Constellation Energy Generation, LLC; Christopher M. Crane Clean Energy Center; Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Constellation Energy Generation, LLC; Christopher M. Crane Clean Energy Center; Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact
- Posted
- Jun 8, 2026
- Comment period
- Jun 8, 2026 – Jul 9, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-11377
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Stance breakdown
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
- Jul 8, 2026United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. and CanadaSupportUnion📎 Attachment
The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, supports the NRC's draft environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for the re-powering of the Christopher M. Crane Clean Energy Center. They argue that the project is necessary for grid reliability, provides significant socioeconomic benefits, and creates high-skilled jobs for the nuclear workforce.
Read comment → - Jul 8, 2026Comment (5) of Coja Yamashita on FR Doc # 2026-11377, NRC-2026-0397-0011, from Pennsylvania Fish and Boat CommissionOpposeGovernment📎 Attachment
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) opposes the current draft Environmental Assessment, arguing that it fails to sufficiently analyze the impacts of water intake, thermal discharges, and the existence of a nature-like fishway on aquatic life. They request specific analyses on flow conditions, thermal profiles, and the status of American Shad populations before a final determination is made.
Read comment → - Jul 8, 2026Jeffrey MasonOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jun 9, 2026Shannon ChuOpposeIndividual📎 Attachment
The commenter opposes the proposed action because the Draft Environmental Assessment fails to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of storing additional spent fuel on-site. They argue that the Continued Storage Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) relies on outdated and invalid assumptions regarding the integrity of aging canisters and the effectiveness of current aging management programs.
Read comment → - Jun 8, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed nuclear energy project due to concerns regarding nuclear fission waste and safety. They advocate for a focus on conservation and green energy instead of nuclear power.
Read comment → - Jun 8, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividualRead comment →
