All our agencies with oversight are mutating into foxes guarding the 

henhouse...is this a genetic mutation caused by radiation? (joke). 

Let's get our agencies to do the work they were meant to do: protect 

the citizens of the United States (who own the country, in fact, 

though K St seems to have forgotten.)

Thanks in advance - I have no choice but to trust your higher 

principles.

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 35 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

147 Mission External 

Stakeholder

Specifically, in its draft Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, the NRC says, 

on page 5, that the purpose of its regulations is to "enable" the use 

of radioactive materials and nuclear fuels. This is clearly NOT the 

NRC mandate! Nuclear fuels and radioactive materials have to be 

carefully disposed of, not "used"!

Actually, the purpose of NRC regulations is to protect the public 

health and safety; not to make profits for corrupt and fascist 

corporations!

This is more than just semantics: if the purpose of NRC regulation is 

to enable use of nuclear power, then how could the agency ever 

shut down a nuclear reactor, no matter how dangerous it might be? 

Indian Point, for example, must be shut down! The place is 

completely unsafe sitting on an earthquake zone! When will 

Fukashima get through your thick skulls!

And given this language, if the NRC ever did try to do that, would a 

utility be able to sue the agency for preventing, rather than enabling, 

a reactor's operation? This is insane! The people proposing this 

should be hospitalized on a psych ward.

For too long, the government has been putting the interests and 

profits of large corrupt and fascist corporations ahead of the public's 

interest. In the NRC's case, this has meant putting corrupt and 

fascist nuclear utilities, like Entergy, ahead of people. This must 

stop. Now. Death to the corrupt and fascist corporatocracy! Jail the 

thieving suits!

The updated Strategic Plan 

reads: “The safe and secure 

use of radioactive materials 

and nuclear fuels for 

beneficial civilian purposes 

is made possible by the 

agency's adherence to the 

following principles of good 

regulation: independence, 

openness, efficiency, clarity, 

and reliability.”

148

Mission and 

Strategic 

Objectives

NRC 

Employee

The safety-goal strategic outcomes (see page 7) give the 

impression that the NRC only desires to prevent radiological 

hazards of licensed materials. It should be noted that we desire to 

prevent exposures to hazardous chemicals used with, or produced 

from, licensed material.

My suggestion is to add a footnote to the third and fourth safety-goal 

strategic outcomes that reads, “For fuel cycle facilities, this extends 

to hazardous chemicals used with, or produced from, radioactive 

material consistent with 10 CFR Part 70 and proposed amendments 

to 10 CFR Part 40.”

Comment not accepted –

chemical safety is not a 

strategic-level concern of 

the NRC. 
Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix

Page 36 of 36

No. Category Commenter Comment Disposition

149

Mission and 

Strategic 

Objectives

NRC 

Employee

As this strategic plan claimed, the agency’s mission and strategic 

objectives remain unchanged throughout FY2016. However, we all 

have realized how quickly the world is changing with the now 

ubiquitously present smartphones, tablets, mobile devices. I would 

like to suggest that our strategy plan to include considering 

enhancing communications with our mobile staff, stakeholders, and 

public from anywhere, at any time, via a vast variety of ways. 

Exploring how to adopt innovative technologies and best practices 

and leverage the commercial industry to meet the needs carrying 

out the NRC mission more effectively, efficiently, and of course, 

affordably.

Sample areas may include:

• NRC Mobile Application: Leverage the rapid advances 

in COTS smartphone technology that have changed the 

game for creating custom, multi-platform applications that 

can dramatically boost our communications to reach out. 

• Disaster Recovery and Emergency Response: Figure 

out how to best use new commercial wireless 

technologies in our first response, disaster response, and 

Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans.

• Federal-Grade Mobile Security: information assurance 

for wireless voice communications, mobile printing, 

encrypt documentation and emails, end-point protection of 

computer virus etc.

Comment not accepted –

the Information Technology/ 

Information Management 

Strategic Plan covers this 

level of detail.