Environmental Impact 

Statement for the 

Construction Permit 

for the SHINE Medical 

Radioisotope 

Production Facility

Draft Report for Comment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG-2183
NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released 

records include, to name a few, NUREG-series 

publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, 

licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; 

NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins 

and information notices; inspection and investigative 

reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers 

and their attachments. 

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402–0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161–0002

www.ntis.gov

1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Office of Administration 

Publications Branch

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs 

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found on 

a Web site bear the date the material was accessed, the 

material available on the date cited may subsequently be 

removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material 

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as books, 

journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, 

Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. 

Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports 

and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings 

may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738 

These standards are available in the library for reference 

use by the public. Codes and standards are usually 

copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating 

organization or, if they are American National Standards, 

from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org

212–642–4900 

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series 

publications. The views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this series are not necessarily 

those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR–

XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP–

XXXX), (3) reports resulting from international 

agreements (NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures 

(NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal 

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic and 

Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’ decisions

under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations (NUREG–

0750).

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account 

of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. 

Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any 

agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any warranty, 

expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 

responsibility for any third party’s use, or the results of 

such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or 

process disclosed in this publication, or represents that 

its use by such third party would not infringe privately 

owned rights.
Environmental Impact 

Statement for the 

Construction Permit 

for the SHINE Medical 

Radioisotope 

Production Facility

Draft Report for Comment

Manuscript Completed: April 2015

Date Published: May 2015

Michelle Moser, NRC Project Manager

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG-2183

 
1 COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT

2 Any interested party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff. 

3 Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. Please 

4 specify the report number NUREG-2183 in your comments, and send them by the end of the 

5 comment period specified in the Federal Register notice announcing the availability of this 

6 report. 

7 Addresses: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include 

8 Docket ID NRC-2013-0053 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in 

9 writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC website and on the Federal rulemaking 

10 website http://www.regulations.gov. 

11 Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents 

12 filed under Docket ID NRC-2013-0053. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

13 Gallagher at 301-415-3463 or by e-mail at Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

14 Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch

15 (RADB), Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 

16 OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

17 For any questions about the material in this report, please contact: Ms. Michelle Moser, 

18 Environmental Project Manager, 301-415-6509 or by e-mail at Michelle.Moser@nrc.gov.

19 Please be aware that any comments that you submit to the NRC will be considered a public 

20 record and entered into the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

21 (ADAMS). Do not provide information you would not want to be publicly available.
1 COVER SHEET

2 Responsible Agency: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Nuclear Reactor 

3 Regulation. The U.S. Department of Energy is a cooperating agency involved in the preparation 

4 of this environmental impact statement (EIS).

5 Title: Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical 

6 Radioisotope Production Facility, Draft Report for Comment 

7 The proposed SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), facility would be located in 

8 Janesville, Wisconsin.

9 Additional information or copies of this document are available through the following:

10 Division of License Renewal

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

12 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

13 Mail Stop O-11F1

14 11555 Rockville Pike

15 Rockville, MD 20852

16 Phone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 6509

17 Fax: 301-415-2002

18 E-mail: Michelle.Moser@nrc.gov

19 ABSTRACT

20 The U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared this environmental impact 

21 statement (EIS) in response to an application submitted by SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.

22 (SHINE), for a construction permit of a medical radioisotope production facility. The EIS 

23 includes the analysis that evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action and 

24 considers the following three alternatives to the proposed action: (1) the no-action alternative

25 (i.e., the construction permit is denied), (2) two alternative sites, and (3) one alternative 

26 technology.

27 After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental 

28 and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, the NRC staff recommends, unless 

29 safety issues mandate otherwise, the issuance of the proposed construction permit to SHINE. 

30 The NRC staff based its recommendation on the following factors:

31 • SHINE’s Environmental Report;

32 • the NRC staff’s consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies;

33 • the NRC staff’s independent environmental review; and

34 • the NRC staff’s consideration of public comments received. 

iii

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................. iii

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ v

4 FIGURES.................................................................................................................................. xi

5 TABLES ................................................................................................................................. xiii

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... xvii

7 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................... xxi

8 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1-1

9 1.1 Background...................................................................................................... 1-1

10 1.1.1 Molybdenum-99................................................................................. 1-1

11 1.1.2 Iodine-131 ......................................................................................... 1-2

12 1.1.3 Xenon-133......................................................................................... 1-2

13 1.2 Proposed Federal Action.................................................................................. 1-2

14 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action ........................................ 1-3

15 1.4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Review.......................... 1-4

16 1.5 Cooperating Agency ........................................................................................ 1-6

17 1.6 Consultation and Correspondence................................................................... 1-6

18 1.7 Status of Compliance....................................................................................... 1-7

19 1.8 References ...................................................................................................... 1-7

20 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION................................................................................ 2-1

21 2.1 Site Location and Layout.................................................................................. 2-1

22 2.2 Construction Activities...................................................................................... 2-5

23 2.3 Facility Operations ........................................................................................... 2-7

24 2.3.1 Proposed Technology........................................................................ 2-7

25 2.3.2 Radioisotope Production Process Overview ...................................... 2-9

26 2.4 Power Requirements ..................................................................................... 2-12

27 2.5 Water Use, Treatment, and Discharges ......................................................... 2-13

28 2.5.1 Water Use ....................................................................................... 2-13

29 2.5.2 Water Treatment ............................................................................. 2-13

30 2.5.3 Water Discharges............................................................................ 2-13

31 2.6 Cooling and Heating Dissipation Systems...................................................... 2-14

32 2.6.1 Cooling Systems ............................................................................. 2-14

33 2.6.2 Heating Systems ............................................................................. 2-14

34 2.7 Storage, Treatment, and Transportation of Radioactive and 

35 Nonradioactive Waste.................................................................................... 2-14

36 2.7.1 Radioactive Wastes......................................................................... 2-15

37 2.7.2 Nonradioactive Waste ..................................................................... 2-17

38 2.7.3 Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Program.................... 2-18

39 2.8 Facility Decommissioning............................................................................... 2-19

v
Table of Contents

1 2.9 Related Actions.............................................................................................. 2-20

2 2.10 References .................................................................................................... 2-20

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................... 3-1

4 3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources...................................................................... 3-1

5 3.1.1 Land Use........................................................................................... 3-1

6 3.1.2 Visual Resources............................................................................... 3-8

7 3.2 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise............................................................... 3-11

8 3.2.1 Meteorology and Climatology .......................................................... 3-11

9 3.2.2 Air Quality........................................................................................ 3-13

10 3.2.3 Noise............................................................................................... 3-18

11 3.3 Geologic Environment.................................................................................... 3-20

12 3.3.1 Site Geology.................................................................................... 3-20

13 3.3.2 Soils ................................................................................................ 3-23

14 3.3.3 Seismic Setting................................................................................ 3-24

15 3.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 3-25

16 3.4.1 Surface Water ................................................................................. 3-25

17 3.4.2 Groundwater.................................................................................... 3-29

18 3.5 Ecological Resources .................................................................................... 3-31

19 3.5.1 Ecoregion ........................................................................................ 3-31

20 3.5.2 Site.................................................................................................. 3-32

21 3.5.3 Habitats in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site .................................... 3-33

22 3.5.4 Protected Species and Habitats....................................................... 3-36

23 3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources..................................................................... 3-40

24 3.6.1 Cultural Background........................................................................ 3-40

25 3.6.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources ........................................... 3-42

26 3.7 Socioeconomics............................................................................................. 3-42

27 3.7.1 Population Growth Rates and Projections ....................................... 3-42

28 3.7.2 Race and Ethnicity........................................................................... 3-43

29 3.7.3 Transient Population........................................................................ 3-44

30 3.7.4 Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment............................... 3-44

31 3.7.5 Income and Wages.......................................................................... 3-46

32 3.7.6 Poverty Rates.................................................................................. 3-46

33 3.7.7 Housing ........................................................................................... 3-47

34 3.7.8 Local Employers.............................................................................. 3-47

35 3.7.9 Taxes .............................................................................................. 3-48

36 3.7.10 Education ........................................................................................ 3-49

37 3.7.11 Tourism, Activity Centers, and Recreation for the City of 

38 Janesville and Rock County ............................................................ 3-49

39 3.7.12 Public Services................................................................................ 3-51

40 3.8 Human Health................................................................................................ 3-52

41 3.8.1 Regulatory Radiological Requirements............................................ 3-52

vi
Table of Contents

1 3.8.2 Chemical Hazards ........................................................................... 3-54

2 3.8.3 Other Hazards ................................................................................. 3-54

3 3.9 Transportation Environments ......................................................................... 3-54

4 3.9.1 Roads.............................................................................................. 3-54

5 3.9.2 Airports............................................................................................ 3-58

6 3.9.3 Rail.................................................................................................. 3-58

7 3.10 References .................................................................................................... 3-59

8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AND 

9 DECOMMISSIONING.................................................................................................. 4-1

10 4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources...................................................................... 4-1

11 4.1.1 Land Use........................................................................................... 4-1

12 4.1.2 Visual Resources............................................................................... 4-3

13 4.2 Air Quality and Noise ....................................................................................... 4-5

14 4.2.1 Construction ...................................................................................... 4-5

15 4.2.2 Operations......................................................................................... 4-9

16 4.2.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-13

17 4.3 Geologic Environment.................................................................................... 4-16

18 4.3.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-16

19 4.3.2 Operations....................................................................................... 4-17

20 4.3.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-18

21 4.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 4-18

22 4.4.1 Surface Water ................................................................................. 4-18

23 4.4.2 Groundwater.................................................................................... 4-21

24 4.5 Ecological Resources .................................................................................... 4-24

25 4.5.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-24

26 4.5.2 Operations....................................................................................... 4-25

27 4.5.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-26

28 4.5.4 Federally Protected Species............................................................ 4-26

29 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources..................................................................... 4-27

30 4.6.1 Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................... 4-27

31 4.6.2 Proposed Action .............................................................................. 4-27

32 4.6.3 Consultation .................................................................................... 4-27

33 4.6.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................... 4-28

34 4.7 Socioeconomic Impacts ................................................................................. 4-30

35 4.7.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-30

36 4.7.2 Operations....................................................................................... 4-32

37 4.7.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-34

38 4.8 Human Health................................................................................................ 4-35

39 4.8.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-35

40 4.8.2 Operations....................................................................................... 4-36

41 4.8.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-38

vii
Table of Contents

1 4.9 Waste Management....................................................................................... 4-40

2 4.9.1 Radioactive Waste........................................................................... 4-40

3 4.9.2 Nonradioactive Waste ..................................................................... 4-41

4 4.10 Transportation................................................................................................ 4-42

5 4.10.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-42

6 4.10.2 Operations....................................................................................... 4-43

7 4.10.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-44

8 4.11 Accidents ....................................................................................................... 4-45

9 4.11.1 Maximum Hypothetical Accident...................................................... 4-46

10 4.11.2 Hazardous Chemical Accidents....................................................... 4-48

11 4.12 Environmental Justice.................................................................................... 4-51

12 4.13 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-59

13 4.13.1 Land Use and Visual Resources...................................................... 4-60

14 4.13.2 Air Quality and Noise....................................................................... 4-61

15 4.13.3 Geologic Environment ..................................................................... 4-63

16 4.13.4 Water Resources............................................................................. 4-64

17 4.13.5 Ecological Resources ...................................................................... 4-67

18 4.13.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................... 4-68

19 4.13.7 Socioeconomics .............................................................................. 4-69

20 4.13.8 Human Health ................................................................................. 4-70

21 4.13.9 Waste Management ........................................................................ 4-71

22 4.13.10 Transportation ................................................................................. 4-73

23 4.13.11 Environmental Justice ..................................................................... 4-73

24 4.13.12 Summary......................................................................................... 4-74

25 4.14 References .................................................................................................... 4-77

26 ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................................... 5-1

27 5.1 No-Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 5-1

28 5.2 Alternative Sites............................................................................................... 5-2

29 5.2.1 Description of Alternative Site-Selection Process .............................. 5-2

30 5.2.2 Chippewa Falls Site........................................................................... 5-7

31 5.2.3 Stevens Point Site ........................................................................... 5-49

32 5.3 Alternative Technologies................................................................................ 5-94

33 5.3.1 Identification of Reasonable Alternatives ......................................... 5-94

34 5.3.2 Neutron Capture Alternative ............................................................ 5-95

35 5.3.3 Aqueous Homogenous Reactor Alternative ..................................... 5-95

36 5.3.4 Linear-Accelerator-Based Alternative .............................................. 5-96

37 5.4 Cost-Benefit Comparison............................................................................. 5-101

38 5.4.1 Benefit and Costs of Alternatives................................................... 5-105

39 5.4.2 Cost Benefit Conclusions............................................................... 5-106

40 5.5 Alternatives Summary.................................................................................. 5-107

41 5.6 References .................................................................................................. 5-108

viii
Table of Contents

1 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................... 6-1

2 6.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action................................................ 6-1

3 6.2 Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................. 6-4

4 6.3 Resource Commitments................................................................................... 6-5

5 6.3.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts.................................... 6-5

6 6.3.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the 

7 Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long8 Term Productivity............................................................................... 6-9

9 6.3.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ................. 6-11

10 6.4 Recommendation........................................................................................... 6-11

11 6.5 References .................................................................................................... 6-12

12 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................... 7-1

13 INDEX ......................................................................................................................... 8-1

14 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES 

15 OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ARE SENT .............................. 9-1

16 APPENDIX A: COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SHINE MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE 

17 PRODUCTION FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ..............................A-1

18 APPENDIX B: APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER 

19 REQUIREMENTS.........................................................................................B-1

20 APPENDIX C: CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

21 CORRESPONDENCE ..................................................................................C-1

22 APPENDIX D: CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE .....................................................D-1

ix

Table of Contents

1 FIGURES

2 Figure 1–1. Environmental Review Process .......................................................................... 1-5

3 Figure 2–1. Region Surrounding the Proposed SHINE Facility .............................................. 2-3

4 Figure 2–2. Proposed SHINE Facility and Surrounding Area Within a 1-mi (1.6-km) 

5 Radius ................................................................................................................ 2-4

6 Figure 2–3. Proposed SHINE Facility Conceptual Site Layout............................................... 2-5

7 Figure 2–4. Conceptual View of the Proposed SHINE Facility ............................................... 2-7

8 Figure 2–5. Cutaway Conceptual Interior View of the SHINE Device..................................... 2-8

9 Figure 2–6. Conceptual Model of an Irradiation Unit .............................................................. 2-9

10 Figure 2–7. SHINE Radioisotope Production System Flow Diagram.................................... 2-10

11 Figure 3–1. Aerial View of the Proposed SHINE Site............................................................. 3-2

12 Figure 3–2. Cities and Major Roadways Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE 

13 Site ..................................................................................................................... 3-4

14 Figure 3–3. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Proposed 

15 SHINE Site ......................................................................................................... 3-6

16 Figure 3–4. Visual Setting of the Proposed SHINE Site....................................................... 3-10

17 Figure 3–5. Annual Average Wind Rose as Measured at the Southern Wisconsin 

18 Regional Airport................................................................................................ 3-13

19 Figure 3–6. Proposed SHINE Facility Map Showing Noise Sources and Receptors ............ 3-20

20 Figure 3–7. Geologic Cross-Section of the Proposed SHINE Site and Vicinity..................... 3-22

21 Figure 3–8. Surface-Water Features in the Vicinity of the Proposed SHINE Site ................. 3-26

22 Figure 3–9. Existing Transportation Network Near the Proposed SHINE Facility ................. 3-56

23 Figure 4–1. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed SHINE Facility ............................................ 4-4

24 Figure 4–2. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site in 

25 Janesville.......................................................................................................... 4-53

26 Figure 4–3. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE 

27 Facility in Janesville .......................................................................................... 4-55

28 Figure 5–1. Population Centers and Transportation Features in Chippewa County, 

29 Wisconsin ........................................................................................................... 5-8

30 Figure 5–2. Chippewa Falls Site ............................................................................................ 5-9

31 Figure 5–3. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site .................. 5-35

32 Figure 5–4. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site ........... 5-36

33 Figure 5–5. Population Centers and Transportation Features in Portage County, 

34 Wisconsin ......................................................................................................... 5-51

35 Figure 5–6. Stevens Point Site ............................................................................................ 5-52

36 Figure 5–7. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site..................... 5-79

37 Figure 5–8. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site.............. 5-80

xi

Table of Contents

1 TABLES

2 Table ES–1. Summary of NRC Conclusions on the Environmental Impacts of 

3 Construction, Operations, and Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE 

4 Facility .................................................................................................................xix

5 Table 2–1. Estimated Construction Material Requirements .................................................. 2-6

6 Table 2–2. Gaseous Radioactive Effluents ......................................................................... 2-16

Table 2–3. Summary of Major 7 (a) Chemical Inventory and Quantity at the Proposed 

8 SHINE Facility................................................................................................... 2-19

9 Table 3–1. Summary of Land Use and Land Cover Within the Proposed SHINE Site 

10 and Vicinity ......................................................................................................... 3-3

11 Table 3–2. Crop Production Estimates for the Proposed SHINE Site and Within Rock 

12 County, Wisconsin .............................................................................................. 3-7

13 Table 3–3. Land Use in the City of Janesville ....................................................................... 3-8

14 Table 3–4. Annual and Seasonal Precipitation and Temperature Data for the City of 

15 Janesville, Wisconsin........................................................................................ 3-11

16 Table 3–5. National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................ 3-15

17 Table 3–6. Regional Air Emissions Inventory ..................................................................... 3-16

18 Table 3–7. Sound Levels and Human Response................................................................ 3-18

19 Table 3–8. Common and Abundant Wildlife Observed on or Near the Proposed Site......... 3-33

20 Table 3–9. Common Fish Species in the Rock River and Tributaries Within 5 mi 

21 (8 km) of the Proposed Site .............................................................................. 3-36

22 Table 3–10. Federally and State-Listed Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the 

23 Proposed SHINE Site ....................................................................................... 3-38

24 Table 3–11. Resident Population for Rock County (1970–2050) .......................................... 3-43

25 Table 3–12. Race and Ethnicity for the City of Janesville and Rock County, Wisconsin, 

26 in 2010.............................................................................................................. 3-43

27 Table 3–13. Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment Rates in the City of 

28 Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin........................................ 3-45

29 Table 3–14. Employment by Industry in Rock County for 2012............................................. 3-46

30 Table 3–15. Median Family Income and Per Capita Income for City of Janesville, Rock 

31 County, and the State of Wisconsin .................................................................. 3-46

32 Table 3–16. People Living Below U.S. Census Poverty Thresholds for the City of 

33 Janesville, Rock County, and State of Wisconsin.............................................. 3-47

34 Table 3–17. Housing Unit Characteristics for the City of Janesville and Rock County .......... 3-47

35 Table 3–18. Ten Largest Employers in the City of Janesville (2014)..................................... 3-48

36 Table 3–19. Ten Largest Employers in Rock County (2014)................................................. 3-48

37 Table 3–20. State-Owned Natural Areas in Rock County ..................................................... 3-50

38 Table 3–21. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site.......... 3-57

39 Table 3–22. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic Counts in the 

40 Vicinity of the Proposed Site—Number of Vehicles........................................... 3-57

41 Table 4–1. Acres of Land Required for Construction of the Proposed SHINE Facility........... 4-2

42 Table 4–2. Equipment Used During Construction ................................................................. 4-6

xiii
Table of Contents

1 Table 4–3. Annual Air Emissions During Construction.......................................................... 4-7

2 Table 4–4. Fuel Combustion Sources................................................................................. 4-10

3 Table 4–5. Fuel Combustion Emissions During Operations................................................ 4-10

4 Table 4–6. SHINE Air Dispersion Modeling Results............................................................ 4-11

5 Table 4–7. Vehicle Emissions During Operation................................................................. 4-12

6 Table 4–8. Diesel Equipment Used During Decommissioning ............................................ 4-13

7 Table 4–9. Air Emissions During Decommissioning............................................................ 4-15

8 Table 4–10. Water Requirements for SHINE Facility―Construction..................................... 4-22

9 Table 4–11. Water Requirements for SHINE Facility―Operations ....................................... 4-23

10 Table 4–12. Comparison of SHINE Work Force Estimates by Occupation with 

11 Employment by Occupation in ROI ................................................................... 4-31

12 Table 4–13. SHINE Hazardous Chemical Source Terms and Concentrations ...................... 4-49

13 Table 4–14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE Site in 

14 Janesville.......................................................................................................... 4-54

15 Table 4–15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed SHINE 

16 Facility in Janesville .......................................................................................... 4-56

17 Table 4–16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

18 Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis .................................................. 4-59

19 Table 4–17. Cumulative Air Emission Effects Summary During SHINE Operation................ 4-62

20 Table 4–18. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts 

21 of the Proposed Project .................................................................................... 4-75

22 Table 5–1. Proposed SHINE Site-Selection Scoring Criteria ................................................ 5-6

23 Table 5–2. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the Chippewa Falls 

24 Site ................................................................................................................... 5-10

25 Table 5–3. Federally and State-Protected Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of 

26 the Chippewa Falls Site .................................................................................... 5-21

27 Table 5–4. Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts―Vicinity of Chippewa Falls Site.............. 5-29

28 Table 5–5. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic Counts―Vicinity 

29 of Chippewa Falls Site―Number of Vehicles.................................................... 5-29

30 Table 5–6. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site .................. 5-34

31 Table 5–7. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site ........... 5-36

32 Table 5–8. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other 

33 Actions Within a 5-mi (8-km) Radius of the Chippewa Falls Site ....................... 5-40

34 Table 5–9. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the Stevens Point Site ....... 5-53

35 Table 5–10. Vegetation on the Stevens Point Site................................................................ 5-64

36 Table 5–11. Federally and State-Protected Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of 

37 the Stevens Point Site....................................................................................... 5-65

38 Table 5–12. Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts―Vicinity of Stevens Point Site................ 5-73

39 Table 5–13. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic Counts―Vicinity 

40 of the Stevens Point Site―Number of Vehicles ................................................ 5-74

41 Table 5–14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site..................... 5-78

42 Table 5–15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site.............. 5-80

xiv
Table of Contents

1 Table 5–16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other 

2 Actions Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Within a 5-mi 

3 (8-km) ROI of the Stevens Point Site ................................................................ 5-84

4 Table 5–17. Costs and Benefits of Constructing, Operating, and Decommissioning the 

5 Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville, Wisconsin, Site ............................ 5-102

6 Table 5–18. Comparison of Impacts for the Proposed SHINE Facility, Proposed 

7 Alternative Sites, and No-Action ..................................................................... 5-106

8 Table 5–19. Comparison of Technologies at the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville..... 5-106

9 Table 6–1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from Construction, Operations, and 

10 Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville Site............. 6-2

11 Table 6–2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts..................................................... 6-5

12 Table 7–1. List of Preparers ................................................................................................. 7-1

13 Table 9–1. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of This 

14 Environmental Impact Statement Are Sent ......................................................... 9-1

15 Table A–1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Scoping Comment Period ..............A-2

16 Table A–2. Issue Categories.................................................................................................A-2

17 Table B–1. Potentially Applicable Federal Statutes, Regulations, and Orders.......................B-2

18 Table B–2. Potentially Applicable Wisconsin State Requirements.........................................B-6

19 Table B–3. City of Janesville and Rock County, Wisconsin, Ordinances and Plans ..............B-8

20 Table B–4. Permits and Approvals Required for Construction and Operation .......................B-9

21 Table C–1. Environmental Review Correspondence .............................................................C-1

22 Table D–1. Section 7 Consultation Correspondence.............................................................D-3

23 Table D–2. NHPA Correspondence ......................................................................................D-4

xv

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 BACKGROUND

3 By letter dated March 26, 2013, SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), submitted Part 1 of 

4 a two-part application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a construction 

5 permit for a medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) in Janesville, Wisconsin. To 

6 issue a permit, the NRC is required to consider the environmental impacts of the proposed 

7 action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., herein 

8 referred to as NEPA). The NRC’s environmental protection regulations that implement NEPA in 

9 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51describe several types of actions 

10 that would require an environmental impact statement (EIS). The regulation at 10 CFR 51.20

11 does not specifically identify construction permits and operating licenses for production and 

12 utilization facilities as an action that would require an EIS. However, for the SHINE 

13 environmental review, the NRC staff determined that an EIS was appropriate to assess the 

14 environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC staff made this determination because 

15 of the potential for significant environmental impacts and the unique considerations of a 

16 first-of-a-kind application for a medical radioisotope production facility with a unique application 

17 of technologies, as well as to allow public involvement in the environmental review process.

18 Upon acceptance of Part 1 of SHINE’s application, the NRC staff began the environmental 

19 review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a Notice of Intent in the Federal 

20 Register (78 FR 39343) to prepare an EIS and to conduct scoping activities. In preparation of 

21 this EIS, the NRC staff performed the following:

22 • conducted public scoping meetings on July 17, 2013, in Janesville, Wisconsin;

23 • conducted a site audit at the proposed SHINE site and alternative sites from 

24 July 30, 2013, to August 1, 2013;

25 • reviewed SHINE’s Environmental Report; 

26 • consulted with Federal, State, and local agencies;

27 • conducted a review of the guidance in Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting 

28 NUREG-1537, Part 1, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the 

29 Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content,” for Licensing Radioisotope 

30 Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors”; and Part 2, “Guidelines 

31 for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: 

32 Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria”; and

33 • considered public comments received.

34 PROPOSED ACTION

35 The proposed Federal action is for the NRC to decide whether to issue a construction permit 

36 under 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow construction of a medical radioisotope production facility. 

37 If the NRC were to issue a construction permit, SHINE could build the proposed facility on a 

38 91-acre (37-hectare) site in Rock County, which is located about 4 miles (6 kilometers) south of 

39 the city center of Janesville, Wisconsin. The SHINE facility would produce, package, and ship 

40 medical radioisotopes, specifically molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133.

41 The U.S. Department of Energy is a cooperating agency on this EIS. If the NRC issues the 

42 required permits and licenses, the proposed Federal action for the U.S. Department of Energy

xvii
Executive Summary

1 National Nuclear Security Administration is to decide whether to provide cost-sharing financial 

2 support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate the commercial production of 

3 medical radioisotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium. The funding would help 

4 accelerate activities, such as construction, purchase of equipment, and initial operation using a 

5 subcritical fission process.

6 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

7 The purpose of this proposed Federal action is to evaluate the applicant’s proposal to construct 

8 a facility that would ultimately produce medical radioisotopes. The determination of need and 

9 the decision to produce radioisotopes are at the discretion of applicants or other medical 

10 radioisotope production decisionmakers. This definition of purpose and need reflects the NRC’s 

11 recognition that, unless there are findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy 

12 Act of 1954, as amended, or findings in the environmental analysis under NEPA that would lead 

13 the NRC to reject a construction permit application, the agency does not have a role in the 

14 planning decisions as to whether a particular radioisotope production facility should be 

15 constructed and operated. 

16 The proposed Federal action for the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security 

17 Administration is to decide whether, if the NRC grants a permit(s) and license(s), to provide 

18 cost-sharing financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate the 

19 establishment of the commercial production of medical radioisotopes without the use of highly 

20 enriched uranium. The funding would help to accelerate activities such as construction, 

21 purchase of equipment, and initial operation using a subcritical fission process if the NRC were 

22 to give SHINE a construction permit and operating license.

23 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AND 

24 DECOMMISSIONING

25 The EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. The 

26 environmental impacts from the proposed action are designated as SMALL, MODERATE, or 

27 LARGE. The following definitions of these three significance levels, as presented in the final 

28 interim staff guidance to NUREG–1537, apply: 

29 SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would 

30 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. In 

31 assessing radiological impacts, the NRC has concluded that those impacts that do not 

32 exceed permissible levels in the agency’s regulations are considered SMALL.

33 MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

34 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

35 LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

36 important attributes of the resource.

37 Table ES–1 summarizes the NRC staff’s findings on the level of impacts on environmental 

38 resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility.

xviii
Executive Summary

1 Table ES–1. Summary of NRC Conclusions on the Environmental Impacts of 

2 Construction, Operations, and Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE Facility

Resource Area Impacts

Land Use and Visual Resources SMALL

Air Quality and Noise SMALL

Geologic Environment SMALL

Water Resources SMALL

Ecological Resources SMALL

Historic and Cultural Resources SMALL

Socioeconomic Impacts SMALL

Human Health SMALL

Waste Management SMALL

Transportation SMALL to MODERATE

Accidents SMALL

Environmental Justice See note below.

(a)

Cumulative Impacts 

Land Use and Visual Resources

Air Quality and Noise

Geologic Environment

Water Resources

Ecological Resources

Historic and Cultural Resources

Socioeconomics Impacts

Human Health

Waste Management

Transportation

Environmental Justice

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL to MODERATE

See note below.

(a)

(a) There would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations and 

subsistence consumption from the proposed action and from cumulative impacts.

3 ALTERNATIVES

4 The NRC staff considered the environmental impacts associated with the following alternatives

5 to constructing the SHINE facility at the Janesville site:

6 • the no-action alternative;

7 • construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa 

8 Falls site (Alternative Site No. 1);

9 • construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens 

10 Point site (Alternative Site No. 2); and

11 • construction, operations, and decommissioning of a linear-accelerator-based facility 

12 at the SHINE site (alternative technology).

13 The NRC staff evaluated each alternative using the same resource areas that were used in 

14 evaluating impacts from the proposed action. The NRC staff determined that the no-action 

15 alternative would result in SMALL impacts to all resource areas. However, the no-action 

16 alternative does not fulfill the purpose and need of the project. The environmentally preferred 

17 alternatives are the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility and the 

18 linear-accelerator-based facility at the Janesville site. The impacts associated with the 

19 proposed action and the alternative technology would be SMALL for all resource areas with the

xix
Executive Summary

1 exception of traffic, which would incur SMALL to MODERATE impacts. The NRC staff 

2 determined that the construction, operations, and decommissioning of building the SHINE 

3 facility at the alternative sites would likely result in greater impacts than the proposed action.

4 RECOMMENDATION

5 After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental 

6 and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, the NRC staff recommends, unless 

7 safety issues mandate otherwise, the issuance of the proposed construction permit to SHINE. 

8 The NRC staff based its recommendation on the following factors:

9 • SHINE’s Environmental Report;

10 • the NRC staff’s consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies;

11 • the NRC staff’s independent environmental review; and

12 • the NRC staff’s consideration of public comments received. 

xx
1 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

2 0C degree(s) Celsius

3 0F degree(s) Fahrenheit

4 ac acre(s)

5 ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

6 ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

7 AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level

8 AERMOD American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection 

9 Agency Regulatory Model

10 ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable

11 APE area of potential effect

12 AQCR air quality control region

13 BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

14 bgs below ground surface

15 BIA U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

16 BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

17 BMP best management practice

18 B.P. before present

19 bu bushel(s)

20 CAA Clean Air Act

21 Ci curie

22 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

23 CFR Code of Federal Regulations

24 cfs cubic feet per second

25 CH4 methane

26 cm centimeter

27 CO carbon monoxide

28 CO2 carbon dioxide

29 CO2eq carbon dioxide equivalent

30 CRMP cultural resource management plan

31 CWA Clean Water Act

32 dB decibel(s)

33 dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 

34 DBA design-basis accident

xxi
Abbreviations and Acronyms

1 DOE U.S. Department of Energy

2 DOL U.S. Department of Labor

3 DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

4 EA environmental assessment

5 ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online [air data search tool]

6 EIA Energy Information Administration

7 EIS environmental impact statement

8 EO Executive Order

9 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

10 ER Environmental Report

11 ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline

12 ESA Endangered Species Act

13 ES&H Environment, Health, and Safety [Manager]

14 FAA U.S. Federal Aviation Administration

15 FEMA U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency

16 FHWA U.S. Federal Highway Administration

17 FR Federal Register

18 ft foot (feet)

ft2 19 square foot (feet)

20 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

21 GAI Golder Associates, Inc. 

22 gal gallon(s)

23 GHG greenhouse gas

24 GM General Motors

25 gpd gallons per day

26 gpm gallons per minute

27 GTCC greater than Class C

28 GWP global warming potential

29 ha hectare(s)

30 HAP hazardous air pollutant

31 HEPA high-efficiency particulate air 

32 HEU highly enriched uranium

33 hp horsepower 

34 hr hour(s)

35 IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

xxii
Abbreviations and Acronyms

1 in. inch

2 IOM Institute of Medicine

3 JBWI Rockford, Illinois–Janesville–Beloit, Wisconsin, Interstate

4 K kindergarten

5 km kilometer(s)

6 kph kilometer(s) per hour

km2 7 square kilometer(s)

8 L liter(s)

9 LDN day-night sound intensity level

10 Lpd liter(s) per day

11 m meter(s)

m2 12 square meter(s)

m3 13 cubic meter(s)

m3 14 /day cubic meter(s) per day

m3 15 /min cubic meter(s) per minute

mi3 16 /s cubic mile(s) per second

17 mg/L milligram(s) per liter

18 mg/m3 milligram(s) per cubic meter

19 mgd million gallon(s) per day

20 m/s meter(s) per second

21 MAR material at risk

22 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

23 mgd million gallons per day

24 MHA maximum hypothetical accident

25 mi mile

26 min minute

27 mph mile(s) per hour

mi2 28 square mile(s)

29 μg microgram

30 μm microns

31 μg/m3 microgram per cubic meter 

32 MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity

33 MOA memorandum of agreement 

34 MOI maximum offsite individual

35 mrem milliroentgen equivalent man

xxiii
Abbreviations and Acronyms

1 MSL mean sea level

2 mSv millisievert

3 MT metric ton(s)

4 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

5 NAC noise abatement criteria

6 NCDC National Climatic Data Center

7 NCES National Center for Education Statistics

8 NEA Nuclear Energy Agency

9 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

10 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

11 NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration

12 NO2 nitrogen dioxide

13 NOx nitrogen oxide

14 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

16 NPS U.S. National Park Service

17 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

18 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

19 NRHP National Register of Historic Places

20 NUREG NRC technical report designation (Nuclear Regulatory 

21 Commission)

22 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

23 PAC protective action criterion/criteria

24 PGA peak ground acceleration

25 PM particulate matter

26 ppb parts per billion

27 ppm parts per million

28 PSAR preliminary safety analysis report

29 PSD prevention of significant deterioration

30 RCA radiation-controlled area

31 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

32 ROI region of influence

33 RM river mile

34 SER safety evaluation report

35 SHINE SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.

xxiv
Abbreviations and Acronyms

1 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

2 SIL significant impact level

3 SNM Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

4 SO2 sulfur dioxide

5 SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure

6 SSC species of special concern

7 TDS total dissolved solids

8 TEEL Temporary Emergency Exposure Limit

9 TIF Tax Increment Finance

10 TMDL total maximum daily load

11 TNM traffic noise model

12 TPY tons per year

13 TSP total suspended particles

14 TSV target solution vessel

15 μg microgram(s)

16 μm micron(s)

17 U.S. United States

18 U.S.C. United States Code

19 USCB U.S. Census Bureau

20 USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

21 USDOI U.S. Department of Interior

22 USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

23 USGS U.S. Geological Service

24 VOC volatile organic compound(s)

25 WAC Wisconsin Administrative Code

26 WDOA Wisconsin Department of Administration

27 WDATCP Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer 

28 Protection

29 WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

30 WDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation

31 WDPI Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

32 WDR Wisconsin Department of Revenue

33 WDWD Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development

34 WGNHS Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey 

35 WHS Wisconsin Historical Society

xxv
Abbreviations and Acronyms

1 WI Wisconsin

2 WPDES Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

3 WTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

yd3 4 cubic yard(s)

5 Y-12 Y-12 National Security Complex

xxvi
1 INTRODUCTION

2 By letter dated March 26, 2013, SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), submitted Part 1 of 

3 a two-part application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a construction 

4 permit under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 that would allow 

5 construction of a medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) in Janesville, 

6 Wisconsin (SHINE 2013). The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) authorizes 

7 the NRC to issue construction permits for production and utilization facilities. To issue a 

8 construction permit, the NRC is required to consider the environmental impacts of the proposed 

9 action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., herein 

10 referred to as NEPA). The NRC’s environmental protection regulations that implement NEPA in 

11 10 CFR Part 51 describe several types of actions that would require an environmental impact 

12 statement (EIS). Construction permits and operating licenses for production and subcritical 

13 utilization facilities are not specifically identified in 10 CFR 51.20 as an action that would require 

14 an EIS. Such activities may require an environmental assessment (EA) or an EIS, depending 

15 on their potential for significant impacts that may affect the quality of the human environment 

16 (NRC 2012).

17 An EA is used to determine whether the impacts from the proposed action may be significant 

18 and whether a finding of no significant impact can be made. If, based on the EA, the NRC

19 concludes that the proposed action could result in significant impacts to the human 

20 environment, the agency should prepare an EIS. In some cases, the NRC may decide to 

21 prepare an EIS rather than an EA―if there is the potential for significant impacts to the human 

22 environment or the proposed action involves a matter that the Commission, in the exercise of its 

23 discretion, has determined should be covered by an EIS. For the SHINE environmental review, 

24 the NRC staff determined that an EIS was appropriate to assess the environmental impacts of 

25 the proposed action. The NRC staff made this determination because of the potential for 

26 significant environmental impacts and the unique considerations of a first-of-a-kind application 

27 for a medical radioisotope production facility with a unique application of technologies, as well 

28 as to allow public involvement in the environmental review process.

29 1.1 Background

30 Nuclear medicine practitioners frequently use a variety of radioisotopes to diagnose and treat 

31 illnesses in patients. Out of the many radioisotopes in use, three are relevant for this EIS—

32 molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133.

33 1.1.1 Molybdenum-99

34 Molybdenum-99 is the radioisotope currently in highest demand (NRC 2012) for medical use. 

35 Molybdenum-99 decays with a 66-hour half-life to technetium-99m, which in turn decays with a 

36 6-hour half-life to technetium-99. Technetium-99m is the most commonly used medical 

37 radioisotope in the world. It is used in about 20 to 25 million medical diagnostic procedures 

38 annually, or about 80 percent of all diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures (IAEA 2013). Uses 

39 for technetium-99m include the following (SHINE 2013):

40 • bone scans,

41 • lung perfusion imaging,

42 • kidney scans and functional imaging,

1-1
Introduction

1 • liver scans,

2 • sentinel lymph node localization,

3 • cardiac perfusion imaging,

4 • brain perfusion imaging,

5 • gall bladder function imaging,

6 • blood pool imaging,

7 • thyroid and salivary gland imaging, and

8 • Meckel’s scans.

9 Molybdenum-99 is commonly produced through the neutron activation of naturally occurring

10 molybdenum or as a by-product of uranium-235 fission. No U.S. domestic producers of 

11 molybdenum-99 exist. Almost the entire U.S. supply of molybdenum-99, as well as about 

12 85 percent of the world’s supply, is produced at the National Research Universal reactor in 

13 Chalk River, Ontario, Canada, or at the High Flux Reactor in Petten, the Netherlands (National 

14 Research Council 2009). The only other international producers are located in South Africa, 

15 Australia, Belgium, Poland, Czech Republic, and France. Serious domestic and international 

16 shortages over the last decade resulted from planned and unplanned maintenance shutdowns 

17 at these facilities (National Research Council 2009). In addition to issues of production 

18 reliability, global demand for the radioisotope is increasing, and transporting the radioisotope 

19 across international borders is becoming more difficult (National Research Council 2009).

20 1.1.2 Iodine-131

21 Iodine-131 is produced for medical use through irradiation of tellurium-130 or as a by-product of 

22 uranium-235 fission. Iodine-131 has a half-life of about 8 days. Uses of iodine-131 include the 

23 following: (1) radiation therapy and (2) radioactive labeling for diagnostic pharmaceuticals 

24 (SHINE 2013).

25 Three companies—DRAXIMAGE, Covidien, and MDS Nordion—supply iodine-131 for the 

26 U.S. market (Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) 2011). As with molybdenum-99, reactor shutdowns 

27 have caused recent shortages in iodine-131. For example, in November 2013, the National 

28 Research Universal reactor shutdown led to a global shortage of a variety of medical isotopes 

29 (NEA 2011; Bloomberg 2013).

30 1.1.3 Xenon-133

31 Xenon-133 is produced as a by-product of uranium-235 fission. Its half-life is about 5 days. 

32 Uses of xenon-133 include the following: (1) lung imaging, (2) diagnostic evaluation of 

33 pulmonary function, and (3) assessment of cerebral blood flow (SHINE 2013).

34 The domestic supply of xenon-133 also has been susceptible to shortages because of 

35 production and availability issues (Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 

36 (SNM) 2013).

37 1.2 Proposed Federal Action

38 The proposed Federal action is for the NRC to decide whether to issue a construction permit 

39 under 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow construction of a medical radioisotope production facility

40 (which would include utilization facilities). If the NRC were to issue a construction permit, 

1-2
Introduction

A curie (Ci) is a unit of measurement 

describing the radioactive disintegration 

rate of a substance; 1 Ci is 3.700x1010

disintegrations per second (Institute of 

Medicine (IOM) 1995).

The term “6-day Ci” comes from 

producers to determine the number of 

curies present in a shipment 6 days after 

it leaves the production facility (National 

Research Council 2009).

1 SHINE could build the proposed facility on a 91-acre (37-hectare) site in Rock County, which is 

2 located about 4 mi (6 km) south of the city center of Janesville, Wisconsin. The issuance of a 

3 construction permit is a separate licensing action from the issuance of an operating license. If 

4 the NRC issues a construction permit, then SHINE must submit a separate application for an 

5 operating license, pursuant to the NRC’s requirements, and must obtain NRC approval before it 

6 can operate the medical radioisotope production facility. If the NRC were to issue an operating 

7 license, SHINE could operate the proposed SHINE facility and produce radioisotopes, including 

8 molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133 (SHINE 2013). To conduct an efficient and 

9 effective environmental review, this EIS covers the potential impacts from construction, 

10 operations, and decommissioning. If SHINE were to submit an application for an operating 

11 license, the NRC staff would prepare a supplement to this EIS in accordance with 

12 10 CFR 51.95(b). 

13 As described in Section 1.6, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a cooperating agency on 

14 this EIS. If the NRC issues the required permits and licenses, the proposed Federal action for 

15 the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is to decide whether to provide 

16 additional cost-sharing financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate 

17 the commercial production of medical radioisotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium. 

18 The funding would help accelerate activities such as construction, purchase of equipment, and 

19 initial operation using a subcritical fission process. Funding of these activities is a different 

20 action from the lease and takeback of uranium by DOE/NNSA. If SHINE were to request that 

21 NNSA provide it with low-enriched uranium or take back waste for which SHINE has no other 

22 disposal path, such activities would require a review under NEPA before DOE/NNSA could 

23 make any decision about these activities.

24 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action

25 The purpose of and need for this proposed Federal 

26 action is to evaluate the applicant’s proposal to construct 

27 a facility that would ultimately produce medical 

28 radioisotopes. For the past 2 decades, the United States 

29 has relied on imported medical radioisotopes, such as 

30 molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. 

31 Molybdenum-99, for example, is used to perform about 

32 50,000 medical procedures daily in the United States. 

33 Global shortages of medical radioisotopes in 2009 and 

34 2010 have highlighted the need for prompt action to 

35 ensure a reliable domestic supply. Demand in the United States for molybdenum-99 is 

approximately 5,000 6-day curies (Ci) (2x1014 and 3x1014 36 6-day becquerels) (Bq) per week. 

37 This demand is expected to increase about 0.5 percent per year (OECD 2014). In recent years, 

38 U.S. policy has aimed to ensure a reliable supply of medical radioisotopes while minimizing the 

39 use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes through, among other things, supporting 

40 commercial projects that produce medical radioisotopes domestically without the use of highly 

41 enriched uranium (NNSA 2011; White House 2012).

42 In response to these shortages, and pursuant to the January 2013 enactment of the National 

43 Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013, Title XXXI, Subtitle F, known as the American 

44 Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 3171 et seq.), DOE/NNSA has entered into 

45 cooperative agreements with domestic commercial firms. These agreements enable 

46 DOE/NNSA to engage in cost-sharing activities to accelerate domestic endeavors to 

47 demonstrate and produce a reliable supply of molybdenum--99 using technologies that do not 

1-3
Introduction

1 rely on the use of highly enriched uranium, in accordance with Section 988 of the Energy Policy 

2 Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352) (NNSA 2011).

3 The proposed action for the NRC is to decide whether to issue a construction permit, which 

4 would allow SHINE to construct a medical radioisotope production facility that uses low-enriched 

5 uranium to produce molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. If the construction permit is 

6 granted, SHINE would then have to apply for an operating license. The NRC would conduct a 

7 separate review to decide on issuing an operating license. If the facility is licensed to operate, 

SHINE expects to produce up to 8,200 6-day Ci (3.0x1014 8 6-day Bq) of molybdenum-99 per 

9 week (SHINE 2013).

10 1.4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Review

11 The NRC’s process to review applications for construction permits consists of two separate, 

12 parallel reviews. The safety review evaluates the applicant’s ability to meet the NRC regulatory 

13 safety requirements. The NRC staff documents the findings of the safety review in a Safety 

14 Evaluation Report. The environmental review, governed by the requirements in 

15 10 CFR Part 51, evaluates the environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed 

16 action. This draft EIS presents the results of this evaluation. The NRC considers the findings in 

17 both the EIS and the Safety Evaluation Report in its decision to grant or deny the issuance of a 

18 construction permit.

19 To guide its assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed action or alternative 

20 actions, the NRC established a standard of significance for impacts using the Council on 

21 Environmental Quality terminology for “significantly” (40 CFR 1508.27). Based on this, the NRC 

22 established three levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and 

23 LARGE, as defined below.

24 SMALL: Environmental effects are not 

25 detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

26 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important 

27 attribute of the resource.

28 MODERATE: Environmental effects are 

29 sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

30 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

31 LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly 

32 noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

33 In March 2013, SHINE submitted its Environmental Report (SHINE 2013) with Part 1 of its 

34 application for a construction permit. After reviewing Part 1 of the application for sufficiency, on 

35 July 1, 2013, the NRC staff published a Notice of Acceptance for Docketing in the Federal 

36 Register (78 FR 39342) and a separate Federal Register notice of its intent to prepare an EIS 

37 and conduct a scoping process (78 FR 39343). The July 1, 2013, scoping notice began the 

38 60-day scoping period.

39 On July 17, 2013, the NRC held two public scoping meetings in Janesville, Wisconsin. The 

40 NRC’s report entitled, “Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report for 

41 the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility,” presents the comments received during 

42 the scoping process (NRC 2015).

43 In July and August 2013, the NRC staff conducted a site audit at the proposed and alternative 

44 SHINE facility sites to verify information in SHINE’s Environmental Report. During the site audit, 

The American Medical Isotopes Production 

Act of 2012 directs DOE to improve the 

reliability of a domestic supply of 

molybdenum-99 by carrying out a 

technology-neutral program to support 

non-Federal entities in the United States in 

developing capabilities to produce 

molybdenum-99 without the use of highly 

enriched uranium.

1-4
Introduction

1 the NRC staff met with SHINE personnel; reviewed specific documentation; toured the proposed 

2 and alternative sites; and met with interested Federal, State, and local agencies.

3 Figure 1–1 shows the major milestones in the public review of an EIS. After the scoping period 

4 and site audit, the NRC staff compiles its findings in a draft EIS. The draft EIS is available for 

5 public comment for 45 days. During this time, the NRC staff hosts public meetings and collects 

6 public comments. Based on the information gathered, the NRC staff will amend the draft EIS 

7 findings as necessary and then publish a final EIS.

8 Figure 1–1. Environmental Review Process

9

NRC staff 

reviews 

application

Staff conducts

site 

environmental

audit

NRC issues 

draft EIS

Application 

submitted to NRC

*Scoping 

process

*Draft EIS 

process

NRC issues 

final EIS

NRC makes 

decision on whether 

to issue permit and 

license

*Opportunities

for public

involvement

1-5
Introduction

1 1.5 Cooperating Agency

2 NEPA lays the groundwork for coordination between the lead agency preparing an EIS and 

3 other Federal agencies that may have special expertise on an environmental issue or that have 

4 jurisdiction by law. These other agencies, referred to as “cooperating agencies,” are 

5 responsible for assisting the lead agency through early participation in the NEPA process, 

6 including scoping. The cooperating agencies provide technical input to the environmental 

7 analysis and provide staff support, as needed, to the lead agency.

8 The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 directs DOE and the NRC to ensure, to 

9 the maximum extent practicable, that environmental reviews for facilities to produce medical 

10 radioisotopes are complementary and not duplicative.

11 The NRC makes license decisions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 

12 DOE makes funding decisions under the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 and 

13 the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352). The NRC is required to conduct an 

14 environmental review under NEPA to decide whether to grant SHINE a construction permit. 

15 DOE is required to conduct an environmental review under NEPA for providing financial support 

16 to SHINE. The NRC and DOE decided to enter into a cooperative agreement to make the most 

17 effective and efficient use of Federal resources in reviewing SHINE’s proposal. On December 

18 1, 2014, and February 3, 2015, the NRC and DOE signed a Memorandum of Agreement on the 

19 review of the SHINE application (DOE and NRC 2015). The goal of this agreement is to 

20 develop one EIS that serves the NRC licensing process and the DOE funding process. 

21 Although both agencies must meet NEPA requirements, they also must meet mission 

22 requirements. As a cooperating agency, DOE/NNSA plans to adopt the final EIS in accordance 

23 with the DOE/NEPA implementing procedures in 10 CFR 1021.103. 

24 The Memorandum of Agreement designates the NRC as the lead Federal agency and DOE as 

25 a cooperating agency in developing an EIS for the proposed SHINE facility. Under Federal law, 

26 each agency has jurisdiction related to parts of the proposed project as major Federal actions 

27 that could significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 

28 1.6 Consultation and Correspondence

29 The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the National 

30 Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) require Federal agencies to consult 

31 with applicable State and Federal agencies and groups before taking actions that may affect 

32 endangered species, fisheries, and historic and archaeological resources. In addition to 

33 correspondence, as part of formal consultation requirements, the NRC staff contacted Federal, 

34 State, regional, local, and tribal agencies with environmental expertise in the areas that the 

35 proposed project could potentially affect. Agencies contacted during the formal consultation 

36 processes and the SHINE environmental review process included the following:

37 • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

38 • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,

39 • Citizen Potawatomi Nation,

40 • Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians,

41 • St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin,

42 • Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin,

43 • Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota,

1-6
Introduction

1 • Iowa Tribe,

2 • Forest County Potawatomi Community,

3 • Hannahville Indian Community,

4 • Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin,

5 • Sac and Fox Nation,

6 • Lower Sioux Indian Community,

7 • Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation,

8 • Prairie Island Indian Community,

9 • Santee Sioux Nation,

10 • Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation,

11 • Spirit Lake Tribe,

12 • Upper Sioux Community,

13 • Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma,

14 • Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska,

15 • Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and

16 • Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office.

17 Chapter 9 provides a list of those who received a copy of this EIS. Appendix C contains a 

18 chronological list of all correspondence sent and received during the environmental review.

19 1.7 Status of Compliance

20 SHINE is responsible for complying with applicable NRC regulations and other Federal, State, 

21 and local requirements. Appendix B to this EIS includes a list of the permits and licenses that 

22 Federal, State, and local authorities must issue to SHINE before construction or operation of the 

23 proposed facility.

24 1.8 References

25 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic licensing of 

26 production and utilization facilities.”

27 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

28 protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions.”

29 10 CFR Part 1021. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 1021, “National 

30 Environmental Policy Act implementing procedures.”

31 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 

32 Part 1508, “Terminology and index.”

33 78 FR 39342. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.—

34 notice; acceptance for docketing.” Federal Register 78(126):39342–39343. July 1, 2013.

1-7
Introduction

1 78 FR 39343. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.—

2 intent to prepare environmental impact statement and conduct scoping process; public 

3 meeting.” Federal Register 78(126):39343–39344. July 1, 2013.

4 American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 42 U.S.C. §3171 et seq.

5 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §2011 et seq.

6 [Bloomberg] Bloomberg News. 2013. Global Medical Isotope Shortage Follows S. Africa Plant 

7 Leak. November 15, 2013. Available at <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/global8 medical-isotope-shortage-follows-south-africa-plant-leak.html> (accessed 21 February 2014).

9 [DOE and NRC]. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. 

10 “Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Department of Energy-National Nuclear Security 

11 Administration and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

12 Regulation, on the Environmental Review Related to the Issuance of Authorizations To 

13 Construct and Operate SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc., Facility.” ADAMS 

14 No. ML13304B666. 

15 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.

16 Energy Policy Act of 2005. 42 U.S.C. §16352.

17 [IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 2013. Coordinated Research Projects (CRP) on 

18 Production of Mo-99 from LEU or Neutron Activation. Available at 

19 <http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/Technical_Areas/RRS/mo99.html> (accessed 

20 13 June 2013).

21 [IOM] Institute of Medicine. 1995. Isotopes for Medicine and the Life Sciences. 

22 Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. February 10, 1995.

23 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.

24 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.

25 [NEA] Nuclear Energy Agency. 2011. The Supply of Medical Radioisotopes—The Path to 

26 Reliability. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at 

27 <http://www.oecd-nea.org/med-radio/reports/med-radio-reliability.pdf> (accessed 

28 14 June 2013).

29 [NNSA] National Nuclear Security Administration. 2011. NNSA Works to Minimize the Use of 

30 HEU in Medical Isotope Production. NNSA Fact Sheet 20100125. November 1, 2011. 

31 Available at <http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/factsheets/factsheet20100125> 

32 (accessed 14 June 2013).

33 [NRC] National Research Council. 2009. Medical Isotope Production Without Highly Enriched 

34 Uranium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at 

35 <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12569> (accessed 13 June 2013).

36 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting 

37 NUREG-1537, Part 1, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of 

38 Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content,” and Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and 

39 Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and 

40 Acceptance Criteria,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous 

41 Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. October 17, 2012. ADAMS 

42 Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075.

1-8
Introduction

1 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping 

2 Process Summary Report for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility. ADAMS 

3 No. ML15062A111.

4 [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development–Nuclear Energy Agency. 

5 2014. The Supply of Medical Radioisotopes—Medical Isotope Supply in the Future: Production 

6 Capacity and Demand Forecast for the 99Mo/99mTc Market, 2015-2020. Organisation for 

7 Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at <http://www.oecd-nea.org/med8 radio/reports/sen-hlgmr2014-2.pdf> (accessed 26 February 2015). 

9 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR),

10 Chapter 19, “Environmental Report.” Monona, WI: SHINE. March 26, 2013. ADAMS 

11 No. ML14052A349.

12 [SNM] Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2013. Xenon-133 Shortage 

13 Information. Available at <http://interactive.snm.org/index.cfm?PageID=11637> (accessed 

14 14 June 2013).

15 White House. 2012. Fact Sheet: Encouraging Reliable Supplies of Molybdenum-99 Produced 

16 without Highly Enriched Uranium. Office of the Press Secretary. June 7, 2012. Available at 

17 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/07/fact-sheet-encouraging-reliable18 supplies-molybdenum-99-produced-without-> (accessed 14 June 2013).

1-9

1 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION

2 The proposed Federal action for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is to decide 

3 whether to issue a construction permit that would allow SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

4 (SHINE), to construct a medical radioisotope production facility that would produce, package, 

5 and ship medical radioisotopes, specifically molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133. This 

6 facility would employ a new medical radioisotope production technology that uses a 

7 nonreactor-based subcritical fission process.

8 The proposed Federal action for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear 

9 Security Administration (NNSA) is to decide whether, if the NRC grants a permit(s) and 

10 license(s), to provide cost-sharing financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to 

11 accelerate the establishment of the commercial production of medical radioisotopes without the 

12 use of highly enriched uranium (HEU). The funding would help to accelerate activities such as 

13 construction, purchase of equipment, and initial operation using a subcritical fission process if 

14 the NRC were to give SHINE a construction permit and operating license.

15 2.1 Site Location and Layout

16 SHINE would construct and operate the proposed facility on land annexed by the City of 

17 Janesville, Wisconsin, which is located approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) south of the city center of 

18 Janesville, 13 mi (21 km) north of the Wisconsin-Illinois border, and 63 mi (101 km) west of 

19 Lake Michigan. The proposed site encompasses approximately 91 acres (ac) (37 hectares 

20 (ha)) of undeveloped land that is currently bordered by U.S. Highway 51 and the Southern 

21 Wisconsin Regional Airport to the west and cultivated crop lands to the north, south, and east 

22 (Figures 2–1 and 2–2) (SHINE 2013a). The SHINE facility would comprise five main buildings 

23 with associated support structures (e.g., storage sheds, storage tanks, and water tanks) and 

24 other engineered features (e.g., stormwater swales and parking lots) (Figure 2–3) 

25 (SHINE 2013a, 2013b). The five main buildings in which SHINE would conduct the majority of 

26 its operations are:

27 (1) Production Facility Building, 

28 (2) Support Facility Building, 

29 (3) Waste Staging and Shipping Building,

30 (4) Diesel Generator Building, and 

31 (5) Administration Building.

32 The five main buildings would be concentrated in the central portion of the SHINE site and 

would collectively cover approximately 91,000 square feet (ft2 33 ) (about 8,500 square meters 

(m2 34 )). The largest of the proposed buildings would be the Production Facility Building, which

35 would extend approximately 284 ft (87 m) in length and 194 ft (59 m) in width and would have 

36 an estimated height of approximately 58 ft (18 m) above grade (SHINE 2014a). The tallest 

37 exhaust vent stack would be slightly higher, extending approximately 66 ft (20 m) above grade 

38 (SHINE 2014a).

39 Other features associated with the proposed SHINE facility include support structures, such as 

40 storage sheds, storage tanks, and water tanks, and engineered features, such as a new paved 

41 entrance road, parking lots, an engineered stormwater swale, berms, ditches, culverts, fences, 

42 and a rolling gate. Site improvements to accommodate the five main buildings, support 

43 structures, and additional engineered features would result in a total estimated facility footprint 

2-1
Proposed Federal Action

of approximately 350,000 ft2 (about 32,500 m2 1 ) (SHINE 2013b, 2014a). The new road would 

2 extend east from a proposed main entrance along U.S. Highway 51 and would provide 

3 commuter and commercial vehicle access to the site. The nearest major intersection to the 

4 proposed site is located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) north where U.S. Highway 51 connects 

5 with State Trunk Highway 11 (SHINE 2013a).

2-2
Proposed Federal Action

1 Figure 2–1. Region Surrounding the Proposed SHINE Facility

2

3 Source: SHINE 2013a

2-3
Proposed Federal Action

1 Figure 2–2. Proposed SHINE Facility and Surrounding 

2 Area Within a 1-mi (1.6-km) Radius 

3

4 Source: SHINE 2013a

2-4
Proposed Federal Action

1 Figure 2–3. Proposed SHINE Facility Conceptual Site Layout

2

3 Source: SHINE 2013a, 2013b

4 2.2 Construction Activities

5 The construction period for the proposed SHINE facility would extend for 18 months and would 

6 require a peak construction workforce of approximately 451 workers (SHINE 2014a).

7 Construction activities would include earthmoving, excavation, pile driving, facility build-out,

8 installation of roads and parking areas, concrete batch plant operation, and delivery of 

9 construction-related materials and components. Materials needed to construct the SHINE

10 facility would include concrete, structural steel, miscellaneous steel, steel liner, asphalt, stone 

11 granular material, and roofing materials (SHINE 2013a). Table 2–1 presents the estimated 

12 amounts needed for each of these materials.

13 Commercial trucks would be used for shipping construction materials to the project site,

14 including feed materials necessary for operating the concrete batch plant that would be located 

15 on site (SHINE 2013b, 2014a). SHINE estimates that the facility would require, on average, 

16 approximately 420 truck deliveries and 9 offsite waste shipments each month during 

17 construction (SHINE 2014a).

2-5
Proposed Federal Action

1 Table 2–1. Estimated Construction Material Requirements

Material Amount

Concrete 27,700 yd3(a) (21,178 m3(a))

Structural Steel 140 tons (127 MT(a))

Miscellaneous Steel 30 tons (27 MT)

Steel Liner 100 tons (91 MT)

Asphalt 2,200 yd3 (1,682 m3)

Stone Granular Material 16,000 yd3 (12,233 m3)

Roofing 150 tons (136 MT)

(a) yd3 = cubic yard(s), m3 = cubic meter(s), and MT = metric ton(s).

Source: SHINE 2013a

2 Although most building foundations would be excavated to a depth of 5 ft (1.5 m) below grade,

3 portions of the Production Facility Building would require excavation to a depth of approximately 

4 40 ft (12 m). Areas of the site would also be excavated to support installation of sanitary sewer 

5 and natural gas pipelines, an underground electrical distribution line, a municipal water line, and 

6 an underground diesel storage tank. In addition, drainage ditches and swale areas would be 

excavated to manage stormwater runoff. SHINE estimates that approximately 278,000 yd3 7

(213,000 m3 8 ) of material would be excavated to support construction activities (SHINE 2013a). 

9 All excavated material would be disposed of or used on site (SHINE 2013b). SHINE projects 

10 that construction equipment necessary to support these activities would consume approximately 

11 295,000 gallons (gal) (1,117,000 liters (L)) of diesel fuel (SHINE 2013b).

12 Overall, construction activities would disturb approximately 41 ac (17 ha) of the proposed

13 SHINE site. Of this total, SHINE projects that approximately 15 ac (6 ha) would be temporarily 

14 disturbed by construction activities, and approximately 26 ac (11 ha) would be permanently 

15 converted to industrial use (SHINE 2014a).

16 Figure 2–4 presents a conceptual illustration of the completed SHINE facility.

17 Before full commercial operation, SHINE may conduct some preoperational testing activities.

18 During this time, the SHINE facility equipment would undergo a thorough commissioning phase, 

19 which would involve a series of test operations designed to ensure that the facility is functioning 

20 as designed (SHINE 2013a, 2014). For the purposes of this environmental analysis, the NRC

21 staff included the activities and impacts of preoperational activities as part of the construction 

22 phase in the impacts assessment in Chapter 4. 

2-6
Proposed Federal Action

1 Figure 2–4. Conceptual View of the Proposed SHINE Facility 

2

3 Source: Modified from SHINE 2014b, 2015

4 2.3 Facility Operations

5 The proposed SHINE facility would commence full operations upon completion of construction 

6 and preoperational startup activities. This environmental impact statement (EIS) considers 

7 SHINE’s activities over its proposed 30-year operating period (SHINE 2014a).

8 During operations, SHINE anticipates obtaining LEU metal or oxide for use as fuel (target 

9 material) from the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12 facility) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee

10 (SHINE 2013a). For the purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff assumed that the Y-12 facility 

11 would obtain the necessary agreements and approvals to provide fuel (target material) to 

12 SHINE. The fuel would be transported 650 mi (1,046 km) by truck from Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

13 to the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, Wisconsin. SHINE would temporarily store LEU 

14 metal or oxide in the target solution preparation area. 

15 SHINE would produce and ship several batches of molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131

16 per week, with production schedules normally staggered to accommodate customer 

17 requirements. Operational activities would require an average of 150 workers and a monthly 

18 average of 36 truck shipments/deliveries and 1 offsite waste shipment (SHINE 2013a, 2013b, 

19 2014a).

20 2.3.1 Proposed Technology

21 The SHINE process would involve a new nonreactor-based technology to manufacture medical 

22 radioisotopes using a subcritical fission process (SHINE 2013a). The main components 

23 designed and developed by SHINE to support this approach are (1) a neutron driver assembly

24 in which a deuterium ion source would be accelerated into a tritium gas target chamber to 

2-7
Proposed Federal Action

1 generate neutrons and (2) a subcritical operating assembly in which these neutrons would 

2 bombard a target solution to produce radioisotopes. See Section 2.3.2 below for additional 

3 details. A light-water pool would surround the target solution vessel to provide shielding and to 

4 act as a neutron reflector. Figure 2–5 shows a conceptual cutaway view of these components. 

5 An individual irradiation unit would comprise the neutron driver, subcritical operating assembly, 

6 light-water pool, and surrounding biological shielding; the SHINE facility would operate up to 

7 eight of these irradiation units in concert to meet radioisotope production design objectives 

8 (SHINE 2013a). The irradiation units would each interface with associated cooling, off-gas, and 

9 tritium recycle support systems. Figure 2–6 depicts a conceptual model of an irradiation unit

10 showing the ion accelerator configured above the subcritical operating assembly.

11 Figure 2–5. Cutaway Conceptual Interior View of the SHINE Device

12

13 Source: Pitas et al. 2013

2-8
Proposed Federal Action

1 Figure 2–6. Conceptual Model of an Irradiation Unit

2

3 Source: Pitas et al. 2013

4 2.3.2 Radioisotope Production Process Overview

5 The SHINE production process would use an accelerator and neutron multiplier to produce 

6 neutrons that would enter a tank containing a target solution with the fissile uranium-235

7 isotope. As these neutrons collide with the uranium-235, the uranium splits and forms other 

8 radioisotopes, including molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131. For descriptive purposes 

9 of this EIS, SHINE’s overall process can be divided into four primary stages:

10 (1) neutron production, 

11 (2) radioisotope production through uranium fission, 

12 (3) radioisotope extraction and purification, and

13 (4) packaging and distribution.

14 Most of these activities, other than during product distribution, would take place within a 

15 radiologically controlled area. This area includes the irradiation facility and radioisotope

16 production facility, both of which are collocated within a single building, the Production Facility 

17 Building, on the SHINE site, as described in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2013a). 

18 As illustrated in Figure 2–7, several sub-processes would occur within each of these primary

19 activities. The following sections present an overview of the key factors associated with each of 

20 these processes.

2-9
Proposed Federal Action

1 Figure 2–7. SHINE Radioisotope Production System Flow Diagram

2

3 Source: Modified from SHINE 2013b

2-10
Proposed Federal Action

Low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel 

means fuel in which the weight 

percent of U-235 in the uranium is 

less than 20 percent.

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) 

fuel means fuel in which the weight 

percent of U-235 in the uranium is 

20 percent or greater (10 CFR 50.2).

The United States encourages the 

use of LEU or other non-HEU-based 

technologies to produce medical 

radioisotopes because of the 

additional proliferation concerns 

associated with HEU

(White House 2012).

1 2.3.2.1 Neutron Production

2 The first stage in the SHINE radioisotope production process 

3 is the production of neutrons, which induce the fission of 

4 uranium, resulting in the formation radioisotopes. During the 

5 irradiation stage, a neutron driver affixed above a subcritical 

6 operating assembly would accelerate deuterium ions into a 

7 chamber filled with tritium gas. This chamber would be 

8 centered within the subcritical operating assembly in a vessel 

9 containing LEU target solution in the form of uranyl sulfate. 

10 The resulting ion beam would strike the heavier hydrogen 

11 atoms in the tritium gas and produce lighter hydrogen atoms 

12 and neutrons. These additional neutrons would pass through 

13 a neutron multiplier, which would produce additional 

14 neutrons. The neutrons then pass into the LEU target 

15 solution, causing the uranium-235 in the solution to fission 

16 (split) and produce byproduct materials, including 

17 molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131 (SHINE 2013a). 

18 The target solution vessel would be surrounded by a light-water pool. This pool would be used 

19 to control the temperature of the target solution vessel, reflect neutrons back into the vessel, 

20 and absorb radiation and heat resulting from the fission process (SHINE 2013a).

21 2.3.2.2 Radioisotope Production Though Uranium Fission

22 The next stage in the SHINE radioisotope production process would involve irradiating an 

23 aqueous LEU target solution with neutrons using one or more of the irradiation units, as 

24 described in Section 2.3.1. During the radioisotope production stage, SHINE proposes to 

25 maintain the target solution in each irradiation unit at a subcritical level (i.e., a level at which the 

26 uranium-235 fission and the consequent neutron production in the target solution vessel would 

27 not be self-sustaining). Molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131 production would occur 

28 within the target solution from fission during the irradiation cycle. An off-gas system would be 

29 used during this stage to recover xenon-133 and iodine-131 gases released from the target 

30 solution. At the end of the irradiation cycle in each irradiation unit, the target solution would be 

31 removed from the target solution vessel and transferred through piping to one of three hot cells 

32 (shielded nuclear radiation containment chambers) located within the Production Facility 

33 Building in which the molybdenum-99 would be selectively extracted and purified 

34 (SHINE 2013a, 2013b, 2013c).

35 2.3.2.3 Extraction and Purification

36 Extraction and purification would occur within the hot cell area. Molybdenum-99 extraction 

37 would occur as a batch process in which the irradiated uranyl sulfate target solution would be 

38 passed through an adsorption column to extract the isotopes. The extracted isotopes would 

39 then undergo dissolution and evaporation processes to yield a high-purity molybdenum-99

40 product.

41 The purification process would remove impurities through small-scale additions of reagents and 

42 through precipitation, filtration, and boiling.

43 LEU remaining in the target solution would be recycled and would undergo cleanup for use as 

44 the target solution for subsequent cycles because only a small amount of uranium-235 is used 

45 up during each production run. Preparation and cleanup of the target solution, radioisotope

46 extraction and purification, and any tanks containing target solution generate radioactive 

47 off-gases that a radioactive gas treatment system captures. Radioactive waste materials 

2-11
Proposed Federal Action

1 removed from the target solution would be stored temporarily pending offsite disposal. 

2 Similarly, captured deuterium and tritium would be returned for reuse in the neutron generation 

3 process (SHINE 2013a). Section 2.7 discusses radioactive effluents and wastes and 

4 transportation of these materials. In addition, Table 19.2.5–1 in the SHINE Environmental 

5 Report (SHINE 2013a) provides estimates of the type and quantity of radioactive wastes 

6 associated with the proposed SHINE facility.

7 2.3.2.4 Packaging and Distribution

8 Following extraction and purification, the separated radioisotopes would be packaged and 

9 distributed. Because radioactive decay reduces the amount of the radioisotopes over time, the 

10 packaged material would be shipped to customers as soon as possible. The molybdenum-99

11 product would be packaged in stainless steel bottles (SHINE 2014a). The iodine-131 product 

12 would be packaged in solution vials (SHINE 2013b). The xenon-133 product would be 

13 packaged in gas cylinders (SHINE 2013b). These time-sensitive packages would use U.S.

14 Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved containers for radioactive material (SHINE 

15 2013a). SHINE intends to ship these radioisotopes to regional customers by air from the 

16 Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and by truck; both methods would use an exclusive use 

17 carrier (SHINE 2013b). As discussed in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations

18 (49 CFR) 173.403, exclusive use means that sole use of the transport vehicle (i.e., airplane and 

19 truck) will be for shipment of the radioactive material and that personnel trained in handling 

20 radioactive material must follow special procedures for loading and unloading the material.

21 At full operational capacity, the SHINE facility could produce up to 8,200 6-day curies (Ci 6-day) 

22 per week of the medical radioisotope molybdenum-99 and 2,000 Ci per week each of iodine-131

23 and xenon-133 (SHINE 2013a, 2013b). To meet this production schedule, each irradiation unit 

24 would need to operate continuously for about 5.5 days with radioisotope production functions 

25 operating closer to 7 days per week (SHINE 2013a, 2013b).

26 2.4 Power Requirements

27 Wisconsin Power and Light Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of Alliant Energy) would 

28 supply electrical power to the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2013a). Each irradiation unit is 

29 projected to use 62.8 kilowatts (SHINE 2013b). Overall, the proposed SHINE facility would 

30 require a total connected capacity of approximately 2,900 kilovolt-amperes and annually 

31 consume approximately 17.5 million kilowatt-hours—an amount approximately equal to the 

32 annual electrical power consumption of 2,000 Wisconsin households (SHINE 2013b; EIA 2009).

33 SHINE would equip the facility with an uninterruptible electrical power supply system to power 

34 safety-related systems and equipment for safe shutdown of the facility in the event of a loss of 

35 offsite power. This system would use two independent 250-volt direct-current battery system 

36 trains along with the associated chargers, inverters, and distribution systems. SHINE would 

37 also maintain and test a standby diesel generator to provide longer term backup power to 

38 selected equipment. SHINE would also maintain and test a diesel-driven fire pump system and 

39 would use approximately 1,860 gal (7,000 L) of diesel fuel annually to test this system 

40 (SHINE 2013b). The diesel fuel oil for this system would be stored on site in an approximately 

41 30,000-gal (114,000-L) underground storage tank (SHINE 2013a).

42 SHINE would use a pipeline-derived natural-gas supply for boilers and facility heating, 

43 ventilation, and air conditioning. SHINE estimates that total annual natural gas consumption 

44 would be 62,000-million British thermal units (SHINE 2013b).

2-12
Proposed Federal Action

1 2.5 Water Use, Treatment, and Discharges

2 2.5.1 Water Use

3 The proposed SHINE facility would obtain water during construction and operations from the 

4 Janesville Water Utility (SHINE 2013a). To support this requirement, the City of Janesville is 

5 planning to construct a water main and sanitary sewer main along U.S. Highway 51 near the 

6 northwestern boundary of the proposed SHINE site (SHINE 2013a).

7 During construction, water would primarily be needed for drinking (potable) and sanitary 

8 systems, mixing concrete, and supporting dust suppression activities (SHINE 2013a, 2013b). 

9 During operations, this water would also be used for drinking and sanitary systems and for 

10 facility heating and cooling, fire suppression, and industrial purposes. During operations, 

11 SHINE would use most of its water for cooling and as process water in medical radioisotope

12 production. A water-based fire protection system would be used throughout the proposed 

13 SHINE facility. An onsite fire water tank would support the planned automatic fire suppression 

14 system and would provide an estimated flow of 390 gal per minute (1,480 L per minute).

15 Section 4.4 discusses specific water requirements associated with the proposed action. 

16 2.5.2 Water Treatment

17 The SHINE facility would use three separate water treatment processes: a demineralization 

18 process, a cooling water treatment process, and a facility heating water treatment process 

19 (SHINE 2013a). Demineralization, also known as ion exchange, refers to the exchange of ions 

20 between a solid substance and an aqueous solution (makeup water). The demineralization 

21 treatment process would treat water to control the amount of chemicals in the water needed for 

22 the molydenum-99 purification process. Most of the water from the facility demineralized water 

23 system would be used for the primary closed-loop cooling system and the light-water pool 

24 system. See Section 2.6.1 for further discussion on the cooling system. SHINE estimates that 

25 periodic makeup water would be less than 10 percent of the system capacity per year 

26 (SHINE 2013a).

27 During the cooling water treatment process, water would be treated with chemicals to reduce 

28 corrosion and scaling before its introduction to the closed-loop cooling water system. In 

29 addition, chemicals will be periodically added to maintain water chemistry to keep the system 

30 properly functioning. The types of chemicals added to this water could include biocides, 

31 corrosion inhibitors, and scale inhibitors.

32 During the heating water treatment process, feedwater for the boiler used for building heating 

33 would be separately treated through demineralization or the addition of chemicals, or both, to 

34 reduce corrosion and scaling in the boiler (SHINE 2013a). 

35 2.5.3 Water Discharges

36 All wastewater generated outside the radiologically controlled area would be discharged directly 

37 to the City of Janesville sanitary sewer system and would be sent to the Janesville Wastewater 

38 Treatment Plant in accordance with Janesville City Ordiance 13.16 (City of Janesville 2013; 

39 SHINE 2013a, 2013b). All wastewaters generated in the radiologically controlled area would 

40 either be evaporated or solidified and disposed of in accordance with SHINE’s waste 

41 management plan and applicable laws and regulations (Section 2.6).

2-13
Proposed Federal Action

1 The SHINE closed-loop chilled water system would require approximately 10,000 gal (38,000 L) 

2 of water that would be flushed once per year and discharged to the Janesville Wastewater 

3 Treatment Plant in accordance with Janesville City Ordiance 13.16 (SHINE 2013b).

4 2.6 Cooling and Heating Dissipation Systems

5 2.6.1 Cooling Systems

6 The SHINE cooling systems would remove unwanted heat from the target solution vessel and 

7 other heat-sensitive processes. Cooling systems would also control building ambient air 

8 temperature in association with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning needs. The irradiation

9 units would have both primary and secondary cooling systems. The primary cooling system 

10 would include the primary closed-loop cooling system and the light-water pool system. The 

11 primary closed-loop cooling system would remove heat from the target solution vessel by 

12 actively circulating water along the vessel sidewalls. The light-water pool system would actively 

13 cool the neutron multiplier and tritium target chamber through forced convection and would 

14 passively cool the irradiation units. The secondary cooling system is a closed-loop system that 

15 would provide cooling to all of the process areas within the radiological controlled area and 

16 would transfer heat to the facility’s chilled water supply and distribution system. The secondary 

17 cooling system would remove heat from the primary cooling system through a heat exchanger. 

18 The facility’s chilled water supply and distribution system would then ultimately dissipate the 

19 heat to the environment (SHINE 2013a).

20 2.6.2 Heating Systems

21 SHINE would use one natural-gas-fired boiler in the Production Facility Building to provide 

22 heating water to the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning handlers. Based on the rated 

capacity of the boiler, SHINE projects annual natural gas consumption at 7.67x107 23 standard 

cubic feet (2.17x106 24 standard cubic meters) (SHINE 2013a). Additionally, natural-gas-fired 

25 heaters would heat the Diesel Generator Building, the Waste Staging and Shipping Building, the 

26 Support Facility Building, and the Administration Building for a total of four natural-gas-fired 

27 heaters.

28 2.7 Storage, Treatment, and Transportation of Radioactive and Nonradioactive 

29 Waste 

30 Construction, operations, and decommissioning would result in the accumulation of radioactive 

31 and nonradioactive wastes. SHINE does not anticipate any long-term storage of radioactive or 

32 nonradioactive materials, such as medical radioisotope products, target solution, reagents, or 

33 resulting wastes (SHINE 2013a). SHINE would treat and temporarily store the solid radioactive 

34 and nonradioactive waste generated as part of the radioisotope production process within the 

35 facility until it could ship the waste off site for disposal (SHINE 2013a). Subpart K and 

36 Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20 (NRC) and 49 CFR Part 172 (DOT) include regulations to protect 

37 public health and safety during transportation of radioactive fuel, radioactive wastes, and 

38 medical radioisotopes. The additional detailed information below describes the generation, 

39 storage, waste management activities, waste minimization and pollution prevention measures, 

40 and transportation of radioactive and nonradioactive waste.

2-14
Proposed Federal Action

1 2.7.1 Radioactive Wastes

2 Operations of the SHINE facility would generate liquid, solid, and gaseous radioactive waste

3 during the following activities:

4 • neutron generator operation (i.e., a portion of the neutron driver that would be 

5 periodically replaced);

6 • target solution preparation (i.e., used uranium metal transport containers, 

7 protective equipment used by facility workers, and spent filtration media);

8 • the target solution vessel waste gas removal system (i.e., spent filtration 

9 media);

10 • molybdenum-99 recovery system operation (i.e., spent filtration media and 

11 spent solutions);

12 • target solution cleanup (i.e., spent filtration media, spent solvent, and spent 

13 production solutions);

14 • radioisotope production and purification processes (i.e., laboratory glassware 

15 and liquid wastes); 

16 • liquid radioactive waste volume reduction (i.e., evaporation and solidification 

17 process); and 

18 • maintenance activities (SHINE 2013a).

19 2.7.1.1 Gaseous Waste

20 Radioactive effluents from the radioisotope production process include both particulates and 

21 gas. The gaseous radioactive effluents would be routed through two separate, but connected, 

22 ventilation systems: the target solution vessel system and the process vessel vent system

23 (SHINE 2013a).

24 The facility ventilation system divides the operating areas into zones, each of which has a 

25 specific hazard and appropriate protection features (SHINE 2013a). This design protects the 

26 workers and members of the public by minimizing the potential spread of radioactive 

27 contamination within the facility and by controlling the amount of radioactive effluents released 

28 into the environment. SHINE would use high-efficiency particulate filters and carbon bed filters 

29 to treat gaseous radioactive effluents to reduce their radioactivity before they are released 

30 through a vent stack in the Production Facility Building (SHINE 2013a). SHINE expects the 

31 gaseous radioactive effluents released into the environment to contain measurable quantities of 

32 noble gases (i.e., xenon and krypton), radioactive iodine, and tritium. Table 2–2 lists the quantity 

33 of radionuclides that SHINE estimates the facility would release annually. Section 4.9 describes 

34 the monitoring of gaseous effluents and radioactive waste, NRC and other radiation protection 

35 requirements, and SHINE’s waste management process to ensure occupational and public 

36 health. 

2-15
Proposed Federal Action

1 Table 2–2. Gaseous Radioactive Effluents

Effluent Rate(a)

krypton-85 (Kr-85) < 120 Ci/yr(b)

iodine-131 (I-131) < 1.5 Ci/yr

xenon-133 (Xe-133) < 17,000 Ci/yr

tritium (H-3) < 4,400 Ci/yr

(a) The rate is based on 50 weeks of operation.

(b) Ci/yr = curie(s) per year.

Source: SHINE 2013a

2 2.7.1.2 Liquid and Solid Waste

3 The NRC classifies low-level waste in 10 CFR 61.55 as Class A, Class B, Class C, or greater

4 than Class C (GTCC) waste, depending on the types and concentrations of radionuclides in the 

5 waste. Class A wastes generally contain short-lived radionuclides at relatively low 

6 concentrations, whereas the half-lives and concentrations of radionuclides in the Class B and C 

7 wastes are progressively higher. Because of the higher half-lives and concentrations of 

8 radionuclides in Class B wastes, these wastes must meet more rigorous requirements with 

9 regard to their form to ensure stability after disposal (e.g., by adding chemical stabilizing agents,

10 such as cement, to the waste, or by placing the waste in a disposal container or structure that 

11 provides stability after disposal). Class C wastes must meet the more rigorous requirements of 

12 Class B, and they require additional measures at the disposal facility to protect against 

13 inadvertent intrusion (e.g., by increasing the thickness and hardness of the cover over the waste 

14 disposal cell). GTCC wastes contain radionuclides at concentrations that are higher than that

15 allowed for Class C wastes and that are not generally acceptable for near-surface disposal 

16 methods.

17 Operation of the SHINE facility would generate radioactive waste ranging from NRC Class A 

18 waste to GTCC wastes (see Table 19.2.5–1 in the SHINE Environmental Report 

19 [SHINE 2013a]). SHINE would accumulate and temporarily store liquid wastes to allow for 

20 various activities such as radioactive decay, pH adjustment, and volume reduction using an 

21 evaporative process. In addition, SHINE would disassemble neutron generators to reduce the 

22 volume of low-level waste sent for disposal.

23 SHINE would solidify some liquid wastes before disposal on site. For example, it would solidify 

24 evaporator bottoms and spent ion-exchange column media from the target solution cleanup 

25 system. Waste from proprietary processes may be solidified in a hot cell using Portland cement 

26 before shipment and disposal (SHINE 2013a).

27 After SHINE treats, solidifies, and packages liquid radioactive waste, the waste would be 

28 temporarily stored on site only long enough for radioactive decay before offsite disposal 

29 shipment and for efficient frequency of disposal shipments (SHINE 2013a). Class A waste 

30 could accumulate up to 1 year. No liquid radioactive effluents would be released into the 

31 environment. 

32 After temporary storage, radioactive waste would be transported by truck to one of the following

33 licensed low-level radioactive waste facilities for further treatment, long-term storage, or final 

34 disposal (SHINE 2013a):

35 (1) EnergySolutions, Clive, Utah (1,450 mi) (2,220 km);

36 (2) Waste Control Specialists, Andrews, Texas (1,305 mi) (2,088 km); or

2-16
Proposed Federal Action

1 (3) Diversified Scientific Services, Inc., Kingston, Tennessee (660 mi) (1,056 km).

2 When transporting waste, SHINE must adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and 

3 transportation requirements for radioactive material in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 71 (NRC), the State 

4 of Wisconsin’s Administrative Code, and 49 CFR Parts 172 and 173 (DOT) (SHINE 2013a). 

5 These regulations help ensure safety on the public roadways. The waste generated at the 

6 proposed SHINE facility would be one of three DOT packaging classifications: LSA, Type A, or 

7 Type B packages. An LSA package contains low levels of radioactive material. A Type A 

8 package contains higher radioactivity levels than those in an LSA package and meets additional 

9 integrity and shielding requirements. A Type B package contains a greater quantity of 

10 radioactive material than that of a Type A package and meets additional integrity and shielding 

11 requirements (49 CFR Part 173). The NRC staff notes that the lettering system for package 

12 types is not related to the lettering system for waste classification.

13 A provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) 

14 states that DOE would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive 

15 waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it 

16 determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE) does not have access to a disposal path. For 

17 example, if a disposal pathway for GTCC waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its 

18 safe storage and disposal. 

19 2.7.2 Nonradioactive Waste

20 The proposed SHINE facility would generate nonradioactive waste as part of construction, 

21 routine operations, maintenance, cleaning, and decommissioning activities.

22 Liquid Waste

23 Nonradioactive liquid waste would be generated during construction. For example, lubricating 

24 oil, hydraulic oil, and grease might be necessary to assemble various pieces of equipment and 

25 systems. During operations, nonradioactive liquid waste would include hazardous waste, such 

26 as chemicals. Table 2–3 lists the expected inventory and quantity of chemicals that would be 

27 used during operation of the proposed SHINE facility. Some chemicals would be in liquid form

28 and would be controlled and confined in containers, tanks, pipes, and hot cells.

29 SHINE would release small amounts of nonradioactive chemicals into the city sewer system as 

30 a result of routine facility maintenance activities and routine laboratory analytical procedures

31 using chemicals. SHINE would have administrative controls in place to ensure that its

32 nonradioactive effluents meet the requirements pertaining to the types, quantity, and 

33 concentrations specified as acceptable for processing by the City of Janesville wastewater

34 treatment facility (SHINE 2013a). Additionally, sanitary wastewater from the proposed SHINE 

35 facility would be sent to the City of Janesville wastewater treatment facility for treatment and 

36 disposal. Section 2.5 of this document contains more information on the liquid nonradioactive 

37 waste discharges from the proposed SHINE facility.

38 SHINE does not intend to treat or permanently store hazardous wastes on site (SHINE 2013a). 

39 SHINE would dispose of hazardous wastes generated at the facility at a licensed hazardous 

40 waste disposal site. Because SHINE will not store or treat hazardous wastes on site, it will not 

41 require a hazardous waste treatment or storage permit under the Resource Conservation and 

42 Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).

2-17
Proposed Federal Action

1 Solid Waste

2 During construction, operations, and decommissioning, SHINE expects to generate the 

3 following nonradioactive solid wastes:

4 • wood from crates,

5 • packaging from receiving activities,

6 • used personal protective equipment,

7 • broken mechanical parts,

8 • metal shavings,

9 • piping,

10 • wires,

11 • batteries (alkaline and lithium),

12 • air filters,

13 • expired lights and fixtures,

14 • paper,

15 • hoses,

16 • empty plastic containers, and

17 • expired ink cartridges.

18 SHINE would temporarily collect and store nonradioactive solid wastes on site and then 

19 transport nonhazardous solid wastes off site to either a landfill, storage facility, or recycling 

20 facility (SHINE 2013a). For example, scrap metal, batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing 

21 equipment and bulbs, used oil, and antifreeze would be collected and stored temporarily and 

22 then recycled or recovered at an offsite permitted recycling or recovery facility, as appropriate.

23 2.7.3 Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Program

24 SHINE’s radioactive and nonradioactive waste management program is based on a 

25 pollution-prevention and waste-minimization framework. The program includes the following:

26 • waste minimization and recycling;

27 • employee training and education on general environmental activities and 

28 hazards associated with the facility, operations, and the pollution prevention 

29 program; and waste minimization requirements, goals, and accomplishments;

30 • employee training and education on specific environmental requirements and 

31 issues;

32 • designation of employees responsible for pollution prevention and waste 

33 minimization;

34 • recognition of employees for efforts to improve environmental conditions; and

35 • requirements for employees to consider pollution prevention and waste 

36 minimization in day-to-day activities and engineering (SHINE 2013a, 2013b).

2-18
Proposed Federal Action

1 Section 4.9 discusses the impacts associated with waste management activities at the proposed 

2 SHINE facility.

Table 2–3. Summary of Major 3 (a) Chemical Inventory and 

4 Quantity at the Proposed SHINE Facility

Chemical

Approximate Bounding Inventory 

(lb) Chemical Grouping

nitric acid 17,600 Group 4—Acids, Organic/Mineral

sulfuric acid 8,100 Group 4—Acids, Organic/Mineral

calcium hydroxide 4,800 Group 5—Bases

caustic (NaOH) 1,500 Group 5—Bases

n-dodecane 1,600 Group 2—Flammable Liquids

nitrogen 20,000 N/A

Portland cement 20,000 N/A

uranyl sulfate 3,100 N/A

(a) In excess of 1,000 lb.

Source: SHINE 2013a

5 2.8 Facility Decommissioning

6 The SHINE facility would be decommissioned upon completion of its useful life. In accordance 

7 with 10 CFR Part 50, a licensed production or utilization facility that permanently ceases 

8 operations shall submit a decommissioning report. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.33(k) requires 

9 that a report indicates how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to 

10 decommission the facility.

11 SHINE anticipates decommissioning of the facility to begin following a 30-year operating period 

12 (SHINE 2014a). SHINE estimates that the decommissioning period would extend for 6 months 

13 and would require a peak workforce of approximately 261 workers (SHINE 2014a).

14 Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, because they would 

15 involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities.

16 Decommissioning could include the removal of all nuclear facilities on site and the reduction of 

17 residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and 

18 termination of the license. Decommissioning of the SHINE facility would generate radioactive 

19 waste ranging from NRC Class A waste to GTCC waste (see Table 19.2.5–1 in the SHINE 

20 Environmental Report [SHINE 2013a]). Estimates of the types and quantity of radioactive waste 

21 that would be disposed of during decommissioning are not known at this time and would depend 

22 on the effectiveness of the radiological controls implemented during operation of the facility. 

23 However, the types of radioactive waste would be consistent with those listed in Table 19.2.5–1 

24 in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2013a).

25 SHINE would be required to conduct decommissioning activities in accordance with applicable 

26 NRC requirements and any additional Federal, State, and local requirements. For example, any 

27 radioactive equipment and materials will be disposed of according to local and Federal laws and 

28 regulations. After decommissioning activities are completed, the proposed site could remain 

29 industrial or could be converted back to agricultural land or open space. 

30 SHINE estimates that approximately 72 truck deliveries and 191 offsite waste shipments would, 

31 on average, be required each month during decommissioning (SHINE 2014a). Demolition and 

2-19
Proposed Federal Action

1 site-grading equipment supporting decommissioning activities are projected to consume a total 

2 of approximately 172,000 gal (650,000 L) of diesel fuel over this 6-month period (SHINE 2013b). 

3 Table 19.2.5–1 in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2013a) provides estimates of the 

4 type and quantity of radioactive wastes associated with the proposed SHINE facility.

5 2.9 Related Actions

6 In February 2011, DOE/NNSA issued a final sitewide EIS at the Y-12 National Security Complex 

7 (DOE 2011), which examined the potential impacts of the reasonable alternatives for ongoing 

8 and foreseeable future operations at the Y-12 National Security Complex. Included in the 

9 sitewide EIS was an evaluation of the mission (including operations and transportation impacts) 

10 associated with the supply of LEU for both domestic and foreign customers (e.g., Section 2.1.2, 

11 “National Security Programs,” and Section 5.4, “Transportation and Traffic”). DOE/NNSA 

12 published a Record of Decision on July 4, 2011, which, among other things, selected the option 

13 to continue ongoing operations, including the supply of LEU to foreign and domestic customers. 

14 This sitewide EIS and Record of Decision may be viewed as relevant to the SHINE EIS because 

15 the Y-12 facility would supply the LEU used at the SHINE facility.

16 2.10 References

17 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

18 protection against radiation.” 

19 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic licensing of 

20 production and utilization facilities.”

21 10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, “Licensing 

22 requirements for land disposal of radioactive waste.” 

23 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and 

24 transportation of radioactive material.” 

25 49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, “Hazardous 

26 material table, special provisions, hazardous material communications, emergency response 

27 information, training requirement, and security plans.”

28 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, “Shippers—

29 general requirements for shipments and packaging.”

30 American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 42 U.S.C. §2065(c)(3)(A)(ii).

31 City of Janesville. 2013. City Ordinance Book. Chapter 13, “Water and Sewers.” Available at 

32 <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us> (accessed 12 December 2013).

33 [DOE] Department of Energy. 2011. Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the 

34 Y-12 National Security Complex. DOE/EIS-0387. Washington, DC. Available at 

35 <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/EIS-0387-FEIS-01-

36 2011.pdf> (accessed 12 February 2015). 

37 [EIA] Energy Information Administration. 2009. Household Energy Use in Wisconsin. Available 

38 at <http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/state_briefs/pdf/wi.pdf> (accessed 

39 17 November 2014).

40 [IOM] Institute of Medicine. 1995. Isotopes for Medicine and the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: 

41 The National Academies Press. 144 p. Available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4818.html> 

42 (accessed 25 September 2013).

2-20
Proposed Federal Action

1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.

2 National Research Council. 2009. Medical Isotope Production without Highly Enriched 

3 Uranium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 220 p. Available at 

4 <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12569.html> (accessed 25 September 2013).

5 Pitas KP, Piefer GR, Bynum RV, Van Abel EN, Driscoll J, Mackie TR, Radel RF. 2013. SHINE: 

6 Technology and Progress. Presented at Mo-99 2013 Topical Meeting on Molybdenum-99 

7 Technological Development, April 1–4, 2013, Chicago, IL.

8 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.

9 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

10 (PSAR): Chapter 1, “The Facility,” Chapter 2, “Site Characteristics,” Chapter 4, “Irradiation Unit 

11 and Radioisotope Production Facility Description,” Chapter 13, “Accident Analysis,” and 

12 Chapter 19, “Environmental Review.” Monona, WI: SHINE. March 26, 2013 and May 31, 

13 2013. ADAMS No. ML13172A324.

14 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

15 Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

16 Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. 

17 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014a. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

18 Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. 

19 October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189.

20 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014b. “The Mo-99 Advantage.” Presented at the 

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Regulatory Information Conference, March 11, 2014,

22 Bethesda, MD. Available at <http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/conference23 symposia/ric/past/2014/docs/abstracts/pieferg-t9-hv.pdf> (accessed 6 November 2014).

24 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

25 Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. 

26 February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404.

27 White House. 2012. Fact Sheet: Encouraging Reliable Supplies of Molybdenum-99 Produced 

28 without Highly Enriched Uranium. Office of the Press Secretary. June 7, 2012. Available at

29 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/07/fact-sheet-encouraging-reliable30 supplies-molybdenum-99-produced-without-> (accessed 14 June 2013).

2-21

1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2 The site proposed by SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), is located in Rock County, 

3 Wisconsin, south of the city center of the City of Janesville, Wisconsin. The first section of this 

4 chapter describes the location of the proposed SHINE site (proposed site), along with a

5 description of the land use and visual resources, air quality and noise, the geologic 

6 environment, water resources, ecological resources, historic and cultural resources, 

7 socioeconomics, human health, and transportation at and near the proposed site. Unless 

8 specified otherwise, the description of the environment includes the area within a 5-mi (8-km) 

9 radius of the proposed site, which is also referred to as the vicinity. This geographic range is in 

10 accordance with the Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG–1537, Part 1, 

11 “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: 

12 Format and Content,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous 

13 Homogeneous Reactors” (NRC 2012).

14 The following description of the affected environment is based on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

15 Commission (NRC) staff’s independent review of SHINE’s Environmental Report

16 (SHINE 2013a); SHINE’s responses to the NRC staff’s requests for additional information to 

17 clarify information in the Environmental Report (SHINE 2013b, 2014, 2015) or for information 

18 that did not appear in that report; the NRC staff’s environmental site visit and audit 

19 (NRC 2013a); applicable information provided in public scoping comments (NRC 2015); 

20 comments and input provided by other Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local agencies; and 

21 the NRC staff’s independent research of the environs surrounding the SHINE site.

22 3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources

23 This subsection describes the land use and visual resources at the proposed site and in the 

24 vicinity of the proposed site. The NRC staff assessed land use and land cover using the 

25 National Land Cover Database (USGS 2006). The NRC staff used the U.S. Department of the 

26 Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDOI-BLM), Visual Resource Management System, to 

27 rate the visual resources at the proposed site; this system rates the visual appeal and the 

28 sensitivity of changes to an area (BLM 1984).

29 3.1.1 Land Use

30 3.1.1.1 Site

31 The proposed site includes 91 acres (ac) (37 hectares (ha)) of land located about 4 mi (6 km) 

32 south of the city center of the City of Janesville (Figure 3–1). The proposed site is zoned as 

33 light industrial (City of Janesville 2012). Based on a review of the National Land Cover 

34 Database, 99.8 percent of the proposed site is cultivated agricultural land, and 0.2 percent is 

35 developed land or open space (USGS 2006; SHINE 2013a). U.S. Highway 51 borders the 

36 western boundary of the proposed site. The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport is located 

37 immediately to the west of U.S. Highway 51. Agricultural land surrounds the remaining portions 

38 of the proposed site (SHINE 2013a).

39 3.1.1.2 Vicinity

40 Table 3–1 lists the major land uses and land covers within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed 

41 site (USGS 2006). The list includes lands with cultivated crops (50 percent), pastures or hay 

42 (12 percent), and low-intensity development (12 percent). Two sand and gravel mining 

3-1
Affected Environment

1 operations and one crushed stone mining operation occur within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed 

2 site (Find the Data 2014).

3 The city center of Janesville is approximately 4.0 mi (6.4 km) directly north of the proposed site. 

4 The northern limits of the City of Beloit, Wisconsin, are about 3.7 mi (6.0 km) south of the 

5 proposed site. The City of Janesville and the City of Beloit are major population centers (more 

6 than 25,000 residents) within the 5-mi (8-km) vicinity of the proposed site, with 63,480 residents 

7 in the City of Janesville and 36,820 residents in the City of Beloit (Rock County 2013).

8 Figure 3–1. Aerial View of the Proposed SHINE Site

9

10 Source: SHINE 2013a

11 The major transportation corridors in the vicinity include Interstates 39 and 90, U.S. Highway 14,

12 U.S. Highway 51, and State Trunk Highway 11 (Figure 3–2). Chicago and Northwestern 

13 Railroad and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad own the major rail lines or rail 

14 systems in Rock County. The only public airport in Rock County is the Southern Wisconsin 

15 Regional Airport in the City of Janesville. The airport is directly across U.S. Highway 51 from 

16 the proposed site. No major transportation waterways occur within the vicinity of the proposed 

17 site.

3-2
Affected Environment

1 Table 3–1. Summary of Land Use and Land Cover Within the 

2 Proposed SHINE Site and Vicinity

NLCD 2006 Land Cover Class

SHINE Site Vicinity

ac ha percent ac ha percent

Open Water 796 322 2

Developed, Open Space 0.18 0.07 0.2 3,043 1,231 6

Developed, Low Intensity 5,858 2,371 12

Developed, Medium Intensity 1,968 796 4

Developed, High Intensity 992 401 2

Barren 43 17 <1

Deciduous Forest 3,298 1,335 7

Evergreen Forest 68 28 <1

Mixed Forest 1 0 <1

Shrub/Scrub 505 204 1

Grassland 1,049 425 2

Pasture/Hay 5,896 2,386 12

Cultivated Crops 91.09 36.86 99.8 25,236 10,213 50

Woody Wetlands 722 292 1

Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 787 318 2

Total 91.27 36.93 100.0 50,262 20,339 100.0

Key: ac = acre, ha = hectare. 

Sources: USGS 2006; SHINE 2013a

3-3
Affected Environment

1 Figure 3–2. Cities and Major Roadways Within 5 mi (8 km) 

2 of the Proposed SHINE Site

3

4 Source: SHINE 2013a

3-4
Affected Environment

1 3.1.1.3 Special Land Uses

2 The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) manages two parcels of land within 

3 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site. One site is a 112.0-ac (45.3-ha) parcel of land located 1.9 mi 

4 (3.0 km) southwest of the proposed site. This site does not have a designated use 

5 (WDNR 2013a). Rock River Prairie is a 37.0-ac (15.0-ha) State Natural Area located 3.5 mi 

6 (5.6 km) from the proposed site (WDNR 2013a). No military reservations, Federally designated 

7 wild and scenic rivers, national parks, national forests, Federally designated coastal zone areas, 

8 or Federal lands held in trust for an American Indian tribe occur within 5 mi (8 km) of the 

9 proposed site (SHINE 2013a).

10 3.1.1.4 Agricultural Resources and Facilities

11 Prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance are located on the proposed site and in 

12 the vicinity (Figure 3–3). Prime farmland is defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 

13 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) as “land that has the best combination of physical and chemical

14 characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with 

15 minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion, as 

16 determined by the Secretary [of Agriculture].” Farmland of statewide importance includes soils, 

17 other than those determined as prime farmland, with similar characteristics as prime farmland 

18 locally within the State. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources 

19 Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with State and local agencies, defines and 

20 delineates the soils to consider as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance (Title 7 

21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 657). However, otherwise qualifying “farmland” 

22 soils do not include those on land already in, or committed to, urban development or water 

23 storage, as defined in 7 CFR 658.2.

24 Warsaw silt loam is the prime farmland soil type in Wisconsin, and Lorenzo loam is the soil type 

25 of statewide importance, as further described in Section 3.3. About 41,900 ac (16,900 ha) of 

26 land with soils classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance are within 5 mi 

27 (8 km) of the proposed site (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff notes that acres of prime farmland 

28 and farmland of statewide importance exceed the number of acres of agricultural land because 

29 land with soil types classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide significance are 

30 employed for other purposes, such as development or light industrial uses. Principal agricultural 

31 products grown in the vicinity include corn, oats, winter wheat, soybeans, and corn silage 

32 (USDA 2013). Based on the average annual production (bushels) per acre harvested in Rock 

33 County, the NRC staff estimated the potential relative value of 91 ac (37 ha) of farmland 

34 acquired for the proposed site to be about 12,800 bushels (bu) of corn or 4,000 bu of soybeans 

35 annually from 2003 through 2012 (Table 3–2).

36 Other agricultural resources in the vicinity of the proposed site include farms that raise dairy, 

37 beef, and other livestock (SHINE 2013a). MacFarlane Pheasants, Inc., which is about 0.9 mi. 

38 (1.4 km) north of the proposed site, specializes in raising a variety of game birds, including 

39 pheasants and Hungarian partridge (MacFarlane Pheasants 2012).

3-5
Affected Environment

1 Figure 3–3. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance

2 on the Proposed SHINE Site

3

4 Source: Modified from SHINE 2013a and NRCS 2013

3-6
Affected Environment

1 Table 3–2. Crop Production Estimates for the Proposed SHINE Site 

2 and Within Rock County, Wisconsin

Planted Harvested Production Yield

Year ac ha ac ha bu bu/ac

Corn

2003 152,000 61,300 141,000 57,000 19,571,000 139

2004 155,000 62,700 141,000 57,000 23,124,000 164

2005 166,000 67,200 150,000 60,700 22,200,000 148

2006 152,000 61,500 141,000 57,000 22,419,000 159

2007 174,000 70,400 165,000 66,800 25,740,000 156

2008 161,000 65,200 152,000 61,500 22,192,000 146

2009 162,000 65,600 153,000 62,000 25,245,000 165

2010 159,000 64,100 142,000 57,500 24,680,000 174

2011 162,000 65,600 157,000 63,600 25,350,000 162

2012 166,000 67,200 146,000 59,100 15,000,000 103

10-year Average

Rock County, WI 161,000 65,100 149,000 60,200 22,552,000 152

Site Estimate(a) 91 37 84 34 12,800 152

Soybeans

2003 101,700 41,200 101,400 41,000 2,535,000 25

2004 87,600 35,500 86,900 35,200 3,737,000 43

2005 88,600 35,900 87,400 35,400 4,020,000 46

2006 89,200 36,100 89,000 36,000 4,539,000 51

2007 71,900 29,100 71,700 29,000 3,370,000 47

2008 81,100 32,800 81,000 32,800 2,957,000 37

2009 80,000 32,400 79,900 32,300 3,875,000 49

2010 86,000 34,800 85,500 34,600 4,822,000 56

2011 80,100 32,400 79,900 32,300 4,272,000 54

2012 82,500 33,400 82,200 33,300 3,087,000 38

10-year Average

Rock County, WI 84,900 34,300 84,500 34,200 3,786,000 45

Site Estimate(a) 91 37 91 37 4,000 45

(a) NRC staff extrapolated site production and yield estimates of corn and soybeans based on the size of the site 

and actual Rock County production and yields.

Note: Estimated values in the table are rounded.

Key: ac = acres, ha = hectares, and bu = bushels.

Source: USDA 2013

3 3.1.1.5 Land Use Plans

4 The City of Janesville Comprehensive Plan characterizes current and future land use plans in 

5 the city (Vandewalle & Associates 2009). Table 3–3 summarizes the total percentage of land in 

6 the 2007 city limits that was classified in each land use category.

7 The proposed SHINE site is part of a larger development project to create an industrial park in 

8 Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District No. 35 (City of Janesville 2012). The City of Janesville 

9 created the initial 226-ac (91-ha) parcel of TIF District No. 35 when the city approved the TIF 

10 District No. 35 Project Plan in August 2011, after the purchase of an initial parcel of 

11 226 ac (91 ha) in 2004 (City of Janesville 2012). In February 2012, the City of Janesville 

12 amended the project plan to expand the district boundary to the southwest by 84 ac (34 ha) to 

13 include the proposed SHINE site. When the City of Janesville incorporated the initial TIF District 

3-7
Affected Environment

1 No. 35 parcel, its zoning was changed from agricultural to M-1 (light industrial) with 

2 consideration given to subdividing the larger parcel into 16 lots ranging from 10.99 to 18.86 ac 

3 (4.45 to 7.60 ha) (City of Janesville 2011a, 2012). As of January 2014, this land has not been 

4 improved or industrially developed and the land cover remains cultivated crops.

5 Table 3–3. Land Use in the City of Janesville

Land Use Category Percent

Residential-Single Family Urban 24

Residential-Two-Family/Townhouse 2

Residential-Multifamily 2

Commercial 4

Office 1

Light Industrial 4

Heavy Industrial 4

Community Facilities 11

Parks and Open Space 11

Extraction 2

Vacant 16

Agricultural 0

Surface Water 2

Right-of-Way 17

Total 100

Source: Vandewalle & Associates 2009

6 The City of Janesville’s future land use plan for the proposed site and for the land east of 

7 U.S. Highway 51 includes developing it for light industrial uses (Vandewalle & Associates 2009; 

8 City of Janesville 2012).

9 3.1.2 Visual Resources

10 The visual setting of the area that would be affected by the proposed SHINE facility includes 

11 agricultural and light industrial viewsheds. The viewshed to the north and east of the proposed 

12 site is mainly flat or has slightly rolling cultivated fields (Figure 3–4). The viewshed to the south 

13 is similar, with mostly agricultural fields, although two large warehouses account for some light 

14 development. The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, which includes the airport control 

15 tower, runways, and several large warehouses and hangers, dominates a light industrial 

16 development landscape in the viewshed to the west.

17 The proposed site would be within the viewshed of patrons visiting the Southern Wisconsin 

18 Regional Airport, which supports about 50,000 flight operations annually (Rock County 2009),

19 and of people visiting Airport Park, located northwest of the proposed site across 

20 U.S. Highway 51. Trees and other vegetation that border the residential neighborhoods located 

21 north and northwest of the proposed site would obstruct the view of the proposed SHINE facility 

22 from these neighborhoods.

23 The NRC staff rated the visual resources and scenic quality of the existing site using the

24 USDOI-BLM Visual Resource Management System (BLM 1984). The scenic quality 

25 classification is the rating of the visual appeal of the land designated for the proposed site. This 

26 rating is based on an evaluation of seven key factors—landform, vegetation, water, color, 

27 adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications. Scenic quality is classified as A, B, or C, 

3-8
Affected Environment

1 with A as the highest quality visual rating. The NRC staff gave the proposed site a C rating, with 

2 low scenic quality because of the uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, absence of water, 

3 mute colors, cultural modifications to adjacent scenery, commonality within the physiographic 

4 province, and lack of notable features.

5 The NRC staff also analyzed the sensitivity level, which is a measurement of public concern for 

6 scenic quality, using six different indicators—types of users, amount of use, public interest, 

7 adjacent land uses, special areas, and other factors. The sensitivity level of public concern for 

8 scenic quality is assigned as high, moderate, or low. The NRC staff assigned the proposed site 

9 a low sensitivity level because it is located in an area with low scenic values, typical users have 

10 low sensitivity to changes in the area’s visual quality, the amount of viewer use is low, public 

11 interest in changes to the visual quality of the proposed site is low, and the location has no 

12 special natural and wilderness areas.

3-9
Affected Environment

1 Figure 3–4. Visual Setting of the Proposed SHINE Site

2

3 Source: SHINE 2013a

View of the Proposed SHINE Site from U.S. Highway 51 Looking Northeast

View of the Proposed SHINE Site from U.S. Highway 51 Looking East

View of the Proposed SHINE Site from Eastern Site Boundary Looking West

3-10
Affected Environment

1 3.2 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise

2 The quality of air in a region depends on the types and quantities of pollutants that enter the 

3 atmosphere and the meteorological conditions that tend to alter the pollutants. Air pollutant 

4 concentrations result from complex interactions between the physical and dynamic properties of 

5 the atmosphere, land, and ocean. The local terrain, the presence of large bodies of water, and 

6 other surface features may influence meteorological conditions and may subsequently influence 

7 air quality. Air pollutant concentrations are sensitive to winds, temperature, humidity, and 

8 precipitation. Similarly, the locations and types of noise emitters primarily determine the noise 

9 levels in a region. However, meteorological conditions, terrain, and ground-surface types also 

10 may influence noise propagation and noise levels at a given location.

11 This section discusses existing air quality and noise levels near the proposed site and the 

12 meteorology and terrain characteristics that may affect them.

13 3.2.1 Meteorology and Climatology

14 The proposed site is located in Wisconsin South Central Climate Division 8 near the boundary 

15 of the Wisconsin Western Uplands and the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands physiographic 

16 provinces (NCDC undated). This region includes some of the State’s greatest topographic 

17 relief. Climate in this area is characterized by high humidity, warm summers, and snowy 

18 winters. Lake Michigan and Lake Superior have a moderating effect on Wisconsin’s climate; 

19 however, the proposed site is about 60 mi (96 km) west of Lake Michigan, a location that is 

20 typically not affected by lake-effect snows.

21 The nearest National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) station is the Afton Station located about 

22 2.6 mi (4.2 km) from the proposed site. To characterize the region’s climate, the NRC staff used 

23 climatological data collected at the Afton site. Data from the Afton Station indicate that the 

24 annual average precipitation for the past 30 years is about 35.0 in. (88.9 cm), of which 12.6 in. 

25 (32.0 cm) or about 36 percent of the total falls in summer. The average annual snowfall is about 

26 35 in. (88.9 cm) (NCDC 2010). The minimum average seasonal temperatures during the past 

27 30 years range from 13.8 °F (-10.0 °C) in winter to 59.3 °F (15.0 °C) in summer, and the 

28 maximum average seasonal temperatures range from 30.80 °F (-0.66 °C) in winter to 81.6 °F 

29 (27.0 °C) in summer (NCDC 2010). Table 3–4 summarizes the annual and seasonal 

30 precipitation and temperature data.

31 Table 3–4. Annual and Seasonal Precipitation and Temperature Data 

32 for the City of Janesville, Wisconsin

Description

Time Period

Annual

Winter 

(Dec.–Feb.)

Spring 

(Mar.–May)

Summer 

(June–Aug.)

Fall

(Sep.–Nov.)

Average precipitation (in.) 35.2 4.7 9.2 12.6 8.7

Number of days with 0.1-in. 

precipitation or more 67.8 14.1 18.7 19.6 15.4

Average snowfall (in.) 34.9 28.4 4.7 0.0 1.8

Number of days with 0.1-in. 

precipitation or more 21.8 17.2 3.2 0.0 1.4

Average temperature (°F) 47.5 22.3 47.1 70.4 49.8

Maximum temperature (°F) 57.8 30.8 57.7 81.6 60.7

Minimum temperature (°F) 37.3 13.8 36.6 59.3 39.0

Note: These are Rock County normals from 1981–2010 for Afton Station 205301.

Source: NCDC 2010

3-11
Affected Environment

1 Monthly average wind speeds range from 6.6 miles per hour (mph) (10.6 kilometers per hour

2 (kph)) in August to 10.1 mph (16.3 kph) in April. Annual mean wind speed is 8.4 mph 

3 (13.5 kph). Prevailing wind directions are from the south-southwest every month except from 

4 December through February when prevailing winds are from the northwest (NCDC 2012). The 

5 wind rose diagram shown in Figure 3–5 illustrates the frequency of winds blowing from different 

6 directions and at different speeds on an annual average basis.

7 The NCDC records identify the following extreme weather events in Rock County from 1996 to

8 2013: thunderstorms, lightning, hail, strong winds, funnel clouds, tornadoes, heavy rain, floods,

9 and flash floods (NCDC 2013). Over the 17-year period of record, extreme events occurred on 

10 158 days with deaths or injuries on 6 of those days and property damage on 87 of those days. 

The strongest tornado in the area, classified as an F2 11 1 with wind speeds of 113 to 157 mph 

12 (181 to 253 kph) occurred in 1998. Six other tornadoes of lesser intensity also occurred in Rock 

13 County from 1996 to 2013.

1 There are five tornado classifications: F0 to F5. F0 tornadoes cause the least damage, and F5 tornadoes are the 

most dangerous and cause the most damage. Estimated wind speeds for an F2 tornado are 113 to 157 mph (181 to 

253 kph) and cause moderate damage. 

3-12

 
Affected Environment

1 Figure 3–5. Annual Average Wind Rose as Measured

2 at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport

3

4 Source: SHINE 2013a based on information from NCDC 2011.

5 3.2.2 Air Quality

6 In accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (CAA), EPA established 

7 National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR Part 50) for six 

8 pollutants (often referred to as criteria pollutants) to protect the environment and public health. 

9 These pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and 

10 particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter includes PM less than 10 micrometers (μm) and PM

11 less than 2.5 μm, which are particles with equivalent aerodynamic diameters less than or equal 

12 to 10 and 2.5 μm, respectively.

13 Other air pollutants of concern include greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide and 

14 methane, and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as identified in Section 112 of the CAA. The 

3-13
Affected Environment

1 State of Wisconsin regulates emissions of hazardous air contaminants that include the 

2 chemicals on the HAPs list and other chemicals (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 445, 

3 “Control of Hazardous Pollutants”) and has adopted ambient air quality standards within State

4 regulations (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 404, “Ambient Air Quality”).

5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) limit the concentrations of the six criteria 

6 pollutants established to protect human health and welfare. Table 3–5 shows the current 

7 NAAQS. Areas in which pollutant concentrations exceed these standards are designated 

8 nonattainment areas, because air quality levels do not meet the required standards. Attainment 

9 areas are areas in which recent monitoring data demonstrate that concentrations are lower than 

10 the NAAQS. If monitoring has been insufficient to determine whether an area meets the 

11 standards, the area is designated as an unclassifiable area.

12 The CAA requires development of regulatory plans for nonattainment areas to reduce pollution 

13 levels until the area meets the NAAQS within a specified timeframe. State agencies typically 

14 complete these plans, which are called State Implementation Plans. After air quality has 

15 improved in an area to the point that monitoring data meet the NAAQS, the area is designated 

16 as a maintenance area.

17 Air quality designations are generally made at the county level, but designations may also be 

18 made for smaller localized areas. For the purpose of planning and maintaining ambient air 

19 quality with respect to the NAAQS, EPA has created Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs). 

20 AQCRs are intrastate or interstate areas that share a common airshed (40 CFR Part 81). The 

21 proposed site is in the Rockford, Illinois–Janesville/Beloit, Wisconsin, Interstate (JBWI) AQCR

22 comprising Boone, De Kalb, Ogle, Stephenson, and Winnebago Counties in Illinois and Rock 

23 County, Wisconsin (40 CFR 81.71). The proposed SHINE site is located in Rock County, which 

24 is designated as an attainment/unclassifiable area for all criteria pollutants (EPA 2013). The

25 nonattainment areas nearest to the proposed site are the following:

26 (1) McHenry County, Illinois, which is about 19 mi (30 km) south of the proposed site 

27 and is part of the Chicago–Naperville, Illinois–Indiana–Wisconsin marginal

28 nonattainment areas for the 8-hour ozone 2008 standard (EPA 2013), and

29 (2) Kenosha County, Wisconsin, which is about 38 mi (61 km) east of the proposed site 

30 and is part of the Chicago–Naperville, Illinois–Indiana–Wisconsin nonattainment area 

31 for ozone (EPA 2013).

32 McHenry County and Waukesha County are also designated maintenance areas for PM less 

33 than 2.5 μm and the 8-hour ozone 1997 standard, respectively (EPA 2013). However, these 

34 nonattainmment and maintenance areas are not within the JBWI AQCR. The region of 

35 influence for purposes of the air quality analysis is defined as Rock County. The General 

36 Conformity Rule, established under Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA, ensures that Federal actions 

37 conform to State Implementation Plans. The Federal agency must conduct a conformity 

38 analysis if the proposed action is in a designated nonattainment or maintenance area with 

39 respect to NAAQS and would result in the generation of air emissions that would exceed 

40 conformity threshold levels of pollutants (de minimis thresholds). Because the proposed SHINE

41 facility would be located in a designated attainment/unclassifiable area, a conformity analysis is 

42 not required.

3-14
Affected Environment

1 Table 3–5. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Criteria Pollutant

Primary or

Secondary

Averaging 

Time Level Description

Carbon Monoxide (CO) primary 8 hours 9 ppm Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 1 hour 35 ppm

Lead (Pb) primary and 

secondary

Rolling 3-month 

average

0.15 μm3(a) Not to be exceeded

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) primary 1 hour 100 ppb 98th percentile,

averaged over 3 years

primary and 

secondary

Annual 53 ppb(b) Annual mean

Ozone (O3) primary and 

secondary

8 hours 0.075 ppm(c) Annual fourth highest 

daily maximum 8-hour 

concentration, averaged 

over 3 years

Particulate

Matter

(PM)

PM2.5 primary Annual 12 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged 

over 3 years

secondary Annual 15 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged 

over 3 years

primary and 

secondary

24 hours 35 μg/m3 98th percentile,

averaged over 3 years

PM10 primary and 

secondary

24 hours 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year on average over 

3 years

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) primary 1 hour 75 ppb(d) 99th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum 

concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years

secondary 3 hours 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year

(a) The final rule was signed on October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m3) 

as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except in 

areas designated non-attainment for the 1978 standard. The 1978 standard remains in effect until 

implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

(b) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 parts per million (ppm), equal to 53 parts per billion (ppb), 

shown here for clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard.

(c) The final rule was signed on March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth highest daily 

maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 

1997, EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all 

areas, although some areas have continued obligations under that standard (“antibacksliding”). The 1-hour ozone 

standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average 

concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1.

(d) The final rule was signed on June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked in this 

rulemaking. However, these standards remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 

2010 standard, except in areas designated as nonattainment for the 1971 standards , where the 1971 standards 

remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standard are approved.

Source: EPA 2012a

3-15
Affected Environment

1 Table 3–6 shows annual emission rates of criteria pollutants, carbon dioxide, and HAPs for the 

2 JBWI AQCR and for Rock County. These emission rates include both stationary and mobile 

3 sources (vehicular traffic). Section 3.9 presents data and assumptions regarding the amount of 

4 vehicular traffic.

5 Gaseous chemicals that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

6 The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These pollutants are 

7 emitted from natural processes and human activities. As further discussed in Section 3.2.2.1, 

8 the GHG Tailoring Rule combines these and other GHGs into a single “pollutant” called carbon 

9 dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). Toxic air pollutants, also known as HAPs, are pollutants known or 

10 suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects, birth 

11 defects, or adverse environmental effects. Under the CAA, the EPA regulates a list of 

12 187 HAPs. Examples of HAPs include benzene, which is found in gasoline; perchloroethylene, 

13 which is emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, which many 

14 industries use as a solvent and paint stripper.

15 Table 3–6. Regional Air Emissions Inventory

Description CO NOx

Hydrocarbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 HAPs

Quantity Emitted 

(TPY) in JBWI 

AQCR

122,608 23,781 30,872 1,337 50,268 12,208 4,789,168 11,521

Quantity Emitted 

(TPY) in Rock 

County

32,369 6,026 10,848 99 8,877 2,788 1,131,140 2,182

Key: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrous oxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter of 10 μm or less; 

PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 μm or less; CO2 = carbon dioxide; HAP = hazardous air pollutants; TPY = tons per 

year; JBWI = Rockford, Illinois-Janesville-Beloit, Wisconsin, Interstate; and AQCR = air quality control region.

Source: EPA 2014a

16 EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule to improve and protect visibility in national parks and 

17 wilderness areas from haze that many diverse sources across a broad region may cause 

18 (40 CFR 51.308–51.309). Specifically, 40 CFR Part 81, Subpart D, lists mandatory Class I 

19 Federal Areas where visibility is an important value. The Regional Haze Rule requires states to 

20 develop State Implementation Plans to reduce visibility impairment at Class I Federal Areas. 

21 The nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Seney Wilderness 

22 Area in Michigan, which is about 295 mi (475 km) from the proposed site (EPA 2012b). The 

23 nearest Class I area to the proposed SHINE facility is Rainbow Lake, Wisconsin, which is 

located approximately 250 mi (401 km) from the site.2 24

25 3.2.2.1 Federal New Source Requirements

26 New facilities that emit air pollutants, such as the proposed site, could be subject to Federal 

27 requirements, depending on the location and the type and amount of emitted air pollution. The 

28 following discussions summarize these requirements. As described in Section 4.2, emission 

29 rates from the proposed site are expected to be below the thresholds triggering any of these 

30 requirements. The WDNR has regulatory jurisdiction over construction- and operation-related 

31 activities, and SHINE may be required to obtain air permits in accordance with Wisconsin 

2 Rainbow Lake is a Mandatory Federal Class I area in which visibility is not an important air quality-related value. 

3-16

 
Affected Environment

1 Administrative Code NR 405, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration”; NR 406, “Construction 

2 Permits; and NR 407, “Operation Permits.” As of February 2014, the WDNR was actively 

3 working with SHINE to determine which of these permits would be required (WDNR 2014a).

4 Prevention of Significant Deterioration

5 Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) is a Federal permitting program that applies to 

6 sources classified as major sources (as defined in 40 CFR 52.21) under the PSD program and 

7 located in attainment areas. The purpose of the program is to prevent degradation of air quality 

8 in areas where air quality is good. New or modified sources of criteria pollutants that exceed de 

9 minimis emission rates are subject to the program. The PSD program establishes mandatory

10 Class I areas in which air quality is most pristine and visibility is an important value, such as 

11 those near national parks and wilderness areas. For purposes of this air quality analysis, the 

12 250 tons per year (TPY) of any criteria pollutant threshold (40 CFR 52.21) will be considered in 

13 determining the significance of air quality impacts for operations.

14 Title V of the Clean Air Act

15 Title V of the CAA requires a Federally enforceable operating permit program that applies to 

16 large, new, and existing sources of air pollution. Any facility with the potential to emit 100 TPY 

17 or more of any criteria pollutant, 10 TPY of any HAP, or 25 TPY of all HAPs combined is 

18 required to obtain a valid Title V permit and is considered a major air source. For purposes of 

19 this air quality analysis, the 100 TPY of any criteria pollutant threshold for a Title V operation 

20 permit will be considered in determining the significance of air quality impacts for operation.

21 Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule

22 On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued a final rule for mandatory GHG reporting from large

23 GHG emission sources in the United States (74 FR 56260). The purpose of the GHG Tailoring 

24 Rule is to collect and use comprehensive and accurate data on carbon dioxide and other GHG

25 emissions to inform future policy decisions. In general, the threshold for reporting is 

26 25,000 metric tons or more carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) emissions per year, excluding 

27 mobile-source emissions. CO2eq is a metric used to compare the emissions of GHG based on 

28 their global warming potential (GWP). GWP is a measure used to compare how much heat a 

29 GHG traps in the atmosphere. GWP is the total energy that a gas absorbs over a period of time 

30 compared to carbon dioxide. CO2eq is obtained by multiplying the amount of the GHG by the 

31 associated GWP. For example, the GWP of methane is estimated to be 21; therefore, 1 ton of 

32 methane emission is equivalent to 21 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

33 On May 13, 2010, the EPA issued the GHG Tailoring Rule. This rule set the thresholds for a 

34 phase-in approach to regulating GHG emissions under the PSD and Title V permitting programs 

(75 FR 31514). Beginning on January 2, 2011,

3 35 operating permits issued to major sources of 

36 GHG under the PSD or Title V Federal permit programs must contain provisions requiring the 

37 use of best available control technology to limit the emissions of GHGs, if those sources would 

38 be subject to PSD or Title V permitting requirements because of their non-GHG pollutant 

39 emission potentials and if their estimated GHG emissions are at least 75,000 TPY of CO2eq.

3 On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for 

determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD or Title V permit but could continue to 

require PSD and Title V permits, which are otherwise required based on emissions of conventional pollutants. In 

July 2014, the EPA issued a memorandum in response to the Supreme Court’s decision and acknowledged that, 

although the decision is pending judicial action, the EPA will no longer require PSD or Title V permits for 

GHG-emitting sources that are not sources subject to PSD or Title V permits based on emissions of conventional 

pollutants (e.g., nitrogen oxides and, carbon monoxide) (EPA 2014b).

3-17

 
Affected Environment

1 3.2.3 Noise

2 Noise is often defined as unwanted sound. Sound is created when a source vibrates in air,

3 creating pressure pulses that move through the air or another medium away from the source in 

4 waves. When these pressure waves reach a receiver like the human ear, the receiver interprets 

5 these waves as sounds. The human ear interprets more forceful vibrations (higher pressures in 

6 the sound waves) as louder or more intense sounds.

7 Sound intensity is measured in logarithmic units called decibels (dB). A dB is the ratio of the 

8 measured sound pressure level to a reference level equal to a normal person’s threshold of 

9 hearing. Because of the way the dB is defined mathematically and because of the way human 

10 ears respond to sound intensities, comparing the “noisiness” of two sounds based on their dB 

11 values is not straightforward. Most people barely notice a difference of 3 dB or less.

12 Another characteristic of sound is frequency or pitch. Noise may be composed of many 

13 frequencies, but the human ear does not hear very low or very high frequencies as well as it hears 

14 frequencies around 1 to 5 kilohertz. To represent noise as closely as possible to the noise levels 

15 people experience, sounds are measured using a frequency-weighting scheme known as the 

16 A-scale. Sound levels measured on this A-scale are given in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA).

17 Several different terms are commonly used to describe sounds that vary in intensity over time. 

18 The equivalent sound intensity level (Leq) represents the average sound intensity level over a 

19 specified interval, often 1 hour. The day-night sound intensity level (LDN) is a single value 

20 calculated from an hourly equivalent sound intensity level over a 24-hour period, with the 

21 addition of 10 dBA to sound levels from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. This addition accounts for the greater 

22 sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise.

23 Table 3–7 compares common sound levels and ranks the sounds in terms of their effects on 

24 hearing. For example, a whisper is normally 30 dBA and is considered very quiet. An 

25 air-conditioning unit located 6.1 m (20.0 ft) away is considered an intrusive noise at 60 dBA. 

26 Noise levels can become annoying at 80 dBA and very annoying at 90 dBA. To the human ear, 

27 each increase of 10 dBA sounds twice as loud (EPA 1981).

28 Table 3–7. Sound Levels and Human Response

Noise Level (dBA) Common Sounds Effect

10 Just audible Negligible(a)

30 Soft whisper (4.6 m [15 ft]) Very quiet

50 Light automobile traffic (30.5 m [100 ft]) Quiet

60 Air-conditioning unit (6.1 m [20 ft]) Intrusive

70 Noisy restaurant or freeway traffic Telephone use difficult

80 Alarm clock (0.6 m [2 ft]) Annoying

90 Heavy truck (15.2 m [49.9 ft]) or city 

traffic

Very annoying hearing damage 

(8 hours)

100 Garbage truck Very annoying(a)

110 Pile drivers Strained vocal effort(a)

120 Jet takeoff (61 m [200 ft]) or 

automobile horn (0.9 m [3 ft])

Maximum vocal effort

140 Carrier deck jet operation Painfully loud

(a) This effect is extrapolated.

Key: dBA = decibels A-weighted, and m = meters.

Source: EPA 1981

3-18
Affected Environment

1 3.2.3.1 Noise Regulations

2 There are no regulatory limits on noise levels in the area of the proposed action, but several 

3 Federal regulations establish noise guidelines to protect citizens from potential hearing damage 

4 and from other adverse physiological, psychological, and social effects associated with noise. 

5 Under the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Occupational Safety and 

6 Health Administration established workplace standards for noise. The minimum requirement 

7 states that constant noise exposure must not exceed 90 dBA over an 8-hr period. The highest 

8 allowable sound level to which workers can be exposed is 115 dBA. Exposure to this level must 

9 not exceed 15 min within an 8-hr period. If noise levels exceed these standards, employers are 

10 required to provide hearing protection equipment that reduces sound levels to acceptable limits 

11 (29 CFR 1910.95).

12 The EPA recommends day-night average sound levels of 55 dBA as guidelines or goals for 

13 outdoors in residential areas (EPA 1974). However, these levels are not standards.

14 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates noise levels in the vicinity of airports. FAA 

15 regulations regarding airport noise compatibility planning (14 CFR Part 150) define the

16 requirements and procedures for public-use airports, such as the Southern Wisconsin Regional 

17 Airport, which is located across the road from the proposed site. The FAA regulation at 

18 14 CFR 150.21 requires a noise exposure map for each airport that identifies incompatible land 

19 use and an LDN 65 dBA contour line.

20 The Federal Highway Administration rules in 23 CFR Part 772 regulate highway traffic and 

21 construction noise. The rules identify noise abatement criteria (NAC) that define when noise 

22 abatement must be considered in highway projects near different land use areas. For example, 

23 the noise abatement criterion for residential land use areas is 67 dBA. Although NAC are not 

24 noise limits, they do identify levels most people consider an annoyance.

25 Several Wisconsin laws regulate noise associated with different sources and environments, 

26 including certain vehicles (such as snowmobiles, boats, and trucks), occupational settings, 

27 airports, highways, and wind farms (State of Wisconsin undated). Wisconsin’s implementation 

28 of the Federal Highway Administration’s highway noise rules is contained in Wisconsin 

29 Administrative Code Trans 405, “Siting Noise Barriers.” 

30 Rock County ordinances prohibit nuisance noise and require noise prevention in land divisions 

31 and other development activities, but the ordinances do not specify numerical noise limits (Rock 

32 County undated a).

33 3.2.3.2 Existing Noise Levels

34 The region of influence for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the 

35 proposed SHINE facility. Existing noise sources near the proposed site include vehicular traffic

36 on U.S. Highway 51 and airplane traffic associated with the Southern Wisconsin Regional 

37 Airport. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors are a residence and an adjacent park located on 

38 West Knilans Road about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from the center of the proposed site. Figure 3–6

39 shows the proposed site, airport, and nearest receptors.

3-19
Affected Environment

1 Figure 3–6. Proposed SHINE Facility Map Showing 

2 Noise Sources and Receptors

3

4 Source: Modified from SHINE 2013a

5 According to the noise exposure map for the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, the nearest 

6 noise receptors experience 55–65 dBA LDN noise levels. The proposed site would produce 

7 noise levels less than 55 dBA (SHINE 2013b). SHINE’s noise modeling for highway traffic noise 

8 from U.S. Highway 51 shows that the NAC for residential land uses (67 dBA) is exceeded at 

9 distances up to 80 ft (24 m) from the edge of the highway (SHINE 2013b).

10 3.3 Geologic Environment

11 3.3.1 Site Geology

12 The proposed site is located near the boundary of the Wisconsin Western Uplands and the 

13 Eastern Ridges and Lowlands physiographic provinces. The till plains section of the Central 

14 Lowland physiographic province of the United States encompasses these provinces. This 

15 province occupies the middle of the long stable North American continent. Tectonic activity has 

16 little effect on this location (USGS 2003; SHINE 2013a, 2013b).

17 Current site topography is flat to gently rolling. Deposits of glacial outwash and glacial till

18 immediately underlay the site. These unconsolidated materials rest atop a bedrock surface, as 

19 further described later in this section (SHINE 2013a).

3-20
Affected Environment

1 Site topography slopes gently toward the southwest in the direction of the Rock River, which is

2 located about 2.5 mi (4.0 km) to the west. The change in ground surface elevation across the 

3 proposed main facility site is about 7.0 ft (2.1 m) between the southeast and northwest portions

4 of the site. Elevations across the entire site range from about 804 ft (245 m) above mean sea 

5 level (MSL) at the southwest corner of the property adjacent to U.S. Highway 51 to 828 ft 

6 (252 m) MSL in the northeast corner. A small terraced knoll protrudes into the center of the 

7 otherwise gently sloping topography of the proposed site from the northeast (Figure 3–7) 

8 (SHINE 2013a, 2013b).

9 Physical features and the surficial geology at the proposed site and across the southeastern 

10 Wisconsin region are the product of successive glacial advances, retreats, and related 

11 depositional and erosional processes during the Pleistocene age or “Ice Age” 

12 (Fullerton et al. 2003; SHINE 2013a). The Pleistocene age is defined as the period of geologic 

13 time that began about 2.6 million years ago and ended about 11,700 years ago (USGS 2010). 

14 Both the Illinoian and younger Wisconsin glaciations affected southeastern Wisconsin and parts 

15 of Rock County as lobes of ice comprising the massive Laurentide Ice Sheet moved south and 

16 southwest out of central Canada and across the region.

17 Portions of south-central Wisconsin, including southern Rock County and the proposed site,

18 were last glaciated between about 128,000 and 310,000 years ago during the Illinoian 

19 Glaciation. At that time, ice covered the eastern half of Wisconsin and extended south into 

20 Southern Illinois and east into Indiana and Ohio (Fullerton et al. 2003). The latest glacial 

21 advance (the Wisconsin Glaciation) began 100,000 years ago and reached its peak about 

22 30,000 years ago. At its peak, ice reached into Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa and encompassed 

23 much of northern and eastern Wisconsin. Although this latest glacial advance did not extend as 

24 far south and west as the proposed site, the Jonestown end moraine, which is located about

25 20 mi (32 km) to the north of the proposed site, marks its terminus. However, by 11,000 years 

26 ago, all ice had retreated from the State (SHINE 2013a; Fullerton et al. 2003; WGNHS 2011a).

27 These glacial movements deposited glacial till, basal moraine, and end moraine. Till is a 

28 heterogeneous mixture of materials—clay, silt, sand, granules, pebbles, cobbles, and 

29 boulders—that glacial ice directly deposits. Ground moraine is a sheet or layer of till that often

30 forms a gently rolling or undulating plain of low relief. End moraine, a thickened layer of till 

31 deposited at the margin of glacial ice, characteristically exists as belts of till or as concentric or 

32 overlapping ridges of till (Fullerton et al. 2003). Glacial streams flowing from the edges of the 

33 ice deposited sand and gravel outwash (SHINE 2013a; WGNHS 2011b). Alluvial processes,

34 including flowing water, wind, and erosion, have subsequently reworked the deposited

35 materials.

36 The surficial geology of Rock County consists of the Wisconsin-age Johnstown moraine to the 

37 north. This moraine formed at the margins of the Green Bay ice lobe. The remainder of the 

38 county contains Illinoian-age ground moraine deposits that southward-flowing glacial outwash 

39 stream deposits and lake deposits have dissected in places. The stream valleys now contain 

40 late Wisconsin-age and possibly Holocene-age glaciofluvial outwash deposits (SHINE 2013a;

41 Fullerton et al. 2003). The surficial geologic unit at the proposed site is mapped as glaciofluvial 

42 outwash composed of sand and gravel. Figure 3–7 is a generalized geologic section that shows

43 the glacial terrain and the surficial and bedrock strata in the vicinity of the proposed site.

3-21
Affected Environment

1 Figure 3–7. Geologic Cross-Section of the Proposed SHINE Site and Vicinity

2

3 Source: Adapted from Zaporozec 1982

4 SHINE and its contractors conducted geotechnical investigations at the proposed site. These 

5 investigations revealed predominantly coarse, poorly graded (i.e., well-sorted) sandy sediment 

6 and soils to a depth of 221 ft (67 m) below ground surface (bgs) with occasional gravel layers

7 (GAI 2012a). Testing of 15 boring samples further revealed that the density of the sand 

8 increases with depth and is generally compact. At a depth of 180- to 185-ft (55- to 56-m) bgs, a 

9 layer of hard clayey silt was encountered in the three deepest borings with a thickness of 10 to 

10 18 ft (3.0 to 5.5 m). Sand or silty sand underlay this hardened layer to the total borehole depth 

11 of 221-ft (67-m) bgs (GAI 2012a).

12 Based on drilling conducted as part of the site geotechnical investigations, the depth to bedrock 

13 is greater than 221-ft (67.4-m) bgs. Glacial action gouged, and then glacial and postglacial 

14 sediments filled, the uppermost bedrock surface beneath the proposed site. Figure 3–7 shows 

15 the expression of the ancestral Rock River Valley in the dissected bedrock surface.

16 Beneath the mantle of Pleistocene- and Holocene-age sediments, the uppermost bedrock unit is 

17 the Platteville–Galena Formation of Ordovician age, which comprises limestone and dolomite. 

18 In descending order, sandstones of the St. Peter Formation and the carbonates of the Prairie du 

19 Chien Group, where present, underlay the Platteville–Galena Formation. These eroded units

20 rest upon a thick sequence of Cambrian-age sedimentary rock that consists primarily of 

21 sandstone in the upper part. These Cambrian-age rocks are up to 1,000-ft (300-m) thick and 

22 extend to Precambrian-age basement rock (SHINE 2013a; WGNHS 2011b).

23 Sedimentary bedrock underlying the proposed site formed from materials deposited in a shallow 

24 marine environment over millions of years in a structural feature known as the Michigan Basin. 

25 The proposed site lies on the western margin of the Michigan Basin and on the southeastern 

26 edge of another feature—the Wisconsin Arch. The Wisconsin Arch and the Kankakee Arch to 

27 the south of the proposed site are northwest- to southeast-striking tectonic features believed to 

28 be related to crustal adjustment during and following the development and filling of the Michigan 

Proposed SHINE Site

3-22
Affected Environment

1 Basin more than 300 million years ago. This deformation led to the regional faulting and folding 

2 of subsurface strata in some areas. Despite this activity, the orientation of sedimentary strata 

3 beneath the proposed site indicates little deformation during the last 500 million years 

4 (SHINE 2013a).

5 Still, several geologic faults mapped regionally in association with the Wisconsin and Kankakee 

6 Arches are located as close as 2 mi (3 km) to the proposed site. One of the most prominent 

7 faults is the Waukesha fault located about 20 mi (32 km) to the east and northeast of the 

8 proposed site. This northeast-striking fault runs for up to 133 mi (214 km) in the subsurface. 

9 Closer to the proposed site, the Janesville fault (or the Evansville fault) is located about

10 6 mi (10 km) north of the City of Janesville. This 19-mi-long (31-km-long) east-striking fault 

11 exhibits an estimated 70 ft (21 m) of displacement. A smaller unnamed fault of orientation 

12 similar to the Janesville fault has been traced for about 1.6 mi (2.6 km). It is located less than 

13 2 mi (3 km) north of the City of Janesville.

14 None of these faults are expressed at the surface, and no reported evidence exists of 

15 Pleistocene or post-Pleistocene activity on any regional faults (SHINE 2013a, 2013b). Further, 

16 the NRC staff’s review of the USGS’s latest release of the Quaternary Fault and Fold Database 

17 found no record of Quaternary faults or folds within a 300-mi (480-km) radius of the proposed 

18 site (USGS 2012). However, liquefaction features in the Wabash Valley in southern Indiana and 

19 Illinois, located about 170 mi (274-km) south of the proposed site, indicate the presence of 

20 active faulting in the Holocene and late Pleistocene period (SHINE 2013b; Crone and 

21 Wheeler 2000). Therefore, SHINE considered these faults capable because the characteristics 

22 in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 are exhibited (SHINE 2013a). Section 3.3.3 further describes 

23 the seismic setting, including earthquake risk, at the proposed site.

24 Geologic resources, encompassing rock and mineral (fuel and nonfuel) resources, in the vicinity 

25 of the proposed site, are primarily related to the area’s extensive sand and gravel deposits. 

26 Rock County features widespread nonmetallic mining, including construction sand and gravel 

27 and crushed stone operations (USGS 2013a). Two sand and gravel mining operations and one 

28 crushed stone mining operation are within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site 

29 (Find the Data 2014).

30 3.3.2 Soils

31 Based on SHINE’s geotechnical investigation (Section 3.3.1), the proposed site generally 

32 consists of stratified sand and gravel that underlay well-drained loamy soils (GAI 2012a). The

33 USDA NRCS soil unit mapping identifies the majority of the proposed site (90 percent) as 

34 Warsaw silt loam with 2- to 6-percent slopes, and as Warsaw silt loam with 0- to 2-percent 

35 slopes (Figure 3–3). These soil mapping units comprise well-drained silt loams and sandy clay 

36 loams found on outwash plains and stream terraces that developed from calcareous sand and 

37 gravelly outwash. The profiles of these soils grade to a gravelly coarse sand or sand at depths 

38 greater than about 36 in. (91 cm). The depth to the water table in these soils is generally 60 to 

39 80 in. (150 to 200 cm), and water rarely ponds on these soils.

40 The only building site limitation for these soils is that shallow excavations tend to be very 

41 unstable because of high sand and gravelly content (NRCS 2013). The soils are further 

42 classified as slightly to moderately erodible (NRCS 2013; SHINE 2013a). Given the recent 

43 agricultural history of the proposed site, the soils have a well-developed organic soil horizon in 

44 the upper 12- to 24-in. (30- to 60-cm) soil profile, which promotes soil tilth while reducing 

45 erosion. Section 3.1.1.4 notes that these Warsaw silt loam soils are prime farmland soils when

46 they are not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013; 7 CFR 657.5(a)).

3-23
Affected Environment

1 The remaining south-central portion of the proposed site comprises eroded Lorenzo loam with

2 6- to 12-percent slopes. These soils are also well drained and grade from a loam in the upper 

3 part to a gravelly to very gravelly clay loam below a depth of about 15 in. (38 cm). They occupy 

4 outwash plains and knobs that developed from loamy outwash over sandy and gravelly parent 

5 materials. Because of slope factors and dense soil horizons, this soil is classified as somewhat 

6 to very limited for building site development. This soil unit is also prone to slumping in shallow 

7 excavations (NRCS 2013). These soils are farmland of statewide importance when they are not 

8 committed to developed uses (Section 3.1.1.4) (7 CFR 657.5(c)).

9 Borings that SHINE obtained during the geotechnical investigation did not identify the presence 

10 of highly plastic clays indicative of expansive or high shrink/swell potential soils (GAI 2012a;

11 SHINE 2013a).

12 3.3.3 Seismic Setting

13 Southeastern Wisconsin lies within the central portion of the stable North American craton. 

14 Historically, the seismicity of the region encompassing the proposed site is characterized by

15 relatively infrequent small to moderate earthquakes typical of much of the central and eastern 

16 United States (SHINE 2013b; USGS 2013b). Across the stable continental region of the United 

17 States, most locations can go years without an earthquake strong enough for people to feel.

18 In the central and eastern United States, people can feel earthquakes over a very wide area. 

19 For example, people can feel a magnitude 4.0 earthquake at locations as far as 60 mi (100 km) 

20 from its source, and the earthquake can occasionally cause damage near its source. People 

21 can usually feel a magnitude 5.5 earthquake as far as 300 mi (500 km) from its source, and the 

22 earthquake often causes damage near its epicenter and sometimes as far away as 25 mi 

23 (40 km) (USGS 2013b).

24 The USGS’s seismic hazard estimates indicate the proposed site is located within one of the 

25 lower earthquake hazard areas in the conterminous United States. Earthquake sources in 

26 Southern Illinois are the primary controllers of hazard in the region (Petersen et al. 2011;

27 SHINE 2013a).

28 Since 1973, six earthquakes within a radius of 200 mi (322 km) of the proposed site have been 

29 recorded with a magnitude equal to, or greater than, 2.5. Two of these events occurred in 2013 

30 and one in 2012 at magnitudes of 3.2, 2.6, and 3.0, respectively. The closest earthquake was a 

31 magnitude 2.6 earthquake in June 2013, with its epicenter near the City of Campton Hills, 

32 Illinois, about 51 mi (82 km) southeast of the proposed site (USGS 2013c). The largest 

33 earthquake was a magnitude 4.2 event in June 2004, centered near the City of Ottawa, Illinois,

34 about 80 mi (130 km) south of the proposed site (SHINE 2013b; USGS 2013c, 2013f). This 

35 notable earthquake was widely felt across northern Illinois, southern Wisconsin, and western 

36 Indiana. Across southeast Wisconsin, it produced shaking in the range of II to III on the 

37 Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale, but no serious damage was reported (USGS 2013d). 

38 Although people can feel shaking in this range, this level is unlikely to produce any damage to 

39 structures (USGS 2013e).

40 Historically, larger earthquakes have occurred in adjoining regions with effects felt across 

41 southern Wisconsin. The largest of these earthquakes occurred on May 26, 1909, with an 

42 estimated magnitude of 5.1. The epicenter of this earthquake was near Aurora, Illinois, about

43 85 mi (137 km) southeast of the proposed site (SHINE 2013b; USGS 2013d). The earthquake 

44 produced MMI VII shaking at its epicenter with many reports of fallen and damaged chimneys. 

45 This event is estimated to have produced MMI V shaking across the area of the proposed site

46 (SHINE 2013b; USGS 2013f). MMI V shaking can overturn objects and cause minor damage to 

47 personal property (USGS 2013e).

3-24
Affected Environment

1 Using USGS national seismic hazard model data, SHINE performed a site-specific analysis to 

2 assess the potential maximum earthquake magnitude that may affect the proposed site and its 

3 immediate surroundings. SHINE determined that an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.8 can 

4 reasonably be regarded as the maximum considered earthquake to occur in the region 

5 (i.e., within about 200 mi (322 km) of the proposed site). This earthquake estimate 

6 encompasses events producing maximum earthquake response accelerations ranging from 

7 0.119 to 0.206 gravity (i.e., the force of acceleration relative to that of Earth’s gravity). This 

8 value represents shaking from an earthquake with a 2-percent probability of exceedance in the 

9 next 50 years (i.e., an earthquake with a 2,475-year return period). The NRC staff will further 

10 evaluate the potential maximum earthquake in the Safety Evaluation Report related to the 

11 SHINE construction permit application.

12 Using the same earthquake return period, SHINE also estimated the probabilistic peak ground 

13 acceleration (PGA) for the proposed site reflective of sites with soft rock or very stiff soil. 

14 SHINE’s calculated PGA was about 0.05 gravity (SHINE 2013b). This calculated PGA is 

15 consistent with PGA estimates published in the USGS’s 2008 national seismic hazard maps 

16 (Petersen et al. 2011). These data indicate a low to very low earthquake shaking hazard at the 

17 proposed site (SHINE 2013a, 2013b).

18 3.4 Water Resources

19 3.4.1 Surface Water

20 3.4.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology

21 The major surface-water feature in the vicinity of the proposed site is the Rock River, located 

22 about 1.9 mi (3.1 km) west of the proposed site at its closest point (Figure 3–8). No named 

23 tributaries originate on or border the proposed site. However, as shown in Figure 3–8, the 

24 headwaters of an unnamed tributary to the Rock River are located about 1.6 mi (2.6 km) 

25 southwest of the proposed site and west of U.S. Highway 51.

3-25
Affected Environment

1 Figure 3–8. Surface-Water Features in the Vicinity of the 

2 Proposed SHINE Site

3

4 Source: Adapted from SHINE 2013a

3-26
Affected Environment

1 The local watershed that contributes drainage to, and receives drainage from, the proposed site

2 encompasses about 1,377 ac (557 ha) (Figure 3–8). USGS-delineated hydrologic unit 

3 (watershed) boundaries are depicted in the figure. U.S. Highway 51 roughly bisects the 

4 proposed site and local watershed. Drainage across the proposed site and vicinity is 

5 predominantly to the south and southwest across the proposed site toward the unnamed 

6 tributary to the Rock River located south of the proposed site.

7 Culverts under U.S. Highway 51 convey runoff and drainage from the east side ditch to the west 

8 side, including two culvert locations (three culvert pipes) adjacent to the proposed site. These 

9 include a 30-in. (76-cm) culvert located along the northwest boundary of the proposed site with 

10 U.S. Highway 51 and a pair of 24-in. (61-cm) culverts located near the southwest corner of the 

11 proposed site and U.S. Highway 51. Drainage across the proposed site toward the unnamed 

12 tributary flows through these culverts and then passes through the Southern Wisconsin 

13 Regional Airport, through culverts under West Airport Road, through the Glen Erin Golf Course, 

14 and through a box culvert under West Happy Hollow Road. Beyond West Happy Hollow Road, 

15 the receiving tributary passes through the wooded Rock River floodplain before discharging to 

16 Rock River (SHINE 2013a).

17 Rock River originates in the Horicon Marsh in Dodge County, Wisconsin, where the east, south,

18 and west branches of Rock River join. In Horicon, at the south edge of the marsh, the river 

19 flows southerly for about 76 mi (122 km) to Fort Atkinson, which roughly marks the southern end 

20 of the Upper Rock River Basin and the beginning of the Lower Rock River Basin. From Fort 

21 Atkinson, Rock River flows in a generally southwest direction through Lake Koshkonong and 

22 then generally south through Rock County and to the west of the proposed site. Rock River 

23 flows across a total of about 62 mi (100 km) in the Lower Rock River Basin before entering 

24 Illinois south of the City of Beloit. It ultimately discharges to the Mississippi River downstream of 

25 Rock Island, Illinois (Sinclair 1996; Rock County 2009; WDNR 2012a).

26 Many small dams regulate the flow of Rock River. Originally constructed for hydropower

27 facilities, these low dams do not form deep impoundments. The Indianford Dam, which 

28 impounds Lake Koshkonong, is located about 21 mi (34 km) upstream of the point where 

29 drainage from the Janesville site enters Rock River through the unnamed tributary. Closer to,

30 and to the north of, the proposed site, the Centerway Dam is located near downtown in the City 

31 of Janesville and upstream of the Monterey Dam. The lower Monterey Dam is located about

32 6.5 mi (10.5 km) upstream of the proposed site drainage confluence and about 2 river miles 

33 (RM) (3.2 km) downstream of the Centerway Dam. The first downstream dam on Rock River is 

34 the Blackhawk Dam (Beloit Dam), which is located about 8.4 RM (13.5 km) downstream of the 

35 proposed site (SHINE 2013a, 2013b).

36 The nearest USGS gaging station on Rock River is the Afton gage station (Station 05430500). 

37 This gage station is located slightly southwest of the proposed site and upstream from the point 

38 at which site drainage (through the unnamed tributary) ultimately enters Rock River, as 

39 previously described. The mean annual discharge measured at the Afton gage for water years 

1914 to 2012 is 2,015 cubic feet per second (cfs) (57 cubic meters per second (m3 40 /s)). The 

41 90-percent exceedance flow, which is generally indicative of drought conditions, is 499 cfs 

(14 m3

/s). For water year 2012, the mean discharge was 1,927 cfs (55 m3 42 /s). The drainage 

area of Rock River upstream of the Afton gage encompasses 3,340 square miles (mi

2 43 )

(8,650 square kilometers (km2 44 )) (USGS 2013g). No stream flow data are available for the 

45 unnamed tributary to Rock River that receives site runoff.

46 Peak flows and flooding on streams in Rock County typically occur either in late winter or early

47 spring, from March to April, and often in June, as a result of early summer thunderstorms. 

3-27
Affected Environment

1 Floods on Rock River at Afton also generally occur from March to April with few floods from

2 November to January (SHINE 2013a).

3 No floodplains are delineated on or near the proposed site (FEMA 2008; SHINE 2013a; Rock

4 County 2009). The flood insurance rate map for the proposed site and vicinity identifies 

5 mapped areas as Zone X, the zone for areas outside the 500-year flood elevation. In addition, 

6 the proposed site is not located in an area identified as prone to seasonally high water tables or 

7 hydric soil conditions (Rock County 2009). However, floodplains are mapped in association with 

8 the unnamed tributary to Rock River south of the proposed site (FEMA 2008; Rock

9 County 2009).

10 Rock River flood levels near the proposed site are well below the lowest ground elevations at 

11 the proposed site. Because river flood levels are also sufficiently below the proposed site, the 

12 river flood levels have no backwater influence on the unnamed tributary flood-water levels 

13 (GAI 2012a; SHINE 2013a).

14 3.4.1.2 Surface Water Quality and Use

15 The State of Wisconsin has established water quality standards, numeric criteria, and 

16 associated designated use categories for all waters of the State, including wetlands. These

17 standards and use designations are the basis for regulatory, permitting, or funding activities that 

18 have an impact on water quality.

19 The main stem of the Rock River is regulated in accordance with its use for waste assimilation, 

20 recreation, fish and aquatic life, irrigation, stock and wildlife watering, and hydropower 

21 (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 104, “Uses and Designated Standards”). Its designated 

22 use is for recreation and for fish and aquatic life. Governing water quality standards include 

23 limitations on pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and various chemical

24 constituents and toxic substances, in accordance with Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102, 

25 “Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters.”

26 Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) 

27 requires states to identify all “impaired” waters for which effluent limitations and pollution control 

28 activities are not sufficient to attain water quality standards. The Section 303(d) list includes 

29 those water quality limited segments that require development of total maximum daily loads 

30 (TMDLs) to ensure future compliance with water quality standards. TMDLs have been 

31 established for several segments of Rock River. Most notably the 12.4-mi (20-km) segment of 

32 Rock River, between the City of Janesville’s Wastewater Treatment Plant at RM 183.45 and 

33 RM 171 at the Illinois State line, is listed as impaired because total suspended solids and total 

34 phosphorous contribute to degraded aquatic habitat and low dissolved oxygen, respectively 

35 (WDNR 2013b).

36 The unnamed tributary south of the proposed site (Figure 3–8) discharges to this impaired 

37 segment of the river. SHINE collected baseline surface-water quality data for this unnamed 

38 tributary from a location where it flows beneath the U.S. Highway 51 bridge near West Happy 

39 Hollow Road (SHINE 2013a). The water quality is reflective of the surficial groundwater that 

40 provides baseflow to the streams and that indicates some evidence of agricultural runoff based 

41 on fecal coliform and nitrate concentrations. The NRC staff visually surveyed this monitoring 

42 location during the environmental site audit in July 2013, and it observed that the tributary was a 

43 shallow and somewhat braided channel with continuous flow.

44 In addition to the uses noted earlier in this section, surface-water use in Rock County is 

45 primarily limited to use in thermoelectric power generation (Buchwald 2011). Public and

46 community water systems in Rock County use groundwater instead of surface water

47 (Section 3.4.2) (Buchwald 2011; Rock County 2009; SHINE 2013a).

3-28
Affected Environment

1 3.4.2 Groundwater

2 3.4.2.1 Site Description and Hydrogeology

3 Groundwater beneath the proposed site occurs in unconsolidated and consolidated 

4 water-bearing deposits (aquifers). The USGS has broadly classified and grouped the distinct 

5 geologic units comprising these aquifers into the surficial aquifer system and the 

6 Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system (Olcott 1992). Neither of these systems contains

7 sole-source aquifers. The geologic units comprising these systems are described in Section 3.3 

8 and are summarized here.

9 The surficial aquifer system is the most widespread system across Wisconsin and bordering

10 States. Across Rock County, it predominantly comprises Pleistocene-age glacial sediments and 

11 younger alluvial sediments that lie atop the bedrock surface (Olcott 1992; SHINE 2013a). At the 

12 proposed site, and as shown in Figure 3–7, the local surficial aquifer comprises glacial outwash, 

13 a mixture of poorly graded sand and of sand and gravel (GAI 2012b; SHINE 2013a;

14 Zaporozec 1982). The results of geotechnical borings at the proposed site in 2011 (Section 3.3) 

15 reveal that sandy sediments extend to a depth of at least 221-ft (67-m) bgs, except for an 

16 intervening 10.0- to 18.0-ft-thick (3.0- to 5.5-m-thick) layer of hard clayey silt at a depth of 

17 180- to 185-ft (55- to 56-m) bgs.

18 As part of the geotechnical and hydrologic/hydrogeologic studies at the Janesville site, SHINE

19 drilled 4 of the 14 boreholes to use as groundwater monitoring wells. The wells were 

20 constructed of 2-in. (5-cm) diameter polyvinyl chloride pipe and completed to depths ranging 

21 from 60.0 to 71.5 ft (18.0 to 22.0 m). All the borings completed on the proposed site

22 encountered the water table at depths ranging from about 754-ft (230 m) MSL to 766-ft

23 (233 m) MSL, or from about 50- to 65-ft (15- to 20-m) bgs, with about 3 ft (1 m) of seasonal 

24 variation (GAI 2012a, 2012b; SHINE 2013a).

25 Subsequently, SHINE conducted water table and groundwater quality monitoring monthly from 

26 October 2011 to September 2012 (SHINE 2013a). SHINE measured water levels and the 

27 hydraulic gradient and determined that the direction of groundwater flow beneath the proposed 

28 site was southwest (GAI 2012a; SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff found these results consistent 

29 with expectations for a surficial aquifer in which the water table is normally a reflection of the 

30 overlying topography; the groundwater flow is predominantly in the direction of surface-water 

31 drainages that may receive baseflow from groundwater discharge.

32 To assess the hydraulic conductivity and other characteristics of the surficial aquifer, SHINE

33 selected three of the wells for slug testing. SHINE’s analyses yielded an average conductivity 

34 (permeability) of 0.0045 ft per second (0.14 cm per second). When modeling the travel time for 

35 groundwater that contains any surface seepage, SHINE determined that the average travel time 

36 to the Rock River is 77 years, with a standard deviation of 39 years (GAI 2012a).

37 As a water source, the surficial aquifer in Rock County has demonstrated yields of 5,000 gallons 

per minute (gpm) (18.9 cubic meters per minute (m3 38 /min)), with a resulting drawdown of less 

39 than 7.0 ft (2.1 m) over a 24-hour period of pumping (Olcott 1968; SHINE 2013a). More typical 

yields from wells completed in outwash deposits are about 500 gpm (1.9 m3 40 /min). In contrast, 

wells completed in glacial till might yield 1 to 10 gpm (0.004 to 0.04 m3 41 /min) of groundwater to 

42 wells. The surficial aquifer is recharged locally from precipitation, with groundwater generally 

43 moving downgradient to discharge points (Olcott 1992). The City of Janesville has estimated 

44 that the average groundwater recharge rate for Rock County is 6.3 in. per year (16 cm per year)

45 (City of Janesville 2010).

46 Beneath Rock County, the Platteville-Galena Formations (dolomite), St. Peter Formation 

47 (sandstone), Prairie du Chen Group dolomites, and deeper Cambrian sandstone formations

3-29
Affected Environment

1 represent the Cambrian–Ordovician aquifer system (Section 3.3.1 and Figure 3–7) (Olcott 1992;

2 SHINE 2013a). These units may act as a single aquifer or as independent aquifers, based on 

3 the separation of the units by less permeable members (Olcott 1992; SHINE 2013a).

4 Although the rocks of the Platteville–Galena are considered confining units, particularly where 

5 they are overlain by younger sedimentary rocks, they represent a local aquifer in outcrop areas 

6 across Wisconsin suitable for domestic water supply (Olcott 1968, 1992). Similarly, the rocks of 

7 the St. Peter Formation and Prairie du Chen Group comprise the St. Peter–Prairie du Chien–

8 Jordan Aquifer—also known as the sandstone aquifer in Rock County. In general, recharge to 

9 these aquifer strata occurs where the strata outcrop at the surface and also from the overlying 

10 glacial sediments (Olcott 1992).

11 In most areas, the confining units of this aquifer system are leaky and allow vertical downward 

12 movement of groundwater within the system (Olcott 1992). In particular, the Prairie du Chien 

13 Group and St. Peter Formation outcrop in the major river valleys over much of the western part 

14 of Rock County, whereas bedrock east of the Rock River and ridgetops to the west represent 

15 the Platteville–Galena (Olcott 1968). On a regional basis, the direction of groundwater flow in 

16 the uppermost portion of the Cambrian–Ordovician aquifer system is generally south to 

17 southeast toward the Illinois Basin and/or toward regional discharge areas, such as Rock River. 

18 The exception is where large pumping centers, such as those in eastern Wisconsin, affect flow 

19 (Olcott 1992).

20 Well yields vary considerably from the individual aquifers that comprise the 

21 Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system (Olcott 1992). However, Olcott (1968) observed that wells 

completed in the sandstones can yield 1,000 gpm (3.8 m3 22 /min) or more.

23 3.4.2.2 Groundwater Quality and Use

24 Groundwater across Rock County is characterized as good and is suitable for most uses. Its 

25 chemical quality is the result of its movement through the surficial sediments and underlying 

26 bedrock, which are high in calcium-magnesium carbonate. As a result, the water is primarily of 

27 the calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type in both the surficial and bedrock aquifers.

28 Groundwater is also very hard because of high concentrations of calcium and magnesium, and 

29 it is slightly alkaline (Zaporozec 1982). For the surficial aquifer, the mean concentration of total 

30 dissolved solids (TDS) is reported as 351 milligrams per liter (mg/L) with mean TDS 

31 concentrations from the Platteville–Galena unit and St. Peter sandstones of 416 and 349 mg/L, 

32 respectively (Zaporozec 1982). Groundwater results from onsite monitoring wells revealed TDS 

33 concentrations ranging from 340 to 462 mg/L (SHINE 2013a). The State of Wisconsin regulates 

34 groundwater quality and administers groundwater protection programs in accordance with 

35 Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 140, “Groundwater Quality.” 

36 Rock County obtains nearly all its potable water from groundwater. This includes water for 

37 municipal supply and for residential and other private uses, including agricultural and industrial 

38 uses (Rock County 2009). The City of Janesville Water Utility uses eight high-capacity wells as 

39 its public supply and has established a wellhead protection plan (SHINE 2013a). Four of these 

40 are shallow wells that produce from glacial outwash deposits. The wells are completed to 

41 depths ranging from 100 to 215 ft (30 to 66 m) with pump capacities ranging from 2,500 to 

4,200 gpm (9.5 to 15.9 m3 42 /min). The remaining three are much deeper wells that withdraw from 

43 the sandstone aquifer in the St. Peter Formation. These wells are completed to depths ranging 

44 from 1,142 to 1,169 ft (348 to 356 m) deep with pump capacities ranging from 2,400 to 

2,600 gpm (9.1 to 9.8 m3 45 /min) (City of Janesville 2010, 2013b; WDNR 2013c).

46 The Janesville Water Utility controls high levels of nitrate in some shallow groundwater by 

47 blending water from the shallow and deep wells before distribution (City of Janesville 2010, 

3-30
Affected Environment

1 2013b). The City of Janesville also maintains two covered storage reservoirs with 14 million 

gallons (53,000 cubic meters (m3 2 )) of storage capacity. In total, the City of Janesville’s 

3 groundwater supply system has a capacity of about 32 million gallons per day (mgd)

(121,100 cubic meters per day (m3

/d)) and demand is about 10 mgd (37,900 m3 4 /d) (City of 

5 Janesville 2013a). The City of Janesville projects the groundwater demand to increase 

6 50 percent by 2030, with a similar increase countywide (City of Janesville 2010).

7 The USGS has characterized the hydrogeology of the Rock River Basin, including groundwater 

8 flow in the basin, as part of developing a groundwater modeling tool for evaluating the effects of 

9 water management programs (Juckem 2009). The groundwater flow model for the Rock River 

10 Basin identified 30 high-capacity public wells and 190 irrigation, industrial, and community wells 

11 within Rock County. The model does not account for smaller private wells that are responsible 

12 for about 20 percent of all the county’s groundwater use (City of Janesville 2010).

13 As part of developing the groundwater flow model, USGS compiled groundwater production 

14 data from across the Rock River Basin. Groundwater withdrawals by municipal systems 

averaged about 84.8 mgd (321,000 m3 15 /d) for the period from 1997 to 2006, which account for 

16 75 percent of the total groundwater withdrawn from high-capacity wells. The municipal water 

systems of Janesville (13.2 mgd (50,000 m3

/d)) and Beloit (6.6 mgd (25,000 m3 17 /d)) were in the 

top five of such systems, with Madison at the top of the list (32.5 mgd (123,000 m3 18 /day)). 

19 Withdrawals for irrigation and industrial or commercial purposes averaged 27 mgd 

(102,000 m3 20 /d) (Juckem 2009). The deeper sandstone aquifers (part of the 

21 Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system) to the east of the Rock River Basin historically have been 

22 in a state of overdraft (aquifer drawdown) because of the influence of large, municipal 

23 groundwater withdrawals (Avery 2005; Grannemann et al. 2000). However, because of the 

24 presence of a hydrogeologic divide and an extensive regional geologic confining unit,

25 groundwater within central and western Rock County is little affected by these influences. The 

26 vast majority of groundwater within the county, whether it is within the surficial or

27 Cambrian–Ordovician aquifer systems, cycles and flows within the county and eventually 

28 discharges to the Rock River or other streams. It is not lost to, and is not appreciably influenced 

29 by, activities in other groundwater basins (Juckem 2009).

30 The nearest active drinking water well is a private well (State Well No. MF461), which is located 

31 about 0.75 mi (1.20 km) northwest of the proposed site. The well has a diameter of 5.0 in. 

32 (12.7 cm) and was completed to a depth of 82 ft (25 m) (SHINE 2013a; WDNR 2013d;

33 WDATCP 2013). During the environmental site audit, the NRC staff noted the presence of an 

34 additional well just south of the southwestern site boundary (SHINE 2013a). According to the 

35 well’s completion report, it was drilled in 1974 to service a helicopter port. The well was 

36 completed to a depth of 90 ft (27 m) in sand and gravel, with a static water level at 60 ft (18 m) 

37 (WDATCP 2013). The well is currently used to supply an indoor sink and to wash down 

38 equipment (SHINE 2013b).

39 3.5 Ecological Resources

40 3.5.1 Ecoregion

41 The proposed site is located within the Southeast Glacial Plains ecoregion, which includes 

7,725 square miles (mi2

) (20,007 square kilometers (km2 42 )) in southeastern Wisconsin. This 

43 ecoregion primarily consists of glacial till plains and moraines or areas with accumulated soil

44 and rocks left behind from a moving glacier during the Wisconsin Ice Age. The Southeast 

45 Glacial Plains has the highest aquatic productivity for plants, insects, other invertebrates, and 

46 fish of any ecological landscape in Wisconsin. The main ecological features within the 

3-31
Affected Environment

1 ecoregion include lakes, marshes, fens, sedge meadows, wet prairies, tamarack swamps, and 

2 floodplain forests (WDNR 2013e).

3 The primary undeveloped land cover that provides habitat within the ecoregion includes 

4 agricultural cropland (58 percent), followed by wetlands (12 percent) and forests (11 percent). 

5 Common forest types include maple-basswood, oak, lowland hardwoods, and conifer swamps. 

6 Most forested areas are located in riparian areas along rivers, such as Rock River, or within 

7 rugged topography that inhibits agricultural activities. The amount and connectivity of forests

8 and native grasslands have decreased since the 1800s because of agricultural activities and, to 

9 some extent, commercial, residential, and other development, thereby leaving few large 

10 undisturbed tracts of forest. Wetlands have also declined over time because of hydrologic 

11 modifications (e.g., ditching, diking, and tiling), grazing, infestations of invasive plants, and 

12 excessive inputs of sediment- and nutrient-laden runoff from croplands (WDNR 2013e).

13 3.5.2 Site

14 The proposed site consists of 91 ac (37 ha) of agricultural lands and 0.2 ac (0.1 ha) of 

15 developed open space, such as grassy areas. The proposed site has been continuously 

16 disturbed from agricultural activities during the past several decades. Because of these 

17 agricultural activities, plant communities located on the proposed site are primarily limited to 

18 cultivated crops, including corn (Zea mays), soybean (Glycine max), and winter wheat (Triticum 

19 aestivum), and to weedy species, including fescue (Festuca spp.), green foxtail (Setaria viridis), 

20 Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota), and common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Because 

21 of the clearing and tilling associated with agricultural activities, the proposed site has no forests, 

22 wetlands, grasslands, or prairies. In addition, no water bodies, aquatic habitats, or riparian 

23 zones exist within the boundaries of the proposed site (SHINE 2013a).

24 The proposed site provides habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other wildlife

25 tolerant of open or plowed fields and cultivated grasses or other crops. To characterize the 

26 types of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that use the proposed site, SHINE conducted 

27 quarterly field reconnaissance survey studies from October 2011 to September 2012 

28 (SHINE 2013a, 2013b).

29 During each survey, SHINE and its contractors walked through the entire site. SHINE also 

30 looked for road kills, tracks, scat, nests, and other lines of evidence to determine what mammals 

31 occur on or near the proposed site. SHINE conducted additional birding surveys by driving 

32 along the periphery of the proposed site at sunrise, stopping every 0.5 mi (0.8 km), and 

33 recording all birds seen or heard during a 3-minute survey period at each stop. SHINE and its

34 contractors conducted birding studies on two separate dates during each of the four seasons. 

35 As part of the birding and aquatic surveys, SHINE documented incidental observations of 

36 mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.

37 SHINE and its contractors observed 58 bird species, 9 mammal species, and 7 reptile and 

38 amphibian species during the 2011–2012 surveys on and near the proposed site (Table 3–8). 

39 Because of the mobility and range of the wildlife described in the table, wildlife observed on 

40 agricultural fields near the proposed site also likely use the proposed site as they travel to 

41 forage, rest, breed, or seek refuge from predators. The species listed in Table 3–8 are 

42 representative of species tolerant of human-altered landscapes, such as agricultural fields. 

43 Wildlife that requires trees, native plants, shrubs, or uncultivated grasses would not use the 

44 proposed site because of the lack of forested areas, wetlands, and native grasslands.

3-32
Affected Environment

1 Table 3–8. Common and Abundant Wildlife Observed on or Near the Proposed Site

Scientific Name Common Name On Site

5-mi 

(8-km) 

Radius

Birds

Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird x x

Branta canadensis Canadian goose x x

Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk x x

Cardinalis northern cardinal x

Carduelis tristis American goldfinch x

Carpodacus mexicanus house finch x

Charadrius vociferus killdeer x x

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow x x

Eremophila alpestris horned lark x x

Passer domesticus house sparrow x

Quiscalus quiscula common grackle x

Spizella pusilla field sparrow x x

Sturnus vulgaris European starling x

Turdus migratorius American robin x

Mammals

Canis latrans coyote x

Didelphis virginiana opossum x

Marmota monax groundhog x x

Mephitis striped skunk x

Odocoileus virginianus white tailed deer x x

Procyon lotor raccoon x x

Sciurus carolinensis grey squirrel x

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus thirteen-lined ground squirrel x

Sylvilagus floridanus eastern cottontail x x

Reptiles and Amphibians

Bufo americanus American toad x

Rana catesbiana bullfrog x

Rana clanitans green frog x

Rana pipiens northern leopard frog x

Pseudacris crucifer spring peeper x

Chelydra serpentina common snapping turtle x

Thamnophis sirtalis eastern garter snake x

Source: SHINE 2013a

2 3.5.3 Habitats in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site

3 Within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site, most of the area (62 percent) is used for 

4 agricultural purposes. Vegetation and wildlife within agricultural fields surrounding the proposed 

5 site are likely to be similar to those found at the proposed site. The next sections describe other 

6 types of habitats—forests, grasslands, wetlands, and aquatic—within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the 

7 proposed site.

3-33
Affected Environment

1 3.5.3.1 Forested Habitats

2 Forests cover 7 percent of the area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site 

3 (SHINE 2013a). Typical forests in the vicinity consist of maple-basswood, lowland hardwoods, 

4 and oaks (WDNR 2002). Forested habitats primarily occur in riparian areas adjacent to the 

5 Rock River and its associated tributaries (SHINE 2013a). Historically, forests covered a larger 

6 portion of the area; however, many of the forests have been converted into agricultural fields 

7 (WDNR 2013e). Remaining forested tracts, especially in riparian areas, provide important 

8 habitat for wildlife and birds. Many neotropical migrating birds use forested riparian habitats 

9 along the Rock River for resting, foraging, and providing refuge from predators.

10 The WDNR (2014b) identified the following two forest communities of special interest within 6 mi 

11 (10 km) of the proposed site:

12 (1) Southern Dry-Mesic Forest. This is an upland forest community that commonly 

13 includes white oak (Quercus alba), brasswood (Tilia spp.), sugar and red maples 

14 (Acer spp.), white ash (Fraxinus Americana), shagbark hickory (Carya ovate), and 

15 black cherry (Prunus serotina). Red oaks (Q. rubra) are commonly the most 

16 abundant tree species within southern dry-mesic forests.

17 (2) Southern Mesic Forest. This is an upland forest that commonly includes sugar 

18 maples and basswood as the most abundant tree taxa. Other common trees found 

19 in southern mesic forests include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), walnut 

20 (Juglans spp.), red oak, red maple, white ash, and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra).

21 3.5.3.2 Grassland Habitats

22 Grasslands cover about 2 percent of the area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site

23 (SHINE 2013a). Native grasslands include a variety of habitats, including sedge meadows, 

24 prairies, and savannas (Sample and Mossman 1997). Before the arrival of European settlers, 

25 native grasslands, such as prairies, covered about 50 percent of southern Wisconsin. 

26 Agricultural activities converted the majority of native grasslands into cultivated crops. The 

27 remaining areas of native grasslands are usually small and disconnected from other patches of 

28 native grasslands (Sample and Mossman 1997). These small patches provide lower quality 

29 habitat than larger connected tracts of grasslands. Predation, for example, is usually higher 

30 along the edge of a patch of prairie than at the center of a large continuous patch of prairie.

31 The NRC staff notes that cultivated grasses, such as corn and wheat, are sometimes

32 considered grasslands. Because native grasses are relatively rare in the area and native 

33 grasses provide a substantially higher quality habitat than cultivated grasses, the NRC staff 

34 classified cultivated crops as agricultural lands in this environmental impact statement (EIS).

35 The WDNR (2014b) identified the following four grassland communities of special interest within 

36 6 mi (10 km) of the proposed site:

37 (1) Dry Prairie. This is a dry grassland community that usually occurs on steep south- or 

38 west-facing slopes or at the summits of river bluffs with sandstone or dolomite 

39 bedrock near the surface. Dominant grasses include short- to medium-sized prairie 

40 grasses, such as little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), side-oats grama 

41 (Bouteloua curtipendula), hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta), and prairie dropseed 

42 (Sporobolus heterolepis).

43 The Rock River Prairie is about 3 mi (5 km) southwest of the proposed site. The 

44 WDNR owns the 37-ac (14-ha) prairie, and the area was designated a State Natural 

45 Area in 1999. The prairie supports over 50 native prairie species, including several 

46 rare and threatened plants. Typical plant species include pasque flower (Anemone 

3-34
Affected Environment

1 patens), cream wild indigo (Baptisia bracteata), rock sandwort (Arenaria spp.), prairie 

2 gentian (Gentiana puberulenta), little bluestem, and side-oats grama with prairie 

3 dropseed (WDNR 2013a).

4 (2) Dry-Mesic Prairie. This is a rare grassland community that was common in parts of 

5 southern Wisconsin. Most dry-mesic prairie has been converted to agricultural lands 

6 or forested areas because of the lack of wildfires to control woody vegetation. 

7 Dominant grasses include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) and Indian grass 

8 (Sorghastrum nutans).

9 (3) Mesic Prairie. This is an extremely rare grassland community that was historically 

10 common. Dominant grasses include the tall grass, big bluestem, little bluestem, 

11 Indian grass, needle grass, prairie dropseed, and switch grass (Panicum virgatum).

12 (4) Wet Prairie. This is a variable tall grassland community that may include many 

13 wetland-like characteristics. Dominant grasses may include Canada bluejoint grass 

14 (Calamagrostis canadensis), cordgrass (Spartina spp.), marsh wild timothy 

15 (Muhlenbergia glomerata), lake sedge (Carex spp.), water sedge (Carex aquatilis), 

16 and woolly sedge (Carex spp.).

17 Native grasslands provide an important habitat for wildlife and birds. For example, many birds 

18 require grassland habitats for courtship, nesting, foraging, rearing young, roosting, or resting. In 

19 Wisconsin, 105 bird species regularly or occasionally use Wisconsin grasslands for at least one 

20 of these activities during the breeding season. This represents 45 percent of the 233 confirmed 

21 breeding species in the State (Sample and Mossman 1997).

22 3.5.3.3 Wetlands

23 Woody wetlands and emergent herbaceous wetlands cover about 3 percent of the area within a 

24 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site (SHINE 2013a). Wetlands provide an important, 

25 high-value habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic resources. Migrating birds often use wetland 

26 sites for feeding and resting (WDNR 2014c). Areas of open water provide an important nursery 

27 ground for many developing amphibians (e.g., frogs and salamanders), reptiles (e.g., turtles), 

28 and fish (WDNR 2014c).

29 3.5.3.4 Aquatic Habitats

30 As described in Section 3.4, water drains off the proposed site to the south and west toward the 

31 Rock River and its tributaries. The closest aquatic resources within this drainage area include 

32 an unnamed tributary to the Rock River, which is about 1.6 mi (2.6 km) south of the proposed 

33 site, and the Rock River, which is about 1.9 mi (3.1 km) south and west of the proposed site. 

34 The unnamed tributary is about 3.0- to 4.0-ft (0.9- to 1.2-m) wide at the ordinary high water mark 

35 and has a depth of up to about 1.0 ft (0.3 m) (SHINE 2013a). For a description of the Rock 

36 River, see Section 3.4. Aquatic features near the proposed site are part of the Lower Rock 

River watershed, which drains an area of 1,857 mi2 (4,810 km2 37 ) (USDA 2007).

38 SHINE and its contractors conducted fish surveys in the unnamed tributary in October 2011, 

39 January 2012, April 2012, and July 2012. Sampling equipment included a seine for fish and a 

40 kick net for macroinvertebrates (SHINE 2013a, 2013b). SHINE conducted macroinvertebrate 

41 surveys in the unnamed tributary in October 2011 and April 2012 using a kick net

42 (SHINE 2013a, 2013b). In addition, the NRC staff reviewed a fish database compiled by the 

43 USGS and the WDNR, which includes the results of various fish surveys in Wisconsin since the 

44 1960s (USGS and WDNR 2014). The NRC staff searched the database to determine fish 

45 occurrence data from the Rock River and its tributaries within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site.

3-35
Affected Environment

1 SHINE observed two species—brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans) and green sunfish 

2 (Lepomis cyanellus) while conducting fish surveys in the unnamed tributary. The low species 

3 diversity is likely because of the small size of the unnamed tributary, the intermittent flow of 

4 water, and limited survey methods (e.g., seining). During its review of the USGS and WDNR

5 fish database, the NRC staff identified 23 fish species captured from 1980 to 2013 in various 

6 surveys in Rock River and its tributaries within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site. Table 3–9

7 summarizes all fish species identified in SHINE’s fish surveys and in the USGS and WDNR fish 

8 database.

9 SHINE collected a total of 12 distinct macroinvertebrate taxa in fall 2011 and 9 distinct taxa in 

10 spring 2012. The most common taxon was the amphipod Gammarus, which comprised 

11 79 percent of the fall collection and 94 percent of the spring collection. All other taxa comprised 

12 5 percent or less of each collection (SHINE 2013a).

13 Table 3–9. Common Fish Species in the Rock River and Tributaries 

14 Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Proposed Site

Scientific Name Common Name

Rock River and 

Tributaries(a)

Unnamed 

Tributary(b)

Aplodinotus grunniens freshwater drum x

Carassius auratus auratus goldfish x

Catostomus commersonii white sucker x

Culaea inconstans brook stickleback x x

Cyprinella spiloptera spotfin shiner x

Cyprinus carpio common carp x

Esox lucius northern pike x

Hypentelium nigricans northern hogsucker x

Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish x

Ictiobus cyprinellus bigmouth buffalo x

Labidesthes sicculus brook silverside x

Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish x

Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed x

Lepomis macrochirus bluegill x

Micropterus dolomieu smallmouth bass x

Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass x

Moxostoma macrolepidotum shortnose redhorse x

Notropis atherinoides emerald shiner x

Perca flavescens yellow perch x

Percina caprodes logperch x

Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie x

Sander canadensis sauger x

Sander vitreus walleye x

Umbra limi central mudminnow x

(a) Occurrence recorded in the USGS and WDNR Fish Mapper Database (USGS and WDNR 2014).

(b) Occurrence observed during SHINE field studies of the unnamed tributary (SHINE 2013a, 2013b).

Source: SHINE 2013a, 2013b; USGS and WDNR 2014

15 3.5.4 Protected Species and Habitats

16 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

17 jointly administer the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

18 seq.). The FWS manages the protection of, and recovery effort for, listed terrestrial and 

3-36
Affected Environment

1 freshwater species, and NMFS manages the protection of and recovery effort for listed marine 

2 and anadromous species. In Wisconsin, the WDNR lists species as State-threatened or 

3 endangered under Wisconsin’s Endangered Species Law (Section 29.604 of Wisconsin 

4 Administrative Code, Chapter 29, “Wild Animals and Plants”). This section discusses these 

5 species and species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended

6 (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.).

7 3.5.4.1 Endangered Species Act

8 Action Area

9 The implementing regulations for section 7(a)(2) of the ESA define “action area” as all areas 

10 affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved 

11 in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area effectively bounds the analysis of 

12 ESA-protected species and habitats because only species that occur within the action area may 

13 be affected by the Federal action.

14 For the purposes of the ESA analysis in this EIS, the NRC staff considers the action area to be 

15 to include the lands within the 91-ac (37-ha) proposed site and the adjacent offsite area in which

16 construction of the sewer line would occur. The NRC staff expects all direct and indirect effects 

17 of the proposed action to be contained within these areas.

18 The NRC staff recognizes that while the action area is stationary, Federally listed species can 

19 move in and out of the action area. For instance, a flowering plant known to occur near, but 

20 outside, of the action area could appear within the action area over time if its seeds are carried 

21 into the action area by wind, water, or animals. Thus, in its analysis, the NRC staff considers 

22 not only those species known to occur directly within the action area, but those species that may 

23 passively or actively move into the action area. The staff then considers whether the life history 

24 of each species makes the species likely to move into the action area where it could be affected 

25 by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility.

26 Overview of Protected Species

27 Table 3–10 describes the Federally listed species that have the potential to exist within the 

28 action area within a 1.0-mi (1.6-km) radius of the proposed site and within a 6-mi (10-km) radius 

29 of the proposed site. The NRC staff compiled this table from the FWS’s online search 

30 (FWS 2014), correspondence from the FWS (2013), and the SHINE environmental report. As 

31 described in Section 3.5.2, SHINE conducted ecological surveys in the action area and did not 

32 observe any Federally protected species on the proposed site or in nearby adjacent areas 

33 (SHINE 2013a). Based on the surveys described in Section 3.5.3, the NRC staff did not identify 

34 any Federally listed species that could exist in the action area. The NRC staff did not identify 

35 any candidate species or proposed or designated critical habitats within the action area.

36 In response to the NRC staff’s request for endangered and threatened species that the 

37 proposed construction and operation could affect, the FWS (2013) stated that no Federally

38 listed, proposed, or candidate species would be expected within the project area. Additionally, 

39 no critical habitat is present (FWS 2013). For these reasons, the FWS (2013) concluded that if 

40 construction took place at the proposed site, no further action with Wisconsin’s FWS Field Office 

41 would be necessary under the ESA. Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes 

42 that no Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species is unlikely to occur within the action 

43 area.

44 The Rock River does not contain marine or anadromous fish species. Therefore, no Federally 

45 listed species or habitats under NMFS’s jurisdiction occur within the action area.

3-37
Affected Environment

1 3.5.4.2 State-listed Species

2 Table 3–10 describes the State-listed species that have the potential to exist within a 1.0-mi 

3 (1.6-km) radius of the proposed site and within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the proposed site. The 

4 NRC staff compiled this table from the Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program’s online database 

5 (WDNR 2014d), correspondence from the WDNR (2014a), and the SHINE environmental report 

6 (SHINE 2013a). As described in Section 3.5.2, SHINE conducted ecological surveys in the 

7 action area and did not observe any State-protected species on the proposed site or in nearby 

8 adjacent areas (SHINE 2013a). Based on the surveys described in Section 3.5.3, the NRC staff 

9 did not identify any State-listed species that could exist in the action area.

10 For State-listed species, the WDNR (2014a) stated that the proposed site provides unsuitable 

11 habitat for all the State-threatened or -endangered species or for State species of special 

12 concern that may exist within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the proposed site. Because WDNR

13 determined that no State-listed species have the potential to exist within the proposed SHINE

14 site, this EIS does not discuss State-listed species in any further detail.

15 Table 3–10. Federally and State-Listed Species

16 Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Proposed SHINE Site

Potential 

Occurrence

Scientific Name Common Name

Federal 

Status(a)

State 

Status(a)

State 

Rank(b)

Action Area1-mi Radius6-mi Radius

Fish

Anguilla rostrata American eel SSC S2 x

Erimystax x-punctatus gravel chub E S1 x

Lythrurus umbratilis redfin shiner T S2 x

Moxostoma valenciennesi greater redhorse T S3 x

Notropis nubilus Ozark minnow T S2 x

Mussels

Alasmidonta marginata elktoe SSC S3 x

Cyclonaias turberculata purple wartyback E S2 x

Quadrula metanevra monkey face T S2 x

Venustaconcha 

ellipsiformis ellipse T S3 x

Villosa iris rainbow shell E S1 x

Plants

Agastache nepetoides yellow giant hyssop T S3 x

Artemisia dracunculus dragon wormwood SSC S2 x x

Asclepias lanuginosa woolly milkweed T S1 x

Asclepias purpurascens purple milkweed E S3 x

Besseya bullii kitten tails T S3 x

Cacalia tuberosa prairie Indian-plantain T S3 x

Calylophus serrulatus yellow evening 

primrose SSC S2 x

Camassia scilloides wild hyacinth E S2 x

Cirsium hillii hill’s thistle T S3 x

Cypripedium candidum small white 

lady’s-slipper T S3 x

Echinacea pallida pale purple coneflower T S3 x

Euphorbia commutata wood spurge SSC SH x

3-38
Affected Environment

Potential 

Occurrence

Scientific Name Common Name

Federal 

Status(a)

State 

Status(a)

State 

Rank(b)

Action Area1-mi Radius6-mi Radius

Hypericum 

sphaerocarpum

round-fruited St. 

John’s-wort T S1,S2 x

Lespedeza leptostachya prairie bush-clover T E S2 x

Melica nitens three-flowered melic 

grass

SSC S1 x

Myosotis laxa small forget-me-not SSC S2 x

Nothocalais cuspidata prairie false-dandelion SSC S2 x

Nuphar advena yellow water lily SSC S1 x

Penstemon hirsutus hairy beardtongue SSC S1 x x

Platanus occidentalis sycamore SSC S2 x

Polygala incarnata pink milkwort E S1 x

Polytaenia nuttallii prairie parsley T S2 x

Prenanthes aspera rough rattlesnake-root E S1 x

Ruellia humilis hairy wild-petunia E S2 x

Scutellaria parvula var. 

parvula small skullcap E S1 x x

Silene nivea snowy campion T S3 x x

Thaspium trifoliatum var. 

flavum

purple meadowparsnip SSC S2 x

Reptiles

Emydoidea blandingii blanding's turtle T S3, S4 x

(a) T = threatened, E = endangered, and SSC = species of special concern.

(b) S1 = critically imperiled in Wisconsin because of extreme rarity, S2 = imperiled in Wisconsin because of rarity, 

S3 = rare or uncommon in Wisconsin, S4 = secure in Wisconsin with many occurrences, and

SH = of historical occurrence in Wisconsin.

Sources: SHINE 2013a; WDNR 2014a, 2014d

1 3.5.4.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

2 The FWS administers the MBTA (16 U.S.C.703–712), which prohibits anyone from taking native 

3 migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The MBTA definition of a “take” differs from 

4 that of the ESA and is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

5 any attempt to carry out these activities” (50 CFR 10.12). Unlike a “take” under the ESA

6 (50 CFR 17.3), a “take” under the MBTA does not include habitat alteration or destruction that 

7 results in death or injury to listed species by impairing behavioral patterns, such as breeding, 

8 feeding, or sheltering.

9 The MBTA protects a total of 1,007 migratory bird species (75 FR 9282). Most of the bird 

10 species in Wisconsin, except for resident game birds and feral species, are protected under the 

11 MBTA (WDNR 2014e). Near the proposed site, migratory birds rely on riparian, forested, 

12 grassland, and wetland habitats as important areas for foraging, resting, and avoiding predators 

13 and for breeding for some species. Although these habitats exist in the vicinity of the proposed 

14 site, none of them exists on the proposed site. For this reason, the proposed site likely provides 

15 a low-quality habitat for migratory birds.

3-39
Affected Environment

1 3.5.4.4 Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

2 The National Marine Fisheries Service has not designated any essential fish habitat under the 

3 Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended 

4 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), within affected water bodies in the vicinity of the proposed site 

5 (NMFS 2014). Because no habitats are designated, no EFH would be affected by the proposed 

6 action. Therefore, this section does not discuss species with essential fish habitat.

7 3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

8 This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and cultural resources at 

9 the proposed site in the City of Janesville, Wisconsin, and in the surrounding area, including 

10 Rock County and the State of Wisconsin. The discussion is based on a review of the Phase I 

11 archaeological survey conducted within the proposed site; a search of the Archaeological Sites 

12 Inventory, Architecture and History Inventory, and Burial Sites Inventory; and a review of the 

13 Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) and other 

14 background information for historic and cultural resources within or near the proposed site. 

15 Cultural resource reports and site files are available to the public at the WHS in Madison, 

16 Wisconsin.

17 3.6.1 Cultural Background

18 Human occupation in Wisconsin is generally characterized according to the following 

19 chronological sequence (WHS 2013):

20 (1) Paleo-Indian Period (12,000–10,000 before present (B.P.)),

21 (2) Archaic Period (10,000–3,000 B.P.),

22 (3) Woodland Period (3,000–1,100 B.P.),

23 (4) Mississippian Period (1,100–400 B.P. (ca. A.D. 900–1600)), and

24 (5) Protohistoric/Historic Period (400 B.P.–present (ca. A.D.1600–present)).

25 3.6.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period (12,000–10,000 B.P.)

26 The earliest evidence of people living in Wisconsin dates to the Paleo-Indian Period. 

27 Paleo-Indian sites, generally found upland or on river terraces, are characterized by specific 

28 types of projectile points (e.g., fluted Clovis and Folsom points) and stone tools, such as 

29 gravers, scrapers, or large blades. These artifacts often occur in association with mastodon 

30 remains, suggesting a reliance on megafauna (e.g., mammoth, ground sloth, and saber-tooth 

31 tiger) for subsistence, along with plants, small game, birds, and amphibians. Social 

32 organization consisted of small, highly nomadic bands of hunter-gathers, leaving Paleo-Indian 

33 sites with little detailed archaeological information. In southeastern Wisconsin, the Shaefer and 

34 Hebior Mammoth sites are examples of the butchering practices of Paleo-Indian tribes and 

35 evidence of some of the earliest human occupation in North America (Fagan 2005; Neusius and 

36 Gross 2007).

37 3.6.1.2 Archaic Period (10,000–3,000 B.P.)

38 The Archaic Period is generally distinguished from the preceding Paleo-Indian Period by 

39 changes in the environment, technology, and population. The warmer and dryer part of the 

40 Early Archaic Period allowed groups to exploit more diverse resources, and, as a result, their 

41 tool kit also became more diversified. Technological changes included the manufacturing of 

42 notched projectile points, which were smaller than Paleo-Indian points, likely reflecting a 

3-40
Affected Environment

1 reliance on smaller game (Neusius and Gross 2007). Groups became sedentary when the 

2 climate became wetter and warmer as the Archaic Period progressed, and ceremonialism 

3 (e.g., mounds and effigies) is evident in the archaeological record during this time. Even though 

4 the Archaic Period is one of the longest occupation periods in Wisconsin, few Archaic Period

5 sites are found in the archaeological record.

6 3.6.1.3 Woodland Period (3,000–1,100 B.P.)

7 The Woodland Period is marked by an increase in more permanent settlements; changes in 

8 burial practices; increased cultivation of plants, such as sunflowers and cucurbits 

9 (e.g., squashes, gourds, and melons); and a rise in the manufacture and use of pottery 

10 (Fagan 2005). The bow and arrow were also introduced to Wisconsin during this period 

11 (WHS 2013). During the Middle Woodland Period, the large and complex Hopewell Culture 

12 emerged in the United States, including in southern Wisconsin. This culture is characterized by 

13 settlement in villages, increased reliance on intensive horticulture, burial mounds, and 

14 long-distance trade networks. These long-distance networks allowed the trade of exotic 

15 materials from the Gulf Coast, the Rocky Mountains, Lake Superior, and the Appalachian 

16 Mountains to areas far outside their immediate locations (Neusius and Gross 2007).

17 3.6.1.4 Mississippian Period (1,100–400 B.P. (ca. A.D. 900–1600))

18 The Mississippian Period is characterized by major changes in settlement, subsistence patterns, 

19 and social structure. Large, highly centralized chiefdoms with permanent settlements sites 

20 supported by many satellite villages emerged during this period. The platform mound—a new 

21 ceremonial earthen mound—appeared in association with these permanent settlements. 

22 Platform mounds; burial mounds; and defensive structures, such as moats and palisades, were 

23 often constructed in clusters in settlements and were common in the larger river valleys of the 

24 Midwest. Mississippian Period subsistence relied heavily on maize agriculture and on hunting 

25 and gathering. Long-distance trading increased and craft specialists produced highly 

26 specialized lithic and ceramic artifacts, beadwork, and shell pendants (Fagan 2005).

27 In southern Wisconsin, the emerging Mississippian culture was blended with the receding 

28 Woodland culture to produce the Oneota tradition. The Oneota people were organized in 

29 permanent villages, produced unique ceramic artifacts, and relied on a mixed subsistence 

30 strategy of hunting and gathering even though they cultivated maize. Burial traditions varied 

31 from the mounds of the Woodland Period to nonmounded cemeteries near their villages 

32 (Neusius and Gross 2007; WHS 2013).

33 3.6.1.5 Protohistoric/Historic Period (A.D. 1600–present)

34 The end of the Mississippian Period is characterized by severe social, political, and 

35 demographic changes that resulted from indirect and direct contact with Europeans. Before

36 major European advancement in southern Wisconsin, the presence of the Winnebago, 

37 Potawatomi, Sac, Fox, and Menominee Tribes was documented in Rock County (Rock 

38 County undated b). However, the introduction of European infectious diseases, such as 

39 smallpox, yellow fever, typhoid, and influenza, severely decimated these native populations who 

40 had no immunity. The spread of these diseases resulted in the widespread abandonment of 

41 villages and a concurrent collapse of Native American socioeconomic networks.

42 The first European exposure to Rock County was likely in the late 1770s from French fur traders 

43 (Rock County undated b). As the tribes of southeastern Wisconsin either migrated or were 

44 forcibly removed west of the Mississippi, Euro-American settlers moved to Wisconsin to take 

45 advantage of the fertile agricultural land. Manufacturing boomed in Rock County in the 1900s, 

46 as General Motors (GM), the Parker Pen Company, and other firms began producing tractors;

47 machinery; paper; pens; and refined farm products, such as snack foods. Although 

3-41
Affected Environment

1 manufacturing gained a large market share, agriculture and dairying activities remain an 

2 important factor in the regional economy. The area surrounding the proposed site has been 

3 traditionally used as agricultural fields, which are located to the north, east, and south of the 

4 proposed site. A commercial farm office is also located north of the proposed site 

5 (SHINE 2013a).

6 3.6.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources

7 Databases that the National Park Service (NPS) maintains show 135 properties listed in the 

8 National Register of Historic Places in Rock County, including one property designated as a 

9 National Historic Landmark (NPS 2013a, 2013b) under the National Historic Preservation Act 

10 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). These historic properties reflect the prehistoric and historic cultural 

11 contexts for the proposed site and include prehistoric archaeological sites; historic 

12 archaeological sites; and historic buildings, structures, and districts dating from the mid-1700s to 

13 the mid-1800s. However, no historic properties are located within the boundaries of the 

14 proposed site. The closest property in the National Register of Historic Places list is the John 

15 and Martha Hugunin House, which is located about 1.0 mi (1.6 km) northeast of the proposed 

16 site and is surrounded by commercial, residential, and agricultural land. The Hugunin House, 

17 Italianate in style, is significant for its architectural design and relation to historic farming in the 

18 region (NPS 2013a).

19 SHINE commissioned a Phase I archeological survey at the proposed site and, with its 

20 contractors, followed WHS methodologies. SHINE did not identify any archaeological sites or 

21 evidence of cultural resources within the survey area. As a result, SHINE did not recommend 

22 any further archaeological investigations (Knopf and Krause 2012). SHINE submitted the 

23 Phase 1 survey results and report to the WHS for review and comment. The WHS determined 

24 that the findings were acceptable (SHINE 2013a).

25 3.7 Socioeconomics

26 This section describes socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or indirectly 

27 affected from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. 

28 The SHINE facility and the communities that would support it can be described as a dynamic 

29 socioeconomic system. The communities provide the people, goods, and services required to 

30 construct and operate the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE facility operations, in turn, provide 

31 wages and benefits for people and dollar expenditures for goods and services. The measure of 

32 a community’s ability to support the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

33 proposed SHINE facility depends on its ability to respond to changing environmental, social, 

34 economic, and demographic conditions.

35 The socioeconomic region of influence is defined by the area in which SHINE operations 

36 employees and their families would likely reside, spend their income, and use their benefits—all 

37 of which affect the economic condition of the region. For the purposes of analysis and because 

38 of the relatively small size of the SHINE operations work force (150 workers), this area includes 

39 all of Rock County and the City of Janesville.

40 3.7.1 Population Growth Rates and Projections

41 Rock County has 6 cities, 20 towns, and 3 villages (Rock County 2013). In 2012, the total 

42 population for Rock County was 160,129. The two most populated cities—the City of Janesville 

43 and the City of Beloit—are approximately 13 mi (21 km) apart. The City of Janesville, the 

44 county seat for Rock County, has a population of 63,480; the City of Beloit has a population of 

3-42
Affected Environment

1 36,850. As of 2012, each of the other cities and towns in Rock County had populations of less 

2 than 8,000 (Rock County 2013).

3 The population for Rock County grew steadily from 1970 to 2010, with the largest change of 

4 9.2 percent between 1990 and 2000 (Table 3–11) (USCB 1995, 2000a, 2010a). Based on 

5 population projections from the Wisconsin Department of Administration (WDOA), Demographic 

6 Services Center, the population within Rock County is projected to continue to increase.

7 Table 3–11. Resident Population for Rock County (1970–2050)

Year Rock County Percent Change

1970 131,970 NA

1980 139,420 5.6

1990 139,510 0.1

2000 152,307 9.2

2010 160,331 5.3

2020 169,130 5.5

2030 179,360 6.0

2040 182,860 2.0

2050 190,847 4.4

Sources: Decennial population data for 1970–2010 

(USCB 1995, 2000a, 2010a); projections for 2020–2040 

by the WDOA Demographic Services Center 

(WDOA 2013); 2050 calculated.

8 3.7.2 Race and Ethnicity

9 Table 3–12 presents the demographic profiles for the City of Janesville and Rock County 

10 (USCB 2010b). In 2010, minorities comprised 11.2 percent of the total population in the City of 

11 Janesville. As shown in Table 3–12, the largest minority populations were Hispanic and Latino 

12 (of any race) at 5.4 percent followed by Black or African American at 2.5 percent. In Rock 

13 County, minorities comprised 15.5 percent of the total population in 2010. The largest minority 

14 populations were Hispanic and Latino (of any race) at 7.6 percent followed by Black or African 

15 American at 4.8 percent.

16 Table 3–12. Race and Ethnicity for the City of Janesville 

17 and Rock County, Wisconsin, in 2010

City of 

Janesville Rock County

Total Population 63,575 160,331

Race (percent of total population, Not-Hispanic or Latino)

White 88.8 84.5

Black or African American 2.5 4.8

American Indian and Alaska Native 0.2 0.2

Asian 1.3 1.0

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0

Some other race 0.1 0.1

Two or more races 1.7 1.7

3-43
Affected Environment

City of 

Janesville Rock County

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino 3,421 12,124

Percent of total population 5.4 7.6

Minority population (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity)

Total minority population 7,110 24,805

Percent minority 11.2 15.5

Source: USCB 2010b

1 3.7.3 Transient Population

2 Colleges and recreational opportunities attract daily and seasonal visitors who create a demand 

3 for temporary housing and services. In 2013, approximately 15,970 students attended colleges 

4 and universities within 20 mi (32 km) of the proposed SHINE facility (NCES 2014). According to 

5 the 2010 Census, there were 786 seasonal housing units in Rock County.

6 Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural 

7 crops. These workers may or may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers 

8 follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruit, throughout rural areas of the United States. 

9 Others may be permanent residents living near Janesville and Beloit and traveling from farm to 

10 farm harvesting crops.

11 Migrant workers may be members of minority or low-income populations. Because migrant 

12 workers travel and can spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual 

13 residents, they may be unavailable for counting by Census takers. If uncounted, these minority 

14 and low-income workers would be “underrepresented” in the decennial Census population

15 counts.

16 In the 2002 Census of Agriculture, farm operators were asked for the first time whether they 

17 hired migrant workers—defined as a farm worker whose employment required travel—to do 

18 work that prevented the migrant workers from returning to their permanent place of residence 

19 the same day. The Census is conducted every 5 years and results in a comprehensive 

20 compilation of agricultural production data for every county in the Nation.

21 Information about migrant and temporary farm labor (working less than 150 days) was collected 

22 in the 2012 Census of Agriculture. According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, approximately 

23 1,267 farm workers were hired to work for less than 150 days on 265 farms in Rock County, 

24 Wisconsin (USDA 2014). Three farms in Rock County reported hiring migrant workers in the 

25 2012 Census of Agriculture (USDA 2014).

26 3.7.4 Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment

27 This section provides labor force, employment, and unemployment data for the City of 

28 Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin. It also presents economic data on

29 employment by industry, income, poverty levels, occupations, wages, poverty rates, and 

30 housing.

31 Table 3–13 shows that Rock County had an available labor force in 2012 of 79,255, with an 

32 8.4-percent unemployment rate. The City of Janesville had an available labor force of 32,256,

33 with a 9-percent unemployment rate (WDWD 2010, 2011, 2012). Between 2000 and 2012, 

34 unemployment increased in the City of Janesville and in Rock County. One reason for this

3-44
Affected Environment

1 increase in unemployment in the City of Janesville could be attributed to the GM manufacturing 

2 plant. The City of Janesville GM plant employed workers to produce sport utility vehicles and 

3 pickup trucks at the end of 2007 (Milwaukee Business Journal 2008). When gas prices rose in 

4 the late 2000s, production was shifted to a more fuel-efficient line of cars, causing a decline in 

5 the production at the GM plant. The GM plant fully closed in 2009. More than 2,000 hourly and 

6 salaried workers were laid off (Leute 2009). In addition to the jobs lost by the GM plant closure, 

7 companies in the region that supplied goods and services to the plant laid off approximately 

8 1,200 people (Leute 2009). The unemployment rates in the City of Janesville for 2010 and 2011

9 reflect the impact of the GM plant closure (Table 3–13). During the same period, the State of 

10 Wisconsin as a whole experienced a similar rise in unemployment.

11 Table 3–13. Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment Rates

12 in the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin

City of Janesville

2000 2010 2011 2012

2000–2012 

Percent

Change(a)

Labor Force 31,948 32,878 32,091 32,256 1.0

Employed 30,438 29,097 28,850 29,341 -3.6

Unemployed 1,510 3,781 3,241 2,915 93.0

Unemployed Rate 4.7% 11.5% 10.1% 9.0% 91.5

Rock County

Labor Force 80,895 81,015 78,817 79,255 -2.0

Employed 76,336 71,928 71,321 72,570 -4.9

Unemployed 4,545 9,087 7,496 6,685 47.1

Unemployed Rate 5.6% 11.2% 9.5% 8.4% 50.0

State of Wisconsin

Labor Force 2,872,104 3,084,557 3,069,021 3,062,636 6.6

Employed 2,734,925 2,823,265 2,837,995 2,850,352 4.2

Unemployed 134,311 261,292 231,026 212,284 58.1

Unemployed Rate 4.7% 8.5% 7.5% 6.9% 46.8

(a) Percent changes are calculated.

Source: USCB 2000a, 2000b, 2000c; WDWD 2010, 2011, 2012

13 Table 3–14 shows the results of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report of employment by 

14 industry for Rock County for 2012 (BLS 2013). During 2012, the largest industries for 

15 employment in Rock County were trade, transportation, and utilities with a 14,714 employment 

16 total or 27.56 percent of employment. The second highest category for employment by industry 

17 was education and health services with a 10,288 employment total or 19.27 percent of 

18 employment. The employment by industry with the lowest number in 2012 was natural 

19 resources and mining, with a 517 employment total or less than 1-percent total of employment.

3-45
Affected Environment

1 Table 3–14. Employment by Industry in Rock County for 2012

Industry

Rock County

Employment

Percent of 

Employment

Natural Resources and Mining 517 0.97

Construction 2,719 5.09

Manufacturing 8,991 16.84

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 14,714 27.56

Information 1,437 2.69

Financial Activities 1,666 3.12

Professional and Business Services 4,994 9.35

Education and Health Services 10,288 19.27

Leisure and Hospitality 6,455 12.09

Other Services 1,607 3.01

Source: BLS 2013

2 3.7.5 Income and Wages

3 Table 3–15 compares the median family and per capita income figures for the City of Janesville, 

4 Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin (USCB 2011a). According to the USCB 2009–2011

5 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, the City of Janesville had a median family 

6 income lower than both Rock County and the State of Wisconsin (USCB 2011a). The City of 

7 Janesville had a slightly higher per capita income than that of Rock County, but it was lower 

8 than that of the State of Wisconsin. Overall, both Rock County and the City of Janesville had 

9 lower median family and per capita income than that of the State of Wisconsin.

10 Table 3–15. Median Family Income and Per Capita Income

11 for City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin

Median Family Income 2009–2011

City of Janesville $57,543

Rock County $58,679

State of Wisconsin $63,732

Per Capita Income 2009–2011

City of Janesville $22,924

Rock County $22,802

State of Wisconsin $26,212

Source: USCB 2011a

12 3.7.6 Poverty Rates

13 Table 3-16 compares families and all people living below the Federal poverty threshold in the 

14 City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin. The poverty levels determined by 

15 the USCB in 2011 were $11,484 for individuals and $23,021 for a family of four (USCB 2011b). 

16 According to USCB’s 2009–2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, a slightly 

17 higher percentage of families and all people living below the poverty level lived in the City of 

18 Janesville when compared to Rock County. Both the City of Janesville and Rock County had 

3-46
Affected Environment

1 higher percentages of families and people living below the poverty level than the State of 

2 Wisconsin did overall.

3 Table 3–16. People Living Below U.S. Census Poverty Thresholds

4 for the City of Janesville, Rock County, and State of Wisconsin

Families 2009–2011

City of Janesville 11.4%

Rock County 10.7%

State of Wisconsin 8.8%

All People(a) 2009–2011

City of Janesville 14.8%

Rock County 14.3%

State of Wisconsin 12.9%

(a) Census 2010, “All People” category

Sources: USCB 2009–2011a

5 3.7.7 Housing

6 Table 3–17 compares the housing units and vacancy rates for the City of Janesville and 

7 Rock County (USCB 2009–2011b). According to USCB’s 2009–2011 American Community 

8 Survey 3-Year Estimates, the City of Janesville had 26,916 total housing units with 1,721 units 

9 vacant. Rock County had 68,461 total housing units with 5,478 units vacant. The rental rate 

10 was higher than the homeowner vacancy rate in both locations, with Rock County having a 

11 slightly higher rental rate at 8.0 percent.

12 Table 3–17. Housing Unit Characteristics for the City of Janesville 

13 and Rock County

City of Janesville 2009–2011

Total Number of Housing Units 26,916

Number of Vacant Housing Units 1,721

Homeowner Vacancy Rate 2.0%

Renter Vacancy Rate 6.8%

Rock County 2009–2011

Total Number of Housing Units 68,461

Number of Vacant Units 5,478

Homeowner Vacancy Rate 1.9%

Renter Vacancy Rate 8.0%

Sources: USCB 2009–2011b

14 3.7.8 Local Employers

15 Table 3–18 ranks the 10 largest private and government employers in the City of Janesville. 

16 Three employers have more than 1,000 employees—Mercy Health System, Janesville Public 

17 School, and Rock County. These employers provide a variety of products and services,

18 including medical services, public education, local government, wholesale distribution, data 

19 processing, manufacturing, and retail sales (Forward Janesville 2014).

3-47
Affected Environment

1 Table 3–18. Ten Largest Employers in the City of Janesville (2014)

Employer

Number of 

Employees Product/Service

1. Mercy Health System 3,877 Medical services

2. Janesville School District 1,450 Public education

3. County of Rock 1,191 Local government

4. Blackhawk Technical College 762 Technical college

5. Data Dimensions Corporation 724 Business automation processing

6. Grainger 689 Safety equipment distribution

7. Seneca Foods 661 Canning and food processing

8. City of Janesville 572 City government 

9. Prent Corporation 550 Custom thermoformer—plastic parts

10. Blain Supply/Blain’s Farm & Fleet 540 Wholesale distributors/retail

Sources: Forward Janesville 2014.

2 Table 3–19 shows that the largest employer in Rock County is Mercy Health System, followed 

3 by Beloit Health System with over 1,000 employees each. The largest employer in Rock County

4 that is not located in the City of Janesville is Beloit Health System, Inc. Similar to the City of 

5 Janesville, these employers provide a variety of products and services, including medical 

6 services, public education, local government, retail, and manufacturing (Rock County 

7 Development Alliance 2014).

8 Table 3–19. Ten Largest Employers in Rock County (2014)

Employer

Number of 

Employees Product/Service

1. Mercy Health System 3,877 Medical services

2. Beloit Health System 1,550 Medical services

3. Janesville School District 1,450(a) Public education

4. County of Rock 1,161 Local government

5. Data Dimensions Corporation 830(a) Business automation processing

6. Wal-Mart/Sam’s Club 804(a) Retail department store

7. Beloit School District 775(a) Public education

8. Blackhawk Technical College 701 Technical college

9. Grainger (laboratory safety) 694 Safety equipment distribution

10. Kerry Americas 690 Dehydrated food products

(a) Employs seasonal and part-time workers.

Sources: Rock County Development Alliance 2014

9 3.7.9 Taxes

10 Counties, municipalities, and boards of education may impose sales taxes in addition to the

11 State sales tax. Local and State entities in the region of influence impose sales, property, and 

12 income taxes. These include the school district, the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the 

13 State of Wisconsin. Tax rates can vary by jurisdiction. The retail sales tax rate is 0 percent in 

14 the City of Janesville and 0.5 percent in Rock County. The State of Wisconsin has a 

15 4.60-percent to 7.75-percent personal income tax rate, a 5.0-percent sales tax rate, and a 

16 7.9-percent corporate tax rate (City of Janesville undated).

3-48
Affected Environment

1 The two school districts in the City of Janesville—Janesville and Milton—receive school district 

2 tax levies collected from property taxes in the school district boundaries. The proposed site is in 

3 the Janesville School District. In 2011 and 2012, the Janesville School District collected 

4 $36,774,828 in school district tax levies. The 2012 and 2013 taxes were $36,077,620 

5 (WDPI 2011–2012, 2012–2013). The City of Janesville’s proposed budget for 2013 lists a total 

6 estimated assessed value of real and personal property at $3.9 billion. The local tax rate is 

7 $7.88 for every $1,000 of property owned (City of Janesville 2013b). The 2012 full property tax 

8 value for the City of Janesville was $3,895,706,200 (WDR 2012).

9 3.7.10 Education

10 In the 2012–2013 school year, the Janesville School District had 10,327 students in 

11 pre-kindergarten (K) through grade 12 (WDPI 2013). The Janesville School District has 12

12 pre-K to grade 5 elementary schools, 3 grade 6 to 9 middle schools, 2 grade 9 to 12 

13 comprehensive high schools, and 4 charter schools. The Janesville Academy for International 

14 Studies, Jackson Elementary School, Lincoln Elementary School, Edison Middle School, and 

15 Van Buren Elementary School are the Janesville School District public schools within 2.5 mi 

16 (4.0 km) of the proposed site (SHINE 2013b; Janesville School District 2012; WDPI 2013).

17 The Milton School District, which is also located in the City of Janesville, had 3,388 students in 

18 kindergarten (K) through 12th grade for the 2012–2013 school year (WDPI 2013). The Milton 

19 School District has four K through grade 3 elementary schools, one elementary school for 

20 grades 4 to 6, one middle school for grades 7 to 8, one high school for grades 9 to 12, and one 

21 alternative high school.

22 Rock County has eight public school districts serving K through grade 12 (Rock County 2009). 

23 These school districts, with their current total enrollment data for 2013–2014, include 

24 Beloit (7,137), Beloit Turner (1,485), Clinton Community (1,188), Edgerton (1,864), Evansville 

25 Community (1,719), Janesville (10,408), Milton (3,374), and Parkview (848) (Rock County 2009;

26 WDPI 2013). The total of all enrollments in 2013–2014 for all Rock County school districts is 

27 28,023.

28 Fourteen private schools are located in Rock County and include 4 private schools in the City of 

29 Beloit and 10 private schools in the City of Janesville for K through grade 12 (Private School 

30 Review 2013). Three post-secondary schools are located in Rock County. Blackhawk

31 Technical College and University of Wisconsin—Rock County are 2-year technical and 

32 community colleges located in the City of Janesville. Beloit College, which offers a 4-year 

33 degree, is located in the City of Beloit.

34 Other educational facilities include the Arrowhead Library System for Rock County, which

35 serves the communities of the City of Beloit (Beloit Public Library), the Village of Clinton (Clinton 

36 Public Library), the City of Edgerton (Edgerton Public Library), the City of Evansville (Eager 

37 Free Public Library), the City of Janesville (Hedberg Public Library), the City of Milton (Milton 

38 Public Library), and the Village of Orfordville (Orfordville Public Library) (Arrowhead Library 

39 System 2013).

40 3.7.11 Tourism, Activity Centers, and Recreation for the City of Janesville and Rock 

41 County

42 Tourism and Activity Centers (Shopping, Business, Agricultural, and Sporting Events)

43 The City of Janesville has several tourist attractions and activity centers, including the Janesville 

44 Performing Arts Center, the Fireside Theater, the 4-H Rock County Fair, a local baseball team, 

45 and a local hockey team. The Helen Jeffries Wood Museum Center, Lincoln Tallman House, 

3-49
Affected Environment

1 Milton House Museum, and Angel Museum are all located in or near the City of Janesville. The 

2 Janesville Performing Arts Center, Beloit Civic Theatre, Beloit/Janesville Symphony Orchestra,

3 Beloit Fine Arts Incubator, and Beloit International Film Festival all offer access to the arts. The 

4 Janesville Shopping Mall is available for local shopping (Janesville Area Convention and 

5 Visitors Bureau 2013). Sporting events include a baseball team, the Beloit Snappers; a North 

6 American Hockey League, the Janesville Jets; and the semi-pro Ironman Football League.

7 Public Recreational Facilities

8 The City of Janesville’s Park Place has 2,590 ac (1,048 ha) with 64 improved parks that consist 

9 of regional parks, community parks, neighborhood parks, greenbelts, an arboretum, and open 

10 spaces. The City of Janesville has 10 mi (16 km) of cross-country ski trails and more than 25 mi 

11 (40 km) of paved bike trails. A portion of the statewide Ice Age Trail is located in the City of 

12 Janesville (City of Janesville 2011b). No direct trail connections or marked bike routes pass 

13 through the proposed site. The City of Janesville also owns two golf courses—the Riverside 

14 Golf Course and the Blackhawk Golf Course—and an ice arena (City of Janesville 2011b). The 

15 City of Janesville has 34 campgrounds (WDNR undated).

16 Rock County offers recreational opportunities for biking, hiking, fishing, ice skating, 

17 snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and horseback riding. Several parks, golf courses, and 

18 sports facilities are located in Rock County. Rock County parks include Rock River Trail and 

19 Roam the Rock. Part of the Wisconsin Ice Age Trail’s 1,000-mi (1,600-km) footpath is located in 

20 Rock County (Rock County Tourism Council 2012; Ice Age Trail Alliance 2013). In addition, hot 

21 air balloon flights are available for balloon rides. Rock River and Lake Koshkonong in Rock 

22 County provide recreational opportunities. Rock County has several municipal golf courses,

23 including Blackhawk, Krueger, and Riverside. The county’s two ice arenas are the Beloit Sports 

24 Arena and the City of Janesville Ice Arena.

25 Rock County has 15 state-owned natural areas (Table 3–20), including one State park, six 

26 wildlife management areas, four fishery management areas, and three areas listed as “other” 

27 (WDNR 2013f). Rock County also maintains 226 mi (364 km) of snowmobile trails with the 

28 closest located about 2.4 mi (3.9 km) south of the proposed site (SHINE 2013b).

29 Table 3–20. State-Owned Natural Areas in Rock County

Name Type of Natural Area

Avon Bottoms Wildlife Area Wildlife management area

Evansville Wildlife Area Wildlife management area

Extensive Wildlife Habitat Wildlife management area

Gift Lands Other

Ice Age Trail State park

Lima Marsh-Storrs Lake Wildlife Area Wildlife management area

Lima Marsh Rough Fish Station Fishery management area

Miscellaneous Lands Other

Newville Rough Fish Station Fishery management area

Statewide All Regulatory Wetland 

Mitigation Program

Other

Statewide Natural Area State natural area

Statewide Public Access Fishery management area

Statewide Wildlife Habitat Wildlife management area

Streambank Protection Fee Program Fishery management area

Turtle Creek Wildlife Area Wildlife management area

Source: WDNR 2013f

3-50
Affected Environment

1 3.7.12 Public Services

2 Medical

3 The City of Janesville has several medical care facilities, including two hospitals. Mercy 

4 Hospital has 240 beds, and St. Mary’s Janesville Hospital has 51 beds. The Mercy Health 

5 System, Janesville Clinics, has seven homeless shelters and assisted-living care facilities and 

6 four nursing homes.

7 Health care providers in Rock County include the Beloit Health System, Dean Health System, 

8 Edgerton Hospital and Health Services, Healthy Communities Cooperative, Mercy Health 

9 System, St. Mary’s Janesville Hospital, and The Alliance (Rock County Development 

10 Alliance 2012).

11 Emergency Services

12 Fire/rescue and emergency medical services throughout Rock County are located in the cities of 

13 Beloit, Edgerton, Evansville, Janesville, and Milton; the Town of Beloit; and the villages of 

14 Clinton, Footville, and Orfordville.

15 The Emergency Management Agency and the Telecommunications Center are located in the 

16 City of Janesville. The Emergency Management Agency coordinates countywide responses 

17 and supports local governments during major disasters and emergencies. It also prepares other 

18 governmental entities, private business, volunteer organizations, and citizens to respond and 

19 recover from major emergencies and disasters. The Telecommunications Center has a 24-hour

20 dispatching service for all Rock County police and law enforcement, fire and rescue, and 

21 emergency medical services (Rock County 2014a, 2014b).

22 Water Treatment

23 Rock County supplies water to community residents by various water systems and well types—

24 municipal, other than municipal, transient noncommunity, nontransient noncommunity, and 

25 private sources of supply water.

26 The WDNR regulates municipal and industrial operations that discharge wastewater to surface 

27 water or groundwater through the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit 

28 program. Under Section 281.41 of Wisconsin statutes, an owner must obtain WDNR review 

29 and approval of municipal and industrial treatment plant construction plans, related monitoring 

30 systems, and groundwater monitoring wells (WDNR 2012b).

31 Rock County manages its wastewater in two ways—with municipal sanitary sewer systems or

32 with onsite waste disposal (septic) systems. Three municipal sanitary sewer systems, located in 

33 the City of Beloit, the City of Janesville, and the Town of Beloit, serve more than 10,000 people. 

34 The WDNR requires these municipal systems to plan their service capabilities in conformance 

35 with the current groundwater quality standards. The many other smaller municipal sanitary 

36 sewer systems in Rock County are located in the cities of Edgerton, Evansville, and Milton; 

37 Consolidated Koshkonong (Newville area and Indianford); Hanover; and the villages of Clinton, 

38 Footville, and Orfordville.

39 Rock County residents and businesses that do not reside within the boundaries of any of these

40 municipal sanitary sewer system locations treat onsite waste disposal using septic systems. In 

41 2000, the State of Wisconsin adopted a policy allowing conventional (underground) systems 

42 and alternative (aboveground) systems. Soil characteristics determine whether conventional or

43 alternative onsite wastewater disposal (septic) systems are used.

44 Rock County had 13,000 privately operated residential and commercial septic systems in 2009 

45 (Rock County 2009). The septic systems allowed for residential and commercial purposes in 

3-51
Affected Environment

1 Rock County include conventional, pressure dosing, aerobic treatment unit, at-grade, and 

2 mound (i.e., Wisconsin mound wastewater soil treatment system, which is a combination of a, 

3 single pass sand filter and dispersal unit).

4 The conventional system uses a tank with effluent distributed gravitationally that goes to a 

5 belowground drain field. A pressure dosing system uses a tank with effluent distributed by a 

6 pump through a pressurized pipe system going to a belowground drain field. The aerobic 

7 treatment unit uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through a pressurized pipe system 

8 to either an aboveground or belowground drain field by an aerobic tank where effluent is 

9 exposed to air. An at-grade system uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through a 

10 pressurized pipe system going to a drain field location just below the surface. The mound 

11 system uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through pressure-fed pipes to an 

12 aboveground drain field.

13 3.8 Human Health

14 The proposed SHINE facility is a potential source of radiation exposure to onsite workers and 

15 offsite members of the public. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

16 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), gives the NRC authority to issue and enforce standards that provide 

17 an adequate level of protection for public health and safety and that protect the environment. 

18 The NRC staff evaluates the latest radiation protection recommendations from national and 

19 international scientific bodies as a basis for its radiation protection standards (10 CFR Part 20). 

20 The facilities that the NRC licenses to possess radioactive material must adhere to these 

21 radiation protection standards to protect workers and the public against potential health risks 

22 from exposure to radioactive material used, generated, and released from the licensed facility. 

23 The NRC staff periodically inspects a licensed facility to ensure the facility operates within the 

24 NRC requirements. The NRC staff also has enforcement authority to penalize a licensee for a 

25 violation of its regulations.

26 The NRC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration share responsibility for 

27 protecting worker health at nuclear power plants. In September 2013, the NRC and the 

28 Occupational Safety and Health Administration updated a Memorandum of Understanding that 

29 delineates the general areas of responsibility of each agency, describes how each agency 

30 achieves worker protection at facilities licensed by the NRC, and provides guidelines for 

31 coordinating activities between the two agencies regarding occupational safety and health 

32 (NRC 2013b).

33 3.8.1 Regulatory Radiological Requirements

34 A radioisotope production facility using enriched uranium as a fuel must receive a license from 

35 the NRC and comply with NRC regulations and conditions specified in the license to operate. A 

36 licensee is required to comply with occupational dose limits for adults (10 CFR Part 20, 

37 Subpart C) and radiation dose limits for individual members of the public (10 CFR Part 20, 

38 Subpart D).

39 3.8.1.1 Regulatory Requirements for Occupational Exposure

40 The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1201 establish occupational dose limits. The NRC 

41 regulations at 10 CFR 20.1201 specify an annual maximum allowable occupational dose of 

42 5 rem (0.05 sievert) to a radiation worker from exposure to radiation and radioactive material at 

43 a licensed facility. The dose limits apply to normal and accident conditions. Under 

44 10 CFR 20.2206, the NRC requires licensees to submit an annual report of their results of 

3-52
Affected Environment

1 individual monitoring for each individual who required monitoring under 10 CFR 20.1502 during 

2 that year.

3 The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.2202 and 20.2203 require licensees to submit reports of 

4 incidents and occurrences involving personnel radiation exposures that exceed specified doses, 

5 radiation levels, and concentrations of radioactive material, respectively. Licensees are 

6 required to investigate incidents and occurrences and to take corrective actions as necessary.

7 3.8.1.2 Regulatory Requirements for Public Exposure

8 The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1301 specify an annual maximum allowable dose of 

9 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) to a member of the public from exposure to radiation and 

10 radioactive material at a licensed facility. The dose limits apply to normal and accident 

11 conditions. In addition, under 10 CFR 20.1101(d), the NRC imposes a 10-millirem 

12 (0.01-millisievert) constraint on air emissions of radioactive material released into the 

13 environment. This dose constraint, applicable to the proposed SHINE facility, implements 

14 10 CFR 20.1101(b), which requires NRC licensees to use, to the extent practical, procedures 

15 and controls based on sound radiation protection principles to achieve doses to members of the 

16 public (and facility workers) that are as low as is reasonably achievable.

17 3.8.1.3 Public Radiological Exposures

18 The proposed SHINE facility, if approved by the NRC, would be licensed to possess, use, 

19 generate, and release radioactive effluents under controlled conditions into the environment 

20 during normal operation. SHINE would use radioactive waste management systems to remove 

21 radioactivity to maintain the doses to workers and members of the public within the NRC dose

22 limits and to be as low as is reasonably achievable.

23 Members of the public may be exposed to radioactive material contained in gaseous radioactive 

24 effluents released into the atmosphere from the proposed SHINE facility during normal 

25 operations. The radioactive materials released under controlled conditions would include 

26 krypton-85, iodine-131, xenon-133, and tritium. The NRC would require SHINE to monitor 

27 gaseous radioactive effluents to ensure compliance with the NRC requirements. SHINE would 

28 not plan to release any liquid radioactive effluents (SHINE 2013a).

29 The NRC staff evaluates the impact to human health from radioactive material by comparing the 

30 estimated dose to a member of the public from the proposed facility, submitted by SHINE in its 

31 Environmental Report, against the agency’s radiation protection dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20. 

32 Dose is calculated based on the amount of time spent in the vicinity of the radioactive effluent or 

33 the amount of time the individual’s body retains the inhaled or ingested radionuclides 

34 (exposure).

35 Radioactive material released into the environment can expose individuals through the following 

36 pathways:

37 (1) inhaling contaminated air,

38 (2) standing in a plume of contaminated air,

39 (3) drinking milk or eating meat from animals that grazed on open pasture on which 

40 radioactive material was deposited,

41 (4) eating vegetables grown near the proposed site that are contaminated with 

42 radioactive material releases from the facility, and

43 (5) being exposed to medical isotopes and low-level radioactive waste shipped off site.

3-53
Affected Environment

1 SHINE calculated the dose for the maximally exposed individual (i.e., a hypothetical member of 

2 the public potentially subject to maximum exposure) by using site-specific data or conservative 

3 (overestimating) assumptions (SHINE 2013a). Because of the low power levels at the proposed 

4 facility, the NRC evaluates the potential impacts to human health at a radius of 5 mi (8 km) from 

5 the facility (NRC 2012).

6 3.8.1.4 Occupational Radiological Exposures

7 SHINE workers who conduct activities involving radioactively contaminated systems or who 

8 work in radiation areas can be exposed to radiation. SHINE would monitor its workers in 

9 accordance with the NRC’s requirements. SHINE expects that most of the occupational 

10 radiation dose would result from external radiation exposure rather than from internal exposure

11 resulting from inhaled or ingested radioactive materials. Facility workers are expected to 

12 receive radiation exposure while working in the medical isotope production areas of the 

13 proposed SHINE facility during the following work activities: handling the product, conducting 

14 quality control inspections, packaging the product for transport, maintenance activities, and 

15 transporting the product to the end user. Additional exposure would result from handling, 

16 storing, packaging, and transporting low-level radioactive waste for disposal (SHINE 2013a).

17 3.8.2 Chemical Hazards

18 Chemicals enter the body through the skin, by inhalation, or by ingestion. Chemical exposure 

19 produces different effects on the body, depending on the chemical and the amount of exposure. 

20 Chemicals can cause cancer, affect reproductive capability, disrupt the endocrine system, and 

21 have other health effects. Acute effects from chemical exposure occur immediately (e.g., when 

22 somebody inhales or ingests a poisonous substance). Chronic or delayed effects result in 

23 symptoms, such as skin rashes, headaches, breathing difficulties, and nausea (NRC 2013c).

24 At the proposed SHINE facility, chemical effects could result from the routine use of chemicals 

25 and hazardous materials during the medical isotope production process. Table 2–4 in 

26 Chapter 2 of this EIS contains a list of the chemicals that SHINE plans to use at the facility 

27 (SHINE 2013a).

28 The proposed SHINE facility would release small amounts of nonradioactive laboratory 

29 chemicals into the city sewer system as a result of routine facility maintenance activities and 

30 performance of analytical procedures. See Section 2.7.2 for a detailed discussion on the use of 

31 chemicals at the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2013a).

32 3.8.3 Other Hazards

33 The proposed SHINE facility is an industrial facility with many of the typical occupational 

34 hazards found at other industrial manufacturing or production facilities. Workplace hazards can 

35 be grouped into physical hazards (e.g., hazards from slips, trips, and falls from a height and 

36 those from transportation, temperature, humidity, and electricity); physical agents (e.g., noise, 

37 vibration, and ionizing radiation); chemicals; and psychosocial issues (e.g., work-related stress) 

38 (NRC 2013c).

39 3.9 Transportation Environments

40 3.9.1 Roads

41 Figure 3–9 shows major roads and transportation features in the vicinity of the proposed site. 

42 The proposed SHINE site lies on the east side of U.S. Highway 51, also known as North 

3-54
Affected Environment

1 Riverside Drive, directly across from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. 

2 U.S. Highway 51 runs north-south, with the City of Janesville to the north and the City of Beloit 

3 to the south. The main entrance to the proposed SHINE facility would be on U.S. Highway 51, 

4 just north of the intersection with West Enterprise Drive.

3-55
Affected Environment

1 Figure 3–9. Existing Transportation Network Near the Proposed SHINE Facility

2

3 Source: SHINE 2013a

3-56
Affected Environment

1 Major highways and roads in the area of the proposed site include the following:

2 (1) Interstate 39/90 runs generally northwest to southeast and passes about 2.0 mi 

3 (3.2 km) to the east of the proposed site. These two designated interstate highways 

4 share the same route from approximately the City of Rockford, Illinois, to the City of 

5 Portage, Wisconsin.

6 (2) Interstate 43 runs generally northeast from the City of Beloit, which is located south 

7 of the proposed site, to the City of Milwaukee, which is located north of the proposed 

8 site.

9 (3) State Trunk Highway 11 runs east-west to the north of the proposed site and 

10 accesses Interstate 39/90.

11 (4) Town Line Road, a major collector road, runs east-west about 2.7 mi (4.3 km) south 

12 of the proposed site. However, this road does not have ramps to or from 

13 Interstate 39/90.

14 (5) U.S. Highway 14 runs generally east-west through the City of Janesville, which is 

15 north of the proposed site.

16 Table 3–21 describes the average daily traffic volumes for these roads and locations.

17 Table 3–22 describes the morning, midday, and evening peak hourly traffic counts for various 

18 count locations in the vicinity of the proposed site.

19 Table 3–21. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts in the

20 Vicinity of the Proposed Site

Traffic Count Location

Vehicles Per 

Day

U.S. Highway 51, south of State Trunk Highway 11 9,000

U.S. Highway 51, north of Town Line Road 9,400

State Trunk Highway 11, east of U.S. Highway 51 8,400

State Trunk Highway 11, west of U.S. Highway 51 4,500

State Trunk Highway 11, west of Interstate 39/90 12,400

Interstate 39/90, south of State Trunk Highway 11 45,700

Interstate 39/90, north of State Trunk Highway 11 50,400

Town Line Road, east of U.S. Highway 51 3,400

Source: WDOT 2010a

21 Table 3–22. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic 

22 Counts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site—Number of Vehicles

Count 

Site No. Location

Year 

of 

Count

A.M. 

Peak(a)

Midday 

Peak(b)

P.M. 

Peak(c)

Daily 

Total

531345 U.S. Highway 51, north of Happy Hollow 

Road, Rock Township

2010 667 679 746 8,977

530104 U.S. Highway 51, 1.0 mi south of Southern 

Wisconsin Regional Airport

2010 693 N/A(d) 802 N/A(d)

531344 State Trunk Highway 11, east of 

U.S. Highway 51

2010 659 509 703 8,411

531491 State Trunk Highway 11, between River 

Road and U.S. Highway 51

2010 368 263 382 4,465

3-57
Affected Environment

Count 

Site No. Location

Year 

of 

Count

A.M. 

Peak(a)

Midday 

Peak(b)

P.M. 

Peak(c)

Daily 

Total

530215 U.S. Highway 51, 0.5 mi south of Burbank 

Avenue, City of Janesville

2010 537 753 401 9,628

531300 Townline Road, between County Highway G 

and the Interstate 39/90 overpass

2010 58 66 96 1,102

(a) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 00:00 and 09:59.

(b) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 10:00 and 14:59.

(c) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 15:00 and 23:59.

(d) Midday Peak and Daily Total are unavailable because no data were reported for 14:00 to 14:59 hours.

Source: WDOT 2010b

1 The Beloit-Janesville Express, a route of the Janesville Transit System public transportation

2 network, operates weekdays between the City of Janesville and the City of Beloit via 

3 U.S. Highway 51. The stops nearest the proposed site are currently at Kellogg Avenue to the 

4 north and at Sunny Lane to the south (City of Janesville 2013c).

5 3.9.2 Airports

6 Rock County owns and operates the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. It is an air 

7 carrier/cargo airport with corporate, general, and cargo aviation but with no scheduled 

8 commercial passenger service. The airport has three runways and covers 1,405 ac (569 ha). 

9 In 2012, the airport had about 55,000 aircraft operations (i.e., takeoffs and landings combined), 

10 three quarters of which were freight operations (Rock County 2009). After Southern Wisconsin 

11 Regional Airport, the next closest available airports for proposed SHINE product shipment are 

12 Dane County Regional Airport in Madison, Wisconsin, which is about 1 hour from the proposed 

13 site, followed by Mitchell International in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and O’Hare International in 

14 Chicago, Illinois, both of which are within 2 hours of the proposed site.

15 3.9.3 Rail

16 A Union Pacific rail line runs northwest to southeast about 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the northeast of the 

17 proposed site. This line is not an Amtrak route; it is a freight-only line. The line carries both 

18 hazardous and nonhazardous freight. However, this rail line does not provide direct access to 

19 the proposed site (Union Pacific Railroad 2013).

3-58
Affected Environment

1 3.10 References

2 7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, “Important 

3 farmlands inventory.”

4 7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, “Farmland and 

5 protection policy act.”

6 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

7 protection against radiation.”

8 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor site 

9 criteria.”

10 14 CFR Part 150. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Aeronautics and Space, Part 150, 

11 “Airport noise compatibility planning; final rule.”

12 23 CFR Part 777. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Highways, Part 777, “Procedures for 

13 abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise.”

14 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational 

15 safety and health standards.”

16 40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, 

17 “National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards.”

18 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 

19 “Requirements for preparation, adoption, and submittal of implementation plans.”

20 40 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 52, 

21 “Approval and promulgation of implementation plans.”

22 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

23 “Designation of area for air quality planning purposes.”

24 50 CFR Part 10. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 10, 

25 “General provisions.”

26 50 CFR Part 17. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 17, 

27 “Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.”

28 50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulation, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, 

29 “Interagency cooperation–Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.”

30 74 FR 56260. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Mandatory reporting of greenhouse 

31 gasses.” Federal Register 74(209):56260–56519. October 30, 2009.

32 75 FR 9282. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “General provisions; revised list of migratory 

33 birds.” Federal Register 75(39):9282–9314. March 1, 2010.

34 75 FR 31514. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Prevention of significant deterioration 

35 and Title V greenhouse gas tailoring rule; final rule.” Federal Register 75(209):31514–31608, 

36 June 3, 2010.

37 77 FR 41051. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Prevention of significant deterioration 

38 and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG plantwide applicability limits.” 

39 Federal Register 77(134):41051–41075. July 12, 2012.

3-59
Affected Environment

1 Arrowhead Library System. 2013. Arrowhead Library System, Helping Public Libraries Serve 

2 the Citizens of Rock County. Revised April 30, 2013. Available at <www.als.lib.wi.us> 

3 (accessed 26 November 2013).

4 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2011 et seq.

5 Avery, C. 2005. Reversal of Declining Ground-Water Levels in the Chicago Area. Fact Sheet 

6 FS–222–95. Urbana, IL: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. May 2005. 

7 Available at <http://il.water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs222_95.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2013).

8 [BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1984. Visual Resource Inventory Manual H-8410-1. U.S. 

9 Department of the Interior, BLM. H-8410-1. January 17, 1986. Available at 

10 <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/bl

11 m_handbook.Par.31679.File.dat/H-8410.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015).

12 [BLS] Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Location 

13 Quotient Calculator, Preliminary data for 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 

14 BLS. Available at <http://data.bls.gov/location_quotient/ContollerServlet> (accessed 

15 19 August 2014).

16 Buchwald CA. 2011. Water Use in Wisconsin, 2005. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. 

17 November 2011. Open-File Report 2009–1076, Version 1.1. Available at 

18 <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1076/pdf/ofr20091076.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014).

19 City of Janesville. 2010. Water Utility, Water Conservation Plan. April 2010. Available at 

20 <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=573> (accessed 

21 20 December 2013).

22 City of Janesville. 2011a. Proposed TIF 35 Street and Lot Layout. City of Janesville, WI: 

23 Planning Services, K Benz. June 6, 2011. Available at <http://inwisconsin.com/

24 content/uploads/2013/04/Janesville_Site-Plan.pdf> (accessed 9 July 2013).

25 City of Janesville. 2011b. Parks Division. Revised 2011. Available at 

26 <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=118> (accessed 4 December 2013).

27 City of Janesville. 2012. Tax Increment Finance District No. 35, Project Plan, Amendment 

28 No. 1. City of Janesville, WI: Economic Development Agency, Accounting Division. 

29 February 13, 2012. Available at 

30 <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1463> (accessed 

31 25 June 2013).

32 City of Janesville. 2013a. Water Utility Facilities, Water Utility FAQs. 2011. Available at 

33 <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=370> (accessed 20 December 2013).

34 City of Janesville. 2013b. 2013 Budget Information. 2011. Available at 

35 <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=565> (accessed 29 November 2013).

36 City of Janesville. 2013c. Janesville Transit System Routes and Timetables. Available at 

37 <http:www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page288> (accessed 20 March 2014).

38 City of Janesville. Undated. Business Climate, Janesville Profile. Available at 

39 <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=83> (accessed August 2013).

40 Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.

41 Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

3-60
Affected Environment

1 Crone AJ, Wheeler RL. 2000. Data for Quaternary Faults, Liquefaction Features, and Possible 

2 Tectonic Features in the Central and Eastern United States, East of the Rocky Mountain Front. 

3 Reston, VA: USGS. Open-File Report 00-260. 2000. 332 p. Available at 

4 <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/ofr-00-0260> (accessed 27 August 2013).

5 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.

6 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental 

7 Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 

8 Available at <http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm> (accessed 

9 6 November 2014).

10 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Noise Effects Handbook: A Desk 

11 Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. Washington, DC: Office of Noise Abatement 

12 and Control. October 1979, Revised July 1981. Available at <http://nonoise.org/

13 epa/Roll7/roll7doc27.pdf> (accessed 29 October 2013).

14 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

15 (NAAQS). Revised December 14, 2012. Available at <http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html> 

16 (accessed 10 October 2013).

17 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Maps of Protected Areas. Revised 

18 May 5, 2012. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/visibility/maps.html> (accessed 

19 29 October 2013).

20 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Nonattainment Status for Each County by 

21 Year for Wisconsin. December 5, 2013. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/

22 oar/oaqps/greenbk/anay_wi.html> (accessed 6 February 2014).

23 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014a. The 2011 National Emissions Inventory. 

24 Revised February 3, 2014. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html> 

25 (accessed 6 February 2014).

26 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014b. Memorandum. Next Steps and 

27 Preliminary Views on the Application of Clean Air Act Permitting Programs to Greenhouse 

28 Gases following the Supreme Court’s Decisions in Utility Air Regulatory Group versus 

29 Environmental Protection Agency. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/

30 2011inventory.html> (accessed 5 September 2014).

31 Fagan B. 2005. Ancient North America. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd. 568 p.

32 Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq.

33 [FEMA] Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Rock 

34 County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas. Oakton, VA: FEMA Map Service Center. Map 

35 Number 55105C0307D. August 19, 2008. Available at <https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/

36 stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1> (accessed 

37 20 December 2013).

38 Find the Data. 2014. Compare Active Mines. 2014. Available at <http://active39 mines.findthedata.org> (accessed 19 February 2014).

40 Forward Janesville. 2014. Top 20 Janesville Employers (January 2014). Available at 

41 <http://www.forwardjanesville.com/CommunityInfo/Employment.aspx> (accessed 

42 6 October 2014).

3-61
Affected Environment

1 Fullerton DS, Bush CA, Pennell JN. 2003. Map of Surficial Deposits and Materials in the 

2 Eastern and Central United States (East of 102° West Longitude). Denver, CO: Department of 

3 the Interior, USGS. Geologic Investigations Series I-2789. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/

4 imap/i-2789/> (accessed 27 August 2013).

5 [FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Letter from Fasbender P, FWS Green Bay Field 

6 Office Supervisor to Wong M, NRC Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch

7 (RERB) Branch Chief. Subject: Reply to request for concurrence with list of protected species 

8 and habitats for the SHINE Facility Environmental Review. August 15, 2013. ADAMS 

9 No. ML13234A020.

10 [FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Find Endangered Species, Wisconsin. Available 

11 at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/> (accessed 23 January 2014).

12 [GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012a. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, Janesville, 

13 Wisconsin. Duluth, MN: SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Golder Report 6, Revision 3. 

14 August 3, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13309B618.

15 [GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012b. Preliminary Hydrological Analyses, Janesville, Wisconsin. 

16 Duluth, MN: SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Golder Report 7, Revision 3. August 3, 2012. 

17 ADAMS No. ML13309B623.

18 Grannemann, NG, Hunt, RJ, Nicholas, JR, Reilly, TE, and Winter, TC. 2000. The Importance 

19 of Ground Water in the Great Lakes Region. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

20 Investigations Report 00-4008. Lansing, MI: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

21 Division. Available at <http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/WRI004008/WRIR_00-4008.pdf> 

22 (accessed 3 January 2013).

23 Ice Age Trail Alliance. 2013. “Ice Age Trail Alliance, Home.” 2013. Available at 

24 <http://www.iceagetrail.org> (accessed 25 November 2013).

25 Janesville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2013. Attractions. 2011. Available at 

26 <http://www.iceagetrail.org/directory/p/dir/39> (accessed August 2013).

27 Janesville School District. 2012. School District of Janesville 2012–2013 Budget, Preliminary 

28 Working Draft. October 9, 2012. Available at 

29 <http://www.janesville.k12.wi.us/Portals/1/Finance/H%20-%2012%20-

30 %20Budget%20Book%20Draft%202012-13.pdf> (accessed 29 July 2013).

31 Juckem PF. 2009. Simulation of the Regional Ground-Water-Flow System and 

32 Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interaction in the Rock River Basin, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: U.S. 

33 Geological Survey and Rock River Coalition. Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5094. 38 p. 

34 Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5094/pdf/sir20095094.pdf> (accessed 

35 3 January 2014).

36 Knopf C, Krause K. 2012. A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed SHINE Medical 

37 Isotope Production Facility Near Janesville, Rock County, Wisconsin. AMEC, Louisville, KY.

38 Leute JR. 2009. Thursday is last day of production as Isuzu line comes to an end. 

39 GazetteXtra. April 21, 2009. Available at <http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/apr/21/thursday40 last-day-production-isuzu-line-comes-end/> (accessed August 2013).

41 MacFarlane Pheasants, Inc. 2012. MacFarlane Pheasants, Inc., Home. 2001–2014. Available 

42 at <http://www.pheasant.com/default.aspx> (accessed 31 August 2014).

43 Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 

44 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.

3-62
Affected Environment

1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 U.S.C. §703–712.

2 Milwaukee Business Journal. 2008. GM Closing Janesville Assembly Plant. June 3, 2008. 

3 Available at <http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2008/06/02/daily9.html> (accessed 

4 August 2013).

5 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.

6 [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2010. 1981–2010 Normals Data Access. Available at 

7 <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate8 normals/1981-2010-normals-data> (accessed 12 September 2013).

9 [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2011. TD3505–Airways Surface Observations, Surface 

10 weather observations in TD 3505 digital format from 2005-2010, for Southern Wisconsin 

11 Regional Airport, Janesville, WI. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), data purchased from 

12 NCDC, Asheville, NC, as cited in SHINE 2013a.

13 [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2012. 2012 Local Climatological Data Annual Summary 

14 with Comparative Data, Madison, Wisconsin (KMSN). Asheville, NC: NOAA/NCDC. 

15 ISSN 0198-5728. Available at <http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/annual/2012/2012MSN.pdf> 

16 (accessed 6 February 2014).

17 [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2013. Storm Events Database, Search Results for 

18 Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/

19 listevents.jsp?hailfilter=0.00&tornfilter=0&windfilter=000&sort=DT&statefips=55%2CWISCONSI

20 N&county=ROCK&zone=ALL&eventType=%28C%29+ALL&beginDate_yyyy=1996&beginDate_

21 mm=01&beginDate_dd=01&endDate_yyyy=2013&endDate_mm=04&endDate_dd=30> 

22 (accessed 12 September 2013).

23 [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. Undated. U.S. Climatic Divisions. Available at 

24 <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-divisions.php> (accessed 

25 12 September 2013).

26 [NCES] National Center for Education Statistics. 2014. College Navigator. U.S. Department of 

27 Education, Washington, DC. College and university student population within 20 miles of 

28 ZIP code 53546. Released August 2014. Available at <http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/> 

29 (accessed 8 October 2014).

30 Neusius SW, Gross GT. 2007. Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American 

31 Archaeology. Oxford University Press: NY. 720 p.

32 [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v3.0. 

33 Available at <http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html> (accessed 

34 23 January 2014).

35 Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §4901 et seq.

36 [NPS] National Park Service. 2013a. National Register of Historic Places, Rock County, 

37 Wisconsin. Revised February 25, 2014. Available at <http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/

38 natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome> (accessed 25 February 2014).

39 [NPS] National Park Service. 2013b. National Historic Landmarks Program, Wisconsin. 

40 Available at <http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/> (accessed 6 December 2013).

3-63
Affected Environment

1 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting 

2 NUREG–1537, Part 1, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of 

3 Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities 

4 and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors; and Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing 

5 Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance 

6 Criteria,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous 

7 Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. NUREG–1537. October 17, 2012. ADAMS 

8 Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075.

9 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013a. Letter from Wong M, Environmental 

10 Review and Guidance Update Branch (RERB) Branch Chief, to Vann Bynum R, SHINE Medical 

11 Technologies, Inc. Chief Operating Officer. Subject: Environmental site audit regarding SHINE 

12 Medical, Inc. proposed radioisotope production facility. July 3, 2013. 

13 ADAMS No. ML13168A562.

14 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013b. “Memorandum of Understanding between 

15 NRC and OSHA for NRC-Regulated Facilities.” September 2013. Washington, DC: NRC. 

16 ADAMS No. ML11354A432.

17 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

18 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Revision 1, Volume 1, 2, and 3. Washington, DC: 

19 NRC. NUREG-1437. June 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13107A023.

20 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping 

21 Process Summary Report for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility. Washington, DC: 

22 NRC. ADAMS No. ML15062A111.

23 [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Web Soil Survey, Soil Map—Rock 

24 County, Wisconsin. (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit 

25 description; suitabilities and limitations for use; building site development). Updated 

26 February 15, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. 

27 Available at <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app> (accessed 20 December 2013).

28 Olcott PG. 1968. A Summary of Geology and Mineral and Water Resources of Rock County. 

29 Open-File Report 68-4. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and 

30 Natural History Survey. 28 p. Available at 

31 <http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/wofrs/WOFR1968-04.pdf> (accessed 

32 20 December 2013).

33 Olcott PG. 1992. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, 

34 Wisconsin. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Ground Water. HA-730-J. Available 

35 at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_j/index.html> (accessed 20 December 2013).

36 Petersen MD, Frankel AD, Harmsen SC, Mueller CS, Haller KM, Wheeler RL, Wesson RL, 

37 Zeng Y, Boyd OS, Perkins DM, Luco N, Field EH, Wills CJ, Rukstales, KS. 2011. 

38 Seismic-Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States, 2008. Denver, CO: USGS. 

39 Scientific Investigations Map 3195, 6 sheets. Revised January 9, 2013. Available at 

40 <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3195/> (accessed 20 December 2013).

41 Private School Review. 2013. Welcome to Private School Review. 2003–2014. Available at 

42 <www.privateschoolreview.com> (accessed 26 November 2013).

43 Rock County. 2009. Rock County Comprehensive Plan 2035. Janesville, WI: Rock County 

44 Planning, Economic and Community Development Agency. September 10, 2009. Available at 

45 <https://www.co.rock.wi.us/planning-comprehensive-plan-2035> (accessed 7 January 2015).

3-64
Affected Environment

1 Rock County. 2013. Rock County, Wisconsin 2013–2014 Official Directory. Janesville, WI: 

2 Stottler L, Rock County Clerk. Revised October 24, 2013. Available at 

3 <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/images/web_documents/about_rock_county/rock_county_directory.p

4 df> (accessed 12 May 2014).

5 Rock County. 2014a. Communications Center 911. Available at 

6 <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/departments/departments-a-f/communications-911> (accessed 

7 25 February 2014).

8 Rock County. 2014b. Emergency Management Home Page. Available at 

9 <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/emergency-mgmt-home> (accessed 25 February 2014).

10 Rock County. Undated a. Rock County Ordinances. Undated. Available at 

11 <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/images/web_documents/about_rock_county/county_ordinance.pdf> 

12 (accessed 6 February 2014).

13 Rock County. Undated b. “Mission, Facts, and History.” Available at 

14 <https://www.co.rock.wi.us/mission-facts-history?highlight=WyJoaXN0b3J5Il0=> (accessed 

15 14 January 2015).

16 Rock County Development Alliance. 2012. Health Care. 2012. Available at 

17 <http://www.rockcountyalliance.com/RockCountyLife/HealthCare/tabid/375/Default.aspx> 

18 (accessed 25 November 2013).

19 Rock County Development Alliance. 2014. Rock County’s Major Employers—Public and 

20 Private Sectors. Employer Survey, 2014. Available at 

21 <http://www.rockcountyalliance.com/Portals/1/Major%20Employers%20List%20Rock%20Count

22 y%202014.pdf> (accessed 6 October 2014).

23 Rock County Tourism Council. 2012. Rock County Wisconsin’s Front Porch. 2012. Available 

24 at <http://www.rockcounty.org/Recreation/tabid/510/Default.aspx> (accessed 

25 25 November 2013).

26 Sample DW, Mossman MJ. 1997. Managing Habitat for grassland birds—A Guide for 

27 Wisconsin. Madison, WI: WDNR. PUBL-SS-925-97. 154 p. Jamestown, ND: Northern 

28 Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online (Version 03JUN2002). Available at 

29 <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/wiscbird/index.htm> (accessed 7 January 2015).

30 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

31 (PSAR), Chapter 2, “Site Characteristics,” and Chapter 19, “Environmental Report.” Monona, 

32 WI: SHINE. March 26, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13172A324.

33 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

34 Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

35 Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887.

36 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

37 Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information.

38 October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189.

39 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

40 Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. 

41 February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404.

42 Sinclair RA. 1996. Rock River Basin: Historical Background, IEPA Targeted Watersheds, and 

43 Resource-Rich Areas. Champaign, IL: Illinois State Water Survey, Hydrology Division. 

44 Miscellaneous Publication 174. April 1996. Available at <http://www.isws.illinois.edu/

45 pubdoc/MP/ISWSMP-174.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013).

3-65
Affected Environment

1 State of Wisconsin. Undated. Wisconsin Legislative Documents Search Results for Noise. 

2 Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/search/results?q=noise> (accessed 

3 29 October 2013).

4 Union Pacific Railroad. 2013. E-mail from Thompson MA, Hazardous Materials Manager, 

5 Chicago, to Molter RJ, Compa Industries, Los Alamos National Laboratory. Subject: Union 

6 Pacific Railroad operations and restrictions, Janesville. August 23, 2013.

7 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 1995. Wisconsin Population of Counties by Decenial Census: 

8 1900–1990. Revised 1995. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed August 2013).

9 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic 

10 Characteristics: 2000, Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://censtats.census.gov/

11 data/WI/05055105.pdf> (accessed 24 February 2014).

12 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic 

13 Characteristics: 2000, City of Janesville, Wisconsin. Available at <http://censtats.census.gov/

14 data/WI/1605537825.pdf> (accessed 24 February 2014).

15 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2000c. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic 

16 Characteristics: 2000, State of Wisconsin. Available at <http://censtats.census.gov/

17 data/WI/04055.pdf> (accessed 24 February 2014).

18 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2009–2011a. Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics 

19 2009–2011, American Community Survey, 3-Year Estimates. City of Janesville, Wisconsin, 

20 Rock County, Wisconsin, State of Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed 

21 August 2013).

22 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2009–2011b. Table DP04 Selected Housing 2009–2011, 

23 American Community Survey, 3-Year Estimates. City of Janesville, WI, Rock County, WI, State 

24 of Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed August 2013).

25 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. American FactFinder, Community Facts. Rock County. 

26 Revised 2010. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed 21 August 2013).

27 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. Table DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing 

28 Characteristics: 2010. City of Janesville, Wisconsin, Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at 

29 <http://www.census.gov> (accessed May 2013).

30 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. American FactFinder, Advanced Search. Available at 

31 <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pa ges/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t> (accessed 

32 June 2013).

33 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. Poverty Thresholds. Revised January 28, 2014. 

34 Available at <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/> (accessed 

35 27 February 2014).

36 [USDA]. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Wisconsin Rapid Watershed Assessment 

37 Lower Rock River. October 2007. Lower Rock River Water Shed (WI) HUC: 07090002. 20 p. 

38 Available at <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_020057.pdf> 

39 (accessed 28 January 2014).

40 [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013. Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of 

41 Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Available at 

42 <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/

43 Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Wisconsin/st55_2_025_025.pdf> (accessed 

44 4 October 2013).

3-66
Affected Environment

1 [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2014. 2012 

2 Census of Agriculture. Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 7. Hired Farm Labor—Workers and Payroll: 

3 2012, and Table 25. Field Crops: 2012 and 2007. Last modified May 2, 2014. Available at 

4 <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_

5 Level/Wisconsin/> (accessed 8 October 2014).

6 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Physiographic Regions. Revised April 17, 2003. 

7 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). Available at 

8 <http://tapestry.usgs.gov/physiogr/physio.html> (accessed 27 August 2013).

9 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. National Land Cover Database. ESRI ArcGIS 9.3.1 

10 software. Available at <http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer> (accessed 4 October 2013).

11 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. Divisions of Geologic Time-Major Chronostratigraphic 

12 and Geochronologic Units. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS. Fact Sheet 

13 2010–3059. July 2010. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3059/> (accessed 

14 27 August 2013).

15 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United 

16 States. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. July 18, 2012. 

17 Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults> (accessed 27 August 2013).

18 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013a. 2009 Mineral Yearbook, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: 

19 U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). April 2013. Available at <http://minerals.usgs.gov/

20 minerals/pubs/state/> (accessed 20 December 2013).

21 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013b. Earthquakes in the Stable Continental Region. U.S. 

22 Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Available at 

23 <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/product/tectonic-summary/usc000te4p/us/1420825648040/tectonic24 summary.inc.html> (accessed 16 January 2015).

25 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013c. Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive 

26 Search and URL Builder, Search Results. (Radius search parameters: center latitude 

27 42.622213 N, center longitude -89.026766 W, and outside radius 322 km). U.S. Department of 

28 the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Revised November 7, 2013. Available at 

29 <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/> (accessed 20 December 2013).

30 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013d. Historic Earthquakes in the United States and its 

31 Territories, Illinois. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. 

32 Revised March 6, 2013. Available at 

33 <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/historical_state_mag.php> (accessed 

34 20 December 2013).

35 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013e. Magnitude/Intensity Comparison. U.S. Department of 

36 the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Revised January 9, 2013. Available at 

37 <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mag_vs_int.php> (accessed 20 December 2013).

38 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013f. Poster of the Northern Illinois Earthquake of 

39 28 June 2004—Magnitude 4.2. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards 

40 Program. Revised October 30, 2012. Available at 

41 <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/poster/2004/20040628.php> (accessed 

42 20 December 2013).

43 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013g. Water-Resources Data for the United States, Water 

44 Year 2012, Site 05430500. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). USGS Water-Data 

45 Report WDR-US-2012. Available at 

46 <http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/05430500.2012.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013).

3-67
Affected Environment

1 [USGS and WDNR] U.S. Geological Services and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 

2 2014. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Map of Distribution of Wisconsin Fish 

3 Species. Available at <https://cida.usgs.gov/wdnr_fishmap/map/> (accessed 28 January 2014).

4 Vandewalle & Associates. 2009. City of Janesville Comprehensive Plan. Madison, WI: City of 

5 Janesville. March 9, 2009. Available at <http://www.saa-madison.com/sites/saa6 madison.com/files/microsite-documents/JV-comp-plan-Volume1.pdf> (accessed 

7 9 September 2014).

8 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 29. Wild Animals and Plants. Available at 

9 <http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/29> (accessed 7 January 2015).

10 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 281. Water and Sewage. Available at 

11 <http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/281> (accessed 7 January 2015).

12 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102. Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface 

13 Waters. November 2010. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/

14 code/admin_code/nr/100/102> (accessed 20 December 2013).

15 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 104. Uses and Designated Standards. 

16 February 2004. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/104/_1> 

17 (accessed 20 December 2013).

18 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 140. Groundwater Quality. January 2012. Available 

19 at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/140/Title> (accessed 

20 20 December 2013).

21 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 404. Ambient Air Quality. November 2011. 

22 Available at <http://docs.legis.wi.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/404/Title> (accessed 7 January 

23 2015).

24 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 405. Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

25 July 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/405.pdf> 

26 (accessed 7 January 2015).

27 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406. Construction Permits. March 2014. Available 

28 at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/406.pdf> (accessed 7 January 

29 2015).

30 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 407. Operation Permits. February 2014. Available 

31 at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/407.pdf> (accessed 7 January 

32 2015).

33 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 445. Control of Hazardous Pollutants. March 2012. 

34 Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/445.pdf> (accessed 

35 7 January 2015).

36 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Trans 405. Siting Noise Barriers. November 2000. 

37 Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/405> (accessed 

38 29 October 2013).

39 [WDOA] Wisconsin Department of Administration. 2013. Population and Household 

40 Projections, County Age-Sex Population Projections, 2010–2040, Final Release 12/10/2013. 

41 Demographic Services Center, Division of Intergovermental Relations. Available at 

42 <http://www.doa.state.wi.us/divisions/intergovernmental-relations/demographic-services43 center/projections> (accessed 7 October 2014).

3-68
Affected Environment

1 [WDATCP] Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection. 2013. Well 

2 Constructor’s Reports. Available at <http://datcpgis.wi.gov/WellLogs/> (accessed 

3 20 December 2013).

4 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Watershed-Rock River-Milton 

5 (LR04). Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/watershedDetail.aspx?code=LR04&Name=Rock 

6 River – Milton> (accessed 29 January 2014).

7 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012a. Explore Wisconsin’s Water, 

8 Upper Rock River Basin. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/> (accessed 20 December 2013).

9 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012b. Plan Review for Municipal and 

10 Other Nonindustrial Wastewater Systems. Revised September 3, 2012. Available at 

11 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wastewater/municipalsystems.html> (accessed 25 February 2014).

12 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. Rock River Prairie (No. 289). 

13 Revised January 10, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/naturalareas/

14 index.asp?sna=289> (accessed 12 May 2014).

15 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013b. Rock River TMDL. Revised 

16 November 19, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/TMDLs/RockRiver/index.html> 

17 (accessed 20 December 2013).

18 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013c. DNR Drinking Water System: 

19 High Capacity Wells. Revised January 6, 2014. Available at 

20 <http://prodoasext.dnr.wi.gov/inter1/hicap$.startup> (accessed 20 December 2013).

21 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013d. Look Up Groundwater Data, 

22 Well Construction Information. Revised November 12, 2012. Available at 

23 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Groundwater/data.html> (accessed 20 December 2013).

24 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013e. Southeast Glacial Plains 

25 Ecological Landscape. Revised January 23, 2012. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/

26 landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=9> (accessed 23 December 2013).

27 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013f. State Natural Areas by County. 

28 Revised December 27, 2013. Available at 

29 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/naturalareas/county.html> (accessed 12 May 2014).

30 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013g. Wisconsin NDR. Available at 

31 <http://dnr.wi.gov/> (accessed 27 June 2013).

32 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. Letter from Heggelund E, 

33 WDNR Environmental Analysis and Review Specialist, to Moser M, NRC Environmental Project 

34 Manager. Subject: WDNR comments for the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental 

35 Impact Statement and Scoping for SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production 

36 facility. February 7, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14045A298.

37 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014b. Wisconsin’s Natural 

38 Communities. Revised October 7, 2014. Available at 

39 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Communities.asp> (accessed 

40 7 November 2014).

41 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014c. Wetlands. Revised 

42 August 19, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wetlands/> (accessed 28 January 2014).

3-69
Affected Environment

1 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014d. Wisconsin Natural Heritage 

2 Working List. Revised January 9, 2014. Available at 

3 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/nhi/wlist.html#SRank> (accessed 23 January 2014).

4 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014e. Wisconsin’s Endangered and 

5 Threatened Species Laws. Revised January 9, 2014. Available at 

6 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/laws.html> (accessed 28 January 2014).

7 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Undated. Find Campgrounds—

8 ReserveAmerica. Available at <http://wisconsinstateparks.reserveamerica.com/campground

9 SearchResult.do?startIdx=0> (accessed 26 February 2014).

10 [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2010a. Average Annual Daily Traffic for 

11 Lower Half, City of Janesville, Rock County. Available at <http://www.dot.state.wi.us/travel/

12 counts/docs/rock/janesville-2-2010.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015).

13 [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2010b. Hourly Traffic Volume Reports–

14 2010. The WisTransPortal System, Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory, 

15 University of Wisconsin, Madison. Available at <http://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourly16 traffic-data/bysiteid/rock.html> (accessed 9 October 2014).

17 [WDPI] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2011–2012. FY2011–2012 Equalized Levy 

18 Rates (Mill Rates). Available at 

19 <https://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/safr_ro/all_mill_rate.asp?year=2012> (accessed 29 July 2013).

20 [WDPI] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2012–2013. FY2012–2013 Equalized Levy 

21 Rates (Mill Rates). Available at 

22 <https://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/safr_ro/all_mill_rate.asp?year=2013#J> (accessed 

23 25 February 2014).

24 [WDPI] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2013. “WISEdash, Wisconsin Information 

25 System for education, Data Dashboard.” Revised 2013. Available at 

26 <www.wisedash.dpi.wi.gov> (accessed 29 July 2013 and 26 November 2013).

27 [WDR] Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2012. Town, Village, and City Taxes—2012, Taxes 

28 Levied 2012—Collected 2013. Available at <http://www.revenue.wi.gov/pubs/slf/tvc12.pdf> 

29 (accessed 5 December 2013).

30 [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2010. Local Area Unemployment 

31 Statistics (LAUS) Results-Janesville. Available at 

32 <http://worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/dalaus.aspx?menuselection=da> (accessed 

33 28 August 2014).

34 [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2011. Local Area Unemployment 

35 Statistics (LAUS) Results—Rock County. Available at <worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/

36 dalaus.aspx?menuselection=da> (accessed 28 August 2014).

37 [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2012. Local Area Unemployment 

38 Statistics (LAUS) Results—Wisconsin. Available at <http://worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/

39 dalaus.aspx?menuselection=da> (accessed 28 August 2014).

40 [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2011a. Glaciation of Wisconsin. 

41 Madison, WI: UW Extension. Educational Series 36, 4th edition. Available at 

42 <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/es0362011/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

43 [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2011b. Bedrock Stratigraphic 

44 Units in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: UW Extension. Educational Series 51, ISSN: 1052-2115. 

45 Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/ES051/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

3-70
Affected Environment

1 [WHS] Wisconsin Historical Society. 2013. Cultural Overview of Wisconsin. Available at 

2 <http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archaeology/overview/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

3 Zaporozec A. 1982. Ground-Water Quality of Rock County, Wisconsin. Madison, WI: 

4 University of Wisconsin, Geological and Natural History Survey in cooperation with Rock County 

5 Division of Environmental Health. Information Circular 41. March 1982. Available at 

6 <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

3-71

1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, 

2 OPERATIONS, AND DECOMMISSIONING

3 This chapter addresses potential environmental impacts related to the proposed construction, 

4 operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical 

5 radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

6 (NRC) standard of significance for impacts uses the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

7 terminology for “significantly” (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 1508.27). 

8 Because the significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed 

9 action, both “context” and “intensity,” as defined in CEQ regulation 40 CFR 1508.27, were 

10 considered. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects 

11 would occur. Intensity is the severity of the impact. Based on this, the NRC established three 

12 levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. The definitions 

13 of these three significance levels, which are presented in the Interim Staff Guidance to 

14 NUREG-1537 (NRC 2012), follow: 

15 SMALL—environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would 

16 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. In 

17 assessing radiological impacts, the NRC has concluded that those impacts that do not 

18 exceed permissible levels in the NRC’s regulations are considered small.

19 MODERATE—environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

20 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

21 LARGE—environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

22 important attributes of the resource.

23 For this environmental impact statement (EIS), the NRC staff characterized impact levels using 

24 the above definitions (NRC 2012). These impacts are grouped and presented according to the 

25 resource area. Within each resource area, the NRC staff determined the impacts during each of 

26 the three phases: construction, operations, and decommissioning. As describe section 2.2, the 

27 NRC staff included the activities and impacts of preoperational activities as part of the 

28 construction phase

29 4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources

30 4.1.1 Land Use

31 4.1.1.1 Construction

32 The proposed SHINE site currently includes 91.1 acres (ac) (36.9 hectares (ha)) of agricultural 

33 land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of undeveloped open areas (SHINE 2013a; USGS 2006). 

34 Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would permanently disturb and convert 25.67 ac 

35 (10.39 ha) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of undeveloped open areas into an 

36 industrial area that would include facility buildings, an employee parking lot, facility access 

37 roads, a stormwater detention area, and access road drainage ditches (Table 4–1). In addition, 

38 14.54 ac (5.88 ha) of agricultural land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a 

39 construction parking area and construction material staging or laydown areas. Installation of the 

40 water and sewer line would also temporarily affect an additional 0.62 ac (0.25 ha) of offsite 

41 agricultural lands immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed site. Once 

42 construction activities are complete, SHINE would restore temporarily affected areas to 

43 agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie (SHINE 2013a). The remaining portion 

4-1
Environmental Impacts

1 of the site would likely remain as open area or agricultural fields, or it would be converted to cool 

2 season grasses or native prairie. The potential conversion of up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of 

3 agricultural and cultivated crops would be minor when compared to the 25,236 ac (10,213 ha) of 

4 agricultural land remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site.

5 The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) and its implementing 

6 regulations requires agencies to make Farmland Protection Policy Act evaluations part of the 

7 process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), to reduce 

8 the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by Federal projects and programs. 

9 Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would convert up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of prime 

10 farmland or farmland of statewide significance to industrial use, cool season grasses, or native 

11 prairie. However, this is a small percentage of the approximate 41,900 ac (16,900 ha) of prime 

12 farmland and farmland of statewide significance within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the 

13 proposed site (SHINE 2013a; NRCS 2013). Similarly, the potential relative value of the 

14 farmland on the 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) proposed site would be 13,771 bushels (bu) of grain corn or 

15 3,947 bu of soybeans, which is relatively minor when compared to the 10-year production 

16 estimate average for Rock County, Wisconsin (22,075,540 bu of grain corn and 3,786,415 bu of 

17 soybeans) (USDA 2013). Furthermore, the proposed site is currently zoned light industrial and 

18 is part of a larger development project to create an industrial park in Tax Increment Finance 

19 (TIF) District No. 35 (City of Janesville 2012). Because the proposed SHINE site has been 

20 committed to urban development and zoned light industrial, the proposed site does not have 

21 farmland soils subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR 658.2).

22 Land-use impacts would be confined to the proposed 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) site and 0.62 ac. 

23 (0.25 ha) of offsite agricultural lands immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the 

24 proposed site. Therefore, areas with a special land use or mineral resources (as described in 

25 Section 3.1) would not be affected by the proposed construction of the SHINE facility.

26 Based on the relatively small amount of farmland that would be permanently converted to other 

27 land uses, the lack of qualifying important farmland soils within affected areas, the location of 

28 the proposed facility within an area zoned for light industrial use, and the lack of special land 

29 use or mineral resources on site, land use impacts from construction would be SMALL.

30 Table 4–1. Acres of Land Required for Construction of the Proposed SHINE Facility

Land Cover Type

Permanent 

Disturbance

Temporary 

Disturbance

Total Land 

Cover Within 

5 mi (8 km)

ac ha ac ha ac ha Percent

Open Water 796 322 1.6

Developed, Open Space 0.18 0.07 3,043 1,231 6.1

Developed, Low Intensity 5,858 2,371 11.7

Developed, Medium 

Intensity 1,968 796 3.9

Developed, High Intensity 992 401 2

Barren 43 17 0.1

Deciduous Forest 3,298 1,335 6.6

Evergreen Forest 68 28 0.1

Mixed Forest 1 0 0

Shrub/Scrub 505 204 1

Grassland 1,049 425 2.1

Pasture/Hay 5,896 2,386 11.7

4-2
Environmental Impacts

Land Cover Type

Permanent 

Disturbance

Temporary 

Disturbance

Total Land 

Cover Within 

5 mi (8 km)

ac ha ac ha ac ha Percent

Cultivated Crops 25.67(a) 10.39(a) 15.16(a)(b) 6.13(a)(b) 25,236 10,213 50.2

Woody Wetlands 722 292 1.4

Emergent Herbaceous 

Wetland 787 318 1.6

Total(c) 25.85 10.46 14.5 5.88 50,262 20,339 100

(a) Cultivated crops on the proposed site are located on soils that are prime farmland and farmland of statewide 

importance.

(b) Temporarily disturbed lands include 14.54 ac (5.88 ha) of onsite land and 0.62 ac (0.25 ha) of offsite land.

(c) Total may add up to more or less than 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: USGS 2006; SHINE 2013a

1 4.1.1.2 Operations

2 Operation of the SHINE facility would not require any new land or require land use changes 

3 beyond that required for construction. Therefore, land use impacts during operations would be 

4 SMALL.

5 4.1.1.3 Decommissioning

6 Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities because they would 

7 involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. 

8 Land requirements to perform these activities would be the same or less than those required 

9 during construction (SHINE 2014). After decommissioning activities are complete, the proposed 

10 site could remain industrial or could be converted back to agricultural land or open space. 

11 Given that land requirements would be similar to those described during construction and that, 

12 after decommissioning is complete, land would either be industrial, agricultural, or open space, 

13 land use impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL.

14 4.1.2 Visual Resources

15 4.1.2.1 Construction

16 As described in Section 3.1.2, the visual setting of the proposed SHINE facility includes 

17 agricultural and light industrial viewsheds. The proposed site is currently used for agricultural 

18 purposes, and no existing structures or natural or built barriers, screens, or buffers occur on 

19 site. SHINE would build a Production Facility Building that would be approximately 58 ft (18 m) 

20 high, 284 ft (87 m) long, and 194 ft (59 m) wide (SHINE 2014). The highest point at the SHINE 

21 facility, the exhaust vent on the main building, would be approximately 66 ft (20 m) 

22 (SHINE 2014). Figure 4–1 is a conceptual rendering of the proposed SHINE facility based on 

23 these dimensions.

24 The activities associated with construction of the SHINE facility (e.g., excavation, earthmoving, 

25 pile driving, and erection) would require large equipment, would significantly alter onsite 

26 conditions, and would partially obstruct views of the existing landscape. However, as described 

27 in Section 3.1, the NRC staff determined that the proposed site has low scenic quality because 

28 of a lack of notable features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, 

29 mute colors, cultural modifications to adjacent scenery, and a commonality within the 

30 physiographic province. The NRC staff also determined that the proposed site has a low 

4-3
Environmental Impacts

1 sensitivity rating because it is in an area with low scenic values resulting from a low amount of 

2 use by viewers, low public interest in changes to the visual quality of the proposed site, a low 

3 sensitivity to changes in visual quality by the type of users in the area, and a lack of special 

4 natural and wilderness areas. In addition, the viewshed surrounding the proposed site is

5 partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, such as warehouses and an airport. 

6 Further, once construction activities are complete, SHINE may vegetate open areas with crops, 

7 cool season grasses, or native prairie grasses (SHINE 2013a). Vegetation could partially 

8 mitigate impacts to visual resources given that the majority of the surrounding viewshed is 

9 cultivated fields or grasses. SHINE would also mitigate impacts by landscaping or planting 

10 shrubs along U.S. Highway 51 and bordering access roads (SHINE 2013a). Based on the low 

11 scenic quality and light industrial viewshed within the vicinity, construction-related aesthetic 

12 impacts would be SMALL.

13 4.1.2.2 Operations

14 The appearance of the SHINE facility would not change during operation, other than a small 

15 steam plume that may be visible coming from the exhaust stack. The steam plume from the 

16 exhaust stack is expected to be minimal because opacity associated with the natural gas-fired 

17 boiler and heaters tends to be low, as described in Section 4.2.2.1. The plume would be more 

18 visible during periods of cold weather, although the size of the plume would still be relatively 

19 small. Therefore, visual impacts during operations would be SMALL.

20 Figure 4–1. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed SHINE Facility

21

22 Conceptual View of Proposed SHINE Facility from U.S. Highway 51, Looking Southeast

4-4
Environmental Impacts

1 Figure 4–1. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed SHINE Facility (Continued)

2

3 Conceptual View of Proposed SHINE Facility Looking West

4 Source: SHINE 2014

5 4.1.2.3 Impacts from Decommissioning

6 Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities because they would 

7 involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. 

8 After SHINE completed decommissioning activities, the proposed site could remain industrial or 

9 could be converted back to agricultural land or open space. As the proposed SHINE facility is 

10 located in a district zoned for light industrial use and the viewshed surrounding the proposed 

11 site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, the NRC staff would not expect 

12 any changes to the landscape to significantly affect any viewsheds. Therefore, visual impacts 

13 during decommissioning would be SMALL.

14 4.2 Air Quality and Noise

15 Air and noise emissions would occur during construction, operations, and decommissioning of 

16 the proposed SHINE facility. Emission sources, pollutants, and durations would be different for 

17 each phase and are discussed below. As discussed in Chapter 3, the region of influence (ROI) 

18 for this air quality analysis is Rock County, which is designated as an attainment/unclassifiable 

19 area for all criteria pollutants. The ROI for the noise analysis is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the 

20 site boundary of the proposed SHINE facility.

21 4.2.1 Construction

22 During construction, both air quality and noise levels may be affected near the proposed SHINE

23 facility. Air pollutants would include fugitive dust from earth-moving equipment and other 

24 vehicles, exhaust gases from diesel engines, and exhaust gases from worker vehicles as they 

25 commute to and from the proposed SHINE facility. Noise would be emitted from diesel engines, 

4-5
Environmental Impacts

1 backup alarms, and increased traffic as workers commute to and from the proposed SHINE 

2 facility and as materials are hauled on and off the construction site. Table 4–2 lists the 

3 equipment that would be used during construction. The NRC staff expects actual equipment 

4 activity to be lower than what is presented in Table 4–2 because SHINE assumed operation of a 

5 majority of the construction equipment throughout the entire construction phase, multiple pieces 

6 of the same equipment type and simultaneous use of equipment, and equipment continuously 

7 running 5 hours a day during construction (SHINE 2015a). SHINE estimated that a maximum of 

8 451 workers would be needed during construction (SHINE 2014).

9 Table 4–2. Equipment Used During Construction

Equipment Type

Engine Size

(hp)

Total Activity

(hours)(a)

Asphalt Compactor Cat CB434C 107 521

Asphalt Paver, Barber Greene AP-1000 174 521

Backhoe/Loader Cat 430 105 6,979

Boom Lift JLG 800AJ 65 7,917

Concrete Pump Putzmeister 47Z-Meter(b) 300 3,021

Crane (Lattice Boom, Manitowoc 8000-80t)(b) 205 1,354

Crane (Picker, Grove RT530E-2 30t)(b) 160 5,729

Crane (Picker, Grove RT600E-50t)(b) 173 1,146

Dump, Dual axel (15 cy) Mack 350 4,896

Excavator (Large, Cat 345D L)(b) 380 521

Excavator (Medium, Cat 321D LCR)(b) 148 1,354

Extended Forklift Lull 1044C-54 115 10,104

Fuel Truck, Mack MP6(b) 150 1,458

Material Truck 2-1/2t F-650 270 3,229

Mechanic's Truck 2-1/2t F-650 270 2,813

Motor Grader Cat 140M 183 1,563

Pickup Truck F-250 300 19,063

Semi Tracker and Trailer (20 cy) Mack MP8(b) 450 7,188

Skidsteer Loader Case SR200 75 8,229

Tracked Dozer Cat D6 150 2,188

Tracked Dozer Cat D7 235 2,708

Tracked Dozer Cat D8(b) 310 1,979

Tracked Loader CAT 973C 242 4,479

Vibratory Soil Compactor Cat C874 156 1,458

Water Truck Mack MP6 150 1,146

Portable Air Compressors 50 5,625

Portable Generators 50 6,354

Portable Welders 50 4,688

Walk Behind Compactor 50 2,396

(a) Activity represents the total number of hours SHINE would operate equipment during the 18-month construction 

period. Within each equipment category, several pieces of equipment may be operated simultaneously (SHINE 

2015a). Equipment hours are based on construction work schedule, number of hours the equipment is assumed 

to be used in during the entire18 month construction phase, and equipment utilization factors provided in 

SHINE 2014, 2015.

(b) Equipment anticipated to be utilized during the first 12 months of the construction phase.

Source: SHINE 2014, 2015a

4-6
Environmental Impacts

1 4.2.1.1 Air Quality

2 During construction, the diesel equipment on site listed in Table 4–2 would generate air 

3 emissions. Engine exhausts emit criteria pollutants, and fugitive dust would be generated by 

4 earth-moving activities. Employee vehicular traffic would also generate both exhaust and 

5 fugitive dust emissions, some of which would occur on site and others would occur off site. 

6 However, fugitive dust emissions should be minimal for vehicles when traveling on paved roads 

7 off site. Construction-related emissions are summarized in Table 4–3. Additional 

8 vehicle-related emissions would be associated with the transportation of shipments and 

9 deliveries during construction, as discussed in Section 4.10.1. However, they would be emitted 

10 beyond the ROI (SHINE 2014) and would traverse various counties, air quality control regions 

11 (AQCRs), and states. Therefore, the air quality analysis focuses on the predominant emission 

12 sources during construction, which includes diesel equipment exhaust, worker vehicle 

13 commuting, and earth-moving activities.

14 Table 4–3. Annual Air Emissions During Construction

Source

Emissions During Construction (tons/yr)

CO NOx

Hydrocarbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Diesel Equipment Exhaust(a) 58 269 2 18 19 19 10,000

Peak Worker Vehicle Exhaust(a) 126 9 14 0.3(d) 0.06 0.06 4,920

Fugitive Dust(b) - - - - 40 4 -

Total 183 278 16 18 59 23 14,900

Percent of Rock County Annual 

Emissions(c) 0.6 5.0 0.1 18 0.7 0.8 1.3

(a) SHINE 2015a

(b) Fugitive dust emissions (as total suspended particles (TSP)) were estimated by SHINE (2014) based on the acres 

that would be permanently or temporarily disturbed during the construction phase (41.01 ac [16.6 ha]). To 

calculate particulate matter (PM)10 and PM2.5, the NRC staff applied the annual construction phase work schedule 

(50 weeks, 5 days/week, 5 hours/day) and the expected particle-size ratios for PM10/TSP, a ratio of 0.48, and for 

PM10/PM2.5, a ratio of 0.1 (EPA 1984; MRI 2006). 

(c) Rock County annual emissions are shown in Table 3–5.

(d) NRC staff applied the emission factors from Cai et al. 2013 to construction worker vehicles-miles provided in 

SHINE 2014, 2015a to estimate SO2 emission. 

Key: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrous oxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter of 10 microns (μm) 

or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 μm or less; CO2 = carbon dioxide

Source: SHINE 2014, 2015a

15 As shown in Table 4–3, construction-related emissions would be approximately less than 

16 5 percent of countywide emissions for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, 

17 hydrocarbons, and particulate matter. Sulfur dioxide could result in an increase of up to 

18 18 percent of annual sulfur dioxide emissions for Rock County; however, as explained below, 

19 the emissions presented in Table 4–3 are highly conservative. Total greenhouse gas emissions 

(GHGs) (approximately 15,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq)4 20 per year) would be 

21 well below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq (68,000 metric TPY) threshold for prevention of significant 

4 Carbon dioxide equivalent is a metric used to compare the emissions of GHG based on their global warming 

potential (GWP). GWP is a measure used to compare how much heat a GHG traps in the atmosphere. GWP is the 

total energy that a gas absorbs over a period of time, compared to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide equivalent is 

obtained by multiplying the amount of the GHG by the associated GWP. For example, the GWP of methane (CH4) is 

estimated to be 21; therefore, 1 ton of methane emission is equivalent to 21 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

4-7

 
Environmental Impacts

1 deterioration (PSD) and Title V permits set in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. As 

2 discussed in Section 3.2.2, the nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility 

3 protection is the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, about 295 mi (475 km) from the proposed 

4 site. EPA recommends that sources located within 62 mi (100 km) of a Class I area be modeled 

5 to consider adverse impacts (EPA 1992). Given the distance and estimated emissions from 

6 construction, the NRC staff does not anticipate that activities from construction could adversely 

7 affect air quality and air quality-related values (e.g., visibility or acid deposition) in the nearest 

8 Class I area.

9 Emissions presented in Table 4–3 should be regarded as bounding conditions for construction 

10 activities. The emission estimates presented in Table 4–3 do not account for emission control 

11 technologies for diesel engines, best management practices, or mitigative measures that can be 

12 implemented during construction-related activities. For instance, SHINE proposes to minimize 

13 fugitive dust emissions on site by watering and limiting speeds on unpaved roads, minimizing 

14 material handling, stabilizing construction roads and spoil piles, and slope revegetation 

15 (SHINE 2013a). Such measures would reduce particulate matter emissions related to land16 disturbing activities below those presented in Table 4–3. Furthermore, diesel-related 

17 construction equipment emission estimates presented in Table 4–3 are estimated uncontrolled 

18 emissions that do not account for control technologies that can be implemented to reduce 

19 emissions, such as selective catalytic converters that can reduce emissions (EPA 1996). 

20 Estimates are also based on conservative equipment activity values presented in Table 4–2. 

21 SHINE plans to implement techniques during construction, where practical, to reduce diesel 

22 emissions, such as using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels (15 parts per million sulfur maximum), 

23 deploying new equipment with emission control systems and exhaust filtration devices (diesel 

24 oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate matter filters and/or catalytic converters), performing diesel 

25 equipment inspections and necessary maintenance to ensure proposed condition of exhaust 

26 filtration devices, implementing recommended maintenance procedures, and periodic checks of 

27 diesel equipment, and minimizing the idle time of equipment, which would reduce the equipment 

28 activity presented in Table 4–2 (SHINE 2013b). Finally, worker commuter emissions assumed a 

29 minimum of a 100-mi (160-km) roundtrip commute and a peak number of workers. Because the 

30 workforce could travel from all over the 50-mi (80-km) region and not necessarily have a 100-mi 

31 roundtrip commute and not all 451 workers would necessarily travel to the site on a daily basis, 

32 this projected increase in miles traveled daily for each county is conservative. Furthermore, 

33 SHINE will encourage carpooling or other appropriate measures to minimize emissions due to 

34 worker vehicles (SHINE 2013). Therefore, the emissions presented in Table 4–3 should be 

35 regarded as bounding conditions for construction activities, and, for these reasons, the NRC

36 staff does not expect increased air emissions from construction activities to contribute to 

37 concentrations that would exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in Rock 

38 County.

39 SHINE intends to submit an application for a Type A Registration Construction Permit to the 

40 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (SHINE 2013b). The requirements in the 

41 Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, are implemented within Wisconsin Statutes 

42 Chapter 285, “Air Pollution.” WDNR administers its construction permit program under 

43 Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 406. Compliance with the construction permit from 

44 WDNR would ensure that the proposed project would meet air pollution standards. SHINE 

45 would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated within the permit.

46 Given that emissions during construction would be local and temporary (construction phase of 

47 18 months), pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from WDNR, and 

48 with Rock County designated as an attainment/unclassifiable area, the NRC staff concludes that 

49 air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL.

4-8
Environmental Impacts

1 4.2.1.2 Noise

2 Noise emissions during construction would occur because of increased traffic volumes on 

3 U.S. Highway 51 and because of the use of construction equipment on site. The maximum 

4 number of worker vehicles expected on site during construction is 451, all of which would be 

5 expected to travel via U.S. Highway 51 during the hours when work starts and stops 

6 (SHINE 2013a; SHINE 2014). SHINE modeled highway noise to estimate existing noise levels 

7 near U.S. Highway 51 (50 ft [15 m]) away from the road) and used a peak-hour traffic volume of 

8 465 vehicles per hour. If work start and stop times occur during the peak hours modeled, traffic 

9 volume would nearly double during some periods during construction. The NRC staff conducted 

10 additional noise modeling using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Traffic Noise 

11 Model (TNM), Version 2.5, which shows adding the proposed SHINE facility construction traffic 

12 would increase noise levels near U.S. Highway 51 by less than 3 decibels A-weighted (dBA). 

13 Most people are unable to discern noise level differences less than about 3 dBA. Furthermore, 

14 posted speed limits and a staggered construction work shift schedule can reduce traffic noise 

15 during construction (SHINE 2013a).

16 The types of equipment that would be used on site during construction are listed in Table 4–2. 

17 The noisier equipment from this list was modeled by the NRC staff using the FHWA’s Roadway 

18 Construction Noise Model, Version 1.1. Modeling results show a maximum noise level of about 

19 53 dBA at the nearest residence to the proposed site (about 0.3 mi (0.5 km) away from the site 

20 boundary). This noise level would be well below existing ambient noise levels (about 65 dBA 

21 but sometimes greater because of the airport and traffic on U.S. Highway 51) and would not be 

22 noticeable by most people.

23 Given the minor (less than 3 dBA) increase in noise levels caused by additional vehicle traffic

24 and estimated noise levels from construction equipment not exceeding existing ambient noise 

25 levels, the NRC staff concludes that offsite noise impacts from construction would be SMALL.

26 4.2.2 Operations

27 4.2.2.1 Air Quality

28 Air emissions from operating the proposed SHINE facility would be predominantly from two 

29 sources: (1) radioisotope production and (2) fuel combustion associated with processing and 

30 facility heating purposes. Additional emissions would come from vehicular traffic from workers

31 commuting and from transportation of shipments and deliveries during construction. However, 

32 shipment-related emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI (SHINE 2014) and would traverse 

33 various counties, AQCRs, and states. Therefore, the air quality analysis presented below 

34 focuses on emissions from radioisotope production, fuel combustion associated with processing 

35 and facility heating purposes, and vehicle worker commuting. The effects on nearby air quality 

36 resulting from these emissions would be determined by what and how much is emitted; how and 

37 where pollutants are emitted (stack location, size, temperature, and exhaust velocity); and 

38 ambient meteorological conditions.

39 Radioisotope Production

40 A criteria air pollutant that would be emitted from the radioisotope production process includes 

41 nitrogen oxide. SHINE would use nitric acid in target solution vessels (TSVs) and in the thermal 

42 denitration process, resulting in the formation and release of nitrogen oxides. SHINE would 

43 treat gaseous effluents through the control ventilation systems, which involves two stages of 

44 high-efficiency particulate air filters before being vented to the atmosphere through the main 

45 stack of the production facility. Total nitrogen oxide emissions from the radioisotope production 

46 process would be about 3 TPY (SHINE 2013a).

4-9
Environmental Impacts

1 Fuel Combustion

2 Diesel and natural gas combustion sources are listed in Table 4–4. Four natural-gas-fired 

3 heaters and one boiler would be used to meet heating and hot water requirements for the 

4 proposed SHINE facility. Additionally, a diesel generator would be used for emergency power 

5 (SHINE 2013a). Emissions from diesel and natural gas combustion sources are summarized in 

6 Table 4–5. Estimated fuel combustion-related emissions from the facility during operation, as 

7 provided in Table 4–5 are well below the major source threshold of 100 TPY for criteria 

8 pollutants requiring a Title V operation permit. GHG emissions (approximately 15,700 TPY of 

9 CO2eq) would be well below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq threshold for PSD and Title V permits set 

10 in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, SHINE plans to develop programs, 

11 when appropriate, to avoid and control GHG emissions and implement energy efficiency and 

12 conservation at the facility (SHINE 2013a). Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates that emissions 

13 from combustion-related activities during operation will not be a major source and, therefore, 

14 has little potential for significantly affecting air quality or interfering with plans to achieve 

15 compliance with the NAAQS.

16 Table 4–4. Fuel Combustion Sources

Description Fuel

Heat Input Rates (MMBTU/hr)

Maximum Expected Load

Emergency Generator Diesel 43.56 NA

Production Building Boiler Nat. gas 30 23.6

Support Facility Building Nat. gas 0.42 0.337

Administration Building Nat. gas 0.29 0.233

Waste Staging and Shipping Building Nat. gas 0.18 0.142

Diesel Generator Building Nat. gas 0.072 0.058

Source: SHINE 2013a, 2013b

17 Table 4–5. Fuel Combustion Emissions During Operations

Description

Maximum Emissions (ton/yr)

CO NOx PM10(a) Hydrocarbons SO2 CO2

Emergency Generator(b) 0.36 3.52 0.026 0.12 0.01 345

Production Building Boiler(c) 10.37 6.22 0.92 0.67 0.08 14,822

Support Facility Building(c) 0.067 0.16 0.013 0.01 0.001 208

Administration Building(c) 0.05 0.12 0.009 0.007 0.001 143

Waste Staging and Shipping 

Building(c)

0.03 0.07 0.005 0.004 0.001 89

Diesel Generator Building(c) 0.01 0.03 0.002 0.002 0.001 36

Total 10.9 10.1 1.00 0.81 0.09 15,642

(a) Particulate emissions from diesel and gas combustion are assumed to be less than 1 μm in diameter. Hence, 

PM2.5 and PM10 emissions are the same.

(b) Generator emissions of CO, NOx, PM, and hydrocarbons were computed using emission factors from the CAT 

C175-20 Diesel Engine Data Sheet provided by Caterpillar. SO2 emissions are based on a maximum of 50 parts 

per million (ppm) sulfur in the fuel. CO2 emissions were computed using an emission factor from Section 3.4 of 

AP-42 (EPA 2006).

(c) Emissions from gas-fired heaters and boilers were calculated using emission factors from Section 1.4 of AP-42 

(EPA 2006).

Source: SHINE 2013b

4-10
Environmental Impacts

1 SHINE computed air pollutant concentrations near the proposed SHINE facility during 

2 operations using the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), 

3 Version 123145. Air pollutant concentrations modeled include emissions from the radioisotope

4 production process and heater and boiler combustion during operation (SHINE 2013a). 

5 Emissions from the standby diesel generator were not accounted for in the model because its 

6 use would be infrequent (SHINE 2013a). SHINE used surface and upper air meteorological 

7 data from Madison, Wisconsin (Station 14837), for the years 2006 to 2010. Modeled air

8 pollutant concentrations (maximum predicted impact) for each pollutant resulting from operation 

9 (production process and heater and boiler combustion) were added to ambient background 

10 concentrations and compared with NAAQS. SHINE’s modeling results are shown in Table 4–6.

11 Table 4–6. SHINE Air Dispersion Modeling Results

Pollutant

Averaging 

Period

Maximum 

Predicted 

Impact 

(μg/m3)

(a) Year

Total Concentration 

(μg/m3)

(b)

NAAQS 

(μg/m3)

CO 1-hr 26.45 2009 1,389 40,000(c)

8-hr 12.16 2007 1,203 10,000(c)

NO2 1-hr 61.57 2007 117 188

Annual 1.722 5-yr 26 100

SO2 1-hr 0.2266 2009 13 196

3-hr 0.1238 2010 43 1,310

24-hr 0.0584 2008 - NA(d)

Annual 0.0062 5-yr - NA

PM10 24-hr 0.7318 2008 48 150

Annual 0.0786 5-yr - NA

PM2.5 24-hr 0.75 5-yr 29 35

Annual 0.09 5-yr 10 12

(a) Values represent the highest predicted impacts for each pollutant and averaging time.

(b) Total concentrations provided are the maximum predicted impact plus background concentrations.

(c) The value shown is approximate. The NAAQS is expressed in units of ppm or parts per billion.

(d) NA = Not applicable. No current NAAQS applies to this averaging time.

Source: SHINE 2013b; EPA 2012a.

12 As can be seen from Table 4–6, total concentrations (maximum predicted impact plus 

13 background concentration) for each pollutant do not exceed the NAAQS. In other words, the 

14 additional emissions resulting from operation did not result in NAAQS thresholds being 

15 exceeded. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that violations of NAAQS are not expected as a 

16 result of increased air emissions from operation of SHINE. Additionally, the maximum impacts 

17 include consideration of building downwash effects. Therefore, these values are conservative 

18 and bounding. Visibility modeling was not performed for this project because of the low 

19 emission rates and resulting pollutant concentrations. No visible plume other than steam is 

20 expected from SHINE stacks during normal operation. The nearest currently listed Class I 

21 Federal Area for visibility protection is the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, about 295 mi 

22 (475 km) from the proposed site. EPA recommends that sources located within 62 mi (100 km) 

23 of a Class I area be modeled to consider adverse impacts (EPA 1992). Given the distance and 

24 estimated emissions from operation, the NRC staff does not anticipate that activities from 

25 operation could adversely affect air quality and air quality-related values (e.g., visibility or acid 

26 deposition) in the nearest Class I area.

4-11
Environmental Impacts

1 SHINE would control emissions of nitrogen oxide from the natural-gas-fired boiler using low 

2 nitrogen oxide burners and emissions from gas-fired heaters using combustion controls and 

3 properly designed and tuned burners (SHINE 2013a). The generator would be required to meet 

4 applicable New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII) and National 

5 Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ). Emissions from 

6 radioisotope production and fuel combustion sources would be emitted through stacks. Terrain 

7 near the proposed SHINE facility is relatively flat and, therefore, should not affect dispersion of 

8 pollutants. SHINE intends to submit an application for a Type A Registration Operation Permit 

9 to WDNR for stationary equipment (e.g., emergency generator) (SHINE 2013b). The operating 

10 permit from WDNR would set limits and establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

11 requirements with which SHINE would be required to comply.

12 Additional emissions would result from workforce vehicles. Approximately 150 passenger 

13 vehicles would enter and leave the proposed SHINE facility on a daily basis (SHINE 2013b, 

14 2014). Vehicular emissions would occur wherever the vehicles are driven, both on and off the 

15 proposed SHINE facility. Employee vehicle emissions during operation are summarized in 

16 Table 4–7. Additional vehicle-related emissions would be associated with the transportation of 

17 waste shipments, as discussed in Section 4.10.2, during operation. However, these emissions 

18 would be emitted beyond the ROI because they are expected to be shipped to a facility in Clive, 

19 Utah (SHINE 2014) and would therefore traverse various counties, AQCRs, and states. Minimal 

20 air emissions resulting from waste shipments would be emitted within Rock County.

21 Table 4–7. Vehicle Emissions During Operation

Activity

Emissions During Operation (TPY)

CO NOx

Hydrocarbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Worker Commuting 

Exhaust 42 3 5 0.1(a) 0.02 0.02 1,600

(a) NRC staff applied the emission factors from Cai et al. 2013 to worker vehicles-miles provided in 

SHINE 2014, 2015a to estimate SO2 emission.

Source: SHINE 2014, 2015a

22 When estimated emissions from vehicles (Table 4–7) are added to the estimated emissions 

23 from radioisotope production and fuel combustion emissions (Table 4–5), total emissions are 

24 below the major source threshold of 100 TPY for criteria pollutants that would require a Title V 

25 permit and are below 250 TPY, which is the threshold for triggering PSD requirements (as 

26 discussed in Section 3.2.2). Furthermore, total GHGs (approximately 17,300 TPY of CO2eq) 

27 are below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq threshold for PSD and Title V permits set in the 

28 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates that emissions 

29 from related activities during operation has little potential for significantly affecting air quality or 

30 interfering with plans to achieve compliance with the NAAQS.

31 Given that modeled air emissions from operation do not exceed NAAQS, that estimated 

32 emissions from operation-related activities are below the 100-TPY major source threshold, that 

33 Rock County is designated attainment/unclassifiable status and given the provisions that would 

34 be established in the air permit, the impact of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality during 

35 operation is expected to be SMALL.

4-12
Environmental Impacts

1 4.2.2.2 Noise

2 Noise emissions during operation would occur because of increased traffic volumes on 

3 U.S. Highway 51. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and 

4 would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE buildings at the site.

5 The number of worker vehicles expected during operation is 150 (SHINE 2013a, 2014). Adding 

6 this traffic volume to the TNM modeling completed for existing traffic levels would increase noise 

7 levels near U.S. Highway 51 by about 1 dBA. Most people are unable to discern noise level 

8 differences less than about 3 dBA.

9 The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport currently operates approximately 105 flights per day, 

10 38,400 flights per year (FAA 2014). Flight operations may increase because of the demand to 

11 transport materials to and from the proposed SHINE facility. Up to 468 medical shipments 

12 would occur each year associated with the proposed action with most being transported by air 

13 (SHINE 2013a). However, these increases are not anticipated to cause an appreciable 

14 increase in noise above the current operations.

15 Given that noise emissions from operating equipment are not expected to be audible beyond 

16 the building facility, that additional noise emissions caused by worker vehicles are minor 

17 (1 dBA), and that noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels 

18 from current airport operations, the NRC staff concludes that offsite noise impacts during 

19 operation would be SMALL.

20 4.2.3 Decommissioning

21 Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities. The decommissioning 

22 activities would include, for example, vehicular traffic, earth-moving equipment, demolition of 

23 structures, and dismantlement and decontamination of systems over a period of 6 months 

24 (SHINE 2013a). Table 4–8 lists the equipment that would be used during the decommissioning 

25 phase. The NRC staff expects actual equipment activity to be lower than what is presented in 

26 Table 4–8 because SHINE assumed operation of the construction equipment throughout the 

27 entire decommissioning phase, multiple pieces of the same equipment type and simultaneous 

28 use of equipment, and equipment continuously running 5 hours a day during decommissioning 

29 (SHINE 2015a). SHINE estimated that a maximum of 261 workers would be on the proposed 

30 SHINE site at one time during decommissioning (SHINE 2013a, 2014).

31 Table 4–8. Diesel Equipment Used During Decommissioning

Equipment Type

Engine Size

(hp)

Total Activity

(hr)(a)

Backhoe/Loader Cat 430 105 3.542

Boom Lift JLG 800AJ 65 3,958

Crane (Lattice Boom, Manitowoc 8000–80t) 205 729

Crane (Picker, Grove RT530E-2 30t) 160 2,917

Crane (Picker, Grove RT600E- 50t) 173 625

Dump, Dual axel (15 cy) Mack 350 2,500

Excavator (Large, Cat 345D L) 380 313

Excavator (Medium, Cat 321D LCR) 148 729

Extended Forklift Lull 1044C-54 115 5,104

Fuel Truck, Mack MP6 150 729

Material Truck 2-1/2t F-650 270 1,667

Mechanic's Truck 2-1/2t F-650 270 1,458

Motor Grader Cat 140M 183 833

Pickup Truck F-250 300 9.583

4-13
Environmental Impacts

Equipment Type

Engine Size

(hp)

Total Activity

(hr)(a)

Semi Tracker and Trailer (20 cy) Mack MP8 450 3,646

Skidsteer Loader Case SR200 75 4,167

Tracked Dozer Cat D6 150 1,146

Tracked Dozer Cat D7 235 1,354

Tracked Dozer Cat D8 310 1,042

Tracked Loader CAT 973C 242 2,292

Vibratory Soil Compactor Cat C874 156 729

Water Truck Mack MP6 150 625

Portable Air Compressors 50 2,813

Portable Generators 50 3,229

Portable Welders 50 2,396

Walk Behind Compactor 50 1,250

(a) Activity represents the total number of hours SHINE would operate equipment during the 6-month 

decommissioning period. Within each equipment category, several pieces of equipment may be operated 

simultaneously (SHINE 2015a). Equipment hours are based on decommissioning work schedule, number of 

hours the equipment is assumed to be used in 6 months, and equipment utilization factors provided in 

SHINE 2014, 2015a.

Source: SHINE 2013a, 2014, 2015a

1 4.2.3.1 Air Quality

2 During decommissioning, the diesel equipment on the proposed SHINE site would be a source 

3 of air emissions (Table 4–8). Engine exhausts emit criteria pollutants, and fugitive dust would 

4 be generated by earth-moving activities. Vehicular traffic would also generate both exhaust and 

5 fugitive dust emissions, some of which would occur on site and some off site. Emissions are 

6 summarized in Table 4–9. Additional vehicle-related emissions would be associated with the 

7 transportation of waste shipments, as discussed in Section 4.10.3 during decommissioning. 

8 However, these emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI because they are expected to be 

9 shipped to a facility in Clive, Utah (SHINE 2014) and would therefore traverse various counties, 

10 AQCRs, and states. Minimal air emissions resulting from waste shipments would be emitted 

11 within Rock County.

4-14
Environmental Impacts

1 Table 4–9. Air Emissions During Decommissioning

Source

Emissions During Decommissioning (tons/yr)

CO NOx HydrocarbonsSO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Diesel Equipment Exhaust(a) 37 170 14 11 12 12 6,400

Peak Worker Commuting 

Exhaust(a)

73 5 8 0.1(d) 3 3 2,900

Fugitive Dust(b) 7 0.7

Total 110 175 22 11 22 16 9,300

Percent of Rock County Annual 

Emissions(c)

0.3 3.0 0.2 11 0.2 0.5 0.8

(a) SHINE 2014

(b) Fugitive dust emissions (as TSP) were estimated by SHINE 2014 based on the acres that would be permanently 

or temporarily disturbed during construction (25 ac). To calculate PM10 and PM2.5, the NRC staff applied the 

decommissioning phase work schedule (25 weeks, 5 days/week, and 5 hours/day) and the expected particle size 

ratios for PM10/TSP, a ratio of 0.48, and PM10/PM2.5, a ratio of 0.1 (EPA 1984; MRI 2006).

(c) Rock County annual emissions are shown in Table 3–5.

(d) NRC staff applied emission factors from Cai et al. 2013 to worker vehicles-miles provided in SHINE 2014, 2015a 

to estimate SO2 emission.

Source: SHINE 2014, 2015a

2 As shown in Table 4–9, emissions during decommissioning would be less than 3 percent of total 

3 countywide emissions of pollutants, with the exception of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide could 

4 result in an increase of up to 11 percent of annual sulfur dioxide emissions for Rock County. 

5 The NRC staff expects SHINE emissions to be low enough that resulting air quality

6 concentrations should not cause NAAQS to be exceeded. Similarly, total GHGs (approximately 

7 9,330 tons of CO2eq per year) would be well below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq threshold for PSD 

8 and Title V permits set in the GHG Tailoring Rule.

9 The emission estimates presented in Table 4–9 did not account for emission control 

10 technologies for diesel engines or mitigative measures that can be implemented during 

11 construction activities. For instance, SHINE proposes to minimize fugitive dust emissions by 

12 watering disturbed areas and unpaved roads and by limiting speeds on unpaved site roads 

13 (SHINE 2013a). Such measures should reduce dust emissions below those presented in 

14 Table 4–9 and should prevent fugitive dust from adversely affecting highway or airport traffic. 

15 Emissions are estimated based on equipment activity presented in Table 4–8, which are 

16 bounding and conservative. Actual emissions are expected to be lower depending on the exact 

17 use of equipment. Additionally, estimated diesel-related equipment emissions are for 

18 uncontrolled emissions that do not consider emission control technologies. SHINE plans to 

19 implement techniques during decommissioning, where practical, to reduce diesel equipment 

20 emissions, such as using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels (15 parts per million sulfur maximum), 

21 deploying new equipment with emission control systems and exhaust filtration devices (diesel 

22 oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate matter filters and/or catalytic converters), performing diesel 

23 equipment inspections and necessary maintenance to ensure proposed condition of exhaust 

24 filtration devices, implementing recommended maintenance procedures, and periodic checks of 

25 diesel equipment, and minimizing the idle time of equipment, which would reduce the equipment 

26 activity presented in Table 4–9 (SHINE 2013b). Furthermore, worker commuter emissions 

27 assumed a minimum 100-mi (161-km) roundtrip commute. Because the workforce could travel 

28 from all over the 50-mi (80-km) region and not necessarily have a 100-mi (161-km) roundtrip 

4-15
Environmental Impacts

1 commute, this projected increase in miles traveled daily for each county is conservative. 

2 Therefore, emissions in Table 4–9 are bounding and conservative.

3 Given that air emissions during decommissioning would be local and temporary

4 (decommissioning phase of 6 months) and that Rock County is designated as an 

5 attainment/unclassifiable area, the NRC staff concludes that the air quality impact associated 

6 with the decommissioning phase would be SMALL.

7 4.2.3.2 Noise

8 Noise emissions during decommissioning would be similar to those generated during 

9 construction. Increased noise levels would occur from increased traffic volumes on 

10 U.S. Highway 51 and from the use of construction equipment on site.

11 A maximum of 261 worker vehicles could be on site during decommissioning (SHINE 2014). 

12 For purposes of analysis, the NRC staff assumed that all of these vehicles would travel on 

13 U.S. Highway 51 near the proposed SHINE facility during the hours when work starts and stops. 

14 Adding these to the TNM, as completed for the other phases, shows increased noise levels near 

15 U.S. Highway 51 of less than 2 dBA. Most people are unable to discern noise level differences 

16 less than about 3 dBA.

17 The types of equipment that would be used on site during decommissioning are listed in Table 

18 4–8; they are similar to those used during construction. Application of the Roadway 

19 Construction Noise Model by the NRC staff indicates that decommissioning activities would 

20 result in a maximum noise level of about 53 dBA at the nearest residence to the proposed site 

21 (about 0.3 mi (0.5 km) away from the site boundary). During the day, this noise level would be 

22 well below existing ambient noise levels (about 65 dBA but sometimes greater because of the 

23 airport and traffic on U.S. Highway 51) and would not be noticeable by most people.

24 Given the minor (2-dBA) increase in noise levels caused by additional vehicle traffic and given 

25 that estimated noise levels from decommissioning activities would be bounded by existing 

26 ambient noise levels, the NRC staff concludes that offsite noise impacts from decommissioning 

27 would be SMALL.

28 4.3 Geologic Environment

29 4.3.1 Construction

30 Construction of the proposed SHINE facility is expected to disturb approximately 41 ac (16.6 ha) 

31 of land, as detailed in Section 4.1.1.1. The property has been in active agricultural use and 

32 would likely be left fallow before the start of construction. Construction of the radiologically 

33 controlled area (RCA) of the facility would require excavation to a depth of 39 ft (12 m). Utility 

34 routings and other foundation slabs and footings would require excavation to a depth of about 

35 5 ft (1.5 m). As the depth to bedrock is greater than 221 ft (67 m) and likely greater than 300 ft 

36 (91 m), no blasting would be required for site preparation and facility construction. Site soils 

37 may be prone to slumping in excavations (Section 3.3.2) because of textural characteristics; 

38 therefore, bracing may be required. 

39 Mineral and other geologic resources would be required to support the construction effort, 

including approximately 7,600 yd3 (5,800 m3 40 ) of granular road base (e.g., typically crushed 

aggregate (sand and gravel) as a base material); 2,200 yd3 (1,680 m3 41 ) of asphalt pavement 

material; and 8,500 yd3 of gravel surfacing (6,500 m3 42 ) (SHINE 2013a). These resources would 

43 be procured from local and/or regional commercial vendors. As noted in Section 3.3.1, 

44 construction aggregate is widely available throughout Rock County and the greater 

45 southeastern Wisconsin region.

4-16
Environmental Impacts

SHINE estimated that 27,700 yd3 (21,180 m3 1 ) of concrete would also be used for facility 

2 construction and would be obtained from offsite commercial vendors (SHINE 2013a). 

3 Consequently, no onsite concrete batch plant would be required (SHINE 2014). The mineral 

4 products that comprise concrete (i.e., Portland cement, sand, gravel, and other additives) are 

5 widely available in the region or are not otherwise limited in commercial availability.

Additionally, an estimated 74,000 yd3 (56,600 m3 6 ) of backfill would be required for emplacement 

around structures, along with the use of 10,000 yd3 (7,650 m3 7 ) of topsoil for miscellaneous 

8 earthwork and final surface preparation (SHINE 2013a). The backfill material would be 

9 reworked from onsite material and prepared as necessary to meet structural requirements, and 

10 the topsoil would likewise be derived from onsite soils that are temporarily stockpiled during site 

11 preparation and excavation work for later use. Construction materials are further detailed in 

12 Table 2–1, and construction activities are described in Section 2.2.

13 Although site grading, surface compaction, excavation work, and construction-related vehicle 

14 traffic would expose site soils and sediments to wind and water erosion, adherence to standard 

15 best management practices (BMPs) for soil erosion and sediment control during facility 

16 construction would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss. Such BMPs would include the use 

17 of gravel aprons, sediment traps, sediment fencing, check dams and staked hay bales, 

18 mulching and geotextile matting, and rapid reseeding. The impacts would also be contained 

19 within the immediate project site and would be temporary in nature. SHINE has indicated that 

20 soil erosion and sediment control for ground-disturbing activities would meet or exceed the 

21 applicable regulatory requirements under the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended 

22 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

23 regulations, and applicable Wisconsin regulations (SHINE 2013a). EPA has delegated NPDES 

24 permit authority to Wisconsin for stormwater dischargers associated with construction and 

25 industrial activity. The WDNR administers its permit program under the Wisconsin 

26 Administrative Code (NR 151 and NR 216). Specifically, SHINE would be required to obtain 

27 and comply with the provisions of a General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water 

28 Runoff (Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-S067831-4) 

29 (WDNR 2013a). The permit would require SHINE to develop and implement a site-specific 

30 construction site erosion control plan, including specific BMPs or pollution control measures to 

31 reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff, and a stormwater management plan (for 

32 postconstruction stormwater management). The permit also specifies that the permittee should 

33 minimize soil compaction and preserve topsoil.

34 Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would consume geologic resources and have the 

35 potential to increase soil erosion. However, given that the geologic resources are widely 

36 available within the region and that erosion would be managed with the implementation of 

37 BMPs, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on the geologic environment from the 

38 construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 

39 4.3.2 Operations

40 During facility operations, previously disturbed areas would not be subject to long-term soil

41 erosion. Areas disturbed during construction would be within the footprint of the completed 

42 facility or overlain by other impervious surfaces, such as roadways and parking lots. Land 

43 temporarily disturbed during construction within the site boundary and lying outside the facility 

44 footprint would be revegetated. SHINE proposes to use native vegetation in the landscaping 

45 design (SHINE 2013a). As currently proposed, implementation of a stormwater management 

46 plan for the facility site would entail the use of vegetated drainage swales to control runoff, 

47 which would be effective in reducing surface erosion and sediment transport. All production 

48 activities would be conducted within enclosed buildings, and vehicle traffic would be confined to 

4-17
Environmental Impacts

1 paved surfaces (e.g., roads and parking areas) that service the facility. As a result, incremental 

2 impacts on geology and soils would be negligible during operations.

3 The NRC staff does not expect site geologic conditions to affect the operation of the SHINE

4 facility. The proposed site is located in a region with a low seismic hazard, as described in 

5 Section 3.3.3. The proposed facility would be sited, designed, and constructed in accordance 

6 with all applicable building codes, which provide for the evaluation of site geologic and soil

7 conditions, including potential seismic hazards. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

8 operational impacts associated with the geologic environment at the proposed site would be 

9 SMALL. 

10 4.3.3 Decommissioning

11 Compacted site soils and underlying sediments would be disturbed by facility demolition work. 

12 The impacts on site geology and soils would be similar in scope to those described for 

13 construction. Site clearing to restore the proposed site to a reusable condition would be subject 

14 to the requirements of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4) 

15 (WDNR 2013a).

16 Before beginning to dismantle onsite structures, waste materials and contaminated media would 

17 be removed from the facilities, packaged, and properly disposed of as discussed in Section 4.9. 

18 Thus, these materials would not pose a contamination threat to site soils or underlying 

19 groundwater. Soils and other media would be sampled to determine the presence of any 

20 contamination and associated waste management requirements. All activities would be 

21 conducted in accordance with a decommissioning plan approved by the NRC, as described in 

22 Section 2.8. 

23 Consequently, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on the geologic environment from facility 

24 decommissioning would be SMALL.

25 4.4 Water Resources

26 4.4.1 Surface Water

27 4.4.1.1 Construction

28 No natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, and there would be no direct 

29 impact from facility construction on natural surface-water drainages. The closest surface-water 

30 feature to the proposed construction location is an unnamed tributary to Rock River located 

31 approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) southeast of the proposed site (SHINE 2013a). During 

32 construction, however, stormwater runoff from construction areas could potentially affect 

33 downstream surface-water quality if not properly managed. As described in Section 4.3.1, 

34 appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs would be employed to minimize the 

35 transport of suspended sediment and other pollutants. SHINE would be required to conduct 

36 construction activities in accordance with the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

37 No. WI-S067831-4). SHINE would be required to prepare a site-specific plan that details 

38 stormwater pollution prevention measures. In accordance with this permit, these measures 

39 would be required to include proper management of all construction materials and chemicals to 

40 prevent them from being exposed to, and conveyed by, stormwater to waters of the State. The 

41 permit would explicitly require the development of spill prevention and response procedures, 

42 such as measures to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of fuels and other materials from 

43 construction equipment and activities.

4-18
Environmental Impacts

1 In accordance with common construction practices, the NRC staff expects that portable 

2 restroom facilities, serviced by a commercial vendor, would be used during site construction. As 

3 a result, there would be no sanitary wastewater discharges during construction. Section 4.9 

4 describes the waste management impacts.

5 No surface water or onsite groundwater would be diverted or withdrawn to support facility 

6 construction (SHINE 2013a). SHINE proposes to obtain water for construction and operations 

7 from the City of Janesville Water Utility, which uses groundwater as its supply source. 

8 Section 4.4.2.1 presents an NRC analysis of groundwater use impacts.

9 The proposed site is not located in an area susceptible to flooding or in a delineated floodplain, 

10 as discussed in Section 3.4.1.

11 No natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, no surface water would be 

12 diverted or withdrawn to support facility construction, and SHINE must prepare a site-specific 

13 plan that details stormwater pollution prevention measures; therefore, the NRC staff concludes 

14 that the impacts on surface-water hydrology, quality, and use from the construction of the 

15 proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 

16 4.4.1.2 Operations

17 During operations, there would be no direct impact on surface-water features and no direct 

18 discharge of industrial wastewater to surface water. Stormwater would be collected and 

19 discharged from the facility property in compliance with applicable State and local permit 

20 provisions and ordinances. The Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

21 No. WI-S067831-4), as described for construction, specifically requires the development of a 

22 stormwater management plan with appropriate BMPs to address runoff from buildings and other 

23 impervious surfaces. Temporary stormwater management controls, such as rip-rap-lined 

24 culverts and ditches, would first be stabilized and otherwise integrated with permanent 

25 stormwater management structural controls to provide long-term stormwater velocity 

26 attenuation, runoff, and sediment transport reduction and to prevent channel scouring 

27 (SHINE 2013a).

28 The design, construction, and subsequent operations of the proposed SHINE facility incorporate 

29 features and structural controls to manage stormwater runoff and associated hydrologic impacts 

30 during operations. For example, the site plan for the proposed facility (Figure 2–3) minimizes 

31 impervious surfaces and infiltration and uses a system of diversion ditches and vegetated 

32 drainage swales to manage stormwater runon and runoff, instead of a traditional detention or 

33 retention pond. Specifically, the SHINE facility would be surrounded by an exterior stormwater 

34 runon diversion berm with an interior and exterior ditch system. The exterior ditch would direct 

35 stormwater and farm-field runoff to flow spreaders, which direct the excess water to the 

36 surrounding fields. The interior ditch directs excess water to the vegetated stormwater basin 

37 and swale located in the southwest corner of the facility site. Collected stormwater would then 

38 discharge from the west end of the swale through an outfall structure to the existing drainage 

39 ditch along U.S. Highway 51 with drainage ultimately flowing to the unnamed tributary to Rock 

40 River (Figures 2–3 and 3–8). This stormwater system would be designed to address the 1-year, 

41 2-year, and 24-hour storm events per State regulations and the 10-year and 100-year events, 

42 as required by the City of Janesville (SHINE 2013a). As discussed in Section 3.3.2, the natural 

43 soils at the proposed site are well drained and not prone to water ponding.

44 No discharge of stormwater associated with industrial activity (i.e., where stormwater can come 

45 into contact with stockpiles, raw materials, or process areas) would occur. Nevertheless, in 

46 accordance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

47 No. WI-S067831-4), stormwater discharges from the SHINE site would have to comply with the 

4-19
Environmental Impacts

1 wasteload allocation established for downstream receiving waters. As described in 

2 Section 3.4.1, the segment of Rock River that would ultimately receive drainage from the SHINE 

3 facility site is impaired for total suspended solids and total phosphorous.

4 The proposed SHINE facility is designed to have no discharge of liquid wastes from the RCA 

5 (SHINE 2013a). Sections 2.7 and 4.9 discuss the treatment and handling of waste from the 

6 RCA. Furthermore, there would be no direct discharge of industrial or process wastewater to 

7 surface waters to support SHINE facility operations. Wastewater from the SHINE facility would 

8 be conveyed to the City of Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) through a 10-in. 

9 (25-cm) sanitary sewer line extended to the proposed site (SHINE 2013a). 

10 Facility wastewater would normally consist of sanitary wastewater and boiler blowdown from the 

11 facility’s heated water system for building heating. In total, this wastewater would be discharged 

12 at an average rate of 5,850 gallons per day (gpd) (22,145 liters per day (Lpd)), or about 

0.006 million gallons per day (mgd) (23 cubic meters (m3 13 )/day). About once a year, an 

14 additional 10,000 gal (37,850 L) of cooling water would be flushed from the closed-loop chilled 

15 water system to the sanitary sewer. This water would contain residual water treatment 

16 chemicals added to control biological growth and scale buildup and corrosion from the chilled 

17 water system (SHINE 2013b). Small quantities of maintenance and laboratory chemicals also 

18 would be discharged periodically to the facility’s sanitary sewer drains. However, administrative 

19 controls would be in place to ensure that such waste streams meet the acceptance 

20 requirements of the City of Janesville WTP before they are released (SHINE 2013a, 2013b). All 

21 wastewater conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP would also have to meet influent 

22 acceptance requirements for industrial users and, specifically, the prohibitions and maximum 

23 daily limits specified by the City’s Wastewater Facilities and Sewer Ordinance (City of 

24 Janesville 2013; SHINE 2013b). 

25 Overall, the volume of this nonhazardous wastewater is very small compared to the capacity of 

26 the City of Janesville WTP. The WTP, according to City of Janesville officials, has a treatment 

capacity of 19.1 mgd (72,290 m3 27 /day) with an average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd 

(54,900 m3 28 /day) (NRC 2014). 

29 Finally, as much as 30,000 gal (113,600 L) of fuel oil may be stored on site in an underground 

30 storage tank to supply the facility’s standby generator. This volume of oil storage requires the 

31 development and implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) 

32 Plan, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 112 and applicable State requirements. The SPCC Plan 

33 details requirements for oil-spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil 

34 discharges to land and surface waters (SHINE 2013a).

35 Given that SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility operations, that 

36 a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention measures must be prepared, and 

37 that SHINE would be required to develop and implement an SPCC Plan, the NRC staff 

38 concludes that the impacts on surface-water hydrology, quality, and use from the operation of 

39 the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 

40 4.4.1.3 Decommissioning

41 No natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, and there would be no direct 

42 impacts on surface-water resources as a consequence of facility decommissioning activities. 

43 No surface water would be used during decommissioning.

44 As previously noted in Section 4.3.3, during decommissioning, waste materials and 

45 contaminated media would be removed from the facility and packaged for proper disposal. 

46 Building demolition and related ground-disturbing activity, including the removal of the facility 

47 site’s stormwater management structures, would be subject to the requirements of WPDES 

4-20
Environmental Impacts

1 Permit No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013a). BMPs, including the use of structural controls, such 

2 as sediment fencing and sediment basins, and the use of mulching, geotextile matting, and 

3 rapid reseeding of disturbed areas, would be used to prevent soil erosion and loss and 

4 downstream water-quality impacts. Soils and other media would be sampled to determine the 

5 presence of any contamination and associated waste management requirements. Thus, any 

6 such materials would not pose a contamination threat to offsite surface water or groundwater. 

7 The Wisconsin General Permit requires the development of spill prevention and response 

8 procedures, such as measures to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of fuels and other 

9 materials from equipment that would be used during building demolition and site restoration. 

10 Therefore, appropriate waste handling and stormwater pollution prevention practices and spill 

11 prevention and response procedures would be observed during decommissioning to ensure that 

12 no materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater. 

13 Given that no natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, that there would be no 

14 diversion or withdrawal of surface water during decommissioning, and that SHINE would be 

15 required to prepare a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention and spill 

16 prevention and response measures, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface-water 

17 resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL.

18 4.4.2 Groundwater

19 4.4.2.1 Construction

20 Groundwater dewatering is not expected to be required during construction. The deepest 

21 proposed excavation for facility construction is 39 ft (12 m) (SHINE 2013a). As described in 

22 Section 3.4.2, site studies have shown the depth to groundwater to range from 50 to 65 ft (15 to 

23 20 m) below ground surface. Further, SHINE did not identify any perched aquifers 

24 (i.e., water-bearing zones confined to locations above the site water table) or seasonally high 

25 water table conditions during site geotechnical and hydrogeologic studies (SHINE 2013a). 

26 Therefore, the NRC staff determined that facility construction would be unlikely to affect 

27 groundwater conditions beneath the proposed site.

28 No groundwater supply wells would be drilled on the proposed site (SHINE 2013a). The NRC

29 staff expects that the four monitoring wells completed as part of site characterization and 

30 geotechnical studies would be maintained as environmental monitoring wells.

31 SHINE would not use groundwater from onsite sources during construction. Instead, SHINE 

32 would obtain water from the City of Janesville Water Utility as needed for construction. Water 

33 would be required during construction for such uses as dust control and soil compaction 

34 (Table 4–10). Some potable water would also be required to meet the drinking and sanitary 

35 needs of the construction workforce during the projected 18-month construction period. Water 

36 would also be consumed for concrete production and would likely be required for other 

37 miscellaneous uses, such as washing down equipment and work areas. The City of Janesville 

38 plans to construct a new, 16-in. (41-cm) water distribution line along the northern boundary of 

39 the site property. This distribution line would serve the properties in the vicinity of the SHINE 

40 site as well as the proposed facility (SHINE 2013a).

41 SHINE would use water trucks for dust mitigation and suppression during construction, which 

42 would require 10,000 gal (37,850 L) of water per day for the first 3 months of construction 

43 (SHINE 2013a). SHINE estimated total water needs for concrete mixing to be 700,000 gal 

44 (2.65 million L) (SHINE 2013a). The peak demand to meet the personal needs of the 

45 construction workforce (including preoperational testing) is estimated to be 13,530 gpd 

4-21
Environmental Impacts

1 (51,233 Lpd) (SHINE 2013b, 2014). Further, the NRC staff estimates that other miscellaneous 

2 uses would increase total water requirements by about 10 percent. 

3 Table 4–10. Water Requirements for SHINE Facility―Construction

Requirement Quantity (gal)(a) Quantity (L)(a)

Dust Control/Soil Compaction 600,000 2,271,000

Concrete Production 700,000 2,650,000

Potable and Sanitary Uses 4,871,000 18,439,000

Washing and Miscellaneous Uses 487,000 1,843,000

Total Demand(a) 6,658,000 25,203,000

(a) Values are total requirements for the period of construction and assume 20 workdays per month for 12 months, 

except for potable and sanitary uses, which include an additional 6 months of preoperational testing and 

commissioning. Conversions are rounded.

Note: To convert gallons (gal) to liters, multiply by 3.7854. To convert gal to cubic meters (m3), divide by 264.2.

Source: Based on values derived or scaled from SHINE 2013b, 2014

4 During the course of construction and before the establishment of permanent utility connections 

5 with the newly constructed facility, the NRC staff expects that water would be trucked to the 

6 point of use at the work site or conveyed through a nearby, temporary water tap from the City of 

7 Janesville Water Utility. While water would be consumed to produce concrete, no onsite batch 

8 plant is proposed. Instead, ready-mix concrete would be delivered to the proposed site, 

9 supplied by commercial vendors. These commercial suppliers would likely be in Rock County, 

10 but SHINE could use water from purveyors other than the City of Janesville Water Utility. 

11 Moreover, in accordance with common construction practices, the NRC staff expects that 

12 portable restroom facilities, serviced by a commercial vendor, would also be used during site 

13 construction. This measure would reduce the quantity of projected water required for potable 

14 and sanitary uses by the construction workforce.

15 The total estimated water demand for construction is approximately 6.66 million gal 

16 (25.2 million L), or a daily demand during the 18-month construction period averaging about 

0.012 mgd (45 m3 17 /day) (Table 4–10). The NRC staff considers these values to be conservative 

18 (i.e., bounding) with respect to the total water needs required for construction, based on the 

19 above assumptions. As described in Section 3.4.2, groundwater is the source of water supply 

20 for the City of Janesville Water Utility. The utility has a system capacity of approximately 

32 mgd (121,100 m3

/day), with current demand of approximately 10 mgd (37,900 m3 21 /day) (City 

22 of Janesville 2013). Even if all required construction water is supplied by the City of Janesville 

23 Water Utility, the estimated demand would be a very small percentage (less than 1 percent) of 

24 both the utility system’s total capacity and average, available excess capacity. 

25 Given that SHINE would not use groundwater from onsite sources during construction and that 

26 the estimated water demand would be less than 1 percent of the City of Janesville Water Utility 

27 system’s total capacity and average available excess capacity, the NRC staff concludes that the 

28 impacts on groundwater hydrology, quality, and use from construction of the proposed SHINE 

29 facility would be SMALL. 

30 4.4.2.2 Operations

31 The NRC staff expects that routine facility operation would not have any impact on local 

32 groundwater hydrology because of the depth of groundwater and provisions for proper design 

33 and construction of the facility site’s stormwater management and drainage system. SHINE has 

34 stated that all equipment and material storage areas would comply with appropriate regulations 

4-22
Environmental Impacts

1 requiring secondary containment of stored liquids and materials to prevent their release where 

2 such materials could contaminate site soils or stormwater runoff, or infiltrate to contaminate 

3 groundwater (SHINE 2013a). As described in Section 4.4.1.1, SHINE would develop and 

4 implement an SPCC Plan for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. Furthermore, 

5 SHINE would not use onsite groundwater nor discharge liquid effluents to the subsurface 

6 (SHINE 2013a). Because of the nature of the facility, with all process and material storage 

7 areas located indoors, the risk to groundwater and other environmental media is low. 

8 Water would be required for potable and sanitary uses, fire protection, heating and cooling 

9 system makeup, and makeup for the radioisotope production process. This water would be 

10 supplied by the City of Janesville Water Utility (SHINE 2013a). These water needs are 

11 summarized in Table 4–11.

12 Table 4–11. Water Requirements for SHINE Facility―Operations

Requirement Quantity (gpd)(a) Quantity (Lpd)(a)

Potable and Sanitary 3,270 12,380

Facility Heating Water System 2,580 9,770

Radioisotope Production Process 223(b) 844(b)

Total Daily Demand 6,073 23,005

(a) Values are average daily demand, assuming 5.5 days of water usage per week. Conversions are rounded.

(b) Consumptive water use is water that is not returned to a water resource system after it is used.

Note: To convert gallons per day (gpd) to liters per day (Lpd), multiply by 3.7854. To convert gal to cubic meters 

(m3), divide by 264.2.

Source: SHINE 2013a, 2013b

13 Potable water demand is 3,270 gpd (12,380 Lpd), and blowdown and makeup to the facility 

14 heating water system is 2,580 gpd (9,770 Lpd). Water initially would be needed to provide 

15 makeup supply to the chilled water and facility heating water system, as well as for fire 

16 protection. The largest automatic fire suppression system demand in the event of a fire is 

17 390 gpm (1,476 Lpm). The automatic fire suppression demand would be supplied by a fire 

18 water tank (SHINE 2013a).

19 The majority of the makeup water to the radioisotope production process would pass through a 

20 demineralizer system to control the water’s chemistry. As reflected in Table 4–11, water use in 

21 the radioisotope production process is consumptive in nature, and water would either be lost to 

22 the atmosphere as vapor or incorporated into packaged waste streams from the process 

23 (SHINE 2013b).

Total water use is projected to be 6,073 gpd (22,990 Lpd), or 0.006 mgd (23 m3 24 /day) during 

25 operations. This water requirement is a very small percentage (less than 0.03 percent) of the 

26 available capacity of the City of Janesville Water Utility (see Section 4.4.2.1) and could easily be 

27 supplied by the extension of the proposed 16-in. (41-cm) water distribution line to the facility 

28 site.

29 Given that SHINE would not use groundwater from onsite sources, and the estimated water 

30 demand would be a very small percent (less than 0.03 percent) of the City of Janesville Water 

31 Utility’s total capacity, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater hydrology, 

32 quality, and use from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 

4-23
Environmental Impacts

1 4.4.2.3 Decommissioning

2 The potential decommissioning impacts on and associated mitigation measures for groundwater 

3 are similar to those described in Section 4.4.1.3 for surface water. In summary, demolition and 

4 site-restoration activities would be conducted in accordance with the Wisconsin General Permit 

5 and with appropriate BMPs. Further, waste handling and pollution prevention practices and spill 

6 prevention and response procedures would be observed during decommissioning, so that no 

7 materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater, where they could 

8 contaminate underlying groundwater. SHINE would be required to conduct necessary surveys 

9 of the soils and subsurface to comply with the NRC’s radiological criteria for license termination 

10 in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The NRC staff also expects that soils and other media would be 

11 sampled to ensure that no nonradiological contamination is present. Given the depth to the 

12 water table, the NRC staff concludes that any spills of fuels or other petroleum products during 

13 facility demolition, or inadvertent release of contaminated materials, would be contained and 

14 remediated before any such material could reach the groundwater.

15 Small quantities of water may be required for dust control and soil compaction in association 

16 with site-restoration activities. As the source of water supply in Rock County is groundwater, it 

17 would be expected that water would be trucked to the point of use or conveyed from a 

18 temporary connection from the onsite water line as decommissioning activities progress. The 

19 volume of water required would likely to be less than that required during facility construction. 

20 No onsite groundwater would be used to support decommissioning (SHINE 2013a). The NRC

21 staff anticipates that portable restroom facilities, serviced by a commercial vendor, would be 

22 used during site decommissioning to meet the needs of decommissioning personnel. Thus, 

23 there would be no onsite discharge of sanitary waste streams. 

24 Therefore, based on the stated considerations, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on 

25 groundwater resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL.

26 4.5 Ecological Resources

27 4.5.1 Construction

28 As described in Section 4.1, construction of the proposed SHINE facility would permanently 

29 convert 25.67 ac (10.39 ha) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed or open 

30 areas into an industrial area (Table 4–1) (SHINE 2013a). In addition, 15.16 ac. (6.14 ha) of 

31 agricultural land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking 

32 area, construction material staging or laydown area, or construction laydown areas to install a 

33 water and sewer line (SHINE 2013a). Once construction activities are complete, SHINE would 

34 restore the areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie (SHINE 2013a). 

35 Directly affected vegetation would be limited to cultivated crops and weedy species, both of 

36 which are abundant within the region and provide relatively low-quality habitat for birds and 

37 wildlife in comparison to forests, grasslands, and wetland habitats. In addition to a loss of 

38 habitat, noise from construction activities could disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such 

39 disturbances and loss of habitat, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and 

40 find adequate, similar habitat (e.g., agricultural fields) within the vicinity.

41 During construction, bird collisions with construction equipment and the new facility could result 

42 in increased mortality caused by the presence of tall structures and artificial night lighting. 

43 SHINE would use tall cranes to build the facility, which, when built, would be at a height of 58 ft 

44 (18 m) (SHINE 2013a). In addition, the exhaust vent would be at a maximum height of 66 ft 

45 (20 m) (SHINE 2013a). Migratory songbirds would be most likely to collide with artificially 

46 lighted structures or cranes because of their propensity to migrate at night, their low flight 

4-24
Environmental Impacts

1 altitudes, and their tendency to be trapped and disoriented by artificial light (Ogden 1996; 

2 NRC 2013a). SHINE (2013a) stated that, during construction at night, BMPs, such as light 

3 source shielding and appropriate directional lighting, would be used to mitigate impacts 

4 associated with artificial nighttime illumination. The NRC staff reviewed bird collisions with plant 

5 structures at nuclear power plants and determined that collision rates were negligible sources of 

6 bird mortality with plants that have cooling towers 100 ft (30 m) in height. The SHINE facility 

7 and construction equipment would be similar or smaller in size and height than an operating 

8 nuclear power plant; therefore, the impacts from bird collisions at the SHINE site would be 

9 bounded by the conclusions the NRC staff reached in its review of bird collisions at operating 

10 nuclear power plants.

11 Construction of the SHINE facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts to aquatic 

12 resources, such as habitat loss, because no aquatic resources occur on site. As described in 

13 Section 3.4, water drains off the proposed site to the south and west towards the Rock River

14 and its tributaries. Runoff from the proposed site could affect offsite aquatic resources by 

15 increasing turbidity or introducing various chemicals or other pollutants. However, impacts to 

16 the Rock River and its tributaries are expected to be minimal because of the distance to the 

17 nearest tributary and Rock River, appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs would be 

18 employed to minimize the transport of suspended sediment and other pollutants, and SHINE 

19 would be required to develop a site-specific program to prevent pollution from stormwater runoff

20 (see Section 4.3).

21 Given that construction would not permanently or temporarily affect any high-quality habitats, 

22 such as grasslands, forests, or wetlands; permanently and temporarily affected habitats 

23 (agricultural fields) are abundant within the region; mortality from bird collisions is expected to 

24 be negligible; and no aquatic features or Federally or State-listed species occur on the SHINE

25 site, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to ecological resources during construction would be 

26 SMALL.

27 4.5.2 Operations

28 During operations, impacts to ecological resources could result from bird collisions, herbicide 

29 applications for landscape maintenance activities, elevated noise levels, and increased turbidity 

30 or introduction of pollutants from site runoff. As described above, mortality from bird collisions is 

31 expected to be negligible, given that the tallest structure would be a stack no higher than 66 ft 

32 (20 m). Disturbance from daily activities, herbicide applications, or elevated noise levels are 

33 likely to have minimal impacts on wildlife and plant species, given that the species identified at 

34 the proposed site are generally tolerant of human disturbances because the land has been 

35 actively farmed for the past several decades. In response to any disturbances, birds and wildlife 

36 could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat (agricultural fields) 

37 within the vicinity. In addition, SHINE would apply herbicides according to an integrated pest 

38 management plan, which would include applicable BMPs or related permit requirements.

39 Operation of the SHINE facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts to aquatic 

40 resources, because no aquatic resources occur on site and wastewater would be conveyed to 

41 the City of Janesville WTP through a 10-in. (25-cm) sanitary sewer line extended to the 

42 proposed site (SHINE 2013a). Indirect impacts during operations could include runoff that may 

43 contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or herbicides. However, as 

44 described in Section 4.3, impacts to aquatic resources are expected to be minimal because of 

45 the distance to the nearest tributary and the Rock River, a vegetated onsite detention swale 

46 would minimize stormwater runoff, and SHINE would be required to develop a site-specific 

47 program to prevent pollution from stormwater runoff.

4-25
Environmental Impacts

1 Given that mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, habitat disturbances during 

2 operations would be minimal, any disturbed wildlife could find similar habitat in the vicinity, and 

3 no aquatic features or Federally or State-listed species occur on the proposed site, the NRC

4 staff concludes that impacts to ecological resources during operations would be SMALL.

5 4.5.3 Decommissioning

6 Decommissioning activities would have impacts that are similar to the impacts that would occur 

7 during construction of the proposed facility. For example, SHINE would use construction 

8 equipment to dismantle large buildings, which could result in disturbances to wildlife and birds 

9 and potential runoff to nearby waterbodies. In addition, some land on the proposed site could 

10 be used as staging areas for the equipment and to conduct certain dismantling activities. As 

11 described above, if noise or other activities disturb birds or wildlife, similar habitat is available in 

12 nearby offsite areas. No surface water would be used during decommissioning and impacts 

13 from runoff would be minimal, based on the distance to the nearest tributary and the Rock River, 

14 and because BMPs would be required in SHINE’s stormwater permit. Therefore, impacts during 

15 decommissioning are expected to be SMALL.

16 4.5.4 Federally Protected Species

17 Section 3.5 describes the special status species and habitats that have the potential to be

18 affected by the proposed action. The discussion of species and habitats protected under the 

19 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., herein referred to as ESA), includes 

20 a description of the action area as defined by the ESA section 7 regulations at 50 CFR 402.02. 

21 The action area encompasses all areas that would be directly or indirectly affected by the 

22 proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility.

23 Appendix D contains information on the NRC staff’s section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish 

24 and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the proposed action. The NRC did not consult with the National 

25 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as part of the construction permit review because (as 

26 described in Sections 3.5) no species or habitats under NMFS’s jurisdiction occur within the 

27 action area.

28 In Section 3.5, the NRC staff concludes that no Federally listed species are likely to occur in the 

29 action area. The NRC staff also concludes that no candidate species, or proposed or 

30 designated critical habitat occur in the action area. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the 

31 proposed action would have no effect on Federally listed species or habitats under FWS’s 

32 jurisdiction.

33 As discussed in Section 3.5, no species or habitats under NMFS’s jurisdiction occur within the 

34 action area. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on 

35 Federally listed species or habitats under NMFS’s jurisdiction.

36 As discussed in Section 3.5, NMFS has not designated essential fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to 

37 the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended 

38 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; herein referred to as MSA) in the Rock River. Thus, the NRC staff 

39 concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on EFH.

4-26
Environmental Impacts

1 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

2 4.6.1 Historic and Cultural Resources

3 This section provides the NRC’s assessment of the potential effects from the proposed 

4 undertaking on historic and cultural resources under 40 CFR 1508.8. Additionally, the National 

5 Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider 

6 the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and construction, operations, and 

7 decommissioning of the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility is an undertaking that could 

8 potentially affect historic properties. Historic properties are defined as resources eligible for 

9 listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for eligibility are listed in 

10 36 CFR 60.4 and include (1) association with significant events in history, (2) association with 

11 the lives of persons significant in the past, (3) embodiment of distinctive characteristics of type, 

12 period, or construction, and (4) sites or places that have yielded, or are likely to yield, important 

13 information. Regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 

14 36 CFR Part 800 outline the historic preservation review process (Section 106 of the NHPA).

15 4.6.2 Proposed Action

16 In accordance with the provisions of the NHPA, the NRC is required to make a reasonable effort 

17 to identify historic properties included in, or eligible for, inclusion in the NRHP in the Area of 

18 Potential Effect (APE). The APE for this undertaking is the 91-ac (37-ha) proposed site and its 

19 immediate environs that may be affected by construction-, operation-, and 

20 decommissioning-related land-disturbing activities. The APE may extend beyond the immediate 

21 environs in those instances where construction and postconstruction land-disturbing operations 

22 may potentially have an effect on known or proposed historic sites. This determination is made 

23 irrespective of ownership or control of the lands of interest.

24 If historic properties are present within the APE, the NRC is required to contact the State 

25 Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), assess the potential impact, and resolve any possible 

26 adverse effects of the undertaking on historic properties. In addition, the NRC is required to 

27 notify the SHPO if historic properties would not be affected by the undertaking or if no historic 

28 properties are present. The SHPO is part of the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) in the 

29 State of Wisconsin.

30 4.6.3 Consultation

31 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), on July 1, 2013, the NRC initiated consultations on the 

32 proposed action by writing to the ACHP and WHS (NRC 2013b, 2013c). On July 31, 2013, the 

33 NRC staff visited the WHS in Madison, Wisconsin, to perform a cultural resource review of the 

34 proposed site. The NRC staff queried the Archaeological Sites Inventory and Architectural 

35 History Inventory, Burial Sites Inventory, and the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the 

36 WHS. No known historic or cultural resources or historic properties were found at the proposed 

37 project site (NRC 2013d). The closest historic property to the proposed site is the John and 

38 Martha Hugunin House, located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) to the northeast.

39 The NRC staff also initiated consultation with the following 13 Federally recognized tribes on 

40 July 1, 2013 (see Appendix D for a copy of these letters) (NRC 2013e):

41 • Citizen Potawatomi Nation, 

42 • Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota,

43 • Forest County Potawatomi Community,

4-27
Environmental Impacts

1 • Hannahville Indian Community,

2 • Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin,

3 • Lower Sioux Indian Community,

4 • Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation,

5 • Prairie Island Indian Community,

6 • Santee Sioux Nation,

7 • Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, 

8 • Spirit Lake Tribe,

9 • Upper Sioux Community, and

10 • Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.

11 In its letters, the NRC provided information about the proposed action, defined the APE, and 

12 indicated that the NHPA review would be integrated with the NEPA process, according to 

13 36 CFR 800.8. The NRC staff invited participation in the identification and possible decisions 

14 concerning any historic properties and also invited participation in the scoping process.

15 The NRC staff received scoping comments from one tribe, the Forest County Potawatomi, in 

16 July 2013. The Tribe indicated that the proposed SHINE project occurs within Potawatomi 

17 ancestral land and expressed concern for any impacts to historic and cultural properties within 

18 the APE (Cook 2013). Attempts to contact representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi to 

19 discuss the undertaking are ongoing. The last attempt to contact the Forest County Potawatomi 

20 was in March 2014.

21 4.6.4 Impact Analysis

22 4.6.4.1 Construction

23 Of the 91 ac (37 ha) comprising the APE, construction would permanently convert 

24 approximately 26 ac (10 ha) of agricultural land and open space to industrial facilities and 

25 temporarily would disturb 15 ac (6 ha) of agricultural fields, as described in Section 4.1.1. 

26 SHINE intends to make connections to the main sewage, commercial natural gas, underground 

27 electrical distribution, and municipal water lines but would not construct additional pipelines for 

28 the facility (SHINE 2013b). 

29 Because there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and 

30 cultural resources located within the APE, impacts to these resources are not likely during 

31 construction. Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would have little or no visual or 

32 aesthetic impact because potential visual impacts during construction would be temporary. The 

33 proposed SHINE facility is a low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is approximately 1 mi 

34 (1.6 km) away and is surrounded by other residential and commercial properties. However, 

35 previously unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during 

36 land-disturbing activities associated with construction. In anticipation of this possibility, SHINE 

37 has developed a sitewide cultural resource management plan (CRMP) to manage and protect 

38 as-yet unidentified cultural resources. The WHS has reviewed and concurred on the CRMP 

39 (SHINE 2013b). According to the CRMP, if cultural resources or materials are discovered 

40 during construction; the activity would be immediately halted; the area would be protected; the 

41 SHINE Environment, Health, and Safety (ES&H) Manager would be notified; and consultation 

42 with the WHS might be initiated. Consultation may require additional investigation and 

4-28
Environmental Impacts

1 preservation plans, which would be developed by the SHINE ES&H Manager. All investigation 

2 and preservation plans would be approved by SHINE management and in consultation with the

3 WHS. Work that uncovered potential cultural resources would not recommence without SHINE 

4 management approval. If actual or suspected human remains are unearthed during 

5 construction, construction activities would halt immediately, and the area would be protected. 

6 The procedures for uncatalogued burial sites found in Wisconsin Statute 157.70 would be 

7 followed, and local law enforcement would be contacted (SHINE 2013b). Additionally, SHINE 

8 would educate its employees and contractors engaged in the construction of the proposed site 

9 in a capacity that disturbs the ground or that could result in the discovery of cultural resources 

10 on requirements of the CRMP. Actions for the special case of the discovery of human remains 

11 would be discussed in the training CRMP.

12 Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on 

13 the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE’s CRMP procedures, and (4) cultural 

14 resource assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff, construction of the SHINE 

15 facility would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the 

16 possibility of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources caused by 

17 land disturbance during construction, the overall impact would be SMALL.

18 4.6.4.2 Operations

19 Because there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and 

20 cultural resources located within the proposed SHINE facility site, impacts to these resources 

21 are not likely during operations. Operation of the proposed SHINE facility would have little or no 

22 visual or aesthetic impact on historic properties in its immediate vicinity because it is a 

23 low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is over 1 mi (1.6 km) away and is surrounded by 

24 other residential and commercial properties. However, normal maintenance and operation of 

25 the proposed facility could result in the inadvertent discovery of previously undiscovered cultural 

26 resources. SHINE would continue to follow the procedures specified in its CRMP to manage 

27 and protect any such cultural resources for the entire period of facility operation (SHINE 2013b). 

28 Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on 

29 the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE’s commitment to follow CRMP 

30 procedures throughout the period of facility operation, and (4) cultural resource assessment and 

31 consultations performed by the NRC staff, operation of the proposed SHINE facility would have 

32 no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the possibility of an 

33 inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources occurring as a result of 

34 normal maintenance and operational activities, the overall impact would be SMALL.

35 4.6.4.3 Decommissioning

36 Because there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and 

37 cultural resources located within the proposed SHINE facility site, impacts to these resources 

38 would not be expected during decommissioning. However, similar to construction, previously 

39 unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-moving activities 

40 associated with decommissioning. Activities during decommissioning would involve the use of 

41 heavy equipment and land-disturbing activities to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and 

42 parking facilities within the APE. Land use for the APE after decommissioning is undetermined 

43 at this time, but it may be returned to agricultural lands or open space (SHINE 2013a). SHINE 

44 would continue to follow the procedures specified in its CRMP to manage and protect previously 

45 unidentified cultural resources for the entire period of facility decommissioning (SHINE 2013b). 

46 Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on 

47 the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE’s commitment to follow CRMP 

4-29
Environmental Impacts

1 procedures throughout the period of facility decommissioning, and (4) cultural resource 

2 assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff, decommissioning of the proposed 

3 SHINE facility would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given 

4 the possibility of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources caused by 

5 land disturbance during decommissioning, the overall impact would be SMALL.

6 4.7 Socioeconomic Impacts

7 The SHINE medical radioisotope production facility and the people and communities 

8 surrounding it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The facility needs 

9 people, goods, and services from the communities to operate, and the communities, in turn, 

10 provide the people, goods, and services to run the facility. Facility employees residing in the 

11 community receive income from the plant in the form of wages, salaries, and benefits. 

12 Employees and their families, in turn, spend this income on goods and services within the 

13 community, thereby creating additional opportunities for employment and income. In addition, 

14 people and businesses in the community receive income for the goods and services sold to the 

15 facility. Payments for these goods and services create additional employment and income 

16 opportunities in the community. The measure of a community’s ability to support the operational 

17 demands of a facility that stores, generates, or uses nuclear materials depends on its ability to 

18 respond to changing socioeconomic conditions.

19 The analysis presented in this section considers four socioeconomic impact areas:

20 (1) employment;

21 (2) housing, recreation, and tourism; 

22 (3) tax revenue; and

23 (4) community services and education.

24 For the purposes of this analysis, the ROI is Rock County, Wisconsin, and the City of Janesville.

25 4.7.1 Construction

26 4.7.1.1 Employment 

27 An estimated 451 workers would be needed to construct the proposed SHINE facility during 

28 peak construction (SHINE 2014). Table 4–12 compares construction worker occupations with 

29 available labor in the ROI by occupation, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), 

30 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in May 2012. Based on this information, a number of 

31 construction workers (56 percent) currently reside within the ROI with shortages in most labor 

32 categories. The remaining labor needed from outside the ROI would be expected to commute 

33 from adjacent counties and communities. In addition, Blackhawk Technical College, located in 

34 the City of Janesville, offers several technical diplomas to students, which could provide an 

35 additional labor resource. However, the total number of jobs generated during construction 

36 would represent less than 2 percent of the available labor force reported for both the City of 

37 Janesville and Rock County in 2012 (Table 3–13); therefore, employment impacts would be 

38 SMALL.

39 4.7.1.2 Housing, Recreation, and Tourism

40 SHINE estimates 451 workers would be needed during peak construction (SHINE 2014). The 

41 percentage of construction workers needed represents less than 1 percent of Rock County’s 

42 total population of approximately 160,000 (USCB 2010). As discussed in Section 4.7.1.1, the 

43 majority of construction workers already reside within the ROI. Any additional construction 

4-30
Environmental Impacts

1 workers likely would commute from other nearby counties and would not likely relocate to the 

2 ROI. This would result in little, if any, increased demand for temporary housing, recreation, and 

3 tourism. Any construction workers from outside of the immediate commuting area relocating to 

4 the ROI would find available housing in the City of Janesville and Rock County. Because few, if 

5 any, construction workers would relocate to the ROI, housing, recreation, and tourism impacts 

6 would be SMALL.

7 4.7.1.3 Tax Revenues

8 The estimated total construction costs expected to be spent in the local community would be 

9 approximately $20 to $30 million for labor, electrical equipment, cabling, and concrete, spread 

10 over the construction period (SHINE 2013b). As most of the plant equipment is highly 

11 specialized, very little of it would be purchased and taxed locally (SHINE 2013a, 2013b). 

12 SHINE intends to enter into a TIF agreement with the City of Janesville during the first 10 years 

13 of the proposed project, covering the entirety of the construction period. The TIF agreement 

14 would allow SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes to the City of Janesville. SHINE’s 

15 estimated payments would total $600,000 per year and would be used to offset the 

16 infrastructure expenses for the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2013a). SHINE would also pay 

17 property taxes estimated to be $35,000 per year, based on the assessed property before 

18 improvements during this 10-year period (SHINE 2013a). As the proposed SHINE facility would 

19 be located in the Janesville School District, schools within the district would receive additional 

20 property tax revenue. In addition, there would be an increase in sales tax revenues within the 

21 ROI, generated when nonspecialized supplies would be purchased during construction or from

22 workers paying for commercial services within the ROI. However, the total amount of taxes 

23 collected within the ROI during the period of construction would be relatively small in 

24 comparison to the established tax base of the City of Janesville and Rock County, even if the 

25 entire $635,000 were applied to one taxing jurisdiction; in 2012, the City of Janesville’s tax 

26 revenue was approximately $35.4 million, whereas Rock County’s was $71.5 million 

27 (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the tax revenue impacts during construction would be SMALL.

28 Table 4–12. Comparison of SHINE Work Force Estimates by Occupation with 

29 Employment by Occupation in ROI

Occupation

SHINE Peak 

Workers(a)

Available Labor 

Force in ROI(b)

Additional Labor 

Needed from 

Outside ROI(c)

Construction

Boilermaker 26 5 21

Carpenter 48 72 0

Electrician 59 38 21

Ironworker 54 10 44

Laborer(d) 75 68 7

Equipment Operator/Eng.(e) 28 26 2

Plumber/Pipefitter(f) 75 14 61

Sheet Metal Worker 32 16 16

Construction Supervisor(g) 22 32 0

Other 32 6 26

Total 451 287 198

Operation

Operation Support(h) 40 34 6

Productions/Operations 37 11 26

Tech Support(i) 40 259 0

4-31
Environmental Impacts

Occupation

SHINE Peak 

Workers(a)

Available Labor 

Force in ROI(b)

Additional Labor 

Needed from 

Outside ROI(c)

Other 33 3 30

Total 150 307 62

Decommissioning

Carpenter 20 72 0

Ironworker 20 4 16

Laborer(d) 100 68 32

Equipment Operator/Eng.(e) 20 20 0

Plumber/Pipefitter(f) 30 14 16

Radiation Technicians 30 6 24

Other 41 0 41

Total 261 184 129

(a) Peak month estimated need of labor categories for which need is greater than or equal to 20.

(b) Estimated available construction and decommissioning labor force based on 20 percent of BLS-estimated work 

force in Rock County. Available operational labor force based on 10 percent of BLS-estimated labor force.

(c) Additional labor determined by subtracting available labor estimates from SHINE peak worker estimates.

(d) Laborer is listed as a Construction Laborer.

(e) Equipment Operator/Eng. is listed as Operating Engineers and Other Construction Equipment Operators.

(f) Plumber/Pipefitter is listed as Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters.

(g) Construction Supervisor is listed as First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers.

(h) Operation Support is listed as First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers.

(i) Tech Support is listed as Industrial Machinery Mechanics.

Source: SHINE 2013a, 2014; BLS 2012

1 4.7.1.4 Community Services and Education

2 There would be little or no increase in population in the ROI during construction because most 

3 of the construction workers already reside in the ROI. These workers would continue to use 

4 existing community services and educational facilities. These community services should also 

5 be able to handle any temporary increases in demand for services from the small number of 

6 additional workers during construction. Therefore, the impact of this increased demand on 

7 community services and education during construction would be SMALL.

8 4.7.1.5 Summary of Construction Impacts

9 The availability of construction workers and housing within the ROI and the short duration of 

10 construction (18 months) would minimize any socioeconomic impacts within the ROI. The 

11 creation of 451 jobs would help maintain construction employment and generate property and 

12 sales tax revenue, but any changes would be minimal. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic 

13 impact from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

14 4.7.2 Operations

15 4.7.2.1 Employment

16 Approximately 150 jobs would be added to the local economy during SHINE facility operations 

17 (SHINE 2013a, 2014). In Table 4–12, SHINE facility operations worker occupations were 

18 compared with available labor in the ROI by occupation, as reported by the BLS in May 2012. 

19 Based on this information, some specialized workers would be recruited from outside the ROI. 

4-32
Environmental Impacts

1 The total number of jobs generated during SHINE facility operation represents less than 

2 1 percent of the available labor force in Janesville and Rock County in 2012 (Table 3–13), 

3 therefore, employment impacts would be SMALL.

4 4.7.2.2 Housing, Recreation, and Tourism

5 SHINE estimates that 150 workers would be needed during operations (SHINE 2013a). The 

6 percentage of operation workers needed represents less than 1 percent of Rock County’s total 

7 population of approximately 160,000 in 2010 (USCB 2010). As shown in Table 4–12, Janesville 

8 has occupational labor available to perform most of the operational tasks. Additionally, 

9 Blackhawk Technical College, located in Janesville, offers several technical diplomas to 

10 students who could provide additional labor. However, some specialized workers would likely 

11 relocate to the ROI to support SHINE facility operations. Because of the long-term nature of 

12 SHINE facility operations, workers relocating to the ROI would likely purchase or rent 

13 permanent housing. Any operations workers moving to the ROI would find available housing in 

14 Janesville and Rock County. Because few, if any, operations workers would relocate to the 

15 ROI, housing, recreation, and tourism impacts would be SMALL.

16 4.7.2.3 Tax Revenues

17 As discussed in Section 4.7.1.3, SHINE intends to enter into a TIF agreement with Janesville, 

18 allowing SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes during the first 10 years of the project. The 

19 payments are estimated to total $600,000 per year and would be used to offset the 

20 infrastructure expenses for the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE also would pay property taxes 

21 estimated to be $35,000 per year based on the assessed property before improvements during 

22 this 10-year period. Additionally, when the 10-year TIF agreement with Janesville expires, 

23 SHINE expects to pay annual property taxes of approximately $660,000 during the remaining 

24 period of operation of the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2013a). As the proposed SHINE 

25 facility would be located in the Janesville School District, schools within the district would 

26 receive additional property tax revenue. In addition, there would be an increase in sales tax and 

27 property tax revenues within the ROI, generated by SHINE facility operations workers in the 

28 ROI. However, the total amount of taxes collected within the ROI during operations would be 

29 relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Janesville and Rock County, even if 

30 the entire $660,000 tax payment were applied to one taxing jurisdiction; in 2012, Janesville’s tax 

31 revenue was approximately $35.4 million, whereas Rock County’s was $71.5 million 

32 (WDOR 2014). Therefore, tax revenue impacts during operations would be SMALL.

33 4.7.2.4 Community Services and Education

34 As discussed in Section 4.7.2.2, there would be little or no increase in population during SHINE

35 facility operations because most of the operations workers would already reside within the ROI. 

36 These workers would continue to use existing community services and educational facilities. 

37 These community services should be able to handle any increase in demand for services from 

38 the small number of new operations workers and their families. Therefore, the impact of this 

39 increased demand on community services and education during SHINE facility operations would 

40 be SMALL.

41 4.7.2.5 Summary of Operation Impacts

42 The availability of operations workers and housing within the ROI and the small number of 

43 specialty workers relocating from outside of the ROI, would minimize any socioeconomic 

44 impacts. The creation of 150 jobs would help maintain existing employment and generate 

45 property and sales tax revenue, but any changes would be minimal. Therefore, the overall 

46 socioeconomic impact from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

4-33
Environmental Impacts

1 4.7.3 Decommissioning

2 4.7.3.1 Employment

3 An estimated 261 workers would be needed to decommission the SHINE facility during peak 

4 activity (SHINE 2013a). In Table 4–12, decommissioning worker occupations were compared 

5 with Janesville employment by occupation, as reported by the BLS in May 2012. Based on this 

6 information, a number of workers currently reside within the ROI. In addition, some operations 

7 workers may be kept on to support decommissioning. Some specialized workers may have to 

8 be recruited from outside the ROI. The total number of jobs generated during decommissioning 

9 would represent less than 1 percent of the available labor force reported for both Janesville and 

10 Rock County in 2012 (Table 3–13); therefore, employment impacts would be SMALL. 

11 4.7.3.2 Housing, Recreation, and Tourism

12 SHINE estimated that decommissioning would require a maximum of 261 workers

13 (SHINE 2013a). However, as previously discussed, some operations workers may be kept on 

14 to support decommissioning, thereby reducing the need for new hires. As demonstrated in 

15 Table 4–12, Janesville and Rock County have workers available to support decommissioning. 

16 In addition, Blackhawk Technical College, located in Janesville, offers several technical 

17 diplomas to students who would provide additional labor, if needed, and some specialized labor 

18 may be needed from outside the ROI. Any additional decommissioning workers would likely 

19 commute from other nearby counties and would not likely relocate to the ROI. This factor would 

20 result in little, if any, increased demand for temporary housing, recreation, and tourism. Any 

21 decommissioning workers from outside the immediate commuting area relocating to the ROI 

22 would find available housing in Janesville and Rock County. Because few, if any, 

23 decommissioning workers would relocate to the ROI, housing, recreation, and tourism impacts 

24 would be SMALL.

25 4.7.3.3 Tax Revenues

26 SHINE would continue to pay property taxes during decommissioning. The assessed property 

27 taxes that would be collected after the completion of the proposed SHINE facility would be 

28 based on the property tax rates at the time. Revenue loss would directly affect Rock County 

29 and other local taxing districts and communities closest to, and most reliant on, the facility’s tax 

30 revenue. However, the loss in tax revenue should be small in comparison to the established tax 

31 base of Janesville and Rock County. Therefore, tax revenue impacts during decommissioning 

32 would be SMALL.

33 4.7.3.4 Community Services and Education

34 Any temporary increase in population during decommissioning would be small relative to the 

35 projected population of Janesville and Rock County. Community services currently available in 

36 Janesville and Rock County should be able to handle any temporary increases in demand for 

37 services during decommissioning. Therefore, the impact of this potential increased demand on 

38 community services and education during decommissioning would be SMALL.

39 4.7.3.5 Summary of Decommissioning Impacts

40 The availability of decommissioning workers and housing within the ROI and the short duration 

41 of decommissioning (6 months) would minimize any socioeconomic impacts within the ROI. 

42 Decommissioning activities would temporarily stimulate the local economy with purchasing 

43 activity and tax contributions, and SHINE would continue to pay property taxes during 

44 decommissioning. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact from decommissioning the 

45 proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

4-34
Environmental Impacts

1 4.8 Human Health

2 This section provides the NRC’s assessment of the potential radiological and nonradiological 

3 effects from the proposed SHINE facility. Radioactive and nonradioactive materials would 

4 routinely be used at the proposed SHINE facility. The NRC and State of Wisconsin regulations 

5 would control the use and discharge of these materials to protect facility workers and members 

6 of the public.

7 Radiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility would include offsite doses to 

8 members of the public and onsite doses to facility workers. The NRC has the authority to issue, 

9 inspect, and enforce radiation protection standards that provide an adequate level of protection 

10 for workers, members of the public, and the environment. The NRC has multiple layers of 

11 radiation safety standards to ensure that radioactive material is adequately controlled. The 

12 NRC’s radiation safety requirements appear in 10 CFR Part 20. Specifically, 

13 10 CFR 20.1301(a) limits the annual dose to members of the public from a licensed facility, such 

14 as that proposed by SHINE, to 100 millirem (mrem) (0.1 millisievert (mSv)). In addition, 

15 10 CFR 20.1101(d) imposes a constraint of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) on air emissions to ensure that 

16 the dose to members of the public is as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).

17 Nonradiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility to workers and members of the 

18 public would be regulated by the State of Wisconsin in accordance with the Wisconsin 

19 Administrative Code (SHINE 2013b).

20 4.8.1 Construction

21 4.8.1.1 Radiological

22 During construction and pre-operational testing of the facility and equipment commissioning, 

23 SHINE would have radioactive material onsite (SHINE 2015a). The possession and use of the 

24 radioactive material would require SHINE to obtain an NRC license (e.g., 10 CFR Part 30) 

25 before receiving the radioactive material. To obtain a license, the NRC staff would conduct a 

26 thorough independent review of SHINE’s application for the radioactive material to ensure the 

27 material is used in accordance with NRC regulations and there is adequate protection of the 

28 workers and the public. The radioactive material brought onsite would not be used for any 

29 radioisotope production-related activities. SHINE does not expect any radioactive waste to be 

30 generated during construction or pre-operational testing of the facility (SHINE 2015a). Access 

31 controls for the construction site would ensure that only authorized personnel would be at the 

32 site (SHINE 2013a). Assuming the NRC staff determines SHINE has adequate controls in place 

33 to ensure that the dose to workers and the public is within the dose limits specified in 

34 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to workers and the public would be 

35 SMALL.

36 4.8.1.2 Nonradiological

37 Members of the public would not have access to the construction site. As discussed in 

38 Section 4.2 of this document, the NRC expects air pollutants from worker vehicles and 

39 fossil-fueled equipment (e.g., excavation and earth-moving equipment and electric generators), 

40 but the impact to the public would be SMALL because the effects would not be noticeable.

41 Construction workers would encounter potential hazards typical of any industrial construction 

42 site. As discussed in Section 3.8, workplace hazards can be grouped into physical hazards 

43 (e.g., slips and trips; falls from height; and those related to transportation, temperature,

44 humidity, and electricity); physical agents (e.g., noise and vibration); petrochemicals; and 

45 psychosocial issues (e.g., work-related stress). SHINE would employ normal construction 

4-35
Environmental Impacts

1 safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

2 regulations, such as safety training, safety equipment, and supervision of the work force to 

3 promote worker safety and reduce the likelihood of worker injury during construction 

4 (SHINE 2013a). However, construction accidents could occur. Over the projected 12-month 

5 period when construction activities would occur, the average number of workers at the site 

6 would be 248 with a peak of 421 (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff notes that this 12-month 

7 period does not include the 6-month preoperational period because preoperational activities 

8 would not including building and other activities that are applicable for construction accidents. 

9 The NRC staff used data from BLS for nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses to calculate the 

10 potential number of reportable cases at the proposed SHINE construction site based on the 

11 average number of workers. The DOL data for 2012 showed that nearly 3.0 million nonfatal 

12 workplace injuries and illnesses were reported by private industry employers, resulting in an 

13 incidence rate of 3.4 cases per 100 equivalent full-time workers (DOL 2013). Conservatively 

14 assuming an average number of 248 workers during the construction period, the NRC staff 

15 estimates that there would be 8.4 recordable cases during the 12 months of construction. With 

16 the use of normal construction safety practices at the proposed SHINE construction site, the 

17 NRC staff concludes that the average number of recordable cases would be consistent with the 

18 DOL data.

19 During construction, SHINE would store nonradioactive chemical sources on site in liquid; 

20 gaseous; and solid forms, including fuels, oils, and solvents necessary for site preparation and 

21 construction. SHINE does not plan to use any products or processes that emit hazardous air 

22 pollutants (SHINE 2013a). Toxic chemicals stored or used at the construction site would be 

23 limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code

24 (SHINE 2013b). 

25 Given that access to the site would be restricted, that SHINE would implement normal 

26 construction safety practices contained in OSHA regulations, and that toxic chemicals stored or 

27 used at the construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the 

28 Wisconsin Administrative Code, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to human health during 

29 construction would be SMALL.

30 4.8.2 Operations

31 4.8.2.1 Radiological

32 As part of normal operation of the proposed SHINE facility, radioactive material (e.g., nuclear 

33 fuel, radioisotopes, and radioactive waste) would be used, produced, handled, stored, released 

34 as gaseous effluents into the environment, and transported off site for use in medical 

35 procedures or as waste products for disposal (SHINE 2013a, 2013b).

36 As discussed in Section 2.7 of this document, radioactive gaseous effluents containing krypton, 

37 xenon, iodine, and tritium would be released into the environment. The NRC staff expects 

38 radioactive gaseous effluents to be the only contributor to a radiation dose to members of the 

39 public because no radioactive liquid effluents would be released (Section 2.7). Radioactive 

40 liquid wastes would be solidified and shipped off site for disposal. SHINE designed the 

41 buildings containing radioactive material with shielding to minimize direct radiation outside the 

42 facility. Given this shielding, SHINE projected negligible direct radiation at the site boundary 

43 (SHINE 2013a, 2013b). 

44 SHINE estimates that the maximum dose to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous 

45 effluents in the offsite environment would be approximately 9.0 mrem (0.9 mSv) (SHINE 2015b). 

46 This dose is well below the annual dose limit of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) 

4-36
Environmental Impacts

1 and is below the ALARA requirements in 10 CFR 20.1101(d) that impose a constraint of 

2 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) on the annual dose from radioactive gaseous effluents.

3 SHINE plans to maintain radiation exposure to facility workers to within the occupational dose

4 limits in 10 CFR 20.1201. As discussed in Section 2.7 of this document, radiation exposure 

5 within the proposed facility would be minimized using shielding, shielded hot cells, shielded 

6 transport containers, access control to radiation areas, ventilation, filters, training, protective 

7 clothing, and administrative controls. In addition, SHINE would operate the proposed facility in 

8 accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements 

9 (SHINE 2013a).

10 As described above, the maximum dose to a member of the public would be within the annual 

11 dose limits of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) in 10 CFR 20.1301 (SHINE 2013a). Further, the NRC staff 

12 is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from operation 

13 of the SHINE facility. This independent evaluation will be documented in the NRC staff’s Safety 

14 Evaluation Report (SER). If the NRC staff determines in its SER that the maximum dose to 

15 workers and the public is within the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that 

16 the impacts from potential radiological exposures would be SMALL. In addition, the design of 

17 the facility incorporates measures to minimize radiation exposure to workers and members of 

18 the public by limiting the release of radioactive gaseous effluents, and that SHINE would 

19 operate the proposed facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin 

20 regulatory requirements.

21 4.8.2.2 Nonradiological

22 The proposed SHINE facility would be designed with engineering controls (e.g., shields, 

23 double-valves, ventilation system, glove boxes, fume hoods, safety switches, and safe-storage 

24 facilities) to minimize the exposure of workers to chemicals (SHINE 2013a, 2013b).

25 SHINE would have a Chemical Hygiene Plan to minimize chemical exposure to its workforce. 

26 The Chemical Hygiene Plan would incorporate mechanisms for maintaining a safe working 

27 environment and would be based on OSHA requirements, industry standards, and the 

28 experience of the managerial staff. General areas within the proposed facility and laboratory 

29 spaces would be kept clean and orderly. SHINE would store hazardous material (e.g., acids, 

30 bases, oxidizers, gases, and pyrophoric metals) in appropriate safety containers and cabinets 

31 (SHINE 2013a).

32 SHINE would designate a Chemical Hygiene Officer, whose main responsibilities would be to 

33 oversee the effective implementation of the Chemical Hygiene Plan. The Chemical Hygiene 

34 Officer would coordinate with the Radiation Safety Officer because some chemicals would be 

35 used in the radiological areas of the proposed facility. Coordination would help ensure the 

36 effectiveness of the overall safety culture at the proposed SHINE facility. In addition to 

37 supervision and oversight of facility operations, SHINE would implement an extensive training 

38 program that would emphasize workplace safety (SHINE 2013a).

39 In addition to supervision and training, the Chemical Hygiene Plan would describe requirements 

40 for protective equipment commensurate with the hazards. These requirements would range 

41 from a description of appropriate clothing for workers (e.g., no shorts or open-toed shoes in the 

42 facility or the laboratory) to protective equipment (e.g., gloves, safety glasses, and laboratory 

43 coats). For more potentially hazardous operations, such as target solution preparation, which 

44 involves the handling of acids, workers would be required to use face shields, aprons, and 

45 heavy nitrile gloves (SHINE 2013a).

46 As discussed in Sections 2.7, 4.2, and 4.4, nonradioactive pollutants may be present in 

47 wastewater and air emissions released into the environment during normal operations. Solid 

4-37
Environmental Impacts

1 nonradioactive wastes would also be generated. After initial use, SHINE expects the majority of 

2 chemicals to be either reused, released into the environment, or shipped off site as waste 

3 (SHINE 2013a).

4 Given that SHINE would manage and minimize worker hazards by complying with OSHA and 

5 State of Wisconsin regulations and by using multiple planned features (e.g., facility design, 

6 Chemical Hygiene Plan, supervision, training, and protective equipment), the NRC staff 

7 concludes that impacts to workers and members of the public during routine facility operations 

8 would be SMALL.

9 4.8.3 Decommissioning

10 4.8.3.1 Radiological

11 The majority of the impacts associated with facility operations would cease with shutdown of the 

12 medical radioisotope production process; however, some impacts would remain unchanged, 

13 whereas others would continue at reduced or altered levels. Ancillary systems that were used 

14 solely to support radioisotope production would cease operations completely; however, because 

15 of residual radioactivity in the systems, impacts from their physical presence could continue as 

16 long as they remain at the facility (SHINE 2013a).

17 Terminating the medical radioisotope production operations would result in the cessation of 

18 actions necessary to maintain the TSV system, neutron generator, and processing vessels in an 

19 operable status. In addition, SHINE expects a reduction in the workforce directly supporting the 

20 radioisotope production operations. Termination of the medical radioisotope production 

21 operations does not automatically mean that immediate decontamination and dismantlement of 

22 the facility would occur.

23 After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and 

24 associated processing equipment would be made inoperable and maintained in a safe condition 

25 (SHINE 2013a). SHINE would store the uranium fuel and other radioactive materials in a safe 

26 condition until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. Facility workers would continue 

27 to receive radiation exposure during work activities relating to the cleanup, movement, storage, 

28 and disposal of radioactive material. The radiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this 

29 document would be used to maintain radiation dose to levels that are ALARA. With the 

30 termination of radioisotope production, radioactive gaseous effluents released into the 

31 environment from operations would effectively stop. However, low levels of residual radioactive 

32 material that remain in the radioactive waste treatment systems may be released as effluents 

33 into the environment during the decommissioning process or sent to a low-level waste disposal 

34 facility.

35 During decommissioning activities, workers and members of the public would continue to be 

36 exposed to negligible or low levels of radioactive material within the facility and from radioactive 

37 gaseous effluents resulting from decommissioning activities involving the dismantlement and 

38 decontamination of equipment and systems and the handling, packaging, and transportation of 

39 radioactive waste to a disposal facility. The NRC’s radiation protection standards and dose

40 limits for workers and members of the public during decommissioning are the same as those for 

41 the operating facility.

42 The NRC would terminate the license if the decommissioning were performed in accordance 

43 with the facility’s approved decommissioning plan and if the termination radiation survey and 

44 associated documentation demonstrated that the facility and site were suitable for release in 

45 accordance with the criteria in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E.

4-38
Environmental Impacts

1 Based on the expected reduced levels of radioactive material in the facility and the radiological 

2 controls expected to be used to ensure compliance with radiation protection standards, the NRC

3 staff concludes that the impacts to workers and members of the public from the 

4 decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility and site would be SMALL.

5 4.8.3.2 Nonradiological

6 Nonradiological health impacts on the public and workers from decommissioning and demolition 

7 activities would be similar to construction activities. Decommissioning and demolition activities 

8 would involve the use of heavy construction and demolition equipment and the transport of new 

9 and waste materials and personnel to and from the site. The public and workers could be 

10 exposed to dust and vehicle exhaust and noise. Workers could also experience occupational 

11 injuries. Nonradiological hazards would also be associated with emissions, discharges, and 

12 waste from processes within the facility and from accidental spills and releases. SHINE would 

13 manage nonradioactive wastes generated by decommissioning the SHINE facility, including 

14 solid wastes, liquid wastes, discharges, and air emissions, in accordance with applicable 

15 Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and with applicable permit requirements 

16 discussed in Section 2.7. As discussed in Section 4.2 of this document, the NRC staff 

17 determined that air pollutants from worker vehicles and fossil-fueled equipment (e.g., demolition, 

18 excavation, and earth-moving equipment and electric generators) would have a SMALL impact 

19 on air quality. In addition, SHINE’s access controls would help ensure that only authorized 

20 personnel would come on site. Given that SHINE would prohibit members of the public from 

21 accessing the site during decommissioning and that SHINE would manage nonradioactive 

22 wastes generated by decommissioning the SHINE facility in accordance with applicable 

23 Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and with applicable permit requirements, the 

24 NRC staff expects decommissioning activities to result in minimal human health impact to 

25 members of the public.

26 Decommissioning and demolition workers would encounter potential hazards typical of any 

27 industrial construction and demolition site. As discussed in Section 3.8, workplace hazards can 

28 be grouped into physical hazards (e.g., slips and trips; falls from height; and those related to 

29 transportation, temperature, humidity, and electricity); physical agents (e.g., noise and 

30 vibration); chemicals; and psychosocial issues (e.g., work-related stress). SHINE would 

31 implement normal construction safety practices contained in OSHA regulations, such as safety 

32 training, safety equipment, and supervision of the work force, to promote worker safety and 

33 reduce the likelihood of worker injury during decommissioning. However, decommissioning 

34 accidents could occur. Over the projected 12-month decommissioning period, SHINE estimated 

35 a peak of 261 workers at the site (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff used data from the DOL BLS 

36 for nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses to calculate the potential number of reportable 

37 cases at the proposed SHINE construction site based on the average number of workers. The 

38 DOL data for 2012 show that private industry employers reported nearly 3.0 million nonfatal 

39 workplace injuries and illnesses, resulting in an incidence rate of 3.4 cases per 100 equivalent 

40 full-time workers (DOL 2013). Conservatively assuming the peak number of 261 workers during 

41 the decommissioning period, the NRC staff estimates that there would be 8.9 recordable cases 

42 of nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses during the 12-month decommissioning period. The 

43 NRC staff expects that SHINE would use the best available practices, such as proper planning, 

44 workplace design, and engineering controls, supplemented by the use of personal protective 

45 equipment and administrative controls, to protect workers. With the use of normal construction 

46 safety practices at the proposed SHINE decommissioning site, the NRC staff concludes that the 

47 average number of recordable cases during decommissioning would be consistent with the DOL 

48 data.

4-39
Environmental Impacts

1 During decommissioning, nonradioactive chemical sources would be stored or used on site in 

2 liquid; gaseous; and solid forms, including fuels, oils, and solvents. SHINE does not plan to use 

3 any products or processes that emit hazardous air pollutants. Toxic chemicals stored or used at 

4 the construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin 

5 Administrative Code (SHINE 2013a, 2013b).

6 Given that access to the site would be restricted, that SHINE would implement normal safety 

7 practices contained in OSHA regulations, and that toxic chemicals stored or used at the 

8 construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin 

9 Administrative Code, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to human health during 

10 decommissioning would be SMALL.

11 4.9 Waste Management

12 4.9.1 Radioactive Waste

13 As described in Section 2.7, operation of the proposed SHINE facility would include the 

14 temporary storage and generation of radioactive waste. 

15 NRC regulations require that radioactive material within the facility and radioactive effluents 

16 released into the environment meet radiation protection dose-based limits specified in 

17 10 CFR Part 20. NRC regulations also require occupational and public exposure to radioactive 

18 material be ALARA, as required by 10 CFR 20.1101(b). In addition, the State of Wisconsin is 

19 an NRC Agreement State and has its own set of radiation protection regulations with authority to 

20 regulate certain radioactive byproduct materials. Wisconsin’s rules on radiation protection are 

21 contained in the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code DHS 157. Radiation protection 

22 standards help to ensure the safety of facility workers and members of the public from operation 

23 of the radioisotope production facility. 

24 SHINE would implement waste management systems to control, handle, process, store, and 

25 transport the types and quantities of radioactive waste expected to be generated by the medical 

26 radioisotope production process. For example, SHINE would use radioactive waste 

27 management systems, shielding, procedures, protective clothing, and training to control and 

28 process radioactive wastes within and outside the facility to ensure public and occupational 

29 safety (SHINE 2013a, 2013b). As discussed in Section 2.7.1, the radioactive liquid and 

30 gaseous wastes would be processed (i.e., temporary storage to allow for radioactive decay) to 

31 reduce the levels of radioactive material in the waste. SHINE would solidify some liquid wastes 

32 before disposal on site. For example, it would solidify evaporator bottoms and spent 

33 ion-exchange column media from the target solution cleanup system. Waste from proprietary 

34 processes may be solidified in a hot cell using Portland cement before shipment and disposal 

35 (SHINE 2013a).

36 After SHINE treats, solidifies, and packages liquid radioactive waste, it would be temporarily 

37 stored on site only long enough for radioactive decay before offsite disposal shipment and for 

38 efficient frequency of disposal shipments (SHINE 2013a). Class A waste could accumulate up 

39 to 1 year. No liquid radioactive effluents would be released into the environment.

40 SHINE would use high-efficiency particulate filters and carbon bed filters to treat gaseous 

41 radioactive effluents to reduce their radioactivity before they are released through a vent stack 

42 in the Production Facility Building (SHINE 2013a). SHINE expects the gaseous radioactive 

43 effluents released into the environment to contain measurable quantities of noble gases 

44 (i.e., xenon and krypton), radioactive iodine, and tritium (see Section 2.7). The vent stack would 

45 have a radiation monitor that would continuously monitor the gaseous effluents to ensure that 

4-40
Environmental Impacts

1 the effluents are within design parameters and regulatory limits. SHINE would be able to collect 

2 samples of the gaseous effluent in the vent stack to perform a detailed analysis of the specific 

3 types, concentrations, and quantities of the radionuclides in the gaseous effluents 

4 (SHINE 2013a).

5 The proposed SHINE facility design would incorporate features to minimize radioactive 

6 contamination of the facility and radioactive effluent releases into the environment. The design 

7 would use engineered features, such as shielding, berms, sumps, and drain collection systems 

8 with leak detection; ventilation systems with filters; hot cells; glove boxes; shielded transport 

9 containers; and protective coatings on floors and walls. Other protection measures for the 

10 facility workers include the following: training, protective clothing and equipment, and 

11 procedures. Additionally, administrative measures would be used to minimize the movement of 

12 contaminated materials out of the facility’s RCA and to limit the introduction of unnecessary 

13 materials into the RCA that may become contaminated and require disposal as low-level waste 

14 (SHINE 2013a, 2013b).

15 The waste management systems and engineering designs features would help ensure that the 

16 dose to facility workers and members of the public are within the NRC’s dose limits and are 

17 reduced to levels that are ALARA in accordance with NRC regulations. Further, SHINE would 

18 implement procedures to ensure proper operation of the waste systems. Therefore, the NRC 

19 staff determined that the waste management systems would be expected to ensure that the 

20 radioactive wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance 

21 with the regulatory requirements of the NRC, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and 

22 the State of Wisconsin.

23 A provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) 

24 states that DOE would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive 

25 waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it 

26 determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE) does not have access to a disposal path. For 

27 example, if a disposal pathway for greater than Class C waste does not exist, DOE will be 

28 responsible for its safe storage and disposal. 

29 Based on SHINE’s proposed waste management systems; engineered designs features to 

30 minimize radioactive contamination; and because SHINE would operate within the NRC’s, 

31 DOT’s, and State of Wisconsin’s radiation protection requirements, the NRC staff concludes that 

32 radioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable Federal and State 

33 regulatory requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts would be SMALL 

34 during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

35 4.9.2 Nonradioactive Waste

36 As discussed in Section 2.7, SHINE would acquire, use, and store solid and liquid 

37 nonradioactive waste. 

38 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste regulations govern the disposal of 

39 solid and hazardous waste. RCRA, Subtitle C, establishes a system for controlling hazardous 

40 waste, and RCRA, Subtitle D, encourages states to develop comprehensive plans to manage 

41 nonhazardous solid waste and mandates minimum technological standards for municipal solid 

42 waste landfills. In the State of Wisconsin, EPA has delegated the primary responsibility for 

43 implementing RCRA regulations to the State of Wisconsin. For example, Wisconsin 

44 Administrative Code NR 460 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; 

45 transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste.

4-41
Environmental Impacts

1 SHINE would implement waste management systems to control, handle, process, store, and 

2 transport nonradioactive waste generated during construction, operations, and 

3 decommissioning (SHINE 2013a). As described in Section 2.7, SHINE’s nonradioactive waste 

4 management program is based on a pollution prevention and waste minimization framework. 

5 The design of the SHINE facility would also incorporate features to minimize the release of fuel, 

6 chemicals, or other nonradioactive materials into the environment (SHINE 2013b). Additionally, 

7 during operations, SHINE would contain chemicals within closed systems, use the chemicals in 

8 controlled processes, and treat chemicals through filters and scrubbers (SHINE 2013a, 2013b). 

9 (See Section 4.9.2 for additional discussion on nonradioactive gaseous effluents.) The NRC

10 staff expects that the waste management systems would ensure that the nonradioactive wastes 

11 generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance with the regulatory 

12 requirements of DOT and the State of Wisconsin.

13 Nonhazardous waste would be temporarily stored on site before being transported to a local 

14 disposal or recycling facility (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff determined that adequate storage 

15 capacity occurs within the facility to accommodate the waste generated and stored between 

16 shipments to offsite disposal facilities. 

17 Based on SHINE’s proposed waste management systems, processes to minimize chemical

18 contamination, and because SHINE would operate within DOT and the State of Wisconsin’s 

19 nonradiological requirements, the NRC staff concludes that nonradioactive waste is expected to 

20 be managed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff 

21 concludes that impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

22 4.10 Transportation

23 4.10.1 Construction 

24 Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would require an average of 420 deliveries per 

25 month (14 deliveries per day) and 9 offsite waste shipments per month using heavy vehicles 

26 (dump trucks, delivery trucks) (SHINE 2013a, 2014). Peak worker traffic volume during 

27 construction would add an estimated 451 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) per day 

28 (SHINE 2013a, 2014). The NRC staff assumed that, with a total of 465 vehicles per day, each 

29 having an arrival and departure trip, and with some vehicles making return trips during the day 

30 (e.g., off site for lunch), vehicle counts immediately adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility may 

31 increase by approximately 1,000 trips per day.

32 Although offsite sources of construction materials, including concrete, have not been specified 

33 and routes for delivery of these materials have not been designated, SHINE plans to ensure that 

34 delivery routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas (SHINE 2013b). SHINE and the 

35 common carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and 

36 transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC regulations (10 CFR Parts 20, 40, 

37 and 71), the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326, “Transportation,” and DOT

38 requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2013a). These regulations help ensure 

39 public health and safety on roadways. 

40 Table 3–14 indicates that U.S. Highway 51 experiences approximately 9,000 vehicles per day 

41 adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility. Although available traffic counts do not distinguish 

42 between types of vehicles currently traveling this route, the addition of up to 465 vehicles per 

43 day (or approximately 1,000 trips per day) from construction activities at the proposed SHINE 

44 facility would result in an increased traffic volume on U.S. Highway 51 of approximately 

45 11 percent, and the percentage of heavy vehicles on this route would also increase.

4-42
Environmental Impacts

1 SHINE’s traffic analysis indicated that construction-related traffic would contribute to minor 

2 delays during peak-hour traffic at intersections along U.S. Highway 51 in the vicinity of proposed 

3 SHINE facility, but not to a degree that would require modifications to the transportation 

4 infrastructure (SHINE 2013a). Because traffic to and from the proposed SHINE facility would 

5 use both U.S. Highway 51 northbound and southbound routes, the site access point at U.S. 

6 Highway 51 would experience the greatest impact on current traffic with impacts decreasing 

7 further from the proposed SHINE facility. During construction, SHINE plans to use a staggered 

8 work shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck 

9 deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013b).

10 Based on the overall increase in average daily traffic flow and construction-related truck traffic, 

11 the NRC staff concludes that traffic impacts in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE

12 facility would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. These impacts likely would be temporary and 

13 of short duration, and would abate as construction activities wind down. Therefore, the impact 

14 on transportation infrastructure during the construction phase would be MODERATE.

15 4.10.2 Operations 

16 During operations at the proposed SHINE facility, an estimated maximum of 150 worker 

17 vehicles per day would access the site over three work shifts (SHINE 2013a, 2014). In its 

18 environmental report (ER), SHINE assumed that 75 percent of site-related traffic would come 

19 from and go to the north, and 25 percent would come from and go to the south (SHINE 2013a). 

20 The NRC staff estimated that each vehicle would make separate trips to and from the proposed 

21 SHINE facility, plus a number of trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility during the 

22 midshift, resulting in approximately 325 additional worker vehicle trips daily. 

23 In addition to operations employees commuting to the proposed SHINE facility, SHINE 

24 estimates traffic to and from the proposed facility would also include the following:

25 (1) an average of 36 truck deliveries per month to the proposed SHINE facility, which 

26 would include both radioactive and nonradioactive materials (SHINE 2013a, 2015a);

27 (2) an average of 39 outbound medical isotope product shipments per month through 

28 the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport (SHINE 2015a);

29 (3) an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year (SHINE 2015a); and 

30 (4) an average of one shipment per month of nonradioactive domestic and industrial 

31 waste (SHINE 2013a, 2015a).

32 SHINE’s preferred method of product shipments would be to transport products by truck from 

33 the proposed SHINE facility to the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, approximately 0.5 mi 

34 (0.8 km) away, for air transport to customers. These shipments would result in an estimated 

35 1 percent increase in flight operations at the airport. In the event that the Southern Wisconsin 

36 Regional Airport is unavailable, product shipments would be transported by truck to the nearest 

37 secondary airport (SHINE 2013a). 

38 SHINE’s traffic analysis indicates that a “slight degradation of service” (i.e., traffic delays) would 

39 occur at the intersection of westbound State Trunk Highway 11 onto southbound U.S. 

40 Highway 51 during the morning peak hour (SHINE 2013a). This impact could be mitigated by 

41 optimizing the signal timing for this turning movement, which would improve the level of service 

42 to its existing level (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the 

43 immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility to increase slightly during the operation phase, 

44 but it would not be appreciable when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of 

45 roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility, as discussed in Section 3.9.1.

4-43
Environmental Impacts

1 As described above and in Section 2.7, SHINE would transport radioactive waste from the 

2 proposed SHINE site to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal facility. A common carrier 

3 truck would transport the waste. SHINE and the common carrier trucks would be required to 

4 adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive 

5 material in NRC regulations (10 CFR Parts 20, 40, and 71), the State of Wisconsin 

6 Administrative Code Chapter 326, “Transportation”), and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 

7 and 173) (SHINE 2013a). These regulations help ensure public health and safety on roadways.

8 Because of the relatively small increase in traffic as compared to the average daily and annual 

9 traffic flows near the proposed SHINE site and because SHINE and common carrier trucks 

10 would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory 

11 packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material, impacts on transportation 

12 would generally be SMALL. However, because the additional traffic attributable to SHINE

13 worker vehicles would result in morning peak-hour traffic delays sufficient to reduce the existing 

14 level of service (traffic flow) at a key intersection near the SHINE facility, impacts could 

15 temporarily be MODERATE. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impact on 

16 transportation infrastructure during operations would range from SMALL to MODERATE.

17 4.10.3 Decommissioning

18 Decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would require an average of 72 truck deliveries 

19 and 191 offsite waste shipments per month (a total of approximately 9 heavy-vehicle shipments 

20 per day) (SHINE 2013a, 2014). Peak worker traffic volume during decommissioning would add 

21 an estimated 261 vehicles per day (SHINE 2013a, 2014). Therefore, the NRC staff estimates 

22 that there could be an increase of approximately 580 trips a day on local roads during the 

23 decommissioning phase, thereby increasing the average daily traffic on roads in the immediate 

24 vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility from traffic during the operation phase. SHINE assumed 

25 that traffic in support of decommissioning, including employee commutes, would be similar to 

26 the initial construction phase with the following three exceptions:

27 (1) Production equipment brought to the proposed SHINE facility as clean material and 

28 later contaminated from operations would be packaged and transported as 

29 radioactive waste. Thus, the ratio of radioactive to nonradioactive shipments would 

30 likely be greater than those in the construction phase. As described above, SHINE 

31 and common carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, 

32 and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for 

33 radioactive material.

34 (2) Facility upgrades and expansions that would be implemented during the operational 

35 life of the proposed SHINE facility and not accounted for under initial construction 

36 would add to the ultimate decommissioning waste volume.

37 (3) Size reduction of facilities and process components during decommissioning, such 

38 as the compacting of pre-assembled filter plenums and air ducts to minimize waste 

39 packaging void space, could reduce the overall volume of both contaminated and 

40 noncontaminated wastes generated and shipped for disposal under 

41 decommissioning.

42 SHINE could use a staggered work shift schedule, similar to construction, to reduce the hourly 

43 traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce 

44 traffic congestion (SHINE 2013b). However, the change in average daily traffic flows in the 

45 immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility and the increase in commuter, truck delivery, 

46 and waste traffic directly related to decommissioning could noticeably affect local commuting 

47 patterns. Because traffic to and from the proposed SHINE facility would use both 

4-44
Environmental Impacts

1 U.S. Highway 51 northbound and southbound routes, the site access point at U.S. Highway 51 

2 would experience the greatest impact to current traffic with impacts decreasing further from the 

3 proposed SHINE facility.

4 Based on the overall increase in average daily traffic flow and decommissioning-related truck 

5 traffic, the NRC staff concludes that traffic impacts in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

6 SHINE facility would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. These impacts likely would be 

7 temporary and of short duration, and would abate as decommissioning activities wind down.

8 Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the decommissioning phase would 

9 be MODERATE.

10 4.11 Accidents

11 This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with potential radiological and 

12 hazardous chemical accidents that might occur at the proposed SHINE facility. The information 

13 contained in this section comes from the SHINE ER (SHINE 2013a). In addition to this EIS, the 

14 NRC staff will perform an independent verification of the potential accident scenarios and 

15 associated consequences at the proposed SHINE facility in its SER. The SER is part of the 

16 regulatory process used by the NRC to decide whether to issue a construction permit and 

17 operating license for the proposed SHINE facility.

18 The term “accident,” as used in this section, refers to any off-normal event that releases 

19 radioactive or hazardous chemicals into the environment that may affect facility workers and 

20 members of the public. The accidents described in this section are associated with the medical 

21 radioisotope production process.

22 Potential initiating events and credible operational accidents for the proposed SHINE facility 

23 constitute the design-basis accidents (DBAs). For example, SHINE considered a small aircraft 

24 collision as a credible DBA scenario. The maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) goes beyond 

25 the credible DBA scenarios and represents the bounding case accident (SHINE 2013a). This 

26 EIS uses the impacts from the MHA as the basis for the significance determination of the 

27 environmental impact from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility.

28 SHINE classified accidents into two categories: those that are nuclear or involve radiation and 

29 those related to handling and storage of hazardous chemicals. The list below includes potential 

30 hazards associated with the operation of the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2013a).

31 (1) Nuclear or Radioactive Material. The types of accidents involving nuclear or radioactive 

32 material include the following:

33 • criticality accidents associated with handling and storage of fissile source 

34 material;

35 • criticality accidents associated with fissile solution mixing and TSV or dump 

36 tank operation; and

37 • radiation doses exceeding regulatory limits to facility workers accidents from 

38 the following:

39 − irradiated fissile solution and fission/decay (dissolved and gaseous),

40 − accelerator/moderator neutron production, and 

41 − radioactive waste handling and storage (SHINE 2013a).

4-45
Environmental Impacts

1 (2) Hazardous Chemicals. The types of accidents involving hazardous chemicals include

2 explosion or fire accidents associated with radiolytic gas generation, collection, or 

3 recombination and include the following:

4 • hazardous chemical vessel or tank failure accidents caused by natural 

5 catastrophic events that result in leaks or spills,

6 • hazardous chemical reactivity (heat or pressure) accidents in a vessel or tank 

7 exceeding the equipment design that result in a leak or spill, and

8 • human-error accidents occurring during hazardous chemical handling that 

9 result in a spill inside or outside the buildings (SHINE 2013a).

10 4.11.1 Maximum Hypothetical Accident

11 This section discusses the potential offsite radiological consequences of the MHA and controls 

12 to prevent or mitigate the potential consequences. The results of the analysis are compared to 

13 the NRC public dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301. The MHA is a conservative evaluation and 

14 represents the bounding consequences for potential DBAs at the proposed SHINE facility.

15 The MHA is an event that could result in radiological consequences exceeding those of any 

16 credible accident. It is a bounding calculation on the radiological consequences of postulated 

17 DBAs at the proposed SHINE facility.

18 The MHA is based on events unique to the design of the proposed SHINE facility that 

19 hypothetically could release radioactive materials into the environment. The proposed SHINE 

20 facility would have two major operation facilities involving radioactive and hazardous chemical

21 materials: the irradiation facility and the radioisotope production facility (Chapter 2) 

22 (SHINE 2013a). Under normal operating conditions, processes in both of these areas would be 

23 of generally low energy (i.e., subcritical and low-heat generation). SHINE designed the facility 

24 to withstand credible external events, such as tornadoes and earthquakes, without causing an 

25 accident (SHINE 2013a). An internal accident that releases the largest hypothetical quantity of 

26 radioactive material would be the initiating event that results in the maximum bounding 

27 radiological consequence or MHA (SHINE 2013a).

28 The irradiation facility and radioisotope production facility are designed to function as two 

29 physically separated, independent areas within the facility. Although the irradiation facility and 

30 radioisotope production facility have interconnected processes and systems, they are physically 

31 separated by concrete walls. Additional safety features include shielding, redundant isolation 

32 valves, ventilation systems, and penetration seals that reduce the likelihood that an accident in 

33 one area would affect the other area (SHINE 2013a).

34 The SHINE irradiation and radioisotope production facilities are designed to withstand external 

35 events, such as tornadoes, maximum expected seismic events, and manmade external events. 

36 SHINE states that scenarios involving multiple irradiation units are not credible because there is 

37 no initiating event that could produce a breach of more than one irradiation unit (SHINE 2013a).

38 SHINE states that one credible MHA initiating event, a rupture or leakage of the TSV, or TSV 

39 dump tank, would affect only one irradiation unit cell. This event would result in a complete 

40 release of the target solution and fission product inventory into one irradiation unit cell. Under a 

41 worse-case condition, this MHA assumes that the 5.5-day irradiation cycle has just been 

42 completed and that decay time has not begun. By design, this event would be confined to the 

43 interior of the irradiation unit cell. The calculated radionuclide inventory released from the TSV 

44 to the irradiation unit cell would represent the bounding source term for any postulated accident 

45 in the irradiation facility (SHINE 2013a).

4-46
Environmental Impacts

1 SHINE states that the radiation effects of this MHA would be mitigated by several controlling 

2 mechanisms, including confinement provided by the irradiation unit cell’s exterior walls; 

3 confinement by the RCA ventilation system; radiation monitoring; shielding of the pipe 

4 penetrations; and the collection of gas, vapor, or particulates by the TSV off-gas system 

5 (SHINE 2013a).

6 Another potential MHA initiating event scenario evaluated by SHINE is a release of the 

7 radioactive material inventory held in the noble gas removal system storage tanks when they 

8 are at their maximum storage level. By design, this event would be confined to the noble gas 

9 storage tank room, located in the radioisotope production facility. The calculated radionuclide 

10 inventory released from the noble gas removal system storage tanks represents the bounding 

11 source term for any other postulated MHA in the radioisotope production facility. The radiation 

12 effects of this MHA in the radioisotope production facility would be mitigated by the walls in the 

13 noble gas removal system room, collection by the ventilation system, and collection by the RCA 

14 ventilation system (SHINE 2013a).

15 SHINE’s evaluation of the radioactive material inventory for these two potential MHAs is based 

16 on a set of initial conditions that maximize the potential source terms and bound DBA scenarios 

17 (SHINE 2013a).

18 SHINE calculated the potential dose to an offsite member of the public for the potential MHAs 

19 as follows:

20 (1) A rupture or leakage of the TSV or TSV dump tank scenario would result in a total 

21 effective dose equivalent of 16.5 mrem (0.16 mSv) at the site boundary and 

22 2.30 mrem (0.023 mSv) at the nearest residence.

23 (2) A release of the inventory stored in the noble gas removal system storage tanks 

24 would result in a total effective dose equivalent of 82.0 mrem (0.82 mSv) at the site 

25 boundary and 11.5 mrem (0.11 mSv) at the nearest residence (SHINE 2015a).

26 SHINE has proposed to provide safety-related structures, systems, and components (as defined 

27 in the SHINE Preliminary Safety Analysis Report) that would prevent the initiation of accidents

28 or mitigate their consequences (SHINE 2013a). These safety-related structures, systems, and 

29 components include the systems described above (i.e., the irradiation unit cell confinement, 

30 radiation monitoring system, ventilation system, pipe penetration shields, TSV off-gas system, 

31 noble gas removal system walls, RCA ventilation system, secure chemical containers, and other 

32 safety-related structures, systems, and components). The NRC staff is conducting a thorough 

33 independent review of these safety-related structures, systems, and components, which it will 

34 document in its SER. The NRC staff will determine whether the safety-related structures, 

35 systems, and components will be designed, implemented, and maintained to ensure that they 

36 are available and reliable to perform their preventive or mitigative functions when needed so 

37 that the likelihood of serious consequences is small. If the staff determines, in its SER, that 

38 SHINE has met all of the NRC regulatory requirements described above, the likelihood of 

39 accidents would be reliably controlled.

40 The calculated doses for the MHA at the proposed SHINE facility would be within the annual 

41 dose limits of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) in 10 CFR 20.1301 to a member of the public 

42 (SHINE 2013a). Further, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the 

43 potential dose to the public from the MHA. This independent evaluation will be documented in 

44 the NRC staff’s SER. If the NRC staff determines in its SER that the hypothetical accident dose 

45 is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from 

46 potential radiological accidents would be SMALL.

4-47
Environmental Impacts

1 4.11.2 Hazardous Chemical Accidents

2 In its ER, SHINE evaluated the consequence of hazardous chemical releases from its proposed 

3 facility using dispersion models and/or computer codes that are consistent with methodologies 

4 contained in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook (NUREG/CR-6410) 

5 (NRC 1998). SHINE used a combination of ALOHA (Areal Locations of Hazardous 

6 Atmospheres) code (EPA/NOAA 2013) and EPIcode (Homann Associates, Inc., 2007) computer 

7 programs to model chemical releases and to determine the chemical concentration 

8 (SHINE 2013a). These codes are widely used to support accident analysis and emergency 

9 response evaluations by Government agencies, such as EPA and U.S. Department of Energy 

10 (DOE). SHINE verified and validated both codes for modeling chemical hazards at the 

11 proposed SHINE facility. ALOHA is only able to model about half of the chemicals that would 

12 be used at the proposed SHINE facility; therefore, SHINE used the EPIcode to model other 

13 chemical dose calculations. SHINE stated that both computer codes give comparable results 

14 for the hazardous chemicals they have in common and both implement release and dispersion 

15 models that are consistent with the guidance in NUREG/CR-6410. For validation, SHINE used 

16 ALOHA to check some of the output values from the EPIcode (SHINE 2013a).

17 In its analysis, SHINE assumed the release of all chemical materials and did not take a 

18 reduction credit for the deposition of chemicals within the facility or during transport to the site 

19 boundary or the nearest population location. All dispersion calculations were made assuming 

20 stable meteorological conditions and a 1-m-per-second (m/s) wind speed. The chemical 

21 concentrations reported in Table 4-13 are in units of parts per million (ppm) and milligram per 

cubic meter (mg/m3 22 ). These meteorological conditions are typically seen about 15 percent of 

23 the time at the Janesville site (SHINE 2013a). Ambient temperature was assumed to be 75 °F 

24 (24 °C), the deposition velocity was assumed to be 1 m/s, and a receptor height of 1.5 m (4.9 ft) 

25 was used to simulate the height of an individual. Concentrations produced by the model runs 

26 are for plume centerline values. Chemical releases were conservatively modeled at ground 

27 level and in the centerline of the plume (SHINE 2013a).

28 SHINE determined the chemical concentrations for nonpropriety hazardous chemicals in the 

29 proposed facility inventory. The concentrations were calculated for the maximum offsite 

30 individual (MOI) at the site boundary and the nearest residence, 402 m (1319 ft) and 788 m 

31 (2585 ft), respectively. In its ER, SHINE summarizes the results of the source term and 

32 calculated concentrations for the nonpropriety chemicals that would be used at the proposed 

33 facility. The NRC staff provides this information in Table 4–13. The material at risk (MAR) 

34 category represents the inventory of hazardous material that is available for release from the 

35 postulated accident scenario. The MAR for most of the chemicals represents the amount of 

36 material in storage. In some cases, the MAR represents the total facility inventory. For other 

37 chemicals, a reduction factor has been applied to account for the total inventory that is not 

38 available for release because the material is being stored in secure containers. SHINE selected 

39 the chemicals for evaluation based on the combination of anticipated bounding facility inventory 

40 amounts and toxicity characteristics. As its acceptance criteria, SHINE used the criteria in 

41 NUREG/CR-6410, which correspond to Protective Action Criteria (PAC) (DOE 2012a) and 

42 which are explained later in this section. The PAC values correspond to Acute Exposure 

43 Guideline Levels (AEGLs) in EPA guidance (EPA 2012b), Emergency Response Planning 

44 Guidelines (ERPG) (AIHA 2012), or Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits (TEEL) 

45 (DOE 2008) values for the chemicals (SHINE 2013a).

4-48
Environmental Impacts

1 Table 4–13. SHINE Hazardous Chemical Source Terms and Concentrations

Hazardous 

Chemical/

Release 

Mechanism

MAR 

(lb)

Source 

Term(a)

(lb) PAC-1 PAC-2 PAC-3

Site Boundary 

(402 m) 

Concentration

Nearest 

Residence 

(788 m) 

Concentration

Nitric Acid

(Evaporating 

liquid)

6,229 6,229 0.53 

ppm

24 ppm 92 ppm 3.0 ppm 0.4 ppm

Sulfuric Acid

(Evaporating 

liquid)

7,770 7,770 0.20 

mg/m3

8.7 

mg/m3

160 

mg/m3

4.7x10-7 mg/m3 6.3x10-8 mg/m3

Calcium 

Hydroxide

(Dispersed solid)

3,182 3.182 15 

mg/m3

240 

mg/m3

1,500 

mg/m3

0.16 mg/m3 0.020 mg/m3

Caustic Soda

(Dispersed solid)

1,488 1.488 0.5 

mg/m3

5 mg/m3 50 

mg/m3

0.073 mg/m3 0.010 mg/m3

Ammonium 

Hydroxide

(Dispersed solid)

59 0.059 61 ppm 330 ppm 2,300 

ppm

2.0x10-3 ppm 2.6x10-4 ppm

Dodecane

(Evaporating 

liquid)

1,033 1,033 0.0028 

ppm

0.031 

ppm

7.9 ppm 4.4x10-3 ppm 5.9x10-4 ppm

Potassium 

Permanganate

(Dispersed solid)

66 0.066 8.6 

mg/m3

14 

mg/m3

78 

mg/m3

3.3x10-3 mg/m3 4.2x10-4 mg/m3

Tributyl 

Phosphate

(Dispersed solid)

333 0.333 0.6 

mg/m3

3.5 

mg/m3

125 

mg/m3

1.5x10-3 mg/m3 2.0x10-4 mg/m3

Uranyl Nitrate

(Dispersed solid—

likely in solution)

480 0.480 0.99 

mg/m3

5.5 

mg/m3

33 

mg/m3

0.024 mg/m3 3.1x10-3 mg/m3

(a) The source term value has been reduced from the inventory value based on a reduction factor to account for the 

amount of material available for release into the environment.

Source: SHINE 2013a

2 Emergency exposure limits are essential components of planning for the uncontrolled release of 

3 hazardous chemicals. These limits, combined with estimates of exposure, provide the 

4 information necessary to identify and evaluate accidents for the purpose of taking appropriate 

5 protective actions. During an emergency response to an uncontrolled release, these limits may 

6 be used to evaluate the severity of the event, to identify potential outcomes, and to decide what 

7 protective actions should be taken. In anticipation of an uncontrolled release, these limits may 

8 also be used to estimate the consequences of an uncontrolled release and to plan emergency 

9 responses (DOE 2008).

10 SHINE’s analysis indicates that the chemical dose or concentration for the MOI and the nearest 

11 residence for the worst-case analysis is below the PAC-2 and PAC-3 levels (equivalent to 

12 ERPG-2 and ERPG-3) for all the listed hazardous chemicals. These concentrations are 

13 conservatively calculated (i.e., they overestimate the potential consequences of the hazardous 

14 chemical release) and are based on the conservative assumption that the liquid hazardous 

15 chemicals would be instantaneously released and evaporating within 1 hour. If an accident 

16 were to occur, SHINE states that this amount of fluid evaporation would take longer than 1 hour, 

4-49
Environmental Impacts

1 which would have the effect of reducing the hazardous chemical concentrations at the site 

2 boundary and to the nearest resident (SHINE 2013a).

3 PAC (AEGLs and ERPGs) are defined below.

4 The AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to 

5 emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours. Three levels―AEGL-1, AEGL-2, 

6 and AEGL-3―are used for each of five exposures periods (10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 

7 4 hours, and 8 hours) and are distinguished by varying degrees of severity of toxic effects. DOE

8 guidance that SHINE followed states that the 1-hour AEGL values should be used to assess the 

9 potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous chemicals. The three 

10 AEGLs are defined as follows:

11 (1) AEGL-1 is the airborne concentration (expressed in ppm or milligrams per cubic 

meter (mg/m3 12 )) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general 

13 population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort; 

14 irritation; or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects. However, these effects are 

15 not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.

(2) AEGL-2 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3 16 ) of a substance 

17 above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible 

18 individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting, and adverse 

19 health effects or an impaired ability to escape.

(3) AEGL-3 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3 20 ) of a substance 

21 above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible 

22 individuals, could experience life-threatening adverse health effects or death.

23 The three ERPGs are defined as follows:

24 (1) ERPG-1 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all 

25 individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild 

26 transient adverse health effects or perceiving a clearly defined objectionable odor.

27 (2) ERPG-2 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all 

28 individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing 

29 irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms that could impair their 

30 abilities to take protective action.

31 (3) ERPG-3 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all

32 individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing 

33 life-threatening health effects.

34 SHINE’s analysis shows that, for the hazardous chemicals listed in Table 4–13, the 

35 concentrations to the MOI and the nearest residence would be below the PAC-1, PAC-2, and 

36 PAC-3 levels (equivalent to ERPG-1, ERPG-2, and ERPG-3), except for nitric acid, which 

37 exceeds the PAC-1 level for the MOI. For nitric acid, the MOI could be exposed to a 

38 concentration above the PAC-1 level (equivalent to ERPG-1) but below the PAC-2 level 

39 (equivalent to ERPG-2). ERPG-1 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed 

40 nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild 

41 transient adverse health effects or perceiving a clearly defined objectionable odor. Exposure 

42 below the PAC-2 level (equivalent to ERPG-2) would not likely result in experiencing or 

43 developing irreversible or other serious health effects of symptoms that could impair an 

44 individual’s ability to take protection action (i.e., seek shelter or evacuate to a location further 

45 away from the proposed SHINE facility).

4-50
Environmental Impacts

1 The NRC staff concludes that the impacts to the MOI from the potential uncontrolled release of 

2 hazardous chemicals under accident conditions from the proposed SHINE facility may include 

3 mild transient adverse health effects but would not include serious irreversible health effects. 

4 Further, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the health impacts to the 

5 public from a chemical accident. The NRC will document the independent evaluation in its SER. 

6 If the NRC staff determines in the SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose 

7 limits in 10 CFR 70.61 and if SHINE meets all the performance requirements in 10 CFR 70.61, 

8 the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential chemical accidents would be SMALL.

9 4.12 Environmental Justice

10 This section describes the potential human health and environmental effects from the 

11 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on minority and 

12 low-income populations living near the proposed site. The NRC strives to identify and consider 

13 environmental justice issues in agency licensing and regulatory actions primarily by fulfilling its 

14 NEPA responsibilities for these actions.

15 Under Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629), Federal agencies are responsible for 

16 identifying and addressing, as appropriate, potential disproportionately high and adverse human 

17 health and environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. In 2004, the 

18 Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in 

19 NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states that “[t]he Commission is 

20 committed to the general goals set forth in EO 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of 

21 its NEPA review process.”

22 The CEQ provides the following definitions to consider when conducting environmental justice 

23 reviews within the framework of NEPA in Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National 

24 Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997):

25 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. Adverse health 

26 effects are measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer fatalities, 

27 as well as other fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse

28 health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. 

29 Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or 

30 rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 

31 population is significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds the 

32 risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate 

33 comparison group.

34 Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. A 

35 disproportionately high environmental impact that is significant (as employed by 

36 NEPA) refers to an impact or risk of an impact on the natural or physical 

37 environment in a low-income or minority community that appreciably exceeds the 

38 environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may include 

39 ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts. An adverse 

40 environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both harmful and 

41 significant (as employed by NEPA). In assessing cultural and aesthetic 

42 environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or 

43 dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian tribes are 

44 considered.

45 The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and 

46 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income 

47 populations that could result from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

4-51
Environmental Impacts

1 SHINE facility. In assessing the impacts, the following definitions of minority individuals and 

2 populations and low-income population were used (CEQ 1997):

3 Minority individuals. Individuals who identify themselves as members of the 

4 following population groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska 

5 Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

6 Islander, or two or more races—meaning individuals who identified themselves 

7 on a Census form as being a member of two or more races (e.g., Hispanic and 

8 Asian).

9 Minority populations. Minority populations are identified when the minority 

10 population of an affected area exceeds 50 percent or the minority population 

11 percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority 

12 population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of 

13 geographic analysis.

14 Low-income population. Low-income populations in an affected area are 

15 identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the [U.S.] Census 

16 Bureau’s Current Population Reports, Series P60, on Income and Poverty.

17 Methodology for Assessing Environmental Justice Impacts

18 The NRC normally addresses environmental justice issues and concerns by first identifying 

19 potentially affected minority and low-income populations and then determining whether there 

20 would be any potential human health or environmental effects and whether these effects may be 

21 disproportionately high and adverse. Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk 

22 and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and 

23 adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental 

24 hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure 

25 rate for the general population or for another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately 

26 high environmental effects refer to impacts or risks of impacts on the natural or physical 

27 environment in a minority or low-income community that are significant and that appreciably

28 exceed the environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may include biological, 

29 cultural, economic, or social impacts.

30 Consistent with the Commission’s Policy Statement (69 FR 52040), affected populations are 

31 defined as minority and low-income populations who reside within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the 

32 proposed SHINE facility site. Data on minority and low-income populations are usually collected 

33 and analyzed at the Census tract or Census block group level.

34 The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) compiles demographic information at the Census tract and 

35 block group levels in small geographic areas. A Census tract is a small area that is a statistical 

36 subdivision of a county or statistically equivalent entity. A block group is a statistical subdivision 

37 of a Census tract. A Census block is the smallest geographic entity for which the USCB collects 

38 and tabulates data.

39 Minority population data were available for Census block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius 

40 around the proposed site. Low-income population data were only available at the Census tract 

41 level because of the limited availability of poverty data at the block group level. To protect 

42 confidentiality, USCB does not publish information about small geographic areas if the 

43 population size is too small. The NRC staff used race and ethnicity and poverty Census data to 

44 identify the location of minority and low-income populations near the proposed site. If the 

45 Census tract and block group boundaries crossed the 5-mi (8-km) radius boundary, the entire 

46 Census tract or Census block group data were used. Geographic information system software 

47 was used to create the maps.

4-52
Environmental Impacts

1 Minority Population

2 According to the 2010 Census, approximately 12 percent of the City of Janesville population

3 (which includes more than one Census tract and block group) identified themselves as minority. 

4 In Rock County, approximately 15 percent of the population identified themselves as minority 

5 (UCSB 2014a).

6 Within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park, 

7 12.5 percent of the population identified themselves as minority individuals (Table 4–14) 

8 (UCSB 2014a). The largest minority group was Hispanic or Latino (of any race) at 6 percent, 

9 followed by Black or African American at 3 percent (USCB 2014a).

10 Figure 4–2 shows minority population block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed 

11 SHINE facility site. Census block groups were considered minority population block groups if 

12 the percentage of the minority population within any block group exceeded 12.5 percent. 

13 Eleven of the 25 Census block groups were found to have meaningfully greater minority 

14 populations. The proposed SHINE facility site is located in Census Tract 14, Block Group 3, 

15 with a minority population of 17.6 percent. This block group is considered a minority population 

16 block group because it has a greater percentage of minority people than that in the 5-mi (8-km) 

17 radius.

18 Figure 4–2. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) 

19 of the Proposed SHINE Site in Janesville 

20

4-53
4-54

Table 4–14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) 1

of the Proposed SHINE Site in Janesville 2

Census 

Tract

Block 

Group

Total 

Population(a)

Percent 

Minority

Total Minority 

Population(a)

Hispanic 

or Latino

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian or 

Alaska 

Native Asian

Haw

Oth

I

2 3 1,206 12.4 150 74 31 5 13 

3 1 863 23.8 205 100 65 3 14 

3 2 1,079 30.2 326 147 82 7 54 

3 3 763 19.7 150 45 32 3 55 

4 4 1,060 21.4 227 153 19 4 31 

10 1 1,534 12.6 193 100 41 10 16 

10 2 1,745 14.9 260 196 28 5 11 

11 1 1,610 7.1 115 48 28 2 17 

11 2 779 9.1 71 30 10 1 12 

11 3 1,128 19.9 225 107 78 1 9 

11 4 1,021 6.5 66 30 9 3 6 

11 5 941 16.7 157 108 26 2 11 

12.01 2 1,515 4.8 72 39 17 1 4 

12.01 3 2,728 4.9 135 48 11 11 22 

13.02 3 972 7.7 75 26 33 0 9 

13.02 4 609 2.6 16 7 3 0 0 

14 1 574 4.7 27 6 6 3 7 

14 2 1,287 15.5 200 136 49 3 1 

14 3 1,224 17.6 215 133 38 4 20 

14 4 2,725 7.4 203 112 42 6 15 

22 2 1,186 6.2 73 24 13 7 5 

24 1 1,641 10.0 164 53 60 1 29 

24 2 1,168 10.1 118 59 38 2 10 

26.01 1 1,637 28.2 461 180 230 1 19 

26.02 1 1,648 11.0 182 74 65 1 28 

(a) Total population includes all minority and nonminority groups.

Source: USCB 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table P9, Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race
Environmental Impacts

1 Low-Income Population

2 According to 2006–2010 American Community Survey estimates, an average of 10.7 percent of 

3 families and 14.3 percent of all people residing in Rock County were identified as living below 

4 the Federal poverty threshold. In addition, the City of Janesville had an average of 11.4 percent 

5 of families and 14.8 percent of all people identified as living below the Federal poverty level. 

6 The 2010 Federal poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four (USCB 2014b).

7 Table 4–15 lists low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the 

8 proposed SHINE facility site; 13.5 percent of the total population within that radius was identified 

9 as living below the Federal poverty level (USCB 2014b).

10 Census tracts were considered low-income population Census tracts if the percentage of 

11 individuals living below the Federal poverty threshold exceeded 13.5 percent. Figure 4–3 

12 shows low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE

13 facility site. Four of the 11 Census tracts were found to have meaningfully greater low-income 

14 populations. These Census tracts are concentrated north of the proposed SHINE facility site 

15 near the City of Janesville. The existing industrial park and proposed SHINE facility site are 

16 located in Census Tract 14 with an estimated 11.2 percent of its population living below the 

17 poverty level (USCB 2014b).

18 Figure 4–3. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the

19 Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville

20

4-55
Environmental Impacts

1 Table 4–15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) 

2 of the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville 

Census Tract

Census Tract Total 

Populations

Number of People 

Below Poverty Level 

for Census Tract

Percentage Below 

Poverty Level for All 

People (Estimated)

3 2,955 1,489 50.4

4 3,207 824 25.7

10 3,022 453 15.0

11 5,625 793 14.1

12.01 5,378 231 4.3

13.02 7,178 516 7.2

14 5,917 662 11.2

22 2,521 274 10.9

24 3,678 305 8.3

26.01 5,808 679 11.7

26.02 3,599 388 10.8

Sources: USCB 2006–2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP03 Selected 

Economic Characteristics; USCB 2006–2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 

Table B01003 Total Population (USCB 2014b)

3 Impact Analysis

4 As previously discussed, the environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for 

5 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 

6 low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

7 proposed SHINE facility. Some of these potential effects have been described in the other 

8 resource areas discussed in this EIS. Chapter 4 presents the assessment of environmental and 

9 human health impacts for each environmental resource area.

10 In the impact analysis, the NRC first identified all potential human health and environmental 

11 effects and then determined the significance of the impact and whether or not minority or 

12 low-income populations would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. The 

13 NRC then considered whether the radiological or other health effects were significant or above 

14 generally accepted norms, whether the risk or rate of hazard was significant and appreciably in 

15 excess of the general population, and whether the radiological or other health effects would 

16 occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental 

17 hazards. The NRC determined whether the following human health and environmental effects 

18 have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living near 

19 the proposed SHINE facility site:

20 (1) radiological human health impacts (Sections 4.8.1.1, 4.8.2.1, and 4.8.3.1);

21 (2) nonradiological human health impacts (Sections 4.8.1.2, 4.8.2.2, and 4.8.3.2);

22 (3) noise impacts (Section 4.2.2.2); and

23 (4) traffic impacts (Section 4.10.2).

24 The NRC also considered whether there would be an impact on the natural or physical 

25 environment that significantly and adversely affects a particular group, whether there would be 

26 any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or (are) likely to appreciably 

27 exceed those on the general population, and whether environment effects would occur in 

4-56
Environmental Impacts

1 populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from an environmental 

2 hazard.

3 Construction

4 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental 

5 effects during construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise 

6 and dust impacts during construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite 

7 activities (Section 4.2). Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads 

8 would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic. However, because 

9 of the temporary nature of construction, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and 

10 would be contained within a limited time period during certain hours of the day. Increased 

11 demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, 

12 disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, 

13 given the small number of construction workers and the likelihood that most of them would 

14 already reside within the ROI (Rock County), workers would likely commute to the construction 

15 site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing.

16 Operations

17 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations during SHINE facility operations would 

18 mostly consist of radiological and nonradiological human health and environmental (e.g., noise 

19 and traffic) effects. Everyone living near the existing industrial park and proposed SHINE facility 

20 site would be exposed to the same potential operational effects, and any impacts would depend 

21 on the magnitude of the change from current environmental conditions.

22 As discussed in Section 4.8.2.1 of this EIS, the level of potential radiological doses to the public 

23 from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the 

24 NRC and applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory limits. As a result, minority or 

25 low-income populations and the general population living near the proposed SHINE facility site 

26 would not be adversely affected by radiation exposure during facility operations. Permitted 

27 nonradiological air emissions are also expected to be within regulatory standards 

28 (Section 4.2.2.1).

29 As discussed in the Section 4.2.2.2 of this EIS, noise emissions during SHINE facility operations 

30 would occur because of increased commuter traffic on U.S. Highway 51. Noise from operating 

31 equipment would be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed 

32 SHINE facility buildings at the site. However, additional noise emissions caused by worker 

33 vehicles would be minor (1 dBA), and noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to 

34 increase noise levels beyond current airport operations across the street.

35 Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected 

36 by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic during facility operations. However, as 

37 discussed in Section 4.10.2 of this EIS, the only appreciable impact would be a “slight 

38 degradation of service” (i.e., traffic delays) at the intersection of westbound SH 11 onto 

39 southbound U.S. Highway 51 during the morning peak hour (SHINE 2013a). The overall daily 

40 traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility would increase slightly during 

41 facility operations but would not be of an appreciable nature when compared with the average 

42 daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility as 

43 discussed in Section 3.9.1.

44 Therefore, offsite noise and traffic impacts caused by the proposed SHINE facility operations 

45 would be SMALL for both these resource areas. Based on this information, neither minority nor 

46 low-income populations, nor the general population living near the proposed SHINE facility site, 

47 would be adversely affected by noise and traffic during facility operations.

4-57
Environmental Impacts

1 Decommissioning

2 Similar to construction impacts, potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would 

3 mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects during decommissioning 

4 (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during the 

5 decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be short term and primarily limited to 

6 onsite activities (Section 4.2). Minority and low-income populations residing along site access 

7 roads would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and 

8 dust during decommissioning. However, because of the temporary nature of decommissioning, 

9 these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited time 

10 period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for rental housing during 

11 decommissioning could cause rental costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income 

12 populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of 

13 decommissioning workers and the likelihood that most of them would already reside within the 

14 ROI, workers would likely commute to the site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing.

15 In addition, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would 

16 be SMALL for all resource areas. There is no evidence that impacts from decommissioning 

17 would be disproportionately high and adverse on minority or low-income populations.

18 Subsistence and Special Conditions

19 The special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the environmental justice 

20 analysis because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of 

21 minority and low-income populations in the area, such as migrant workers or Native Americans.

22 Section 4–4 of EO 12898 directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and appropriate, to 

23 collect, maintain, and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations that rely 

24 principally on fish or wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these consumption 

25 patterns to the public. In this EIS, the NRC considered whether there were any means for 

26 minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by examining impacts to 

27 American Indians, Hispanics, migrant workers, and others with traditional lifestyle special 

28 pathway receptors. Based on the air- and water-quality discussions and the discussion of 

29 human health effects in this EIS, the NRC finds it unlikely that there would be any 

30 disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts in special pathway receptor 

31 populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, and 

32 wildlife. Thus, the operation of the SHINE facility would not have disproportionately high and 

33 adverse human health and environmental effects on these populations.

34 Summary

35 Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the proposed site 

36 could be affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicle traffic during 

37 construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and 

38 decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. 

39 Facility operations would not adversely affect minority and low-income populations living near 

40 the proposed SHINE facility site. The level of potential radiological doses to the public from 

41 SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and 

42 applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are expected to 

43 remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income populations residing 

44 near the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park would not experience 

45 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects from the proposed 

46 action.

4-58
Environmental Impacts

1 4.13 Cumulative Impacts

2 The NRC staff considered potential cumulative impacts in the environmental analysis of the 

3 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the potential SHINE facility. Cumulative 

4 impacts may result when the environmental effects associated with the proposed action are 

5 overlaid or added to temporary or permanent effects associated with other past, present, and 

6 reasonably foreseeable actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but 

7 collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. An impact that may be 

8 SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE cumulative impact when considered in 

9 combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource 

10 is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it 

11 contributes to, or accelerates, the overall resource decline.

12 For the purposes of this cumulative analysis, past actions are those before the receipt of the 

13 SHINE application. Present actions are those related to the resources at the time of 

14 construction of the SHINE facility, and future actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable 

15 through the end of operation and decommissioning. The geographic area over which past, 

16 present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would occur depends on the type of action 

17 considered and is described below for each resource area.

18 To evaluate cumulative impacts, the incremental impacts of the proposed action, as described 

19 in Sections 4.1 to 4.12, are combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

20 future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

21 actions. The NRC staff used the information provided in the ER; responses to requests for 

22 additional information; information from other Federal, State, and local agencies; scoping

23 comments; and information gathered during the visits to the potential SHINE facility site to 

24 identify other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.

25 Table 4–16 identifies recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the 

26 geographic extent of analysis. To be considered in the cumulative analysis, the NRC staff 

27 determined whether the project would occur within the noted geographic areas of interest and 

28 within the noted timeframes, whether it was reasonably foreseeable, and whether there would 

29 be potential overlapping effects with the proposed project. For past actions, consideration 

30 within the cumulative impacts assessment is resource- and project-specific. In general, the 

31 effects of past actions are included in the description of the affected environment in Chapter 3, 

32 which serves as the baseline for the cumulative impacts analysis. However, past actions that 

33 continue to have an overlapping effect on a resource potentially affected by the proposed action 

34 are considered in the cumulative analysis.

35 Table 4–16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and 

36 Other Actions Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Energy Projects

Alliant Energy 

Generation Facility

Existing power 

generation facility

3.2 mi (5.1 km) 

south of site

Existing operating facility, stack 

visible in site viewshed

(WDNR 2013b)

Industrial Parks and Manufacturing Facilities 

NorthStar Medical 

Radioisotopes 

Medical radioisotope

facility

7.7 mi (12 km) 

south of site

Construction began in 2014 

(NorthStar 2014)

4-59
Environmental Impacts

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

TIF District No. 35 Two parcels zoned for 

industrial use as a TIF 

district

The first parcel is 

just north of the 

site. The second 

parcel includes 

the site.

Approved by City of Janesville 

(City of Janesville 2012); no 

proposed projects other than 

SHINE (NRC 2013f)

TIF District No. 34 Area that 

encompasses the 

Southern Wisconsin 

Regional Airport

1.0 mi (1.6 km) 

southwest of site

Approved by City of Janesville 

(City of Janesville 2009); no 

proposed projects other than 

SHINE (NRC 2013f)

United Ethanol Facility upgrades at 

an ethanol production 

plant

11 mi (18 km) 

northeast of site

Existing operation with new 

construction permitted to start in 

2014 (WDNR 2014)

Medical Facilities

Mercy Clinic South Medical services 

facility

1.8 mi (2.9 km) 

north of site

Operational

(Mercy Health System 2014a)

Mercy Hospital Medical services 

facility

4.4 mi (7.1 km) 

north of site

Operational

(Mercy Health System 2014b)

Other Projects/Actions

Southern 

Wisconsin 

Regional Airport

Public airport 1.0 mi (1.6 km)

southwest of site

Operational; ongoing 

improvements through 2015

(SWRA 2012)

Glen Erin Golf 

Course

7,000-yd public golf 

course

1.6 mi (2.6 km) 

southwest of site

Operational 

(Wisconsin Golf Courses 2013)

1 4.13.1 Land Use and Visual Resources

2 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

3 decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources when added 

4 to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

5 description of the affected environment in Section 3.1 serves as baseline conditions for the land 

6 use and visual resources cumulative impact assessment. The incremental impacts from 

7 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on land use and 

8 visual resources would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.1. 

9 4.13.1.1 Land Use Resources

10 The projects and activities described in Table 4–16 would result in minimal changes to existing 

11 land uses because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities or 

12 within areas currently zoned for industrial use. For example, in 2012, the City of Janesville 

13 approved a new industrial park within TIF District No. 35 (City of Janesville 2012). The 

14 proposed SHINE facility is part of this larger development project. Although TIF District No. 35 

15 has been zoned for light industrial use and is “shovel ready” for future development, there are 

16 no proposed industrial or commercial projects besides SHINE within TIF District No. 35 or in its 

17 immediate vicinity (NRC 2013f). 

18 Future urbanization and global climate change could contribute to additional decreases in 

19 agricultural lands, forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Urbanization in the vicinity of the 

20 proposed site would alter important attributes of land use. Urbanization would reduce natural 

21 vegetation and agricultural fields, resulting in an overall decline in the extent and connectivity of 

22 wetlands, forests, grasslands, and wildlife habitat. Global climate change could reduce crop 

23 yields and livestock productivity (USGCRP 2014), which may change portions of agricultural 

4-60
Environmental Impacts

1 land uses. However, existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve 

2 wetlands and forested areas. In addition, zoning laws and comprehensive land use plans would 

3 help ensure a proper balance of development (Rock County 2009).

4 Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) and its implementing 

5 regulations, the presence of important farmland soils (7 CFR 657.5), including prime farmland, 

6 was included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Development projects listed in Table 4–16 

7 would incrementally and cumulatively add to the loss of important farmland soils, including 

8 prime farmland soils, in the region surrounding the proposed site and across Rock County. With 

9 respect to the build-outs of TIF District Nos. 34 and 35, the City of Janesville has committed the 

10 districts to developed nonfarming uses. Otherwise qualifying farm lands in or already committed 

11 to urban development; lands acquired for a project on or before August 4, 1984; and lands 

12 acquired or used by a Federal agency for national defense purposes are exempt from Farmland 

13 Protection Policy Act provisions (7 CFR 658.2 and 658.3). Because the proposed TIF Districts 

14 Nos. 34 and 35 have been committed to development, the sites do not have qualifying important 

15 farmland soils subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act.

16 Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to 

17 existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial use, cumulative land use impacts would be 

18 SMALL.

19 4.13.1.2 Visual Resources

20 The projects and activities described in Table 4–16 would result in minimal changes to the 

21 existing viewshed because most new construction would occur either within or adjacent to 

22 existing facilities or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial use. Furthermore, the 

23 viewshed within the vicinity of the proposed site is agricultural, light industrial, or residential. 

24 Within nondeveloped areas, where a new structure would change qualities of the existing 

25 landscape, the viewshed is generally of low scenic quality because of a lack of notable features, 

26 uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, and mute colors.

27 Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to 

28 existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial use and of low scenic quality, cumulative 

29 visual impacts would be SMALL.

30 4.13.2 Air Quality and Noise

31 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

32 decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality and noise when added to the 

33 aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

34 description of the affected environment in Section 3.2 provides baseline conditions for the 

35 assessment of cumulative impacts on air quality and noise. The incremental impacts from 

36 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality and 

37 noise would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.2. 

38 4.13.2.1 Air Quality

39 As described in Section 3.2.2, the ROI considered for the air quality analysis of the proposed 

40 SHINE facility is defined as Rock County. The ROI considered in the cumulative air quality

41 analysis is also Rock County because air quality designations for criteria air pollutants are 

42 generally made at the county level. The incremental impact on air quality from construction, 

43 operations, and decommissioning activities from the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

44 Present-day activities in Rock County that could potentially result in cumulative impacts include 

45 12 major sources of air emissions identified on EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History 

4-61
Environmental Impacts

1 Online (ECHO) air data search tool (EPA 2014). Minor sources of air emissions are also 

2 present in Rock County; however, a minor source classification typically indicates that the 

3 facility has little to no potential for significantly affecting air quality or interfering with plans to 

4 achieve compliance with NAAQS (EPA 2014). Classification as a major source requires a 

5 permit that will include provisions on how much and what is allowed to be emitted. Because 

6 major sources must meet permitting requirements, this minimizes cumulative impacts on air 

7 quality.

8 Additional activities near the proposed SHINE facility that could potentially result in cumulative 

9 impacts on air quality include other present-day construction activities, seasonal agricultural 

10 activities, and future projects within the county (Table 4–17); however, as noted in Table 4–17, 

11 the impacts are minimal because of low emissions and the distance from the proposed SHINE 

12 facility. Cumulative impacts to air quality could occur if project schedules overlap. For example, 

13 operation of the proposed SHINE facility and the planned NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes 

14 facility approximately 7.7 mi (12 km) south could overlap. However, both projects must meet 

15 the permitting and licensing requirements, which would minimize cumulative impacts.

16 Climate change can affect air quality as a result of changes in meteorological conditions. The 

17 formation, transport, dispersion, and deposition of air pollutants depend, in part, on weather 

18 conditions (IPCC 2007). Air pollutant concentrations are sensitive to winds, temperature, 

19 humidity, and precipitation (EPA 2009a). Ozone levels have been found to be particularly 

20 sensitive to climate change influences (IPCC 2007; EPA 2009b). Ozone is formed, in part, as a 

21 result of the chemical reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the 

22 presence of heat and sunlight. Sunshine, high temperatures, and air stagnation are favorable 

23 meteorological conditions leading to higher levels of ozone (IPCC 2007; EPA 2009b). Climate 

24 model simulations (from 2021 to 2050 relative to the reference period (1971 to 1999)) indicate 

25 an increase in the annual mean temperature in the midwestern region from 2.5 to 3.5 °F 

26 (NOAA 2013). The predicted increase in temperature during this time period occurs for all 

27 seasons with the largest increase occurring in the summer months (June, July, and August). 

28 Although surface temperatures are expected to increase in the midwestern region, ozone levels 

29 would not necessarily increase because ozone formation also depends on the relative amount 

30 of nitrogen oxides and VOC precursors available (NASA 2004). The combination of higher 

31 temperatures, stagnant air masses, sunlight, and emissions of precursors may make it difficult 

32 to meet ozone NAAQSs (USGCRP 2014). However, states must continue to comply with the 

33 Clean Air Act and must ensure that air quality standards are met.

34 Overall, the potential cumulative air quality impact associated with SHINE operations in 

35 conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects is considered SMALL, primarily because 

36 any of the projects with overlapping impacts with the proposed SHINE facility would have 

37 low-emission rates and sufficient distance between the two facilities.

38 Table 4–17. Cumulative Air Emission Effects Summary During SHINE Operation

Project Name Emissions (Annual) Impacts

TIF District No. 35 Section 4.2 There are no reasonably foreseeable 

projects other than SHINE

(NRC 2013f), which the NRC staff 

determined to have SMALL impacts on 

air quality in Section 4.2.

Alliant Energy 15 tons of NOx (WDNR 2013b) Operation would overlap with all phases 

of the SHINE project, but the 

cumulative impact is considered 

minimal because of the low-emission 

rate.

4-62
Environmental Impacts

Project Name Emissions (Annual) Impacts

NorthStar Medical 

Radioisotopes

6.5 tons of CO

8.7 tons of NOx

0.3 tons of PM10

0.7 tons of VOC

0.01 tons of SO2

40,000 tons of CO2

(DOE 2012b)

Operation is expected to overlap with 

SHINE, but the cumulative impact is 

considered minimal because of the 

low-emission rates and the distance 

between facilities.

United Ethanol 13 tons of CO

52 tons of NOx

56 tons of PM10

7.2 tons of hydrocarbons

0.2 tons of SO2

39,000 tons of CO2

(WDNR 2013b)

Operation is expected to overlap with 

SHINE, but the cumulative impact is 

considered minimal because of the 

low-emission rates and the distance 

between facilities.

1 4.13.2.2 Noise

2 The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the proposed 

3 SHINE facility. Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When distance is doubled from a 

4 point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (MPCA 2014). Generally, a 3-dBA change over 

5 existing noise levels is considered to be a “just noticeable” difference, and a 10-dBA increase is 

6 subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse 

7 community response (NWCC 2002).

8 Potential cumulative noise impacts could occur during the construction or decommissioning 

9 phases in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable activities occurring within a few 

10 hundred feet of the proposed SHINE facility. Primarily, these activities would be 

11 transportation-related noise from aircraft traffic at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and 

12 from traffic on U.S. Highway 51. Occasional noise from farming equipment on nearby 

13 agricultural fields also may coincide with the proposed SHINE construction noise. In addition, 

14 noise from a future industrial development in the TIF District No. 35 area could occur 

15 simultaneously with the proposed SHINE construction or decommissioning operations.

16 The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport currently operates approximately 105 flights per day. 

17 Flight operations may increase because of the demand to transport materials to and from the 

18 proposed SHINE facility and the planned NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility. Up to 468 

19 medical shipments associated with the proposed action would occur each year with most being 

20 air transported (SHINE 2013a). However, these increases are not anticipated to cause an 

21 appreciable increase in noise above the current operations. As a result, the cumulative noise 

22 impacts would be SMALL.

23 4.13.3 Geologic Environment

24 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

25 decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on the geologic environment when added to 

26 the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

27 cumulative impacts on the geologic environment primarily relate to land disturbance, the 

28 potential for soil erosion and loss, and the projected consumption of geologic resources. The 

29 description of the affected environment in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 (Site Geology and Soils, 

30 respectively) serves as the baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of the geologic 

31 environment. The geographic area of analysis for evaluation of cumulative impacts on soil 

32 resources includes the 5-mi (8-km) vicinity surrounding the proposed site. For geologic 

4-63
Environmental Impacts

1 resources, the extent of the geologic area of analysis has been expanded to all of Rock County 

2 to encompass potential commercial sources of rock and mineral resources to support 

3 construction activities at the proposed site and vicinity. Because the aspects of land 

4 disturbance and conversion are addressed separately in Section 4.13.1.1, the cumulative 

5 impacts analysis here will focus on soil loss, including the loss of prime farmland soils and other 

6 important farmland soils, and the consumption of geologic resources.

7 The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

8 SHINE facility on the geologic environment, including geologic and soil resources, would be 

9 SMALL, as described in Section 4.3.

10 Soil Resources

11 New construction projects identified in Table 4–16 within the immediate 5-mi (8-km) radius 

12 would result in the conversion and loss of soils, including important farmland soils, caused by 

13 land use conversion and soil erosion. However, in accordance with State and local 

14 requirements, development activities would be subject to BMPs for soil erosion and sediment 

15 control, which would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss. Some topsoil removed by 

16 ground-disturbing activities would likely be reclaimed for use at the proposed site of disturbance 

17 or reused elsewhere. Following the completion of construction activities, continued soil loss 

18 would be minimal as the remaining soils would lie beneath impervious surfaces or would have 

19 been revegetated. Although developed land areas could be reclaimed and sufficiently restored 

20 to support certain agricultural and nondevelopment uses at some point in the future, such lands 

21 and associated soils would not be restorable to prime or other important farmland status.

22 Based on the foregoing, cumulative impacts on soil resources would be SMALL.

23 Geologic Resources

24 New facility construction and expansion (Table 4–16) would specifically require the use and 

25 consumption of geologic resources, including rock and mineral assets, such as ore and 

26 aggregate materials (e.g., sand and gravel). Construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the 

27 Janesville site would use many of the same materials, including concrete, gravel, and sand 

28 (Section 3.4.1) required for the other identified projects. As noted in Section 3.3.1, construction 

29 aggregate is widely available throughout Rock County and the greater southeastern Wisconsin 

30 region. Likewise, products derived from geologic materials, including concrete and asphaltic 

31 materials used in construction, are widely available on a regional basis. It is not likely that the 

32 geologic resource requirements to construct the proposed SHINE facility or the resource 

33 requirements of other identified projects are of such a scale as to affect regional sources and 

34 supplies of the identified resources. In addition, there are no developed geologic assets (mines 

35 or quarries) at or near the proposed SHINE facility site that would be rendered inaccessible for 

36 future use as a result of the proposed projects. In total, cumulative impacts on geologic 

37 resources would be SMALL.

38 4.13.4 Water Resources

39 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

40 decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on water resources when added to the 

41 aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

42 cumulative impacts on surface-water resources include issues concerning water use, water 

43 quality, and potential climate change and specifically include issues related to water withdrawal, 

44 effluent discharges, accidental spills and releases, and stormwater drainage and runoff. The 

45 description of the affected environment in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 (Surface Water Resources 

46 and Groundwater Resources, respectively) serves as a baseline for the cumulative impact 

4-64
Environmental Impacts

1 assessment of water resources. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative 

2 impacts on the geologic environment includes the 91-ac (37-ha) area within the site boundary 

3 and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility. For surface-water 

4 resources, the extent of the geologic area of analysis has been expanded to include the Lower 

5 Rock River Basin within Rock County and downstream of the proposed site. For groundwater 

6 resources, the area considered encompasses the local groundwater basin in which groundwater 

7 is recharged and flows to discharge and those aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn 

8 through wells. Specifically, the cumulative impacts analysis focuses on those projects and 

9 activities, when combined with the proposed action, that would (1) withdraw water from, or 

10 discharge wastewater to, the segment of Rock River downstream of the proposed site or 

11 (2) would use groundwater or could otherwise affect the same aquifers that would supply water 

12 to the proposed site. 

13 The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

14 SHINE facility on surface-water and groundwater resources would be SMALL, as described in 

15 Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2, respectively.

16 The proposed SHINE facility site and adjoining areas at the center of the geographic area of 

17 analysis for the analysis of cumulative impacts are encompassed by the local watershed that 

18 contributes drainage to Rock River, as described in Section 3.4.1 (Figure 3–8). The State has 

19 established water-quality standards and numeric criteria for Rock River. The main stem of Rock 

20 River is regulated in accordance with established uses for waste assimilation, recreation, fish 

21 and aquatic life, irrigation, stock and wildlife watering, and hydropower, as further described in 

22 Section 3.4.1. Rock River is not a major source for water supply. The source of water for the 

23 municipal water supply and for individual property owners in Rock County is groundwater. 

24 Likewise, the extensive surficial aquifer system and portions of the underlying bedrock aquifers 

25 in Rock County provide base flow to Rock River. 

26 As a result of climate change, shifts in the timing, intensity, and distribution of precipitation 

27 would be likely to result in changes in surface-water runoff affecting water availability across the 

28 Midwest. The Midwest may continue to experience an increase in annual precipitation, with 

29 much of the increase attributable to an increase in the frequency of heavy rainfall. Runoff and 

30 streamflow at a regional scale for the midwestern region indicate no clear trend during the last 

31 half century. However, annual runoff and river flow are projected to increase in the upper 

32 Midwest, and soil moisture increased in most seasons in the upper and eastern Midwest 

33 between 1998 and 2010 (despite an increase in average temperature) (USGCRP 2014). 

34 Climate change impacts on groundwater availability depend on basin geology, frequency and

35 intensity of high rainfall periods, recharge, soil moisture, and interactions between groundwater 

36 and surface water. Precipitation and evapotranspiration are key drivers in aquifer recharge 

37 (USGCRP 2014).

38 Surface-Water and Groundwater Resources

39 No surface water would be used for the construction, operations, or decommissioning of the 

40 proposed SHINE facility; therefore, there would be no incremental contribution to cumulative 

41 effects of surface-water use.

42 Existing water quality within the main stem of Rock River and throughout the Lower Rock River 

43 Basin is the result of historic land use changes and current land uses (e.g., urban, agricultural, 

44 and mining) and its associated development activities. As discussed in Section 3.4.1, the 

45 Federal Clean Water Act requires states to identify all waters for which effluent limitations and 

46 pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water-quality standards in such waters and 

47 establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to ensure future compliance with water-quality 

4-65
Environmental Impacts

1 standards. EPA delegated the authority for issuing NPDES permits in the State of Wisconsin to 

2 the WDNR. Because of total suspended solids and total phosphorous, the 12.4-mi (20-km) 

3 segment of Rock River between the Janesville WTP and the Illinois State line is listed as 

4 impaired, and TMDLs have been established. It is this segment that receives drainage from the 

5 proposed SHINE facility site and its local watershed. 

6 As noted in Section 4.13.1.1 and listed in Table 4–16, the proposed SHINE facility is part of a 

7 larger development, TIF District No. 35. Development projects disturbing greater than 1 ac 

8 (0.4 ha) of land have to obtain and comply with the provisions of WPDES Permit 

9 No. WI-S067831-4. As discussed in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1, the permit requires the 

10 development and implementation of a site-specific construction site erosion control plan, 

11 including specific BMPs, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater 

12 management). Permits issued to all new stormwater and industrial wastewater dischargers 

13 would include provisions to comply with the wasteload allocation established for downstream 

14 receiving waters. Beyond the activities listed in Table 4–16, future industrial development or 

15 major expansion projects also would be subject to NPDES permitting requirements within the 

16 ROI and Lower Rock River Basin.

17 The proposed SHINE facility is not expected to require either a permit to authorize the discharge 

18 of stormwater associated with industrial activity to support operations or an NPDES individual 

19 permit for industrial (process) wastewater discharges to surface water. Further, there are few 

20 large industrial wastewater dischargers with NPDES permits immediately upstream or 

21 downstream of the local watershed encompassing the SHINE facility site. The closure of the 

22 General Motors assembly plant in Janesville eliminated one such industrial wastewater point 

23 source to Rock River.

24 As part of the build-out of TIF District No. 35, the resulting growth district will be served by the 

25 extension of public infrastructure by the City of Janesville, including public water and sanitary 

26 sewer service. These utility systems would also provide for sanitary sewer service and a 

27 potable water supply to the proposed SHINE facility. Operation of the SHINE facility would 

produce an estimated 5,850 gpd (22,145 Lpd), or about 0.006 mgd (23 m3 28 /day) of sanitary and 

29 some industrial wastewater (Section 4.4.1.2). No radiological effluent would be discharged. All 

30 wastewater conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP also would have to meet influent 

31 acceptance requirements for industrial users. Such acceptance standards and any necessary 

32 pretreatment requirements are imposed, in part, so that the WTP can comply with the WPDES 

33 permit effluent limitations imposed on its discharges to Rock River and on waste load 

34 allocations (TMDLs) established by the WDNR. The WTP has a treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd 

(72,290 m3

/day) with an average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd (54,900 m3 35 /day). Thus, the 

36 incremental contribution of influent from the proposed SHINE facility is a very small percentage 

37 (i.e., 0.13 percent) of the available treatment capacity and would not affect the WTP’s ability to 

38 provide for the treatment of other current or reasonably foreseeable residential, commercial, and 

39 industrial dischargers to the WTP. Wastewater generated by the proposed SHINE facility and 

40 conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP would contribute very little to the facility’s treatment 

41 burden with negligible impacts on receiving water quality. Therefore, the cumulative impacts on 

42 surface-water use and quality would be SMALL.

43 Groundwater Resources

44 Groundwater is the source of water supply for municipal water suppliers and individual users in 

45 Rock County. The City of Janesville Water Utility provides water service to connected 

46 customers within the city’s developed areas and growth boundaries. Section 3.4.2 provides a 

47 detailed discussion of the City of Janesville Water Utility capacity wells, groundwater basin, and 

4-66
Environmental Impacts

1 aquifer system. As noted previously, water service would be extended to the proposed SHINE

2 facility site and other properties within TIF District No. 35. 

3 In total, the City of Janesville’s groundwater supply system has a capacity of approximately 

32 mgd (121,100 m3

/d) and the current demand is approximately 10 mgd (37,900 m3 4 /d) (City of 

5 Janesville 2013). The city’s groundwater production (pumpage) peaked in 2000, averaging 

13.9 mgd (52,600 m3 6 /d). However, overall groundwater demand within the City of Janesville is 

7 projected to increase by 50 percent by 2030 with a similar increase countywide. Although the 

8 City of Janesville Water Utility has enjoyed stable water levels, other municipalities in the basin 

9 have seen declines. Consequently, the city has developed a water conservation plan in 

10 anticipation of future growth (City of Janesville 2010). 

11 Operation of the SHINE facility is estimated to require a total of about 6,073 gpd (22,990 Lpd), 

or 0.006 mgd (23 m3 12 /day), of water. This incremental water requirement is a very small 

13 percentage of the available groundwater supply capacity (0.03 percent) of the City of Janesville 

14 Water Utility. This additional demand, combined with current and forecast demands and 

15 considering the potential for climate-change-related impacts, would not be expected to affect the 

16 utility’s ability to provide adequate water supplies and would not be likely to affect regional 

17 groundwater conditions. Taken together, the cumulative impacts on groundwater resources 

18 would be SMALL.

19 4.13.5 Ecological Resources

20 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

21 decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on ecological resources when added to the 

22 aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

23 description of the affected environment in Section 3.5 serves as a baseline for the ecological 

24 cumulative impact assessment. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative 

25 impacts on ecological resources includes the Rock River watershed in the vicinity of the 

26 proposed site. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of 

27 the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.5.

28 Before European settlement, the main land cover types within the Rock River watershed 

29 included prairies, forests, and wetlands (WDNR 2002; USDA 2007). Since that time, these 

30 habitats have been greatly reduced, by at least 50 to 80 percent and converted into agricultural 

31 fields, industrial uses, and residential and commercial areas, as described in Section 3.5. The 

32 remaining tracts of grasslands, forests, and wetlands tend to be relatively small and isolated, 

33 which provides lower quality habitats than large tracts of habitat because of the different 

34 biological and physical characteristics along the edge of a habitat patch (WDNR 2013c).

35 Environmental management practices over the past few decades have slightly increased the 

36 quality and extent of terrestrial and aquatic habitats. For example, the amount of forested 

37 habitats has increased because of changes in land management and forestry laws. Water 

38 quality in streams has increased primarily because of more effective treatment at WTPs 

39 (WDNR 2002).

40 Current threats to terrestrial and aquatic habitats include increased soil, nutrients, and other 

41 pollutants washing into streams and lakes from urban and agricultural stormwater runoff, 

42 continued conversion and fragmentation of wildlife habitat from development, and the 

43 introduction of invasive species (WDNR 2002, 2013c). These activities will likely decrease the 

44 overall availability and quality of forested, grassland, and wetland habitats. Species with 

45 threatened, endangered, or declining populations are likely to be more sensitive to declines in 

46 habitat availability and quality and the introduction of invasive species.

4-67
Environmental Impacts

1 New development projects identified in Table 4–16 are likely to have minimal impacts on 

2 ecological resources because all the projects are sited within areas that are currently 

3 agricultural land, open space, or developed. These types of land covers provide low-quality 

4 habitats for wildlife, birds, and aquatic resources.

5 State parks and wildlife refuges located near the proposed site provide valuable habitat to native 

6 wildlife and migratory birds. As agricultural activities, development, and urbanization increase 

7 habitat conversion and fragmentation, these protected areas will become ecologically more 

8 important because they provide continuous areas of minimally disturbed habitat.

9 Climate change in the midwestern United States is likely to include an increase in the annual 

10 mean temperature combined with an increase in the frequency, duration, and intensity of 

11 droughts (USGCRP 2014). As the climate changes, ecological resources will either need to be 

12 able to tolerate the new physical conditions, such as less water availability, or to shift their 

13 population range to new areas with a more suitable climate. Some species may be more prone 

14 to changes in climate. For example, migratory birds that travel long distances may not be able 

15 to pick up on environmental clues that a warmer, earlier spring is occurring in the United States, 

16 while the birds are still overwintering in the tropics. Fraser et al. (2013) found that songbirds 

17 overwintering in the Amazon did not leave their winter sites earlier, even when spring sites in 

18 the eastern United States experienced a warmer spring. As a result, the song birds missed 

19 periods of “peak food” availability. Climate changes could also favor nonnative invasive species 

20 and promote population increases of insect pests and plant pathogens, which may be more 

21 tolerant to a wider range of climate conditions (USGCRP 2014). Physiological stressors 

22 associated with climate change may also exacerbate the effects of existing stresses in the 

23 natural environment, such as those caused by habitat fragmentation, invasive species, nitrogen 

24 deposition and runoff from agriculture, and air emissions.

25 Section 4.5 of this EIS concludes that the impact from the proposed facility construction, 

26 operations, and decommissioning would not noticeably alter the terrestrial and aquatic 

27 environment and, thus, would be SMALL. However, as environmental stressors, such as runoff

28 from agricultural fields and urban areas and climate change, continue over the proposed 

29 construction, operational, and decommissioning periods, certain attributes of the terrestrial and 

30 aquatic environment (such as habitat quality) are likely to noticeably change. The staff does not 

31 expect these impacts to destabilize any important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic 

32 environment because such impacts will cause gradual change, which should allow the terrestrial 

33 and aquatic environment to appropriately adapt. The staff concludes that the cumulative 

34 impacts of the proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility 

35 plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions would result in 

36 MODERATE impacts to terrestrial and aquatic resources. 

37 4.13.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

38 This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects from the construction, 

39 operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the aggregate 

40 effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on historic and cultural 

41 resources. The geographic area considered in this analysis is the APE associated with the 

42 proposed SHINE facility, the Janesville site, and its immediate vicinity. As discussed in 

43 Section 4.6, the impacts to historic and cultural resources from the construction, operations, and 

44 decommissioning of the SHINE facility would be SMALL.

45 The archaeological record for the region indicates prehistoric and historic occupation; the APE 

46 and its immediate environs appear to have been traditionally used as agricultural fields from the 

47 protohistoric period onward. Historic land development and prolonged agricultural use of the 

4-68
Environmental Impacts

1 APE resulted in impacts on, and the loss of, cultural resources in the APE and its immediate 

2 vicinity. As described in Section 3.6.2, no known historic or cultural resources or historic 

3 properties are present within the APE, and the closest historic property is approximately 1 mi 

4 (1.6 km) to the northeast of the proposed site. However, there remains the possibility for 

5 inadvertent discovery of historic and cultural resources within the APE. Direct impacts would 

6 occur if newly discovered historic and cultural resources were to be physically removed or 

7 disturbed. Indirect visual (viewshed) impacts could occur from new construction within the APE. 

8 The only foreseeable project within the APE is the SHINE facility and the potential discovery of 

9 historic and cultural resources on the proposed site. Should they be discovered, any cultural 

10 resources would be managed using SHINE’s BMPs (e.g., cultural resource management 

11 procedures and training) (SHINE 2013b). Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed 

12 SHINE facility, combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities 

13 on historic and cultural resources, would be SMALL.

14 4.13.7 Socioeconomics

15 This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects from the construction, 

16 operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the effects from 

17 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on current socioeconomic 

18 conditions within the ROI. The description of the affected environment in Section 3.7 serves as 

19 a baseline for the cumulative socioeconomic impact assessment. The geographic area of 

20 analysis is the ROI, Rock County. Section 4.7 found that socioeconomic impacts from the 

21 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be 

22 SMALL.

23 Table 4–16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI 

24 that could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Relevant “other actions” that are 

25 considered in this cumulative impacts analysis are future construction within TIF District No. 35 

26 (including utility lines for the proposed SHINE facility) and the construction and operation of the 

27 NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility.

28 The proposed SHINE facility is located in TIF District No. 35, an area on the south side of 

29 Janesville designated for light industrial use. TIF District No. 35 is large enough for the 

30 construction and operation of several industries. To date, SHINE is the only light industry that 

31 has expressed an interest in TIF District No. 35 (NRC 2013f).

32 The NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility being constructed in Beloit, Wisconsin, 13 mi 

33 (21 km) to the south of Janesville would likely compete for some of the same skilled labor as the 

34 proposed SHINE facility. In the Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies 

35 LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99, an estimated 

36 150 operations workers would be needed (DOE 2012b). However, this demand for skilled labor 

37 would not create a shortage because Rock County has sufficient skilled labor to meet the needs 

38 for both facilities (Table 3–7). Construction and operation of the NorthStar Medical 

39 Radioisotopes facility could cause an increase in population, employment, and tax revenue and 

40 an increased demand for public services in the ROI. However, this increase is likely to be small 

41 because most of the construction and operations workers would likely already reside within the 

42 ROI. The overall contributory socioeconomic effect of this action would be small. Therefore, 

43 the contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

44 SHINE facility, when added to the operation of the NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities, 

45 would be SMALL.

4-69
Environmental Impacts

1 4.13.8 Human Health

2 The geographic region of interest for the evaluation of cumulative effects on human health is 

3 that within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility. Within this ROI, there are no 

4 nuclear power plants that would contribute to radioactive or nonradioactive exposure.

5 As discussed in Section 4.8.2, the NRC reviewed the information provided by SHINE regarding 

6 the proposed radiological and nonradiological safety programs that would be implemented to 

7 protect the workers and members of the public from operations at the proposed SHINE facility. 

8 In Section 4.8.2, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from operations at the proposed 

9 SHINE facility would be SMALL. For this evaluation of cumulative impacts, the NRC staff 

10 considers the impacts in the ROI associated with the operations of other facilities using 

11 radioactive and nonradioactive material in the recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

12 future.

13 This assessment evaluates the potential cumulative impacts from the proposed SHINE facility, 

14 the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility, and two medical facilities located in 

15 Janesville, Wisconsin: the Mercy Clinic South and the Mercy Hospital. Mercy Clinic South 

16 provides imaging services to patients. Mercy Hospital provides medical services to patients that 

17 include imaging services, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine (SHINE 2013). A third 

18 medical facility within the ROI, First Choice Women’s Health Center, does not use radioactive 

19 material and is not considered in this evaluation. The SHINE and NorthStar Medical 

20 Radioisotopes facilities are proposed future actions, whereas the hospital and clinic are 

21 operating.

22 In its environmental assessment for the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility, DOE

23 stated that no radioactive emissions are expected during operation. DOE stated that the design 

24 of the proposed NorthStar facility is expected to control radioactive and nonradioactive effluent 

25 releases to negligible amounts and are not expected to violate Federal or State criteria 

26 applicable to facility workers or members of the public. Additionally, liquid waste generated 

27 during operations at the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility would be collected, 

28 temporarily stored on site, and sent off site for treatment and disposal in accordance with the 

29 Federal and State of Wisconsin regulations (SHINE 2013a; DOE 2012b). DOE also stated that 

30 operations at the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes production facility would be 

31 conducted in accordance with State of Wisconsin regulatory limits (DOE 2012b). Further, the 

32 proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility would be approximately 7.7 mi. (12. km) from 

33 the SHINE facility, which would minimize the potential cumulative radiological exposure 

34 because there would be sufficient distance between the two facilities. Given that the expected 

35 radiological and nonradiological impacts from each facility would be limited, the NRC staff does 

36 not expect that the combined operation of these facilities would result in a cumulative impact to 

37 the workers or members of the public in excess of NRC or State of Wisconsin regulatory limits.

38 Mercy Clinic South and Mercy Hospital in Rock County, Wisconsin, provide imaging services to 

39 patients that include radiation oncology and nuclear medicine. Both facilities are within 5 mi 

40 (8 km) of the proposed SHINE facility. Mercy Clinic South is approximately 1.6 mi (2.6 km) 

41 away, and Mercy Hospital is approximately 4.4 mi (7.1 km) away. SHINE (2013a) determined 

42 that radiological exposure to members of the public outside these facilities is negligible. Based 

43 on the low levels of radiation exposures from these medical facilities and the proposed SHINE 

44 facility, and factoring in the distance between the medical facilities and the proposed SHINE 

45 site, the NRC staff does not expect the cumulative impacts to workers at the SHINE facility or 

46 members of the public would be in excess of NRC or State of Wisconsin regulatory limits.

4-70
Environmental Impacts

1 As discussed in Section 4.8.2.2 of this EIS, the NRC staff concluded that the nonradiological 

2 impacts from the proposed SHINE facility to workers and members of the public would be 

3 SMALL. Given that the nonradiological impacts from the facilities listed in Table 4–16 would be 

4 within regulatory limits of the State of Wisconsin and the distance between the facilities and the 

5 proposed SHINE facility, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impact to workers and 

6 members of the public would be SMALL.

7 The NRC staff is currently conducting a thorough independent safety evaluation to verify that 

8 the radiological exposure to the members of the public would be below regulatory limits set in 10 

9 CFR Part 20. If the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative dose to workers and the public 

10 would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the 

11 cumulative radiological impacts would be SMALL.

12 4.13.9 Waste Management

13 The geographic region of interest for the evaluation of cumulative impacts from the disposal of 

14 radioactive and nonradioactive waste is that area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed 

15 SHINE facility. Table 4–16 lists the facilities considered within this ROI. There are no nuclear 

16 power plants that would contribute to radioactive or nonradioactive exposure. There are two 

17 medical facilities: Mercy Clinic South and Mercy Hospital.

18 In Section 4.9, the NRC staff reviewed SHINE’s radioactive and nonradioactive management 

19 programs for the safe handling and disposal of its waste. Based on information provided by 

20 SHINE in its ER, the NRC staff found that the expected design features and management 

21 programs (i.e., temporary storage, packaging, transportation, and disposal) would adequately 

22 control radioactive and nonradioactive waste. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that the 

23 impacts would be SMALL.

24 This evaluation considers the cumulative impacts within the ROI associated with the operations 

25 of other facilities using radioactive and nonradioactive material in the recent past, present, and 

26 reasonably foreseeable future.

27 This cumulative impact assessment is based on the proposed SHINE facility and the facilities 

28 listed in Table 4–16, including the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility and two 

29 medical facilities located in Janesville, Wisconsin: the Mercy Clinic South and the Mercy 

30 Hospital. The proposed SHINE and NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities are proposed 

31 future actions, whereas the two medical facilities are operating. Radioactive and nonradioactive 

32 waste are and would be generated as part of the operation of many of the facilities listed in 

33 Table 4–16. The waste from these facilities, in some cases, are and would likely go to the same 

34 waste disposal sites.

35 For radioactive waste, two facilities are available for the disposal of low-level waste from the 

36 proposed SHINE facility and the medical facilities: EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah, and Waste 

37 Control Specialists in Andrews County, Texas. EnergySolutions is authorized to dispose of only 

38 Class A low-level waste, whereas WCS is authorized to dispose of Class A, B, and C low-level 

39 waste (SHINE 2013a).

40 In the event that SHINE loses access to a low-level waste disposal facility, the NRC staff 

41 expects that any low-level waste would have to be stored either within the facility or in a new 

42 storage facility constructed either on site or at an offsite location. The storage of low-level waste 

43 would continue until a low-level waste disposal facility is available. Low-level waste, regardless 

44 of its location, must be stored in accordance with Federal and State requirements to ensure the 

45 safety of workers and members of the public. As discussed in Section 4.9, multiple physical 

46 barriers (i.e., shielded walls, hot cells, shielded storage containers, protective equipment, and 

4-71
Environmental Impacts

1 ventilation systems) and administrative controls (i.e., procedures and training) would be used to 

2 limit the impacts to workers and members of the public from radioactive material in the proposed 

3 SHINE facility. The NRC staff expects that similar facility design and management programs 

4 would be used to ensure safety during the temporary storage of low-level waste at NorthStar 

5 and the medical facilities. 

6 A provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) 

7 states that DOE would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive 

8 waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it 

9 determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE or NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities) does not 

10 have access to a disposal path. For example, if a disposal pathway for greater than Class C

11 waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its safe storage and disposal. 

12 As discussed in Section 4.4, nonradioactive wastewater from the proposed SHINE facility would 

13 be sent to the Janesville municipal sanitary system. The NRC staff expects that most of the 

14 facilities listed in Table 4–16 would also send their wastewater to the Janesville municipal 

sanitary system. The WTP has a treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd (72,290 m3 15 /day), with an 

average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd (54,900 m3 16 /day). The average daily treatment and 

17 discharge flow includes the operating Mercy Clinic South and Mercy Hospital (SHINE 2013b). 

18 Sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment for the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes 

19 facility would be provided by the City of Beloit (DOE 2012b). Based on the capacity of the 

20 Janesville municipal sanitary system, the NRC staff concludes that there would be adequate 

21 capacity to process wastewater from the proposed facility, in addition to existing and reasonably 

22 foreseeable residential, medical, and commercial facilities.

23 Solid nonradioactive waste, such as general office trash and industrial waste generated during 

24 the operation, maintenance, and day-to-day office operations of the proposed facility, would be 

25 handled by the City of Janesville’s sanitation department (SHINE 2013b). Rock County has a 

26 State-licensed landfill (License No. 3939) authorized to receive the following materials: 

27 asbestos, contaminated soil, demolition, garbage, noncombustible material, refuse, and 

28 shredder fluff (WDNR 2013d).

29 The NRC staff reviewed information on solid-waste management on the WDNR and EPA Web 

30 sites; no known capacity constraints exist for the disposal of such waste either within Wisconsin 

31 or the Nation as a whole (WDNR 2013d; EPA 2013).

32 As discussed in Sections 2.7 and 4.9 of this document, SHINE would have waste management 

33 systems and programs to control, handle, process, store, and transport the types and quantities 

34 of nonradioactive waste expected to be generated by the medical radioisotope production 

35 process. The waste management systems and programs are expected to ensure that the 

36 radioactive wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance 

37 with the regulatory requirements of the NRC, DOT, and the State of Wisconsin. The NRC staff 

38 expects that nonradioactive waste generated by the facilities listed in Table 4–16 will be 

39 managed in accordance with the State of Wisconsin requirements.

40 Based on the information on waste disposal in Wisconsin and the United States, the NRC staff 

41 concludes that there would be adequate disposal space on a State and national level for 

42 radioactive and nonradioactive waste from multiple current and reasonably foreseeable sources 

43 and that the waste would be handled and disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and 

44 local requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts would be 

45 SMALL.

4-72
Environmental Impacts

1 4.13.10 Transportation

2 This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects from the construction, 

3 operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the effects from 

4 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on transportation infrastructure. 

5 The geographic area of analysis for evaluation of cumulative impacts on transportation is 

6 primarily the same as that used in Section 4.10 and includes the 91 ac (37 ha) within the site 

7 boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility. However, the 

8 roads for routes that could be used for delivery of medical isotopes (if air transport is not 

9 possible) or disposal of wastes were also considered. Transportation infrastructure includes 

10 roadways, rail lines, airports, and traffic control devices. As discussed in Section 4.10, the 

11 traffic impacts would be MODERATE during construction and decommissioning and SMALL to 

12 MODERATE during operations.

13 Construction projects in Table 4–16 could produce an increase in vehicle traffic on roads within 

14 the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE site. For example, the NorthStar medical 

15 radioisotope project would involve the construction of a facility and would add additional 

16 employees commuting on roads near the SHINE site. In addition, new construction projects 

17 could occur within TIF Districts Nos. 34 and 35, although the NRC staff did not identify any 

18 specific additional construction projects within TIF Districts Nos. 34 and 35 (NRC 2013f). 

19 Depending on the number of workers required and on whether construction projects near the 

20 SHINE site were occurring at the same time as the SHINE facility construction or operations, 

21 traffic impacts on access roads would increase. Most existing roads would be sufficient to 

22 handle the construction project transportation activities, and alternative routes could be used to 

23 minimize transportation impacts. In some cases, however, a noticeable increase in traffic could 

24 occur, especially if construction timeframes overlapped and construction workers and vehicles 

25 used the same roads. Traffic from facilities, such as the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, 

26 Glen Erin Golf Course, Mercy Clinic, Mercy Hospital, and Alliant Energy Generation Facility, 

27 would likely have a noticeable impact on transportation, given that the facilities are currently 

28 operating and that a need for additional transportation infrastructure has not occurred. 

29 Therefore, depending on whether other construction projects overlapped with the SHINE project 

30 or on whether increased vehicular activity from workers or residents on roads near the proposed 

31 SHINE site had a noticeable impact on traffic volumes, the cumulative effect of 

32 transportation-related traffic impacts during SHINE facility construction, operations, and 

33 decommissioning would be SMALL to MODERATE.

34 4.13.11 Environmental Justice

35 The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential contributory 

36 human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and 

37 decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the effects from other past, 

38 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on minority and low-income populations and 

39 whether these effects might be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority and low-income 

40 populations are subsets of the general public residing near the Janesville site in the existing 

41 industrial park, and everyone would be exposed to the same environmental effects generated 

42 by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility.

43 The geographic area of analysis is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE

44 facility at the Janesville site. As discussed in Section 4.12, the proposed SHINE facility site and 

45 industrial park are located in a minority population block group because it has a greater 

46 percentage of minority people than the 5-mi (8-km) radius. Minority and low-income populations 

47 residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and 

4-73
Environmental Impacts

1 increased commuter and vehicle traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 

2 However, during construction and decommissioning, these would be short term and primarily 

3 limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Janesville site would not have high and 

4 adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. As a 

5 result, minority and low-income populations residing near the proposed SHINE facility and the 

6 existing industrial park would not experience disproportionately high and adverse human health 

7 and environmental effects from the proposed action. 

8 Table 4–16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the 

9 geographic area of analysis that could contribute cumulative human health and environmental 

10 effects. Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from other past, present, and 

11 reasonably foreseeable future actions would mostly consist of environmental effects caused by 

12 construction and operations of new commercial and industrial developments (e.g., noise, dust, 

13 traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, noise and dust impacts during 

14 construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and 

15 low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by 

16 commuter vehicle and truck traffic. However, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse 

17 and would be contained within a limited time period during certain hours of the day. Increased 

18 demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, 

19 disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, 

20 given the availability of workers and the likelihood of workers commuting to the construction site, 

21 the need for rental housing would be reduced.

22 Operational emissions from commercial or industrial facilities could disproportionately affect 

23 minority and low-income populations living near the new commercial and industrial facility. 

24 However, everyone would be exposed to the same potential contributory effects, and any 

25 impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions. 

26 Permitted air emissions from all commercial and industrial facilities, including the contributory 

27 effects from the proposed SHINE facility, would be expected to remain within regulatory 

28 standards.

29 Based on this information and the analysis of human health and other environmental impacts 

30 presented in this EIS, the contributory effects of constructing, operating, and decommissioning 

31 the SHINE facility are not likely to create high and adverse cumulative human health and 

32 environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living near the Janesville site.

33 4.13.12 Summary

34 Table 4–18 summarizes the cumulative impacts in all resource areas. Cumulative impacts 

35 would range from SMALL to MODERATE depending on the resource area. Specifically, these 

36 cumulative impacts would be SMALL for all resource area components other than ecological 

37 resources and transportation.

4-74
Environmental Impacts

1 Table 4–18. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources,

2 Including the Impacts of the Proposed Project

Resource Category Cumulative Impact Level Description of Impacts

Land Use and Visual Resources

Land Use SMALL New construction activities would occur 

within or adjacent to existing facilities or 

within areas zoned for industrial use.

Visual Resources SMALL New construction activities would occur 

within or adjacent to existing facilities or 

within areas zoned for industrial use and 

of low scenic quality.

Air Quality and Noise

Air Quality SMALL Other sources of air emissions in Rock 

County are too small or are located too 

far away to have any significant 

cumulative effects.

Noise SMALL Noise levels associated with the 

proposed SHINE facility would be 

localized and restricted to within a few 

hundred feet of the proposed SHINE 

facility.

Geologic Environment SMALL Important farmland soils would be lost 

but would primarily occur in areas 

committed to development. 

Consumption of rock and mineral 

resources would not affect regional 

availability of the materials.

Water Resources SMALL Projected water use and wastewater

generation would be within the 

capabilities of the affected utility systems 

to provide adequate service. 

Ecological Resources MODERATE As climate change and runoff from 

agricultural fields and urban areas 

continue over the proposed construction 

and operational period, certain attributes 

of the terrestrial and aquatic environment 

(such as habitat quality) are likely to 

noticeably change. No impacts are 

expect to destabilize any important 

attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic 

environment because changes will be 

gradual, thus allowing the terrestrial and 

aquatic environment to appropriately 

adapt. 

4-75
Environmental Impacts

Resource Category Cumulative Impact Level Description of Impacts

Socioeconomics SMALL Most of the construction and operations 

workers already reside within the ROI. 

Therefore, the cumulative effects from 

the construction and operation of the 

proposed SHINE facility in TIF District 

No. 35, combined with the construction 

and operation of the NorthStar Medical 

Radioisotopes facility in the ROI, would 

result in little, if any, change in 

population or increased demand for 

housing and public services. The 

combined effect would create minimal 

socioeconomic impacts.

Historic and Cultural Resources SMALL No ground-disturbing activities would 

occur within the APE besides the 

proposed SHINE facility. BMPs would 

be employed in case of any future 

inadvertent discoveries of historic and 

cultural resources on SHINE property.

Human Health SMALL Radiological doses and nonradiological 

exposures would be within NRC and the 

State of Wisconsin’s limits. 

Waste Management SMALL Adequate radioactive and nonradioactive 

disposal space occurs on a state and 

national level and waste would be 

handled and disposed of in accordance

with Federal, State, and local 

requirements.

Transportation SMALL TO MODERATE Commercial development within the ROI 

has not resulted in the need for 

additional transportation infrastructure 

improvements. Current infrastructure is 

sufficient to handle the projected growth 

in TIF Districts Nos. 34 and 35, but traffic

monitoring as development progresses 

would identify potential problem areas 

and could point to traffic control 

improvements that could alleviate 

episodic or peak traffic congestion. 

Cumulative transportation impacts would 

be MODERATE during construction and 

decommissioning and SMALL during 

SHINE facility operations.

Environmental Justice – – Cumulative human health and 

environmental effects on minority and 

low-income populations are not expected 

to be disproportionately high and 

adverse. 

4-76
Environmental Impacts

1 4.14 References

2 7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, “Important 

3 farmlands inventory.”

4 7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, “Farmland and 

5 protection policy act.”

6 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

7 protection against radiation.” 

8 10 CFR Part 30. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 30, “Rules of general 

9 applicability to domestic licensing of byproduct material.”

10 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, “Domestic licensing of 

11 source material.”

12 10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, “Domestic licensing of 

13 special nuclear material.”

14 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and 

15 transportation of radioactive material.” 

16 36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

17 Part 60, “National Register of Historic Places.”

18 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

19 Part 800, “Protection of historic properties.” 

20 40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 

21 “Standards of performance for new stationary sources.”

22 40 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 63, 

23 “National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for source categories.”

24 40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112, 

25 “Oil pollution prevention.”

26 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 

27 Part 1508, “Terminology and index.”

28 49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, “Hazardous 

29 materials table, special provisions, hazardous materials communications, emergency response 

30 information, training requirements, and security plans.”

31 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, “Shippers—

32 general requirements for shipments and packaging.”

33 59 FR 7629. Executive Order No. 12898. “Federal actions to address environmental justice in 

34 minority populations and low-income populations.” Federal Register 59(32):7629–7634. 

35 February 16, 1994.

36 69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Policy statement on the treatment of 

37 environmental justice matters in NRC regulatory and licensing actions.” Federal Register

38 69(163):52040–52048. August 24, 2004.

39 75 FR 31514. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Prevention of significant deterioration 

40 and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.” Federal Register 75(106):31514–31608. 

41 June 3, 2010.

4-77
Environmental Impacts

1 78 FR 73698. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Prevention of significant deterioration for 

2 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers—significant impact levels and significant 

3 monitoring concentration: Removal of vacated elements.” Federal Register 78(236) 

4 73698-73702. December 9, 2013.

5 [AIHA] American Industrial Hygiene Association. 2012. AIHA Emergency Response Planning 

6 Committee. Available at <https://www.aiha.org> (accessed 15 January 2015).

7 [BLS] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area 

8 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Available at <www.bls.gov> (accessed 

9 12 August 2013).

10 Cai H, Burnham A, Wang M. 2013. Updated Emission Factors of Air Pollutants from vehicle 

11 Operations in GREET Using MOVES. Available at

12 <file:///C:/Users/NXM5/Downloads/Updates%20to%20Vehicle%20Operation%20Emission%20F

13 actors%20in%20GREET1_2013%20(4).pdf> (accessed 15 September 2014).

14 [CEQ] Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance under the 

15 National Environmental Policy Act. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/

16 resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf> (accessed 22 May 2012). 

17 ADAMS No. ML082520150.

18 City of Janesville. 2009. Economic Development Memorandum—Action on a Resolution 

19 Approving the Project Plan for and Establishing the Boundaries for Tax Increment Finance 

20 District No. 34 at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport (File Res. No. 20090577). Available 

21 at <http://cms.ci.janesville.wi.us/WebLink8/0/doc/195551/Page31.aspx> (accessed 

22 1 September 2014).

23 City of Janesville. 2010. Water Utility, Water Conservation Plan. April 2010. Available at 

24 <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=573> (accessed 

25 20 December 2013).

26 City of Janesville. 2012. Tax Increment Finance District No. 35, Project Plan, Amendment 

27 No. 1. City of Janesville, WI: Economic Development Agency, Accounting Division. 

28 February 13, 2012. Available at 

29 <http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1463> (accessed 

30 25 June 2013).

31 City of Janesville. 2013. Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville, Title 13, Water 

32 and Sewers, 13.16, Wastewater Facilities and Sewer Ordinance. Updated November 2005. 

33 Available at <http://cms.ci.janesville.wi.us/weblink8/Browse.aspx?dbid=0> (accessed 

34 20 December 2013).

35 Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

36 [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2008. DOE Handbook: Temporary Emergency Exposure 

37 Limits for Chemicals: Methods and Practice. DOE-HDBK-1046-2008. August 2008.

38 [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2012a. Protective Action Criteria (PAC): Chemicals with 

39 AEGLs, ERPGs, and TEELs. Revision 27, February 2012. Available at 

40 <http://www.atlintl.com/DOE/teels/teel.html> (accessed 2 December 2014).

41 [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. 2012b. 

42 Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic 

43 Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99 (DOE/EA-1929). Available at 

44 <http://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/ea-1929-final-environmental-assessment> (accessed 

45 8 May 2013).

4-78
Environmental Impacts

1 [DOL] U.S. Department of Labor. 2013. Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses—

2 2012. Available at <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh.pdf> (accessed 29 January 2014).

3 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. An Update on the Use of Particulate 

4 Ratios to Assess Likely PM10 Attainment Status.

5 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Clarification of Prevention of Significance 

6 Deterioration (PSD) Guidance for Modelling Class I Area Impacts. Available at 

7 <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr/gen/u3-11.txt> (accessed 14 August 2014).

8 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

9 Factors, 3.3 Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Available at 

10 <http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/> (accessed 14 October 2014).

11 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

12 Finding for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 

13 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009b. Assessment of the Impacts of Global 

14 Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level 

15 Ozone.

16 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

17 (NAAQS). Available at <http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html> (accessed 31 October 2013).

18 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Acute Exposure Guidelines (AEGL). 

19 Available at <http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/> (accessed 2 December 2014).

20 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Municipal Solid Wastes in the United 

21 States: 2012 Facts and Figures Fact Sheet. Available at 

22 <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm> (accessed 24 March 2014).

23 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Enforcement and Compliance History 

24 Online (ECHO). Available at <http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/> (accessed 10 October 2014).

25 [EPA/NOAA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

26 Administration. 2013. Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA), Version 5.4.3. 

27 March 2012.

28 [FAA] Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. National Based Aircraft Inventory. Available at 

29 <http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=JVL&AptSecNum=2> (accessed 

30 14 October 2014).

31 Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq.

32 Forest County Potawatomi. 2013. Letter from Cook M, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, to 

33 Wong MC, NRC. Subject: Request for scoping comments concerning the SHINE Medical 

34 Technologies radioisotope production facility. July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13224A164.

35 Fraser J, Silverio C, Kramer P, Mickle N, Aeppli R, Stutchbury BJM. 2013. A trans-hemispheric 

36 migratory songbird does not advance spring schedules or increase migration rate in response to 

37 record-setting temperatures at breeding sites. PLoS ONE 8(5):e64587.

38 Homann Associates, Inc. 2007. EPIcode Based on Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis—

39 Emergency Planning for Extremely Hazardous Substances, U.S. EPA, FEMA, and the 

40 U.S. Department of Transportation. Version 7.0. 2007.

4-79
Environmental Impacts

1 [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The 

2 Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

3 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, 

4 Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, and Miller HL (editors)). Cambridge, United Kingdom, and 

5 New York: Cambridge University Press, 996 p.

6 Mercy Health System. 2014a. Mercy Clinic South. Available at 

7 <http://mercyhealthsystem.org/location/mercy-clinic-south/> (accessed 17 December 2014).

8 Mercy Health System. 2014b. Mercy Hospital and Trauma Center. Available at 

9 <http://mercyhealthsystem.org/location/mercy-hospital-and-trauma-center/> (accessed 

10 17 December 2014).

11 [MPCA] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2014. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota. 

12 Available at <http://www.nonoise.org/library/sndbasic/sndbasic.htm> (accessed 

13 24 February 2014). 

14 [MRI] Midwest Research Institute. 2006. Background Document for Revisions to Fine Fraction 

15 Ratios Used for AP-42 Fugitive Dust Emission Factors. Available at 

16 <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/bgdocs/b13s02.pdf> (accessed 10 October 2013).

17 [NASA] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2004. Tango in the Atmosphere: 

18 Ozone and Climate Change. Available at 

19 <http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200402_tango/> (accessed 30 September 2013).

20 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321, et seq.

21 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §470, et seq.

22 [NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and 

23 Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 3. Climate of the Midwest. NOAA 

24 Technical Report NESDID 142-3.

25 [NorthStar] NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes, LLC. 2014. NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes 

26 Breaks Ground for New Facility in Beloit, Wisconsin. Available at 

27 <http://www.northstarnm.com/news/groundbreaking> (accessed 18 August 2014).

28 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. 1998. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis 

29 Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. NUREG/CR–6410. 

30 March 1998. ADAMS No. ML072000468.

31 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting 

32 NUREG-1537, Part 1, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of 

33 Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities 

34 and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors, Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing 

35 Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance 

36 Criteria,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous 

37 Reactors. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. October 17, 2012. ADAMS 

38 Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075.

39 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

40 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 1, Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Washington, DC: 

41 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. NUREG–1437. June 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13107A023.

42 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013b. Letter from Wong MC, NRC, to Nelson R, 

43 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Subject: SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope 

44 Production Facility Application Review. July 1, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13136A011.

4-80
Environmental Impacts

1 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013c. Letter from Wong MC, NRC, to Born E, 

2 Wisconsin Historical Society. Subject: SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production 

3 Facility Application Review. July 1, 2013. ADAMS No. ML3135A365.

4 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013d. Meeting Summary: NRC Visit to 

5 Wisconsin Historical Society on July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13226A537.

6 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013e. Letters from Wong MC, NRC, to 13 

7 Tribes. Subject: Request for Scoping Comments concerning the SHINE Medical Technologies 

8 Radioisotope Production Facility Application Review. July 1, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13136A014.

9 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013f. Meeting Summary: NRC Visit to 

10 Janesville Community Development Department on July 18, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13247A400.

11 [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Web Soil Survey, Soil Map–Rock 

12 County, Wisconsin. (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit 

13 description; suitabilities and limitations for use, building site development). Updated 

14 February 15, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. 

15 Available at <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app> (accessed 20 December 2013).

16 [NWCC] National Wind Coordinating Committee. 2002. Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: A 

17 Handbook. NWCC Siting Subcommittee, Washington, DC. Available at 

18 <http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/permitting2002.pdf> (accessed 

19 13 February 2015). 

20 Ogden, LJ. 1996. Collision Course: The Hazards of Lighted Structures and Windows to 

21 Migrating Birds. Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP). Paper 3. Available at 

22 <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/flap/3?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fflap%2F3&utm_

23 medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages> (accessed 31 January 2014).

24 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.

25 Rock County. 2009. Rock County Comprehensive Plan 2035. Janesville, WI: Rock County 

26 Planning, Economic and Community Development Agency. September 10, 2009. Available at 

27 <http://www.co.rock.wi.us/planning-comprehensive-plan-2035> (accessed 20 December 2013).

28 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

29 (PSAR), Chapter 13, “Accident Analysis,” and Chapter 19, “Environmental Report.” Monona, 

30 WI: SHINE. March 26, 2013 and May 31, 2014. ADAMS No. ML13172A324.

31 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

32 Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

33 Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887.

34 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.

35 Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

36 October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189.

37 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.

38 Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

39 February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404.

40 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

41 Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

42 March 23, 2015. ADAMS No. MLML15092A397.

4-81
Environmental Impacts

1 [SWRA] Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. 2012. Airport Investments. Available at 

2 <http://jvlairport.com/NewsUpdates/CapitalImprovementPlans.aspx> (accessed 

3 29 August 2014).

4 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 American Community Survey Demographic Profile, 

5 Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

6 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. American FactFinder, 2010 American Community Survey 

7 and Data Profile Highlights Information on Rock County, City of Janesville, and Block Groups 

8 within Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and 

9 <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

10 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. American FactFinder, 2006–2010 5-Year Estimates 

11 American Community Survey Data Profile and Highlights Information on Rock County, City of 

12 Janesville, and Census Tracts within Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at 

13 <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

14 [USDA] United Stated Department of Agriculture. 2007. Rapid Watershed Assessment Lower 

15 Rock River. October 2007. Available at 

16 <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_020057.pdf> (accessed 

17 28 January 2014).

18 [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013. Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of 

19 Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Available at 

20 <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_

21 Level/Wisconsin/st55_2_025_025.pdf> (accessed 4 October 2013).

22 [USGCRP] U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2014. Global Climate Change Impacts in 

23 the United States. (Melillo JM, Richmond TC, and Yohe GW (editors)). New York: Cambridge 

24 University Press. Available at <http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/> (accessed 

25 25 November 2014).

26 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. National Land Cover Database. ESRI ArcGIS 9.3.1 

27 software. Available at <http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer> (accessed 4 October 2013).

28 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 151. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and 

29 Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation Chapter NR 151. Runoff Management. Revised 

30 May 2013. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/nr> (accessed 

31 3 January 2013).

32 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 216. Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Pollutant 

33 Discharge Elimination System Chapter NR 216. Storm Water Discharge Requirements. 

34 Revised April 2013. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/nr> (accessed 

35 3 January 2013).

36 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406. Construction Permits. March 2014. Available 

37 at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/406.pdf> (accessed 

38 13 February 2015).

39 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 460. Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

40 Pollutants for Source Categories-General Provisions. Available at 

41 <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/460/Title> (accessed 

42 17 January 2014).

43 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code. Chapter DHS 157. Radiation Protection. Available at 

44 <http://dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/P4/P45059.pdf> (accessed 17 January 2014).

4-82
Environmental Impacts

1 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326. Motor Carrier Safety Requirements for 

2 Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Available at 

3 <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/326> (accessed 17 November 2014).

4 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Watershed–Rock River–Milton 

5 (LR04). Available at 

6 <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/watershedDetail.aspx?code=LR04&Name=RockRiver–Milton> 

7 (accessed 29 January 2014).

8 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. Construction Site Storm Water 

9 Permit Overview. Web page updated November 12, 2013. Available at 

10 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Stormwater/construction/overview.html> (accessed 3 January 2013).

11 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013b. Air Management Program 

12 Permit Tracking Tool. Available at 

13 <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTrackingSearch.aspx> (accessed 

14 9 October 2013).

15 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013c. South Glacial Plains Ecological 

16 Landscape. Available at 

17 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=9> (accessed 

18 23 December 2013.

19 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013d. Wisconsin Solid Waste 

20 Management. Available at <http://www.dnr.wi.gov/topic/Waste/Solid.html> (accessed 

21 24 March 2014).

22 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014. Air Management Program Permit 

23 Tracking Tool. Available at 

24 <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=19955911> (accessed 

25 21 November 2014).

26 [WDOR], Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2014. County and Municipal Revenues and 

27 Expenditures 2012. Bulletin No. 112, January 2014. Available at 

28 <http://www.revenue.wi.gov/slf/cotvc/cmreb12.pdf> (accessed 27 February 2014).

29 Wisconsin Golf Courses. 2013. Glen Erin Golf Course, Janesville, WI. Available at 

30 <http://gleneringolf.com>. 

31 Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 285. Air Pollution. Available at 

32 <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/285.pdf> (accessed 15 January 2015)

33 Wisconsin Statute 157.70. Burial Sites Preservation. Available at 

34 <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/157/III/70> (accessed 15 January 2015) 

4-83

1 ALTERNATIVES

2 This chapter describes alternatives to granting a construction permit for the proposed SHINE

3 Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) 

4 and the environmental impacts of those alternatives. The need to compare the proposed action 

5 with alternatives arises from the requirement in Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of the National 

6 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). NEPA states 

7 that an environmental impact statement (EIS) shall include an analysis of alternatives to the 

8 proposed action. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implements this requirement 

9 through regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51 and its 

10 Interim Staff Guidance in NUREG–1537 (NRC 2012), which state that the EIS will include an 

11 analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the 

12 environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for 

13 reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects.

14 The NRC standard of significance for impacts uses the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

15 terminology for “significantly” (40 CFR 1508.27). Since the significance and severity of an 

16 impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, the NRC considered both “context” and 

17 “intensity,” as defined in the CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1508.27. Context is the geographic, 

18 biophysical, and social context in which the effects would occur. Intensity is the severity of the 

19 impact. Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts: 

20 SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. For this EIS, the NRC staff characterized impact levels for 

21 each resource area using the following three definitions of significance levels, which are 

22 presented in the Interim Staff Guidance to NUREG–1537: 

23 SMALL—environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would 

24 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. In

25 assessing radiological impacts, the NRC has concluded that those impacts that do not 

26 exceed permissible levels in the NRC’s regulations are considered small.

27 MODERATE—environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

28 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

29 LARGE—environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

30 important attributes of the resource.

31 In this EIS, the NRC staff analyzed four alternatives to the proposed action. In Section 5.1, the 

32 NRC staff analyzed the no-action alternative or the environmental consequences if the NRC 

33 denies the construction permit. In Section 5.2, the NRC staff examined the environmental 

34 consequences if the SHINE facility were constructed and operated at an alternative location. 

35 Based on an in-depth site selection process, the NRC staff examined in depth two alternative 

36 sites, Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point. Section 5.3 examines the environmental impacts of 

37 constructing and operating a medical radioisotope production facility at the proposed SHINE site 

38 but using alternative technology. Section 5.4 describes the benefits and costs of the various 

39 alternatives.

40 5.1 No-Action Alternative

41 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would deny the construction permit, and the SHINE

42 facility would not be constructed. The no-action alternative does not involve the determination 

43 of whether radioisotopes are needed or should be generated. The decision to produce 

44 radioisotopes is at the discretion of applicants (NRC 2012).

5-1
Alternatives

1 Under the no-action alternative, no changes would occur to the proposed SHINE site in 

2 Janesville, Wisconsin. The site would remain zoned for industrial use. Therefore, impacts on 

3 all resource areas would be SMALL.

4 The no-action alternative is the only alternative considered by the NRC that does not satisfy the 

5 purpose and need for this EIS, because this alternative does not satisfy the need for a U.S. 

6 supply of molybdenum-99. Assuming that the need for a U.S. supplier of molybdenum-99 

7 continues to exist, another private company would likely construct and operate a medical 

8 radioisotope production facility.

9 5.2 Alternative Sites

10 The NRC staff considered the environmental impacts of locating the proposed SHINE facility at 

11 alternative sites. SHINE identified and selected reasonable alternative sites, using the 

12 alternative site-selection process described below, in Section 5.2.1 (SHINE 2013a). Unless 

13 indicated otherwise, the following discussion is a summary of information presented in SHINE’s 

14 Environmental Report (ER) (SHINE 2013a).

15 5.2.1 Description of Alternative Site-Selection Process

16 SHINE’s site-selection process assessed a variety of economic and environmental factors to 

17 determine reasonable regions, states, and, ultimately, sites to construct and operate the 

18 proposed SHINE facility. SHINE determined that proximity and access to customers was one of 

19 the most important factors in determining site location, because molybdenum-99 decays or 

20 disappears at a rate of about 1 percent per hour after production. To identify a potential region 

21 that is central to the locations of its customers, SHINE first identified the locations of their three 

22 most likely customers: Nordion Inc. in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Covidien Ltd. in St. Louis, 

23 Missouri; and Lantheus Medical Imaging Inc. in Billerica, Massachusetts. SHINE determined 

24 that locating the facility in the midwestern U.S. region provides proximity to these three 

25 customers, as well as to potential future customers, which could include hospitals and 

26 radiopharmacies throughout the country. The Midwestern States considered by SHINE 

27 included Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. SHINE 

28 also considered Louisiana because of potential financial incentives.

29 SHINE evaluated potential Midwestern States based on their proximity to available and potential 

30 customers, financial incentives, and seismic considerations. To initially evaluate seismic 

31 concerns on a regional level, SHINE reviewed major fault-line seismic conditions within the 

32 midwestern region and determined that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Louisiana do not have any 

33 major fault lines. To better understand potential financial incentives, SHINE contacted 

34 economic development offices in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Michigan, and Louisiana. Ohio 

35 and Michigan were eliminated from further consideration because neither of the economic 

36 development offices in these States responded to SHINE’s request. Wisconsin offered what 

37 SHINE considered to be a superior financial incentives package. Wisconsin is also the most 

38 centrally located State to SHINE’s three prospective customers and is the home State of several 

39 project partners, including the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Morgridge Institute for 

40 Research, and Phoenix Nuclear Labs. Based on these factors, SHINE eliminated Minnesota 

41 and Louisiana from further consideration. Therefore, based on communication with economic 

42 development offices, a review of major fault lines, and the location of potential customers, 

43 SHINE determined that Wisconsin was the preferred State within the region.

5-2
Alternatives

1 Within the State of Wisconsin, SHINE identified four locations that met certain basic geographic 

2 and infrastructure requirements for the proposed facility. Specifically, based on the relatively

3 fast decay rate of molybdenum-99, SHINE required that sites met two fundamental criteria: 

4 (1) build-to-suit land available for development with proximity and access to an interstate 

5 highway, and (2) an airport within approximately 10 minutes of the proposed facility location, 

6 capable of handling radioisotope distribution aircraft. Based on these criteria, SHINE identified 

7 four cities for further consideration: Madison, Chippewa Falls, Janesville, and Stevens Point.

8 Of these four cities, three city councils offered financial incentive packages to SHINE: 

9 Chippewa Falls, Janesville, and Stevens Point. No incentive package was offered for Madison 

10 and, therefore, SHINE eliminated this city from further consideration.

11 For the remaining three cities, SHINE staff determined an approximate parcel size appropriate 

12 for the facility and requested that the city councils or other local government entities identify a 

13 potential site that met the size requirements and prepare an incentive proposal detailing the 

14 advantages of the site.

15 SHINE developed a set of 11 criteria to score the three potential sites and to ultimately identify 

16 the site with the best economic advantage and fewest potential environmental impacts. SHINE 

17 scored each site using the following criteria:

18 • local government and community support,

19 • financial incentives,

20 • distance to the site boundary,

21 • access to a skilled workforce,

22 • proximity to potential future customers,

23 • proximity to an airport,

24 • proximity to an interstate highway,

25 • anticipated depth to the groundwater table,

26 • seismic characteristics,

27 • presence of endangered resources and wetlands, and

28 • presence of historic and archaeological resources.

29 Local Government and Community Support

30 SHINE determined that a supportive local government and a supportive local community are 

31 important factors in its facility site-selection process, because this support would be essential to 

32 complete the proposed construction and operations. SHINE weighted this factor (along with the 

33 financial incentives below) more heavily than the other nine factors in the scoring process 

34 because of the level of importance SHINE felt these factors would contribute to the successful 

35 construction and operation of the proposed facility. SHINE assigned these two factors a 

36 maximum score of 10. When evaluating this criterion, SHINE found that all three local 

37 governments showed an interest in the project, and it assigned all three sites a score of 10 out 

38 of 10.

39 Financial Incentives

40 SHINE determined that the financial incentive offered by each local government is an important 

41 factor in the site-selection process, because this support would be key to successfully 

42 completing the proposed construction and operating the facility. As with local government and 

5-3
Alternatives

1 community support, SHINE assigned this factor a possible 10 out of 10. During its evaluation, 

2 SHINE determined that all three communities provided competitive financial incentives; 

3 however, the cities of Janesville and Stevens Point provided slightly larger incentive packages 

4 than the city of Chippewa Falls. SHINE assigned the Janesville and Stevens Point sites a score 

5 of 9 out of 10 and the Chippewa Falls site a slightly lower score (8 out of 10).

6 Distance to the Site Boundary

7 SHINE assessed the distance from the facility to the site boundary, because a greater distance 

8 would lower the likelihood of a potential adverse impact on the public. The Janesville site had 

9 the furthest distance to the site boundary, approximately 1,000 ft (305 m) in all directions. The 

10 Stevens Point site was similar, with a minimum distance to the boundary just under 1,000 ft 

11 (305 m) in all directions. The Chippewa Falls site had a considerably smaller distance to the 

12 site boundary in some directions because of the site’s smaller, oblong shape. Based on this 

13 information, SHINE assigned the Janesville and Stevens Point sites a score of 5 out of 5 and 

14 the Chippewa Falls site a slightly lower score of 4 out of 5.

15 Access to a Skilled Workforce

16 SHINE determined that proximity to large cities, as well as cooperation with local universities or 

17 technical colleges, was indicative of the accessibility to a skilled workforce. Proximity to large 

18 cities provides access to a diverse workforce, while relationships with local universities provide 

19 access to skilled training for the workforce. SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest 

20 score (4 out of 5), because of its proximity to Madison, Milwaukee, and Chicago. Janesville is 

21 close to Blackhawk Technical College, which would offer future training for SHINE’s workforce, 

22 if the facility were located at the Janesville site. The Chippewa Falls site ranked evenly with the 

23 Stevens Point site, and SHINE assigned both sites a score of 3 out of 5. Chippewa Falls is 

24 approximately 100 mi (161 km) from Minneapolis–St. Paul, but none of the local schools offer 

25 any workforce training options, while Stevens Point is more remote than the other two sites but 

26 is in close proximity to the University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point, which would offer training to 

27 SHINE’s workforce if the Stevens Point site were selected.

28 Proximity to Potential Customers

29 As described earlier in this section, SHINE determined that, because molybdenum-99 decays or 

30 diminishes at a rate of about 1 percent per hour after production, proximity to potential 

31 customers is a site-selection factor. Based on the locations of its three prospective customers 

32 (in Ottawa, Missouri, and Massachusetts) in comparison to the locations of the three potential 

33 sites, SHINE determined that radioisotopes shipped from the Janesville location have the 

34 shortest overall distance for air travel to each of SHINE's potential customers. SHINE assigned 

35 the Janesville site the highest score for this category (5 out of 5), followed by the Stevens Point 

36 site (4 out of 5) and then the Chippewa Falls site (3 out of 5).

37 Proximity to Airport

38 SHINE determined that the closer the potential site is to the airport, the quicker its product 

39 would be delivered to the customer, and it analyzed this distance as a site-selection factor. The 

40 Janesville site is directly across the highway from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, with 

41 a distance of less than 0.5 mi (0.8 km). The Stevens Point site is approximately 4 mi (6 km) 

42 from the Stevens Point Municipal Airport. The Chippewa Falls site is approximately 10 mi 

43 (16 km) from the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport.

44 During instances of local airport closures, radioisotopes would need to be transported by truck 

45 to the nearest secondary airport. The Janesville site is approximately 1 hour from Dane County 

46 Regional Airport in Madison and within 2 hours of both O’Hare International Airport in Chicago 

5-4
Alternatives

1 and Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee. The Chippewa Falls site is within 2 hours of the 

2 Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport. The Stevens Point site is more than 2 hours from all 

3 of these airports. Based on proximity to local and major airports, SHINE assigned the Janesville 

4 site a score of 5 out of 5, while the Stevens Point and Chippewa Falls sites received lower 

5 scores (3 out of 5).

6 Proximity to an Interstate Highway

7 If the local airport closes, SHINE determined that transporting radioisotopes by truck either to 

8 the closest secondary airport or directly to the customer would be necessary. To minimize 

9 travel time, SHINE made proximity to an interstate highway a site-selection factor. The 

10 Janesville site is approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) from Interstate 39. The Stevens Point site is less 

11 than 2 mi (3.2 km) from Interstate 39, and the Chippewa Falls site is approximately 18 mi 

12 (29 km) from Interstate 94. SHINE assigned the Stevens Point site the highest score in this 

13 category (5 out of 5), followed by the Janesville site (4 out of 5) and then the Chippewa Falls 

14 site (3 out of 5).

15 Anticipated Depth to Groundwater

16 SHINE made depth to groundwater a site-selection factor, because greater depth to

17 groundwater would minimize facility impacts from spills, given that potential groundwater 

18 contamination from a leak or spill of oil or chemicals is less likely with further depth to the water 

19 table. Based on boreholes and wells drilled on site, SHINE determined that groundwater at the 

20 Janesville site was located 55 to 65 ft (17 to 20 m) below grade. Using records from onsite 

21 boreholes, SHINE determined groundwater to be approximately 50 ft. (15.2 m) below grade at 

22 the Chippewa Falls site. Using similar methods as at the Chippewa Falls site, SHINE 

23 determined that groundwater at the Stevens Point site was located 8.0 to 11.0 ft (2.4 to 3.4 m) 

24 below grade. SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest points for this category (5 out 

25 of 5), followed by the Chippewa Falls site (4 out of 5) and then the Stevens Point site (2 out 

26 of 5).

27 Seismic Characteristics

28 SHINE evaluated the seismic characteristics at each proposed site by reviewing the seismicity 

29 of the site area (based on peak ground accelerations) and historic records of seismic activity in 

30 the site area. SHINE found that the Janesville site is slightly more likely than the other two sites 

31 to experience a very weak shaking event. However, SHINE also noted that both the Chippewa 

32 Falls and Stevens Point sites are located on glacial sands and may have higher amplification 

33 factors than at the Janesville site. SHINE also conducted a geotechnical investigation of the 

34 Janesville site that indicated that glacial deposits occur at the Janesville site, as well. Based on 

35 this information, SHINE assigned all three sites a score of 3 out of 5.

36 Presence of Protected Species

37 To score each of the three sites based on the presence of endangered resources and wetlands, 

38 SHINE requested information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Wisconsin 

39 Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) regarding the potential occurrence of Federally or 

40 State-listed species at the three sites. Because the Janesville site is an active agricultural field 

41 far from any wetlands, water, or buffer areas, WDNR and FWS determined it was an unsuitable 

42 habitat for listed species. Both the Chippewa Falls and the Stevens Point site contain forested 

43 areas, which the FWS noted is a potential habitat for migratory birds. WDNR also 

44 recommended that the small wetland community on the eastern edge of the Chippewa Falls site 

45 be protected as much as possible to avoid affecting any potential rare or declining species.

46 FWS identified a portion of the Stevens Point site as having a high potential for the Karner blue 

47 butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), a Federally listed endangered species in Wisconsin.

5-5
Alternatives

1 Based on the input from WDNR and FWS, SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest score 

2 in this category (5 out of 5), and assigned the Stevens Point and Chippewa Falls sites a 2 out 

3 of 5, based on the potential habitats for protected species.

4 Presence of Historic and Archaeological Resources

5 To evaluate the presence of historic and archaeological resources, SHINE reviewed the 

6 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as well as the Wisconsin Historic Preservation 

7 Database. This search did not identify significant archaeological sites or other cultural 

8 resources on or near any of the proposed or alternative sites. As described in Chapter 3, 

9 SHINE completed a Phase I archaeological survey of the Janesville site. The survey did not 

10 identify any precontact or historic Euro-American archaeological sites. Based on this 

11 information, SHINE assigned all three sites a 5 out of 5.

12 Summary

13 SHINE assigned each site a score of either 1 to 10 or 1 to 5, based on the criteria discussed 

14 above. These scores are summarized in Table 5–1.

15 Table 5–1. Proposed SHINE Site-Selection Scoring Criteria

(Max

Score) Janesville

Stevens

Point

Chippewa

Falls

Local Government and Community Support (10) 10 10 10

Financial Incentives (10) 9 9 8

Minimum Distance to Site Boundary (5) 5 5 4

Access to a Skilled Workforce (5) 4 3 3

Proximity to Potential Future Customers (5) 5 4 3

Proximity to Airport (5) 5 3 3

Proximity to Interstate Highway (5) 4 5 3

Anticipated Depth to Groundwater Table (5) 5 2 4

Seismic Characteristics (5) 3 3 3

Presence of Endangered Resources and 

Wetlands

(5) 5 2 2

Presence of Historic and Archaeological 

Resources

(5) 5 5 5

Total 65 60 51 48

Source: SHINE 2013a

16 Based on these scores, SHINE selected the Janesville site, with a total score of 60 out of 65, as 

17 the proposed location for the SHINE facility. SHINE determined that the Chippewa Falls site 

18 (48 out of 65) and the Stevens Point site (51 out of 65) were reasonable alternatives to the 

19 Janesville site.

20 The NRC staff evaluated the site-selection methodology described above and concluded that 

21 the process for selecting and evaluating alternative sites, including the proposed site in 

22 Janesville, Wisconsin, is reasonable and consistent with guidelines presented in NUREG-1537 

23 and the associated Interim Staff Guidance (NRC 2012). The NRC staff evaluated the 

24 environmental impact of the two alternative sites, Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point, in the 

25 following sections.

5-6
Alternatives

1 5.2.2 Chippewa Falls Site

2 The NRC staff evaluated the Chippewa Falls site as a reasonable alternative site. The City of 

3 Chippewa Falls is in Chippewa County in northwestern Wisconsin, approximately 13.4 mi 

4 (21.6 km) north of Eau Claire, Wisconsin (Figure 5–1). Specifically, the site is located in the

5 Wissota Lake Business Park near the northern edge of the corporate boundaries of the City of

6 Chippewa Falls in Chippewa County, Wisconsin. The site is bordered to the west by Commerce

7 Parkway, to the north by County Highway S, to the east by State Highway 178, and to the south 

8 by forested and open land (Figure 5–2). The site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the 

9 southwest. Cropland, including corn and soybeans, comprises the majority of the site. No 

10 residences or other buildings are located on site.

5-7
Alternatives

1 Figure 5–1. Population Centers and Transportation 

2 Features in Chippewa County, Wisconsin

3

4 Source: SHINE 2013a

5-8
Alternatives

1 Figure 5–2. Chippewa Falls Site

2

3 Source: SHINE 2013a

4 5.2.2.1 Land Use and Visual Resources

5 Land Use

6 The Chippewa Falls site includes 76 acres (ac) (31 hectares (ha)) of land within the northern 

7 portion of the City of Chippewa Falls (Figure 5–2). The site is currently zoned for light industrial 

8 use and is part of the Wissota Lake Business Park (City of Chippewa Falls 1999; 

9 WEDC 2014a). Based on a review of the National Land Cover Database, the Chippewa Falls 

10 site is composed of 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) of cultivated agricultural land, 9.1 ac (3.7 ha) of developed 

11 land, and 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of deciduous forest (Table 5–2) (USGS 2006; SHINE 2013a). State

12 Highway 178 borders the western boundary of the site. Warehouses and other buildings are 

13 located immediately to the west of State Highway 178. Agricultural fields surround the remaining 

14 portions of the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2013a).

15 An abandoned railroad right-of-way runs diagonally through the southern portion of the site. 

16 Some of the land south of this right-of-way has been graded for use for the Wissota Lake

17 Business Park. No residences, other structures, special land uses, or mineral resources are 

18 located within the Chippewa Falls site boundaries.

19 The entire site is composed of prime farmland soils where otherwise not committed to 

20 developed uses (NRCS 2013a; 7 CFR 657.5). Prime farmland is defined in the Farmland 

21 Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) as “land that has the best combination of 

5-9
Alternatives

1 physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other 

2 agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without 

3 intolerable soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary [of Agriculture].” The U.S. Department 

4 of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with State and 

5 local agencies, defines and delineates the soils to consider as prime farmland and farmland of 

6 statewide importance (7 CFR Part 657). However, otherwise qualifying “farmland” soils do not 

7 include those on land already in or committed to urban development or water storage, as 

8 defined in 7 CFR 658.2.

9 Table 5–2. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the Chippewa Falls Site 

Land Use 

Category

Permanently 

Disturbed

Temporarily 

Disturbed

Total On 

Site

Total Within 

5-mi (8-km) 

Radius

Percentage 

Within 5-mi

(8-km) 

Radius

Developed 

Land

2.6 ac

(1.0 ha)

0.01 ac

(0.004 ha)

9.1 ac

(3.7 ha)

8,966 ac

(3,629 ha)

18

Cultivated 

Crops

14.9 ac

(6.0 ha)

13.7 ac

(5.5 ha)

66.5 ac

(26.9 ha)

19,133 ac

(7,743 ha)

38

Pasture/Hay - - - 3,237 ac

(1,310 ha)

6

Grassland/

Herbaceous

- - - 896 ac

(362 ha)

2

Shrub/Scrub - - - 569 ac

(230 ha)

1

Deciduous 

Forest

0.5 ac(a)

(0.2 ha)

0.8 ac

(0.3 ha)

7,301 ac

(2,955 ha)

15

Evergreen 

Forest

- - - 1,116 ac

(452 ha)

2

Mixed Forest - - - 496 ac

(201 ha)

1

Woody 

Wetlands

- - - 1,269 ac

(514 ha)

3

Emergent, 

Herbaceous 

Wetlands

- - - 733 ac

(297 ha)

1

Open Water - - - 6,549 ac

(2,650 ha)

13

Totals 17.9 ac

(7.3 ha)

13.7 ac

(5.5 ha)

76.4 ac

(30.9 ha)

50,2645 ac

(20,342 ha)

100

Notes: The footprint of the facility would permanently convert 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). In addition, up to 

0.3 ac (0.1 ha) could also be cleared to comply with security requirements or other measures.

Source: USGS 2006, SHINE 2013a

10 Construction

11 Construction at the Chippewa Falls site would permanently disturb and convert 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) 

12 of agricultural land, 2.6 ac (1.0 ha) of developed land, and 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) of deciduous forest 

13 into an industrial area (Table 5–2). If SHINE needed to clear additional portions of the site to 

14 comply with security requirements or other measures, the total amount of affected forested 

15 areas could be up to 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) (SHINE 2013a). In addition, 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) of agricultural 

5-10
Alternatives

1 land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking area and 

2 construction material staging or laydown areas. Once construction activities are complete, 

3 SHINE would likely restore temporarily affected areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, 

4 or native prairie (SHINE 2013a). The remaining portion of the site would likely remain as open 

5 area, forested areas, or agricultural fields, or would be converted to cool season grasses or 

6 native prairie. The potential conversion of up to 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) currently used for agricultural 

7 and cultivated crops to other uses would be minor when compared to the 19,133 ac (7,743 ha) 

8 of agricultural land remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the site. Similarly, the conversion of up to

9 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of deciduous forest to industrial facilities would be minor when compared to the 

10 7,301 ac (2,955 ha) of deciduous forest remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site.

11 The Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations require agencies to make 

12 Farmland Protection Policy Act evaluations part of the NEPA process to reduce the conversion 

13 of farmland to nonagricultural uses by Federal projects and programs. Construction of the 

14 proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would permanently convert 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) 

15 and temporarily convert 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) of prime farmland soils to industrial use. However, this 

16 is a small percentage of the prime farmland within the region surrounding the Chippewa Falls

17 site. Furthermore, the Chippewa Falls site is currently zoned for light industrial uses and is part 

18 of a larger development project to create the Wissota Lake Business Park (City of Chippewa 

19 Falls 1999; WEDC 2014a). Because the Chippewa Falls site has been committed to urban 

20 development and zoned for light industrial use, the Chippewa Falls site does not have qualifying 

21 important farmland soils subject to the Act.

22 Impacts on land use from construction would be SMALL, based on the relatively small amount 

23 of farmland and deciduous forest that would be permanently converted to other uses, the lack of 

24 qualifying prime farmland soils within affected areas, and the location of the proposed facility 

25 within an area zoned for light industrial use, as well as the fact that no effects were expected on 

26 special land use or mineral resources.

27 Operations

28 Operation of the SHINE facility would not require any new land or require land use changes 

29 beyond those required for construction. Therefore, impacts on land use during operations 

30 would be SMALL.

31 Decommissioning

32 Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve 

33 heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Land 

34 requirements to perform these activities would be similar to those required during construction. 

35 After decommissioning activities are complete, the Chippewa Falls site could remain industrial 

36 or be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. Given that land requirements would be 

37 similar to those described during construction and that, after decommissioning is complete, the 

38 land would be industrial, agricultural, or open space, the NRC staff determined that the impacts 

39 on land use during decommissioning would be SMALL.

40 Visual Resources

41 The visual setting of the area that would be affected by the proposed SHINE facility at the 

42 Chippewa Falls site includes agricultural, forested, and light industrial viewsheds. The viewshed

43 to the north, south, and east of the Chippewa Falls site is mainly flat or has slightly rolling 

44 cultivated fields. In addition, trees are visible in many directions. The viewshed to the west is a

45 light industrial landscape, with a few warehouses and other buildings adjacent to the proposed 

46 site.

5-11
Alternatives

1 Construction

2 The activities associated with constructing the proposed SHINE facility (e.g., excavation, 

3 earthmoving, pile driving, and erecting the facility) would require large pieces of construction 

4 equipment, significantly altering the appearance and partially obstructing views of the existing 

5 landscape. However, the Chippewa Falls site has low scenic quality caused by a lack of 

6 notable features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, mute colors,

7 cultural modifications to adjacent scenery, and a commonality within the physiographic province. 

8 The Chippewa Falls site also has a low-to-moderate sensitivity rating, as it is in an area with low 

9 scenic values and a lack of special natural and wilderness areas. However, several potentially 

10 sensitive viewing areas exist within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Chippewa Falls site, including the 

11 following: more than 100 residences, a hospital, nursing home, child daycare facility, adult 

12 daycare facility, several medical clinics, and two colleges. Nonetheless, trees and existing 

13 buildings would block the view from most of these locations, which would result in a partial view 

14 of the Chippewa Falls site during construction. In addition, the viewshed surrounding the 

15 Chippewa Falls site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, such as 

16 warehouses and other buildings, and agricultural fields. Based on the low scenic quality and 

17 light industrial viewshed in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site, construction-related aesthetic 

18 impacts would be SMALL during construction.

19 Operations

20 After the facility is constructed, the appearance of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site 

21 would not change during operations, other than a small steam plume that may be visible coming 

22 from the exhaust stack. The steam plume from the exhaust stack is expected to be minimal, 

23 because opacity associated with the natural-gas-fired boiler and heaters tends to be low, as 

24 described in Section 4.2.2.1. The steam plume would be more visible during periods of cold 

25 weather, although the size of the steam plume would still be relatively small. Therefore, visual 

26 impacts during operations would be SMALL.

27 Decommissioning

28 Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve 

29 heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. After 

30 SHINE completed decommissioning activities, the Chippewa Falls site could remain industrial, 

31 or be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. As the facility would be located in a district 

32 zoned for light industrial use and the viewshed surrounding the Chippewa Falls site is partially 

33 aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, the NRC staff would not expect any changes to 

34 the landscape during decommissioning to significantly affect any viewsheds. Therefore, visual 

35 impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL.

36 5.2.2.2 Air Quality and Noise

37 Air Quality

38 The climate in Chippewa Falls is similar to that in Janesville, which was described in 

39 Section 3.2. According to National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) records for the years 

40 1981 to 2010 (NCDC 2010a), the annual average temperature near Chippewa Falls was 44.8 °F 

41 (7.1 °C) , annual snowfall is about 47 in. (119 cm) and average annual precipitation (rain) is 

42 31 in. (78.8 cm). July is the warmest month of the year and January, the coldest. The NCDC

43 records identify the following extreme weather events in Chippewa County from 1996 to 2013: 

44 thunderstorms (88 events), lightning (8 events), hail (76 events), tornadoes (2 events), heavy 

45 rain (23 events), and floods (2 events) (NCDC 2014a).

5-12
Alternatives

1 The Chippewa Falls site is located in Chippewa County and is part of the Southeast 

2 Minnesota-La Crosse (Wisconsin) Interstate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.66). 

3 Chippewa County is designated as an attainment area for sulfur dioxide and an 

4 attainment/unclassifiable area for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and 

5 particulate matter (40 CFR 81.350). Therefore, criteria pollutant concentrations in the county 

6 are lower than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or there is insufficient data 

7 to determine if the NAAQS are met. The region of influence (ROI) for the air quality analysis 

8 discussed below is Chippewa County, because air quality designations are made at the county 

9 level. The nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, about 208 mi (334 km) from the site (EPA 2014).

5 10

11 Construction

12 Sources of air pollutant emissions during construction of the Chippewa Falls site would include 

13 fugitive dust from earth-moving equipment and other vehicles, criteria pollutants from diesel 

14 engines, and exhaust gases from worker vehicles as they commute to and from the Chippewa 

15 Falls construction site. Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the proposed 

16 SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since construction activities and the number and type 

17 of sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel 

18 combustion). Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, 

19 carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4–3. Construction air emissions 

20 would be temporary and localized. Chippewa County, as discussed above, is designated an 

21 attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the 

22 estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from 

23 a facility at the Chippewa Falls site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed 

24 NAAQS or that would deteriorate Chippewa County’s attainment/unclassifiable designation. 

25 Furthermore, SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations

26 stipulated in the WDNR Type A Registration Construction Permit.

27 Given the temporary nature of construction activities (18 months), the air quality designation of 

28 Chippewa County, and the pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from 

29 WDNR, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL.

30 Operations

31 Sources of air emissions from operating the facility would be from radioisotope production, fuel 

32 combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and vehicular traffic from workers

33 commuting and from monthly truck shipments in and out of the facility. Air pollutants from these 

34 sources would include nitrogen oxides (from radioisotope production, fuel combustion, vehicular 

35 traffic), sulfur dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), particulate matter (from fuel 

36 combustion and vehicular traffic), carbon dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), 

37 and carbon monoxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic). Air emissions would be 

38 similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since 

39 operation activities and the number and type of sources would be similar (worker vehicles, fuel 

40 combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and the production process). 

41 Chippewa County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, 

42 therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in 

43 Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from a facility at the Chippewa Falls site 

44 to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate 

5 Rainbow Lake in Wisconsin is the nearest Class 1 area (about 117 miles (188 km) from the Chippewa Falls site);

however, in 1980, Rainbow Lake was excluded for purposes of visibility protection as a Class I area.

5-13

 
Alternatives

1 Chippewa County’s attainment/unclassifiable designation. Furthermore, SHINE would be 

2 required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated within the Type A 

3 Registration Operation Permit from WDNR.

4 Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded, that the Chippewa County air quality is 

5 good, and that pollution control measures would be required in air permits from WDNR, the 

6 NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during operation would be SMALL.

7 Decommissioning

8 Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities in type and duration. 

9 Sources of air emissions would be diesel equipment, vehicle worker emissions, and fugitive dust

10 from earth-moving activities. Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the 

11 proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), because decommissioning activities and 

12 sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel 

13 combustion). Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, 

14 carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4–10. Air emissions from 

15 decommissioning would be temporary and localized. Chippewa County, as discussed above, is 

16 designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. 

17 Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect 

18 emissions from decommissioning at the Chippewa Falls site to contribute to concentrations in 

19 the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Chippewa County’s 

20 attainment/unclassifiable designation.

21 Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded and the Chippewa County air quality is 

22 good, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during decommissioning would be

23 SMALL.

24 Noise 

25 The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the proposed 

26 SHINE facility. There are a number of noise-sensitive receptors within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius 

27 from the Chippewa Falls site, and the closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located 

28 approximately 2,112 ft (644 m) from the production building and approximately 530 feet (162 m) 

29 from the site boundary. As discussed above, the Chippewa Falls site is bordered to the west by

30 Commerce Parkway, to the north by County Highway S, and to the east by State Highway 178. 

31 Existing noise sources near the proposed site include vehicular traffic on these roads. The NRC

32 staff did not identify available noise surveys of the Chippewa Falls site and surrounding area. 

33 As discussed in Section 5.2.2.1 above, the Chippewa Falls site and surrounding area are 

34 cultivated agricultural land. Background noise levels are approximately 45 decibels on the 

35 A-weighted scale (dBA) in agricultural cropland areas (EPA 1978).

36 Construction

37 Noise sources during construction of the Chippewa Falls site would include construction 

38 equipment on site and increased traffic volumes. The maximum number of worker vehicles 

39 expected on site during construction is 451. The Chippewa Falls site is bordered to the west by

40 Commerce Parkway, to the north by County Highway S, and to the east by State Highway 178, 

41 and site access would be from Commerce Parkway. While workers would be able to access the 

42 site using a combination of routes (Section 5.2.2.10), it is reasonable to assume that Commerce 

43 Parkway, County Highway S, and State Highway 178 will experience an increase in traffic 

44 volumes. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.10, peak traffic on these roads averages around 

45 400 vehicles per hour, similar to Highway 51 near the Janesville site. The NRC staff estimates 

46 that an increase in vehicular traffic caused by 451 peak construction workers will increase noise 

47 levels no more than 3 dBA near these roads in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. A 3-dBA 

5-14
Alternatives

1 change over existing noise levels is considered to be a “just noticeable” difference, while a 

2 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes 

3 an adverse community response (NWCC 2002).

4 The types of equipment that would be used on site during construction are listed in Table 4–2. 

5 Blasting and pile driving would not be required for excavation or installation of foundations 

6 (SHINE 2013a). The closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 

7 2,112 ft (644 m) from the center of the site and approximately 530 ft (162m) from the site 

8 boundary. The NRC staff estimates noise levels of 64 dBA at the residence nearest to the 

9 Chippewa Falls site. Background noise levels are assumed to be around 45 dBA. The increase 

10 in noise levels could be noticeable to residents.

11 Given the closeness of the nearest resident to the Chippewa Falls site and the noise levels from 

12 construction activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to 

13 MODERATE.

14 Operations

15 Noise sources during operation of the Chippewa Falls site would be traffic from worker vehicles. 

16 Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and is not expected to be 

17 audible outside the proposed SHINE building facility. The number of worker vehicles expected 

18 during operation is 150 (SHINE 2013a). Commerce Parkway, County Highway S, and State 

19 Highway 178 in the vicinity of the Chippewa Fall site will experience an increase in traffic 

20 volumes. The NRC staff does not expect that noise levels will increase beyond 1 dBA near 

21 these roads in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site and should not be noticeable. For this 

22 reason, the NRC staff concludes that noise impacts from facility operations would be SMALL.

23 Decommissioning

24 Noise sources during decommissioning of the facility would include construction equipment on

25 site and increased traffic volumes, similar to construction activities. The maximum number of 

26 worker vehicles expected on site during decommissioning is 261. Commerce Parkway, County 

27 Highway S, and State Highway 178 in the vicinity of the Chippewa Fall site will experience an 

28 increase in traffic volumes. The NRC staff does not expect that noise levels will increase 

29 beyond 2 dBA near these roads in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site and should not be 

30 noticeable.

31 The types of equipment that would be used on site during decommissioning are listed in

32 Table 4–9. The closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 2,112 ft 

33 (644 m) from the production building and approximately 530 ft (162 m) from the site boundary. 

34 The NRC staff estimates noise levels of about 64 dBA at the nearest residence to the Chippewa 

35 Falls site. Background noise levels are assumed to be around 45 dBA.

36 Given the closeness of the nearest resident to the Chippewa Falls site and the noise levels from 

37 decommissioning activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to 

38 MODERATE.

39 5.2.2.3 Geologic Environment

40 The Chippewa Falls site is located within the Wisconsin Central Plain physiographic province. 

41 This province is situated near the boundary between the Superior Upland and Central Lowland 

42 physiographic provinces of the United States (USGS 2003; SHINE 2013a). The site location is 

43 near a dividing line between areas affected by the younger Wisconsin glaciations that ended 

44 about 11,700 years ago and older glaciations of the Illinoian age (WGNHS 2011). These events 

45 are further discussed in Section 3.3.1.

5-15
Alternatives

1 The topography of the site is relatively flat, with an average elevation of approximately 930 ft 

2 (283 m) mean sea level. During the NRC environmental site audit, evidence of earthwork and 

3 stockpiles of topsoil were observed in the central portion of the site. Geologic map coverage 

4 indicates that the site is located on a glacial outwash plain (Copper Falls outwash plain) formed 

5 by meltwater associated with the Chippewa ice lobe between approximately 26,000 and 

6 9,500 years ago, during the latter part of the Wisconsin glaciation. The meltwater deposited 

7 sediment characterized as brown to pale brown sand, gravelly sand, and sandy gravel with

8 developed soil profiles of 3.2- to 3.9-ft (1- to 1.2-m) thick. Depth to the uppermost bedrock 

9 surface is estimated to range from 49- to 98-ft (15- to 30-m) below ground surface (bgs) 

10 (Syverson 2007). Bedrock in the vicinity of the site is mapped mainly as Cambrian age 

11 sandstones and locally (in the Chippewa Falls area), as Precambrian granitic intrusive rocks 

12 (Mudrey et al. 1982; WGNHS 2005).

13 A single geotechnical boring was completed in the north-central portion of the proposed site 

14 (AET 2011, SHINE 2013b). At this location, the boring encountered fill extending to a depth of 

15 approximately 3.5 ft (1.1 m) and underlain by a buried soil horizon (sandy silt) approximately 

16 1.5-ft (0.45-m) thick. Below 5 ft (1.5 m), coarse sediments composed of poorly graded sands 

17 and gravels were found. A static water table elevation of 50-ft (15-m) bgs is inferred from the 

18 boring log. The boring was terminated in dense sandy gravel at 82-ft (25-m) bgs without 

19 encountering bedrock (AET 2011).

20 Sand is being mined in several locations around Chippewa County (where the Chippewa Falls 

21 site is located) for use in hydraulic fracturing associated with natural gas production 

22 (SHINE 2013a; WGNHS 2014). Construction sand and gravel is also a commodity in the county 

23 (USGS 2013a), as are peat, glacial clay, and crushed Precambrian igneous or metamorphic 

24 rocks (Chippewa County 2010).

25 Soil unit mapping by NRCS identifies natural soils across the site as consisting of Sattre loam, 

26 0- to 3-percent slopes. This soil mapping unit is composed of well-drained loams and fine 

27 sandy loams and is found on outwash plains and stream terraces that developed from loamy 

28 glacial drift atop gravelly outwash. The profiles of these soils grade to a gravelly coarse sand or 

29 sand at depths greater than about 34 in. (86 cm). The depth to the water table in these soils is 

30 generally greater than 80 in. (200 cm) and they are not prone to ponding. The only building site 

31 limitation these soils have is that excavations tend to be very unstable because of the coarse 

32 sandy texture of subsoils and gravelly content. These soils are all prime farmland soils, where 

33 otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013a; 7 CFR 657.5).

34 As further described in Section 3.3.3, the State of Wisconsin lays within the central portion of 

35 the stable North American craton. Regional seismicity is characterized by relatively infrequent, 

36 small-to-moderate earthquakes that are typical of much of the central and eastern United States 

37 (USGS 2013b). Similar to the Janesville site, seismic hazard estimates prepared by the U.S. 

38 Geological Service (USGS) indicate that the site is located within one of the lowest earthquake 

39 hazard areas in the conterminous United States (Petersen et al. 2011).

40 Within a radius of 200 mi (322 km) of the Chippewa Falls site, only 2 earthquakes with a 

41 magnitude equal to or greater than 2.5 have been recorded since 1973. These events occurred 

42 in January 1988 and February 1994. The closest was a magnitude 3.6 earthquake with an 

43 epicenter approximately 140 mi (225 km) north of the site in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan 

44 (USGS 2013c).

45 Construction

46 Ground-disturbing activities associated with facility construction would have impacts on geologic 

47 and soil resources similar to those discussed for the Janesville site (Section 4.3.1). Earthwork 

5-16
Alternatives

1 requirements and the ease of excavation would be very similar, as soils and surficial strata are 

2 comparable for the two sites. The depth to bedrock is not a concern for excavation work for the 

3 below-grade portions of the facility. As at the Janesville site, shallow excavations could be 

4 prone to slumping, caused by the texture of the soils. The potential for soil erosion and loss 

5 would be similar to that at the Janesville site. However, as described in Section 4.3.1, 

6 adherence to standard best management practices (BMPs) for soil erosion and sediment control 

7 and compliance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge Construction 

8 Site Storm Water Runoff (Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit 

9 No. WI-S067831-4) would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss.

10 Site work and the creation of an impervious surface would result in the irretrievable loss of prime 

11 farmland soils equal to the acreage disturbed and converted to an impervious surface. Given 

12 that the potential for soil erosion and loss is minimal and that SHINE would be required to 

13 comply with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

14 No. WI-S067831-4), the NRC staff finds that the impacts on the geologic environment from the 

15 construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

16 Operations

17 There would be no additional impact on geology and soils from facility operations at the 

18 Chippewa Falls site. Land temporarily disturbed during construction within the site boundary 

19 and lying outside the facility footprint would be revegetated. Regardless of the site location, the 

20 proposed SHINE facility would be sited, designed, and constructed in accordance with all 

21 applicable building codes, which provide for the evaluation of site geologic and soil conditions, 

22 including potential seismic hazards.

23 Therefore, the NRC staff finds that the operational impacts associated with the geologic 

24 environment at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

25 Decommissioning

26 Facility demolition and other ground-disturbing activities associated with decommissioning 

27 would have impacts on soils and sediments similar to those described for construction. As site 

28 activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable local, State, and other Federal 

29 regulations and permits, the NRC staff finds that the impacts on the geologic environment from 

30 facility decommissioning at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

31 5.2.2.4 Water Resources

32 Surface Water

33 No streams or other surface-water bodies exist within the boundaries of the Chippewa Falls site 

34 (SHINE 2013a). The major surface-water feature in the vicinity of the site is Lake Wissota, an 

35 impoundment of the Chippewa River, located about 0.8 mi (1.3 km) east of the site. From the 

36 downstream end of the lake, the Chippewa River flows to the west immediately south of the site 

37 before taking a more southerly course toward Eau Claire (SHINE 2013a). Drainage from the 

38 site would be expected to travel south and southeast toward the Chippewa River.

39 The Chippewa River is one of the largest rivers in Wisconsin. Within the subbasin in which the 

40 Chippewa Falls site is located, the river flows for 103 mi (166 km), extending from the Holcombe 

41 Dam in northern Chippewa and southern Rusk counties to the Mississippi River. This river 

42 section includes five flowages created by dams owned and operated by Northern States Power 

43 Company for hydropower generation and some 69 mi (111 km) of free-flowing river. The largest 

44 of these flowages (Lake Wissota) comprises 6,212 ac (2,500 ha) (WDNR 2013a).

45 The nearest USGS gaging station on the Chippewa River is just southwest of the site in 

46 Chippewa Falls (Station 05365500). The mean annual discharge measured at the USGS gage 

5-17
Alternatives

1 for water years 1888 to 2012 is 4,974 cubic ft per second (cfs) (140.5 cubic m per second 

(m3 2 /s)). The 90-percent exceedance flow, indicative of drought conditions, is 1,320 cfs 

(37.3 m3

/s). For water year 2012, the mean discharge was 3,619 cfs (102 m3 3 /s). The drainage 

area of the river upstream of the station encompasses 5,560 mi2 (14,630 km2 4 ) (USGS 2012a).

5 No floodplains have been delineated on or near the site or within the Lake Wissota Business 

6 Park (Chippewa County 2010; SHINE 2013a; WEDC 2014a), and no tributaries to the Chippewa 

7 River originate on or near the site that could present backwater flooding concerns.

8 The State of Wisconsin has established water-quality standards and numeric criteria and 

9 associated designated-use categories for all waters of the State, as previously described in 

10 Section 3.4.1, and in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 102 and 

11 NR 104). Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify 

12 “impaired” waters for which effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to 

13 attain water-quality standards in such waters. The Chippewa River at Lake Wissota has a 

14 designated use for fish and aquatic life and is identified as impaired because of contaminated 

15 fish stemming from polychlorinated biphenyls and, historically, mercury (WDNR 2013a).

16 In Chippewa County, surface water is used for self-supplied industrial and commercial uses and 

17 with minor use for irrigation, livestock watering, and mining. However, groundwater is the 

18 primary and almost exclusive source for the domestic and municipal water supply 

19 (Buchwald 2011; Chippewa County 2010).

20 No industrial wastewater discharges have been identified in the site vicinity. Sanitary sewer 

21 service is provided to Wissota Business Park by the City of Chippewa Falls through a 24-in 

22 (61-cm) sanitary sewer line (WEDC 2014a). The Chippewa Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant 

(WTP) has a capacity of 5.6 million gallons per day (mgd) (21,200 m3 per day (m3 23 /d)), and 

demand is approximately 2.2 mgd (8,330 m3 24 /d) (Chippewa County 2010; WEDC 2013a).

25 Groundwater

26 The surficial aquifer system occurs in the Chippewa River Basin and its associated drainages 

27 across Chippewa County (Olcott 1992). It is predominantly composed of Pleistocene-age 

28 glacial sediments and younger alluvial sediments that lie atop the bedrock surface (Olcott 1992). 

29 At the Chippewa Falls site, the surficial aquifer resides in the thick blanket of the Copper Falls 

30 glacial outwash identified at the site (Section 5.2.2.3). Consolidated bedrock aquifers of the 

31 Cambrian–Ordovician aquifer system and of the Jacobsville sandstone and crystalline rock 

32 aquifers underlie the site or are present in the region.

33 In the vicinity of the site, potential yields from wells screened in the surficial aquifer can yield up 

to 500 gallons per minute (gpm) (1.9 m3 34 /min) of water (Lippelt 1988). The depth to groundwater 

35 at the site is 50 ft (15 m), as noted in Section 5.2.2.3. Groundwater beneath the site would also 

36 be expected to flow south and southeast toward the Chippewa River.

37 No groundwater quality data are available for the surficial (sand and gravel) unit beneath the 

38 site, and no wells are known to have been drilled on the site location. Groundwater across the 

39 county is generally suitable in quantity and quality to meet domestic potable, agricultural, 

40 municipal, and industrial needs (Chippewa County 2010). The water is generally soft with local 

41 high concentrations of iron (Chippewa County 2010). Nitrate is a contamination of concern in 

42 many areas. The State of Wisconsin regulates groundwater quality and administers 

43 groundwater protection programs in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code

44 (NR 140).

45 As previously noted, municipalities in Chippewa County obtain potable water from groundwater 

46 sources. The Wissota Business Park, in which the Chippewa Falls site is located, would be 

5-18
Alternatives

1 served by a 16-in. (41-cm) water main with water originating from the City of Chippewa Falls 

2 (WEDC 2014a). The City of Chippewa Falls has nine wells and can supply 2.4 mgd 

(9,100 m3 3 /d) of water (Chippewa County 2010). These wells are all completed in the surficial 

4 unit at depths ranging from 43 to 97 ft (13 to 30 m) (WDNR 2013b). Communities that provide 

5 water service through municipal wells must follow Chippewa County’s wellhead protection plan 

6 (Chippewa County 2010).

7 Construction

8 Facility construction activities at the Chippewa Falls site would not have any direct impact on 

9 surface-water resources, as no streams or other surface-water bodies originate within the 

10 boundaries of the site. The major surface-water feature in the vicinity of the site is Lake 

11 Wissota, located about 0.8 mi (1.33 km) east of the site. In addition, construction and 

12 excavation activities would not be expected to have any impact on groundwater hydrology at the 

13 Chippewa Falls site, as the depth to groundwater is about 50 ft (15 m) (American Engineering 

14 Testing 2011).

15 As discussed above (Geologic Environment) and detailed in Section 4.4.1.1 for the Janesville 

16 site, ground-disturbing activities at the Chippewa Falls site would be subject to a Wisconsin 

17 General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This General Permit requires the 

18 development of appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures and spill prevention 

19 and waste management practices to minimize suspended sediment, the transport of other 

20 deleterious materials, and potential water-quality impacts.

21 No surface water would be withdrawn to support construction at the site (SHINE 2013a). The 

22 relatively small volume of water required to support construction activities (averaging about 

0.012 mgd (45 m3 23 /day)) would be supplied by the City of Chippewa Falls, which uses 

24 groundwater. Water could either be supplied by a temporary water tap or trucked to the point of 

25 use. Wastewater generation would be limited to sanitary waste from the construction workforce 

26 and would likely be accommodated through the use of portable restroom facilities.

27 As no natural surface-water features occur on the site, SHINE would not divert or withdraw 

28 surface water to support facility construction, there would be no onsite withdrawal of 

29 groundwater, and SHINE would be subject to the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

30 No. WI-S067831-4), the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface and groundwater 

31 hydrology, water quality, and water use from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility at 

32 the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

33 Operations

34 Normal facility operations would not have any direct impact on surface water or groundwater 

35 hydrology or quality. Compliance with the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

36 No. WI-S067831-4), as described for construction, specifically requires the development of a 

37 stormwater management plan with appropriate BMPs to address runoff from buildings and other 

38 impervious surfaces. As detailed in Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.2.2 for the Janesville site, the 

39 design, construction, and operation of the proposed facility would include necessary structural 

40 controls, and operations would be subject to appropriate plans and procedures (including a Spill 

41 Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan) to prevent any spills or other releases 

42 from reaching soils or surfaces where they could be conveyed to surface waters or 

43 groundwater.

44 Total water use is projected to be 6,073 gpd (22,990 liters per day (Lpd)), or 0.006 mgd 

(23 m3 45 /day) and would be supplied by the City of Chippewa Falls by a service connection from 

46 the Wissota Business Park (SHINE 2013a, 2013b, 2014). Estimated demand is a small 

47 percentage of the City of Chippewa Falls’ supply capacity.

5-19
Alternatives

1 Operation of the proposed SHINE facility would entail no direct discharge of wastewater

2 effluents to either surface water or groundwater. Wastewater generated by facility operations, 

3 composed primarily of sanitary waste, would be discharged to the City of Chippewa Falls WTP 

4 (SHINE 2013a). Section 5.2.2.9 discusses the management of other waste forms.

5 Given that SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility operation and 

6 would develop and implement spill prevention and response procedures, the NRC staff 

7 concludes that the impacts on surface and groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water use 

8 from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

9 Decommissioning

10 Facility decontamination, demolition, and site-restoration activities would be similar, regardless 

11 of the site, with the potential magnitude of the impacts on surface water and groundwater similar 

12 to those discussed for construction. Specifically, SHINE would conduct site activities in 

13 accordance with appropriate BMPs and would observe waste handling and pollution prevention 

14 practices and spill prevention and response procedures during decommissioning, so that no 

15 materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater, where they could 

16 contaminate water resources.

17 Small quantities of water that may be required for dust control and soil compaction in 

18 association with site restoration activities would be supplied from municipal sources, as 

19 discussed for construction.

20 Given that no natural surface-water features occur on the site, that water requirements would be 

21 minimal, and that SHINE would develop and implement spill prevention and response 

22 procedures as part of State permit requirements for ground-disturbing activities, the NRC staff 

23 concludes that the impacts on water resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL.

24 5.2.2.5 Ecological Resources

25 The Chippewa Falls site consists of 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) of agricultural land, 9.1 ac (3.7 ha) of 

26 developed land, and 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of deciduous forest (Table 5–2). As described in 

27 Section 5.2.2.1, these land use covers are based on the USGS (2006) land cover database. 

28 During a field reconnaissance survey, the SHINE staff observed a small wetland community in a 

29 narrow drainage way along the eastern edge of the site that was not included in the USGS land 

30 cover database. Plant species on the site vary depending on previous land uses. For example, 

31 actively cultivated crops on the site include corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). 

32 Fallow agricultural land on the southern portion of the site has been graded in preparation for 

33 use by the Wissota Lake Business Park. Plants in this portion of the site are typical of an old 

34 field plant community, such as goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and aster (Symphyotrichum spp.). An 

35 abandoned railroad right-of-way crosses the site and is surrounded by a few deciduous tree 

36 species (trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides and 

37 dogwoods (Cornus spp.)); a few prairie remnant species; and plants tolerant of physical 

38 disturbances. Wetland species observed in the narrow drainage way along the eastern edge of 

39 the site include common cottontail (Typha latifolia), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), dock (Rumex

40 spp.), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and spikerush (Eleocharis spp.) 

41 (SHINE 2013a).

42 The Chippewa Falls site provides habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other 

43 wildlife tolerant of open fields, cultivated grasses, and frequent disturbances from human 

44 activity. During a reconnaissance survey, SHINE observed several birds at the Chippewa Falls 

45 site, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), 

46 black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), and various sparrows (SHINE 2013a). Common 

5-20
Alternatives

1 mammals that inhabit the site likely include deer, raccoons, squirrels, and rabbits. Common 

2 reptiles and amphibians that inhabit the site likely include frogs and snakes.

3 Other than the one wetland identified along the eastern edge of the site, no water bodies or 

4 aquatic habitats exist within the boundaries of the Chippewa Falls site. The closest aquatic 

5 features to the Chippewa Falls site include a wetland that is 0.25 mi (0.4 km) from the site, Lake 

6 Wissota, that is approximately 0.8 mi (1.3 km) north-northwest of the site, and the Chippewa 

7 River that is approximately 0.9 mi (1.4 km) south of the site (SHINE 2013a). Lake Wissota and 

8 the Chippewa River are important ecological habitats for fish, invertebrates, and other aquatic 

9 organisms and plants (WDNR 2014a, 2014b).

10 In correspondence with the NRC, FWS (2013) did not identify any Federally listed species on or 

11 near the Chippewa Falls site (FWS 2013). Three species of special concern and one 

12 State-endangered fish could occur within 6 mi (10 km) of the Chippewa Falls site (Table 5–3)

13 (SHINE 2013a; WDNR 2014a). While these species may occur within the vicinity of the site, the 

14 Chippewa Falls site provides unsuitable habitat for any of the four State-protected species

15 (SHINE 2013a; WDNR 2014a). SHINE did not observe any Federally or State-protected 

16 species on the Chippewa Falls site during reconnaissance surveys (SHINE 2013a).

17 Table 5–3. Federally and State-Protected Species

18 Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the Chippewa Falls Site

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) State Rank(b)

Bird

Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus bald eagle BGEPA SSC S4

Fish

Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SSC S3

Insects

Ophiogomphus smithi sand snaketail SSC S3

(a) BGEPA= Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; E = endangered; SSC = Species of Special 

Concern

(b) S3 = Rare or uncommon in Wisconsin; S4 = Secure in Wisconsin with many occurrences.

Sources: FWS 2013, WDNR 2014a, SHINE 2013a

19 The FWS administers the BGEPA, which prohibits anyone from taking bald (Haliaeetus 

20 Ieucocephalus) or golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), including their nests or eggs, without a 

21 permit issued by the FWS. FWS (2013) determined that bald eagles occur within the vicinity of 

22 the Chippewa Falls site.

23 The FWS also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which prohibits anyone from taking 

24 native migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The majority of the bird species that 

25 occur in Wisconsin, except for resident games birds and feral species, are protected under this

26 Act (WDNR 2014c). In the vicinity of the site, migratory birds rely on riparian, forested, 

27 grassland, and wetland habitats as important areas for foraging, resting, avoiding predators, 

28 and, for some species, breeding. On the Chippewa Falls site, migratory birds likely use trees for 

29 resting and possibly breeding, nesting, and foraging.

30 Construction

31 Construction of the SHINE facility would result in permanently converting 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) of 

32 deciduous forest and 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) of agricultural fields into an industrial facility or developed 

33 open space, such as parking lots. The deciduous forest would include trees growing along the 

5-21
Alternatives

1 abandoned railroad right-of-way. The agricultural fields would include part of the cropland in the 

2 northern half of the site and part of the fallow field in the southern part of the site. In addition, 

3 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) of cropland in the northern part of the site would be temporarily disturbed during 

4 construction. Agricultural and open fields are abundant within the region and provide relatively 

5 low-quality habitat for birds and wildlife in comparison to forests, grasslands, and wetland 

6 habitats. In addition to a loss of habitat, noise from construction activities could disturb birds 

7 and wildlife. In response to such disturbances, birds and wildlife could move out of the 

8 immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity.

9 During construction, bird collisions with construction equipment and the new facility could result 

10 in mortality from the presence of tall structures (e.g., stacks or cranes) and artificial night lighting 

11 during nighttime construction. The size of structures and the likelihood of mortality from bird 

12 collisions would be similar to that described in Section 4.5 for the proposed SHINE site in 

13 Janesville. In that analysis, the NRC staff determined that impacts from bird collisions would be 

14 negligible and unlikely to affect local or migratory populations, based on previous reviews of bird 

15 collisions at nuclear power plants that are similar or larger in height and size than the proposed 

16 SHINE facility.

17 Construction at the Chippewa Falls site is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic 

18 resources, such as habitat loss, because no aquatic resources would be within the footprint of

19 the proposed facility or the construction laydown areas. Runoff from the site could affect the 

20 onsite wetland or offsite aquatic resources by increasing turbidity or introducing various 

21 chemicals or other pollutants. WDNR recommended that SHINE implement strict erosion and 

22 siltation controls during the entire construction period to minimize impacts on State-protected 

23 species that could use Lake Wissota and the Chippewa River (SHINE 2013a). SHINE (2013a) 

24 stated, in its ER, that if the Chippewa Falls site were selected, SHINE would implement 

25 appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs to minimize the transport of suspended 

26 sediment and other pollutants.

27 In response to the NRC staff’s request for endangered and threatened species that could be 

28 affected by the proposed construction and operations, FWS (2013) stated that bald eagles and 

29 migratory birds could be found either on or within the vicinity of the site. FWS (2013) 

30 recommended further discussions if any active bald eagle nests are identified on the site. In 

31 addition, if the Chippewa Falls site is selected, FWS (2013) recommended that any tree removal 

32 occur before May 1 or after August 30 to minimize impacts on breeding migratory birds, which 

33 may use the trees for breeding, nesting, foraging, or resting. Given that construction would not 

34 permanently or temporarily affect any high-quality habitats, such as grasslands, undisturbed 

35 forests, or wetlands; permanently and temporarily affected habitats are abundant within the 

36 region; and mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, the NRC staff concludes 

37 that impacts on ecological resources during construction would be SMALL. If the Chippewa 

38 Falls site were selected, FWS (2013) recommended that SHINE survey the site for any active 

39 bald eagle nests and refrain from tree removal from May 1 to August 30. If SHINE identified 

40 active bald eagle nests at the site, or removed trees from May 1 to August 30, the impacts 

41 would be greater.

42 Operations

43 During operations, impacts on ecological resources could result from bird collisions, herbicide 

44 applications for landscape maintenance activities, elevated noise levels, and increased turbidity 

45 or introduction of pollutants from runoff. As described in Section 4.5, mortality from bird 

46 collisions is expected to be negligible, given that the tallest structure would be a stack 

47 approximately 66 ft (20 m) tall. Disturbance from daily activities, herbicide applications, or 

48 elevated noise levels is likely to have minimal impacts on wildlife and plant species, given that 

5-22
Alternatives

1 the species identified at the Chippewa Falls site are generally tolerant of disturbance, because 

2 the land has been actively farmed or modified for human use over the past several decades. In 

3 response to any disturbances during operations, birds and wildlife could move out of the 

4 immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity.

5 Operation of the facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic resources, 

6 because wastewater would be discharged to the City of Chippewa Falls sanitary sewer system 

7 after being treated (SHINE 2013a). Indirect impacts during operations could include runoff that 

8 may contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or herbicides. However, 

9 as described above, impacts on aquatic resources are expected to be minimal because of the 

10 distance to Lake Wissota and the Chippewa River, and SHINE would be required, in its 

11 stormwater permit, to use appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs.

12 Given that mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, habitat disturbances during 

13 operations would be minimal, any disturbed wildlife could find similar habitat in the vicinity, 

14 BMPs would be required in the SHINE stormwater permit, and no Federally or State-listed 

15 species occur on the SHINE site, impacts on ecological resources during operations would be 

16 SMALL.

17 Decommissioning

18 Decommissioning activities would have similar impacts on those that occur during construction 

19 of the proposed facility. For example, SHINE would use construction equipment to dismantle 

20 large buildings, which could result in disturbances to wildlife and birds and potential runoff to 

21 nearby water bodies. In addition, some land on the site could be used as staging areas for the 

22 equipment and to conduct certain dismantling activities. As described above, if noise or other 

23 activities disturb birds or wildlife, similar habitat is available in nearby offsite areas. No surface 

24 water would be used during decommissioning, and SHINE would develop and implement spill 

25 prevention and response procedures as part of State permit requirements for ground-disturbing 

26 activities. Therefore, impacts during decommissioning are expected to be SMALL.

27 5.2.2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

28 A review of databases maintained by the National Park Service indicates that there are 

29 12 historic properties listed in the NRHP within Chippewa County (NPS 2015a). These 

30 properties reflect the historic cultural contexts for the proposed Chippewa Falls site and include 

31 buildings, structures, and districts dating from the mid-19th to mid-20th centuries. However, no 

32 historic properties are located within the area of potential effect (APE), the Chippewa Falls site, 

33 or its immediate vicinity. The closest NRHP-listed property is the Notre Dame Church and 

34 Goldsmith Memorial Chapel, approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) southwest of the Chippewa Falls site. 

35 The Church and Chapel are Romanesque in style. They are significant for their architectural 

36 design and for being the first church established in Chippewa County (NHRP 2013a). No 

37 archeological survey was commissioned by SHINE for the Chippewa Falls site. The NRC staff 

38 queried the Archaeological Sites Inventory and Architectural History Inventory, the Burial Sites 

39 Inventory, and the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the Wisconsin Historical Society 

40 (WHS). No known historic or cultural resources or historic properties were found at the 

41 Chippewa Falls site (NRC 2013).

42 As there are no known historic properties, under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), or historic and cultural 

43 resources located within the APE, impacts on these resources are not likely during the 

44 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. The facility 

45 would also have little or no visual or aesthetic impact, as potential visual impacts during 

46 construction and decommissioning would be temporary. The proposed SHINE facility is a 

47 low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) away and is 

5-23
Alternatives

1 surrounded by residential and commercial properties. However, previously unidentified cultural 

2 resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-disturbing activities associated with 

3 construction, maintenance during operations, and decommissioning. It is expected that SHINE 

4 would employ a cultural resource management plan (CRMP), similar to the one discussed in 

5 Section 4.6, to manage and protect as-yet-unidentified cultural resources.

6 Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on 

7 the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) CRMP procedures, and (3) cultural resource assessment 

8 and consultations, construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the 

9 Chippewa Falls site would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, 

10 given the possibility of the inadvertent discovery of unidentified cultural resources caused by 

11 land disturbance during construction, operations, and decommissioning, the overall impact 

12 would be SMALL.

13 5.2.2.7 Socioeconomics

14 Affected Environment

15 For the purposes of this analysis, the ROI is Chippewa County, Wisconsin, with special 

16 consideration being given to the site of the facility in Chippewa Falls. The City of Chippewa 

17 Falls is the county seat in Chippewa County. According to the 2010 Census, the total 

18 population of Chippewa Falls was 13,661 and the total population of Chippewa County was 

19 62,415 (USCB 2014a). The population in Chippewa County steadily increased from 1970 to 

20 2010, with a large increase of 13.1 percent from 2000 to 2010. According to the 2010 Census, 

21 there were 6,304 total housing units in the City of Chippewa Falls and 27,185 total housing units 

22 for Chippewa County. The total number of vacant housing units in the City of Chippewa Falls 

23 was 408 (6 percent) and 2,775 (10 percent) in Chippewa County (USCB 2014b).

24 Chippewa County had the highest employment by industry in manufacturing with employment at 

25 5,121 (26.97 percent), followed by the trades, transportation, and utilities (BLS 2013). Several 

26 industries are represented in the City of Chippewa Falls; the top employers are in the medical, 

27 education, retail, government, and manufacturing industries. The top three employers in 

28 Chippewa County were TTM Advanced Circuits Inc., Chippewa Falls Public School, and Saint 

29 Joseph’s Hospital, as reported by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development 

30 (WDWD) for the first quarter of 2013 (WDWD 2013).

31 There was a slight decline in the labor force total between 2011 and 2012 in the City of 

32 Chippewa Falls. However, during this same time period, the unemployment rate in the City of 

33 Chippewa Falls dropped from 9.5 percent to 7.6 percent. In 2011, the Chippewa County 

34 unemployment rate was 6.5 percent, while the State of Wisconsin unemployment rate was 

35 6.9 percent. Both were lower than in the City of Chippewa Falls (BLS 2013). According to the 

36 2011 Migrant Population Report issued by the WDWD, there are no migrant workers in 

37 Chippewa County (WDWD 2014).

38 According to 2007–2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the median family 

39 income for the City of Chippewa Falls for 2007–2011 was $51,486, while for Chippewa County, 

40 it was $58,544. The Chippewa County per capita income was $23,777 and the City of 

41 Chippewa Falls was slightly higher, with a per capita income of $23,885 (USCB 2014a). Tax 

42 rates vary by jurisdiction.

43 The City of Chippewa Falls has a fire and emergency services department and police 

44 department and houses the Chippewa County Emergency Management Department. This 

45 Department is responsible for developing hazardous materials plans, maintaining public files for 

46 facilities storing more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kg) of hazardous materials, conducting 

47 disaster exercises and training activities, coordinating highway safety programs and grants, and 

5-24
Alternatives

1 coordinating Chippewa County radio communications (Chippewa County 2013). The City of 

2 Chippewa Falls Water Department gets its water supply from nine drilled wells. In addition to 

3 supplying water, it is responsible for preventing groundwater contamination.

4 The Chippewa Falls Area Unified School District had a total of 5,007 students enrolled in 

5 pre-kindergarten to grade 12 for 2012–2013 in six elementary schools, one middle school, one 

6 high school, and one alternative school (Chippewa Area Unified School District 2013).

7 There are also several higher education schools in the area, including: the University of 

8 Wisconsin—Eau Claire, University of Wisconsin—Stout, Chippewa Valley Technical College, 

9 and Lakeland College—Chippewa Falls Center (Chippewa Area Unified School District 2013).

10 The City of Chippewa Falls has a number of recreational facilities, including several trails for 

11 walking, biking, and cross-country skiing, and an ice arena. In addition, there are 

12 31 campgrounds in the City of Chippewa Falls, numerous community parks, and 2 golf courses 

13 (WDNR undated). Cultural institutions include the Chippewa Falls Museum of Industry and 

14 Technology, the County Historical Society & Genealogical Society, the Cook–Rutledge 

15 Mansion, the Eau Claire Regional Arts Center (Eau Claire), the Fanny Hill Dinner Theater (Eau 

16 Claire), the Heyde Center for the Arts, and the Irvine Park and Zoo.

17 Impact Analysis

18 The estimated number of workers needed to construct, operate, and decommission the SHINE

19 facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be the same as the number of workers required for the 

20 proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site.

21 Construction

22 The 451 workers needed to construct the proposed SHINE facility would represent 3 percent of

23 the total population (13,661) of Chippewa Falls and less than 1 percent of the population of 

24 Chippewa County (62, 415) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Most construction workers would likely 

25 reside within the ROI and would not permanently relocate because of the relatively short 

26 duration (18 months) of construction. In addition, support infrastructure within the ROI would be 

27 able to accommodate a temporary increase in population. Since most of the 451 construction 

28 workers would likely already reside in the ROI, there would be no increase in demand for public 

29 services. Assuming that SHINE would enter into a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement 

30 with the City of Chippewa Falls, similar to the agreement with the City of Janesville, in the first 

31 10 years of the proposed project, the TIF agreement would allow SHINE to make payments in 

32 lieu of taxes to the City of Chippewa Falls. Tax payments totaling $600,000 per year would be 

33 used to offset infrastructure expenses (SHINE 2013a). SHINE would also pay property taxes,

34 estimated to be $35,000 per year, based on the assessed property before improvements during 

35 this 10-year period (SHINE 2013a). The Chippewa Area Unified School District would receive a 

36 portion of the property tax benefits, since the Chippewa Falls site is located in that district. 

37 Sales tax revenue would also increase if materials and services were purchased within the ROI

38 during construction. However, the total amount of tax revenue generated within the ROI during 

39 construction would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Chippewa 

40 Falls and Chippewa County; Chippewa Fall’s 2012 collected taxes were approximately 

41 $7.6 million, while Chippewa County collected approximately $20.6 million in taxes in 2012

42 (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during the construction of the 

43 proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

44 Operations

45 The 150 operations workers would represent 1 percent of the total 2010 population of Chippewa 

46 Falls (13,661) and less than 1 percent of Chippewa County (62,415) (USCB 2014a). It is likely 

5-25
Alternatives

1 that some workers would relocate to the ROI. However, the total number of operations workers 

2 would not create a significant socioeconomic impact. There is sufficient housing available in the 

3 ROI to accommodate any increase in the population from the proposed SHINE facility. There is 

4 also sufficient capacity in the public schools to accommodate the small increase in the 

5 school-age population when the proposed SHINE facility operations workers and their families 

6 relocate to the ROI. Public services, including water utilities, would be able to support the 

7 increased needs of operations workers and their families. SHINE would continue to make 

8 payments in lieu of taxes (estimated $600,000) and property taxes (estimated $35,000) during 

9 facility operations (SHINE 2013a). However, after expiration of the 10-year TIF agreement with 

10 the City of Chippewa Falls, SHINE would pay property taxes of approximately $660,000 per 

11 year (SHINE 2013a). The amount of property taxes could change, depending on the assessed 

12 value of the proposed SHINE facility. The Chippewa Area Unified School District would also 

13 continue to receive property tax revenue from SHINE during facility operations. In addition, 

14 overall sales and property tax revenues would increase within the ROI, caused by the increase 

15 in the population from operations workers relocating to the ROI. However, the total amount of 

16 tax revenue generated during this period within the ROI would be relatively small in comparison 

17 to the established tax base of Chippewa Falls and Chippewa County. In 2012, Chippewa Falls 

18 received approximately $7.6 million in tax revenue, while Chippewa County received 

19 approximately $20.6 million (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during 

20 SHINE facility operations would be SMALL.

21 Decommissioning

22 The 261 decommissioning workers would represent 2 percent of the total population of 

23 Chippewa Falls (13,661) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Because of the short duration of 

24 decommissioning (6 months), workers would not likely relocate permanently to Chippewa Falls, 

25 and some of the SHINE operations workers could transition to decommissioning. Since it is 

26 likely that most decommissioning workers would already reside in the ROI, there would be little 

27 or no increased demand for public services. In addition, support infrastructure within the ROI 

28 would be able to accommodate any temporary increase in population. Therefore, the overall 

29 socioeconomic impact during the decommissioning of the SHINE facility would be SMALL.

30 5.2.2.8 Human Health

31 Construction

32 The construction of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to that for the 

33 Janesville site. For example, there would be no significant physical differences in the design of 

34 the facility, workers would be exposed to similar construction hazards, and SHINE would 

35 implement similar construction methods and safety practices (SHINE 2013a). In Section 4.8 of 

36 this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the 

37 Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences 

38 between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from 

39 construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

40 Operations

41 The radiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to 

42 that for the Janesville site. Radiological exposures associated with a SHINE facility at the

43 Chippewa Falls site would include similar radiation sources and radioactive effluents, as well as 

44 implementation of a radiation protection program to minimize and ensure compliance with 

45 worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 (SHINE 2013a).

46 The nonradiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site also would be 

47 similar to that for the Janesville site. Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at 

5-26
Alternatives

1 the Chippewa Falls site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste 

2 management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, 

3 physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive 

4 material, would be essentially the same as those for a SHINE facility at the Janesville site

5 (SHINE 2013a).

6 In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from operation of the proposed 

7 SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no 

8 significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the 

9 radiological and nonradiological impacts on human health from operations at the proposed 

10 SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

11 Decommissioning

12 The decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to that 

13 proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the two 

14 sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2013a).

15 After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and 

16 associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe 

17 condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition 

18 until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. Facility workers would continue to receive 

19 radiation exposure during work activities relating to the cleanup, movement, storage, and 

20 disposal of radioactive material. The types and amounts of nonradioactive material generated 

21 during decommissioning would be similar to those generated at the Janesville site. The 

22 radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIS would be used 

23 during decommissioning to ensure that worker and public radiation doses and exposure to 

24 nonradioactive chemicals remain within NRC and State limits.

25 In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from decommissioning the proposed 

26 SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there would be no 

27 significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and operations, and 

28 radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to ensure hazards to workers and 

29 the public would be within NRC and State limits, the NRC staff concludes the impacts on human 

30 health from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be 

31 SMALL.

32 5.2.2.9 Waste Management

33 Construction

34 The construction of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would generate similar types 

35 and volumes of waste to those for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical 

36 differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential 

37 types and volume of waste generated from construction (SHINE 2013a). In Section 4.9 of this 

38 EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during construction of the proposed SHINE 

39 facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant 

40 differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the impacts 

41 from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

42 Operations

43 The radiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would 

44 generate similar types and volumes of radioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. There 

45 are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that 

46 would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the proposed 

5-27
Alternatives

1 facility (SHINE 2013a). In addition, management of the radioactive waste would be similar, 

2 regardless of the location of the proposed facility. Implementation of a radiation protection 

3 program to minimize radiation exposure from the radioactive waste and to ensure compliance 

4 with worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 would be essentially the same as those 

5 discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS for a proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site

6 (SHINE 2013a).

7 The nonradiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would 

8 generate similar types and volumes of nonradioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. 

9 There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites 

10 that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the 

11 proposed facility (SHINE 2013a). Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the 

12 Chippewa Falls site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste 

13 management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, 

14 physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive 

15 material, would be essentially the same as those discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS for a 

16 proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2013a).

17 In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from radiological and nonradiological 

18 waste generated during facility operations at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site 

19 would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites 

20 or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the radiological and nonradiological impacts on 

21 human health from waste generated from operating the proposed SHINE facility at the 

22 Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

23 Decommissioning

24 Decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to 

25 that proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the 

26 two sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2013a).

27 After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and 

28 associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe 

29 condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition 

30 until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. The types and amounts of radioactive and 

31 nonradioactive wastes generated during decommissioning would be similar to those generated 

32 at the Janesville site. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of 

33 this EIS would be used during decommissioning to protect workers and the public from the 

34 waste (SHINE 2013a).

35 In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during decommissioning 

36 of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there 

37 would be no significant differences between the two sites or the facility’s design and operation, 

38 and radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to protect workers and the public 

39 from the waste, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from waste during decommissioning of the 

40 proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

41 5.2.2.10 Transportation

42 Major roads and transportation features in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site are shown in 

43 Figure 5–1. The site lies northeast of the City of Chippewa Falls and is bordered by Commerce 

44 Parkway (Old State Trunk Highway 178) to the west, County Highway S to the north, and State 

45 Trunk Highway 178 (Seymour Cray Boulevard) to the east. Commerce Parkway is a two-lane 

46 road along which access to the site would be constructed. At the northwest corner of the site, 

47 Commerce Parkway intersects with County Highway S at a two-way stop. South of the site, 

5-28
Alternatives

1 Commerce Parkway intersects with County Highway I at a signalized intersection. Like 

2 Commerce Parkway, County Highway S is also a two-lane road with paved shoulders, while 

3 County Highway I is a four-lane road with curbed shoulders and a two-way turning lane as the 

4 median. The nearest major highway to the Chippewa Falls site is U.S. Highway 53, located 

5 approximately 5 mi (8 km) to the west, while Interstate 94 is located approximately 13 mi 

6 (21 km) to the south (SHINE 2013a).

7 Annual average daily traffic volumes for various roads and locations in the vicinity of the 

8 Chippewa Falls site are listed in Table 5–4. Morning, midday, and evening peak hourly traffic 

9 counts for associated locations are listed in Table 5–5. Available traffic data for Commerce 

10 Parkway near the Chippewa Falls site suggests that peak traffic along this corridor averages 

11 between 200 and 300 vehicles per hour (WDOT 2011a).

12 Table 5–4. Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts―Vicinity of Chippewa Falls Site

Traffic Count Location Vehicles Per Day

Commerce Parkway, between County Highway S & County 

Highway I

3,700

County Highway S, west of Commerce Parkway 4,600

County Highway S, east of Commerce Parkway 3,800

County Highway I, west of Commerce Parkway near 140th Street 3,400

County Highway I, between Commerce Parkway and State 

Highway 178

5,600

Interstate 39, U.S. Highway 53, north of County Highway S 11,100

Source: WDOT 2008a

13 Table 5–5. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total 

14 Traffic Counts―Vicinity of Chippewa Falls Site―Number of Vehicles

WDOT 

Count 

Site # Location

Year of 

Count

A.M. 

Peak(a)

Midday 

Peak(b)

P.M. 

Peak(c)

Daily 

Total

090200 Commerce Parkway (Old State Trunk 

Highway 178), south of County Highway S

2011 207 211 284 3,050

090882 County Highway S, west of State Trunk 

Highway 178

2011 355 344 439 5,166

090198 County Highway S, between State Trunk 

Highway 24 & 149th Street

2011 347 341 394 4,923

090796 County Highway I, between Scheidler 

Road & State Trunk Highway 178 

(Seymour Cray Blvd)

2011 457 488 529 6,098

090794 State Trunk Highway 178 (Seymour Cray 

Boulevard), between County Highway I 

and Chippewa River

2011 670 656 890 9,895

(a) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 00:00 and 09:59.

(b) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 10:00 and 14:59.

(c) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 15:00 and 23:59.

Source: WDOT 2011a

5-29
Alternatives

1 Construction

2 Given that construction at the Chippewa Falls site would be very similar to that described for the 

3 proposed Janesville site, SHINE estimated that construction of the proposed SHINE facility at 

4 the Chippewa Falls site would require an average of 420 deliveries per month (14 deliveries per 

5 day) and 9 offsite waste shipments per month using heavy vehicles (dump trucks/delivery 

6 trucks) (SHINE 2013a, 2014). Peak worker traffic volume during construction would add an 

7 estimated 451 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) per day (SHINE 2013a, 2014). The NRC staff

8 similarly assumed that, with a total of 465 vehicles per day, each having an arrival and 

9 departure trip, and some vehicles making return trips during the day (e.g., offsite trips for lunch), 

10 vehicle counts immediately adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility may temporarily increase by 

11 approximately 1,000 trips per day.

12 As with the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, no sources or routes for construction 

13 materials, including concrete, have been specified, and SHINE plans to ensure that delivery 

14 routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas associated with the Chippewa Falls site

15 (SHINE 2013b). SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the 

16 applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in 

17 NRC’s regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin’s Administrative Code, 

18 Chapter 326, “Transportation”; and the Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements 

19 (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2013a). Table 5–4 indicates that Commerce Parkway 

20 experiences approximately 3,700 vehicles per day adjacent to the Chippewa Falls site. 

21 Accordingly, the addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips per day) 

22 from SHINE construction activities would result in an increased traffic volume on Commerce 

23 Parkway of up to 27 percent. Additionally, the percentage of heavy trucks on this route would 

24 temporarily increase. However, available traffic counts do not distinguish between types of 

25 vehicles currently traveling this route, and the increase in traffic volume would be temporary and 

26 limited to the period of construction.

27 SHINE’s traffic analysis indicated that projected levels of peak construction-related traffic could 

28 noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, but these delays would not be sufficient to 

29 destabilize the transportation infrastructure (SHINE 2013a). SHINE plans to use a staggered 

30 construction work shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto Commerce Parkway and 

31 schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help mitigate the potential two-to-three-fold 

32 increases in traffic that could occur during peak periods (SHINE 2013b). Increased traffic 

33 volumes on Commerce Parkway may also merit mitigation in the form of infrastructure upgrades 

34 at its intersections with County Highways S and I. Increased traffic volumes on other roads in 

35 the vicinity are expected to be less but could still be significant (SHINE 2013a). Therefore, the 

36 impact on transportation infrastructure during construction would be MODERATE.

37 Operations

38 Given that operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls sites would be very similar to 

39 that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that a maximum of 150 worker vehicles 

40 distributed over three work shifts per day would access the site using Commerce Parkway 

41 (SHINE 2013a, 2014). The NRC staff estimated that each vehicle would require separate trips 

42 to and from the proposed SHINE facility, plus a number of trips to and from the proposed SHINE 

43 facility during the midshift, resulting in approximately 325 additional worker vehicle trips daily. 

44 The additional 325 vehicle trips associated with the Chippewa Falls site represents an increase 

45 of less than 10 percent of the average annual daily traffic on roads in the area.

5-30
Alternatives

1 In addition to operations employees commuting to the proposed facility, SHINE estimated that 

2 additional traffic to and from the facility would also include:

3 • an average of 36 truck deliveries per month to the proposed SHINE facility, 

4 which would include both radioactive and nonradioactive materials 

5 (SHINE 2013a, 2015);

6 • an average of 39 outbound product shipments per month through the 

7 Chippewa Valley Regional Airport (SHINE 2015);

8 • an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year (SHINE 2015); and 

9 • an average of one shipment per month of nonradioactive domestic and 

10 industrial waste (SHINE 2013a, 2015).

11 SHINE’s preferred method of product shipments would be to transport product by truck from the 

12 Chippewa Falls site to the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, approximately 10 mi (16 km) 

13 away, for air transport to customers. The next closest available airport for product shipment is 

14 the Minneapolis–St. Paul Airport, located approximately 2 hours west of the Chippewa Falls site 

15 on Interstate 94 (SHINE 2013a).

16 The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

17 SHINE facility to increase slightly above current levels during operation but not to an 

18 appreciable extent when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the 

19 immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site, as presented in Tables 5–3 and 5–4.

20 Similar to the activities that would occur at the Janesville site, SHINE would transport 

21 radioactive waste from the Chippewa Falls site to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal 

22 facility. A common-carrier truck would likely transport the waste. SHINE and the common23 carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and 

24 transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC’s regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 

25 and 71); the State of Wisconsin’s Administrative Code, Chapter 326, “Transportation”; and DOT

26 requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2013a). These regulations help ensure 

27 public health and safety on roadways.

28 Based on the relatively small increase in traffic compared to the average daily and annual traffic 

29 flows near the Chippewa Falls site, and because SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be 

30 required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and the State of Wisconsin regulatory 

31 packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material, the NRC staff concludes 

32 that the impact on transportation infrastructure during operations would be SMALL.

33 Decommissioning

34 Given that decommissioning the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be very similar 

35 to that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that an average of 72 truck deliveries 

36 and 191 offsite waste shipments per month, (a total of approximately nine heavy-vehicle 

37 shipments per day) would be required (SHINE 2013a, 2014). Peak worker traffic volume during 

38 decommissioning would add an estimated 261 vehicles per day (SHINE 2013a, 2014). 

39 Therefore, the NRC staff estimates that there could be an increase of approximately 580 trips a 

40 day on local roads during the decommissioning phase, increasing average daily traffic on roads 

41 in the immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site from what was being experienced during the 

42 operations phase.

43 Peak decommissioning-related traffic could noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, 

44 but these delays would not be sufficient to destabilize the transportation infrastructure. SHINE

45 could use a staggered work shift schedule, similar to that employed during construction, to 

5-31
Alternatives

1 reduce the hourly traffic flow onto Commerce Parkway and schedule truck deliveries early in the 

2 day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013b). However, the change in average daily 

3 traffic flows in the immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site and an increase in commuter, 

4 truck delivery, as well as waste traffic directly related to decommissioning activities, could affect 

5 local commuting patterns. Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the 

6 decommissioning phase would be MODERATE.

7 5.2.2.11 Accidents

8 SHINE stated, in its ER, that no conditions have been identified for the Chippewa Falls site that 

9 would significantly affect the radiological or nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents

10 differently than at the proposed facility (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff considers this 

11 assumption reasonable, because the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

12 SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be essentially the same as at the Janesville site 

13 since the design, construction, operations, and decommissioning are similar. In addition, the 

14 same radiological and nonradiological safety regulations applicable to the Janesville site would 

15 apply to the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2013a).

16 In Section 4.11 of this EIS, the NRC concluded that the impacts from radiological and 

17 nonradiological accidents at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. 

18 Given that no significant differences exist between the two sites or their facility design and 

19 operations, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from potential accidents at the proposed 

20 SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

21 5.2.2.12 Environmental Justice

22 This section describes the potential human health and environmental effects from the 

23 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on minority and 

24 low-income populations living in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. The NRC addresses 

25 environmental justice issues and concerns by first identifying potentially affected minority and 

26 low-income populations and then determining whether there would be any potential human 

27 health or environmental effects and whether these effects may be disproportionately high and 

28 adverse.

29 Minority-population data were available for Census block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius 

30 around the Chippewa Falls site. Low-income population data were only available at the Census 

31 tract level, because of the limited availability of poverty data at the block group level. To protect 

32 confidentiality, the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) does not publish information about small 

33 geographic areas if the population size is too small. Race and ethnicity and poverty Census 

34 data were used to identify the location of minority and low-income populations near the 

35 Chippewa Falls site. If the Census tract and block group boundaries crossed the 5-mi (8-km) 

36 radius boundary, the entire Census tract or Census block group data were used. Geographic 

37 information system software was used to create the maps.

38 Minority Population

39 According to 2010 Census information, 6.5 percent of the total population in the City of 

40 Chippewa Falls identified themselves as a minority. The largest minority group was Black or 

41 African American, followed by Hispanic or Latino (of any race). In Chippewa County, 

42 5.4 percent of the total population identified themselves as a minority (USCB 2014c).

43 Table 5–6 lists minority population block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa 

44 Falls site; 4.7 percent of the total population within that radius identified themselves as a 

45 minority (UCSB 2014a). The largest minority group was Hispanic or Latino (of any race) at 

46 1.3 percent, followed by Asian at 1.1 percent (USCB 2014c).

5-32
Alternatives

1 Figure 5–3 shows minority population block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa 

2 Falls site. Census block groups were considered minority population block groups if the 

3 percentage of the minority population within any block group exceeded 4.7 percent. Seven of 

4 the 20 Census block groups were determined to have meaningfully greater minority populations. 

5 The Chippewa Falls site is located in Census Tract 105, Block Group 4, which has the highest 

6 minority population, at 12.4 percent.

5-33
5-34

Table 5–6. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site 1

Census 

Tract

Block 

Group

Total 

Population

Percent 

Minority

Total 

Minority 

Population

Hispanic 

or Latino

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian or 

Alaska 

Native Asian

Nativ

Hawaiia

Other P

Island

102 1 2,312 4.2 98 30 12 14 30 0 

102 2 2,764 6.9 191 67 16 8 72 0 

102 3 1,691 4.6 78 28 6 10 14 0 

103 1 729 5.8 43 16 12 4 1 0 

103 2 791 3.7 30 14 0 5 1 1 

103 3 754 3.3 25 4 5 4 4 0 

103 4 944 3.8 36 13 6 7 1 0 

103 5 1,281 3.7 48 14 4 4 14 0 

103 6 966 5.5 54 25 1 2 19 0 

104 1 2,340 2.2 52 22 3 7 10 0 

104 3 1,345 5.8 79 10 5 5 57 0 

105 1 778 3.8 30 14 7 0 4 0 

105 2 1,076 5.6 61 11 13 1 14 1 

105 3 1,047 5.4 57 7 6 13 6 0 

105 4 2,477 12.4 306 55 158 36 27 1 

107 2 2,505 2.7 69 20 7 3 18 0 

107 3 3,760 4.2 158 43 17 16 38 0 

110 4 1,395 2.0 28 7 1 2 6 0 

110 5 1,403 2.4 35 6 8 2 4 0 

112 4 1,288 1.0 13 7 1 0 3 0 

Source: USCB 2014c, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race.
Alternatives

1 Figure 5–3. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site

2

3 Source: USCB 2014c, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by 

4 Race

5 Low-Income Population

6 According to the 2006–2010 American Community Survey estimates, 10.7 percent of families 

7 and 14.3 percent of all people residing in Chippewa County were identified as living below the 

8 Federal poverty threshold. In addition, in the City of Chippewa Falls, 11.4 percent of families 

9 and 14.8 percent of all people were identified as living below the Federal poverty level. The 

10 2010 Federal poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four (USCB 2014d).

11 Table 5–7 lists low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the 

12 Chippewa Falls site; 9.3 percent of the total population within that radius was identified as living

13 below the Federal poverty level (UCSB 2014d).

14 Census tracts were considered low-income population tracts if the percentage of individuals 

15 living below the Federal poverty level exceeded 9.3 percent. Figure 5–4 shows low-income 

16 population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site. Two of the 

17 seven Census tracts were found to have meaningfully greater low-income populations. The 

18 Chippewa Falls site is located within Census Tract 105 and has the highest percentage 

19 (15.3 percent) of population living below the Federal poverty level.

5-35
Alternatives

1 Table 5–7. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) 

2 of the Chippewa Falls Site

Census 

Tract

Census Tract Total 

Population Estimates

Number of People 

Below Poverty Level 

for Census Tract

Percentage Below 

Poverty Level for All 

People (Estimates)

102 6,349 599 8.8

103 5,518 723 13.1

104 4,644 223 4.8

105 5,221 779 15.3

107 7,295 635 8.7

110 6,990 594 8.5

112 6,428 431 6.7

Source: USCB 2014d, 2006–2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table DP03 

Selected Economic Characteristics

3 Figure 5–4. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site

4

5 Source: USCB 2014d, 2006–2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table DP03 Selected Economic 

6 Characteristics

5-36
Alternatives

1 Analysis of Impacts

2 As previously discussed, the environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for 

3 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 

4 low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

5 proposed SHINE facility. Some of these potential effects have been described in the other 

6 resource areas discussed in this EIS. Chapter 5 presents the assessment of environmental and 

7 human health impacts for each environmental resource area.

8 In the impact analysis, the NRC first identified all potential human health and environmental 

9 effects and then determined the significance of the impact and whether or not minority or 

10 low-income populations would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. The 

11 NRC then considered whether the radiological or other health effects were significant or above 

12 generally accepted norms, whether the risk or rate of the hazard was significant and appreciably 

13 in excess of that of the general population, and whether the radiological or other health effects 

14 would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from 

15 environmental hazards. The NRC determined whether the following human health and 

16 environmental effects have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

17 populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility site:

18 • radiological and nonradiological human health impacts (Section 5.2.2.8),

19 • noise impacts (Section 5.2.2.2), and

20 • traffic impacts (Section 5.2.2.10).

21 The NRC also considered whether there would be an impact on the natural or physical 

22 environment that would significantly and adversely affect a particular group, whether there 

23 would be any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or are likely to 

24 appreciably exceed those on the general population, and whether environment effects would 

25 occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from an 

26 environmental hazard.

27 Construction 

28 Similar to constructing the SHINE facility at the Janesville site, potential impacts on minority and 

29 low-income populations residing near the Chippewa Falls site would mostly consist of 

30 environmental effects during construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing 

31 impacts). Noise and dust impacts during construction would be short term and primarily limited 

32 to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads, 

33 particularly in Census Tract 105, could be disproportionately affected by increased commuter 

34 vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust from construction. However, because of the 

35 temporary nature of construction, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would 

36 be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for 

37 temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise,

38 disproportionately affecting low-income populations within the ROI (Chippewa County), who rely 

39 on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of construction workers and the 

40 likelihood that most workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could commute to the 

41 construction site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing.

42 Operations

43 Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations during SHINE facility operations at 

44 the Chippewa Falls site would mostly consist of radiological and nonradiological human health 

45 and environmental (e.g., noise and traffic) effects. Everyone living near the Chippewa Falls site

5-37
Alternatives

1 would be exposed to the same potential operational effects, and any impacts would depend on 

2 the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions.

3 As discussed in the Human Health section of this EIS (Section 5.2.2.8), the level of potential 

4 radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual 

5 dose limit and well within the NRC and State of Wisconsin regulatory limits. As a result, minority 

6 or low-income populations, as well as the general population living in close proximity to the 

7 proposed SHINE facility site, would not be adversely affected by radiation exposure during 

8 facility operations. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are also expected to remain within 

9 regulatory standards.

10 As discussed in the Noise section of this EIS (Section 5.2.2.2), noise emissions from commuter 

11 traffic during SHINE facility operations would increase. Noise from operating equipment would 

12 be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE facility 

13 buildings at the site. However, additional noise emissions from worker vehicles would be minor 

14 (1 dBA), and noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels 

15 beyond current levels.

16 Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected 

17 by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic during facility operations. However, as 

18 discussed in the Transportation section of this EIS (Section 5.2.2.10), the only appreciable 

19 impact would be a “slight degradation of service” (i.e., traffic delays) at intersections during the 

20 morning peak hour. The overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

21 SHINE facility would increase slightly during facility operations but would not be of an 

22 appreciable nature when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the 

23 immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site.

24 Therefore, offsite noise and traffic impacts caused by the proposed SHINE facility operations 

25 would be SMALL for both of these resource areas. Nevertheless, given the fact that the 

26 Chippewa Falls site is located in a designated minority block group and low-income Census 

27 tract, minority and low-income populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE 

28 facility during operations could be disproportionately affected. However, based on the analyses 

29 of impacts conducted for other resource areas discussed in this EIS, impacts on minority or 

30 low-income populations, as well as to the general population living in close proximity to the 

31 Chippewa Falls site, would not be considered high and adverse.

32 Decommissioning 

33 Similar to construction impacts, potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would 

34 mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects during decommissioning 

35 (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during the

36 decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be short term 

37 and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site 

38 access roads, particularly in Census Tract 105, would be disproportionately affected by 

39 increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust during decommissioning. 

40 However, because of the temporary nature of decommissioning, these effects are not likely to 

41 be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the 

42 day. Increased demand for rental housing during decommissioning could cause rental costs to 

43 rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. 

44 However, given the small number of decommissioning workers and the likelihood that most 

45 workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could commute to the Chippewa Falls 

46 site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing.

5-38
Alternatives

1 In addition, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would 

2 be SMALL for all resource areas. There is no evidence that impacts from decommissioning 

3 would be disproportionately high and adverse to minority or low-income populations.

4 Subsistence and Special Conditions

5 As discussed in Section 4.12, the special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the 

6 environmental justice analysis, because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or 

7 cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area, such as migrant workers

8 or Native Americans. Based on the air and water quality discussions and the discussion of 

9 human health effects in this EIS for this alternative, it is unlikely that there would be any 

10 disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts in special pathway receptor 

11 populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, or

12 wildlife. The operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would not have 

13 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on these 

14 populations.

15 Summary

16 The Chippewa Falls site is located in the pre-existing Wissota Lake Business Park in a 

17 designated minority and low-income population block group and Census tract. Similar to the 

18 Janesville site, minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be 

19 disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicular traffic

20 during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and 

21 decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. 

22 Facility operations at the Chippewa Falls site would not adversely affect minority and 

23 low-income populations living near the existing business park. The level of potential radiological 

24 doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and 

25 well within the NRC and State of Wisconsin regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are 

26 expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income 

27 populations residing near the existing business park and the Chippewa Falls site could 

28 experience short-term disproportionate, but not high and adverse, environmental effects during 

29 construction and decommissioning. In addition, based on the discussions of air and water 

30 quality and human health effects for this alternative, SHINE facility operations at the Chippewa 

31 Falls site would not likely cause high and adverse human health or environmental effects for 

32 minority and low-income populations.

33 5.2.2.13 Cumulative Impacts

34 The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects and other actions 

35 that could result in cumulative impacts at the Chippewa Falls site were identified by reviewing 

36 published and unpublished data, including economic development plans, permit lists, news 

37 releases, and similar sources of information. Current and reasonably foreseeable activities 

38 included relevant activities conducted, regulated, approved, or proposed by a Federal agency or 

39 non-Federal entity within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site. Available information about the 

40 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and other activities is provided in Table 5–8.

5-39
Alternatives

1 Table 5–8. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and 

2 Other Actions Within a 5-mi (8-km) Radius of the Chippewa Falls Site

Project/

Company Name Summary of Project Location Status

EOG Resources Inc. Silica sand processing 

plant

Chippewa 

Falls, 1.0 mi

(1.6 km)

southwest

Operational (Chippewa 

Herald 2012; EOG 

Resources 2012)

Wissota Green Housing 

Development

Building of 120 housing 

unit neighborhood with an 

estimated capacity of 300 

residents

Chippewa 

Falls, 1.0 mi

(1.6 km)

southwest

Initial project proposal denied by 

Chippewa Falls Planning 

Commission in 2013; developer 

plans to adjust design and 

conduct public outreach and 

reapply for approval (Chippewa 

Herald 2013)

CN Railway Intermodal 

Facility 

Rail-to-truck transfer 

facility

Chippewa 

Falls, 2.0 mi 

(3.2 km)

southwest

Operational (CN 2014)

Chippewa Falls Irvine

Park and Zoo

Updates to current 

exhibits, such as visitor 

and artifact center

Chippewa 

Falls, 2.0 mi 

(3.2 km) 

Currently operational; proposed 

construction to begin in 2015 

after fundraising is completed 

(Vetter 2013)

Indianhead Plating, Inc. Industrial hard-chrome 

plating and cylindrical 

grinding facility

Chippewa 

Falls, 2.0 mi 

(3.2 km) 

Operational (WDNR 2015a)

Spectrum Industries Construction of burnoff 

oven for paint hangers

Chippewa 

Falls, 2.0 mi 

(3.2 km) 

Air construction permit issued in 

February 2011 (WDNR 2015b)

Great Northern

Corporation

Construction of printers Chippewa 

Falls, 2.0 mi 

(3.2 km) 

Air construction permit issued in 

March 2011 (WDNR 2015c)

Dairyland Power

Cooperative―Seven Mile 

Creek Landfill Gas to 

Renewable Energy Station

Modifications to an 

existing internal 

combustion engine and 

existing landfill gas to 

energy generating facility

Eau Claire, 

2.0 mi (3.2 km)

Air construction permit issued in 

March 2011 (WDNR 2015d)

Lake Wissota Business 

Park

200-ac (80-ha)-plus 

mixed-use business park 

available for industrial, 

office, and commercial 

uses

SHINE site 

would occupy 

northern third 

of park

Majority of site currently 

undeveloped; site is a 

Wisconsin-Certified ShovelReady Site, meaning Chippewa 

County and the State have 

proactively addressed major 

permitting and development 

issues (WEDC 2014a, 2014b) 

3 Land Use and Visual Resources

4 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

5 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on land use and visual 

6 resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

7 foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.1

8 serves as baseline conditions for the cumulative impact assessment of land use and visual

5-40
Alternatives

1 resources. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

2 proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources would be SMALL, as described in 

3 Section 5.2.2.1.

4 Land Use

5 The projects and activities described in Table 5–8 would result in minimal changes to existing 

6 land uses, because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, 

7 or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use. Future urbanization and 

8 global climate change could contribute to additional decreases in agricultural lands, forests, 

9 grasslands, and wetlands. Urbanization in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site would alter 

10 important attributes of land use. Urbanization would reduce natural vegetation and agricultural 

11 fields, resulting in an overall decline in the extent and connectivity of wetlands, forests, 

12 grasslands, and wildlife habitat. Global climate change could reduce crop yields and livestock 

13 productivity (USGCRP 2014), which may change portions of agricultural land uses. However, 

14 existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas. 

15 In addition, zoning laws and comprehensive land use plans would help ensure a proper balance 

16 of development (City of Chippewa Falls 1999).

17 Pursuant to the Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations, the presence 

18 of important farmland soils (7 CFR 657.5), including prime farmland, was included in the 

19 cumulative impacts analysis. Development projects listed in Table 5–8 would incrementally and 

20 cumulatively add to the loss of important farmland soils, including prime farmland soils, in the 

21 region surrounding the proposed site and across the City of Chippewa Falls. Otherwise 

22 qualifying farm lands in or already committed to urban development; lands acquired for a project 

23 on or before August 4, 1984; and lands acquired or used by a Federal agency for national 

24 defense purposes are exempt from the Act’s provisions (7 CFR 658.2 and 658.3). Because 

25 many of the proposed projects have been committed to development, the sites do not have 

26 qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Act. Some of the proposed projects would 

27 convert prime farmland into other uses. Regardless, the conversion of otherwise qualifying soils 

28 by projects within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site would have a relatively minor impact on 

29 the inventory of important farmland soils within Chippewa County. This is because 

30 approximately 60 percent of the soils in the county would be classified as important farmland

31 soil (Chippewa County 2010).

32 Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to 

33 existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use, cumulative impacts on

34 land use resources would be SMALL.

35 Visual Resources

36 The projects and activities described in Table 5–8 would result in minimal changes to the 

37 existing viewshed, because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing 

38 facilities, or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use. Furthermore, 

39 the viewshed within the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site is agricultural, light industrial, or 

40 residential. Within undeveloped areas, where a new structure would change qualities of the 

41 existing landscape, the viewshed is generally of low scenic quality because of a lack of notable 

42 features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, mute colors, and a 

43 commonality within the physiographic province.

44 Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to 

45 existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use and of low scenic quality, 

46 the NRC staff determined that cumulative impacts on visual resources would be SMALL.

5-41
Alternatives

1 Air Quality and Noise

2 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

3 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on air quality and noise, when 

4 added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

5 actions. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

6 proposed SHINE facility on air quality would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.2. The 

7 incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

8 SHINE facility on noise would be SMALL to MODERATE.

9 Air Quality 

10 The ROI considered for the air quality analysis for a facility located in Chippewa Falls is 

11 Chippewa County, since air quality designations for criteria air pollutants are generally made at 

12 the county level.

13 As shown in Table 5–8, the ongoing and future projects located within 5 mi (8 km) of the 

14 Chippewa Falls site involve air permits. While these projects increase air emission 

15 concentrations within the county, the activities would need to comply with the requirements 

16 stipulated in the permit, which would minimize cumulative impacts. Therefore, these activities 

17 and projects are not expected to have significant impacts on air quality. Climate change can 

18 affect air quality as a result of changes in meteorological conditions. The combination of higher 

19 temperatures, stagnant air masses, sunlight, and emissions of precursors may make it difficult 

20 to meet NAAQSs (USGCRP 2014). States, however, must continue to comply with the Clean 

21 Air Act and ensure air quality standards are met.

22 The NRC staff determined that the potential cumulative air quality impact associated with 

23 SHINE operations, in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would be SMALL, 

24 primarily because projects that have overlapping impacts with the proposed SHINE facility 

25 would need to comply with requirements stipulated in air permits and would have relatively low 

26 emissions.

27 Noise

28 The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the SHINE

29 facility at the Chippewa Falls site. Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When distance 

30 is doubled from a point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (MPCA 2014). For example, at 

31 half a mile distance from construction equipment with noise levels in the range of 85–90 dBA, 

32 noise levels can drop to 51–61 dBA and at a 1-mi (1.6-km) distance, noise levels drop further to 

33 45-55 dBA. Generally, a 3-dBA change over existing noise levels is considered to be a “just 

34 noticeable” difference, and a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in 

35 loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (NWCC 2002).

36 Some of the projects in Table 5–8 could produce increases in ambient noise that might affect 

37 some of the same areas at the Chippewa Falls site, since they involve construction activities. 

38 However, these projects are located 1 to 2 mi (1.6 to 3.2 km) from the Chippewa Falls site and 

39 noise impacts are not expected to be significant. For instance, construction equipment can 

40 result in noise levels in the range of 85–90 dBA; however, noise levels attenuate rapidly with 

41 distance, such that at half a mile distance from construction equipment, noise levels can drop to 

42 51–61 dBA (NRC 2002). Therefore, these projects would not be expected to have significant 

43 noise impacts. The NRC staff determined that cumulative impacts on noise levels would be 

44 SMALL to MODERATE.

5-42
Alternatives

1 Geologic Environment

2 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

3 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on the geologic environment,

4 when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

5 actions. The cumulative impacts on the geologic environment primarily relate to land 

6 disturbance and the potential for soil erosion and loss, as well as the projected consumption of 

7 geologic resources. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.3 serves as 

8 the baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of the geologic environment. The 

9 geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on soil resources includes the 

10 5-mi (8-km) vicinity surrounding the proposed site. For geologic resources, the extent of the 

11 geologic area of analysis has been expanded to all of Chippewa County to encompass potential 

12 commercial sources of rock and mineral resources to support construction activities at the 

13 propose site and vicinity. As the aspects of land disturbance and conversion are addressed 

14 separately in the Land Use section above, the cumulative impacts analysis here will focus on 

15 soil loss, including the loss of prime farmland soils and other important farmland soils, and 

16 consumption of geologic resources.

17 The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

18 SHINE facility on the geologic environment, including geologic and soil resources, would be 

19 SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.2.3.

20 New development and expansion projects listed in Table 5–8 would consume or extract 

21 geologic resources, including rock and mineral resources, or would require materials derived 

22 from such geologic resources (e.g., concrete). However, common construction materials such 

23 as sand and gravel and crushed stone are available and widely abundant in Chippewa County 

24 (Section 5.2.2.3) or are available regionally. Neither the geologic resource requirements to 

25 construct the proposed SHINE facility nor the resource requirements of the other projects 

26 identified in Table 5–8 are on a scale that would be likely to affect the regional sources and 

27 supplies of the identified resources. Given the relatively minor impact on important farmland 

28 soils and the abundance of geologic resources regionally, the NRC staff concludes that the 

29 cumulative impacts on geologic and soil resources would be SMALL.

30 Water Resources

31 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

32 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on water resources, when 

33 added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

34 actions. The cumulative impacts on surface-water resources relate to issues concerning water 

35 use, water quality, and potential climate change. This further encompasses water withdrawal, 

36 effluent discharges, accidental spills and releases, and stormwater drainage and runoff. The 

37 description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.4 serves as a baseline for the 

38 cumulative impact assessment of water resources. For surface-water resources, the extent of 

39 the geographic area of analysis has been expanded to include Lake Wissota and portions of the 

40 Chippewa River downstream of the proposed site. For groundwater resources, the area 

41 considered encompasses the local groundwater basin in which groundwater is recharged and 

42 flows to discharge points and those aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn through 

43 wells. Specifically, the cumulative impacts analysis focuses on those projects and activities

44 that, when combined with the proposed action, would: (1) withdraw water from or discharge 

45 wastewater to the segment of the Chippewa River downstream of the proposed site or (2) would 

46 use groundwater or could otherwise affect the same aquifers that would supply water to the 

47 proposed site. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.4, impacts on water resources at the Chippewa 

48 Falls site would be SMALL.

5-43
Alternatives

1 In addition to the proposed SHINE facility, new development and expansion projects listed in 

2 Table 5–8 and disturbing greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha) of land would have to obtain and comply 

3 with the provisions of a General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This permit 

4 requires the development and implementation of a site-specific construction site erosion control 

5 plan, including specific BMPs, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction 

6 stormwater management).

7 Permits issued to all new stormwater and industrial wastewater dischargers would include 

8 provisions as part of Wisconsin-issued NPDES permits to comply with applicable 

9 water-quality-based effluent limitations and wasteload allocations established for downstream 

10 receiving waters. The proposed SHINE facility would have no direct sanitary or other 

11 wastewater discharges to surface water or groundwater. The SHINE facility and other entities 

12 within the Wissota Lake Business Park would be served by the City of Chippewa Falls WTP, 

13 which has excess treatment capacity (Section 5.2.2.4).

14 While protection of groundwater quality in surficial aquifers and conservation of local 

15 groundwater supplies is a concern across Wisconsin, the county’s groundwater supply is 

16 considered adequate to meet the domestic, agricultural, municipal, and industrial needs in the 

17 county for the foreseeable future (Chippewa County 2010). As a result of climate change, the 

18 Midwest may continue to experience an increase in annual precipitation, along with an increase 

19 in annual and seasonal temperatures. Increased precipitation, particularly during the spring and 

20 winter months, could increase groundwater recharge (USGCRP 2014). Regardless, the 

21 proposed SHINE facility and other projects within the Wissota Lake Business Park would be 

22 served by the Chippewa Falls municipal water system (Section 5.2.2.4). Furthermore, neither 

23 the proposed SHINE facility nor any of the projects identified in Table 5–8 would be expected to 

24 require substantial volumes of groundwater or surface water that would affect water availability 

25 for other potential uses or users.

26 Given the requirements to comply with stormwater permits, the capacity of the City of Chippewa 

27 Falls WTP, and the relatively small volumes of water required for the projects listed in Table 5-8, 

28 the NRC staff finds that the cumulative impacts on water resources would be SMALL.

29 Ecological Resources

30 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

31 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on ecological resources, when 

32 added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

33 actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.5 serves as a baseline for 

34 the cumulative impact assessment of ecological resources. The geographic area of analysis for 

35 evaluating cumulative impacts on ecological resources includes the area surrounding the

36 Chippewa Falls site that is ecological, connected to the onsite ecological resources (e.g., the 

37 watershed surrounding the Chippewa Falls site). The incremental impacts from construction, 

38 operations, and decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL, as described in 

39 Section 5.2.2.5.

40 Since European settlement, prairies, forests, and wetlands have been greatly reduced by at 

41 least 50 to 80 percent and converted into agricultural fields, industrial uses, and residential and 

42 commercial areas. Remaining tracts of grasslands, forests, and wetlands tend to be relatively 

43 small and isolated, which results in lower quality habitat than large tracts of habitat, because of 

44 the different biological and physical characteristics along the edge of a habitat patch 

45 (WDNR 2013c).

46 Current threats to terrestrial and aquatic habitats include increased soil, nutrients, and other 

47 pollutants washing into streams and lakes from urban and agricultural stormwater runoff; 

5-44
Alternatives

1 continued conversion and fragmentation of wildlife habitat from development; introduction of 

2 invasive species; and climate change (WDNR 2013c; USGCRP 2014). These activities will 

3 likely decrease the overall availability and quality of forested, grassland, and wetland habitats. 

4 Species with threatened, endangered, or declining populations are likely to be more sensitive to 

5 declines in habitat availability and quality and the introduction of invasive species.

6 New development projects identified in Table 5–8 are likely to have minimal impacts on 

7 ecological resources, because all the projects are sited within areas that are currently 

8 agricultural land, open space, or developed. These types of land covers provide low-quality 

9 habitat for wildlife, birds, and aquatic resources. However, as environmental stressors, such as 

10 runoff from agricultural fields and urban areas and climate change, continue over the next few 

11 decades, certain attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (such as habitat quality) 

12 are likely to noticeably change. The staff does not expect these impacts to destabilize any 

13 important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment, because such impacts will cause 

14 gradual change, which should allow the terrestrial and aquatic environment to appropriately 

15 adapt. The NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of the proposed construction and 

16 operation of the SHINE facility, plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

17 projects or actions would result in MODERATE impacts on terrestrial and aquatic resources.

18 Historic and Cultural Resources

19 This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on historic and cultural 

20 resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE

21 facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, 

22 and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area considered in this analysis is 

23 the APE associated with the proposed SHINE facility, the Chippewa Falls site, and its 

24 immediate vicinity. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.6, the impacts on historic and cultural 

25 resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the 

26 Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

27 The archaeological record for the region indicates prehistoric and historic occupation. Historic 

28 land development and prolonged agricultural use of the APE resulted in impacts on, and the 

29 loss of, cultural resources in the APE and its immediate vicinity. As described in 

30 Section 5.2.2.6, no known historic or cultural resources or historic properties are present within 

31 the APE. However, there remains the possibility for inadvertent discovery of historic or cultural 

32 resources within the APE. Direct impacts would occur if historic and cultural resources in the 

33 APE were to be physically removed or disturbed. Indirect visual impacts could occur from new 

34 construction or maintenance. The only foreseeable project within the APE is the SHINE facility 

35 and the potential discovery of cultural resources on the proposed site. Should they be 

36 discovered, any cultural resources would be managed using SHINE BMPs developed for the 

37 proposed Janesville site (e.g., cultural resource management procedures and training) 

38 (SHINE 2013a, 2013b). Therefore, the cumulative impact on historic and cultural resources of 

39 the proposed SHINE facility, when combined with other past, present, and reasonable 

40 foreseeable future activities, would be SMALL.

41 Socioeconomics

42 This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on current socioeconomic 

43 conditions within the ROI from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE

44 facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the effects from other past, present, and 

45 reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in 

46 Section 5.2.2.7 serves as a baseline for the cumulative socioeconomic impact assessment. The 

47 geographic area of analysis is the ROI, Chippewa County. Section 5.2.2.7 found that 

5-45
Alternatives

1 socioeconomic impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

2 proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

3 Table 5–8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that 

4 could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Relevant “other actions” that are 

5 considered in this cumulative impacts analysis are future construction projects that would bring 

6 new business and people to the ROI, such as the Wissota Green Housing Development and 

7 expansion of the Chippewa Falls Zoo.

8 Depending on the number of workers needed to support the construction of the Wissota Green 

9 Housing Development and expansion of the Chippewa Falls Zoo, as well as the total number of 

10 units built within the Wissota Green Housing Development, there is the potential for increased 

11 population, employment, tax revenue, and demand for public services in the ROI. The Wissota 

12 Green Housing Development would house 300 residents (Chippewa Herald 2013). However, 

13 as discussed in Section 5.2.2.7, Chippewa County has adequate public services, including the 

14 water utility, to accommodate any population changes. Any increase in employment from 

15 construction or decommissioning would be temporary, while permanent job creation as a result 

16 of the Chippewa Falls Zoo expansion would have little if any socioeconomic impact. Therefore, 

17 the contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE

18 facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

19 foreseeable actions, would be SMALL.

20 Human Health

21 This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects on human 

22 health of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the 

23 Chippewa Falls site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and 

24 reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating

25 cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed 

26 Chippewa Falls site. In Section 5.2.2.8, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from the 

27 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa 

28 Falls site would be SMALL.

29 St. Joseph’s Hospital, which conducts radiological procedures, is within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the 

30 Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2013a). The use of radioactive materials for medical diagnosis and 

31 treatment is regulated by the State of Wisconsin. The NRC and the Governor of Wisconsin 

32 signed an agreement transferring regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special 

33 nuclear materials to the State of Wisconsin, which became the 33rd Agreement State, effective 

34 August 11, 2003. As an Agreement State, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services is 

35 responsible for licensing and inspecting the above-named materials, except at nuclear power 

36 plants and Federal facilities (WDHS 2014).

37 No nuclear fuel cycle facilities occur within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed 

38 Chippewa Falls site that would contribute to the cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the 

39 NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative radiological impacts from the proposed SHINE

40 facility at the Chippewa Falls site and the potential impacts from the use of radioactive materials 

41 at St. Joseph’s Hospital. Both facilities are or would be licensed and regulated, SHINE by the 

42 NRC and St. Joseph’s Hospital by the State of Wisconsin; the facilities are or would be required 

43 to maintain radiation doses to their workers and members of the public within Federal and State 

44 dose limits. Also, being approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) apart, radioactive emissions within 

45 regulatory limits would be further reduced through the processes of dispersion and dilution as 

46 they travel in the atmosphere. Based on the regulatory controls that are or would be in place to 

47 control radiation exposure, the distance between the facilities, and the dilution of the radioactive 

5-46
Alternatives

1 materials, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts on human health 

2 would be SMALL.

3 Table 5–8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that 

4 could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates the 

5 use of nonradioactive materials (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at St. Joseph’s 

6 Hospital and would regulate their use at the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site. 

7 As discussed in Section 4.9, the State of Wisconsin has regulations for the safe use, storage, 

8 and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 460 addresses

9 the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or 

10 disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste (SHINE 2013a). Both SHINE and St. Joseph’s 

11 Hospital are or would be regulated by the State and are or would be required to maintain 

12 chemical exposure to their workers and members of the public within State limits. Also, being 

13 approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) apart, nonradioactive emissions that are within regulatory limits are 

14 or would be reduced as they travel in the atmosphere through the processes of dispersion and 

15 dilution. Based on the regulatory controls that will be in place to control chemical exposure, the 

16 distance between the facilities listed in Table 5–8, and the dilution of the nonradioactive 

17 materials, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative nonradiological impacts on human health 

18 would be SMALL.

19 Waste Management

20 This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects of the 

21 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site 

22 from radioactive and nonradioactive wastes, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, 

23 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for 

24 evaluating cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the 

25 proposed Chippewa Falls site. In Section 5.2.2.9, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts 

26 from types and volumes of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes from the construction, 

27 operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site 

28 would be SMALL.

29 As described above in the Human Health section, St. Joseph’s Hospital, which conducts 

30 radiological procedures, is within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the Chippewa Falls site and is regulated by 

31 the State of Wisconsin (SHINE 2013a). No nuclear fuel cycle facilities occur within the 5-mi 

32 (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls site that would contribute to the 

33 cumulative impacts from radioactive wastes. Therefore, the NRC staff assessed the potential 

34 cumulative impacts from radioactive waste from the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa 

35 Falls site and the potential impacts from the disposal of radioactive waste at St. Joseph’s 

36 Hospital. Radioactive waste at both facilities is or would be regulated, at SHINE by the NRC 

37 and at St. Joseph’s Hospital by the State of Wisconsin. The facilities are or would be required 

38 to store, process, and dispose of radioactive wastes in accordance with Federal and State 

39 requirements. As discussed in Section 4.9, radioactive wastes generated by the proposed 

40 SHINE facility would be packaged and transported off site to a licensed low-level radioactive 

41 waste facility for disposal (SHINE 2013a). In Section 4.9, the NRC staff concluded that the 

42 impacts from radioactive wastes generated by and disposed of from the proposed SHINE facility 

43 would be SMALL. Radioactive waste generated at St. Joseph’s Hospital would also be 

44 packaged and transported off site to a licensed low-level waste facility for disposal. Based on 

45 the regulatory controls on packaging and transporting radioactive waste, the NRC staff 

46 concludes that the cumulative impacts from radioactive waste would be SMALL.

47 Table 5–8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that 

48 could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates the 

5-47
Alternatives

1 use and disposal of nonradioactive waste (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at 

2 St. Joseph’s Hospital and would regulate their use and disposal at the proposed SHINE facility 

3 at the Chippewa Falls site. As discussed in Section 4.9, the State of Wisconsin has regulations 

4 for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin Administrative 

5 Code NR 460 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final 

6 treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste. Both facilities, SHINE 

7 and St. Joseph’s Hospital, are or would be regulated by the State and are or would be required 

8 to safely store, package, transport, and dispose of nonradioactive wastes in accordance with 

9 State requirements. Based on the state’s regulatory controls that are or would be in place to 

10 control nonradioactive wastes for the facilities listed in Table 5–8, the NRC staff concludes that 

11 the cumulative impacts from nonradioactive wastes would be SMALL.

12 Transportation

13 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

14 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on radiological and 

15 nonradiological transportation, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and 

16 reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating

17 cumulative impacts on transportation is primarily the same as that used in Section 5.2.2.10 and 

18 includes the site boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls 

19 site. However, the roads for routes that could be used for delivery of medical isotopes (if air 

20 transport is not possible) or disposal of wastes were also considered. Transportation 

21 infrastructure includes roadways, rail lines, airports, and traffic-control devices. As discussed in 

22 Section 5.2.2.10, transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

23 Construction projects in Table 5–8 could produce an increase in vehicular traffic on roads within 

24 the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site. For example, the Wissota Green Housing 

25 Development would involve the construction of a new housing development for approximately 

26 300 people, and the construction and operation of the Wissota Business Park would add 

27 employees commuting on roads near the Chippewa Falls site. Depending on the number of 

28 workers required and whether construction projects within the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site 

29 were occurring at the same time as the SHINE facility’s construction, operations, or 

30 decommissioning, traffic on access roads would increase. Most existing roads would be 

31 sufficient to handle the construction project’s transportation activities, and alternative routes 

32 could be used to minimize transportation impacts. In some cases, however, a noticeable 

33 increase in traffic could occur, especially if construction timeframes overlapped and construction 

34 workers and vehicles used the same roads. Therefore, depending on whether other 

35 construction projects overlapped with construction, operations, or decommissioning of the 

36 SHINE facility, or whether increased vehicular activity from workers or residents on roads near 

37 the Chippewa Falls site had a noticeable impact on traffic, the NRC staff concludes that 

38 cumulative transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

39 Environmental Justice

40 The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential contributory 

41 human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and 

42 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the effects 

43 from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on minority and low-income 

44 populations, and whether these effects might be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority 

45 and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing near the Chippewa Falls 

46 site, and everyone would be exposed to the same environmental effects generated by the 

47 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility.

5-48
Alternatives

1 As discussed in Section 5.2.2, the Chippewa Falls site is located in the preexisting Wissota 

2 Lake Business Park in a block group and Census tract that exceed both geographic area 

3 averages for minority and low-income populations. The geographic area of analysis is the 5-mi 

4 (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site. Minority and 

5 low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by 

6 noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction, 

7 operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these 

8 would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Chippewa 

9 Falls site would not have high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority 

10 and low-income populations.

11 Table 5–8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the 

12 geographic area of analysis that could contribute cumulative human health and environmental 

13 effects. Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of 

14 environmental effects from construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing 

15 impacts). However, increased noise and dust during construction would be short term and 

16 primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site 

17 access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter 

18 and vehicular traffic during construction. However, these effects are not likely to be high and 

19 adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. 

20 Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs 

21 to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations that rely on inexpensive housing. 

22 However, given the availability of workers and the likelihood of workers commuting to the 

23 construction site, the need for rental housing could be reduced.

24 Operational emissions from manufacturing or industrial facilities within the 5-mile (8-km) radius

25 of the Chippewa Falls site could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations 

26 living in the vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility. However, everyone would be exposed to the 

27 same potential contributory effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the 

28 change in current environmental conditions. Permitted air emissions from all manufacturing and

29 industrial facilities, including the contributory effects from the proposed SHINE facility, would be 

30 expected to remain within regulatory standards.

31 Based on this information and the analysis of human health and other environmental impacts 

32 presented in this section of the EIS, the contributory effects of constructing, operating, and 

33 decommissioning the SHINE facility are not likely to create high and adverse human health and 

34 environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the 

35 Chippewa Falls site.

36 5.2.3 Stevens Point Site

37 The NRC staff evaluated the Stevens Point site as a reasonable alternative. The city of Stevens 

38 Point is located in central Wisconsin, approximately 110 mi (176 km) north of Madison, 

39 Wisconsin; 215 mi (344 km) east of Minneapolis, Minnesota; and 250 mi (400 km) northwest of 

40 Chicago, Illinois (Figures 5–5 and 5–6). Specifically, the site is located adjacent to the eastern 

41 edge of the corporate boundaries of the City of Stevens Point in Portage County, Wisconsin. 

42 No public roads currently border the site.

43 The site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the south. The site is composed of deciduous 

44 forest and cropland. No residences or other buildings occur on site.

45 The City of Stevens Point created and recommended the Stevens Point site to SHINE. The city 

46 indicated to SHINE that, if the Stevens Point site were selected as the proposed site, the City 

47 would annex the site property and install public roads along the northern and western site 

5-49
Alternatives

1 boundaries. In addition, an overhead electrical line, municipal water supply pipeline, sanitary 

2 sewer pipeline, and natural gas pipeline, currently located approximately 0.3 mi (0.48 km) from 

3 the site, would need to be extended to the site. The analysis below considers the environmental 

4 impacts of building roads, electrical lines, and pipelines, because construction and operation of 

5 the SHINE facility would be dependent upon this infrastructure.

5-50
Alternatives

1 Figure 5–5. Population Centers and Transportation Features in Portage County, 

2 Wisconsin

3

4 Source: SHINE 2013a

5-51
Alternatives

1 Figure 5–6. Stevens Point Site

2

3 Source: SHINE 2013a

4 5.2.3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources

5 Land Use

6 The Stevens Point site includes 80.4 ac (32 5 ha) of land adjacent to the eastern edge of the 

7 corporate boundaries of the City of Stevens Point in Portage County, Wisconsin (Figure 5–6). 

8 Based on a review of the National Land Cover Database, the Stevens Point site is composed of 

9 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) of deciduous forest, 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) of cultivated agricultural land, and 

10 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) of mixed forest (Table 5–9) (USGS 2006; SHINE 2013a). Warehouses and open 

11 spaces are located west of the site. Agricultural land and forested areas surround the remaining 

12 portions of the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2013a). No residences, other structures, special land 

13 uses, or mineral resources are located within the Stevens Point site boundaries.

14 Portage County has currently zoned the site partly for agricultural use and partly for industrial 

15 use (Portage County 2012). The City of Stevens Point has indicated to SHINE that if the 

16 Stevens Point site were selected, the City would annex the site property and zone it entirely for

17 industrial use (SHINE 2013a).

18 The entire site is composed of prime farmland or farmland with soils of statewide importance 

19 where otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013b; 7 CFR 657.5). As described 

20 above, otherwise qualifying “farmland” soils do not include those on land already in or 

21 committed to urban development or water storage, as defined in 7 CFR 658.2.

5-52
Alternatives

1 Table 5–9. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the 

2 Stevens Point Site

Land Use 

Category

Permanently 

Disturbed

Temporarily 

Disturbed

Total Within 

Site 

Boundaries

Total Within 

5-mi (8-km) 

Radius

Percentage

Within 5-mi

(8-km) 

Radius

Developed 

land

13,555 ac

(5,486 ha)

27

Cultivated 

Crops

3.6 ac

(1.4 ha)

13.6 ac

(5.5 ha)

30.6 ac

(12.4 ha)

18,062 ac

(7,310 ha)

36

Pasture/Hay 3,617 ac

(1,464 ha)

7

Grassland/

Herbaceous

263 ac

(106 ha)

1

Shrub/Scrub 51 ac

(21 ha)

<1

Deciduous 

Forest

13.9 ac(a)

(6.5 ha)

48.2 ac

(19.5 ha)

7,538 ac

(3,050 ha)

15

Evergreen 

Forest

1,567 ac

(634 ha)

3

Mixed Forest 1.6 ac

(0.6 ha)

935 ac

(378 ha)

2

Woody 

Wetlands

2,627 ac

(1,063 ha)

5

Emergent, 

Herbaceous 

Wetlands

815 ac

(330 ha)

2

Open Water 1,127 ac

(456 ha)

2

Barren Land 

(Rock/Sand/

Clay)

109 ac

(44 ha)

<1

Totals(b) 17.5 ac

(7.9 ha)

13.6 ac

(5.5 ha)

80.4 ac

(32.5 ha)

50,265 ac

(20,342 ha)

100

Notes:

(a) The footprint of the facility would permanently convert 13.9 ac (6.5 ha). In addition, up to 48.2 ac 

(19.5 ha) could be cleared to comply with security requirements or other measures.

(b) Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: USGS 2006, SHINE 2013a

3 Construction

4 Construction of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would permanently disturb and 

5 convert 13.9 ac (6.5 ha) of deciduous forest and 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) of agricultural land to industrial 

6 use (Table 5-8). If SHINE needed to clear additional portions of the site to comply with security 

7 requirements or other measures, the amount of affected forested areas could be up to 48.2 ac

8 (19.5 ha) (SHINE 2013a). In addition, 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) of agricultural land would be temporarily 

9 converted from agricultural land to a construction parking area and construction material staging 

10 or laydown areas. Once construction activities are complete, SHINE would likely restore 

11 temporarily affected areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie. The 

5-53
Alternatives

1 remaining portion of the site would likely remain as open area, forested areas, or agricultural 

2 fields, or would be converted to cool season grasses or native prairie. The potential conversion 

3 of up to 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) used for agricultural and cultivated crops to other uses would be minor 

4 when compared to the 18,062 ac (7,310 ha) of agricultural land remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of 

5 the Stevens Point site. Similarly, the potential conversion of up to 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) of 

6 deciduous forest to other uses would be minor when compared to the 7,538 ac (3,050 ha) of 

7 deciduous forest remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point site. Additional forested or 

8 agricultural land adjacent to the site would be converted to a new land use to extend existing 

9 infrastructure to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. 

10 The Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations require agencies to make 

11 Farmland Protection Policy Act evaluations part of the NEPA process to reduce the conversion 

12 of farmland to nonagricultural uses by Federal projects and programs. Construction of the 

13 proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would permanently convert 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) and 

14 temporarily convert 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) of prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance to 

15 industrial use. However, this is a small percentage of the prime farmland or farmland of 

16 statewide importance within the region surrounding the Stevens Point site. Furthermore, a 

17 portion of the site is currently zoned for light industrial use, and, therefore, this portion of the site 

18 would not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Act.

19 Impacts on land use from construction would be SMALL, based on the relatively small amount 

20 of farmland and forested areas that would be permanently converted to industrial use, the lack 

21 of qualifying important farmland soils within a portion of the affected areas, and the lack of any

22 effect on special land use or mineral resources.

23 Operations

24 Operation of the SHINE facility would not require any new land or require land use changes 

25 beyond those required for construction. Therefore, impacts on land use during operations 

26 would be SMALL.

27 Decommissioning

28 Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve 

29 heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Land 

30 requirements to perform these activities would be similar to those required during construction. 

31 After decommissioning activities are complete, the Stevens Point site could remain industrial or 

32 be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. Given that land requirements would be 

33 similar to those described during construction and that, after decommissioning is complete, the 

34 land would be industrial, agricultural, or an open space, the NRC staff determined that the 

35 impacts on land use during decommissioning would be SMALL.

36 Visual Resources

37 The visual setting of the area that would be affected by the proposed SHINE facility at the 

38 Stevens Point site includes agricultural, forested, and light industrial viewsheds. The viewshed

39 to the north, south, and east of the Stevens Point site is mainly flat or has slightly rolling 

40 cultivated fields and deciduous forest. The viewshed to the west is a light industrial landscape, 

41 with a few warehouses and other buildings adjacent to the Stevens Point site.

42 Construction

43 The activities associated with constructing the proposed SHINE facility (e.g., excavation, 

44 earthmoving, pile driving, and erecting the facility) and extending currently existing infrastructure 

45 to the site (e.g., roads, electrical lines, and pipelines) would require large pieces of construction 

46 equipment, significantly altering the appearance and partially obstructing views of the existing 

5-54
Alternatives

1 landscape. Portions of the Stevens Point site with agricultural fields have low scenic quality 

2 caused by a lack of notable features, low vegetation diversity, and mute colors. The forested 

3 portion of the site has a higher scenic quality because of its natural setting and higher diversity 

4 of vegetation. The viewshed surrounding the site also varies from low to moderate to the mixed 

5 presence of cultural modified landscapes (agricultural fields, buildings, and warehouses) along 

6 with natural wooded areas.

7 The Stevens Point site has a low-to-moderate sensitivity rating, as it is located in an area with 

8 low scenic values resulting from a low amount of use by viewers and a lack of special natural 

9 and wilderness areas. The sensitivity rating could be moderate because several sensitive 

10 viewing areas exist within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Stevens Point site, including the following: 

11 more than 100 residences, a preschool, two child daycare facilities, a medical clinic, a city park, 

12 and an exercise track. Nonetheless, trees and existing buildings would block the view from 

13 most of these locations, resulting in a partial view of the Stevens Point site during construction. 

14 In addition, the viewshed surrounding the Stevens Point site is partially aesthetically altered by 

15 light industrial buildings, such as warehouses and other buildings, and agricultural fields. If 

16 SHINE clears the majority of the onsite wooded areas, visibility of the new facility and the 

17 contrast between the surrounding landscape and the new facility would be greater. Based on 

18 the low-to-moderate scenic quality and the forested and light industrial viewshed in the vicinity

19 of the Stevens Point site, construction-related aesthetic impacts would be SMALL to 

20 MODERATE during construction.

21 Operations

22 The appearance of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would not change during 

23 operation, other than a small steam plume that may be visible coming from the exhaust stack. 

24 The steam plume from the exhaust stack is expected to be minimal, because opacity associated 

25 with the natural-gas-fired boiler and heaters tends to be low, as described in Section 4.2.2.1. 

26 The steam plume would be more visible during periods of cold weather, although the size of the 

27 steam plume would still be relatively small. Therefore, visual impacts during operations would 

28 be SMALL.

29 Decommissioning

30 Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve 

31 heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. After 

32 SHINE completed decommissioning activities, the Stevens Point site could remain industrial, or 

33 be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. As the facility would be located in a district 

34 partially zoned for light industrial use, and the viewshed surrounding the Stevens Point site is 

35 partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, the NRC staff would not expect any 

36 changes to the landscape during decommissioning to significantly affect any viewsheds. 

37 Therefore, visual impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL.

38 5.2.3.2 Air Quality and Noise

39 Air Quality

40 The climate at Stevens Point is similar to that in Janesville but is colder and has more snowfall, 

41 since the site is farther north. According to NCDC records for the years 1981 to 2010 

42 (NCDC 2010b), the average annual temperature is 44 °F (6.5 °C), average annual snowfall is 

43 44.7 in. (114 cm), and average annual precipitation (rain) is 32.63 in. (82.8 cm). July is the 

44 warmest month of the year and January the coldest. The NCDC records identify the following 

45 extreme weather events in Portage County from 1996 to 2013: thunderstorms (56 events), 

46 lightning (11 events), hail (60 events), tornadoes (5 events), heavy rain (7 events), and floods

47 (5 events) (NCDC 2014b). The Stevens Point site is located in Portage County and is part of 

5-55
Alternatives

1 the North Central Wisconsin Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.157). Portage 

2 County is designated as an attainment area for sulfur dioxide and an attainment/unclassifiable

3 area for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter 

4 (40 CFR 81.350). Therefore, criteria pollutant concentrations in the county are lower than the 

5 NAAQS or there is insufficient data to determine if the NAAQS are met. The ROI for the air 

6 quality analysis discussed below is Portage County, because air quality designations are made 

7 at the county level. The nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is 

the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, about 197 mi (316 km) from the site (EPA 2014).

6 8

9 Construction

10 Sources of air pollutant emissions during construction of the facility at Stevens Point site would 

11 include fugitive dust from earth-moving equipment and other vehicles, criteria pollutants from 

12 diesel engines, and exhaust gases from worker vehicles as they commute to and from the 

13 Stevens Point construction site. Air emissions from construction of the facility at Stevens Point 

14 would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), 

15 since construction activities and sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel 

16 equipment, equipment activity, fuel combustion). Additional air emissions would also result from 

17 the additional infrastructure needed at the Stevens Point site, such as roads, electrical lines, 

18 and pipelines. Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, 

19 carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4–3. Construction air emissions 

20 would be temporary and localized. Portage County, as discussed above, is designated an 

21 attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the 

22 estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from 

23 construction activities at the Stevens Point site to contribute to concentrations in the air that 

24 would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Portage County’s attainment/unclassifiable 

25 designation. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.2.1, SHINE may be required to obtain a 

26 Type A Registration Construction Permit from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

27 (WDNR); SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated 

28 within the Type A Registration Construction Permit obtained from WDNR.

29 Given the low emissions, the temporary nature of construction activities (18 months), and the 

30 pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from WDNR, the NRC staff 

31 concludes that air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL.

32 Operations

33 Sources of air emissions from operating the facility would be from radioisotope production, fuel 

34 combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and vehicular traffic from workers

35 commuting and from monthly truck shipments in and out of the facility. Air pollutants from these 

36 sources will include nitrogen oxides (from radioisotope production, fuel combustion, vehicular 

37 traffic), sulfur dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), particulate matter (from fuel 

38 combustion and vehicular traffic), carbon dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), 

39 and carbon monoxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic). Air emissions would be 

40 similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since 

41 operation activities and sources would be similar (worker vehicles, fuel combustion associated 

42 with processing and facility heating, and the production process). Portage County, as discussed 

43 above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and therefore air quality is generally 

44 good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not 

6 Rainbow Lake in Wisconsin is the nearest Class 1 area (about 119 mi (192 km) from the Stevens Point site);

however, in 1980, Rainbow Lake was excluded for purposes of visibility protection as a Class I area.

5-56

 
Alternatives

1 expect emissions from a facility at the Stevens Point site to contribute to concentrations in the 

2 air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Portage County’s 

3 attainment/unclassifiable designation. Furthermore, SHINE would be required to comply with 

4 the requirements and limitations stipulated within the Type A Registration Operation Permit from 

5 WDNR.

6 Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded, that the Portage County air quality status 

7 is good, and that pollution control measures would be required in air permits from WDNR, the 

8 NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during operation would be SMALL.

9 Decommissioning

10 Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities in type and duration. 

11 Sources of air emissions would be from diesel equipment, vehicle worker emissions, and 

12 fugitive dust from earth-moving activities. Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for 

13 the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since decommissioning activities and 

14 sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel 

15 combustion). Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, 

16 carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4–9. Air emissions from 

17 decommissioning would be temporary and localized. Portage County, as discussed above, is 

18 designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. 

19 Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect 

20 emissions from decommissioning at the Stevens Point site to contribute to concentrations in the 

21 air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Portage County’s 

22 attainment/unclassifiable designation.

23 Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded, the decommissioning activities would be 

24 temporary, and the Portage County air quality is good, the NRC staff concludes that air quality

25 impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL.

26 Noise

27 The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of Stevens Point. 

28 There are a number of noise-sensitive receptors within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the Stevens 

29 Point site and the closest noise-sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 2,060 ft 

30 (628 m) from the center point of the Stevens Point site and 1,050 ft (320 m) from the Stevens 

31 Point site boundary. The NRC staff did not identify or obtain noise surveys of the Stevens Point 

32 site and surrounding area. As discussed in Section 5.3.2.1, the Stevens Point site and 

33 surrounding area are agricultural land. Background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA in 

34 agricultural cropland areas (EPA 1978).

35 Construction

36 Noise sources during construction of the Stevens Point site would include construction 

37 equipment on site and increased traffic volumes. The maximum number of worker vehicles 

38 expected on site during construction is 451. The Stevens Point Site is bordered by Eisenhower 

39 Road to the west, McDill Avenue to the south, Burbank Road to the east, and Old Highway 18 to 

40 the north. The entrance road to the Stevens Point site would connect to a new road that the 

41 City of Stevens Point would construct along the northern boundary of the site (Section 5.2.3.10

42 below). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Eisenhower Highway and McDill Avenue 

43 will experience an increase in traffic volumes, regardless of the specific route taken to get to the 

44 site, and subsequently will see an increase in noise. Furthermore, because of the location of 

45 the entrance road, the nearest resident (approximately 1,050 ft [320 m] away) may experience 

46 increased noise levels as workers access the site. The NRC staff expects that, similar to the 

47 Janesville site, noise levels from construction traffic would increase no more than 3 dBA.

5-57
Alternatives

1 The types of equipment that would be used on site during construction are listed in Table 4–2. 

2 The closest noise-sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 1,060 ft (320 m) from 

3 the facility site boundary and 2,060 ft (628 m) from the center point of the Stevens Point facility. 

4 The NRC staff estimates noise levels of 58 dBA at the nearest residence to the Stevens Point 

5 site. Compared to estimated background noise levels (45 dBA), noise levels from construction 

6 may be noticeable to people in the vicinity of the site.

7 Given the distance of the nearest resident to the Stevens Point site and the noise levels from 

8 construction activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to 

9 MODERATE.

10 Operations

11 Noise sources during operation would be from worker vehicular traffic. Noise from operating 

12 equipment would be contained inside buildings and is not expected to be audible outside the 

13 proposed building facility. The number of worker vehicles expected during operation is 150

14 (SHINE 2013a). As discussed above, Eisenhower Road, McDill Road, and the entrance road 

15 will experience noise from operations worker’s traffic. Additional traffic volume will increase 

16 noise levels by about 1 dBA.

17 Given that noise emissions from operating equipment are not expected to be audible beyond 

18 the building facility and additional noise emissions from worker vehicles are minor, the NRC

19 staff concludes that impacts from facility operation would be SMALL.

20 Decommissioning

21 Noise sources during decommissioning of the Stevens Point site would include construction 

22 equipment on site and increased traffic volumes, similar to construction activities. The 

23 maximum number of worker vehicles expected on site during decommissioning is 261. As 

24 discussed above, Eisenhower Road, McDill Road, and the entrance road will experience noise 

25 from operation worker traffic. Noise levels from decommissioning traffic would be similar to 

26 those during construction and would increase about 2 dBA.

27 The types of equipment that would be used on site during decommissioning are listed in

28 Table 4–9. The closest noise-sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 1,060 ft 

29 (320 m) from the facility site boundary and 2,060 ft (628 m) from the center point of the Stevens 

30 Point facility. The NRC staff estimates noise levels of about 52 to 58 dBA at the residence 

31 nearest to the Stevens Point site. Compared to estimated background noise levels (45 dBA), 

32 noise levels from construction may be noticeable to people in the vicinity of the site.

33 Given the distance of the nearest resident to the Stevens Point site and the noise levels from 

34 decommissioning activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to 

35 MODERATE.

36 5.2.3.3 Geologic Environment

37 The Stevens Point site is situated on the boundary between the Wisconsin Northern Highland 

38 and Central Plain physiographic provinces. This is between the Superior Upland and Central 

39 Lowland physiographic provinces of the United States (USGS 2003; SHINE 2013a). The site 

40 location is near a dividing line between areas affected by the younger Wisconsin glaciations that 

41 ended about 11,700 years ago and older glaciations of Illinoian age (WGNHS 2011). These 

42 events are further discussed in Section 3.3.1.

43 The topography of the site is flat to slightly hummocky. At the time of the NRC environmental 

44 site audit, portions of the site were being actively cultivated, with the remainder in forest 

45 coverage. A center point elevation of 1,113 ft (339 m), with a general slope gradient of 

5-58
Alternatives

1 southwest was established during the Phase I site assessment of the property (GAI 2012a, 

2 2012b). This is consistent with spot elevations taken from USGS topographic map coverage.

3 The surficial geologic unit at the Stevens Point site is mapped as meltwater sand and gravel 

4 (glacial outwash) of the Horicon formation. This unit is extensive across the central portion of 

5 Portage County and encompasses much of Stevens Point, including the proposed site. These 

6 sediments primarily consist of gravelly sands with dolomitic pebbles and cobbles in the upper 

7 part. It was deposited directly on the land surface by shallow, braided streams emanating from 

8 the Green Bay ice lobe to the east of the site (Clayton 1986).

9 SHINE contracted a preliminary geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation of the site, 

10 which included the installation of four monitoring wells (GAI 2012a, 2012b). Logs from the well 

11 borings revealed approximately 1 ft (0.3 m) of topsoil underlain by brown, medium-to-coarse 

12 grained-silty sand with trace gravel to a depth of 9- to 14-ft (2.7- to 4.3-m) bgs. Below this 

13 depth, the sediment consisted of medium-to-coarse grained and poorly graded sands, with silt 

14 up to 31-ft (9.4-m) deep, where the boreholes had to be terminated because of caving. All the 

15 sands were characterized as loose and wet, with no cobbles or larger fragments noted during 

16 drilling. Although not logged, an additional borehole was advanced to a depth of 140 ft (43 m) 

17 through sediments, without reaching bedrock (GAI 2012a, 2012b).

18 As for bedrock beneath the glacial sediments, county-level geological mapping shows the site to 

19 be located near the contact between Cambrian age sandstones of the Elk Mound Group and 

20 Precambrian intrusive igneous rocks (i.e., quartz monzonite and granite) (Greenberg and 

21 Brown 1986).

22 Construction sand and gravel is a commodity in the county (USGS 2013a). Geologic maps 

23 indicate several recent or historic quarrying operations in the vicinity of the site. Specifically, 

24 construction aggregate has been mined from large pits east and southeast of Stevens Point 

25 from glacial outwash materials (Clayton 1986).

26 Soil unit mapping by NRCS identifies the vast majority of soils across the site as consisting of 

27 Richford loamy sand, 0- to 2-percent slopes. This soil mapping unit is composed of somewhat 

28 excessively drained loamy sands to sandy loams, with sand in the lower portion of the soil 

29 profile at 41 to 60 in. (104 to 152 cm). The soil occurs on outwash plains and developed from 

30 sandy outwash materials. The depth to the water table in these soils is generally greater than 

31 80 in. (200 cm) and they are not prone to ponding. The only building site limitation these soils 

32 have is that excavations tend to be very unstable because of the coarse and loose sandy 

33 texture of subsoils. The southeast corner of the site is mapped as Billet sandy loam, 0- to 

34 2-percent slopes. This soil has characteristics similar to those of the Richford loamy sand. The 

35 Richford soil is classified as farmland of statewide importance while the Billet soil is prime 

36 farmland where otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013b; 7 CFR 657.5).

37 As further described in Section 3.3.3, the State of Wisconsin lies within the central portion of the 

38 stable North American craton. Regional seismicity is characterized by relatively infrequent, 

39 small-to-moderate earthquakes that are typical of much of the central and eastern United States 

40 (USGS 2013b). Similar to the Janesville site, seismic hazard estimates prepared by the USGS 

41 indicate that the site is located within one of the lowest earthquake hazard areas in the 

42 conterminous United States (Petersen et al. 2011).

43 Within a radius of 200 mi (322 km) of the Stevens Point site, there have been 5 earthquakes 

44 with a magnitude equal to or greater than 2.5 recorded since 1973. The closest was a 

45 magnitude 2.6 earthquake with an epicenter approximately 180 mi (290 km) southeast of the 

46 site near Campton Hills, Illinois (USGS 2013c). The largest earthquake was a magnitude 3.8 

47 event in the same general area of Illinois in February 2010 (USGS 2013d).

5-59
Alternatives

1 Construction

2 Ground-disturbing activities associated with facility construction would have impacts on geologic 

3 and soil resources similar to those discussed for the Janesville site (Section 4.3.1). Earthwork 

4 requirements and the ease of excavation would be very similar, as soils and surficial strata are 

5 comparable for the two sites. The depth to bedrock is not a concern for excavation work for the 

6 below-grade portions of the facility.

7 As at the Janesville site, shallow excavations could be prone to slumping. In addition, the 

8 presence of loose, water-bearing soils at depths below about 10-ft (3-m) bgs could require the 

9 use of bracing in trenches and other measures (e.g., cofferdams) during construction of the 

10 below-grade portion of the facility. The potential for soil erosion and loss would be similar to 

11 that at the Janesville and Chippewa Falls sites. However, as described in Section 4.3.1,

12 adherence to standard BMPs for soil erosion and sediment control, and compliance with the 

13 provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), would serve to 

14 minimize soil erosion and loss.

15 Site work and the creation of an impervious surface would result in the irretrievable loss of 

16 important farmland soils equal to the acreage disturbed and converted to an impervious surface. 

17 However, as a result of adherence to the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

18 No. WI-S067831-4) and implementation of the associated BMPs, the NRC staff finds that the 

19 overall impacts on the geologic environment from the construction of the proposed SHINE

20 facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

21 Operations

22 There would be no additional impact on geology and soils from facility operations at the Stevens 

23 Point site. Land temporarily disturbed during construction within the site boundary and lying 

24 outside the facility footprint would be revegetated and would not be subject to continued soil

25 erosion.

26 Regardless of the site location, the proposed SHINE facility would be sited, designed, and 

27 constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes, which provide for the evaluation of 

28 site geologic and soil conditions, including potential seismic hazards. As a result of these 

29 considerations, the NRC staff finds that the operational impacts associated with the geologic 

30 environment at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

31 Decommissioning

32 Facility demolition and other ground-disturbing activities associated with decommissioning 

33 would have impacts on soils and sediments similar to those described for construction. As site 

34 activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable local, State, and other Federal 

35 regulations and permits, the NRC staff finds that the impacts on the geologic environment from 

36 decommissioning the facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

37 5.2.3.4 Water Resources

38 Surface Water 

39 No streams or other surface-water bodies exist within the boundaries of the Stevens Point site. 

40 The only major surface-water feature in the immediate vicinity of the site is McDill Pond, an 

41 impoundment on the Plover River, located approximately 2.1 mi (3.4 km) west of the site. 

42 McDill pond covers 261 ac (106 ha) and attains a maximum depth of 20 ft (6.1 m) (University of 

43 Wisconsin 2005). Outflow from the south end of the impounded Plover River at the McDill Dam 

44 enters the Wisconsin River at a point approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) southwest of the site and 

45 south of Stevens Point. Drainage from the site would be expected to travel south and 

5-60
Alternatives

1 southwest toward the Plover River drainage. The Plover and Little Plover River watershed 

drains an area of 202 mi2 (523 km2 2 ) (WDNR 2013a).

3 There are no USGS gaging stations immediately downstream of the Stevens Point site. There 

4 is a USGS gaging station upstream of McDill Pond on the Plover River (Station 05400513) with 

5 a short period of record, as well as a station downstream of Stevens Point on the Wisconsin 

6 River at Wisconsin Rapids (Station 05400760). For the Plover River upstream of McDill Pond at 

7 Highway 66, the mean annual discharge measured at the USGS gage for water years 2010 

to 2012 is 185 cfs (5.23 m3 8 /s). The 90 percent exceedance flow, a measure of drought 

conditions, is 90 cfs (2.5 m3 9 /s). For water year 2012, the mean discharge was 151 cfs 

(4.27 m3

/s). The drainage area of the river upstream of the station encompasses 116 mi2 10

(430 km2 11 ) (USGS 2012b).

12 No floodplains have been delineated on or near the site (City of Stephens Point 2006), and no 

13 tributaries to the Plover or Wisconsin Rivers originate on or near the site that could present 

14 backwater flooding concerns.

15 The State of Wisconsin has established water-quality standards and numeric criteria and 

16 associated designated-use categories for all waters of the State, as previously described in 

17 Section 3.4.1, and in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 102 and 

18 NR 104). Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify “impaired” water for which 

19 effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water-quality 

20 standards in such waters. The segment of the Plover River including McDill Pond has a 

21 designated use for fish and aquatic life, has good water quality, and is listed as attaining 

22 designated uses (WDNR 2013a). Upstream of McDill Pond, the Plover River has experienced 

23 high fecal coliform bacteria levels that have resulted in the closure of the public beach at Iverson 

24 Park at some point during most swimming seasons. The contamination has been attributed to 

25 upstream livestock farms. The City of Stevens Point has focused on urban runoff as a 

26 water-quality concern for McDill Pond (City of Stevens Point 2006).

27 In Portage County, surface water is extensively used for self-supplied industrial and commercial 

28 uses but with very minor use for irrigation and livestock watering. However, groundwater is the 

29 primary and almost exclusive source for the domestic and municipal water supply 

30 (Buchwald 2011; City of Stevens Point 2006).

31 No industrial wastewater discharges have been identified in the site vicinity. Sanitary sewer 

32 service would be provided by the City of Stevens Point from nearby service areas 

(SHINE 2013a). The city’s treatment plant has a capacity of 5.23 mgd (19,800 m3 33 /d), with a 

recorded peak demand of 3.68 mgd (13,900 m3 34 /d) (City of Stevens Point 2006).

35 Groundwater 

36 Except for the northwest portion, the surficial aquifer system is extensive across Portage County 

37 and is the principal water-bearing unit (Olcott 1992; Portage County 2004). As noted in 

38 Section 5.2.3.3, the aquifer is locally composed of meltwater sand and gravel (glacial outwash) 

39 of the Horicon formation. Locally, wells completed in the sand and gravel aquifer of the sand 

40 plain province of the county, in which the proposed site is located, have a potential yield 

41 exceeding 1,000 gpm (3,780 Lpm) of water (Portage County 2004). Well completion 

42 information for the four monitoring wells installed on the site in December 2011 indicates 

43 water-table conditions at depths ranging from about 8- to 11-ft (2.4- to 3.4-m) bgs (GAI 2012b). 

44 Other wells drilled in the vicinity of the site reflect groundwater depths ranging from 7 to 20 ft 

45 (2.1 to 6.1 m) bgs (SHINE 2013a). Groundwater in the vicinity of the site is mapped as flowing 

46 to the southwest, which is consistent with the topographic gradient in the vicinity of the site 

47 (Portage County 2004).

5-61
Alternatives

1 No groundwater quality data were obtained from the four monitoring wells installed on the site, 

2 and the wells were properly abandoned (closed) in March 2012 (GAI 2012b). However, the 

3 quality of groundwater across the county is reported as generally good, except for some natural 

4 occurrences of iron, manganese, radionuclides, and corrosive (i.e., soft-acidic) groundwater. 

5 Agricultural and petrochemical contamination of the local surficial (sand and gravel) aquifer is a 

6 concern, including nitrate and the pesticide atrazine (Portage County 2004). The State of 

7 Wisconsin regulates groundwater quality and administers groundwater protection programs in 

8 accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 140).

9 As referenced above, groundwater is the source of potable and municipal water in Portage 

10 County and Stevens Point. The City of Stevens Point Water Utility maintains seven 

large-capacity wells with a total reliable system supply capacity of 14.8 mgd (56,000 m3 11 /d) (City 

12 of Stevens Point 2006, 2014). These wells are all completed in the local surficial (sand and 

13 gravel) aquifer at depths ranging from 53 to 90 ft (16 to 27 m) (WDNR 2013b). The Stevens 

14 Point water supply is protected both within and beyond the city limits by wellhead protection 

15 ordinances adopted by the various communities and by Portage County (City of Stevens 

16 Point 2006).

17 Construction

18 Facility construction activities at the Stevens Point site would not have any direct impact on 

19 surface-water resources, as no streams or other surface-water bodies originate within the 

20 boundaries of the site. The only major surface-water feature nearby is McDill Pond, an 

21 impoundment of the Plover River, located approximately 2.1 mi (3.4 km) west of the site. 

22 Because of the apparent shallow depth to the water table beneath the site, the need for 

23 groundwater dewatering would be likely during construction. Water removed from facility 

24 excavations would need to be discharged in accordance with appropriate State and local 

25 permits. The relatively shallow depth to groundwater would also likely require the installation of 

26 subdrain or permanent dewatering systems for the below-grade portions of the facility.

27 As discussed above (Geologic Environment) and detailed in Section 4.4.1.1 for the Janesville 

28 site, ground-disturbing activities at the site would be subject to a Wisconsin General Permit 

29 (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This General Permit requires the development of 

30 appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures and spill prevention and waste 

31 management practices to minimize suspended sediment, the transport of other deleterious 

32 materials, and potential water-quality impacts.

33 No surface water or onsite groundwater would be withdrawn to support construction at the site. 

34 The relatively small volume of water required to support construction activities (averaging about 

0.012 mgd (45 m3 35 /day)) would be supplied by the City of Stevens Point, which uses 

36 groundwater. Water could either be supplied by a temporary water tap or trucked to the point of 

37 use. Wastewater generation would be limited to sanitary waste from the construction workforce 

38 and would likely be accommodated through the use of portable restroom facilities.

39 As no natural surface-water features occur on the site, SHINE would not divert or withdraw 

40 surface water to support facility construction, there would be no onsite withdrawal of 

41 groundwater, and SHINE would be subject to the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

42 No. WI-S067831-4), the NRC concludes that the impacts on surface and groundwater 

43 hydrology, water quality, and water use from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility at 

44 the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

45 Operations

46 Normal facility operations would not have any direct impact on surface-water or groundwater 

47 hydrology or quality. Compliance with the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

5-62
Alternatives

1 No. WI-S067831-4), as described for construction, specifically requires the development of a 

2 stormwater management plan with appropriate BMPs to address runoff from buildings and other 

3 impervious surfaces. As detailed in Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.2.2 for the Janesville site, the 

4 design, construction, and operation of the proposed facility would include necessary structural 

5 controls, and operations would be subject to appropriate plans and procedures to prevent any 

6 spills or other releases from reaching soils or surfaces where they could be conveyed to surface 

7 waters or groundwater.

Total water use is projected to be 6,073 gpd (22,990 Lpd), or 0.006 mgd (23 m3 8 /day) and would 

9 be supplied by the City of Stevens Point by a service connection. Projected water use would be 

10 a small percentage of the City of Stevens Point’s supply capacity.

11 Operation of the proposed SHINE facility would entail no direct discharge of wastewater

12 effluents to either surface water or groundwater. Wastewater generated by facility operations, 

13 composed primarily of sanitary waste, would be discharged to the City of Stevens Point WTP. 

14 Section 5.2.3.9 discusses the management of other waste forms.

15 Given that no natural surface-water features occur on the site, SHINE would not divert or 

16 withdraw surface water to support facility operation, and no direct discharge of wastewater

17 effluents to surface or groundwater would occur, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on 

18 surface water and groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water use from the operation of 

19 the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

20 Decommissioning

21 Facility decontamination, demolition, and site restoration activities would be similar regardless of 

22 the site, with the potential magnitude of the impacts on surface water and groundwater similar to 

23 those discussed for construction. All decommissioning activities would be conducted in 

24 accordance with appropriate BMPs and would observe waste handling and pollution prevention 

25 practices and spill prevention and response procedures during decommissioning, so that no 

26 materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater, where they could 

27 contaminate water resources.

28 Small quantities of water that may be required for dust control and soil compaction in 

29 association with site restoration activities would be supplied from municipal sources, as 

30 discussed for construction. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on water 

31 resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL.

32 5.2.3.5 Ecological Resources

33 The Stevens Point site consists of 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) of agricultural land, 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) of 

34 deciduous forest, and 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest (Table 5–9). 

35 Plant species on the site vary depending on previous land uses (Table 5–10). For example, 

36 approximately two-thirds of the site is a second-growth deciduous and evergreen forest. 

37 Common tree types include oaks (Quercus spp.), maples (Acer spp.), and pines (Pinus spp.). 

38 Various flower plants and grasses such as goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and aster

39 (Symphyotrichum spp.) occur along the edge of cultivated fields. Such species are 

40 representative of an early successional plant community, or type of species found in the few 

41 years after a large disturbance, such as plowing. Actively cultivated crops on the site primarily

42 include corn (Zea mays) (SHINE 2013a).

5-63
Alternatives

1 Table 5–10. Vegetation on the Stevens Point Site

Scientific Name Common Name

Forest Species

Abies balsamea balsam fir

Acer saccharum sugar maple

Carex spp. sedge

Ostrya virginiana hop hornbeam

Pinus strobus white pine

Pinus sylvestris scotch pine

Prunus serotina black cherry

Quercus alba white oak

Quercus macrocarpa bur oak

Quercus rubra red oak

Quercus spp. oak species

Ribes spp. gooseberry

Rubus spp. blackberry

Smilax spp. green briar

Tilia americana American basswood

Viburnum spp. virburnum species

Vegetative Communities Along Field Edges

Ambrosia artemisiifolia common ragweed

Amorpha canescens lead plant

Bromus inermis smooth brome

Conyza canadensis horseweed

Euthamia graminifolia flattop goldenrod

Panicum spp. panic grass

Potentilla quinquefolia creeping cinquefoil

Rubus flagellarus dewberry

Setaria glauca foxtail grass

Solidago spp. goldenrod species

Symphyotrichum spp. aster species

Source: SHINE 2013a

2 The Stevens Point site provides habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other 

3 wildlife tolerant of open fields, cultivated grasses, and frequent disturbances from human 

4 activity. During a reconnaissance survey, SHINE observed several birds at the Stevens Point

5 site, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), red-bellied 

6 woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), American 

7 crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), and various 

8 sparrows (SHINE 2013a). Common mammals that inhabit the site likely include deer, raccoons, 

9 squirrels, and rabbits. Common reptiles and amphibians that inhabit the site likely include frogs, 

10 turtles, and snakes.

11 No wetlands, water bodies, or other aquatic habitats exist within the boundaries of the Stevens 

12 Point site. The closest wetland is approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) north of the site boundary. In 

13 addition, the Plover River is approximately 2.0 mi (3.2 km) northwest of the site and the 

14 Wisconsin River is approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) southwest of the site. However, runoff is not 

15 expected to flow into these aquatic habitats because of drainage patterns, the distance from the 

16 site to the habitats, and the number of human-made features (such as roads, buildings, and 

5-64
Alternatives

1 railroads) separating the site from the aquatic habitats. Several ditches occur within the vicinity 

2 of the site, which provide minimal, low-quality aquatic habitats.

3 In correspondence with the NRC, FWS (2013) stated that the Stevens Point site is within the 

4 high potential range for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), a Federally 

5 endangered species (FWS 2013). Habitat for the Karner blue butterfly includes dry sandy 

6 prairie, oak savanna, jack pine forests, and sandy open scrub-shrub areas (FWS 2013). In 

7 Wisconsin, Karner blue butterflies are found along utility and road right-of-ways, abandoned 

8 agricultural fields, forest openings, and managed forests (FWS 2013; WDNR 2014d). The only 

9 food plant for the Karner caterpillar is wild blue lupine (Lupinus perennis) and, therefore, 

10 occurrence of this species is greatly limited to areas with wild blue lupine (FWS 2008). 

11 Caterpillars generally hatch from eggs in April and then pupate and emerge from their 

12 cocoon-like chrysalis by the end of May or in early June. A second generation generally 

13 hatches from eggs in late June and pupates and emerges as adults in July (FWS 2008).

14 Two species of special concern and two State-threatened species could occur within 6 mi 

15 (10 km) of the Stevens Point site (Table 5–11) (SHINE 2013a; WDNR 2014a). While these 

16 species may occur within the vicinity of the site, the Stevens Point site provides unsuitable 

17 habitat for any of the four State-protected species (SHINE 2013a; WDNR 2014a). SHINE did 

18 not observe any Federally or State-protected species on the Stevens Point site during 

19 reconnaissance surveys (SHINE 2013a).

20 Table 5–11. Federally and State-Protected Species Within a 6-mi (10-km) Radius of the 

21 Stevens Point Site

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) State Rank(b)

Insects

Lycaeides melissa 

samuelis

Karner blue

butterfly

E SSC S3

Microtus ochrogaster prairie vole SSC S2

Plants

Asclepias lanuginose wooly milkweed T S1

Arabis missouriensis Missouri rockcress SSC S2

Reptiles

Glyptemys insculpta wood turtle T S2

(a) E = endangered; SSC = Species of Special Concern; T= Threatened

(b) S1 = Critically imperiled in Wisconsin because of extreme rarity; S2 = Imperiled in Wisconsin because of rarity; 

S3 = Rare or uncommon in Wisconsin

Sources: FWS 2013; WDNR 2014b, 2014d

22 The FWS also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which prohibits anyone from taking 

23 native migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The majority of the bird species that 

24 occur in Wisconsin, except for resident games birds and feral species, are protected under the 

25 Act (WDNR 2014c). In the vicinity of the site, migratory birds rely on riparian, forested, 

26 grassland, and wetland habitats as important areas for foraging, resting, avoiding predators, 

27 and, for some species, breeding. On the Stevens Point site, migratory birds could use trees for 

28 resting, breeding, nesting, and foraging.

5-65
Alternatives

1 Construction 

2 Construction of the facility at the Stevens Point site would result in permanently converting 

3 13.9 ac (5.6 ha) of deciduous forest and 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) of agricultural fields into an industrial 

4 facility or developed open space, such as parking lots. Furthermore, 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) of 

5 cropland would be temporarily disturbed during construction. Additional forested or agricultural 

6 land adjacent to the site would be disturbed to extend existing infrastructure to the site, such as 

7 roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. In addition to a loss of habitat from construction activities, 

8 noise from construction activities could disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such 

9 disturbances, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar 

10 habitat within the vicinity.

11 During construction, bird collisions with construction equipment and the new facility could result 

12 in mortality from the presence of tall structures and artificial night lighting during nighttime 

13 construction. The size of structures and the likelihood of mortality from bird collisions would be 

14 similar to that described in Section 4.5 for the proposed SHINE site in Janesville. In that 

15 analysis, the NRC staff determined that impacts from bird collisions would be negligible and 

16 unlikely to affect local or migratory populations, based on previous reviews of bird collisions at 

17 nuclear power plants that are similar or larger in height and size than the proposed SHINE 

18 facility.

19 Construction at the Stevens Point site is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic 

20 resources, such as habitat loss, because no aquatic resources occur on the Stevens Point site. 

21 Runoff from the site could affect the offsite aquatic resources, such as drainage ditches, by 

22 increasing turbidity or introducing various chemicals or other pollutants. SHINE (2013a) stated,

23 in its ER, that if the Stevens Point site is selected, SHINE would implement appropriate soil

24 erosion and sediment control BMPs to minimize the transport of suspended sediment and other 

25 pollutants. In addition, SHINE would be required, in its stormwater permit, to develop a 

26 site-specific plan to minimize pollution and runoff (Section 5.2.3.4).

27 In response to the NRC staff’s request for endangered and threatened species that could be 

28 affected by the proposed construction and operation, FWS (2013) stated that the Stevens Point 

29 site is within the high potential range for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). 

30 Furthermore, if the Stevens Point is selected as the proposed site for construction, FWS (2013) 

31 recommended surveys for the presence of wild blue lupines, and if present, then additional 

32 surveys to determine the presence of Karner blue butterflies. Therefore, if the Stevens Point 

33 site is selected for construction, additional consultation with FWS would be required to 

34 determine the potential occurrence of the Karner blue butterfly at the Stevens Point site.

35 FWS (2013) also stated that migratory birds could occur either on or within the vicinity of the 

36 site. If the Stevens Point site is selected, FWS (2013) recommended that any tree removal 

37 occur before May 1 or after August 30 to minimize impacts on breeding migratory birds that 

38 might use the trees for breeding, nesting, foraging, or resting.

39 Given that construction would not permanently or temporarily affect any high-quality habitats 

40 such as grasslands, undisturbed forests, or wetlands; permanently and temporarily affected 

41 habitats are available within the region; mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible; 

42 and no aquatic resources occur on the Stevens Point site, impacts on ecological resources 

43 during construction would be SMALL. If the Stevens Point site is selected, additional 

44 consultation with FWS would be required, under the Endangered Species Act, to determine the 

45 potential presence of, and any effects on, the Karner blue butterfly.

5-66
Alternatives

1 Operations

2 During operations, impacts on ecological resources could result from bird collisions, herbicide 

3 applications for landscape maintenance activities, elevated noise levels, and increased turbidity 

4 or introduction of pollutants from runoff. As described in Section 4.5, mortality from bird 

5 collisions is expected to be negligible, given that the tallest structure would be a stack at 

6 approximately 66 ft (20 m) tall. Disturbance from daily activities, herbicide applications, or 

7 elevated noise levels is likely to have minimal impacts on wildlife and plant species, given that 

8 the species identified at the Stevens Point site are generally tolerant of disturbance, because 

9 portions of the site have been actively farmed or modified for human use over the past several 

10 decades. In response to any disturbances during operation, birds and wildlife could move out of 

11 the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity.

12 Operation of the facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic resources, 

13 because wastewater would be discharged to the City of Stevens Point sanitary sewer system 

14 after being treated (SHINE 2013a). Indirect impacts during operations could include runoff that 

15 may contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or herbicides. However, 

16 as described above, impacts on aquatic resources are expected to be minimal, because nearby 

17 aquatic resources are drainage ditches that provide low-quality habitat, and SHINE would be 

18 required, in its stormwater permit, to use appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs.

19 Given that mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, habitat disturbances during 

20 operations would be minimal, any disturbed wildlife could find similar habitat in the vicinity, and 

21 BMPs would be required in the SHINE stormwater permit, impacts on ecological resources 

22 during operations would be SMALL. As described above, if the Stevens Point site is selected, 

23 additional consultation with FWS would be required, under the Endangered Species Act, to 

24 determine the potential presence of, and any effects on, the Karner blue butterfly.

25 Decommissioning

26 Decommissioning activities would have similar impacts to those that occur during construction 

27 of the proposed facility. For example, SHINE would use construction equipment to dismantle 

28 large buildings, which could result in disturbances to wildlife and birds and potential runoff to 

29 nearby water bodies. In addition, some land on the site could be used as staging areas for the 

30 equipment and to conduct certain dismantling activities. As described above, if noise or other 

31 activities disturb birds or wildlife, similar habitat is available in nearby offsite areas. No surface 

32 water would be used during decommissioning, and SHINE would develop and implement spill 

33 prevention and response procedures as part of State permit requirements for ground-disturbing 

34 activities. Therefore, impacts during decommissioning are expected to be SMALL. As 

35 described above, if the Stevens Point site is selected, additional consultation with FWS would 

36 be required under the Endangered Species Act to determine the potential presence of, and any 

37 effects on, the Karner blue butterfly.

38 5.2.3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

39 A review of databases maintained by the National Park Service indicates that there are 

40 18 properties listed in the NRHP within Portage County (NPS 2015b). These historic properties 

41 reflect the historic cultural contexts for the proposed Stevens Point site and include historic 

42 buildings, structures, and districts dating from the mid-19th to mid-20th centuries. However, no 

43 historic properties are located within the APE, the Stevens Point site, or its immediate vicinity. 

44 The closest NRHP-listed property is Nelson Hall, approximately 3.8 mi (6.1 km) northwest of the 

45 Stevens Point site, surrounded by commercial and residential land. Nelson Hall was the first 

46 dormitory established at the Stevens Point Normal School, the precursor to University of 

47 Wisconsin―Stevens Point (NRHP 2013b). No archeological survey was commissioned by 

5-67
Alternatives

1 SHINE for the Stevens Point site. The NRC staff queried the Archaeological Sites Inventory 

2 and Architectural History Inventory, Burial Sites Inventory, and the Bibliography of 

3 Archaeological Reports at the Wisconsin Historical Society. No known historic or cultural 

4 resources or historic properties were found at the Stevens Point site (NRC 2013).

5 As there are no known historic properties, under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), or historic and cultural 

6 resources located within the APE, impacts on these resources are not likely during the 

7 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. The facility 

8 would also incur little or no visual or aesthetic impact, as potential visual impacts during 

9 construction and decommissioning would be temporary. The proposed SHINE facility is a 

10 low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is approximately 3 mi (5 km) away and is 

11 surrounded by residential and commercial properties. However, previously unidentified cultural 

12 resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-disturbing activities associated with 

13 construction, maintenance during operations, and decommissioning. It is expected that SHINE 

14 would employ a CRMP, similar to the one discussed in Section 4.6, to manage and protect as15 yet-unidentified cultural resources.

16 Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on 

17 the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) CRMP procedures, and (3) cultural resource assessment 

18 and consultations, construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the 

19 Stevens Point site would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, 

20 given the possibility of the inadvertent discovery of unidentified cultural resources caused by 

21 land disturbance during construction, operations, and decommissioning, the overall impact 

22 would be SMALL.

23 5.2.3.7 Socioeconomics

24 Affected Environment

25 For the purposes of this analysis, the ROI is Portage County, Wisconsin, with special 

26 consideration being given to the site of the facility in Stevens Point. The City of Stevens Point is 

27 the county seat located in Portage County. According to the 2010 Census, the total population

28 of Portage County was 70,019, while the City of Stevens Point had a population of 26,717 

29 (USCB 2014e). Approximately one third of the population of Portage County resides in Stevens 

30 Point. The population in Portage County steadily increased from 1970 to 2010. According to 

31 the 2010 Census, there were 11,220 total housing units in the City of Stevens Point and 30,054 

32 housing units in Portage County. The total number of vacant housing units in the City of 

33 Stevens Point was 622 (5.5 percent) and 2,240 (7.5 percent) in Portage County (USCB 2014f).

34 Portage County had the highest employment by industry in trade, transportation, and utilities at 

35 7,368 employed (27.11 percent of employment), followed by manufacturing, with 4,254 

36 employed (15.65 percent), and financial activities, with 4,240 employed (15.60 percent) 

37 (BLS 2013). Several industries are represented in Stevens Point, which include insurance, 

38 education, medical, government, and manufacturing. The top three employers in Portage 

39 County are in Stevens Point: Sentry Insurance A Mutual Co., University of Wisconsin―Stevens 

40 Point, and Stevens Point Public School (WDWD 2013).

41 There was a slight decline in the labor force and employment totals between 2011 and 2012 in 

42 the City of Stevens Point. In 2011, the labor force total was 15,784, and it declined to 15,621 

43 in 2012. The employed total was 14,536 in 2011, and it dropped to 14,357 in 2012. There were 

44 also small declines in the labor force and employment totals for Portage County. The State of 

45 Wisconsin had a slight decline in the labor force figure, but the employment figure rose slightly 

46 from 2011 to 2012. The unemployment rate in Stevens Point was 8.1 percent, which was 

47 1.5 percent higher than the Portage County total of 6.6 percent and 1.2 percent higher than the 

5-68
Alternatives

1 6.9 percent for the State of Wisconsin in 2012 (BLS 2013). According to the Migrant Population 

2 Report issued by the WDWD, 268 migrant workers were employed in Portage County in 

3 agricultural and food processing jobs in 2011 (WDWD 2014).

4 According to 2007–2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the median family 

5 income for the City of Stevens Point was $56,992, while Portage County was $64,227. The per 

6 capita income for Stevens Point during the same time period was $21,893, while Portage 

7 County was slightly higher at $25,207. Tax rates vary by jurisdiction. Portage County has a 

8 0.5 percent county tax rate. The City of Stevens Point’s proposed government budget for 2014 

9 is $2,894,227, and the general property taxes in 2012 were $2,213,414 (City of Stevens 

10 Point 2013a).

11 The Stevens Point Area Public School District had a total of 7,402 students enrolled in pre-K to 

12 12th grade in 2012–2013. Nine elementary schools, two junior high schools, one senior high 

13 school, two specialized schools, and a 4K (kindergarten for 4 year olds) program make up the 

14 school district (Stevens Point Area Public School District 2013). Mid-State Technical College 

15 and the University of Wisconsin―Stevens Point are located in Stevens Point.

16 The City of Stevens Point has a number of recreational facilities, including several trails for 

17 walking, biking, and cross-country skiing. In addition there are 43 campgrounds in Stevens 

18 Point, numerous local parks, and the Main Street Historic District (WDNR undated). Cultural 

19 institutions include a Central Wisconsin Children’s Museum and a Museum of Natural History, 

20 Observatory, and Planetarium at the University of Wisconsin―Stevens Point.

21 Impact Analysis 

22 The estimated number of workers needed to construct, operate, and decommission the SHINE

23 facility at the Stevens Point site would be the same as the number of workers required for the 

24 proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site.

25 Construction

26 The 420 workers needed to construct the proposed SHINE facility would represent 2 percent of 

27 the total population (26,717) of Stevens Point and less than 1 percent of the population of 

28 Portage County (70,019) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Most construction workers would likely reside 

29 within the ROI and would not permanently relocate because of the relatively short duration 

30 (18 months) of construction. In addition, the support infrastructure within the ROI would be able 

31 to accommodate a temporary increase in population. Since most of the 420 construction 

32 workers would likely already reside in the ROI, there would be no increase in demand for public 

33 services. Assuming that SHINE would enter into a TIF agreement with the City of Stevens 

34 Point, similar to the agreement in Janesville, in the first 10 years of the proposed project, the TIF 

35 agreement would allow SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes to the City of Stevens Point. 

36 Tax payments totaling $600,000 per year would be used to offset infrastructure expenses. 

37 SHINE would also pay property taxes estimated to be $35,000 per year, based on the assessed 

38 property before improvements during this 10-year period (SHINE 2013a). The Stevens Point 

39 Area Public School District would receive a portion of the property tax benefits, since the 

40 Stevens Point site is located in that district. Sales tax revenue would also increase if materials 

41 and services were purchased within the ROI during construction. However, the total amount of 

42 tax revenue generated within the ROI during construction would be relatively small in 

43 comparison to the established tax base of Stevens Point and Portage County; Stevens Point’s 

44 2012 collected taxes were approximately $16.4 million, while Portage County collected 

45 $32.1 million in taxes in 2012 (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact 

46 during the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

5-69
Alternatives

1 Operations

2 The 150 operations workers would represent 1 percent of the total 2010 population of Stevens 

3 Point (26,717) and less than 1 percent of Portage County (70,019) (USCB 2014a). It is likely 

4 that some workers would relocate to the ROI. However, the total number of operations workers 

5 would not create a significant socioeconomic impact. There is sufficient housing available in the 

6 ROI to accommodate any increase in the population from the proposed SHINE facility. There is 

7 also sufficient capacity in the public schools to accommodate the small increase in the 

8 school-age population when the proposed SHINE facility operations workers and their families 

9 relocate to the ROI. Public services, including water utilities, would be able to support the 

10 increased needs of operations workers and their families. SHINE would continue to make 

11 payments in lieu of taxes (estimated $600,000) and property taxes (estimated $35,000) during 

12 facility operations. However, after expiration of the 10-year TIF agreement with the City of 

13 Stevens Point, SHINE would pay property taxes of approximately $660,000 per year 

14 (SHINE 2013a). The amount of property taxes could change, depending on the assessed value 

15 of the proposed SHINE facility. Stevens Point Area Public School District would also continue 

16 to receive property tax revenue from SHINE during facility operations. In addition, overall sales 

17 and property tax revenues would increase within the ROI, caused by the increase in the 

18 population from operations workers relocating to the ROI. However, the total amount of tax 

19 revenue generated during this period within the ROI would be relatively small in comparison to 

20 the established tax base of Stevens Point and Portage County. In 2012, Stevens Point received 

21 approximately $16.4 million in tax revenue, while Portage County received approximately 

22 $32.1 million (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during SHINE facility 

23 operations would be SMALL.

24 Decommissioning

25 The 261 decommissioning SHINE workers would represent less than 1 percent of the total 

26 population of Stevens Point (26,717) and Portage County (70,019) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). 

27 Because of the short duration of decommissioning (6 months), workers would not likely relocate 

28 permanently to Stevens Point, and some of the SHINE operations workers could transition to 

29 decommissioning. Since it is likely that most decommissioning workers would already reside in 

30 the ROI, there would be little or no increased demand for public services. In addition, support 

31 infrastructure within the ROI would be able to accommodate any temporary increase in 

32 population. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during the decommissioning of the 

33 SHINE facility would be SMALL.

34 5.2.3.8 Human Health

35 Construction

36 The construction of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that for the 

37 Janesville site. For example, there would be no significant physical differences in the design of 

38 the facility, workers would be exposed to similar construction hazards, and SHINE would 

39 implement similar construction methods and safety practices (SHINE 2013a). In Section 4.8 of 

40 this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the 

41 Janesville site would be SMALL. In addition, existing infrastructure would need to be extended 

42 to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. Construction workers would encounter 

43 potential hazards typical of any industrial or road construction site. The NRC staff assumed that 

44 normal construction safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health 

45 Administration (OSHA) regulations, such as safety training, safety equipment, and supervision 

46 of the work force, would promote worker safety and reduce the likelihood of worker injury during 

47 construction (SHINE 2013a). Therefore, because there are no significant differences between 

48 the two sites or their facility design and injuries during the construction of related infrastructure 

5-70
Alternatives

1 would be minimized through normal construction safety practices, the NRC staff concludes the 

2 impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Points Falls site would 

3 also be SMALL.

4 Operations

5 The radiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that 

6 for the Janesville site. Radiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the Stevens 

7 Points site, including radiation sources and radioactive effluents, as well as implementation of a 

8 radiation protection program to minimize and ensure compliance with worker and public dose

9 limits in 10 CFR Part 20, would be essentially the same as those for a SHINE facility at the 

10 Janesville site (SHINE 2013a).

11 The nonradiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be 

12 similar to that for the Janesville site. Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at 

13 the Stevens Point site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste 

14 management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, 

15 physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive 

16 material, would be essentially the same as those for a SHINE facility at the Janesville site

17 (SHINE 2013a).

18 In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from operation of the proposed 

19 SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no 

20 significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the 

21 radiological and nonradiological impacts on human health from operations at the proposed 

22 SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be SMALL.

23 Decommissioning

24 The decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that 

25 proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the two 

26 sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2013a).

27 After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and 

28 associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe 

29 condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition 

30 until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. Facility workers would continue to receive 

31 radiation exposure during work activities relating to the cleanup, movement, storage, and 

32 disposal of radioactive material. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in 

33 Section 3.8 of this EIS would be used during decommissioning to ensure that worker and public 

34 radiation doses and exposure to nonradioactive chemicals remain within NRC and State limits.

35 In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from decommissioning the proposed 

36 SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there would be no 

37 significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and operation, and 

38 radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to ensure hazards to workers and 

39 the public would be within NRC and State limits, the NRC staff concludes the impacts on human 

40 health from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also 

41 be SMALL.

42 5.2.3.9 Waste Management

43 Construction

44 The construction of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Points site would generate similar types 

45 and volume of waste to those for the Janesville site. For example, there are no significant 

46 physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the 

5-71
Alternatives

1 potential types and volume of waste generated from construction (SHINE 2013a). In addition, 

2 existing infrastructure would need to be extended to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and 

3 pipelines. Nonradiological waste would be generated during the construction of such 

4 infrastructure. The NRC staff assumed waste would be minimized because waste management 

5 systems would be implemented in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. In 

6 Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during construction of the 

7 proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are 

8 no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and because waste 

9 generated during the construction of related infrastructure would be minimized in accordance 

10 with applicable regulatory requirements, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from construction 

11 of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be SMALL.

12 Operations

13 The radiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would 

14 generate similar types and volumes of radioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. There 

15 are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that 

16 would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the proposed 

17 facility (SHINE 2013a). In addition, the management of the radioactive waste would be similar, 

18 regardless of the location of the proposed facility. Implementation of a radiation protection 

19 program to minimize radiation exposure from the radioactive waste and ensure compliance with 

20 worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 would be essentially the same as those 

21 discussed in Section 4.8 of this EIS for a proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site

22 (SHINE 2013a).

23 The nonradiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would 

24 generate similar types and volumes of nonradioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. 

25 There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites 

26 that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the 

27 proposed facility (SHINE 2013a). Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the 

28 Stevens Point site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste 

29 management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, 

30 physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive 

31 material, would be essentially the same as those discussed in Section 4.8 of this EIS for a 

32 proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2013a).

33 In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from radiological and nonradiological 

34 waste generated during facility operations at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site 

35 would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites 

36 or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the radiological and nonradiological impacts on 

37 human health from waste generated from operating the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens 

38 Point site would also be SMALL.

39 Decommissioning

40 The decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar

41 to that proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between 

42 the two sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2013a).

43 After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and 

44 associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe 

45 condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition 

46 until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. The types and amounts of radioactive and 

47 nonradioactive wastes generated during decommissioning would be similar to those generated 

5-72
Alternatives

1 at the Janesville site. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of 

2 this EIS would be used during decommissioning to protect workers and the public from the 

3 waste (SHINE 2013a).

4 In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during decommissioning 

5 of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there 

6 would be no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and operation, 

7 and radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to protect workers and the public 

8 from the waste, the NRC staff concludes the impacts on human health from waste during 

9 decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

10 5.2.3.10 Transportation

11 Major roads and transportation features in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site are shown in 

12 Figure 5–5. The site lies east of the town of Stevens Point, near Interstate 39, and there are 

13 currently no roads that access or border the undeveloped site. Existing local roads nearest to 

14 the Stevens Point site are County Highway R (Eisenhower Road), approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) 

15 to the west; County Highway HH (McDill Avenue), approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) to the south; and 

16 Burbank Road, approximately 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the east. County Highway R is an undivided 

17 four-lane road with a curbed shoulder, whereas County Highway HH and Burbank Road are 

18 two-lane roads with minimal paved shoulders. Interstate 39 would provide major highway 

19 access to the site using U.S. Highway 10 to the north or County Highway HH to the south 

20 (SHINE 2013a).

21 Annual average daily traffic volumes for various roads and locations in the vicinity of the 

22 Stevens Point site are listed in Table 5–12. Morning, midday, and evening peak hourly traffic 

23 counts for associated locations are listed in Table 5–13. Available traffic data for road segments 

24 near the Stevens Point site suggests that peak volume along County Road R averages 

25 approximately 450 to 800 vehicles per hour, while peak volume along County Road HH 

26 averages approximately 300 to 500 vehicles per hour (WDOT 2011a).

27 Table 5–12. Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts―Vicinity of Stevens Point Site

Traffic Count Location Vehicles Per Day

County Highway R (Eisenhower Road), north of Old 

Highway 18 Road

8,000

Interstate-39 between U.S. Highway 10 and County 

Highway HH (McDill Avenue)

22,100

County Highway HH (McDill Avenue), west of County 

Highway R (Eisenhower Road)

6,100

U.S. Highway 10 between Interstate 39 and County 

Highway R 

28,000

Source: WDOT 2008b

5-73
Alternatives

1 Table 5–13. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic Counts―Vicinity of 

2 the Stevens Point Site―Number of Vehicles

WDOT 

Count 

Site No. Location

Year 

of 

Count

A.M. 

Peak(a)

Midday 

Peak(b)

P.M. 

Peak(c)

Daily 

Total

490964 County Highway R (Brilowski Road), south 

of U.S. Highway 10

2011 450 684 783 8,662

490218 U.S. Highway 10, between Interstate 39 and 

Maple Bluff Road

2011 1,731 2,491 2,505 30,958

491061 Off Ramp from Interstate 39 northbound to 

County Highway HH

2011 224 229 233 3,139

491062 Off Ramp from Interstate 39 southbound to 

County Highway HH

2011 282 340 466 4,757

490980 County Highway HH between Interstate 39 

and County Highway R

2011 312 404 466 5,351

(a) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 00:00 and 09:59.

(b) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 10:00 and 14:59.

(c) Highest single hourly traffic count for the hours between 15:00 and 23:59.

Source: WDOT 2011b

3 Construction

4 Construction of the Stevens Point site would require new access roads to the site. As shown in 

5 Figure 5–2, the SHINE facility entrance road would connect with a new east-west street that 

6 would be constructed by the City of Stevens Point along the northern boundary of the site, 

7 between County Highway R to the west and Burbank Road to the east. A second street, 

8 running north-south along the western boundary of the site, would also be constructed to 

9 connect the new east-west street with County Highway HH to the south (SHINE 2013a).

10 Given that construction at the Stevens Point site would be very similar to that described for the 

11 proposed Janesville site, SHINE estimated that construction of the proposed facility at the 

12 Stevens Point site would require an average of 420 deliveries per month (14 deliveries per day) 

13 and 9 offsite waste shipments per month using heavy vehicles (dump trucks/delivery trucks) 

14 (SHINE 2013a, 2014). Peak worker traffic volume during construction would add an estimated 

15 451 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) per day (SHINE 2013a, 2014). The NRC staff similarly 

16 assumed that, with a total of 465 vehicles per day, each having an arrival and departure trip, 

17 and some vehicles making return trips during the day (e.g., off site trips for lunch), vehicle 

18 counts immediately adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility may temporarily increase by 

19 approximately 1,000 trips per day.

20 As with the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, no sources or routes for construction 

21 materials, including concrete, have been specified, and SHINE plans to ensure that delivery 

22 routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas associated with the Stevens Point site

23 (SHINE 2013b). SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the 

24 applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in 

25 NRC’s regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin’s Administrative Code, 

26 Chapter 326, “Transportation”; and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173)

27 (SHINE 2013a). Table 5–12 indicates that County Highway R and County Highway HH 

28 experience approximately 8,000 and 6,100 vehicles per day, respectively, near the Stevens 

29 Point site. Accordingly, the addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips 

5-74
Alternatives

1 per day) from SHINE construction activities would result in increased traffic volumes on County 

2 Highway R and County Highway HH of approximately 13 and 16 percent, respectively. 

3 Additionally, the percentage of heavy trucks on this route would temporarily increase. However, 

4 available traffic counts do not distinguish between types of vehicles currently traveling this route,

5 and the increase in traffic volume would be temporary and limited to the period of construction.

6 SHINE’s traffic analysis indicated that projected levels of peak construction-related traffic could 

7 noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, but these delays would not be sufficient to 

8 destabilize the transportation infrastructure (SHINE 2013a). SHINE plans to use a staggered 

9 construction work shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto County Highway R and 

10 County Highway HH and schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help mitigate the potential 

11 increases in traffic that could occur during peak periods (SHINE 2013b). Increased traffic 

12 volumes may also merit mitigation in the form of infrastructure upgrades, such as widening or 

13 adding turning lanes. Increased traffic volumes on other roads in the vicinity are expected to be 

14 less but could still be significant (SHINE 2013a). Therefore, the impact on transportation 

15 infrastructure during construction would be MODERATE.

16 Operations

17 Given that operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be very similar to that 

18 described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that a maximum of 150 worker vehicles 

19 distributed over three work shifts per day would access the site using the planned new access 

20 roads that would be constructed (SHINE 2013a, 2014). The NRC staff estimated that each 

21 vehicle would require separate trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility, plus a number of 

22 trips to and from the proposed facility during the midshift, resulting in approximately 325 

23 additional worker vehicle trips daily. The additional 325 vehicle trips associated with the 

24 Stevens Point site represents an increase of 5 percent or less to the average annual daily traffic

25 on roads in the area.

26 In addition to operations employees commuting to the proposed facility, SHINE estimates traffic

27 to and from the facility would also include:

28 • an average of 36 truck deliveries per month to the proposed SHINE facility, 

29 which would include both radioactive and nonradioactive materials 

30 (SHINE 2013a, 2015);

31 • an average of 39 outbound product shipments per month through the 

32 Stevens Point Municipal Airport (SHINE 2015);

33 • an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year (SHINE 2015); and 

34 • an average of one shipment per month of nonradioactive domestic and 

35 industrial waste (SHINE 2013a, 2015).

36 SHINE’s preferred method for shipping radioisotope products from the Stevens Point site would 

37 be to transport them by truck to Stevens Point Municipal Airport, approximately 4 miles (6 km) 

38 away, for subsequent air transport to customers. Other airports that would be suitable for 

39 shipping these products, including Minneapolis–St. Paul Airport, Dane County Regional Airport, 

40 and O’Hare International Airport, would be more than 2 hours away by truck (SHINE 2013a).

41 The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

42 SHINE facility to increase slightly above current levels during operation but not to an 

43 appreciable extent when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the 

44 immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site, as presented in Tables 5–12 and 5–13.

5-75
Alternatives

1 Similar to the activities that would occur at the Janesville site, SHINE would transport 

2 radioactive waste from the Stevens Point site to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal facility. 

3 A common-carrier truck would likely transport the waste. SHINE and the common-carrier trucks 

4 would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation 

5 requirements for radioactive material in NRC’s regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State 

6 of Wisconsin’s Administrative Code, Chapter 326, “Transportation”; and DOT requirements 

7 (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2013a). These regulations help ensure public health and 

8 safety on roadways.

9 Based on the relatively small increase in traffic compared to the average daily and annual traffic 

10 flows near the Stevens Point site, and because SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be 

11 required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and the State of Wisconsin regulatory 

12 packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material, the NRC staff concludes 

13 that the impact on transportation infrastructure during operations would be SMALL.

14 Decommissioning

15 Given that decommissioning the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be very similar to 

16 that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that an average of 72 truck deliveries 

17 and 191 offsite waste shipments per month, (a total of approximately nine heavy-vehicle 

18 shipments per day) would be required (SHINE 2013a, 2014). Peak worker traffic volume during 

19 decommissioning would add an estimated 261 vehicles per day (SHINE 2013a, 2014). 

20 Therefore, the NRC staff estimates that there could be an increase of approximately 580 trips a 

21 day on local roads during the decommissioning phase, increasing average daily traffic on roads 

22 in the immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site from what was being experienced during the 

23 operations phase.

24 Peak decommissioning-related traffic could noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, 

25 but these delays would not be sufficient to destabilize the transportation infrastructure. SHINE

26 could use a staggered work shift schedule, similar to that employed during construction, to 

27 reduce the hourly traffic flow onto new site access roads and schedule truck deliveries early in 

28 the day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013b). However, the change in average daily 

29 traffic flows in the immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site and an increase in commuter, 

30 truck delivery, and waste traffic directly related to decommissioning activities, could affect local 

31 commuting patterns. Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the 

32 decommissioning phase would be MODERATE.

33 5.2.3.11 Accidents

34 SHINE stated, in its ER, that no conditions have been identified for the Stevens Point site that 

35 would significantly affect the radiological or nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents

36 differently than at the proposed facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff 

37 considers this assumption reasonable, because the construction, operations, and 

38 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be essentially the same 

39 as at the Janesville site since the design, construction, operations, and decommissioning are 

40 similar. In addition, the same radiological and nonradiological safety regulations applicable to 

41 the Janesville site would apply to the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2013a).

42 In Section 4.11 of this EIS, the NRC concluded that the impacts from radiological and 

43 nonradiological accidents at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. 

44 Given that no significant differences exist between the two sites or their facility design and 

45 operations, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from potential accidents at the proposed 

46 SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

5-76
Alternatives

1 5.2.3.12 Environmental Justice

2 This section describes the potential human health and environmental effects from the 

3 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on minority and 

4 low-income populations living in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site. The NRC staff addresses 

5 environmental justice issues and concerns by first identifying potentially affected minority and 

6 low-income populations, and then determining whether there would be any potential human 

7 health or environmental effects and whether these effects may be disproportionately high and 

8 adverse.

9 Minority-population data were available for Census block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius 

10 around the Stevens Point site. Low-income population data were only available at the Census 

11 tract level because of the limited availability of poverty data at the block group level. To protect 

12 confidentiality, USCB does not publish information about small geographic areas if the 

13 population size is too small. Race and ethnicity and poverty Census data were used to identify 

14 the location of minority and low-income populations near the Stevens Point site. If the Census 

15 tract and block group boundaries crossed the 5-mi (8-km) radius boundary, the entire Census 

16 tract or Census block group data were used. Geographic information system software was 

17 used to create the maps.

18 Minority Populations

19 According to 2010 Census information, approximately 11 percent of the population in the City of 

20 Stevens Point identified themselves as a minority. The largest minority population was Asian, 

21 comprising approximately 5 percent of the total population, followed by Hispanic or Latino (of 

22 any race) comprising approximately 2 percent of the total population. In Portage County, 

23 7.3 percent of the total population identified themselves as minority (USCB 2014e).

24 Table 5–14 lists minority populations within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. 

25 Within this radius, 7.2 percent of the total population identified as a minority (UCSB 2014c). The 

26 largest minority group was Asian (3.3 percent), followed by Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 

27 (2.2 percent) (USCB 2014e).

28 Figure 5–7 shows minority populations within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. 

29 Census block groups were considered minority population block groups if the percentage of the 

30 minority population within any block group exceeded 7.2 percent. Twelve of the 23 Census 

31 block groups were found to have meaningfully greater minority populations. The Stevens Point 

32 site is located in Census Tract 9607.2, Block Group 1, a minority population block group with a 

33 minority population of 8.3 percent.

5-77
5-78

Table 5–14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) 1

of the Stevens Point Site 2

Census 

Tract

Block 

Group

Total 

Population

Percent 

of 

Minority

Total 

Minority 

Population

Hispanic 

or Latino

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian or 

Alaska 

Native Asian

Nati

Hawaiia

Other P

Islan

9601 3 1,557 2.9 46 31 0 6 0 0 

9604 2 828 9.0 75 33 6 0 31 0 

9604 3 1,609 7.5 121 31 17 3 62 0 

9604 4 1,264 6.0 77 20 0 9 38 0 

9605 1 967 4.9 48 14 0 1 23 0 

9605 2 1,597 3.0 49 12 5 4 21 0 

9605 4 2,914 5.9 173 44 14 15 83 0 

9606 1 1,647 2.7 45 21 2 4 11 0 

9607.01 1 1,291 12.4 161 77 6 4 54 0 

9607.01 2 2,629 5.4 144 38 7 6 73 0 

9607.01 3 1,465 6.6 97 34 4 3 40 0 

9607.02 1 2,261 8.3 189 41 18 5 100 1 

9607.02 2 1,099 5.9 65 18 4 0 37 0 

9608 1 2,217 6.2 139 44 13 0 63 0 

9608 2 1,608 11.7 189 39 21 6 95 0 

9608 3 629 8.7 55 6 9 2 30 0 

9608 4 858 12.3 106 26 8 2 44 0 

9609 1 823 9.1 75 24 11 4 28 0 

9609 3 838 10.0 84 29 2 0 35 0 

9609 4 911 11.4 104 38 13 5 30 0 

9611 1 2,429 8.0 196 64 5 3 94 1 

9611 3 2,211 10.5 233 55 10 10 140 1 

9611 4 870 4.3 38 18 2 2 5 0 

Source: USCB 2014e, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by Race.
Alternatives

1 Figure 5–7. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site

2

3 Source: USCB 2014e, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not Hispanic or Latino by 

4 Race

5 Low-Income Population

6 According to 2006–2010 American Community Survey estimates, 6 percent of families residing 

7 within Portage County were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold. Within the 

8 City of Stevens Point, 7.6 percent of families and 22.8 percent of all people were identified as

9 living below the Federal poverty threshold. The 2010 Federal poverty threshold was $22,314 for 

10 a family of four (USCB 2014f).

11 Table 5–15 lists low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens 

12 Point site; 10.9 percent of the total population within that radius was identified as living below 

13 the Federal poverty level (UCSB 2014f).

14 Census tracts groups were considered low-income population tracts if the percentage of 

15 individuals living below the Federal poverty level exceeded 10.9 percent. Figure 5–8 shows 

16 low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. 

17 Three of the nine Census tracts were found to have meaningfully greater low-income 

18 populations. The Stevens Point site is located within Census Tract 9607.02, with 7 percent of 

19 people living below the Federal poverty level, which is not considered a low-income Census 

20 tract.

5-79
Alternatives

1 Table 5–15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) 

2 of the Stevens Point Site

Census Tract

Percentage of Below Poverty 

Level for All People (Estimates)

9601 6.5

9604 36.1

9605 5.3

9606 6.6

9607.01 7.8

9607.02 7.0

9608 12.3

9609 12.8

9611 5.9

Source: USCB 2014f, 2006–2010, American FactFinder, American 

Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

3 Figure 5–8. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site

4

5 Source: USCB 2014f, 2006–2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table DP03 Selected Economic 

6 Characteristics

5-80
Alternatives

1 Analysis of Impacts

2 As previously discussed, the environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for 

3 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 

4 low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

5 proposed SHINE facility. Some of these potential effects have been described in the other 

6 resource areas discussed in this EIS. Chapter 5 presents the assessment of environmental and 

7 human health impacts for each environmental resource area.

8 In the impact analysis, the NRC first identified all potential human health and environmental 

9 effects and then determined the significance of the impact and whether or not minority or 

10 low-income populations would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. The 

11 NRC then considered whether the radiological or other health effects were significant or above 

12 generally accepted norms, whether the risk or rate of the hazard was significant and appreciably 

13 in excess of that of the general population, and whether the radiological or other health effects 

14 would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from 

15 environmental hazards. The NRC determined whether the following human health and 

16 environmental effects have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

17 populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility site:

18 • radiological and nonradiological human health impacts (Section 5.2.3.8),

19 • noise impacts (Section 5.2.3.2), and

20 • traffic impacts (Section 5.2.3.10).

21 The NRC also considered whether there would be an impact on the natural or physical 

22 environment that would significantly and adversely affect a particular group, whether there 

23 would be any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or are likely to 

24 appreciably exceed those on the general population, and whether environmental effects would 

25 occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from an 

26 environmental hazard.

27 Construction 

28 Similar to constructing the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville location, potential impacts 

29 on minority and low-income populations residing near the Stevens Point site would mostly 

30 consist of environmental effects during construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and 

31 housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during construction would be short term and 

32 primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority populations residing along site access roads, 

33 particularly in Census Tract 9607.2, Block Group 1, could be disproportionately affected by 

34 increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust from construction. However, 

35 because of the temporary nature of construction, these effects are not likely to be high and 

36 adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. 

37 Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs 

38 to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations within the ROI (Portage County),

39 who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of construction workers

40 and the likelihood that most workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could 

41 commute to the construction site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing.

42 Operations 

43 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations during SHINE facility operations at the 

44 Stevens Point site would mostly consist of radiological and nonradiological human health and 

45 environmental (e.g., noise and traffic) effects. Everyone living near the Stevens Point site would 

5-81
Alternatives

1 be exposed to the same potential operational effects, and any impacts would depend on the 

2 magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions.

3 As discussed in the Human Health section of this EIS (Section 5.2.3.8), the level of potential 

4 radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual 

5 dose limit and well within the NRC and the State of Wisconsin’s regulatory limits. As a result, 

6 minority or low-income populations, as well as the general population living in close proximity to 

7 the proposed SHINE facility site, would not be adversely affected by radiation exposure during 

8 facility operations. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are expected to remain within 

9 regulatory standards.

10 As discussed in the Noise section of this EIS (Section 5.2.3.2), noise emissions from commuter 

11 traffic during SHINE facility operations would increase. Noise from operating equipment would 

12 be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE facility 

13 buildings at the site. However, additional noise emissions from worker vehicles would be minor 

14 (1 dBA), and noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels 

15 beyond current levels.

16 Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected 

17 by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic during facility operations. However, as 

18 discussed in the Transportation section of this EIS (Section 5.2.3.10), the only appreciable 

19 impact would be a “slight degradation of service” (i.e., traffic delays) at intersections during the 

20 morning peak hour. The overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

21 SHINE facility would increase slightly during facility operations but would not be of an 

22 appreciable nature when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the 

23 immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site.

24 Therefore, offsite noise and traffic impacts caused by the proposed SHINE facility operations 

25 would be SMALL for both of these resource areas. Nevertheless, given the fact that the 

26 Stevens Point site is located in a designated minority block group, minority populations living in 

27 close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility during operations could be disproportionately 

28 affected. However, based on the analyses of impacts conducted for other resource areas 

29 discussed in this EIS, impacts on minority or low-income populations, as well as on the general 

30 population living in close proximity to the Stevens Point site, would not be considered high and 

31 adverse.

32 Decommissioning

33 Similar to construction impacts, potential impacts to minority and low-income populations 

34 residing near the Stevens Point site would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic 

35 effects during decommissioning (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). 

36 Noise and dust impacts during the decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the 

37 Stevens Point site would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and 

38 low-income populations residing along site access roads, particularly in Census Tract 9607.2, 

39 Block Group 1, could be disproportionately affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck 

40 traffic and noise and dust during decommissioning. However, because of the temporary nature 

41 of decommissioning, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained 

42 within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for rental housing 

43 during decommissioning could cause rental costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low44 income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of 

45 decommissioning workers and the likelihood that most of the workers would already reside 

46 within the ROI, workers could commute to the Stevens Point site, thereby reducing the need for 

47 rental housing.

5-82
Alternatives

1 In addition, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would 

2 be SMALL for all resource areas. There is no evidence that impacts from decommissioning 

3 would be disproportionately high and adverse to minority or low-income populations.

4 Subsistence and Special Conditions

5 As discussed in Section 4.12, the special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the 

6 environmental justice analysis, because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or 

7 cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area, such as migrant workers

8 or Native Americans. Based on the air and water quality discussions and the discussion of 

9 human health effects in this EIS, it is unlikely that there would be any disproportionately high 

10 and adverse human health impacts in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a 

11 result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, or wildlife. The operation of the 

12 SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would not have disproportionately high and adverse 

13 human health and environmental effects on these populations.

14 Summary

15 The Steven’s Point site is located in a minority population block group. Similar to the Janesville 

16 site, any minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the site 

17 could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicular

18 traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and 

19 decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. 

20 Facility operations at the Stevens Point site would not adversely affect minority and low-income 

21 populations living near the existing industrial park. The level of potential radiological doses to 

22 the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well 

23 within the NRC and the State of Wisconsin’s regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are 

24 expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income 

25 populations residing near the Stevens Point site could experience short-term disproportionate, 

26 but not high and adverse, environmental effects during construction and decommissioning. In 

27 addition, based on the discussions of air and water quality and human health effects for this

28 alternative, SHINE facility operations at the Stevens Point site would not likely cause high and

29 adverse human health or environmental effects for minority and low-income populations.

30 5.2.3.13 Cumulative Impacts

31 The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects and other actions 

32 that could result in cumulative impacts at the Stevens Point site were identified by reviewing 

33 published and unpublished data, including economic development plans, permit lists, news 

34 releases, and similar sources of information. An effort was made to identify all relevant activities 

35 conducted, regulated, or approved by a Federal agency or non-Federal entity within 5 mi (8 km) 

36 of the Stevens Point site. Available information about the projects and other activities identified 

37 is provided in Table 5–16.

5-83
Alternatives

1 Table 5–16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects and Other 

2 Actions Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Within a 5-mi (8-km) ROI of the 

3 Stevens Point Site

Project/

Company Name

Project 

Description Location

Distance 

from 

Location Status Reference

Central Wisconsin 

Alcohol, Inc.

Ethanol plant 

based on whey 

fermentation

Plover 1 mi 

(1.6 km)

Operational WDNR 2015e

NAPA Distribution 

Center

Replacing current 

parking lot with a 

new lot with 105 

stalls; also 

planning a 

25,000-sq.-ft 

(2,300-sq.-m)

addition to 

distribution center

Stevens 

Point

1 mi 

(1.6 km)

Plans approved in 

April 2012

City of Stevens 

Point 2012a

Donaldson 

Company Inc.

Filter 

manufacturing 

facility

Stevens 

Point

1 mi 

(1.6 km)

Operating air

permit renewed 

July 2014

WDNR 2015f

Municipal Transit 

Center

Development of a 

35,070-sq.-ft 

(3,260-sq.-m) 

vacant lot for a 

parking lot with 57 

parking spaces

Stevens 

Point

1 mi 

(1.6 km)

Plans approved in 

January 2012

City of Stevens 

Point 2012b

Focus on Energy 

Methane/

Natural-GasFueled Electric 

Generator

New generator to 

be installed at 

existing 

Wastewater 

Treatment Facility; 

will burn digester 

gas (methane) 

produced there

Stevens 

Point 

3 mi 

(4.8 km)

Plans approved in 

April 2013

City of Stevens 

Point 2012c, 

2013a

Columbia Energy 

Center (455 MW 

baseload, coal 

fired)

Operating power 

plant with potential 

air pollution control 

projects for 

compliance with 

future regulatory 

requirements

Portage 3 mi 

(4.8 km)

Operating; 

additional air 

pollution control 

equipment 

installed July 2014 

and more planned 

by 2018 

Jerde 2011, 

2014

Copps Food 

Center

Construction of a 

70,000-sq.-ft 

(6,500-sq.-m) 

store with 385 stall 

parking lot

Stevens 

Point 

3 mi 

(4.8 km)

Plans approved in 

December 2011; 

Operating

City of Stevens 

Point 2011a, 

Copps 2014

Schmeeckle 

Trails

Housing 

Development

Existing residential 

development east 

of Stevens Point

Stevens 

Point

3.5 mi 

(5.6 km)

Features designs 

to reduce 

environmental 

impacts 

Revelations 

Architects/

Builders 2013; 

SPJ 2008

WIMME Sand & 

Gravel 

Sand and gravel 

plant

Plover 

(Portage 

County) 

5 mi 

(8.0 km)

Operating WDNR 2015g

5-84
Alternatives

Project/

Company Name

Project 

Description Location

Distance 

from 

Location Status Reference

Marshfield/Rapids 

Connection 

Corridor

60-mi (97-km) 

corridor upgrade 

from Abbotsford to 

Stevens Point

Stevens 

Point

5 mi 

(8.0 km) at 

nearest 

point

Construction 

started in 2007;

scheduled for 

completion in 2030

WDOT 2012

Water and Sewer

Reconstruction 

Project

Michigan Avenue 

and Fourth 

Avenue mains to 

be reconstructed

Stevens 

Point

4 mi 

(6.4 km)

5 mi 

(8.0 km)

Substantially 

completed in 2012

City of Stevens 

Point 2011b, 

2012d, 2012e

Lake Dredging 

(several 

locations)

Several areas 

dredged and fill 

material hauled off

site

McDill Lake 

District

(Portage 

County)

5 mi 

(8.0 km)

Completed 

January 2013

City of Stevens 

Point 2011a, 

Olson 2013

Ministry Saint 

Michael’s Hospital

Hospital that 

performs 

radiological 

procedures

Stevens 

Point

3.6 mi

(5.7 km)

Operating MSMH 2014

Portage County 

Business Park

420-ac (170-ha) 

mixed-use 

business park

Stevens 

Point

Adjacent to 

western 

border of 

SHINE

Stevens 

Point site

Partially 

Developed

PCBC 2014

1 Land Use and Visual Resources

2 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

3 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on land use and visual 

4 resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

5 foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.1

6 serves as baseline conditions for the cumulative impact assessment of land use and visual

7 resources. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

8 proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources would be SMALL, as described in 

9 Section 5.2.3.1.

10 Land Use

11 The projects and activities described in Table 5–16 would result in minimal changes to existing 

12 land uses, because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, 

13 or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use. Future urbanization and 

14 global climate change could contribute to additional decreases in agricultural lands, forests, 

15 grasslands, and wetlands. Urbanization in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site would alter 

16 important attributes of land use. Urbanization would reduce natural vegetation and agricultural 

17 fields, resulting in an overall decline in the extent and connectivity of wetlands, forests, 

18 grasslands, and wildlife habitat. Global climate change could reduce crop yields and livestock 

19 productivity (USGCRP 2014), which might change portions of agricultural land uses. However, 

20 existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas. 

21 In addition, zoning laws and comprehensive land use plans would help ensure a proper balance 

22 of development (City of Stevens Point 2006).

5-85
Alternatives

1 Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations, the presence of 

2 important farmland soils (7 CFR 657.5), including prime farmland, was included in the 

3 cumulative impacts analysis. Development projects listed in Table 5–16 would incrementally

4 and cumulatively add to the loss of important farmland soils, including prime farmland soils, in 

5 the region surrounding the proposed site. Otherwise qualifying farm lands in or already 

6 committed to urban development; lands acquired for a project on or before August 4, 1984; and 

7 lands acquired or used by a Federal agency for national defense purposes are exempt from the 

8 Act’s provisions (7 CFR 658.2 and 658.3). Because many of the proposed projects have been 

9 committed to development, those sites do not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to 

10 the Act. The conversion of otherwise qualifying soils by projects within 5 mi (8 km) of the 

11 Stevens Point site would have a relatively minor impact on the inventory of important farmland 

12 soils within Portage County, as much of the northern and eastern sections of the county have 

13 lands mapped as prime farmland and prime farmland, if drained, in addition to farmland of 

14 statewide importance (Portage County 2006).

15 Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to 

16 existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use, cumulative impacts on

17 land use resources would be SMALL.

18 Visual Resources

19 The projects and activities described in Table 5–16 could result in changes to the existing 

20 viewshed, because the viewshed is varied and includes both aesthetically altered landscapes 

21 (agricultural fields, building, and warehouses) and natural wooded areas. New construction 

22 would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, or within areas that are currently 

23 zoned for industrial or residential use and, therefore, would have minimal impacts on visual 

24 resources. However, some could occur within wooded areas. Construction and operation of 

25 facilities within these areas would alter onsite conditions, and the contrast between the 

26 surrounding landscape and the new facility would be greater. Currently existing trees and 

27 buildings could partially obstruct views of the modified landscape.

28 Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities could occur within or adjacent to 

29 existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use and of low scenic quality, 

30 or could occur within naturally wooded areas where there would be a noticeable contrast 

31 between the new facility and the forested viewshed, the NRC staff determined that cumulative 

32 impacts on visual resources would be SMALL to MODERATE.

33 Air Quality and Noise

34 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

35 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on air quality and noise, when 

36 added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

37 actions. The incremental impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of

38 the proposed SHINE facility on air quality would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.3.2. 

39 The incremental impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

40 proposed SHINE facility on noise would be SMALL to MODERATE, as described in 

41 Section 5.2.3.3.

42 Air Quality

43 The ROI considered for the air quality analysis for a facility located in Stevens Point is Portage 

44 County, since air quality designations for criteria air pollutants are generally made at the county 

45 level.

5-86
Alternatives

1 As shown in Table 5–16, the ongoing and future projects located within 5 mi (8 km) of the 

2 Stevens Point site involve air permits. While these projects increase air-emission 

3 concentrations within the county, the activities would need to comply with the requirements 

4 stipulated in the permit. Therefore, these activities and projects are not expected to have 

5 significant impacts on air quality. Climate changes can affect air quality, as a result of changes 

6 in meteorological conditions. The combination of higher temperatures, stagnant air masses, 

7 sunlight, and emissions of precursors may make it difficult to meet NAAQS (USGCRP 2014). 

8 States, however, must continue to comply with the Clean Air Act and ensure air quality

9 standards are met.

10 The NRC staff determined that the potential cumulative air quality impact associated with 

11 SHINE operations, in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would be SMALL, 

12 primarily because projects that have overlapping impacts with the proposed SHINE facility 

13 would need to comply with requirements stipulated in air permits and would have relatively low 

14 emissions.

15 Noise

16 The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the SHINE

17 facility at the Stevens Point site. Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When distance is 

18 doubled from a point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (MPCA 2014). For example, at 

19 half-a-mile distance from construction equipment with noise levels in the range of 85-90 dBA, 

20 noise levels can drop to 51–61 dBA and at a 1-mi (1.6-km) distance, levels drop further to 

21 45-55 dBA. Generally, a 3-dBA change over existing noise levels is considered to be a “just 

22 noticeable” difference, and a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in 

23 loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (NWCC 2002). To 

24 account for noise near the site boundary during construction and decommissioning, the ROI 

25 considered is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the boundary of the proposed facility.

26 Some of the projects in Table 5–16 could produce increases in ambient noise that might affect 

27 some of the same areas at the Stevens Point site, since they involve construction activities. 

28 However, most of these projects are located 1 to 5 mi (1.6 to 8 km) from the Stevens Points site 

29 and noise impacts are not expected to be significant. For those projects that are within the 1-mi 

30 (1.6-km) radius ROI, construction equipment can result in noise levels in the range of

31 85-90 dBA; however, noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance, such that at half-a-mile

32 distance from construction equipment, noise levels can drop to 51–61 dBA (NRC 2002). 

33 Therefore, these projects would not be expected to have significant overlapping noise impacts if 

34 construction occurred at the Stevens Point site. Given the distance of the nearest resident to 

35 the Stevens Point site and noise levels from construction and decommissioning activities, the 

36 NRC staff concludes that cumulative impacts on noise levels would be SMALL to MODERATE.

37 Geologic Environment

38 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

39 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on the geologic environment,

40 when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

41 actions. The cumulative impacts on the geologic environment primarily relate to land 

42 disturbance and the potential for soil erosion and loss, as well as the projected consumption of 

43 geologic resources. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.3 serves as 

44 the baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of the geologic environment. The 

45 geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on soil resources includes the 

46 5-mi (8-km) vicinity surrounding the proposed site. For geologic resources, the extent of the 

47 geologic area of analysis has been expanded to all of Portage County to encompass potential 

48 commercial sources of rock and mineral resources to support construction activities at the 

5-87
Alternatives

1 proposed site and vicinity. As the aspects of land disturbance and conversion are addressed 

2 separately in the Land Use section above, the cumulative impacts analysis here will focus on 

3 soil loss and consumption of geologic resources.

4 The NRC staff concludes that the incremental impacts from construction, operations, and 

5 decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on the geologic environment, including 

6 geologic and soil resources, would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.3.3.

7 New development and expansion projects listed in Table 5–16 would consume or extract 

8 geologic resources, including rock and mineral resources, or would require materials derived 

9 from such geologic resources (e.g., concrete). However, common construction materials such 

10 as sand and gravel and crushed stone are available and widely abundant in the county 

11 (Section 5.2.3.3) or are available regionally. Neither the geologic resource requirements to 

12 construct the proposed SHINE facility nor the resource requirements of any of the other 

13 identified facility expansion, development, or transportation projects are on a scale that would

14 be likely to affect the regional sources and supplies of the identified resources. In conclusion, 

15 the NRC staff finds that cumulative impacts on geologic and soil resources would be SMALL.

16 Water Resources

17 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

18 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on water resources, when 

19 added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

20 actions. The cumulative impacts on surface-water resources relate to issues concerning water 

21 use, water quality, and potential climate change. This further encompasses water withdrawal, 

22 effluent discharges, accidental spills and releases, and stormwater drainage and runoff. The 

23 description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.4 serves as a baseline for the 

24 cumulative impact assessment of water resources. For surface-water resources, the extent of 

25 the geolographic area of analysis has been expanded to include McDill Pond, an impoundment 

26 on the Plover River. For groundwater resources, the area considered encompasses the local 

27 groundwater basin in which groundwater is recharged and flows to discharge points and those 

28 aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn through wells. Specifically, the cumulative 

29 impacts analysis focuses on those projects and activities that, when combined with the 

30 proposed action, would: (1) withdraw water from or discharge wastewater to McDill Pond and 

31 the Plover River downstream of the proposed site or (2) would use groundwater or could 

32 otherwise affect the same aquifers that would supply water to the proposed site. As discussed 

33 in Section 5.2.3.4, impacts on water resources at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

34 In addition to the proposed SHINE facility, new development and expansion projects listed in 

35 Table 5–16 and disturbing greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha) of land would have to obtain and comply 

36 with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This 

37 permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific construction site erosion

38 control plan, including specific BMPs, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction

39 stormwater management).

40 Permits issued to all new stormwater and industrial wastewater dischargers would include 

41 provisions as part of Wisconsin-issued NPDES permits to comply with applicable 

42 water-quality-based effluent limitations and wasteload allocations established for downstream 

43 receiving waters. The proposed SHINE facility would have no direct sanitary or other 

44 wastewater discharges to surface water or groundwater. The SHINE facility would be served by 

45 the City of Stevens Point WTP, which has excess treatment capacity (Section 5.2.3.4).

46 The protection of groundwater quality in surficial aquifers and conservation of local groundwater 

47 supplies is a concern across Wisconsin. The City of Stevens Point’s groundwater supply 

5-88
Alternatives

1 system is considered adequate to meet water supply needs over the short term. However, it 

2 has long-term plans to assure future supply while addressing issues with poor performing 

3 supply wells and wells with poor quality water (City of Stevens Point 2006). As a result of 

4 climate change, the Midwest may continue to experience an increase in annual precipitation,

5 along with an increase in annual and seasonal temperatures. Increased precipitation, 

6 particularly during the spring and winter months, could increase groundwater recharge 

7 (USGCRP 2014). Regardless, the proposed SHINE facility would be served by the City of 

8 Stevens Point municipal water system (Section 5.2.3.4). Furthermore, neither the proposed 

9 SHINE facility nor each of the projects identified in Table 5–16 would be expected to require 

10 exorbitant volumes of groundwater or surface water that would affect water availability for other 

11 potential uses or users.

12 Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts on water resources

13 would be SMALL.

14 Ecological Resources

15 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

16 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on ecological resources, when 

17 added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

18 actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.5 serves as a baseline for 

19 the cumulative impact assessment of ecological resources. The geographic area of analysis for 

20 evaluating cumulative impacts on ecological resources includes the area surrounding the

21 Stevens Point site that is ecologically connected to the onsite ecological resources (e.g., the 

22 watershed surrounding the Stevens Point site). The incremental impacts from construction, 

23 operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL, as 

24 described in Section 5.2.3.5.

25 Since European settlement, prairies, forests, and wetlands have been greatly reduced by at 

26 least 50 to 80 percent and converted into agricultural fields, industrial uses, and residential and 

27 commercial areas. Remaining tracts of grasslands, forests, and wetlands tend to be relatively 

28 small and isolated, which results in lower quality habitat than large tracts of habitat because of

29 the different biological and physical characteristics along the edge of a habitat patch 

30 (WDNR 2013c).

31 Current threats to terrestrial and aquatic habitats include increased soil, nutrients, and other 

32 pollutants washing into streams and lakes from urban and agricultural stormwater runoff; 

33 continued conversion and fragmentation of wildlife habitat from development (Table 5–16); 

34 introduction of invasive species; and climate change (WDNR 2013c; USGCRP 2014). These

35 activities will likely decrease the overall availability and quality of forested, grassland, and 

36 wetland habitats. Species with threatened, endangered, or declining populations are likely to be 

37 more sensitive to declines in habitat availability and quality and the introduction of invasive 

38 species.

39 As environmental stressors, such as future development and climate change, continue over the 

40 next few decades, certain attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (such as habitat

41 quality) are likely to change noticeably. The NRC staff does not expect these impacts to 

42 destabilize any important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment, because such 

43 impacts will cause gradual change, which should allow most terrestrial and aquatic resources to 

44 adapt appropriately. The staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of the proposed 

45 construction and operation of the SHINE facility, plus other past, present, and reasonably 

46 foreseeable future projects or actions, would result in MODERATE impacts to terrestrial and 

47 aquatic resources.

5-89
Alternatives

1 Historic and Cultural Resources

2 This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on historic and cultural 

3 resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE

4 facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, 

5 and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area considered in this analysis is 

6 the APE associated with the proposed SHINE facility, the proposed SHINE site, and its 

7 immediate vicinity. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.6, the impacts on historic and cultural 

8 resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility would 

9 be SMALL.

10 The archaeological record for the region indicates prehistoric and historic occupation. Historic 

11 land development and prolonged agricultural use of the APE resulted in impacts on, and the 

12 loss of, cultural resources in the APE and its immediate vicinity. As described in 

13 Section 5.2.3.6, no known historic or cultural resources or historic properties are present within 

14 the APE. However, there remains the possibility for inadvertent discovery of historic or cultural 

15 resources within the APE. Direct impacts would occur if historic and cultural resources in the 

16 APE were to be physically removed or disturbed. Indirect visual or noise impacts could occur 

17 from new construction or maintenance. The only foreseeable project within the APE is the 

18 SHINE facility and the potential discovery of cultural resources on the proposed site. Should 

19 they be discovered, any cultural resources would be managed using SHINE BMPs developed 

20 for the proposed Janesville site (e.g., cultural resource management procedures and training)

21 (SHINE 2013b). Therefore, the cumulative impact on historic and cultural resources of the 

22 proposed SHINE facility, when combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable 

23 future activities, would be SMALL.

24 Socioeconomics

25 This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on current socioeconomic 

26 conditions within the ROI from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE

27 facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the effects from other past, present, and 

28 reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in 

29 Section 5.2.3.7 serves as a baseline for the cumulative socioeconomic impact assessment. The 

30 geographic area of analysis is the ROI, Portage County. Section 5.2.3.7 found that 

31 socioeconomic impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

32 SHINE facility would be SMALL.

33 Table 5–16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI

34 that could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Relevant “other actions” that are 

35 considered in this cumulative impacts analysis are future construction projects that would bring 

36 new business and people to the ROI.

37 Depending on the number of workers needed to support the operation of the Central Wisconsin 

38 Alcohol Inc. and the Copps Food Center, there is the potential for increased population, 

39 employment, tax revenue, and demand for public services in the ROI. However, a majority of 

40 the workers would likely already reside within the ROI and are currently using public services. 

41 As discussed in Section 5.2.3.7, Portage County has adequate public services and water 

42 utilities capable of accommodating any population changes. Therefore, the contributory effects 

43 from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens 

44 Point site, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, would be 

45 SMALL.

5-90
Alternatives

1 Human Health

2 This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects on human 

3 health of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens 

4 Point site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

5 foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts 

6 on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site.

7 The Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital, which conducts radiological procedures, is 3.5 mi 

8 (5.7 km) from the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2013a). The use of radioactive materials for 

9 medical diagnosis and treatment is regulated by the State of Wisconsin. The NRC and the 

10 Governor of Wisconsin signed an agreement transferring regulatory authority over byproduct, 

11 source, and special nuclear materials to the State of Wisconsin, which became the 33rd 

12 Agreement State, effective August 11, 2003. As an Agreement State, the Wisconsin 

13 Department of Health Services is responsible for licensing and inspecting the above-named 

14 materials, except at nuclear power plants and Federal facilities (WDHS 2014).

15 No nuclear fuel cycle facilities occur within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed 

16 Stevens Point site that would contribute to the cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the 

17 NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative radiological impacts from the proposed SHINE

18 facility at the Stevens Point site and the potential impacts from the use of radioactive materials 

19 at the Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital. Both facilities are or would be licensed and regulated, 

20 SHINE by the NRC and the Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital by the State, and both are or 

21 would be required to maintain radiation doses to their workers and members of the public within 

22 Federal and State dose limits. Also, given that SHINE would be 3.54 mi (5.69 km) from the 

23 Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital, radioactive emissions that are within regulatory limits would be 

24 reduced through the processes of dispersion and dilution as they travel in the atmosphere. 

25 Based on the regulatory controls that are and would be in place to control radiation exposure, 

26 the distance between the facilities, and the dilution of the radioactive materials, the NRC staff 

27 concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts to human health would be SMALL.

28 Table 5–16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI

29 that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates 

30 the use of nonradioactive materials (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at the Ministry 

31 Saint Michael’s Hospital and would regulate their use at the proposed SHINE facility at the 

32 Stevens Point site. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS, the State of Wisconsin has 

33 regulations for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin

34 Administrative Code NR 460 addresses the identification; generation; minimization;

35 transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste 

36 (SHINE 2013a). Both SHINE and the Ministry Saint Michaels’s Hospital are or would be 

37 regulated by the State and are or would be required to maintain chemical exposure to their 

38 workers and members of the public within State limits. Also, based on the distance between 

39 each facility, nonradioactive emissions that are within regulatory limits are or would be reduced 

40 through the processes of dispersion and dilution as they travel in the atmosphere. Based on the 

41 regulatory controls that are or would be in place to control chemical exposure, the distance 

42 between the facilities listed in Table 5–16, and the dilution of the nonradioactive materials, the 

43 NRC staff concludes that the cumulative nonradiological impacts to human health would be 

44 SMALL.

45 Waste Management

46 This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects of the 

47 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site 

48 from radioactive and nonradioactive wastes, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, 

5-91
Alternatives

1 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for 

2 evaluating cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the 

3 proposed Stevens Point site.

4 In Section 5.2.2.9, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from types and volumes of 

5 radioactive and nonradioactive wastes from the construction, operations, and decommissioning 

6 of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. There are no nuclear 

7 fuel cycle facilities located within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens 

8 Point site that would contribute to the cumulative impacts from radioactive wastes. Therefore, 

9 the NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative impacts from radioactive waste from the 

10 proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site and the potential impacts from the disposal of 

11 radioactive waste at the Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital. Radioactive waste at both facilities 

12 will be regulated, SHINE by the NRC and the Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital by the State. 

13 The facilities will be required to store, process, and dispose of radioactive wastes in accordance 

14 with Federal and State requirements. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS, radioactive 

15 wastes generated by the proposed SHINE facility will be packaged and transported off site to a 

16 licensed low-level radioactive waste facility for disposal (SHINE 2013a). In Section 4.9 of this 

17 EIS, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from radioactive wastes generated and disposed 

18 of from the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Radioactive waste generated at the 

19 Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital would also be packaged and transported off site to a licensed 

20 low-level radioactive waste facility for disposal. Based on the regulatory controls on packaging 

21 and transporting radioactive wastes, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts from 

22 radioactive waste would be SMALL.

23 Table 5–16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI

24 that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates 

25 the use and disposal of nonradioactive waste (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at the 

26 Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital and will regulate their use and disposal at the proposed SHINE

27 facility at the Stevens Point site. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS, the State of Wisconsin 

28 has regulations for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin

29 Administrative Code NR 460 addresses the identification; generation; minimization;

30 transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste 

31 (SHINE 2013a). SHINE and the facilities listed in Table 5–16 will be regulated by the State and 

32 will be required to safely store, package, transport, and dispose of nonradioactive wastes in 

33 accordance with State requirements. Based on the State’s regulatory controls that will be in 

34 place to control nonradioactive wastes, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts 

35 from nonradioactive wastes would be SMALL.

36 Also, the projects and activities identified in Table 5–16 that are near the Stevens Point site 

37 generally are relatively small and would not be expected to have significant impacts from 

38 nonradioactive waste in the same areas affected by the proposed SHINE facility 

39 (SHINE 2013a).

40 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential cumulative impacts from radioactive and 

41 nonradioactive wastes from the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site in conjunction 

42 with other reasonably foreseeable future projects would be SMALL.

43 Transportation

44 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects on transportation from the construction, 

45 operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to 

46 the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

47 geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on transportation includes the site 

48 boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site. However, 

5-92
Alternatives

1 the roads for routes that could be used for delivery of medical isotopes (if air transport is not 

2 possible) or disposal of wastes were also considered. Transportation infrastructure includes 

3 roadways, rail lines, airports, and traffic-control devices. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.10, 

4 transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

5 Construction projects in Table 5–16 could produce an increase in vehicular traffic on roads 

6 within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. For example, construction of new or 

7 expanded businesses could add construction-related vehicles or employees commuting on 

8 roads near the Stevens Point site. Depending on the number of workers required and whether 

9 construction projects within the vicinity of the Stevens Point site were occurring at the same time 

10 as the SHINE facility’s construction, operations, or decommissioning, traffic on access roads 

11 would increase. Most existing roads would be sufficient to handle the construction project 

12 transportation activities, and alternative routes could be used to minimize transportation 

13 impacts. In some cases, however, a noticeable increase in traffic could occur, especially if 

14 construction timeframes overlapped and construction workers and vehicles used the same 

15 roads. Therefore, depending on whether other construction projects overlapped with 

16 construction, operations, or decommissioning of the SHINE facility, or whether increased 

17 vehicular activity from workers or residents on roads near the Stevens Point site had a 

18 noticeable impact on traffic, the NRC staff concludes that cumulative transportation impacts 

19 would be SMALL to MODERATE.

20 Environmental Justice

21 The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential contributory 

22 human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and 

23 decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the effects from 

24 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on minority and low-income 

25 populations, and whether these effects might be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority 

26 and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing near the Stevens Point

27 site, and everyone would be exposed to the same environmental effects generated by the 

28 construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility.

29 As discussed in Section 5.2.3.12, the Stevens Point site is located in a block group that exceeds 

30 the geographic area average for minority populations. The geographic area of analysis is the 

31 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site. Minority 

32 and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately 

33 affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during 

34 construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and 

35 decommissioning, these would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility 

36 operations at the Stevens Point site would not have high and adverse human health and 

37 environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

38 Table 5–16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the 

39 geographic area of analysis that could contribute cumulative human health and environmental 

40 effects. Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of 

41 environmental effects from construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing 

42 impacts). However, noise and dust impacts during construction and decommissioning would be 

43 short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations 

44 residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and 

45 increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction. However, these effects are 

46 not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain 

47 hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause 

48 rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on 

5-93
Alternatives

1 inexpensive housing. However, given the availability of workers and the likelihood of workers 

2 commuting to the construction site, the need for rental housing could be reduced.

3 Operational emissions from manufacturing or industrial facilities within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of 

4 the Stevens Point site could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living 

5 in the vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility. However, everyone would be exposed to the 

6 same potential contributory effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the 

7 change in current environmental conditions. Permitted air emissions from all manufacturing and 

8 industrial facilities, including the contributory effects from the proposed SHINE facility, would be 

9 expected to remain within regulatory standards.

10 Based on this information and the analysis of human health and other environmental impacts 

11 presented in this section of the EIS, the contributory effects of constructing, operating, and 

12 decommissioning the SHINE facility are not likely to create high and adverse human health and 

13 environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the 

14 Stevens Point site.

15 5.3 Alternative Technologies

16 5.3.1 Identification of Reasonable Alternatives

17 The purpose of the SHINE facility is to use low-enriched uranium fission technology to 

18 domestically produce three medical isotopes: molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133

19 (Section 2.0). Other alternative medical radioisotope production technologies exist that could be 

20 used to create these isotopes (e.g., Making Medical Isotopes: Report of the Task Force on 

21 Alternatives for Medical-Isotope Production (TRIUMF 2008) and Homogeneous Aqueous 

22 Solution Nuclear Reactors for the Production of Mo-99 [molybdenum-99] and other Short Lived 

23 Radioisotopes (IAEA 2008)).

24 While various publications have described a broad range of other technologies, the NRC staff 

25 considered three technologies for the purposes of this alternatives analysis.

26 These three alternative technologies are the following:

27 (1) neutron capture technology,

28 (2) aqueous homogenous reactor technology, and

29 (3) linear-accelerator-based technology.

30 These three technologies were chosen for the alternatives analysis, because they appear to be 

31 technologically reasonable. For example, the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Nuclear 

32 Security Administration (NNSA), through the Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation’s Global Threat 

33 Reduction Initiative, awarded cooperative agreements to commercial entities proposing a new 

34 technology to accelerate the dual objectives of eliminating the use of proliferation-sensitive 

35 highly enriched uranium in the production of medical radioisotopes and establishing reliable 

36 domestic supplies of molybdenum-99 to meet U.S. medical needs. In awarding these 

37 cooperative agreements, NNSA based its decision, in part, on an evaluation of the technical 

38 feasibility. The NRC staff notes that this alternatives analysis is not an endorsement of any type 

39 of technology but rather is an analysis of three alternatives that appear to be technologically 

40 reasonable. Further, the NRC staff notes that several commercial entities have proposed other 

41 methods to produce molybdenum-99, such as heterogeneous reactors. For the purposes of this 

42 EIS, the NRC staff has limited the alternatives analysis to the three technologies that NNSA is 

43 supporting through its cooperative agreements (as of February 2015) because when there are 

44 potentially a large number of alternatives, NEPA only requires that an agency analyze a 

5-94
Alternatives

1 reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives, in the EIS (46 FR 

2 18026).

3 In this analysis of the alternative technologies, the NRC staff evaluated the potential 

4 environmental impacts if a commercial entity were to construct and operate a facility on the 

5 proposed SHINE site in Janesville, Wisconsin, using alternative technology. The NRC staff 

6 notes that no commercial entity (other than SHINE) has proposed building or operating a facility 

7 at the proposed SHINE site. For the purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff reviewed 

8 environmental documents and technological descriptions related to the three alternative 

9 technologies, as described in further detail below.

10 5.3.2 Neutron Capture Alternative

11 For the neutron capture alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by neutron irradiation

12 of raw molybdenum in a boiling water reactor (GE Hitachi 2011). However, the proposed 

13 Janesville site does not contain a boiling water reactor. The NRC staff does not consider 

14 construction of a new boiling water reactor to support the neutron capture technology to be 

15 considered reasonable, as the currently proposed site has insufficient space and other 

16 resources to support a power reactor. Alternatively, a research reactor could be used to 

17 produce molybdenum-99 using neutron capture technology. Sufficient space likely occurs on 

18 the proposed Janesville site to construct a new research reactor as part of the neutron capture 

19 alternative.

20 No commercial entity, however, has submitted an application to construct or operate a reactor 

21 using neutron capture, as of February 2015. Given the conceptual stage of the neutron capture 

22 technology and the lack of environmental data regarding the potential impacts from 

23 construction, operations, and decommissioning, the NRC staff determined that insufficient 

24 environmental information exists to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts of this 

25 technology in detail. For these reasons, the NRC staff does not consider the neutron capture 

26 technology a reasonable alternative and has excluded it from further consideration.

27 5.3.3 Aqueous Homogenous Reactor Alternative

28 For the low-enriched uranium aqueous homogenous reactor alternative, molybdenum-99 would 

29 be produced using an aqueous homogenous reactor fueled by a uranium salt solution, followed 

30 by a series of chemical processes to extract the molybdenum-99 (IAEA 2008; B&W 2012). The 

31 size of each reactor would be approximately 200 to 240 kilowatts, and it would be capable of 

32 producing about 1,100 6-day curies (Ci) on a weekly basis (IAEA 2008). The reactor fuel 

33 solution would contain low-enriched uranium salt dissolved in water and acid. This solution 

34 would also be the target material for molybdenum-99 production, as fissioning the uranium-235 

35 would produce molybdenum-99 and other isotopes. The reactor would be operated until a 

36 sufficient amount of molybdenum-99 occurred in the fuel solution. The fuel solution would be 

37 removed and processed using chemical purification to extract the molybdenum-99 (IAEA 2013). 

38 Afterwards, the molybdenum-99 would be transported to an end-user medical facility.

39 During operations, the aqueous homogenous reactors would produce radiolytic and other 

40 off-gases such as nitrogen oxides (IAEA 2008). The production process would also generate 

41 liquid waste from both the reactors and the processing of molybdenum-99 within the hot cells 

42 (IAEA 2008, 2013).

43 Several technical documents have been published that describe conceptual aqueous 

44 homogenous reactors to produce molybdenum-99 (e.g., IAEA 2008, 2013; B&W 2012). No 

45 commercial entity, however, has submitted an application to construct or operate an aqueous 

5-95
Alternatives

1 homogenous reactor, as of February 2015. Given the conceptual stage of the aqueous 

2 homogenous reactor technology and the lack of environmental data regarding the potential 

3 impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning, the NRC staff determined that 

4 insufficient environmental information exists to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts 

5 of this technology in detail. For these reasons, the NRC staff does not consider the aqueous 

6 homogenous reactor technology a reasonable alternative and has excluded it from further 

7 consideration.

8 5.3.4 Linear-Accelerator-Based Alternative

9 For the linear-accelerator-based alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by irradiating 

10 natural molybdenum (molybdenum enriched in the radioisotope molybdenum-100) in an 

11 accelerator. For the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff assumed the facility would be 

12 similar to the facility described in NNSA’s Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical 

13 Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99

14 (DOE 2012). The NRC acknowledges that other commercial entities have proposed methods of 

15 producing molybdenum-99 using linear-accelerator-based technology, such as Niowave, Inc. 

16 (Niowave 2015). However, for the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff used the 

17 environmental parameters included in NNSA’s environmental assessment for the NorthStar 

18 Medical Radioisotope facility because this commercial entity was awarded a cooperative 

19 agreement by NNSA and because sufficient environmental data exist regarding this proposed 

20 technology.

21 The facility for the linear-accelerator-based alternative would have the capacity to produce 

22 approximately 3,000 6-day Ci per week. To produce molybdenum-99, the operator would use a 

23 target made of molybdenum enriched in the radioisotope molybdenum-100 and would irradiate 

24 (or bombard) the targets using a pair of accelerators. Up to 16 accelerators would be 

25 constructed and used during operations (DOE 2012). After bombardment, the targets would be 

26 removed and chemically processed in hot cells to produce the molybdenum-99 radiochemical. 

27 The operator would then ship the molybdenum-99 radiochemical from the facility to an end-user 

28 medical facility. After further processing at the end-user medical facility, the spent or unusable 

29 portion of the radiochemical from the end-user facility would be returned.

30 During operations, the facility would produce radiolytic and other off-gases such as nitrogen 

31 oxides (DOE 2012). The production process would also generate radioactive and 

32 nonradioactive liquid waste (DOE 2012).

33 The NRC staff assumed that the operator would construct a containment building for the

34 accelerators and radioactive waste facility (DOE 2012). In addition, a separate building or parts 

35 of the building would contain the processing facility (e.g., hot cells and chemical laboratories), 

36 areas for shipping and receiving, and a waste management center. Support facilities, such as 

37 administration buildings, parking lots, and holding tanks, would be similar to those for the SHINE

38 facility.

39 The sections below evaluate the environmental impacts of the linear-accelerator-based 

40 alternative. For the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff used the same environmental and 

41 engineering parameters described in NNSA’s Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical 

42 Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99

43 (DOE 2012). However, the NRC staff assumed the linear-accelerator-based facility would be 

44 constructed at the Janesville site. The NRC staff notes that, if a linear-accelerator-based facility 

45 were constructed at the Janesville site, similar to NorthStar’s facility, the State of Wisconsin 

46 could maintain authority over byproduct material, as described in 10 CFR Part 30. Therefore, 

47 the facility operator would not need to apply to the NRC for a construction permit or operating 

5-96
Alternatives

1 license. The purpose of the assessment below is to evaluate the environmental consequences 

2 of an alternative technology to the proposed technology at the Janesville site.

3 5.3.4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources Impacts

4 Constructing, operating, and decommissioning the linear-accelerator-based alternative at the 

5 Janesville site would disturb approximately 13 ac (5.3 ha) of agricultural land to build and 

6 operate areas for irradiation, processing facilities, waste management facilities, administration 

7 buildings, parking lots, and other support structures (DOE 2012). The highest structure would 

8 be the emissions stack for chemical processing, which would extend approximately 18 m (60 ft) 

9 in height, with a diameter of 0.6 m (2 ft) (DOE 2012). Therefore, the size, height, and footprint 

10 of the buildings for the accelerator-based alternative would be bounded by the parameters 

11 analyzed for the SHINE facility in Section 4.1. As described in Section 4.1, land use impacts 

12 during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be SMALL, because the entire site 

13 is currently zoned for industrial use, and the permanently converted agricultural land would be a 

14 small portion of available agricultural land within the vicinity. As described in Section 4.1, 

15 aesthetic impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be SMALL at the 

16 Janesville site, given that a light industrial development landscape surrounds part of the site and 

17 the visual setting is generally flat and has a uniform landform with low vegetation diversity and a 

18 low visual-quality rating. Based on a similar or smaller footprint, building size, and building 

19 height for the linear-accelerator-based alternative, land use and visual impacts would be SMALL 

20 during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

21 5.3.4.2 Air Quality and Noise Impacts

22 Air quality and noise impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

23 linear-accelerator-based alternative at the Janesville site would be very similar to those 

24 described in Section 4.2, based on the similar period of construction (18 months), construction 

25 methods, and operational activities (DOE 2012). The primary impacts would be from dust, 

26 vehicular emissions, and noise. For example, construction activities would generate air 

27 pollutant emissions from site-disturbing activities, such as grading, filling, compacting, trenching, 

28 and operating construction equipment. However, the NRC staff assumed that the operator 

29 would meet State and local regulations and ordinances. Additionally, given that less land would 

30 be disturbed and the footprint of the facility would be less for the linear-accelerator-based 

31 alternative, air quality and noise impacts are bounded by what is described in Section 4.2. 

32 Given the similar construction duration (18 months), construction methods, and operational and 

33 decommissioning activities, the NRC staff concludes that air quality and noise impacts would be 

34 SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

35 5.3.4.3 Geologic Environment

36 Direct impacts on the geologic environment, including the consumption of geologic resources,

37 from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the linear-accelerator-based 

38 alternative at the Janesville site would likely be similar to or less than those described in 

39 Section 4.3. This is because the area of disturbance would be the same or less than that 

40 described for the SHINE facility (DOE 2012). In particular, the potential for soil erosion and loss 

41 would likely be much less, as the area of land disturbance, associated earthwork, and overall 

42 need for geologic resources would be somewhat less, compared to the proposed action. During 

43 construction, grading activities would likely affect the upper 1.5 m (5 ft) of surface soil and would 

44 not result in net removal of soil or additions of fill material (DOE 2012). Excavation of the 

subgrade portions of buildings would remove up to approximately 21,000 m3 45 (28,000 cubic 

yards (yd3 46 )) of soil and rock material (DOE 2012). Given that the area of disturbance and the 

47 potential for soil erosion and loss would be the same or less than those described for the SHINE 

5-97
Alternatives

1 facility, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on the geologic environment would be SMALL 

2 during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

3 5.3.4.4 Water Resources

4 Construction, operations, and decommissioning of the linear-accelerator-based alternative at 

5 the Janesville site would not entail direct impacts on natural surface-water drainages or on 

6 groundwater hydrology. The impacts of construction would be similar to or somewhat less than 

7 those from the proposed action, as presented in Section 4.4, because of similar construction 

8 methods and the size of the facilities (DOE 2012). Facility construction would have to be 

9 conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

10 No. WI-S067831-4). This permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific 

11 construction erosion control plan, including specific BMPs to minimize water-quality impacts, 

12 and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management).

13 Makeup water requirements for potable and process use to support facility operations would 

14 likely be the same or less than those for the proposed alternative, and water would be supplied 

15 from municipal sources (DOE 2012). Likewise, there would be no direct impact on water 

16 resources during operations and no direct discharge of liquid effluent (including sanitary or 

17 industrial wastewater) to surface water or groundwater. All wastewater would be conveyed to 

18 the City of Janesville WTP and would be subject to the city’s influent acceptance requirements 

19 for industrial users and in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act.

20 Given that there would be no direct impact on natural surface-water drainages or on 

21 groundwater hydrology and that water would be supplied from municipal sources, the NRC staff 

22 concludes that the impact on water resources would be SMALL during construction, operations, 

23 and decommissioning.

24 5.3.4.5 Ecological Resources

25 As described in Section 5.3.4.1, the linear-accelerator-based alternative would disturb less land 

26 at the Janesville site than the proposed SHINE facility. Directly affected vegetation would be 

27 limited to cultivated crops and weedy species, both of which are abundant within the region and 

28 provide relatively low-quality habitat for birds and wildlife in comparison to forests, grasslands, 

29 and wetland habitats. In addition to a loss of habitat, noise from construction activities could 

30 disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such disturbances and loss of habitat, birds and wildlife 

31 could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat (agricultural fields) 

32 within the vicinity. All other impacts on ecological resources, such as bird collisions, disturbance 

33 during maintenance activities, and potential runoff to offsite aquatic resources, are expected to 

34 be similar to those described for the proposed SHINE facility in Section 4.5 because of similar 

35 construction methods, similar or smaller building size and footprint, and similar operating and 

36 decommissioning activities. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on ecological 

37 resources would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

38 5.3.4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

39 As described in Section 4.6, no historic or cultural resources were identified within the proposed 

40 Janesville site, and therefore, historic and cultural resources would not be affected by the 

41 linear-accelerator-based technology. Additionally, as described in Section 5.3.4.1, the

42 linear-accelerator-based alternative would disturb less land at the Janesville site than the 

43 proposed SHINE facility, which reduces the likelihood of disturbing undocumented remains. 

44 During construction, operations, and decommissioning, the operator would use the same 

45 cultural resource management plan to manage and protect unidentified cultural resources as 

46 discussed in Section 4.6, regardless of which technology was chosen. Therefore, impacts on 

5-98
Alternatives

1 historic and cultural resources would be SMALL during construction, operations, and 

2 decommissioning.

3 5.3.4.7 Socioeconomics

4 Socioeconomic impacts from the linear-accelerator-based alternative would be similar to those 

5 described for the proposed SHINE facility in Section 4.7. For example, the linear accelerator 

6 workforce during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be similar to or less than 

7 the number of workers needed for the proposed SHINE facility discussed in Section 4.7

8 (DOE 2012). Some workers would need to relocate (temporarily or permanently) to the ROI. 

9 This would lead to an increase in tax revenue and an increased demand for temporary and 

10 permanent housing. As described in Section 4.7, the ROI has sufficient housing available to 

11 support any increase in population and has sufficient capacity to accommodate any increased 

12 demand for public services. Given the similar size of the estimated workforce for the proposed 

13 SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based alternative, socioeconomic impacts would be 

14 SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

15 5.3.4.8 Human Health

16 Impacts on human health from the linear-accelerator-based alternative are expected to be 

17 similar to those described in Section 4.8 for the proposed SHINE facility, based on the similar 

18 construction methods; radiological controls; and other policies, procedures, and regulations that 

19 protect public health and safety. For example, the NRC staff assumed that access controls 

20 during construction would allow only authorized personnel access to the site and prevent 

21 members of the public from coming on site. During construction, operations, and 

22 decommissioning, the NRC staff further assumed that the facility operator would implement 

23 normal safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations 

24 and that limits for toxic chemicals stored or used at the site would be below the threshold 

25 amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code (DOE 2012). Further, the design of the 

26 facility would likely incorporate measures to minimize radiation exposure to workers and 

27 members of the public (DOE 2012). Given the radiological controls and other policies, 

28 procedures, and regulations that the operator would follow to protect public health and safety, 

29 the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on human health would be SMALL during 

30 construction, operations, and decommissioning.

31 5.3.4.9 Waste Management

32 Construction activities would generate approximately 160 metric tons (175 tons) of solid waste

33 in the form of wood, metal, concrete, or other miscellaneous construction debris (DOE 2012). 

34 This amount of waste would likely be similar to that produced for the SHINE facility, given the 

35 similar construction activities and size of buildings that would be constructed. Operation of the 

linear-accelerator-based alternative would generate about 10.4 m3 (14 yd3 36 ) of low-level 

radioactive waste, 2.4 m3 (3.1 yd3

) of hazardous waste, and 45 m3 (59 yd3 37 ) of solid waste 

38 annually (DOE 2012). The NRC staff determined that existing commercial or municipal 

39 treatment and disposal facilities would be able to accommodate all projected quantities of waste 

40 generated by the linear-accelerator-based facility. During construction, operations, and 

41 decommissioning, the operator would likely implement waste management systems to protect 

42 the workers and the public from radiological exposures and processes to minimize chemical

43 contamination. The operator would also be required to comply with NRC, DOT, and State of 

44 Wisconsin radiation protection requirements, as applicable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 

45 that impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

5-99
Alternatives

1 5.3.4.10 Transportation

2 Transportation impacts during construction and decommissioning would come, for example, 

3 from the removal of excavated materials, shipment of construction materials or dismantled 

4 buildings to or from the site, transport of worker personnel, and movement of heavy equipment 

5 for onsite construction or decommissioning activities. Transportation impacts would be similar 

6 to those described for the SHINE facility in Section 4.10, because construction and 

7 decommissioning activities would be very similar and operate over a similar time span at the 

8 same location. Therefore, the increased level of traffic during construction and 

9 decommissioning could have a noticeable impact on traffic.

10 Transportation impacts during operation would come from shipments of hazardous and 

11 radioactive waste to treatment and disposal facilities; receipt of processing materials (e.g., acids 

12 and other chemicals); receipt of target materials; shipment of the molybdenum-99 and other

13 medical radioisotopes; and, potentially, the return of technetium-99m generators. The operator 

14 of the facility and transportation vehicles would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, 

15 DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for 

16 radioactive material. Based on the similar transportation impacts that are expected for the 

17 SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to 

18 transportation would be MODERATE during construction and decommissioning and SMALL 

19 during operations.

20 5.3.4.11 Accidents

21 DOE (2012) assessed a range of accidents involving radioactive molybdenum-99 or chemicals 

22 that would be used during the production process for a linear-accelerator-based facility. 

23 Accident scenarios included a severe accident from the release of the entire helium inventory 

24 from the accelerator cooling system, a severe accident to a member of the public from direct 

25 exposure to a freshly irradiated molybdenum target, and an accident resulting from an 

26 intentional destructive act involving the release of a significant portion of a freshly irradiated 

27 target (DOE 2012). Given the radiological controls and other policies, procedures, and Federal 

28 and State regulations that the operator would follow to protect public health and safety, the NRC

29 staff concludes that the impacts to a member of the public from a potential accident would be 

30 SMALL.

31 5.3.4.12 Environmental Justice

32 The environmental justice impacts from a linear-accelerator-based alternative would be the 

33 same as those discussed for the SHINE facility in Section 4.12. Minority and low-income 

34 populations residing along site access roads or near the site could be disproportionately 

35 affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during the 

36 construction, operations, and decommissioning of either technology. However, during 

37 construction and decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to

38 onsite activities. Operation of either technology would not adversely affect minority and 

39 low-income populations living near the Janesville site. The level of potential radiological doses 

40 to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well 

41 within the NRC and the State of Wisconsin’s regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are 

42 expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income 

43 populations residing near the existing industrial park and the proposed SHINE facility could 

44 experience short-term disproportionate, but not high and adverse, human health and 

45 environmental effects from the linear-accelerator-based alternative.

5-100
Alternatives

1 5.3.4.13 Cumulative Impacts

2 Cumulative impacts for the linear-accelerator-based alternative would be similar to those 

3 described in Chapter 4 for the SHINE facility at the Janesville site, because the direct 

4 contributory effects from construction, operations, and decommissioning for the two 

5 technologies would be similar.

6 5.4 Cost-Benefit Comparison

7 NEPA and CEQ require that all agencies of the Federal government prepare detailed 

8 environmental statements on proposed major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality 

9 of the human environment. One of NEPA’s principal objectives is to require each Federal 

10 agency to consider, in its decisionmaking process, the environmental impacts of each proposed 

11 major action. In particular, as stated below, Section 102 of NEPA requires all Federal agencies 

12 to the fullest extent possible to:

13 (B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the 

14 Council on Environmental Quality established by Title II of this Act, which will 

15 insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be 

16 given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and 

17 technical considerations. (42 U.S.C. 4321)

18 However, neither NEPA nor CEQ requires the benefits and costs of a proposed action to be 

19 quantified in dollars or any other common metric. The intent of this section is not to identify and 

20 quantify all potential societal benefits of the proposed action and compare them to potential 

21 costs. Instead, it focuses only on those benefits and costs of such magnitude or importance 

22 that including them in this analysis can inform the decisionmaking process.

23 This section compiles the expected impacts from operations of the proposed SHINE facility and 

24 aggregates them into two final categories: (1) the expected costs and (2) the expected benefits 

25 derived from approving the proposed action. Table 5–17 describes the following information on 

26 major environmental costs and benefits, including:

27 • average annual production of commercial products,

28 • expected increase in tax payments to State and local tax jurisdictions during 

29 construction and operations,

30 • other benefits,

31 • environmental degradation, which includes impacts on: land use and visual 

32 resources, air quality, geologic environment, water resources, ecological 

33 resources, historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, noise, traffic

34 congestion, environmental justice, and increased demand for public services,

35 • effects on human health, and

36 • other costs, which include lost tax revenues, decreased recreational value, 

37 and transportation (as appropriate).

38 General issues related to SHINE’s commercial financial viability are outside the NRC’s mission 

39 and authority. 

5-101
Alternatives

1 Table 5–17. Costs and Benefits of Constructing, Operating, and Decommissioning the 

2 Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville, Wisconsin, Site

Cost Benefit Category Description

Impact 

Assessment

Benefits

Domestic Production of 

Molybdenum-99

SHINE would produce a domestic supply of 

molybdenum-99; no domestic producers of this 

widely used medical radioisotope currently exist in 

the U.S. and the U.S. currently imports all of its 

supply.

_

Use of Low-enriched Uranium

Target Solution

SHINE would use low-enriched uranium target 

solution for production of medical radioisotopes, 

contributing to the Federal nonproliferation 

objective to phase out U.S. exports of highly 

enriched uranium, as identified in the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992.

_

Tax Revenues The estimated total construction dollars spent in 

the local community associated with the SHINE

facility are expected to be approximately $20 to 

$30 million for labor, electrical equipment, cabling, 

and concrete, spread over the construction 

period. SHINE intends to enter into a TIF 

agreement during the first 10 years of the 

proposed project, covering the entirety of the 

construction period, allowing them to make 

payments in lieu of taxes at an estimated 

payments total of $600,000 per year. SHINE 

would pay property taxes estimated to be $35,000 

per year based on the assessed property before

improvements during this 10-year period.

_

Local Economy Increased jobs would benefit the area 

economically and increase the economic diversity 

of the region. (Section 4.7)

_

Costs

Land Use The site would include 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of 

agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of 

undeveloped open areas, which is a small portion 

of the agricultural land within a 5-mi (8-km) radius 

of the site (Section 4.1.1). The location of the 

proposed facility is within an area zoned for light 

industrial use. No additional land would be 

disturbed during operations or decommissioning.

SMALL

Visual Resources The proposed SHINE facility would not noticeably 

alter visual resources, based on the low scenic 

quality, low scenic value, and light industrial 

viewshed within the vicinity of the proposed site. 

(Section 4.1.2)

SMALL

Air Quality Air quality impacts during construction, 

operations, and decommissioning, would be 

negligible, given the relatively low emissions and 

the pollution control measures that would be 

required in air permits from WDNR. (Section 4.2)

SMALL

5-102
Alternatives

Cost Benefit Category Description

Impact 

Assessment

Noise During construction, operations, and 

decommissioning, noise would be minimal, given 

the minor (1 to 2 dBA) expected increases in 

noise levels. (Section 4.2)

SMALL

Geologic Environment Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would 

consume geologic resources and have the 

potential to increase soil erosion, but the overall 

impact would be minor, given that the geologic 

resources are widely available within the region 

and erosion would be managed with the 

implementation of BMPs. (Section 4.3)

SMALL

Water Resources Water-resource impacts during construction, 

operations, and decommissioning would be 

negligible, because of the lack of surface-water 

features on site and the use of municipal water. 

(Section 4.4)

SMALL

Ecological Resources Terrestrial and aquatic ecology impacts are 

expected to be SMALL, based on the limited 

amount of land that would be disturbed and 

because the entire site includes previously 

disturbed habitat. (Section 4.5) 

SMALL

Historic and Cultural 

Resources

SHINE could inadvertently discover previously 

unidentified cultural resources caused by land 

disturbance during construction, operations, or 

decommissioning. However, impacts would be 

SMALL based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible 

historic properties or historic and cultural 

resources on the proposed SHINE facility site, 

(2) tribal input, (3) SHINE’s CRMP procedures, 

and (4) cultural resource assessment and 

consultations performed by the NRC staff. 

(Section 4.6)

SMALL

Socioeconomic Socioeconomic impacts are expected to be 

SMALL, based on the size of the workforce 

required to construct, operate and decommission 

the SHINE facility. (Section 4.7) 

SMALL

Human Health Human health impacts would be minimized 

because access to the site would be restricted, 

SHINE would implement normal safety practices

contained in OSHA regulations, and SHINE would 

operate the proposed SHINE facility in 

accordance with all applicable Federal and State 

of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. 

(Section 4.8)

SMALL

5-103
Alternatives

Cost Benefit Category Description

Impact 

Assessment

Waste Management Based on the availability of waste disposal 

pathways for radiological and nonradiological 

waste; SHINE’s proposed waste management 

systems; engineered design features to minimize 

radioactive and nonradioactive contamination; 

and NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin radiation 

protection requirements, the NRC staff concludes 

that radioactive waste is expected to be managed 

in accordance with applicable regulatory 

requirements. (Section 4.9)

SMALL

Transportation Traffic would noticeably increase on local roads 

during construction and decommissioning 

because of the overall increase in average daily 

traffic flow and because of construction- and 

decommissioning-related truck traffic. 

(Section 4.10) During operations, the increase in 

traffic would be minor because of the lower 

number of employees commuting to and from the 

site. SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be 

required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, 

and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and 

transportation requirements for radioactive 

material. However, because the additional traffic 

attributable to SHINE worker vehicles would result 

in morning peak-hour traffic delays sufficient to 

reduce the existing level of service (traffic flow) at 

a key intersection near the SHINE facility, impacts 

could temporarily be MODERATE. (Section 4.10)

SMALL to 

MODERATE

Accidents The NRC staff is conducting a thorough 

independent review of the potential dose to the 

public from chemical and radiological accidents in 

the NRC staff’s safety evaluation report (SER). 

Assuming that the NRC staff determines in its 

SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within 

the dose limits in 10 CFR 70.61 and 

10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that 

the impacts from potential chemical and 

radiological accidents would be SMALL.

SMALL

5-104
Alternatives

Cost Benefit Category Description

Impact 

Assessment

Environmental Justice Minority and low-income populations residing 

along site access roads or near the proposed site

could be affected by noise and dust and 

increased commuter and other vehicular traffic

during construction and decommissioning. 

However, these would be short term and primarily 

limited to onsite activities. Operation of the 

proposed SHINE facility is not expected to 

disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

populations, as everyone living near the proposed 

SHINE facility and the existing industrial park 

would be exposed to the same potential effects 

from operations, and any impacts would depend 

on the magnitude of the change in ambient 

conditions. Permitted nonradiological air 

emissions are expected to remain within 

regulatory standards. (Section 4.12).

Minority and lowincome populations 

would not be 

expected to 

experience any high 

and adverse effects

1 5.4.1 Benefit and Costs of Alternatives

2 This section compares the environmental impacts for the alternative sites and alternative 

3 technology with the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville. Table 5–18 provides a tabular 

4 comparison of the potential environmental impacts of constructing, operating, and 

5 decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, Wisconsin, with each of the

6 alternative sites (Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point) and the no-action alternative. Both 

7 Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point alternative sites would have some resource areas with 

8 MODERATE impacts. For example, these alternative sites would have MODERATE noise and 

9 transportation impacts during construction and decommissioning. In addition, the Stevens Point 

10 alternative site would have a MODERATE visual impact during construction. The no-action 

11 alternative would have SMALL impacts for every resource area, because there would be no 

12 change in current environmental conditions at the proposed site.

13 Table 5–19 provides a tabular comparison of the potential environmental impacts of 

14 constructing, operating, and decommissioning a linear-accelerator-based alternative with the 

15 proposed SHINE facility, both in Janesville, Wisconsin. Both the proposed SHINE facility and 

16 the linear-accelerator-based alternative would have SMALL to MODERATE transportation 

17 impacts as a result of traffic. The impacts would be SMALL for all other resource areas.

18 Construction and operation of the proposed facility at an alternative site or using an alternative 

19 technology would not reduce or avoid adverse effects, compared with constructing and 

20 operating the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, Wisconsin. The adverse environmental 

21 impacts from the no-action alternative would be SMALL. However, the no-action alternative 

22 would not fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed action.

5-105
Alternatives

1 Table 5–18. Comparison of Impacts for the Proposed SHINE Facility, Proposed 

2 Alternative Sites, and No-Action

Impacts on 

Resource or Other 

Area Evaluation Janesville Chippewa Falls Stevens Point No-Action

Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Visual Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL

Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Noise SMALL SMALL to SMALL to SMALL

MODERATE MODERATE

Geology SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Water Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Ecological Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Historical and 

Cultural Resources

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Socioeconomic SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Waste Management SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Transportation SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to SMALL to SMALL

MODERATE MODERATE

Environmental 

Justice

No high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 

low-income populations

3 Table 5–19. Comparison of Technologies at the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville

Impacts on Resource or Other Area 

Evaluation SHINE Technology

Linear-Accelerator-based

Technology

Land Use SMALL SMALL

Visual Resources SMALL SMALL

Air Quality SMALL SMALL

Noise SMALL SMALL

Geology SMALL SMALL

Water Resources SMALL SMALL

Ecological Resources SMALL SMALL

Historical and Cultural Resources SMALL SMALL

Socioeconomic SMALL SMALL

Human Health SMALL SMALL

Waste Management SMALL SMALL

Transportation SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE

Environmental Justice No high and adverse human health and environmental 

effects on minority and low-income populations

4 5.4.2 Cost Benefit Conclusions

5 In Chapter 4 and the preceding sections of Chapter 5, the NRC staff described the costs and 

6 benefits of the proposed action as well as alternatives to the proposed action. In weighing the 

7 costs and benefits, the NRC staff concludes that the overall benefits of constructing, operating, 

5-106
Alternatives

1 and decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site outweigh the 

2 disadvantages and costs based upon the following considerations:

3 • U.S. policy is to ensure a reliable supply of medical radioisotopes while 

4 minimizing the use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes 

5 (NNSA 2011; White House 2012),

6 • the small environmental impact, including radiological impacts and risk to 

7 human health, which would be caused by constructing, operating, and 

8 decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site,

9 • the economic benefit of constructing and operating the proposed SHINE

10 facility to communities located near the Janesville site, and

11 • the increased availability of medical isotopes for U.S. public health needs.

12 Constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SHINE facility at the Janesville site would 

13 have slightly less environmental costs than at either alternative site because impacts from noise 

14 would be SMALL to MODERATE at both the Chippewa Falls and the Stevens Point sites, in part 

15 because the nearest resident would be closer, and the noise more audible to the closest 

16 resident, than at the Janesville site. In addition, the impacts to visual resources would also be 

17 greater at the Stevens Point site (SMALL to MODERATE), if SHINE clears the majority of the 

18 onsite wooded areas, which would increase the visibility of the new facility. However, the 

19 overall benefits of constructing and operating the proposed SHINE facility at any of the sites 

20 would outweigh the environmental disadvantages and costs for the reasons outlined above.

21 Installation of an alternative technology (e.g., linear-accelerator-based) would not result in any 

22 greater economic advantages or disadvantages over the proposed SHINE technology and the 

23 environmental costs and benefits would be similar to those described for the proposed SHINE 

24 facility at the Janesville site. Therefore, the overall benefits and costs of utilizing an alternative 

25 technology at the Janesville site would be the same and would outweigh the environmental 

26 disadvantages and costs for the reasons outlined above.

27 5.5 Alternatives Summary

28 In this chapter, the NRC staff considered the following alternatives to construction, operations, 

29 and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin:

30 • the no-action alternative;

31 • construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the 

32 Chippewa Falls site (Alternative Site No. 1);

33 • construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the 

34 Stevens Point site (Alternative Site No. 2); and

35 • construction, operations, and decommissioning of a linear-accelerator-based 

36 facility at the SHINE site (alternative technology).

37 The impacts for the proposed action, the no-action alternative, the two alternative sites, and the 

38 alternative technology are summarized in Tables 5–18 and 5–19.

39 In conclusion, the NRC staff notes that the no-action alternative would result in SMALL impacts 

40 to all resource areas. The no-action alternative, however, does not fulfill the purpose and need 

41 of the project. The environmentally preferred alternatives are the construction, operations, and 

42 decommissioning of the SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility at the Janesville, 

43 Wisconsin, site. The impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternative 

5-107
Alternatives

1 technology would be SMALL for all resource areas, except for traffic, which would incur 

2 MODERATE impacts during construction and decommissioning. The other alternatives capable 

3 of meeting the purpose and need of the project would entail potentially greater impacts than the 

4 proposed action of constructing the SHINE facility. For example, the impacts at both alternative 

5 sites would be SMALL for most resource areas; however, the NRC staff determined that 

6 impacts from noise would be SMALL to MODERATE at both the Chippewa Falls and the 

7 Stevens Point sites and the impacts to visual resources would be SMALL to MODERATE at the 

8 Stevens Point site. Similar to the proposed Janesville site, the impacts at both the Chippewa 

9 Falls and the Stevens Points site would be SMALL to MODERATE for traffic.

10 5.6 References

11 7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, “Important 

12 farmlands inventory.”

13 7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, “Farmland and 

14 protection policy act.”

15 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

16 protection against radiation.”

17 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

18 protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions.”

19 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 

20 Part 1508, “Terminology and index.”

21 46 FR 18026. Forty most asked questions concerning the Council on Environmental Quality's 

22 National Environmental Policy Act regulations. Federal Register 46(55):18026-18028. 

23 March 23, 1981. 

24 [AET] American Engineering Testing, Inc. 2011. Report of Subsurface Exploration. AET Job 

25 No: 31-00144. January 21, 2011. ADAMS No. ML13309B619.

26 [B&W]. Babcock and Wilcox Technical Services Group. 2012. “B&W Medical Isotope 

27 Production System (MIPS).” May 11, 2012. Available at <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc28 collections/commission/slides/2012/20120511/spickard-20120511.pdf> (accessed 

29 29 October 2014).

30 [BLS] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Preliminary data for 2012. “Location Quotient 

31 Calculator, Preliminary Data for 2012.” Available at 

32 <http://data.bls.gov/location_quotient/ControllerServlet>.

33 Buchwald, C.A. 2011. Water Use in Wisconsin, 2005. Open-File Report 2009–1076. 

34 Version 1.1. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. November 2011. Available at 

35 <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1076/pdf/ofr20091076.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014).

36 Chippewa Area Unified School District. 2013. “Chippewa Area Unified School District Home 

37 Page.” Available at <http://cfsd.chipfalls.k12.wi.us>.

38 Chippewa County. 2010. “Chippewa County, Wisconsin, Comprehensive Plan.” July 20, 2010. 

39 Available at <http://www.co.chippewa.wi.us/government/planning-zoning/comprehensive40 planning> (accessed 3 January 2014).

41 Chippewa Herald. 2012. “EOG Sand Operation Underway.” January 8, 2012. Available at 

42 <http://chippewa.com/news/local/eog-sand-operation-underway/article_8f360c64-398f-11e1-

43 91cf-001871e3ce6c.html> (accessed 25 September 2013).

5-108
Alternatives

1 Chippewa Herald. 2013. “Developer Will Revisit Wissota Shores Plan after Plan Commission 

2 Defeat.” March 13, 2013. Available at <http://chippewa.com/news/local/developers-will-revisit3 wissota-shores-plan-after-plan-commission-defeat/article_6e30c360-8c04-11e2-a917-

4 0019bb2963f4.html> (accessed 25 March 2013).

5 City of Chippewa Falls. 1999. “Comprehensive Land Use Plan.” Available at 

6 <http://www.chippewafalls-wi.gov/your-government/planning-economic7 development/planning/comprehensive-land-use-plan> (accessed 9 October 2014).

8 City of Stevens Point. 2006. City of Stevens Point Comprehensive Plan. Adopted 

9 January 16, 2006, amended June 19, 2006. Available at 

10 <http://stevenspoint.com/index.aspx?NID=602> (accessed 3 January 2014).

11 City of Stevens Point. 2011a. Report of City Plan Commission: Request from McDill Lake 

12 District. December 5, 2011. Available at 

13 <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/732> (accessed 29 August 2014).

14 City of Stevens Point. 2011b. Board of Water and Sewage Commissioners Meeting Minutes. 

15 December 12, 2011. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/736> 

16 (accessed 26 September 2013).

17 City of Stevens Point. 2012a. Report of City Plan Commission. April 2, 2012. Available at 

18 <http://stevenspoint.com/Archive/ViewFile/Item/877> (accessed 17 October 2014).

19 City of Stevens Point. 2012b. Regular Council Meeting. January 16, 2012. Available at 

20 <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/792> (accessed 17 October 2014).

21 City of Stevens Point. 2012c. “Stevens Point receives $225,640 from Focus on Energy.” 

22 Available at <http://www.ci.stevens-point.wi.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=799&ARC=1671> 

23 (accessed 26 September 2012).

24 City of Stevens Point. 2012d. “More of Michigan Avenue to Close.” July 18, 2012. Available at 

25 <http://stevenspoint.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=829&ARC=1683> (accessed 21 August 2014).

26 City of Stevens Point. 2012e. Board of Public Works Meeting Agenda. October 8, 2012. 

27 Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1065> (accessed 

28 17 October 2014).

29 City of Stevens Point. 2013a. Special Joint Common Council/Water and Sewerage 

30 Commissioners Meeting. April 29, 2013. Available at 

31 <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1307> (accessed 17 October 2014).

32 City of Stevens Point. 2013b. “Waste Water History.” Available at 

33 <http://www.stevenspoint.com/index.aspx?nid=520> (accessed 6 November 2014).

34 City of Stevens Point. 2014. “Facilities and Wells.” Available at <http://wi35 stevenspoint.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=275> (accessed 3 January 2014).

36 Clayton, L. 1986. Pleistocene Geology of Portage County, Wisconsin. Information Circular 56. 

37 Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at 

38 <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

39 Copps. 2014. “Store Locator.” Available at <http://www.copps.com/#!/storelocator> (accessed 

40 8 December 2014).

41 [CN]. 2014. “CN’s newest intermodal terminal opens in Chippewa Falls, Wis.”

42 February 3, 2012. Available at 

43 <http://www.cn.ca/en/news/2012/02/media_news_chippewa_falls_open_20120203> (accessed 

44 26 March 2014).

5-109
Alternatives

1 [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2012. Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical 

2 Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99 

3 (DOE/EA-1929). July 2012. Available at <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/EA-1929-DEA4 2012.pdf> (accessed 30 September 2014).

5 [EOG Resources]. 2012. “EOG Resources Reports First Quarter 2012 Results and Raises 

6 2012 Liquids Production Growth Target.” May 8, 2012. Available at 

7 <http://investor.shareholder.com/eogresources/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=671644> 

8 (accessed 25 September 2013).

9 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Protective Noise Levels: Condensed 

10 Version of EPA Levels Document. Available at 

11 <http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20012HG5.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&I

12 ndex=1976+Thru+1980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&

13 Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFie

14 ldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C76thru80%5CTxt%5C0000

15 0008%5C20012HG5.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C16 &MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Dis

17 play=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%

18 20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL> (accessed 19 March 2014).

19 [EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “List of 156 Mandatory Class I Federal 

20 Areas.” Available at <http://www.epa.gov/visibility/class1.html> (accessed 19 March 2014).

21 Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq.

22 [FWS] Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. “Fact Sheet: Karner Blue Butterfly.” Available at 

23 <http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/kbb/pdf/kbbFactSheet.pdf> (accessed 

24 10 February 2014).

25 [FWS] Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Letter from Fasbender PJ, FWS Field Supervisor to 

26 Wong M, NRC, Branch Chief. Subject: SHINE Medical Inc. (SHINE) Radioisotope Production 

27 Facility Portage, Chippewa, and Rock Counties Wisconsin. August 15, 2013. ADAMS 

28 No. ML13234A020.

29 [GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. SHINE

30 Medical, Stevens Point, WI. Duluth, MN: Golder Associates Inc., submitted to SHINE Medical 

31 Technologies. Project No. 113–81093, Rev. 1. May 11, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13303A887.

32 [GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012b. Well Installation, Stevens Point, Wisconsin. Duluth, MN: 

33 Golder Associates Inc., submitted to SHINE Medical Technologies. Project No. 113-81093, 

34 Rev. 2. September 26, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13303A887.

35 [GE Hitachi]. 2011. GE Hitachi Production of Molybdenum-99 Using Neutron Capture. NNSA

36 Mo-99 Topical Meeting Presentation. Presented by John Berger. December 6, 2011. Available 

37 at <http://mo99.ne.anl.gov/2011/pdfs/Mo99%202011%20Web%20Presentations/S7-

38 P2_Berger.pdf> (accessed 30 September 2014).

39 Greenberg, JK, Brown, BA. 1986. Bedrock Geology of Portage County, Wisconsin. 

40 Information Circular 53. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 

41 Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

42 [IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 2008. Homogeneous Aqueous Solution Nuclear 

43 Reactors for the Production of Mo-99 and other Short Lived Radioisotopes. TECDOC-1061. 

44 September 2008. Available at <http://www45 pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1601_web.pdf> (accessed 30 September 2014).

5-110
Alternatives

1 [IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 2013. Non-HEU Production Technologies for 

2 Molybdenum-99 and Technetium-99m. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-5.4. February 

3 2013. Available at <http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/10386/Non-HEU-Production4 Technologies-for-Molybdenum-99-and-Technetium-99m> (accessed 8 January 2015). 

5 Jerde, L. 2011. “Columbia Energy Center state’s No. 1 mercury emitter.” Portage Daily 

6 Register. November 17, 2011. Available at 

7 <http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/article_bdcdca56-11a5-11e1-886d8 001cc4c03286.html> (accessed 26 September 2013).

9 Jerde, L. 2014. “Columbia Energy Center launches $600M air-quality system.” Portage Daily 

10 Register. Available at 

11 <http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/local/article_e02caab7-3824-5815-838d12 1c626e3c7273.html> (accessed 1 September 2014).

13 Lippelt, ID. 1988. Potential Yields of Wells in the Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer of Chippewa 

14 County, Wisconsin. Miscellaneous Map Series. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and 

15 Natural History Survey. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 

16 16 January 2015).

17 Melillo JM, Richmond TC, and Yohe GW, editors. 2014. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

18 United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research 

19 Program. 841 p. Available at 

20 <http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/system/files_force/downloads/high/NCA3_Climate_Change_I

21 mpacts_in_the_United%20States_HighRes.pdf?download=1> (accessed 25 November 2014).

22 [MSMH] Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital. 2014. “Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital Home 

23 Page.” Available at <http://ministryhealth.org/SMH/home.nws> (accessed 5 December 2014).

24 [MPCA] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2014. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota. 

25 Available at <http://www.nonoise.org/library/sndbasic/sndbasic.htm> (accessed 

26 24 February 2014).

27 Mudrey, MG Jr., Brown, BA, and Greenberg, JK. 1982. Bedrock Geologic Map of Wisconsin. 

28 Madison, WI: University Of Wisconsin–Extension, Geological and Natural History Survey. 

29 Available at <http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/geologic.htm> (accessed 3 January 2014).

30 [Niowave] Niowave, Inc. 2015. Letter from Grimm TL, Niowave, President and Senior Scientist 

31 to Region III, NRC. Subject: Combined Application for a License to Produce and Possess 

32 Accelerator Produced Radionuclides for Research and Development (NRC Control 

33 No. 584728). February 11, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A755.

34 [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2010a. “1981–2010 Normals Data Access, 

35 Annual/Seasonal Normals, Chippewa Falls, WI US.” Available at 

36 <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate37 normals/1981-2010-normals-data> (accessed 6 February 2014).

38 [NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2010b. “1981–2010 Normals Data Access, 

39 Annual/Seasonal Normals, Stevens Point, WI US.” Available at 

40 <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate41 normals/1981-2010-normals-data> (accessed 6 February 2014).

42 [NCDC] National Climate Data Center. 2014a. “NCDC Storm Events Database: Chippewa 

43 County.” Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/> (accessed 24 March 2014).

44 [NCDC] National Climate Data Center. 2014b. “NCDC Storm Events Database: Portage 

45 County.” Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/> (accessed 24 March 2014).

5-111
Alternatives

1 [NWCC] National Wind Coordinating Committee. 2002. Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: A 

2 Handbook. Washington, DC: NWCC Siting Subcommittee. August 2002. Available at 

3 <https://nationalwind.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/publications/permitting2002.pdf>.

4 Olcott, PG. 1992. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, 

5 Wisconsin. HA-730-J. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Ground Water. Available 

6 at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_j/index.html> (accessed 20 December 2013).

7 Olson, K. 2013. “(Not) The Same Old McDill—Improvements for Our Lakes and Rivers.” 

8 Stevens Point City-Times. March 15, 2013. Available at <http://spcitytimes.com/?p=5509> 

9 (accessed 8 December 2014).

10 Petersen, MD, Frankel, AD, Harmsen, SC, Mueller, CS, Haller, KM, Wheeler, RL, Wesson, RL, 

11 Zeng, Yuehua, Boyd, OS, Perkins, DM, Luco, Nicolas, Field, EH, Wills, CJ, and Rukstales, KS. 

12 2011. Seismic-Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States, 2008: U.S. Geological 

13 Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3195, 6 sheets. Denver, CO: USGS. Page update 

14 January 9, 2013. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3195/> (accessed 20 December 2013).

15 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.

16 [NNSA] National Nuclear Security Administration. 2011. NNSA Works to Minimize the Use of 

17 HEU in Medical Isotope Production. NNSA Fact Sheet 20100125. November 1, 2011. 

18 Available at <http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/factsheets/factsheet20100125> 

19 (accessed 14 June 2013).

20 [NPS] National Park Service. 2015a. “National Register of Historic Places Program: 

21 Research– Chippewa County, Wisconsin.” Available at <http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/> 

22 (accessed 21 January 2015).

23 [NPS] National Park Service. 2015b. “National Register of Historic Places Program: 

24 Research– Portage County, Wisconsin.” Available at <http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/> 

25 (accessed 21 January 2015).

26 [NRHP]. National Register of Historic Places. 2013a. “Notre Dame Church and Goldsmith 

27 Memorial Chapel,” Chippewa Falls, Chippewa County, Wisconsin. Reference No. 83003369.

28 [NRHP]. National Register of Historic Places. 2013b. “Nelson Hall,” Stevens Point, Portage 

29 County, Wisconsin. Reference No. 05000643.

30 [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013a. “Web Soil Survey, Soil Map–

31 Chippewa County, Wisconsin.” (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; 

32 map unit description; suitabilities and limitations for use, building site development). Updated 

33 December 6, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. 

34 Available at <http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm> (accessed 

35 20 December 2013).

36 [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013b. “Web Soil Survey, Soil Map–Portage 

37 County, Wisconsin.” (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit 

38 description; suitabilities and limitations for use, building site development). Updated December 

39 6, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. Available at 

40 <http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm> (accessed 20 December 2013).

41 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

42 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1: Regarding the Decommissioning of 

43 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG–0586, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, DC: NRC. 

44 November 30, 2002. 516 p. ADAMS Nos. ML023470327, ML023500228, and ML023500295.

5-112
Alternatives

1 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting 

2 NUREG-1537, Part 1, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of 

3 Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content,” and Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and 

4 Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and 

5 Acceptance Criteria,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous 

6 Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. October 17, 2012. ADAMS 

7 No. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075.

8 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013. Meeting Summary: NRC visit to Wisconsin 

9 Historical Society. July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13226A537.

10 Portage County. 2004. Groundwater Management Plan. Adopted March 16, 2004. Available 

11 at <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/groundwater/index.htm> (accessed 3 January 2014).

12 Portage County. 2006. Map 5.1 Highly Productive Agricultural Soils. Portage County Planning 

13 and Zoning. Available at 

14 <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/Comprehensive%20Plan/Rural%20Planning%20Committee/Map5

15 1_041.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014).

16 Portage County. 2012. “Town of Hull Zoning Map.” Portage County. Map Updated 

17 November 2, 2012. Available at 

18 <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/planningzoning/ZoningMaps/hull.pdf> (accessed 9 October 2014).

19 [PCBC] Portage County Business Council. 2013. “Portage County Business Council Home 

20 Page.” Available at <www.portagecountybiz.com> (accessed 8 January 2015).

21 [PCBC] Portage County Business Council. 2014. “Portage County Business Park.” Available 

22 at <http://portagecountybiz.com/economic-development/business-parks/> (accessed 

23 5 December 2014).

24 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

25 (PSAR), Chapter 13, “Accident Analysis,” and Chapter 19, “Environmental Report.” Monona, 

26 WI: SHINE. March 26, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13172A324.

27 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

28 Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

29 Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887.

30 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

31 Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

32 October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189.

33 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

34 Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. 

35 February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404.

36 [SPJ] Stevens Point Journal. 2008. “Area Home Designer Touts New Efficient Home.” 

37 August 7, 2008. Available at 

38 <http://archive.stevenspointjournal.com/article/99999999/SPJ0101/808020654/Area-home39 designer-touts-new-efficient-home> (accessed on 16 January 2015).

40 Stevens Point Area Public School District. 2013. “2012–13 Budget Report.” Available at 

41 <http://www.wisp.k12.wi.us/education/components/docmgr/default.php?sectiondetailid=27052&f

42 ileitem=24771&catfilter=ALL> (accessed 8 January 2015). 

43 Syverson, KM. 2007. Pleistocene Geology of Chippewa County, Wisconsin. Bulletin 103. 

44 Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at 

45 <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

5-113
Alternatives

1 TRIUMF. 2008. Making Medical Isotopes: Report of the Task Force on Alternatives for 

2 Medical-Isotope Production. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Available at 

3 <http://www.triumf.ca/report-medical-isotope-production> (accessed 18 December 2014).

4 University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. 2005. McDill Pond Final Results, Portage County Lake 

5 Study. April 5, 2005. Available at 

6 <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/planningzoning/PCL/McDill_Pond/mcdill_pond_main.htm> 

7 (accessed 3 January 2014).

8 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. “American Fact Finder: 2007–2011 American 

9 Community Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Chippewa County, City of 

10 Chippewa Falls, Portage County, and City of Stevens Point, Wisconsin Selected Economic 

11 Characteristics.” Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov>

12 (accessed February 2014).

13 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. “American FactFinder: 2010 American Community 

14 Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Portage County, City of Stevens Point, 

15 Chippewa County, and Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin Housing Characteristics.” Available at 

16 <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed February 2014).

17 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014c. “American FactFinder: 2010 American Community 

18 Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Chippewa County, City of Chippewa Falls, 

19 and Block Groups within Chippewa County, Wisconsin.” Available at 

20 <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

21 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014d. “American FactFinder: 2006–2010 5-Year Estimates 

22 American Community Survey Data Profile and Highlights, Information on Chippewa County, City 

23 of Chippewa Falls, and Census Tracts within Chippewa County, Wisconsin.” Available at 

24 <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

25 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014e. “American FactFinder: 2010 American Community 

26 Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Portage County, City of Stevens Point, and 

27 Block Groups within Portage County, Wisconsin.” Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov>

28 and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

29 [USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014f. “American FactFinder: 2006–2010 5-Year Estimates 

30 American Community Survey Data Profile and Highlights, Information on Portage County, City 

31 of Stevens Point, and Census Tracts within Portage County, Wisconsin.” Available at 

32 <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

33 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. “Physiographic Regions of the Lower 48 United States.” 

34 Updated April 17, 2003. Available at <http://tapestry.usgs.gov/physiogr/physio.html> (accessed 

35 27 August 2013).

36 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. “National Land Cover Database.” Available at 

37 <http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer> (accessed 4 October 2013).

38 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012a. Water-Data Report 2012, 05365500 Chippewa River 

39 at Chippewa Falls, WI, Chippewa Basin, Lower Chippewa Subbasin. Available at 

40 <http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/05365500.2012.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014).

41 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012b. Water-Data Report 2012, 05400513 Plover River at 

42 Hwy 66 Stevens Point, WI, Wisconsin Basin, Castle Rock Subbasin. Available at 

43 <http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/05400513.2012.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014).

5-114
Alternatives

1 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013a. 2009 Mineral Yearbook, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: 

2 USGS. April 2013. Available at <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2009/myb2-

3 2009-wi.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013).

4 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013b. “Earthquakes in the Stable Continental Region.” 

5 Earthquake Hazards Program. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/product/tectonic6 summary/usc000te4p/us/1420825648040/tectonic-summary.inc.html> (accessed 

7 16 January 2015).

8 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013c. “Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive 

9 Search and URL Builder, Search Results.” (Radius search parameters: center latitude 

10 44.9616N, center longitude -91.36498 W, outside radius 322 km). Page updated 

11 November 7, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/> (accessed 

12 20 December 2013).

13 [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013d. “Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive 

14 Search and URL Builder, Search Results.” (Radius search parameters: center latitude 

15 44.50703 N, center longitude -89.49590W, outside radius 322 km). Page updated 

16 November 7, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/> (accessed 

17 20 December 2013).

18 Vetter, C. 2013. “Irvine Park Zoo plans $2.3M exhibit building.” Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. 

19 October 7, 2013. Available at 

20 <http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/front_page/article_28e0c8ca-2fd1-11e3-b3d2-

21 001a4bcf887a.html> (accessed 8 January 2015).

22 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and 

23 Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation, Chapter NR 102, “Water Quality Standards for 

24 Wisconsin Surface Waters.” Revised February 2004. Available at 

25 <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/102> (accessed 

26 20 December 2013).

27 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 104. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and 

28 Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation, Chapter NR 104, “Uses and Designated Standards.” 

29 Revised February 2004. Available at 

30 <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/104> (accessed 

31 20 December 2013).

32 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 140. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and 

33 Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation, Chapter NR 140, “Groundwater Quality.” Revised 

34 January 2012. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/140> 

35 (accessed 20 December 2013).

36 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 460. Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

37 Pollutants for Source Categories-General Provisions. Available at 

38 <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/ admin_code/nr/400/460/Title> (accessed 

39 17 January 2014).

40 [WDHS] Wisconsin Department of Health Services. “Radiation Protection.” 2014. Available at 

41 <http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/radiation> (accessed 12 August 2014).

42 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015a. “Air Management Program, 

43 Facility Information for Indianhead Plating, Inc.” Available at 

44 <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3001907> (accessed 

45 20 January 2015).

5-115
Alternatives

1 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015b. “Air Management Program, 

2 Facility Information for Spectrum Industries.” Available at 

3 <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=10641> (accessed 

4 20 January 2015).

5 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015c. “Air Management Program, 

6 Facility Information Great Northern Corporation.” Available at 

7 <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=19054951> (accessed 

8 20 January 2015).

9 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015d. “Air Management Program, 

10 Facility Information for Dairyland Power Cooperative—Seven Mile Creek Landfill Gas to 

11 Renewable Energy Station.” Available at 

12 <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=17105222> (accessed 

13 20 January 2015).

14 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015e. “Air Management Program, 

15 Facility Information for Central Wisconsin Alcohol, Inc.” Available at 

16 <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3002320> (accessed 

17 20 January 2015).

18 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012f. “Air Management Program 

19 Facility Information for Donaldson Company.” Available at 

20 <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3002330> (accessed 

21 20 January 2015).

22 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015g. “Air Management Program, 

23 Facility Information for WIMME Sand and Gravel Plants 1 & 2.” Available at 

24 <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=4003218> and 

25 <http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=13797133> (accessed 

26 20 January 2015).

27 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. “Upper Rock River Basin.” 

28 Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/uprock/> (accessed 20 December 2013).

29 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013b. “DNR Drinking Water System: 

30 High Capacity Wells.” Page updated January 6, 2014. Available at 

31 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Groundwater/data.html> and 

32 <http://prodoasext.dnr.wi.gov/inter1/hicap$.startup> (accessed 20 December 2013).

33 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013c. “Southeast Glacial Plains 

34 Ecological Landscape.” Revised January 23, 2012. Available at 

35 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=9> (accessed 

36 23 December 2013).

37 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. “Wisconsin Natural Heritage 

38 Working List.” Revised January 9, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/nhi/wlist.html> 

39 (accessed 23 January 2014).

40 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014b. “Wisconsin’s Natural 

41 Communities.” Revised October 7, 2014. Available at 

42 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Communities.asp> (accessed 

43 7 November 2014).

44 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014c. “Wisconsin’s endangered and 

45 threatened species laws.” Revised January 9, 2014. Available at 

46 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/laws.html> (accessed 28 January 2014).

5-116
Alternatives

1 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014d. “Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa 

2 samuelis).” Available at 

3 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Animals.asp?mode=detail&SpecCode=IILEPG5

4 021> (accessed 10 February 2014).

5 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Undated. “Find Campgrounds—

6 ReserveAmerica.” Available at <http://wisconsinstateparks.reserveamerica.com/campground

7 SearchResult.do?startIdx=0> (accessed 26 February 2014).

8 [WDOR] Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2014. “County and Municipal Revenues and 

9 Expenditures 2012, Bulletin No. 112.” January 2014. Available at

10 <http://www.revenue.wi.gov/slf/cotvc/cmreb12.pdf> (accessed 27 February 2014).

11 [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2008a. “Average Annual Daily Traffic for 

12 City of Chippewa Falls, Chippewa County.” Available at 

13 <http://www.dot.state.wi.us/travel/counts/docs/chippewa/chippewafalls2008.pdf> (accessed 

14 9 October 2014).

15 [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2008b. “Average Annual Daily Traffic for 

16 City of Stevens Point, Portage County.” Available at 

17 <http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/portage.htm> (accessed 9 October 2014).

18 [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2011a. “Hourly Traffic Volume Reports—

19 Chippewa County, 2011.” The WisTransPortal System, Wisconsin Traffic Operations and 

20 Safety Laboratory, University of Wisconsin—Madison. Available at 

21 <http://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourly-traffic-data/bysiteid/chippewa.html> (accessed 

22 9 October 2014).

23 [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2011b. “Hourly Traffic Volume Reports –

24 Portage County, 2011.” The WisTransPortal System, Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety 

25 Laboratory, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Available at 

26 <http://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourly-traffic-data/bysiteid/portage.html> (accessed 

27 9 October 2014).

28 [WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2012. “Connections 2030: Long-Range 

29 Multimodal Transportation Data, Marshfield/Rapids Connection Corridor—Abbotsford to 

30 Stevens Point.” Updated November 27, 2012. Available at 

31 <http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/connections2030.htm> (accessed 

32 1 September 2014).

33 [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2013. “Labor market Information 

34 for 2011, 2012, and first quarter in January 2013.” Available at <http://www.dwd.wisconsin.gov> 

35 (accessed 25 July 2013).

36 [WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2014. “Bureau of Migrant Labor 

37 Services 2011 Migrant Population Report.” Available at 

38 <http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/migrants/pdf/migrantpoprep2011.pdf> (accessed 20 February 2014).

39 [WEDC] Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. 2014a. “Lake Wissota Business 

40 Park.” Available at <http://inwisconsin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ChipFalls.pdf> 

41 (accessed 9 October 2014).

42 [WEDC] Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. 2014b. “Lake Wissota Business 

43 Park.” Available at <http://eagl-i.com/chippewa/config/chippewa/LWBP.pdf> (accessed 

44 5 December 2014).

5-117
Alternatives

1 [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2005. Bedrock Geology of 

2 Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Extension, Geological and Natural History 

3 Survey. April 1981 (Revised 2005). Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/ES051/> 

4 (accessed 16 January 2015).

5 [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2011. Glaciation of Wisconsin. 

6 Educational Series 36. Fourth edition. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/es0362011/> 

7 (accessed 16 January 2015).

8 [WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2014. Frac Sand in Wisconsin. 

9 Factsheet 05. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/fs05/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

10 White House. 2012. Fact Sheet: Encouraging Reliable Supplies of Molybdenum-99 Produced 

11 without Highly Enriched Uranium. Office of the Press Secretary. June 7, 2012. Available at 

12 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/07/fact-sheet-encouraging-reliable13 supplies-molybdenum-99-produced-without-> (accessed 14 June 2013).

5-118
1 CONCLUSIONS

2 This environmental impact statement (EIS) contains the environmental review of the SHINE

3 Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), application for a construction permit under Title10 of the 

4 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 that would allow construction of a medical 

5 radioisotope production facility(SHINE facility) in Janesville, Wisconsin. This EIS follows the 

6 requirements in 10 CFR Part 51, which are the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) 

7 regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This chapter 

8 presents conclusions and recommendations from the environmental review of the SHINE 

9 facility. Section 6.1 summarizes the environmental impacts of construction, operations, and 

10 decommissioning. Section 6.2 compares the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the 

11 construction of the SHINE facility at two alternative sites, and the construction of an alternative 

12 technology at the proposed site at Janesville, Wisconsin. Section 6.3 discusses unavoidable 

13 impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action and identifies resource 

14 commitments. Section 6.4 presents conclusions and staff recommendations. Finally, 

15 Section 6.5 provides a list of references.

16 6.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

17 The NRC staff concludes that issuing a construction permit for the SHINE facility would have 

18 SMALL impacts for all resource areas with the exception of transportation. The impacts to 

19 transportation would be SMALL to MODERATE because of the noticeable increase in average 

20 daily traffic flow. The addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips per 

21 day) from construction activities and 261 vehicles per day (or approximately 580 trips a day) 

22 from decommissioning activities at the proposed SHINE facility would result in an increased 

23 traffic volume on U.S. Highway 51. This increase in traffic would not likely destabilize traffic 

24 conditions near the SHINE site because traffic analyses indicate that the level of 

25 construction- and decommissioning-related traffic would not affect the level of service anywhere 

26 in the transportation infrastructure; therefore, the transportation infrastructure would not require 

27 any modifications (SHINE 2013a). During operations, a “slight degradation of service” 

28 (i.e., traffic delays) would occur at the intersection of westbound State Trunk Highway 11 onto 

29 southbound U.S. Highway 51 during the morning during peak hours of commuting. The NRC 

30 staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility 

31 to increase slightly during the operation phase, but it would not be appreciable when compared 

32 with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

33 SHINE facility. Table 6–1 summarizes the potential impacts.

34 The staff also considered cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

35 future actions regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes them. 

36 In Section 4.13, the staff concluded that the cumulative impacts would be SMALL for all areas 

37 with the exception of ecological resources and transportation. For ecological resources, the 

38 NRC staff concluded that the cumulative impacts would be MODERATE. For transportation, the 

39 NRC staff concluded that the cumulative impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

6-1
Conclusions

1 Table 6–1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from Construction, Operations, and 

2 Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville Site

Resource Area Summary of Impact Impact Level

Land Use The site would include 91.1 acres (ac) (36.9 hectares 

(ha)) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of 

undeveloped open areas, which is a small portion of the 

agricultural land within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the site 

(Section 4.1.1). The location of the proposed facility is 

within an area zoned for light industrial use. No 

additional land would be disturbed during operations or 

decommissioning.

SMALL

Visual Resources The proposed SHINE facility would not noticeably alter 

visual resources, based on the low scenic quality, low 

scenic value, and light industrial viewshed within the 

vicinity of the proposed site. (Section 4.1.2)

SMALL

Air Quality Construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility would result in additional air 

emissions. Given the relatively low emissions and the 

pollution control measures that air permits from the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources would 

require (Section 4.2), the proposed SHINE facility would 

not noticeably alter air quality in Rock County. 

SMALL

Noise During construction, operations, and decommissioning,

noise would be minimal given the minor (1 to 3 dBA) 

expected increases in noise levels. (Section 4.2)

SMALL

Geologic Environment Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would 

consume geologic resources and have the potential to 

increase soil erosion, but the overall impact would be 

minor, given that the geologic resources are widely 

available within the region and erosion would be 

managed with the implementation of best management 

practices (BMPs). (Section 4.3)

SMALL

Water Resources Water-resource impacts during construction, 

operations, and decommissioning would be negligible, 

because of the lack of surface-water features on site 

and the use of municipal water. (Section 4.4)

SMALL

Ecological Resources Terrestrial and aquatic ecology impacts are expected to 

be SMALL, based on the limited amount of land that 

would be disturbed and because the entire site includes 

previously disturbed habitat. (Section 4.5) 

SMALL

Historic and Cultural 

Resources

SHINE could inadvertently discover previously 

unidentified cultural resources caused by land 

disturbance during construction, operations, or 

decommissioning. However, impacts would be SMALL 

based on (1) no known historic properties eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or 

historic and cultural resources on the proposed SHINE 

facility site, (2) tribal input, (3) SHINE’s cultural resource 

management plan procedures, and (4) cultural resource 

assessment and consultations performed by the NRC

staff. (Section 4.6)

SMALL

Socioeconomic Socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL based on the 

size of the workforce required to construct, operate, and 

decommission the SHINE facility. (Section 4.7) 

SMALL

6-2
Conclusions

Resource Area Summary of Impact Impact Level

Human Health Human health impacts would be minimized because 

access to the site would be restricted, SHINE would 

implement normal safety practices contained in 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

regulations, and SHINE would operate the proposed 

SHINE facility in accordance with all applicable Federal 

and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. 

(Section 4.8)

SMALL

Waste Management Based on the availability of waste disposal pathways for 

radiological and nonradiological waste; SHINE’s 

proposed waste management systems; engineered 

design features to minimize radioactive and 

nonradioactive contamination; and NRC,

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and State of 

Wisconsin radiation protection requirements, the NRC 

staff concludes that radioactive waste is expected to be 

managed in accordance with applicable regulatory 

requirements. (Section 4.9)

SMALL

Transportation Traffic would noticeably increase on local roads during 

construction and decommissioning from commuting 

workers; the use of construction vehicles; and 

transportation of construction materials, goods, and 

other materials to and from the proposed sites 

(Section 4.10). During operations, the increase in traffic

would be minor because of the lower number of 

employees commuting to and from the site. SHINE and 

common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to 

the applicable NRC, DOT, and State of Wisconsin 

regulatory packaging and transportation requirements 

for radioactive material. (Section 4.10)

SMALL to 

MODERATE

Accidents The NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent 

review of the potential dose to the public from chemical

and radiological accidents in its safety evaluation report 

(SER). Assuming that the NRC staff determines in its 

SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the 

dose limits in 10 CFR 70.61 and 10 CFR 20.1301, the 

NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential 

chemical and radiological accidents would be SMALL. 

(Section 4.11)

SMALL

6-3
Conclusions

Resource Area Summary of Impact Impact Level

Environmental Justice Minority and low-income populations residing along site 

access roads or near the proposed site could be 

affected by noise and dust and increased commuter 

and other vehicular traffic during construction and 

decommissioning. However, these would be short term 

and primarily limited to onsite activities. Operation of 

the proposed SHINE facility is not expected to 

disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

populations, as everyone living near the proposed 

SHINE facility and the existing industrial park would be 

exposed to the same potential human health and 

environmental effects from operations, and any impacts 

would depend on the magnitude of the change in 

ambient conditions. Permitted nonradiological air 

emissions are expected to remain within regulatory 

standards. (Section 4.12)

Minority and 

low-income 

populations would 

not be expected to 

experience any high 

and adverse human 

health and 

environmental 

effects.

1 6.2 Comparison of Alternatives

2 In Chapter 5, the NRC staff considered the following alternatives to construction, operations, 

3 and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin:

4 • the no-action alternative;

5 • construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the 

6 Chippewa Falls site (Alternative Site No. 1);

7 • construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the 

8 Stevens Point site (Alternative Site No. 2); and

9 • construction, operations, and decommissioning of a linear-accelerator-based 

10 facility at the SHINE site (alternative technology).

11 Tables 5–18 and 5–19 summarize the impacts for the proposed action, the no-action alternative, 

12 the two alternative sites, and the alternative technology.

13 In conclusion, the NRC staff notes that the no-action alternative would result in SMALL impacts 

14 to all resource areas. However, the no-action alternative does not fulfill the purpose and need 

15 of the project. The environmentally preferred alternatives are the construction, operations, and 

16 decommissioning of the SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility at the Janesville

17 site. The impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternative technology would be 

18 SMALL for all resource areas with the exception of traffic, which would incur SMALL to 

19 MODERATE impacts. The other alternatives capable of meeting the purpose and need of the 

20 project would entail potentially greater impacts than the proposed action of constructing the 

21 SHINE facility. For example, the impacts at both alternative sites would be SMALL for most 

22 resource areas; however, the NRC staff determined that impacts from noise would be 

23 MODERATE at both the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point sites and that the impacts to visual 

24 resources would be SMALL to MODERATE at the Stevens Point site. Similar to those at the 

25 proposed Janesville site, the impacts at both the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point sites would 

26 be SMALL to MODERATE for traffic.

6-4
Conclusions

1 6.3 Resource Commitments

2 6.3.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

3 Section 102(2)(C)(ii) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that an EIS 

4 include information on any adverse environmental effect that cannot be avoided should the 

5 proposal be implemented. Unavoidable adverse impacts are predicted adverse environmental 

6 impacts that cannot be avoided and that have no practical means of further mitigation. Table 6–

7 2 presents the unavoidable adverse impacts from construction, operations, and 

8 decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility and presents mitigations and controls intended 

9 to lessen the adverse impact. Unless noted otherwise, mitigation measures were from SHINE’s 

10 Environmental Report (SHINE 2013a) or from responses to requests for additional information

11 (SHINE 2013b, 2014, 2015).

12 As described above, impacts to all resource areas would be SMALL with the exception of 

13 transportation. For those resource areas that would have SMALL impacts, the environmental 

14 effects would not be detectable or would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor 

15 noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For transportation, the NRC staff 

16 determined that the proposed action could noticeably alter traffic conditions on U.S. Highway 51

17 as described above in Section 6.1. To mitigate the increase in traffic and to help reduce traffic 

18 congestion, SHINE plans to use a staggered construction work-shift schedule to reduce the 

19 hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck deliveries early in the day. In 

20 addition, SHINE would ensure that delivery routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas.

21 Table 6–2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

Resource Area Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impact

Land Use and Visual 

Resources

The facility would be built and operated in 

compliance with all local zoning requirements.

Once SHINE completes construction activities, 

it may vegetate open areas with crops, native 

prairie grasses, or cool-season grasses to

offset loss of agricultural lands. Vegetated 

areas could also mitigate impacts to visual 

resources given that the majority of the 

surrounding viewshed is cultivated fields or 

grasses. SHINE would also mitigate impacts 

by landscaping or planting shrubs along 

U.S. Highway 51 and bordering access roads.

Up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of 

agricultural land could be 

converted to industrial land 

use. 

Partial obstruction of views of 

the existing landscape as a 

result of the new facility and 

the steam plume during 

operations.

6-5
Conclusions

Resource Area Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impact

Air Quality Air quality permits from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources would set 

emission limits and would establish 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements with which SHINE would be 

required to comply. SHINE would control 

emissions of nitrogen oxide from the 

natural-gas-fired boiler using low nitrogen 

oxide burners and emissions from gas-fired 

heaters using combustion controls and 

properly designed and tuned burners. SHINE 

would use BMPs and dust control plans for 

controlling fugitive dust and other emissions. 

Furthermore, SHINE plans on developing 

programs, as appropriate, to encourage 

carpooling to minimize worker vehicle 

emissions. 

Short-term, localized 

increases in fugitive dust and

air emissions would primarily

occur at and near the 

proposed SHINE facility.

Noise The facility design (e.g., wall thickness and 

other physical barriers) and distance to the 

sensitive receptors would limit offsite noise 

levels. 

In addition, during construction, noise from 

traffic would be mitigated through posted 

speed limits, traffic control, and administrative 

measures (e.g., staggered work-shift hours).

Additional, short-term,

localized noise. Offsite noise 

levels are not expected to 

exceed existing ambient noise 

levels. 

Geologic Resources SHINE would adhere to standard industry 

BMPs to minimize soil erosion and sediment 

control. SHINE must conduct construction 

activities in accordance with the provisions of 

the Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge 

Construction Site Storm Water Runoff, which 

would require measures to minimize soil 

compaction and to preserve topsoil; a 

site-specific construction site erosion control 

plan, including specific BMPs or pollution 

control measures to reduce the discharge of 

pollutants in stormwater runoff; and a 

stormwater management plan (e.g., vegetated 

drainage swales to control runoff). 

Temporarily disturbed areas during 

construction activities may be revegetated with 

crops, cool-season grasses, or native prairie 

grasses. 

Construction would consume 

geologic resources and have 

the potential to increase soil

erosion.

6-6
Conclusions

Resource Area Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impact

Water Resources See the information above for mitigation

measures associated with the Wisconsin 

General Permit to Discharge Construction Site 

Storm Water Runoff and the stormwater

management plan. The permit also would 

require the development of spill prevention 

and response procedures, such as measures 

to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of 

fuels and other materials from construction 

equipment and activities. Wastewater must 

meet the acceptance requirements of the 

Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant before 

it leaves the SHINE facility.

Stormwater runoff could 

potentially affect offsite 

surface-water quality.

No onsite groundwater would 

be used. 

Ecological Resources Once SHINE completes construction activities, 

it may vegetate open areas with crops, native 

prairie grasses, or cool-season grasses. 

BMPs, such as shielding or appropriate 

directional lighting, or both, would be used to 

mitigate the hazard to birds from artificial 

nighttime illumination. SHINE would apply 

herbicides according to an integrated pest 

management plan, which would include 

applicable BMPs or related permit 

requirements. See mitigation measures 

described above to minimize impacts to 

aquatic habitats. 

Loss of low-quality habitat

(agricultural fields), the 

potential for wildlife avoidance 

displacement caused by noise 

and other activities, and 

increased risk of bird collisions 

with building facilities could 

occur.

Historic and Cultural 

Resources

SHINE has developed a sitewide cultural 

resource management plan to manage and 

protect as-yet unidentified cultural resources.

No known historic properties 

eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic 

Places or historic and cultural 

resources are on the proposed 

site. Previously unidentified 

cultural resources could be 

inadvertently discovered 

during land-moving activities 

associated with construction.

Socioeconomics The availability of construction workers and 

housing within the region of influence and the 

short duration of construction (18 months) 

would minimize any socioeconomic impacts 

within the region of influence. New operations 

jobs would help maintain employment levels 

and would generate a small amount of 

additional property and sales tax revenue.

The increase in the local 

population resulting from the 

operation of the proposed 

SHINE facility would cause an 

associated increase in

demand for public services

and housing.

6-7
Conclusions

Resource Area Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impact

Human Health Radiological: SHINE would construct and 

operate the proposed facility in accordance 

with all applicable Federal and State of 

Wisconsin regulatory requirements. SHINE 

must limit radiological doses to the public and 

workers within the occupational dose limits in 

10 CFR Part 20. SHINE designed buildings 

containing radioactive material to include 

shielding that will minimize direct radiation 

outside the facility and to ensure that radiation 

will be within 10 CFR Part 20 dose limits at the 

site boundary. Radiation exposure to workers 

within the proposed facility will be minimized 

using shielding, shielded hot cells, shielded 

transport containers, access control to 

radiation areas, ventilation, filters, training, 

protective clothing, and administrative 

controls.

Nonradiological: SHINE would implement 

normal construction and operational safety 

practices contained in Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration regulations. In 

addition, SHINE would limit toxic chemicals 

stored or used at the construction site to be 

within the threshold amounts listed in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Code. SHINE would

have a Chemical Hygiene Plan to minimize 

chemical exposure to the workforce and a 

Chemical Hygiene Officer to administer the 

plan.

Radiological: Workers and 

members of the public could 

be exposed to radiation, such 

as gaseous radioactive

effluents that contain krypton, 

xenon, iodine, and tritium.

Nonradiological: Air pollution 

impacts from fossil-fueled 

vehicles and equipment, 

worker hazards typical of any 

industrial facility, and potential 

chemical exposures to 

workers.

Waste Management SHINE would operate the proposed facility in 

accordance with all applicable Federal and 

State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements. 

For example, public and worker exposure, 

radioactive material within the facility, and 

radioactive effluents released into the 

environment must meet the radiation 

protection dose-based limits in 

10 CFR Part 20. Wastes generated during 

plant operations would be collected, stored, 

and shipped for suitable treatment, recycling, 

or disposal in accordance with applicable 

Federal and State regulations. In addition, 

SHINE would implement waste management 

systems to minimize waste and pollution. 

Engineered design features would also 

minimize contamination and exposures. 

The generation of radiological 

and nonradiological waste 

material, including low-level 

radioactive waste, hazardous 

waste, and nonhazardous 

waste, also would be 

unavoidable.

6-8
Conclusions

Resource Area Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impact

Transportation SHINE would stagger construction work-shift 

schedules to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto 

U.S. Highway 51 and schedule truck deliveries 

early in the day to help reduce traffic 

congestion. Optimizing the signal timing for 

vehicles turning from U.S. Highway 51 into the 

site would mitigate traffic delays. 

SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would 

be required to adhere to the applicable 

regulatory packaging and transportation 

requirements for radioactive material in NRC

regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the 

State of Wisconsin Administrative Code

Chapter 326, “Transportation”; and DOT

requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173). In 

addition, SHINE would follow delivery routes 

that avoid residential and sensitive areas.

During construction and 

decommissioning, traffic at the 

site access point on 

U.S. Highway 51, especially 

during shift changes, would 

noticeably increase. No 

noticeable increases in traffic 

are expected during 

operations. 

Accidents The radiological hypothetical accident dose

must be within the dose limits in 

10 CFR 20.1301. The chemical hypothetical 

accident dose must be within the dose limits in 

10 CFR 70.61, and SHINE must meet the 

performance requirements in 10 CFR 70.61. 

SHINE incorporated engineering and 

administrative controls into the facility design 

to ensure that exposure from accidents would 

be within regulatory limits.

Very minimal environmental 

impacts are anticipated.

Environmental Justice See the discussions above on mitigation

measures for human health and environmental 

effects, such as noise, traffic, and air quality. 

Construction and 

decommissioning impacts are 

expected to be short term, 

would be primarily limited to 

onsite activities that are 

temporary in nature, and 

human health and 

environmental effects would 

not be high or adverse.

1 6.3.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the 

2 Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

3 The construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility and alternatives to the 

4 proposed action would result in short-term uses of the environment, as described in Chapters 4 

5 and 5. “Short-term” is the period of time during which construction, operations, and 

6 decommissioning activities would take place.

7 The construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility would require 

8 short-term use of the environment and commitment of resources and would commit certain 

9 resources (e.g., land and energy), indefinitely or permanently. Short-term resource 

10 commitments would be similar at the two alternative sites and for the alternative technology if it 

11 were to be developed at the proposed Janesville site. These alternatives and the proposed 

6-9
Conclusions

1 action would result in similar relationships between local short-term uses of the environment and 

2 the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. However, the no-action 

3 alternative would not result in resource commitments because no new facilities would be 

4 constructed or operated.

5 Construction, operations, and decommissioning would require up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of 

6 agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of undeveloped open areas that would be committed to 

7 industrial land use during the short term. In addition, the facility would partially obstruct the 

8 current viewshed. Construction, operations, and decommissioning could also displace wildlife

9 through destruction of habitat or noise. However, after decommissioning the SHINE facility and 

10 restoring the area, the land could be available for other future productive uses, and the onsite 

11 viewshed could be restored to the current condition. In addition, wildlife may return to the site 

12 once construction or decommissioning is completed if it is restored to suitable habitat. 

13 Air emissions from construction, operations, and decommissioning would introduce small 

14 amounts of radiological and nonradiological constituents at the facility site. Over time, these 

15 emissions would result in increased concentrations and exposure; however, such emissions are 

16 not expected to affect air quality or radiation exposure to the extent that they would impair public 

17 health and long-term productivity of the environment.

18 Noise emitted by construction, operations, and decommissioning activities would increase the 

19 ambient noise levels on site and in adjacent offsite areas. However, once decommissioning 

20 activities were completed, noise would return to ambient levels, and no effects would have an 

21 impact on the long-term productivity of the proposed SHINE facility.

22 Construction, operations, and decommissioning activities could affect up to 91 ac (37 ha) of 

23 onsite soils that are considered prime farmland (when they are not committed to developed 

24 uses) or farmland of statewide importance at the proposed SHINE facility. The majority of the 

25 soils on site, however, would not likely be affected from construction, operations, and 

26 decommissioning. Affected soils could affect the long-term productivity of the site if 

27 construction, operations, or decommissioning activities damage such soils in a manner that 

28 would degrade the soil properties associated with prime farmland or farmland of statewide 

29 importance designation.

30 Increased employment, expenditures, and tax revenues generated during construction, 

31 operations, and decommissioning activities directly benefit local, regional, and State economies 

32 over the short term. Local governments investing project-generated tax revenues into 

33 infrastructure and other required services could enhance economic productivity over the long 

34 term.

35 The management and disposal of low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and 

36 nonhazardous waste requires an increase in energy and consumes space at treatment, storage, 

37 or disposal facilities. Regardless of the location, the use of land to meet waste disposal needs 

38 would reduce the long-term productivity of the land.

39 Worker vehicles and the delivery and shipment of materials would increase the volume of traffic

40 on local roads. Worker and delivery vehicles would cease once decommissioning is completed 

41 and, therefore, would not affect long-term productivity.

42 Installation of water and sewer lines during construction of the proposed SHINE facility would 

43 connect the facility to the City of Janesville water supply system. This additional infrastructure 

44 would be available and beneficial for any future use of the proposed SHINE facility after its 

45 decommissioning.

6-10
Conclusions

1 6.3.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

2 This section describes the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that have 

3 been noted in this EIS. Resources are irreversible when primary or secondary impacts limit 

4 future options for a resource. An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or consumption of 

5 resources that are neither renewable nor recoverable for future use. Irreversible and 

6 irretrievable commitments of resources for construction, operations, and decommissioning of a 

7 medical isotope facility include the commitment of water, energy, raw materials, and other 

8 natural and man-made resources. In general, the commitment of capital, energy, labor, and 

9 material resources are also irreversible.

10 The implementation of the alternative sites or the alternative technology considered in this EIS 

11 would entail the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy, water, chemicals, fossil 

12 fuels, and other natural and man-made resources. These resources would be unrecoverable. 

13 For example, SHINE would consume materials during the construction, as described in 

14 Chapter 2. These materials would be irretrievable unless SHINE recycles them during 

15 decommissioning (e.g., finds another facility to use such materials). During operations, uranium

16 used as the source for the molybdenum isotope would be the main resource that would be 

17 irreversibly and irretrievably committed.

18 Up to 91 ac (37 ha) of soils that are considered prime farmland (when they are not committed to 

19 developed uses) or farmland of statewide importance on the proposed SHINE facility could be

20 irreversibly damaged such that the soil properties associated with the prime farmland 

21 designation would be irreversibly damaged. Mineral and other geologic resources, such as 

22 concrete, granular road base, pavement aggregate, and asphalt necessary for construction of 

23 the facility, would be irreversibly committed for construction of the SHINE facility. In addition, a 

24 small amount of soils and sediments would be lost to wind and water erosion during 

25 construction, operations, and decommissioning.

26 A negligible increase in the mortality of birds could occur because of their collisions with facility 

27 structures. The loss of these birds would be irreversible and irretrievable.

28 Nonradiological irreversible commitments to occupational human health resources may occur.

29 Such impacts would be similar to potential hazards that occur at any industrial construction site.

30 Energy expended would be in the form of fuel for equipment, vehicles, and facility operations 

31 and electricity for equipment and facility operations. Electricity and fuel would be acquired from 

32 offsite commercial sources. Water would be obtained from existing water supply systems. 

33 These resources are readily available, and the amounts required are not expected to deplete 

34 available supplies or exceed available system capacities.

35 6.4 Recommendation

36 After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental 

37 and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, the NRC staff recommends, unless 

38 safety issues mandate otherwise, the issuance of the proposed construction permit to SHINE. 

39 The NRC staff based its recommendation on the following factors:

40 • SHINE’s Environmental Report;

41 • the NRC staff’s consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies;

42 • the NRC staff’s independent environmental review; and

43 • the NRC staff’s consideration of public comments received. 

6-11
Conclusions

1 6.5 References

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

3 protection against radiation.” 

4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic licensing of 

5 production and utilization facilities.”

6 10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, “Domestic licensing of 

7 special nuclear material.”

8 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and 

9 transportation of radioactive material.” 

10 49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, “Hazardous 

11 materials table, special provisions, hazardous materials communications, emergency response 

12 information, training requirements, and security plans.”

13 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, “Shippers—

14 general requirements for shipments and packaging.”

15 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.

16 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

17 (PSAR), Chapter 13, “Accident Analysis,” and Chapter 19, “Environmental Report.” Monona, 

18 WI: SHINE. March 26, 2013 and May 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13172A324.

19 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc., 

20 Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

21 Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887.

22 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

23 Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

24 October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189.

25 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

26 Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

27 February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404.

28 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326. Motor Carrier Safety Requirements for 

29 Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Available at 

30 <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/326> (accessed 17 November 2014).

6-12
1 LIST OF PREPARERS

2 Members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Office of Nuclear Reactor 

3 Regulation (NRR) prepared this environmental impact statement with support from other NRC 

4 organizations, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration 

5 (NNSA), Los Alamos Technical Associates (LATA), and Idoneous Consulting. Idoneous 

6 Consulting provided support for technical editing reviews. Table 7–1 identifies each 

7 contributor’s name, affiliation, and function or expertise.

8 Table 7–1. List of Preparers

9 (in alphabetical order)

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Alexander Adams, Jr. NRR Branch Chief

Kevin Folk NRR Water Resources; Geologic Environment

Robert Hoffman NRR Historic and Cultural Resources; Transportation; Cumulative 

Impacts

Stephen Klementowicz NRR Human Health; Waste Management; Transportation; Accidents

Emily Larson NRR Historic and Cultural Resources; Transportation; Cumulative 

Impacts; Socioeconomic Impacts; Environmental Justice

Steven Lynch NRR Project Manager

Nancy Martinez NRR Air Quality and Noise; Water Resources

Michelle Moser NRR Project Manager; Ecological Resources; Land Use and Visual 

Resources; Alternatives

Jeffrey Rikhoff NRR Environmental Justice; Socioeconomic Impacts; Cost-Benefit 

Analysis

Allison Travers NRR Alternatives

Michael Wentzel NRR Land Use and Visual Resources

David Wrona NRR Branch Chief

U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration

Joanie Dix NNSA Project Manager

Rilla Hamilton NNSA Project Manager

Randy Howell NNSA Project Manager

Contract Support

Robert Hull LATA Project Manager; Alternatives

Vicki Kraus LATA Socioeconomic Impacts; Environmental Justice

Joe Molter LATA Transportation

George Pratt LATA Cumulative

Mike Stafford LATA Air Quality and Noise

Mitch Strain LATA Land Use and Visual Resources

7-1

1 INDEX

2

3 accidents, 4-36, 4-39, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 

4 4-49, 4-51, 5-32, 5-76, 5-100, 5-104, 6-3, 

5 6-9, A-3, A-4, A-9

6 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

7 (ACHP), xxi, 1-7, 4-27, 4-80, 9-3, B-4, 

8 C-2, D-3, D-4

9 agricultural land, 2-19, 3-1, 3-5, 3-32, 3-34, 

10 3-35, 3-41, 3-42, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-24, 

11 4-28, 4-29, 4-60, 4-68, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 

12 5-12, 5-14, 5-20, 5-41, 5-45, 5-52, 5-53, 

13 5-54, 5-55, 5-57, 5-63, 5-66, 5-85, 5-97, 

14 5-102, 6-2, 6-5, 6-10, A-11

15 alternatives, iii, xix, xx, 1-4, 2-20, 5-1, 5-6, 

16 5-94, 5-106, 5-107, 6-1, 6-4, 6-9, 6-11, 

17 A-1, A-8, A-11, B-2, D-2

18 American Medical Isotopes Production Act, 

19 1-3, 1-6, 1-8, 2-17, 2-20, 4-41, 4-72, 

20 A-17

21 best management practices (BMPs), 4-8, 

22 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 

23 4-64, 4-66, 4-69, 4-76, 5-17, 5-19, 5-20, 

24 5-22, 5-23, 5-44, 5-45, 5-60, 5-63, 5-66, 

25 5-67, 5-88, 5-90, 5-98, 5-103, 6-2, 6-6, 

26 6-7, A-13

27 bird, 3-32, 3-35, 3-39, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 

28 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-65, 5-66, 5-67, 5-98, 

29 6-7

30 chemical, 2-16, 3-5, 3-28, 3-30, 3-54, 4-36, 

31 4-37, 4-40, 4-42, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 

32 4-49, 4-51, 4-62, 5-10, 5-27, 5-28, 5-47, 

33 5-71, 5-72, 5-91, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-99, 

34 5-104, 6-3, 6-8, 6-9, A-4, A-13, B-5

35 Clean Air Act (CAA), xxi, 3-13, 3-14, 3-16, 

36 3-17, 3-60, 3-61, 4-8, 4-62, 4-79, 5-42, 

37 5-87, B-3, B-10, B-14

38 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 

39 xxi, 1-4, 4-1, 4-51, 4-52, 4-78, 5-1, 5-101, 

40 5-108

41 critical habitat, 3-37, 4-26, B-4, D-1, D-2

42 demographic, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-68, 4-52

43 discharges, 2-17, 3-27, 3-28, 3-31, 4-19, 

44 4-20, 4-39, 4-64, 4-66, 5-18, 5-43, 5-44, 

45 5-61, 5-88, A-13, A-15

46 dose, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 

47 4-38, 4-40, 4-41, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 

48 4-51, 4-57, 4-58, 4-71, 5-26, 5-28, 5-38, 

49 5-39, 5-46, 5-71, 5-72, 5-82, 5-83, 5-91, 

50 5-100, 5-104, 6-3, 6-8, 6-9, A-4, A-10, 

51 A-16, B-2, B-3

52 education, 2-18, 3-45, 3-47, 3-48, 3-70, 

53 4-30, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 5-24, 5-25, 5-68, 

54 5-113

55 emissions, 3-14, 3-17, 3-53, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 

56 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 

57 4-16, 4-35, 4-37, 4-39, 4-57, 4-58, 4-61, 

58 4-62, 4-68, 4-70, 4-74, 4-75, 5-13, 5-14, 

59 5-38, 5-39, 5-42, 5-46, 5-47, 5-49, 5-56, 

60 5-57, 5-58, 5-82, 5-83, 5-87, 5-91, 5-94, 

61 5-97, 5-100, 5-102, 5-105, 6-2, 6-4, 6-6, 

62 6-10, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-9, A-10, B-3, B-10

63 employment, 3-44, 3-45, 4-30, 4-32, 4-33, 

64 4-34, 4-57, 4-58, 4-69, 4-74, 5-24, 5-37, 

65 5-38, 5-46, 5-49, 5-68, 5-81, 5-82, 5-90, 

66 5-93, 6-7, 6-10

67 endangered species, 1-6, 3-38, 5-5, 5-65, 

68 B-1

69 Endangered Species Act (ESA), xxii, 1-6, 

70 1-8, 3-36, 3-37, 3-39, 3-59, 3-61, 4-26, 

71 5-66, 5-67, A-8, B-4, B-14, C-1, D-1, D-2, 

72 D-5

73 Environmental Report (ER), iii, xvii, xx, xxii, 

74 1-4, 1-9, 2-9, 3-1, 3-53, 3-65, 4-43, 4-45, 

75 4-48, 4-59, 4-71, 4-81, 5-2, 5-22, 5-32, 

76 5-66, 5-76, 5-113, 6-5, 6-11, 6-12, A-4, 

77 A-5, A-8

78 erosion, 3-5, 3-21, 3-23, 4-17, 4-18, 4-21, 

79 4-25, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 5-10, 5-17, 5-19, 

80 5-22, 5-23, 5-43, 5-44, 5-60, 5-62, 5-66, 

81 5-67, 5-87, 5-88, 5-97, 5-98, 5-103, 6-2, 

82 6-6, 6-11, A-14, B-7, B-12

83 essential fish habitat (EFH), 3-40, 4-26

84 farmland of statewide importance, 3-5, 

85 3-24, 4-3, 5-10, 5-54, 5-59, 5-86, 6-10, 

86 6-11

87 fission, xviii, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-7, 2-9, 2-11, 

88 4-45, 4-46, 5-94, A-8

8-1
Index

1 fugitive dust, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-14, 4-15, 5-13, 

2 5-14, 5-56, 5-57, 6-6

3 greenhouse gas, xxii, 3-13, 3-16, 3-59, 4-7

4 habitat, 3-28, 3-32, 3-34, 3-35, 3-38, 3-39, 

5 3-40, 3-63, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-60, 4-67, 

6 4-68, 4-75, 5-5, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 

7 5-41, 5-44, 5-45, 5-64, 5-65, 5-66, 5-67, 

8 5-85, 5-89, 5-98, 5-103, 6-2, 6-7, 6-10, 

9 A-8, B-4, D-1, D-2, D-3

10 hazardous waste, 2-17, 4-41, 5-99, 6-8, 

11 6-10, A-14, A-15, B-5, B-7, B-11

12 hot cell, 2-11, 2-16, 2-17, 4-37, 4-40, 4-41, 

13 4-71, 5-95, 5-96, 6-8

14 iodine-131, xvii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-7, 

15 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-16, 3-53, 5-94

16 irradiation, 1-2, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 

17 2-17, 4-41, 4-46, 4-47, 4-72, 5-95, 5-97, 

18 A-17

19 Janesville, Wisconsin, xvii, 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 

20 2-1, 2-7, 3-1, 3-11, 3-40, 3-60, 3-62, 

21 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 4-70, 4-71, 4-78, 

22 4-81, 4-83, 5-2, 5-6, 5-95, 5-102, 5-105, 

23 5-107, 6-1, 6-4, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, A-1, 

24 A-11, A-15, B-8

25 jobs, 3-45, 4-30, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 5-69, 

26 5-102, 6-7, A-10

27 Karner blue butterfly, 5-5, 5-65, 5-66, 5-67

28 low-enriched uranium, 1-3, 1-4, 5-94, 5-95, 

29 5-102

30 low-level radioactive waste, 2-16, 3-53, 

31 3-54, 5-47, 5-92, 5-99, 6-8, 6-10, A-16

32 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

33 and Management Act (MSA), 4-26, B-4, 

34 D-3, D-5

35 mineral resources, 4-2, 4-64, 4-75, 5-9, 

36 5-11, 5-43, 5-52, 5-54, 5-87, 5-88

37 mitigation, 4-21, 4-24, 5-27, 5-28, 5-30, 

38 5-71, 5-72, 5-75, 6-5, 6-7, 6-9, A-6

39 mixed waste, B-11

40 molybdenum-99, xvii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 

41 1-9, 2-1, 2-7, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-15, 2-21, 

42 5-2, 5-4, 5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-100, 5-102, 

43 5-118, A-7

44 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

45 xvii, xviii, xxiv, 1-1, 1-3, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 

46 2-21, 3-69, 4-2, 4-28, 4-51, 4-78, 4-80, 

47 5-1, 5-11, 5-54, 5-94, 5-101, 5-108, 

48 5-112, 6-1, 6-12, 9-3, A-8, A-17, A-18, 

49 B-2, B-4, B-15, D-1, D-3, D-5

50 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 

51 3-36, 3-37, 3-40, 3-63, 4-26, B-4, D-1, 

52 D-2, D-3, D-5

53 National Nuclear Security Administration 

54 (NNSA), xviii, xxiv, 1-3, 1-6, 1-8, 2-1, 

55 2-20, 4-78, 5-94, 5-96, 5-107, 5-110, 

56 5-112, 7-1, 9-2, 9-3, A-8

57 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

58 System (NPDES), xxiv, 4-17, 4-66, 5-44, 

59 5-88, B-1, B-5, B-14

60 National Register of Historic Places 

61 (NRHP), xxiv, 3-42, 3-63, 4-27, 4-28, 

62 4-29, 4-77, 5-6, 5-23, 5-24, 5-67, 5-68, 

63 5-103, 5-112, 6-2, 6-7, B-4, D-3

64 no-action alternative, iii, xix, 5-1, 5-2, 

65 5-105, 5-107, 6-4, 6-10

66 nonattainment, 3-14, 3-15

67 Occupational Safety and Health 

68 Administration (OSHA), xxiv, 3-19, 3-52, 

69 3-64, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 5-70, 

70 5-99, 5-103, 6-3, 6-8, A-11, B-4

71 personal protective equipment, 2-18, 4-39

72 population, 3-2, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 

73 3-63, 4-30, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-48, 4-50, 

74 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 

75 4-68, 4-69, 4-73, 4-76, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 

76 5-32, 5-33, 5-35, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-46, 

77 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-77, 5-79, 5-81, 5-82, 

78 5-83, 5-90, 5-99, 6-7, A-11, B-3

79 population centers, 3-2

80 prime farmland, 3-5, 3-23, 4-2, 4-3, 4-61, 

81 4-64, 5-9, 5-11, 5-16, 5-17, 5-41, 5-43, 

82 5-52, 5-54, 5-59, 5-86, 6-10, 6-11, B-4, 

83 B-6

84 production facility, iii, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 

85 1-4, 2-1, 2-9, 3-52, 3-64, 4-1, 4-9, 4-30, 

86 4-40, 4-46, 4-47, 4-70, 4-79, 5-1, 5-2, 

87 6-1, A-1, A-8, A-17, B-2, D-1

88 public health, 2-14, 2-15, 3-13, 3-52, 4-42, 

89 4-44, 5-31, 5-76, 5-99, 5-100, 5-107, 

90 6-10, B-1, B-3, B-8

91 public services, 4-69, 4-76, 5-25, 5-26, 

92 5-46, 5-69, 5-70, 5-90, 5-99, 5-101, 6-7

93 radioactive waste, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 

94 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 3-53, 4-35, 4-36, 4-38, 

8-2
Index

1 4-40, 4-41, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-71, 4-72, 

2 5-27, 5-31, 5-47, 5-72, 5-75, 5-76, 5-92, 

3 5-96, 5-100, 5-104, 6-3, A-15, A-17

4 radioisotope, iii, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 2-1, 

5 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 

6 3-52, 3-64, 4-1, 4-9, 4-11, 4-12, 4-23, 

7 4-30, 4-35, 4-38, 4-40, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 

8 4-59, 4-72, 4-73, 4-79, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 

9 5-13, 5-27, 5-28, 5-56, 5-71, 5-72, 5-75, 

10 5-94, 5-96, 5-102, 6-1, A-1, A-8, A-16, 

11 A-17, B-2, D-1

12 Rock River, 3-5, 3-21, 3-22, 3-25, 3-27, 

13 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-34, 3-35, 

14 3-36, 3-37, 3-50, 3-62, 3-65, 3-66, 3-69, 

15 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-25, 4-26, 4-65, 4-66, 

16 4-67, 4-82, 4-83, 5-116, A-14, D-3

17 runoff, 2-6, 3-27, 3-28, 3-32, 4-17, 4-18, 

18 4-19, 4-23, 4-25, 4-26, 4-64, 4-65, 4-67, 

19 4-68, 4-75, 5-19, 5-22, 5-23, 5-43, 5-44, 

20 5-45, 5-61, 5-63, 5-64, 5-66, 5-67, 5-88, 

21 5-89, 5-98, 6-6, 6-7, A-13, A-14, B-5, 

22 B-7, B-10

23 safety evaluation report (SER), xxiv, 4-37, 

24 4-45, 4-47, 4-51, 5-104, 6-3, A-4, A-10

25 schools, 3-49, 4-31, 4-33, 5-4, 5-25, 5-26, 

26 5-69, 5-70

27 scoping, xvii, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-8, 3-1, 4-28, 

28 4-59, 4-79, A-1, A-2, A-17, D-4, D-5

29 shielding, 2-8, 2-17, 4-25, 4-36, 4-37, 4-40, 

30 4-41, 4-46, 4-47, 6-7, 6-8

31 SHINE, iii, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxiv, 1-1, 1-2, 

32 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 

33 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 

34 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 

35 2-20, 2-21, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 

36 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-13, 3-14, 3-16, 3-19, 

37 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 

38 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 

39 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-42, 

40 3-44, 3-49, 3-50, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-56, 

41 3-58, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-69, 4-1, 

42 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 

43 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 

44 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 

45 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 

46 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 

47 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 

48 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 

49 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 

50 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 

51 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 

52 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 5-1, 

53 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 

54 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 

55 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 

56 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 

57 5-32, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-42, 5-43, 

58 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-49, 5-52, 

59 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-59, 

60 5-60, 5-61, 5-62, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-66, 

61 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 

62 5-74, 5-75, 5-76, 5-77, 5-81, 5-82, 5-83, 

63 5-85, 5-86, 5-87, 5-88, 5-89, 5-90, 5-91, 

64 5-92, 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 

65 5-99, 5-100, 5-101, 5-102, 5-103, 5-104, 

66 5-105, 5-106, 5-107, 5-110, 5-113, 6-1, 

67 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 

68 6-11, 6-12, 9-1, A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, 

69 A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, 

70 A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, B-1, B-8, B-9, 

71 B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, B-15, C-1, C-2, 

72 C-3, C-4, D-1, D-2, D-3

73 soil, 3-5, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-28, 3-31, 3-52, 

74 3-64, 4-17, 4-18, 4-21, 4-24, 4-25, 4-63, 

75 4-64, 4-65, 4-67, 4-72, 4-81, 5-10, 5-16, 

76 5-17, 5-19, 5-20, 5-22, 5-23, 5-41, 5-43, 

77 5-44, 5-59, 5-60, 5-62, 5-63, 5-66, 5-67, 

78 5-87, 5-88, 5-89, 5-97, 5-103, 5-112, 6-2, 

79 6-6, 6-10, 6-11

80 solid waste, 2-18, 4-39, 4-41, 5-99, B-1

81 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), 

82 xxv, 1-7, 4-27, 9-1

83 stormwater, 2-1, 2-6, 4-1, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 

84 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-64, 

85 4-66, 4-67, 5-19, 5-20, 5-23, 5-43, 5-44, 

86 5-63, 5-66, 5-67, 5-88, 5-89, 5-98, 6-6, 

87 6-7, A-13, A-14, B-5, B-7, B-10

88 tax, 3-48, 3-49, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 

89 4-34, 4-69, 5-25, 5-26, 5-46, 5-69, 5-70, 

90 5-90, 5-99, 5-101, 6-7, 6-10, A-11

91 technetium-99m, 1-1, 5-100

92 traffic, xx, xxv, 3-16, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-57, 

93 3-58, 3-59, 3-70, 4-6, 4-7, 4-9, 4-13, 

94 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 

95 4-45, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-63, 4-73, 4-74, 

96 4-76, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 

97 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-48, 5-49, 5-56, 5-57, 

98 5-58, 5-73, 5-74, 5-75, 5-76, 5-81, 5-82, 

8-3
Index

1 5-83, 5-93, 5-100, 5-101, 5-104, 5-105, 

2 5-108, 5-117, 6-1, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-9, 

3 6-10, A-11, A-12

4 tritium, 2-7, 2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16,

5 3-53, 4-36, 4-40, 6-8

6 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), xvii, 

7 xviii, xxii, 1-3, 1-6, 1-8, 2-1, 2-17, 2-20, 

8 4-41, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-63, 4-69, 4-70, 

9 4-72, 4-78, 5-94, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-99, 

10 5-100, 5-110, 7-1, 9-2, 9-3, A-8, A-17, 

11 C-4

12 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 

13 xxii, 2-12, 2-14, 2-17, 4-41, 4-42, 4-44, 

14 4-72, 4-79, 5-30, 5-31, 5-74, 5-76, 5-99, 

15 5-100, 5-104, 6-3, 6-9, B-6, B-7, B-10, 

16 B-11

17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

18 (EPA), xxii, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 

19 3-18, 3-19, 3-59, 3-61, 4-7, 4-8, 4-10, 

20 4-11, 4-15, 4-17, 4-41, 4-48, 4-61, 4-62, 

21 4-66, 4-72, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 5-13, 5-14, 

22 5-56, 5-57, 5-110, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, A-2, A-5, 

23 B-1, B-3, B-5, B-10, B-14, C-3

24 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), xxii, 

25 1-6, 3-36, 3-37, 3-39, 3-59, 3-62, 4-26, 

26 5-5, 5-6, 5-21, 5-22, 5-65, 5-66, 5-67, 

27 5-110, 9-2, 9-3, B-4, C-1, C-4, D-1, D-2, 

28 D-3, D-5

29 U.S. Highway 51, 2-1, 2-2, 2-13, 3-1, 3-2, 

30 3-8, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-25, 3-27, 3-28, 

31 3-54, 3-57, 3-58, 4-4, 4-9, 4-13, 4-16, 

32 4-19, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-57, 4-63, 6-1, 

33 6-5, 6-9, A-12

34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

35 (NRC), iii, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxiv, 1-1, 1-2, 

36 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 2-1, 2-6, 

37 2-7, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-19, 2-21, 

38 3-1, 3-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-11, 3-23, 3-25, 

39 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 

40 3-38, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-62, 3-64, 3-69, 

41 4-1, 4-3, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 

42 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 

43 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 

44 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-35, 4-36, 

45 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 

46 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-51, 4-52, 

47 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-62, 4-69, 

48 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-76, 4-77, 4-79, 

49 4-80, 4-81, 5-1, 5-2, 5-6, 5-7, 5-11, 5-12, 

50 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-19, 5-20, 

51 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-30, 

52 5-31, 5-32, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-41, 5-42, 

53 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-49, 

54 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-60, 5-62, 

55 5-63, 5-65, 5-66, 5-68, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 

56 5-73, 5-74, 5-75, 5-76, 5-77, 5-81, 5-82, 

57 5-83, 5-86, 5-87, 5-88, 5-89, 5-91, 5-92, 

58 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-99, 

59 5-100, 5-101, 5-103, 5-104, 5-106, 

60 5-107, 5-110, 5-111, 5-112, 5-113, 6-1, 

61 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-9, 6-11, 7-1, 9-3, 

62 A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, 

63 A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-15, A-16, 

64 A-17, A-18, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-9, B-14, 

65 C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, 

66 D-5

67 uranium, xviii, xxii, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-9, 

68 2-11, 2-15, 2-17, 3-52, 4-38, 4-41, 4-72, 

69 5-27, 5-28, 5-71, 5-72, 5-94, 5-95, 5-102, 

70 5-107, 6-11, A-3, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, 

71 A-12, A-14, A-17

72 utilization facility, 2-19, A-15

73 viewshed, 3-8, 4-4, 4-5, 4-59, 4-61, 4-69, 

74 5-11, 5-12, 5-41, 5-54, 5-55, 5-86, 5-102, 

75 6-2, 6-5, 6-10

76 wastewater, 2-13, 2-17, 3-51, 3-52, 3-69, 

77 4-19, 4-20, 4-25, 4-37, 4-65, 4-66, 4-72, 

78 4-75, 5-18, 5-20, 5-23, 5-43, 5-44, 5-61, 

79 5-63, 5-67, 5-88, 5-98, B-12

80 wildlife, 3-28, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-50, 

81 3-59, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-58, 4-60, 4-65, 

82 4-67, 4-68, 5-20, 5-22, 5-23, 5-39, 5-41, 

83 5-45, 5-64, 5-66, 5-67, 5-83, 5-85, 5-89, 

84 5-98, 6-7, 6-10, B-4, B-5, B-6

85 Wisconsin Administrative Code (WAC), 

86 xxv, 3-14, 3-17, 3-19, 3-28, 3-30, 3-37, 

87 3-68, 4-8, 4-17, 4-35, 4-36, 4-40, 4-41, 

88 4-42, 4-44, 4-82, 4-83, 5-18, 5-47, 5-48, 

89 5-61, 5-62, 5-91, 5-92, 5-99, 5-115, 6-8, 

90 6-9, 6-12, A-4, A-11, A-13, A-18, B-6, 

91 B-7, B-10, B-11

92 Wisconsin Department of Natural 

93 Resources (WDNR), xxv, 1-6, 3-5, 3-16, 

94 3-27, 3-28, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-34, 3-35, 

95 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-50, 3-51, 3-65, 

96 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 4-8, 4-12, 4-17, 4-18, 

97 4-21, 4-59, 4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-66, 4-67, 

98 4-72, 4-83, 5-5, 5-6, 5-13, 5-14, 5-17, 

8-4
Index

1 5-18, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-25, 5-40, 5-44, 

2 5-45, 5-56, 5-57, 5-61, 5-62, 5-65, 5-69, 

3 5-84, 5-89, 5-102, 5-115, 5-116, 5-117, 

4 6-2, 6-6, A-2, A-4, A-8, A-13, A-14, A-18, 

5 B-5, B-6, B-7, B-10, B-11, C-1, C-4

6 workers, 2-5, 2-7, 2-15, 2-19, 3-19, 3-42, 

7 3-44, 3-45, 3-48, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 4-6, 

8 4-8, 4-9, 4-13, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 

9 4-34, 4-35, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 

10 4-45, 4-57, 4-58, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-73, 

11 4-74, 4-76, 5-13, 5-14, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 

12 5-27, 5-28, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-46, 5-47, 

13 5-48, 5-49, 5-56, 5-57, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 

14 5-72, 5-73, 5-81, 5-82, 5-83, 5-90, 5-91, 

15 5-93, 5-94, 5-99, 6-3, 6-7, 6-8, A-4, A-5, 

16 A-6, A-10, A-11, B-1, B-2

17 xenon-133, xvii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-7, 

18 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-16, 3-53, 5-94

19

8-5

1 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS 

2 TO WHOM COPIES OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL

3 IMPACT STATEMENT ARE SENT

4 Table 9–1. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies

5 of This Environmental Impact Statement Are Sent

Name and Title Affiliation and Address

Andrew Anselmi Riverfront, Inc.

1107 Barberry Drive

Janesville, WI 53545

John Barrett, Chairman Citizen Potawatomi Nation 

1601 South Gordon Cooper Drive

Shawnee, OK 74801

Stuart Bearheart, Chairman St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin 

St. Croix Tribal Center 

24663 Angeline Avenue

Webster, WI 54893

John Blackhawk, Chairman Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska

100 Bluff Street 

P.O. Box 687 

Winnebago, NE 68071

Gary Besaw, Chairman Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin 

P.O. Box 910 

Keshena, WI 54135

Mr. Ellsworth Brown, Society Director State Historic Preservation Office

Division of Historic Preservation and Public History

Wisconsin Historical Society

816 State Street, Room 305

Madison, WI 53706

Gerald and Muriel Bumgarner None given

Richard Vann Bynum, Ph.D., Chief Operating 

Officer

SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.

2555 Industrial Drive

Monona, WI 53713

Duane Cherek, Manager of Planning Services Community Development Department

18 North Jackson Street

P.O. Box 5005

Janesville, WI 53547-5005

Melissa Cook, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer

Forest County Potawatomi Community

8130 Mish Ko Swen Drive

P.O. Box 340

Crandon, Wl 54520

Jim Costedio, Licensing Manager SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.

2555 Industrial Drive

Monona, WI 53713

Dan Cunningham Forward Janesville

14 South Jackson Street, Suite 200

Janesville, WI 53548

Kristen Cutler, Ph.D., National Security and 

International Affairs

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Executive Office Building

1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20503

9-1
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons

Name and Title Affiliation and Address

Dave Dobson Friends of Welty Environmental Center

P.O. Box 131

Beloit, WI 53512

Environmental Impact Statement Filing Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Peter J. Fasbender, Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2661 Scott Tower Drive

New Franken, WI 54229

Sharon Fitzpatrick Riverfront, Inc.

1107 Barberry Drive

Janesville, WI 53545

Harold Frank, Chairman Forest County Potawatomi Community 

5416 Everybody’s Road

Crandon, WI 54520

Mark Freitag, Janesville City Manager City Manager

Janesville City Hall

P.O. Box 5005

Janesville, WI 53547-5005

John P. Froman, Chief Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 

118 South Eight Tribes Trail 

P.O. Box 1527 

Miami, OK 74355

Andrew Fox None given

Jim Jensen, Chief Janesville Fire Department

303 Milton Avenue 

Janesville, WI 53545-3151

Kevin Jensvold, Chairman Upper Sioux Community

P.O. Box 147 

5722 Travelers Lane 

Granite Falls, MN 56241

Ronald Johnson, President Prairie Island Indian Community 

5636 Sturgeon Lake Road 

Welch, MN 55089

Jon Greendeer, President Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin 

P.O. Box 667 

W9814 Airport Road 

Black River Falls, WI 54615

Richard Gruber Mercy Health System

P.O. Box 5003

Janesville, WI 53547-5003

Eric P. Heggelund, Environmental Analysis and 

Review Specialist

State of Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources

3911 Fish Hatchery Road

Fitchburg, WI 53711

Richard T. Henning None given

Rilla Hamilton National Nuclear Security Administration, NA-212

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585

9-2
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons

Name and Title Affiliation and Address

Randy Howell National Nuclear Security Administration, NA-212

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585

Joe Kopacz, Student Iowa State University

4721 Greenbrier Drive

Davenport, IA 52807

Alfred Lembrich None given

Jim Leute Janesville Gazette

1 South Parker Drive

P.O. Box 5001

Janesville, WI 53547

Douglas Marklein, Janesville City Council City Council

City Hall

P.O. Box 5005

Janesville, WI 53547-5005

Bill McCoy None given

Tom Melius, Midwest Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

American Boulevard West, Suite 990

Bloomington, MN 55437-1458

Kenneth Meshigaud, Chairperson Hannahville Indian Community 

N14911 Hannahville B-1 Road

Wilson, MI 49896

Richard Miller None given

Joan Neeno St. Mary’s Janesville Hospital

3400 East Racine Street

Janesville, WI 53546

Reid Nelson, Director Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Office of Federal Agency Programs

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 803

Washington, DC 20004

Raymond New None given

Liana Onnen, Chairperson Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation 

16281 Q Road 

Mayetta, KS 66509

Myra Pearson, Tribal Chairperson Spirit Lake Tribe

P.O. Box 359 

Fort Totten, ND 58335

Cindy Pederson, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Region III

2443 Warrenville Road

Lisle, IL 60532

Janet Piraino District Director at U.S. Representative Mark Pocan

Madison District Office

10 East Doty Street

Suite 405 

Madison, WI 53703

Elizabeth Poole, Environmental Scientist NEPA Implementation Section

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

77 West Jackson Boulevard, E-19J

Chicago, IL 60604

9-3
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons

Name and Title Affiliation and Address

Gary Pratt, Chairman Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma

335588 East 750 Road

Perkins, OK 74059

Denny Prescott, President Lower Sioux Indian Community 

39527 Reservation Highway 1

P.O. Box 308 

Morton, MN 56270

Gale S. Price, Manager of Building and 

Development Services

Economic Development Department

18 North Jackson Street

P.O. Box 5005

Janesville, WI 53547-5005

Anthony Reider, President Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota

P.O. Box 238 

Flandreau, SD 57208

Bruce Renville, Tribal Chairman Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse 

Reservation

PO Box 509

Agency Village, SD 57262

Paul Schmidt, Manager Radiation Protection Section

Wisconsin Department of Health Services

P.O. Box 2659

Madison, WI 53701-2659

Joshua Smith, Administrator Rock County, Wisconsin

Rock County Courthouse

51 South Main Street

Janesville, WI 53545

Robert D. Spoden, Sheriff Rock County, Wisconsin 

200 E US Highway 14 

Janesville, WI 53545

George Thurman, Principal Chief Sac and Fox Nation 

Administration Building

920883 South Highway 99, Building A

Stroud, OK 74079

The National Organization of Test, Research, 

and Training Reactors (TRTR) Newsletter

TRTR Newsletter

University of Florida

Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences

202 Nuclear Sciences Center

Gainesville, FL 32611

Roger Trudell, Tribal Chairman Santee Sioux Nation 

425 Frazier Avenue North, Suite 2

Niobrara, NE 68760

Judy Roberts Vaugh None given

Tim Weber Webco, Inc., General Contractors and Forward 

Janesville

14 South Jackson Street, Suite 200

Janesville, WI 53548

Kenneth Westlake U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

77 West Jackson Boulevard, E-19J

Chicago, IL 60604

Mike Wiggins, Jr., Chairman Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians

P.O. Box 39

Odanah, WI 54861

9-4
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons

Name and Title Affiliation and Address

Bob Winding Mortenson Construction

10 East Doty Street

Madison, WI 53703

Michael Wolff Paxton and Vierling Steel 

501 Avenue H

Carter Lake, IA 51510

Jeff Zuelke None given

9-5

1 APPENDIX A

2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SHINE MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE

3 PRODUCTION FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

1 A. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SHINE MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE 

2 PRODUCTION FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

3 A.1 Comments Received During the Scoping Period

4 The scoping process for the environmental review of the construction permit application for the 

5 SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE 

6 facility) began on July 1, 2013, with the publication of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

7 Commission’s (NRC’s) Notice of Intent to conduct scoping in the Federal Register

8 (78 FR 39343). The scoping process included two public meetings held in 

9 Janesville, Wisconsin, on July 17, 2013. Approximately 60 people attended the meetings. After 

10 the NRC presented its prepared statements on the construction permit review process, the 

11 meetings were open for public comments. Attendees provided oral statements that were 

12 recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. A summary and transcripts of the 

13 scoping meetings are available through the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and 

14 Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at 

15 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The scoping meetings summary can be found 

16 under ADAMS No. ML13260A294. Transcripts for the afternoon and evening meetings can be 

17 found under ADAMS Nos. ML13260A280 and ML13260A281, respectively. In addition to 

18 comments that the NRC received during the public meetings, the agency also received 

19 comments electronically and through the mail.

20 Each commenter was given a unique identifier to allow every comment to be traced back to its 

21 author. Table A–1 identifies the individuals who provided comments and an ADAMS No. to 

22 identify the source document of the comments.

23 Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific 

24 objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues raised by commenters. 

25 Comments have been grouped into the following general categories:

26 • Specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of 

27 the NRC environmental regulations related to a construction permit. These 

28 comments address issues related to the construction, operations, and 

29 decommissioning of the SHINE facility. The comments also address 

30 alternatives to proposed action and related Federal actions.

31 • General comments in support of, or opposed to, the SHINE facility or 

32 comments regarding the construction permit process, the NRC’s regulations, 

33 and the regulatory process.

34 • Comments that address issues that do not fall within, or are specifically 

35 excluded from, the purview of NRC environmental regulations related to the 

36 construction permit process. These comments may address issues, such as 

37 emergency preparedness, security, and safety.

A-1
Appendix A

1 Table A–1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Scoping Comment Period

2 Each commenter is identified, along with an affiliation, if any, and the source of the comment.

Commenter Affiliation (if stated) ID Comment Source ADAMS No.

Dave Dobson None given 01 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280

Melissa Cook Forest County Potawatomi 

Community

02 Letter ML13224A164

Eric Heggelund Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources

03 Letter ML14045A298

Richard Henning None given 04 Letter ML13233A023

Al Lembrich None given 05 Letter ML13233A022

Douglas Marklein Janesville City Council 06 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280

Bill McCoy None given 07 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280

Richard Miller None given 08 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280

Janet Piraino Congressman Mark Pocan 09 Afternoon Transcript ML13260A280

Jamie Stout None given 10 Letter ML13263A012

Kenneth Westlake U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

11 Letter ML13238A121

3 Comments that are general or outside the scope of the SHINE facility environmental review are 

4 not included here but appear in the Scoping Summary Report (ADAMS No. ML15062A111). To 

5 maintain consistency with the Scoping Summary Report, Appendix A retains the unique 

6 identifiers used in that report for each comment. The Scoping Summary Report provides the 

7 comments addressed in this Appendix A in their original form at the end of the report.

8 The NRC staff placed comments received during the scoping comment period applicable to this 

9 environmental review into categories based on topics in the environmental impact statement. 

10 These categories are listed in Table A–2.

11 Table A–2. Issue Categories

Technical Issues

Accidents

Air Quality

Alternatives

Ecological Resources

Geologic Environment

Historic and Cultural Resources

Human Health

Land Use 

Transportation

Water Resources

Waste Management

12 The following pages contain the comments, identified by the commenter’s identification and 

13 comment number, and the NRC staff’s response. Comments are presented in the same order 

14 as listed in Table A–2.

A-2
Appendix A

1 Accidents 

2 Comments:

3 01-2: My only other concern would have to do with the issue of aircraft landing because the site 

4 is very close to the airport, planes coming in to land at Rock County airport. It is important to 

5 make sure that the facility is built in such a way that nothing serious would happen in terms of 

6 any kind of radioactive release if the largest airplane that’s going to land at the airport were to 

7 crash right into the building. So that is one of the important considerations there.

8 05-3: There is a matter that the FFA [FAA] may have concerns with the proximity, size, type & 

9 use of this proposed Shine building, considering the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and 

10 its runways being right across the street. Even though its runways may not be directly in line 

11 with the proposed building, many airport crashes occur where the airplanes veer off the runway 

12 to either left or right of the runway. Additional concerns would be the height of the proposed 

13 building possibly impeding line of sight for pilots. Would the proposed building withstand a large 

14 cargo or other large plane that could crash into it due to some malfunction, and cause release of 

15 contaminated material and cause environmental dangers?

16 05-13: The local citizens have concerns and possibly the FFA [FAA] with the Shine building 

17 location, height and its uranium content being right across the street from the Southern 

18 Wisconsin Regional Airport and its runways. There are possibilities of an airplane crash and 

19 potential uranium exposure or contamination from a demolished building and its contents. 

20 Could there be an impediment to pilot's line of sight in evaluating their approach to land? Is the 

21 height of Shine's building too high and raise the risk of a plane strike when something goes 

22 wrong with the resulting environmental concerns?

23 05-15: The large Seneca Foods canning company and its processing of vegetables is located 

24 just to the North/East, down-wind of the Shine site. There are hundreds of acres of farm crops 

25 that they harvest from this entire nearby area for their plant. Any accident, leakages, or 

26 contaminations to air, water, land could be very harmful to the editable crops, the entire food 

27 chain and to this business. The present environment could be greatly threatened.

28 07-1: Number one, the airport issue that was just brought up is how the building is going to be 

29 done, what protection are we going to have. What if we have some idiot wants to fly into it like 

30 we’ve had in other places, you know. I mean I’ve done helicopters when I was in Vietnam. 

31 Anything could happen. Anything. So even a plane motor can fall off and land into it and bust it 

32 all to pieces. What protection are we going to have from a leakage with that uranium because 

33 we’ve also got the farms out there. We also got Seneca right down the road here, which is less 

34 than a mile and a half from where we are sitting right now. They have fields across the 

35 highway. They’ve got fields out towards the Blackhawk Tech and all this over here that if the 

36 fumes that would go over that would destroy those crops from being put in that particular time of 

37 need. So we’ve got to think about it. Seneca also wants the addition over here. Right, City 

38 Council members? So we’re going to have to worry about that because that is one thing that we 

39 are very concerned about.

40 11-7: The Draft EIS should discuss facility and system features to ensure safety and minimize 

41 off-site releases in the event of an accident or other unanticipated event.

42 Response:

43 These comments express concerns regarding potential accidents from aircraft or other 

44 radiological exposures caused by accidents or leaks. One comment also expressed concern on

45 the potential impact from the facility on pilots and aircraft coming to and from the Southern 

46 Wisconsin Regional Airport.

A-3
Appendix A

1 Section 4.11 of the environmental impact statement (EIS) discusses the environmental impacts 

2 associated with potential radiological and hazardous chemical accidents that might occur at the 

3 proposed SHINE facility. The term “accident,” as used in this EIS, refers to any off-normal event 

4 that releases radioactive or hazardous chemicals into the environment that may affect facility 

5 workers and members of the public.

6 Potential initiating events and credible operational accidents for the proposed SHINE facility 

7 constitute the design-basis accidents. In its Environmental Report, SHINE considered the 

8 impacts of an aircraft collision as a design-basis accident. In Section 4.11, however, the NRC

9 staff considers the potential impacts from the maximum hypothetical accident as the basis for 

10 the analysis of environmental impact from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility. 

11 The maximum hypothetical accident considers a potential accident that would result in the same 

12 or higher radiological exposures as a credible design-basis accident, such as an aircraft 

13 collision with the SHINE facility or another accident that could result in radioactive releases. 

14 Therefore, the analysis in this EIS considers the potential exposures from accidents that would 

15 result in the same or higher exposures as that from an aircraft collision. 

16 SHINE determined that the calculated doses for the maximum hypothetical accident at the 

17 proposed SHINE facility would be within the annual dose limits of 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) 

18 in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 20.1301 to a member of the public. 

19 Section 4.11 describes various ways in which SHINE would minimize radioactive releases in 

20 case of an accident. As described in Section 4.11, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough 

21 independent review of the potential dose to the public from the maximum hypothetical accident. 

22 The NRC staff’s safety evaluation report (SER) will document this independent evaluation. 

23 Assuming that the NRC staff determines in its SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within 

24 the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential 

25 radiological accidents, including aircraft collisions, would be SMALL.

26 In addition, see A.1.7, Human Health, for a discussion of potential radiological exposures to the 

27 public during normal operations. 

28 As described in Appendix B of the EIS, SHINE must meet the requirements of several other 

29 Federal agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The NRC staff notes that

30 the FAA’s review of the SHINE project is outside the scope of the NRC’s environmental review. 

31 However, for the purpose of responding to this comment, the NRC staff provides the following 

32 information. As described in the Environmental Report, SHINE submitted structure evaluation 

33 requests to the FAA on October 26, 2011. The purpose of this request was to ensure that the 

34 building heights and other facility components met FAA’s regulations and requirements, given 

35 the proximity of the proposed SHINE site to the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. The FAA 

36 issued “Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation to SHINE” on November 9 and 15, 2011.

37 Air Quality

38 Comment:

39 03-3: A review regarding an air permit should be thoroughly examined by the project 

40 proponents. The project involves the addition of at least one stationary source (the stand-by 

41 emergency diesel generator). SHINE is evaluating the eligibility of this stationary source for a 

42 Type A Registration Permit. At this time, further review regarding the air permit applicability is 

43 required, per s. NR 405, 406, and 407 Wisconsin Administrative Code.

44 Response:

45 This comment describes the types of air permits that SHINE could require from the Wisconsin 

46 Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). As described in Section 4.2, SHINE would be 

A-4
Appendix A

1 required to comply with any Federal and State air quality requirements and operate within the 

2 limitations stipulated within any Federal or State permits.

3 Comment:

4 11-1:

5 • EPA notes that both diesel and natural gas are identified as fuel sources in 

6 the ER. The draft EIS should include why two sources are necessary. 

7 Further, we recommend SHINE consider the use of renewable energy 

8 sources either in lieu of or to supplement the proposed diesel and natural gas 

9 sources. If SHINE or NRC dismisses the use of alternative energy sources, 

10 the draft EIS should state why.

11 Response:

12 The comment suggests that the draft EIS should discuss why diesel and natural gas sources 

13 are necessary and for SHINE to consider the use of renewable energy sources. As discussed 

14 in Section 4.2 of the EIS, during construction and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE 

15 facility, diesel equipment is needed for construction and decommissioning; furthermore, 

16 natural-gas-fired heaters and one boiler would be needed to meet heating and hot water 

17 requirements for the proposed SHINE facility. The NRC staff notes that it is beyond the 

18 agency’s regulatory authority to require SHINE to utilize alternative energy sources. 

19 Nonetheless, as discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIS and the Environmental Report, SHINE 

20 plans to implement programs, where practical, to promote energy efficiency and conservation at 

21 the SHINE facility, install solar panels and/or purchase electricity generated from renewable 

22 energy sources (SHINE 2013a), and implement diesel emissions reduction techniques. 

23 Comment:

24 11-5:

25 • The draft EIS should describe how diesel emissions will be minimized 

26 throughout construction and decommissioning of the facility. EPA suggests 

27 the following diesel emission reduction techniques be employed to further 

28 minimize impacts:

29 − Using low-sulfur diesel fuel (15 parts per million sulfur maximum) in 

30 construction vehicles and equipment.

31 − Retrofitting engines with an exhaust filtration device to capture diesel 

32 particulate matter before it enters the construction site.

33 − Positioning the exhaust pipe so that diesel fumes are directed away from 

34 the operator and nearby workers, thereby reducing the fume 

35 concentration to which personnel are exposed.

36 − Using catalytic converters to reduce carbon monoxide, aldehydes, and 

37 hydrocarbons in diesel fumes. These devices must be used with low 

38 sulfur fuels.

39 − Ventilating wherever diesel equipment operates indoors at the Meredosia 

40 and injection well sites. Roof vents, open doors and windows, roof fans, 

41 or other mechanical systems help move fresh air through work areas. As 

42 buildings under construction are gradually enclosed, remember that 

43 fumes from diesel equipment operating indoors can build up to dangerous 

44 levels without adequate ventilation.

A-5
Appendix A

1 − Attaching a hose to the tailpipe of diesel vehicles running indoors and 

2 exhaust the fumes outside, where they cannot re-enter the workplace. 

3 Inspect hoses regularly for defects and damage.

4 − Using enclosed, climate-controlled cabs pressurized and equipped with 

5 high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters to reduce the operators’ 

6 exposure to diesel fumes. Pressurization ensures that air moves from 

7 inside to outside. HEPA filters ensure that any incoming air is filtered 

8 first.

9 − Regularly maintaining diesel engines, which is essential to keep exhaust 

10 emissions low. Follow the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance 

11 schedule and procedures. Smoke color can signal the need for 

12 maintenance. For example, blue/black smoke indicates that an engine 

13 requires servicing or tuning.

14 − Reducing exposure through work practices and training, such as turning 

15 off engines when vehicles are stopped for more than a few minutes, 

16 training diesel equipment operators to perform routine inspection, and 

17 maintaining filtration devices.

18 − Purchasing new vehicles that are equipped with the most advanced 

19 emission control systems available.

20 − Using electric starting aids, such as block heaters, with older vehicles to 

21 warm the engine reduces diesel emissions.

22 − Using respirators, which are only an interim measure to control exposure 

23 to diesel emissions. In most cases, an N95 respirator is adequate. 

24 Workers must be trained and fit-tested before they wear respirators. 

25 Depending on work being conducted, and if oil is present, concentrations 

26 of particulates present will determine the efficiency and type of mask and 

27 respirator. Personnel familiar with the selection, care, and use of 

28 respirators must perform the fit testing. Respirators must bear a National 

29 Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approval number. 

30 Never use paper masks or surgical masks without NIOSH approval 

31 numbers.

32 Response:

33 The comment suggests that the draft EIS should describe how diesel emissions would be 

34 minimized throughout construction and decommissioning of the facility and provides 

35 suggestions on how SHINE could minimize diesel emissions. 

36 The NRC staff notes that it is beyond the agency’s regulatory authority to require or implement 

37 mitigation measures to minimize diesel emissions. Nonetheless, as described in Section 4.2 of 

38 the EIS and in SHINE’s request for additional information response (SHINE 2013b), SHINE 

39 plans to implement the following diesel emissions reduction techniques, where practical:

40 (1) Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 parts per million sulfur maximum) will be used in the 

41 diesel equipment.

42 (2) Exhaust filtration devices (diesel oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate matter filters, 

43 and/or catalytic converters) will be used.

44 (3) Diesel fumes from exhaust pipes will be directed away from workers and operators of 

45 equipment.

A-6
Appendix A

1 (4) New diesel equipment that is purchased will have the required emission control 

2 systems.

3 (5) Engine idling time will be minimized.

4 (6) Diesel equipment inspection and necessary maintenance will be performed to ensure 

5 proper condition of the exhaust filtration devices.

6 (7) Contractor(s) will be responsible for implementing diesel equipment recommended 

7 maintenance, procedures, and periodic checks to ensure that emissions are kept

8 low.

9 (8) Diesel equipment that operates indoors will be vented to the outside using fitted 

10 hoses or portable ductwork.

11 Alternatives 

12 Comments:

13 05-9: In British Columbia, engineers and other experts have successfully developed medical 

14 isotopes using a cyclotron. These isotopes for scans can be created by in hospital run 

15 cyclotrons, eliminating transportation dangers and the rush to hospital due to short use life. 

16 Would not that be safer and healthier from production, to transportation, and to actual use on a 

17 patient and even for disposal? Why would not the NRC curtail the unnecessary use of uranium

18 for a better, cleaner, and healthier environment? Why would you even grant any medical 

19 isotope licenses to any who would use uranium processed isotopes without fail safe methods 

20 and procedures all through the process?

21 The North Star isotope facility in Beloit, Wi., 12 miles from Janesville, will be producing medical 

22 isotopes with a different process within a year of two, from what I read. Would it not make more 

23 sense to regionalize as to site locations of the four companies planning to produce isotopes in 

24 the U.S.? To not bunch them up? Transportation and timing would be much more efficient. So 

25 why would the NRC approve an already outdated process that Shine proposes? The North Star 

26 site is ahead of Shine. In my opinion, Shine took the wrong course in going the current uranium

27 route. The Arizona proven process and North Star took the better route. Don’t feel sorry for 

28 Shine Medical Technologies, some technologies succeed, some do not.

29 05-19: Why have two medical isotope places (North star & Shine) within 12 miles of each 

30 other? With the processed products short life and needed short transportation times, would it 

31 not make more sense to allow four regional sites, spaced across the country, because I 

32 understand there are four isotope companies planning sites and operations now? Other sites 

33 that Shine had looked at would be much better & safer in my opinion.

34 07-7: They’ve got other sites they have looked at. Now why didn’t they take one of those other 

35 sites?

36 08-1: Actually, I was coming across a comment on—I saw an article in Popular Science. They 

37 were talking about using, in Canada, where they use these isotopes and make it [in] a hospital. 

38 And I thought is this going to be effective somewhere down the line, but when Mr. Mackey 

39 actually explained to us, well, it’s completely different, but it’s just a point that is this facility, five 

40 years down the road, going to go bust. In other words, technologies change.

41 Response:

42 These comments suggest alternative technologies or alternative sites to produce 

43 molybdenum-99.

A-7
Appendix A

1 Chapter 5 of the EIS describes alternatives to granting a construction permit for the proposed 

2 SHINE facility, including alternative sites (Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point) and an alternative 

3 technology (linear-accelerator-based), and the environmental impacts of those alternatives. The 

4 need to compare the proposed action with alternatives arises from the requirements in the 

5 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the 

6 NRC regulations implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 50); and the final interim staff guidance in

7 NUREG–1537 (NRC 2012), which states that the EIS will include an analysis that considers and 

8 weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

9 alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

10 environmental effects.

11 The decision to produce radioisotopes is at the discretion of applicants (NRC 2012), such as 

12 SHINE. Similarly, the NRC does not have a role in the planning decisions as to whether a 

13 particular medical radioisotope production facility should be constructed and operated.

14 Therefore, it is beyond the NRC’s regulatory authority to require an applicant to construct a 

15 facility at a specific location or to use a specified technology.

16 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a cooperating agency on the EIS (NRC 2015). If the 

17 NRC issues the required permits and licenses, the proposed Federal action for the DOE 

18 National Nuclear Security Administration is to decide whether to provide additional cost-sharing 

19 financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate the commercial 

20 production of medical radioisotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium. The funding 

21 would help accelerate activities such as construction, purchase of equipment, and initial 

22 operation using a subcritical fission process.

23 Ecological Resources 

24 Comment:

25 03-1: SHINE submitted an Endangered Resources Review (ER Log #12-020) request on 

26 January 19, 2012, to the WDNR Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation (formerly known as 

27 the Bureau of Endangered Resources) for their proposed facility location in Janesville. The 

28 purpose of the review is to obtain information on rare plants and animals, including state and 

29 federally listed species, high quality natural communities, and other endangered resources that 

30 may be impacted by the project. The review also includes recommendations to help projects 

31 comply with Wisconsin’s Endangered Species Law (Wis. Stats. 29.604), the Federal 

32 Endangered Species Act, and other laws and regulations protecting endangered resources. 

33 The review concluded that no action would be needed to avoid impacts to rare or sensitive 

34 species or communities. The current condition of the property as an active agricultural field far 

35 from any wetlands, water, or buffer areas makes it unsuitable habitat for any listed species or 

36 natural communities located in the area.

37 Response:

38 This comment describes the rare plants and animals, including State and Federally listed 

39 species, high-quality natural communities, and other endangered resources, that could occur on 

40 the proposed SHINE site. As described in the comment and in Section 4.5 of the EIS, the 

41 proposed SHINE site is an active agricultural field and provides unsuitable habitat for any State 

42 or Federally listed animals.

A-8
Appendix A

1 Geologic Environment 

2 Comment:

3 05-7: How deep will the building excavation be? How much of the building be below ground 

4 level?

5 Response:

6 This comment is asking how deep SHINE would excavate and what portion of the building 

7 would occur below ground. As described in Section 4.3.1 and based on the preliminary design, 

8 construction of the Production Facility Building would require excavation to a depth of 39 feet 

9 (12 meters). Utility routings and other foundation slabs and footings would require excavation to 

10 a depth of about 5 feet (1.5 meters). A portion of the Production Facility Building would be 

11 located below ground.

12 Historic and Cultural Resources 

13 Comment:

14 02-1: As this project occurs within Potawatomi ancestral and previously occupied lands, we 

15 would like to express our concerns with any impacts to historic and cultural properties located 

16 within the project area of potential effect for the project mentioned above.

17 We appreciate receiving results of an archival review, cultural resource investigation studies, 

18 and archaeological reports. Should there be an impact or effect to cultural or historic properties 

19 as a result of this project, we will request consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National 

20 Historic Preservation Act, as amended.

21 Response:

22 This comment expresses concerns regarding impacts to historic and cultural properties located 

23 within the project area. The comment also asks to be kept informed of any related reports or 

24 studies.

25 As described in Section 4.6 of the EIS, there are no known historic properties under 

26 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and cultural resources located within the area of potential effect 

27 on the proposed SHINE site. The NRC staff has attempted to contact representatives of the 

28 Forest County Potawatomi to discuss the undertaking. The last attempt to contact the Forest 

29 County Potawatomi was in February 2015.

30 Human Health 

31 Comments:

32 05-2: This proposed site is less than ,06 [.06] of a mile South of a Trailer Court. Potential 

33 Environmental risks causes those residents concern about any planned or unplanned release of 

34 any dangerous or contaminated airborne emissions from the site, and being carried by normal 

35 Southerly or S/W winds directly over the nearby trailer court. There is also the potential risk of 

36 fire or explosion or other accidents that could pose a danger to the nearby residents at the 

37 Trailer Court. This location appears contrary to NRC desires that uranium facilities of all kinds 

38 be located outside of cities and in more remote areas to reduce dangers, hazardous exposures,

39 and protect the public from such exposures and more easily protect the environment and 

40 humans.

A-9
Appendix A

1 05-4: There are a number of other environmental concerns. One involves nearby high quality 

2 agriculture land and its following food chain. There is the large Macfarlane Pheasant farm and 

3 meat processing facility approximately less than a mile to the North. Any releases of hazardous 

4 materials, particles, or radiation emissions could cause great harm to his business and to those 

5 who may eat contaminated products before receiving knowledge of it.

6 There is also much high quality farm land to the East of the proposed Shine site, where 

7 hundreds of acres of corn and other crops are raised and harvested for & by the canning 

8 company Senica Foods. They have a large nearby processing plant in town, just to the 

9 North/East, down wind of the proposed site. Any leak of hazardous material or waste like 

10 uranium contaminated material or air particles could be a disaster to important food production, 

11 for who knows how long. There could also be ground and ground water contamination from 

12 hidden or undiscovered leakage of hazardous materials, like radiation or uranium products or 

13 waste.

14 05-12: The occupied Trailer Court, is less than .06 of a mile down-wind from the Shine site. If 

15 there should be any fire, explosion, leaks or accident’s with dangerous or contaminated airborne 

16 emission releases or other waste from the site, that could pose potential dangers and risks to 

17 those residing downwind in this nearby Trailer Court. That's a potential environmental risk.

18 05-14: Other environmental concerns involve risks to the food chain. There is a large pheasant 

19 farm and it's meat processing plant less than a mile to the North and downwind of the Shine 

20 site. Release of hazardous materials, airborne harmful particles or radiation emissions could 

21 cause great harm to feed, pheasants, their business and loss of jobs, and potential 

22 contamination of the food supply for human consumption.

23 07-4: That’s another thing we've got to worry about folks, our food chain. We also got the 

24 pheasant farm right across the road from there. That stuff gets on feathers. You think that man 

25 is going to be able to sell his pheasants? I don't think so. How do we know how much 

26 contamination? What does this give us, 72 hours? Well, how do we know it’s not already in 

27 their system? Now, I did have a hard thing up in Madison at the VA. I don’t know what it was, 

28 but I know I was allergic to it. It caused me problems. But I didn’t ask what it was. They told 

29 me it’s similar to what this was and I said that’s close to what this is and he says well, it’s 

30 similar. I said well, you know something, if I’m allergic, how many more of these other people 

31 might be allergic to it accidentally?

32 Response: 

33 These comments express concerns regarding radiological and nonradiological exposures to 

34 workers and the public as a result of operations of the SHINE facility. Section 4.8 of the EIS

35 provides the NRC’s assessment of the potential radiological and nonradiological effects from the 

36 proposed SHINE facility.

37 As described in Section 4.8 of the EIS, radiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility 

38 would include offsite doses to members of the public and onsite doses to facility workers. 

39 SHINE determined that the maximum dose to a member of the public would be within the 

40 annual dose limits of 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) in 10 CFR 20.1301. Further, the NRC staff is 

41 conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from operations of 

42 the SHINE facility. The NRC staff’s SER will document this independent evaluation. Assuming 

43 that the NRC staff determines in its SER that the maximum dose to workers and the public is 

44 within the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential 

45 radiological exposures would be SMALL. In addition, the design of the facility incorporates 

46 measures to minimize radiation exposure to workers and members of the public by limiting the 

47 release of radioactive gaseous effluents; SHINE would operate the proposed facility in 

A-10
Appendix A

1 accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements; and the 

2 NRC has the authority to issue, inspect, and enforce radiation protection standards.

3 Nonradiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility to workers and members of the 

4 public would be regulated by the State of Wisconsin in accordance with the Wisconsin 

5 Administrative Code. In addition, SHINE would manage and minimize nonradiological 

6 exposures by complying with Occupational Safety and Health Administration and State of 

7 Wisconsin regulations and by using multiple planned features (e.g., facility design, Chemical 

8 Hygiene Plan, supervision, training, and protective equipment). Therefore, the NRC staff 

9 concludes, in Section 4.8 of this EIS, that nonradiological impacts to workers and members of 

10 the public during routine facility operations would be SMALL.

11 In addition, see Section A.1.1, Accidents, for a discussion of potential impacts to the public 

12 during a maximum hypothetical accident and Section A.1.8, Land Use, for a discussion of 

13 potential impacts to land use, such as agricultural lands. 

14 Land Use 

15 Comments:

16 05-1: First, in your material on this, the NRC presented incorrect important information, on 

17 page 4, by stating the proposed Shine facility would be located approximately four miles south 

18 of Janesville, Wisconsin. This site is within the Janesville city limits, on land purchased by the 

19 city and connected to other city tax incremental financing district land.

20 05-11: The NRC information mailed out was incorrect by stating the proposed Shine site would 

21 be located approximately 4 miles South of Janesville, WI. The fact is, it will be within the city 

22 limits of Janesville. I understood the NRC preferred sites that were away from population, 

23 animal, crops and food chain sources and operations, was I wrong?

24 07-8: How close is it? Now there’s a pamphlet that we received from the NRC which I’ve 

25 already discussed with an individual here, that was this thing that said this thing was four miles 

26 outside of the City of Janesville. Well, it’s not. It might be from the center of town four miles.

27 Response:

28 The comments express concern regarding the correct distance between the proposed SHINE

29 site and the City of Janesville. As described in the EIS, the proposed SHINE site is 

30 approximately 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) from the center of the City of Janesville.

31 In addition, see A.1.7, Human Health, and Section 4.8 of the EIS, for a discussion of potential 

32 radiological exposures to the public and regulatory protections that limit radiological exposures 

33 to the public. Also, see Section A.1.3, Alternatives, and Chapter 5 of this EIS for a discussion of 

34 alternatives considered. 

35 Transportation 

36 Comment:

37 11-6: The Draft EIS should identify any traffic management or infrastructure improvements to 

38 US Highway 51 that will be required to handle increased capacity of truck and employee traffic. 

39 Any improvements and resultant impacts should be considered connected actions.

40 The Draft EIS should indicate whether SHINE intends to use the adjacent Southern Wisconsin 

41 Regional Airport as a means of shipping and receiving materials. If yes, any improvements to 

42 the airport should be disclosed and considered connected actions.

A-11
Appendix A

1 Response:

2 The comments express concern regarding potential environmental impacts from traffic

3 management or infrastructure improvements on U.S. Highway 51 and at the Southern 

4 Wisconsin Regional Airport. As described in Section 4.10 of the EIS, SHINE plans to use 

5 staggered work shift schedules to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to 

6 schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion. Although traffic 

7 signal timing could be optimized to further enhance traffic flow, no modifications to the 

8 transportation infrastructure would be required.

9 Section 4.10 of the EIS also describes SHINE’s estimate to transport up to 39 monthly medical 

10 isotope shipments. Most of these shipments would be by air through the Southern Wisconsin 

11 Regional Airport.

12 Water Resources 

13 Comments: 

14 05-5: Water use concerns: Senica [Seneca] Foods is in the process of enlarging and already 

15 using a very large unknown amount of water in million of gallons and will be using much more 

16 after enlarging their processing of vegetables production. Now Shine alone, indicates it will use 

17 about 6600 gallons per day or 2,409,000 gallons per year. Both of these businesses may 

18 threaten our well water & pumping resources in the summer. We have at least two city wells 

19 that have high levels of nitrates that can’t be used for drinking alone and in recent news Rock 

20 County has just experienced a huge increase of nitrate in wells throughout the County. Where 

21 will we get good drinking water? Last year many area wells went dry according to news reports.

22 We must preserve our water and other natural resources and address environmental concerns.

23 05-16: There are water use concerns. Shines indicates it would use approximately 6,600 

24 gallons of water per day, that amounts to 2,409,000 gallons per year. The nearby Seneca 

25 Foods uses even much higher amounts of water as well, and will be expanding and using more 

26 water yet. The large water use may threaten our water resources and even pumping capacities 

27 during the hot summer. We need to preserve our drinking water resources.

28 07-2: Now our water. All the wells that we have here in this community are drinking water in 

29 this community. This is something that’s also in here with Al’s. We’ve got a well right across 

30 the little bit of a pond right here. We’ve got another one across the road. We’ve got another 

31 one right over here on the corner. And we’ve already had some problems with some nitrogen 

32 problems and everything with some of our water wells around here. Well, you know, we don’t 

33 want no uranium problems because you don’t know how far that thing is going to seep down in 

34 our ground.

35 The gentleman said where he was at said that 21 something that’s supposed to have a water 

36 well up there. Well, wait a minute. Last we was told, there is no water well is now to be drilled 

37 up there. That would contaminate our water. Enough is enough is said about that. You want to 

38 contaminate our water?

39 Response: These comments express concern regarding groundwater use, drinking water 

40 availability, and groundwater quality. One comment also expresses concern regarding SHINE’s 

41 drilling of onsite wells. 

42 Section 4.4 of the EIS describes the potential impacts to water use and quality and Section 

43 4.13.4 of the EIS describes the potential cumulative impacts from other water users on water 

44 use and quality. In section 4.4.2, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater 

45 hydrology, quality, and use from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

A-12
Appendix A

1 SHINE facility would be SMALL. SHINE would not use onsite groundwater during construction, 

2 operations, and decommissioning. Instead, SHINE would obtain water from the City of 

3 Janesville Water Utility water treatment plant. Total water use during operations is projected to 

4 be 6,073 gallons per day (22,990 liters per day), or 0.006 million gallons per day (23 cubic 

5 meters per day). The water treatment plant has a treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd 

(72,290 m3

/day) with an average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd (54,900 m3 6 /day). Thus, the 

7 incremental contribution of influent from the proposed SHINE facility is a very small percentage 

8 (i.e., 0.13 percent) of the available treatment capacity and would not affect the water treatment 

9 plant’s ability to provide for the treatment of other current or reasonably foreseeable residential, 

10 commercial, and industrial dischargers to the water treatment plant.

11 As also described in Section 4.4.2, the NRC staff expects that construction, operations, and 

12 decommissioning would not have any impact on local groundwater quality because of the depth 

13 of groundwater and provisions for proper design and construction of the facility site’s stormwater

14 management and drainage system. SHINE has stated that all equipment and material storage 

15 areas would comply with appropriate regulations requiring secondary containment of stored 

16 liquids and materials to prevent their release where such materials could contaminate site soils 

17 or stormwater runoff, or infiltrate to contaminate groundwater. There would be no discharge of 

18 effluents to the subsurface at the site. SHINE installed onsite groundwater monitoring wells to 

19 determine the depth to groundwater, and onsite groundwater wells would not be used to 

20 withdraw groundwater. 

21 Comments:

22 03-2: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Construction Site and Industrial Storm 

23 Water Discharge Permitting, NR 216, Wisconsin Administrative Code:

24 As described in Subchapter III of NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code, landowners of construction projects 

25 where one or more acres of land will be disturbed must obtain a WPDES [Wisconsin Pollutant 

26 Discharge Elimination System] Construction Site Storm Water Discharge Permit. A Water 

27 Resources Application for Project Permits (WRAPP) 

28 (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/construction/forms.html) and applicable fee must be 

29 submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at least 14 working days before 

30 construction will begin. Permittees must develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a 

31 Storm Water Management Plan describing the best management practices that will be 

32 implemented on-site. Weekly on-site inspections throughout the duration of the project and 

33 after storm water events are also required.

34 Additionally, industrial facilities that must obtain industrial storm water discharge permit 

35 coverage are listed in NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code, Subchapter II. The determination of whether 

36 an industrial facility must obtain storm water discharge permit coverage is based both on the 

37 facility’s Standards Industrial Classification (SIC) code and whether or not the facility has the 

38 potential to contaminate storm water. Permitted facilities must develop a site-specific Storm 

39 Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The goal of this plan is to encourage source-area 

40 control through identification of a storm water pollution prevention individual, site-specific best 

41 management practices, and implementation schedules to help decrease the amount of 

42 contaminated storm water runoff from a facility. Some industrial facilities may also be required 

43 to conduct annual chemical monitoring for pollutants in runoff from their sites. Facilities with 

44 discharges composed entirely of storm water and at which there is no exposure of industrial 

45 materials and activities to storm water, may qualify for a Conditional No Exposure Exclusion, as 

46 detailed in s. NR 216.21(3). Industrial Notice of Intent and No Exposure Certification forms can 

47 be found online at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/industrial/forms.html and shall be submitted 

A-13
Appendix A

1 to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at the same time as the construction site 

2 WRAPP (at least 14 working days prior to expected start of construction).

3 07-6: Our water, our environmental. They say that they’re not going to have to use our 

4 stormwater sewage. Well, where is that stuff going to go to if it’s on their property, it’s going to 

5 have to run somewhere? It’s sure not going to run and stay on their land. You’re going to have 

6 roads there. It’s going to be running down the roads right down through everything, right? How 

7 do we know they ain’t going to leak?

8 Response:

9 The first comment describes the types of construction and industrial stormwater discharge 

10 permits that SHINE must obtain. The second comment expresses concern regarding the 

11 potential environmental impacts from stormwater sewage and other runoff. As described in 

12 Section 4.4 of the EIS, SHINE would be required to perform all activities in accordance with the 

13 Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff (WPDES Permit 

14 No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013). SHINE would be required to prepare a site-specific plan 

15 that details stormwater pollution prevention measures. In accordance with this permit, these 

16 measures would be required to include proper management of all construction materials and 

17 chemicals to prevent them from being exposed to, and conveyed by, stormwater to waters of 

18 the State. The permit would explicitly require the development of spill prevention and response 

19 procedures, such as measures to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of fuels and other 

20 materials from construction equipment and activities. Wastewater from the SHINE facility would 

21 be conveyed to the City of Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant through a sanitary sewer line.

22 Waste Management 

23 Comments: 

24 05-6: Now the second part, where will Shine’s hazardous waste and all those 2,409,000 gallons 

25 of salt brine/uranium waste water go, much of it contaminated water? What kind of monitoring 

26 systems will be required for leaks and waste filtering and radon levels in all areas, including all 

27 waste products, as well as incoming uranium sources? How can they filter out all the salt brine 

28 and the trace uranium from the waste water? We can’t drain all this inferior water into the Rock 

29 River and contaminate our sewage disposal system and underground water supplies. Has a 

30 study been down on the depth and capacities of our underground water supply and aquifer 

31 levels? How far down beneath the building site does one reach the first water table? How far 

32 down to the second water table?

33 Who is responsible for site clean up, should an accident take place and contaminate the entire 

34 site? What if Shine would just pick up and leave? Can the site be cleaned up say after ten 

35 years use, so that the site can safely be used for any other purpose? How much contaminated 

36 waste water or material can be accepted and stored on site and for how long? Shine has said it 

37 will be using a salt brine in their accelerators in conjunction with uranium. There is great 

38 concern that this will quickly cause great dangerous erosion/corrosion to all elements and cause 

39 further damage disposing waste salt water with uranium contaminated water. These two 

40 products together presents and accelerates all the dangers resulting from corrosion caused by 

41 salt brine.

42 05-17: Shine's use of salt brine within the accelerators with uranium appears very risky, with 

43 the increased corrosion dangers of salt brine and expected leaks. Shine says they clean them 

44 every 5 1⁄2 days. How do they clean them and what products can they use to clean them? 

45 Where does all the waste water and salt brine water go? How is that water safely cleaned or 

46 filtered?

A-14
Appendix A

1 07-3: What are we going to do with the water which is the—this stuff is put into the accelerators 

2 which is done by a salt brine. They’re going to have tanks there to haul this stuff away. It’s my 

3 understanding they had some tanks similar to that up in Pennsylvania or Connecticut or 

4 somewhere just recently that NRC had to go and check on something about them leaking. Well, 

5 these things will have to be hauled out of here. They’ve got to be hauled down to Arizona and 

6 Texas. Wait a minute here, folks. We got not only changes to worry about, we’ve got this stuff 

7 being hauled all over across the country and where did it come from? Janesville, Wisconsin.

8 Response:

9 These comments express concern regarding the disposal of nonradiological and radiological 

10 waste that would be generated at the SHINE facility and potential exposure from the generation 

11 of nonradiological and radiological waste. Section 4.9 of the EIS describes the waste 

12 management programs for radiological waste. In this section, the NRC staff concludes that 

13 nonradiological and radioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable 

14 Federal and State regulatory requirements based on SHINE’s proposed waste management 

15 systems; engineered designs features to minimize radioactive contamination; and the NRC’s, 

16 the Department of Transportation’s, and State of Wisconsin’s radiation protection requirements. 

17 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts from radiological waste would be SMALL 

18 during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

19 As described in Section 2.7 of the EIS, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, a licensed 

20 production or utilization facility that permanently ceases operations shall submit a 

21 decommissioning report. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.33(k) requires that a report indicate how 

22 reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the facility.

23 In addition, see A.1.7, Human Health, and Section 4.8 of the EIS for a discussion of potential 

24 radiological exposures to the public during construction, operations, and decommissioning. In 

25 addition, see Section 4.8 of the EIS for a discussion of water use and discharges during 

26 construction, operations, and decommissioning. 

27 Comment:

28 03-4: SHINE has indicated that they will submit a notification of exemption from State 

29 regulations regarding treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste under Wis. 

30 Stats. 291, Wis. Admin. NR 660 and Wis. Admin. NR 662 for waste generated and managed 

31 under an NRC license.

32 Response:

33 The comment suggests that SHINE will submit a notification of exemption from the State 

34 regarding the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. In Section 2.7.2 of the EIS, 

35 the NRC staff states that SHINE does not intend to treat or permanently store hazardous wastes 

36 on site. SHINE would dispose of hazardous wastes generated at the facility at a licensed 

37 hazardous waste disposal site. Because SHINE will not store or treat hazardous wastes on site, 

38 it will not require a hazardous waste treatment or storage permit under the Resource 

39 Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).

40 Comment:11-2: 

41 • The Draft EIS should describe how the facility will comply with Underground 

42 Storage Tanks (UST) regulations under the Resource Conservation and 

43 Recovery Act (RCRA) for underground storage of fuel.

A-15
Appendix A

1 Response:

2 This comment questions how SHINE will comply with underground storage tank regulations 

3 under RCRA for underground storage of fuel. As described in Sections 2.7 and 4.9.2 of the EIS, 

4 SHINE would implement management systems to control, handle, process, store, and transport 

5 nonradioactive materials and waste generated during construction, operations, and 

6 decommissioning. The NRC staff expects that these management systems would ensure that 

7 the nonradioactive materials and wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be 

8 managed in accordance with all Federal and State regulatory requirements, including those 

9 under RCRA. 

10 Comments:

11 11-4:

12 • The Draft EIS should describe the disposal facility options available in the 

13 event that an anticipated disposal or storage facility is no longer available. 

14 Waste stream and disposal facility availability should be reviewed on an 

15 annual basis to confirm knowledge of the waste streams relative to the 

16 disposal options available and to avoid a situation of accumulating waste 

17 without a disposal path. The availability of options for each solid and liquid 

18 waste stream should also be discussed.

19 • Section 19.2.5.3.1 (Solid Radioactive Waste Handling System) discusses the 

20 generation and management of a used resin classified as Greater than Class 

21 C (GTCC) waste that would be shipped to Waste Control Specialists (WCS) 

22 of Texas for long-term storage.

23 • The Draft EIS should acknowledge that currently there is not a permanent 

24 disposal option available for commercially-generated GTCC waste, hence the 

25 need for long-term storage at WCS. The Draft EIS should evaluate whether it 

26 is possible to modify the system so that the used resin is generated as either 

27 Class A, B, or C low-level radioactive waste, which currently have available 

28 disposal options.

29 • The Draft EIS should provide information on the radionuclide inventory 

30 anticipated at the site during typical operations, with information on what 

31 would be considered process material, waste material temporarily stored on 

32 site for eventual off-site transport and disposal, or other site-specific 

33 material/product/waste designations. Radionuclide inventory limits under the 

34 NRC license should also be described.

35 Response: 

36 These comments express concerns regarding the accumulation of waste and radionuclides on 

37 site, as well as disposal facility options. Section 2.7 of the EIS describes the storage, treatment, 

38 and transportation of radioactive and nonradioactive waste. Section 2.7 states that 

39 construction, operations, and decommissioning would result in the accumulation of radioactive 

40 and nonradioactive wastes. SHINE does not anticipate any long-term storage of radioactive or 

41 nonradioactive materials, such as medical radioisotope products, target solution, reagents, or 

42 resulting wastes. SHINE would treat and temporarily store the solid radioactive and 

43 nonradioactive waste generated as part of the radioisotope production process within the facility 

44 until it could ship the waste off site for disposal. While temporarily stored on site, NRC

45 regulations require that radioactive material within the facility and radioactive effluents released 

46 into the environment meet the radiation protection dose-based limits in 10 CFR Part 20. NRC 

A-16
Appendix A

1 regulations also require occupational and public exposure to radioactive material be as low as is 

2 reasonably achievable, as required by 10 CFR 20.1101(b).

3 Section 2.7 of the EIS further describes the waste disposal options for radiological and 

4 nonradiological waste. In addition, a provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act

5 of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) states that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would 

6 take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the 

7 irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it determines that the 

8 producer (e.g., SHINE) does not have access to a disposal path. For example, if a disposal 

9 pathway for GTCC waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its safe storage and 

10 disposal. 

11 A.2 References

12 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

13 protection against radiation.”

14 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic licensing of 

15 production and utilization facilities.”

16 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

17 Part 800, “Protection of historic properties.”

18 78 FR 39343. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.—

19 intent to prepare environmental impact statement and conduct scoping process; public 

20 meeting.” Federal Register 78(126):39343–39344. July 1, 2013.

21 American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 42 U.S.C. §3171 et seq.

22 Forest County Potawatomi. 2013. Letter from Cook M, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, to 

23 Wong MC, NRC. Subject: Request for scoping comments concerning the SHINE Medical 

24 Technologies radioisotope production facility. July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13224A164.

25 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.

26 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.

27 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.

28 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting 

29 NUREG-1537, Part 1, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of 

30 Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content,” and Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and 

31 Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and 

32 Acceptance Criteria,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous 

33 Homogeneous Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. October 17, 2012. ADAMS 

34 No. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075.

35 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. “Approval of Memorandum of Agreement 

36 between DOE and NRC on the Environmental Review Related to the Issuance of Authorizations 

37 to Construct Build and Operate SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.” Washington, DC: NRC.

38 February 3, 2015. ADAMS No. ML13304B666.

39 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

40 (PSAR): Chapter 13, “Accident Analysis,” and Chapter 19, “Environmental Review.” Monona, 

41 WI: SHINE. March 26, 2013, and May 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13172A324.

A-17
Appendix A

1 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

2 Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

3 Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. 

4 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 216. Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Pollutant 

5 Discharge Elimination System Chapter NR 216. Storm Water Discharge Requirements. 

6 Revised April 2013. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/nr> (accessed 

7 3 January 2013).

8 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 405. Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

9 July 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/405.pdf>.

10 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406. Construction Permits. March 2014. Available 

11 at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/406.pdf>.

12 [WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 407. Operation Permits. February 2014. Available 

13 at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/407.pdf>.

14 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Construction Site Storm Water 

15 Permit Overview. Web page updated November 12, 2013. Available at 

16 <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Stormwater/construction/overview.html> (accessed 3 January 2013).

17 [WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. Letter from Heggelund E, 

18 WDNR Environmental Analysis and Review Specialist, to Moser M, NRC Environmental Project 

19 Manager. Subject: WDNR Comments for the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental 

20 Impact Statement and Scoping for SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production 

21 Facility. February 7, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14045A298.

A-18
1 APPENDIX B

2 APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS

3

1 B. APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER 

2 REQUIREMENTS

3 A number of Federal laws and regulations affect environmental protection, health, safety, 

4 compliance, and consultation at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed facilities. 

5 Certain Federal environmental requirements have been delegated to State authorities for 

6 enforcement and implementation. Furthermore, States have enacted laws to protect public 

7 health and safety and the environment. It is the agency’s policy to ensure that NRC-licensed 

8 facilities are operated in a manner that provides adequate protection of public health and safety 

9 and of the environment through compliance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, 

10 and other requirements.

11 The requirements that may be applicable to the operation of NRC-licensed facilities encompass 

12 a broad range of Federal laws and regulations that address environmental, historical and 

13 cultural, health and safety, transportation, and other concerns. Generally, these laws and 

14 regulations relate to how a facility would conduct the work involved in performing a proposed 

15 action to protect workers, the public, and environmental resources. Some of these laws and 

16 regulations require permits or consultation with other Federal agencies or State, Tribal, or local 

17 governments.

18 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), authorizes the 

19 NRC to enter into agreement with any State to assume regulatory authority for certain activities 

20 (42 U.S.C. 2021). The NRC and the Governor of Wisconsin signed an agreement transferring 

21 NRC regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials (in quantities 

22 not sufficient to form a critical mass) to the State of Wisconsin, which became the 33rd

23 Agreement State, effective August 11, 2003. As an Agreement State, the Wisconsin 

24 Department of Health Services is responsible for licensing and inspecting the above-named 

25 materials, except at nuclear power plants and Federal facilities (WDHS 2014).

26 In addition to carrying out some Federal programs, State legislatures develop their own laws. 

27 State statutes supplement, as well as implement, Federal laws for the protection of air, water 

28 quality, and groundwater. State legislation may address solid waste management programs, 

29 locally rare or endangered species, and historical and cultural resources.

30 The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., herein referred to as CWA), 

31 allows for primary enforcement and administration through State agencies, given that the State 

32 program is at least as stringent as the Federal program. The State program must conform to 

33 the CWA and to the delegation of authority for the Federal National Pollutant Discharge 

34 Elimination System (NPDES) program from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

35 the State. The primary mechanism to control water pollution is the requirement for direct 

36 dischargers to obtain an NPDES permit or a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

37 permit, when the authority has been delegated from the EPA, under the CWA, as is the case for 

38 Wisconsin.

39 One important difference between Federal regulations and certain State regulations is the 

40 definition of waters regulated by the State. Certain State regulations may include underground 

41 waters, whereas the CWA only regulates surface waters.

42 B.1 Federal, State, and Local Requirements

43 Construction and operation of the SHINE facility would be subject to Federal, State, and local 

44 requirements. Tables B–1, B–2, and B–3 identify the principal Federal, State, county, and city

B-1
Appendix B

1 environmental regulatory requirements that may be applicable to the proposed SHINE Medical 

2 Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) or the 

3 alternative sites. Along with each regulatory requirement is a brief description. The 

4 requirements are organized into categories, such as general requirements, water resources, 

5 and pollution prevention.

6 Table B–1. Potentially Applicable Federal Statutes, Regulations, and Orders

Statute/Regulation/Order Description

General Requirements

Atomic Energy Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 

et seq.

The 1954 Atomic Energy Act, as amended (AEA), and the Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.), give the NRC the 

licensing and regulatory authority for nuclear energy uses within the 

commercial sector. The Acts give the NRC responsibility for licensing and 

regulating commercial uses of atomic energy and research and test 

reactors, and allow the agency to protect workers and the public by

establishing dose and concentration limits for activities under NRC 

jurisdiction. The NRC implements its responsibilities under the AEA 

through regulations established in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR).

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 

et seq.

The National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (NEPA), requires 

Federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their 

decisionmaking process by considering the environmental impacts of 

proposed Federal actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. 

NEPA establishes policy, sets goals (in Section 101), and provides means 

(in Section 102) for carrying out the policy. Section 102(2) contains 

action-forcing provisions to ensure that Federal agencies follow the letter 

and spirit of the Act. For major Federal actions significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment, Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires 

Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement that includes the 

environmental impacts of the proposed action and other specified 

information.

10 CFR Part 50 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities,” 

contains NRC regulations issued under the AEA, as amended 

(68 Stat. 919), and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 

(88 Stat. 1242) to provide for the licensing of production and utilization 

facilities. This part also gives notice to all persons who knowingly supply—

to any licensee, applicant, contractor, or subcontractor—components, 

equipment, materials, or other goods or services, that relate to a licensee’s 

or applicant’s activities subject to this part, that they may be individually 

subject to NRC enforcement action for violation of 10 CFR 50.5.

B-2
Appendix B

Statute/Regulation/Order Description

Air Quality Protection

Clean Air Act of 1970, as 

amended,

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

The Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), is intended to “protect and enhance 

the quality of the nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health

and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” The CAA 

establishes regulations to ensure maintenance of air quality standards and 

authorizes individual States to manage permits. Section 118 of the CAA 

requires each Federal agency, with jurisdiction over properties or facilities 

engaged in any activity that might result in the discharge of air pollutants, 

to comply with all Federal, State, inter-State, and local requirements with 

regard to the control and abatement of air pollution. Section 109 of the 

CAA directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants. EPA has 

identified these standards and set them for the following criteria pollutants: 

particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen 

dioxide, and lead. Section 111 of the CAA requires the establishment of 

national performance standards for new or modified stationary sources of 

atmospheric pollutants. Section 160 of the CAA requires the evaluation of 

specific emission increases before permit approval to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality. Section 112 requires specific standards for the 

release of hazardous air pollutants (including radionuclides). These 

standards are implemented through plans developed by each State and 

approved by the EPA. The CAA requires sources to meet standards and 

to obtain permits to satisfy those standards. Nuclear facilities may be 

required to comply with CAA Title V, Sections 501–507, for sources subject 

to new source performance standards or sources subject to National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. EPA regulates 

emissions of air pollutants in 40 CFR Parts 50 to 99.

Environmental Justice and Public Health Protection

10 CFR Part 20 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for protection against radiation,” contains NRC

regulations that establish standards for protection against ionizing radiation 

resulting from activities conducted under licenses issued by the NRC. The

NRC issued these regulations under the AEA, as amended, and the 

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. The purpose of these

regulations is to control the receipt, possession, use, transfer, and disposal 

of licensed material by any licensee in such a manner that the total dose to 

an individual (including doses resulting from licensed and unlicensed 

radioactive material and from radiation sources other than background 

radiation) does not exceed the standards for protection against radiation 

prescribed in the regulations in this part.

Executive Order 12898 Executive Order 12898, “Federal actions to address environmental justice 

in minority populations and low-income populations,” requires Federal 

agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Amended 

by Executive Order 12948.

Executive Order 13045 Executive Order 13045, “Protection of children from environmental health 

risks and safety risks,” prioritizes the identification and assessment of 

environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect 

children and ensures that those risks are addressed.

Noise Control Act of 1972, 

as amended,

42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.

The Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended, requires facilities to maintain 

noise levels that do not jeopardize public health or safety.

B-3
Appendix B

Statute/Regulation/Order Description

Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration

occupational noise 

exposure regulations, 

29 CFR 1910.95

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations 

establish workplace standards for noise.

Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970,

29 U.S.C. 651

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires compliance with 

all applicable worker safety and health legislation (including guidelines of 

29 CFR Part 1960).

Policy Statement on the 

Treatment of 

Environmental Justice 

Matters in NRC Regulatory 

and Licensing Actions,

69 FR 52040 (2004)

The NRC is committed to the general goals of Executive Order 12898 and 

to full compliance with the NEPA requirements.

Historic preservation and cultural resources

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended, 

16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.

The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), was enacted 

to create a national historic preservation program, including the National 

Register of Historic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. Section 106 of the Act requires Federal agencies to take 

into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations implementing 

Section 106 of the Act are found in 36 CFR Part 800. The regulations call 

for public involvement in the Section 106 consultation process, including 

Indian Tribes and other interested members of the public, as applicable.

Land-Use Protection

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act of 1981, 

7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act sets guidelines that require all 

agencies to identify prime farmland proposed to be converted to 

nonagricultural land use and to evaluate the impact of the conversion.

Protected Species

Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended,

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), was enacted to 

prevent the further decline of endangered and threatened species and to 

restore those species and their critical habitats. Section 7 of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service on Federal actions that 

may affect listed species or designated critical habitats.

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and 

Management Act, as 

amended,

16 U.S.C. 1801–1884 

The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as 

amended (MSA), governs marine fisheries management in U.S. Federal 

waters. The Act created eight regional fishery management councils and 

includes measures to rebuild overfished fisheries, protect essential fish 

habitat, and reduce bycatch. Under Section 305 of the Act, Federal 

agencies are required to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service for 

any Federal actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitat.

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, 

16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.

To minimize adverse impacts of proposed actions on fish and wildlife

resources and habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that 

Federal agencies consult Government agencies regarding activities that 

affect, control, or modify waters of any stream or bodies of water. It also 

requires that justifiable means and measures be used in modifying plans to 

protect fish and wildlife in these waters

B-4
Appendix B

Statute/Regulation/Order Description

Waste Management and Pollution Prevention

Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act, 

42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires the EPA

to define and identify hazardous waste; establish standards for its 

transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal; and require permits for 

persons engaged in hazardous waste activities. Section 3006 

(42 U.S.C. 6926) allows States to establish and administer these permit 

programs with EPA approval. EPA regulations implementing the Act are 

found in 40 CFR Parts 260 to 299. Regulations imposed on a generator or 

on a treatment, storage, or disposal facility vary according to the type and 

quantity of material or waste generated, treated, stored, or disposed of. 

The method of treatment, storage, and disposal also affects the extent and 

complexity of the requirements.

Pollution Prevention Act of 

1990,

42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 establishes a national policy for waste 

management and pollution control that focuses first on source reduction 

and then on environmental issues, safe recycling, treatment, and disposal.

Water Resources Protection

Clean Water Act of 1977,

33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. and 

the NPDES,

40 CFR Part 122

The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended (CWA), was enacted to “restore 

and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s 

water.” The Act requires all branches of the Federal Government that have 

jurisdiction over properties or facilities engaged in any activity that might 

result in a discharge or runoff of pollutants to surface waters to comply with 

Federal, State, inter-State, and local requirements. As authorized by the 

CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that 

discharge pollutants into U.S. waters. The NPDES program requires all 

facilities that discharge pollutants from any point source into U.S. waters to 

obtain an NPDES permit. A nuclear facility may also participate in the 

NPDES General Permit for Industrial Stormwater due to stormwater runoff 

from industrial or commercial facilities to U.S. waters. EPA is authorized 

under the CWA to directly implement the NPDES program; however, EPA 

has authorized many States to implement all or parts of the national 

program. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is the

responsible State agency for NPDES permitting. Section 401 of the CWA 

requires States to certify that the permitted discharge would comply with all 

limitations necessary to meet established State water-quality standards, 

treatment standards, or schedule of compliance. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead agency for enforcement of 

CWA wetland requirements (33 CFR Part 320). Under Section 401 of the 

CWA, EPA or a delegated State agency has the authority to review and 

approve, impose a condition, or deny all permits or licenses that might 

result in a discharge to State waters, including wetlands. 

Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, as amended, 

16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.

The Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended (CZMA), was enacted by 

Congress in 1972 to address the increasing pressures of overdevelopment 

upon the Nation’s coastal resources. The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administers the CZMA. The CZMA 

encourages States to preserve; protect; develop; and, where possible, 

restore or enhance valuable natural coastal resources, such as wetlands, 

floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as 

well as the fish and wildlife using those habitats. Participation by States is 

voluntary. To encourage States to participate, the CZMA makes Federal

financial assistance available to any coastal State or territory, including 

those on the Great Lakes, which is willing to develop and implement a 

comprehensive coastal management program.

B-5
Appendix B

Statute/Regulation/Order Description

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 

16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.

The Wild and Scenic River Act created the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System, which was established to protect the environmental values of 

free-flowing streams from degradation by impacting activities, including 

water resources projects.

Transportation

Federal Aviation Act of 

1958, as amended,

14 CFR Part 77

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, refers to construction of 

structures that may potentially affect air navigation.

Hazardous Material 

Transportation Act of 1975, 

as amended,

49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., 

49 CFR Part 107

The Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1975, as amended, refers to 

transportation of hazardous materials.

U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration 

Advisory Circular,

AC 150/5200-33B 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular, 

AC 150/5200-33B, “Hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports,” 

provides guidance on certain land uses that have the potential to attract 

hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports. It also discusses airport 

development projects that could affect aircraft movement near hazardous 

wildlife attractants.

1 Table B–2. Potentially Applicable Wisconsin State Requirements

Statute/Regulation/Order Citation Responsible Agency Description

Air Quality Protection

Wisconsin Air Pollution 

Statutes

Wisconsin Statutes,

Chapter 285

WDNR, Air 

Management Program

Defines air quality

standards, permits and 

fees, and enforcement 

and penalties.

Wisconsin Air Pollution 

Control Rules

Wisconsin 

Administrative Code,

Chapters 

NR 400–499

WDNR, Air 

Management Program

Contains State air 

pollution control rules. 

See NR 406 and NR 407 

for construction permit 

and operation permit 

rules. Greenhouse gases 

are covered in 

NR 407.075.

Land Use and Economic Programs

Wisconsin Tax Increment 

District Law

ss.66.1105 Department of Revenue Allows municipalities a 

way to encourage 

economic development 

within a designated 

portion of a municipality.

Wisconsin Statute on 

Migrant Protection

Wisconsin Statutes, 

Chapters 103.90–

103.97

Department of 

Workforce 

Development

Provides migrant worker 

protections.

Wisconsin Statutes on 

Farmland Preservation

Wisconsin Statutes,

Chapter 91

WDNR Defines prime farmland.

B-6
Appendix B

Statute/Regulation/Order Citation Responsible Agency Description

Building Plan Review Wisconsin Statutes,

Chapter 101; 

Wisconsin 

Administrative Code,

Chapters SPS 361 

and 362

Department of Safety 

and Professional 

Services

Is required before a local 

building permit can be 

issued for a commercial 

building to ensure 

compliance with State 

building codes.

Protected Species

Wisconsin Statutes on 

State-Protected Species

Wisconsin Statutes, 

Chapter 29, and 

Administrative Rule 

NR 27

WDNR Identifies rare species, 

natural communities, or 

natural features tracked in 

the Natural Heritage 

Inventory database.

Transportation

State Trunk Highways,

Federal Aid

Wisconsin Statutes,

Chapter 84

Wisconsin DOT Advises towns, villages, 

cities, and counties on 

construction and 

maintenance of highways 

and bridges.

Wisconsin Airport Land

Use Guidebook

Guidebook Bureau of Aeronautics, 

Wisconsin DOT

Helps communities and 

airports work 

cooperatively to plan for 

and establish compatible 

land use around airports 

and to mitigate existing 

incompatible conditions.

Waste Management and Pollution Prevention

Wisconsin Statutes on 

Pollution Prevention

Wisconsin Statutes,

Chapter 299.13

WDNR Establishes pollution 

prevention policy and 

includes regulations.

Wisconsin Statutes on 

Hazardous Waste

Wisconsin Statutes, 

Chapter 291; 

Wisconsin 

Administrative Code,

Chapters NR 660 

and 662

WDNR Regulations regarding the 

treatment, storage, and 

disposal of hazardous 

waste.

Water Resources Protection

Wisconsin Water 

Resources Statutes

Wisconsin Statutes,

Chapter 283; 

Wisconsin 

Administrative Code,

Chapter NR 216

WDNR Requirements to protect 

water quality, including 

permits and plans to 

minimize erosion and 

control stormwater runoff. 

See above description 

under the CWA.

B-7
Appendix B

1 Table B–3. City of Janesville and Rock County, Wisconsin, Ordinances and Plans

Ordinance or Plan Responsible Agency Description

Land-Use Protection

Rock County 

Comprehensive Plan 

2035, 2009

Rock County Planning, 

Economic & Community 

Development Agency

Guides long-term economic development; 

sets policies and goals for cultural and 

historic resource conservation (Rock County 

Planning, Economic & Community 

Development Agency, Strategic & 

Comprehensive Planning Division).

Janesville, Wisconsin’s 

Park Place 

Development Guide

City of Janesville Community 

Development Department

Guide for following development processes.

City of Janesville 

Ordinance 18.24.050A

City of Janesville Community 

Development Department

Ensures compliance with local ordinances for 

site layout and plans for parking, lighting, 

landscaping, etc.

City of Janesville 

Ordinance 15.01.100A

City of Janesville Community 

Development Department

Ensures compliance with local ordinances 

regarding the construction of buildings; 

installation of plumbing systems; installation 

of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

(HVAC) systems; and occupancy of 

completed buildings.

City of Janesville 

Ordinance 13.16 

City of Janesville Community 

Development Department

Ensures compliance with local ordinances 

regarding construction, installation, and 

operation of connections to the municipal 

sewer and water systems.

City of Janesville 

Ordinance 18.24.040

City of Janesville Community 

Development Department

Ensures compliance with local ordinances 

regarding the construction of multiple 

buildings on the same site.

Transportation

Airport Overlay Zoning 

District Ordinance of 

the Southern Wisconsin 

Regional Airport

(SWRA)

City of Janesville Community 

Development Director

Promotes the public health, safety, 

convenience, and general welfare of the 

community and residents; protects the 

SWRA approaches and surrounding airspace 

from encroachment; and limits exposure of 

impacts to persons and facilities near the 

SWRA.

Rock County Hazard 

Mitigation Plan

Rock County Local Emergency 

Planning Committee

Ensures compliance with local ordinances 

regarding the construction, maintenance, and 

operation of utilities within highway 

right-of-way. The permit includes risk 

assessments for all types of hazards.

2 B.2 Operating permits and other requirements

3 Table B–4 lists the permits and licenses that SHINE plans to obtain from Federal, State, and 

4 local authorities to construct and operate the SHINE facility.

B-8
Appendix B

1 Table B–4. Permits and Approvals Required for Construction and Operation

Agency

Regulatory 

Authority

Permit or 

Approval

Summary of 

Activities

Expected 

Timeframe 

of Receipt Status

Permits and Approvals from Federal Agencies

NRC Atomic Energy Act 

10 CFR 50.50 and 

10 CFR 50.35

Construction 

Permit

Construction of 

the SHINE

facility

2015–2016 Preliminary Safety 

Analysis Report for 

the construction 

permit was 

submitted in 2013.

Atomic Energy Act 

10 CFR 50.57

Operating 

License

Operation of the 

SHINE facility

2018

Atomic Energy Act 

10 CFR Part 40

Source Material 

License

Possession, 

use, and transfer 

of radioactive 

source material

2018

Atomic Energy Act 

10 CFR Part 30

By-Product 

Material License

Possession, 

use, and transfer 

of radioactive 

by-product 

material

2018

Atomic Energy Act 

10 CFR Part 70

Special Nuclear 

Material License

Receipt, 

possession, use, 

and transfer of 

special nuclear 

material

2018

FAA Federal Aviation 

Act

Construction 

Notice FAA 

Form 7460-1

Construction of 

structures that

could affect air

navigation

2015 FAA Form 7460-1 

was submitted in 

2011;

Determination of 

No Hazard was 

received 11/2011;

Determination of 

No Hazard 

extension was 

received 04/2012; 

Determination of 

No Hazard expired

11/2014; SHINE

plans to resubmit 

FAA Form 7460-1 

in 2015.

Construction 

Notice FAA 

Form 7460-2

Construction of 

structures that

could affect air

navigation

2017 SHINE intends to 

submit FAA

Form 7460-2 within 

5 days of when 

construction 

reaches its 

greatest height.

B-9
Appendix B

Agency

Regulatory 

Authority

Permit or 

Approval

Summary of 

Activities

Expected 

Timeframe 

of Receipt Status

EPA CWA, 

40 CFR Part 112, 

Appendix F

Spill Prevention, 

Control and 

Countermeasure 

(SPCC) Plan for 

Construction 

and Operation

Storage of oil 

during 

construction and 

operation

2015 SHINE intends to 

develop the SPCC 

plan in 2015.

DOT Hazardous 

Material 

Transportation 

Act, 

49 CFR Part 107

Certificate of 

Registration

Transportation 

of hazardous 

materials

2018 SHINE intends to 

submit DOT Form 

F-5800.2 Q1 in 

2018.

Permits and Approvals from State Agencies

WDNR Federal CAA; 

Wisconsin 

Statutes, 

Chapter 285; 

Wisconsin 

Administrative 

Code, Chapter 

NR 406

Air Pollution 

Control 

Construction 

Permit; Air 

Pollution Control 

Operation 

Permit

Construction of 

an air pollution 

emissions

source that is 

not specifically 

exempted

2015 SHINE intends to 

submit an 

application for a 

Type A 

Registration 

Construction 

Permit and 

Operation Permit in 

2015.

Federal CAA; 

Wisconsin 

Statutes, 

Chapter 285; 

Wisconsin 

Administrative 

Code,

Chapter NR 216

Construction 

Storm Water 

Discharge 

Permit

Discharge of 

stormwater

runoff from the 

construction site

2015 SHINE intends to 

submit a Water 

Resource 

Application for 

Project Permits to 

request coverage 

under a General 

Permit in 2015 at 

least 14 working 

days before 

construction 

begins. 

Federal CAA; 

Wisconsin 

Statutes, 

Chapter 285; 

Wisconsin 

Administrative 

Code,

Chapter NR 216

Industrial Storm 

Water Discharge 

Permit

Discharge of 

stormwater

runoff from the 

site during 

facility operation

2018 SHINE intends to 

submit a No 

Exposure 

Certification at 

least 14 working 

days before 

initiation of 

operations in 2017.

Wisconsin 

Statutes, 

Chapters 280 

and 281;

Wisconsin 

Administrative 

Code,

Chapter NR 809

Approval Letters Construction by 

the City of 

Janesville of 

water and 

sanitary sewer 

extensions to 

the SHINE

facility

2015 A permit is to be 

requested by the 

City of Janesville.

B-10
Appendix B

Agency

Regulatory 

Authority

Permit or 

Approval

Summary of 

Activities

Expected 

Timeframe 

of Receipt Status

Wisconsin 

Statutes, 

Chapter 291; 

Wisconsin 

Administrative 

Code,

Chapter NR 660, 

662, and/or 666

Compliance with 

hazardous 

waste

notification, 

record keeping, 

and reporting 

requirements

Generation of 

hazardous 

waste

2018 SHINE intends to 

notify WDNR of 

Storage and 

Treatment 

Conditional 

Exemption 

(NR 666, 

Subchapter N) in 

2018 or within 

90 days of lowlevel mixed waste

generation.

Wisconsin 

Department of 

Safety and 

Professional 

Services

Wisconsin 

Statutes, 

Chapter 101; 

Wisconsin 

Administrative 

Code,

Chapters SPS 361 

and 362

Building Plan 

Review

Compliance with 

State building 

codes required 

before a local 

building permit 

can be issued 

for a commercial 

building

2015 The Building Plan 

is complete; SHINE

intends to submit 

the Building Plan in 

2015.

Wisconsin 

DOT

Wisconsin 

Statutes, 

Chapter 85; 

Wisconsin 

Administrative 

Code, Chapter 

Trans 231

Permit for 

Connection to 

State Trunk 

Highway

Construction of 

driveway 

connection to 

U.S. Route 51

2015 SHINE intends to 

request the permit 

simultaneously or 

before the 

submission of the 

Site Plan in 2015.

Wisconsin 

Statutes, 

Chapter 85; 

Wisconsin 

Administrative 

Code, Chapter 

Trans 231

Right-of-Entry 

Permit

Construction by 

the City of 

Janesville of 

utility extensions 

across 

U.S. Route 51

2015 The permit is to be 

requested by the 

City of Janesville.

Wisconsin 

Statutes, 

Chapter 114; 

Wisconsin 

Administrative 

Code, Chapter 

Trans 56

Variance from 

Height Limitation 

Zoning 

Ordinances

Construction of 

structures that 

exceed height 

limitations 

established for 

Southern 

Wisconsin 

Regional Airport

2015 SHINE does not 

anticipate that this 

variance will be 

needed based on 

the refined building 

and stack heights 

developed during 

the Preliminary 

Design.

B-11
Appendix B

Agency

Regulatory 

Authority

Permit or 

Approval

Summary of 

Activities

Expected 

Timeframe 

of Receipt Status

Permits and Approvals from Local Agencies

City of 

Janesville 

Community 

Development 

Department

City of Janesville 

Ordinance 

18.24.050.A

Site Plan 

Approval 

(includes 

Building Site 

Permit for the 

Southern 

Wisconsin 

Regional Airport 

Overlay District)

Administrative 

approval of the 

site layout and 

plans for 

parking, lighting, 

landscaping, 

and similar local 

issues 

2015 The Final Site Plan 

is complete; SHINE

intends to submit 

Site Plan and 

building elevations 

in 2015.

City of Janesville 

Ordinance 

15.06.070

Stormwater Plan 

Approval (may 

be included in 

Site Plan 

Approval)

Administrative 

approval of 

grading and 

drainage plans

2015 The Final 

Stormwater 

Management Plan 

is complete; SHINE

intends to submit 

Stormwater 

Management Plan 

with Site Plan in 

2015.

City of Janesville 

Ordinance 

15.05.080

Erosion Control 

Permit (may be 

included in Site 

Plan Approval)

Administrative 

approval of 

erosion control 

plans

2015 The Final Erosion 

Plan is complete; 

SHINE intends to 

submit the Erosion 

Control Plan with 

the Site Plan in Q2 

2015.

City of Janesville 

Ordinance 13.16

Sanitary Sewer 

and Water 

Supply Facility 

Approvals

Administrative 

approval of 

construction, 

installation, and 

operation of 

connections to 

the municipal 

sewer and water 

supply systems

2015 The final plans are 

complete; 

construction and 

installation were 

approved in the 

Plumbing Plan. 

For operation, 

SHINE intends to 

provide baseline 

monitoring report to 

wastewater

treatment plant at 

least 90 days 

before discharge in 

2016.

City of Janesville

Ordinance 

15.01.100.A

Plumbing Plan 

Approval

Installation of 

plumbing 

systems

2015 The Final Plumbing 

Plan is complete; 

SHINE intends to 

submit the 

Plumbing Plan with

the Building Plan in

2015.

B-12
Appendix B

Agency

Regulatory 

Authority

Permit or 

Approval

Summary of 

Activities

Expected 

Timeframe 

of Receipt Status

City of Janesville 

Ordinance 

15.04.010.A

HVAC Plan 

Approval

Installation of 

HVAC systems

2015 The Final HVAC 

Plan is complete; 

SHINE intends to 

submit the HVAC 

Plan with the 

Building Plan in 

2015.

City of Janesville 

Ordinance 

8.32.010

Fire Sprinkler 

and Alarm 

Permit

Installation of 

sprinkler and 

alarm systems

2015 The Final Fire 

Sprinkler and 

Alarm Plan is 

complete; SHINE

intends to submit 

the Fire Sprinkler 

and Alarm Plan 

with the Building 

Plan in 2015.

City of Janesville 

Ordinance 

15.01.100.A

Building Permit Construction of 

buildings

2015 SHINE intends to 

submit the Building 

Plan in 2015.

City of Janesville 

Ordinance 

15.01.190.A

Occupancy 

Permit

Occupancy of 

completed 

buildings

2018 Each building 

would be inspected 

after construction 

to allow 

occupancy. 

Rock County 

Highway 

Department

Wisconsin 

Statutes, 

Chapter 84; 

Rock County 

Utility 

Accommodation 

Policy 96.00

Permit to 

Construct, 

Maintain, and 

Operate Utilities 

within Highway 

Right-of-Way

Construction by 

the City of 

Janesville of 

utility extensions 

across County 

Trunk 

Highway G

2015 Plans and 

specifications will 

be submitted by 

the City of 

Janesville once the 

Site Plan is 

approved, likely in 

2015.

Source: SHINE 2015

1 B.3 References

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

3 protection against radiation.”

4 10 CFR Part 30. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 30, “Rules of general 

5 applicability to domestic licensing of byproduct material.”

6 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, “Domestic licensing of 

7 source material.”

8 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic licensing of 

9 production and utilization facilities.”

10 10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, “Domestic licensing of 

11 special nuclear material.”

B-13
Appendix B

1 14 CFR Part 77. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Aeronautics and Space, Part 77, “Safe, 

2 efficient use, and preservation of the navigable airspace.”

3 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational 

4 safety and health standards.”

5 29 CFR Part 1960. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1960, “Basic program 

6 elements for federal employee occupational safety and health programs and related matters.”

7 33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

8 Part 320, “General regulatory policies.”

9 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

10 Part 800, “Protection of historic properties.”

11 40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, 

12 “National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards.”

13 40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112, 

14 “Oil pollution prevention.”

15 40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, 

16 “EPA administered permit programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.”

17 40 CFR Part 260. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 260, 

18 “Hazardous Waste Management System: General.”

19 49 CFR Part 107. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 107, “Hazardous 

20 materials program procedures.”

21 59 FR 7629. Executive Order No. 12898. “Federal actions to address environmental justice in 

22 minority populations and low-income populations.” Federal Register 59(32):7629–7634. 

23 February 16, 1994.

24 60 FR 6381. Executive Order No. 12948. “Amendment to Executive Order No. 12898.” 

25 Federal Register 60(21):6381. February 1, 1995.

26 62 FR 19885. Executive Order No. 13045. “Protection of children from environmental health 

27 risks and safety risks.” Federal Register 62(78):19885–19888. April 21, 1997.

28 69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Policy statement on the treatment of 

29 environmental justice matters in NRC regulatory and licensing actions.” Federal 

30 Register 69(163):52040–52048. August 24, 2004.

31 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.

32 Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.

33 Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

34 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq.

35 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.

36 Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §5801 et seq.

37 [FAA] Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-1, “Notice of Proposed Construction or 

38 alteration.” February 1, 2012.

39 [FAA] Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-2, “Supplemental Notice.” July 1, 1998.

40 Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq.

B-14
Appendix B

1 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §661 et seq.

2 Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1975, as amended. 49 U.S.C. §5101 et seq.

3 Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 

4 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.

5 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.

6 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.

7 Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4901 et seq.

8 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. 29 U.S.C. §651.

9 Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C. §13101 et seq.

10 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.

11 [SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

12 Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

13 February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404.

14 [WDHS] Wisconsin Department of Health Services. “Radiation Protection.” 2014. Available at 

15 <http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/radiation> (accessed 12 August 2014).

16 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1271 et seq.

B-15

1 APPENDIX C

2 CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE

1 C. CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

2 CORRESPONDENCE

3 This appendix, along with Appendix D, contains a chronological listing of correspondence 

4 between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and external parties as part of its 

5 environmental review for the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), Medical Radioisotope 

6 Production Facility (SHINE facility). Appendix D contains the chronological listing of 

7 consultation correspondence associated with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

8 (16 U.S.C. 1531) and the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as 

9 amended (16 U.S.C. 1801–1884). Appendix C contains all other correspondence.

10 All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information, are available 

11 electronically in the NRC’s Library, which is found on the Internet at the following Web address:

12 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain access to the NRC’s 

13 Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 

14 image files of the agency’s public documents. The following list includes the ADAMS accession 

15 number for each document. If you need assistance in accessing or searching in ADAMS, 

16 contact the Public Document Room Staff at 1-800-397-4209.

17 C.1 Environmental Review Correspondence

18 Table C–1 lists the environmental review correspondence in date order, beginning with the 

19 request by SHINE to construct the SHINE facility.

20 Table C–1. Environmental Review Correspondence

Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No.

March 26, 2013 Construction Permit Application, Part 1 ML13088A192

May 8, 2013 NRC Federal Register Notice (FRN) of Receipt and 

Availability of Part 1 of the SHINE Construction Permit 

Application

ML13119A240

May 8, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Receipt and Availability of 

Part 1 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application

ML13119A236

May 31, 2013 Construction Permit Application, Part 2 ML13172A361

June 24, 2014 NRC FRN of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement and Conduct Scoping

ML13157A350

June 24, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping 

ML13157A355

June 25, 2013 NRC FRN of Acceptance for Docketing Part 1 of the 

SHINE Construction Permit Application

ML13150A389

June 25, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Acceptance for Docketing 

Part 1 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application

ML13150A280

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Request for 

List of Federally Listed Species and Habitats for the 

SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental 

Review

ML13134A385

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, Request for Scoping Comments on the 

SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental 

Review

ML13135A304

C-1
Appendix C

Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No.

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of 

Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Facility Environmental Review

ML13136A011

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Wisconsin Historical Society, Request for 

Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 

Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Environmental Review

ML13135A635

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Request for 

Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 

Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Prairie Island Indian Community, Request 

for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 

Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 

Indians, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification 

of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Facility Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, 

Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of 

Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Facility Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, 

Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of 

Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Facility Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South 

Dakota, Request for Scoping Comments and Notification 

of Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Facility Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Iowa Tribe, Request for Scoping Comments 

and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE

Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Forest County Potawatomi Community, 

Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of 

Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Facility Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Hannahville Indian Community, Request for 

Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 

Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, Request for 

Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 

Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Sac and Fox Nation, Request for Scoping 

Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the 

SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental 

Review

ML13136A014

C-2
Appendix C

Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No.

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Lower Sioux Indian Community, Request for 

Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 

Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Request 

for Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 

Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Santee Sioux Nation, Request for Scoping 

Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the 

SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental 

Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake 

Traverse Reservation, Request for Scoping Comments 

and Notification of Section 106 Review on the SHINE

Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Spirit Lake Tribe, Request for Scoping 

Comments and Notification of Section 106 Review on the 

SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility Environmental 

Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Upper Sioux Community, Request for 

Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 

Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, 

Request for Scoping Comments and Notification of 

Section 106 Review on the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Facility Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 NRC letter to Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Request for 

Scoping Comments and Notification of Section 106 

Review on the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Environmental Review

ML13136A014

July 3, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Environmental Site Audit Regarding 

the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Environmental Review

ML13168A562

July 3, 2013 Scoping Meeting Notice for the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Facility

ML13178A314

July 17, 2013 Construction Permit Process and Environmental Scoping 

Public Meeting Slides for the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Facility

ML13190A419

July 17, 2013 Transcript from the SHINE Scoping Meeting—Afternoon 

Session

ML13260A280

July 17, 2013 Transcript from the SHINE Scoping Meeting—Evening 

Session

ML13260A281

July 24, 2013 SHINE E-mail to NRC, Tour Route for the Environmental 

Site Audit

ML13210A003

July 31, 2013 Forest County Potawatomi Community letter to NRC,

Response to Request for Scoping Comments

ML13224A164

August 13, 2013 Scoping Comment from Richard T. Henning ML13233A023

August 13, 2013 Scoping Comment from Al Lembrich ML13233A022

August 14, 2013 Scoping Comment from U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency

ML13238A121

C-3
Appendix C

Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No.

August 15, 2013 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter to NRC, Response to 

the Request for a List of Federally Listed Species and 

Habitats for the SHINE Medical Technologies 

Environmental Review

ML13234A020

August 30, 2013 SHINE to NRC, Draft Responses to Environmental Site 

Audit Needs 

ML13242A356, 

ML13242A367

September 3, 2013 Scoping Comment from Jamie Stout ML13263A012

September 11, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Request for Additional Information 

for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Environmental Review

ML13231A041

September 23, 2013 Meeting Summary of the Environmental Scoping Public 

Meeting for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility

ML13260A294

October 4, 2013 SHINE letter to NRC, Response to Requests for 

Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Facility Environmental Review

ML13303A887

December 2, 2013 NRC FRN of Acceptance for Docketing Part 2 of the 

SHINE Construction Permit Application

ML13316B349

December 2, 2013 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Acceptance for Docketing 

Part 2 of the SHINE Construction Permit Application

ML13316B387

February 7, 2014 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources letter to 

NRC, Scoping Comments for the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Facility Environmental Review

ML14045A298

September 19, 2014 NRC letter to SHINE, Request for Additional Information 

for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Construction Permit Review

ML14195A159

October 15, 2014 SHINE letter to NRC, Response to Requests for 

Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Construction Permit Review

ML14296A189

January 6, 2015 NRC letter to SHINE, Request for Additional Information 

for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility 

Construction Permit Review

ML15005A407

February 3, 2015 Memorandum of Agreement between the 

U.S. Department of Energy and the NRC on the 

Environmental Review Related to the SHINE

Radioisotope Production Facility 

ML13304B666

February 6, 2015 SHINE letter to NRC, Response to Requests for 

Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Construction Permit Review

ML15043A404

March 3, 2015 NRC letter to SHINE, Proposed Review Schedule, Notice 

of Hearing, Opportunity to Petition for Leave to Intervene, 

and Order Imposing Procedures Regarding Application for 

Construction Permit (TAC NO. MF2307)

ML15037A249

March 4, 2015 NRC FRN for the Notice of Hearing, Opportunity to 

Intervene, Order Imposing Procedures for the proposed 

SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility

ML15037A108

C-4
1 APPENDIX D 2 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE

1 D. CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE

2 D.1 Section 7 Consultation

3 Federal Agency Obligations Under ESA Section 7

4 As a Federal agency, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must comply with the 

5 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1531 et seq.; 

6 herein referred to as ESA), as part of any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

7 agency, such as the proposed agency action that this environmental impact statement (EIS) 

8 evaluates: whether to issue a construction permit under 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow 

9 construction of a medical radioisotope production facility . Under section 7 of the ESA, the NRC 

10 must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries 

11 Service (NMFS) (referred to jointly as “the Services” and individually as “Service”), as 

12 appropriate, to ensure that the proposed agency action is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

13 existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 

14 modification of designated critical habitat.

15 The ESA and the regulations that implement ESA section 7, 50 CFR Part 402, “Interagency 

16 cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,” describe the consultation 

17 process that Federal agencies must follow in support of agency actions. As part of this process,

18 the Federal agency shall either request that the Services provide a list of any listed or proposed 

19 species or designated or proposed critical habitats that may be present in the action area or 

20 request that the Services concur with a list of species and critical habitats that the Federal 

21 agency has created (50 CFR 402.12(c)). If it is determined that any such species or critical 

22 habitats may be present, the Federal agency is to prepare a biological assessment to evaluate 

23 the potential effects of the action and determine whether the species or critical habitat are likely 

24 to be adversely affected by the action (50 CFR 402.12(a); 16 U.S.C. 1536(c)). Furthermore, 

25 biological assessments are required for any agency action that is a “major construction activity” 

26 (50 CFR 402.12(b)), which the ESA regulations define to include major Federal actions 

27 significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental 

28 Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; herein referred to as NEPA)

29 (50 CFR 402.02).

30 Federal agencies may fulfill their obligations to consult with the Services under ESA section 7 

31 and to prepare a biological assessment in conjunction with the interagency cooperation 

32 procedures required by other statutes, including NEPA (50 CFR 402.06(a)). In such cases, the 

33 Federal agency should include the results of the ESA section 7 consultation in the NEPA 

34 document (50 CFR 402.06(b)). Accordingly, Section D.1.2 describes the biological assessment 

35 prepared for the proposed agency action evaluated in this EIS, and Section D.1.3 describes the 

36 chronology and results of the ESA section 7 consultation.

37 Biological Assessment

38 The NRC considers this EIS to fulfill its obligation to prepare a biological assessment under ESA

39 section 7. Accordingly, the NRC did not prepare a separate biological assessment for the 

40 proposed SHINE facility construction permit.

41 Although the contents of a biological assessment are at the discretion of the Federal agency 

42 (50 CFR 402.12(f)), the ESA regulations suggest information that agencies may consider for 

43 inclusion. The NRC has considered this information in the following EIS sections.

D-1
Appendix D

1 Section 3.5 describes the action area and the Federally listed and proposed species and 

2 designated and proposed critical habitat that have the potential to be present in the action area. 

3 This section includes information pursuant to 50 CFR 402.12(f)(1), (2), and (3).

4 Section 4.5 provides an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed construction, 

5 operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility on the species and critical habitat

6 present and the NRC’s effect determinations, which are consistent with those identified in 

7 Section 3.5 of the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1998). The 

8 NRC also addresses cumulative effects and alternatives to the proposed action. This section

9 includes information under 50 CFR 402.12(f)(4) and (5).

10 Chronology of ESA Section 7 Consultation

11 Upon receipt of SHINE’s construction permit application, the NRC staff considered whether any 

12 Federally listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitats may be present 

13 in the action area (as defined at 50 CFR 402.02) for the proposed construction, operations, and 

14 decommissioning. No species under the NMFS’s jurisdiction occur within the action area. 

15 Therefore, the NRC staff did not consult with the NMFS. With respect to species under the 

16 FWS’s jurisdiction, the NRC staff requested information from FWS on Federally listed, 

17 proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of the SHINE site 

18 and the two alternative sites, in accordance with the ESA section 7 regulations at 

19 50 CFR 402.12(c) in a letter dated July 1, 2013. The FWS responded to the NRC staff’s 

20 request in a letter dated August 15, 2013, and stated that “no Federally-listed, proposed, or 

21 candidate species would be expected within the project area. No critical habitat is present. If

22 any construction is to take place within these two sites, there is no need for further action as 

23 required by the 1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended.” In Section 3.5, the NRC staff 

24 concludes that no ESA-protected species or critical habitats occur in the action area, and 

25 Section 4.5 concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on any ESA-protected 

26 species or critical habitats. The FWS (2013) does not typically provide its concurrence with “no 

27 effect” determinations by Federal agencies. Thus, the ESA does not require further informal 

28 consultation or the initiation of formal consultation with the FWS for the proposed SHINE 

29 construction permit. Nonetheless, because this EIS constitutes the NRC’s biological 

30 assessment, the NRC staff will submit a copy of this EIS, upon its issuance, to the FWS for 

31 review in accordance with 50 CFR 402.12(j).

32 Table D–1 lists the letters, e-mails, and other correspondence related to the NRC’s ESA

33 obligations with respect to its review of the SHINE construction permit application. This table 

34 will be updated in the final EIS, as applicable, to include correspondence transpiring between 

35 the issuance of the draft and final EIS.

D-2
Appendix D

1 Table D–1. Section 7 Consultation Correspondence

Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS No.(a)

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC)

to P. Fasbender (FWS)

Request for a list of Federally listed 

species and habitats for the SHINE

Medical Technologies Environmental 

Review

ML13134A385

August 15, 2013 P. Fasbender (FWS)

to M. Wong (NRC)

Response to the request for a list of 

Federally listed species and habitats for

the SHINE Medical Technologies 

Environmental Review

ML13234A020

(a) These documents can be accessed through the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) at the following URL: http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/.

2 D.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation

3 The NRC must comply with the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

4 Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., herein referred to as MSA), for any actions 

5 authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that 

6 may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under the MSA.

7 In Section 3.5 of this EIS, the NRC staff concludes that NMFS has not designated essential fish 

8 habitat under the MSA in the Rock River and that the proposed SHINE construction permit 

9 would have no effect on essential fish habitat. Thus, the MSA does not require the NRC to 

10 consult with NMFS for the proposed SHINE construction permit.

11 D.3 Section 106 Consultation

12 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation

13 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., herein 

14 referred to as NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on 

15 historic properties and consult with applicable State and Federal agencies, tribal groups, and 

16 individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking before taking 

17 action. Historic properties are defined as resources eligible for listing on the National Register 

18 of Historic Places. The historic preservation review process (NHPA, Section 106) is outlined in 

19 regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 36 CFR Part 800. 

20 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC has elected to use the NEPA process to comply 

21 with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA.

22 Table D–2 lists the chronology of consultations and consultation documents related to the NRC

23 Section 106 review. The NRC staff is required to consult with the noted agencies and 

24 organizations in accordance with the statutes listed above.

D-3
Appendix D

1 Table D–2. NHPA Correspondence

Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS No.(a)

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to E. 

Brown, Wisconsin 

Historical Society

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13135A635

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. 

Nelson (ACHP)

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A011

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. 

Barrett, Citizen 

Potawatomi Nation

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to M. 

Wiggins, Jr., Bad River 

Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to S. 

Bearheart, St. Croix 

Chippewa Indians of 

Wisconsin

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to C. 

Corn, Menominee Indian 

Tribe of Wisconsin

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to A. 

Reider, Flandreau Santee 

Sioux Tribe of South 

Dakota

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. 

Rowe-Kurak, Iowa Tribe

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to H. 

Frank, Forest County 

Potawatomi Community

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to K. 

Meshigaud, Hannahville 

Indian Community

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. 

Greendeer, Ho-Chunk 

Nation of Wisconsin

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to G. 

Thurman, Sac and Fox 

Nation

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to D. 

Prescott, Lower Sioux 

Indian Community

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to S. 

Ortiz, Prairie Band of 

Potawatomi Nation

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. 

Johnson, Prairie Island 

Indian Community

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. 

Trudell, Santee Sioux 

Nation

Response to request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

D-4
Appendix D

Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS No.(a)

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. 

Shepherd, SissetonWahpeton Oyate of the 

Lake Traverse 

Reservation

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. 

Yankton, Sr., Spirit Lake 

Tribe

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to K. 

Jensvold, Upper Sioux 

Community

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. 

Froman, Peoria Tribe of 

Indians of Oklahoma

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 1, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. 

Blackhawk, Winnebago 

Tribe of Nebraska

Request for scoping

comments/notification of Section 106 

review

ML13136A014

July 31, 2013 M. Cook, Forest County 

Potawatomi Community, 

to M. Wong (NRC)

Response to request for scoping

comments

ML13224A164

(a) These documents can be accessed through ADAMS at http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/.

1 D.4 References

2 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic licensing of 

3 production and utilization facilities.”

4 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

5 Part 800, “Protection of historic properties.”

6 50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, 

7 “Interagency cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.”

8 [ESA] Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.

9 [FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. “Endangered Species Program: What We Do: 

10 Consultations: Frequently Asked Questions.” July 15, 2013. Available at 

11 <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/faq.html#8> (accessed 5 June 2014).

12 [FWS and NMFS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. 

13 Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and 

14 Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. March 1998. 315 p. 

15 Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf>

16 (accessed 8 July 2013).

17 [MSA] Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 

18 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.

19 [NEPA] National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.

20 [NHPA] National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.

D-5





NUREG-2183

Draft

Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE 

Medical Radioisotope Production Facility