ML21194A179
| ML21194A179 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/2021 |
| From: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS/ELRB |
| To: | |
| Clark, P.M, NMSS/REFS/ELRB, 301-415-6447 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21194A166&, #65533 | List: |
| References | |
| EPID L-2020-SLE-0002 | |
| Download: ML21194A179 (65) | |
Text
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Town of Two Creeks, WI August 2021 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Introduction By letter dated November 16, 2020 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Package Accession No. ML20329A292), NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (NextEra, the applicant) submitted an application for subsequent license renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Point Beach), respectively, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission). The application was submitted pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 54, Requirements for renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants.
Point Beach is located in the Town of Two Creeks, WI, about 15 miles north-northeast of Manitowoc, WI. In its application, NextEra requests subsequent license renewal for a period of 20 years beyond the dates when the current renewed facility operating licenses expire.
Specifically, the new expiration dates would be October 5, 2030, for Point Beach, Unit 1, and March 8, 2033, for Point Beach, Unit 2.
The purpose of this report1 is to provide a concise summary of the determination of the scope of the NRC staffs environmental review of this application, incorporating stakeholder inputs. This report will briefly summarize the issues identified by the environmental impact statement scoping process associated with the NRC staffs review of NextEras subsequent license renewal application.
This report is structured in three sections:
A. The Point Beach Public Scoping Period B. Public Comments and Responses C. List of Commenters A.
The Point Beach Public Scoping Period
Background
The NextEra application and all other public documents relevant to the Point Beach subsequent license renewal are available in the NRCs Web-based ADAMS, which is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who encounter problems in accessing documents in ADAMS should contact the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
For additional information, the NRC staff has made available a Web site with specific information about the Point Beach subsequent license renewal application at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/point-beach-subsequent.html. This Web site includes application information, the licensing review schedule, opportunities for public involvement, project manager information, and other relevant 1 The NRCs requirements for conducting the scoping process and for preparing a scoping summary report are found at 10 CFR 51.29, Scoping-environmental impact statement and supplement to environmental impact statement.
information. In addition, important documents, including public comments, are available at the Federal rulemaking Web site, https://www.regulations.gov/, under Docket ID NRC-2020-0277.
As part of its application, NextEra submitted an environmental report (ER) to the NRC, available at ADAMS Accession No. ML20329A248. NextEra prepared the ER in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions, which contains the NRCs requirements for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).2 Renewal of a power reactor operating license requires preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), which is a supplement to the NRCs NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS). The GEIS is available in two main volumes at ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13106A241 and ML13106A242 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML13107A023).
In the GEIS, the NRC staff identified and evaluated the environmental impacts associated with license renewal of nuclear power plants. The NRC determined that several environmental issues were generic to all nuclear power plants (or, in some cases, to a distinct subset of plants that have specific characteristics, such as a type of cooling system). These generic issues were designated as Category 1 issues. An applicant for license renewal may adopt the conclusions contained in the GEIS for Category 1 issues without further evaluation unless there is new and significant information that may cause the conclusions for its plant to differ from those of the GEIS. Other issues that were not determined generically, and that require a site-specific review, were designated as Category 2 issues. They are required to be evaluated in the applicants ER.
Scoping Process and Objectives The first step in developing a SEIS is to conduct a public scoping process. On February 1, 2021, the NRC published a Federal Register (FR) notice describing the scoping process for the Point Beach subsequent license renewal application environmental review (86 FR 7747). This notice notified stakeholders about the NRC staffs intent to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and provided the public with an opportunity to participate in the environmental scoping process. The notice invited members of the public to submit written comments by March 3, 2021. In addition to written comments, oral comments were recorded at the public meeting held on February 17, 2021, via Webinar. All comments, both written and oral, were considered in the agencys scoping process.
The scoping process provided an opportunity for members of the public to propose environmental issues to be addressed in the SEIS and to highlight public concerns and issues.
This scoping summary report provides a summary of what the NRC heard during the scoping process, including a summary of the determinations and conclusions reached during the scoping process. The NRCs stated objectives of the scoping process were to:
Define the proposed action, which is to be the subject of the supplement to the GEIS.
2 The NRCs requirements for an environmental report supporting a license renewal application are found at 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3).
Gather data on the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth.
Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or are not significant or were covered by prior environmental review.
Identify any environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements (EISs) that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not part of, the scope of the supplement to the GEIS.
Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action.
Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the Commissions tentative planning and decisionmaking schedule.
Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the supplement to the GEIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies.
Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared, including any contractor assistance to be used.
The NRC staffs determinations and conclusions regarding the above objectives follow.
Define the Proposed Action The NRCs proposed action in this instance is to determine whether to renew the Point Beach operating licenses for an additional 20 years.
Scope of Review, Significant Issues, and Issues that are not Significant The scope of the SEIS includes an evaluation of the environmental impacts of and reasonable alternatives to Point Beachs subsequent license renewal. The Scoping Comments and Responses section of this report includes specific issues that the scoping comments identified.
The NRC staffs responses explain whether the issues will be addressed in the SEIS and, if so, where in the SEIS they will be addressed. Issues that are not significant, or otherwise out of scope (i.e., peripheral issues), are also identified.
For Point Beachs subsequent license renewal, the NRC staff will follow the structure provided in the GEIS. The GEIS evaluates 78 environmental issues related to plant operation and classifies each issue as either a Category 1 issue (generic to all or to a subset of nuclear power plants) or a Category 2 issue (specific to individual power plants). Unless new and significant information is discovered, the NRC will rely on the conclusions in the GEIS for all Category 1 issues. The NRC will reconsider generic impacts in the SEIS where there is new and significant information. The SEIS will discuss all Category 2 issues in depth.
The scoping comments were grouped into the following subject areas (the NRC staff has included in parentheses where the associated scoping comments are addressed in this report):
Aquatic Ecology and Special Status Species (Section B.1)
AlternativesReplacement Power and No-Action (Section B.2)
AlternativesTechnology and Mitigation (Section B.3)
Air Quality and Meteorology (Section B.4)
Climate Change (Section B.5)
Cumulative Impacts (Section B.6)
Decommissioning (Section B.7)
Environmental Justice (Section B.8)
General Environmental Concerns (Section B.9)
Geology and Soils (Section B.10)
Historic and Cultural Resources (Section B.11)
Human Health (Section B.12)
Postulated Accidents and Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA)
(Section B.13)
Radioactive Waste (Section B.14)
Socioeconomics (Section B.15)
Surface Water Hydrology and Quality (Section B.16)
Terrestrial Ecology and Special Status Species (Section B.17)
Uranium Fuel Cycle (Section B.18)
Transportation (Section B.19)
Support of License Renewal (Section B.20)
Opposition to License Renewal (Section B.21)
NEPA Process (Section B.22)
License Renewal Process (Section B.23)
Outside ScopeAging Management (Section B.24)
Outside ScopeEmergency Preparedness (Section B.25)
Outside ScopeEnergy Costs (Section B.26)
Outside ScopeNeed for Power (Section B.27)
Outside ScopeOther Non-License Renewal Actions (Section B.28)
Outside ScopeSafety Concerns (Section B.29)
Outside ScopeSecurity or Terrorism (Section B.30)
Outside ScopeOther Topics (Section B.31)
Identification of Related Environmental Assessments and Other Environmental Impact Statements The NRC staff did not identify any environmental assessments under preparation or soon to be prepared, which relate to, but are not within the scope of, the SEIS. Previously completed EISs will be used in the preparation of the Point Beach subsequent license renewal SEIS, as appropriate, including the GEIS and the SEIS for the initial license renewal of Point Beach (ADAMS Accession No. ML052230490).
Other Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements Concurrent with its NEPA review, the NRC staff is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to evaluate the potential impacts of the operation of Point Beach for an additional 20 years on endangered and threatened species and their critical habitat. Consistent with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the staff is also consulting with affected Indian Tribes and the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office (WSHPO) to fulfill its Section 106 obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA).
Timing of Agency Action and How the SEIS Will Be Prepared Upon completion of the scoping process and site audits, completion of its review of Point Beachs ER and related documents, and completion of its independent evaluations, the NRC staff will compile its findings in a draft SEIS. The staff will make the draft SEIS available for public comment. Based on the information gathered during this public comment period, the staff will amend the draft SEIS findings, as necessary, and will then publish the final SEIS. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.102 requirements, the NRC will prepare and provide a Record of Decision in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103. Concurrent with, but separate from this environmental review, the staff will document its safety review in a safety evaluation report (SER). The findings in the SEIS and the SER will be considerations in the NRCs decision to issue or deny the subsequent license renewal.
The NRC staff is currently scheduled to reach a decision on the subsequent license renewal by July 2022. Technical editing contractor assistance will be used to produce the draft SEIS and final SEIS. No technical contractor assistance will be used.
Identificaion of Cooperating Agencies No other Federal agencies are participating in the environmental review as a cooperating agency.
Future Opportunities for Public Participation The NRC staff plans to issue a draft SEIS (DSEIS) for public comment in October 2021. The DSEIS comment period will offer an opportunity for participants, such as the applicant; interested Federal, State, and local government agencies; Tribal governments; local organizations; and members of the public to provide further input to the agencys environmental review process. The DSEIS comments will be considered in the preparation of the final SEIS (FSEIS). Together, the FSEIS and the SER will identify the information considered and the evaluations that the staff performed and they will provide the basis for the NRCs decision on NextEras application for subsequent renewal of the Point Beach operating licenses.
Scoping Process Conclusion The comments provided during the environmental scoping process identified many important issues that the NRC staff will address in its DSEIS for Point Beachs subsequent license renewal. Issues not pertaining to the staffs environmental evaluation, or that are beyond the scope of subsequent license renewal, will not be considered in the DSEIS.
B.
Public Comments and Responses During the scoping period (86 FR 7747), the NRC received scoping comments that provided input for the SEIS. The staffs responses to scoping comments are summarized in this section.
Comments were grouped based on being in scope or out of scope, and comments with similar themes were further subgrouped to capture the resources concerned.
Each comment submittal was uniquely identified and when a submittal addressed multiple issues, the submittal was further divided into separate comments with tracking identifiers.
Section C contains a table that identifies the commenters, their affiliation if provided, and the ADAMS Accession No. to locate the correspondence.
B.1 Aquatic Ecology and Special Status Species Comment: The following comments address the operational and cumulative impacts on aquatic species and habitats. Several commenters expressed concern that continued thermal discharges from Point Beach may be contributing to algal blooms or otherwise disrupting the ecology of the aquatic food chain from plankton to larger species, including threatened and endangered species. Other commenters requested information about how facility discharge is monitored to assess ecological impacts. One commenter recommended academic and state regulatory resources. Another commenter expressed concern about the potential for impacts from contaminants in the discharge and their effect on aquatic life and on humans from consumption of fish or during aquatic recreational activities. Another commenter expressed concern regarding the impact of water intake operations at Point Beach on aquatic species and about the loss of ecologically important species due to impingement and entrainment. Several commenters requested consideration of cumulative effects from past operations, climate change, erosion, non-native species, and accidents to aquatic species and habitats, including threatened and endangered species and habitats.
Comments: (2-5) (2-6) (11-7) (12-4) (12-5) (13-9) (13-11) (14-1) (14-2) (26-8-1) (26-8-4)
(26-8-5) (26-8-6) (26-11-4) (26-11-5) (33-6) (33-7) (94-2) (95-2) (107-4) (114-3) (115-7) (117-8)
(125-2) (135-3) (141-2) (144-18) (144-19) (145-1-3) (145-1-5) (145-3-3) (145-3-4) (145-3-5)
(145-3-7) (156-3) (158-2) (171-15) (171-16) (175-2) (175-3) (177-1-15)
Response: The NRC staff will describe the physical and ecological aquatic environment in SEIS Sections 3.7 and 3.8 to include protected species and habitats, presence of contaminants, thermal plumes, and how these have previously affected nearby biota and ecological function.
The staff will consider past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future operational impacts of Point Beachs subsequent license renewal on the ecological environment and protected species and their habitats near the plant.
B.2 AlternativesReplacement Power and No-Action Comment: The following comments are related to alternative energy sources. Commenters stated that the SEIS must address both the benefits and impacts of alternative energy sources, including alternative nuclear technologies that could be used to replace the power that Point Beach generates. Commenters also noted that the analysis of energy alternatives should include energy-efficient measures and energy storage options.
Comments: (2-17) (2-18) (2-23) (3-2) (5-5) (5-6) (12-2) (13-16) (15-3) (23-15) (24-1-2) (24-32-1)
(24-36-1) (24-37-1) (24-73-2) (24-77-1) (24-81-1) (24-82-1) (24-84-2) (24-94-2) (24-94-3)
(24-99-1) (24-105-1) (24-108-2) (24-108-4) (25-6) (26-8-7) (26-11-2) (26-13-7) (26-15-1) (30-4)
(32-4) (33-3) (37-5) (49-2) (49-4) (52-3) (57-3) (63-2) (70-3) (75-6) (79-1) (79-2) (79-5) (79-6)
(80-2) (81-2) (109-2) (113-2) (115-10) (120-3-8) (125-7) (131-2) (132-2) (133-6) (138-1)
(145-4-14) (145-4-17) (145-4-21) (146-8) (146-12) (149-2) (152-2) (154-3) (162-10) (162-12)
(170-1) (170-2) (170-3) (177-2-10) (177-2-11) (177-2-12) (177-2-15)
Response: In the SEIS, the NRC staff will evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed action (i.e., subsequent license renewal for Point Beach), as well as a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action. The staff will identify alternatives in Chapter 2 and assess the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives in Chapter 3. The staff will also consider the feasibility of other technologies and approaches, including energy storage and demand-side management, as alternatives to subsequent license renewal.
B.3 AlternativesTechnology and Mitigation Comment: The following comments address alternative system designs. Commenters requested that the SEIS evaluate the environmental, economic, and safety impacts of continued operation of Point Beach Units 1 and 2, both separately and together. Commenters also requested that the SEIS consider license renewal terms for other than 20-year periods.
Comments: (2-22) (23-17) (25-7) (92-2) (98-1) (143-6) (145-1-16) (145-4-22) (177-2-16)
Response: The application before the NRC is for subsequent 20-year renewals of the operating licenses for Point Beach. The purpose and need for the NRCs proposed action is to provide an option to continue plant operations beyond the current licensing terms to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by the licensee, State, utility, system, and, where authorized, Federal (other than the NRC) energy policy decisionmakers.
Similarly, the decision to pursue continued operation of Point Beach as power generation sources is a decision that is made by other energy-planning decisionmakers and is outside the scope of this review.
In the SEIS, the NRC staff will evaluate a full range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, as well as mitigative measures. The staff will identify alternatives in Chapter 2 and assess their environmental impacts in Chapter 3. Applicable mitigation measures will be discussed in Chapter 4. However, it is not practical, nor reasonable, for the staff to evaluate the environmental impacts of operating each Point Beach unit separately, because environmental impact parameters are generally attributable to the plant as a whole. Similarly, the consideration of economic costs and benefits associated with operating each unit is outside the scope of subsequent license renewal (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)) and, therefore, will not be evaluated further. Concerns relevant to Point Beachs operational safety are also outside the scope of the subsequent license renewal environmental review and will be addressed in the NRCs parallel safety review under 10 CFR Part 54.
Comment: The following comments address alternative system designs. Commenters requested that the NRC staff evaluate the alternative of replacing the existing once-through cooling water system at Point Beach with cooling towers.
Comments: (95-1) (95-3) (95-4) (120-2-13)
Response: The NRC staff will describe the cooling water system used at Point Beach in Chapter 2, and it will assess the operational impacts of that system in Chapter 3. Point Beachs current Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit recognizes that the existing once-through cooling water system represents interim Best Technology Available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Additionally, the State of Wisconsin water quality permitting authority has not imposed a cooling tower requirement on the plant. Further, the NRC has limited authority under the Federal Clean Water Act and does not have the authority to ensure compliance with other regulatory authorities requirements. Therefore, there is no reasonable basis for a SEIS analysis of a mitigation alternative of replacing Point Beachs existing once-through cooling water system with cooling towers. The NRC does not have the regulatory authority to require that NextEra implement an alternative cooling water system as a condition of Point Beachs subsequent license renewal.
B.4 Air Quality and Meteorology Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expressed concerns pertaining to air quality as a result of increases in air emissions from construction equipment used during refurbishment and recommended mitigation measures with respect to diesel equipment.
Comments: (28-3) (28-4)
Response: The NRC staff will describe the affected environment on and around Point Beach relating to air quality and will address the impacts to air quality as a result of the proposed action (subsequent license renewal) in Section 3.3 of the SEIS. The staff notes that it is beyond the NRCs authority to require NextEra to implement the recommended mitigation measures to minimize diesel emissions. The NRCs authority is limited by statute to the protection of the public health and safety from the effects of radiation from nuclear reactors, materials, and waste facilities.
B.5 Climate Change Comment: Commenters requested that the SEIS consider climate change impacts. In particular, commenters requested that the SEIS include a discussion of the impacts of Lake Michigans water level changes and rising water temperatures. Commenters raised concerns about the impacts of rising Lake Michigan water levels and climate change on future nuclear plant operation.
Comments: (2-8) (5-2) (11-6) (13-4) (13-12) (13-13) (23-14) (25-4) (26-9-1) (33-8) (55-2) (75-2)
(75-5) (90-4) (100-1) (100-2) (107-11) (110-1-8) (110-1-9) (110-2-5) (110-2-6) (115-8) (122-3)
(125-4) (143-3) (144-21) (145-2-7) (145-2-11) (145-3-11) (145-3-13) (146-1) (148-7) (156-4)
(160-4) (162-3) (162-18) (168-3) (168-9) (168-11) (177-1-8) (177-1-19)
Response: In Section 3.15.3 of the SEIS, the NRC staff will discuss observed changes in climate and potential future climate changes during the subsequent license renewal term, based on climate model simulations under future global greenhouse gas emission scenarios. The staff will also consider the potential cumulative, or overlapping, impacts from climate change on environmental resources where there are incremental impacts of the proposed action. While the SEIS will consider the potential effects of climate change on environmental resource conditions, the effects of climate change on the safety of Point Beach structures, systems, and components are outside the scope of the staffs license renewal environmental review. Rather, an operating nuclear power plant is subject to continuous NRC oversight under the Reactor Oversight Process, wherein emerging safety and security issues are addressed. In the event action is needed to ensure public safety, the NRC would require it as part of its oversight of the operating license, outside the scope of license renewal.
Comment: The commenters requested that the SEIS consider life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with nuclear power plants and compare greenhouse gas emissions from continued operation of Point Beach and replacement power alternatives.
Comments: (44-3) (49-1) (145-5-4) (145-5-6)
Response: The NRC staff will quantify direct greenhouse gas emissions under the proposed action of subsequent license renewal of Point Beach, and from alternatives to the proposed action, in Section 3.15.3 of the SEIS. The staff notes that Section 4.12.3.1 of the GEIS discusses life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with nuclear power generation, natural gas power generation, coal power generation, and renewable energy sources.
B.6 Cumulative Impacts Comment: The following comments requested that the NRC staff conduct a thorough analysis of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future cumulative actions potentially impacting the quality of the human environment, including both short-and long-term impacts.
Commenters specifically requested analysis of potential cumulative impacts to surface water and groundwater resources.
Comments: (109-7) (141-11) (158-10) (171-14)
Response: Consistent with the NRCs NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part 51), the NRC staff will analyze all of the environmental impacts that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action. In Chapter 3 of the SEIS, the impacts of the proposed action will be analyzed in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at Point Beach.
B.7 Decommissioning Comment: The following comments are concerned with the impacts of the no-action alternative, decommissioning, and the continued storage of nuclear waste and spent fuel at Point Beach. Commenters stated that, in the SEIS, the NRC must address the impacts of the no-action alternative, decommissioning, nuclear waste and spent fuel storage, and returning the Point Beach site to its original natural condition.
Comments: (2-20) (86-8) (109-5) (109-6) (110-2-18) (134-5) (144-2) (145-4-19) (155-1)
(177-2-13)
Response: The environmental impacts of no-action, decommissioning, and the continued storage of nuclear waste and spent fuel at Point Beach will be addressed during the environmental review. While the NRC will make its decision to renew the operating licenses on the basis of safety and environmental considerations, the final decision to continue plant operations will be made by the licensee, State, utility, system, and, in some cases, Federal (non-NRC) decisionmakers. Their decision will be based on economics, energy reliability goals, and other objectives over which they may have jurisdiction. The impacts of decommissioning nuclear plants are also evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (NUREG-0586, Supplement 1) (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML023470327, ML023500228, and ML023500295). A separate environmental review will be conducted in response to the license termination plan, required to be submitted by the licensee at least two years before termination of the license, demonstrating, among other things, that the facility and site will meet the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The impacts from the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel after the termination of reactor operations are addressed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (NUREG-2157) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14198A440). The environmental impact of the no-action alternative, including the shutdown of Point Beach, will be discussed for each resource area in Chapter 3 of the SEIS.
Comment: The following comments are concerned with the financial viability of NextEra to completely decommission Point Beach, including maintaining the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel. Commenters requested assurance from the NRC that sufficient funds will be available to complete the decommissioning of Point Beach while maintaining spent fuel storage facilities.
Comments: (2-21) (26-15-3) (86-7) (110-1-21) (110-2-8) (110-2-10) (110-2-16) (145-4-20)
(177-2-14)
Response: The NRCs regulations at 10 CFR 50.75 require a nuclear power plant licensee to provide reasonable assurance that funds will be available for decommissioning the plant. To comply with this requirement, NextEra has established for Point Beach a Decommissioning Trust Fund in which the total amount of funds would be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs at the time permanent termination of operations is expected. NextEra is required to submit a biannual, publicly available status report that updates the Point Beach Decommissioning Trust Fund status. The status of the Point Beach Decommissioning Trust Fund is outside the scope of license renewal environmental reviews because it is a current operating, as opposed to an aging management, issue and, therefore, will not be evaluated further in the SEIS.
As explained in the GEIS, the NRC has developed regulations and guidance for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. These include 10 CFR 50.82, Termination of license, Subpart E, Radiological criteria for license termination, to 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for protection against radiation, and Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance (NUREG-1757) (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML063000243, ML063000252, and ML12048A683).
At the end of decommissioning, the nuclear power plant site and any remaining structures can be released for unrestricted or restricted use. The radiological criteria for releasing nuclear power plant sites for unrestricted use are specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. The environmental impacts from radiological and nonradiological accidents during decontamination and decommissioning are evaluated in NUREG-0586.
B.8 Environmental Justice Comment: Several commenters recommended that the NRC meet with environmental justice communities, including low-income, minority, and Tribal populations, during the license renewal environmental review. Commenters also recommended that the environmental justice impact analysis consider a range of environmental impact pathways.
Comments: (23-13) (26-2-1) (49-5) (118-3) (127-3) (162-16) (166-2)
Response: The environmental justice impacts of license renewal, including spent fuel storage and postulated accidents during the renewal term, will be addressed in Chapter 3 of the SEIS.
All Tribes potentially affected by the continued operation of Point Beach will be contacted and consulted, if requested, during the environmental review. The environmental justice impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, including mining and milling, are addressed in separate NEPA documents associated with those facilities. The environmental justice impacts from the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel after the termination of reactor operations are addressed in NUREG-2157.
B.9 General Environmental Concerns Comment: Commenters expressed general concerns about the environment. Many commenters requested that the NRC staff conduct a thorough environmental impact assessment and evaluate issues including air quality, water supply and quality, waste generation, climate change, economic impacts, and ecological impacts on habitats and species.
Some commenters expressed concern about mitigation plans.
Comments: (2-24) (24-7-1) (24-9-1) (24-17-1) (24-26-1) (24-31-1) (24-35-1) (24-47-1) (24-51-1)
(24-91-2) (24-100-1) (24-102-1) (24-114-1) (26-11-1) (63-1) (100-7) (110-1-2) (110-1-6) (117-7)
(141-3) (141-6) (141-8) (141-10) (145-1-14) (145-4-18) (145-5-3) (148-2) (149-3) (158-3)
(158-7) (158-9) (168-1) (177-2-17)
Response: In the SEIS, the NRC staff will consider the issues identified in these comments, among other matters. The staff will describe the affected environment at Point Beach in Chapter 3 of the SEIS and will evaluate the environmental impact of renewing the operating licenses for Point Beach. Mitigation was considered for Category 1 issues in the GEIS. The staff will review any new and significant information not included in the GEIS, including appropriate mitigation for all Category 2 (i.e., plant-specific) issues.
B.10 Geology and Soils Comment: The following comment addresses the geology and soils of the Point Beach site and vicinity.
Comment: (145-1-12)
Response: The geologic environment and soils of the Point Beach site will be described in Section 3.4 of the SEIS. Impact issues related to geology and soils were evaluated in the GEIS and were determined to be Category 1 (i.e., generic) issues. Any new and significant information concerning geologic and soil impacts will be discussed in Section 3.4 of the SEIS.
Comment: The following comments address the occurrence and frequency of seismic events at Point Beach and the potential effects of a seismic event on the plant.
Comments: (86-3) (107-7) (107-14) (145-1-10)
Response: The seismic setting of the Point Beach site will be briefly summarized in Section 3.4 of the SEIS. However, the potential effects of seismic activity on Point Beach are outside the scope of the license renewal environmental review and, therefore, will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS. The potential effects of seismic activity on operating reactors are evaluated by the NRC in an ongoing process that is separate from the license renewal process.
B.11 Historic and Cultural Resources Comment: These comments are related to the NRCs request for Section 106 consultation under the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.). The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi stated that it did not object to the proposed project. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma stated that it is not aware of any historic documentation that would link a specific Miami Tribe of Oklahoma cultural or historic site to the proposed site, but would like to be immediately consulted if any human remains or Native American cultural items pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act or archaeological evidence is discovered during any phase of the project. The Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office (WSHPO) accepted the invitation to participate in consultation and requested that an architectural resources survey be conducted of Point Beach, including all ancillary buildings and structures, to identify all structures that meet the 50-year threshold for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The WSHPO also requested that NextEra update its equivalent Historic Properties Management Plan to include architectural resources.
Comments: (29-1) (179-1) (180-1) (180-2)
Response: The NRC appreciates the responses from the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, and the WSHPO. The NRC is conducting Section 106 consultation through NEPA in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c). The regulations in 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of historic properties, require that the NRC consult with any Indian Tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that a proposed action/undertaking may affect. The NRCs ongoing Section 106 consultation with consulting parties will be described in Section 3.9 of the SEIS. This section will also identify and describe historic and cultural resources that subsequent license renewal may affect.
Comment: Commenters expressed concerns related to NextEras Tribal outreach efforts and information not mentioned in communications from NextEra to Indian Tribes regarding human health and waste management. Commenters requested that the NRC initiate Tribal interactions.
Comments: (145-4-10) (165-7) (167-4)
Response: The NRC is independently conducting NHPA Section 106 consultation through NEPA in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c). The regulations in 36 CFR Part 800 establish the requirements for the NRC to consult with any Indian Tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that the proposed action may affect. The NRC will describe ongoing Section 106 consultation for the Point Beach subsequent license renewal in Section 3.9 of the SEIS. Additionally, Sections 3.11 and 3.13 will describe human health and waste management impacts associated with the proposed action.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the SEIS consider the impacts to historic and cultural resources and that the NRC consult with Indian Tribes. Commenters expressed concerns related to: the fact that no cultural resource surveys were conducted before original construction or ongoing construction activities at the Point Beach site; impacts to unknown cultural resources that have yet to be identified on the Point Beach site in addition to those already identified; the fact that Point Beachs historic and cultural resource procedures are not publicly available; and consideration of treaty rights.
Comments: (110-1-11) (141-4) (145-1-13) (158-4) (165-1) (165-2) (165-3) (165-4) (165-6)
(166-3) (166-4) (166-5) (166-6) (167-1) (167-2) (167-3) (167-5)
Response: The NRC staff will identify and describe historic and cultural resources that may be impacted by subsequent license renewal in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. The SEIS will discuss cultural resource surveys that have been conducted within the Point Beach site boundary and NextEras onsite cultural resource protection procedures. The staff identified cession treaties affecting the location of the Point Beach site and immediate vicinity, but the treaties did not contain continuing hunting, fishing, or gathering rights that affect the Point Beach area (Treaty of Washington (7 Stat. 342) amended).
The NRC is independently conducting NHPA Section 106 consultation through NEPA in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c). The regulations in 36 CFR Part 800 require the NRC to consult with any Indian Tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by a proposed action/undertaking. The NRC will describe its ongoing Section 106 consultation for the Point Beach subsequent license renewal in Chapter 3 of the SEIS.
B.12 Human Health Comment: Commenters expressed concern about the availability of radiological monitoring data and the risks to both plant workers and the public posed by radioactive releases in air and water from Point Beach Units 1 and 2.
Comments: (24-55-1) (26-7-4) (26-14-3) (30-1) (35-2) (35-4) (104-3) (110-1-16) (115-6) (119-1)
(119-2) (119-3) (119-4) (119-6) (120-1-18) (120-2-1) (120-2-2) (120-2-4) (120-2-15) (120-2-16)
(120-2-17) (120-2-18) (120-2-19) (120-2-20) (120-3-2) (120-3-9) (120-3-10) (125-1) (125-6)
(129-4) (133-5) (135-2) (143-5) (144-11) (144-17) (145-1-2) (145-1-7) (145-1-9) (145-3-16)
(145-3-17) (145-4-5) (148-4) (154-1) (156-1) (156-5) (156-11) (162-15) (162-17) (165-5) (171-2)
(171-7) (171-8) (171-11) (175-5) (176-2) (177-1-11) (177-1-17) (177-2-7)
Response: Nuclear power reactors routinely release radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents into the environment. The NRC requires these effluents to be monitored and controlled to protect the public health and safety in accordance with its radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20. Each nuclear power plant has radiation monitoring instruments and procedures to control the release of these radioactive effluents and must submit an annual radioactive effluent release report to the NRC. This report summarizes the types and quantities of radioactive materials released into the environment. The annual radioactive effluent release reports for Point Beach are publicly available in the NRCs Web-based ADAMS, which is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Links to these reports are also provided on the NRCs Web site for Point Beach (accessible at https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/poin1.html and https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/poin2.html under the Plant Environmental Report heading). Radiation exposure to workers and the public was evaluated in the GEIS, wherein the impacts were determined to be SMALL and a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue if the releases and doses do not exceed the permissible levels in the NRCs regulations. The NRC staff will consider whether any new and significant information relative to human health has been identified; if so, it will evaluate this new information in applicable sections of Chapters 2 and 3 of the SEIS.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern about whether the SEIS will address risks to women, pregnant woman, children, and infants.
Comments: (26-14-1) (26-14-2) (30-2) (117-1) (120-3-11) (127-2) (156-10) (163-4) (171-1)
(176-3) (177-1-12)
Response: Current radiological limits that protect the public health and safety are carefully considered from the recommendations of national and international scientific review boards and are conservative to protect children as well as adults. Radiation exposure to the public was evaluated in the GEIS, wherein the impacts were determined to be SMALL and a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue if the releases and doses do not exceed the permissible levels in the NRCs regulations. The NRC staff will consider whether any new and significant information relative to human health has been identified; if so, it will evaluate this new information in Section 3.11 and other applicable sections of the SEIS.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern about the risk to the public from radionuclides in Lake Michigan and the groundwater.
Comments: (1-3) (14-3) (71-6) (110-1-7) (110-1-13) (144-12) (145-1-4) (145-1-6) (145-1-8)
(145-3-9) (145-3-10) (168-13)
Response: Radiation exposure to the public was evaluated in the GEIS, wherein the impacts were determined to be SMALL and a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue if the releases and doses do not exceed the permissible levels in the NRCs regulations. The NRC staff will consider whether any new and significant information relative to human health has been identified; if so, it will evaluate this new information in the appropriate sections of SEIS Chapters 2 and 3. The issue of radionuclides released to groundwater was evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 2 (i.e., plant-specific) issue. The staff will discuss groundwater hydrology and groundwater quality, including the presence of radionuclides, in and around the Point Beach site in Section 3.5.2 of the SEIS. The staff will also address the potential impacts of the proposed action (subsequent license renewal) on groundwater resources in Section 3.5.2 of the SEIS.
Comment: The commenters expressed concern regarding the presence of Carbon-14 in effluents from nuclear reactors.
Comments: (26-18-3) (145-5-5) (145-5-9)
Response: Carbon-14 is formed in nuclear reactors due to absorption of neutrons by carbon, nitrogen, or oxygen. These elements may be present as components of the fuel, moderator, or structural hardware, or they may be present as impurities. Air emissions, including emissions of radionuclides, were evaluated in the GEIS and were determined to be Category 1 (i.e., generic) issues. Any new and significant information concerning gaseous radionuclide emissions will be addressed in applicable sections of Chapters 2 and 3 of the SEIS.
Comment: The following comment expressed concerns about the accuracy of the Radiation Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) at Point Beach and requested an expansion of the REMP.
Comment: (120-3-1)
Response: The REMP is designed to provide data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactive materials in the environment around a nuclear power plant. The results of the REMP are intended to supplement the results of the radiological effluent monitoring program by verifying that the measurable concentrations of radioactive material and levels of radiation are not higher than expected, based on the effluent measurements and modeling of the environmental exposure pathways. The two programs work together as a check against each other. The REMP provides measurements of radiation and radioactive materials in those exposure pathways and for those radionuclides which lead to the highest potential radiation exposure to members of the public. Separate from the NRCs license renewal environmental review, the NRC staff reviews Point Beachs REMP as part of its ongoing inspection program.
Radiation exposure to the public was evaluated in the GEIS, wherein the impacts were determined to be SMALL and a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue if the releases and doses do not exceed the permissible levels in the NRCs regulations. The staff will consider whether any new and significant information relative to human health has been identified; if so, it will evaluate this new information in Chapters 2 and 3 of the SEIS. The staff will discuss the latest available results from the Point Beach REMP and effluent release monitoring program in Chapter 2 of the SEIS.
B.13 Postulated Accidents and Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA)
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about postulated accidents, including those caused by tornados, earthquakes, or the embrittlement of the Point Beach reactor vessels. Specific concerns included such possible accident consequences as acute fatalities, radiation injuries, cancers (particularly thyroid cancers), environmental contamination, radioactive releases, spills, fire risks, impacts on drinking water and Lake Michigan, impacts on wildlife and forests, and the impacts of lake level rise. In addition, commenters inquired about the potential causes of accidents, citing the accidents that took place at nuclear power plants in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Commenters also expressed concerns about the impact on vulnerable populations, the potential economic impacts of accidents, and accidents involving multiple nuclear power generating units.
Comments: (2-3) (2-4) (4-2) (11-2) (12-3) (13-2) (15-5) (23-7) (23-8) (23-9) (23-10) (25-5)
(26-1-2) (26-7-1) (26-10-4) (26-10-6) (26-10-7) (26-11-3) (26-13-5) (26-15-2) (32-1) (33-4)
(77-2) (77-3) (77-5) (94-4) (109-1) (110-1-14) (111-6) (115-4) (116-2) (116-3) (116-5) (117-4)
(117-9) (120-1-14) (120-3-16) (120-3-17) (120-3-19) (125-3) (125-5) (125-13) (133-1) (144-10)
(145-3-15) (145-3-19) (145-5-13) (145-6-12) (146-3) (148-1) (148-6) (160-5) (163-3) (176-1)
(176-5) (177-1-10) (177-1-14)
Response: The GEIS determined that the environmental impacts of design basis accidents are SMALL for all plants. In addition, for severe accidents, the GEIS determined that the probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are SMALL for all plants. The NRC staff will consider any new and significant information that could affect the environmental impacts related to postulated severe accidents or that could affect the results of a previous severe accident mitigation alternative assessment in Chapter 3 and Appendix F of the SEIS.
B.14 Radioactive Waste Comment: Commenters expressed concern about the additional nuclear waste to be generated over the additional 20 years of plant operation and questioned whether there is sufficient onsite storage capacity at Point Beach. Commenters also expressed concern with NextEras ability to finance additional onsite storage.
Comments: (1-2) (2-2) (5-1) (13-6) (26-4-1) (105-3) (110-1-19) (143-2) (145-2-5) (156-8)
(169-1) (177-1-6)
Response: NextEra indicates in its ER that an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) expansion may be needed to accommodate the additional spent fuel generated during the period of extended operation, and that the ISFSI expansion would occur generally west of the existing facility within the ISFSI-defined area. The environmental impacts of an ISFSI expansion to accommodate additional spent fuel will be addressed as part of the cumulative impacts analysis in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. Regarding costs, in 10 CFR 72.22(e), the NRC requires licensees to demonstrate the financial qualifications to cover the estimated operating costs over the planned life of the ISFSI. The financial qualifications of the applicant are outside the scope of license renewal environmental reviews because they are not an aging management issue and, therefore, will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
Comment: Commenters stated that NextEra should provide assurance of its financial resources to store spent nuclear fuel during the licensing period without compromising the ability to fund decommissioning. Commenters also expressed concern regarding who will be responsible for the costs of removing spent fuel from the site and transporting it to a permanent repository.
Comments: (110-2-1) (110-2-2) (110-2-3) (110-2-12) (110-2-13) (125-12) (145-3-1)
Response: The regulations in 10 CFR 72.22(e) require licensees to demonstrate their financial qualifications to cover the estimated operating costs over the planned life of the ISFSI for both the storage of spent nuclear fuel and the estimated decommissioning costs. The financial qualifications of the applicant and the costs for transportation of spent fuel are outside the scope of the environmental review and, therefore, will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
Comment: The following comments suggested that the SEIS should include an assessment of low-level radioactive waste.
Comments: (70-2) (110-1-12)
Response: The generation of low-level radioactive waste by operating nuclear power plants was evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue applicable to all plants. The GEIS evaluated all impacts associated with the low-level radioactive waste for all nuclear power plants, including Point Beach, and determined that the impact was SMALL. Any new and significant information concerning low-level radioactive waste will be addressed in Chapters 2 and 3 of the SEIS.
B.15 Socioeconomics Comment: Commenters suggested that the SEIS should address the socioeconomic impacts associated with property values being adversely affected by continued Point Beach operations.
One commenter stated that there was a measurable population flight away from the Point Beach reactors in the short time period after the first 20-year license renewal.
Comments: (26-8-8) (70-1) (109-3) (115-11) (145-1-18)
Response: The socioeconomic impacts of license renewal will be discussed in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. However, the economic costs and benefits of renewing an operating license are outside the scope of the environmental review. The regulation, 10 CFR 51.95(c)(2), states, in part, The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation."
While the NRC makes its decision whether to renew an operating license on the basis of safety and environmental considerations, the final decision to continue operating Point Beach is made by the licensee, State, utility, system, and, in some cases, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers based on considerations such as economics, energy reliability goals, and other objectives over which they may have jurisdiction.
Comment: Several commenters asked that the SEIS address the social and economic impacts on the human environment from the proposed action, both positive and negative, including impacts to housing, aesthetics, business climate, property values, noise, and other concerns.
Comments: (2-19) (141-5) (141-9) (145-1-15) (158-5) (158-8)
Response: Community services and education, population and housing, aesthetics, and noise are evaluated in the GEIS. Any new and significant information at Point Beach concerning the socioeconomic impacts of license renewal will be addressed in Section 3.10 of the SEIS.
Comment: Several commenters asked that the NRC address the impacts of the no-action alternative in the SEIS and suggested that various alternatives to the continued operation of Point Beach might result in beneficial socioeconomic impacts or less adverse impacts.
Commenters also expressed concern over the cost effectiveness and impacts of nuclear power compared to alternative means of power generation.
Comments: (2-11) (23-16) (30-5) (145-4-2) (146-5) (163-9) (177-2-3)
Response: The socioeconomic impacts of the no-action alternative, including plant closure, will be addressed for each resource area in Chapter 3 of the SEIS and the impacts of nuclear plant closure have been evaluated in NUREG-0586. The impacts of various alternative means of power generation will also be addressed in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. While the NRC makes its decision whether to renew an operating license on the basis of safety and environmental considerations, the final decision to continue operating Point Beach is made by the licensee, State, utility, system, and, in some cases, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers based on considerations such as economics, energy reliability goals, and other objectives over which they may have jurisdiction.
B.16 Surface Water Hydrology and Quality Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about Point Beachs use of water from and its subsequent discharge to Lake Michigan. These concerns related to the volume of water withdrawn, surface water use conflicts, impacts to lake water quality (including thermal impacts),
and monitoring requirements.
Comments: (11-5) (23-5) (23-6) (24-44-3) (25-3) (100-5) (107-5) (107-16) (120-2-12) (120-2-14)
(120-3-3) (125-10) (135-1) (145-3-8) (148-3) (171-13) (175-1) (175-4) (177-1-16)
Response: The NRC staff will describe Point Beachs cooling and auxiliary water systems in Section 2.1.3 of the SEIS. Section 3.5.1 of the SEIS will describe the plants cooling water withdrawals and the existing monitoring of the plants cooling water discharges. The impacts of license renewal and the continued operation of Point Beach on surface water resources and aquatic resources will be considered in Sections 3.5 and 3.7 of the SEIS, respectively.
Surface water use conflicts at operating nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems were evaluated in the GEIS and were determined to be a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue. Altered thermal stratification of lakes was evaluated in the GEIS and was determined to be a Category 1 issue. At operating nuclear power plants, the effects of thermal stratification from plant cooling water discharge were found to be limited to the vicinity of discharge structures. Any new and significant information concerning these issues will be discussed in Sections 3.5 and 3.7 of the SEIS.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns that Point Beachs discharges could cause erosion, impacting site soils, the shoreline, the lake bottom, and the aquatic environment.
Comments: (2-7) (13-10) (26-8-3) (145-3-6) (177-1-18)
Response: The NRC staff will consider the impacts of continued operation of Point Beach on surface water resources and aquatic resources, including the discharge of cooling water, in Sections 3.5 and 3.7 of the SEIS. Scouring caused by discharged cooling water was evaluated in the GEIS and was determined to be a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue. Any new and significant information concerning scouring and other effects caused by plant water discharge will be discussed in the SEIS.
B.17 Terrestrial Ecology and Special Status Species Comment: One commenter requested that the SEIS include an assessment of potential impacts to migratory birds that may result from replacing Point Beach with an alternative, non-thermal plant.
Comment: (49-3)
Response: The NRC staff will address the impacts of various alternative means of power generation on terrestrial resources, including migratory birds, in Section 3.6 of the SEIS.
Comment: One commenter described a number of threatened and endangered species and a critical habitat that the FWS has listed as being in the vicinity of the Point Beach site and expressed concern for these species. The same commenter suggested that the SEIS should include how these threatened and endangered species and other nearby species that may be at risk will be protected.
Comment: (144-20)
Response: Threatened and endangered species and critical habitat on the plant site will be addressed as a Category 2 (i.e., plant-specific) issue in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. The NRC staff will also conduct appropriate consultation under the Endangered Species Act.
B.18 Uranium Fuel Cycle Comment: The following comments address the uranium fuel cycle. Commenters stated that the SEIS should consider the environmental impacts of the uranium mining and processing required to provide fuel for Point Beach for an additional 20 years of operation. Commenters also expressed concern about the environmental impacts from energy use in the uranium fuel cycle.
Comments: (12-6) (23-11) (23-12) (26-11-6) (33-10) (109-4) (156-9)
Response: Uranium fuel cycle issues were evaluated in the GEIS and were determined to be Category 1 (i.e., generic) issues. The NRC staff will consider whether any new and significant information relative to the uranium fuel cycle has been identified; if so, it will evaluate this new information in Section 3.15 of the SEIS.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the safety of storing spent nuclear fuel on site and about where the spent fuel will be stored long-term. Commenters also expressed concerns about the integrity of spent fuel storage casks and how such casks are monitored. Commenters requested that the SEIS include information on the movement and onsite storage of spent fuel.
Comments: (1-1) (2-1) (4-1) (15-2) (19-1) (23-2) (25-2) (26-2-2) (26-9-3) (33-9) (56-2) (60-7)
(75-1) (75-4) (90-2) (100-8) (100-12) (104-6) (104-7) (105-1) (105-2) (110-1-18) (110-2-14)
(115-3) (126-1) (129-1) (133-3) (144-4) (145-1-19) (145-2-2) (145-2-3) (145-2-6) (145-2-12)
(145-2-13) (145-2-15) (145-2-16) (145-2-18) (146-4) (146-6) (177-1-4) (177-1-5)
Response: Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel was evaluated in the GEIS, as reaffirmed by the NRCs 2014 Final Rule on Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (79 FR 56238). It was determined to be a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue. For the period after the licensed life for reactor operations, the impacts of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are discussed in NUREG-2157 and, as stated in 10 CFR 51.23(b), shall be deemed incorporated into the SEIS. The NRC certifies casks approved for storage of spent nuclear fuel in accordance with 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related greater than Class C waste. The NRC requires the evaluation of natural hazards, including storms and flooding, on the safety of spent fuel storage as part of its oversight of the current operating license and, therefore, this issue is outside the scope of license renewal. The NRC staff will consider whether any new and significant information relative to spent nuclear fuel storage has been identified; if so, it will evaluate this new information in the applicable sections of Chapters 2 and 3 of the SEIS.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern about safe storage, as well as the long-term (permanent) storage and disposal, of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel.
Comments: (10-1) (11-4) (12-8) (23-4) (24-1-1) (24-3-1) (24-4-1) (24-13-1) (24-20-1) (24-29-1)
(24-37-2) (24-43-3) (24-44-1) (24-60-2) (24-84-3) (24-91-1) (24-107-1) (24-107-2) (24-111-1)
(26-1-1) (26-11-7) (26-13-2) (26-13-3) (26-15-6) (26-15-7) (30-3) (32-2) (80-1) (90-5) (94-1)
(100-11) (107-12) (120-3-7) (121-1) (131-1) (134-4) (135-6) (139-1) (144-6) (145-2-1) (145-3-2)
(145-5-10) (145-6-7) (160-7) (162-14) (162-24) (163-7) (169-2) (172-2)
Response: Regarding spent fuel storage during the licensed life of reactor operations including the subsequent license renewal termthe NRC evaluated the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel in the GEIS. As the NRCs 2014 Final Rule on Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (79 FR 56238) reconfirms, onsite storage during the license renewal term was determined to be a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue applicable to all plants with SMALL environmental impacts. The NRC staff will describe the management of radioactive waste in Chapters 2 and 3 of the SEIS and will consider any new and significant information regarding radioactive waste impacts from renewing the operating licenses for Point Beach in Section 3.13 of the SEIS.
For the storage period after the licensed life of reactor operations, the impacts from onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are discussed in NUREG-2157 and, as stated in 10 CFR 51.23(b), shall be deemed incorporated into the SEIS.
This issue will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
Regarding permanent storage and disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 authorized the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to dispose of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and spent nuclear fuel. Siting and construction of a high-level waste storage facility is the responsibility of the DOE. The NRCs role is to serve as the independent regulator for the design, construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of the repository.
Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and HLW disposal are discussed in Section 4.11.1.3 of the GEIS. This is a Category 1 issue with no specific level of significance assigned. Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 states that, The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR [P]art 54 should be eliminated. This issue will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
Comment: The following comments relate to waste management. Commenters questioned the energy requirements of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel in pools, the capacity of the spent fuel pools to store additional fuel, the potential disruption from extreme weather events, and what portion of the stored fuel would be high burn-up fuel.
Comments: (13-3) (26-13-4) (146-14) (162-20) (177-1-7)
Response: Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel was determined in the GEIS, as reaffirmed by the NRCs 2014 Final Rule on Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (79 FR 56238), to be a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue with SMALL environmental impacts during the license renewal term. The NRC staff will describe the management of radioactive waste in Chapters 2 and 3 of the SEIS and will consider whether any new and significant information regarding radioactive waste impacts from renewing the Point Beach licenses has been identified; if so, it will evaluate this new information in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. The NRC requires evaluation of natural hazards, including storms and flooding, on the safety of spent fuel storage as part of its oversight of the current operating license. Therefore, the evaluation of natural hazards is outside the scope of license renewal and will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for the safety of onsite storage of spent fuel and the uranium fuel cycle.
Comments: (37-4) (40-2) (65-2) (86-5) (96-2) (106-5)
Response: Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel was determined in the GEIS, as reaffirmed by the NRCs 2014 Final Rule on Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (79 FR 56238), to be a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue with SMALL environmental impacts during the license renewal term. For the period after the licensed life of reactor operations, the impacts from onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are discussed in NUREG-2157 and, as stated in 10 CFR 51.23(b), shall be deemed incorporated into the SEIS. The NRC staff will consider whether any new and significant information relative to spent nuclear fuel storage and the uranium fuel cycle has been identified; if so, it will evaluate this new information in Chapter 3 of the SEIS.
B.19 Transportation Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the transportation of unirradiated fuel, spent nuclear fuel, and radioactive waste. Specific concerns included barge transport of radioactive material on Lake Michigan, transportation accidents and spills, transportation doses and risks, numbers of shipments, impacts of transportation accidents on Lake Michigan, the potential for nuclear criticality after a transportation accident on Lake Michigan, transportation cask recovery from Lake Michigan, and the transport of large components, such as steam generators, on Lake Michigan.
Comments: (1-4) (2-9) (13-5) (26-16-1) (31-2) (94-3) (100-9) (115-9) (133-4) (136-1) (136-3)
(137-1) (137-2) (137-3) (144-5) (145-2-8) (145-2-9) (145-2-10) (145-3-14) (155-2) (155-3)
(162-21) (177-1-9) (177-2-1)
Response: Transportation of unirradiated fuel, spent nuclear fuel, and radioactive waste was analyzed in Section 4.12.1.1 of the GEIS. In the GEIS, the NRC staff evaluated the impacts from transporting unirradiated fuel; spent nuclear fuel, including high burn-up fuel; and radioactive waste to and from nuclear power plants on workers, the public, and the environment.
As discussed in the GEIS, Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52 forms the basis for analysis of these impacts in evaluating the applications for license renewal from owners of light water reactors.
Transportation by truck, rail, and barge was analyzed in WASH-1238, which serves as the basis for Table S-4. The applicability of Table S-4 for license renewal applications was studied extensively in the 1996 GEIS and its Addendum 1. The impacts were found to be SMALL, and a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue. The staff will consider whether any new and significant information relative to the uranium fuel cycle has been identified; if so, it will evaluate this new information in Section 3.15 of the SEIS.
B.20 Support of License Renewal Comment: The following comments express support for nuclear power, NextEra, or the renewal of the operating licenses for Point Beach. The commenters cited various reasons for their support, including the clean energy and grid reliability provided by nuclear power, NextEras environmental record, the safe operation of Point Beach by NextEra, and the positive impact on the community by NextEra and its employees.
Comments: (3-1) (7-1) (8-1) (16-1) (16-2) (16-3) (16-4) (26-6-1) (26-6-2) (26-6-3) (26-6-4)
(26-6-5) (26-6-6) (34-1) (36-1) (37-1) (37-2) (37-3) (37-6) (38-1) (39-1) (40-1) (40-3) (41-2)
(41-3) (41-4) (41-6) (42-1) (44-1) (44-4) (45-1) (46-1) (47-1) (47-2) (48-1) (50-1) (50-2) (50-3)
(51-1) (52-1) (52-2) (53-1) (54-1) (55-1) (57-1) (57-4) (57-5) (58-1) (59-1) (59-2) (59-3) (61-1)
(61-2) (61-3) (61-4) (61-5) (61-6) (62-1) (64-1) (64-2) (65-1) (66-1) (67-1) (68-1) (69-1) (72-1)
(73-1) (74-1) (76-1) (76-2) (76-3) (81-1) (81-3) (81-4) (83-1) (83-2) (84-1) (85-1) (86-1) (86-2)
(86-4) (86-6) (86-9) (87-1) (87-2) (87-3) (87-4) (88-1) (88-2) (88-3) (89-1) (92-1) (92-3) (93-1)
(93-2) (96-1) (96-3) (97-1) (98-3) (99-1) (99-2) (99-3) (99-5) (99-6) (99-7) (99-8) (99-9) (99-11)
(101-1) (101-2) (101-3) (102-1) (102-2) (102-3) (102-4) (103-1) (106-1) (106-2) (106-3) (106-6)
(108-1) (142-1) (142-2) (142-3) (142-4) (142-5) (142-6) (142-7) (142-8) (142-9)
Response: These comments are general in nature and provide no new and significant information. Therefore, they will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
However, the NRC staff will describe in Chapter 3 of the SEIS the environment around Point Beach as it pertains to the following topics generally mentioned in these comments: (1) the alternatives to license renewalincluding the impacts of not renewing the Point Beach licenses; (2) the impacts to greenhouse gases and the effects of climate change; and (3) the programs in place at Point Beach to protect public health, safety, and the environment. The staff will also consider the resource-specific environmental impacts from renewing the Point Beach licenses and alternatives to license renewal, within the scope of the NRCs environmental review, in the applicable sections of Chapter 3.
B.21 Opposition to License Renewal Comment: The following comments express opposition to nuclear power, NextEra, or the renewal of the operating licenses for Point Beach. The commenters cited various environmental concerns, the age of the reactors, and a preference for other energy sources.
Comments: (4-3) (6-1) (9-1) (11-3) (11-8) (12-1) (12-10) (13-1) (17-1) (18-1) (19-2) (20-1)
(21-1) (22-1) (24-2-1) (24-5-1) (24-6-1) (24-8-1) (24-10-1) (24-11-1) (24-12-1) (24-14-1)
(24-15-1) (24-16-1) (24-18-1) (24-19-1) (24-20-2) (24-21-1) (24-22-1) (24-23-1) (24-24-1)
(24-25-1) (24-27-1) (24-29-2) (24-30-1) (24-33-1) (24-34-1) (24-38-1) (24-39-1) (24-40-1)
(24-41-1) (24-42-1) (24-43-1) (24-43-2) (24-43-4) (24-44-2) (24-45-1) (24-48-1) (24-48-2)
(24-49-1) (24-50-1) (24-52-1) (24-53-1) (24-54-1) (24-54-2) (24-56-1) (24-57-1) (24-57-2)
(24-58-1) (24-59-1) (24-60-1) (24-61-1) (24-62-1) (24-63-1) (24-64-1) (24-65-1) (24-66-1)
(24-67-1) (24-68-1) (24-69-1) (24-70-1) (24-71-1) (24-72-1) (24-73-1) (24-74-1) (24-75-1)
(24-76-1) (24-78-1) (24-79-1) (24-80-1) (24-83-1) (24-84-1) (24-85-1) (24-86-1) (24-87-1)
(24-88-1) (24-89-1) (24-90-1) (24-92-1) (24-93-1) (24-94-1) (24-95-1) (24-96-1) (24-97-1)
(24-101-1) (24-103-1) (24-104-1) (24-106-1) (24-108-1) (24-108-3) (24-109-1) (24-112-1)
(24-113-1) (24-115-1) (24-116-1) (24-117-1) (24-118-1) (24-119-1) (24-120-1) (24-121-1)
(26-10-9) (26-11-9) (26-13-1) (26-16-4) (26-18-1) (30-6) (31-1) (31-3) (32-5) (35-5) (43-1) (43-3)
(56-1) (75-3) (77-6) (78-3) (79-3) (82-1) (90-1) (90-7) (91-1) (94-5) (95-5) (100-3) (100-4)
(100-6) (107-1) (107-15) (107-17) (107-18) (111-1) (111-4) (112-1) (113-1) (114-1) (114-4)
(116-1) (120-1-1) (120-1-12) (120-1-17) (120-2-3) (120-3-12) (120-4-1) (120-4-4) (122-2)
(123-1) (124-1) (128-1) (132-1) (136-2) (139-2) (140-1) (143-1) (143-4) (144-1) (145-2-4)
(145-5-7) (145-6-2) (147-1) (149-1) (149-4) (152-1) (153-3) (156-2) (157-1) (159-2) (159-3)
(160-1) (160-3) (160-8) (161-1) (161-2) (162-2) (163-1) (163-10) (164-1) (169-3) (169-4) (173-4)
(177-1-1) (177-1-3) (177-2-18) (178-1)
Response: These comments are general in nature and provide no new and significant information. Therefore, they will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
However, the NRC staff will describe in Chapter 3 of the SEIS the environment around Point Beach as it pertains to the following topics generally mentioned in these comments: (1) the alternatives to license renewalincluding the impacts of not renewing the Point Beach licenses; (2) the impacts to greenhouse gases and the effects of climate change; (3) waste generation; and (4) the programs in place at Point Beach to protect public health, safety, and the environment. The staff will also consider the resource-specific environmental impacts from renewing the Point Beach licenses and alternatives to license renewal, within the scope of the NRCs environmental review, in the applicable sections of Chapter 3.
B.22 NEPA Process Comment: The EPA requested that the NRC improve the transparency of its license renewal NEPA documents and include a better explanation of the NRC-designated impact categories of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. Further, the EPA requested the citation of specific locations within references (rather than citing full documents), clearly outlining methodologies for analysis (including mitigation measures unrelated to the NRCs safety and security responsibilities), and employing analyses going beyond regulatory requirements.
Comments: (28-2) (28-5)
Response: The NRC staff uses the SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE significance levels to clearly communicate the results of its analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) and the environmental impacts of the alternatives to the proposed action, as documented in each site-specific supplement (SEIS) to the GEIS. The criteria for determining the significance levels were based on the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance and on discussions with the CEQ and the EPA when the significance levels were first implemented for nuclear power plant licensing actions. Definitions of the three significance levels are provided in the GEIS and codified in the NRCs regulations in the footnotes to Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51.
In conducting license renewal environmental reviews and preparing SEIS documents, the staff follows the evaluation procedures and methodologies contained in staff guidance, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1) (ADAMS Accession No. ML13106A246). In each SEIS, the staff describes its consideration of any new and significant information for Category 1 (i.e., generic) environmental issues in comparison to the findings documented in the GEIS. For each applicable Category 2 (i.e., plant-specific) environmental issue addressed in the SEIS, the staff describes its evaluation and explains the methods it used to evaluate the resource-specific environmental impacts of the proposed action.
These discussions include the associated significance level of each potential impact.
The staff will describe NextEras compliance with applicable environmental quality standards and permits at Point Beach in Chapter 3 of the SEIS, including associated mitigation and monitoring requirements that State or other Federal regulatory agencies impose. The staff may identify additional mitigation measures associated with its analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, or alternatives to the proposed action, which could further reduce impacts; however, these measures are NRC recommendations and are not legally binding. Nor do they require the applicant to take any specific action. Mitigation measures specific to the NRCs safety and security responsibilities are enforced through periodic NRC inspections and reporting. These are not generally discussed in the SEIS or considered by the staff as part of its license renewal environmental review.
B.23 License Renewal Process Comment: Several commenters questioned the NRCs license renewal process and requested descriptions of the NRCs licensing process and its authority to regulate NextEras compliance with various aspects of the Point Beach licenses, including requiring authorizations and permits from outside the NRC prior to relicensing.
Comments: (2-16) (26-8-2) (28-1) (57-2) (110-1-3) (110-1-5) (110-1-17) (110-1-20) (110-2-17)
(120-1-7) (120-2-8) (141-7) (145-5-14) (145-5-18) (146-15) (146-16) (146-18) (158-6) (177-2-9)
Response: The NRC staff conducts both an environmental review and a safety review of each license renewal application to determine if the standards for issuance of renewed operating licenses set forth in 10 CFR 54.29 have been met. The staffs safety review is conducted in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54, and the results of the staffs evaluation are documented in a SER issued separately from the SEIS. The license renewal application includes general information and technical information in compliance with 10 CFR Part 54, including a description of the plant and any planned modifications. In accordance with the NRC regulations cited at 10 CFR 51.16, the applicant is permitted to withhold from public disclosure proprietary information, such as trade secrets, privileged or confidential commercial, or financial information.
At the start of an environmental review, a scoping process is conducted to, in part: (1) define the proposed action, (2) determine the scope of the SEIS, and (3) identify any significant issues to be analyzed in depth. This SEIS is intended to supplement and tier from the GEIS. The NRC acknowledges the potential for significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and has, therefore, identified a SEIS tiering from the GEIS as the appropriate NEPA mechanism. This approach is consistent with the NRCs environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which implement Section 102(2) of NEPA. The NRC has issued 59 initial renewal and 3 second renewal SEISs, which tier from the GEIS and are all available at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/index.html.
In the SEIS, the staff will identify any new and significant information related to the renewal and continued operation of Point Beach that might require reconsideration of an environmental issue classified as a Category 1 (i.e., generic) issue in the GEIS.
To operate a nuclear power plant, licensees must obtain and maintain compliance with various environmental permits and approvals to minimize impacts to the environment. Agencies other than the NRC grant, administer, and enforce these authorizations. In Chapter 3 of the SEIS, the staff will describe NextEras compliance with applicable environmental quality standards and permits at Point Beach, including associated mitigation and monitoring requirements that the State or other Federal regulatory agencies impose.
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concern about the public comment opportunities, especially during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. These included technical difficulties with submitting scoping comments, the unavailability of relevant documents, issues with Internet access, the general openness and extent of the NRCs public participation process, and publishing the SEIS in languages other than English. These commenters requested increased notification opportunities for the public, an extension of the comment period, longer time periods to provide comments during public meetings, an e-mail address dedicated to receiving public comments, assurances that the NRC will consider public comments received via mail after the end of the comment period, and additional public meetings.
Comments: (2-12) (2-13) (2-14) (2-15) (23-1) (24-46-1) (24-70-2) (24-98-1) (25-1) (26-5-1)
(26-5-2) (26-8-9) (26-10-1) (26-10-2) (26-13-8) (26-18-5) (27-1) (58-2) (60-3) (60-5) (60-8)
(99-10) (104-1) (104-2) (110-1-1) (110-1-4) (110-2-15) (115-1) (115-2) (116-6) (118-1) (118-2)
(127-1) (145-1-1) (145-4-3) (145-4-4) (145-4-6) (145-4-7) (145-4-8) (145-4-9) (146-17) (153-1)
(162-1) (171-17) (174-1) (174-2) (174-3) (174-4) (174-5) (177-2-4) (177-2-5) (177-2-6) (177-2-8)
(181-1) (181-2) (181-3) (181-4) (181-5) (181-6) (181-7) (181-9)
Response: The NRC staff understands the concerns raised by the commenters and will continue to look for ways to improve public notifications and opportunities to comment. The NRC established the time period and methods for receiving comments on the scope of the environmental review for the Point Beach subsequent license renewal application to balance its goal of ensuring openness in the regulatory processes with its goal of ensuring that its actions are effective, efficient, realistic, and timely.
The NRC attempts to notify all stakeholders of all upcoming licensing reviews. This includes Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as the applicants staff, and members of the public or citizen advocacy groups that have previously expressed an interest in the regulatory activities related to a specific nuclear power facility. Specifically, the staff used a number of methods to inform the public about the February 17, 2021, virtual scoping meeting, the availability of supporting information, and the prescribed methods for submitting scoping comments. The NRCs Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement; NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 was published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2021 (86 FR 7747). In addition, the NRC provided public notice through local newspaper ads (which ran in the Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter on February 7, 10, 14, and 17, 2021), a press release, NRC social media, and posting on the NRC Web site, Public Meetings Schedule page. Members of the public who do not have access to the Internet can contact the NRCs PDR staff for information on scheduled meetings at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Separately, the staff responded to correspondence from environmental interest groups, which included the Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin and the Sierra Club Wisconsin Chapter. These groups asked the NRC to extend the scoping period and hold additional meetings. The staff responded to these groups by letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML21056A621, ML21084A258, and ML21094A003) and provided its reasons for concluding that the requests did not provide a sufficient basis for extending the established comment period.
While the staff believes that the 30 days provided were sufficient for the environmental scoping comment period, to the extent practicable, it considered additional comments after the close of the comment period.
Additionally, members of the public will have a further opportunity to participate in the NRCs evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action by submitting comments concerning the NRC staffs DSEIS following its publication. Tentatively, the public meeting on the DSEIS is scheduled to be held in November 2021. The meeting date, time, and means for the public to participate will be advertised in advance of the meeting, in accordance with agency public participation procedures, via the Federal Register, the NRCs public meeting notification system, and local newspaper advertisements.
The NRC staff will conduct an independent analysis in preparing the SEIS, using information from a variety of sources, including NextEras ER. The staff will verify the accuracy of the information used in the SEIS. Documents received from the public will become part of the official record in support of this subsequent license renewal review. The NRC agrees that public participation and a thorough analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action (subsequent license renewal), and alternatives to the proposed action, are critical to the NRCs decisionmaking process. The NRC staff will perform its environmental review and develop the SEIS in accordance with NEPA and the NRCs requirements implementing NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51.
With respect to the comments suggesting that the NRC publish the SEIS in languages other than English, the staff is not aware of any requests for language services. The NRC does not have the resources to translate a document the size of a SEIS into multiple languages. The NRC does not require applicants to provide license application documents in languages other than English. However, the NRC implements its Limited English Proficiency Plan for its licensing and other regulatory activities. As appropriate, and on a case-by-case basis, the NRC staff will provide language services or written translation services for background or supporting documents associated with its public meetings.
Comment: The following comments express disagreement with the timing of the license renewal process. The commenters stated that NextEra should not be able to submit a license renewal application so far in advance of the expiration dates of its current licenses (2030 for Unit 1, and 2033 for Unit 2) and that the NRC should delay its environmental review until closer to those dates.
Comments: (33-1) (33-2) (162-5) (181-8)
Response: The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 54.17(c), allows licensees to submit license renewal applications up to 20 years before the expiration of the licenses currently in effect. The NRC established this earliest date for the submission of license renewal applications after soliciting and considering public comments. In the 1991 statements of consideration for the Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal rule (56 FR 64943), the NRC rejected the suggestion that 20 years of operational and regulatory experience with a particular plant was an insufficient period in which to accumulate information on plant performance. The NRC also rejected suggestions that a 5-year or even a 15-year time limit for filing renewal applications would be adequate. The NRC stated that, in establishing the earliest date for license renewal applications, it considered the time necessary for utilities to plan for replacement of retired nuclear plants. The NRC found that the lead time for building new electric generation facilities is 10-14 years, depending on the technology. When the license renewal rule was revised in 1995, the NRC again solicited comments on the earliest date for filing license renewal applications.
After considering the comments, the NRC concluded that there was no new information warranting a change in the earliest date for license renewal applications, either to make it earlier or later (60 FR 22461).
Comment: Several commenters requested additional consideration of the scientific methodology and analysis associated with NEPA analyses. This included identifying which analyses the NRC staff will undertake and which analyses will rely on NextEras staff or consultants, ensuring that the SEIS relies upon a strict process of scientific methods, transparency, and peer review, and consideration of safety-related issues associated with the operations of the reactor.
Comments: (120-3-13) (145-5-15) (145-5-17) (162-6) (162-9)
Response: The NRC staff conducts both an environmental review and a safety review of each license renewal application to determine if the standards for issuance of renewed operating licenses set forth in 10 CFR 54.29 have been met. The staffs safety review is conducted in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54, and the results of the staffs evaluation are documented in an SER issued separately from the SEIS. The staff conducts its environmental review in accordance with the regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 51, and the results will be documented in the SEIS.
Relevant to the NRCs environmental review, the staffs methodology and its approach to evaluating the environmental impacts of license renewal follow the guidance and environmental information considered common to all nuclear power plants in the GEIS. In accordance with NEPA, the SEIS will take into account available information and will consider new and significant information to analyze the environmental impacts of Point Beach license renewal for each potentially affected environmental resource area. Further, in accordance with NRC and CEQ regulations, the SEIS incorporates into the analysis, by reference, information from many other sources. The NRC invited commenters to submit additional information for consideration in the SEIS during the scoping comment period and will consider those comments in preparing the SEIS. This factual and scientific information, which will be the basis for the staffs environmental review, will be sufficient to make the environmental impact determinations in the SEIS.
B.24 Outside ScopeAging Management Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about aging components at Point Beach or the ability to effectively manage aging during the period of extended operation. Several commenters specifically cited reactor pressure vessel embrittlement as a concern.
Comments: (9-2) (15-1) (24-28-1) (24-110-1) (26-7-2) (26-10-3) (26-10-5) (26-12-1) (26-12-7)
(26-15-4) (26-17-1) (26-18-4) (32-3) (41-1) (43-2) (44-2) (51-2) (60-6) (71-1) (71-2) (71-3) (71-8)
(77-1) (77-4) (78-2) (90-6) (105-4) (106-4) (107-2) (107-13) (110-1-10) (110-2-11) (111-2)
(114-2) (117-2) (117-3) (120-1-13) (120-1-16) (120-2-5) (120-2-11) (120-3-6) (120-3-14)
(120-3-15) (120-3-18) (120-4-3) (122-1) (124-2) (134-3) (135-4) (144-8) (144-9) (145-3-20)
(145-6-4) (145-6-10) (146-13) (148-5) (150-1) (156-6) (159-1) (160-2) (162-4) (162-7) (162-8)
(163-2) (166-1) (168-2) (168-4) (171-9) (173-1) (173-2) (173-3) (177-1-2) (178-2)
Response: The NRC staff conducts both an environmental review and a safety review of each license renewal application. The staffs safety review is conducted in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54, and the results of the staffs evaluation are documented in an SER issued separately from the SEIS. Operational safety issues related to the management of aging structures, systems, and components are outside the scope of the environmental review conducted under 10 CFR Part 51. To be granted renewed licenses, NextEra must demonstrate that aging effects will be adequately managed such that the intended functions of the systems, structures, and components within the scope of license renewal will be maintained consistent with the current licensing basis for the period of extended operation. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 54, the staff will conduct a review of the licensees aging management programs and document the results in the SER. This issue will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about aging components at Point Beach and requested that the NRC inspect aging components, in addition to computer modeling. They also asked the NRC to examine other, similar reactors when evaluating embrittlement and other aging management issues.
Comments: (120-4-5) (120-4-6) (168-5) (168-6) (168-7) (171-10)
Response: The NRCs environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. To the extent that the comments pertain to the safety of equipment and aging within the scope of license renewal, these issues will be addressed during the NRC staffs parallel safety analysis review performed under 10 CFR Part 54 and the results will be documented in a SER. Operational safety issues are outside the scope of 10 CFR Part 51 and will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
B.25 Outside ScopeEmergency Preparedness Comment: The following comments address emergency planning or security-related issues.
On the topic of emergency planning, various commenters expressed skepticism that emergency plans at Point Beach are adequate. On the topic of plant security, one commenter expressed the need for security plans at Point Beach to be updated regularly. Commenters specifically mentioned their concerns about the theft of nuclear material and cybersecurity.
Comments: (5-3) (13-7) (26-12-4) (26-12-5) (26-12-6) (26-14-4) (26-14-5) (26-16-2) (26-16-3)
(35-1) (71-7) (104-4) (104-5) (107-8) (110-1-15) (117-5) (119-5) (133-2) (144-13) (144-14)
(145-3-18) (154-2) (163-8) (171-3) (171-4) (171-5) (171-6) (176-4) (177-1-13)
Response: Emergency preparedness and security are applicable to the current operating licenses and are subject to the NRC oversight of the existing or future renewed operating licenses. However, these issues are outside the scope of the environmental review for license renewal and, therefore, will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
Emergency preparedness and physical security plans are required at all nuclear power plants and require specified levels of protection from each licensee regardless of plant design, construction, or license date. Requirements related to emergency planning are set out in the NRCs regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Requirements related to physical security are set out in the NRCs regulations in 10 CFR Part 73, Physical protection of plants and materials. These requirements apply to all operating licenses and will continue to apply to facilities with subsequent renewed licenses. The NRC has regulations in place to ensure that emergency preparedness and security plans are updated throughout the life of all plants. For example, under Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, nuclear power plant licensees are required to update their evacuation time estimates after every U.S. Census, or when changes in population would increase the estimate by either 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less.
Additionally, the NRC assesses the capabilities of the nuclear power plant licensee to protect the public by requiring the performance of a full-scale exercise, including the participation of various Federal, State, and local government agencies, at least once every 2 years. These exercises are performed to maintain the skills of the emergency responders and to identify and correct weaknesses. In addition, in 2009, the NRC issued cybersecurity requirements for licensees under 10 CFR 73.54, Protection of digital computer and communication systems and networks. This regulation requires licensees to provide a high assurance that digital computer and communication systems and networks are adequately protected against cyber-attacks, up to and including the design basis threats as described in 10 CFR 73.1, Purpose and scope.
B.26 Outside ScopeEnergy Costs Comment: Commenters expressed concern over the cost effectiveness and impacts on tax and ratepayers of nuclear power compared to alternative means of power generation.
Comments: (12-9) (26-11-8) (26-17-2) (117-11) (125-9) (144-3) (145-5-2) (145-5-8) (145-6-6)
(145-6-8) (162-11) (171-18)
Response: The economic costs and benefits of renewing an operating license are outside the scope of the environmental review. The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.95(c)(2), states, in part, The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. The purpose and need for the proposed action is to provide an option to continue nuclear power plant operations beyond the current licensing term to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by the licensee, State, utility, system, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers. The NRC does not make license renewal decisions or recommendations regarding the impacts on tax and ratepayers. The regulatory authority over licensee economics falls within the jurisdiction of the State and, to some extent, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Therefore, these comments will not be evaluated further in the SEIS.
B.27 Outside ScopeNeed for Power Comment: Commenters questioned the need for Point Beach and whether there is sufficient electricity demand justifying the renewal of the operating licenses, especially when considering other energy projects proposed in the region. Commenters also expressed concerns over the centralized power grid and power grid reliability.
Comments: (26-13-6) (145-4-11) (145-4-12) (145-4-13) (145-5-1)
Response: The purpose and need for the proposed action is to provide an option to continue nuclear power plant operations beyond the current licensing term to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by the licensee, State, utility, system, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers. The NRC does not make license renewal decisions or recommendations regarding the need for power or electric grid reliability.
The regulatory authority over licensee economics (including the need for power and grid reliability) falls within the jurisdiction of the State and, to some extent, within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Therefore, these comments will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
B.28 Outside ScopeOther Non-Licensing Renewal Actions Comment: One commenter expressed concern that NextEra is relying on the two Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) projects currently under review by the NRC for storage of spent nuclear fuel.
Comment: (172-1)
Response: A CISF is an away-from-reactor ISFSI, licensed under 10 CFR Part 72, for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel. Whether NextEra transfers its spent fuel to a CISF, if one is available, is a business decision outside the scope of the NRC staffs environmental review.
Regardless, the staffs environmental review assumes that, for the period after the licensed life of reactor operations, the impacts from onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are as discussed in NUREG-2157 and, as stated in 10 CFR 51.23(b), are deemed incorporated into the SEIS.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the use of accident tolerant fuel (ATF) in the Point Beach reactors during the period of extended operation.
Comment: (162-23)
Response: ATF is not currently used in the Point Beach reactors and the NRC has not approved an ATF design for unrestricted use. Any proposed ATF design would have to meet the stringent requirements detailed in 10 CFR Part 50 and would be subject to environmental review. Therefore, this issue is not within the scope of the license renewal environmental review and will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
Comment: Two commenters addressed the issue of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel; one was in favor of allowing this, the other was opposed.
Comments: (98-2) (100-10)
Response: In SRM-SECY-13-0093, Reprocessing regulatory frameworkstatus and next steps, the Commission directed the NRC staff to pursue a new reprocessing-specific rule, contained in a new part of the NRCs regulations, for a regulatory framework for licensing a reprocessing facility. However, on March 5, 2021, in SECY-21-0026, Discontinuation of rulemakingspent fuel reprocessing, the staff requested approval from the Commission to discontinue the spent fuel reprocessing rulemaking based on the limited interest expressed or expected from industry to build any type of facility involving reprocessing technologies in the near term. This issue is not within the scope of the license renewal environmental review and will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
B.29 Outside ScopeSafety Concerns Comment: The following comments express concerns about the impacts of external events and natural hazardsprimarily lake-level rise, storm surge, earthquakes, and hurricaneson Point Beach and spent fuel storage. Many commenters stated that climate change would increase the rate of lake-level rise and the frequency and intensity of storm events. Some stated that there was new information that should be considered. Commenters expressed concerns about the vulnerability of the plant to damage by such events, the adequacy of existing protections, and whether additional protection would be needed. Several commenters expressed concern about the potential for an accident resulting from external events. Some requested that the risk to and integrity of plant structures be analyzed with respect to lake-level rise and extreme storm events.
Comments: (1-5) (13-14) (24-110-2) (26-7-3) (26-9-2) (26-12-2) (26-12-3) (60-4) (71-4) (71-5)
(79-4) (117-6) (120-1-15) (125-11) (135-5) (145-2-14) (145-2-17) (145-2-19) (145-3-12) (146-2)
(156-7) (158-1) (162-19) (168-10) (168-12)
Response: The NRC addresses potential hazards to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant, including external hazards, through its ongoing oversight of operating licenses. Such oversight will continue during the term of any renewed license. In addition, the NRC staffs review of the subsequent license renewal application takes into consideration external hazards, such as storm surge and rising lake level, in two ways. First, the risks from external hazards were considered as part of the staffs review of the severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA) analysis, performed for the initial license renewal of Point Beach. For subsequent license renewal, the staff will consider any new and significant information that is identified as relevant to SAMAs. SAMAs are potential ways to reduce the risk or potential impacts of uncommon, but potentially severe accidents. SAMAs may include changes to plant components, systems, procedures, and training. Second, the external hazard licensing basis for the plant helps to inform the scope of the subsequent license renewal safety review.
Systems, structures, and components (SSCs) that are relied upon to remain functional during and after design-basis events are within the scope of subsequent license renewal. The staff review considers whether an applicant will adequately manage the effects of aging on these SSCs, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed licenses will continue to be conducted in accordance with the plants current licensing basis, and that any changes to the plants current licensing basis for license renewal are in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act and NRCs regulations. The results of the staffs safety review will be documented in the SER for license renewal and will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
Comment: The following comments outline the operating history and safety of Point Beach and express general concerns about the safe operation of Point Beach for an additional 20 years.
Comments: (5-4) (11-1) (26-3-1) (26-3-2) (26-3-3) (26-10-8) (26-15-5) (78-1) (107-3) (120-1-2)
(120-1-3) (120-1-4) (120-1-5) (120-1-6) (120-1-8) (120-1-9) (120-1-10) (120-1-11) (120-2-6)
(120-2-7) (120-2-9) (120-2-10) (120-3-4) (120-3-5) (120-4-2) (130-1) (130-2) (130-3) (130-4)
(134-1) (134-2) (144-7) (145-1-11) (145-5-16) (145-5-23) (145-6-3) (151-1) (153-2) (160-6)
(162-22) (163-5) (168-8)
Response: Plant safety culture and operational safety matters are outside the scope of the NRC staffs environmental review and will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS. The NRC conducts a separate safety review for the license renewal period.
B.30 Outside ScopeSecurity or Terrorism Comment: The following comments address security issues at nuclear facilities, including terrorist-initiated events and concerns over the security of the electric power grid.
Comments: (12-7) (23-3) (41-5) (99-4) (107-9) (145-4-15) (145-4-16) (145-5-11) (145-5-12)
(145-5-20)
Response: Security-related issues are addressed as a current operating issue, rather than a license renewal issue. As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the NRC conducted a comprehensive review of the agencys security program and made further enhancements to security at a wide range of NRC-regulated facilities. These enhancements included significant reinforcement of the defense capabilities for nuclear facilities, better control of sensitive information, enhancements in emergency preparedness to further strengthen the agencys nuclear facility security program, and implementation of mitigating strategies to deal with postulated events that could potentially cause loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fires, including those that an aircraft impact might create.
The NRC routinely assesses threats and other information provided by a variety of Federal agencies and sources. The NRC also ensures that licensees meet appropriate security-level requirements. The NRC will continue to focus on prevention of terrorist acts for all nuclear facilities and will not focus on site-specific evaluations of speculative environmental impacts resulting from terrorist acts. While these are legitimate matters of concern, the staff will continue to address them through the ongoing regulatory process as a current and generic regulatory issue that affects all nuclear facilities and many of the activities conducted at nuclear facilities. The issue of security and risk from malevolent acts at nuclear power facilities is not unique to facilities that have requested renewal of their licenses.
With regard to malevolent acts or sabotage, it is the NRCs position that malevolent acts or sabotage are speculative and beyond the scope of NEPA environmental review and, therefore, will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS. The NRC believes that the consequences of events initiated by malevolent acts or sabotage would be comparable to or bounded by the severe accidents considered in the GEIS.
B.31 Outside ScopeOther Topics Comment: The following comments address issues relating to the consideration of economic costs associated with normal operations of Point Beach, maintenance of aging components, or an accident.
Comments: (2-10) (13-15) (33-5) (60-1) (60-2) (90-3) (107-6) (107-10) (110-2-7) (110-2-19)
(115-5) (115-12) (117-10) (125-8) (129-2) (129-3) (144-15) (144-16) (145-3-21) (145-6-5)
(145-6-9) (146-7) (146-9) (146-10) (146-11) (148-8) (163-6) (171-12) (177-2-2)
Response: The consideration of economic costs and benefits is outside the scope of the NRCs license renewal environmental review (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)) and will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS. The purpose and need for the proposed action (i.e., issuance of a subsequent renewed license) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by other energy-planning decisionmakers. Similarly, the decision to pursue nuclear power as a power generation source is a decision that is made by other energy-planning decisionmakers and is outside the scope of this review. The environmental effects of continued operation of Point Beach will be described in Chapter 3 of the SEIS.
Comment: Commenters expressed concern about NextEras liability as plant owner and operator, compensation following an accident, and the need to establish contingency funds to cover unforeseen events.
Comments: (13-8) (15-4) (26-18-2) (35-3) (110-2-4) (110-2-9) (111-3) (111-5) (116-4) (133-7)
(145-1-17) (145-4-1) (145-5-19) (145-5-21) (145-5-22) (145-6-1) (145-6-11)
Response: The consideration of liability is outside the scope of the NRCs license renewal environmental review. However, regulations are in place to minimize the occurrence and consequences of accidents and to respond to them if they occur. The mission of the NRC includes the protection of the public health and safety and the environment. The comments provide no new information and will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
Comment: The following comment addresses NextEras business practices and compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Comment: (141-1)
Response: The NRCs authority to regulate the applicants business practices is limited to activities affecting nuclear safety. The comment does not implicate nuclear safety and is otherwise outside the scope of the NRCs license renewal environmental review and, therefore, will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
Comment: A commenter expressed concern about prioritizing government spending to focus on climate change.
Comment: (162-13)
Response: The NRC regulates the nuclear industry to protect the public health and safety and the environment within existing laws and regulations. Issues related to government spending and priorities are outside of the NRCs authority and, therefore, will not be evaluated further in the development of the SEIS.
C.
List of Commenters The following tables present the comments received by the NRC and identify the commenters.
Table C-1 provides a list of commenters who provided unique comment submissions (i.e., non-form letter submissions) identified by name, affiliation (if stated), the correspondence identification (ID) number, the comment source, and the ADAMS Accession Number. Table C-2 lists the commenters who submitted all or part of the form content from Beyond Nuclear. Table C-3 lists the commenters who submitted the form content from Sierra Club Wisconsin. In cases where commenters submitted both unique and form content, they are listed in more than one table.
Table C-1.
Individuals Providing Comments during the Scoping Comment Period Commenter Affiliation (if stated)
Comment Source and ADAMS Accession No.
Correspondence ID Agee, Will Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-78 Alberts, Karen Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-11 Allekotte, Joan Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-29 Alsvig, Mary Regulations.gov (ML21064A317) 92 Ancel, Nadine Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-26 Anonymous, Anonymous Regulations.gov (ML21062A037) 39 Anonymous, Anonymous Regulations.gov (ML21062A040) 42 Anonymous, Anonymous Regulations.gov (ML21062A128) 56 Anonymous, Anonymous Regulations.gov (ML21062A131) 58 Anonymous, Anonymous Regulations.gov (ML21062A140) 64 Anonymous, Anonymous Regulations.gov (ML21063A057) 69 Anonymous, Anonymous Regulations.gov (ML21063A068) 74 Anonymous, Anonymous Regulations.gov (ML21063A095) 84 Anonymous, Anonymous Regulations.gov (ML21064A303) 90 Anonymous, Anonymous Regulations.gov (ML21064A511) 121 Anonymous, Anonymous Regulations.gov (ML21069A041) 161 Anonymous, Anonymous Detroit Hamtramck Coalition for Advancing Healthy Environments Regulations.gov (ML21069A017) 141 Anonymous, Anonymous Nukewatch Regulations.gov (ML21069A005) 130 Aron, Sissy Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-10 Aul, Greta Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-75 Baggentos, John Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-4 Bailey, Nancy Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-21 Barbeau, Jim Regulations.gov (ML21063A058) 70 Barnes, Kathy Regulations.gov (ML21064A332) 100 Barr, Marsha Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-100 Becerril, Ingrid Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-31 Becker, Elaine Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-25 Becker, Theresa Regulations.gov (ML21063A070) 76 Behrmann, Ann Regulations.gov (ML21069A051) 171 Behrmann, Ann Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin E-mail (ML21056A561) 27 Behrmann, Ann Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin E-mail (ML21084A213) 181 Behrmann, Ann Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-14 Benedum, Herb Regulations.gov (ML21064A244) 88 Benson, Andrew Regulations.gov (ML21050A118) 16 Berland, Paul Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-1 Bernard Schaber, Penny Regulations.gov (ML21064A356) 114 Bernstein, Laura Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-112 Bittner, Mark Regulations.gov (ML21063A096) 85 Black, Shirley Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-44 Blankenship, Joan and Darren Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-88 Bosch, Patricia Nortown Community Development Corporation Regulations.gov (ML21069A042) 162 Bosold, Patrick Regulations.gov (ML21050A131) 20 Boudart, Jan Regulations.gov (ML21069A053) 173 Boudart, Jan Nuclear Energy Information Service Regulations.gov (ML21064A519) 127 Bowman, Bill Regulations.gov (ML21064A518) 126 Boyer, Dennis Regulations.gov (ML21064A520) 128 Brangan, Mary Beth Ecological Options Network Regulations.gov (ML21069A042) 162 Bronchella, Marcie Regulations.gov (ML21069A026) 148 Bruechert, Don Regulations.gov (ML21063A097) 86 Bruhaug, Gerrit Regulations.gov (ML21062A033) 36 Bryan, D Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-119 Buckley, Gregory Two Rivers City Council Regulations.gov (ML21069A018) 142 Buetow, Kurt Regulations.gov (ML21069A037) 158 Buttry, Daniel Regulations.gov (ML21069A025) 147 Carbino, Rosemarie Regulations.gov (ML21069A008) 133 Carney, Cheryl Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-84 Carpenter, Charles Regulations.gov (ML21064A354) 175 Cassebaum, Anne Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-61 Champkin, Mary Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-109 Chennault, Raye Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-22 Clark, Cherryl Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-111 Clark, Maynard Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-3 Collins, Peggy S.
Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-64 Commenters, Multiple Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 25 Connour, Randy Holy Family Memorial Regulations.gov (ML21050A088) 7 Cowles, Robert State of Wisconsin 2nd Senate District Regulations.gov (ML21064A326) 97 Cramer, Barry Regulations.gov (ML21069A033) 154 Davie, Adam Regulations.gov (ML21064A328) 98 DeLuca, Theresa Regulations.gov (ML21050A086) 6 DeRuyter, Randall Regulations.gov (ML21063A088) 81 Devrell, Julia Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-113 Dittrich, Karen Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-14 Doran, Pam Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-105 Dorn, Kathryn Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-1 Draska, Kenneth Regulations.gov (ML21062A141) 65 Dressen, Mark Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-90 DuBois, Lee Regulations.gov (ML21062A042) 45 Duffield, Dave Regulations.gov (ML21069A006) 131 Duffin, John Regulations.gov (ML21050A102) 11 Dums, Dennis Regulations.gov (ML21064A361) 116 Dwight, Eleanor Regulations.gov (ML21069A010) 135 Dwight, Eleanor Regulations.gov (ML21069A011) 135 Eggers, J.
Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-53 Eiesland, Nora Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-95 Eilenberg, Alisa Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-8 English, Rich Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-42 Fahrenkrug, Rick Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-82 Fisher, Michael Regulations.gov (ML21064A345) 109 FitzGerald, Charlanne Regulations.gov (ML21069A022) 144 Flanagan, Rian Regulations.gov (ML21062A119) 53 Frisch, Ann Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-16 Fromm, Wayne Regulations.gov (ML21062A138) 62 Frueauf, Lori Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-46 Fuller, Ernest Regulations.gov (ML21062A027) 33 Fussell, Jill Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-98 Gadzala, Jack Regulations.gov (ML21062A046) 49 ganMoryn, Croitiene Regulations.gov (ML21050A139) 22 Gann, Alan Regulations.gov (ML21064A515) 123 Garcia, Angel Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-116 Gardiner, Sandra Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-96 Gaul, Michael Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-13 Gehrke, David Regulations.gov (ML21063A099) 87 Gehrke, Rita Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-15 Gervais, Claire Regulations.gov (ML21062A015) 30 Giese, Mark Regulations.gov (ML21064A335) 105 Giese, Mark Regulations.gov (ML21064A516) 124 Giordano, Ruth Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-85 Glatter-Judy, Susan Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-34 Goodall, Doug Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-55 Gordon, Nanette Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-80 Gould, Robert San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility Regulations.gov (ML21069A042) 162 Graffagnino, Mary Ann and Frank Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-115 Greenwood, Adrianne Regulations.gov (ML21062A030) 34 Greenwood, Dale Regulations.gov (ML21064A329) 99 Gregg, Louise Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-70 Grillo, Robert Regulations.gov (ML21064A362) 176 Gromoll, Norda Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-74 Gylden, Cynthia Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-54 Hancock, Johnathan Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-77 Hanka, Ladislav Regulations.gov (ML21064A305) 91 Hansen, Jan Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-81 Hanson, Art Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-89 Hardesty, Susan Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-32 Hardy, Raymond Regulations.gov (ML21040A223) 1 Hartjes, Donald Regulations.gov (ML21062A044) 47 Hartman, Jonathan Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-104 Harvey, Robert Regulations.gov (ML21062A124) 55 Hasselman, Katherine Regulations.gov (ML21064A340) 108 Healingline, Helgaleena Regulations.gov (ML21064A513) 122 Healingline, Helgaleena White Rabbit Grove RDNA Regulations.gov (ML21064A514) 122 Hirt, Alice Dont Waste Michigan Regulations.gov (ML21069A042) 162 Hoffman, Ace Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-15 Holm, Gary Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-58 Hormel, Michael Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-108 Horton, Tyler Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-47 Houtakker, C Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-24 Howe, Tyler Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office E-mail (ML21069A220) 179 Huddy, Paul Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-118 Hughes, Jan Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-86 Hunter, Diane Miami Tribe of Oklahoma E-mail (ML21069A224) 29 Hurd, Jan Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-102 Immerfall, Phil Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-28 Jacoby, Barry Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-9 Jacquart, N Regulations.gov (ML21062A106) 66 Jacque, André State of Wisconsin 1st Senate District Regulations.gov (ML21064A326) 97 Jacques, Karen Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-68 James, HJ Regulations.gov (ML21064A333) 104 Jeffery, Layne Regulations.gov (ML21063A054) 67 Jensen, William Regulations.gov (ML21062A049) 51 Jessessky, Tom Regulations.gov (ML21062A135) 61 Joedeman, Karee Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-87 Johnson, Keith Regulations.gov (ML21069A016) 140 Jones, Robert Regulations.gov (ML21064A319) 93 Judson, Tim Nuclear Information and Resource Service Regulations.gov (ML21069A042) 162 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 26-10 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21063A080) 77 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21063A084) 78 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21063A085) 79 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21063A087) 80 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21064A322) 95 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A012) 136 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A013) 137 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A014) 138 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A028) 150 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A029) 151 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A030) 130 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A032) 153 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A034) 155 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A039) 159 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A045) 165 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A046) 166 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A047) 167 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A049) 169 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A050) 170 Kamps, Kevin Beyond Nuclear Regulations.gov (ML21069A052) 172 Katz, Deb Citizens Awareness Network Regulations.gov (ML21069A042) 162 Keegan, Michael J.
Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes Regulations.gov (ML21069A042) 162 Keeley, James Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-45 Kellum, Leonard Regulations.gov (ML21050A138) 18 Kemps, Kevin Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-43 Killeen, Kevin Regulations.gov (ML21062A133) 60 King, Kevin Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-60 Kitchens, Joel State of Wisconsin 1st Assembly District Regulations.gov (ML21064A326) 97 Klopp, Chris Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-13 Koch, David Regulations.gov (ML21063A055) 68 Koenig, Kevin Regulations.gov (ML21062A132) 59 Koeslin, Thomas Regulations.gov (ML21062A126) 54 Kopetsky, Brian Regulations.gov (ML21064A324) 96 Kopp, John Regulations.gov (ML21069A027) 149 Kosowicz, Aleks Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-18 Kosowicz, Aleks Regulations.gov (ML21064A359) 115 Kraft, David Nuclear Energy Information Service Regulations.gov (ML21069A023) 146 Kraft, David Nuclear Energy Information Service Regulations.gov (ML21069A024) 146 Kraft, David Nuclear Energy Information Service Regulations.gov (ML21069A042) 162 Krause, Sarah Regulations.gov (ML21063A092) 83 Krawisz, Bruce Regulations.gov (ML21050A083) 5 Kuglitsch, Mike State of Wisconsin 84th Assembly District Regulations.gov (ML21064A326) 97 Kurland, Miriam Regulations.gov (ML21062A024) 31 Lane, Debbie Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-114 Lauer, Patricia Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-62 Le Fevre, Dale Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-59 Leannah, Geralyn Regulations.gov (ML21050A082) 4 LeClair, Eugene Regulations.gov (ML21062A118) 52 LeMahieu, Devin State of Wisconsin 9th Senate District Regulations.gov (ML21064A326) 97 Lembitz, Bre Regulations.gov (ML21069A004) 129 Lembitz, Deanne Regulations.gov (ML21064A517) 125 Lemmon, Cassandria Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-40 Leque, Sally Regulations.gov (ML21063A069) 75 Lewison, Linda Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-4 Lichtenwalter, Wendy Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-37 Lienau, Tim Regulations.gov (ML21069A019) 143 Lionarons, Ken Regulations.gov (ML21062A039) 41 Lippman, Robert Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-57 Lish, Christopher Regulations.gov (ML21064A510) 177 Luchsinger, James Regulations.gov (ML21063A067) 73 Luna, Marie Regulations.gov (ML21050A116) 14 Lundeen, Kelly Nukewatch Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-3 Macks, Vic Michigan Stop the Nuclear Bombs Campaign Regulations.gov (ML21069A042) 162 Macraith, Bonnie Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-71 Maloney, Jason Regulations.gov (ML21069A015) 139 Matson, Patrick Regulations.gov (ML21062A043) 46 McArdle, Ed Regulations.gov (ML21069A035) 156 McBride, Linda Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-107 Mcclintock, Mary Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-69 Mcclure, Lee Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-83 Mccomb, Shawn Regulations.gov (ML21069A009) 134 McCullough, Kimberly Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-7 McGee, Jamie Regulations.gov (ML21064A321) 94 McGee, Nettie Regulations.gov (ML21069A036) 157 Mcglocklin, Lecil Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-41 Mehorczyk, Bob Regulations.gov (ML21062A038) 40 Mercier, Christina Regulations.gov (ML21062A139) 63 Mercier, Christina Regulations.gov (ML21084A078) 63 Merrick, Mitchell Sierra Club Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 26-17 Meyer, Alfred Regulations.gov (ML21069A048) 168 Meyer, Alfred Physicians for Social Responsibility Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 26-9 Meyer, Joe Regulations.gov (ML21064A353) 113 Michetti, Susan E-mail (ML21074A269) 145 Michetti, Susan Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-18 Michetti, Susan Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-5 Michetti, Susan Regulations.gov (ML21064A366) 118 Michetti, Susan Regulations.gov (ML21064A367) 119 Michetti, Susan Regulations.gov (ML21064A369) 120 Michetti, Susan Regulations.gov (ML21064A372) 120 Michetti, Susan Regulations.gov (ML21069A054) 174 Mochnek, Cecile Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-23 Molly, Molly Regulations.gov (ML21064A302) 89 Morrison, Amy Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-117 Mortensen, Hannah Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin E-mail (ML21056A561) 27 Mortensen, Hannah Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin E-mail (ML21084A213) 181 Mortensen, Hannah Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-8 Mortensen, Hannah Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin Regulations.gov (ML21040A228) 2 Muhich, Mark Regulations.gov (ML21064A346) 110 Murdock, Lewis Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-33 Murphy, Dave State of Wisconsin 56th Assembly District Regulations.gov (ML21064A326) 97 Mursau, Jeffrey State of Wisconsin 36th Assembly District Regulations.gov (ML21064A326) 97 Nadreau, Patricia Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-121 Nelson, Pam Regulations.gov (ML21050A127) 19 Newgent, Eric Regulations.gov (ML21050A089) 8 Neylon, Adam State of Wisconsin 98th Assembly District Regulations.gov (ML21064A326) 97 Nishiura, JoAnn Regulations.gov (ML21050A117) 15 Owens, John Regulations.gov (ML21064A352) 112 Painter, Brenda Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-6 Pajewski, Michael Regulations.gov (ML21062A045) 48 Palacek, Diane Regulations.gov (ML21050A092) 9 Peltekian, Elizabeth Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-50 Perkins, Mickey Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-120 Peuse, Keevin Regulations.gov (ML21069A044) 164 Pierce, Meghan Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-63 Pomeday, Carol Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-91 Poppe, Dorothy Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-12 Powers, MaryAnn Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-72 Ramthum, Timothy State of Wisconsin 59th Assembly District Regulations.gov (ML21064A326) 97 Readance, Lisa Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-56 Remy, Linda Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-92 Rhoden, Bud Regulations.gov (ML21064A311) 102 Richard, Pamela Regulations.gov (ML21050A109) 13 Rivera, Ethyl Regulations.gov (ML21069A043) 163 Roddy, Steve Regulations.gov (ML21050A121) 17 Rogers, Ann Regulations.gov (ML21050A099) 10 Rogge, Paula Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-12 Rogge, Paula Regulations.gov (ML21063A059) 71 Rosenberry Chase, Joy Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-48 Rousu, Dwight Regulations.gov (ML21062A026) 32 Ruesch, Scott Regulations.gov (ML21062A130) 57 Rushman, Janice Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-67 Schaber, Dale Regulations.gov (ML21064A347) 111 Schaber, Dale Regulations.gov (ML21064A349) 111 Scheer, David Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-93 Schellin, Steven Regulations.gov (ML21064A338) 106 Schleifer, Robert Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-52 Schlies, Allen Regulations.gov (ML21062A048) 50 Schulz, Amy Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin E-mail (ML21056A561) 27 Schulz, Amy Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin E-mail (ML21084A213) 181 Schulz, Amy Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-7 Schulz, Amy Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin Regulations.gov (ML21064A363) 117 Schwab, Avery Regulations.gov (ML21062A034) 37 Schwab, David Regulations.gov (ML21069A040) 160 Schwerma, Bill Regulations.gov (ML21063A066) 72 Shapiro, Susan LEAF of Hudson Valley Regulations.gov (ML21064A339) 107 Shapiro, Susan Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy Regulations.gov (ML21069A042) 162 Sheley, Thomas Regulations.gov (ML21062A041) 44 Sielaff, Willard Regulations.gov (ML21048A036) 3 Slocum, Jody Regulations.gov (ML21069A037) 158 Smith, Edith Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-35 Songalia, Elizabeth Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-101 Sortwell, Shea State of Wisconsin 2nd Assembly District Regulations.gov (ML21064A326) 97 Springstube, Nate Regulations.gov (ML21064A316) 103 Steele, Danae Regulations.gov (ML21062A031) 35 Stewart, Mark Regulations.gov (ML21069A031) 152 Stoleroff, Debra Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance Regulations.gov (ML21069A042) 162 Strope, Michael Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-6 Stuckey, Richard Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-36 Sullivan, Juliana Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-30 Sutton, Brian K.
Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-106 Taylor, Douglas R Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi E-mail (ML21077A197) 180 Taylor, Gigi Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-97 Tedtmann, Edward Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-16 Thirion, Thomas Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-76 Thiry, Jackie Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-51 Touchstone, Lana Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-110 Troshynski, Larry Regulations.gov (ML21062A018) 178 Turnbull, Clay New England Coalition Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-2 Valihura, John Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-73 Vlasiadis, Chrisanthos Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-66 Vorpagel, Tyler State of Wisconsin 27th Assembly District Regulations.gov (ML21064A326) 97 Waak, Kevin Regulations.gov (ML21063A091) 82 Walhood, Megan Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-99 Wallander, Dawn Regulations.gov (ML21062A035) 38 Ward, Elizabeth Sierra Club Wisconsin Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 23 Ward, Robert Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-38 Warren, Barbara Citizens' Environmental Coalition Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-5 Warren, Barbara Citizens Environmental Coalition Regulations.gov (ML21069A042) 162 Weber, Lore Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-94 Webster, Ty Regulations.gov (ML21069A007) 132 Weeden, Mary Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-65 Werda, Ed Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-39 Werner, Shahla Meeting Transcript (ML21062A192) 26-11 Werner, Shahla Regulations.gov (ML21050A105) 12 Wery, Susan Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-17 Westlake, Kenneth U.S. Environmental Protection Agency E-mail (ML21069A228) 28 Wheatley, Marie Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-19 Wheeler, Carolyn Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-27 White, Doug Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-79 Wilkening, Iassic Regulations.gov (ML21069A250)24-103 Willems, Scott Regulations.gov (ML21064A308) 101 Wilson, Karen Regulations.gov (ML21062A016) 43 Wimberger, Eric State of Wisconsin 30th Senate District Regulations.gov (ML21064A326) 97 Wineman, Marian Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-20 Wolfe, Brian Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-2 Yarbrough, Jim Regulations.gov (ML21050A134) 21 Zabrowski, Jayne Regulations.gov (ML21069A250) 24-49 Table C-2.
Individuals Submitting All or Part of the Form Content from Beyond Nuclear with Correspondence ID 77 and ADAMS Accession No. ML21063A080, Correspondence ID 78 and ADAMS Accession No. ML21063A084, Correspondence ID 79 and ADAMS Accession No. ML21063A085, Correspondence ID 80 and ADAMS Accession No. ML21063A087, or Correspondence ID 95 and ADAMS Accession No. ML21064A322 Name ADAMS Accession No.
Ellen Atkison ML21050A125 Sandra Couch ML21050A132 Mark Giese ML21050A133 Stephen Kent ML21064A312 Karen Kirschling ML21062A028 Karl Koessel ML21050A128 Kristina Mageau ML21050A122 Philip Ratcliff ML21050A159 Dennis Schaef ML21050A129 Satya Vayu ML21062A029 Kristin Womack ML21062A023 Table C-3.
Individuals Submitting the Form Comment with Correspondence ID 5 and ADAMS Accession No. ML21069A250 (page # is the page count in the attachment)
Commenter Page#
Kristine A.
435 James Abendroth 572 Michael Abrams 361 Melissa Abreu 533 Inger Acking 225 Anne Ackley 940 Evelyn Adams 468 Darley Adare 1105 Barbara Addis 675 Hallie Adolf 1046 Roy Adsit 238 Crystal Agape 655 Angelica Aguilar 144 Terry Akana 875 Madeline Akers 260 Dawn Albanese 852 Cheryl Albert 200 Dara Alexander 576 Fjsdakfl Alfsdjkfla 590 Kyle Alhart 1065 Lynn Allen 845 Mary Allen 805 Willow Alleon 269 Joan Altemose 374 Kenneth Althiser 865 Selena Ambush 662 Celeste Anacker 350 Richard Anderson 318 Jessica Andrews 851 Penelope Andrews 659 Penelope Andrews 1042 Tina Ann 982 Sylvana Arguello 824 David Armington 589 Andrew Arneson 309 Carlos Arnold 962 Cara Artman 444 George and Marilyn Ash 614 Catherine Atherton 907 Mahleen B 816 N B 191 Barri Baas 882 Therese Babineau 338 Palmeta Baier 772 John Baker 1000 Alleia Bakker 785 Robert Baldwin 913 Paula Bandt 575 Diana Banducci 873 Ashton Baney 263 Ingrid Bangers 984 Nancy Barbieri 603 Nick Barcott 738 Karyn Barry 983 Marge Barry 804 Adrienne Barton 1072 Jacqueline Baruch 985 Sue Batchelor 930 James Bates 163 Ruth Bauzo 1035 Michael Bayouth 524 Heidi Bean 297 Bonita Beard 981 Linda Beers 934 Leigh Begalske 616 Leigh Begalske 698 Barbara Beierl 487 Bernadette Belcastro 134 Ramon Bello 323 Sylvain Beloin 424 Sharon Belson 156 Daniel Bembenek 757 Doug Bender 546 Audrey Benedict 840 Devin Benson 621 Leah Berman 391 Leah Berman 393 Lisa Bey 628 Rama Bharadwaj 702 Kim Bigley 701 Nyla Bissram 728 Nyla Bissram 1027 Helen Black 280 Paul Blackburn 944 Mark Blandford 370 Resa Blatman 799 Melissa Bletsian 319 Katherine Blevins 1017 R Bloom 717 Sydney Bobrow 1033 Lawrence Bogolub 784 Matthew Boguske 286 Virginia Bottorff 725 Kimberly Bouchard-Shapiro 1019 Bettina Bowers 401 Annita Bowman 383 Jocelyn Boyce 409 Gloria Boyd 321 David Boyer 211 Regena Bradeen 324 Richard Brei 822 Tina Brenza 185 Charles Brexel Sr.
40 William Briggs 328 John Brim 618 Flavia Brizio-Skov 538 Ey Bro 329 Eric Brooker 868 Regina Brooks 787 Sandy Brooks 613 Anita Brown 335 Francine Brown 909 Gabriella Brown 493 Ingrid Brown 711 Monica Brown 159 Pam Brown 171 Susan Brown 276 Sandra Brubaker 317 Neville Bruce 279 Anita Bryant 520 Richard Buchholz 815 Linda Buckingham 1016 Joseph Buhowsky 455 Christina Bulskov 915 Barbara Burke 251 Maureen Burke 716 John Burridge 206 Patty Buttliere 553 Susan Bye 856 Sheila Calderon 745 Kathleen Caldwell 768 Morella Camejo 1066 J Mike Campbell 673 Mary Campion 502 Ken Canty 158 Carol Carley 226 Cheryl Carney 579 Colleen Carroll 796 Debra Carter 719 Kimm Carter 677 Suzanne Caruso 997 Eric Casey 488 Eric Casey 742 Chris Casper 622 Susan Chakmakian 950 Philippe Chambadal 1058 Gregory Chandler Jr 651 Jeanie Chang 727 Sandra Chapman Burson 769 Rutherford Charlot 806 Nancy Chasteen 670 Alan Chen 427 Rob Cherwink 351 M Chessin 296 William Chevalier 674 Laura Chinofsky 521 Katherine Christensen 1055 Yvonne Christison 608 Jan Church 192 Pamela Ciaccio 380 Robert Claesson 414 Steph Clarke 326 Patricia Close 1004 Sandra Cobb 987 Delores Coe 682 Brian Cohen 499 Jennie Cohen 523 Phylis Cohen 378 Geri Collecchia 463 Carol Collins 734 Charles Collins 657 James Colman 1071 Terry Condon 353 Vira Confectioner 817 Ronda Conner 648 John Consentino 1095 Jim Coogan 593 Carol Cook 1020 Thomas Cope 722 Kathleen Corby 178 Leonard Cork 535 Jayne Costa 1053 Mardene Costa 457 Gayle Countryman-Mills 564 Anna Cowen 334 Caryn Cowin 294 Adrienne Cox 160 John Crahan 281 Aleasa Crary 653 Bruce Cratty 809 Kristin Crawford 461 Robert Crenshaw 834 Scott Crockett 668 Edith Crowe 1080 Brooke Crowley 1008 J. Cuci 420 Kristin Cucolo 1062 Kermit Cuff 749 Kristin Culpepper 1012 Peter Curia 808 Cody Curtis 440 Joseph Dadgari 1002 Katherine Dander 371 Cheryl Dare 566 Carrie Darling 504 Gary Davis 513 Mary Davis 1099 Ryan Davis 154 Sylvia De Baca 554 Maria De La Rosa-Young 602 Kathleen Dear 1096 Deborah Dearing 1112 Therese Debing 957 Shirley Dechant 1049 Rosemary Deflorio 695 Emily Degn 288 Linda Delaney 1103 Carmen Dello Buono 540 Theresa Deluca 379 Gennaro Delucia 548 Asphodel Denning 1007 Randy Derhammer 685 James Derzon 307 David Dexter 429 J Diamond 454 Meredith Diamond 912 Berry Dilley 1009 Sheila Dillon 660 Boris Dirnbach 331 Caroline Divoky 224 Nicole Dixon 678 Sheila Dixon 344 Janice Dlugosz 466 Jeffrey Doerfer 366 Adrienne Doherty 555 Stephan Donovan 795 Patricia Doran 270 Patricia Doran 901 Christopher Dowling 1047 Deirdre Downey 581 Carol Drake 190 Janet Draper 731 Craig Drew 528 Julie Dubois 671 Gregory Dudley 697 Joseph Dudzik 203 Susie Duff 212 Judy Dugan 636 Robin Dumler 179 Tom Dunlea 130 Dirk Durant 24 Cho Dwyer 1006 Liz Dyer 1073 Pamela Dymesich 501 Susan Eckstein 478 Lynn Eland 1059 Penny Elia 161 Linda Ellsworth 577 James Emrich 607 Eric Ericson 508 V. Evan 494 Brenda Evans 786 Susan Evilsizer 1107 R F 530 Marjorie Falk 891 Dave Fallow 617 Rosemary Fandel 1056 Stu Farnsworth 141 Jean-Francois Fauconnier 610 Nathaniel Feis 1061 Suzanna Feitler 898 Mark Feldman 451 Max Feldman 289 Joanne Fetting 647 Jamie Fillmore 776 Nannette Finkel-Rebach 1044 Chris Finzer 977 Robert Fischoff 929 William Fisk 465 Gerry Fitzgerald 360 Heather Florian 864 Susan Foley 798 Eileen Fonferko 382 Jane Forbes 425 Thomas Force 866 Angela Ford 585 Judy Fore 459 Rosemary Fore 994 Eric Fournier 1013 Jordan Fouts 452 Stephanie Fox 1086 Tess Fraad 1083 Nadia Franco 221 L Franklin 993 L Franklin 1036 Bryn Frederickson 690 Mark Freitag 132 Lawrence Frey 233 Joyce Frohn 644 Lynn Fuerst 490 Lynn Fuerst 837 Peggy Fugate 510 Kristina Fukuda-Schmid 925 Ken Funabashi 788 Kevin Gallagher 267 Kristin Gallanosa 150 Armando Garcia 213 Kristen Garcia 287 Rosemarie Garczynski 849 Alice Gard 743 Sydney Garner 989 Louisa Gauerke 811 Linda Gazzola 365 Karen Geahlen 402 Terrillyn Geer 387 Carol Gentry 482 Richard Gentry 631 Sherril Gerell 708 Mary Germain 1113 Jody Gibson 252 Mark Giese 947 T Gilbert 500 Ellyn Gillespie 730 Phyllis Ginsberg 532 Larry Gioannini 516 Nicola Giorgio 1100 Stephanie Glatt 558 Patricia Gleason 347 Nancy Godwin 308 Cody Goin 1093 Daniel Goldberg 201 Peter Goldman 1088 Susan Goldman 1098 Frank Gonzales 627 Gaetane Gonzales 442 Elimaris Gonzalez 661 Vanessa Gonzalez-Green 988 Mark Goodman 1050 Patricia Goodson 557 Kevin Goodwin 591 Mark Gorsetman 384 Robert Grace 182 Jeremiah Graff 492 Leslie Graff 527 Jennifer Ann Gralinski 372 Emily Grandy 600 Robert Graver 231 Hod Gray 503 Margery Gray 250 Rose Greco 155 Arden Green 635 Mary Green 170 Tonya Green 687 Bert Greenberg 484 Stephen Greenberg 153 Mark Grenard 736 Elizabeth Gricus 921 Debbie Griffin 1064 Julie Griffith 259 Crystal Grillo 748 Peter Gunther 446 Linda Guthrie 1018 Perry Gx 844 Reem Haddad 264 Reem Haddad 265 Dave Hadden 676 Sarah Hafer 881 Michele Hall 1029 Paul Halliday 759 Susan Hall-Taylor 640 Pamela Hamilton 741 Richard Han 870 Patrick Hanahan 1085 Noah Hanmer 142 John Hanna 569 Angela Hansen 1041 Thomas Harbaugh 193 Peter Haroutian 992 Clarence Harris 136 Marie Harrison 1032 Paula Hartgraves 411 Jim Hartung 363 Mark and Judy Harvey 320 Molly Hauck 974 David Haug 683 Jess Haven 643 Caroline Havens 1039 Jennifer Hayes 560 Mildred Headdy 703 Sarah Hearon 794 Donna Heimlich 1052 Charles Heinrichs 829 Christine Hemphill 733 Donald Henrich 771 Beth Herndobler 826 Laura Herndon 199 Ana Herold 1084 John Heyneman 924 Liz Hickerson 699 Lynda Higson 1109 Marylois Hilton 215 Robert Hinely 291 Andrew Hinz 162 Larz Hitchcock 299 Cynthia Hobart 823 Maggie Hodges 876 Bud Hoekstra 959 Tim Holder 408 Barbara Holowczak 412 Pamela Hoogerhyde 892 Karen Hoover 300 Terry and Martin Horwitz 820 Denise Hosta 219 Denise Hosta 970 Joshua Houdek 1040 Alex Howe 441 Zana Hristic 946 Winston Huang 760 Winston Huang 761 Linda Huggins 854 Lisa Hughes 1043 Stephen Humphrey 529 Myles Hunt 480 Margie Hunter 436 Marc Hutchinson 1022 Beebe Iii 207 Norman Illsley 407 Linda Infante 980 Michael Ireland 131 Kim Irvin 469 Nancy Irvine 180 John Isham 914 Steven Iszauk 348 Karen Jackson 349 Natalia Jacobs 918 Claire Jacobsen 204 Jolie June Jacobus 652 Brenda James 694 Jon Jarvis 491 Alan Jasper 654 Nathan Jimenez 869 Annie Jo 665 Ann Johnson 916 Donna Johnson 737 Keith Johnson 183 Donald Jones 990 Donna Jones 1038 Eleanor Jones 450 Cliff Joseph 681 Stephen Josephson 893 Brian Joslyn 145 R Kadden 965 Peter Kahigian 559 Helena Kashleva 966 Kathryn Kassner 773 D C Katten 871 Sara Katz 428 Katherine Kaufman 836 Elizabeth Kavcak 218 Arthur Keller 41 Thomasin Kellermann 392 Steven Kellman 812 J Kelly 1091 Rachel Kelton 302 Diane Kent 706 B Kern 127 Arin Keshishian 462 Ramona Kime 887 Tyler Kindschuh 724 Christine King 1025 Norm King 1031 John Kirchner 223 Jesse Kirkham 862 Kaitlyn Kittell 650 Catherine Kittle 445 Hunter Klapperich 641 Kristin Kline 574 Linda Klouzal 1005 Lindsay Knights 406 Lotti Knowles 1106 Diana Koeck 151 David Koeller 639 Ellen Koivisto 886 Stephanie Koons 735 Meher Kovoor 1051 Susan Kozinski 601 James Kozlik 526 Deborah Kramer 680 Jeffrey Kramer 397 Robin Kratschmer 541 Barry Krieger 247 Ira Kriston 777 Kelly Kroske 1082 Michelle Krueger 963 Keith Krupinski 1102 Roger Kulp 475 Maya Kurtz 968 Mike Kutilek 245 Elise L 740 Kay L 434 Earl Labuga 1101 David Lafond 443 Joseph Lakner 315 Stephanie Laman 460 Barbara Lamb 298 Maree Lamb 292 Dmitry Landa 405 Doug Landau 1087 Hazel Landers 1023 Jacob Lang 423 Katarina Lang 470 Norbert Langer 547 Richard Langstaff 341 Drena Lapointe 137 Kenneth Large 860 Audrey Lasse 261 Audrey Lasse 1001 Jes Laufenberg 143 Jes Laufenberg 146 Liina Laufer 746 Marianne Lazarus 709 Meaghan Leavitt 883 Edward Leblanc 272 Pamela and Carl Lechner 763 Ernest Lee 236 Gerald Lee 739 Sandra Lee 421 Sara Lee 634 Nancy Leech 960 Theresa Lehman 168 Theresa Lehman 604 Stephan Lehmann 588 Donald Leisman 928 Michelle Lemp 563 Pamela Lenck Bradford 242 Brendalee Lennick 197 Virginia Leslie 580 Ellen Levine 339 Serena Levingston 544 Brenda Lewis 831 Frank Lewis 342 Marjorie Lewis 542 Susan Lewis 271 Bob Lichenbert 885 Suzanne Licht 905 Steven Lichtenbert 337 Glenda Liling 256 Rachel Lindsey 254 Virgene Link-New 835 Tim Lippert 567 Marilyn Livingston 262 Jennifer Lockett 688 Jennifer Lockett 689 Donna Logan 612 Michael Lombardi 790 Sharon Longyear 173 Covi Lopez 165 Rachel Loui 758 DeLorse Lovelady 357 Paul Lucas 715 Lane Lucht 543 Gary Ludi 531 Walt Luerken 781 Karen Lull 850 Jimmie Lunsford 1089 Julie Lyne 649 C M 184 Monica Mabry 841 June and Ronald MacArthur 311 George Mackison 712 Jack Mahrt 1003 Paul Malkin 900 Daniel Manobianco 976 Mc Manus 147 Lee Margulies 316 Aida Marina 174 Christel Markevich 843 Bryer Marnin 285 Crystal Marshall 583 John Martin 246 Patrick Martin 879 Juan Martinez 517 Brennor Masters 437 Brennor Masters 775 Paulina Mastryukov 1108 Carole Matthews 800 Michael Maxwell 275 Michael Maxwell 971 Lana May 389 Richard Maynard 364 Brandi Mccauley 1011 Richard Mccombs 828 B. Mcclintock 814 Tamara Mccready 872 Michelle Mcdowell 847 Sierra Mcelyea 705 Robert McFarland 897 Mary McGilvra 714 Joanne Mcgrath 133 Dennis Mcintyre 241 Mary Mckay 938 John Mckee 511 Darrin Mckeehen 755 Cynthia Mckeen 489 Patty McKinnon 234 Mary Mcmanus 249 Lisa McWhorter 896 David Meade 764 Lee Meadows 830 Rachele Mechem 333 Barbara Meis 439 Redelisa Mendoza 196 Ann Metcalf 919 Diane Meyer 594 Leeallen Meyer 910 Robert Meyer 448 Sandra Middour 874 Mitzi Miles 210 Jenna Miller 597 Lester Miller 619 Ji Montgomery 642 Ji Montgomery 1028 William Moody 352 Anne Morales 793 Joy Morgen 626 Daniel Morneau 496 Ali Morse 941 Elizabeth Moseman 780 Sue Mossman 1037 Denise Motta 258 Edward Mrkvicka 400 Tara Mudry 696 Karsten Mueller 951 Marilyn Mueller 853 Bernardo Mujica 537 James Mulcare 290 Cynthia Murphy 172 Donna Murphy 587 Linda Murphy 177 Eric Murrock 362 Ann Mutschler 750 Jay Myers 477 Wayne Myers 582 Zach Myones 1026 David Nardo 570 Utkarsh Nath 268 John Naylor 483 Darrell Neft 313 Jordan Neiman 861 Christa Neuber 332 Robert Newman 373 Amy Newton 473 Christopher Lee Nguyen 410 Ron Nieberding 240 Meg Nielsen 884 Mike Nielsen 449 Nancy Niemeir 550 Derinda Nilsson 205 Lynne Nittler 624 Thomas Nooney 266 Susan Norton 284 James Notestine 904 Linda Nyberg 1094 Robert Oberdorf 789 Karen Obrien 1021 Annie O'Connor 880 Martha O'Connor 346 Dawn Odonnell 766 Geoffrey Ogden 973 Bonnie Oliver 969 Loretta Olsen 438 Lawrence Olson 273 Robert Olson 1045 Victoria Olson 720 Maureen O'Neal 509 Melissa O'Rourke 239 Mark Osborn 931 Ned Overton 751 Jo Pa 135 Cindy Page 632 Melissa Paige 818 Joanne Painter 1077 Lowell Palm 433 David Palos 255 Stephen Parisi 1070 Claudia Parker 293 Ellen Parker 625 Lori Parkinson 562 Pamela Paul 282 Greg Paxton 244 Debra Pedersen 667 Scout Perry 888 Judith Peter 169 Dale Peterson 584 Karen Peterson 148 Linda Peterson 645 Shelly Peterson 216 Beverly Pettway 991 Julie Phalen 658 George Phillips 514 Karen Phillips 1078 Diane Pierce 188 Jan Pierson 278 Ina Pillar 139 Dolores Pino 596 Tina and David Pirazzi 848 Nancy Pirtle-Connelly 592 Teresa Pitts 1014 Helmut Platzer 314 Bobette Plendl 732 Jeffrey Plotnik 952 Tim Pokela 167 Daurie Pollitto 149 Penny Porter 821 Heath Post 922 Earl Poteet 863 Jimmy Powell 217 Jimmy Powell 791 Grant Power 390 D Price 235 Karen Price 399 Susan Proietta 398 Diana Prola 497 Patricia Pruitt 157 Barbara Puett 458 Yessenia Quintero 578 Colleen Radbill 176 Rachel Rakaczky 571 Kay Randall 129 Margaret Rasmussen 833 Jeff Reagan 979 Maryellen Redish 964 Matthew Reid 1048 Jo Remy 237 Aileen Renner 684 Christine Resch 355 Keith Rhinehart 939 Katherine Rhoda 765 Rachael Riccobene 1092 Tracy Richards 1076 Claudia Richner 481 Kathi Ridgway 431 David Rieckmann 664 Roseli Rinaldo 1110 David Ringle 778 Ronald Ringler 456 Bill Rither 39 Catherine Rivera 693 Suzan Robbins 754 Ed Robertson 345 Kenneth Robertson 375 Brooks Robinson 995 Patriciaroche Roche 713 Lenore Rodah 464 Debby Roegner 637 Mary Rojeski 367 John Rokas 967 Lynn Ronconi 903 Joanne Rose 152 Barbara Rosen 243 Richard and Carolyn Rosenstein 453 John Rosing 1068 Jean Ross 672 Lilli Ross 999 Ann Rossman 545 Ann Rossman 932 Brit Rosso 857 Gregory Rost 556 Steven Rostermundt 920 Jill Rothe 927 Mark Rowe 471 Kyle Ruedinger 1024 Michael Rumple 568 Bart Ryan 507 Juanita Ryan 686 Karen Ryan 565 Michael Rynes 301 Michael Rynes 937 Mohan Sakhrani 923 Britt Salazar 356 Dorothy Salvato 723 Feliz Samson 926 Dana Sanchez 1067 Valerie Sanderson 710 Mary Sandstrom 536 Veronique Sanson 229 Roseann Santangelo 418 Roseann Santangelo 549 James Sarelas 426 John and Michele Saridan 1081 Britton Saunders 646 C. Saunders 274 Adam Savett 744 Jason Saville 586 Crystal Schaffer 303 Amaryntha Schalin 859 Ted Scherff 842 Eric Schill 629 Gisela Schloss-Birkholz 819 Diana Schmidt 486 Roger Schmidt 534 Linda Schrader 599 Steve Schueth 422 Margaret Schulenberg 972 Brett Schultz 1074 Monica Schuster 917 Anna Schwadron 474 Elizabeth Schwartz 1079 Nancy Schwartz 996 Jeff Schwefel 945 Kraig Schweiss 354 Gordon Scott 753 Joan Scott 417 Paula Scudere 181 Dave Searles 810 J. Seborowski 638 Jana Segal 598 Donna Selquist 186 Mary Sena 1010 Charlotte Serazio 605 Sandra Serazio 330 Sandra Serazio 606 Janice Seybold 1114 Paula Shafransky 933 Hyacen Shaktilove 164 Barbara Sheard 779 Flint Sheffield 792 Stan Sheggeby 1090 Danny Shelley 669 Arlene Sherman 430 Chuck Shiebler 623 Jane Shippy 666 Lynn Shoemaker 340 Marla Shrock 797 Gary Sibley 126 Grace Silva 498 Kevin Silvestris 506 Kevin Silvey 187 Drew Simrin 867 Michael Sivulich 1069 Priscilla Skerry 552 Vivian Slade 208 Susan Sloan 899 Tracey Smallwood 343 Elori Smile 936 Anne Smith 890 Fran Smith 257 J. Smith 956 Kelly Smith 961 Kim Smith 803 Mary Smith 396 Tiffany Snyder 718 Elin Soderquist 404 Louisa Solari 707 Sharon Sootin 752 Kathy Spera 953 Diane St Angelo 1111 Emily St. Onge 656 Steven Stake 877 Gabriel Stanley 1057 John Stanton 388 Carl Stapler 220 Jack Stapleton 416 Louise Stark 277 Alex Stavis 858 Ken Stein 447 Dixie Stevens 394 Summer Stevens 615 Paula Stober 467 Joyce Stoffers 948 Lauren Stone 472 Susanna Stone 595 Maryann Stork 327 Chris Storter 611 Jocelyn Stowell 1015 Pam Strom 878 Elizabeth Struthers Malbon 770 Laurie Sudol 935 Melinda Svastisalee 381 Eric Swan 485 Cherie Swann 322 Marla Swanson 140 Elak Swindell 1097 Rick Swope 522 Freddie Sykes 476 Maria Szokolai 762 Jorge Tamargo 413 Rosemary Tann 505 Shannon Tausch 726 Michael Teague 175 Jacob Thomas 902 Barty Thompson 376 Kate Thompson 369 Mark Thompson 954 Susan Thompson 377 D P Thornton 827 Jennifer Thornton 978 Mary Tober 214 Janice Tomlian 943 Carol Torchia 304 Fred Torney 519 Crystal Tracy 1104 Dat Tran 166 Dat Tran 1063 Stephanie Trasoff 894 Tom Tripp 692 Bj Trivedi 525 Michelle Trosper 633 Michael Tucker 479 Carolyn Turner 305 Dena Turner 561 Edward Turner 895 Jim Turner 986 Kristi Turner 194 Ralph Tuscher 198 Charles Unger 227 Supporter Unknown 807 Victoria Urias 283 Pamela Vasquez 419 Stephen Vaughan 783 Marcelo Vazquez 721 Brigid Vele 782 Sue Velez 209 Margaret Verellen 846 Scott Vickers 832 Charmaine Villadonga 138 Emma Vinciguerra 700 Mary Ann Viveros 679 Sharon Vorwalske 620 Carol Wagner 518 Eileen Wagner 911 Regina Wagner 336 Linda Waine 663 Susan Wald 1030 Deborah Walden 551 Janice Waldron 232 Marilyn Waltasti 955 Peggy Walters 512 Luwana Wanaisie 230 Francis Wanderlich 253 Marvin Ward 1054 Sheila Ward 415 Laura Waterworth 801 Claire Watson 310 Kathy Watson 1034 D Weamer 704 Dean Webb 839 Michael Webb 368 Dana Weintraub 949 Edmund Weisberg 975 Naomi Weisman 774 Linda Weitzer 609 Marian Wenink 312 Patti Wermeling 228 Nora Wesley 729 Meredith West 813 Jill Wettersten 432 Bruce Wheeler 756 Vicki Wheeler 295 Douglas Whitehead 802 Joan Wilce 395 Cathy Williams 306 Terrie Williams 386 William Wilson 403 Lori Wilson-Hopkins 691 Thomas Windberg 767 Paul and Shannon Wiseman 385 Wendy Wish 325 Wendy Wish 908 Emily Withnall 248 Izabela Wnuk 222 Nanlouise Wolfe 958 Matthew Wolff 889 Debra Wollesen 195 Jill Woodmansee 573 Cathy Wootan 942 Blake Wu 128 Judson Wynne 359 Sabina Yates 189 Teri Yazdi 825 Mary Yeomans 855 Sally Yost 495 Noah Youngelson 539 Ruth Yurchuck 1060 Charles Zarett 747 Alexandra Zeledon 515 John Zeman 358 Carina Zevely 630 Jenny Zickefoose 998 Russ Ziegler 906 Russell Ziegler 838 Pam Zimmerman 202 Ruth Zowader 1075