Environmental Impact 

Statement for the 

Construction Permit for the 

SHINE Medical Radioisotope 

Production Facility

Final Report

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG-2183
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC’s Library at 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 Publishing Office

Mail Stop IDCC

Washington, DC 20402-0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512-2104

2. The National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Rd., Alexandria, VA 22312-0002

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 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

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

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: October 2015

Date Published: October 2015

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG-2183

 

iii

COVER SHEET

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

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

of this environmental impact statement (EIS).

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

Radioisotope Production Facility, Final Report 

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

Janesville, Wisconsin.

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

Division of License Renewal

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Mail Stop O-11F1

11555 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852

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

Fax: 301-415-2002

E-mail: Michelle.Moser@nrc.gov

ABSTRACT

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

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

(SHINE), for a construction permit for the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility. The 

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

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

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

technology.

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

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

safety issues mandate otherwise, the issuance of the construction permit to SHINE. The NRC 

staff based its recommendation on the following factors:

• SHINE’s Environmental Report;

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

• the NRC staff’s independent environmental review; and

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

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................. iii

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

FIGURES.................................................................................................................................. xi

TABLES ................................................................................................................................. xiii

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

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.5 Cooperating Agency ........................................................................................ 1-5

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

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

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

2.0 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION................................................................................ 2-1

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

2.2 Construction Activities...................................................................................... 2-4

2.3 Facility Operations ........................................................................................... 2-6

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

2.3.2 Radioisotope Production Process Overview ...................................... 2-8

2.4 Power Requirements ..................................................................................... 2-11

2.5 Water Use, Treatment, and Discharges ......................................................... 2-12

2.5.1 Water Use ....................................................................................... 2-12

2.5.2 Water Treatment ............................................................................. 2-12

2.5.3 Water Discharges............................................................................ 2-12

2.6 Cooling and Heating Dissipation Systems...................................................... 2-13

2.6.1 Cooling Systems ............................................................................. 2-13

2.6.2 Heating Systems ............................................................................. 2-13

2.7 Storage, Treatment, and Transportation of Radioactive and 

Nonradioactive Waste.................................................................................... 2-13

2.7.1 Radioactive Wastes......................................................................... 2-13

2.7.2 Nonradioactive Waste ..................................................................... 2-16

2.7.3 Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Program.................... 2-17

2.8 Facility Decommissioning............................................................................... 2-18
Table of Contents

vi

2.9 Related Actions.............................................................................................. 2-18

2.10 References .................................................................................................... 2-19

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

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

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

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

3.2 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise................................................................. 3-8

3.2.1 Meteorology and Climatology .......................................................... 3-10

3.2.2 Air Quality........................................................................................ 3-12

3.2.3 Noise............................................................................................... 3-16

3.3 Geologic Environment.................................................................................... 3-18

3.3.1 Site Geology.................................................................................... 3-18

3.3.2 Soils ................................................................................................ 3-21

3.3.3 Seismic Setting................................................................................ 3-22

3.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 3-23

3.4.1 Surface Water ................................................................................. 3-23

3.4.2 Groundwater.................................................................................... 3-26

3.5 Ecological Resources .................................................................................... 3-29

3.5.1 Ecoregion ........................................................................................ 3-29

3.5.2 Site.................................................................................................. 3-30

3.5.3 Habitats in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site .................................... 3-31

3.5.4 Protected Species and Habitats....................................................... 3-34

3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources..................................................................... 3-38

3.6.1 Cultural Background........................................................................ 3-38

3.6.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources ........................................... 3-40

3.7 Socioeconomics............................................................................................. 3-40

3.7.1 Population Growth Rates and Projections ....................................... 3-40

3.7.2 Race and Ethnicity........................................................................... 3-41

3.7.3 Transient Population........................................................................ 3-42

3.7.4 Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment............................... 3-42

3.7.5 Income and Wages.......................................................................... 3-44

3.7.6 Poverty Rates.................................................................................. 3-44

3.7.7 Housing ........................................................................................... 3-45

3.7.8 Local Employers.............................................................................. 3-45

3.7.9 Taxes .............................................................................................. 3-46

3.7.10 Education ........................................................................................ 3-47

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

Janesville and Rock County ............................................................ 3-47

3.7.12 Public Services................................................................................ 3-49

3.8 Human Health................................................................................................ 3-50

3.8.1 Regulatory Radiological Requirements............................................ 3-50
Table of Contents

vii

3.8.2 Chemical Hazards ........................................................................... 3-52

3.8.3 Other Hazards ................................................................................. 3-52

3.9 Transportation Environments ......................................................................... 3-52

3.9.1 Roads.............................................................................................. 3-52

3.9.2 Airports............................................................................................ 3-55

3.9.3 Rail.................................................................................................. 3-55

3.10 References .................................................................................................... 3-55

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AND 

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

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

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

4.1.2 Visual Resources............................................................................... 4-4

4.2 Air Quality and Noise ....................................................................................... 4-6

4.2.1 Construction ...................................................................................... 4-6

4.2.2 Operations....................................................................................... 4-10

4.2.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-14

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

4.3.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-17

4.3.2 Operations....................................................................................... 4-18

4.3.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-19

4.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 4-19

4.4.1 Surface Water ................................................................................. 4-19

4.4.2 Groundwater.................................................................................... 4-22

4.5 Ecological Resources .................................................................................... 4-25

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

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

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

4.5.4 Federally Protected Species............................................................ 4-27

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources..................................................................... 4-28

4.6.1 Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................... 4-28

4.6.2 Proposed Action .............................................................................. 4-28

4.6.3 Consultation .................................................................................... 4-28

4.6.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................... 4-29

4.7 Socioeconomic Impacts ................................................................................. 4-31

4.7.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-31

4.7.2 Operations....................................................................................... 4-34

4.7.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-35

4.8 Human Health................................................................................................ 4-36

4.8.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-36

4.8.2 Operations....................................................................................... 4-37

4.8.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-39
Table of Contents

viii

4.9 Waste Management....................................................................................... 4-41

4.9.1 Radioactive Waste........................................................................... 4-41

4.9.2 Nonradioactive Waste ..................................................................... 4-43

4.10 Transportation................................................................................................ 4-43

4.10.1 Construction .................................................................................... 4-43

4.10.2 Operations....................................................................................... 4-44

4.10.3 Decommissioning ............................................................................ 4-45

4.11 Accidents ....................................................................................................... 4-46

4.11.1 Maximum Hypothetical Accident...................................................... 4-47

4.11.2 Hazardous Chemical Accidents....................................................... 4-49

4.12 Environmental Justice.................................................................................... 4-52

4.13 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-61

4.13.1 Land Use and Visual Resources...................................................... 4-62

4.13.2 Air Quality and Noise....................................................................... 4-63

4.13.3 Geologic Environment ..................................................................... 4-66

4.13.4 Water Resources............................................................................. 4-67

4.13.5 Ecological Resources ...................................................................... 4-69

4.13.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................... 4-71

4.13.7 Socioeconomics .............................................................................. 4-71

4.13.8 Human Health ................................................................................. 4-72

4.13.9 Waste Management ........................................................................ 4-73

4.13.10 Transportation ................................................................................. 4-75

4.13.11 Environmental Justice ..................................................................... 4-76

4.13.12 Summary......................................................................................... 4-77

4.14 References .................................................................................................... 4-79

5.0 ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................................... 5-1

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

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

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

5.2.2 Chippewa Falls Site........................................................................... 5-6

5.2.3 Stevens Point Site ........................................................................... 5-48

5.3 Alternative Technologies................................................................................ 5-92

5.3.1 Identification of Reasonable Alternatives ......................................... 5-92

5.3.2 Neutron Capture Alternative ............................................................ 5-93

5.3.3 Aqueous Homogenous Reactor Alternative ..................................... 5-93

5.3.4 Linear-Accelerator-Based Alternative .............................................. 5-94

5.4 Cost-Benefit Comparison............................................................................... 5-99

5.4.1 Benefit and Costs of Alternatives................................................... 5-103

5.4.2 Cost Benefit Conclusions............................................................... 5-105

5.5 Alternatives Summary.................................................................................. 5-106

5.6 References .................................................................................................. 5-106
Table of Contents

ix

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

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

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

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

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

6.3.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the 

Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of 

Long-Term Productivity ................................................................... 6-11

6.3.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ................. 6-12

6.4 Recommendation........................................................................................... 6-13

6.5 References .................................................................................................... 6-13

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 INDEX ......................................................................................................................... 8-1

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

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

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SHINE MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE 

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

APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER 

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

CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

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

CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE .....................................................D-1

Table of Contents

xi

FIGURES

Figure 1–1. Environmental Review Process.......................................................................... 1-6

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

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

Radius................................................................................................................ 2-3

Figure 2–3. Proposed SHINE Facility Conceptual Site Layout .............................................. 2-4

Figure 2–4. Conceptual View of the Proposed SHINE Facility............................................... 2-6

Figure 2–5. Cutaway Conceptual Interior View of the SHINE Device .................................... 2-7

Figure 2–6. Conceptual Model of an Irradiation Unit.............................................................. 2-8

Figure 2–7. SHINE Radioisotope Production System Flow Diagram..................................... 2-9

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

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

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

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

SHINE Site......................................................................................................... 3-5

Figure 3–4. Visual Setting of the Proposed SHINE Site ........................................................ 3-9

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

Regional Airport ............................................................................................... 3-11

Figure 3–6. Proposed SHINE Facility Map Showing Noise Sources and Receptors............ 3-18

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

Figure 3–8. Surface-Water Features in the Vicinity of the Proposed SHINE Site................. 3-24

Figure 3–9. Existing Transportation Network Near the Proposed SHINE Facility ................ 3-53

Figure 4–1. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed SHINE Facility............................................ 4-5

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

Janesville ......................................................................................................... 4-55

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

Facility in Janesville.......................................................................................... 4-57

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

Wisconsin........................................................................................................... 5-7

Figure 5–2. Chippewa Falls Site............................................................................................ 5-8

Figure 5–3. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site.................. 5-32

Figure 5–4. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site........... 5-35

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

Wisconsin......................................................................................................... 5-49

Figure 5–6. Stevens Point Site............................................................................................ 5-50

Figure 5–7. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site.................... 5-77

Figure 5–8. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site ............. 5-78

Table of Contents

xiii

TABLES

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

Construction, Operations, and Decommissioning of the Proposed SHINE

Facility.................................................................................................................xix

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

Table 2–2. Gaseous Radioactive Effluents ........................................................................ 2-14

Table 2–3. Summary of Major Chemical Inventory and Quantity at the Proposed 

SHINE Facility.................................................................................................. 2-17

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

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

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

County, Wisconsin ............................................................................................. 3-6

Table 3–3. Land Use in the City of Janesville....................................................................... 3-7

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

Janesville, Wisconsin ....................................................................................... 3-10

Table 3–5. National Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................ 3-13

Table 3–6. Regional Air Emissions Inventory..................................................................... 3-14

Table 3–7. Sound Levels and Human Response ............................................................... 3-16

Table 3–8. Wildlife Observed On or Near the Proposed Site.............................................. 3-30

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

(8 km) of the Proposed Site.............................................................................. 3-34

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

Proposed SHINE Site....................................................................................... 3-36

Table 3–11. Resident Population for Rock County (1970–2050).......................................... 3-41

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

in 2010 ............................................................................................................. 3-41

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

Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin ....................................... 3-43

Table 3–14. Employment by Industry in Rock County for 2012 ............................................ 3-44

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

Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin......................................................... 3-44

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

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

Table 3–17. Housing Unit Characteristics for the City of Janesville and Rock County.......... 3-45

Table 3–18. Ten Largest Employers in the City of Janesville (2014).................................... 3-46

Table 3–19. Ten Largest Employers in Rock County (2014) ................................................ 3-46

Table 3–20. State-Owned Natural Areas in Rock County..................................................... 3-48

Table 3–21. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site ......... 3-54

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

Vicinity of the Proposed Site—Number of Vehicles .......................................... 3-55

Table 4–1. Acres of Land Required for Construction of the Proposed SHINE Facility .......... 4-3

Table 4–2. Equipment Used During Construction ................................................................ 4-6
Table of Contents

xiv

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

Table 4–4. Fuel Combustion Sources ................................................................................ 4-11

Table 4–5. Fuel Combustion Emissions During Operations ............................................... 4-11

Table 4–6. SHINE Air Dispersion Modeling Results........................................................... 4-12

Table 4–7. Vehicle Emissions During Operation ................................................................ 4-13

Table 4–8. Diesel Equipment Used During Decommissioning............................................ 4-14

Table 4–9. Air Emissions During Decommissioning ........................................................... 4-16

Table 4–10. Water Requirements for SHINE Facility―Construction .................................... 4-23

Table 4–11. Water Requirements for SHINE Facility―Operations....................................... 4-24

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

Employment by Occupation in ROI................................................................... 4-32

Table 4–13. SHINE Hazardous Chemical Source Terms and Concentrations...................... 4-50

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

Janesville ......................................................................................................... 4-56

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

Facility in Janesville.......................................................................................... 4-58

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

Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis.................................................. 4-61

Table 4–17. Cumulative Air Emission Effects Summary During SHINE Operation ............... 4-65

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

of the Proposed Project.................................................................................... 4-77

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

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

Site..................................................................................................................... 5-9

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

the Chippewa Falls Site.................................................................................... 5-20

Table 5–4. Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts―Vicinity of Chippewa Falls Site ............. 5-28

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

of Chippewa Falls Site―Number of Vehicles ................................................... 5-28

Table 5–6. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site.................. 5-33

Table 5–7. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls Site........... 5-34

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

Actions Within a 5-mi (8-km) Radius of the Chippewa Falls Site....................... 5-38

Table 5–9. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the Stevens Point Site....... 5-51

Table 5–10. Vegetation on the Stevens Point Site ............................................................... 5-62

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

the Stevens Point Site...................................................................................... 5-63

Table 5–12. Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts―Vicinity of Stevens Point Site ............... 5-71

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

of the Stevens Point Site―Number of Vehicles................................................ 5-72

Table 5–14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site.................... 5-76

Table 5–15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point Site ............. 5-78
Table of Contents

xv

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

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

(8-km) ROI of the Stevens Point Site................................................................ 5-82

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

Proposed SHINE Facility at the Janesville, Wisconsin, Site............................ 5-100

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

Alternative Sites, and No-Action..................................................................... 5-104

Table 5–19. Comparison of Technologies at the Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville .... 5-105

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table A–3. Individuals Providing Comments During the Draft EIS Comment Period ..........A-18

Table A–4. Issue Categories ..............................................................................................A-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xvii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

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

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

permit for the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) in Janesville, 

Wisconsin. To issue a permit, the NRC is required to consider the environmental impacts of the 

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

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

NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51 describe several types of 

actions that would require an environmental impact statement (EIS). The regulation at 

10 CFR 51.20 does not specifically identify construction permits and operating licenses for 

production and utilization facilities as an action that would require an EIS. However, for the 

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

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

because of the potential for significant environmental impacts and the unique considerations of 

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

application of technologies, as well as to allow public involvement in the environmental review 

process.

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

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

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

this EIS, the NRC staff performed the following:

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

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

July 30, 2013, to August 1, 2013;

• conducted public meetings on the draft EIS on June 10, 2015, in Janesville, 

Wisconsin;

• reviewed SHINE’s Environmental Report; 

• consulted with Federal, State, and local agencies;

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

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

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

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

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

Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria”; and

• considered public comments received.

PROPOSED ACTION

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

under 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE facility, which would include 

up to eight utilization facilities and a production facility. If the NRC were to issue a construction 

permit, SHINE could build the proposed facility on a 91-acre (37-hectare) site in Rock County, 
Executive Summary

xviii

which is located about 4 miles (6 kilometers) south of the city center of Janesville, Wisconsin. 

The SHINE facility would produce, package, and ship medical radioisotopes, specifically 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

subcritical fission process.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The purpose and need of this proposed Federal action is to provide a medical radioisotope 

production option that could help meet the need for a domestic source of molybdenum-99. The 

determination of need and the decision to produce radioisotopes are at the discretion of 

applicants or other medical radioisotope production decisionmakers. This definition of purpose 

and need reflects the NRC’s recognition that, unless there are findings in the safety review 

required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or findings in the environmental 

analysis under NEPA that would lead the NRC to reject a construction permit application, the 

agency does not have a role in the planning decisions as to whether a particular radioisotope 

production facility should be constructed and operated. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AND 

DECOMMISSIONING

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

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

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

interim staff guidance to NUREG–1537, apply: 

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

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

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

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

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

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

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

important attributes of the resource.

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

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

xix

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

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 SMALL

Air Quality and Noise SMALL

Geologic Environment SMALL

Water Resources SMALL

Ecological Resources MODERATE

Historic and Cultural Resources SMALL

Socioeconomics Impacts SMALL

Human Health SMALL

Waste Management SMALL

Transportation SMALL to MODERATE

Environmental Justice 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.

ALTERNATIVES

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

to constructing the SHINE facility at the Janesville site:

• the no-action alternative;

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

Falls site (Alternative Site No. 1);

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

Point site (Alternative Site No. 2); and

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

at the SHINE site (alternative technology).

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

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

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

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

xx

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOMMENDATION

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

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

safety issues mandate otherwise, the issuance of the construction permit to SHINE. The NRC 

staff based its recommendation on the following factors:

• SHINE’s Environmental Report;

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

• the NRC staff’s independent environmental review; and

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

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

0C degree(s) Celsius

0F degree(s) Fahrenheit

ac acre(s)

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level

AERMOD American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection 

Agency Regulatory Model

ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable

APE area of potential effect

AQCR air quality control region

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

bgs below ground surface

BIA U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

BMP best management practice

B.P. before present

Bq becquerels 

bu bushel(s)

CAA Clean Air Act

Ci curie

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CH4 methane

cm centimeter

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2eq carbon dioxide equivalent

CRMP cultural resource management plan

CWA Clean Water Act

dB decibel(s)

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 
Abbreviations and Acronyms

xxii

DBA design-basis accident

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

EA environmental assessment

ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online (air data search tool)

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS environmental impact statement

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ER Environmental Report

ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline

ESA Endangered Species Act

ES&H Environment, Health, and Safety (Manager)

FAA U.S. Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA U.S. Federal Highway Administration

FR Federal Register

ft foot (feet)

ft2 square foot (feet)

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GAI Golder Associates, Inc. 

gal gallon(s)

GHG greenhouse gas

GM General Motors

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

GTCC greater than Class C

GWP global warming potential

ha hectare(s)

HAP hazardous air pollutant

HEPA high-efficiency particulate air 

HEU highly enriched uranium

hp horsepower 

hr hour(s)
Abbreviations and Acronyms

xxiii

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

in. inch

IOM Institute of Medicine

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

K kindergarten

km kilometer(s)

kph kilometer(s) per hour

km2 square kilometer(s)

L liter(s)

LDN day-night sound intensity level

Lpd liter(s) per day

m meter(s)

m2 square meter(s)

m3 cubic meter(s)

m3

/day cubic meter(s) per day

m3

/min cubic meter(s) per minute

mi3

/s cubic mile(s) per second

mg/L milligram(s) per liter

mg/m3 milligram(s) per cubic meter

mgd million gallon(s) per day

m/s meter(s) per second

MAR material at risk

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

mgd million gallons per day

MHA maximum hypothetical accident

mi mile

min minute

mph mile(s) per hour

mi2 square mile(s)

μg microgram

μm microns

μg/m3 microgram per cubic meter 

MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity

MOA memorandum of agreement 
Abbreviations and Acronyms

xxiv

MOI maximum offsite individual

mrem milliroentgen equivalent man

MSL mean sea level

mSv millisievert

MT metric ton(s)

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAC noise abatement criteria

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NCES National Center for Education Statistics

NEA Nuclear Energy Agency

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxide

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS U.S. National Park Service

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NUREG NRC technical report designation (Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission)

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PAC protective action criterion/criteria

PGA peak ground acceleration

PM particulate matter

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

PSAR preliminary safety analysis report

PSD prevention of significant deterioration

RCA radiation-controlled area

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROI region of influence

RM river mile
Abbreviations and Acronyms

xxv

SER safety evaluation report

SHINE SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIL significant impact level

SNM Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure

SSC species of special concern

TDS total dissolved solids

TEEL Temporary Emergency Exposure Limit

TIF Tax Increment Finance

TMDL total maximum daily load

TNM traffic noise model

TPY tons per year

TSP total suspended particles

TSV target solution vessel

μg microgram(s)

μm micron(s)

U.S. United States

U.S.C. United States Code

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOI U.S. Department of Interior

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

USGS U.S. Geological Service

VOC volatile organic compound(s)

WAC Wisconsin Administrative Code

WDOA Wisconsin Department of Administration

WDATCP Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer 

Protection

WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

WDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation

WDPI Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

WDR Wisconsin Department of Revenue

WDWD Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development
Abbreviations and Acronyms

xxvi

WGNHS Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey 

WHS Wisconsin Historical Society

WI Wisconsin

WPDES Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

WTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

yd3 cubic yard(s)

Y-12 Y-12 National Security Complex
1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(NRC 2012).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as to allow public involvement in the environmental review process.

1.1 Background

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

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

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

1.1.1 Molybdenum-99

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

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

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

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

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

for technetium-99m include the following (SHINE 2015):

• bone scans,

• lung perfusion imaging,

• kidney scans and functional imaging,
Introduction

1-2

• liver scans,

• sentinel lymph node localization,

• cardiac perfusion imaging,

• brain perfusion imaging,

• gall bladder function imaging,

• blood pool imaging,

• thyroid and salivary gland imaging, and

• Meckel’s scans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.1.2 Iodine-131

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

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

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

(SHINE 2015).

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

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

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

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

(NEA 2011; Bloomberg 2013).

1.1.3 Xenon-133

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

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

pulmonary function, and (3) assessment of cerebral blood flow (SHINE 2015).

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

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

(SNM) 2013).

1.2 Proposed Federal Action

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

under 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE facility, which would include

up to eight utilization facilities and a production facility. If the NRC were to issue a construction 
Introduction

1-3

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).

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

which is located about 4 mi (6 km) south of the city center of Janesville, Wisconsin. The 

issuance of a construction permit is a separate licensing action from the issuance of an 

operating license. If the NRC issues a construction permit, then SHINE must submit a separate 

application for an operating license, pursuant to the NRC’s requirements, and must obtain NRC 

approval before it can operate the SHINE facility. If the NRC were to issue an operating license, 

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

molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133 (SHINE 2015). To conduct an efficient and 

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

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

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

10 CFR 51.95(b). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

make any decision about these activities.

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action

The purpose of and need for this proposed Federal 

action is to provide a medical radioisotope production 

option that could help meet the need for a domestic 

source of molybdenum-99. For the past 2 decades, the 

United States has relied on imported medical 

radioisotopes, such as molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and 

xenon-133. Molybdenum-99, for example, is used to 

perform about 50,000 medical procedures daily in the 

United States. Global shortages of medical 

radioisotopes in 2009 and 2010 have highlighted the 

need for prompt action to ensure a reliable domestic supply. Demand in the United States for 

molybdenum-99 is approximately 5,000 6-day curies (Ci) (2x1014 6-day becquerels (Bq)) per 

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

years, U.S. policy has aimed to ensure a reliable supply of medical radioisotopes while 

minimizing the use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes through, among other things, 

supporting commercial projects that produce medical radioisotopes domestically without the use 

of highly enriched uranium (NNSA 2011; White House 2012).

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

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

Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065 et seq.), DOE/NNSA has entered into 

cooperative agreements with domestic commercial firms. These agreements enable 

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

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

1-4

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

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

The proposed action for the NRC is to decide 

whether to issue a construction permit, which would 

allow SHINE to construct a facility that uses 

low-enriched uranium to produce molybdenum-99, 

iodine-131, and xenon-133. If the construction 

permit is granted, SHINE would then have to apply 

for an operating license. The NRC would conduct a 

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 6-day Bq) of molybdenum-99 per week (SHINE 2015).

1.4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

construction permit.

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

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

Environmental Quality terminology for “significantly” (40 CFR 1508.27). Because the 

significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, both 

“context” and “intensity,” as defined in CEQ regulation 40 CFR 1508.27, were considered (see 

text box). Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts: 

SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE, as defined below.

SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

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

important attributes of the resource.

LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly 

noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

important attributes of the resource.

In March 2013, SHINE submitted its 

Environmental Report (SHINE 2013) with Part 1 

of its application for a construction permit. After 

reviewing Part 1 of the application for sufficiency, 

on July 1, 2013, the NRC staff published a Notice 

of Acceptance for Docketing in the Federal 

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

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

60-day scoping period.

Significance indicates the importance of likely 

environmental impacts and is determined by 

considering two variables: context and intensity.

Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social 

context in which the effects will occur.

Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, in 

whatever context it occurs.

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.
Introduction

1-5

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

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

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

the scoping process (NRC 2015a).

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

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

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

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

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

and site audit, the NRC staff compiled its findings in a draft EIS (NRC 2015b). The public 

comment period for the draft EIS was from May 22, 2015, through July 6, 2015 (80 FR 29701). 

The draft EIS was available for public comment for 45 days, which is the minimum required by 

10 CFR 51.73. During this time, the NRC staff hosted two public meetings (NRC 2015c) and 

collected public comments (see Appendix A.2 for comments received and NRC responses). 

Based on the information gathered, the NRC staff amended the draft EIS findings as necessary 

and then published this final EIS.

1.5 Cooperating Agency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

radioisotopes are complementary and not duplicative.

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

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

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

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

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

to SHINE. The NRC and DOE decided to develop a Memorandum of Agreement to make the 

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

December 1, 2014, and February 3, 2015, the NRC and DOE signed a Memorandum of

Agreement on the review of the SHINE application (DOE and NRC 2015). The goal of this 

agreement is to develop one EIS that serves the NRC licensing process and the DOE funding 

process. Although both agencies must meet NEPA requirements, they also must meet mission 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1-6

Figure 1–1. Environmental Review Process

1.6 Consultation and Correspondence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

processes and the SHINE environmental review process included the following:

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 a 

construction permit or 

license

*Opportunities

for public

involvement
Introduction

1-7

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,

• Citizen Potawatomi Nation,

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

• St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin,

• Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin,

• Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota,

• Iowa Tribe,

• Forest County Potawatomi Community,

• Hannahville Indian Community,

• Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin,

• Sac and Fox Nation,

• Lower Sioux Indian Community,

• Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation,

• Prairie Island Indian Community,

• Santee Sioux Nation,

• Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation,

• Spirit Lake Tribe,

• Upper Sioux Community,

• Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma,

• Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska,

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and

• Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office.

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

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

1.7 Status of Compliance

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

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

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

proposed facility.

1.8 References

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

production and utilization facilities.”
Introduction

1-8

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

protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions.”

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

Environmental Policy Act implementing procedures.”

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

Part 1508, “Terminology and index.”

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

[Notice; Acceptance for Docketing].” Federal Register 78(126):39342–39343. July 1, 2013.

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

[Intent to prepare environmental impact statement and conduct scoping process; public 

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

80 FR 29701. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Environmental Impact Statements; 

Notice of Availability.” Federal Register 80(99):29701–29702. May 22, 2015.

American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 42 U.S.C. §2065 et seq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. ML13304B666. 

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

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

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

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

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

13 June 2013).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 June 2013).

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

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

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

(accessed 14 June 2013).
Introduction

1-9

National Research Council. 2009. Medical Isotope Production Without Highly Enriched 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acceptance Criteria,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous 

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

Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075.

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

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

No. ML15062A111.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015b. Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Construction Permit for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Draft Report for 

Comment. NUREG–2183. Rockville, MD. May 2015. ADAMS No. ML15127A241.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015c. Summary of the Public Meeting to Discuss 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE

Medical Radioisotope Production Facility. July 7, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15170A262.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. ML14052A349.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR),

Chapter 19, “Environmental Report.” Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS 

No. ML15175A274.

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

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

14 June 2013).

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

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

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

2-1

2.0 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION

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

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

(SHINE), to construct the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) that 

would produce, package, and ship medical radioisotopes, specifically molybdenum-99, 

iodine-131, and xenon-133. This facility would employ a new medical radioisotope production 

technology that uses a nonreactor-based subcritical fission process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1 Site Location and Layout

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Figures 2–1 and 2–2) (SHINE 2015a). The SHINE facility would comprise five main buildings 

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

other engineered features (e.g., stormwater swales and parking lots) (Figure 2–3) (SHINE 2013, 

2015a). The five main buildings in which SHINE would conduct the majority of its operations

are:

(1) Production Facility Building, 

(2) Support Facility Building, 

(3) Waste Staging and Shipping Building,

(4) Diesel Generator Building, and 

(5) Administration Building.

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

) (about 8,500 square meters 

(m2

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

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

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

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

(SHINE 2014a).

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

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

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

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

structures, and additional engineered features would result in a total estimated facility footprint 
Proposed Federal Action

2-2

of approximately 350,000 ft2 (about 32,500 m2

) (SHINE 2013, 2014a). The new road would 

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

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

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

with State Trunk Highway 11 (SHINE 2015a).

Figure 2–1. Region Surrounding the Proposed SHINE Facility

Source: SHINE 2015a
Proposed Federal Action

2-3

Figure 2–2. Proposed SHINE Facility and Surrounding 

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

Source: SHINE 2015a
Proposed Federal Action

2-4

Figure 2–3. Proposed SHINE Facility Conceptual Site Layout

Source: SHINE 2013, 2015a

2.2 Construction Activities

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

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

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

installation of roads and parking areas, and delivery of construction-related materials and 

components. Materials needed to construct the SHINE facility would include concrete, 

structural steel, miscellaneous steel, steel liner, asphalt, stone granular material, and roofing 

materials (SHINE 2015a). Table 2–1 presents the estimated amounts needed for each of these 

materials.

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

(SHINE 2013, 2014a). Rather than operating an onsite batch plant, ready-mix concrete 

supplied by commercial vendors would be delivered to the site. SHINE estimates that the 

facility would require, on average, approximately 420 truck deliveries and 9 offsite waste 

shipments each month during construction (SHINE 2014a).
Proposed Federal Action

2-5

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 2015a

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

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

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

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

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

(213,000 m3

) of material would be excavated to support construction activities (SHINE 2015a). 

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

projects that construction equipment necessary to support these activities would consume 

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

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

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

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

converted to industrial use (SHINE 2014a).

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

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

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

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

as designed (SHINE 2014, 2015a). For the purposes of this environmental analysis, the NRC

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

phase in the impacts assessment in Chapter 4. 
Proposed Federal Action

2-6

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

Source: Modified from SHINE 2014b, 2015

2.3 Facility Operations

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

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

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

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

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

(SHINE 2015a). For the purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff assumed that the Y-12 facility 

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

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

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

metal or oxide in the target solution preparation area. 

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

per week, with production schedules normally staggered to accommodate customer 

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

average of 36 inbound truck deliveries and 39 outbound medical radioisotope product 

shipments. Facility operations would also require an average of 25.6 radioactive waste

shipments per year, and 1 nonradioactive (i.e., domestic and/or industrial) waste shipment per 

month (SHINE 2013, 2014a, 2015a, 2015b).
Proposed Federal Action

2-7

2.3.1 Proposed Technology

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

radioisotopes using a subcritical fission process (SHINE 2015a). The main components 

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

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

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

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

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

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

An individual irradiation unit would be comprised of the neutron driver, subcritical operating 

assembly, light-water pool, and surrounding biological shielding; the SHINE facility would 

operate up to eight of these irradiation units in concert to meet radioisotope production design 

objectives (SHINE 2015a). The irradiation units would each interface with associated cooling, 

off-gas, and tritium recycle support systems. Figure 2–6 depicts a conceptual model of an 

irradiation unit showing the ion accelerator configured above the subcritical operating assembly.

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

Source: Pitas et al. 2013
Proposed Federal Action

2-8

Figure 2–6. Conceptual Model of an Irradiation Unit

Source: Pitas et al. 2013

2.3.2 Radioisotope Production Process Overview

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

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

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

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

of this EIS, SHINE’s overall process can be divided into four primary stages:

(1) neutron production, 

(2) radioisotope production through uranium fission, 

(3) radioisotope extraction and purification, and

(4) packaging and distribution.

Most of these activities, other than during product distribution, would take place within a 

radiologically controlled area. This area includes the irradiation facility and radioisotope

production facility, both of which are collocated within a single building, the Production Facility 

Building, on the SHINE site, as described in the SHINE Environmental Report (ER)

(SHINE 2015a). As illustrated in Figure 2–7, several sub-processes would occur within each of 

these primary activities. The following sections present an overview of the key factors 

associated with each of these processes.
Proposed Federal Action

2-9

Figure 2–7. SHINE Radioisotope Production System Flow Diagram

Source: Modified from SHINE 2013
Proposed Federal Action

2-10

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).

2.3.2.1 Neutron Production

The first stage in the SHINE radioisotope production process 

is the production of neutrons, which induce the fission of 

uranium, resulting in the formation radioisotopes. During the 

irradiation stage, a neutron driver affixed above a subcritical 

operating assembly would accelerate deuterium ions into a 

chamber filled with tritium gas. This chamber would be 

centered within the subcritical operating assembly in a vessel 

containing LEU target solution in the form of uranyl sulfate. 

The resulting ion beam would strike the tritium gas and 

produce helium nuclei and neutrons. These additional 

neutrons would pass through a neutron multiplier, which 

would produce additional neutrons. The neutrons then pass 

into the LEU target solution, causing the uranium-235 in the 

solution to fission (split) and produce byproduct materials, 

including molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131

(SHINE 2015a). 

The target solution vessel would be surrounded by a light-water pool. This pool would be used 

to control the temperature of the target solution vessel, reflect neutrons back into the vessel, 

and absorb radiation and heat resulting from the fission process (SHINE 2015a).

2.3.2.2 Radioisotope Production Though Uranium Fission

The next stage in the SHINE radioisotope production process would involve irradiating an 

aqueous LEU target solution with neutrons using one or more of the irradiation units, as 

described in Section 2.3.1. During the radioisotope production stage, SHINE proposes to 

maintain the target solution in each irradiation unit at a subcritical level (i.e., a level at which the 

uranium-235 fission and the consequent neutron production in the target solution vessel would 

not be self-sustaining). Molybdenum-99, xenon-133, and iodine-131 production would occur 

within the target solution from fission during the irradiation cycle. An off-gas system would be 

used during this stage to handle and contain radiolytic and fission product gases released from 

the target solution. At the end of the irradiation cycle in each irradiation unit, the target solution 

would be removed from the target solution vessel and transferred through piping to one of three 

hot cells (shielded nuclear radiation confinement chambers) located within the Production 

Facility Building in which the molybdenum-99 would be selectively extracted and purified 

(SHINE 2013, 2015a).

2.3.2.3 Extraction and Purification

Extraction and purification would occur within the hot cell area. Molybdenum-99 extraction 

would occur as a batch process in which the irradiated uranyl sulfate target solution would be 

passed through an adsorption column to extract the isotopes. The extracted isotopes would 

then undergo dissolution and evaporation processes to yield a crude molybdenum-99 product.

The purification process would remove impurities through small-scale additions of reagents and 

through precipitation, filtration, and boiling.

LEU remaining in the target solution would be recycled and would undergo cleanup for use as 

the target solution for subsequent cycles because only a small amount of uranium-235 is used 

up during each production run. Preparation and cleanup of the target solution, radioisotope

extraction and purification, and any tanks containing target solution generate radioactive 

off-gases that a radioactive gas treatment system captures. Radioactive waste materials 

removed from the target solution would be stored temporarily pending offsite disposal. 
Proposed Federal Action

2-11

Similarly, captured deuterium and tritium would be returned for reuse in the neutron generation 

process (SHINE 2015a). Section 2.7 discusses radioactive effluents and wastes and 

transportation of these materials. In addition, Table 19.2.5–1 in the SHINE ER (SHINE 2015a)

provides estimates of the type and quantity of radioactive wastes associated with the proposed 

SHINE facility.

2.3.2.4 Packaging and Distribution

Following extraction and purification, the separated radioisotopes would be packaged and 

distributed. Because radioactive decay reduces the amount of the radioisotopes over time, the 

packaged material would be shipped to customers as soon as possible. The molybdenum-99

product would be packaged in stainless steel bottles (SHINE 2014a). The iodine-131 product 

would be packaged in solution vials (SHINE 2013). The xenon-133 product would be packaged 

in gas cylinders (SHINE 2013). These time-sensitive packages would use U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT)-approved containers for radioactive material (SHINE 2015a). SHINE 

intends to ship these radioisotopes to regional customers by air from the Southern Wisconsin 

Regional Airport and by truck; both methods would use an exclusive use carrier (SHINE 2013). 

As discussed in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) 173.403, exclusive use 

means that sole use of the transport vehicle (i.e., airplane and truck) will be for shipment of the 

radioactive material and that personnel trained in handling radioactive material must follow 

special procedures for loading and unloading the material.

At full operational capacity, the SHINE facility could produce up to 8,200 6-day curies (Ci 6-day) 

per week of the medical radioisotope molybdenum-99 and 2,000 Ci per week each of iodine-131

and xenon-133 (SHINE 2013, 2015a). To meet this production schedule, each irradiation unit 

would need to operate continuously for about 5.5 days with radioisotope production functions 

operating closer to 7 days per week (SHINE 2013, 2015a).

2.4 Power Requirements

Wisconsin Power and Light Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of Alliant Energy) would 

supply electrical power to the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). Each irradiation unit is 

projected to use 62.8 kilowatts (SHINE 2013). Overall, the proposed SHINE facility would 

require a total connected capacity of approximately 2,900 kilovolt-amperes and annually 

consume approximately 17.5 million kilowatt-hours—an amount approximately equal to the 

annual electrical power consumption of 2,000 Wisconsin households (SHINE 2013; EIA 2009).

SHINE would equip the facility with an uninterruptible electrical power supply system to power 

safety-related systems and equipment for safe shutdown of the facility in the event of a loss of 

offsite power. This system would use two independent 250-volt direct-current battery system 

trains along with the associated chargers, inverters, and distribution systems. SHINE would 

also maintain and test a standby diesel generator to provide longer term backup power to 

selected equipment. SHINE would use approximately 1,860 gal (7,000 L) of diesel fuel annually 

to maintain and test this standby diesel generator, as well as a diesel engine-driven fire pump

(SHINE 2013). The diesel fuel oil for this equipment would be stored on site in an

approximately 30,000-gal (114,000-L) underground storage tank (SHINE 2015a).

SHINE would use pipeline-derived natural gas to supply a boiler and gas-fired heaters (See 

Section 2.6.2). SHINE estimates that total annual natural gas consumption would be 

62,000 million British thermal units (SHINE 2013).
Proposed Federal Action

2-12

2.5 Water Use, Treatment, and Discharges

2.5.1 Water Use

The proposed SHINE facility would obtain water during construction and operations from the 

Janesville Water Utility (SHINE 2015a). To support this requirement, the City of Janesville is 

planning to construct a water main and sanitary sewer main along U.S. Highway 51 near the 

northwestern boundary of the proposed SHINE site (SHINE 2015a).

During construction, water would primarily be needed for drinking (potable) and sanitary 

systems, and for supporting dust suppression activities (SHINE 2013, 2015a). During 

operations, this water would also be used for drinking and sanitary systems and for facility 

heating and cooling, fire suppression, and industrial purposes. During operations, SHINE would 

use most of its water for cooling and as process water in medical radioisotope production. A 

water-based fire protection system would be used throughout the proposed SHINE facility. An 

onsite, dedicated water tank would support the planned automatic fire suppression system and 

would provide an estimated flow of 390 gal per minute (1,480 L per minute). Section 4.4 

discusses specific water requirements associated with the proposed action. 

2.5.2 Water Treatment

The SHINE facility would use three separate water treatment processes: a demineralization 

process, a cooling water treatment process, and a facility heating water treatment process 

(SHINE 2015a). Demineralization, also known as ion exchange, refers to the exchange of ions 

between a solid substance and an aqueous solution (makeup water). The demineralization 

treatment process would treat water to control the amount of chemicals in the water needed for 

the molydenum-99 purification process. Most of the water from the facility demineralized water 

system would be used for the primary closed-loop cooling system and the light-water pool 

system.

During the cooling water treatment process, water would be treated with chemicals to reduce 

corrosion and scaling before its introduction to the closed-loop cooling water system. In 

addition, chemicals will be periodically added to maintain water chemistry to keep the system 

properly functioning. The types of chemicals added to this water could include biocides, 

corrosion inhibitors, and scale inhibitors.

During the heating water treatment process, feedwater for the boiler used for building heating 

would be separately treated through demineralization or the addition of chemicals, or both, to 

reduce corrosion and scaling in the boiler (SHINE 2015a). 

2.5.3 Water Discharges

All wastewater generated outside the radiologically controlled area would be discharged directly 

to the City of Janesville sanitary sewer system and would be sent to the Janesville Wastewater 

Treatment Plant in accordance with Janesville City Ordinance 13.16 (City of Janesville 2013; 

SHINE 2013, 2015a). All industrial or process wastewater generated in the radiologically 

controlled area would either be evaporated or solidified and disposed of in accordance with 

SHINE’s waste management plan and applicable laws and regulations.

The SHINE closed-loop chilled water system would require approximately 10,000 gal (38,000 L) 

of water that would be flushed once per year and discharged to the Janesville Wastewater 

Treatment Plant in accordance with Janesville City Ordinance 13.16 (SHINE 2013).
Proposed Federal Action

2-13

2.6 Cooling and Heating Dissipation Systems

2.6.1 Cooling Systems

The SHINE cooling systems would remove unwanted heat from the target solution vessel and 

other heat-sensitive processes. Cooling systems would also control building ambient air 

temperature in association with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) needs. The

irradiation units would have both primary and secondary cooling systems. The primary cooling 

system would include the primary closed-loop cooling system and the light-water pool system. 

The primary closed-loop cooling system would remove heat from the target solution vessel by 

actively circulating water along the exterior surfaces of the vessel. The light-water pool system 

would actively cool the neutron multiplier and tritium target chamber through forced convection 

and would passively cool the irradiation units. The secondary cooling system is a closed-loop 

system that would provide cooling to all of the process areas within the radiological controlled 

area and would transfer heat to the facility’s chilled water supply and distribution system. The 

secondary cooling system would remove heat from the primary cooling system through a heat 

exchanger. The facility’s chilled water supply and distribution system would then ultimately 

dissipate the heat to the environment (SHINE 2015a).

2.6.2 Heating Systems

SHINE would use one natural-gas-fired boiler in the Production Facility Building to provide 

heating water to the HVAC handlers. Based on the rated capacity of the boiler, SHINE projects

annual natural gas consumption at 7.67x107 standard cubic feet (2.17x106 standard cubic 

meters) (SHINE 2015a). Additionally, natural-gas-fired heaters would heat the Diesel Generator 

Building, the Waste Staging and Shipping Building, the Support Facility Building, and the 

Administration Building, for a total of four natural-gas-fired heaters.

2.7 Storage, Treatment, and Transportation of Radioactive and Nonradioactive 

Waste 

Construction, operations, and decommissioning would result in the accumulation of radioactive 

and nonradioactive wastes. SHINE does not anticipate any long-term storage of radioactive or 

nonradioactive materials, such as medical radioisotope products, target solution, reagents, or 

resulting wastes (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would treat and temporarily store the solid radioactive 

and nonradioactive waste generated as part of the radioisotope production process within the 

facility until it could ship the waste off site for disposal (SHINE 2015a). Subpart K and 

Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 20 (NRC) and 49 CFR Part 172 (DOT) include regulations to protect 

public health and safety during transportation of radioactive fuel, radioactive wastes, and 

medical radioisotopes. The additional detailed information below describes the generation, 

storage, waste management activities, waste minimization and pollution prevention measures, 

and transportation of radioactive and nonradioactive waste.

2.7.1 Radioactive Wastes

Operations of the SHINE facility would generate liquid, solid, and gaseous radioactive waste

during the following activities:

• neutron generator operation (i.e., the neutron driver that would be periodically 

replaced);
Proposed Federal Action

2-14

• target solution preparation (i.e., used uranium metal transport containers, protective 

equipment used by facility workers, and spent filtration media);

• the target solution vessel waste gas removal system (i.e., spent filtration media);

• molybdenum-99 recovery system operation (i.e., spent filtration media and spent 

solutions);

• target solution cleanup (i.e., spent filtration media, spent solvent, and spent 

production solutions);

• radioisotope production and purification processes (i.e., laboratory glassware and 

liquid wastes); 

• liquid radioactive waste volume reduction (i.e., evaporation and solidification 

process); and 

• maintenance activities (SHINE 2015a).

2.7.1.1 Gaseous Waste

Radioactive effluents from the radioisotope production process include both particulates and 

gas. The gaseous radioactive effluents would be routed through two separate, but connected, 

ventilation systems: the target solution vessel off-gas system and the process vessel vent 

system (SHINE 2015a).

The facility ventilation system divides the operating areas into zones, each of which has a 

specific hazard and appropriate protection features (SHINE 2015a). This design protects the 

workers and members of the public by minimizing the potential spread of radioactive 

contamination within the facility and by controlling the amount of radioactive effluents released 

into the environment. SHINE would use high-efficiency particulate filters and carbon bed filters 

to treat gaseous radioactive effluents to reduce their radioactivity before they are released 

through a vent stack in the Production Facility Building (SHINE 2015a). SHINE expects the 

gaseous radioactive effluents released into the environment to contain measurable quantities of 

noble gases (i.e., xenon and krypton), radioactive iodine, and tritium. Table 2–2 lists the quantity 

of radionuclides that SHINE estimates the facility would release annually. Section 4.9 describes 

the monitoring of gaseous effluents and radioactive waste, NRC and other radiation protection 

requirements, and SHINE’s waste management process to ensure occupational and public 

health. 

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 2015a
Proposed Federal Action

2-15

2.7.1.2 Liquid and Solid Waste

The NRC classifies low-level waste in 10 CFR 61.55 as Class A, Class B, Class C, or greater

than Class C (GTCC) waste, depending on the types and concentrations of radionuclides in the 

waste. Class A wastes generally contain short-lived radionuclides at relatively low 

concentrations, whereas the half-lives and concentrations of radionuclides in the Class B and C 

wastes are progressively higher. Because of the higher half-lives and concentrations of 

radionuclides in Class B wastes, these wastes must meet more rigorous requirements with 

regard to their form to ensure stability after disposal (e.g., by adding chemical stabilizing agents,

such as cement, to the waste, or by placing the waste in a disposal container or structure that 

provides stability after disposal). Class C wastes must meet the more rigorous requirements of 

Class B, and they require additional measures at the disposal facility to protect against 

inadvertent intrusion (e.g., by increasing the thickness and hardness of the cover over the waste 

disposal cell). GTCC wastes contain radionuclides at concentrations that are higher than that

allowed for Class C wastes and that are not generally acceptable for near-surface disposal 

methods.

Operation of the SHINE facility would generate radioactive waste ranging from NRC Class A 

waste to GTCC wastes (see Table 19.2.5–1 in the SHINE Environmental Report

(SHINE 2015a)). SHINE would accumulate and temporarily store liquid wastes to allow for 

various activities such as radioactive decay, pH adjustment, and volume reduction using an 

evaporative process. In addition, SHINE would disassemble neutron generators to reduce the 

volume of low-level waste sent for disposal.

SHINE would solidify some liquid wastes before disposal on site. For example, it would solidify 

evaporator bottoms and spent ion-exchange column media from the target solution cleanup 

system. Waste from proprietary processes may be solidified in a hot cell using Portland cement 

before shipment and disposal (SHINE 2015a).

After SHINE treats, solidifies, and packages liquid radioactive waste, the waste would be 

temporarily stored on site only long enough for radioactive decay before offsite disposal 

shipment and for efficient frequency of disposal shipments (SHINE 2015a). Class A waste 

would be shipped approximately yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site. No liquid 

radioactive effluents would be released into the environment. 

After temporary storage, radioactive waste would be transported by truck to one of the following

licensed low-level radioactive waste facilities for further treatment, long-term storage, or final 

disposal (SHINE 2015a):

(1) EnergySolutions, Clive, Utah (1,450 mi) (2,220 km);

(2) Waste Control Specialists, Andrews, Texas (1,305 mi) (2,088 km); or

(3) Diversified Scientific Services, Inc., Kingston, Tennessee (660 mi) (1,056 km).

When transporting waste, SHINE must adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and 

transportation requirements for radioactive material in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 71 (NRC), the State 

of Wisconsin’s Administrative Code, and 49 CFR Parts 172 and 173 (DOT) (SHINE 2015a). 

These regulations help ensure safety on the public roadways. The waste generated at the 

proposed SHINE facility would be one of three DOT packaging classifications: LSA, Type A, or 

Type B packages. An LSA package contains low levels of radioactive material. A Type A 

package contains higher radioactivity levels than those in an LSA package and meets additional 

integrity and shielding requirements. A Type B package contains a greater quantity of 

radioactive material than that of a Type A package and meets additional integrity and shielding 
Proposed Federal Action

2-16

requirements (49 CFR Part 173). The NRC staff notes that the lettering system for package 

types is not related to the lettering system for waste classification.

A provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) 

states that DOE would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive 

waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it 

determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE) does not have access to a disposal path. For 

example, if a disposal pathway for GTCC waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its 

disposal. 

2.7.2 Nonradioactive Waste

The proposed SHINE facility would generate nonradioactive waste as part of construction, 

routine operations, maintenance, cleaning, and decommissioning activities.

Liquid Waste

Nonradioactive liquid waste would be generated during construction. For example, lubricating 

oil, hydraulic oil, and grease might be necessary to assemble various pieces of equipment and 

systems. During operations, nonradioactive liquid waste would include hazardous waste, such 

as chemicals. Table 2–3 lists the expected inventory and quantity of chemicals that would be 

used during operation of the proposed SHINE facility. Some chemicals would be in liquid form

and would be controlled and confined in containers, tanks, pipes, and hot cells.

SHINE would release small amounts of nonradioactive chemicals into the city sewer system as 

a result of routine facility maintenance activities and routine laboratory analytical procedures

using chemicals. SHINE would have administrative controls in place to ensure that its

nonradioactive effluents meet the requirements pertaining to the types, quantity, and 

concentrations specified as acceptable for processing by the City of Janesville wastewater

treatment facility (SHINE 2015a). Additionally, sanitary wastewater from the proposed SHINE 

facility would be sent to the City of Janesville wastewater treatment facility for treatment and 

disposal. Section 2.5 of this document contains more information on the liquid nonradioactive 

waste discharges from the proposed SHINE facility.

SHINE does not intend to treat or permanently store hazardous wastes on site (SHINE 2015a). 

SHINE would dispose of hazardous wastes generated at the facility at a licensed hazardous 

waste disposal site. Because SHINE will not store or treat hazardous wastes on site, it will not 

require a hazardous waste treatment or storage permit from the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources, which has the permitting authority for hazardous wastes under Wisconsin 

Administrative Code 660.

Solid Waste

During construction, operations, and decommissioning, SHINE expects to generate the 

following nonradioactive solid wastes:

• wood from crates,

• packaging from receiving activities,

• used personal protective equipment,

• broken mechanical parts,

• metal shavings,

• piping,
Proposed Federal Action

2-17

• wires,

• batteries (alkaline and lithium),

• air filters,

• expired lights and fixtures,

• paper,

• hoses,

• empty plastic containers, and

• expired ink cartridges.

SHINE would temporarily collect and store nonradioactive solid wastes on site and then 

transport nonhazardous solid wastes off site to either a landfill, storage facility, or recycling 

facility (SHINE 2015a). For example, scrap metal, batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing 

equipment and bulbs, used oil, and antifreeze would be collected and stored temporarily and 

then recycled or recovered at an offsite permitted recycling or recovery facility, as appropriate.

2.7.3 Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Program

SHINE’s radioactive and nonradioactive waste management program is based on a 

pollution-prevention and waste-minimization framework. The program includes the following:

• waste minimization and recycling;

• employee training and education on general environmental activities and hazards 

associated with the facility, operations, and the pollution prevention program; and 

waste minimization requirements, goals, and accomplishments;

• employee training and education on specific environmental requirements and issues;

• designation of employees responsible for pollution prevention and waste 

minimization;

• recognition of employees for efforts to improve environmental conditions; and

• requirements for employees to consider pollution prevention and waste minimization 

in day-to-day activities and engineering (SHINE 2013, 2015a).

Section 4.9 discusses the impacts associated with waste management activities at the proposed 

SHINE facility.

Table 2–3. Summary of Major(a) Chemical Inventory and 

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
Proposed Federal Action

2-18

Chemical

Approximate Bounding Inventory 

(lb) Chemical Grouping

(a) In excess of 1,000 lb.

Source: SHINE 2015a

2.8 Facility Decommissioning

The SHINE facility would be decommissioned upon completion of its useful life. In accordance 

with 10 CFR Part 50, a licensed production or utilization facility that permanently ceases 

operations shall submit a decommissioning report. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.33(k) requires 

that a report indicates how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to 

decommission the facility.

SHINE anticipates decommissioning of the facility to begin following a 30-year operating period 

(SHINE 2014a). SHINE estimates that the decommissioning period would extend for 6 months 

and would require a peak workforce of approximately 261 workers (SHINE 2014a).

Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, because they would 

involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities.

Decommissioning could include the removal of all nuclear facilities on site and the reduction of 

residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and 

termination of the license. Decommissioning of the SHINE facility would generate radioactive 

waste ranging from NRC Class A waste to GTCC waste (see Table 19.2.5–1 in the SHINE 

Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a)). Estimates of the types and quantity of radioactive 

waste that would be disposed of during decommissioning are not known at this time and would 

depend on the effectiveness of the radiological controls implemented during operation of the 

facility. However, the types of radioactive waste would be consistent with those listed in 

Table 19.2.5–1 in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a).

SHINE would be required to conduct decommissioning activities in accordance with applicable 

NRC requirements and any additional Federal, State, and local requirements. For example, any 

radioactive equipment and materials will be disposed of according to local and Federal laws and 

regulations. After decommissioning activities are completed, the proposed site could remain 

industrial or could be converted back to agricultural land or open space. 

SHINE estimates that approximately 72 truck deliveries and 191 offsite waste shipments would, 

on average, be required each month during decommissioning (SHINE 2014a). Demolition and 

site-grading equipment supporting decommissioning activities are projected to consume a total 

of approximately 172,000 gal (650,000 L) of diesel fuel over this 6-month period (SHINE 2013). 

Table 19.2.5–1 in the SHINE Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a) provides estimates of the 

type and quantity of radioactive wastes associated with the proposed SHINE facility.

2.9 Related Actions

In February 2011, DOE/NNSA issued a final sitewide EIS at the Y-12 National Security Complex 

(DOE 2011), which examined the potential impacts of the reasonable alternatives for ongoing 

and foreseeable future operations at the Y-12 National Security Complex. Included in the 

sitewide EIS was an evaluation of the mission (including operations and transportation impacts) 

associated with the supply of LEU for both domestic and foreign customers (e.g., Section 2.1.2, 

“National Security Programs,” and Section 5.4, “Transportation and Traffic”). DOE/NNSA 

published a Record of Decision on July 4, 2011, which, among other things, selected the option 
Proposed Federal Action

2-19

to continue ongoing operations, including the supply of LEU to foreign and domestic customers. 

This sitewide EIS and Record of Decision may be viewed as relevant to the SHINE EIS because 

the Y-12 facility would supply the LEU used at the SHINE facility.

2.10 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

protection against radiation.” 

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

production and utilization facilities.”

10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, “Licensing 

requirements for land disposal of radioactive waste.” 

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and 

transportation of radioactive material.” 

49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, “Hazardous 

material table, special provisions, hazardous material communications, emergency response 

information, training requirement, and security plans.”

49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, “Shippers—

general requirements for shipments and packaging.”

American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 42 U.S.C. §2065(c)(3)(A)(ii).

City of Janesville. 2013. City Ordinance Book. Chapter 13, “Water and Sewers.” Available at 

<http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us> (accessed 12 December 2013).

[DOE] Department of Energy. 2011. Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Y-12 National Security Complex. DOE/EIS-0387. Washington, DC. Available at 

<http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/EIS-0387-FEIS-01-

2011.pdf> (accessed 12 February 2015). 

[EIA] Energy Information Administration. 2009. Household Energy Use in Wisconsin. Available 

at <http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/state_briefs/pdf/wi.pdf> (accessed 

17 November 2014).

[IOM] Institute of Medicine. 1995. Isotopes for Medicine and the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press. 144 p. Available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4818.html> 

(accessed 25 September 2013).

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

National Research Council. 2009. Medical Isotope Production without Highly Enriched 

Uranium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 220 p. Available at 

<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12569.html> (accessed 25 September 2013).

Pitas KP, Piefer GR, Bynum RV, Van Abel EN, Driscoll J, Mackie TR, Radel RF. 2013. SHINE: 

Technology and Progress. Presented at Mo-99 2013 Topical Meeting on Molybdenum-99 

Technological Development, April 1–4, 2013, Chicago, IL.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. 
Proposed Federal Action

2-20

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014a. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. 

October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014b. “The Mo-99 Advantage.” Presented at the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Regulatory Information Conference, March 11, 2014,

Bethesda, MD. Available at <http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/conferencesymposia/ric/past/2014/docs/abstracts/pieferg-t9-hv.pdf> (accessed 6 November 2014).

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

(PSAR), Chapter 19, “Environmental Report.” Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS 

No. ML15175A274.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. 

February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404.

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

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

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/07/fact-sheet-encouraging-reliablesupplies-molybdenum-99-produced-without-> (accessed 14 June 2013).
3-1

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The site proposed by SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), is located in Rock County, 

Wisconsin, south of the city center of the City of Janesville, Wisconsin. The first section of this 

chapter describes the location of the proposed SHINE site (proposed site), along with a

description of the land use and visual resources, air quality and noise, the geologic 

environment, water resources, ecological resources, historic and cultural resources, 

socioeconomics, human health, and transportation at and near the proposed site. Unless 

specified otherwise, the description of the environment includes the area within a 5-mi (8-km) 

radius of the proposed site, which is also referred to as the vicinity. This geographic range is in 

accordance with the Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG–1537, Part 1, 

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

Format and Content,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous 

Homogeneous Reactors (NRC 2012).

The following description of the affected environment is based on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) staff’s independent review of SHINE’s Environmental Report (ER)

(SHINE 2015a); SHINE’s responses to the NRC staff’s requests for additional information to 

clarify information in the Environmental Report (SHINE 2013, 2014, 2015b) or for information 

that did not appear in that report; the NRC staff’s environmental site visit and audit 

(NRC 2013a); applicable information provided in public scoping comments (NRC 2015); 

comments and input provided by other Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local agencies; and 

the NRC staff’s independent research of the environs surrounding the proposed SHINE site.

3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources

This subsection describes the land use and visual resources at the proposed site and in the 

vicinity of the proposed site. The NRC staff assessed land use and land cover using the 

National Land Cover Database (USGS 2006). The NRC staff used the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management (USDOI-BLM), Visual Resource Management System, to 

rate the visual resources at the proposed site; this system rates the visual appeal and the 

sensitivity of changes to an area (BLM 1984).

3.1.1 Land Use

3.1.1.1 Site

The proposed site includes 91 acres (ac) (37 hectares (ha)) of land located about 4 mi (6 km) 

south of the city center of the City of Janesville (Figure 3–1). The proposed site is zoned as 

light industrial (City of Janesville 2012). Based on a review of the National Land Cover 

Database, 99.8 percent of the proposed site is cultivated agricultural land, and 0.2 percent is 

developed open space (USGS 2006; SHINE 2015a). U.S. Highway 51 borders the western 

boundary of the proposed site. The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport is located immediately 

to the west of U.S. Highway 51. Agricultural land surrounds the remaining portions of the 

proposed site (SHINE 2015a).

3.1.1.2 Vicinity

Table 3–1 lists the major land uses and land covers within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed 

site (USGS 2006; SHINE 2015a). The list includes lands with cultivated crops (50 percent), 

pastures or hay (12 percent), and low-intensity development (12 percent). Two sand and gravel 
Affected Environment

3-2

mining operations and one crushed stone mining operation occur within 5 mi (8 km) of the 

proposed site (Find the Data 2014).

The city center of Janesville is approximately 4.0 mi (6.4 km) directly north of the proposed site. 

The northern limits of the City of Beloit, Wisconsin, are about 3.7 mi (6.0 km) south of the 

proposed site. The City of Janesville and the City of Beloit are major population centers (more 

than 25,000 residents) within the 5-mi (8-km) vicinity of the proposed site, with 63,480 residents 

in the City of Janesville and 36,820 residents in the City of Beloit (Rock County 2013).

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

Source: SHINE 2015a

The major transportation corridors in the vicinity include Interstates 39 and 90, U.S. Highway 14,

U.S. Highway 51, and State Trunk Highway 11 (Figure 3–2). Chicago and Northwestern 

Railroad and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad own the major rail lines or rail 

systems in Rock County. The only public airport in Rock County is the Southern Wisconsin 

Regional Airport in the City of Janesville. The airport is directly across U.S. Highway 51 from 

the proposed site. No major transportation waterways occur within the vicinity of the proposed 

site.
Affected Environment

3-3

Table 3–1. Summary of Land Use and Land Cover Within the 

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

Key: ac = acre, ha = hectare. 

Sources: USGS 2006; SHINE 2015a

3.1.1.3 Special Land Uses

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) manages two parcels of land within 

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 

(3.0 km) southwest of the proposed site. This site does not have a designated use 

(WDNR 2013a). Rock River Prairie is a 37.0-ac (15.0-ha) State Natural Area located 3.5 mi 

(5.6 km) from the proposed site (WDNR 2013a). No military reservations, Federally designated 

wild and scenic rivers, national parks, national forests, Federally designated coastal zone areas, 

or Federal lands held in trust for an American Indian tribe occur within 5 mi (8 km) of the 

proposed site (SHINE 2015a, WCMP 2007).

3.1.1.4 Agricultural Resources and Facilities

Soils that may qualify as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance are located on 

the proposed site and in the vicinity (Figure 3–3). Prime farmland is defined in the Farmland 

Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) as “land that has the best combination of 

physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other 

agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without 

intolerable soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary [of Agriculture].” Farmland of statewide 

importance includes soils, other than those determined as prime farmland, with similar 

characteristics as prime farmland locally within the State. The U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with State and local 

agencies, defines and delineates the soils to consider as prime farmland and farmland of 

statewide importance (Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 657). However, 

otherwise qualifying “farmland” soils do not include those on land already in, or committed to,

urban development or water storage, as defined in 7 CFR 658.2.
Affected Environment

3-4

Figure 3–2. Cities and Major Roadways Within 5 mi (8 km) 

of the Proposed SHINE Site

Source: SHINE 2015a
Affected Environment

3-5

Figure 3–3. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance

on the Proposed SHINE Site

Source: Modified from SHINE 2015a and NRCS 2013
Affected Environment

3-6

Warsaw silt loam is the prime farmland soil type in Wisconsin, and Lorenzo loam is the soil type 

of statewide importance, as further described in Section 3.3. About 41,900 ac (16,900 ha) of 

land with soils classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance are within 5 mi 

(8 km) of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff notes that acres of land with soils 

that may qualify as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance exceed the number of 

acres of agricultural land because land with qualifying soil types classified as prime farmland or 

farmland of statewide significance are employed for other purposes, such as development or 

light industrial uses. Principal agricultural products grown in the vicinity include corn, oats, 

winter wheat, soybeans, and corn silage (USDA 2013). Based on the average annual 

production (bushels) per acre harvested in Rock County, the NRC staff estimated the potential 

relative value of 91 ac (37 ha) of farmland acquired for the proposed site to be about 12,800 

bushels (bu) of corn or 4,000 bu of soybeans annually (Table 3–2).

Other agricultural resources in the vicinity of the proposed site include farms that raise dairy, 

beef, and other livestock (SHINE 2015a). MacFarlane Pheasants, Inc., which is about 0.9 mi. 

(1.4 km) north of the proposed site, specializes in raising a variety of game birds, including 

pheasants and Hungarian partridge (MacFarlane Pheasants 2012).

3.1.1.5 Land Use Plans

The City of Janesville Comprehensive Plan characterizes current and future land use plans in 

the city (Vandewalle & Associates 2009). Table 3–3 summarizes the total percentage of land in 

the 2007 city limits that was classified in each land use category.

The proposed SHINE site is part of a larger development project to create an industrial park in 

Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District No. 35 (City of Janesville 2012). The City of Janesville 

created the initial 226-ac (91-ha) parcel of TIF District No. 35 when the city approved the TIF 

District No. 35 Project Plan in August 2011, after the purchase of an initial parcel of 

226 ac (91 ha) in 2004 (City of Janesville 2012). In February 2012, the City of Janesville 

amended the project plan to expand the district boundary to the southwest by 84 ac (34 ha) to 

include the proposed SHINE site. When the City of Janesville incorporated the initial TIF District 

No. 35 parcel, its zoning was changed from agricultural to M-1 (light industrial) with 

consideration given to subdividing the larger parcel into 16 lots ranging from 10.99 to 18.86 ac 

(4.45 to 7.60 ha) (City of Janesville 2011a, 2012). As of September 2015, this land has not 

been improved or industrially developed and the land cover remains cultivated crops.

Table 3–2. Crop Production Estimates for the Proposed SHINE Site

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
Affected Environment

3-7

Planted Harvested Production Yield

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

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

The City of Janesville’s future land use plan for the proposed site and for the land east of 

U.S. Highway 51 includes developing it for light industrial uses (Vandewalle & Associates 2009; 

City of Janesville 2012).
Affected Environment

3-8

3.1.2 Visual Resources

The visual setting of the area that would be affected by the proposed SHINE facility includes 

agricultural and light industrial viewsheds. The viewshed to the north and east of the proposed 

site is mainly flat or has slightly rolling cultivated fields (Figure 3–4). The viewshed to the south 

is similar, with mostly agricultural fields, although two large warehouses account for some light 

development. The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, which includes the airport control 

tower, runways, and several large warehouses and hangers, dominates a light industrial 

development landscape in the viewshed to the west.

The proposed site would be within the viewshed of patrons visiting the Southern Wisconsin 

Regional Airport, which supports about 50,000 flight operations annually (Rock County 2009),

and of people visiting Airport Park, located northwest of the proposed site across 

U.S. Highway 51. Trees and other vegetation that border the residential neighborhoods located 

north and northwest of the proposed site would obstruct the view of the proposed SHINE facility 

from these neighborhoods.

The NRC staff rated the visual resources and scenic quality of the existing site using the

USDOI-BLM Visual Resource Management System (BLM 1984). The scenic quality 

classification is the rating of the visual appeal of the land designated for the proposed site. This 

rating is based on an evaluation of seven key factors—landform, vegetation, water, color, 

adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications. Scenic quality is classified as A, B, or C, 

with A as the highest quality visual rating. The NRC staff gave the proposed site a C rating, with 

low scenic quality because of the uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, absence of water, 

mute colors, cultural modifications to adjacent scenery, commonality within the physiographic

province, and lack of notable features.

The NRC staff also analyzed the sensitivity level, which is a measurement of public concern for 

scenic quality, using six different indicators—types of users, amount of use, public interest, 

adjacent land uses, special areas, and other factors. The sensitivity level of public concern for 

scenic quality is assigned as high, moderate, or low. The NRC staff assigned the proposed site 

a low sensitivity level because it is located in an area with low scenic values, typical users have 

low sensitivity to changes in the area’s visual quality, the amount of viewer use is low, public 

interest in changes to the visual quality of the proposed site is low, and the location has no 

special natural and wilderness areas.

3.2 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise

The quality of air in a region depends on the types and quantities of pollutants that enter the 

atmosphere and the meteorological conditions that tend to alter the pollutants. Air pollutant 

concentrations result from complex interactions between the physical and dynamic properties of 

the atmosphere, land, and ocean. The local terrain, the presence of large bodies of water, and 

other surface features may influence meteorological conditions and may subsequently influence 

air quality. Air pollutant concentrations are sensitive to winds, temperature, humidity, and 

precipitation. Similarly, the locations and types of noise emitters primarily determine the noise 

levels in a region. However, meteorological conditions, terrain, and ground-surface types also 

may influence noise propagation and noise levels at a given location.

This section discusses existing air quality and noise levels near the proposed site and the 

meteorology and terrain characteristics that may affect them.
Affected Environment

3-9

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

Source: SHINE 2015a

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
Affected Environment

3-10

3.2.1 Meteorology and Climatology

The proposed site is located in Wisconsin South Central Climate Division 8 near the boundary

of the Wisconsin Western Uplands and the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands physiographic 

provinces (NCDC undated). Climate in this area is characterized by high humidity, warm 

summers, and snowy winters. Lake Michigan and Lake Superior have a moderating effect on 

Wisconsin’s climate; however, the proposed site is about 60 mi (96 km) west of Lake Michigan, 

a location that is typically not affected by lake-effect snows.

The nearest National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) station is the Afton Station located about 

2.6 mi (4.2 km) from the proposed site. To characterize the region’s climate, the NRC staff used 

climatological data collected at the Afton site. Data from the Afton Station indicate that the 

annual average precipitation for the past 30 years is about 35.0 in. (88.9 cm), of which 12.6 in. 

(32.0 cm) or about 36 percent of the total falls in summer. The average annual snowfall is about 

35 in. (88.9 cm) (NCDC 2010). The minimum average seasonal temperatures during the past 

30 years range from 13.8 °F (-10.0 °C) in winter to 59.3 °F (15.0 °C) in summer, and the 

maximum average seasonal temperatures range from 30.80 °F (-0.66 °C) in winter to 81.6 °F 

(27.0 °C) in summer (NCDC 2010). Table 3–4 summarizes the annual and seasonal 

precipitation and temperature data.

Table 3–4. Annual and Seasonal Precipitation and Temperature Data 

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

Monthly average wind speeds range from 6.6 miles per hour (mph) (10.6 kilometers per hour

(kph)) in August to 10.1 mph (16.3 kph) in April. Annual mean wind speed is 8.4 mph 

(13.5 kph). Prevailing wind directions are from the south-southwest every month except from 

December through February when prevailing winds are from the northwest (NCDC 2012). The 

wind rose diagram shown in Figure 3–5 illustrates the frequency of winds blowing from different 

directions and at different speeds on an annual average basis.

The NCDC records identify the following extreme weather events in Rock County from 1996 to

2013: thunderstorms, lightning, hail, strong winds, funnel clouds, tornadoes, heavy rain, floods,

and flash floods (NCDC 2013). Over the 17-year period of record, extreme events occurred on 
Affected Environment

3-11

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 F21 with wind speeds of 113 to 157 mph 

(181 to 253 kph) occurred in 1998. Six other tornadoes of lesser intensity also occurred in Rock 

County from 1996 to 2013.

Figure 3–5. Annual Average Wind Rose as Measured

at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport

Source: SHINE 2015a based on information from NCDC 2011.

 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. 
Affected Environment

3-12

3.2.2 Air Quality

In accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (CAA), EPA established 

National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR Part 50) for six 

pollutants (often referred to as criteria pollutants) to protect the environment and public health. 

These pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and 

particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter includes PM less than 10 micrometers (μm) and PM

less than 2.5 μm, which are particles with equivalent aerodynamic diameters less than or equal 

to 10 and 2.5 μm, respectively.

Other air pollutants of concern include greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide and 

methane, and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as identified in Section 112 of the CAA. The 

State of Wisconsin regulates emissions of hazardous air contaminants that include the 

chemicals on the HAPs list and other chemicals (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 445, 

“Control of Hazardous Pollutants”) and has adopted ambient air quality standards within State

regulations (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 404, “Ambient Air Quality”).

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) limit the concentrations of the six criteria 

pollutants established to protect human health and welfare. Table 3–5 shows the current 

NAAQS. Areas in which pollutant concentrations exceed these standards are designated 

nonattainment areas, because air quality levels do not meet the required standards. Attainment 

areas are areas in which recent monitoring data demonstrate that concentrations are lower than 

the NAAQS. If monitoring has been insufficient to determine whether an area meets the 

standards, the area is designated as an unclassifiable area.

The CAA requires development of regulatory plans for nonattainment areas to reduce pollution 

levels until the area meets the NAAQS within a specified timeframe. State agencies typically 

complete these plans, which are called State Implementation Plans. After air quality has 

improved in an area to the point that monitoring data meet the NAAQS, the area is designated 

as a maintenance area.

Air quality designations are generally made at the county level, but designations may also be 

made for smaller localized areas. For the purpose of planning and maintaining ambient air 

quality with respect to the NAAQS, EPA has created Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs). 

AQCRs are intrastate or interstate areas that share a common airshed (40 CFR Part 81). The 

proposed site is in the Rockford, Illinois–Janesville/Beloit, Wisconsin, Interstate (JBWI) AQCR

comprising Boone, De Kalb, Ogle, Stephenson, and Winnebago Counties in Illinois and Rock 

County, Wisconsin (40 CFR 81.71). The proposed SHINE site is located in Rock County, which 

is designated as an attainment/unclassifiable area for all criteria pollutants (EPA 2013). The

nonattainment areas nearest to the proposed site are the following:

(1) McHenry County, Illinois, which is about 19 mi (30 km) south of the proposed site 

and is part of the Chicago–Naperville, Illinois–Indiana–Wisconsin marginal 

nonattainment areas for the 8-hour ozone 2008 standard (EPA 2013), and

(2) Kenosha County, Wisconsin, which is about 38 mi (61 km) east of the proposed site 

and is part of the Chicago–Naperville, Illinois–Indiana–Wisconsin nonattainment area 

for ozone (EPA 2013).

McHenry County and Waukesha County are also designated maintenance areas for PM less 

than 2.5 μm and the 8-hour ozone 1997 standard, respectively (EPA 2013). However, these 

nonattainmment and maintenance areas are not within the JBWI AQCR. The region of 

influence for purposes of the air quality analysis is defined as Rock County. The General 

Conformity Rule, established under Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA, ensures that Federal actions 

conform to State Implementation Plans. The Federal agency must conduct a conformity 
Affected Environment

3-13

analysis if the proposed action is in a designated nonattainment or maintenance area with 

respect to NAAQS and would result in the generation of air emissions that would exceed 

conformity threshold levels of pollutants (de minimis thresholds). Because the proposed SHINE

facility would be located in a designated attainment/unclassifiable area, a conformity analysis is 

not required.

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
Affected Environment

3-14

Table 3–6 shows annual emission rates of criteria pollutants, carbon dioxide, and HAPs for the 

JBWI AQCR and for Rock County. These emission rates include both stationary and mobile 

sources (vehicular traffic). Section 3.9 presents data and assumptions regarding the amount of 

vehicular traffic.

Gaseous chemicals that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These pollutants are 

emitted from natural processes and human activities. As further discussed in Section 3.2.2.1, 

the GHG Tailoring Rule combines these and other GHGs into a single, representative “pollutant” 

called carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). Toxic air pollutants, also known as HAPs, are 

pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as 

reproductive effects, birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. Under the CAA, the EPA

regulates a list of 187 HAPs. Examples of HAPs include benzene, which is found in gasoline; 

perchloroethylene, which is emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, 

which many industries use as a solvent and paint stripper.

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

EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule to improve and protect visibility in national parks and 

wilderness areas from haze that many diverse sources across a broad region may cause 

(40 CFR 51.308–51.309). Specifically, 40 CFR Part 81, Subpart D, lists mandatory Class I 

Federal Areas where visibility is an important value. The Regional Haze Rule requires states to 

develop State Implementation Plans to reduce visibility impairment at Class I Federal Areas. 

The nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility protection is the Seney Wilderness 

Area in Michigan, which is about 295 mi (475 km) from the proposed site (EPA 2012b). The 

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

3.2.2.1 Federal New Source Requirements

New facilities that emit air pollutants, such as the proposed site, could be subject to Federal 

requirements, depending on the location and the type and amount of emitted air pollution. The 

following discussions summarize these requirements. As described in Section 4.2, emission 

rates from the proposed site are expected to be below the thresholds triggering any of these 

requirements. The WDNR has regulatory jurisdiction over construction- and operation-related 

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. 
Affected Environment

3-15

Administrative Code NR 405, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration”; NR 406, “Construction 

Permits”; and NR 407, “Operation Permits.” 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) is a Federal permitting program that applies to 

sources classified as major sources (as defined in 40 CFR 52.21) under the PSD program and 

located in attainment areas. The purpose of the program is to prevent degradation of air quality 

in areas where air quality is good. New or modified sources of criteria pollutants that exceed de 

minimis emission rates are subject to the program. The PSD program establishes mandatory 

Class I areas in which air quality is most pristine and visibility is an important value, such as 

those near national parks and wilderness areas. For purposes of this air quality analysis, the 

250 tons per year (TPY) of any criteria pollutant threshold (40 CFR 52.21) will be considered in 

determining the significance of air quality impacts for operations.

Title V of the Clean Air Act

Title V of the CAA requires a Federally enforceable operating permit program that applies to 

large, new, and existing sources of air pollution. Any facility with the potential to emit 100 TPY 

or more of any criteria pollutant, 10 TPY of any HAP, or 25 TPY of all HAPs combined is 

required to obtain a valid Title V permit and is considered a major air source. For purposes of 

this air quality analysis, the 100 TPY of any criteria pollutant threshold for a Title V operation 

permit will be considered in determining the significance of air quality impacts for operation.

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule

On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued a final rule for mandatory GHG reporting from large

GHG emission sources in the United States (74 FR 56260). The purpose of the GHG Tailoring 

Rule is to collect and use comprehensive and accurate data on carbon dioxide and other GHG

emissions to inform future policy decisions. In general, the threshold for reporting is 

25,000 metric tons or more carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) emissions per year, excluding 

mobile-source emissions. CO2eq 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. CO2eq is obtained by multiplying the amount of the GHG by the 

associated GWP. For example, the GWP of methane is estimated to be 21; therefore, 1 ton of 

methane emission is equivalent to 21 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

On May 13, 2010, the EPA issued the GHG Tailoring Rule. This rule set the thresholds for a 

phase-in approach to regulating GHG emissions under the PSD and Title V permitting programs 

(75 FR 31514). Beginning on January 2, 2011,

3 operating permits issued to major sources of 

GHG under the PSD or Title V Federal permit programs must contain provisions requiring the 

use of best available control technology to limit the emissions of GHGs, if those sources would 

be subject to PSD or Title V permitting requirements because of their non-GHG pollutant 

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).
Affected Environment

3-16

3.2.3 Noise

Noise is often defined as unwanted sound. Sound is created when a source vibrates in air,

creating pressure pulses that move through the air or another medium away from the source in 

waves. When these pressure waves reach a receiver like the human ear, the receiver interprets 

these waves as sounds. The human ear interprets more forceful vibrations (higher pressures in 

the sound waves) as louder or more intense sounds.

Sound intensity is measured in logarithmic units called decibels (dB). A dB is the ratio of the 

measured sound pressure level to a reference level equal to a normal person’s threshold of 

hearing. Because of the way the dB is defined mathematically and because of the way human 

ears respond to sound intensities, comparing the “noisiness” of two sounds based on their dB 

values is not straightforward. Most people barely notice a difference of 3 dB or less.

Another characteristic of sound is frequency or pitch. Noise may be composed of many 

frequencies, but the human ear does not hear very low or very high frequencies as well as it hears 

frequencies around 1 to 5 kilohertz. To represent noise as closely as possible to the noise levels 

people experience, sounds are measured using a frequency-weighting scheme known as the 

A-scale. Sound levels measured on this A-scale are given in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA).

Several different terms are commonly used to describe sounds that vary in intensity over time. 

The equivalent sound intensity level (Leq) represents the average sound intensity level over a 

specified interval, often 1 hour. The day-night sound intensity level (LDN) is a single value 

calculated from an hourly equivalent sound intensity level over a 24-hour period, with the 

addition of 10 dBA to sound levels from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. This addition accounts for the greater 

sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise.

Table 3–7 compares common sound levels and ranks the sounds in terms of their effects on 

hearing. For example, a whisper is normally 30 dBA and is considered very quiet. An 

air-conditioning unit located 6.1 m (20.0 ft) away is considered an intrusive noise at 60 dBA. 

Noise levels can become annoying at 80 dBA and very annoying at 90 dBA. To the human ear, 

each increase of 10 dBA sounds twice as loud (EPA 1981).

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
Affected Environment

3-17

3.2.3.1 Noise Regulations

There are no regulatory limits on noise levels in the area of the proposed action, but several 

Federal regulations establish noise guidelines to protect citizens from potential hearing damage 

and from other adverse physiological, psychological, and social effects associated with noise. 

Under the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration established workplace standards for noise. The minimum requirement 

states that constant noise exposure must not exceed 90 dBA over an 8-hr period. The highest 

allowable sound level to which workers can be exposed is 115 dBA. Exposure to this level must 

not exceed 15 min within an 8-hr period. If noise levels exceed these standards, employers are 

required to provide hearing protection equipment that reduces sound levels to acceptable limits 

(29 CFR 1910.95).

The EPA recommends day-night average sound levels of 55 dBA as guidelines or goals for 

outdoors in residential areas (EPA 1974). However, these levels are not standards.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates noise levels in the vicinity of airports. FAA 

regulations regarding airport noise compatibility planning (14 CFR Part 150) define the

requirements and procedures for public-use airports, such as the Southern Wisconsin Regional 

Airport, which is located across the road from the proposed site. The FAA regulation at 

14 CFR 150.21 requires a noise exposure map for each airport that identifies incompatible land 

use and an LDN 65 dBA contour line.

The Federal Highway Administration rules in 23 CFR Part 772 regulate highway traffic and 

construction noise. The rules identify noise abatement criteria (NAC) that define when noise 

abatement must be considered in highway projects near different land use areas. For example, 

the noise abatement criterion for residential land use areas is 67 dBA. Although NAC are not 

noise limits, they do identify levels most people consider an annoyance.

Several Wisconsin laws regulate noise associated with different sources and environments, 

including certain vehicles (such as snowmobiles, boats, and trucks), occupational settings, 

airports, highways, and wind farms (State of Wisconsin undated). Wisconsin’s implementation 

of the Federal Highway Administration’s highway noise rules is contained in Wisconsin 

Administrative Code Trans 405, “Siting Noise Barriers.” 

Rock County ordinances prohibit nuisance noise and require noise prevention in land divisions 

and other development activities, but the ordinances do not specify numerical noise limits (Rock 

County undated a).

3.2.3.2 Existing Noise Levels

The region of influence for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the 

proposed SHINE facility. Existing noise sources near the proposed site include vehicular traffic

on U.S. Highway 51 and airplane traffic associated with the Southern Wisconsin Regional 

Airport. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors are a residence and an adjacent park located on 

West Knilans Road about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from the center of the proposed site. Figure 3–6

shows the proposed site, airport, and nearest receptors.
Affected Environment

3-18

Figure 3–6. Proposed SHINE Facility Map Showing 

Noise Sources and Receptors

Source: Modified from SHINE 2015a

According to the noise exposure map for the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, the nearest 

noise receptors experience 55–65 dBA LDN noise levels. The proposed site would produce 

noise levels less than 55 dBA (SHINE 2013). SHINE’s noise modeling for highway traffic noise 

from U.S. Highway 51 shows that the NAC for residential land uses (67 dBA) is exceeded at 

distances up to 80 ft (24 m) from the edge of the highway (SHINE 2013).

3.3 Geologic Environment

3.3.1 Site Geology

The proposed site is located near the boundary of the Wisconsin Western Uplands and the 

Eastern Ridges and Lowlands physiographic provinces. The till plains section of the Central 

Lowland physiographic province of the United States encompasses these provinces. This 

province occupies the middle of the long stable North American continent. Tectonic activity has 

little effect on this location (USGS 2003; SHINE 2013, 2015a).

Current site topography is flat to gently rolling. Deposits of glacial outwash and glacial till

immediately underlay the site. These unconsolidated materials rest atop a bedrock surface, as 

further described later in this section (SHINE 2015a).
Affected Environment

3-19

Site topography slopes gently toward the southwest in the direction of the Rock River, which is

located about 2.5 mi (4.0 km) to the west. The change in ground surface elevation across the 

proposed main facility site is about 7.0 ft (2.1 m) between the southeast and northwest portions

of the site. Elevations across the entire site range from about 804 ft (245 m) above mean sea 

level (MSL) at the southwest corner of the property adjacent to U.S. Highway 51 to 828 ft 

(252 m) MSL in the northeast corner. A small terraced knoll protrudes into the center of the 

otherwise gently sloping topography of the proposed site from the northeast (Figure 3–7) 

(SHINE 2013, 2015a).

Physical features and the surficial geology at the proposed site and across the southeastern 

Wisconsin region are the product of successive glacial advances, retreats, and related 

depositional and erosional processes during the Pleistocene age or “Ice Age” 

(Fullerton et al. 2003; SHINE 2015a). The Pleistocene age is defined as the period of geologic 

time that began about 2.6 million years ago and ended about 11,700 years ago (USGS 2010). 

Both the Illinoian and younger Wisconsin glaciations affected southeastern Wisconsin and parts 

of Rock County as lobes of ice comprising the massive Laurentide Ice Sheet moved south and 

southwest out of central Canada and across the region.

Portions of south-central Wisconsin, including southern Rock County and the proposed site,

were last glaciated between about 128,000 and 310,000 years ago during the Illinoian 

Glaciation. At that time, ice covered the eastern half of Wisconsin and extended south into 

Southern Illinois and east into Indiana and Ohio (Fullerton et al. 2003). The latest glacial 

advance (the Wisconsin Glaciation) began 100,000 years ago and reached its peak about 

30,000 years ago. At its peak, ice reached into Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa and encompassed 

much of northern and eastern Wisconsin. Although this latest glacial advance did not extend as 

far south and west as the proposed site, the Jonestown end moraine, which is located about

20 mi (32 km) to the north of the proposed site, marks its terminus. However, by 11,000 years 

ago, all ice had retreated from the State (SHINE 2015a; Fullerton et al. 2003; WGNHS 2011a).

These glacial movements deposited glacial till, basal moraine, and end moraine. Till is a 

heterogeneous mixture of materials—clay, silt, sand, granules, pebbles, cobbles, and 

boulders—that glacial ice directly deposits. Ground moraine is a sheet or layer of till that often

forms a gently rolling or undulating plain of low relief. End moraine, a thickened layer of till 

deposited at the margin of glacial ice, characteristically exists as belts of till or as concentric or 

overlapping ridges of till (Fullerton et al. 2003). Glacial streams flowing from the edges of the 

ice deposited sand and gravel outwash (SHINE 2015a; WGNHS 2011b). Alluvial processes,

including flowing water, wind, and erosion, have subsequently reworked the deposited

materials.

The surficial geology of Rock County consists of the Wisconsin-age Johnstown moraine to the 

north. This moraine formed at the margins of the Green Bay ice lobe. The remainder of the 

county contains Illinoian-age ground moraine deposits that southward-flowing glacial outwash 

stream deposits and lake deposits have dissected in places. The stream valleys now contain 

late Wisconsin-age and possibly Holocene-age glaciofluvial outwash deposits (SHINE 2015a;

Fullerton et al. 2003). The surficial geologic unit at the proposed site is mapped as glaciofluvial 

outwash composed of sand and gravel. Figure 3–7 is a generalized geologic section that shows

the glacial terrain and the surficial and bedrock strata in the vicinity of the proposed site.
Affected Environment

3-20

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

Source: Adapted from Zaporozec 1982

SHINE and its contractors conducted geotechnical investigations at the proposed site. These 

investigations revealed predominantly coarse, poorly graded (i.e., well-sorted) sandy sediment 

and soils to a depth of 221 ft (67 m) below ground surface (bgs) with occasional gravel layers

(GAI 2012a). Testing of 15 boring samples further revealed that the density of the sand 

increases with depth and is generally compact. At a depth of 180- to 185-ft (55- to 56-m) bgs, a 

layer of hard clayey silt was encountered in the three deepest borings with a thickness of 10 to 

18 ft (3.0 to 5.5 m). Sand or silty sand underlay this hardened layer to the total borehole depth 

of 221-ft (67-m) bgs (GAI 2012a).

Based on drilling conducted as part of the site geotechnical investigations, the depth to bedrock 

is greater than 221-ft (67.4-m) bgs. Glacial action gouged, and then glacial and postglacial 

sediments filled, the uppermost bedrock surface beneath the proposed site. Figure 3–7 shows 

the expression of the ancestral Rock River Valley in the dissected bedrock surface.

Beneath the mantle of Pleistocene- and Holocene-age sediments, the uppermost bedrock unit is 

the Platteville–Galena Formation of Ordovician age, which comprises limestone and dolomite. 

In descending order, sandstones of the St. Peter Formation and the carbonates of the Prairie 

du Chien Group, where present, underlay the Platteville–Galena Formation. These eroded units

rest upon a thick sequence of Cambrian-age sedimentary rock that consists primarily of 

sandstone in the upper part. These Cambrian-age rocks are up to 1,000-ft (300-m) thick and 

extend to Precambrian-age basement rock (SHINE 2015a; WGNHS 2011b).

Sedimentary bedrock underlying the proposed site formed from materials deposited in a shallow 

marine environment over millions of years in a structural feature known as the Michigan Basin. 

The proposed site lies on the western margin of the Michigan Basin and on the southeastern 

edge of another feature—the Wisconsin Arch. The Wisconsin Arch and the Kankakee Arch to 

the south of the proposed site are northwest- to southeast-striking tectonic features believed to 

be related to crustal adjustment during and following the development and filling of the Michigan 

Proposed SHINE Site
Affected Environment

3-21

Basin more than 300 million years ago. This deformation led to the regional faulting and folding 

of subsurface strata in some areas. Despite this activity, the orientation of sedimentary strata 

beneath the proposed site indicates little deformation during the last 500 million years 

(SHINE 2015a).

Still, several geologic faults mapped regionally in association with the Wisconsin and Kankakee 

Arches are located as close as 2 mi (3 km) to the proposed site. One of the most prominent 

faults is the Waukesha fault located about 20 mi (32 km) to the east and northeast of the 

proposed site. This northeast-striking fault runs for up to 133 mi (214 km) in the subsurface. 

Closer to the proposed site, the Janesville fault (or the Evansville fault) is located about

6 mi (10 km) north of the City of Janesville. This 19-mi-long (31-km-long) east-striking fault 

exhibits an estimated 70 ft (21 m) of displacement. A smaller unnamed fault of orientation 

similar to the Janesville fault has been traced for about 1.6 mi (2.6 km). It is located less than 

2 mi (3 km) north of the City of Janesville.

None of these faults are expressed at the surface, and no reported evidence exists of 

Pleistocene or post-Pleistocene activity on any regional faults (SHINE 2013, 2015a). Further, 

the NRC staff’s review of the USGS’s latest release of the Quaternary Fault and Fold Database 

found no record of Quaternary faults or folds within a 300-mi (480-km) radius of the proposed 

site (USGS 2012). However, liquefaction features in the Wabash Valley in southern Indiana and 

Illinois, located about 170 mi (274-km) south of the proposed site, indicate the presence of 

active faulting in the Holocene and late Pleistocene period (SHINE 2013; Crone and 

Wheeler 2000). Therefore, SHINE considered these faults capable because the characteristics 

in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 are exhibited (SHINE 2015a). Section 3.3.3 further describes 

the seismic setting, including earthquake risk, at the proposed site.

Geologic resources, encompassing rock and mineral (fuel and nonfuel) resources, in the vicinity 

of the proposed site, are primarily related to the area’s extensive sand and gravel deposits. 

Rock County features widespread nonmetallic mining, including construction sand and gravel 

and crushed stone operations (USGS 2013a). Two sand and gravel mining operations and one 

crushed stone mining operation are within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site 

(Find the Data 2014).

3.3.2 Soils

Based on SHINE’s geotechnical investigation (Section 3.3.1), the proposed site generally 

consists of stratified sand and gravel that underlay well-drained loamy soils (GAI 2012a). The

USDA NRCS soil unit mapping identifies the majority of the proposed site (90 percent) as 

Warsaw silt loam with 2- to 6-percent slopes, and as Warsaw silt loam with 0- to 2-percent 

slopes (Figure 3–3). These soil mapping units comprise well-drained silt loams and sandy clay 

loams found on outwash plains and stream terraces that developed from calcareous sand and 

gravelly outwash. The profiles of these soils grade to a gravelly coarse sand or sand at depths 

greater than about 36 in. (91 cm). The depth to the water table in these soils is generally 60 to 

80 in. (150 to 200 cm), and water rarely ponds on these soils.

The only building site limitation for these soils is that shallow excavations tend to be very 

unstable because of high sand and gravelly content (NRCS 2013). The soils are further 

classified as slightly to moderately erodible (NRCS 2013; SHINE 2015a). Given the recent 

agricultural history of the proposed site, the soils have a well-developed organic soil horizon in 

the upper 12- to 24-in. (30- to 60-cm) soil profile, which promotes soil tilth while reducing 

erosion. Section 3.1.1.4 notes that these Warsaw silt loam soils are prime farmland soils when

they are not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013; 7 CFR 657.5(a)).
Affected Environment

3-22

The remaining south-central portion of the proposed site comprises eroded Lorenzo loam with

6- to 12-percent slopes. These soils are also well drained and grade from a loam in the upper 

part to a gravelly to very gravelly clay loam below a depth of about 15 in. (38 cm). They occupy 

outwash plains and knobs that developed from loamy outwash over sandy and gravelly parent 

materials. Because of slope factors and dense soil horizons, this soil is classified as somewhat 

to very limited for building site development. This soil unit is also prone to slumping in shallow 

excavations (NRCS 2013). These soils are farmland of statewide importance when they are not 

committed to developed uses (Section 3.1.1.4) (7 CFR 657.5(c)).

Borings that SHINE obtained during the geotechnical investigation did not identify the presence 

of highly plastic clays indicative of expansive or high shrink/swell potential soils (GAI 2012a;

SHINE 2015a).

3.3.3 Seismic Setting

Southeastern Wisconsin lies within the central portion of the stable North American craton. 

Historically, the seismicity of the region encompassing the proposed site is characterized by 

relatively infrequent small to moderate earthquakes typical of much of the central and eastern 

United States (SHINE 2013; USGS 2013b). Across the stable continental region of the United 

States, most locations can go years without an earthquake strong enough for people to feel.

In the central and eastern United States, people can feel earthquakes over a very wide area. 

For example, people can feel a magnitude 4.0 earthquake at locations as far as 60 mi (100 km) 

from its source, and the earthquake can occasionally cause damage near its source. People 

can usually feel a magnitude 5.5 earthquake as far as 300 mi (500 km) from its source, and the 

earthquake often causes damage near its epicenter and sometimes as far away as 25 mi 

(40 km) (USGS 2013b).

The USGS’s seismic hazard estimates indicate the proposed site is located within one of the 

lower earthquake hazard areas in the conterminous United States. Earthquake sources in 

Southern Illinois are the primary controllers of hazard in the region (Petersen et al. 2011;

SHINE 2015a).

Since 1973, six earthquakes within a radius of 200 mi (322 km) of the proposed site have been 

recorded with a magnitude equal to, or greater than, 2.5. Two of these events occurred in 2013 

and one in 2012 at magnitudes of 3.2, 2.6, and 3.0, respectively. The closest earthquake was a 

magnitude 2.6 earthquake in June 2013, with its epicenter near the City of Campton Hills, 

Illinois, about 51 mi (82 km) southeast of the proposed site (USGS 2013c). The largest 

earthquake was a magnitude 4.2 event in June 2004, centered near the City of Ottawa, Illinois,

about 80 mi (130 km) south of the proposed site (SHINE 2013; USGS 2013c, 2013f). This 

notable earthquake was widely felt across northern Illinois, southern Wisconsin, and western 

Indiana. Across southeast Wisconsin, it produced shaking in the range of II to III on the 

Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale, but no serious damage was reported (USGS 2013d). 

Although people can feel shaking in this range, this level is unlikely to produce any damage to 

structures (USGS 2013e).

Historically, larger earthquakes have occurred in adjoining regions with effects felt across 

southern Wisconsin. The largest of these earthquakes occurred on May 26, 1909, with an 

estimated magnitude of 5.1. The epicenter of this earthquake was near Aurora, Illinois, about

85 mi (137 km) southeast of the proposed site (SHINE 2013; USGS 2013d). The earthquake 

produced MMI VII shaking at its epicenter with many reports of fallen and damaged chimneys. 

This event is estimated to have produced MMI V shaking across the area of the proposed site

(SHINE 2013; USGS 2013f). MMI V shaking can overturn objects and cause minor damage to 

personal property (USGS 2013e).
Affected Environment

3-23

Using USGS national seismic hazard model data, SHINE performed a site-specific analysis to 

assess the potential maximum earthquake magnitude that may affect the proposed site and its 

immediate surroundings. SHINE determined that an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.8 can 

reasonably be regarded as the maximum considered earthquake to occur in the region 

(i.e., within about 200 mi (322 km) of the proposed site). This earthquake estimate 

encompasses events producing maximum earthquake response accelerations ranging from 

0.119 to 0.206 gravity (i.e., the force of acceleration relative to that of Earth’s gravity). This 

value represents shaking from an earthquake with a 2-percent probability of exceedance in the 

next 50 years (i.e., an earthquake with a 2,475-year return period). The NRC staff will further 

evaluate the potential maximum earthquake in the Safety Evaluation Report related to the 

SHINE construction permit application.

Using the same earthquake return period, SHINE also estimated the probabilistic peak ground 

acceleration (PGA) for the proposed site reflective of sites with soft rock or very stiff soil. 

SHINE’s calculated PGA was about 0.05 gravity (SHINE 2013). This calculated PGA is 

consistent with PGA estimates published in the USGS’s 2008 national seismic hazard maps 

(Petersen et al. 2011). These data indicate a low to very low earthquake shaking hazard at the 

proposed site (SHINE 2013, 2015a).

3.4 Water Resources

3.4.1 Surface Water

3.4.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology

The major surface-water feature in the vicinity of the proposed site is the Rock River, located 

about 1.9 mi (3.1 km) west of the proposed site at its closest point (Figure 3–8). No named 

tributaries originate on or border the proposed site. However, as shown in Figure 3–8, the 

headwaters of an unnamed tributary to the Rock River are located about 1.6 mi (2.6 km) 

southwest of the proposed site and west of U.S. Highway 51.

The local watershed that contributes drainage to, and receives drainage from, the proposed site

encompasses about 1,377 ac (557 ha) (Figure 3–8). USGS-delineated hydrologic unit 

(watershed) boundaries are depicted in the figure. U.S. Highway 51 roughly bisects the 

proposed site and local watershed. Drainage across the proposed site and vicinity is 

predominantly to the south and southwest across the proposed site toward the unnamed 

tributary to the Rock River located south of the proposed site.

Culverts under U.S. Highway 51 convey runoff and drainage from the east side ditch to the west 

side, including two culvert locations (three culvert pipes) adjacent to the proposed site. These 

include a 30-in. (76-cm) culvert located along the northwest boundary of the proposed site with 

U.S. Highway 51 and a pair of 24-in. (61-cm) culverts located near the southwest corner of the 

proposed site and U.S. Highway 51. Drainage across the proposed site toward the unnamed 

tributary flows through these culverts and then passes through the Southern Wisconsin 

Regional Airport, through culverts under West Airport Road, through the Glen Erin Golf Course, 

and through a box culvert under West Happy Hollow Road. Beyond West Happy Hollow Road, 

the receiving tributary passes through the wooded Rock River floodplain before discharging to 

Rock River (SHINE 2015a).
Affected Environment

3-24

Figure 3–8. Surface-Water Features in the Vicinity of the 

Proposed SHINE Site

Source: Adapted from SHINE 2015a
Affected Environment

3-25

Rock River originates in the Horicon Marsh in Dodge County, Wisconsin, where the east, south,

and west branches of Rock River join. In Horicon, at the south edge of the marsh, the river 

flows southerly for about 76 mi (122 km) to Fort Atkinson, which roughly marks the southern end 

of the Upper Rock River Basin and the beginning of the Lower Rock River Basin. From Fort 

Atkinson, Rock River flows in a generally southwest direction through Lake Koshkonong and 

then generally south through Rock County and to the west of the proposed site. Rock River 

flows across a total of about 62 mi (100 km) in the Lower Rock River Basin before entering 

Illinois south of the City of Beloit. It ultimately discharges to the Mississippi River downstream of 

Rock Island, Illinois (Sinclair 1996; Rock County 2009; WDNR 2012a).

Many small dams regulate the flow of Rock River. Originally constructed for hydropower

facilities, these low dams do not form deep impoundments. The Indianford Dam, which 

impounds Lake Koshkonong, is located about 21 mi (34 km) upstream of the point where 

drainage from the Janesville site enters Rock River through the unnamed tributary. Closer to,

and to the north of, the proposed site, the Centerway Dam is located near downtown in the City 

of Janesville and upstream of the Monterey Dam. The lower Monterey Dam is located about

6.5 mi (10.5 km) upstream of the proposed site drainage confluence and about 2 river miles 

(RM) (3.2 km) downstream of the Centerway Dam. The first downstream dam on Rock River is 

the Blackhawk Dam (Beloit Dam), which is located about 8.4 RM (13.5 km) downstream of the 

proposed site (SHINE 2013, 2015a).

The nearest USGS gaging station on Rock River is the Afton gage station (Station 05430500). 

This gage station is located slightly southwest of the proposed site and upstream from the point 

at which site drainage (through the unnamed tributary) ultimately enters Rock River, as 

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

/s)). The 

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/s). The drainage 

area of Rock River upstream of the Afton gage encompasses 3,340 square miles (mi

2

)

(8,650 square kilometers (km2

)) (USGS 2013g). No stream flow data are available for the 

unnamed tributary to Rock River that receives site runoff.

Peak flows and flooding on streams in Rock County typically occur either in late winter or early

spring, from March to April, and often in June, as a result of early summer thunderstorms. 

Floods on Rock River at Afton also generally occur from March to April with few floods from

November to January (SHINE 2015a).

No floodplains are delineated on or near the proposed site (FEMA 2008; SHINE 2015a; Rock

County 2009). The flood insurance rate map for the proposed site and vicinity identifies 

mapped areas as Zone X, the zone for areas outside the 500-year flood elevation. In addition, 

the proposed site is not located in an area identified as prone to seasonally high water tables or 

hydric soil conditions (Rock County 2009). However, floodplains are mapped in association with 

the unnamed tributary to Rock River south of the proposed site (FEMA 2008; Rock

County 2009).

Rock River flood levels near the proposed site are well below the lowest ground elevations at 

the proposed site. Because river flood levels are also sufficiently below the proposed site, the 

river flood levels have no backwater influence on the unnamed tributary flood-water levels 

(GAI 2012a; SHINE 2015a).

3.4.1.2 Surface Water Quality and Use

The State of Wisconsin has established water quality standards, numeric criteria, and 

associated designated use categories for all waters of the State, including wetlands. These
Affected Environment

3-26

standards and use designations are the basis for regulatory, permitting, or funding activities that 

have an impact on water quality.

The main stem of the Rock River is regulated in accordance with its use for waste assimilation, 

recreation, fish and aquatic life, irrigation, stock and wildlife watering, and hydropower 

(Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 104, “Uses and Designated Standards”). Its designated 

use is for recreation and for fish and aquatic life. Governing water quality standards include 

limitations on pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and various chemical

constituents and toxic substances, in accordance with Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102, 

“Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters.”

Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) 

requires states to identify all “impaired” waters for which effluent limitations and pollution control 

activities are not sufficient to attain water quality standards. The Section 303(d) list includes 

those water quality limited segments that require development of total maximum daily loads

(TMDLs) to ensure future compliance with water quality standards. TMDLs have been 

established for several segments of Rock River. Most notably the 12.4-mi (20-km) segment of 

Rock River, between the City of Janesville’s Wastewater Treatment Plant at RM 183.45 and 

RM 171 at the Illinois State line, is listed as impaired because total suspended solids and total 

phosphorous contribute to degraded aquatic habitat and low dissolved oxygen, respectively 

(WDNR 2013b).

The unnamed tributary south of the proposed site (Figure 3–8) discharges to this impaired 

segment of the river. SHINE collected baseline surface-water quality data for this unnamed 

tributary from a location where it flows beneath the U.S. Highway 51 bridge near West Happy 

Hollow Road (SHINE 2015a). The water quality is reflective of the surficial groundwater that 

provides baseflow to the streams and that indicates some evidence of agricultural runoff based 

on fecal coliform and nitrate concentrations. The NRC staff visually surveyed this monitoring 

location during the environmental site audit in July 2013, and it observed that the tributary was a 

shallow and somewhat braided channel with continuous flow.

In addition to the uses noted earlier in this section, surface-water use in Rock County is 

primarily limited to use in thermoelectric power generation (Buchwald 2011). Public and

community water systems in Rock County use groundwater instead of surface water

(Section 3.4.2) (Buchwald 2011; Rock County 2009; SHINE 2015a).

3.4.2 Groundwater

3.4.2.1 Site Description and Hydrogeology

Groundwater beneath the proposed site occurs in unconsolidated and consolidated 

water-bearing deposits (aquifers). The USGS has broadly classified and grouped the distinct 

geologic units comprising these aquifers into the surficial aquifer system and the 

Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system (Olcott 1992). Neither of these systems contains

sole-source aquifers. The geologic units comprising these systems are described in Section 3.3 

and are summarized here.

The surficial aquifer system is the most widespread system across Wisconsin and bordering

States. Across Rock County, it predominantly comprises Pleistocene-age glacial sediments and 

younger alluvial sediments that lie atop the bedrock surface (Olcott 1992; SHINE 2015a). At the 

proposed site, and as shown in Figure 3–7, the local surficial aquifer comprises glacial outwash, 

a mixture of poorly graded sand and of sand and gravel (GAI 2012b; SHINE 2015a;

Zaporozec 1982). The results of geotechnical borings at the proposed site in 2011 (Section 3.3) 

reveal that sandy sediments extend to a depth of at least 221-ft (67-m) bgs, except for an 
Affected Environment

3-27

intervening 10.0- to 18.0-ft-thick (3.0- to 5.5-m-thick) layer of hard clayey silt at a depth of 

180- to 185-ft (55- to 56-m) bgs.

As part of the geotechnical and hydrologic/hydrogeologic studies at the Janesville site, SHINE

drilled 4 of the 14 boreholes to use as groundwater monitoring wells. The wells were 

constructed of 2-in. (5-cm) diameter polyvinyl chloride pipe and completed to depths ranging 

from 60.0 to 71.5 ft (18.0 to 22.0 m). All the borings completed on the proposed site

encountered the water table at depths ranging from about 754-ft (230 m) MSL to 766-ft

(233 m) MSL, or from about 50- to 65-ft (15- to 20-m) bgs, with about 3 ft (1 m) of seasonal 

variation (GAI 2012a, 2012b; SHINE 2015a).

Subsequently, SHINE conducted water table and groundwater quality monitoring monthly from 

October 2011 to September 2012 (SHINE 2015a). SHINE measured water levels and the 

hydraulic gradient and determined that the direction of groundwater flow beneath the proposed 

site was southwest (GAI 2012a; SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff found these results consistent 

with expectations for a surficial aquifer in which the water table is normally a reflection of the 

overlying topography; the groundwater flow is predominantly in the direction of surface-water 

drainages that may receive baseflow from groundwater discharge.

To assess the hydraulic conductivity and other characteristics of the surficial aquifer, SHINE

selected three of the wells for slug testing. SHINE’s analyses yielded an average conductivity 

(permeability) of 0.0045 ft per second (0.14 cm per second) (GAI 2012a; SHINE 2015a). 

Estimates of the advective travel time for any potential groundwater contamination were also 

made for various modeling scenarios. Based on the completion of a 1-year groundwater 

monitoring data set, SHINE estimated that the expected westerly travel time to the Rock River is 

9 years. The estimate of the expected travel time south to the unnamed tributary to the Rock 

River is 26 years (SHINE 2015a).

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

/min)), with a resulting drawdown of less 

than 7.0 ft (2.1 m) over a 24-hour period of pumping (Olcott 1968; SHINE 2015a). More typical 

yields from wells completed in outwash deposits are about 500 gpm (1.9 m3

/min). In contrast, 

wells completed in glacial till might yield 1 to 10 gpm (0.004 to 0.04 m3

/min) of groundwater to 

wells. The surficial aquifer is recharged locally from precipitation, with groundwater generally 

moving downgradient to discharge points (Olcott 1992). The City of Janesville has estimated 

that the average groundwater recharge rate for Rock County is 6.3 in. per year (16 cm per year)

(City of Janesville 2010).

Beneath Rock County, the Platteville-Galena Formations (dolomite), St. Peter Formation 

(sandstone), Prairie du Chen Group dolomites, and deeper Cambrian sandstone formations

represent the Cambrian–Ordovician aquifer system (Section 3.3.1 and Figure 3–7) (Olcott 1992;

SHINE 2015a). These units may act as a single aquifer or as independent aquifers, based on 

the separation of the units by less permeable members (Olcott 1992; SHINE 2015a).

Although the rocks of the Platteville–Galena are considered confining units, particularly where 

they are overlain by younger sedimentary rocks, they represent a local aquifer in outcrop areas 

across Wisconsin suitable for domestic water supply (Olcott 1968, 1992). Similarly, the rocks of 

the St. Peter Formation and Prairie du Chen Group comprise the St. Peter–Prairie du Chien–

Jordan Aquifer—also known as the sandstone aquifer in Rock County. In general, recharge to 

these aquifer strata occurs where the strata outcrop at the surface and also from the overlying 

glacial sediments (Olcott 1992).

In most areas, the confining units of this aquifer system are leaky and allow vertical downward 

movement of groundwater within the system (Olcott 1992). In particular, the Prairie du Chien 
Affected Environment

3-28

Group and St. Peter Formation outcrop in the major river valleys over much of the western part 

of Rock County, whereas bedrock east of the Rock River and ridgetops to the west represent 

the Platteville–Galena (Olcott 1968). On a regional basis, the direction of groundwater flow in 

the uppermost portion of the Cambrian–Ordovician aquifer system is generally south to 

southeast toward the Illinois Basin and/or toward regional discharge areas, such as Rock River. 

The exception is where large pumping centers, such as those in eastern Wisconsin, affect flow 

(Olcott 1992).

Well yields vary considerably from the individual aquifers that comprise the 

Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system (Olcott 1992). However, Olcott (1968) observed that wells 

completed in the sandstones can yield 1,000 gpm (3.8 m3

/min) or more.

3.4.2.2 Groundwater Quality and Use

Groundwater across Rock County is characterized as good and is suitable for most uses. Its 

chemical quality is the result of its movement through the surficial sediments and underlying 

bedrock, which are high in calcium-magnesium carbonate. As a result, the water is primarily of 

the calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type in both the surficial and bedrock aquifers.

Groundwater is also very hard because of high concentrations of calcium and magnesium, and 

it is slightly alkaline (Zaporozec 1982). For the surficial aquifer, the mean concentration of total 

dissolved solids (TDS) is reported as 351 milligrams per liter (mg/L) with mean TDS 

concentrations from the Platteville–Galena unit and St. Peter sandstones of 416 and 349 mg/L, 

respectively (Zaporozec 1982). Groundwater results from onsite monitoring wells revealed TDS 

concentrations ranging from 340 to 462 mg/L (SHINE 2015a). The State of Wisconsin regulates 

groundwater quality and administers groundwater protection programs in accordance with 

Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 140, “Groundwater Quality.” 

Rock County obtains nearly all its potable water from groundwater. This includes water for 

municipal supply and for residential and other private uses, including agricultural and industrial 

uses (Rock County 2009). The City of Janesville Water Utility uses eight high-capacity wells as 

its public supply and has established a wellhead protection plan (SHINE 2015a). Four of these 

are shallow wells that produce from glacial outwash deposits. The wells are completed to 

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

/min). The remaining three are much deeper wells that withdraw from 

the sandstone aquifer in the St. Peter Formation. These wells are completed to depths ranging 

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

/min) (City of Janesville 2010, 2013b; WDNR 2013c).

The Janesville Water Utility controls high levels of nitrate in some shallow groundwater by 

blending water from the shallow and deep wells before distribution (City of Janesville 2010, 

2013b). The City of Janesville also maintains two covered storage reservoirs with 14 million 

gallons (53,000 cubic meters (m3

)) of storage capacity. In total, the City of Janesville’s 

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/d) (City of 

Janesville 2013a). The City of Janesville projects the groundwater demand to increase 

50 percent by 2030, with a similar increase countywide (City of Janesville 2010).

The USGS has characterized the hydrogeology of the Rock River Basin, including groundwater 

flow in the basin, as part of developing a groundwater modeling tool for evaluating the effects of 

water management programs (Juckem 2009). The groundwater flow model for the Rock River 

Basin identified 30 high-capacity public wells and 190 irrigation, industrial, and community wells 

within Rock County. The model does not account for smaller private wells that are responsible 

for about 20 percent of all the county’s groundwater use (City of Janesville 2010).
Affected Environment

3-29

As part of developing the groundwater flow model, USGS compiled groundwater production 

data from across the Rock River Basin. Groundwater withdrawals by municipal systems 

averaged about 84.8 mgd (321,000 m3

/d) for the period from 1997 to 2006, which account for 

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/d)) were in the 

top five of such systems, with Madison at the top of the list (32.5 mgd (123,000 m3

/day)). 

Withdrawals for irrigation and industrial or commercial purposes averaged 27 mgd 

(102,000 m3

/d) (Juckem 2009). The deeper sandstone aquifers (part of the 

Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system) to the east of the Rock River Basin historically have been 

in a state of overdraft (aquifer drawdown) because of the influence of large, municipal 

groundwater withdrawals (Avery 2005; Grannemann et al. 2000). However, because of the 

presence of a hydrogeologic divide and an extensive regional geologic confining unit,

groundwater within central and western Rock County is little affected by these influences. The 

vast majority of groundwater within the county, whether it is within the surficial or

Cambrian–Ordovician aquifer systems, cycles and flows within the county and eventually 

discharges to the Rock River or other streams. It is not lost to, and is not appreciably influenced 

by, activities in other groundwater basins (Juckem 2009).

The nearest active drinking water well is a private well (State Well No. MF461), which is located 

about 0.75 mi (1.20 km) northwest of the proposed site. The well has a diameter of 5.0 in. 

(12.7 cm) and was completed to a depth of 82 ft (25 m) (SHINE 2015a; WDNR 2013d;

WDATCP 2013). During the environmental site audit, the NRC staff noted the presence of an 

additional well just south of the southwestern site boundary (SHINE 2015a). According to the 

well’s completion report, it was drilled in 1974 to service a helicopter port. The well was 

completed to a depth of 90 ft (27 m) in sand and gravel, with a static water level at 60 ft (18 m) 

(WDATCP 2013). The well is currently used to supply an indoor sink and to wash down 

equipment (SHINE 2013).

3.5 Ecological Resources

3.5.1 Ecoregion

The proposed site is located within the Southeast Glacial Plains ecoregion, which includes 

7,725 square miles (mi2

) (20,007 square kilometers (km2)) in southeastern Wisconsin. This 

ecoregion primarily consists of glacial till plains and moraines or areas with accumulated soil

and rocks left behind from a moving glacier during the Wisconsin Ice Age. The Southeast 

Glacial Plains has the highest aquatic productivity for plants, insects, other invertebrates, and 

fish of any ecological landscape in Wisconsin. The main ecological features within the 

ecoregion include lakes, marshes, fens, sedge meadows, wet prairies, tamarack swamps, and 

floodplain forests (WDNR 2013e).

The primary undeveloped land cover that provides habitat within the ecoregion includes 

agricultural cropland (58 percent), followed by wetlands (12 percent) and forests (11 percent). 

Common forest types include maple-basswood, oak, lowland hardwoods, and conifer swamps. 

Most forested areas are located in riparian areas along rivers, such as Rock River, or within 

rugged topography that inhibits agricultural activities. The amount and connectivity of forests

and native grasslands have decreased since the 1800s because of agricultural activities and, to 

some extent, commercial, residential, and other development, thereby leaving few large 

undisturbed tracts of forest. Wetlands have also declined over time because of hydrologic 

modifications (e.g., ditching, diking, and tiling), grazing, infestations of invasive plants, and 

excessive inputs of sediment- and nutrient-laden runoff from croplands (WDNR 2013e).
Affected Environment

3-30

3.5.2 Site

The proposed site consists of 91 ac (37 ha) of agricultural lands and 0.2 ac (0.1 ha) of 

developed open space, such as grassy areas. The proposed site has been continuously 

disturbed from agricultural activities during the past several decades. Because of these 

agricultural activities, plant communities located on the proposed site are primarily limited to 

cultivated crops, including corn (Zea mays), soybean (Glycine max), and winter wheat (Triticum 

aestivum), and to weedy species, including fescue (Festuca spp.), green foxtail (Setaria viridis), 

Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota), and common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Because 

of the clearing and tilling associated with agricultural activities, the proposed site has no forests, 

wetlands, grasslands, or prairies. In addition, no water bodies, aquatic habitats, or riparian 

zones exist within the boundaries of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a).

The proposed site provides habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other wildlife

tolerant of open or plowed fields and cultivated grasses or other crops. To characterize the 

types of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that use the proposed site, SHINE conducted 

quarterly field reconnaissance survey studies from October 2011 to September 2012 

(SHINE 2013, 2015a).

During each survey, SHINE and its contractors walked through the entire site. SHINE also 

looked for road kills, tracks, scat, nests, and other lines of evidence to determine what mammals 

occur on or near the proposed site. SHINE conducted additional birding surveys by driving 

along the periphery of the proposed site at sunrise, stopping every 0.5 mi (0.8 km), and 

recording all birds seen or heard during a 3-minute survey period at each stop. SHINE and its

contractors conducted birding studies on two separate dates during each of the four seasons. 

As part of the birding and aquatic surveys, SHINE documented incidental observations of 

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.

SHINE and its contractors observed 58 bird species, 9 mammal species, and 7 reptile and 

amphibian species during the 2011–2012 surveys on and near the proposed site (Table 3–8). 

Because of the mobility and range of the wildlife described in the table, wildlife observed on 

agricultural fields near the proposed site also likely use the proposed site as they travel to 

forage, rest, breed, or seek refuge from predators. The species listed in Table 3–8 are 

representative of species tolerant of human-altered landscapes, such as agricultural fields. 

Wildlife that requires trees, native plants, shrubs, or uncultivated grasses would not use the 

proposed site because of the lack of forested areas, wetlands, and native grasslands.

Table 3–8. 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 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
Affected Environment

3-31

Scientific Name Common Name On Site

5-mi 

(8-km) 

Radius

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 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 2015a

3.5.3 Habitats in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site

Within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site, most of the area (62 percent) is used for 

agricultural purposes. Vegetation and wildlife within agricultural fields surrounding the proposed 

site are likely to be similar to those found at the proposed site. The next sections describe other 

types of habitats—forests, grasslands, wetlands, and aquatic—within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the 

proposed site.

3.5.3.1 Forested Habitats

Forests cover 7 percent of the area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site 

(SHINE 2015a). Typical forests in the vicinity consist of maple-basswood, lowland hardwoods, 

and oaks (WDNR 2002). Forested habitats primarily occur in riparian areas adjacent to the 

Rock River and its associated tributaries (SHINE 2015a). Historically, forests covered a larger 

portion of the area; however, many of the forests have been converted into agricultural fields 

(WDNR 2013e). Remaining forested tracts, especially in riparian areas, provide important 

habitat for wildlife and birds. Many neotropical migrating birds use forested riparian habitats 

along the Rock River for resting, foraging, and providing refuge from predators.

The WDNR (2014b) identified the following two forest communities of special interest within 6 mi 

(10 km) of the proposed site:

(1) Southern Dry-Mesic Forest. This is an upland forest community that commonly 

includes white oak (Quercus alba), brasswood (Tilia spp.), sugar and red maples 
Affected Environment

3-32

(Acer spp.), white ash (Fraxinus Americana), shagbark hickory (Carya ovate), and 

black cherry (Prunus serotina). Red oaks (Q. rubra) are commonly the most 

abundant tree species within southern dry-mesic forests.

(2) Southern Mesic Forest. This is an upland forest that commonly includes sugar 

maples and basswood as the most abundant tree taxa. Other common trees found 

in southern mesic forests include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), walnut 

(Juglans spp.), red oak, red maple, white ash, and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra).

3.5.3.2 Grassland Habitats

Grasslands cover about 2 percent of the area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site

(SHINE 2015a). Native grasslands include a variety of habitats, including sedge meadows, 

prairies, and savannas (Sample and Mossman 1997). Before the arrival of European settlers, 

native grasslands, such as prairies, covered about 50 percent of southern Wisconsin. 

Agricultural activities converted the majority of native grasslands into cultivated crops. The 

remaining areas of native grasslands are usually small and disconnected from other patches of 

native grasslands (Sample and Mossman 1997). These small patches provide lower quality 

habitat than larger connected tracts of grasslands. Predation, for example, is usually higher 

along the edge of a patch of prairie than at the center of a large continuous patch of prairie, 

which is likely due to the fact that prey are more visible and have fewer places to hide from 

predators along the edge of a patch.

The NRC staff notes that cultivated grasses, such as corn and wheat, are sometimes

considered grasslands. Because native grasses are relatively rare in the area and native 

grasses provide a substantially higher quality habitat than cultivated grasses, the NRC staff 

classified cultivated crops as agricultural lands in this environmental impact statement (EIS).

The WDNR (2014b) identified the following four grassland communities of special interest within 

6 mi (10 km) of the proposed site:

(1) Dry Prairie. This is a dry grassland community that usually occurs on steep south- or 

west-facing slopes or at the summits of river bluffs with sandstone or dolomite 

bedrock near the surface. Dominant grasses include short- to medium-sized prairie 

grasses, such as little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), side-oats grama 

(Bouteloua curtipendula), hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta), and prairie dropseed 

(Sporobolus heterolepis).

The Rock River Prairie is about 3 mi (5 km) southwest of the proposed site. The 

WDNR owns the 37-ac (14-ha) prairie, and the area was designated a State Natural 

Area in 1999. The prairie supports over 50 native prairie species, including several 

rare and threatened plants. Typical plant species include pasque flower (Anemone 

patens), cream wild indigo (Baptisia bracteata), rock sandwort (Arenaria spp.), prairie 

gentian (Gentiana puberulenta), little bluestem, and side-oats grama with prairie 

dropseed (WDNR 2013a).

(2) Dry-Mesic Prairie. This is a rare grassland community that was common in parts of 

southern Wisconsin. Most dry-mesic prairie has been converted to agricultural lands 

or forested areas because of the lack of wildfires to control woody vegetation. 

Dominant grasses include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) and Indian grass 

(Sorghastrum nutans).

(3) Mesic Prairie. This is an extremely rare grassland community that was historically 

common. Dominant grasses include the tall grass, big bluestem, little bluestem, 

Indian grass, needle grass, prairie dropseed, and switch grass (Panicum virgatum).
Affected Environment

3-33

(4) Wet Prairie. This is a variable tall grassland community that may include many 

wetland-like characteristics. Dominant grasses may include Canada bluejoint grass 

(Calamagrostis canadensis), cordgrass (Spartina spp.), marsh wild timothy 

(Muhlenbergia glomerata), lake sedge (Carex spp.), water sedge (Carex aquatilis), 

and woolly sedge (Carex spp.).

Native grasslands provide an important habitat for wildlife and birds. For example, many birds 

require grassland habitats for courtship, nesting, foraging, rearing young, roosting, or resting. In 

Wisconsin, 105 bird species regularly or occasionally use Wisconsin grasslands for at least one 

of these activities during the breeding season. This represents 45 percent of the 233 confirmed 

breeding species in the State (Sample and Mossman 1997).

3.5.3.3 Wetlands

Woody wetlands and emergent herbaceous wetlands cover about 3 percent of the area within a 

5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Wetlands provide an important, 

high-value habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic resources. Migrating birds often use wetland 

sites for feeding and resting (WDNR 2014c). Areas of open water provide an important nursery 

ground for many developing amphibians (e.g., frogs and salamanders), reptiles (e.g., turtles), 

and fish (WDNR 2014c).

3.5.3.4 Aquatic Habitats

As described in Section 3.4, water drains off the proposed site to the south and west toward the 

Rock River and its tributaries. The closest aquatic resources within this drainage area include 

an unnamed tributary to the Rock River, which is about 1.6 mi (2.6 km) south of the proposed 

site, and the Rock River, which is about 1.9 mi (3.1 km) south and west of the proposed site. 

The unnamed tributary is about 3.0- to 4.0-ft (0.9- to 1.2-m) wide at the ordinary high water mark 

and has a depth of up to about 1.0 ft (0.3 m) (SHINE 2015a). For a description of the Rock 

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

) (USDA 2007).

SHINE and its contractors conducted fish surveys in the unnamed tributary in October 2011, 

January 2012, April 2012, and July 2012. Sampling equipment included a seine for fish and a 

kick net for macroinvertebrates (SHINE 2013, 2015a). SHINE conducted macroinvertebrate 

surveys in the unnamed tributary in October 2011 and April 2012 using a kick net (SHINE 2013, 

2015a). In addition, the NRC staff reviewed a fish database compiled by the USGS and the 

WDNR, which includes the results of various fish surveys in Wisconsin since the 1960s 

(USGS and WDNR 2014). The NRC staff searched the database to determine fish occurrence 

data from the Rock River and its tributaries within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site.

SHINE observed two species—brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans) and green sunfish 

(Lepomis cyanellus) while conducting fish surveys in the unnamed tributary. The low species 

diversity is likely because of the small size of the unnamed tributary, the intermittent flow of 

water, and limited survey methods (e.g., seining). During its review of the USGS and WDNR

fish database, the NRC staff identified 23 fish species captured from 1980 to 2013 in various 

surveys in the Rock River and its tributaries within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site. Table 3–9

summarizes all fish species identified in SHINE’s fish surveys and in the USGS and WDNR fish 

database.

SHINE collected a total of 12 distinct macroinvertebrate taxa in fall 2011 and 9 distinct taxa in 

spring 2012. The most common taxon was the amphipod Gammarus, which comprised 

79 percent of the fall collection and 94 percent of the spring collection. All other taxa comprised 

5 percent or less of each collection (SHINE 2015a).
Affected Environment

3-34

Table 3–9. Common Fish Species in the Rock River and Tributaries 

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 2013, 2015a).

Source: SHINE 2013, 2015a; USGS and WDNR 2014

3.5.4 Protected Species and Habitats

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

jointly administer the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.). The FWS manages the protection of, and recovery effort for, listed terrestrial and 

freshwater species, and NMFS manages the protection of and recovery effort for listed marine 

and anadromous species. In Wisconsin, the WDNR lists species as State-threatened or 

endangered under Wisconsin’s Endangered Species Law (Section 29.604 of Wisconsin 

Administrative Code, Chapter 29, “Wild Animals and Plants”). This section discusses these 

species and species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended

(MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.).
Affected Environment

3-35

3.5.4.1 Endangered Species Act

Action Area

The implementing regulations for section 7(a)(2) of the ESA define “action area” as all areas 

affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved 

in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area effectively bounds the analysis of 

ESA-protected species and habitats because only species that occur within the action area may 

be affected by the Federal action.

For the purposes of the ESA analysis in this EIS, the NRC staff considers the action area to be 

to include the lands within the 91-ac (37-ha) proposed site and the adjacent offsite area in which

construction of the sewer line would occur. The NRC staff expects all direct and indirect effects 

of the proposed action to be contained within these areas.

The NRC staff recognizes that while the action area is stationary, Federally listed species can 

move in and out of the action area. For instance, a flowering plant known to occur near, but 

outside, of the action area could appear within the action area over time if its seeds are carried 

into the action area by wind, water, or animals. Thus, in its analysis, the NRC staff considers 

not only those species known to occur directly within the action area, but those species that may 

passively or actively move into the action area. The staff then considers whether the life history 

of each species makes the species likely to move into the action area where it could be affected 

by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility.

Overview of Protected Species

Table 3–10 describes the Federally listed species that have the potential to exist within the 

action area, within a 1.0-mi (1.6-km) radius of the proposed site, and within a 6-mi (10-km) 

radius of the proposed site. The NRC staff compiled this table from the FWS’s online database

(FWS 2014), correspondence from the FWS (2013), and the SHINE ER (SHINE 2015a). As 

described in Section 3.5.2, SHINE conducted ecological surveys in the action area and did not 

observe any Federally protected species on the proposed site or in nearby adjacent areas 

(SHINE 2015a). Based on the surveys described in Section 3.5.3, the NRC staff did not identify 

any Federally listed species that could exist in the action area. The NRC staff did not identify 

any candidate species or proposed or designated critical habitats within the action area.

In response to the NRC staff’s request for endangered and threatened species that the 

proposed action could affect, the FWS (2013) stated that no Federally listed, proposed, or 

candidate species would be expected within the project area. Additionally, no critical habitat is 

present (FWS 2013). For these reasons, the FWS (2013) concluded that if construction took 

place at the proposed site, no further action with Wisconsin’s FWS Field Office would be

necessary under the ESA. Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that 

Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species are unlikely to occur within the action area.

The Rock River does not contain marine or anadromous fish species. Therefore, no Federally 

listed species or habitats under NMFS’s jurisdiction occur within the action area.

3.5.4.2 State-listed Species

Table 3–10 describes the State-listed species that have the potential to exist within a 1.0-mi 

(1.6-km) radius of the proposed site and within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the proposed site. The 

NRC staff compiled this table from the Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program’s online database 

(WDNR 2014d), correspondence from the WDNR (2014a), and the SHINE Environmental 

Report (SHINE 2015a). As described in Section 3.5.2, SHINE conducted ecological surveys in 

the action area and did not observe any State-protected species on the proposed site or in 
Affected Environment

3-36

nearby adjacent areas (SHINE 2015a). Based on the surveys described in Section 3.5.3, the 

NRC staff did not identify any State-listed species that could exist in the action area.

For State-listed species, the WDNR (2014a) stated that the proposed site provides unsuitable 

habitat for all the State-threatened or -endangered species or for State species of special 

concern that may exist within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the proposed site. Because WDNR

determined that no State-listed species have the potential to exist within the proposed SHINE

site, this EIS does not discuss State-listed species in any further detail.

Table 3–10. Federally and State-Listed Species

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 rostrate 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

Hypericum 

sphaerocarpum

round-fruited 

St. John’s-wort T S1,S2 x

Lespedeza leptostachya prairie bush-clover T E S2 x
Affected Environment

3-37

Potential 

Occurrence

Scientific Name Common Name

Federal 

Status(a)

State 

Status(a)

State 

Rank(b)

Action Area1-mi Radius6-mi Radius

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 2015a; WDNR 2014a, 2014d

3.5.4.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The FWS administers the MBTA (16 U.S.C.703–712), which prohibits anyone from taking native 

migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The MBTA definition of a “take” differs from 

that of the ESA and is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

any attempt to carry out these activities” (50 CFR 10.12). Unlike a “take” under the ESA

(50 CFR 17.3), a “take” under the MBTA does not include habitat alteration or destruction that 

results in death or injury to listed species by impairing behavioral patterns, such as breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering.

The MBTA protects a total of 1,007 migratory bird species (75 FR 9282). Most of the bird 

species in Wisconsin, except for resident game birds and feral species, are protected under the 

MBTA (WDNR 2014e). Near the proposed site, migratory birds rely on riparian, forested, 

grassland, and wetland habitats as important areas for foraging, resting, and avoiding predators 

and for breeding for some species. Although these habitats exist in the vicinity of the proposed 

site, none of them exists on the proposed site. For this reason, the proposed site likely provides 

a low-quality habitat for migratory birds.
Affected Environment

3-38

3.5.4.4 Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The National Marine Fisheries Service has not designated any essential fish habitat under the 

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), within affected water bodies in the vicinity of the proposed site 

(NMFS 2014). Because no habitats are designated, no EFH would be affected by the proposed

action. Therefore, this section does not discuss species with essential fish habitat.

3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and cultural resources at 

the proposed site in the City of Janesville, Wisconsin, and in the surrounding area, including 

Rock County and the State of Wisconsin. The discussion is based on a review of the Phase I 

archaeological survey conducted within the proposed site; a search of the Archaeological Sites 

Inventory, Architecture and History Inventory, and Burial Sites Inventory; and a review of the 

Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) and other 

background information for historic and cultural resources within or near the proposed site. 

Cultural resource reports and site files are available to the public at the WHS in Madison, 

Wisconsin.

3.6.1 Cultural Background

Human occupation in Wisconsin is generally characterized according to the following 

chronological sequence (WHS 2013):

(1) Paleo-Indian Period (12,000–10,000 before present (B.P.)),

(2) Archaic Period (10,000–3,000 B.P.),

(3) Woodland Period (3,000–1,100 B.P.),

(4) Mississippian Period (1,100–400 B.P. (ca. A.D. 900–1600)), and

(5) Protohistoric/Historic Period (400 B.P.–present (ca. A.D.1600–present)).

3.6.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period (12,000–10,000 B.P.)

The earliest evidence of people living in Wisconsin dates to the Paleo-Indian Period. 

Paleo-Indian sites, generally found upland or on river terraces, are characterized by specific 

types of projectile points (e.g., fluted Clovis and Folsom points) and stone tools, such as 

gravers, scrapers, or large blades. These artifacts often occur in association with mastodon 

remains, suggesting a reliance on megafauna (e.g., mammoth, ground sloth, and saber-tooth 

tiger) for subsistence, along with plants, small game, birds, and amphibians. Social 

organization consisted of small, highly nomadic bands of hunter-gathers, leaving Paleo-Indian 

sites with little detailed archaeological information. In southeastern Wisconsin, the Shaefer and 

Hebior Mammoth sites are examples of the butchering practices of Paleo-Indian tribes and 

evidence of some of the earliest human occupation in North America (Fagan 2005; Neusius and 

Gross 2007).

3.6.1.2 Archaic Period (10,000–3,000 B.P.)

The Archaic Period is generally distinguished from the preceding Paleo-Indian Period by 

changes in the environment, technology, and population. The warmer and dryer part of the 

Early Archaic Period allowed groups to exploit more diverse resources, and, as a result, their 

tool kit also became more diversified. Technological changes included the manufacturing of 

notched projectile points, which were smaller than Paleo-Indian points, likely reflecting a 
Affected Environment

3-39

reliance on smaller game (Neusius and Gross 2007). Groups became sedentary when the 

climate became wetter and warmer as the Archaic Period progressed, and ceremonialism 

(e.g., mounds and effigies) is evident in the archaeological record during this time. Even though 

the Archaic Period is one of the longest occupation periods in Wisconsin, few Archaic Period

sites are found in the archaeological record.

3.6.1.3 Woodland Period (3,000–1,100 B.P.)

The Woodland Period is marked by an increase in more permanent settlements; changes in 

burial practices; increased cultivation of plants, such as sunflowers and cucurbits 

(e.g., squashes, gourds, and melons); and a rise in the manufacture and use of pottery 

(Fagan 2005). The bow and arrow were also introduced to Wisconsin during this period 

(WHS 2013). During the Middle Woodland Period, the large and complex Hopewell Culture 

emerged in the United States, including in southern Wisconsin. This culture is characterized by 

settlement in villages, increased reliance on intensive horticulture, burial mounds, and 

long-distance trade networks. These long-distance networks allowed the trade of exotic 

materials from the Gulf Coast, the Rocky Mountains, Lake Superior, and the Appalachian 

Mountains to areas far outside their immediate locations (Neusius and Gross 2007).

3.6.1.4 Mississippian Period (1,100–400 B.P. (ca. A.D. 900–1600))

The Mississippian Period is characterized by major changes in settlement, subsistence patterns, 

and social structure. Large, highly centralized chiefdoms with permanent settlements sites 

supported by many satellite villages emerged during this period. The platform mound—a new 

ceremonial earthen mound—appeared in association with these permanent settlements. 

Platform mounds; burial mounds; and defensive structures, such as moats and palisades, were 

often constructed in clusters in settlements and were common in the larger river valleys of the 

Midwest. Mississippian Period subsistence relied heavily on maize agriculture and on hunting 

and gathering. Long-distance trading increased and craft specialists produced highly 

specialized lithic and ceramic artifacts, beadwork, and shell pendants (Fagan 2005).

In southern Wisconsin, the emerging Mississippian culture was blended with the receding 

Woodland culture to produce the Oneota tradition. The Oneota people were organized in 

permanent villages, produced unique ceramic artifacts, and relied on a mixed subsistence 

strategy of hunting and gathering even though they cultivated maize. Burial traditions varied 

from the mounds of the Woodland Period to nonmounded cemeteries near their villages 

(Neusius and Gross 2007; WHS 2013).

3.6.1.5 Protohistoric/Historic Period (A.D. 1600–present)

The end of the Mississippian Period is characterized by severe social, political, and 

demographic changes that resulted from indirect and direct contact with Europeans. Before

major European advancement in southern Wisconsin, the presence of the Winnebago, 

Potawatomi, Sac, Fox, and Menominee Tribes was documented in Rock County 

(Rock County undated b). However, the introduction of European infectious diseases, such as 

smallpox, yellow fever, typhoid, and influenza, severely decimated these native populations who 

had no immunity. The spread of these diseases resulted in the widespread abandonment of 

villages and a concurrent collapse of Native American socioeconomic networks.

The first European exposure to Rock County was likely in the late 1770s from French fur traders 

(Rock County undated b). As the tribes of southeastern Wisconsin either migrated or were 

forcibly removed west of the Mississippi, Euro-American settlers moved to Wisconsin to take 

advantage of the fertile agricultural land. Manufacturing boomed in Rock County in the 1900s, 

as General Motors (GM), the Parker Pen Company, and other firms began producing tractors;

machinery; paper; pens; and refined farm products, such as snack foods. Although 
Affected Environment

3-40

manufacturing gained a large market share, agriculture and dairying activities remain an 

important factor in the regional economy. The area surrounding the proposed site has been 

traditionally used as agricultural fields, which are located to the north, east, and south of the 

proposed site. A commercial farm office is also located north of the proposed site 

(SHINE 2015a).

3.6.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources

Databases that the National Park Service (NPS) maintains show 135 properties listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places in Rock County, including one property designated as a 

National Historic Landmark (NPS 2013a, 2013b) under the National Historic Preservation Act 

(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). These historic properties reflect the prehistoric and historic cultural 

contexts for the proposed site and include prehistoric archaeological sites; historic 

archaeological sites; and historic buildings, structures, and districts dating from the mid-1700s 

to the mid-1800s. However, no historic properties are located within the boundaries of the 

proposed site. The closest property in the National Register of Historic Places list is the John 

and Martha Hugunin House, which is located about 1.0 mi (1.6 km) northeast of the proposed 

site and is surrounded by commercial, residential, and agricultural land. The Hugunin House, 

Italianate in style, is significant for its architectural design and relation to historic farming in the 

region (NPS 2013a).

SHINE commissioned a Phase I archeological survey at the proposed site and, with its 

contractors, followed WHS methodologies. SHINE did not identify any archaeological sites or 

evidence of cultural resources within the survey area. As a result, SHINE did not recommend 

any further archaeological investigations (Knopf and Krause 2012). SHINE submitted the 

Phase 1 survey results and report to the WHS for review and comment. The WHS determined 

that the findings were acceptable (SHINE 2015a).

3.7 Socioeconomics

This section describes socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or indirectly 

affected from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. 

The SHINE facility and the communities that would support it can be described as a dynamic 

socioeconomic system. The communities provide the people, goods, and services required to 

construct and operate the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE facility operations, in turn, provide 

wages and benefits for people and dollar expenditures for goods and services. The measure of 

a community’s ability to support the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility depends on its ability to respond to changing environmental, social, 

economic, and demographic conditions.

The socioeconomic region of influence is defined by the area in which SHINE operations 

employees and their families would likely reside, spend their income, and use their benefits—all 

of which affect the economic condition of the region. For the purposes of analysis and because 

of the relatively small size of the SHINE operations work force (150 workers), this area includes 

all of Rock County and the City of Janesville.

3.7.1 Population Growth Rates and Projections

Rock County has 6 cities, 20 towns, and 3 villages (Rock County 2013). In 2012, the total 

population for Rock County was 160,129. The two most populated cities—the City of Janesville 

and the City of Beloit—are approximately 13 mi (21 km) apart. The City of Janesville, the 

county seat for Rock County, has a population of 63,480; the City of Beloit has a population of 
Affected Environment

3-41

36,850. As of 2012, each of the other cities and towns in Rock County had populations of less 

than 8,000 (Rock County 2013).

The population for Rock County grew steadily from 1970 to 2010, with the largest change of 

9.2 percent between 1990 and 2000 (Table 3–11) (USCB 1995, 2000a, 2010a). Based on 

population projections from the Wisconsin Department of Administration (WDOA), Demographic 

Services Center, the population within Rock County is projected to continue to increase.

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.

3.7.2 Race and Ethnicity

Table 3–12 presents the demographic profiles for the City of Janesville and Rock County 

(USCB 2010b). In 2010, minorities comprised 11.2 percent of the total population in the City of 

Janesville. As shown in Table 3–12, the largest minority populations were Hispanic and Latino 

(of any race) at 5.4 percent followed by Black or African American at 2.5 percent. In Rock 

County, minorities comprised 15.5 percent of the total population in 2010. The largest minority 

populations were Hispanic and Latino (of any race) at 7.6 percent followed by Black or African 

American at 4.8 percent.

Table 3–12. Race and Ethnicity for the City of Janesville 

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
Affected Environment

3-42

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

3.7.3 Transient Population

Colleges and recreational opportunities attract daily and seasonal visitors who create a demand 

for temporary housing and services. In 2013, approximately 15,970 students attended colleges 

and universities within 20 mi (32 km) of the proposed SHINE facility (NCES 2014). According to 

the 2010 Census, there were 786 seasonal housing units in Rock County.

Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural 

crops. These workers may or may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers 

follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruit, throughout rural areas of the United States. 

Others may be permanent residents living near Janesville and Beloit and traveling from farm to 

farm harvesting crops.

Migrant workers may be members of minority or low-income populations. Because migrant 

workers travel and can spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual 

residents, they may be unavailable for counting by Census takers. If uncounted, these minority 

and low-income workers would be “underrepresented” in the decennial Census population

counts.

In the 2002 Census of Agriculture, farm operators were asked for the first time whether they 

hired migrant workers—defined as a farm worker whose employment required travel—to do 

work that prevented the migrant workers from returning to their permanent place of residence 

the same day. The Census is conducted every 5 years and results in a comprehensive 

compilation of agricultural production data for every county in the Nation.

Information about migrant and temporary farm labor (working less than 150 days) was collected 

in the 2012 Census of Agriculture. According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, approximately 

1,267 farm workers were hired to work for less than 150 days on 265 farms in Rock County, 

Wisconsin (USDA 2014). Three farms in Rock County reported hiring migrant workers in the 

2012 Census of Agriculture (USDA 2014).

3.7.4 Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment

This section provides labor force, employment, and unemployment data for the City of 

Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin. It also presents economic data on

employment by industry, income, poverty levels, occupations, wages, poverty rates, and 

housing.

Table 3–13 shows that Rock County had an available labor force in 2012 of 79,255, with an 

8.4-percent unemployment rate. The City of Janesville had an available labor force of 32,256,

with a 9-percent unemployment rate (WDWD 2010, 2011, 2012). Between 2000 and 2012, 

unemployment increased in the City of Janesville and in Rock County. One reason for this
Affected Environment

3-43

increase in unemployment in the City of Janesville could be attributed to the GM manufacturing 

plant. The City of Janesville GM plant employed workers to produce sport utility vehicles and 

pickup trucks at the end of 2007 (Milwaukee Business Journal 2008). When gas prices rose in 

the late 2000s, production was shifted to a more fuel-efficient line of cars, causing a decline in 

the production at the GM plant. The GM plant fully closed in 2009. More than 2,000 hourly and 

salaried workers were laid off (Leute 2009). In addition to the jobs lost by the GM plant closure, 

companies in the region that supplied goods and services to the plant laid off approximately 

1,200 people (Leute 2009). The unemployment rates in the City of Janesville for 2010 and 2011

reflect the impact of the GM plant closure (Table 3–13). During the same period, the State of 

Wisconsin as a whole experienced a similar rise in unemployment.

Table 3–13. Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment Rates

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

Table 3–14 shows the results of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report of employment by

industry for Rock County for 2012 (BLS 2013). During 2012, the largest industries for 

employment in Rock County were trade, transportation, and utilities with a 14,714 employment 

total or 27.56 percent of employment. The second highest category for employment by industry 

was education and health services with a 10,288 employment total or 19.27 percent of 

employment. The employment by industry with the lowest number in 2012 was natural 

resources and mining, with a 517 employment total or less than 1-percent total of employment.
Affected Environment

3-44

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

3.7.5 Income and Wages

Table 3–15 compares the median family and per capita income figures for the City of Janesville, 

Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin (USCB 2011a). According to the USCB 2009–2011

American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, the City of Janesville had a median family 

income lower than both Rock County and the State of Wisconsin (USCB 2011a). The City of 

Janesville had a slightly higher per capita income than that of Rock County, but it was lower 

than that of the State of Wisconsin. Overall, both Rock County and the City of Janesville had 

lower median family and per capita income than that of the State of Wisconsin.

Table 3–15. Median Family Income and Per Capita Income

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

3.7.6 Poverty Rates

Table 3-16 compares families and all people living below the Federal poverty threshold in the 

City of Janesville, Rock County, and the State of Wisconsin. The poverty levels determined by 

the USCB in 2011 were $11,484 for individuals and $23,021 for a family of four (USCB 2011b). 

According to USCB’s 2009–2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, a slightly 

higher percentage of families and all people living below the poverty level lived in the City of 

Janesville when compared to Rock County. Both the City of Janesville and Rock County had 
Affected Environment

3-45

higher percentages of families and people living below the poverty level than the State of 

Wisconsin did overall.

Table 3–16. People Living Below U.S. Census Poverty Thresholds

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

3.7.7 Housing

Table 3–17 compares the housing units and vacancy rates for the City of Janesville and 

Rock County (USCB 2009–2011b). According to USCB’s 2009–2011 American Community 

Survey 3-Year Estimates, the City of Janesville had 26,916 total housing units with 1,721 units 

vacant. Rock County had 68,461 total housing units with 5,478 units vacant. The rental rate 

was higher than the homeowner vacancy rate in both locations, with Rock County having a 

slightly higher rental rate at 8.0 percent.

Table 3–17. Housing Unit Characteristics for the City of Janesville 

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

3.7.8 Local Employers

Table 3–18 ranks the 10 largest private and government employers in the City of Janesville. 

Three employers have more than 1,000 employees—Mercy Health System, Janesville Public 

School, and Rock County. These employers provide a variety of products and services,

including medical services, public education, local government, wholesale distribution, data 

processing, manufacturing, and retail sales (Forward Janesville 2014).
Affected Environment

3-46

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.

Table 3–19 shows that the largest employer in Rock County is Mercy Health System, followed 

by Beloit Health System with over 1,000 employees each. The largest employer in Rock County

that is not located in the City of Janesville is Beloit Health System, Inc. Similar to the City of 

Janesville, these employers provide a variety of products and services, including medical 

services, public education, local government, retail, and manufacturing (Rock County 

Development Alliance 2014).

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

3.7.9 Taxes

Counties, municipalities, and boards of education may impose sales taxes in addition to the

State sales tax. Local and State entities in the region of influence impose sales, property, and 

income taxes. These include the school district, the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the 

State of Wisconsin. Tax rates can vary by jurisdiction. The retail sales tax rate is 0 percent in 

the City of Janesville and 0.5 percent in Rock County. The State of Wisconsin has a 

4.60-percent to 7.75-percent personal income tax rate, a 5.0-percent sales tax rate, and a 

7.9-percent corporate tax rate (City of Janesville undated).
Affected Environment

3-47

The two school districts in the City of Janesville—Janesville and Milton—receive school district 

tax levies collected from property taxes in the school district boundaries. The proposed site is in 

the Janesville School District. In 2011 and 2012, the Janesville School District collected 

$36,774,828 in school district tax levies. The 2012 and 2013 taxes were $36,077,620 

(WDPI 2011–2012, 2012–2013). The City of Janesville’s proposed budget for 2013 lists a total 

estimated assessed value of real and personal property at $3.9 billion. The local tax rate is 

$7.88 for every $1,000 of property owned (City of Janesville 2013b). The 2012 full property tax 

value for the City of Janesville was $3,895,706,200 (WDR 2012).

3.7.10 Education

In the 2012–2013 school year, the Janesville School District had 10,327 students in 

pre-kindergarten (K) through grade 12 (WDPI 2013). The Janesville School District has 

12 pre-K to grade 5 elementary schools, 3 grade 6 to 9 middle schools, 2 grade 9 to 12 

comprehensive high schools, and 4 charter schools. The Janesville Academy for International 

Studies, Jackson Elementary School, Lincoln Elementary School, Edison Middle School, and 

Van Buren Elementary School are the Janesville School District public schools within 2.5 mi 

(4.0 km) of the proposed site (SHINE 2013; Janesville School District 2012; WDPI 2013).

The Milton School District, which is also located in the City of Janesville, had 3,388 students in 

kindergarten (K) through 12th grade for the 2012–2013 school year (WDPI 2013). The Milton 

School District has four K through grade 3 elementary schools, one elementary school for 

grades 4 to 6, one middle school for grades 7 to 8, one high school for grades 9 to 12, and one 

alternative high school.

Rock County has eight public school districts serving K through grade 12 (Rock County 2009). 

These school districts, with their current total enrollment data for 2013–2014, include 

Beloit (7,137), Beloit Turner (1,485), Clinton Community (1,188), Edgerton (1,864), Evansville 

Community (1,719), Janesville (10,408), Milton (3,374), and Parkview (848) (Rock County 2009;

WDPI 2013). The total of all enrollments in 2013–2014 for all Rock County school districts is 

28,023.

Fourteen private schools are located in Rock County and include 4 private schools in the City of 

Beloit and 10 private schools in the City of Janesville for K through grade 12 (Private School 

Review 2013). Three post-secondary schools are located in Rock County. Blackhawk

Technical College and University of Wisconsin—Rock County are 2-year technical and 

community colleges located in the City of Janesville. Beloit College, which offers a 4-year 

degree, is located in the City of Beloit.

Other educational facilities include the Arrowhead Library System for Rock County, which

serves the communities of the City of Beloit (Beloit Public Library), the Village of Clinton 

(Clinton Public Library), the City of Edgerton (Edgerton Public Library), the City of Evansville 

(Eager Free Public Library), the City of Janesville (Hedberg Public Library), the City of Milton 

(Milton Public Library), and the Village of Orfordville (Orfordville Public Library) 

(Arrowhead Library System 2013).

3.7.11 Tourism, Activity Centers, and Recreation for the City of Janesville and Rock 

County

Tourism and Activity Centers (Shopping, Business, Agricultural, and Sporting Events)

The City of Janesville has several tourist attractions and activity centers, including the Janesville 

Performing Arts Center, the 4-H Rock County Fair, a local baseball team, and a local hockey 

team. The Helen Jeffries Wood Museum Center, Lincoln Tallman House, Milton House 
Affected Environment

3-48

Museum, and Angel Museum are all located in or near the City of Janesville. The Janesville 

Performing Arts Center, Beloit Civic Theatre, Beloit/Janesville Symphony Orchestra, Beloit Fine 

Arts Incubator, and Beloit International Film Festival all offer access to the arts. The Janesville 

Shopping Mall is available for local shopping (Janesville Area Convention and Visitors 

Bureau 2013). Sporting events include a baseball team, the Beloit Snappers; a North American 

Hockey League, the Janesville Jets; and the semi-pro Ironman Football League.

Public Recreational Facilities

The City of Janesville’s Park Place has 2,590 ac (1,048 ha) with 64 improved parks that consist 

of regional parks, community parks, neighborhood parks, greenbelts, an arboretum, and open 

spaces. The City of Janesville has 10 mi (16 km) of cross-country ski trails and more than 25 mi 

(40 km) of paved bike trails. A portion of the statewide Ice Age Trail is located in the City of 

Janesville (City of Janesville 2011b). No direct trail connections or marked bike routes pass 

through the proposed site. The City of Janesville also owns two golf courses—the Riverside 

Golf Course and the Blackhawk Golf Course—and an ice arena (City of Janesville 2011b). The 

City of Janesville has 34 campgrounds (WDNR undated).

Rock County offers recreational opportunities for biking, hiking, fishing, ice skating, 

snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and horseback riding. Several parks, golf courses, and 

sports facilities are located in Rock County. Rock County parks include Rock River Trail and 

Roam the Rock. Part of the Wisconsin Ice Age Trail’s 1,000-mi (1,600-km) footpath is located in 

Rock County (Rock County Tourism Council 2012; Ice Age Trail Alliance 2013). In addition, hot 

air balloon flights are available for balloon rides. Rock River and Lake Koshkonong in Rock 

County provide recreational opportunities. Rock County has several municipal golf courses,

including Blackhawk, Krueger, and Riverside. The county’s two ice arenas are the Beloit Sports 

Arena and the City of Janesville Ice Arena.

Rock County has 15 state-owned natural areas (Table 3–20), including one State park, six 

wildlife management areas, four fishery management areas, and three areas listed as “other” 

(WDNR 2013f). Rock County also maintains 226 mi (364 km) of snowmobile trails with the 

closest located about 2.4 mi (3.9 km) south of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a).

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
Affected Environment

3-49

3.7.12 Public Services

Medical

The City of Janesville has several medical care facilities, including two hospitals. Mercy 

Hospital has 240 beds, and St. Mary’s Janesville Hospital has 51 beds. The Mercy Health 

System, Janesville Clinics, has seven homeless shelters and assisted-living care facilities and 

four nursing homes.

Health care providers in Rock County include the Beloit Health System, Dean Health System, 

Edgerton Hospital and Health Services, Healthy Communities Cooperative, Mercy Health 

System, St. Mary’s Janesville Hospital, and The Alliance (Rock County Development 

Alliance 2012).

Emergency Services

Fire/rescue and emergency medical services throughout Rock County are located in the cities of 

Beloit, Edgerton, Evansville, Janesville, and Milton; the Town of Beloit; and the villages of 

Clinton, Footville, and Orfordville.

The Emergency Management Agency and the Telecommunications Center are located in the 

City of Janesville. The Emergency Management Agency coordinates countywide responses 

and supports local governments during major disasters and emergencies. It also prepares other 

governmental entities, private business, volunteer organizations, and citizens to respond and 

recover from major emergencies and disasters. The Telecommunications Center has a 24-hour

dispatching service for all Rock County police and law enforcement, fire and rescue, and 

emergency medical services (Rock County 2014a, 2014b).

Water Treatment

Rock County supplies water to community residents by various water systems and well types—

municipal, other than municipal, transient noncommunity, nontransient noncommunity, and 

private sources of supply water.

The WDNR regulates municipal and industrial operations that discharge wastewater to surface 

water or groundwater through the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit 

program. Under Section 281.41 of Wisconsin statutes, an owner must obtain WDNR review 

and approval of municipal and industrial treatment plant construction plans, related monitoring 

systems, and groundwater monitoring wells (WDNR 2012b).

Rock County manages its wastewater in two ways—with municipal sanitary sewer systems or

with onsite waste disposal (septic) systems. Three municipal sanitary sewer systems, located in 

the City of Beloit, the City of Janesville, and the Town of Beloit, serve more than 10,000 people. 

The WDNR requires these municipal systems to plan their service capabilities in conformance 

with the current groundwater quality standards. The many other smaller municipal sanitary 

sewer systems in Rock County are located in the cities of Edgerton, Evansville, and Milton; 

Consolidated Koshkonong (Newville area and Indianford); Hanover; and the villages of Clinton, 

Footville, and Orfordville.

Rock County residents and businesses that do not reside within the boundaries of any of these

municipal sanitary sewer system locations treat onsite waste disposal using septic systems. In 

2000, the State of Wisconsin adopted a policy allowing conventional (underground) systems 

and alternative (aboveground) systems. Soil characteristics determine whether conventional or

alternative onsite wastewater disposal (septic) systems are used.

Rock County had 13,000 privately operated residential and commercial septic systems in 2009 

(Rock County 2009). The septic systems allowed for residential and commercial purposes in 
Affected Environment

3-50

Rock County include conventional, pressure dosing, aerobic treatment unit, at-grade, and 

mound (i.e., Wisconsin mound wastewater soil treatment system, which is a combination of a, 

single pass sand filter and dispersal unit).

The conventional system uses a tank with effluent distributed gravitationally that goes to a 

belowground drain field. A pressure dosing system uses a tank with effluent distributed by a 

pump through a pressurized pipe system going to a belowground drain field. The aerobic 

treatment unit uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through a pressurized pipe system 

to either an aboveground or belowground drain field by an aerobic tank where effluent is 

exposed to air. An at-grade system uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through a 

pressurized pipe system going to a drain field location just below the surface. The mound 

system uses a tank with effluent distributed by a pump through pressure-fed pipes to an 

aboveground drain field.

3.8 Human Health

The proposed SHINE facility is a potential source of radiation exposure to onsite workers and 

offsite members of the public. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), gives the NRC authority to issue and enforce standards that provide 

an adequate level of protection for public health and safety and that protect the environment. 

The NRC staff evaluates the latest radiation protection recommendations from national and 

international scientific bodies as a basis for its radiation protection standards (10 CFR Part 20). 

The facilities that the NRC licenses to possess radioactive material must adhere to these 

radiation protection standards to protect workers and the public against potential health risks 

from exposure to radioactive material used, generated, and released from the licensed facility. 

The NRC staff periodically inspects a licensed facility to ensure the facility operates within the 

NRC requirements. The NRC staff also has enforcement authority to penalize a licensee for a 

violation of its regulations.

The NRC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration share responsibility for 

protecting worker health at nuclear power plants. In September 2013, the NRC and the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration updated a Memorandum of Understanding that 

delineates the general areas of responsibility of each agency, describes how each agency 

achieves worker protection at facilities licensed by the NRC, and provides guidelines for 

coordinating activities between the two agencies regarding occupational safety and health 

(NRC 2013b).

3.8.1 Regulatory Radiological Requirements

A radioisotope production facility using enriched uranium as a fuel must receive a license from 

the NRC and comply with NRC regulations and conditions specified in the license to operate. A 

licensee is required to comply with occupational dose limits for adults (10 CFR Part 20, 

Subpart C) and radiation dose limits for individual members of the public (10 CFR Part 20, 

Subpart D).

3.8.1.1 Regulatory Requirements for Occupational Exposure

The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1201 establish occupational dose limits. The NRC 

regulations at 10 CFR 20.1201 specify an annual maximum allowable occupational dose of 

5 rem (0.05 sievert) to a radiation worker from exposure to radiation and radioactive material at 

a licensed facility. The dose limits apply to normal and accident conditions. Under 

10 CFR 20.2206, the NRC requires licensees to submit an annual report of their results of 
Affected Environment

3-51

individual monitoring for each individual who required monitoring under 10 CFR 20.1502 during 

that year.

The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.2202 and 20.2203 require licensees to submit reports of 

incidents and occurrences involving personnel radiation exposures that exceed specified doses, 

radiation levels, and concentrations of radioactive material, respectively. Licensees are 

required to investigate incidents and occurrences and to take corrective actions as necessary.

3.8.1.2 Regulatory Requirements for Public Exposure

The NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1301 specify an annual maximum allowable dose of 

100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) to a member of the public from exposure to radiation and 

radioactive material at a licensed facility. The dose limits apply to normal and accident 

conditions. In addition, under 10 CFR 20.1101(d), the NRC imposes a 10-millirem 

(0.01-millisievert) constraint on air emissions of radioactive material released into the 

environment. This dose constraint, applicable to the proposed SHINE facility, implements 

10 CFR 20.1101(b), which requires NRC licensees to use, to the extent practical, procedures 

and controls based on sound radiation protection principles to achieve doses to members of the 

public (and facility workers) that are as low as is reasonably achievable.

3.8.1.3 Public Radiological Exposures

The proposed SHINE facility, if approved by the NRC, would be licensed to possess, use, 

generate, and release radioactive effluents under controlled conditions into the environment 

during normal operation. SHINE would use radioactive waste management systems to remove 

radioactivity to maintain the doses to workers and members of the public within the NRC dose

limits and to be as low as is reasonably achievable.

Members of the public may be exposed to radioactive material contained in gaseous radioactive 

effluents released into the atmosphere from the proposed SHINE facility during normal 

operations. The radioactive materials released under controlled conditions would include 

krypton-85, iodine-131, xenon-133, and tritium. The NRC would require SHINE to monitor 

gaseous radioactive effluents to ensure compliance with the NRC requirements. SHINE would 

not plan to release any liquid radioactive effluents (SHINE 2015a).

The NRC staff evaluates the impact to human health from radioactive material by comparing the 

estimated dose to a member of the public from the proposed facility, submitted by SHINE in its 

Environmental Report, against the agency’s radiation protection dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20. 

Dose is calculated based on the amount of time spent in the vicinity of the radioactive effluent or 

the amount of time the individual’s body retains the inhaled or ingested radionuclides 

(exposure).

Radioactive material released into the environment can expose individuals through the following 

pathways:

(1) inhaling contaminated air,

(2) standing in a plume of contaminated air,

(3) drinking milk or eating meat from animals that grazed on open pasture on which 

radioactive material was deposited,

(4) eating vegetables grown near the proposed site that are contaminated with 

radioactive material releases from the facility, and

(5) being exposed to medical isotopes and low-level radioactive waste shipped off site.
Affected Environment

3-52

SHINE calculated the dose for the maximally exposed individual (i.e., a hypothetical member of 

the public potentially subject to maximum exposure) by using site-specific data or conservative 

(overestimating) assumptions (SHINE 2015a). Because of the low power levels at the proposed 

facility, the NRC evaluates the potential impacts to human health at a radius of 5 mi (8 km) from 

the facility (NRC 2012).

3.8.1.4 Occupational Radiological Exposures

SHINE workers who conduct activities involving radioactively contaminated systems or who 

work in radiation areas can be exposed to radiation. SHINE would monitor its workers in 

accordance with the NRC’s requirements. SHINE expects that most of the occupational 

radiation dose would result from external radiation exposure rather than from internal exposure

resulting from inhaled or ingested radioactive materials. Facility workers are expected to 

receive radiation exposure while working in the medical isotope production areas of the 

proposed SHINE facility during the following work activities: handling the product, conducting 

quality control inspections, packaging the product for transport, maintenance activities, and 

transporting the product to the end user. Additional exposure would result from handling, 

storing, packaging, and transporting low-level radioactive waste for disposal (SHINE 2015a).

3.8.2 Chemical Hazards

Chemicals enter the body through the skin, by inhalation, or by ingestion. Chemical exposure 

produces different effects on the body, depending on the chemical and the amount of exposure. 

Chemicals can cause cancer, affect reproductive capability, disrupt the endocrine system, and 

have other health effects. Acute effects from chemical exposure occur immediately (e.g., when 

somebody inhales or ingests a poisonous substance). Chronic or delayed effects result in 

symptoms, such as skin rashes, headaches, breathing difficulties, and nausea (NRC 2013c).

At the proposed SHINE facility, chemical effects could result from the routine use of chemicals 

and hazardous materials during the medical isotope production process. Table 2–3 in 

Chapter 2 of this EIS contains a list of the chemicals that SHINE plans to use at the facility 

(SHINE 2015a).

The proposed SHINE facility would release small amounts of nonradioactive laboratory 

chemicals into the city sewer system as a result of routine facility maintenance activities and 

performance of analytical procedures. See Section 2.7.2 for a detailed discussion on the use of 

chemicals at the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a).

3.8.3 Other Hazards

The proposed SHINE facility is an industrial facility with many of the typical occupational 

hazards found at other industrial manufacturing or production facilities. Workplace hazards can 

be grouped into physical hazards (e.g., hazards from slips, trips, and falls from a height and 

those from transportation, temperature, humidity, and electricity); physical agents (e.g., noise, 

vibration, and ionizing radiation); chemicals; and psychosocial issues (e.g., work-related stress) 

(NRC 2013c).

3.9 Transportation Environments

3.9.1 Roads

Figure 3–9 shows major roads and transportation features in the vicinity of the proposed site. 

The proposed SHINE site lies on the east side of U.S. Highway 51, also known as North 
Affected Environment

3-53

Riverside Drive, directly across from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. 

U.S. Highway 51 runs north-south, with the City of Janesville to the north and the City of Beloit 

to the south. The main entrance to the proposed SHINE facility would be on U.S. Highway 51, 

just north of the intersection with West Enterprise Drive.

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

Source: SHINE 2015a
Affected Environment

3-54

Major highways and roads in the area of the proposed site include the following:

(1) Interstate 39/90 runs generally northwest to southeast and passes about 2.0 mi 

(3.2 km) to the east of the proposed site. These two designated interstate highways 

share the same route from approximately the City of Rockford, Illinois, to the City of 

Portage, Wisconsin.

(2) Interstate 43 runs generally northeast from the City of Beloit, which is located south 

of the proposed site, to the City of Milwaukee, which is located north of the proposed 

site.

(3) State Trunk Highway 11 runs east-west to the north of the proposed site and 

accesses Interstate 39/90.

(4) Town Line Road, a major collector road, runs east-west about 2.7 mi (4.3 km) south 

of the proposed site. However, this road does not have ramps to or from 

Interstate 39/90.

(5) U.S. Highway 14 runs generally east-west through the City of Janesville, which is 

north of the proposed site.

Table 3–21 describes the average daily traffic volumes for these roads and locations.

Table 3–22 describes the morning, midday, and evening peak hourly traffic counts for various 

count locations in the vicinity of the proposed site.

The Beloit-Janesville Express, a route of the Janesville Transit System public transportation

network, operates weekdays between the City of Janesville and the City of Beloit via 

U.S. Highway 51. The stops nearest the proposed site are currently at Kellogg Avenue to the 

north and at Sunny Lane to the south (City of Janesville 2013c).

Table 3–21. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts in the

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
Affected Environment

3-55

Table 3–22. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total Traffic 

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

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

3.9.2 Airports

Rock County owns and operates the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. It is an air 

carrier/cargo airport with corporate, general, and cargo aviation but with no scheduled 

commercial passenger service. The airport has three runways and covers 1,405 ac (569 ha). 

In 2012, the airport had about 55,000 aircraft operations (i.e., takeoffs and landings combined), 

three quarters of which were freight operations (Rock County 2009). After Southern Wisconsin 

Regional Airport, the next closest available airports for proposed SHINE product shipment are 

Dane County Regional Airport in Madison, Wisconsin, which is about 1 hour from the proposed 

site, followed by Mitchell International in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and O’Hare International in 

Chicago, Illinois, both of which are within 2 hours of the proposed site.

3.9.3 Rail

A Union Pacific rail line runs northwest to southeast about 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the northeast of the 

proposed site. This line is not an Amtrak route; it is a freight-only line. The line carries both 

hazardous and nonhazardous freight. However, this rail line does not provide direct access to 

the proposed site (Union Pacific Railroad 2013).

3.10 References

7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, “Important 

farmlands inventory.”

7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, “Farmland and 

protection policy act.”
Affected Environment

3-56

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

protection against radiation.”

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor site 

criteria.”

14 CFR Part 150. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Aeronautics and Space, Part 150, 

“Airport noise compatibility planning; final rule.”

23 CFR Part 777. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Highways, Part 777, “Procedures for 

abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise.”

29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational 

safety and health standards.”

40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, 

“National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards.”

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 

“Requirements for preparation, adoption, and submittal of implementation plans.”

40 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 52, 

“Approval and promulgation of implementation plans.”

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

“Designation of area for air quality planning purposes.”

50 CFR Part 10. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 10, 

“General provisions.”

50 CFR Part 17. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 17, 

“Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.”

50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulation, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, 

“Interagency cooperation–Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.”

74 FR 56260. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases [Final rule].” Federal Register 74(209):56260–56519. October 30, 2009.

75 FR 9282. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “General Provisions; Revised List of Migratory 

Birds [Final rule].” Federal Register 75(39):9282–9314. March 1, 2010.

75 FR 31514. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule [Final rule].” 

Federal Register 75(209):31514-31608. June 3, 2010.

77 FR 41051. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits

[Final rule].” Federal Register 77(134):41051–41075. July 12, 2012.

Arrowhead Library System. 2013. Arrowhead Library System, Helping Public Libraries Serve 

the Citizens of Rock County. Revised April 30, 2013. Available at <www.als.lib.wi.us> 

(accessed 26 November 2013).

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

Avery, C. 2005. Reversal of Declining Ground-Water Levels in the Chicago Area. Fact Sheet 

FS–222–95. Urbana, IL: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. May 2005. 

Available at <http://il.water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs222_95.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2013).
Affected Environment

3-57

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 1984. Visual Resource Inventory Manual H-8410-1. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM. H-8410-1. January 17, 1986. Available at 

<http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/bl

m_handbook.Par.31679.File.dat/H-8410.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015).

[BLS] Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Location 

Quotient Calculator, Preliminary data for 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 

BLS. Available at <http://data.bls.gov/location_quotient/ContollerServlet> (accessed 

19 August 2014).

Buchwald CA. 2011. Water Use in Wisconsin, 2005. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. 

November 2011. Open-File Report 2009–1076, Version 1.1. Available at 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1076/pdf/ofr20091076.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014).

City of Janesville. 2010. Water Utility, Water Conservation Plan. April 2010. Available at

<http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=573> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

City of Janesville. 2011a. Proposed TIF 35 Street and Lot Layout. City of Janesville, WI: 

Planning Services, K Benz. June 6, 2011. Available at <http://inwisconsin.com/

content/uploads/2013/04/Janesville_Site-Plan.pdf> (accessed 9 July 2013).

City of Janesville. 2011b. Parks Division. Revised 2011. Available at 

<http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=118> (accessed 4 December 2013).

City of Janesville. 2012. Tax Increment Finance District No. 35, Project Plan, Amendment 

No. 1. City of Janesville, WI: Economic Development Agency, Accounting Division. 

February 13, 2012. Available at 

<http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1463> (accessed 

25 June 2013).

City of Janesville. 2013a. Water Utility Facilities, Water Utility FAQs. 2011. Available at 

<http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=370> (accessed 20 December 2013).

City of Janesville. 2013b. 2013 Budget Information. 2011. Available at 

<http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=565> (accessed 29 November 2013).

City of Janesville. 2013c. Janesville Transit System Routes and Timetables. Available at 

<http:www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page288> (accessed 20 March 2014).

City of Janesville. Undated. Business Climate, Janesville Profile. Available at 

<http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/index.aspx?page=83> (accessed August 2013).

Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.

Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

Crone AJ, Wheeler RL. 2000. Data for Quaternary Faults, Liquefaction Features, and Possible 

Tectonic Features in the Central and Eastern United States, East of the Rocky Mountain Front. 

Reston, VA: USGS. Open-File Report 00-260. 2000. 332 p. Available at 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/ofr-00-0260> (accessed 27 August 2013).

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

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 

Available at <http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm> (accessed 

6 November 2014).
Affected Environment

3-58

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Noise Effects Handbook: A Desk 

Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. Washington, DC: Office of Noise Abatement 

and Control. October 1979, Revised July 1981. Available at <http://nonoise.org/

epa/Roll7/roll7doc27.pdf> (accessed 29 October 2013).

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Revised December 14, 2012. Available at <http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html> 

(accessed 10 October 2013).

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Maps of Protected Areas. Revised 

May 5, 2012. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/visibility/maps.html> (accessed 

29 October 2013).

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Nonattainment Status for Each County by 

Year for Wisconsin. December 5, 2013. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/

oar/oaqps/greenbk/anay_wi.html> (accessed 6 February 2014).

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014a. The 2011 National Emissions Inventory. 

Revised February 3, 2014. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html> 

(accessed 6 February 2014).

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014b. Memorandum. Next Steps and 

Preliminary Views on the Application of Clean Air Act Permitting Programs to Greenhouse 

Gases following the Supreme Court’s Decisions in Utility Air Regulatory Group versus 

Environmental Protection Agency. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/

2011inventory.html> (accessed 5 September 2014).

Fagan B. 2005. Ancient North America. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd. 568 p.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq.

[FEMA] Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Rock 

County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas. Oakton, VA: FEMA Map Service Center. Map 

Number 55105C0307D. August 19, 2008. Available at <https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/

stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

Find the Data. 2014. Compare Active Mines. 2014. Available at <http://activemines.findthedata.org> (accessed 19 February 2014).

Forward Janesville. 2014. Top 20 Janesville Employers (January 2014). Available at 

<http://www.forwardjanesville.com/CommunityInfo/Employment.aspx> (accessed 

6 October 2014).

Fullerton DS, Bush CA, Pennell JN. 2003. Map of Surficial Deposits and Materials in the 

Eastern and Central United States (East of 102° West Longitude). Denver, CO: Department of 

the Interior, USGS. Geologic Investigations Series I-2789. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/

imap/i-2789/> (accessed 27 August 2013).

[FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Letter from Fasbender P, FWS Green Bay Field 

Office Supervisor to Wong M, NRC Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch

(RERB) Branch Chief. Subject: Reply to request for concurrence with list of protected species 

and habitats for the SHINE Facility Environmental Review. August 15, 2013. ADAMS 

No. ML13234A020.

[FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Find Endangered Species, Wisconsin. Available 

at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/> (accessed 23 January 2014).
Affected Environment

3-59

[GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012a. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, Janesville, 

Wisconsin. Duluth, MN: SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Golder Report 6, Revision 3. 

August 3, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13309B618.

[GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012b. Preliminary Hydrological Analyses, Janesville, Wisconsin. 

Duluth, MN: SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Golder Report 7, Revision 3. August 3, 2012. 

ADAMS No. ML13309B623.

Grannemann NG, Hunt RJ, Nicholas JR, Reilly TE, Winter TC. 2000. The Importance of 

Ground Water in the Great Lakes Region. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 00-4008. Lansing, MI: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Division. Available at <http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/WRI004008/WRIR_00-4008.pdf> 

(accessed 3 January 2013).

Ice Age Trail Alliance. 2013. “Ice Age Trail Alliance, Home.” 2013. Available at 

<http://www.iceagetrail.org> (accessed 25 November 2013).

Janesville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2013. Attractions. 2011. Available at 

<http://www.iceagetrail.org/directory/p/dir/39> (accessed August 2013).

Janesville School District. 2012. School District of Janesville 2012–2013 Budget, Preliminary 

Working Draft. October 9, 2012. Available at 

<http://www.janesville.k12.wi.us/Portals/1/Finance/H%20-%2012%20-

%20Budget%20Book%20Draft%202012-13.pdf> (accessed 29 July 2013).

Juckem PF. 2009. Simulation of the Regional Ground-Water-Flow System and 

Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interaction in the Rock River Basin, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: 

U.S. Geological Survey and Rock River Coalition. Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5094. 

38 p. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5094/pdf/sir20095094.pdf> (accessed 

3 January 2014).

Knopf C, Krause K. 2012. A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed SHINE Medical 

Isotope Production Facility Near Janesville, Rock County, Wisconsin. AMEC, Louisville, KY.

Leute JR. 2009. Thursday is last day of production as Isuzu line comes to an end. 

GazetteXtra. April 21, 2009. Available at <http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/apr/21/thursdaylast-day-production-isuzu-line-comes-end/> (accessed August 2013).

MacFarlane Pheasants, Inc. 2012. MacFarlane Pheasants, Inc., Home. 2001–2014. Available 

at <http://www.pheasant.com/default.aspx> (accessed 31 August 2014).

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 

16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 U.S.C. §703–712.

Milwaukee Business Journal. 2008. GM Closing Janesville Assembly Plant. June 3, 2008. 

Available at <http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2008/06/02/daily9.html> (accessed 

August 2013).

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

[NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2010. 1981–2010 Normals Data Access. Available at 

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climatenormals/1981-2010-normals-data> (accessed 12 September 2013).
Affected Environment

3-60

[NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2011. TD3505–Airways Surface Observations, Surface 

weather observations in TD 3505 digital format from 2005-2010, for Southern Wisconsin 

Regional Airport, Janesville, WI. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), data purchased from 

NCDC, Asheville, NC, as cited in SHINE 2015a.

[NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2012. 2012 Local Climatological Data Annual Summary 

with Comparative Data, Madison, Wisconsin (KMSN). Asheville, NC: NOAA/NCDC. 

ISSN 0198-5728. Available at <http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/annual/2012/2012MSN.pdf> 

(accessed 6 February 2014).

[NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2013. Storm Events Database, Search Results for 

Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/

listevents.jsp?hailfilter=0.00&tornfilter=0&windfilter=000&sort=DT&statefips=55%2CWISCONSI

N&county=ROCK&zone=ALL&eventType=%28C%29+ALL&beginDate_yyyy=1996&beginDate_

mm=01&beginDate_dd=01&endDate_yyyy=2013&endDate_mm=04&endDate_dd=30> 

(accessed 12 September 2013).

[NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. Undated. U.S. Climatic Divisions. Available at 

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-divisions.php> (accessed 

12 September 2013).

[NCES] National Center for Education Statistics. 2014. College Navigator. U.S. Department of 

Education, Washington, DC. College and university student population within 20 miles of 

ZIP code 53546. Released August 2014. Available at <http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/> 

(accessed 8 October 2014).

Neusius SW, Gross GT. 2007. Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American 

Archaeology. Oxford University Press: NY. 720 p.

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v3.0. 

Available at <http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html> (accessed 

23 January 2014).

Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §4901 et seq.

[NPS] National Park Service. 2013a. National Register of Historic Places, Rock County, 

Wisconsin. Revised February 25, 2014. Available at <http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/

natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome> (accessed 25 February 2014).

[NPS] National Park Service. 2013b. National Historic Landmarks Program, Wisconsin. 

Available at <http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/> (accessed 6 December 2013).

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

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

Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities 

and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors; and Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing 

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

Criteria,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous 

Reactors. Washington, DC: NRC. NUREG–1537. October 17, 2012. ADAMS 

Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013a. Letter from Wong M, Environmental 

Review and Guidance Update Branch (RERB) Branch Chief, to Vann Bynum R, SHINE Medical 

Technologies, Inc. Chief Operating Officer. Subject: Environmental site audit regarding SHINE 

Medical, Inc. proposed radioisotope production facility. July 3, 2013. 

ADAMS No. ML13168A562.
Affected Environment

3-61

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013b. “Memorandum of Understanding between 

NRC and OSHA for NRC-Regulated Facilities.” September 2013. Washington, DC: NRC. 

ADAMS No. ML11354A432.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Revision 1, Volume 1, 2, and 3. Washington, DC: 

NRC. NUREG-1437. June 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13107A023.

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

Process Summary Report for the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility. Washington, DC: 

NRC. ADAMS No. ML15062A111.

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Web Soil Survey, Soil Map—Rock 

County, Wisconsin. (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit 

description; suitabilities and limitations for use; building site development). Updated 

February 15, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. 

Available at <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app> (accessed 20 December 2013).

Olcott PG. 1968. A Summary of Geology and Mineral and Water Resources of Rock County. 

Open-File Report 68-4. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and 

Natural History Survey. 28 p. Available at 

<http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/wofrs/WOFR1968-04.pdf> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

Olcott PG. 1992. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Wisconsin. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Ground Water. HA-730-J. Available 

at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_j/index.html> (accessed 20 December 2013).

Petersen MD, Frankel AD, Harmsen SC, Mueller CS, Haller KM, Wheeler RL, Wesson RL, 

Zeng Y, Boyd OS, Perkins DM, Luco N, Field EH, Wills CJ, Rukstales, KS. 2011. 

Seismic-Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States, 2008. Denver, CO: USGS. 

Scientific Investigations Map 3195, 6 sheets. Revised January 9, 2013. Available at 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3195/> (accessed 20 December 2013).

Private School Review. 2013. Welcome to Private School Review. 2003–2014. Available at 

<www.privateschoolreview.com> (accessed 26 November 2013).

Rock County. 2009. Rock County Comprehensive Plan 2035. Janesville, WI: Rock County 

Planning, Economic and Community Development Agency. September 10, 2009. Available at 

<https://www.co.rock.wi.us/planning-comprehensive-plan-2035> (accessed 7 January 2015).

Rock County. 2013. Rock County, Wisconsin 2013–2014 Official Directory. Janesville, WI: 

Stottler L, Rock County Clerk. Revised October 24, 2013. Available at 

<http://www.co.rock.wi.us/images/web_documents/about_rock_county/rock_county_directory.p

df> (accessed 12 May 2014).

Rock County. 2014a. Communications Center 911. Available at 

<http://www.co.rock.wi.us/departments/departments-a-f/communications-911> (accessed 

25 February 2014).

Rock County. 2014b. Emergency Management Home Page. Available at 

<http://www.co.rock.wi.us/emergency-mgmt-home> (accessed 25 February 2014).

Rock County. Undated a. Rock County Ordinances. Undated. Available at 

<http://www.co.rock.wi.us/images/web_documents/about_rock_county/county_ordinance.pdf> 

(accessed 6 February 2014).
Affected Environment

3-62

Rock County. Undated b. “Mission, Facts, and History.” Available at 

<https://www.co.rock.wi.us/mission-facts-history?highlight=WyJoaXN0b3J5Il0=> (accessed 

14 January 2015).

Rock County Development Alliance. 2012. Health Care. 2012. Available at 

<http://www.rockcountyalliance.com/RockCountyLife/HealthCare/tabid/375/Default.aspx> 

(accessed 25 November 2013).

Rock County Development Alliance. 2014. Rock County’s Major Employers—Public and 

Private Sectors. Employer Survey, 2014. Available at 

<http://www.rockcountyalliance.com/Portals/1/Major%20Employers%20List%20Rock%20Count

y%202014.pdf> (accessed 6 October 2014).

Rock County Tourism Council. 2012. Rock County Wisconsin’s Front Porch. 2012. Available 

at <http://www.rockcounty.org/Recreation/tabid/510/Default.aspx> (accessed 

25 November 2013).

Sample DW, Mossman MJ. 1997. Managing Habitat for grassland birds—A Guide for 

Wisconsin. Madison, WI: WDNR. PUBL-SS-925-97. 154 p. Jamestown, ND: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online (Version 03JUN2002). Available at 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/wiscbird/index.htm> (accessed 7 January 2015).

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information.

October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

(PSAR), Chapter 2, “Site Characteristics,” and Chapter 19, “Environmental Report.” Monona, 

WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. 

February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404.

Sinclair RA. 1996. Rock River Basin: Historical Background, IEPA Targeted Watersheds, and 

Resource-Rich Areas. Champaign, IL: Illinois State Water Survey, Hydrology Division. 

Miscellaneous Publication 174. April 1996. Available at <http://www.isws.illinois.edu/

pubdoc/MP/ISWSMP-174.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013).

State of Wisconsin. Undated. Wisconsin Legislative Documents Search Results for Noise. 

Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/search/results?q=noise> (accessed 

29 October 2013).

Union Pacific Railroad. 2013. E-mail from Thompson MA, Hazardous Materials Manager, 

Chicago, to Molter RJ, Compa Industries, Los Alamos National Laboratory. Subject: Union 

Pacific Railroad operations and restrictions, Janesville. August 23, 2013.

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 1995. Wisconsin Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 

1900–1990. Revised 1995. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed August 2013).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic 

Characteristics: 2000, Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://censtats.census.gov/

data/WI/05055105.pdf> (accessed 24 February 2014).
Affected Environment

3-63

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic 

Characteristics: 2000, City of Janesville, Wisconsin. Available at <http://censtats.census.gov/

data/WI/1605537825.pdf> (accessed 24 February 2014).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2000c. Table DP-1 Profile of General Demographic 

Characteristics: 2000, State of Wisconsin. Available at <http://censtats.census.gov/

data/WI/04055.pdf> (accessed 24 February 2014).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2009–2011a. Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics 

2009–2011, American Community Survey, 3-Year Estimates. City of Janesville, Wisconsin, 

Rock County, Wisconsin, State of Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed 

August 2013).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2009–2011b. Table DP04 Selected Housing 2009–2011, 

American Community Survey, 3-Year Estimates. City of Janesville, WI, Rock County, WI, State 

of Wisconsin. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed August 2013).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. American FactFinder, Community Facts. Rock County. 

Revised 2010. Available at <http://www.census.gov> (accessed 21 August 2013).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. Table DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing 

Characteristics: 2010. City of Janesville, Wisconsin, Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at 

<http://www.census.gov> (accessed May 2013).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. American FactFinder, Advanced Search. Available at 

<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pa ges/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t> (accessed 

June 2013).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. Poverty Thresholds. Revised January 28, 2014. 

Available at <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/> (accessed 

27 February 2014).

[USDA]. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Wisconsin Rapid Watershed Assessment 

Lower Rock River. October 2007. Lower Rock River Water Shed (WI) HUC: 07090002. 20 p. 

Available at <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_020057.pdf> 

(accessed 28 January 2014).

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013. Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Available at 

<http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/

Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Wisconsin/st55_2_025_025.pdf> (accessed 

4 October 2013).

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2014. 

2012 Census of Agriculture. Volume 1, Chapter 2, Table 7. Hired Farm Labor—Workers and 

Payroll: 2012, and Table 25. Field Crops: 2012 and 2007. Last modified May 2, 2014. 

Available at 

<http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_

Level/Wisconsin/> (accessed 8 October 2014).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Physiographic Regions. Revised April 17, 2003. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). Available at 

<http://tapestry.usgs.gov/physiogr/physio.html> (accessed 27 August 2013).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. National Land Cover Database. ESRI ArcGIS 9.3.1 

software. Available at <http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer> (accessed 4 October 2013).
Affected Environment

3-64

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. Divisions of Geologic Time-Major Chronostratigraphic 

and Geochronologic Units. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS. Fact Sheet 

2010–3059. July 2010. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3059/> (accessed 

27 August 2013).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United 

States. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. July 18, 2012. 

Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults> (accessed 27 August 2013).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013a. 2009 Mineral Yearbook, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: 

U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). April 2013. Available at <http://minerals.usgs.gov/

minerals/pubs/state/> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013b. Earthquakes in the Stable Continental Region.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Available at 

<http://earthquake.usgs.gov/product/tectonic-summary/usc000te4p/us/1420825648040/tectonicsummary.inc.html> (accessed 16 January 2015).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013c. Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive 

Search and URL Builder, Search Results. (Radius search parameters: center latitude 

42.622213 N, center longitude -89.026766 W, and outside radius 322 km). U.S. Department of 

the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Revised November 7, 2013. Available at 

<http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013d. Historic Earthquakes in the United States and its 

Territories, Illinois. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. 

Revised March 6, 2013. Available at 

<http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/historical_state_mag.php> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013e. Magnitude/Intensity Comparison. U.S. Department of 

the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. Revised January 9, 2013. Available at 

<http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mag_vs_int.php> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013f. Poster of the Northern Illinois Earthquake of 

28 June 2004—Magnitude 4.2. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS) Earthquake Hazards 

Program. Revised October 30, 2012. Available at 

<http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/poster/2004/20040628.php> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013g. Water-Resources Data for the United States, Water 

Year 2012, Site 05430500. U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). USGS Water-Data 

Report WDR-US-2012. Available at 

<http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/05430500.2012.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[USGS and WDNR] U.S. Geological Services and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 

2014. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Map of Distribution of Wisconsin Fish 

Species. Available at <https://cida.usgs.gov/wdnr_fishmap/map/> (accessed 28 January 2014).

Vandewalle & Associates. 2009. City of Janesville Comprehensive Plan. Madison, WI: City of 

Janesville. March 9, 2009. Available at <http://www.saa-madison.com/sites/saamadison.com/files/microsite-documents/JV-comp-plan-Volume1.pdf> (accessed 

9 September 2014).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 29. Wild Animals and Plants. Available at 

<http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/29> (accessed 7 January 2015).
Affected Environment

3-65

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 281. Water and Sewage. Available at 

<http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/281> (accessed 7 January 2015).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102. Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface 

Waters. November 2010. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/

code/admin_code/nr/100/102> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 104. Uses and Designated Standards. 

February 2004. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/104/_1> 

(accessed 20 December 2013).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 140. Groundwater Quality. January 2012. Available 

at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/140/Title> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 404. Ambient Air Quality. November 2011. 

Available at <http://docs.legis.wi.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/404/Title> (accessed 

7 January 2015).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 405. Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

July 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/405.pdf> 

(accessed 7 January 2015).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406. Construction Permits. March 2014. Available 

at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/406.pdf> (accessed 

7 January 2015).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 407. Operation Permits. February 2014. Available 

at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/407.pdf> (accessed 

7 January 2015).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 445. Control of Hazardous Pollutants. March 2012. 

Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/445.pdf> (accessed 

7 January 2015).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Trans 405. Siting Noise Barriers. November 2000. 

Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/405> (accessed 

29 October 2013).

[WCMP] Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 2007. Wisconsin Coastal Management 

Program: A Strategic Vision for the Great Lakes. Madison, Wisconsin. Available at 

<http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Documents/DIR/Coastal%20Management/Program%20Docs/WCM

P%20Strategic%20Vision%20for%20Great%20Lakes%202007.pdf> (accessed 

1 October 2015). 

[WDOA] Wisconsin Department of Administration. 2013. Population and Household 

Projections, County Age-Sex Population Projections, 2010–2040, Final Release 12/10/2013. 

Demographic Services Center, Division of Intergovermental Relations. Available at 

<http://www.doa.state.wi.us/divisions/intergovernmental-relations/demographic-servicescenter/projections> (accessed 7 October 2014).

[WDATCP] Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection. 2013. Well 

Constructor’s Reports. Available at <http://datcpgis.wi.gov/WellLogs/> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Watershed-Rock River-Milton 

(LR04). Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/watershedDetail.aspx?code=LR04&Name=Rock 

River – Milton> (accessed 29 January 2014).
Affected Environment

3-66

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012a. Explore Wisconsin’s Water, 

Upper Rock River Basin. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012b. Plan Review for Municipal and 

Other Nonindustrial Wastewater Systems. Revised September 3, 2012. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wastewater/municipalsystems.html> (accessed 25 February 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. Rock River Prairie (No. 289). 

Revised January 10, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/naturalareas/

index.asp?sna=289> (accessed 12 May 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013b. Rock River TMDL. Revised 

November 19, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/TMDLs/RockRiver/index.html> 

(accessed 20 December 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013c. DNR Drinking Water System: 

High Capacity Wells. Revised January 6, 2014. Available at 

<http://prodoasext.dnr.wi.gov/inter1/hicap$.startup> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013d. Look Up Groundwater Data, 

Well Construction Information. Revised November 12, 2012. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Groundwater/data.html> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013e. Southeast Glacial Plains 

Ecological Landscape. Revised January 23, 2012. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/

landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=9> (accessed 23 December 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013f. State Natural Areas by County. 

Revised December 27, 2013. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/naturalareas/county.html> (accessed 12 May 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013g. Wisconsin NDR. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/> (accessed 27 June 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. Letter from Heggelund E, 

WDNR Environmental Analysis and Review Specialist, to Moser M, NRC Environmental Project 

Manager. Subject: WDNR comments for the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental 

Impact Statement and Scoping for SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production 

facility. February 7, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14045A298.

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014b. Wisconsin’s Natural 

Communities. Revised October 7, 2014. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Communities.asp> (accessed 

7 November 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014c. Wetlands. Revised 

August 19, 2013. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wetlands/> (accessed 28 January 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014d. Wisconsin Natural Heritage 

Working List. Revised January 9, 2014. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/nhi/wlist.html#SRank> (accessed 23 January 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014e. Wisconsin’s Endangered and 

Threatened Species Laws. Revised January 9, 2014. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/laws.html> (accessed 28 January 2014).
Affected Environment

3-67

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Undated. Find Campgrounds—

ReserveAmerica. Available at <http://wisconsinstateparks.reserveamerica.com/campground

SearchResult.do?startIdx=0> (accessed 26 February 2014).

[WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2010a. Average Annual Daily Traffic for 

Lower Half, City of Janesville, Rock County. Available at <http://www.dot.state.wi.us/travel/

counts/docs/rock/janesville-2-2010.pdf> (accessed 7 January 2015).

[WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2010b. Hourly Traffic Volume Reports–

2010. The WisTransPortal System, Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory, 

University of Wisconsin, Madison. Available at <http://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourlytraffic-data/bysiteid/rock.html> (accessed 9 October 2014).

[WDPI] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2011–2012. FY2011–2012 Equalized Levy 

Rates (Mill Rates). Available at 

<https://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/safr_ro/all_mill_rate.asp?year=2012> (accessed 29 July 2013).

[WDPI] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2012–2013. FY2012–2013 Equalized Levy 

Rates (Mill Rates). Available at 

<https://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/safr_ro/all_mill_rate.asp?year=2013#J> (accessed 

25 February 2014).

[WDPI] Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2013. “WISEdash, Wisconsin Information 

System for education, Data Dashboard.” Revised 2013. Available at 

<www.wisedash.dpi.wi.gov> (accessed 29 July 2013 and 26 November 2013).

[WDR] Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2012. Town, Village, and City Taxes—2012, Taxes 

Levied 2012—Collected 2013. Available at <http://www.revenue.wi.gov/pubs/slf/tvc12.pdf> 

(accessed 5 December 2013).

[WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2010. Local Area Unemployment 

Statistics (LAUS) Results-Janesville. Available at 

<http://worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/dalaus.aspx?menuselection=da> (accessed 

28 August 2014).

[WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2011. Local Area Unemployment 

Statistics (LAUS) Results—Rock County. Available at <worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/

dalaus.aspx?menuselection=da> (accessed 28 August 2014).

[WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2012. Local Area Unemployment 

Statistics (LAUS) Results—Wisconsin. Available at <http://worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/

dalaus.aspx?menuselection=da> (accessed 28 August 2014).

[WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2011a. Glaciation of Wisconsin. 

Madison, WI: UW Extension. Educational Series 36, 4th edition. Available at 

<http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/es0362011/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

[WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2011b. Bedrock Stratigraphic 

Units in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: UW Extension. Educational Series 51, ISSN: 1052-2115. 

Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/ES051/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

[WHS] Wisconsin Historical Society. 2013. Cultural Overview of Wisconsin. Available at 

<http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archaeology/overview/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

Zaporozec A. 1982. Ground-Water Quality of Rock County, Wisconsin. Madison, WI: 

University of Wisconsin, Geological and Natural History Survey in cooperation with Rock County 

Division of Environmental Health. Information Circular 41. March 1982. Available at 

<http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, 

OPERATIONS, AND DECOMMISSIONING

This chapter addresses potential environmental impacts related to the proposed construction, 

operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical 

radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) standard of significance for impacts uses the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

terminology for “significantly” (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 1508.27). 

Because the significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed 

action, both “context” and “intensity,” as defined in CEQ regulation 40 CFR 1508.27, were 

considered. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects 

would occur. Intensity is the severity of the impact. Based on this, the NRC established three 

levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. The definitions 

of these three significance levels, which are presented in the Interim Staff Guidance to 

NUREG-1537 (NRC 2012), follow: 

SMALL—environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would 

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

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

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

MODERATE—environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGE—environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

important attributes of the resource.

For this environmental impact statement (EIS), the NRC staff characterized impact levels using 

the above definitions (NRC 2012). These impacts are grouped and presented according to the 

resource area. Within each resource area, the NRC staff determined the impacts during each of 

the three phases: construction, operations, and decommissioning. As described in Section 2.2, 

the NRC staff included the activities and impacts of preoperational activities as part of the 

construction phase.

The NRC staff characterizes the impacts to resources as a single level or as a range of impact 

levels. Ranges of impacts may be provided if environmental conditions are uncertain or if there 

are multiple circumstances associated with environmental conditions surrounding the proposed 

or alternate sites. For example, a range of impacts may be appropriate to characterize impact 

levels if the environment changes in time or space, such as the impacts may be smaller at 

certain times or in certain places and larger at other times or places.

4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources

4.1.1 Land Use

4.1.1.1 Construction

The proposed SHINE site currently includes 91.1 acres (ac) (36.9 hectares (ha)) of agricultural 

land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas (SHINE 2015a; USGS 2006). Construction 

of the proposed SHINE facility would permanently disturb and convert 25.67 ac (10.39 ha) of 

agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas into an industrial area that 

would include facility buildings, an employee parking lot, facility access roads, a stormwater

detention area, and access road drainage ditches (Table 4–1). In addition, 14.54 ac (5.88 ha) of 
Environmental Impacts

4-2

agricultural land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking 

area and construction material staging or laydown areas. Installation of the water and sewer 

line would also temporarily affect an additional 0.62 ac (0.25 ha) of offsite agricultural lands 

immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed site. Once construction 

activities are complete, SHINE would restore temporarily affected areas to agricultural fields, 

cool season grasses, or native prairie (SHINE 2015a). The remaining portion of the site would 

likely remain as open area or agricultural fields, or it would be converted to cool season grasses 

or native prairie. The potential conversion of up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of agricultural and 

cultivated crops would be minor when compared to the 25,236 ac (10,213 ha) of agricultural 

land remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) and its implementing 

regulations requires agencies to make Farmland Protection Policy Act evaluations part of the 

process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), to reduce 

the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by Federal projects and programs. 

Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would convert up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of land with 

soils that may qualify as prime farmland or farmland of statewide significance to industrial use, 

cool season grasses, or native prairie. However, this is a small percentage of the approximate

41,900 ac (16,900 ha) of land with soils that may qualify as prime farmland and farmland of 

statewide significance within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed site 

(SHINE 2015a; NRCS 2013). Similarly, the potential relative value of the farmland on the 

91.1 ac (36.9 ha) proposed site would be 13,771 bushels (bu) of grain corn or 3,947 bu of 

soybeans, which is relatively minor when compared to the 10-year production estimate average 

for Rock County, Wisconsin (22,075,540 bu of grain corn and 3,786,415 bu of soybeans) 

(USDA 2013). Furthermore, the proposed site is currently zoned light industrial and is part of a 

larger development project to create an industrial park in Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District 

No. 35 (City of Janesville 2012). Because the proposed SHINE site has been committed to 

urban development and zoned light industrial, the proposed site does not have farmland soils 

subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR 658.2).

Land-use impacts would be confined to the proposed 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) site and 0.62 ac. 

(0.25 ha) of offsite agricultural lands immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the 

proposed site. Therefore, areas with a special land use or mineral resources (as described in 

Section 3.1) would not be affected by the proposed construction of the SHINE facility. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), was 

enacted by Congress in 1972 to address the increasing pressures of overdevelopment upon the 

Nation’s coastal resources. Applicants for any NRC license or permit that would include 

activities that affect coastal zone resources must provide a certification to the NRC that the 

proposed activity complies with any applicable State Coastal Zone Management Plan. An 

applicant must also provide this certification to the State, and the State must notify the NRC 

whether the State concurs with the applicant’s certification. The NRC cannot issue a license or 

permit to an applicant until the State has concurred with the applicant’s certification. Given that 

no Federally designated coastal zone areas are within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed SHINE site, 

and that the proposed action would not affect any land or water use or natural resource within 

the coastal zone, the applicant’s certification and the State’s concurrence is not applicable for 

the NRC’s review of the construction permit for the proposed SHINE facility (WCMP 2007).

Based on the relatively small amount of farmland that would be permanently converted to other 

land uses, the lack of qualifying important farmland soils within affected areas, the location of 

the proposed facility within an area zoned for light industrial use, and the lack of special land 

use or mineral resources on site, land use impacts from construction would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts

4-3

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

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 15.16 6.13 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 2015a

4.1.1.2 Operations

Operation of the SHINE facility would not require any new land or require land use changes 

beyond that required for construction. Therefore, land use impacts during operations would be 

SMALL.

4.1.1.3 Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities because they would 

involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. 

Land requirements to perform these activities would be the same or less than those required 

during construction (SHINE 2014). After decommissioning activities are complete, the proposed 

site could remain industrial or could be converted back to agricultural land or open space. 

Given that land requirements would be similar to those described during construction and that, 

after decommissioning is complete, land would either be industrial, agricultural, or open space, 

land use impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts

4-4

4.1.2 Visual Resources

4.1.2.1 Construction

As described in Section 3.1.2, the visual setting of the proposed SHINE facility includes 

agricultural and light industrial viewsheds. The proposed site is currently used for agricultural 

purposes, and no existing structures or natural or built barriers, screens, or buffers occur on 

site. SHINE would build a Production Facility Building that would be approximately 58 ft (18 m) 

high, 284 ft (87 m) long, and 194 ft (59 m) wide (SHINE 2014). The highest point at the SHINE 

facility, the exhaust vent on the main building, would be approximately 66 ft (20 m) 

(SHINE 2014). Figure 4–1 is a conceptual rendering of the proposed SHINE facility based on 

these dimensions.

The activities associated with construction of the SHINE facility (e.g., excavation, earthmoving, 

pile driving, and erection) would require large equipment, would significantly alter onsite 

conditions, and would partially obstruct views of the existing landscape. However, as described 

in Section 3.1, the NRC staff determined that the proposed site has low scenic quality because 

of a lack of notable features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, 

mute colors, cultural modifications to adjacent scenery, and a commonality within the 

physiographic province. The NRC staff also determined that the proposed site has a low 

sensitivity rating because it is in an area with low scenic values resulting from a low amount of 

use by viewers, low public interest in changes to the visual quality of the proposed site, a low 

sensitivity to changes in visual quality by the type of users in the area, and a lack of special 

natural and wilderness areas. In addition, the viewshed surrounding the proposed site is 

partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, such as warehouses and an airport. 

Further, once construction activities are complete, SHINE may vegetate open areas with crops, 

cool season grasses, or native prairie grasses (SHINE 2015a). Vegetation could partially 

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 (SHINE 2015a). Based on the low 

scenic quality and light industrial viewshed within the vicinity, construction-related aesthetic 

impacts would be SMALL.

4.1.2.2 Operations

The appearance of the SHINE facility would not change during operation, other than a small 

steam plume that may be visible coming from the exhaust stack. The steam plume from the 

exhaust stack is expected to be minimal because opacity associated with the natural gas-fired 

boiler and heaters tends to be low, as described in Section 4.2.2.1. The plume would be more 

visible during periods of cold weather, although the size of the plume would still be relatively 

small. Therefore, visual impacts during operations would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts

4-5

Figure 4–1. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed SHINE Facility

Conceptual View of Proposed SHINE Facility from U.S. Highway 51, Looking Southeast

Figure 4–1. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed SHINE Facility (Continued)

Conceptual View of Proposed SHINE Facility Looking West

Source: SHINE 2014

4.1.2.3 Impacts from Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities because they would 

involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. 

After SHINE completed decommissioning activities, the proposed site could remain industrial or 

could be converted back to agricultural land or open space. As the proposed SHINE facility is 
Environmental Impacts

4-6

located in a district zoned for light industrial use and the viewshed surrounding the proposed 

site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, the NRC staff would not expect 

any changes to the landscape to significantly affect any viewsheds. Therefore, visual impacts 

during decommissioning would be SMALL.

4.2 Air Quality and Noise

Air and noise emissions would occur during construction, operations, and decommissioning of 

the proposed SHINE facility. Emission sources, pollutants, and durations would be different for 

each phase and are discussed below. As discussed in Chapter 3, the region of influence (ROI) 

for this air quality analysis is Rock County, which is designated as an attainment/unclassifiable 

area for all criteria pollutants. The ROI for the noise analysis is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the 

site boundary of the proposed SHINE facility.

4.2.1 Construction

During construction, both air quality and noise levels may be affected near the proposed SHINE

facility. Air pollutants would include fugitive dust from earth-moving equipment and other 

vehicles, exhaust gases from diesel engines, and exhaust gases from worker vehicles as they 

commute to and from the proposed SHINE facility. Noise would be emitted from diesel engines, 

backup alarms, and increased traffic as workers commute to and from the proposed SHINE 

facility and as materials are hauled on and off the construction site. Table 4–2 lists the 

equipment that would be used during construction. The NRC staff expects actual equipment 

activity to be lower than what is presented in Table 4–2 because SHINE assumed operation of a 

majority of the construction equipment throughout the entire construction phase, multiple pieces 

of the same equipment type and simultaneous use of equipment, and equipment continuously 

running 5 hours a day during construction (SHINE 2015b). SHINE estimated that a maximum of 

451 workers would be needed during construction (SHINE 2014).

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 Tractor and Trailer (20 cy) Mack MP8(b) 450 7,188
Environmental Impacts

4-7

Equipment Type

Engine Size

(hp)

Total Activity

(hours)(a)

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 

2015b). 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, 2015b.

(b) Equipment anticipated to be utilized during the first 12 months of the construction phase.

Source: SHINE 2014, 2015b

4.2.1.1 Air Quality

During construction, the diesel equipment on site listed in Table 4–2 would generate air 

emissions. Engine exhausts emit criteria pollutants, and fugitive dust would be generated by 

earth-moving activities. Employee vehicular traffic would also generate both exhaust and 

fugitive dust emissions, some of which would occur on site and others would occur off site. 

However, fugitive dust emissions should be minimal for vehicles when traveling on paved roads 

off site. Construction-related emissions are summarized in Table 4–3. Additional 

vehicle-related emissions would be associated with the transportation of shipments and 

deliveries during construction, as discussed in Section 4.10.1. However, they would be emitted 

beyond the ROI (SHINE 2014) and would traverse various counties, air quality control regions 

(AQCRs), and states. Therefore, the air quality analysis focuses on the predominant emission 

sources during construction, which includes diesel equipment exhaust, worker vehicle 

commuting, and earth-moving activities.

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 22 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 36 18 59 23 14,900

Percent of Rock County Annual 

Emissions(c) 0.6 5.0 0.3 18 0.7 0.8 1.3
Environmental Impacts

4-8

Source

Emissions During Construction (tons/yr)

CO NOx

Hydrocarbons SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

(a) SHINE 2015b

(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 

PM2.5/PM10, 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, 2015b

As shown in Table 4–3, construction-related emissions would be approximately less than 

5 percent of countywide emissions for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, 

hydrocarbons, and particulate matter. Sulfur dioxide could result in an increase of up to 

18 percent of annual sulfur dioxide emissions for Rock County; however, as explained below, 

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 per year) would be 

well below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq (68,000 metric TPY) threshold for prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) and Title V permits set in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. As 

discussed in Section 3.2.2, the nearest currently listed Class I Federal Area for visibility 

protection is the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, about 295 mi (475 km) from the proposed 

site. EPA recommends that sources located within 62 mi (100 km) of a Class I area be modeled 

to consider adverse impacts (EPA 1992). Given the distance and estimated emissions from 

construction, the NRC staff does not anticipate that activities from construction could adversely 

affect air quality and air quality-related values (e.g., visibility or acid deposition) in the nearest 

Class I area.

Emissions presented in Table 4–3 should be regarded as bounding conditions for construction 

activities. The emission estimates presented in Table 4–3 do not account for emission control 

technologies for diesel engines, best management practices, or mitigative measures that can be 

implemented during construction-related activities. For instance, SHINE proposes to minimize 

fugitive dust emissions on site by watering and limiting speeds on unpaved roads, minimizing 

material handling, stabilizing construction roads and spoil piles, and slope revegetation 

(SHINE 2015a). Such measures would reduce particulate matter emissions related to landdisturbing activities below those presented in Table 4–3. Furthermore, diesel-related 

construction equipment emission estimates presented in Table 4–3 are estimated uncontrolled 

emissions that do not account for control technologies that can be implemented to reduce 

emissions, such as selective catalytic converters that can reduce emissions (EPA 1996). 

 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.
Environmental Impacts

4-9

Estimates are also based on conservative equipment activity values presented in Table 4–2. 

SHINE plans to implement techniques during construction, where practical, to reduce diesel 

emissions, such as using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels (15 parts per million sulfur maximum), 

deploying new equipment with emission control systems and exhaust filtration devices (diesel 

oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate matter filters and/or catalytic converters), performing diesel 

equipment inspections and necessary maintenance to ensure proposed condition of exhaust 

filtration devices, implementing recommended maintenance procedures, and periodic checks of 

diesel equipment, and minimizing the idle time of equipment, which would reduce the equipment 

activity presented in Table 4–2 (SHINE 2013). Finally, worker commuter emissions assumed a 

minimum of a 100-mi (160-km) roundtrip commute and a peak number of workers. Because the 

workforce could travel from all over the 50-mi (80-km) region and not necessarily have a 100-mi 

roundtrip commute and not all 451 workers would necessarily travel to the site on a daily basis, 

this projected increase in miles traveled daily for each county is conservative. Furthermore, 

SHINE will encourage carpooling or other appropriate measures to minimize emissions due to 

worker vehicles (SHINE 2013). Therefore, the emissions presented in Table 4–3 should be 

regarded as bounding conditions for construction activities, and, for these reasons, the NRC

staff does not expect increased air emissions from construction activities to contribute to 

concentrations that would exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in Rock 

County.

SHINE intends to submit an application for a Type A Registration Construction Permit to the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (SHINE 2013). The requirements in the 

Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, are implemented within Wisconsin Statutes 

Chapter 285, “Air Pollution.” WDNR administers its construction permit program under 

Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 406. Compliance with the construction permit from 

WDNR would ensure that the proposed project would meet air pollution standards. SHINE 

would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated within the permit.

Given that emissions during construction would be local and temporary (construction phase of 

18 months), pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from WDNR, and 

with Rock County designated as an attainment/unclassifiable area, the NRC staff concludes that 

air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL.

4.2.1.2 Noise

Noise emissions during construction would occur because of increased traffic volumes on 

U.S. Highway 51 and because of the use of construction equipment on site. The maximum 

number of worker vehicles expected on site during construction is 451, all of which would be 

expected to travel via U.S. Highway 51 during the hours when work starts and stops 

(SHINE 2015a; SHINE 2014). SHINE modeled highway noise to estimate existing noise levels 

near U.S. Highway 51 (50 ft (15 m)) away from the road) and used a peak-hour traffic volume of 

465 vehicles per hour. If work start and stop times occur during the peak hours modeled, traffic 

volume would nearly double during some periods during construction. The NRC staff conducted 

additional noise modeling using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Traffic Noise 

Model (TNM), Version 2.5, which shows adding the proposed SHINE facility construction traffic 

would increase noise levels near U.S. Highway 51 by less than 3 decibels A-weighted (dBA). 

Most people are unable to discern noise level differences less than about 3 dBA. Furthermore, 

posted speed limits and a staggered construction work shift schedule can reduce traffic noise 

during construction (SHINE 2015a).

The types of equipment that would be used on site during construction are listed in Table 4–2. 

The noisier equipment from this list was modeled by the NRC staff using the FHWA’s Roadway 

Construction Noise Model, Version 1.1. Modeling results show a maximum noise level of about 
Environmental Impacts

4-10

53 dBA at the nearest residence to the proposed site (about 0.3 mi (0.5 km) away from the site 

boundary). This noise level would be well below existing ambient noise levels (about 65 dBA 

but sometimes greater because of the airport and traffic on U.S. Highway 51) and would not be 

noticeable by most people.

Given the minor (less than 3 dBA) increase in noise levels caused by additional vehicle traffic

and estimated noise levels from construction equipment not exceeding existing ambient noise 

levels, the NRC staff concludes that offsite noise impacts from construction would be SMALL.

4.2.2 Operations

4.2.2.1 Air Quality

Air emissions from operating the proposed SHINE facility would be predominantly from two 

sources: (1) radioisotope production and (2) fuel combustion associated with processing and 

facility heating purposes. Additional emissions would come from vehicular traffic from workers

commuting and from transportation of shipments and deliveries during operations. However, 

shipment-related emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI (SHINE 2014) and would traverse 

various counties, AQCRs, and states. Therefore, the air quality analysis presented below 

focuses on emissions from radioisotope production, fuel combustion associated with processing 

and facility heating purposes, and vehicle worker commuting. The effects on nearby air quality 

resulting from these emissions would be determined by what and how much is emitted; how and 

where pollutants are emitted (stack location, size, temperature, and exhaust velocity); and 

ambient meteorological conditions.

Radioisotope Production

A criteria air pollutant that would be emitted from the radioisotope production process includes 

nitrogen oxide. SHINE would use nitric acid in target solution vessels (TSVs) and in the thermal 

denitration process, resulting in the formation and release of nitrogen oxides. SHINE would 

treat gaseous effluents through the control ventilation systems, which involves two stages of 

high-efficiency particulate air filters before being vented to the atmosphere through the main 

stack of the production facility. Total nitrogen oxide emissions from the radioisotope production 

process would be about 3 TPY (SHINE 2015a).

Fuel Combustion

Diesel and natural gas combustion sources are listed in Table 4–4. Four natural-gas-fired 

heaters and one boiler would be used to meet heating and hot water requirements for the 

proposed SHINE facility. Additionally, a diesel generator would be used for emergency power 

(SHINE 2015a). Emissions from diesel and natural gas combustion sources are summarized in 

Table 4–5. Estimated fuel combustion-related emissions from the facility during operation, as 

provided in Table 4–5 are well below the major source threshold of 100 TPY for criteria 

pollutants requiring a Title V operation permit. GHG emissions (approximately 15,700 TPY of 

CO2eq) would be well below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq threshold for PSD and Title V permits set 

in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, SHINE plans to develop programs, 

when appropriate, to avoid and control GHG emissions and implement energy efficiency and 

conservation at the facility (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates that emissions 

from combustion-related activities during operation will not be a major source and, therefore, 

has little potential for significantly affecting air quality or interfering with plans to achieve 

compliance with the NAAQS.
Environmental Impacts

4-11

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 2013, 2015a

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 2013

SHINE computed air pollutant concentrations near the proposed SHINE facility during 

operations using the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), 

Version 12345. Air pollutant concentrations modeled include emissions from the radioisotope

production process and heater and boiler combustion during operation (SHINE 2015a). 

Emissions from the standby diesel generator were not accounted for in the model because its 

use would be infrequent (SHINE 2015a). SHINE used surface and upper air meteorological 

data from Madison, Wisconsin (Station 14837), for the years 2006 to 2010. Modeled air 

pollutant concentrations (maximum predicted impact) for each pollutant resulting from operation 

(production process and heater and boiler combustion) were added to ambient background 

concentrations and compared with NAAQS. SHINE’s modeling results are shown in Table 4–6.
Environmental Impacts

4-12

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 2013; EPA 2012a.

As can be seen from Table 4–6, total concentrations (maximum predicted impact plus 

background concentration) for each pollutant do not exceed the NAAQS. In other words, the 

additional emissions resulting from operation did not result in NAAQS thresholds being 

exceeded. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that violations of NAAQS are not expected as a 

result of increased air emissions from operation of SHINE. Additionally, the maximum impacts 

include consideration of building downwash effects. Therefore, these values are conservative 

and bounding. Visibility modeling was not performed for this project because of the low 

emission rates and resulting pollutant concentrations. No visible plume other than steam is 

expected from SHINE stacks during normal operation. The nearest currently listed Class I 

Federal Area for visibility protection is the Seney Wilderness Area in Michigan, about 295 mi 

(475 km) from the proposed site. EPA recommends that sources located within 62 mi (100 km) 

of a Class I area be modeled to consider adverse impacts (EPA 1992). Given the distance and 

estimated emissions from operation, the NRC staff does not anticipate that activities from 

operation could adversely affect air quality and air quality-related values (e.g., visibility or acid 

deposition) in the nearest Class I area.

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 2015a). The generator would be required to meet 

applicable New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII) and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ). Emissions from 

radioisotope production and fuel combustion sources would be emitted through stacks. Terrain 

near the proposed SHINE facility is relatively flat and, therefore, should not affect dispersion of 

pollutants. SHINE intends to submit an application for a Type A Registration Operation Permit 

to WDNR for stationary equipment (e.g., emergency generator) (SHINE 2013). The operating 
Environmental Impacts

4-13

permit from WDNR would set limits and establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements with which SHINE would be required to comply.

Additional emissions would result from workforce vehicles. Approximately 150 passenger 

vehicles would enter and leave the proposed SHINE facility on a daily basis (SHINE 2013, 

2014). Vehicular emissions would occur wherever the vehicles are driven, both on and off the 

proposed SHINE facility. Employee vehicle emissions during operation are summarized in 

Table 4–7. Additional vehicle-related emissions would be associated with the transportation of 

waste shipments, as discussed in Section 4.10.2, during operation. However, these emissions 

would be emitted beyond the ROI because they are expected to be shipped to facilities in Clive, 

Utah; Andrews, Texas; and/or Kingston, Tennessee (SHINE 2014, 2015a); therefore, they 

would traverse various counties, AQCRs, and states. Minimal air emissions resulting from 

waste shipments would be emitted within Rock County.

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

When estimated emissions from vehicles (Table 4–7) are added to the estimated emissions 

from radioisotope production and fuel combustion emissions (Table 4–5), total emissions are 

below the major source threshold of 100 TPY for criteria pollutants that would require a Title V 

permit and are below 250 TPY, which is the threshold for triggering PSD requirements (as 

discussed in Section 3.2.2). Furthermore, total GHGs (approximately 17,300 TPY of CO2eq) 

are below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq threshold for PSD and Title V permits set in the 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule. Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates that emissions 

from related activities during operation has little potential for significantly affecting air quality or 

interfering with plans to achieve compliance with the NAAQS.

Given that modeled air emissions from operation do not exceed NAAQS, that estimated 

emissions from operation-related activities are below the 100-TPY major source threshold, that 

Rock County is designated attainment/unclassifiable status and given the provisions that would 

be established in the air permit, the impact of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality during 

operation is expected to be SMALL.

4.2.2.2 Noise

Noise emissions during operation would occur because of increased traffic volumes on 

U.S. Highway 51. Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and 

would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE buildings at the site.

The number of worker vehicles expected during operation is 150 (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Adding 

this traffic volume to the TNM modeling completed for existing traffic levels would increase noise 

levels near U.S. Highway 51 by about 1 dBA. Most people are unable to discern noise level 

differences less than about 3 dBA.

The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport currently operates approximately 105 flights per day, 

38,400 flights per year (FAA 2014). Flight operations may increase because of the demand to 
Environmental Impacts

4-14

transport materials to and from the proposed SHINE facility. Up to 468 medical shipments 

would occur each year associated with the proposed action with most being transported by air 

(SHINE 2015a). However, these increases are not anticipated to cause an appreciable 

increase in noise above the current operations.

Given that noise emissions from operating equipment are not expected to be audible beyond 

the building facility, that additional noise emissions caused by worker vehicles are minor 

(1 dBA), and that noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels 

from current airport operations, the NRC staff concludes that offsite noise impacts during 

operation would be SMALL.

4.2.3 Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities. The decommissioning 

activities would include, for example, vehicular traffic, earth-moving equipment, demolition of 

structures, and dismantlement and decontamination of systems over a period of 6 months 

(SHINE 2015a). Table 4–8 lists the equipment that would be used during the decommissioning 

phase. The NRC staff expects actual equipment activity to be lower than what is presented in 

Table 4–8 because SHINE assumed operation of the construction equipment throughout the 

entire decommissioning phase, multiple pieces of the same equipment type and simultaneous 

use of equipment, and equipment continuously running 5 hours a day during decommissioning 

(SHINE 2015b). SHINE estimated that a maximum of 261 workers would be on the proposed 

SHINE site at one time during decommissioning (SHINE 2014, 2015a).

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

Semi Tractor 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
Environmental Impacts

4-15

Equipment Type

Engine Size

(hp)

Total Activity

(hr)(a)

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 2015b). 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, 2015b.

Source: SHINE 2014, 2015a, 2015b

4.2.3.1 Air Quality

During decommissioning, the diesel equipment on the proposed SHINE site would be a source 

of air emissions (Table 4–8). Engine exhausts emit criteria pollutants, and fugitive dust would 

be generated by earth-moving activities. Vehicular traffic would also generate both exhaust and 

fugitive dust emissions, some of which would occur on site and some off site. Emissions are 

summarized in Table 4–9. Additional vehicle-related emissions would be associated with the 

transportation of waste shipments, as discussed in Section 4.10.3, during decommissioning. 

However, these emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI because they are expected to be 

shipped to facilities in Clive, Utah; Andrews, Texas; and/or Kingston, Tennessee (SHINE 2014, 

2015a); therefore, they would traverse various counties, AQCRs, and states. Minimal air 

emissions resulting from waste shipments would be emitted within Rock County.

As shown in Table 4–9, emissions during decommissioning would be less than 3 percent of total 

countywide emissions of pollutants, with the exception of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide could 

result in an increase of up to 11 percent of annual sulfur dioxide emissions for Rock County. 

The NRC staff expects SHINE emissions to be low enough that resulting air quality 

concentrations should not cause NAAQS to be exceeded. Similarly, total GHGs (approximately 

9,330 tons of CO2eq per year) would be well below the 75,000 TPY of CO2eq threshold for PSD 

and Title V permits set in the GHG Tailoring Rule.
Environmental Impacts

4-16

Table 4–9. Air Emissions During Decommissioning

Source

Emissions During Decommissioning Phasee (tons)

CO NOx HydrocarbonsSO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Diesel Equipment Exhaust(a) 37 170 14 11 12 12 6,400

Peak Worker Commuting 

Exhaust(a)

37 3 4 0.1(d) .02 .02 1,440

Fugitive Dust(b) 7 0.7

Total 74 173 18 11 19 13 7,840

Percent of Rock County Annual 

Emissions(c)

0.2 3.0 0.2 11 0.2 0.4 0.7

(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 PM2.5/PM10, 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.

(e) The decommissioning phase is assumed to be 6 months. 

Source: SHINE 2014, 2015a

The emission estimates presented in Table 4–9 did not account for emission control 

technologies for diesel engines or mitigative measures that can be implemented during 

construction activities. For instance, SHINE proposes to minimize fugitive dust emissions by 

watering disturbed areas and unpaved roads and by limiting speeds on unpaved site roads 

(SHINE 2015a). Such measures should reduce dust emissions below those presented in 

Table 4–9 and should prevent fugitive dust from adversely affecting highway or airport traffic. 

Emissions are estimated based on equipment activity presented in Table 4–8, which are 

bounding and conservative. Actual emissions are expected to be lower depending on the exact 

use of equipment. Additionally, estimated diesel-related equipment emissions are for 

uncontrolled emissions that do not consider emission control technologies. SHINE plans to 

implement techniques during decommissioning, where practical, to reduce diesel equipment 

emissions, such as using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels (15 parts per million sulfur maximum), 

deploying new equipment with emission control systems and exhaust filtration devices (diesel 

oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate matter filters and/or catalytic converters), performing diesel 

equipment inspections and necessary maintenance to ensure proposed condition of exhaust 

filtration devices, implementing recommended maintenance procedures, and periodic checks of 

diesel equipment, and minimizing the idle time of equipment, which would reduce the equipment 

activity presented in Table 4–9 (SHINE 2013). Furthermore, worker commuter emissions 

assumed a minimum 100-mi (161-km) roundtrip commute. Because the workforce could travel 

from all over the 50-mi (80-km) region and not necessarily have a 100-mi (161-km) roundtrip 

commute, this projected increase in miles traveled daily for each county is conservative. 

Therefore, emissions in Table 4–9 are bounding and conservative.

Given that air emissions during decommissioning would be local and temporary

(decommissioning phase of 6 months) and that Rock County is designated as an 

attainment/unclassifiable area, the NRC staff concludes that the air quality impact associated 

with the decommissioning phase would be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts

4-17

4.2.3.2 Noise

Noise emissions during decommissioning would be similar to those generated during 

construction. Increased noise levels would occur from increased traffic volumes on 

U.S. Highway 51 and from the use of construction equipment on site.

A maximum of 261 worker vehicles could be on site during decommissioning (SHINE 2014). 

For purposes of analysis, the NRC staff assumed that all of these vehicles would travel on 

U.S. Highway 51 near the proposed SHINE facility during the hours when work starts and stops. 

Adding these to the TNM, as completed for the other phases, shows increased noise levels near 

U.S. Highway 51 of less than 2 dBA. Most people are unable to discern noise level differences 

less than about 3 dBA.

The types of equipment that would be used on site during decommissioning are listed in Table 

4–8; they are similar to those used during construction. Application of the Roadway 

Construction Noise Model by the NRC staff indicates that decommissioning activities would 

result in a maximum noise level of about 53 dBA at the nearest residence to the proposed site 

(about 0.3 mi (0.5 km) away from the site boundary). During the day, this noise level would be 

well below existing ambient noise levels (about 65 dBA but sometimes greater because of the 

airport and traffic on U.S. Highway 51) and would not be noticeable by most people.

Given the minor (2-dBA) increase in noise levels caused by additional vehicle traffic and given 

that estimated noise levels from decommissioning activities would be bounded by existing 

ambient noise levels, the NRC staff concludes that offsite noise impacts from decommissioning 

would be SMALL.

4.3 Geologic Environment

4.3.1 Construction

Construction of the proposed SHINE facility is expected to disturb approximately 41 ac (16.6 ha) 

of land, as detailed in Section 4.1.1.1. The property has been in active agricultural use and 

would likely be left fallow before the start of construction. Construction of the radiologically 

controlled area (RCA) of the facility would require excavation to a depth of 39 ft (12 m). Utility 

routings and other foundation slabs and footings would require excavation to a depth of about 

5 ft (1.5 m). As the depth to bedrock is greater than 221 ft (67 m) and likely greater than 300 ft 

(91 m), no blasting would be required for site preparation and facility construction. Site soils 

may be prone to slumping in excavations (Section 3.3.2) because of textural characteristics; 

therefore, bracing may be required. 

Mineral and other geologic resources would be required to support the construction effort, 

including approximately 7,600 yd3 (5,800 m3

) of granular road base (e.g., typically crushed 

aggregate (sand and gravel) as a base material); 2,200 yd3 (1,680 m3

) of asphalt pavement 

material; and 8,500 yd3 of gravel surfacing (6,500 m3

) (SHINE 2015a). These resources would 

be procured from local and/or regional commercial vendors. As noted in Section 3.3.1, 

construction aggregate is widely available throughout Rock County and the greater 

southeastern Wisconsin region.

SHINE estimated that 27,700 yd3 (21,180 m3

) of concrete would also be used for facility 

construction and would be obtained from offsite commercial vendors (SHINE 2015a). 

Consequently, no onsite concrete batch plant would be required (SHINE 2014). The mineral 

products that comprise concrete (i.e., Portland cement, sand, gravel, and other additives) are 

widely available in the region or are not otherwise limited in commercial availability.
Environmental Impacts

4-18

Additionally, an estimated 74,000 yd3 (56,600 m3

) of backfill would be required for emplacement 

around structures, along with the use of 10,000 yd3 (7,650 m3

) of topsoil for miscellaneous 

earthwork and final surface preparation (SHINE 2015a). The backfill material would be 

reworked from onsite material and prepared as necessary to meet structural requirements, and 

the topsoil would likewise be derived from onsite soils that are temporarily stockpiled during site 

preparation and excavation work for later use. Construction materials are further detailed in 

Table 2–1, and construction activities are described in Section 2.2.

Although site grading, surface compaction, excavation work, and construction-related vehicle 

traffic would expose site soils and sediments to wind and water erosion, adherence to standard 

best management practices (BMPs) for soil erosion and sediment control during facility 

construction would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss. Such BMPs would include the use 

of gravel aprons, sediment traps, sediment fencing, check dams and staked hay bales, 

mulching and geotextile matting, and rapid reseeding. The impacts would also be contained 

within the immediate project site and would be temporary in nature. SHINE has indicated that 

soil erosion and sediment control for ground-disturbing activities would meet or exceed the 

applicable regulatory requirements under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

regulations pursuant to CWA Section 402, and applicable Wisconsin regulations 

(SHINE 2015a). EPA has delegated NPDES permit authority to Wisconsin for stormwater

dischargers associated with construction and industrial activity. The WDNR administers its 

permit program under the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 151 and NR 216). Specifically, 

SHINE would be required to obtain and comply with the provisions of a General Permit to 

Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff (Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013a). The permit would require SHINE 

to develop and implement 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 (for postconstruction stormwater management). The 

permit also specifies that the permittee should minimize soil compaction and preserve topsoil.

Pursuant to Section 401(a) of the CWA, an applicant for a Federal license or permit, which may 

result in a discharge into navigable waters of the United States, must provide to the Federal 

licensing or permitting agency the certification, or a waiver, from the State in which the 

discharge originates. A Federal agency cannot issue such a license or permit to an applicant 

until the required certification is obtained. As described above, SHINE would have to obtain and 

comply with a State-issued general permit for stormwater discharges associated with 

construction activity. BMPs and other requirements imposed by the State-issued stormwater 

discharge permit would ensure that runoff during construction of the proposed facility will meet 

applicable State water quality standards. SHINE will need to provide the NRC a 401 

certification from the State of Wisconsin, a waiver, or confirmation that a 401 certification is not 

applicable. 

Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would consume geologic resources and have the 

potential to increase soil erosion. However, given that the geologic resources are widely 

available within the region and that erosion would be managed with the implementation of 

BMPs, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on the geologic environment from the 

construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 

4.3.2 Operations

During facility operations, previously disturbed areas would not be subject to long-term soil

erosion. Areas disturbed during construction would be within the footprint of the completed 

facility or overlain by other impervious surfaces, such as roadways and parking lots. Land 
Environmental Impacts

4-19

temporarily disturbed during construction within the site boundary and lying outside the facility 

footprint would be revegetated. SHINE proposes to use native vegetation in the landscaping 

design (SHINE 2015a). As currently proposed, implementation of a stormwater management 

plan for the facility site would entail the use of vegetated drainage swales to control runoff, 

which would be effective in reducing surface erosion and sediment transport. All production 

activities would be conducted within enclosed buildings, and vehicle traffic would be confined to 

paved surfaces (e.g., roads and parking areas) that service the facility. As a result, incremental 

impacts on geology and soils would be negligible during operations.

The NRC staff does not expect site geologic conditions to affect the operation of the SHINE

facility. The proposed site is located in a region with a low seismic hazard, as described in 

Section 3.3.3. The proposed facility would be sited, designed, and constructed in accordance 

with all applicable building codes, which provide for the evaluation of site geologic and soil

conditions, including potential seismic hazards. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

operational impacts associated with the geologic environment at the proposed site would be 

SMALL. 

4.3.3 Decommissioning

Compacted site soils and underlying sediments would be disturbed by facility demolition work. 

The impacts on site geology and soils would be similar in scope to those described for 

construction. Site clearing to restore the proposed site to a reusable condition would be subject 

to the requirements of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4) 

(WDNR 2013a).

Before beginning to dismantle onsite structures, waste materials and contaminated media would 

be removed from the facilities, packaged, and properly disposed of as discussed in Section 4.9. 

Thus, these materials would not pose a contamination threat to site soils or underlying 

groundwater. Soils and other media would be sampled to determine the presence of any 

contamination and associated waste management requirements. All activities would be 

conducted in accordance with a decommissioning plan approved by the NRC, as described in 

Section 2.8. 

Consequently, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on the geologic environment from facility 

decommissioning would be SMALL.

4.4 Water Resources

4.4.1 Surface Water

4.4.1.1 Construction

No natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, and there would be no direct 

impact from facility construction on natural surface-water drainages. The closest surface-water 

feature to the proposed construction location is an unnamed tributary to Rock River located 

approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) southeast of the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). During 

construction, however, stormwater runoff from construction areas could potentially affect 

downstream surface-water quality if not properly managed. As described in Section 4.3.1, 

appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs would be employed to minimize the 

transport of suspended sediment and other pollutants. SHINE would be required to conduct 

construction activities in accordance with the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

No. WI-S067831-4). SHINE would be required to prepare a site-specific plan that details 

stormwater pollution prevention measures. In accordance with this permit, these measures 
Environmental Impacts

4-20

would be required to include proper management of all construction materials and chemicals to 

prevent them from being exposed to, and conveyed by, stormwater to waters of the State. The 

permit would explicitly 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.

In accordance with common construction practices, the NRC staff expects that portable 

restroom facilities, serviced by a commercial vendor, would be used during site construction. As 

a result, there would be no sanitary wastewater discharges during construction. Section 4.9 

describes the waste management impacts.

No surface water or onsite groundwater would be diverted or withdrawn to support facility 

construction (SHINE 2015a). SHINE proposes to obtain water for construction and operations 

from the City of Janesville Water Utility, which uses groundwater as its supply source. 

Section 4.4.2.1 presents an NRC analysis of groundwater use impacts.

The proposed site is not located in an area susceptible to flooding or in a delineated floodplain, 

as discussed in Section 3.4.1.

No natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, no surface water would be 

diverted or withdrawn to support facility construction, and SHINE must prepare a site-specific 

plan that details stormwater pollution prevention measures; therefore, the NRC staff concludes 

that the impacts on surface-water hydrology, quality, and use from the construction of the 

proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 

4.4.1.2 Operations

During operations, there would be no direct impact on surface-water features and no direct 

discharge of industrial wastewater to surface water. Stormwater would be collected and 

discharged from the facility property in compliance with applicable State and local permit 

provisions and ordinances. The Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

No. WI-S067831-4), as described for construction, specifically requires the development of a 

stormwater management plan with appropriate BMPs to address runoff from buildings and other 

impervious surfaces. Temporary stormwater management controls, such as rip-rap-lined 

culverts and ditches, would first be stabilized and otherwise integrated with permanent 

stormwater management structural controls to provide long-term stormwater velocity 

attenuation, runoff, and sediment transport reduction and to prevent channel scouring 

(SHINE 2015a).

The design, construction, and subsequent operations of the proposed SHINE facility incorporate 

features and structural controls to manage stormwater runoff and associated hydrologic impacts 

during operations. For example, the site plan for the proposed facility (Figure 2–3) minimizes 

impervious surfaces and infiltration and uses a system of diversion ditches and vegetated 

drainage swales to manage stormwater runon and runoff, instead of a traditional detention or 

retention pond. Specifically, the SHINE facility would be surrounded by an exterior stormwater 

runon diversion berm with an interior and exterior ditch system. The exterior ditch would direct 

stormwater and farm-field runoff to flow spreaders, which direct the excess water to the 

surrounding fields. The interior ditch directs excess water to the vegetated stormwater basin 

and swale located in the southwest corner of the facility site. Collected stormwater would then 

discharge from the west end of the swale through an outfall structure to the existing drainage 

ditch along U.S. Highway 51 with drainage ultimately flowing to the unnamed tributary to Rock 

River (Figures 2–3 and 3–8). This stormwater system would be designed to address the 1-year, 

2-year, and 24-hour storm events per State regulations and the 10-year and 100-year events, 
Environmental Impacts

4-21

as required by the City of Janesville (SHINE 2015a). As discussed in Section 3.3.2, the natural 

soils at the proposed site are well drained and not prone to water ponding.

No discharge of stormwater associated with industrial activity (i.e., where stormwater can come 

into contact with stockpiles, raw materials, or process areas) would occur. Nevertheless, in 

accordance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

No. WI-S067831-4), stormwater discharges from the SHINE site would have to comply with the 

wasteload allocation established for downstream receiving waters. As described in 

Section 3.4.1, the segment of Rock River that would ultimately receive drainage from the SHINE 

facility site is impaired for total suspended solids and total phosphorous.

The proposed SHINE facility is designed to have no discharge of liquid wastes from the RCA 

(SHINE 2015a). Sections 2.7 and 4.9 discuss the treatment and handling of waste from the 

RCA. Furthermore, there would be no direct discharge of industrial or process wastewater to 

surface waters to support SHINE facility operations. Wastewater from the SHINE facility would 

be conveyed to the City of Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) through a 10-in. 

(25-cm) sanitary sewer line extended to the proposed site (SHINE 2015a). 

Facility wastewater would normally consist of sanitary wastewater and boiler blowdown from the 

facility’s heated water system for building heating. In total, this wastewater would be discharged 

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

)/day). About once a year, an 

additional 10,000 gal (37,850 L) of cooling water would be flushed from the closed-loop chilled 

water system to the sanitary sewer. This water would contain residual water treatment 

chemicals added to control biological growth and scale buildup and corrosion from the chilled 

water system (SHINE 2013). Small quantities of maintenance and laboratory chemicals also 

would be discharged periodically to the facility’s sanitary sewer drains. However, administrative 

controls would be in place to ensure that such waste streams meet the acceptance 

requirements of the City of Janesville WTP before they are released (SHINE 2013, 2015a). All 

wastewater conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP would also have to meet influent 

acceptance requirements for industrial users and, specifically, the prohibitions and maximum 

daily limits specified by the City’s Wastewater Facilities and Sewer Ordinance (City of 

Janesville 2013; SHINE 2013). 

The conveyance of wastewater to the City of Janesville WTP constitutes an indirect discharge 

and excluded from the definition of “discharge of a pollutant” to waters of the United States 

(40 CFR 122.2). SHINE facility operations will not require an individual NPDES permit for the 

discharge of wastewater to waters of the United States.

Overall, the volume of this nonhazardous wastewater is very small compared to the capacity of 

the City of Janesville WTP. The WTP, according to City of Janesville officials, 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

/day) (NRC 2014). 

Finally, as much as 30,000 gal (113,600 L) of fuel oil may be stored on site in an underground 

storage tank to supply the facility’s standby generator. This volume of oil storage requires the 

development and implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) 

Plan, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 112 and applicable State requirements. The SPCC Plan 

details requirements for oil-spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil 

discharges to land and surface waters (SHINE 2015a).

Given that SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility operations, that 

a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention measures must be prepared, and 

that SHINE would be required to develop and implement an SPCC Plan, the NRC staff 
Environmental Impacts

4-22

concludes that the impacts on surface-water hydrology, quality, and use from the operation of 

the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 

4.4.1.3 Decommissioning

No natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, and there would be no direct 

impacts on surface-water resources as a consequence of facility decommissioning activities. 

No surface water would be used during decommissioning.

As previously noted in Section 4.3.3, during decommissioning, waste materials and 

contaminated media would be removed from the facility and packaged for proper disposal. 

Building demolition and related ground-disturbing activity, including the removal of the facility 

site’s stormwater management structures, would be subject to the requirements of WPDES 

Permit No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013a). BMPs, including the use of structural controls, such 

as sediment fencing and sediment basins, and the use of mulching, geotextile matting, and 

rapid reseeding of disturbed areas, would be used to prevent soil erosion and loss and 

downstream water-quality impacts. Soils and other media would be sampled to determine the 

presence of any contamination and associated waste management requirements. Thus, any 

such materials would not pose a contamination threat to offsite surface water or groundwater. 

The Wisconsin General Permit requires 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 equipment that would be used during building demolition and site restoration. 

Therefore, appropriate waste handling and stormwater pollution prevention practices and spill 

prevention and response procedures would be observed during decommissioning to ensure that 

no materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater.

Given that no natural surface-water features occur on the proposed site, that there would be no 

diversion or withdrawal of surface water during decommissioning, and that SHINE would be 

required to prepare a site-specific plan that details stormwater pollution prevention and spill 

prevention and response measures, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface-water 

resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL.

4.4.2 Groundwater

4.4.2.1 Construction

Groundwater dewatering is not expected to be required during construction. The deepest 

proposed excavation for facility construction is 39 ft (12 m) (SHINE 2013a). As described in 

Section 3.4.2, site studies have shown the depth to groundwater to range from 50 to 65 ft (15 to 

20 m) below ground surface. Further, SHINE did not identify any perched aquifers 

(i.e., water-bearing zones confined to locations above the site water table) or seasonally high 

water table conditions during site geotechnical and hydrogeologic studies (SHINE 2015a). 

Therefore, the NRC staff determined that facility construction would be unlikely to affect 

groundwater conditions beneath the proposed site.

No groundwater supply wells would be drilled on the proposed site (SHINE 2013a). The NRC

staff expects that the four monitoring wells completed as part of site characterization and 

geotechnical studies would be maintained as environmental monitoring wells.

SHINE would not use groundwater from onsite sources during construction. Instead, SHINE 

would obtain water from the City of Janesville Water Utility as needed for construction. Water 

would be required during construction for such uses as dust control and soil compaction 

(Table 4–10). Some potable water would also be required to meet the drinking and sanitary 

needs of the construction workforce during the projected 18-month construction period. Water 
Environmental Impacts

4-23

would also be consumed for concrete production and would likely be required for other 

miscellaneous uses, such as washing down equipment and work areas. The City of Janesville 

plans to construct a new, 16-in. (41-cm) water distribution line along the northern boundary of 

the site property. This distribution line would serve the properties in the vicinity of the SHINE 

site as well as the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a).

SHINE would use water trucks for dust mitigation and suppression during construction, which 

would require 10,000 gal (37,850 L) of water per day for the first 3 months of construction 

(SHINE 2013). SHINE estimated total water needs for concrete mixing to be 700,000 gal 

(2.65 million L) (SHINE 2015a). The peak demand to meet the personal needs of the 

construction workforce (including preoperational testing) is estimated to be 13,530 gpd 

(51,233 Lpd) (SHINE 2013, 2014). Further, the NRC staff estimates that other miscellaneous 

uses would increase total water requirements by about 10 percent. 

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

During the course of construction and before the establishment of permanent utility connections 

with the newly constructed facility, the NRC staff expects that water would be trucked to the 

point of use at the work site or conveyed through a nearby, temporary water tap from the City of 

Janesville Water Utility. While water would be consumed to produce concrete, no onsite batch 

plant is proposed. Instead, ready-mix concrete would be delivered to the proposed site, 

supplied by commercial vendors. These commercial suppliers would likely be in Rock County, 

but SHINE could use water from purveyors other than the City of Janesville Water Utility. 

Moreover, in accordance with common construction practices, the NRC staff expects that 

portable restroom facilities, serviced by a commercial vendor, would also be used during site 

construction. This measure would reduce the quantity of projected water required for potable 

and sanitary uses by the construction workforce.

The total estimated water demand for construction is approximately 6.66 million gal 

(25.2 million L), or a daily demand during the 18-month construction period averaging about 

0.012 mgd (45 m3

/day) (Table 4–10). The NRC staff considers these values to be conservative 

(i.e., bounding) with respect to the total water needs required for construction, based on the 

above assumptions. As described in Section 3.4.2, groundwater is the source of water supply 

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/day) 

(City of Janesville 2013). Even if all required construction water is supplied by the City of 

Janesville Water Utility, the estimated demand would be a very small percentage (less than 

1 percent) of both the utility system’s total capacity and average, available excess capacity. 
Environmental Impacts

4-24

Given that SHINE would not use groundwater from onsite sources during construction and that 

the estimated water demand would be less than 1 percent of the City of Janesville Water Utility 

system’s total capacity and average available excess capacity, the NRC staff concludes that the 

impacts on groundwater hydrology, quality, and use from construction of the proposed SHINE 

facility would be SMALL. 

4.4.2.2 Operations

The NRC staff expects that routine facility operation would not have any impact on local

groundwater hydrology because of the depth of groundwater and provisions for proper design 

and construction of the facility site’s stormwater management and drainage system. SHINE has 

stated that all equipment and material storage areas would comply with appropriate regulations 

requiring secondary containment of stored liquids and materials to prevent their release where 

such materials could contaminate site soils or stormwater runoff, or infiltrate to contaminate 

groundwater (SHINE 2015a). As described in Section 4.4.1.1, SHINE would develop and 

implement an SPCC Plan for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. Furthermore, 

SHINE would not use onsite groundwater nor discharge liquid effluents to the subsurface 

(SHINE 2015a). Because of the nature of the facility, with all process and material storage 

areas located indoors, the risk to groundwater and other environmental media is low. 

Water would be required for potable and sanitary uses, fire protection, heating and cooling 

system makeup, and makeup for the radioisotope production process. This water would be 

supplied by the City of Janesville Water Utility (SHINE 2013a). These water needs are 

summarized in Table 4–11.

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. 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

Potable water demand is 3,270 gpd (12,380 Lpd), and blowdown and makeup to the facility 

heating water system is 2,580 gpd (9,770 Lpd). Water initially would be needed to provide 

makeup supply to the chilled water and facility heating water system, as well as for fire 

protection. The largest automatic fire suppression system demand in the event of a fire is 

390 gpm (1,476 Lpm). The automatic fire suppression demand would be supplied by a fire 

water tank (SHINE 2013a).

The majority of the makeup water to the radioisotope production process would pass through a 

demineralizer system to control the water’s chemistry. As reflected in Table 4–11, water use in 

the radioisotope production process is consumptive in nature, and water would either be lost to 

the atmosphere as vapor or incorporated into packaged waste streams from the process 

(SHINE 2013b).
Environmental Impacts

4-25

Total water use is projected to be 6,073 gpd (22,990 Lpd), or 0.006 mgd (23 m3

/day) during 

operations. This water requirement is a very small percentage (less than 0.03 percent) of the

available capacity of the City of Janesville Water Utility (see Section 4.4.2.1) and could easily be 

supplied by the extension of the proposed 16-in. (41-cm) water distribution line to the facility 

site.

Given that SHINE would not use groundwater from onsite sources, and the estimated water 

demand would be a very small percent (less than 0.03 percent) of the City of Janesville Water 

Utility’s total capacity, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater hydrology, 

quality, and use from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. 

4.4.2.3 Decommissioning

The potential decommissioning impacts on and associated mitigation measures for groundwater 

are similar to those described in Section 4.4.1.3 for surface water. In summary, demolition and 

site-restoration activities would be conducted in accordance with the Wisconsin General Permit 

and with appropriate BMPs. Further, waste handling and pollution prevention practices and spill 

prevention and response procedures would be observed during decommissioning, so that no 

materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater, where they could 

contaminate underlying groundwater. SHINE would be required to conduct necessary surveys 

of the soils and subsurface to comply with the NRC’s radiological criteria for license termination 

in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The NRC staff also expects that soils and other media would be 

sampled to ensure that no nonradiological contamination is present. Given the depth to the 

water table, the NRC staff concludes that any spills of fuels or other petroleum products during 

facility demolition, or inadvertent release of contaminated materials, would be contained and 

remediated before any such material could reach the groundwater.

Small quantities of water may be required for dust control and soil compaction in association 

with site-restoration activities. As the source of water supply in Rock County is groundwater, it 

would be expected that water would be trucked to the point of use or conveyed from a 

temporary connection from the onsite water line as decommissioning activities progress. The 

volume of water required would likely to be less than that required during facility construction. 

No onsite groundwater would be used to support decommissioning (SHINE 2013a). The NRC

staff anticipates that portable restroom facilities, serviced by a commercial vendor, would be 

used during site decommissioning to meet the needs of decommissioning personnel. Thus, 

there would be no onsite discharge of sanitary waste streams. 

Therefore, based on the stated considerations, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on 

groundwater resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL.

4.5 Ecological Resources

4.5.1 Construction

As described in Section 4.1, construction of the proposed SHINE facility would permanently 

convert 25.67 ac (10.39 ha) of agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open space

into an industrial area (Table 4–1) (SHINE 2015a). In addition, 15.16 ac. (6.14 ha) of 

agricultural land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking 

area, construction material staging or laydown area, or construction laydown areas to install a 

water and sewer line (SHINE 2015a). Once construction activities are complete, SHINE would 

restore the areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie (SHINE 2015a). 

Directly affected vegetation would be limited to cultivated crops and weedy species, both of 

which are abundant within the region and provide relatively low-quality habitat for birds and 
Environmental Impacts

4-26

wildlife in comparison to forests, grasslands, and wetland habitats. In addition to a loss of 

habitat, noise from construction activities could disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such 

disturbances and loss of habitat, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and 

find adequate, similar habitat (e.g., agricultural fields) within the vicinity. Once construction 

activities are complete, birds and wildlife could return to the area. 

During construction, bird collisions with construction equipment and the new facility could result 

in increased mortality caused by the presence of tall structures and artificial night lighting. 

SHINE would use tall cranes to build the facility, which, when built, would be at a height of 58 ft 

(18 m) (SHINE 2015a). In addition, the exhaust vent would be at a maximum height of 66 ft 

(20 m) (SHINE 2015a). Migratory songbirds would be most likely to collide with artificially 

lighted structures or cranes because of their propensity to migrate at night, their low flight 

altitudes, and their tendency to be trapped and disoriented by artificial light (Ogden 1996; 

NRC 2013a). SHINE (2013a) stated that, during construction at night, BMPs, such as light 

source shielding and appropriate directional lighting, would be used to mitigate impacts 

associated with artificial nighttime illumination. The NRC staff reviewed bird collisions with plant 

structures at nuclear power plants and determined that collision rates were negligible sources of 

bird mortality with plants that have cooling towers 100 ft (30 m) in height. The SHINE facility 

and construction equipment would be similar or smaller in size and height than an operating 

nuclear power plant; therefore, the impacts from bird collisions at the SHINE site would be 

bounded by the conclusions the NRC staff reached in its review of bird collisions at operating 

nuclear power plants with cooling towers 100 ft (30 m) in height.

Construction of the SHINE facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts to aquatic 

resources, such as habitat loss, because no aquatic resources occur on site. As described in 

Section 3.4, water drains off the proposed site to the south and west towards the Rock River

and its tributaries. Runoff from the proposed site could affect offsite aquatic resources by 

increasing turbidity or introducing various chemicals or other pollutants. However, impacts to 

the Rock River and its tributaries are expected to be minimal because of the distance to the 

nearest tributary and Rock River, appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs would be 

employed to minimize the transport of suspended sediment and other pollutants, and SHINE 

would be required to develop a site-specific program to prevent pollution from stormwater runoff

(see Section 4.3).

Given that construction would not permanently or temporarily affect any high-quality habitats, 

such as grasslands, forests, or wetlands; permanently and temporarily affected habitats 

(agricultural fields) are abundant within the region; mortality from bird collisions is expected to 

be negligible; and no aquatic features or Federally or State-listed species occur on the SHINE

site, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to ecological resources during construction would be 

SMALL.

4.5.2 Operations

During operations, impacts to ecological resources could result from bird collisions, herbicide 

applications for landscape maintenance activities, elevated noise levels, and increased turbidity 

or introduction of pollutants from site runoff. As described above, mortality from bird collisions is 

expected to be negligible, given that the tallest structure would be a stack no higher than 66 ft 

(20 m). Disturbance from daily activities, herbicide applications, or elevated noise levels are 

likely to have minimal impacts on wildlife and plant species, given that the species identified at 

the proposed site are generally tolerant of human disturbances because the land has been 

actively farmed for the past several decades. In response to any disturbances, birds and wildlife 

could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat (agricultural fields) 
Environmental Impacts

4-27

within the vicinity. In addition, SHINE would apply herbicides according to an integrated pest 

management plan, which would include applicable BMPs or related permit requirements.

Operation of the SHINE facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts to aquatic 

resources, because no aquatic resources occur on site and wastewater would be conveyed to 

the City of Janesville WTP through a 10-in. (25-cm) sanitary sewer line extended to the 

proposed site (SHINE 2015a). Indirect impacts during operations could include runoff that may 

contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or herbicides. However, as 

described in Section 4.3, impacts to aquatic resources are expected to be minimal because of 

the distance to the nearest tributary and the Rock River, a vegetated onsite detention swale 

would minimize stormwater runoff, and SHINE would be required to develop a site-specific 

program to prevent pollution from stormwater runoff.

Given that mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, habitat disturbances during 

operations would be minimal, any disturbed wildlife could find similar habitat in the vicinity, and 

no aquatic features or Federally or State-listed species occur on the proposed site, the NRC

staff concludes that impacts to ecological resources during operations would be SMALL.

4.5.3 Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities would have impacts that are similar to the impacts that would occur 

during construction of the proposed facility. For example, SHINE would use construction 

equipment to dismantle large buildings, which could result in disturbances to wildlife and birds 

and potential runoff to nearby waterbodies. In addition, some land on the proposed site could 

be used as staging areas for the equipment and to conduct certain dismantling activities. As 

described above, if noise or other activities disturb birds or wildlife, similar habitat is available in 

nearby offsite areas. Once activities are complete, birds and wildlife could return to the area. 

No surface water would be used during decommissioning and impacts from runoff would be 

minimal, based on the distance to the nearest tributary and the Rock River, and because BMPs

would be required in SHINE’s stormwater permit. Therefore, impacts during decommissioning 

are expected to be SMALL.

4.5.4 Federally Protected Species

Section 3.5 describes the special status species and habitats that have the potential to be 

affected by the proposed action. The discussion of species and habitats protected under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., herein referred to as ESA), includes 

a description of the action area as defined by the ESA section 7 regulations at 50 CFR 402.02. 

The action area encompasses all areas that would be directly or indirectly affected by the 

proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility.

Appendix D contains information on the NRC staff’s section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the proposed action. The NRC did not consult with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as part of the construction permit review because (as 

described in Sections 3.5) no species or habitats under NMFS’s jurisdiction occur within the 

action area.

In Section 3.5, the NRC staff concludes that no Federally listed species are likely to occur in the 

action area. The NRC staff also concludes that no candidate species, proposed species, or 

designated critical habitat occur in the action area. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the 

proposed action would have no effect on Federally listed species or habitats under FWS’s 

jurisdiction.
Environmental Impacts

4-28

As discussed in Section 3.5, no species or habitats under NMFS’s jurisdiction occur within the 

action area. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on 

Federally listed species or habitats under NMFS’s jurisdiction.

As discussed in Section 3.5, NMFS has not designated essential fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to 

the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; herein referred to as MSA) in the Rock River. Thus, the NRC staff 

concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on EFH.

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

4.6.1 Historic and Cultural Resources

This section provides the NRC’s assessment of the potential effects of the proposed 

undertaking on historic and cultural resources under 40 CFR 1508.8. Additionally, the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider 

the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE Radioisotope Production Facility is an undertaking that could 

potentially affect historic properties. Historic properties are defined as resources eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for eligibility are listed in 

36 CFR 60.4 and include (1) association with significant events in history, (2) association with 

the lives of persons significant in the past, (3) embodiment of distinctive characteristics of type, 

period, or construction, and (4) sites or places that have yielded, or are likely to yield, important 

information. Regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 

36 CFR Part 800 outline the historic preservation review process (Section 106 of the NHPA).

4.6.2 Proposed Action

In accordance with the provisions of the NHPA, the NRC is required to make a reasonable effort 

to identify historic properties included in, or eligible for, inclusion in the NRHP in the Area of 

Potential Effect (APE). The APE for this undertaking is the 91-ac (37-ha) proposed site and its 

immediate environs that may be affected by construction-, operation-, and 

decommissioning-related land-disturbing activities. The APE may extend beyond the immediate 

environs in those instances where construction and postconstruction land-disturbing operations 

may potentially have an effect on known or proposed historic sites. This determination is made 

irrespective of ownership or control of the lands of interest.

If historic properties are present within the APE, the NRC is required to contact the State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), assess the potential impact, and resolve any possible 

adverse effects of the undertaking on historic properties. In addition, the NRC is required to 

notify the SHPO if historic properties would not be affected by the undertaking or if no historic 

properties are present. The SHPO is part of the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) in the 

State of Wisconsin.

4.6.3 Consultation

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), on July 1, 2013, the NRC initiated consultations on the 

proposed action by writing to the ACHP and WHS (NRC 2013b, 2013c). On July 31, 2013, the 

NRC staff visited the WHS in Madison, Wisconsin, to perform a cultural resource review of the 

proposed site. The NRC staff queried the Archaeological Sites Inventory and Architectural 

History Inventory, Burial Sites Inventory, and the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the 

WHS. No known historic or cultural resources or historic properties were found at the proposed 
Environmental Impacts

4-29

project site (NRC 2013d). In July 2015, the NRC received a determination from the WHS that 

no historic properties would be affected (WHS 2015) (see Appendix D). The closest historic 

property to the proposed site is the John and Martha Hugunin House, located approximately 

1 mi (1.6 km) to the northeast.

The NRC staff also initiated consultation with the following 13 Federally recognized tribes on 

July 1, 2013 (see Appendix D for a copy of these letters) (NRC 2013e):

• Citizen Potawatomi Nation, 

• Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota,

• Forest County Potawatomi Community,

• Hannahville Indian Community,

• Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin,

• Lower Sioux Indian Community,

• Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation,

• Prairie Island Indian Community,

• Santee Sioux Nation,

• Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, 

• Spirit Lake Tribe,

• Upper Sioux Community, and

• Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.

In its letters, the NRC provided information about the proposed action, defined the APE, and 

indicated that the NHPA review would be integrated with the NEPA process, according to 

36 CFR 800.8. The NRC staff invited participation in the identification and possible decisions 

concerning any historic properties and also invited participation in the scoping process.

The NRC staff received scoping comments from one tribe, the Forest County Potawatomi, in 

July 2013. The Tribe indicated that the proposed SHINE project occurs within Potawatomi 

ancestral land and expressed concern for any impacts to historic and cultural properties within 

the APE (Cook 2013). Attempts to contact representatives of the Forest County Potawatomi to 

discuss the undertaking are ongoing. The last attempt to contact the Forest County Potawatomi 

was in March 2015.

4.6.4 Impact Analysis

4.6.4.1 Construction

Of the 91 ac (37 ha) comprising the APE, construction would permanently convert 

approximately 26 ac (10 ha) of agricultural land and open space to industrial facilities and 

temporarily would disturb 15 ac (6 ha) of agricultural fields, as described in Section 4.1.1. 

SHINE intends to make connections to the main sewage, commercial natural gas, underground 

electrical distribution, and municipal water lines but would not construct additional pipelines for 

the facility (SHINE 2013). 

Because there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and 

cultural resources located within the APE, impacts to these resources are not likely during 

construction. Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would have little or no visual or 
Environmental Impacts

4-30

aesthetic impact because potential visual impacts during construction would be temporary. The 

proposed SHINE facility is a low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is approximately 1 mi 

(1.6 km) away and is surrounded by other residential and commercial properties. However, 

previously unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during 

land-disturbing activities associated with construction. In anticipation of this possibility, SHINE 

has developed a sitewide cultural resource management plan (CRMP) to manage and protect 

as-yet unidentified cultural resources. The WHS has reviewed and concurred on the CRMP 

(SHINE 2013). According to the CRMP, if cultural resources or materials are discovered during 

construction; the activity would be immediately halted; the area would be protected; the SHINE 

Environment, Health, and Safety (ES&H) Manager would be notified; and consultation with the 

WHS might be initiated. Consultation may require additional investigation and preservation 

plans, which would be developed by the SHINE ES&H Manager. All investigation and 

preservation plans would be approved by SHINE management and in consultation with the 

WHS. Work that uncovered potential cultural resources would not recommence without SHINE 

management approval. If actual or suspected human remains are unearthed during 

construction, construction activities would halt immediately, and the area would be protected. 

The procedures for uncatalogued burial sites found in Wisconsin Statute 157.70 would be 

followed, and local law enforcement would be contacted (SHINE 2013). Additionally, SHINE 

would educate its employees and contractors engaged in the construction of the proposed site 

in a capacity that disturbs the ground or that could result in the discovery of cultural resources 

on requirements of the CRMP. Actions for the special case of the discovery of human remains 

would be discussed in the training CRMP.

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, construction of the SHINE 

facility would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the 

possibility of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources caused by 

land disturbance during construction, the overall impact would be SMALL.

4.6.4.2 Operations

Because there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and 

cultural resources located within the proposed SHINE facility site, impacts to these resources 

are not likely during operations. Operation of the proposed SHINE facility would have little or no 

visual or aesthetic impact on historic properties in its immediate vicinity because it is a 

low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is over 1 mi (1.6 km) away and is surrounded by 

other residential and commercial properties. However, normal maintenance and operation of 

the proposed facility could result in the inadvertent discovery of previously undiscovered cultural 

resources. SHINE would continue to follow the procedures specified in its CRMP to manage 

and protect any such cultural resources for the entire period of facility operation (SHINE 2013). 

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 commitment to follow CRMP 

procedures throughout the period of facility operation, and (4) cultural resource assessment and 

consultations performed by the NRC staff, operation of the proposed SHINE facility would have 

no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given the possibility of an 

inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources occurring as a result of 

normal maintenance and operational activities, the overall impact would be SMALL.

4.6.4.3 Decommissioning

Because there are no known historic properties under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and 

cultural resources located within the proposed SHINE facility site, impacts to these resources 
Environmental Impacts

4-31

would not be expected during decommissioning. However, similar to construction, previously 

unidentified cultural resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-moving activities 

associated with decommissioning. Activities during decommissioning would involve the use of 

heavy equipment and land-disturbing activities to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and 

parking facilities within the APE. Land use for the APE after decommissioning is undetermined 

at this time, but it may be returned to agricultural lands or open space (SHINE 2015a). SHINE 

would continue to follow the procedures specified in its CRMP to manage and protect previously 

unidentified cultural resources for the entire period of facility decommissioning (SHINE 2013). 

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 commitment to follow CRMP 

procedures throughout the period of facility decommissioning, and (4) cultural resource 

assessment and consultations performed by the NRC staff, decommissioning of the proposed 

SHINE facility would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, given 

the possibility of an inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources caused by 

land disturbance during decommissioning, the overall impact would be SMALL.

4.7 Socioeconomic Impacts

The SHINE medical radioisotope production facility and the people and communities 

surrounding it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The facility needs 

people, goods, and services from the communities to operate, and the communities, in turn, 

provide the people, goods, and services to run the facility. Facility employees residing in the 

community receive income from the plant in the form of wages, salaries, and benefits. 

Employees and their families, in turn, spend this income on goods and services within the 

community, thereby creating additional opportunities for employment and income. In addition, 

people and businesses in the community receive income for the goods and services sold to the 

facility. Payments for these goods and services create additional employment and income 

opportunities in the community. The measure of a community’s ability to support the operational 

demands of a facility that stores, generates, or uses nuclear materials depends on its ability to 

respond to changing socioeconomic conditions.

The analysis presented in this section considers four socioeconomic impact areas:

(1) employment;

(2) housing, recreation, and tourism; 

(3) tax revenue; and

(4) community services and education.

For the purposes of this analysis, the ROI is Rock County, Wisconsin, and the City of Janesville.

4.7.1 Construction

4.7.1.1 Employment 

An estimated 451 workers would be needed to construct the proposed SHINE facility during 

peak construction (SHINE 2014). Table 4–12 compares construction worker occupations with 

available labor in the ROI by occupation, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in May 2012. Based on this information, a number of 

construction workers (56 percent) currently reside within the ROI with shortages in most labor 

categories. The remaining labor needed from outside the ROI would be expected to commute 

from adjacent counties and communities. In addition, Blackhawk Technical College, located in 
Environmental Impacts

4-32

the City of Janesville, offers several technical diplomas to students, which could provide an 

additional labor resource. However, the total number of jobs generated during construction 

would represent less than 2 percent of the available labor force reported for both the City of 

Janesville and Rock County in 2012 (Table 3–13); therefore, employment impacts would be 

SMALL.

4.7.1.2 Housing, Recreation, and Tourism

SHINE estimates 451 workers would be needed during peak construction (SHINE 2014). The 

percentage of construction workers needed represents less than 1 percent of Rock County’s 

total population of approximately 160,000 (USCB 2010). As discussed in Section 4.7.1.1, the 

majority of construction workers already reside within the ROI. Any additional construction 

workers likely would commute from other nearby counties and would not likely relocate to the 

ROI. This would result in little, if any, increased demand for temporary housing, recreation, and 

tourism. Any construction workers from outside of the immediate commuting area relocating to 

the ROI would find available housing in the City of Janesville and Rock County. Because few, if 

any, construction workers would relocate to the ROI, housing, recreation, and tourism impacts 

would be SMALL.

4.7.1.3 Tax Revenues

The estimated total construction costs expected to be spent in the local community would be 

approximately $20 to $30 million for labor, electrical equipment, cabling, and concrete, spread 

over the construction period (SHINE 2013b). As most of the plant equipment is highly 

specialized, very little of it would be purchased and taxed locally (SHINE 2013, 2015a). SHINE 

intends to enter into a TIF agreement with the City of Janesville during the first 10 years of the 

proposed project, covering the entirety of the construction period. The TIF agreement would 

allow SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes to the City of Janesville. SHINE’s estimated 

payments would total $600,000 per year and would be used to offset the infrastructure 

expenses for the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would also pay property 

taxes estimated to be $35,000 per year, based on the assessed property before improvements 

during this 10-year period (SHINE 2015a). As the proposed SHINE facility would be located in 

the Janesville School District, schools within the district would receive additional property tax

revenue. In addition, there would be an increase in sales tax revenues within the ROI, 

generated when nonspecialized supplies would be purchased during construction or from 

workers paying for commercial services within the ROI. However, the total amount of taxes 

collected within the ROI during the period of construction would be relatively small in 

comparison to the established tax base of the City of Janesville and Rock County, even if the 

entire $635,000 were applied to one taxing jurisdiction; in 2012, the City of Janesville’s tax 

revenue was approximately $35.4 million, whereas Rock County’s was $71.5 million 

(WDOR 2014). Therefore, the tax revenue impacts during construction would be SMALL.

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

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
Environmental Impacts

4-33

Occupation

SHINE Peak 

Workers(a)

Available Labor 

Force in ROI(b)

Additional Labor 

Needed from 

Outside ROI(c)

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

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 26 0

Plumber/Pipefitter(f) 30 14 16

Radiation Technicians 30 6 24

Other 41 0 41

Total 261 190 129

(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

4.7.1.4 Community Services and Education

There would be little or no increase in population in the ROI during construction because most 

of the construction workers already reside in the ROI. These workers would continue to use 

existing community services and educational facilities. These community services should also 

be able to handle any temporary increases in demand for services from the small number of 

additional workers during construction. Therefore, the impact of this increased demand on 

community services and education during construction would be SMALL.

4.7.1.5 Summary of Construction Impacts

The availability of construction workers and housing within the ROI and the short duration of 

construction (18 months) would minimize any socioeconomic impacts within the ROI. The 
Environmental Impacts

4-34

creation of 451 jobs would help maintain construction employment and generate property and 

sales tax revenue, but any changes would be minimal. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic 

impact from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

4.7.2 Operations

4.7.2.1 Employment

Approximately 150 jobs would be added to the local economy during SHINE facility operations 

(SHINE 2014, 2015a). In Table 4–12, SHINE facility operations worker occupations were 

compared with available labor in the ROI by occupation, as reported by the BLS in May 2012. 

Based on this information, some specialized workers would be recruited from outside the ROI. 

The total number of jobs generated during SHINE facility operation represents less than 

1 percent of the available labor force in Janesville and Rock County in 2012 (Table 3–13), 

therefore, employment impacts would be SMALL.

4.7.2.2 Housing, Recreation, and Tourism

SHINE estimates that 150 workers would be needed during operations (SHINE 2015a). The 

percentage of operation workers needed represents less than 1 percent of Rock County’s total 

population of approximately 160,000 in 2010 (USCB 2010). As shown in Table 4–12, Janesville 

has occupational labor available to perform most of the operational tasks. Additionally, 

Blackhawk Technical College, located in Janesville, offers several technical diplomas to 

students who could provide additional labor. However, some specialized workers would likely 

relocate to the ROI to support SHINE facility operations. Because of the long-term nature of 

SHINE facility operations, workers relocating to the ROI would likely purchase or rent 

permanent housing. Any operations workers moving to the ROI would find available housing in 

Janesville and Rock County. Because few, if any, operations workers would relocate to the 

ROI, housing, recreation, and tourism impacts would be SMALL.

4.7.2.3 Tax Revenues

As discussed in Section 4.7.1.3, SHINE intends to enter into a TIF agreement with Janesville, 

allowing SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes during the first 10 years of the project. The 

payments are estimated to total $600,000 per year and would be used to offset the 

infrastructure expenses for the proposed SHINE facility. SHINE also would pay property taxes 

estimated to be $35,000 per year based on the assessed property before improvements during 

this 10-year period. Additionally, when the 10-year TIF agreement with Janesville expires, 

SHINE expects to pay annual property taxes of approximately $660,000 during the remaining 

period of operation of the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a). As the proposed SHINE 

facility would be located in the Janesville School District, schools within the district would 

receive additional property tax revenue. In addition, there would be an increase in sales tax and 

property tax revenues within the ROI, generated by SHINE facility operations workers in the 

ROI. However, the total amount of taxes collected within the ROI during operations would be 

relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Janesville and Rock County, even if 

the entire $660,000 tax payment were applied to one taxing jurisdiction; in 2012, Janesville’s tax 

revenue was approximately $35.4 million, whereas Rock County’s was $71.5 million 

(WDOR 2014). Therefore, tax revenue impacts during operations would be SMALL.

4.7.2.4 Community Services and Education

As discussed in Section 4.7.2.2, there would be little or no increase in population during SHINE

facility operations because most of the operations workers would already reside within the ROI. 

These workers would continue to use existing community services and educational facilities. 

These community services should be able to handle any increase in demand for services from 
Environmental Impacts

4-35

the small number of new operations workers and their families. Therefore, the impact of this 

increased demand on community services and education during SHINE facility operations would 

be SMALL.

4.7.2.5 Summary of Operation Impacts

The availability of operations workers and housing within the ROI and the small number of 

specialty workers relocating from outside of the ROI, would minimize any socioeconomic 

impacts. The creation of 150 jobs would help maintain existing employment and generate 

property and sales tax revenue, but any changes would be minimal. Therefore, the overall 

socioeconomic impact from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

4.7.3 Decommissioning

4.7.3.1 Employment

An estimated 261 workers would be needed to decommission the SHINE facility during peak 

activity (SHINE 2015a). In Table 4–12, decommissioning worker occupations were compared 

with Janesville employment by occupation, as reported by the BLS in May 2012. Based on this 

information, a number of workers currently reside within the ROI. In addition, some operations 

workers may be kept on to support decommissioning. Some specialized workers may have to 

be recruited from outside the ROI. The total number of jobs generated during decommissioning 

would represent less than 1 percent of the available labor force reported for both Janesville and 

Rock County in 2012 (Table 3–13); therefore, employment impacts would be SMALL. 

4.7.3.2 Housing, Recreation, and Tourism

SHINE estimated that decommissioning would require a maximum of 261 workers (SHINE 

2015a). However, as previously discussed, some operations workers may be kept on to 

support decommissioning, thereby reducing the need for new hires. As demonstrated in Table 

4–12, Janesville and Rock County have workers available to support decommissioning. In 

addition, Blackhawk Technical College, located in Janesville, offers several technical diplomas 

to students who would provide additional labor, if needed, and some specialized labor may be 

needed from outside the ROI. Any additional decommissioning workers would likely commute 

from other nearby counties and would not likely relocate to the ROI. This factor would result in 

little, if any, increased demand for temporary housing, recreation, and tourism. Any 

decommissioning workers from outside the immediate commuting area relocating to the ROI 

would find available housing in Janesville and Rock County. Because few, if any, 

decommissioning workers would relocate to the ROI, housing, recreation, and tourism impacts 

would be SMALL.

4.7.3.3 Tax Revenues

SHINE would continue to pay property taxes during decommissioning. The assessed property 

taxes that would be collected after the completion of the proposed SHINE facility would be 

based on the property tax rates at the time. Revenue loss would directly affect Rock County 

and other local taxing districts and communities closest to, and most reliant on, the facility’s tax 

revenue. However, the loss in tax revenue should be small in comparison to the established tax 

base of Janesville and Rock County. Therefore, tax revenue impacts during decommissioning 

would be SMALL.

4.7.3.4 Community Services and Education

Any temporary increase in population during decommissioning would be small relative to the 

projected population of Janesville and Rock County. Community services currently available in 

Janesville and Rock County should be able to handle any temporary increases in demand for 
Environmental Impacts

4-36

services during decommissioning. Therefore, the impact of this potential increased demand on 

community services and education during decommissioning would be SMALL.

4.7.3.5 Summary of Decommissioning Impacts

The availability of decommissioning workers and housing within the ROI and the short duration 

of decommissioning (6 months) would minimize any socioeconomic impacts within the ROI. 

Decommissioning activities would temporarily stimulate the local economy with purchasing 

activity and tax contributions, and SHINE would continue to pay property taxes during 

decommissioning. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact from decommissioning the 

proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

4.8 Human Health

This section provides the NRC’s assessment of the potential radiological and nonradiological 

effects from the proposed SHINE facility. Radioactive and nonradioactive materials would 

routinely be used at the proposed SHINE facility. The NRC and State of Wisconsin regulations 

would control the use and discharge of these materials to protect facility workers and members 

of the public.

Radiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility would include offsite doses to 

members of the public and onsite doses to facility workers. The NRC has the authority to issue, 

inspect, and enforce radiation protection standards that provide an adequate level of protection 

for workers, members of the public, and the environment. The NRC has multiple layers of 

radiation safety standards to ensure that radioactive material is adequately controlled. The 

NRC’s radiation safety requirements appear in 10 CFR Part 20. Specifically, 

10 CFR 20.1301(a) limits the annual dose to members of the public from a licensed facility, such 

as that proposed by SHINE, to 100 millirem (mrem) (0.1 millisievert (mSv)). In addition, 

10 CFR 20.1101(d) imposes a constraint of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) on air emissions to ensure that 

the dose to members of the public is as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).

Nonradiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility to workers and members of the 

public would be regulated by the State of Wisconsin in accordance with the Wisconsin 

Administrative Code (SHINE 2013).

4.8.1 Construction

4.8.1.1 Radiological

During construction and pre-operational testing of the facility and equipment commissioning, 

SHINE would have radioactive material onsite (SHINE 2015b). The possession and use of the 

radioactive material would require SHINE to obtain an NRC license (e.g., 10 CFR Part 30) 

before receiving the radioactive material. To obtain a license, the NRC staff would conduct a 

thorough independent review of SHINE’s application for the radioactive material to ensure the 

material is used in accordance with NRC regulations and there is adequate protection of the 

workers and the public. The radioactive material brought onsite would not be used for any 

radioisotope production-related activities. SHINE does not expect any radioactive waste to be 

generated during construction or pre-operational testing of the facility (SHINE 2015b). Access 

controls for the construction site would ensure that only authorized personnel would be at the 

site (SHINE 2015a). Assuming the NRC staff determines SHINE has adequate controls in place 

to ensure that the dose to workers and the public is within the dose limits specified in 

10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to workers and the public would be 

SMALL.
Environmental Impacts

4-37

4.8.1.2 Nonradiological

Members of the public would not have access to the construction site. As discussed in 

Section 4.2 of this document, the NRC expects air pollutants from worker vehicles and 

fossil-fueled equipment (e.g., excavation and earth-moving equipment and electric generators), 

but the impact to the public would be SMALL because the effects would not be noticeable.

Construction workers would encounter potential hazards typical of any industrial construction 

site. As discussed in Section 3.8, workplace hazards can be grouped into physical hazards 

(e.g., slips and trips; falls from height; and those related to transportation, temperature, 

humidity, and electricity); physical agents (e.g., noise and vibration); petrochemicals; and 

psychosocial issues (e.g., work-related stress). SHINE would employ normal construction 

safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

regulations, such as safety training, safety equipment, and supervision of the work force to 

promote worker safety and reduce the likelihood of worker injury during construction 

(SHINE 2015a). However, construction accidents could occur. Over the projected 12-month 

period when construction activities would occur, the average number of workers at the site 

would be 248 with a peak of 451 (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff notes that this 12-month 

period does not include the 6-month preoperational period because preoperational activities 

would not including building and other activities that are applicable for construction accidents. 

The NRC staff used data from BLS for nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses to calculate the 

potential number of reportable cases at the proposed SHINE construction site based on the 

average number of workers. The DOL data for 2012 showed that nearly 3.0 million nonfatal 

workplace injuries and illnesses were reported by private industry employers, resulting in an 

incidence rate of 3.4 cases per 100 equivalent full-time workers (DOL 2013). Conservatively 

assuming an average number of 248 workers during the construction period, the NRC staff 

estimates that there would be 8.4 recordable cases during the 12 months of construction. With 

the use of normal construction safety practices at the proposed SHINE construction site, the 

NRC staff concludes that the average number of recordable cases would be consistent with the 

DOL data.

During construction, SHINE would store nonradioactive chemical sources on site in liquid; 

gaseous; and solid forms, including fuels, oils, and solvents necessary for site preparation and 

construction. SHINE does not plan to use any products or processes that emit hazardous air 

pollutants (SHINE 2015a). Toxic chemicals stored or used at the construction site would be 

limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code

(SHINE 2013). 

Given that access to the site would be restricted, that SHINE would implement normal 

construction safety practices contained in OSHA regulations, and that toxic chemicals stored or 

used at the construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Code, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to human health during 

construction would be SMALL.

4.8.2 Operations

4.8.2.1 Radiological

As part of normal operation of the proposed SHINE facility, radioactive material (e.g., nuclear 

fuel, radioisotopes, and radioactive waste) would be used, produced, handled, stored, released 

as gaseous effluents into the environment, and transported off site for use in medical 

procedures or as waste products for disposal (SHINE 2013, 2015a).
Environmental Impacts

4-38

As discussed in Section 2.7 of this document, radioactive gaseous effluents containing krypton, 

xenon, iodine, and tritium would be released into the environment. The NRC staff expects 

radioactive gaseous effluents to be the only contributor to a radiation dose to members of the 

public because no radioactive liquid effluents would be released (Section 2.7). Radioactive 

liquid wastes would be solidified and shipped off site for disposal. SHINE designed the 

buildings containing radioactive material with shielding to minimize direct radiation outside the 

facility. Given this shielding, SHINE projected negligible direct radiation at the site boundary 

(SHINE 2013, 2015a). 

SHINE estimates that the maximum dose to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous 

effluents in the offsite environment would be approximately 9.0 mrem (0.9 mSv) (SHINE 2015c). 

This dose is well below the annual dose limit of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) 

and is below the ALARA requirements in 10 CFR 20.1101(d) that impose a constraint of 

10 mrem (0.1 mSv) on the annual dose from radioactive gaseous effluents.

SHINE plans to maintain radiation exposure to facility workers to within the occupational dose

limits in 10 CFR 20.1201. As discussed in Section 2.7 of this document, radiation exposure 

within the proposed facility would be minimized using shielding, shielded hot cells, shielded 

transport containers, access control to radiation areas, ventilation, filters, training, protective 

clothing, and administrative controls. In addition, SHINE would operate the proposed facility in 

accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements 

(SHINE 2015a).

As described above, the maximum dose to a member of the public would be within the annual 

dose limits of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) in 10 CFR 20.1301 (SHINE 2013a). Further, the NRC staff 

is conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from operation 

of the SHINE facility. This independent evaluation will be documented in the NRC staff’s Safety 

Evaluation Report (SER). If the NRC staff determines in its SER that the maximum dose to 

workers and the public is within the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that 

the impacts from potential radiological exposures would be SMALL. In addition, the design of 

the facility incorporates measures to minimize radiation exposure to workers and members of 

the public by limiting the release of radioactive gaseous effluents, and that SHINE would 

operate the proposed facility in accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin 

regulatory requirements.

4.8.2.2 Nonradiological

The proposed SHINE facility would be designed with engineering controls (e.g., shields, 

double-valves, ventilation system, glove boxes, fume hoods, safety switches, and safe-storage 

facilities) to minimize the exposure of workers to chemicals (SHINE 2013, 2015c).

SHINE would have a Chemical Hygiene Plan to minimize chemical exposure to its workforce. 

The Chemical Hygiene Plan would incorporate mechanisms for maintaining a safe working 

environment and would be based on OSHA requirements, industry standards, and the 

experience of the managerial staff. General areas within the proposed facility and laboratory 

spaces would be kept clean and orderly. SHINE would store hazardous material (e.g., acids, 

bases, oxidizers, gases, and pyrophoric metals) in appropriate safety containers and cabinets 

(SHINE 2013).

SHINE would designate a Chemical Hygiene Officer, whose main responsibilities would be to 

oversee the effective implementation of the Chemical Hygiene Plan. The Chemical Hygiene 

Officer would coordinate with the Radiation Safety Officer because some chemicals would be 

used in the radiological areas of the proposed facility. Coordination would help ensure the 

effectiveness of the overall safety culture at the proposed SHINE facility. In addition to 
Environmental Impacts

4-39

supervision and oversight of facility operations, SHINE would implement an extensive training 

program that would emphasize workplace safety (SHINE 2013).

In addition to supervision and training, the Chemical Hygiene Plan would describe requirements

for protective equipment commensurate with the hazards. These requirements would range 

from a description of appropriate clothing for workers (e.g., no shorts or open-toed shoes in the 

facility or the laboratory) to protective equipment (e.g., gloves, safety glasses, and laboratory 

coats). For more potentially hazardous operations, such as target solution preparation, which 

involves the handling of acids, workers would be required to use face shields, aprons, and 

heavy nitrile gloves (SHINE 2013b).

As discussed in Sections 2.7, 4.2, and 4.4, nonradioactive pollutants may be present in 

wastewater and air emissions released into the environment during normal operations. Solid 

nonradioactive wastes would also be generated. After initial use, SHINE expects the majority of 

chemicals to be either reused, released into the environment, or shipped off site as waste 

(SHINE 2015a).

Given that SHINE would manage and minimize worker hazards by complying with OSHA and 

State of Wisconsin regulations and by using multiple planned features (e.g., facility design, 

Chemical Hygiene Plan, supervision, training, and protective equipment), the NRC staff 

concludes that impacts to workers and members of the public during routine facility operations 

would be SMALL.

4.8.3 Decommissioning

4.8.3.1 Radiological

The majority of the impacts associated with facility operations would cease with shutdown of the 

medical radioisotope production process; however, some impacts would remain unchanged, 

whereas others would continue at reduced or altered levels. Ancillary systems that were used 

solely to support radioisotope production would cease operations completely; however, because 

of residual radioactivity in the systems, impacts from their physical presence could continue as 

long as they remain at the facility (SHINE 2013a).

Terminating the medical radioisotope production operations would result in the cessation of 

actions necessary to maintain the TSV system, neutron generator, and processing vessels in an 

operable status. In addition, SHINE expects a reduction in the workforce directly supporting the 

radioisotope production operations. Termination of the medical radioisotope production 

operations does not automatically mean that immediate decontamination and dismantlement of 

the facility would occur.

After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and 

associated processing equipment would be made inoperable and maintained in a safe condition 

(SHINE 2013a). SHINE would store the uranium fuel and other radioactive materials in a safe 

condition until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. Facility workers would continue 

to receive radiation exposure during work activities relating to the cleanup, movement, storage, 

and disposal of radioactive material. The radiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this 

document would be used to maintain radiation dose to levels that are ALARA. With the 

termination of radioisotope production, radioactive gaseous effluents released into the 

environment from operations would effectively stop. However, low levels of residual radioactive 

material that remain in the radioactive waste treatment systems may be released as effluents 

into the environment during the decommissioning process or sent to a low-level waste disposal 

facility.
Environmental Impacts

4-40

During decommissioning activities, workers and members of the public would continue to be 

exposed to negligible or low levels of radioactive material within the facility and from radioactive 

gaseous effluents resulting from decommissioning activities involving the dismantlement and 

decontamination of equipment and systems and the handling, packaging, and transportation of 

radioactive waste to a disposal facility. The NRC’s radiation protection standards and dose

limits for workers and members of the public during decommissioning are the same as those for 

the operating facility.

The NRC would terminate the license if the decommissioning were performed in accordance 

with the facility’s approved decommissioning plan and if the termination radiation survey and 

associated documentation demonstrated that the facility and site were suitable for release in 

accordance with the criteria in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E.

Based on the expected reduced levels of radioactive material in the facility and the radiological 

controls expected to be used to ensure compliance with radiation protection standards, the NRC

staff concludes that the impacts to workers and members of the public from the 

decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility and site would be SMALL.

4.8.3.2 Nonradiological

Nonradiological health impacts on the public and workers from decommissioning and demolition 

activities would be similar to construction activities. Decommissioning and demolition activities 

would involve the use of heavy construction and demolition equipment and the transport of new 

and waste materials and personnel to and from the site. The public and workers could be 

exposed to dust and vehicle exhaust and noise. Workers could also experience occupational 

injuries. Nonradiological hazards would also be associated with emissions, discharges, and 

waste from processes within the facility and from accidental spills and releases. SHINE would 

manage nonradioactive wastes generated by decommissioning the SHINE facility, including 

solid wastes, liquid wastes, discharges, and air emissions, in accordance with applicable 

Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and with applicable permit requirements 

discussed in Section 2.7. As discussed in Section 4.2 of this document, the NRC staff 

determined that air pollutants from worker vehicles and fossil-fueled equipment (e.g., demolition, 

excavation, and earth-moving equipment and electric generators) would have a SMALL impact 

on air quality. In addition, SHINE’s access controls would help ensure that only authorized 

personnel would come on site. Given that SHINE would prohibit members of the public from 

accessing the site during decommissioning and that SHINE would manage nonradioactive 

wastes generated by decommissioning the SHINE facility in accordance with applicable 

Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and with applicable permit requirements, the 

NRC staff expects decommissioning activities to result in minimal human health impact to 

members of the public.

Decommissioning and demolition workers would encounter potential hazards typical of any 

industrial construction and demolition site. As discussed in Section 3.8, workplace hazards can 

be grouped into physical hazards (e.g., slips and trips; falls from height; and those related to 

transportation, temperature, humidity, and electricity); physical agents (e.g., noise and 

vibration); chemicals; and psychosocial issues (e.g., work-related stress). SHINE would 

implement normal construction safety practices contained in OSHA regulations, such as safety 

training, safety equipment, and supervision of the work force, to promote worker safety and 

reduce the likelihood of worker injury during decommissioning. However, decommissioning 

accidents could occur. Over the projected 6-month decommissioning period, SHINE estimated 

a peak of 261 workers at the site (SHINE 2014). The NRC staff used data from the DOL BLS 

for nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses to calculate the potential number of reportable 

cases at the proposed SHINE construction site based on the average number of workers. The 
Environmental Impacts

4-41

DOL data for 2012 show that private industry employers reported nearly 3.0 million nonfatal 

workplace injuries and illnesses, resulting in an incidence rate of 3.4 cases per 100 equivalent 

full-time workers (DOL 2013). Conservatively assuming the peak number of 261 workers during 

the decommissioning period, the NRC staff estimates that there would be 4.4 recordable cases 

of nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses during the 6-month decommissioning period. The 

NRC staff expects that SHINE would use the best available practices, such as proper planning, 

workplace design, and engineering controls, supplemented by the use of personal protective 

equipment and administrative controls, to protect workers. With the use of normal construction 

safety practices at the proposed SHINE decommissioning site, the NRC staff concludes that the 

average number of recordable cases during decommissioning would be consistent with the DOL 

data.

During decommissioning, nonradioactive chemical sources would be stored or used on site in 

liquid; gaseous; and solid forms, including fuels, oils, and solvents. SHINE does not plan to use 

any products or processes that emit hazardous air pollutants. Toxic chemicals stored or used at 

the construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Code (SHINE 2013, 2015a).

Given that access to the site would be restricted, that SHINE would implement normal safety 

practices contained in OSHA regulations, and that toxic chemicals stored or used at the 

construction site would be limited to be within the threshold amounts listed in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Code, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to human health during 

decommissioning would be SMALL.

4.9 Waste Management

4.9.1 Radioactive Waste

As described in Section 2.7, operation of the proposed SHINE facility would include the 

temporary storage and generation of radioactive waste. 

NRC regulations require that radioactive material within the facility and radioactive effluents 

released into the environment meet radiation protection dose-based limits specified in 

10 CFR Part 20. NRC regulations also require occupational and public exposure to radioactive 

material be ALARA, as required by 10 CFR 20.1101(b). In addition, the State of Wisconsin is 

an NRC Agreement State and has its own set of radiation protection regulations with authority to 

regulate certain radioactive byproduct materials. Wisconsin’s rules on radiation protection are 

contained in the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code DHS 157. Radiation protection 

standards help to ensure the safety of facility workers and members of the public from operation 

of the radioisotope production facility. 

SHINE would implement waste management systems to control, handle, process, store, and 

transport the types and quantities of radioactive waste expected to be generated by the medical 

radioisotope production process. For example, SHINE would use radioactive waste 

management systems, shielding, procedures, protective clothing, and training to control and 

process radioactive wastes within and outside the facility to ensure public and occupational 

safety (SHINE 2013, 2015a). As discussed in Section 2.7.1, the radioactive liquid and gaseous 

wastes would be processed (i.e., temporary storage to allow for radioactive decay) to reduce the 

levels of radioactive material in the waste. SHINE would solidify some liquid wastes before 

disposal on site. For example, it would solidify evaporator bottoms and spent ion-exchange 

column media from the target solution cleanup system. Waste from proprietary processes may 

be solidified in a hot cell using Portland cement before shipment and disposal (SHINE 2015a).
Environmental Impacts

4-42

After SHINE treats, solidifies, and packages liquid radioactive waste, it would be temporarily 

stored on site only long enough for radioactive decay before offsite disposal shipment and for 

efficient frequency of disposal shipments (SHINE 2015a). Class A waste would be shipped 

approximately annually to the EnergySolutions disposal site. No liquid radioactive effluents 

would be released into the environment.

SHINE would use high-efficiency particulate filters and carbon bed filters to treat gaseous 

radioactive effluents to reduce their radioactivity before they are released through a vent stack 

in the Production Facility Building (SHINE 2015a). SHINE expects the gaseous radioactive 

effluents released into the environment to contain measurable quantities of noble gases 

(i.e., xenon and krypton), radioactive iodine, and tritium (see Section 2.7). The vent stack would 

have a radiation monitor that would continuously monitor the gaseous effluents to ensure that 

the effluents are within design parameters and regulatory limits. SHINE would be able to collect 

samples of the gaseous effluent in the vent stack to perform a detailed analysis of the specific 

types, concentrations, and quantities of the radionuclides in the gaseous effluents 

(SHINE 2015a).

The proposed SHINE facility design would incorporate features to minimize radioactive 

contamination of the facility and radioactive effluent releases into the environment. The design 

would use engineered features, such as shielding, berms, sumps, and drain collection systems 

with leak detection; ventilation systems with filters; hot cells; glove boxes; shielded transport

containers; and protective coatings on floors and walls. Other protection measures for the 

facility workers include the following: training, protective clothing and equipment, and 

procedures. Additionally, administrative measures would be used to minimize the movement of 

contaminated materials out of the facility’s RCA and to limit the introduction of unnecessary 

materials into the RCA that may become contaminated and require disposal as low-level waste 

(SHINE 2013, 2015a).

The waste management systems and engineering designs features would help ensure that the 

dose to facility workers and members of the public are within the NRC’s dose limits and are 

reduced to levels that are ALARA in accordance with NRC regulations. Further, SHINE would 

implement procedures to ensure proper operation of the waste systems. Therefore, the NRC 

staff determined that the waste management systems would be expected to ensure that the 

radioactive wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance 

with the regulatory requirements of the NRC, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and 

the State of Wisconsin.

A provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) 

states that DOE would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive 

waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it 

determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE) does not have access to a disposal path. For 

example, if a disposal pathway for greater than Class C waste does not exist, DOE will be 

responsible for its disposal. 

Based on SHINE’s proposed waste management systems; engineered designs features to 

minimize radioactive contamination; and because SHINE would operate within the NRC’s, 

DOT’s, and State of Wisconsin’s radiation protection requirements, the NRC staff concludes that 

radioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable Federal and State 

regulatory requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts would be SMALL 

during construction, operations, and decommissioning.
Environmental Impacts

4-43

4.9.2 Nonradioactive Waste

As discussed in Section 2.7, SHINE would acquire, use, and store solid and liquid 

nonradioactive waste. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste regulations govern the disposal of 

solid and hazardous waste. RCRA, Subtitle C, establishes a system for controlling hazardous 

waste, and RCRA, Subtitle D, encourages states to develop comprehensive plans to manage 

nonhazardous solid waste and mandates minimum technological standards for municipal solid 

waste landfills. In the State of Wisconsin, EPA has delegated the primary responsibility for 

implementing RCRA regulations to the State of Wisconsin. For example, Wisconsin 

Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; 

transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous 

solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500.

SHINE would implement waste management systems to control, handle, process, store, and 

transport nonradioactive waste generated during construction, operations, and 

decommissioning (SHINE 2015a). As described in Section 2.7, SHINE’s nonradioactive waste 

management program is based on a pollution prevention and waste minimization framework. 

The design of the SHINE facility would also incorporate features to minimize the release of fuel, 

chemicals, or other nonradioactive materials into the environment (SHINE 2013). Additionally, 

during operations, SHINE would contain chemicals within closed systems, use the chemicals in 

controlled processes, and treat chemicals through filters and scrubbers (SHINE 2013, 2015a). 

(See Section 4.9.2 for additional discussion on nonradioactive gaseous effluents.) The NRC

staff expects that the waste management systems would ensure that the nonradioactive wastes 

generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance with the regulatory 

requirements of DOT and the State of Wisconsin.

Nonhazardous waste would be temporarily stored on site before being transported to a local 

disposal or recycling facility (SHINE 2013a). The NRC staff determined that adequate storage 

capacity occurs within the facility to accommodate the waste generated and stored between 

shipments to offsite disposal facilities. 

Based on SHINE’s proposed waste management systems, processes to minimize chemical

contamination, and because SHINE would operate within DOT and the State of Wisconsin’s 

nonradiological requirements, the NRC staff concludes that nonradioactive waste is expected to 

be managed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff 

concludes that impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

4.10 Transportation

4.10.1 Construction 

Construction of the proposed SHINE facility would require an average of 420 deliveries per 

month (14 deliveries per day) and 9 offsite waste shipments per month using heavy vehicles 

(dump trucks, delivery trucks) (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during 

construction would add an estimated 451 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) per day 

(SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff assumed that, with a total of 465 vehicles per day, each 

having an arrival and departure trip, and with some vehicles making return trips during the day 

(e.g., off site for lunch), vehicle counts immediately adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility may 

increase by approximately 1,000 trips per day.

Although offsite sources of construction materials, including concrete, have not been specified 

and routes for delivery of these materials have not been designated, SHINE plans to ensure that 
Environmental Impacts

4-44

delivery routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas (SHINE 2013). 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, 40, 

and 71), the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326, “Transportation,” and DOT

requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure 

public health and safety on roadways. 

Table 3–21 indicates that U.S. Highway 51 experiences approximately 9,000 vehicles per day 

adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility. Although available traffic counts do not distinguish 

between types of vehicles currently traveling this route, the addition of up to 465 vehicles per 

day (or approximately 1,000 trips per day) from construction activities at the proposed SHINE 

facility would result in an increased traffic volume on U.S. Highway 51 of approximately 

11 percent, and the percentage of heavy vehicles on this route would also increase.

SHINE’s traffic analysis indicated that construction-related traffic would contribute to minor 

delays during peak-hour traffic at intersections along U.S. Highway 51 in the vicinity of proposed 

SHINE facility, but not to a degree that would require modifications to the transportation 

infrastructure (SHINE 2015a). Because traffic to and from the proposed SHINE facility would 

use both U.S. Highway 51 northbound and southbound routes, the site access point at U.S. 

Highway 51 would experience the greatest impact on current traffic with impacts decreasing 

further from the proposed SHINE facility. During construction, SHINE plans to use a staggered 

work shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck 

deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013).

Based on the overall increase in average daily traffic flow and construction-related truck traffic, 

the NRC staff concludes that traffic impacts in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE

facility would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. These impacts likely would be temporary and 

of short duration, and would abate as construction activities wind down. Therefore, the impact 

on transportation infrastructure during the construction phase would be MODERATE.

4.10.2 Operations 

During operations at the proposed SHINE facility, an estimated maximum of 150 worker 

vehicles per day would access the site over three work shifts (SHINE 2014, 2015a). In its 

Environmental Report (ER), SHINE assumed that 75 percent of site-related traffic would come 

from and go to the north, and 25 percent would come from and go to the south (SHINE 2015a). 

The NRC staff estimated that each vehicle would make separate trips to and from the proposed 

SHINE facility, plus a number of trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility during the 

midshift, resulting in approximately 325 additional worker vehicle trips daily. 

In addition to operations employees commuting to the proposed SHINE facility, SHINE 

estimates traffic to and from the proposed facility would also include the following:

(1) an average of 36 truck deliveries per month to the proposed SHINE facility, which 

would include both radioactive and nonradioactive materials (SHINE 2015a, 2015b);

(2) an average of 39 outbound medical isotope product shipments per month through 

the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport (SHINE 2015b);

(3) an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year (SHINE 2015b); and 

(4) an average of one shipment per month of nonradioactive domestic and industrial 

waste (SHINE 2015a, 2015b).

SHINE’s preferred method of product shipments would be to transport products by truck from 

the proposed SHINE facility to the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, approximately 0.5 mi 
Environmental Impacts

4-45

(0.8 km) away, for air transport to customers. These shipments would result in an estimated 

1 percent increase in flight operations at the airport. In the event that the Southern Wisconsin 

Regional Airport is unavailable, product shipments would be transported by truck to the nearest 

secondary airport (SHINE 2015a). 

SHINE’s traffic analysis indicates that a “slight degradation of service” (i.e., traffic delays) would 

occur at the intersection of westbound State Trunk Highway 11 onto southbound U.S. 

Highway 51 during the morning peak hour (SHINE 2015a). This impact could be mitigated by

optimizing the signal timing for this turning movement, which would improve the level of service 

to its existing level (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the 

immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility to increase slightly during the operation phase, 

but it would not be appreciable when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of 

roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility, as discussed in Section 3.9.1.

As described above and in Section 2.7, SHINE would transport radioactive waste from the 

proposed SHINE site to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal facility. A common carrier 

truck would transport the waste. 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, 40, and 71), the State of Wisconsin 

Administrative Code Chapter 326, “Transportation”), and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 

and 173) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure public health and safety on roadways.

Because of the relatively small increase in traffic as compared to the average daily and annual 

traffic flows near the proposed SHINE site and because 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, impacts on transportation 

would generally be SMALL. 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. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impact on 

transportation infrastructure during operations would range from SMALL to MODERATE.

4.10.3 Decommissioning

Decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would require an average of 72 truck deliveries 

and 191 offsite waste shipments per month (a total of approximately 9 heavy-vehicle shipments 

per day) (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during decommissioning would add 

an estimated 261 vehicles per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Therefore, the NRC staff estimates 

that there could be an increase of approximately 580 trips a day on local roads during the 

decommissioning phase, thereby increasing the average daily traffic on roads in the immediate 

vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility from traffic during the operation phase. SHINE assumed 

that traffic in support of decommissioning, including employee commutes, would be similar to 

the initial construction phase with the following three exceptions:

(1) Production equipment brought to the proposed SHINE facility as clean material and 

later contaminated from operations would be packaged and transported as 

radioactive waste. Thus, the ratio of radioactive to nonradioactive shipments would 

likely be greater than those in the construction phase. As described above, 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.
Environmental Impacts

4-46

(2) Facility upgrades and expansions that would be implemented during the operational 

life of the proposed SHINE facility and not accounted for under initial construction 

would add to the ultimate decommissioning waste volume.

(3) Size reduction of facilities and process components during decommissioning, such 

as the compacting of pre-assembled filter plenums and air ducts to minimize waste 

packaging void space, could reduce the overall volume of both contaminated and 

noncontaminated wastes generated and shipped for disposal under 

decommissioning.

SHINE could use a staggered work shift schedule, similar to construction, to reduce the hourly 

traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce 

traffic congestion (SHINE 2013). However, the change in average daily traffic flows in the 

immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility and the increase in commuter, truck delivery, 

and waste traffic directly related to decommissioning could noticeably affect local commuting 

patterns. Because traffic to and from the proposed SHINE facility would use both 

U.S. Highway 51 northbound and southbound routes, the site access point at U.S. Highway 51 

would experience the greatest impact to current traffic with impacts decreasing further from the 

proposed SHINE facility.

Based on the overall increase in average daily traffic flow and decommissioning-related truck 

traffic, the NRC staff concludes that traffic impacts in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

SHINE facility would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. These impacts likely would be 

temporary and of short duration, and would abate as decommissioning activities wind down.

Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the decommissioning phase would 

be MODERATE.

4.11 Accidents

This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with potential radiological and 

hazardous chemical accidents that might occur at the proposed SHINE facility. The information 

contained in this section comes from the SHINE ER (SHINE 2015a). In addition to this EIS, the 

NRC staff will perform an independent verification of the potential accident scenarios and 

associated consequences at the proposed SHINE facility in its SER. The SER is part of the 

regulatory process used by the NRC to decide whether to issue a construction permit and 

operating license for the proposed SHINE facility.

The term “accident,” as used in this section, refers to any off-normal event that releases 

radioactive or hazardous chemicals into the environment that may affect facility workers and 

members of the public. The accidents described in this section are associated with the medical 

radioisotope production process.

Potential initiating events and credible operational accidents for the proposed SHINE facility 

constitute the design-basis accidents (DBAs). For example, SHINE considered a small aircraft 

collision as a credible DBA scenario. The maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) goes beyond 

the credible DBA scenarios and represents the bounding case accident (SHINE 2015a). This 

EIS uses the impacts from the MHA as the basis for the significance determination of the 

environmental impact from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility.

SHINE classified accidents into two categories: those that are nuclear or involve radiation and 

those related to handling and storage of hazardous chemicals. The list below includes potential 

hazards associated with the operation of the proposed SHINE facility (SHINE 2015a).
Environmental Impacts

4-47

(1) Nuclear or Radioactive Material. The types of accidents involving nuclear or radioactive 

material include the following:

• criticality accidents associated with handling and storage of fissile source material;

• criticality accidents associated with fissile solution mixing and TSV or dump tank 

operation; and

• radiation doses exceeding regulatory limits to facility workers accidents from the 

following:

− irradiated fissile solution and fission/decay (dissolved and gaseous),

− accelerator/moderator neutron production, and 

− radioactive waste handling and storage (SHINE 2013a).

(2) Hazardous Chemicals. The types of accidents involving hazardous chemicals include

explosion or fire accidents associated with radiolytic gas generation, collection, or 

recombination and include the following:

• hazardous chemical vessel or tank failure accidents caused by natural catastrophic 

events that result in leaks or spills,

• hazardous chemical reactivity (heat or pressure) accidents in a vessel or tank 

exceeding the equipment design that result in a leak or spill, and

• human-error accidents occurring during hazardous chemical handling that result in a 

spill inside or outside the buildings (SHINE 2013a).

4.11.1 Maximum Hypothetical Accident

This section discusses the potential offsite radiological consequences of the MHA and controls 

to prevent or mitigate the potential consequences. The results of the analysis are compared to 

the NRC public dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301. The MHA is a conservative evaluation and 

represents the bounding consequences for potential DBAs at the proposed SHINE facility.

The MHA is an event that could result in radiological consequences exceeding those of any 

credible accident. It is a bounding calculation on the radiological consequences of postulated 

DBAs at the proposed SHINE facility.

The MHA is based on events unique to the design of the proposed SHINE facility that 

hypothetically could release radioactive materials into the environment. The proposed SHINE 

facility would have two major operation facilities involving radioactive and hazardous chemical

materials: the irradiation facility and the radioisotope production facility (Chapter 2) 

(SHINE 2015a). Under normal operating conditions, processes in both of these areas would be 

of generally low energy (i.e., subcritical and low-heat generation). SHINE designed the facility 

to withstand credible external events, such as tornadoes and earthquakes, without causing an 

accident (SHINE 2015a). An internal accident that releases the largest hypothetical quantity of 

radioactive material would be the initiating event that results in the maximum bounding 

radiological consequence or MHA (SHINE 2015a).

The irradiation facility and radioisotope production facility are designed to function as two 

physically separated, independent areas within the facility. Although the irradiation facility and 

radioisotope production facility have interconnected processes and systems, they are physically 

separated by concrete walls. Additional safety features include shielding, redundant isolation 
Environmental Impacts

4-48

valves, ventilation systems, and penetration seals that reduce the likelihood that an accident in 

one area would affect the other area (SHINE 2013a).

The SHINE irradiation and radioisotope production facilities are designed to withstand external 

events, such as tornadoes, maximum expected seismic events, and manmade external events. 

SHINE states that scenarios involving multiple irradiation units are not credible because there is 

no initiating event that could produce a breach of more than one irradiation unit (SHINE 2015a).

SHINE states that one credible MHA initiating event, a rupture or leakage of the TSV, or TSV 

dump tank, would affect only one irradiation unit cell. This event would result in a complete 

release of the target solution and fission product inventory into one irradiation unit cell. Under a 

worse-case condition, this MHA assumes that the 5.5-day irradiation cycle has just been 

completed and that decay time has not begun. By design, this event would be confined to the 

interior of the irradiation unit cell. The calculated radionuclide inventory released from the TSV 

to the irradiation unit cell would represent the bounding source term for any postulated accident 

in the irradiation facility (SHINE 2015a).

SHINE states that the radiation effects of this MHA would be mitigated by several controlling 

mechanisms, including confinement provided by the irradiation unit cell’s exterior walls; 

confinement by the RCA ventilation system; radiation monitoring; shielding of the pipe 

penetrations; and the collection of gas, vapor, or particulates by the TSV off-gas system 

(SHINE 2015a).

Another potential MHA initiating event scenario evaluated by SHINE is a release of the 

radioactive material inventory held in the noble gas removal system storage tanks when they 

are at their maximum storage level. By design, this event would be confined to the noble gas 

storage tank room, located in the radioisotope production facility. The calculated radionuclide 

inventory released from the noble gas removal system storage tanks represents the bounding 

source term for any other postulated MHA in the radioisotope production facility. The radiation 

effects of this MHA in the radioisotope production facility would be mitigated by the walls in the 

noble gas removal room and isolated by RCA Ventilation Zone 1 (RVZ1) and RCA Ventilation 

Zone 2 (RVZ2) (SHINE 2015a).

SHINE’s evaluation of the radioactive material inventory for these two potential MHAs is based 

on a set of initial conditions that maximize the potential source terms and bound DBA scenarios 

(SHINE 2015a).

SHINE calculated the potential dose to an offsite member of the public for the potential MHAs 

as follows:

(1) A rupture or leakage of the TSV or TSV dump tank scenario would result in a total 

effective dose equivalent of 16.5 mrem (0.16 mSv) at the site boundary and 

2.30 mrem (0.023 mSv) at the nearest residence.

(2) A release of the inventory stored in the noble gas removal system storage tanks 

would result in a total effective dose equivalent of 82.0 mrem (0.82 mSv) at the site 

boundary and 11.5 mrem (0.11 mSv) at the nearest residence (SHINE 2015b).

SHINE has proposed to provide safety-related structures, systems, and components (as defined 

in the SHINE Preliminary Safety Analysis Report) that would prevent the initiation of accidents

or mitigate their consequences (SHINE 2015a). These safety-related structures, systems, and 

components include the systems described above (i.e., the irradiation unit cell confinement, 

radiation monitoring system, ventilation system, pipe penetration shields, TSV off-gas system, 

noble gas removal system walls, RVZ1, RVZ2, secure chemical containers, and other 

safety-related structures, systems, and components). The NRC staff is conducting a thorough 
Environmental Impacts

4-49

independent review of these safety-related structures, systems, and components, which it will 

document in its SER. The NRC staff will determine whether the safety-related structures, 

systems, and components will be designed, implemented, and maintained to ensure that they 

are available and reliable to perform their preventive or mitigative functions when needed so 

that the likelihood of serious consequences is small. If the staff determines, in its SER, that 

SHINE has met all of the NRC regulatory requirements described above, the likelihood of 

accidents would be reliably controlled.

The calculated doses for the MHA at the proposed SHINE facility would be within the annual 

dose limits of 100 mrem (1.0 mSv) in 10 CFR 20.1301 to a member of the public 

(SHINE 2015a). Further, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the 

potential dose to the public from the MHA. This independent evaluation will be documented in 

the NRC staff’s SER. If the NRC staff determines in its SER that the hypothetical accident dose 

is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from 

potential radiological accidents would be SMALL.

4.11.2 Hazardous Chemical Accidents

In its ER, SHINE evaluated the consequence of hazardous chemical releases from its proposed 

facility using dispersion models and/or computer codes that are consistent with methodologies 

contained in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook (NUREG/CR-6410) 

(NRC 1998). SHINE used a combination of ALOHA (Areal Locations of Hazardous 

Atmospheres) code (EPA/NOAA 2013) and EPIcode (Homann Associates, Inc., 2007) computer 

programs to model chemical releases and to determine the chemical concentration 

(SHINE 2015a). These codes are widely used to support accident analysis and emergency 

response evaluations by Government agencies, such as EPA and U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE). SHINE verified and validated both codes for modeling chemical hazards at the 

proposed SHINE facility. ALOHA is only able to model about half of the chemicals that would 

be used at the proposed SHINE facility; therefore, SHINE used the EPIcode to model other 

chemical dose calculations. SHINE stated that both computer codes give comparable results 

for the hazardous chemicals they have in common and both implement release and dispersion 

models that are consistent with the guidance in NUREG/CR-6410. For validation, SHINE used 

ALOHA to check some of the output values from the EPIcode (SHINE 2015a).

In its analysis, SHINE assumed the release of all chemical materials and did not take a 

reduction credit for the deposition of chemicals within the facility or during transport to the site 

boundary or the nearest population location. All dispersion calculations were made assuming 

neutral meteorological conditions and a 4.1-m-per-second (m/s) wind speed. The chemical 

concentrations reported in Table 4–13 are in units of parts per million (ppm) and milligram per 

cubic meter (mg/m3

). These represent 50th percentile meteorological conditions at the 

Janesville site (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). Ambient temperature was assumed to be 75 °F (24 °C), 

no deposition of airborne material was assumed, and a receptor height of 1.5 m (4.9 ft) was 

used to simulate the height of an individual (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). Concentrations produced 

by the model runs are for plume centerline values. Chemical releases were conservatively 

modeled at ground level and in the centerline of the plume (SHINE 2015a).

SHINE determined the chemical concentrations for nonpropriety hazardous chemicals in the 

proposed facility inventory. The concentrations were calculated for the maximum offsite 

individual (MOI) at the site boundary and the nearest residence, 249 m (817 ft) and 788 m 

(2,585 ft), respectively (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). In its ER, SHINE summarizes the results of the 

source term and calculated concentrations for the nonpropriety chemicals that would be used at 

the proposed facility. The NRC staff provides this information in Table 4–13. The material at 

risk (MAR) category represents the inventory of hazardous material that is available for release 
Environmental Impacts

4-50

from the postulated accident scenario. The MAR for most of the chemicals represents the 

amount of material in storage. In some cases, the MAR represents the total facility inventory. 

For other chemicals, a reduction factor has been applied to account for the total inventory that is 

not available for release because the material is being stored in separate storage locations, or 

to account for normal industrial chemicals not interacting with licensed materials or affecting the 

safety of licensed materials (SHINE 2015a, 2015d). SHINE selected the chemicals for 

evaluation based on the combination of anticipated bounding facility inventory amounts and 

toxicity characteristics. As its acceptance criteria, SHINE used the criteria in NUREG/CR-6410,

which correspond to Protective Action Criteria (PAC) (DOE 2012a) and which are explained 

later in this section. The PAC values correspond to Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) 

in EPA guidance (EPA 2012b), Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) 

(AIHA 2012), or Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits (TEEL) (DOE 2008) values for the 

chemicals (SHINE 2015a).

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 

(249 m) 

Concentration

Nearest 

Residence 

(788 m) 

Concentration

Nitric Acid, 12 M, 

associated 

w/licensed 

materials

(Evaporating 

liquid)

721 721 0.53 

ppm

24 ppm 92 ppm 0.090 ppm 0.012 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

associated with 

licensed material

(Evaporating 

liquid)

304 304 0.0028 

ppm

0.031 

ppm

7.9 ppm 4.4x10-4 ppm 5.9x10-5 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
Environmental Impacts

4-51

Hazardous 

Chemical/

Release 

Mechanism

MAR 

(lb)

Source 

Term(a)

(lb) PAC-1 PAC-2 PAC-3

Site Boundary 

(249 m) 

Concentration

Nearest 

Residence 

(788 m) 

Concentration

(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 2015a, 2015d

Emergency exposure limits are essential components of planning for the uncontrolled release of 

hazardous chemicals. These limits, combined with estimates of exposure, provide the 

information necessary to identify and evaluate accidents for the purpose of taking appropriate 

protective actions. During an emergency response to an uncontrolled release, these limits may 

be used to evaluate the severity of the event, to identify potential outcomes, and to decide what 

protective actions should be taken. In anticipation of an uncontrolled release, these limits may 

also be used to estimate the consequences of an uncontrolled release and to plan emergency 

responses (DOE 2008).

SHINE’s analysis indicates that the chemical dose or concentration for the MOI and the nearest 

residence for the worst-case analysis is below the PAC-1, PAC-2, and PAC-3 levels (equivalent 

to ERPG-2 and ERPG-3) for all the listed hazardous chemicals. These concentrations are 

conservatively calculated (i.e., they overestimate the potential consequences of the hazardous 

chemical release) and are based on the conservative assumption that the liquid hazardous 

chemicals would be instantaneously released and evaporating over a duration calculated by 

EPICode. If an accident were to occur, SHINE states that this amount of fluid evaporation 

would take longer than 1 hour, which would have the effect of reducing the hazardous chemical 

concentrations at the site boundary and to the nearest resident (SHINE 2015a, 2015d).

PAC (AEGLs and ERPGs) are defined below.

The AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to 

emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours. Three levels―AEGL-1, AEGL-2, 

and AEGL-3―are used for each of five exposures periods (10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 

4 hours, and 8 hours) and are distinguished by varying degrees of severity of toxic effects. DOE

guidance that SHINE followed states that the 1-hour AEGL values should be used to assess the 

potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous chemicals. The three 

AEGLs are defined as follows:

(1) AEGL-1 is the airborne concentration (expressed in ppm or milligrams per cubic 

meter (mg/m3

)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general 

population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort; 

irritation; or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects. However, these effects are 

not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.

(2) AEGL-2 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3

) of a substance 

above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting, and adverse 

health effects or an impaired ability to escape.

(3) AEGL-3 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3

) of a substance 

above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience life-threatening adverse health effects or death.

The three ERPGs are defined as follows:
Environmental Impacts

4-52

(1) ERPG-1 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild 

transient adverse health effects or perceiving a clearly defined objectionable odor.

(2) ERPG-2 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing 

irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms that could impair their 

abilities to take protective action.

(3) ERPG-3 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing 

life-threatening health effects.

SHINE’s analysis shows that, for the hazardous chemicals listed in Table 4–13, the 

concentrations to the MOI and the nearest residence would be below the PAC-1, PAC-2, and 

PAC-3 levels (equivalent to ERPG-1, ERPG-2, and ERPG-3), except for nitric acid, which 

exceeds the PAC-1 level for the MOI. For nitric acid, the MOI could be exposed to a 

concentration above the PAC-1 level (equivalent to ERPG-1) but below the PAC-2 level 

(equivalent to ERPG-2). ERPG-1 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is believed 

nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild 

transient adverse health effects or perceiving a clearly defined objectionable odor. Exposure 

below the PAC-2 level (equivalent to ERPG-2) would not likely result in experiencing or 

developing irreversible or other serious health effects of symptoms that could impair an 

individual’s ability to take protection action (i.e., seek shelter or evacuate to a location further 

away from the proposed SHINE facility).

The NRC staff concludes that the impacts to the MOI from the potential uncontrolled release of 

hazardous chemicals under accident conditions from the proposed SHINE facility may include 

mild transient adverse health effects but would not include serious irreversible health effects. 

Further, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough independent review of the health impacts to the 

public from a chemical accident. The NRC will document the independent evaluation in its SER. 

If the NRC staff determines in the SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within the dose 

limits in 10 CFR 70.61 and if SHINE meets all the performance requirements in 10 CFR 70.61, 

the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential chemical accidents would be SMALL.

4.12 Environmental Justice

This section describes the potential human health and environmental effects from the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on minority and 

low-income populations living near the proposed site. The NRC strives to identify and consider 

environmental justice issues in agency licensing and regulatory actions primarily by fulfilling its 

NEPA responsibilities for these actions.

Under Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629), Federal agencies are responsible for 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, potential disproportionately high and adverse human 

health and environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. In 2004, the 

Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in 

NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states that “[t]he Commission is 

committed to the general goals set forth in EO 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of 

its NEPA review process.”

The CEQ provides the following definitions to consider when conducting environmental justice 

reviews within the framework of NEPA in Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997):
Environmental Impacts

4-53

Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. Adverse health 

effects are measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer fatalities, 

as well as other fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse 

health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. 

Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or 

rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 

population is significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds the 

risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate 

comparison group.

Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. A 

disproportionately high environmental impact that is significant (as employed by 

NEPA) refers to an impact or risk of an impact on the natural or physical 

environment in a low-income or minority community that appreciably exceeds the 

environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may include 

ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts. An adverse 

environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both harmful and 

significant (as employed by NEPA). In assessing cultural and aesthetic 

environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or 

dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian tribes are 

considered.

The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income 

populations that could result from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

SHINE facility. In assessing the impacts, the following definitions of minority individuals and 

populations and low-income population were used (CEQ 1997):

Minority individuals. Individuals who identify themselves as members of the 

following population groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska 

Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander, or two or more races—meaning individuals who identified themselves 

on a Census form as being a member of two or more races (e.g., Hispanic and 

Asian).

Minority populations. Minority populations are identified when the minority 

population of an affected area exceeds 50 percent or the minority population 

percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority 

population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of 

geographic analysis.

Low-income population. Low-income populations in an affected area are 

identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the [U.S.] Census 

Bureau’s Current Population Reports, Series P60, on Income and Poverty.

Methodology for Assessing Environmental Justice Impacts

The NRC normally addresses environmental justice issues and concerns by first identifying 

potentially affected minority and low-income populations and then determining whether there 

would be any potential human health or environmental effects and whether these effects may be 

disproportionately high and adverse. Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk 

and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and 

adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental 

hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure 

rate for the general population or for another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately 

high environmental effects refer to impacts or risks of impacts on the natural or physical 

environment in a minority or low-income community that are significant and that appreciably 
Environmental Impacts

4-54

exceed the environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may include biological, 

cultural, economic, or social impacts.

Consistent with the Commission’s Policy Statement (69 FR 52040), affected populations are 

defined as minority and low-income populations who reside within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the 

proposed SHINE facility site. Data on minority and low-income populations are usually collected 

and analyzed at the Census tract or Census block group level.

The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) compiles demographic information at the Census tract and 

block group levels in small geographic areas. A Census tract is a small area that is a statistical 

subdivision of a county or statistically equivalent entity. A block group is a statistical subdivision 

of a Census tract. A Census block is the smallest geographic entity for which the USCB collects 

and tabulates data.

Minority population data were available for Census block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius 

around the proposed site. Low-income population data were only available at the Census tract 

level because of the limited availability of poverty data at the block group level. To protect 

confidentiality, USCB does not publish information about small geographic areas if the 

population size is too small. The NRC staff used race and ethnicity and poverty Census data to 

identify the location of minority and low-income populations near the proposed site. If the 

Census tract and block group boundaries crossed the 5-mi (8-km) radius boundary, the entire 

Census tract or Census block group data were used. Geographic information system software 

was used to create the maps.

Minority Population

According to the 2010 Census, approximately 12 percent of the City of Janesville population

(which includes more than one Census tract and block group) identified themselves as minority. 

In Rock County, approximately 15 percent of the population identified themselves as minority 

(UCSB 2014a).

Within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park, 

12.5 percent of the population identified themselves as minority individuals (Table 4–14) 

(UCSB 2014a). The largest minority group was Hispanic or Latino (of any race) at 6 percent, 

followed by Black or African American at 3 percent (USCB 2014a).

Figure 4–2 shows minority population block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed 

SHINE facility site. Census block groups were considered minority population block groups if 

the percentage of the minority population within any block group exceeded 12.5 percent. 

Eleven of the 25 Census block groups were found to have meaningfully greater minority 

populations. The proposed SHINE facility site is located in Census Tract 14, Block Group 3, 

with a minority population of 17.6 percent. This block group is considered a minority population 

block group because it has a greater percentage of minority people than that in the 5-mi (8-km) 

radius.
Environmental Impacts

4-55

Figure 4–2. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) 

of the Proposed SHINE Site in Janesville 

Source: Modified from UCSB 2014a
4-56

Table 4–14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) 

of the Proposed SHINE Site in Janesville

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

4-57

Low-Income Population

According to 2006–2010 American Community Survey estimates, an average of 10.7 percent of 

families and 14.3 percent of all people residing in Rock County were identified as living below 

the Federal poverty threshold. In addition, the City of Janesville had an average of 11.4 percent 

of families and 14.8 percent of all people identified as living below the Federal poverty level. 

The 2010 Federal poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four (USCB 2014b).

Table 4–15 lists low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the 

proposed SHINE facility site; 13.5 percent of the total population within that radius was identified 

as living below the Federal poverty level (USCB 2014b).

Census tracts were considered low-income population Census tracts if the percentage of 

individuals living below the Federal poverty threshold exceeded 13.5 percent. Figure 4–3 

shows low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE

facility site. Four of the 11 Census tracts were found to have meaningfully greater low-income 

populations. These Census tracts are concentrated north of the proposed SHINE facility site 

near the City of Janesville. The existing industrial park and proposed SHINE facility site are 

located in Census Tract 14 with an estimated 11.2 percent of its population living below the 

poverty level (USCB 2014b).

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

Proposed SHINE Facility in Janesville

Source: Modified from UCSB 2014b
Environmental Impacts

4-58

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

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)

Impact Analysis

As previously discussed, the environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for 

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 

low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility. Some of these potential effects have been described in the other 

resource areas discussed in this EIS. Chapter 4 presents the assessment of environmental and 

human health impacts for each environmental resource area.

In the impact analysis, the NRC first identified all potential human health and environmental 

effects and then determined the significance of the impact and whether or not minority or 

low-income populations would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. The 

NRC then considered whether the radiological or other health effects were significant or above 

generally accepted norms, whether the risk or rate of hazard was significant and appreciably in 

excess of the general population, and whether the radiological or other health effects would 

occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental 

hazards. The NRC determined whether the following human health and environmental effects 

have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living near 

the proposed SHINE facility site:

(1) radiological human health impacts (Sections 4.8.1.1, 4.8.2.1, and 4.8.3.1);

(2) nonradiological human health impacts (Sections 4.8.1.2, 4.8.2.2, and 4.8.3.2);

(3) noise impacts (Section 4.2.2.2); and

(4) traffic impacts (Section 4.10.2).

The NRC also considered whether there would be an impact on the natural or physical 

environment that significantly and adversely affects a particular group, whether there would be 

any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or (are) likely to appreciably 

exceed those on the general population, and whether environment effects would occur in 
Environmental Impacts

4-59

populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from an environmental 

hazard.

Construction

Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of environmental 

effects during construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise 

and dust impacts during construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite 

activities (Section 4.2). Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads 

would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic. However, because 

of the temporary nature of construction, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and 

would be contained within a limited time period during certain hours of the day. Increased 

demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, 

disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, 

given the small number of construction workers and the likelihood that most of them would 

already reside within the ROI (Rock County), workers would likely commute to the construction 

site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing.

Operations

Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations during SHINE facility operations would 

mostly consist of radiological and nonradiological human health and environmental (e.g., noise 

and traffic) effects. Everyone living near the existing industrial park and proposed SHINE facility 

site would be exposed to the same potential operational effects, and any impacts would depend 

on the magnitude of the change from current environmental conditions.

As discussed in Section 4.8.2.1 of this EIS, the level of potential radiological doses to the public 

from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the 

NRC and applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory limits. As a result, minority or 

low-income populations and the general population living near the proposed SHINE facility site 

would not be adversely affected by radiation exposure during facility operations. Permitted 

nonradiological air emissions are also expected to be within regulatory standards 

(Section 4.2.2.1).

As discussed in the Section 4.2.2.2 of this EIS, noise emissions during SHINE facility operations 

would occur because of increased commuter traffic on U.S. Highway 51. Noise from operating 

equipment would be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed 

SHINE facility buildings at the site. However, additional noise emissions caused by worker 

vehicles would be minor (1 dBA), and noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to 

increase noise levels beyond current airport operations across the street.

Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected 

by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic during facility operations. However, as 

discussed in Section 4.10.2 of this EIS, the only appreciable impact would be a “slight 

degradation of service” (i.e., traffic delays) at the intersection of westbound SH 11 onto 

southbound U.S. Highway 51 during the morning peak hour (SHINE 2013a). The overall daily 

traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility would increase slightly during 

facility operations but would not be of an appreciable nature when compared with the average 

daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility as 

discussed in Section 3.9.1.

Therefore, offsite noise and traffic impacts caused by the proposed SHINE facility operations 

would be SMALL for both these resource areas. Based on this information, neither minority nor 

low-income populations, nor the general population living near the proposed SHINE facility site, 

would be adversely affected by noise and traffic during facility operations.
Environmental Impacts

4-60

Decommissioning

Similar to construction impacts, potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would 

mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects during decommissioning 

(e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during the 

decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be short term and primarily limited to 

onsite activities (Section 4.2). Minority and low-income populations residing along site access 

roads would be directly affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and 

dust during decommissioning. However, because of the temporary nature of decommissioning, 

these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited time 

period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for rental housing during 

decommissioning could cause rental costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income 

populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of 

decommissioning workers and the likelihood that most of them would already reside within the 

ROI, workers would likely commute to the site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing.

In addition, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would 

be SMALL for all resource areas. There is no evidence that impacts from decommissioning 

would be disproportionately high and adverse on minority or low-income populations.

Subsistence and Special Conditions

The special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the environmental justice 

analysis because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of 

minority and low-income populations in the area, such as migrant workers or Native Americans.

Section 4–4 of EO 12898 directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and appropriate, to 

collect, maintain, and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations that rely 

principally on fish or wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these consumption 

patterns to the public. In this EIS, the NRC considered whether there were any means for 

minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by examining impacts to 

American Indians, Hispanics, migrant workers, and others with traditional lifestyle special 

pathway receptors. Based on the air- and water-quality discussions and the discussion of 

human health effects in this EIS, the NRC finds it unlikely that there would be any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts in special pathway receptor 

populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, and 

wildlife. Thus, the operation of the SHINE facility would not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and environmental effects on these populations.

Summary

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 vehicle traffic during 

construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and 

decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. 

Facility operations would not adversely affect minority and low-income populations living near 

the proposed SHINE facility site. The level of potential radiological doses to the public from 

SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well within the NRC and 

applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are expected to 

remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income populations residing 

near the proposed SHINE facility and the existing industrial park would not experience 

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects from the proposed 

action.
Environmental Impacts

4-61

4.13 Cumulative Impacts

The NRC staff considered potential cumulative impacts in the environmental analysis of the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the potential SHINE facility. Cumulative 

impacts may result when the environmental effects associated with the proposed action are 

overlaid or added to temporary or permanent effects associated with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but 

collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. An impact that may be 

SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE cumulative impact when considered in 

combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource 

is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it 

contributes to, or accelerates, the overall resource decline.

For the purposes of this cumulative analysis, past actions are those before the receipt of the 

SHINE application. Present actions are those related to the resources at the time of 

construction of the SHINE facility, and future actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable 

through the end of operation and decommissioning. The geographic area over which past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would occur depends on the type of action 

considered and is described below for each resource area.

To evaluate cumulative impacts, the incremental impacts of the proposed action, as described 

in Sections 4.1 to 4.12, are combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

actions. The NRC staff used the information provided in the ER; responses to requests for 

additional information; information from other Federal, State, and local agencies; scoping

comments; and information gathered during the visits to the potential SHINE facility site to 

identify other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.

Table 4–16 identifies recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the 

geographic extent of analysis. To be considered in the cumulative analysis, the NRC staff 

determined whether the project would occur within the noted geographic areas of interest and 

within the noted timeframes, whether it was reasonably foreseeable, and whether there would 

be potential overlapping effects with the proposed project. For past actions, consideration 

within the cumulative impacts assessment is resource- and project-specific. In general, the 

effects of past actions are included in the description of the affected environment in Chapter 3, 

which serves as the baseline for the cumulative impacts analysis. However, past actions that 

continue to have an overlapping effect on a resource potentially affected by the proposed action 

are considered in the cumulative analysis.

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

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)
Environmental Impacts

4-62

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); potential 

construction of a large distribution 

center in late 2015, with operations 

beginning in 2016 (NRC 2013f,

2015a)

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 

reasonably foreseeable projects 

other than SHINE (NRC 2013f,

2015a, 2015b)

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)

4.13.1 Land Use and Visual Resources

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources when added 

to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

description of the affected environment in Section 3.1 serves as baseline conditions for the land 

use and visual resources cumulative impact assessment. The incremental impacts from 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on land use and 

visual resources would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.1. 

4.13.1.1 Land Use Resources

The projects and activities described in Table 4–16 would result in minimal changes to existing 

land uses because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities or 

within areas currently zoned for industrial use. For example, in 2012, the City of Janesville 

approved a new industrial park within TIF District No. 35 (City of Janesville 2012). The 

proposed SHINE facility is part of this larger development project. TIF District No. 35 has been 

zoned for light industrial use and is “shovel ready” for future development. As of August 2015, a 

large distribution center has expressed interest in a plot of land in TIF District No. 35. If TIF 

District No. 35 were to be selected as the preferred site, the distribution center would be 

constructed and operated on a 124 ac (9.7 ha) parcel of land (NRC 2015). Given that TIF 

District No. 35 is currently zoned for light industrial use, any new development within this area 

would be compatible with current land use plans and zoning requirements.
Environmental Impacts

4-63

Future urbanization and global climate change could contribute to additional decreases in 

agricultural lands, forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Urbanization in the vicinity of the 

proposed site would alter important attributes of land use. Urbanization would reduce natural 

vegetation and agricultural fields, resulting in an overall decline in the extent and connectivity of 

wetlands, forests, grasslands, and wildlife habitat. Global climate change could reduce crop 

yields and livestock productivity (USGCRP 2014), which may change portions of agricultural 

land uses. However, existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve 

wetlands and forested areas. In addition, zoning laws and comprehensive land use plans would 

help ensure a proper balance of development (Rock County 2009).

Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) and its implementing 

regulations, the presence of important farmland soils (7 CFR 657.5), including prime farmland, 

was included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Development projects listed in Table 4–16 

would incrementally and cumulatively add to the loss of important farmland soils, including 

prime farmland soils, in the region surrounding the proposed site and across Rock County. With 

respect to the build-outs of TIF District Nos. 34 and 35, the City of Janesville has committed the 

districts to developed nonfarming uses. Otherwise qualifying farm lands in or already committed 

to urban development; lands acquired for a project on or before August 4, 1984; and lands 

acquired or used by a Federal agency for national defense purposes are exempt from Farmland 

Protection Policy Act provisions (7 CFR 658.2 and 658.3). Because the proposed TIF Districts 

Nos. 34 and 35 have been committed to development, the sites do not have qualifying important 

farmland soils subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act.

Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to 

existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial use, cumulative land use impacts would be 

SMALL.

4.13.1.2 Visual Resources

The projects and activities described in Table 4–16 would result in minimal changes to the 

existing viewshed because most new construction would occur either within or adjacent to 

existing facilities or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial use. Furthermore, the 

viewshed within the vicinity of the proposed site is agricultural, light industrial, or residential. 

Within nondeveloped areas, where a new structure would change qualities of the existing 

landscape, the viewshed is generally of low scenic quality because of a lack of notable features, 

uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, and mute colors.

Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to 

existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial use and of low scenic quality, cumulative 

visual impacts would be SMALL.

4.13.2 Air Quality and Noise

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality and noise when added to the 

aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

description of the affected environment in Section 3.2 provides baseline conditions for the 

assessment of cumulative impacts on air quality and noise. The incremental impacts from 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on air quality and 

noise would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.2. 

4.13.2.1 Air Quality

As described in Section 3.2.2, the ROI considered for the air quality analysis of the proposed 

SHINE facility is defined as Rock County. The ROI considered in the cumulative air quality
Environmental Impacts

4-64

analysis is also Rock County because air quality designations for criteria air pollutants are 

generally made at the county level. The incremental impact on air quality from construction, 

operations, and decommissioning activities from the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

Present-day activities in Rock County that could potentially result in cumulative impacts include 

12 major sources of air emissions identified on EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History 

Online (ECHO) air data search tool (EPA 2014). Minor sources of air emissions are also 

present in Rock County; however, a minor source classification typically indicates that the 

facility has little to no potential for significantly affecting air quality or interfering with plans to 

achieve compliance with NAAQS (EPA 2014). Classification as a major source requires a 

permit that will include provisions on how much and what is allowed to be emitted. Because 

major sources must meet permitting requirements, this minimizes cumulative impacts on air 

quality.

Additional activities near the proposed SHINE facility that could potentially result in cumulative 

impacts on air quality include other present-day construction activities, seasonal agricultural 

activities, and future projects within the county (Table 4–17); however, as noted in Table 4–17, 

the impacts are minimal because of low emissions, short term/temporary duration of activities,

and/or the distance from the proposed SHINE facility. Cumulative impacts to air quality could 

occur if project schedules overlap. For example, operation of the proposed SHINE facility and 

the planned NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility approximately 7.7 mi (12 km) south could 

overlap. However, both projects must meet the permitting and licensing requirements, which 

would minimize cumulative impacts.

Climate change can affect air quality as a result of changes in meteorological conditions. The 

formation, transport, dispersion, and deposition of air pollutants depend, in part, on weather 

conditions (IPCC 2007). Air pollutant concentrations are sensitive to winds, temperature, 

humidity, and precipitation (EPA 2009a). Ozone levels have been found to be particularly 

sensitive to climate change influences (IPCC 2007; EPA 2009b). Ozone is formed, in part, as a 

result of the chemical reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the 

presence of heat and sunlight. Sunshine, high temperatures, and air stagnation are favorable 

meteorological conditions leading to higher levels of ozone (IPCC 2007; EPA 2009b). Climate 

model simulations (from 2021 to 2050 relative to the reference period (1971 to 1999)) indicate 

an increase in the annual mean temperature in the midwestern region from 2.5 to 3.5 °F 

(NOAA 2013). The predicted increase in temperature during this time period occurs for all 

seasons with the largest increase occurring in the summer months (June, July, and August). 

Although surface temperatures are expected to increase in the midwestern region, ozone levels 

would not necessarily increase because ozone formation also depends on the relative amount 

of nitrogen oxides and VOC precursors available (NASA 2004). The combination of higher 

temperatures, stagnant air masses, sunlight, and emissions of precursors may make it difficult 

to meet ozone NAAQSs (USGCRP 2014). However, states must continue to comply with the 

Clean Air Act and must ensure that air quality standards are met.

Overall, the potential cumulative air quality impact associated with SHINE operations in 

conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects is considered SMALL, primarily because 

any of the projects with overlapping impacts with the proposed SHINE facility would have 

low-emission rates and sufficient distance between the two facilities.
Environmental Impacts

4-65

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

Project Name Emissions (Annual) Impacts

TIF District No. 35 Air emissions from construction 

activities would be limited, local, 

and temporary. Air emission 

sources during operations of the 

distribution center would include 

vehicles (approximately 100 truck 

trips per day). 

Potential construction of a large 

distribution center in late 2015, with 

operations beginning in 2016.

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.

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.

4.13.2.2 Noise

The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the proposed 

SHINE facility. Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When distance is doubled from a 

point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (MPCA 2014). Generally, a 3-dBA change over 

existing noise levels is considered to be a “just noticeable” difference, and a 10-dBA increase is 

subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse 

community response (NWCC 2002).

Potential cumulative noise impacts could occur during the construction or decommissioning 

phases in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable activities occurring within a few 

hundred feet of the proposed SHINE facility. Primarily, these activities would be 

transportation-related noise from aircraft traffic at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and 

from traffic on U.S. Highway 51. Occasional noise from farming equipment on nearby 

agricultural fields also may coincide with the proposed SHINE construction noise. In addition, 

noise from a future industrial development in the TIF District No. 35 area could occur 

simultaneously with the proposed SHINE construction or decommissioning operations. 

Construction of the large distribution center in TIF District No. 35 would not overlap with 

construction of the proposed SHINE facility, given that construction of the distribution center 

would occur in late 2015. Additional vehicle noise would result from operations of the

distribution center in TIF District No. 35 (approximately 100 truck trips per day), but the 

additional noise should not cause an appreciable increase in noise levels given current traffic

volumes from nearby roads and highways (see Section 3.9.1). 
Environmental Impacts

4-66

The Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport currently operates approximately 105 flights per day. 

Flight operations may increase because of the demand to transport materials to and from the 

proposed SHINE facility and the planned NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility. Up to 

468 medical shipments associated with the proposed action would occur each year with most 

being air transported (SHINE 2015a). However, these increases are not anticipated to cause an 

appreciable increase in noise above the current operations. As a result, the cumulative noise 

impacts would be SMALL.

4.13.3 Geologic Environment

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on the geologic environment when added to 

the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

cumulative impacts on the geologic environment primarily relate to land disturbance, the 

potential for soil erosion and loss, and the projected consumption of geologic resources. The 

description of the affected environment in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 (Site Geology and Soils, 

respectively) serves as the baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of the geologic 

environment. The geographic area of analysis for evaluation of cumulative impacts on soil 

resources includes the 5-mi (8-km) vicinity surrounding the proposed site. For geologic 

resources, the extent of the geologic area of analysis has been expanded to all of Rock County 

to encompass potential commercial sources of rock and mineral resources to support 

construction activities at the proposed site and vicinity. Because the aspects of land 

disturbance and conversion are addressed separately in Section 4.13.1.1, the cumulative 

impacts analysis here will focus on soil loss, including the loss of prime farmland soils and other 

important farmland soils, and the consumption of geologic resources.

The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

SHINE facility on the geologic environment, including geologic and soil resources, would be 

SMALL, as described in Section 4.3.

Soil Resources

New construction projects identified in Table 4–16 within the immediate 5-mi (8-km) radius 

would result in the conversion and loss of soils, including important farmland soils, caused by 

land use conversion and soil erosion. However, in accordance with State and local 

requirements, development activities would be subject to BMPs for soil erosion and sediment 

control, which would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss. Some topsoil removed by 

ground-disturbing activities would likely be reclaimed for use at the proposed site of disturbance 

or reused elsewhere. Following the completion of construction activities, continued soil loss 

would be minimal as the remaining soils would lie beneath impervious surfaces or would have 

been revegetated. Although developed land areas could be reclaimed and sufficiently restored 

to support certain agricultural and nondevelopment uses at some point in the future, such lands 

and associated soils would not be restorable to prime or other important farmland status.

Based on the foregoing, cumulative impacts on soil resources would be SMALL.

Geologic Resources

New facility construction and expansion (Table 4–16) would specifically require the use and 

consumption of geologic resources, including rock and mineral assets, such as ore and 

aggregate materials (e.g., sand and gravel). Construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the 

Janesville site would use many of the same materials, including concrete, gravel, and sand 

(Section 3.4.1) required for the other identified projects. As noted in Section 3.3.1, construction 

aggregate is widely available throughout Rock County and the greater southeastern Wisconsin 
Environmental Impacts

4-67

region. Likewise, products derived from geologic materials, including concrete and asphaltic 

materials used in construction, are widely available on a regional basis. It is not likely that the 

geologic resource requirements to construct the proposed SHINE facility or the resource 

requirements of other identified projects are of such a scale as to affect regional sources and 

supplies of the identified resources. In addition, there are no developed geologic assets (mines 

or quarries) at or near the proposed SHINE facility site that would be rendered inaccessible for 

future use as a result of the proposed projects. In total, cumulative impacts on geologic 

resources would be SMALL.

4.13.4 Water Resources

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on water resources when added to the 

aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

cumulative impacts on surface-water resources include issues concerning water use, water 

quality, and potential climate change and specifically include issues related to water withdrawal, 

effluent discharges, accidental spills and releases, and stormwater drainage and runoff. The 

description of the affected environment in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 (Surface Water Resources 

and Groundwater Resources, respectively) serves as a baseline for the cumulative impact 

assessment of water resources. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative 

impacts on the geologic environment includes the 91-ac (37-ha) area within the site boundary 

and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility. For surface-water 

resources, the extent of the geologic area of analysis has been expanded to include the Lower 

Rock River Basin within Rock County and downstream of the proposed site. For groundwater 

resources, the area considered encompasses the local groundwater basin in which groundwater 

is recharged and flows to discharge and those aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn 

through wells. Specifically, the cumulative impacts analysis focuses on those projects and 

activities, when combined with the proposed action, that would (1) withdraw water from, or 

discharge wastewater to, the segment of Rock River downstream of the proposed site or 

(2) would use groundwater or could otherwise affect the same aquifers that would supply water 

to the proposed site. 

The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

SHINE facility on surface-water and groundwater resources would be SMALL, as described in 

Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2, respectively.

The proposed SHINE facility site and adjoining areas at the center of the geographic area of 

analysis for the analysis of cumulative impacts are encompassed by the local watershed that 

contributes drainage to Rock River, as described in Section 3.4.1 (Figure 3–8). The State has 

established water-quality standards and numeric criteria for Rock River. The main stem of Rock 

River is regulated in accordance with established uses for waste assimilation, recreation, fish 

and aquatic life, irrigation, stock and wildlife watering, and hydropower, as further described in 

Section 3.4.1. Rock River is not a major source for water supply. The source of water for the 

municipal water supply and for individual property owners in Rock County is groundwater. 

Likewise, the extensive surficial aquifer system and portions of the underlying bedrock aquifers 

in Rock County provide base flow to Rock River. 

As a result of climate change, shifts in the timing, intensity, and distribution of precipitation 

would be likely to result in changes in surface-water runoff affecting water availability across the 

Midwest. The Midwest may continue to experience an increase in annual precipitation, with 

much of the increase attributable to an increase in the frequency of heavy rainfall. Runoff and 

streamflow at a regional scale for the midwestern region indicate no clear trend during the last 

half century. However, annual runoff and river flow are projected to increase in the upper 
Environmental Impacts

4-68

Midwest, and soil moisture increased in most seasons in the upper and eastern Midwest 

between 1998 and 2010 (despite an increase in average temperature) (USGCRP 2014). 

Climate change impacts on groundwater availability depend on basin geology, frequency and 

intensity of high rainfall periods, recharge, soil moisture, and interactions between groundwater 

and surface water. Precipitation and evapotranspiration are key drivers in aquifer recharge 

(USGCRP 2014).

Surface-Water and Groundwater Resources

No surface water would be used for the construction, operations, or decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility; therefore, there would be no incremental contribution to cumulative 

effects of surface-water use.

Existing water quality within the main stem of Rock River and throughout the Lower Rock River 

Basin is the result of historic land use changes and current land uses (e.g., urban, agricultural, 

and mining) and its associated development activities. As discussed in Section 3.4.1, the 

Federal Clean Water Act requires states to identify all waters for which effluent limitations and 

pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water-quality standards in such waters and 

establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to ensure future compliance with water-quality 

standards. EPA delegated the authority for issuing NPDES permits in the State of Wisconsin to 

the WDNR. Because of total suspended solids and total phosphorous, the 12.4-mi (20-km) 

segment of Rock River between the Janesville WTP and the Illinois State line is listed as 

impaired, and TMDLs have been established. It is this segment that receives drainage from the 

proposed SHINE facility site and its local watershed. 

As noted in Section 4.13.1.1 and listed in Table 4–16, the proposed SHINE facility is part of a 

larger development, TIF District No. 35. Development projects disturbing greater than 1 ac 

(0.4 ha) of land, such as the proposed SHINE facility and the potential distribution center, have 

to obtain and comply with the provisions of WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4. As discussed in 

Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1, the permit requires the development and implementation of a 

site-specific construction site erosion control plan, including specific BMPs, and a stormwater

management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management). Permits issued to all new 

stormwater and industrial wastewater dischargers would include provisions to comply with the 

wasteload allocation established for downstream receiving waters. Beyond the activities listed 

in Table 4–16, future industrial development or major expansion projects also would be subject 

to NPDES permitting requirements within the ROI and Lower Rock River Basin.

The proposed SHINE facility is not expected to require either a permit to authorize the discharge 

of stormwater associated with industrial activity to support operations or an NPDES individual 

permit for industrial (process) wastewater discharges to surface water. Further, there are few 

large industrial wastewater dischargers with NPDES permits immediately upstream or 

downstream of the local watershed encompassing the SHINE facility site. The closure of the 

General Motors assembly plant in Janesville eliminated one such industrial wastewater point 

source to Rock River.

As part of the build-out of TIF District No. 35, the resulting growth district will be served by the 

extension of public infrastructure by the City of Janesville, including public water and sanitary 

sewer service. These utility systems would also provide for sanitary sewer service and a 

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

/day) of sanitary and 

some industrial wastewater (Section 4.4.1.2). No radiological effluent would be discharged. All 

wastewater conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP also would have to meet influent 

acceptance requirements for industrial users. Such acceptance standards and any necessary 
Environmental Impacts

4-69

pretreatment requirements are imposed, in part, so that the WTP can comply with the WPDES 

permit effluent limitations imposed on its discharges to Rock River and on waste load 

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/day). Thus, the 

incremental contribution of influent from the proposed SHINE facility is a very small percentage 

(i.e., 0.13 percent) of the available treatment capacity and would not affect the WTP’s ability to 

provide for the treatment of other current or reasonably foreseeable residential, commercial, and 

industrial dischargers to the WTP. Wastewater generated by the proposed SHINE facility and 

conveyed to the City of Janesville WTP would contribute very little to the facility’s treatment 

burden with negligible impacts on receiving water quality. Therefore, the cumulative impacts on 

surface-water use and quality would be SMALL.

Groundwater Resources

Groundwater is the source of water supply for municipal water suppliers and individual users in 

Rock County. The City of Janesville Water Utility provides water service to connected 

customers within the city’s developed areas and growth boundaries. Section 3.4.2 provides a 

detailed discussion of the City of Janesville Water Utility capacity wells, groundwater basin, and 

aquifer system. As noted previously, water service would be extended to the proposed SHINE

facility site and other properties within TIF District No. 35. 

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/d) 

(City of Janesville 2013). The city’s groundwater production (pumpage) peaked in 2000, 

averaging 13.9 mgd (52,600 m3

/d). However, overall groundwater demand within the City of 

Janesville is projected to increase by 50 percent by 2030 with a similar increase countywide. 

Although the City of Janesville Water Utility has enjoyed stable water levels, other municipalities 

in the basin have seen declines. Consequently, the city has developed a water conservation 

plan in anticipation of future growth (City of Janesville 2010). 

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

/day), of water. This incremental water requirement is a very small 

percentage of the available groundwater supply capacity (0.03 percent) of the City of Janesville 

Water Utility. This additional demand, combined with current and forecast demands and 

considering the potential for climate-change-related impacts, would not be expected to affect the 

utility’s ability to provide adequate water supplies and would not be likely to affect regional 

groundwater conditions. Taken together, the cumulative impacts on groundwater resources 

would be SMALL.

4.13.5 Ecological Resources

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on ecological resources when added to the 

aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

description of the affected environment in Section 3.5 serves as a baseline for the ecological 

cumulative impact assessment. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative 

impacts on ecological resources includes the Rock River watershed in the vicinity of the 

proposed site. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of 

the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.5.

Before European settlement, the main land cover types within the Rock River watershed 

included prairies, forests, and wetlands (WDNR 2002; USDA 2007). Since that time, these 

habitats have been greatly reduced, by at least 50 to 80 percent and converted into agricultural 

fields, industrial uses, and residential and commercial areas, as described in Section 3.5. The 
Environmental Impacts

4-70

remaining tracts of grasslands, forests, and wetlands tend to be relatively small and isolated, 

which provides lower quality habitats than large tracts of habitat because of the different 

biological and physical characteristics along the edge of a habitat patch (WDNR 2013c).

Environmental management practices over the past few decades have slightly increased the 

quality and extent of terrestrial and aquatic habitats. For example, the amount of forested 

habitats has increased because of changes in land management and forestry laws. Water 

quality in streams has increased primarily because of more effective treatment at WTPs 

(WDNR 2002).

Current threats to terrestrial and aquatic habitats include increased soil, nutrients, and other 

pollutants washing into streams and lakes from urban and agricultural stormwater runoff, 

continued conversion and fragmentation of wildlife habitat from development, and the 

introduction of invasive species (WDNR 2002, 2013c). These activities will likely decrease the 

overall availability and quality of forested, grassland, and wetland habitats. Species with 

threatened, endangered, or declining populations are likely to be more sensitive to declines in 

habitat availability and quality and the introduction of invasive species.

New development projects identified in Table 4–16, such as the potential distribution center, are 

likely to have minimal impacts on ecological resources because all the projects are sited within 

areas that are currently agricultural land, open space, or developed. These types of land covers 

provide low-quality habitats for wildlife, birds, and aquatic resources.

State parks and wildlife refuges located near the proposed site provide valuable habitat to native 

wildlife and migratory birds. As agricultural activities, development, and urbanization increase 

habitat conversion and fragmentation, these protected areas will become ecologically more 

important because they provide continuous areas of minimally disturbed habitat.

Climate change in the midwestern United States is likely to include an increase in the annual 

mean temperature combined with an increase in the frequency, duration, and intensity of 

droughts (USGCRP 2014). As the climate changes, ecological resources will either need to be 

able to tolerate the new physical conditions, such as less water availability, or to shift their 

population range to new areas with a more suitable climate. Some species may be more prone 

to changes in climate. For example, migratory birds that travel long distances may not be able 

to pick up on environmental clues that a warmer, earlier spring is occurring in the United States, 

while the birds are still overwintering in the tropics. Fraser et al. (2013) found that songbirds 

overwintering in the Amazon did not leave their winter sites earlier, even when spring sites in 

the eastern United States experienced a warmer spring. As a result, the song birds missed 

periods of “peak food” availability. Climate changes could also favor nonnative invasive species 

and promote population increases of insect pests and plant pathogens, which may be more 

tolerant to a wider range of climate conditions (USGCRP 2014). Physiological stressors 

associated with climate change may also exacerbate the effects of existing stresses in the 

natural environment, such as those caused by habitat fragmentation, invasive species, nitrogen 

deposition and runoff from agriculture, and air emissions.

Section 4.5 of this EIS concludes that the impact from the proposed facility construction, 

operations, and decommissioning would not noticeably alter the terrestrial and aquatic 

environment and, thus, would be SMALL. However, as environmental stressors, such as runoff

from agricultural fields and urban areas and climate change, continue over the proposed 

construction, operational, and decommissioning periods, certain attributes of the terrestrial and 

aquatic environment (such as habitat quality) are likely to noticeably change. The staff does not 

expect these impacts to destabilize any important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic 

environment because such impacts will cause gradual change, which should allow the terrestrial 

and aquatic environment to appropriately adapt. The staff concludes that the cumulative 
Environmental Impacts

4-71

impacts of the proposed construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility 

plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions would result in 

MODERATE impacts to terrestrial and aquatic resources. 

4.13.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects from the construction, 

operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the aggregate 

effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on historic and cultural 

resources. The geographic area considered in this analysis is the APE associated with the 

proposed SHINE facility, the Janesville site, and its immediate vicinity. As discussed in 

Section 4.6, the impacts to historic and cultural resources from the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility would be SMALL.

The archaeological record for the region indicates prehistoric and historic occupation; the APE 

and its immediate environs appear to have been traditionally used as agricultural fields from the 

protohistoric period onward. Historic land development and prolonged agricultural use of the 

APE resulted in impacts on, and the loss of, cultural resources in the APE and its immediate 

vicinity. As described in Section 3.6.2, no known historic or cultural resources or historic 

properties are present within the APE, and the closest historic property is approximately 1 mi 

(1.6 km) to the northeast of the proposed site. However, there remains the possibility for 

inadvertent discovery of historic and cultural resources within the APE. Direct impacts would 

occur if newly discovered historic and cultural resources were to be physically removed or 

disturbed. Indirect visual (viewshed) impacts could occur from new construction within the APE. 

The only foreseeable project within the APE is the SHINE facility and the potential discovery of 

historic and cultural resources on the proposed site. Should they be discovered, any cultural 

resources would be managed using SHINE’s BMPs (e.g., cultural resource management 

procedures and training) (SHINE 2013). Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed 

SHINE facility, combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities 

on historic and cultural resources, would be SMALL.

4.13.7 Socioeconomics

This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects from the construction, 

operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the effects from 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on current socioeconomic 

conditions within the ROI. The description of the affected environment in Section 3.7 serves as 

a baseline for the cumulative socioeconomic impact assessment. The geographic area of 

analysis is the ROI, Rock County. Section 4.7 found that socioeconomic impacts from the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be 

SMALL.

Table 4–16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI 

that could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Relevant “other actions” that are 

considered in this cumulative impacts analysis are future construction within TIF District No. 35 

(including utility lines for the proposed SHINE facility) and the construction and operation of the 

NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility.

The proposed SHINE facility is located in TIF District No. 35, an area on the south side of 

Janesville designated for light industrial use. TIF District No. 35 is large enough for the 

construction and operation of several industries. A large distribution center has expressed 

interest in a 124-ac (9.7-ha) plot of land in TIF District No. 35 (NRC 2015). If the site is 

selected, construction would occur in late 2015, which would not overlap with construction of the 
Environmental Impacts

4-72

proposed SHINE facility. Demand for construction workers and other labor would not create a 

shortage because Rock County has sufficient labor to meet the needs for both facilities,

especially given that the construction schedules would not overlap (Table 3–7).

The NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility being constructed in Beloit, Wisconsin, 13 mi 

(21 km) to the south of Janesville would likely compete for some of the same skilled labor as the 

proposed SHINE facility. In the Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies 

LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99, an estimated 

150 operations workers would be needed (DOE 2012b). However, this demand for skilled labor 

would not create a shortage because Rock County has sufficient skilled labor to meet the needs 

for both facilities (Table 3–7). Construction and operation of the NorthStar Medical 

Radioisotopes facility could cause an increase in population, employment, and tax revenue and 

an increased demand for public services in the ROI. However, this increase is likely to be small 

because most of the construction and operations workers would likely already reside within the 

ROI. The overall contributory socioeconomic effect of this action would be small. Therefore, 

the contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

SHINE facility, when added to the operation of the NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities, 

would be SMALL.

4.13.8 Human Health

The geographic region of interest for the evaluation of cumulative effects on human health is 

that within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE facility. Within this ROI, there are no 

nuclear power plants that would contribute to radioactive or nonradioactive exposure.

As discussed in Section 4.8.2, the NRC reviewed the information provided by SHINE regarding 

the proposed radiological and nonradiological safety programs that would be implemented to 

protect the workers and members of the public from operations at the proposed SHINE facility. 

In Section 4.8.2, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from operations at the proposed 

SHINE facility would be SMALL. For this evaluation of cumulative impacts, the NRC staff 

considers the impacts in the ROI associated with the operations of other facilities using 

radioactive and nonradioactive material in the recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future.

This assessment evaluates the potential cumulative impacts from the proposed SHINE facility, 

the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility, and two medical facilities located in 

Janesville, Wisconsin: the Mercy Clinic South and the Mercy Hospital. Mercy Clinic South 

provides imaging services to patients. Mercy Hospital provides medical services to patients that 

include imaging services, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine (SHINE 2015a). A third 

medical facility within the ROI, First Choice Women’s Health Center, does not use radioactive 

material and is not considered in this evaluation. The SHINE and NorthStar Medical 

Radioisotopes facilities are proposed future actions, whereas the hospital and clinic are 

operating.

In its environmental assessment for the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility, DOE

stated that no radioactive emissions are expected during operation. DOE stated that the design 

of the proposed NorthStar facility is expected to control radioactive and nonradioactive effluent 

releases to negligible amounts and are not expected to violate Federal or State criteria 

applicable to facility workers or members of the public. Additionally, liquid waste generated 

during operations at the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility would be collected, 

temporarily stored on site, and sent off site for treatment and disposal in accordance with the 

Federal and State of Wisconsin regulations (SHINE 2013a; DOE 2012b). DOE also stated that 

operations at the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes production facility would be 
Environmental Impacts

4-73

conducted in accordance with State of Wisconsin regulatory limits (DOE 2012b). Further, the 

proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility would be approximately 7.7 mi. (12. km) from 

the SHINE facility, which would minimize the potential cumulative radiological exposure 

because there would be sufficient distance between the two facilities. Given that the expected 

radiological and nonradiological impacts from each facility would be limited, the NRC staff does 

not expect that the combined operation of these facilities would result in a cumulative impact to 

the workers or members of the public in excess of NRC or State of Wisconsin regulatory limits.

Mercy Clinic South and Mercy Hospital in Rock County, Wisconsin, provide imaging services to 

patients that include radiation oncology and nuclear medicine. Both facilities are within 5 mi 

(8 km) of the proposed SHINE facility. Mercy Clinic South is approximately 1.6 mi (2.6 km) 

away, and Mercy Hospital is approximately 4.4 mi (7.1 km) away. SHINE (2013a) determined 

that radiological exposure to members of the public outside these facilities is negligible. Based 

on the low levels of radiation exposures from these medical facilities and the proposed SHINE 

facility, and factoring in the distance between the medical facilities and the proposed SHINE 

site, the NRC staff does not expect the cumulative impacts to workers at the SHINE facility or 

members of the public would be in excess of NRC or State of Wisconsin regulatory limits.

As discussed in Section 4.8.2.2 of this EIS, the NRC staff concluded that the nonradiological 

impacts from the proposed SHINE facility to workers and members of the public would be 

SMALL. Given that the nonradiological impacts from the facilities listed in Table 4–16 would be 

within regulatory limits of the State of Wisconsin and the distance between the facilities and the 

proposed SHINE facility, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impact to workers and 

members of the public would be SMALL.

The NRC staff is currently conducting a thorough independent safety evaluation to verify that 

the radiological exposure to the members of the public would be below regulatory limits set in 

10 CFR Part 20. If the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative dose to workers and the public 

would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the 

cumulative radiological impacts would be SMALL.

4.13.9 Waste Management

The geographic region of interest for the evaluation of cumulative impacts from the disposal of 

radioactive and nonradioactive waste is that area within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed 

SHINE facility. Table 4–16 lists the facilities considered within this ROI. There are no nuclear 

power plants that would contribute to radioactive or nonradioactive exposure. There are two 

medical facilities: Mercy Clinic South and Mercy Hospital.

In Section 4.9, the NRC staff reviewed SHINE’s radioactive and nonradioactive management 

programs for the safe handling and disposal of its waste. Based on information provided by 

SHINE in its ER, the NRC staff found that the expected design features and management 

programs (i.e., temporary storage, packaging, transportation, and disposal) would adequately 

control radioactive and nonradioactive waste. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that the 

impacts would be SMALL.

This evaluation considers the cumulative impacts within the ROI associated with the operations 

of other facilities using radioactive and nonradioactive material in the recent past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future.

This cumulative impact assessment is based on the proposed SHINE facility and the facilities 

listed in Table 4–16, including the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facility and two 

medical facilities located in Janesville, Wisconsin: the Mercy Clinic South and the Mercy 

Hospital. The proposed SHINE and NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities are proposed 
Environmental Impacts

4-74

future actions, whereas the two medical facilities are operating. Radioactive and nonradioactive 

waste are and would be generated as part of the operation of many of the facilities listed in 

Table 4–16. The waste from these facilities, in some cases, are and would likely go to the same 

waste disposal sites.

For radioactive waste, two facilities are available for the disposal of low-level waste from the 

proposed SHINE facility and the medical facilities: EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah, and Waste 

Control Specialists in Andrews County, Texas. EnergySolutions is authorized to dispose of only 

Class A low-level waste, whereas WCS is authorized to dispose of Class A, B, and C low-level 

waste (SHINE 2015a).

In the event that SHINE loses access to a low-level waste disposal facility, the NRC staff 

expects that any low-level waste would have to be stored either within the facility or in a new 

storage facility constructed either on site or at an offsite location. The storage of low-level waste 

would continue until a low-level waste disposal facility is available. Low-level waste, regardless 

of its location, must be stored in accordance with Federal and State requirements to ensure the 

safety of workers and members of the public. As discussed in Section 4.9, multiple physical 

barriers (i.e., shielded walls, hot cells, shielded storage containers, protective equipment, and 

ventilation systems) and administrative controls (i.e., procedures and training) would be used to 

limit the impacts to workers and members of the public from radioactive material in the proposed 

SHINE facility. The NRC staff expects that similar facility design and management programs 

would be used to ensure safety during the temporary storage of low-level waste at NorthStar 

and the medical facilities. 

A provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) 

states that DOE would take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive 

waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it 

determines that the producer (e.g., SHINE or NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes facilities) does not 

have access to a disposal path. For example, if a disposal pathway for greater than Class C

waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its disposal. 

As discussed in Section 4.4, nonradioactive wastewater from the proposed SHINE facility would 

be sent to the Janesville municipal sanitary system. The NRC staff expects that most of the 

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

/day), with an 

average peak treatment flow of 14.5 mgd (54,900 m3

/day). The average daily treatment and 

discharge flow includes the operating Mercy Clinic South and Mercy Hospital (SHINE 2013). 

Sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment for the proposed NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes 

facility would be provided by the City of Beloit (DOE 2012b). Based on the capacity of the 

Janesville municipal sanitary system, the NRC staff concludes that there would be adequate 

capacity to process wastewater from the proposed facility, in addition to existing and reasonably 

foreseeable residential, medical, and commercial facilities.

Solid nonradioactive waste, such as general office trash and industrial waste generated during 

the operation, maintenance, and day-to-day office operations of the proposed facility, would be 

handled by the City of Janesville’s sanitation department (SHINE 2013b). Rock County has a 

State-licensed landfill (License No. 3939) authorized to receive the following materials: 

asbestos, contaminated soil, demolition, garbage, noncombustible material, refuse, and 

shredder fluff (WDNR 2013d).

The NRC staff reviewed information on solid-waste management on the WDNR and EPA Web 

sites; no known capacity constraints exist for the disposal of such waste either within Wisconsin 

or the Nation as a whole (WDNR 2013d; EPA 2013).
Environmental Impacts

4-75

As discussed in Sections 2.7 and 4.9 of this document, SHINE would have waste management 

systems and programs to control, handle, process, store, and transport the types and quantities 

of nonradioactive waste expected to be generated by the medical radioisotope production 

process. The waste management systems and programs are expected to ensure that the 

radioactive wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be managed in accordance 

with the regulatory requirements of the NRC, DOT, and the State of Wisconsin. The NRC staff 

expects that nonradioactive waste generated by the facilities listed in Table 4–16 will be 

managed in accordance with the State of Wisconsin requirements.

Based on the information on waste disposal in Wisconsin and the United States, the NRC staff 

concludes that there would be adequate disposal space on a State and national level for 

radioactive and nonradioactive waste from multiple current and reasonably foreseeable sources 

and that the waste would be handled and disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and 

local requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts would be 

SMALL.

4.13.10 Transportation

This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects from the construction, 

operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the effects from 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on transportation infrastructure. 

The geographic area of analysis for evaluation of cumulative impacts on transportation is 

primarily the same as that used in Section 4.10 and includes the 91 ac (37 ha) within the site 

boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility. However, the 

roads for routes that could be used for delivery of medical isotopes (if air transport is not 

possible) or disposal of wastes were also considered. Transportation infrastructure includes 

roadways, rail lines, airports, and traffic control devices. As discussed in Section 4.10, the 

traffic impacts would be MODERATE during construction and decommissioning and SMALL to 

MODERATE during operations.

Construction projects in Table 4–16 could produce an increase in vehicle traffic on roads within 

the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the proposed SHINE site. For example, the NorthStar medical 

radioisotope project would involve the construction of a facility and would add additional 

employees commuting on roads near the SHINE site. In addition, new construction projects 

could occur within TIF Districts Nos. 34 and 35. A large distribution center has expressed 

interest in a 124-ac (9.7-ha) plot of land in TIF District No. 35 (NRC 2015). If the site is 

selected, construction would occur in late 2015, which would not overlap with construction of the 

SHINE facility. During operations, associated activities could include approximately 100 truck 

trips per day. Overlap with the SHINE project during operations of the distribution center could 

increase traffic impacts on access roads. Most existing roads would be sufficient to handle the 

project transportation activities, and alternative routes could be used to minimize transportation 

impacts. In some cases, however, a noticeable increase in traffic could occur, especially if 

SHINE construction workers and vehicles used the same roads as the trucks leaving the 

distribution center. Traffic from facilities, such as the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, 

Glen Erin Golf Course, Mercy Clinic, Mercy Hospital, and Alliant Energy Generation Facility, 

would not likely have a noticeable impact on transportation, given that the facilities are currently 

operating and that a need for additional transportation infrastructure has not occurred. 

Therefore, depending on whether increased vehicular activity from workers or residents on 

roads near the proposed SHINE site had a noticeable impact on traffic volumes, the cumulative 

effect of transportation-related traffic impacts during SHINE facility construction, operations, and 

decommissioning would be SMALL to MODERATE.
Environmental Impacts

4-76

4.13.11 Environmental Justice

The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential contributory 

human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility when added to the effects from other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on minority and low-income populations and 

whether these effects might be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority and low-income 

populations are subsets of the general public residing near the Janesville site in the existing 

industrial park, and everyone would be exposed to the same environmental effects generated 

by the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility.

The geographic area of analysis is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE

facility at the Janesville site. As discussed in Section 4.12, the proposed SHINE facility site and 

industrial park are located in a minority population block group because it has a greater 

percentage of minority people than the 5-mi (8-km) radius. Minority and low-income populations 

residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and 

increased commuter and vehicle traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. 

However, during construction and decommissioning, these would be short term and primarily 

limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Janesville site would not have high and 

adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. As a 

result, minority and low-income populations residing near the proposed SHINE facility and the 

existing industrial park would not experience disproportionately high and adverse human health 

and environmental effects from the proposed action. 

Table 4–16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the 

geographic area of analysis that could contribute cumulative human health and environmental 

effects. Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would mostly consist of environmental effects caused by 

construction and operations of new commercial and industrial developments (e.g., noise, dust, 

traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, noise and dust impacts during 

construction would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and 

low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected by 

commuter vehicle and truck traffic. However, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse 

and would be contained within a limited time period during certain hours of the day. Increased 

demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise, 

disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, 

given the availability of workers and the likelihood of workers commuting to the construction site, 

the need for rental housing would be reduced.

Operational emissions from commercial or industrial facilities could disproportionately affect 

minority and low-income populations living near the new commercial and industrial facility. 

However, everyone would be exposed to the same potential contributory effects, and any 

impacts would depend on the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions. 

Permitted air emissions from all commercial and industrial facilities, including the contributory 

effects from the proposed SHINE facility, would be expected to remain within regulatory 

standards.

Based on this information and the analysis of human health and other environmental impacts 

presented in this EIS, the contributory effects of constructing, operating, and decommissioning 

the SHINE facility are not likely to create high and adverse cumulative human health and 

environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living near the Janesville site.
Environmental Impacts

4-77

4.13.12 Summary

Table 4–18 summarizes the cumulative impacts in all resource areas. Cumulative impacts 

would range from SMALL to MODERATE depending on the resource area. Specifically, these 

cumulative impacts would be SMALL for all resource area components other than ecological 

resources and transportation.

Table 4–18. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources,

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. 
Environmental Impacts

4-78

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. 
Environmental Impacts

4-79

4.14 References

7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, “Important 

farmlands inventory.”

7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, “Farmland and 

protection policy act.”

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

protection against radiation.” 

10 CFR Part 30. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 30, “Rules of general 

applicability to domestic licensing of byproduct material.”

10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, “Domestic licensing of 

source material.”

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

production and utilization facilities.”

10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, “Domestic licensing of 

special nuclear material.”

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and 

transportation of radioactive material.” 

36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 60, “National Register of Historic Places.”

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800, “Protection of historic properties.” 

40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 

“Standards of performance for new stationary sources.”

40 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 63, 

“National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for source categories.”

40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112, 

“Oil pollution prevention.”

40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, 

“EPA administered permit programs: The national pollutant discharge elimination system.”

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

Part 1508, “Terminology and index.”

49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, “Hazardous 

materials table, special provisions, hazardous materials communications, emergency response 

information, training requirements, and security plans.”

49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, “Shippers—

general requirements for shipments and packaging.”

59 FR 7629. Executive Order No. 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register 59(32):7629–7633. 

February 16, 1994.
Environmental Impacts

4-80

69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register

69(163):52040–52048. August 24, 2004.

75 FR 31514. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule [Final rule].” Federal Register

75(106):31514-31608. June 3, 2010.

78 FR 73698. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers—Significant Impact Levels and Significant 

Monitoring Concentration: Removal of Vacated Elements [Final rule].” Federal Register

78(236)73698-73702. December 9, 2013.

[AIHA] American Industrial Hygiene Association. 2012. AIHA Emergency Response Planning 

Committee. Available at <https://www.aiha.org> (accessed 15 January 2015).

[BLS] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area 

Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Available at <www.bls.gov> (accessed 

12 August 2013).

Cai H, Burnham A, Wang M. 2013. Updated Emission Factors of Air Pollutants from vehicle 

Operations in GREET Using MOVES. Available at

<file:///C:/Users/NXM5/Downloads/Updates%20to%20Vehicle%20Operation%20Emission%20F

actors%20in%20GREET1_2013%20(4).pdf> (accessed 15 September 2014).

[CEQ] Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/

resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf> (accessed 22 May 2012). 

ADAMS No. ML082520150.

City of Janesville. 2009. Economic Development Memorandum—Action on a Resolution 

Approving the Project Plan for and Establishing the Boundaries for Tax Increment Finance 

District No. 34 at the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport (File Res. No. 20090577). Available 

at <http://cms.ci.janesville.wi.us/WebLink8/0/doc/195551/Page31.aspx> (accessed 

1 September 2014).

City of Janesville. 2010. Water Utility, Water Conservation Plan. April 2010. Available at 

<http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=573> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

City of Janesville. 2012. Tax Increment Finance District No. 35, Project Plan, Amendment 

No. 1. City of Janesville, WI: Economic Development Agency, Accounting Division. 

February 13, 2012. Available at 

<http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1463> (accessed 

25 June 2013).

City of Janesville. 2013. Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville, Title 13, Water 

and Sewers, 13.16, Wastewater Facilities and Sewer Ordinance. Updated November 2005. 

Available at <http://cms.ci.janesville.wi.us/weblink8/Browse.aspx?dbid=0> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

[DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2008. DOE Handbook: Temporary Emergency Exposure 

Limits for Chemicals: Methods and Practice. DOE-HDBK-1046-2008. August 2008.
Environmental Impacts

4-81

[DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2012a. Protective Action Criteria (PAC): Chemicals with 

AEGLs, ERPGs, and TEELs. Revision 27, February 2012. Available at 

<http://www.atlintl.com/DOE/teels/teel.html> (accessed 2 December 2014).

[DOE] U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. 2012b. 

Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic 

Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99 (DOE/EA-1929). Available at 

<http://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/ea-1929-final-environmental-assessment> (accessed 

8 May 2013).

[DOL] U.S. Department of Labor. 2013. Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses—

2012. Available at <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh.pdf> (accessed 29 January 2014).

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. An Update on the Use of Particulate 

Ratios to Assess Likely PM10 Attainment Status.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Clarification of Prevention of Significance 

Deterioration (PSD) Guidance for Modelling Class I Area Impacts. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr/gen/u3-11.txt> (accessed 14 August 2014).

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, 3.3 Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/> (accessed 14 October 2014).

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Finding for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009b. Assessment of the Impacts of Global 

Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level 

Ozone.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Available at <http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html> (accessed 31 October 2013).

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Acute Exposure Guidelines (AEGL). 

Available at <http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/> (accessed 2 December 2014).

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Municipal Solid Wastes in the United 

States: 2012 Facts and Figures Fact Sheet. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm> (accessed 24 March 2014).

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Enforcement and Compliance History 

Online (ECHO). Available at <http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/> (accessed 10 October 2014).

[EPA/NOAA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 2013. Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA), Version 5.4.3. 

March 2012.

[FAA] Federal Aviation Administration. 2014. National Based Aircraft Inventory. Available at 

<http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=JVL&AptSecNum=2> (accessed 

14 October 2014).

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq.

Forest County Potawatomi. 2013. Letter from Cook M, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, to 

Wong MC, NRC. Subject: Request for scoping comments concerning the SHINE Medical 

Technologies radioisotope production facility. July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13224A164.
Environmental Impacts

4-82

Fraser J, Silverio C, Kramer P, Mickle N, Aeppli R, Stutchbury BJM. 2013. A trans-hemispheric 

migratory songbird does not advance spring schedules or increase migration rate in response to 

record-setting temperatures at breeding sites. PLoS ONE 8(5):e64587.

Homann Associates, Inc. 2007. EPIcode Based on Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis—

Emergency Planning for Extremely Hazardous Substances, U.S. EPA, FEMA, and the 

U.S. Department of Transportation. Version 7.0. 2007.

[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, 

Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, and Miller HL (editors)). Cambridge, United Kingdom, and 

New York: Cambridge University Press, 996 p.

Mercy Health System. 2014a. Mercy Clinic South. Available at 

<http://mercyhealthsystem.org/location/mercy-clinic-south/> (accessed 17 December 2014).

Mercy Health System. 2014b. Mercy Hospital and Trauma Center. Available at 

<http://mercyhealthsystem.org/location/mercy-hospital-and-trauma-center/> (accessed 

17 December 2014).

[MPCA] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2014. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota. 

Available at <http://www.nonoise.org/library/sndbasic/sndbasic.htm> (accessed 

24 February 2014). 

[MRI] Midwest Research Institute. 2006. Background Document for Revisions to Fine Fraction 

Ratios Used for AP-42 Fugitive Dust Emission Factors. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/bgdocs/b13s02.pdf> (accessed 10 October 2013).

[NASA] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2004. Tango in the Atmosphere: 

Ozone and Climate Change. Available at 

<http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200402_tango/> (accessed 30 September 2013).

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

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §470, et seq.

[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and 

Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 3. Climate of the Midwest. NOAA

Technical Report NESDID 142-3.

[NorthStar] NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes, LLC. 2014. NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes 

Breaks Ground for New Facility in Beloit, Wisconsin. Available at 

<http://www.northstarnm.com/news/groundbreaking> (accessed 18 August 2014).

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. 1998. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis 

Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. NUREG/CR–6410. 

March 1998. ADAMS No. ML072000468.

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

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

Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities 

and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors, and Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing 

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

Criteria,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous 

Reactors. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. October 17, 2012. ADAMS 

Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075.
Environmental Impacts

4-83

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 1, Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency. NUREG–1437. June 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13107A023.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013b. Letter from Wong MC, NRC, to Nelson R, 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Subject: SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope 

Production Facility Application Review. July 1, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13136A011.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013c. Letter from Wong MC, NRC, to Born E, 

Wisconsin Historical Society. Subject: SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production 

Facility Application Review. July 1, 2013. ADAMS No. ML3135A365.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013d. Meeting Summary: NRC Visit to 

Wisconsin Historical Society on July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13226A537.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013e. Letters from Wong MC, NRC, to 13 

Tribes. Subject: Request for Scoping Comments concerning the SHINE Medical Technologies 

Radioisotope Production Facility Application Review. July 1, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13136A014.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013f. Meeting Summary: NRC Visit to 

Janesville Community Development Department on July 18, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13247A400.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. Telephone Summary: NRC 

Teleconference with Janesville Community Development Department on July 7, 2015. ADAMS 

No. ML15236A331.

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Web Soil Survey, Soil Map–Rock 

County, Wisconsin. (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit 

description; suitabilities and limitations for use, building site development). Updated 

February 15, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. 

Available at <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[NWCC] National Wind Coordinating Committee. 2002. Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: 

A Handbook. NWCC Siting Subcommittee, Washington, DC. Available at 

<http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/permitting2002.pdf> (accessed 

13 February 2015). 

Ogden, LJ. 1996. Collision Course: The Hazards of Lighted Structures and Windows to 

Migrating Birds. Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP). Paper 3. Available at 

<http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/flap/3?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fflap%2F3&utm_

medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages> (accessed 31 January 2014).

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.

Rock County. 2009. Rock County Comprehensive Plan 2035. Janesville, WI: Rock County 

Planning, Economic and Community Development Agency. September 10, 2009. Available at 

<http://www.co.rock.wi.us/planning-comprehensive-plan-2035> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.

Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189.
Environmental Impacts

4-84

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

(PSAR), Chapter 13, “Accident Analysis,” and Chapter 19, “Environmental Report.” Monona, 

WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.

Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015c. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

March 23, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15092A397.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015d. Letter from Vann Bynum R, SHINE, to 

NRC, Document Control Desk. Subject: SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for 

Construction Permit, Revision to Sections 13b.3 and 19.4 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis 

Report. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A131.

[SWRA] Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. 2012. Airport Investments. Available at 

<http://jvlairport.com/NewsUpdates/CapitalImprovementPlans.aspx> (accessed 

29 August 2014).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 American Community Survey Demographic Profile, 

Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. American FactFinder, 2010 American Community Survey 

and Data Profile Highlights Information on Rock County, City of Janesville, and Block Groups 

within Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and 

<http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. American FactFinder, 2006–2010 5-Year Estimates 

American Community Survey Data Profile and Highlights Information on Rock County, City of 

Janesville, and Census Tracts within Rock County, Wisconsin. Available at 

<http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

[USDA] United Stated Department of Agriculture. 2007. Rapid Watershed Assessment Lower 

Rock River. October 2007. Available at 

<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_020057.pdf> (accessed 

28 January 2014).

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013. Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Available at 

<http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_

Level/Wisconsin/st55_2_025_025.pdf> (accessed 4 October 2013).

[USGCRP] U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2014. Global Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States. (Melillo JM, Richmond TC, and Yohe GW (editors)). New York: Cambridge 

University Press. Available at <http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/> (accessed 

25 November 2014).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. National Land Cover Database. ESRI ArcGIS 9.3.1 

software. Available at <http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer> (accessed 4 October 2013).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 151. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and 

Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation Chapter NR 151. Runoff Management. Revised 

May 2013. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/nr> (accessed 

3 January 2013).
Environmental Impacts

4-85

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 216. Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System Chapter NR 216. Storm Water Discharge Requirements. 

Revised April 2013. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/nr> (accessed 

3 January 2013).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406. Construction Permits. March 2014. Available 

at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/406.pdf> (accessed 

13 February 2015).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 460. Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Source Categories-General Provisions. Available at 

<http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/460/Title> (accessed 

17 January 2014).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code. Chapter DHS 157. Radiation Protection. Available at 

<http://dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/P4/P45059.pdf> (accessed 17 January 2014).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326. Motor Carrier Safety Requirements for 

Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Available at 

<https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/326> (accessed 17 November 2014).

[WCMP] Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 2007. Wisconsin Coastal Management 

Program: A Strategic Vision for the Great Lakes. Madison, Wisconsin. Available at 

<http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Documents/DIR/Coastal%20Management/Program%20Docs/WCM

P%20Strategic%20Vision%20for%20Great%20Lakes%202007.pdf> (accessed 

1 October 2015). 

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Watershed–Rock River–Milton 

(LR04). Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/water/watershedDetail.aspx?code=LR04&Name=RockRiver–Milton> 

(accessed 29 January 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. Construction Site Storm Water 

Permit Overview. Web page updated November 12, 2013. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Stormwater/construction/overview.html> (accessed 3 January 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013b. Air Management Program 

Permit Tracking Tool. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTrackingSearch.aspx> (accessed 

9 October 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013c. South Glacial Plains Ecological 

Landscape. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=9> (accessed 

23 December 2013.

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013d. Wisconsin Solid Waste 

Management. Available at <http://www.dnr.wi.gov/topic/Waste/Solid.html> (accessed 

24 March 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014. Air Management Program Permit 

Tracking Tool. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=19955911> (accessed 

21 November 2014).
Environmental Impacts

4-86

[WDOR], Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2014. County and Municipal Revenues and 

Expenditures 2012. Bulletin No. 112, January 2014. Available at 

<http://www.revenue.wi.gov/slf/cotvc/cmreb12.pdf> (accessed 27 February 2014).

[WHS] Wisconsin Historical Society. 2015. Letter from Eisenberg L, Compliance Archeologist, 

to Bladey C, Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Draft EIS for the 

Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, 

Janesville, Wisconsin. June 26, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15191A323.

Wisconsin Golf Courses. 2013. Glen Erin Golf Course, Janesville, WI. Available at 

<http://gleneringolf.com>. 

Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 285. Air Pollution. Available at 

<http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/285.pdf> (accessed 15 January 2015)

Wisconsin Statute 157.70. Burial Sites Preservation. Available at 

<http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/157/III/70> (accessed 15 January 2015) 
5-1

5.0 ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes alternatives to granting a construction permit for the proposed SHINE

Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) 

and the environmental impacts of those alternatives. The need to compare the proposed action 

with alternatives arises from the requirement in Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). NEPA states 

that an environmental impact statement (EIS) shall include an analysis of alternatives to the 

proposed action. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implements this requirement 

through regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51 and its 

Interim Staff Guidance in NUREG–1537 (NRC 2012), which state that the EIS will include an 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects.

The NRC standard of significance for impacts uses the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

terminology for “significantly” (40 CFR 1508.27). Since the significance and severity of an 

impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, the NRC considered both “context” and 

“intensity,” as defined in the CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1508.27. Context is the geographic, 

biophysical, and social context in which the effects would occur. Intensity is the severity of the 

impact. Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts: 

SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. For this EIS, the NRC staff characterized impact levels for 

each resource area using the following three definitions of significance levels, which are 

presented in the Interim Staff Guidance to NUREG–1537: 

SMALL—environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would 

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

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

exceed permissible levels in the NRC’s regulations are considered small.

MODERATE—environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGE—environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

important attributes of the resource.

In this EIS, the NRC staff analyzed four alternatives to the proposed action. In Section 5.1, the 

NRC staff analyzed the no-action alternative or the environmental consequences if the NRC 

denies the construction permit. In Section 5.2, the NRC staff examined the environmental 

consequences if the SHINE facility were constructed and operated at an alternative location. 

Based on an in-depth site selection process, the NRC staff examined in depth two alternative 

sites, Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point. Section 5.3 examines the environmental impacts of 

constructing and operating a medical radioisotope production facility at the proposed SHINE site 

but using alternative technology. Section 5.4 describes the benefits and costs of the various 

alternatives.

5.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would deny the construction permit, and the SHINE

facility would not be constructed. The no-action alternative does not involve the determination 

of whether radioisotopes are needed or should be generated. The decision to produce 

radioisotopes is at the discretion of applicants (NRC 2012).
Alternatives

5-2

Under the no-action alternative, no changes would occur to the proposed SHINE site in 

Janesville, Wisconsin. The site would remain zoned for industrial use. Therefore, impacts on 

all resource areas would be SMALL.

The no-action alternative is the only alternative considered by the NRC that does not satisfy the 

purpose and need for this EIS, because this alternative does not satisfy the need for a 

U.S. supply of molybdenum-99. Assuming that the need for a U.S. supplier of molybdenum-99 

continues to exist, another private company would likely construct and operate a medical 

radioisotope production facility.

5.2 Alternative Sites

The NRC staff considered the environmental impacts of locating the proposed SHINE facility at 

alternative sites. SHINE identified and selected reasonable alternative sites, using the 

alternative site-selection process described below, in Section 5.2.1 (SHINE 2015a). Unless 

indicated otherwise, the following discussion is a summary of information presented in SHINE’s 

Environmental Report (ER) (SHINE 2015a).

5.2.1 Description of Alternative Site-Selection Process

SHINE’s site-selection process assessed a variety of economic and environmental factors to 

determine reasonable regions, states, and, ultimately, sites to construct and operate the 

proposed SHINE facility. SHINE determined that proximity and access to customers was one of 

the most important factors in determining site location, because molybdenum-99 decays or 

disappears at a rate of about 1 percent per hour after production. To identify a potential region 

that is central to the locations of its customers, SHINE first identified the locations of their three 

most likely customers: Nordion Inc. in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Covidien Ltd. in St. Louis, 

Missouri; and Lantheus Medical Imaging Inc. in Billerica, Massachusetts. SHINE determined 

that locating the facility in the midwestern U.S. region provides proximity to these three 

customers, as well as to potential future customers, which could include hospitals and 

radiopharmacies throughout the country. The Midwestern States considered by SHINE 

included Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. SHINE 

also considered Louisiana because of potential financial incentives.

SHINE evaluated potential Midwestern States based on their proximity to available and potential 

customers, financial incentives, and seismic considerations. To initially evaluate seismic 

concerns on a regional level, SHINE reviewed major fault-line seismic conditions within the 

midwestern region and determined that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Louisiana do not have any 

major fault lines. To better understand potential financial incentives, SHINE contacted 

economic development offices in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Michigan, and Louisiana. Ohio 

and Michigan were eliminated from further consideration because neither of the economic 

development offices in these States responded to SHINE’s request. Wisconsin offered what 

SHINE considered to be a superior financial incentives package. Wisconsin is also the most 

centrally located State to SHINE’s three prospective customers and is the home State of several 

project partners, including the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Morgridge Institute for 

Research, and Phoenix Nuclear Labs. Based on these factors, SHINE eliminated Minnesota 

and Louisiana from further consideration. Therefore, based on communication with economic 

development offices, a review of major fault lines, and the location of potential customers, 

SHINE determined that Wisconsin was the preferred State within the region.
Alternatives

5-3

Within the State of Wisconsin, SHINE identified four locations that met certain basic geographic 

and infrastructure requirements for the proposed facility. Specifically, based on the relatively

fast decay rate of molybdenum-99, SHINE required that sites met two fundamental criteria: 

(1) build-to-suit land available for development with proximity and access to an interstate 

highway, and (2) an airport within approximately 10 minutes of the proposed facility location, 

capable of handling radioisotope distribution aircraft. Based on these criteria, SHINE identified 

four cities for further consideration: Madison, Chippewa Falls, Janesville, and Stevens Point.

Of these four cities, three city councils offered financial incentive packages to SHINE: 

Chippewa Falls, Janesville, and Stevens Point. No incentive package was offered for Madison 

and, therefore, SHINE eliminated this city from further consideration.

For the remaining three cities, SHINE staff determined an approximate parcel size appropriate 

for the facility and requested that the city councils or other local government entities identify a 

potential site that met the size requirements and prepare an incentive proposal detailing the 

advantages of the site.

SHINE developed a set of 11 criteria to score the three potential sites and to ultimately identify 

the site with the best economic advantage and fewest potential environmental impacts. SHINE 

scored each site using the following criteria:

• local government and community support,

• financial incentives,

• distance to the site boundary,

• access to a skilled workforce,

• proximity to potential future customers,

• proximity to an airport,

• proximity to an interstate highway,

• anticipated depth to the groundwater table,

• seismic characteristics,

• presence of endangered resources and wetlands, and

• presence of historic and archaeological resources.

Local Government and Community Support

SHINE determined that a supportive local government and a supportive local community are 

important factors in its facility site-selection process, because this support would be essential to 

complete the proposed construction and operations. SHINE weighted this factor (along with the

financial incentives below) more heavily than the other nine factors in the scoring process 

because of the level of importance SHINE felt these factors would contribute to the successful 

construction and operation of the proposed facility. SHINE assigned these two factors a 

maximum score of 10. When evaluating this criterion, SHINE found that all three local 

governments showed an interest in the project, and it assigned all three sites a score of 10 out 

of 10.

Financial Incentives

SHINE determined that the financial incentive offered by each local government is an important 

factor in the site-selection process, because this support would be key to successfully 

completing the proposed construction and operating the facility. As with local government and 
Alternatives

5-4

community support, SHINE assigned this factor a possible 10 out of 10. During its evaluation, 

SHINE determined that all three communities provided competitive financial incentives; 

however, the cities of Janesville and Stevens Point provided slightly larger incentive packages 

than the city of Chippewa Falls. SHINE assigned the Janesville and Stevens Point sites a score 

of 9 out of 10 and the Chippewa Falls site a slightly lower score (8 out of 10).

Distance to the Site Boundary

SHINE assessed the distance from the facility to the site boundary, because a greater distance 

would lower the likelihood of a potential adverse impact on the public. The Janesville site had 

the furthest distance to the site boundary, approximately 1,000 ft (305 m) in all directions. The 

Stevens Point site was similar, with a minimum distance to the boundary just under 1,000 ft 

(305 m) in all directions. The Chippewa Falls site had a considerably smaller distance to the 

site boundary in some directions because of the site’s smaller, oblong shape. Based on this 

information, SHINE assigned the Janesville and Stevens Point sites a score of 5 out of 5 and 

the Chippewa Falls site a slightly lower score of 4 out of 5.

Access to a Skilled Workforce

SHINE determined that proximity to large cities, as well as cooperation with local universities or 

technical colleges, was indicative of the accessibility to a skilled workforce. Proximity to large 

cities provides access to a diverse workforce, while relationships with local universities provide 

access to skilled training for the workforce. SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest 

score (4 out of 5), because of its proximity to Madison, Milwaukee, and Chicago. Janesville is 

close to Blackhawk Technical College, which would offer future training for SHINE’s workforce, 

if the facility were located at the Janesville site. The Chippewa Falls site ranked evenly with the 

Stevens Point site, and SHINE assigned both sites a score of 3 out of 5. Chippewa Falls is 

approximately 100 mi (161 km) from Minneapolis–St. Paul, but none of the local schools offer 

any workforce training options, while Stevens Point is more remote than the other two sites but 

is in close proximity to the University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point, which would offer training to 

SHINE’s workforce if the Stevens Point site were selected.

Proximity to Potential Customers

As described earlier in this section, SHINE determined that, because molybdenum-99 decays or 

diminishes at a rate of about 1 percent per hour after production, proximity to potential 

customers is a site-selection factor. Based on the locations of its three prospective customers 

(in Ottawa, Missouri, and Massachusetts) in comparison to the locations of the three potential 

sites, SHINE determined that radioisotopes shipped from the Janesville location have the 

shortest overall distance for air travel to each of SHINE's potential customers. SHINE assigned 

the Janesville site the highest score for this category (5 out of 5), followed by the Stevens Point 

site (4 out of 5) and then the Chippewa Falls site (3 out of 5).

Proximity to Airport

SHINE determined that the closer the potential site is to the airport, the quicker its product 

would be delivered to the customer, and it analyzed this distance as a site-selection factor. The 

Janesville site is directly across the highway from the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport, with 

a distance of less than 0.5 mi (0.8 km). The Stevens Point site is approximately 4 mi (6 km) 

from the Stevens Point Municipal Airport. The Chippewa Falls site is approximately 10 mi 

(16 km) from the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport.

During instances of local airport closures, radioisotopes would need to be transported by truck 

to the nearest secondary airport. The Janesville site is approximately 1 hour from Dane County 

Regional Airport in Madison and within 2 hours of both O’Hare International Airport in Chicago 
Alternatives

5-5

and Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee. The Chippewa Falls site is within 2 hours of the 

Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport. The Stevens Point site is more than 2 hours from all 

of these airports. Based on proximity to local and major airports, SHINE assigned the Janesville 

site a score of 5 out of 5, while the Stevens Point and Chippewa Falls sites received lower 

scores (3 out of 5).

Proximity to an Interstate Highway

If the local airport closes, SHINE determined that transporting radioisotopes by truck either to 

the closest secondary airport or directly to the customer would be necessary. To minimize 

travel time, SHINE made proximity to an interstate highway a site-selection factor. The 

Janesville site is approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) from Interstate 39. The Stevens Point site is less 

than 2 mi (3.2 km) from Interstate 39, and the Chippewa Falls site is approximately 18 mi 

(29 km) from Interstate 94. SHINE assigned the Stevens Point site the highest score in this 

category (5 out of 5), followed by the Janesville site (4 out of 5) and then the Chippewa Falls 

site (3 out of 5).

Anticipated Depth to Groundwater

SHINE made depth to groundwater a site-selection factor, because greater depth to 

groundwater would minimize facility impacts from spills, given that potential groundwater 

contamination from a leak or spill of oil or chemicals is less likely with further depth to the water 

table. Based on boreholes and wells drilled on site, SHINE determined that groundwater at the 

Janesville site was located 55 to 65 ft (17 to 20 m) below grade. Using records from onsite 

boreholes, SHINE determined groundwater to be approximately 50 ft. (15.2 m) below grade at 

the Chippewa Falls site. Using similar methods as at the Chippewa Falls site, SHINE 

determined that groundwater at the Stevens Point site was located 8.0 to 11.0 ft (2.4 to 3.4 m) 

below grade. SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest points for this category (5 out 

of 5), followed by the Chippewa Falls site (4 out of 5) and then the Stevens Point site (2 out 

of 5).

Seismic Characteristics

SHINE evaluated the seismic characteristics at each proposed site by reviewing the seismicity 

of the site area (based on peak ground accelerations) and historic records of seismic activity in 

the site area. SHINE found that the Janesville site is slightly more likely than the other two sites 

to experience a very weak shaking event. However, SHINE also noted that both the Chippewa 

Falls and Stevens Point sites are located on glacial sands and may have higher amplification 

factors than at the Janesville site. SHINE also conducted a geotechnical investigation of the 

Janesville site that indicated that glacial deposits occur at the Janesville site, as well. Based on 

this information, SHINE assigned all three sites a score of 3 out of 5.

Presence of Protected Species

To score each of the three sites based on the presence of endangered resources and wetlands, 

SHINE requested information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) regarding the potential occurrence of Federally or 

State-listed species at the three sites. Because the Janesville site is an active agricultural field 

far from any wetlands, water, or buffer areas, WDNR and FWS determined it was an unsuitable 

habitat for listed species. Both the Chippewa Falls and the Stevens Point site contain forested 

areas, which the FWS noted is a potential habitat for migratory birds. WDNR also 

recommended that the small wetland community on the eastern edge of the Chippewa Falls site 

be protected as much as possible to avoid affecting any potential rare or declining species.

FWS identified a portion of the Stevens Point site as having a high potential for the Karner blue 

butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), a Federally listed endangered species in Wisconsin.
Alternatives

5-6

Based on the input from WDNR and FWS, SHINE assigned the Janesville site the highest score 

in this category (5 out of 5), and assigned the Stevens Point and Chippewa Falls sites a 2 out 

of 5, based on the potential habitats for protected species.

Presence of Historic and Archaeological Resources

To evaluate the presence of historic and archaeological resources, SHINE reviewed the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as well as the Wisconsin Historic Preservation 

Database. This search did not identify significant archaeological sites or other cultural

resources on or near any of the proposed or alternative sites. As described in Chapter 3, 

SHINE completed a Phase I archaeological survey of the Janesville site. The survey did not 

identify any precontact or historic Euro-American archaeological sites. Based on this 

information, SHINE assigned all three sites a 5 out of 5.

Summary

SHINE assigned each site a score of either 1 to 10 or 1 to 5, based on the criteria discussed 

above. These scores are summarized in Table 5–1.

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

Based on these scores, SHINE selected the Janesville site, with a total score of 60 out of 65, as

the proposed location for the SHINE facility. SHINE determined that the Chippewa Falls site 

(48 out of 65) and the Stevens Point site (51 out of 65) were reasonable alternatives to the 

Janesville site.

The NRC staff evaluated the site-selection methodology described above and concluded that 

the process for selecting and evaluating alternative sites, including the proposed site in 

Janesville, Wisconsin, is reasonable and consistent with guidelines presented in NUREG-1537 

and the associated Interim Staff Guidance (NRC 2012). The NRC staff evaluated the 

environmental impact of the two alternative sites, Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point, in the 

following sections.

5.2.2 Chippewa Falls Site

The NRC staff evaluated the Chippewa Falls site as a reasonable alternative site. The City of 

Chippewa Falls is in Chippewa County in northwestern Wisconsin, approximately 13.4 mi 
Alternatives

5-7

(21.6 km) north of Eau Claire, Wisconsin (Figure 5–1). Specifically, the site is located in the

Wissota Lake Business Park near the northern edge of the corporate boundaries of the City of

Chippewa Falls in Chippewa County, Wisconsin. The site is bordered to the west by Commerce

Parkway, to the north by County Highway S, to the east by State Highway 178, and to the south 

by forested and open land (Figure 5–2). The site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the 

southwest. Cropland, including corn and soybeans, comprises the majority of the site. 

No residences or other buildings are located on site.

Figure 5–1. Population Centers and Transportation 

Features in Chippewa County, Wisconsin

Source: SHINE 2013a
Alternatives

5-8

Figure 5–2. Chippewa Falls Site

Source: SHINE 2013a

5.2.2.1 Land Use and Visual Resources

Land Use

The Chippewa Falls site includes 76 acres (ac) (31 hectares (ha)) of land within the northern 

portion of the City of Chippewa Falls (Figure 5–2). The site is currently zoned for light industrial 

use and is part of the Wissota Lake Business Park (City of Chippewa Falls 1999; 

WEDC 2014a). Based on a review of the National Land Cover Database, the Chippewa Falls 

site is composed of 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) of cultivated agricultural land, 9.1 ac (3.7 ha) of developed 

land, and 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of deciduous forest (Table 5–2) (USGS 2006; SHINE 2013a). State

Highway 178 borders the western boundary of the site. Warehouses and other buildings are 

located immediately to the west of State Highway 178. Agricultural fields surround the remaining 

portions of the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2015a).

An abandoned railroad right-of-way runs diagonally through the southern portion of the site. 

Some of the land south of this right-of-way has been graded for use for the Wissota Lake

Business Park. No residences, other structures, special land uses, or mineral resources are 

located within the Chippewa Falls site boundaries.

The entire site is composed of prime farmland soils where otherwise not committed to 

developed uses (NRCS 2013a; 7 CFR 657.5). Prime farmland is defined in the Farmland 

Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) as “land that has the best combination of 
Alternatives

5-9

physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other 

agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without 

intolerable soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary [of Agriculture].” The U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with State and 

local agencies, defines and delineates the soils to consider as prime farmland and farmland of 

statewide importance (7 CFR Part 657). However, otherwise qualifying “farmland” soils do not 

include those on land already in or committed to urban development or water storage, as 

defined in 7 CFR 658.2.

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)

50,265 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

Construction

Construction at the Chippewa Falls site would permanently disturb and convert 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) 

of agricultural land, 2.6 ac (1.0 ha) of developed land, and 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) of deciduous forest 

into an industrial area (Table 5–2). If SHINE needed to clear additional portions of the site to 

comply with security requirements or other measures, the total amount of affected forested 

areas could be up to 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) (SHINE 2015a). In addition, 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) of agricultural 
Alternatives

5-10

land would be temporarily converted from agricultural land to a construction parking area and 

construction material staging or laydown areas. Once construction activities are complete, 

SHINE would likely restore temporarily affected areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, 

or native prairie (SHINE 2015a). The remaining portion of the site would likely remain as open 

area, forested areas, or agricultural fields, or would be converted to cool season grasses or 

native prairie. The potential conversion of up to 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) currently used for agricultural 

and cultivated crops to other uses would be minor when compared to the 19,133 ac (7,743 ha) 

of agricultural land remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the site. Similarly, the conversion of up to

0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of deciduous forest to industrial facilities would be minor when compared to the 

7,301 ac (2,955 ha) of deciduous forest remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations require agencies to make 

Farmland Protection Policy Act evaluations part of the NEPA process to reduce the conversion 

of farmland to nonagricultural uses by Federal projects and programs. Construction of the 

proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would permanently convert 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) 

and temporarily convert 13.7 ac (5.5 ha) of prime farmland soils to industrial use. However, this 

is a small percentage of the prime farmland within the region surrounding the Chippewa Falls

site. Furthermore, the Chippewa Falls site is currently zoned for light industrial uses and is part 

of a larger development project to create the Wissota Lake Business Park (City of Chippewa 

Falls 1999; WEDC 2014a). Because the Chippewa Falls site has been committed to urban 

development and zoned for light industrial use, the Chippewa Falls site does not have qualifying 

important farmland soils subject to the Act.

Impacts on land use from construction would be SMALL, based on the relatively small amount 

of farmland and deciduous forest that would be permanently converted to other uses, the lack of 

qualifying prime farmland soils within affected areas, and the location of the proposed facility 

within an area zoned for light industrial use, as well as the fact that no effects were expected on 

special land use or mineral resources.

Operations

Operation of the SHINE facility would not require any new land or require land use changes 

beyond those required for construction. Therefore, impacts on land use during operations 

would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve 

heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Land 

requirements to perform these activities would be similar to those required during construction. 

After decommissioning activities are complete, the Chippewa Falls site could remain industrial 

or be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. Given that land requirements would be 

similar to those described during construction and that, after decommissioning is complete, the 

land would be industrial, agricultural, or open space, the NRC staff determined that the impacts 

on land use during decommissioning would be SMALL.

Visual Resources

The visual setting of the area that would be affected by the proposed SHINE facility at the 

Chippewa Falls site includes agricultural, forested, and light industrial viewsheds. The viewshed

to the north, south, and east of the Chippewa Falls site is mainly flat or has slightly rolling 

cultivated fields. In addition, trees are visible in many directions. The viewshed to the west is a

light industrial landscape, with a few warehouses and other buildings adjacent to the proposed 

site.
Alternatives

5-11

Construction

The activities associated with constructing the proposed SHINE facility (e.g., excavation, 

earthmoving, pile driving, and erecting the facility) would require large pieces of construction 

equipment, significantly altering the appearance and partially obstructing views of the existing 

landscape. However, the Chippewa Falls site has low scenic quality caused by a lack of 

notable features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, mute colors,

cultural modifications to adjacent scenery, and a commonality within the physiographic province. 

The Chippewa Falls site also has a low-to-moderate sensitivity rating, as it is in an area with low 

scenic values and a lack of special natural and wilderness areas. However, several potentially 

sensitive viewing areas exist within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Chippewa Falls site, including the 

following: more than 100 residences, a hospital, nursing home, child daycare facility, adult 

daycare facility, several medical clinics, and two colleges. Nonetheless, trees and existing 

buildings would block the view from most of these locations, which would result in a partial view 

of the Chippewa Falls site during construction. In addition, the viewshed surrounding the 

Chippewa Falls site is partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, such as 

warehouses and other buildings, and agricultural fields. Based on the low scenic quality and 

light industrial viewshed in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site, construction-related aesthetic 

impacts would be SMALL during construction.

Operations

After the facility is constructed, the appearance of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site 

would not change during operations, other than a small steam plume that may be visible coming 

from the exhaust stack. The steam plume from the exhaust stack is expected to be minimal, 

because opacity associated with the natural-gas-fired boiler and heaters tends to be low, as 

described in Section 4.2.2.1. The steam plume would be more visible during periods of cold 

weather, although the size of the steam plume would still be relatively small. Therefore, visual 

impacts during operations would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve 

heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. After 

SHINE completed decommissioning activities, the Chippewa Falls site could remain industrial, 

or be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. As the facility would be located in a district 

zoned for light industrial use and the viewshed surrounding the Chippewa Falls site is partially 

aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, the NRC staff would not expect any changes to 

the landscape during decommissioning to significantly affect any viewsheds. Therefore, visual 

impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL.

5.2.2.2 Air Quality and Noise

Air Quality

The climate in Chippewa Falls is similar to that in Janesville, which was described in 

Section 3.2. According to National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) records for the years 

1981 to 2010 (NCDC 2010a), the annual average temperature near Chippewa Falls was 44.8 °F 

(7.1 °C), annual snowfall is about 47 in. (119 cm) and average annual precipitation (rain) is 

31 in. (78.8 cm). July is the warmest month of the year and January, the coldest. The NCDC

records identify the following extreme weather events in Chippewa County from 1996 to 2013: 

thunderstorms (88 events), lightning (8 events), hail (76 events), tornadoes (2 events), heavy 

rain (23 events), and floods (2 events) (NCDC 2014a).
Alternatives

5-12

The Chippewa Falls site is located in Chippewa County and is part of the Southeast 

Minnesota-La Crosse (Wisconsin) Interstate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.66). 

Chippewa County is designated as an attainment area for sulfur dioxide and an 

attainment/unclassifiable area for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and 

particulate matter (40 CFR 81.350). Therefore, criteria pollutant concentrations in the county 

are lower than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or there is insufficient data 

to determine if the NAAQS are met. The region of influence (ROI) for the air quality analysis 

discussed below is Chippewa County, because air quality designations are made at the county 

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

Construction

Sources of air pollutant emissions during construction of the Chippewa Falls site would include 

fugitive dust from earth-moving equipment and other vehicles, criteria pollutants from diesel 

engines, and exhaust gases from worker vehicles as they commute to and from the Chippewa 

Falls construction site. Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the proposed 

SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since construction activities and the number and type 

of sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel 

combustion). Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, 

carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4–3. Construction air emissions 

would be temporary and localized. Chippewa County, as discussed above, is designated an 

attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the 

estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from 

a facility at the Chippewa Falls site to contribute to concentrations in the air that would exceed 

NAAQS or that would deteriorate Chippewa County’s attainment/unclassifiable designation. 

Furthermore, SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations 

stipulated in the WDNR Type A Registration Construction Permit.

Given the temporary nature of construction activities (18 months), the air quality designation of 

Chippewa County, and the pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from 

WDNR, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL.

Operations

Sources of air emissions from operating the facility would be from radioisotope production, fuel 

combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and vehicular traffic from workers

commuting and from monthly truck shipments in and out of the facility. Air pollutants from these 

sources would include nitrogen oxides (from radioisotope production, fuel combustion, vehicular 

traffic), sulfur dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), particulate matter (from fuel 

combustion and vehicular traffic), carbon dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), 

and carbon monoxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic). Air emissions would be 

similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since 

operation activities and the number and type of sources would be similar (worker vehicles, fuel 

combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and the production process). 

Chippewa County, as discussed above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, 

therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the estimated air emissions presented in 

Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from a facility at the Chippewa Falls site 

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.
Alternatives

5-13

Chippewa County’s attainment/unclassifiable designation. Furthermore, SHINE would be 

required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated within the Type A 

Registration Operation Permit from WDNR.

Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded, that the Chippewa County air quality is 

good, and that pollution control measures would be required in air permits from WDNR, the 

NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during operation would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities in type and duration. 

Sources of air emissions would be diesel equipment, vehicle worker emissions, and fugitive dust

from earth-moving activities. Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for the 

proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), because decommissioning activities and 

sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel 

combustion). Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, 

carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4–10. Air emissions from 

decommissioning would be temporary and localized. Chippewa County, as discussed above, is 

designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. 

Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect 

emissions from decommissioning at the Chippewa Falls site to contribute to concentrations in 

the air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Chippewa County’s 

attainment/unclassifiable designation.

Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded and the Chippewa County air quality is 

good, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during decommissioning would be

SMALL.

Noise 

The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the proposed 

SHINE facility. There are a number of noise-sensitive receptors within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius 

from the Chippewa Falls site, and the closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located 

approximately 2,112 ft (644 m) from the production building and approximately 530 feet (162 m) 

from the site boundary. As discussed above, the Chippewa Falls site is bordered to the west by

Commerce Parkway, to the north by County Highway S, and to the east by State Highway 178. 

Existing noise sources near the proposed site include vehicular traffic on these roads. The NRC

staff did not identify available noise surveys of the Chippewa Falls site and surrounding area. 

As discussed in Section 5.2.2.1 above, the Chippewa Falls site and surrounding area are 

cultivated agricultural land. Background noise levels are approximately 45 decibels on the 

A-weighted scale (dBA) in agricultural cropland areas (EPA 1978).

Construction

Noise sources during construction of the Chippewa Falls site would include construction 

equipment on site and increased traffic volumes. The maximum number of worker vehicles 

expected on site during construction is 451. The Chippewa Falls site is bordered to the west by

Commerce Parkway, to the north by County Highway S, and to the east by State Highway 178, 

and site access would be from Commerce Parkway. While workers would be able to access the 

site using a combination of routes (Section 5.2.2.10), it is reasonable to assume that Commerce 

Parkway, County Highway S, and State Highway 178 will experience an increase in traffic 

volumes. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.10, peak traffic on these roads averages around 

400 vehicles per hour, similar to Highway 51 near the Janesville site. The NRC staff estimates 

that an increase in vehicular traffic caused by 451 peak construction workers will increase noise 

levels no more than 3 dBA near these roads in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. A 3-dBA 
Alternatives

5-14

change over existing noise levels is considered to be a “just noticeable” difference, while a 

10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes 

an adverse community response (NWCC 2002).

The types of equipment that would be used on site during construction are listed in Table 4–2. 

Blasting and pile driving would not be required for excavation or installation of foundations 

(SHINE 2013a). The closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 

2,112 ft (644 m) from the center of the site and approximately 530 ft (162m) from the site 

boundary. The NRC staff estimates noise levels of 64 dBA at the residence nearest to the 

Chippewa Falls site. Background noise levels are assumed to be around 45 dBA. The increase 

in noise levels could be noticeable to residents.

Given the closeness of the nearest resident to the Chippewa Falls site and the noise levels from 

construction activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to 

MODERATE.

Operations

Noise sources during operation of the Chippewa Falls site would be traffic from worker vehicles. 

Noise from operating equipment would be contained inside buildings and is not expected to be 

audible outside the proposed SHINE building facility. The number of worker vehicles expected 

during operation is 150 (SHINE 2015a). Commerce Parkway, County Highway S, and State 

Highway 178 in the vicinity of the Chippewa Fall site will experience an increase in traffic 

volumes. The NRC staff does not expect that noise levels will increase beyond 1 dBA near 

these roads in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site and should not be noticeable. For this 

reason, the NRC staff concludes that noise impacts from facility operations would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Noise sources during decommissioning of the facility would include construction equipment on

site and increased traffic volumes, similar to construction activities. The maximum number of 

worker vehicles expected on site during decommissioning is 261. Commerce Parkway, County 

Highway S, and State Highway 178 in the vicinity of the Chippewa Fall site will experience an 

increase in traffic volumes. The NRC staff does not expect that noise levels will increase 

beyond 2 dBA near these roads in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site and should not be 

noticeable.

The types of equipment that would be used on site during decommissioning are listed in

Table 4–9. The closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 2,112 ft 

(644 m) from the production building and approximately 530 ft (162 m) from the site boundary. 

The NRC staff estimates noise levels of about 64 dBA at the nearest residence to the Chippewa 

Falls site. Background noise levels are assumed to be around 45 dBA.

Given the closeness of the nearest resident to the Chippewa Falls site and the noise levels from 

decommissioning activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to 

MODERATE.

5.2.2.3 Geologic Environment

The Chippewa Falls site is located within the Wisconsin Central Plain physiographic province. 

This province is situated near the boundary between the Superior Upland and Central Lowland 

physiographic provinces of the United States (USGS 2003; SHINE 2013a). The site location is 

near a dividing line between areas affected by the younger Wisconsin glaciations that ended 

about 11,700 years ago and older glaciations of the Illinoian age (WGNHS 2011). These events 

are further discussed in Section 3.3.1.
Alternatives

5-15

The topography of the site is relatively flat, with an average elevation of approximately 930 ft 

(283 m) mean sea level. During the NRC environmental site audit, evidence of earthwork and 

stockpiles of topsoil were observed in the central portion of the site. Geologic map coverage 

indicates that the site is located on a glacial outwash plain (Copper Falls outwash plain) formed 

by meltwater associated with the Chippewa ice lobe between approximately 26,000 and 

9,500 years ago, during the latter part of the Wisconsin glaciation. The meltwater deposited 

sediment characterized as brown to pale brown sand, gravelly sand, and sandy gravel with 

developed soil profiles of 3.2- to 3.9-ft (1- to 1.2-m) thick. Depth to the uppermost bedrock 

surface is estimated to range from 49- to 98-ft (15- to 30-m) below ground surface (bgs) 

(Syverson 2007). Bedrock in the vicinity of the site is mapped mainly as Cambrian age 

sandstones and locally (in the Chippewa Falls area), as Precambrian granitic intrusive rocks 

(Mudrey et al. 1982; WGNHS 2005).

A single geotechnical boring was completed in the north-central portion of the proposed site 

(AET 2011, SHINE 2013b). At this location, the boring encountered fill extending to a depth of 

approximately 3.5 ft (1.1 m) and underlain by a buried soil horizon (sandy silt) approximately 

1.5-ft (0.45-m) thick. Below 5 ft (1.5 m), coarse sediments composed of poorly graded sands 

and gravels were found. A static water table elevation of 50-ft (15-m) bgs is inferred from the 

boring log. The boring was terminated in dense sandy gravel at 82-ft (25-m) bgs without 

encountering bedrock (AET 2011).

Sand is being mined in several locations around Chippewa County (where the Chippewa Falls 

site is located) for use in hydraulic fracturing associated with natural gas production 

(SHINE 2013a; WGNHS 2014). Construction sand and gravel is also a commodity in the county 

(USGS 2013a), as are peat, glacial clay, and crushed Precambrian igneous or metamorphic 

rocks (Chippewa County 2010).

Soil unit mapping by NRCS identifies natural soils across the site as consisting of Sattre loam, 

0- to 3-percent slopes. This soil mapping unit is composed of well-drained loams and fine 

sandy loams and is found on outwash plains and stream terraces that developed from loamy 

glacial drift atop gravelly outwash. The profiles of these soils grade to a gravelly coarse sand or 

sand at depths greater than about 34 in. (86 cm). The depth to the water table in these soils is 

generally greater than 80 in. (200 cm) and they are not prone to ponding. The only building site 

limitation these soils have is that excavations tend to be very unstable because of the coarse 

sandy texture of subsoils and gravelly content. These soils are all prime farmland soils, where 

otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013a; 7 CFR 657.5).

As further described in Section 3.3.3, the State of Wisconsin lays within the central portion of 

the stable North American craton. Regional seismicity is characterized by relatively infrequent, 

small-to-moderate earthquakes that are typical of much of the central and eastern United States 

(USGS 2013b). Similar to the Janesville site, seismic hazard estimates prepared by the 

U.S. Geological Service (USGS) indicate that the site is located within one of the lowest 

earthquake hazard areas in the conterminous United States (Petersen et al. 2011).

Within a radius of 200 mi (322 km) of the Chippewa Falls site, only 2 earthquakes with a 

magnitude equal to or greater than 2.5 have been recorded since 1973. These events occurred 

in January 1988 and February 1994. The closest was a magnitude 3.6 earthquake with an 

epicenter approximately 140 mi (225 km) north of the site in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan 

(USGS 2013c).

Construction

Ground-disturbing activities associated with facility construction would have impacts on geologic 

and soil resources similar to those discussed for the Janesville site (Section 4.3.1). Earthwork 
Alternatives

5-16

requirements and the ease of excavation would be very similar, as soils and surficial strata are 

comparable for the two sites. The depth to bedrock is not a concern for excavation work for the 

below-grade portions of the facility. As at the Janesville site, shallow excavations could be 

prone to slumping, caused by the texture of the soils. The potential for soil erosion and loss 

would be similar to that at the Janesville site. However, as described in Section 4.3.1, 

adherence to standard best management practices (BMPs) for soil erosion and sediment control 

and compliance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge Construction 

Site Storm Water Runoff (Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit 

No. WI-S067831-4) would serve to minimize soil erosion and loss.

Site work and the creation of an impervious surface would result in the irretrievable loss of prime 

farmland soils equal to the acreage disturbed and converted to an impervious surface. Given 

that the potential for soil erosion and loss is minimal and that SHINE would be required to 

comply with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

No. WI-S067831-4), the NRC staff finds that the impacts on the geologic environment from the 

construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

Operations

There would be no additional impact on geology and soils from facility operations at the 

Chippewa Falls site. Land temporarily disturbed during construction within the site boundary 

and lying outside the facility footprint would be revegetated. Regardless of the site location, the 

proposed SHINE facility would be sited, designed, and constructed in accordance with all 

applicable building codes, which provide for the evaluation of site geologic and soil conditions, 

including potential seismic hazards.

Therefore, the NRC staff finds that the operational impacts associated with the geologic 

environment at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Facility demolition and other ground-disturbing activities associated with decommissioning 

would have impacts on soils and sediments similar to those described for construction. As site 

activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable local, State, and other Federal 

regulations and permits, the NRC staff finds that the impacts on the geologic environment from 

facility decommissioning at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

5.2.2.4 Water Resources

Surface Water

No streams or other surface-water bodies exist within the boundaries of the Chippewa Falls site 

(SHINE 2013a). The major surface-water feature in the vicinity of the site is Lake Wissota, an 

impoundment of the Chippewa River, located about 0.8 mi (1.3 km) east of the site. From the 

downstream end of the lake, the Chippewa River flows to the west immediately south of the site 

before taking a more southerly course toward Eau Claire (SHINE 2015a). Drainage from the 

site would be expected to travel south and southeast toward the Chippewa River.

The Chippewa River is one of the largest rivers in Wisconsin. Within the subbasin in which the 

Chippewa Falls site is located, the river flows for 103 mi (166 km), extending from the Holcombe 

Dam in northern Chippewa and southern Rusk counties to the Mississippi River. This river 

section includes five flowages created by dams owned and operated by Northern States Power 

Company for hydropower generation and some 69 mi (111 km) of free-flowing river. The largest 

of these flowages (Lake Wissota) comprises 6,212 ac (2,500 ha) (WDNR 2013a).

The nearest USGS gaging station on the Chippewa River is just southwest of the site in 

Chippewa Falls (Station 05365500). The mean annual discharge measured at the USGS gage 
Alternatives

5-17

for water years 1888 to 2012 is 4,974 cubic ft per second (cfs) (140.5 cubic m per second 

(m3

/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/s). The drainage 

area of the river upstream of the station encompasses 5,560 mi2 (14,630 km2

) (USGS 2012a).

No floodplains have been delineated on or near the site or within the Lake Wissota Business 

Park (Chippewa County 2010; SHINE 2013a; WEDC 2014a), and no tributaries to the Chippewa 

River originate on or near the site that could present backwater flooding concerns.

The State of Wisconsin has established water-quality standards and numeric criteria and 

associated designated-use categories for all waters of the State, as previously described in 

Section 3.4.1, and in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 102 and 

NR 104). Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify 

“impaired” waters for which effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to 

attain water-quality standards in such waters. The Chippewa River at Lake Wissota has a 

designated use for fish and aquatic life and is identified as impaired because of contaminated 

fish stemming from polychlorinated biphenyls and, historically, mercury (WDNR 2013a).

In Chippewa County, surface water is used for self-supplied industrial and commercial uses and 

with minor use for irrigation, livestock watering, and mining. However, groundwater is the 

primary and almost exclusive source for the domestic and municipal water supply 

(Buchwald 2011; Chippewa County 2010).

No industrial wastewater discharges have been identified in the site vicinity. Sanitary sewer 

service is provided to Wissota Business Park by the City of Chippewa Falls through a 24-in 

(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

/d)), and 

demand is approximately 2.2 mgd (8,330 m3

/d) (Chippewa County 2010; WEDC 2013a).

Groundwater

The surficial aquifer system occurs in the Chippewa River Basin and its associated drainages 

across Chippewa County (Olcott 1992). It is predominantly composed of Pleistocene-age 

glacial sediments and younger alluvial sediments that lie atop the bedrock surface (Olcott 1992). 

At the Chippewa Falls site, the surficial aquifer resides in the thick blanket of the Copper Falls 

glacial outwash identified at the site (Section 5.2.2.3). Consolidated bedrock aquifers of the 

Cambrian–Ordovician aquifer system and of the Jacobsville sandstone and crystalline rock 

aquifers underlie the site or are present in the region.

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

/min) of water (Lippelt 1988). The depth to groundwater 

at the site is 50 ft (15 m), as noted in Section 5.2.2.3. Groundwater beneath the site would also 

be expected to flow south and southeast toward the Chippewa River.

No groundwater quality data are available for the surficial (sand and gravel) unit beneath the 

site, and no wells are known to have been drilled on the site location. Groundwater across the 

county is generally suitable in quantity and quality to meet domestic potable, agricultural, 

municipal, and industrial needs (Chippewa County 2010). The water is generally soft with local 

high concentrations of iron (Chippewa County 2010). Nitrate is a contamination of concern in 

many areas. The State of Wisconsin regulates groundwater quality and administers 

groundwater protection programs in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code

(NR 140).

As previously noted, municipalities in Chippewa County obtain potable water from groundwater 

sources. The Wissota Business Park, in which the Chippewa Falls site is located, would be 
Alternatives

5-18

served by a 16-in. (41-cm) water main with water originating from the City of Chippewa Falls 

(WEDC 2014a). The City of Chippewa Falls has nine wells and can supply 2.4 mgd 

(9,100 m3

/d) of water (Chippewa County 2010). These wells are all completed in the surficial 

unit at depths ranging from 43 to 97 ft (13 to 30 m) (WDNR 2013b). Communities that provide 

water service through municipal wells must follow Chippewa County’s wellhead protection plan 

(Chippewa County 2010).

Construction

Facility construction activities at the Chippewa Falls site would not have any direct impact on 

surface-water resources, as no streams or other surface-water bodies originate within the 

boundaries of the site. The major surface-water feature in the vicinity of the site is Lake 

Wissota, located about 0.8 mi (1.33 km) east of the site. In addition, construction and 

excavation activities would not be expected to have any impact on groundwater hydrology at the 

Chippewa Falls site, as the depth to groundwater is about 50 ft (15 m) (American Engineering 

Testing 2011).

As discussed above (Geologic Environment) and detailed in Section 4.4.1.1 for the Janesville 

site, ground-disturbing activities at the Chippewa Falls site would be subject to a Wisconsin 

General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This General Permit requires the 

development of appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures and spill prevention 

and waste management practices to minimize suspended sediment, the transport of other 

deleterious materials, and potential water-quality impacts.

No surface water would be withdrawn to support construction at the site (SHINE 2013a). The 

relatively small volume of water required to support construction activities (averaging about 

0.012 mgd (45 m3

/day)) would be supplied by the City of Chippewa Falls, which uses 

groundwater. Water could either be supplied by a temporary water tap or trucked to the point of 

use. Wastewater generation would be limited to sanitary waste from the construction workforce 

and would likely be accommodated through the use of portable restroom facilities.

As no natural surface-water features occur on the site, SHINE would not divert or withdraw 

surface water to support facility construction, there would be no onsite withdrawal of 

groundwater, and SHINE would be subject to the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

No. WI-S067831-4), the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on surface and groundwater 

hydrology, water quality, and water use from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility at 

the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

Operations

Normal facility operations would not have any direct impact on surface water or groundwater 

hydrology or quality. Compliance with the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

No. WI-S067831-4), as described for construction, specifically requires the development of a 

stormwater management plan with appropriate BMPs to address runoff from buildings and other 

impervious surfaces. As detailed in Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.2.2 for the Janesville site, the 

design, construction, and operation of the proposed facility would include necessary structural 

controls, and operations would be subject to appropriate plans and procedures (including a Spill 

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan) to prevent any spills or other releases 

from reaching soils or surfaces where they could be conveyed to surface waters or 

groundwater.

Total water use is projected to be 6,073 gpd (22,990 liters per day (Lpd)), or 0.006 mgd 

(23 m3

/day) and would be supplied by the City of Chippewa Falls by a service connection from 

the Wissota Business Park (SHINE 2013a, 2013b, 2014). Estimated demand is a small 

percentage of the City of Chippewa Falls’ supply capacity.
Alternatives

5-19

Operation of the proposed SHINE facility would entail no direct discharge of wastewater

effluents to either surface water or groundwater. Wastewater generated by facility operations, 

composed primarily of sanitary waste, would be discharged to the City of Chippewa Falls WTP 

(SHINE 2015a). Section 5.2.2.9 discusses the management of other waste forms.

Given that SHINE would not divert or withdraw surface water to support facility operation and 

would develop and implement spill prevention and response procedures, the NRC staff 

concludes that the impacts on surface and groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water use 

from the operation of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Facility decontamination, demolition, and site-restoration activities would be similar, regardless 

of the site, with the potential magnitude of the impacts on surface water and groundwater similar 

to those discussed for construction. Specifically, SHINE would conduct site activities in 

accordance with appropriate BMPs and would observe waste handling and pollution prevention 

practices and spill prevention and response procedures during decommissioning, so that no 

materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater, where they could 

contaminate water resources.

Small quantities of water that may be required for dust control and soil compaction in 

association with site restoration activities would be supplied from municipal sources, as 

discussed for construction.

Given that no natural surface-water features occur on the site, that water requirements would be 

minimal, and that SHINE would develop and implement spill prevention and response 

procedures as part of State permit requirements for ground-disturbing activities, the NRC staff 

concludes that the impacts on water resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL.

5.2.2.5 Ecological Resources

The Chippewa Falls site consists of 66.5 ac (26.9 ha) of agricultural land, 9.1 ac (3.7 ha) of 

developed land, and 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of deciduous forest (Table 5–2). As described in 

Section 5.2.2.1, these land use covers are based on the USGS (2006) land cover database. 

During a field reconnaissance survey, the SHINE staff observed a small wetland community in a 

narrow drainage way along the eastern edge of the site that was not included in the USGS land 

cover database. Plant species on the site vary depending on previous land uses. For example, 

actively cultivated crops on the site include corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). 

Fallow agricultural land on the southern portion of the site has been graded in preparation for 

use by the Wissota Lake Business Park. Plants in this portion of the site are typical of an old 

field plant community, such as goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and aster (Symphyotrichum spp.). An 

abandoned railroad right-of-way crosses the site and is surrounded by a few deciduous tree 

species (trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides and 

dogwoods (Cornus spp.)); a few prairie remnant species; and plants tolerant of physical 

disturbances. Wetland species observed in the narrow drainage way along the eastern edge of 

the site include common cattail (Typha latifolia), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), dock (Rumex

spp.), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and spikerush (Eleocharis spp.) 

(SHINE 2015a).

The Chippewa Falls site provides habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other 

wildlife tolerant of open fields, cultivated grasses, and frequent disturbances from human 

activity. During a reconnaissance survey, SHINE observed several birds at the Chippewa Falls 

site, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), 

black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), and various sparrows (SHINE 2015a). Common 
Alternatives

5-20

mammals that inhabit the site likely include deer, raccoons, squirrels, and rabbits. Common 

reptiles and amphibians that inhabit the site likely include frogs and snakes.

Other than the one wetland identified along the eastern edge of the site, no water bodies or 

aquatic habitats exist within the boundaries of the Chippewa Falls site. The closest aquatic 

features to the Chippewa Falls site include a wetland that is 0.25 mi (0.4 km) from the site, 

Lake Wissota, that is approximately 0.8 mi (1.3 km) north-northwest of the site, and the 

Chippewa River that is approximately 0.9 mi (1.4 km) south of the site (SHINE 2013a). 

Lake Wissota and the Chippewa River are important ecological habitats for fish, invertebrates, 

and other aquatic organisms and plants (WDNR 2014a, 2014b).

In correspondence with the NRC, FWS (2013) did not identify any Federally listed species on or 

near the Chippewa Falls site (FWS 2013). Three species of special concern and one 

State-endangered fish could occur within 6 mi (10 km) of the Chippewa Falls site (Table 5–3)

(SHINE 2013a; WDNR 2014a). While these species may occur within the vicinity of the site, the 

Chippewa Falls site provides unsuitable habitat for any of the four State-protected species

(SHINE 2015a; WDNR 2014a). SHINE did not observe any Federally or State-protected 

species on the Chippewa Falls site during reconnaissance surveys (SHINE 2015a).

Table 5–3. Federally and State-Protected Species

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

The FWS administers the BGEPA, which prohibits anyone from taking bald (Haliaeetus 

Ieucocephalus) or golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), including their nests or eggs, without a 

permit issued by the FWS. FWS (2013) determined that bald eagles occur within the vicinity of 

the Chippewa Falls site.

The FWS also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which prohibits anyone from taking 

native migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The majority of the bird species that 

occur in Wisconsin, except for resident games birds and feral species, are protected under this

Act (WDNR 2014c). In the vicinity of the site, migratory birds rely on riparian, forested, 

grassland, and wetland habitats as important areas for foraging, resting, avoiding predators, 

and, for some species, breeding. On the Chippewa Falls site, migratory birds likely use trees for 

resting and possibly breeding, nesting, and foraging.

Construction

Construction of the SHINE facility would result in permanently converting 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) of 

deciduous forest and 14.9 ac (6.0 ha) of agricultural fields into an industrial facility or developed 

open space, such as parking lots. The deciduous forest would include trees growing along the 
Alternatives

5-21

abandoned railroad right-of-way. The agricultural fields would include part of the cropland in the 

northern half of the site and part of the fallow field in the southern part of the site. In addition, 

13.7 ac (5.5 ha) of cropland in the northern part of the site would be temporarily disturbed during 

construction. Agricultural and open fields are abundant within the region and provide relatively 

low-quality habitat for birds and wildlife in comparison to forests, grasslands, and wetland 

habitats. In addition to a loss of habitat, noise from construction activities could disturb birds 

and wildlife. In response to such disturbances, birds and wildlife could move out of the 

immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity.

During construction, bird collisions with construction equipment and the new facility could result 

in mortality from the presence of tall structures (e.g., stacks or cranes) and artificial night lighting 

during nighttime construction. The size of structures and the likelihood of mortality from bird 

collisions would be similar to that described in Section 4.5 for the proposed SHINE site in 

Janesville. In that analysis, the NRC staff determined that impacts from bird collisions would be 

negligible and unlikely to affect local or migratory populations, based on previous reviews of bird 

collisions at nuclear power plants that are similar or larger in height and size than the proposed 

SHINE facility.

Construction at the Chippewa Falls site is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic 

resources, such as habitat loss, because no aquatic resources would be within the footprint of 

the proposed facility or the construction laydown areas. Runoff from the site could affect the 

onsite wetland or offsite aquatic resources by increasing turbidity or introducing various 

chemicals or other pollutants. WDNR recommended that SHINE implement strict erosion and 

siltation controls during the entire construction period to minimize impacts on State-protected 

species that could use Lake Wissota and the Chippewa River (SHINE 2015a). SHINE (2013a) 

stated, in its ER, that if the Chippewa Falls site were selected, SHINE would implement 

appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs to minimize the transport of suspended 

sediment and other pollutants.

In response to the NRC staff’s request for endangered and threatened species that could be 

affected by the proposed construction and operations, FWS (2013) stated that bald eagles and 

migratory birds could be found either on or within the vicinity of the site. FWS (2013) 

recommended further discussions if any active bald eagle nests are identified on the site. In 

addition, if the Chippewa Falls site is selected, FWS (2013) recommended that any tree removal 

occur before May 1 or after August 30 to minimize impacts on breeding migratory birds, which 

may use the trees for breeding, nesting, foraging, or resting. Given that construction would not 

permanently or temporarily affect any high-quality habitats, such as grasslands, undisturbed 

forests, or wetlands; permanently and temporarily affected habitats are abundant within the 

region; and mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, the NRC staff concludes 

that impacts on ecological resources during construction would be SMALL. If the Chippewa 

Falls site were selected, FWS (2013) recommended that SHINE survey the site for any active 

bald eagle nests and refrain from tree removal from May 1 to August 30. If SHINE identified 

active bald eagle nests at the site, or removed trees from May 1 to August 30, the impacts 

would be greater.

Operations

During operations, impacts on ecological resources could result from bird collisions, herbicide 

applications for landscape maintenance activities, elevated noise levels, and increased turbidity 

or introduction of pollutants from runoff. As described in Section 4.5, mortality from bird 

collisions is expected to be negligible, given that the tallest structure would be a stack 

approximately 66 ft (20 m) tall. Disturbance from daily activities, herbicide applications, or 

elevated noise levels is likely to have minimal impacts on wildlife and plant species, given that 
Alternatives

5-22

the species identified at the Chippewa Falls site are generally tolerant of disturbance, because 

the land has been actively farmed or modified for human use over the past several decades. In 

response to any disturbances during operations, birds and wildlife could move out of the 

immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity.

Operation of the facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic resources, 

because wastewater would be discharged to the City of Chippewa Falls sanitary sewer system 

after being treated (SHINE 2013a). Indirect impacts during operations could include runoff that 

may contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or herbicides. However, 

as described above, impacts on aquatic resources are expected to be minimal because of the 

distance to Lake Wissota and the Chippewa River, and SHINE would be required, in its 

stormwater permit, to use appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs.

Given that mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, habitat disturbances during 

operations would be minimal, any disturbed wildlife could find similar habitat in the vicinity, 

BMPs would be required in the SHINE stormwater permit, and no Federally or State-listed 

species occur on the SHINE site, impacts on ecological resources during operations would be 

SMALL.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities would have similar impacts on those that occur during construction 

of the proposed facility. For example, SHINE would use construction equipment to dismantle 

large buildings, which could result in disturbances to wildlife and birds and potential runoff to 

nearby water bodies. In addition, some land on the site could be used as staging areas for the 

equipment and to conduct certain dismantling activities. As described above, if noise or other 

activities disturb birds or wildlife, similar habitat is available in nearby offsite areas. No surface 

water would be used during decommissioning, and SHINE would develop and implement spill 

prevention and response procedures as part of State permit requirements for ground-disturbing 

activities. Therefore, impacts during decommissioning are expected to be SMALL.

5.2.2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

A review of databases maintained by the National Park Service indicates that there are 

12 historic properties listed in the NRHP within Chippewa County (NPS 2015a). These 

properties reflect the historic cultural contexts for the proposed Chippewa Falls site and include 

buildings, structures, and districts dating from the mid-19th to mid-20th centuries. However, no 

historic properties are located within the area of potential effect (APE), the Chippewa Falls site, 

or its immediate vicinity. The closest NRHP-listed property is the Notre Dame Church and 

Goldsmith Memorial Chapel, approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) southwest of the Chippewa Falls site. 

The Church and Chapel are Romanesque in style. They are significant for their architectural 

design and for being the first church established in Chippewa County (NHRP 2013a). No 

archeological survey was commissioned by SHINE for the Chippewa Falls site. The NRC staff 

queried the Archaeological Sites Inventory and Architectural History Inventory, the Burial Sites 

Inventory, and the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports at the Wisconsin Historical Society 

(WHS). No known historic or cultural resources or historic properties were found at the 

Chippewa Falls site (NRC 2013). In July 2015, the NRC received a determination from the 

WHS that no historic properties would be affected (WHS 2015) (see Appendix D).

As there are no known historic properties, under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), or historic and cultural 

resources located within the APE, impacts on these resources are not likely during the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. The facility 

would also have little or no visual or aesthetic impact, as potential visual impacts during 

construction and decommissioning would be temporary. The proposed SHINE facility is a 
Alternatives

5-23

low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) away and is 

surrounded by residential and commercial properties. However, previously unidentified cultural 

resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-disturbing activities associated with 

construction, maintenance during operations, and decommissioning. It is expected that SHINE 

would employ a cultural resource management plan (CRMP), similar to the one discussed in 

Section 4.6, to manage and protect as-yet-unidentified cultural resources.

Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on 

the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) CRMP procedures, and (3) cultural resource assessment 

and consultations, construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the 

Chippewa Falls site would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, 

given the possibility of the inadvertent discovery of unidentified cultural resources caused by 

land disturbance during construction, operations, and decommissioning, the overall impact 

would be SMALL.

5.2.2.7 Socioeconomics

Affected Environment

For the purposes of this analysis, the ROI is Chippewa County, Wisconsin, with special 

consideration being given to the site of the facility in Chippewa Falls. The City of Chippewa 

Falls is the county seat in Chippewa County. According to the 2010 Census, the total 

population of Chippewa Falls was 13,661 and the total population of Chippewa County was 

62,415 (USCB 2014a). The population in Chippewa County steadily increased from 1970 to 

2010, with a large increase of 13.1 percent from 2000 to 2010. According to the 2010 Census, 

there were 6,304 total housing units in the City of Chippewa Falls and 27,185 total housing units 

for Chippewa County. The total number of vacant housing units in the City of Chippewa Falls 

was 408 (6 percent) and 2,775 (10 percent) in Chippewa County (USCB 2014b).

Chippewa County had the highest employment by industry in manufacturing with employment at 

5,121 (26.97 percent), followed by the trades, transportation, and utilities (BLS 2013). Several 

industries are represented in the City of Chippewa Falls; the top employers are in the medical, 

education, retail, government, and manufacturing industries. The top three employers in 

Chippewa County were TTM Advanced Circuits Inc., Chippewa Falls Public School, and Saint 

Joseph’s Hospital, as reported by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development 

(WDWD) for the first quarter of 2013 (WDWD 2013).

There was a slight decline in the labor force total between 2011 and 2012 in the City of 

Chippewa Falls. However, during this same time period, the unemployment rate in the City of 

Chippewa Falls dropped from 9.5 percent to 7.6 percent. In 2011, the Chippewa County 

unemployment rate was 6.5 percent, while the State of Wisconsin unemployment rate was 

6.9 percent. Both were lower than in the City of Chippewa Falls (BLS 2013). According to the 

2011 Migrant Population Report issued by the WDWD, there are no migrant workers in 

Chippewa County (WDWD 2014).

According to 2007–2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the median family 

income for the City of Chippewa Falls for 2007–2011 was $51,486, while for Chippewa County, 

it was $58,544. The Chippewa County per capita income was $23,777 and the City of 

Chippewa Falls was slightly higher, with a per capita income of $23,885 (USCB 2014a). Tax 

rates vary by jurisdiction.

The City of Chippewa Falls has a fire and emergency services department and police 

department and houses the Chippewa County Emergency Management Department. This 

Department is responsible for developing hazardous materials plans, maintaining public files for 

facilities storing more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kg) of hazardous materials, conducting 
Alternatives

5-24

disaster exercises and training activities, coordinating highway safety programs and grants, and 

coordinating Chippewa County radio communications (Chippewa County 2013). The City of 

Chippewa Falls Water Department gets its water supply from nine drilled wells. In addition to 

supplying water, it is responsible for preventing groundwater contamination.

The Chippewa Falls Area Unified School District had a total of 5,007 students enrolled in 

pre-kindergarten to grade 12 for 2012–2013 in six elementary schools, one middle school, one 

high school, and one alternative school (Chippewa Area Unified School District 2013).

There are also several higher education schools in the area, including: the University of 

Wisconsin—Eau Claire, University of Wisconsin—Stout, Chippewa Valley Technical College, 

and Lakeland College—Chippewa Falls Center (Chippewa Area Unified School District 2013).

The City of Chippewa Falls has a number of recreational facilities, including several trails for 

walking, biking, and cross-country skiing, and an ice arena. In addition, there are 

31 campgrounds in the City of Chippewa Falls, numerous community parks, and 2 golf courses 

(WDNR undated). Cultural institutions include the Chippewa Falls Museum of Industry and 

Technology, the County Historical Society & Genealogical Society, the Cook–Rutledge 

Mansion, the Eau Claire Regional Arts Center (Eau Claire), the Fanny Hill Dinner Theater 

(Eau Claire), the Heyde Center for the Arts, and the Irvine Park and Zoo.

Impact Analysis

The estimated number of workers needed to construct, operate, and decommission the SHINE

facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be the same as the number of workers required for the 

proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site.

Construction

The 451 workers needed to construct the proposed SHINE facility would represent 3 percent of

the total population (13,661) of Chippewa Falls and less than 1 percent of the population of 

Chippewa County (62, 415) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Most construction workers would likely 

reside within the ROI and would not permanently relocate because of the relatively short 

duration (18 months) of construction. In addition, support infrastructure within the ROI would be 

able to accommodate a temporary increase in population. Since most of the 451 construction 

workers would likely already reside in the ROI, there would be no increase in demand for public 

services. Assuming that SHINE would enter into a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement 

with the City of Chippewa Falls, similar to the agreement with the City of Janesville, in the first 

10 years of the proposed project, the TIF agreement would allow SHINE to make payments in 

lieu of taxes to the City of Chippewa Falls. Tax payments totaling $600,000 per year would be 

used to offset infrastructure expenses (SHINE 2015a). SHINE would also pay property taxes,

estimated to be $35,000 per year, based on the assessed property before improvements during 

this 10-year period (SHINE 2015a). The Chippewa Area Unified School District would receive a 

portion of the property tax benefits, since the Chippewa Falls site is located in that district. 

Sales tax revenue would also increase if materials and services were purchased within the ROI

during construction. However, the total amount of tax revenue generated within the ROI during 

construction would be relatively small in comparison to the established tax base of Chippewa 

Falls and Chippewa County; Chippewa Fall’s 2012 collected taxes were approximately 

$7.6 million, while Chippewa County collected approximately $20.6 million in taxes in 2012

(WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during the construction of the 

proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.
Alternatives

5-25

Operations

The 150 operations workers would represent 1 percent of the total 2010 population of Chippewa 

Falls (13,661) and less than 1 percent of Chippewa County (62,415) (USCB 2014a). It is likely 

that some workers would relocate to the ROI. However, the total number of operations workers 

would not create a significant socioeconomic impact. There is sufficient housing available in the 

ROI to accommodate any increase in the population from the proposed SHINE facility. There is 

also sufficient capacity in the public schools to accommodate the small increase in the 

school-age population when the proposed SHINE facility operations workers and their families 

relocate to the ROI. Public services, including water utilities, would be able to support the 

increased needs of operations workers and their families. SHINE would continue to make 

payments in lieu of taxes (estimated $600,000) and property taxes (estimated $35,000) during 

facility operations (SHINE 2015a). However, after expiration of the 10-year TIF agreement with 

the City of Chippewa Falls, SHINE would pay property taxes of approximately $660,000 per 

year (SHINE 2015a). The amount of property taxes could change, depending on the assessed 

value of the proposed SHINE facility. The Chippewa Area Unified School District would also 

continue to receive property tax revenue from SHINE during facility operations. In addition, 

overall sales and property tax revenues would increase within the ROI, caused by the increase 

in the population from operations workers relocating to the ROI. However, the total amount of 

tax revenue generated during this period within the ROI would be relatively small in comparison 

to the established tax base of Chippewa Falls and Chippewa County. In 2012, Chippewa Falls 

received approximately $7.6 million in tax revenue, while Chippewa County received 

approximately $20.6 million (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during 

SHINE facility operations would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

The 261 decommissioning workers would represent 2 percent of the total population of 

Chippewa Falls (13,661) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Because of the short duration of 

decommissioning (6 months), workers would not likely relocate permanently to Chippewa Falls, 

and some of the SHINE operations workers could transition to decommissioning. Since it is 

likely that most decommissioning workers would already reside in the ROI, there would be little 

or no increased demand for public services. In addition, support infrastructure within the ROI 

would be able to accommodate any temporary increase in population. Therefore, the overall 

socioeconomic impact during the decommissioning of the SHINE facility would be SMALL.

5.2.2.8 Human Health

Construction

The construction of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to that for the 

Janesville site. For example, there would be no significant physical differences in the design of 

the facility, workers would be exposed to similar construction hazards, and SHINE would 

implement similar construction methods and safety practices (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.8 of 

this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the 

Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences 

between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from 

construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

Operations

The radiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to 

that for the Janesville site. Radiological exposures associated with a SHINE facility at the

Chippewa Falls site would include similar radiation sources and radioactive effluents, as well as 
Alternatives

5-26

implementation of a radiation protection program to minimize and ensure compliance with 

worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 (SHINE 2015a).

The nonradiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site also would be 

similar to that for the Janesville site. Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at 

the Chippewa Falls site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste 

management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, 

physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive 

material, would be essentially the same as those for a SHINE facility at the Janesville site

(SHINE 2015a).

In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from operation of the proposed 

SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no 

significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the 

radiological and nonradiological impacts on human health from operations at the proposed 

SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

The decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to that 

proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the two 

sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2015a).

After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and 

associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe 

condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition 

until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. Facility workers would continue to receive 

radiation exposure during work activities relating to the cleanup, movement, storage, and 

disposal of radioactive material. The types and amounts of nonradioactive material generated 

during decommissioning would be similar to those generated at the Janesville site. The 

radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of this EIS would be used 

during decommissioning to ensure that worker and public radiation doses and exposure to 

nonradioactive chemicals remain within NRC and State limits.

In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from decommissioning the proposed 

SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there would be no 

significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and operations, and 

radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to ensure hazards to workers and 

the public would be within NRC and State limits, the NRC staff concludes the impacts on human 

health from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be 

SMALL.

5.2.2.9 Waste Management

Construction

The construction of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would generate similar types 

and volumes of waste to those for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical 

differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the potential 

types and volume of waste generated from construction (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.9 of this 

EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during construction of the proposed SHINE 

facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant 

differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the impacts 

from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.
Alternatives

5-27

Operations

The radiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would 

generate similar types and volumes of radioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. There 

are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that 

would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the proposed 

facility (SHINE 2015a). In addition, management of the radioactive waste would be similar, 

regardless of the location of the proposed facility. Implementation of a radiation protection 

program to minimize radiation exposure from the radioactive waste and to ensure compliance 

with worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 would be essentially the same as those 

discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS for a proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site

(SHINE 2015a).

The nonradiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would 

generate similar types and volumes of nonradioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. 

There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites 

that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the 

proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the 

Chippewa Falls site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste 

management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, 

physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive 

material, would be essentially the same as those discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS for a 

proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a).

In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from radiological and nonradiological 

waste generated during facility operations at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site 

would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites 

or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the radiological and nonradiological impacts on 

human health from waste generated from operating the proposed SHINE facility at the 

Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be similar to 

that proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the 

two sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2015a).

After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and 

associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe 

condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition 

until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. The types and amounts of radioactive and 

nonradioactive wastes generated during decommissioning would be similar to those generated 

at the Janesville site. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of 

this EIS would be used during decommissioning to protect workers and the public from the 

waste (SHINE 2013a).

In Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during decommissioning 

of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there 

would be no significant differences between the two sites or the facility’s design and operation, 

and radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to protect workers and the public 

from the waste, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from waste during decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.
Alternatives

5-28

5.2.2.10 Transportation

Major roads and transportation features in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site are shown in 

Figure 5–1. The site lies northeast of the City of Chippewa Falls and is bordered by Commerce 

Parkway (Old State Trunk Highway 178) to the west, County Highway S to the north, and State 

Trunk Highway 178 (Seymour Cray Boulevard) to the east. Commerce Parkway is a two-lane 

road along which access to the site would be constructed. At the northwest corner of the site, 

Commerce Parkway intersects with County Highway S at a two-way stop. South of the site, 

Commerce Parkway intersects with County Highway I at a signalized intersection. Like 

Commerce Parkway, County Highway S is also a two-lane road with paved shoulders, while 

County Highway I is a four-lane road with curbed shoulders and a two-way turning lane as the 

median. The nearest major highway to the Chippewa Falls site is U.S. Highway 53, located 

approximately 5 mi (8 km) to the west, while Interstate 94 is located approximately 13 mi 

(21 km) to the south (SHINE 2013a).

Annual average daily traffic volumes for various roads and locations in the vicinity of the 

Chippewa Falls site are listed in Table 5–4. Morning, midday, and evening peak hourly traffic 

counts for associated locations are listed in Table 5–5. Available traffic data for Commerce 

Parkway near the Chippewa Falls site suggests that peak traffic along this corridor averages 

between 200 and 300 vehicles per hour (WDOT 2011a).

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

Table 5–5. Estimated Annual Average Peak and Daily Total 

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
Alternatives

5-29

WDOT 

Count 

Site # Location

Year of 

Count

A.M. 

Peak(a)

Midday 

Peak(b)

P.M. 

Peak(c)

Daily 

Total

(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

Construction

Given that construction at the Chippewa Falls site would be very similar to that described for the 

proposed Janesville site, SHINE estimated that construction of the proposed SHINE facility at 

the Chippewa Falls site would require an average of 420 deliveries per month (14 deliveries per 

day) and 9 offsite waste shipments per month using heavy vehicles (dump trucks/delivery 

trucks) (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during construction would add an 

estimated 451 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff

similarly assumed that, with a total of 465 vehicles per day, each having an arrival and 

departure trip, and some vehicles making return trips during the day (e.g., offsite trips for lunch), 

vehicle counts immediately adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility may temporarily increase by 

approximately 1,000 trips per day.

As with the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, no sources or routes for construction 

materials, including concrete, have been specified, and SHINE plans to ensure that delivery 

routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas associated with the Chippewa Falls site

(SHINE 2013). SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the 

applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in 

NRC’s regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin’s Administrative Code, 

Chapter 326, “Transportation”; and the Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements 

(49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). Table 5–4 indicates that Commerce Parkway 

experiences approximately 3,700 vehicles per day adjacent to the Chippewa Falls site. 

Accordingly, the addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips per day) 

from SHINE construction activities would result in an increased traffic volume on Commerce 

Parkway of up to 27 percent. Additionally, the percentage of heavy trucks on this route would 

temporarily increase. However, available traffic counts do not distinguish between types of 

vehicles currently traveling this route, and the increase in traffic volume would be temporary and 

limited to the period of construction.

SHINE’s traffic analysis indicated that projected levels of peak construction-related traffic could 

noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, but these delays would not be sufficient to 

destabilize the transportation infrastructure (SHINE 2015a). SHINE plans to use a staggered 

construction work shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto Commerce Parkway and 

schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help mitigate the potential two-to-three-fold 

increases in traffic that could occur during peak periods (SHINE 2013b). Increased traffic 

volumes on Commerce Parkway may also merit mitigation in the form of infrastructure upgrades 

at its intersections with County Highways S and I. Increased traffic volumes on other roads in 

the vicinity are expected to be less but could still be significant (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the 

impact on transportation infrastructure during construction would be MODERATE.
Alternatives

5-30

Operations

Given that operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls sites would be very similar to 

that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that a maximum of 150 worker vehicles 

distributed over three work shifts per day would access the site using Commerce Parkway 

(SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff estimated that each vehicle would require separate trips 

to and from the proposed SHINE facility, plus a number of trips to and from the proposed SHINE 

facility during the midshift, resulting in approximately 325 additional worker vehicle trips daily. 

The additional 325 vehicle trips associated with the Chippewa Falls site represents an increase 

of less than 10 percent of the average annual daily traffic on roads in the area.

In addition to operations employees commuting to the proposed facility, SHINE estimated that 

additional traffic to and from the facility would also include:

• an average of 36 truck deliveries per month to the proposed SHINE facility, which 

would include both radioactive and nonradioactive materials (SHINE 2015a, 2015b);

• an average of 39 outbound product shipments per month through the Chippewa 

Valley Regional Airport (SHINE 2015b);

• an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year (SHINE 2015b); and 

• an average of one shipment per month of nonradioactive domestic and industrial 

waste (SHINE 2015a, 2015b).

SHINE’s preferred method of product shipments would be to transport product by truck from the 

Chippewa Falls site to the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, approximately 10 mi (16 km) 

away, for air transport to customers. The next closest available airport for product shipment is 

the Minneapolis–St. Paul Airport, located approximately 2 hours west of the Chippewa Falls site 

on Interstate 94 (SHINE 2015a).

The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

SHINE facility to increase slightly above current levels during operation but not to an 

appreciable extent when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the 

immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site, as presented in Tables 5–3 and 5–4.

Similar to the activities that would occur at the Janesville site, SHINE would transport 

radioactive waste from the Chippewa Falls site to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal 

facility. A common-carrier truck would likely transport the waste. SHINE and the 

common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and 

transportation requirements for radioactive material in NRC’s regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 

and 71); the State of Wisconsin’s Administrative Code, Chapter 326, “Transportation”; and DOT

requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure 

public health and safety on roadways.

Based on the relatively small increase in traffic compared to the average daily and annual traffic 

flows near the Chippewa Falls site, and because SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be 

required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and the State of Wisconsin regulatory 

packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material, the NRC staff concludes 

that the impact on transportation infrastructure during operations would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Given that decommissioning the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be very similar 

to that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that an average of 72 truck deliveries 

and 191 offsite waste shipments per month, (a total of approximately nine heavy-vehicle 

shipments per day) would be required (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during 
Alternatives

5-31

decommissioning would add an estimated 261 vehicles per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). 

Therefore, the NRC staff estimates that there could be an increase of approximately 580 trips a 

day on local roads during the decommissioning phase, increasing average daily traffic on roads 

in the immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site from what was being experienced during the 

operations phase.

Peak decommissioning-related traffic could noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, 

but these delays would not be sufficient to destabilize the transportation infrastructure. SHINE

could use a staggered work shift schedule, similar to that employed during construction, to 

reduce the hourly traffic flow onto Commerce Parkway and schedule truck deliveries early in the 

day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013b). However, the change in average daily 

traffic flows in the immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site and an increase in commuter, 

truck delivery, as well as waste traffic directly related to decommissioning activities, could affect 

local commuting patterns. Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the 

decommissioning phase would be MODERATE.

5.2.2.11 Accidents

SHINE stated, in its ER, that no conditions have been identified for the Chippewa Falls site that 

would significantly affect the radiological or nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents

differently than at the proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff considers this 

assumption reasonable, because the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be essentially the same as at the Janesville site 

since the design, construction, operations, and decommissioning are similar. In addition, the 

same radiological and nonradiological safety regulations applicable to the Janesville site would 

apply to the Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2015a).

In Section 4.11 of this EIS, the NRC concluded that the impacts from radiological and 

nonradiological accidents at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. 

Given that no significant differences exist between the two sites or their facility design and 

operations, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from potential accidents at the proposed 

SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

5.2.2.12 Environmental Justice

This section describes the potential human health and environmental effects from the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on minority and 

low-income populations living in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site. The NRC addresses 

environmental justice issues and concerns by first identifying potentially affected minority and 

low-income populations and then determining whether there would be any potential human 

health or environmental effects and whether these effects may be disproportionately high and 

adverse.

Minority-population data were available for Census block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius 

around the Chippewa Falls site. Low-income population data were only available at the Census 

tract level, because of the limited availability of poverty data at the block group level. To protect 

confidentiality, the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) does not publish information about small 

geographic areas if the population size is too small. Race and ethnicity and poverty Census 

data were used to identify the location of minority and low-income populations near the 

Chippewa Falls site. If the Census tract and block group boundaries crossed the 5-mi (8-km) 

radius boundary, the entire Census tract or Census block group data were used. Geographic 

information system software was used to create the maps.
Alternatives

5-32

Minority Population

According to 2010 Census information, 6.5 percent of the total population in the City of 

Chippewa Falls identified themselves as a minority. The largest minority group was Black or 

African American, followed by Hispanic or Latino (of any race). In Chippewa County, 

5.4 percent of the total population identified themselves as a minority (USCB 2014c).

Table 5–6 lists minority population block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa 

Falls site; 4.7 percent of the total population within that radius identified themselves as a 

minority (UCSB 2014a). The largest minority group was Hispanic or Latino (of any race) at 

1.3 percent, followed by Asian at 1.1 percent (USCB 2014c).

Figure 5–3 shows minority population block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa 

Falls site. Census block groups were considered minority population block groups if the 

percentage of the minority population within any block group exceeded 4.7 percent. Seven of 

the 20 Census block groups were determined to have meaningfully greater minority populations. 

The Chippewa Falls site is located in Census Tract 105, Block Group 4, which has the highest 

minority population, at 12.4 percent.

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

Source: USCB 2014c, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not 

Hispanic or Latino by Race
5-33

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

Census 

Tract

Block 

Group

Total 

Population

Percent 

Minority

Total 

Minority 

Population

Hispanic 

or Latino

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian or 

Alaska 

Native Asian

Nat

Hawaiia

Other P

Islan

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

5-34

Low-Income Population

According to the 2006–2010 American Community Survey estimates, 10.7 percent of families 

and 14.3 percent of all people residing in Chippewa County were identified as living below the 

Federal poverty threshold. In addition, in the City of Chippewa Falls, 11.4 percent of families 

and 14.8 percent of all people were identified as living below the Federal poverty level. The 

2010 Federal poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four (USCB 2014d).

Table 5–7 lists low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the 

Chippewa Falls site; 9.3 percent of the total population within that radius was identified as living

below the Federal poverty level (UCSB 2014d).

Census tracts were considered low-income population tracts if the percentage of individuals 

living below the Federal poverty level exceeded 9.3 percent. Figure 5–4 shows low-income 

population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site. Two of the 

seven Census tracts were found to have meaningfully greater low-income populations. The 

Chippewa Falls site is located within Census Tract 105 and has the highest percentage 

(15.3 percent) of population living below the Federal poverty level.

Table 5–7. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) 

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
Alternatives

5-35

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

Source: USCB 2014d, 2006–2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 

Table DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics

Analysis of Impacts

As previously discussed, the environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for 

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 

low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility. Some of these potential effects have been described in the other 

resource areas discussed in this EIS. Chapter 5 presents the assessment of environmental and 

human health impacts for each environmental resource area.

In the impact analysis, the NRC first identified all potential human health and environmental 

effects and then determined the significance of the impact and whether or not minority or 

low-income populations would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. The 

NRC then considered whether the radiological or other health effects were significant or above 

generally accepted norms, whether the risk or rate of the hazard was significant and appreciably 

in excess of that of the general population, and whether the radiological or other health effects 

would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from 

environmental hazards. The NRC determined whether the following human health and 

environmental effects have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility site:

• radiological and nonradiological human health impacts (Section 5.2.2.8),

• noise impacts (Section 5.2.2.2), and
Alternatives

5-36

• traffic impacts (Section 5.2.2.10).

The NRC also considered whether there would be an impact on the natural or physical 

environment that would significantly and adversely affect a particular group, whether there 

would be any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or are likely to 

appreciably exceed those on the general population, and whether environment effects would 

occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from an 

environmental hazard.

Construction 

Similar to constructing the SHINE facility at the Janesville site, potential impacts on minority and 

low-income populations residing near the Chippewa Falls site would mostly consist of 

environmental effects during construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing 

impacts). Noise and dust impacts during construction would be short term and primarily limited 

to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads, 

particularly in Census Tract 105, could be disproportionately affected by increased commuter 

vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust from construction. However, because of the 

temporary nature of construction, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would 

be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for 

temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs to rise,

disproportionately affecting low-income populations within the ROI (Chippewa County), who rely 

on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of construction workers and the 

likelihood that most workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could commute to the 

construction site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing.

Operations

Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations during SHINE facility operations at 

the Chippewa Falls site would mostly consist of radiological and nonradiological human health 

and environmental (e.g., noise and traffic) effects. Everyone living near the Chippewa Falls site

would be exposed to the same potential operational effects, and any impacts would depend on 

the magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions.

As discussed in the Human Health section of this EIS (Section 5.2.2.8), the level of potential 

radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual 

dose limit and well within the NRC and State of Wisconsin regulatory limits. As a result, minority 

or low-income populations, as well as the general population living in close proximity to the 

proposed SHINE facility site, would not be adversely affected by radiation exposure during 

facility operations. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are also expected to remain within 

regulatory standards.

As discussed in the Noise section of this EIS (Section 5.2.2.2), noise emissions from commuter 

traffic during SHINE facility operations would increase. Noise from operating equipment would 

be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE facility 

buildings at the site. However, additional noise emissions from worker vehicles would be minor 

(1 dBA), and noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels 

beyond current levels.

Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected 

by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic during facility operations. However, as 

discussed in the Transportation section of this EIS (Section 5.2.2.10), the only appreciable 

impact would be a “slight degradation of service” (i.e., traffic delays) at intersections during the 

morning peak hour. The overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

SHINE facility would increase slightly during facility operations but would not be of an 
Alternatives

5-37

appreciable nature when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the 

immediate vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site.

Therefore, offsite noise and traffic impacts caused by the proposed SHINE facility operations 

would be SMALL for both of these resource areas. Nevertheless, given the fact that the 

Chippewa Falls site is located in a designated minority block group and low-income Census 

tract, minority and low-income populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE 

facility during operations could be disproportionately affected. However, based on the analyses 

of impacts conducted for other resource areas discussed in this EIS, impacts on minority or 

low-income populations, as well as to the general population living in close proximity to the 

Chippewa Falls site, would not be considered high and adverse.

Decommissioning 

Similar to construction impacts, potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would 

mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects during decommissioning 

(e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during the 

decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would be short term 

and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site 

access roads, particularly in Census Tract 105, would be disproportionately affected by 

increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust during decommissioning. 

However, because of the temporary nature of decommissioning, these effects are not likely to 

be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the 

day. Increased demand for rental housing during decommissioning could cause rental costs to 

rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on inexpensive housing. 

However, given the small number of decommissioning workers and the likelihood that most 

workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could commute to the Chippewa Falls 

site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing.

In addition, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would 

be SMALL for all resource areas. There is no evidence that impacts from decommissioning 

would be disproportionately high and adverse to minority or low-income populations.

Subsistence and Special Conditions

As discussed in Section 4.12, the special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the 

environmental justice analysis, because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or 

cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area, such as migrant workers

or Native Americans. Based on the air and water quality discussions and the discussion of 

human health effects in this EIS for this alternative, it is unlikely that there would be any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts in special pathway receptor 

populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, or

wildlife. The operation of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on these 

populations.

Summary

The Chippewa Falls site is located in the pre-existing Wissota Lake Business Park in a 

designated minority and low-income population block group and Census tract. Similar to the 

Janesville site, minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be 

disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicular traffic

during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and 

decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. 

Facility operations at the Chippewa Falls site would not adversely affect minority and 
Alternatives

5-38

low-income populations living near the existing business park. The level of potential radiological 

doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and 

well within the NRC and State of Wisconsin regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are 

expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income 

populations residing near the existing business park and the Chippewa Falls site could 

experience short-term disproportionate, but not high and adverse, environmental effects during 

construction and decommissioning. In addition, based on the discussions of air and water 

quality and human health effects for this alternative, SHINE facility operations at the Chippewa 

Falls site would not likely cause high and adverse human health or environmental effects for 

minority and low-income populations.

5.2.2.13 Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects and other actions 

that could result in cumulative impacts at the Chippewa Falls site were identified by reviewing 

published and unpublished data, including economic development plans, permit lists, news 

releases, and similar sources of information. Current and reasonably foreseeable activities 

included relevant activities conducted, regulated, approved, or proposed by a Federal agency or 

non-Federal entity within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site. Available information about the 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and other activities is provided in Table 5–8.

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

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)
Alternatives

5-39

Project/

Company Name Summary of Project Location Status

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) 

Land Use and Visual Resources

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on land use and visual 

resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.1

serves as baseline conditions for the cumulative impact assessment of land use and visual

resources. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources would be SMALL, as described in 

Section 5.2.2.1.

Land Use

The projects and activities described in Table 5–8 would result in minimal changes to existing 

land uses, because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, 

or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use. Future urbanization and 

global climate change could contribute to additional decreases in agricultural lands, forests, 

grasslands, and wetlands. Urbanization in the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site would alter 

important attributes of land use. Urbanization would reduce natural vegetation and agricultural 

fields, resulting in an overall decline in the extent and connectivity of wetlands, forests, 

grasslands, and wildlife habitat. Global climate change could reduce crop yields and livestock 

productivity (USGCRP 2014), which may change portions of agricultural land uses. However, 

existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas. 

In addition, zoning laws and comprehensive land use plans would help ensure a proper balance 

of development (City of Chippewa Falls 1999).

Pursuant to the Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations, the presence 

of important farmland soils (7 CFR 657.5), including prime farmland, was included in the 

cumulative impacts analysis. Development projects listed in Table 5–8 would incrementally and 

cumulatively add to the loss of important farmland soils, including prime farmland soils, in the 

region surrounding the proposed site and across the City of Chippewa Falls. Otherwise 

qualifying farm lands in or already committed to urban development; lands acquired for a project 

on or before August 4, 1984; and lands acquired or used by a Federal agency for national 

defense purposes are exempt from the Act’s provisions (7 CFR 658.2 and 658.3). Because 

many of the proposed projects have been committed to development, the sites do not have 

qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Act. Some of the proposed projects would 

convert prime farmland into other uses. Regardless, the conversion of otherwise qualifying soils 
Alternatives

5-40

by projects within 5 mi (8 km) of the Chippewa Falls site would have a relatively minor impact on 

the inventory of important farmland soils within Chippewa County. This is because 

approximately 60 percent of the soils in the county would be classified as important farmland

soil (Chippewa County 2010).

Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to 

existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use, cumulative impacts on

land use resources would be SMALL.

Visual Resources

The projects and activities described in Table 5–8 would result in minimal changes to the 

existing viewshed, because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing

facilities, or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use. Furthermore, 

the viewshed within the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site is agricultural, light industrial, or 

residential. Within undeveloped areas, where a new structure would change qualities of the 

existing landscape, the viewshed is generally of low scenic quality because of a lack of notable 

features, uniform landform, low vegetation diversity, an absence of water, mute colors, and a 

commonality within the physiographic province.

Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to 

existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use and of low scenic quality, 

the NRC staff determined that cumulative impacts on visual resources would be SMALL.

Air Quality and Noise

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on air quality and noise, when 

added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility on air quality would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.2. The 

incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

SHINE facility on noise would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Air Quality 

The ROI considered for the air quality analysis for a facility located in Chippewa Falls is 

Chippewa County, since air quality designations for criteria air pollutants are generally made at 

the county level.

As shown in Table 5–8, the ongoing and future projects located within 5 mi (8 km) of the 

Chippewa Falls site involve air permits. While these projects increase air emission 

concentrations within the county, the activities would need to comply with the requirements 

stipulated in the permit, which would minimize cumulative impacts. Therefore, these activities 

and projects are not expected to have significant impacts on air quality. Climate change can 

affect air quality as a result of changes in meteorological conditions. The combination of higher 

temperatures, stagnant air masses, sunlight, and emissions of precursors may make it difficult 

to meet NAAQSs (USGCRP 2014). States, however, must continue to comply with the Clean 

Air Act and ensure air quality standards are met.

The NRC staff determined that the potential cumulative air quality impact associated with 

SHINE operations, in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would be SMALL, 

primarily because projects that have overlapping impacts with the proposed SHINE facility 

would need to comply with requirements stipulated in air permits and would have relatively low 

emissions.
Alternatives

5-41

Noise

The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the SHINE

facility at the Chippewa Falls site. Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When distance 

is doubled from a point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (MPCA 2014). For example, at 

half a mile distance from construction equipment with noise levels in the range of 85–90 dBA, 

noise levels can drop to 51–61 dBA and at a 1-mi (1.6-km) distance, noise levels drop further to 

45-55 dBA. Generally, a 3-dBA change over existing noise levels is considered to be a “just 

noticeable” difference, and a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in 

loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (NWCC 2002).

Some of the projects in Table 5–8 could produce increases in ambient noise that might affect 

some of the same areas at the Chippewa Falls site, since they involve construction activities. 

However, these projects are located 1 to 2 mi (1.6 to 3.2 km) from the Chippewa Falls site and 

noise impacts are not expected to be significant. For instance, construction equipment can 

result in noise levels in the range of 85–90 dBA; however, noise levels attenuate rapidly with 

distance, such that at half a mile distance from construction equipment, noise levels can drop to 

51–61 dBA (NRC 2002). Therefore, these projects would not be expected to have significant 

noise impacts. The NRC staff determined that cumulative impacts on noise levels would be 

SMALL to MODERATE.

Geologic Environment

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on the geologic environment,

when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. The cumulative impacts on the geologic environment primarily relate to land 

disturbance and the potential for soil erosion and loss, as well as the projected consumption of 

geologic resources. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.3 serves as 

the baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of the geologic environment. The 

geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on soil resources includes the 

5-mi (8-km) vicinity surrounding the proposed site. For geologic resources, the extent of the 

geologic area of analysis has been expanded to all of Chippewa County to encompass potential 

commercial sources of rock and mineral resources to support construction activities at the 

propose site and vicinity. As the aspects of land disturbance and conversion are addressed 

separately in the Land Use section above, the cumulative impacts analysis here will focus on 

soil loss, including the loss of prime farmland soils and other important farmland soils, and 

consumption of geologic resources.

The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

SHINE facility on the geologic environment, including geologic and soil resources, would be 

SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.2.3.

New development and expansion projects listed in Table 5–8 would consume or extract 

geologic resources, including rock and mineral resources, or would require materials derived 

from such geologic resources (e.g., concrete). However, common construction materials such 

as sand and gravel and crushed stone are available and widely abundant in Chippewa County 

(Section 5.2.2.3) or are available regionally. Neither the geologic resource requirements to 

construct the proposed SHINE facility nor the resource requirements of the other projects 

identified in Table 5–8 are on a scale that would be likely to affect the regional sources and 

supplies of the identified resources. Given the relatively minor impact on important farmland 

soils and the abundance of geologic resources regionally, the NRC staff concludes that the 

cumulative impacts on geologic and soil resources would be SMALL.
Alternatives

5-42

Water Resources

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on water resources, when 

added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. The cumulative impacts on surface-water resources relate to issues concerning water 

use, water quality, and potential climate change. This further encompasses water withdrawal, 

effluent discharges, accidental spills and releases, and stormwater drainage and runoff. The 

description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.4 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impact assessment of water resources. For surface-water resources, the extent of 

the geographic area of analysis has been expanded to include Lake Wissota and portions of the 

Chippewa River downstream of the proposed site. For groundwater resources, the area 

considered encompasses the local groundwater basin in which groundwater is recharged and 

flows to discharge points and those aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn through 

wells. Specifically, the cumulative impacts analysis focuses on those projects and activities

that, when combined with the proposed action, would: (1) withdraw water from or discharge 

wastewater to the segment of the Chippewa River downstream of the proposed site or (2) would 

use groundwater or could otherwise affect the same aquifers that would supply water to the 

proposed site. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.4, impacts on water resources at the Chippewa 

Falls site would be SMALL.

In addition to the proposed SHINE facility, new development and expansion projects listed in 

Table 5–8 and disturbing greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha) of land would have to obtain and comply 

with the provisions of a General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This permit 

requires the development and implementation of a site-specific construction site erosion control 

plan, including specific BMPs, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction 

stormwater management).

Permits issued to all new stormwater and industrial wastewater dischargers would include 

provisions as part of Wisconsin-issued NPDES permits to comply with applicable 

water-quality-based effluent limitations and wasteload allocations established for downstream 

receiving waters. The proposed SHINE facility would have no direct sanitary or other 

wastewater discharges to surface water or groundwater. The SHINE facility and other entities 

within the Wissota Lake Business Park would be served by the City of Chippewa Falls WTP, 

which has excess treatment capacity (Section 5.2.2.4).

While protection of groundwater quality in surficial aquifers and conservation of local 

groundwater supplies is a concern across Wisconsin, the county’s groundwater supply is 

considered adequate to meet the domestic, agricultural, municipal, and industrial needs in the 

county for the foreseeable future (Chippewa County 2010). As a result of climate change, the 

Midwest may continue to experience an increase in annual precipitation, along with an increase 

in annual and seasonal temperatures. Increased precipitation, particularly during the spring and 

winter months, could increase groundwater recharge (USGCRP 2014). Regardless, the 

proposed SHINE facility and other projects within the Wissota Lake Business Park would be 

served by the Chippewa Falls municipal water system (Section 5.2.2.4). Furthermore, neither 

the proposed SHINE facility nor any of the projects identified in Table 5–8 would be expected to 

require substantial volumes of groundwater or surface water that would affect water availability 

for other potential uses or users.

Given the requirements to comply with stormwater permits, the capacity of the City of Chippewa 

Falls WTP, and the relatively small volumes of water required for the projects listed in Table 5-8, 

the NRC staff finds that the cumulative impacts on water resources would be SMALL.
Alternatives

5-43

Ecological Resources

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on ecological resources, when 

added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.2.5 serves as a baseline for 

the cumulative impact assessment of ecological resources. The geographic area of analysis for 

evaluating cumulative impacts on ecological resources includes the area surrounding the

Chippewa Falls site that is ecological, connected to the onsite ecological resources (e.g., the 

watershed surrounding the Chippewa Falls site). The incremental impacts from construction, 

operations, and decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL, as described in 

Section 5.2.2.5.

Since European settlement, prairies, forests, and wetlands have been greatly reduced by at 

least 50 to 80 percent and converted into agricultural fields, industrial uses, and residential and 

commercial areas. Remaining tracts of grasslands, forests, and wetlands tend to be relatively 

small and isolated, which results in lower quality habitat than large tracts of habitat, because of 

the different biological and physical characteristics along the edge of a habitat patch 

(WDNR 2013c).

Current threats to terrestrial and aquatic habitats include increased soil, nutrients, and other 

pollutants washing into streams and lakes from urban and agricultural stormwater runoff; 

continued conversion and fragmentation of wildlife habitat from development; introduction of 

invasive species; and climate change (WDNR 2013c; USGCRP 2014). These activities will 

likely decrease the overall availability and quality of forested, grassland, and wetland habitats. 

Species with threatened, endangered, or declining populations are likely to be more sensitive to 

declines in habitat availability and quality and the introduction of invasive species.

New development projects identified in Table 5–8 are likely to have minimal impacts on 

ecological resources, because all the projects are sited within areas that are currently 

agricultural land, open space, or developed. These types of land covers provide low-quality 

habitat for wildlife, birds, and aquatic resources. However, as environmental stressors, such as 

runoff from agricultural fields and urban areas and climate change, continue over the next few 

decades, certain attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (such as habitat quality) 

are likely to noticeably change. The staff does not expect these impacts to destabilize any 

important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment, because such impacts will cause 

gradual change, which should allow the terrestrial and aquatic environment to appropriately 

adapt. The NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of the proposed construction and 

operation of the SHINE facility, plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects or actions would result in MODERATE impacts on terrestrial and aquatic resources.

Historic and Cultural Resources

This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on historic and cultural 

resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE

facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area considered in this analysis is 

the APE associated with the proposed SHINE facility, the Chippewa Falls site, and its 

immediate vicinity. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.6, the impacts on historic and cultural 

resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the 

Chippewa Falls site would be SMALL.

The archaeological record for the region indicates prehistoric and historic occupation. Historic 

land development and prolonged agricultural use of the APE resulted in impacts on, and the 
Alternatives

5-44

loss of, cultural resources in the APE and its immediate vicinity. As described in 

Section 5.2.2.6, no known historic or cultural resources or historic properties are present within 

the APE. However, there remains the possibility for inadvertent discovery of historic or cultural 

resources within the APE. Direct impacts would occur if historic and cultural resources in the 

APE were to be physically removed or disturbed. Indirect visual impacts could occur from new 

construction or maintenance. The only foreseeable project within the APE is the SHINE facility 

and the potential discovery of cultural resources on the proposed site. Should they be 

discovered, any cultural resources would be managed using SHINE BMPs developed for the 

proposed Janesville site (e.g., cultural resource management procedures and training) 

(SHINE 2013, 2015a). Therefore, the cumulative impact on historic and cultural resources of 

the proposed SHINE facility, when combined with other past, present, and reasonable 

foreseeable future activities, would be SMALL.

Socioeconomics

This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on current socioeconomic 

conditions within the ROI from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE

facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the effects from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in 

Section 5.2.2.7 serves as a baseline for the cumulative socioeconomic impact assessment. The 

geographic area of analysis is the ROI, Chippewa County. Section 5.2.2.7 found that 

socioeconomic impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

Table 5–8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that 

could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Relevant “other actions” that are 

considered in this cumulative impacts analysis are future construction projects that would bring 

new business and people to the ROI, such as the Wissota Green Housing Development and 

expansion of the Chippewa Falls Zoo.

Depending on the number of workers needed to support the construction of the Wissota Green 

Housing Development and expansion of the Chippewa Falls Zoo, as well as the total number of 

units built within the Wissota Green Housing Development, there is the potential for increased 

population, employment, tax revenue, and demand for public services in the ROI. The Wissota 

Green Housing Development would house 300 residents (Chippewa Herald 2013). However, 

as discussed in Section 5.2.2.7, Chippewa County has adequate public services, including the 

water utility, to accommodate any population changes. Any increase in employment from 

construction or decommissioning would be temporary, while permanent job creation as a result 

of the Chippewa Falls Zoo expansion would have little if any socioeconomic impact. Therefore, 

the contributory effects from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE

facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions, would be SMALL.

Human Health

This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects on human 

health of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the 

Chippewa Falls site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating

cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed 

Chippewa Falls site. In Section 5.2.2.8, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa 

Falls site would be SMALL.
Alternatives

5-45

St. Joseph’s Hospital, which conducts radiological procedures, is within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the 

Chippewa Falls site (SHINE 2013a). The use of radioactive materials for medical diagnosis and 

treatment is regulated by the State of Wisconsin. The NRC and the Governor of Wisconsin 

signed an agreement transferring regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special 

nuclear materials to the State of Wisconsin, which became the 33rd Agreement State, effective 

August 11, 2003. As an Agreement State, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services is 

responsible for licensing and inspecting the above-named materials, except at nuclear power 

plants and Federal facilities (WDHS 2014).

No nuclear fuel cycle facilities occur within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed 

Chippewa Falls site that would contribute to the cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the 

NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative radiological impacts from the proposed SHINE

facility at the Chippewa Falls site and the potential impacts from the use of radioactive materials 

at St. Joseph’s Hospital. Both facilities are or would be licensed and regulated, SHINE by the 

NRC and St. Joseph’s Hospital by the State of Wisconsin; the facilities are or would be required 

to maintain radiation doses to their workers and members of the public within Federal and State 

dose limits. Also, being approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) apart, radioactive emissions within 

regulatory limits would be further reduced through the processes of dispersion and dilution as 

they travel in the atmosphere. Based on the regulatory controls that are or would be in place to 

control radiation exposure, the distance between the facilities, and the dilution of the radioactive 

materials, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts on human health 

would be SMALL.

Table 5–8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that

could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates the 

use of nonradioactive materials (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at St. Joseph’s 

Hospital and would regulate their use at the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site. 

As discussed in Section 4.9, the State of Wisconsin has regulations for the safe use, storage, 

and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 660 addresses

the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final treatment, storage, or 

disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous solid waste general requirements are detailed in 

Administrative Code NR 500 (SHINE 2015a). Both SHINE and St. Joseph’s Hospital are or 

would be regulated by the State and are or would be required to maintain chemical exposure to 

their workers and members of the public within State limits. Also, being approximately 1 mi 

(1.6 km) apart, nonradioactive emissions that are within regulatory limits are or would be 

reduced as they travel in the atmosphere through the processes of dispersion and dilution. 

Based on the regulatory controls that will be in place to control chemical exposure, the distance 

between the facilities listed in Table 5–8, and the dilution of the nonradioactive materials, the 

NRC staff concludes that the cumulative nonradiological impacts on human health would be 

SMALL.

Waste Management

This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects of the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site 

from radioactive and nonradioactive wastes, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for 

evaluating cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the 

proposed Chippewa Falls site. In Section 5.2.2.9, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts 

from types and volumes of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes from the construction, 

operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site 

would be SMALL.
Alternatives

5-46

As described above in the Human Health section, St. Joseph’s Hospital, which conducts 

radiological procedures, is within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the Chippewa Falls site and is regulated by 

the State of Wisconsin (SHINE 2013a). No nuclear fuel cycle facilities occur within the 5-mi 

(8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls site that would contribute to the 

cumulative impacts from radioactive wastes. Therefore, the NRC staff assessed the potential 

cumulative impacts from radioactive waste from the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa 

Falls site and the potential impacts from the disposal of radioactive waste at St. Joseph’s 

Hospital. Radioactive waste at both facilities is or would be regulated, at SHINE by the NRC 

and at St. Joseph’s Hospital by the State of Wisconsin. The facilities are or would be required 

to store, process, and dispose of radioactive wastes in accordance with Federal and State 

requirements. As discussed in Section 4.9, radioactive wastes generated by the proposed 

SHINE facility would be packaged and transported off site to a licensed low-level radioactive 

waste facility for disposal (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.9, the NRC staff concluded that the 

impacts from radioactive wastes generated by and disposed of from the proposed SHINE facility 

would be SMALL. Radioactive waste generated at St. Joseph’s Hospital would also be 

packaged and transported off site to a licensed low-level waste facility for disposal. Based on 

the regulatory controls on packaging and transporting radioactive waste, the NRC staff 

concludes that the cumulative impacts from radioactive waste would be SMALL.

Table 5–8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI that 

could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates the 

use and disposal of nonradioactive waste (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at 

St. Joseph’s Hospital and would regulate their use and disposal at the proposed SHINE facility 

at the Chippewa Falls site. As discussed in Section 4.9, the State of Wisconsin has regulations 

for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin Administrative 

Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final 

treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous solid waste general 

requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500. Both facilities, SHINE and 

St. Joseph’s Hospital, are or would be regulated by the State and are or would be required to 

safely store, package, transport, and dispose of nonradioactive wastes in accordance with State 

requirements. Based on the state’s regulatory controls that are or would be in place to control 

nonradioactive wastes for the facilities listed in Table 5–8, the NRC staff concludes that the 

cumulative impacts from nonradioactive wastes would be SMALL.

Transportation

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site on radiological and 

nonradiological transportation, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating

cumulative impacts on transportation is primarily the same as that used in Section 5.2.2.10 and 

includes the site boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Chippewa Falls 

site. However, the roads for routes that could be used for delivery of medical isotopes (if air 

transport is not possible) or disposal of wastes were also considered. Transportation 

infrastructure includes roadways, rail lines, airports, and traffic-control devices. As discussed in 

Section 5.2.2.10, transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Construction projects in Table 5–8 could produce an increase in vehicular traffic on roads within 

the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Chippewa Falls site. For example, the Wissota Green Housing 

Development would involve the construction of a new housing development for approximately 

300 people, and the construction and operation of the Wissota Business Park would add 

employees commuting on roads near the Chippewa Falls site. Depending on the number of 

workers required and whether construction projects within the vicinity of the Chippewa Falls site 
Alternatives

5-47

were occurring at the same time as the SHINE facility’s construction, operations, or 

decommissioning, traffic on access roads would increase. Most existing roads would be 

sufficient to handle the construction project’s transportation activities, and alternative routes 

could be used to minimize transportation impacts. In some cases, however, a noticeable 

increase in traffic could occur, especially if construction timeframes overlapped and construction 

workers and vehicles used the same roads. Therefore, depending on whether other 

construction projects overlapped with construction, operations, or decommissioning of the 

SHINE facility, or whether increased vehicular activity from workers or residents on roads near 

the Chippewa Falls site had a noticeable impact on traffic, the NRC staff concludes that 

cumulative transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Environmental Justice

The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential contributory 

human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site, when added to the effects 

from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on minority and low-income 

populations, and whether these effects might be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority 

and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing near the Chippewa Falls 

site, and everyone would be exposed to the same environmental effects generated by the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility.

As discussed in Section 5.2.2, the Chippewa Falls site is located in the preexisting Wissota 

Lake Business Park in a block group and Census tract that exceed both geographic area 

averages for minority and low-income populations. The geographic area of analysis is the 5-mi 

(8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility at the Chippewa Falls site. Minority and 

low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by 

noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction, 

operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and decommissioning, these 

would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility operations at the Chippewa 

Falls site would not have high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority 

and low-income populations.

Table 5–8 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the 

geographic area of analysis that could contribute cumulative human health and environmental 

effects. Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of 

environmental effects from construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing 

impacts). However, increased noise and dust during construction would be short term and 

primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site 

access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter 

and vehicular traffic during construction. However, these effects are not likely to be high and 

adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. 

Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs 

to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations that rely on inexpensive housing. 

However, given the availability of workers and the likelihood of workers commuting to the 

construction site, the need for rental housing could be reduced.

Operational emissions from manufacturing or industrial facilities within the 5-mile (8-km) radius

of the Chippewa Falls site could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations 

living in the vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility. However, everyone would be exposed to the 

same potential contributory effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the 

change in current environmental conditions. Permitted air emissions from all manufacturing and
Alternatives

5-48

industrial facilities, including the contributory effects from the proposed SHINE facility, would be 

expected to remain within regulatory standards.

Based on this information and the analysis of human health and other environmental impacts 

presented in this section of the EIS, the contributory effects of constructing, operating, and 

decommissioning the SHINE facility are not likely to create high and adverse human health and 

environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the 

Chippewa Falls site.

5.2.3 Stevens Point Site

The NRC staff evaluated the Stevens Point site as a reasonable alternative. The city of Stevens 

Point is located in central Wisconsin, approximately 110 mi (176 km) north of Madison, 

Wisconsin; 215 mi (344 km) east of Minneapolis, Minnesota; and 250 mi (400 km) northwest of 

Chicago, Illinois (Figures 5–5 and 5–6). Specifically, the site is located adjacent to the eastern 

edge of the corporate boundaries of the City of Stevens Point in Portage County, Wisconsin. 

No public roads currently border the site.

The site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the south. The site is composed of deciduous 

forest and cropland. No residences or other buildings occur on site.

The City of Stevens Point created and recommended the Stevens Point site to SHINE. The city 

indicated to SHINE that, if the Stevens Point site were selected as the proposed site, the City 

would annex the site property and install public roads along the northern and western site 

boundaries. In addition, an overhead electrical line, municipal water supply pipeline, sanitary 

sewer pipeline, and natural gas pipeline, currently located approximately 0.3 mi (0.48 km) from 

the site, would need to be extended to the site. The analysis below considers the environmental 

impacts of building roads, electrical lines, and pipelines, because construction and operation of 

the SHINE facility would be dependent upon this infrastructure.
Alternatives

5-49

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

Wisconsin

Source: SHINE 2015a
Alternatives

5-50

Figure 5–6. Stevens Point Site

Source: SHINE 2013a

5.2.3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources

Land Use

The Stevens Point site includes 80.4 ac (32 5 ha) of land adjacent to the eastern edge of the 

corporate boundaries of the City of Stevens Point in Portage County, Wisconsin (Figure 5–6). 

Based on a review of the National Land Cover Database, the Stevens Point site is composed of 

48.2 ac (19.5 ha) of deciduous forest, 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) of cultivated agricultural land, and 

1.6 ac (0.6 ha) of mixed forest (Table 5–9) (USGS 2006; SHINE 2013a). Warehouses and open 

spaces are located west of the site. Agricultural land and forested areas surround the remaining 

portions of the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2015a). No residences, other structures, special land 

uses, or mineral resources are located within the Stevens Point site boundaries.

Portage County has currently zoned the site partly for agricultural use and partly for industrial 

use (Portage County 2012). The City of Stevens Point has indicated to SHINE that if the 

Stevens Point site were selected, the City would annex the site property and zone it entirely for

industrial use (SHINE 2015a).

The entire site is composed of prime farmland or farmland with soils of statewide importance 

where otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013b; 7 CFR 657.5). As described 

above, otherwise qualifying “farmland” soils do not include those on land already in or 

committed to urban development or water storage, as defined in 7 CFR 658.2.
Alternatives

5-51

Table 5–9. Potential Land Use and Natural Habitat Impacts at the

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

Construction

Construction of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would permanently disturb and 

convert 13.9 ac (6.5 ha) of deciduous forest and 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) of agricultural land to industrial 

use (Table 5-8). If SHINE needed to clear additional portions of the site to comply with security 

requirements or other measures, the amount of affected forested areas could be up to 48.2 ac

(19.5 ha) (SHINE 2015a). In addition, 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) of agricultural land would be temporarily 

converted from agricultural land to a construction parking area and construction material staging 

or laydown areas. Once construction activities are complete, SHINE would likely restore 

temporarily affected areas to agricultural fields, cool season grasses, or native prairie. The 
Alternatives

5-52

remaining portion of the site would likely remain as open area, forested areas, or agricultural 

fields, or would be converted to cool season grasses or native prairie. The potential conversion 

of up to 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) used for agricultural and cultivated crops to other uses would be minor 

when compared to the 18,062 ac (7,310 ha) of agricultural land remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of 

the Stevens Point site. Similarly, the potential conversion of up to 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) of 

deciduous forest to other uses would be minor when compared to the 7,538 ac (3,050 ha) of 

deciduous forest remaining within 5 mi (8 km) of the Stevens Point site. Additional forested or 

agricultural land adjacent to the site would be converted to a new land use to extend existing 

infrastructure to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations require agencies to make 

Farmland Protection Policy Act evaluations part of the NEPA process to reduce the conversion 

of farmland to nonagricultural uses by Federal projects and programs. Construction of the 

proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would permanently convert 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) and 

temporarily convert 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) of prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance to 

industrial use. However, this is a small percentage of the prime farmland or farmland of 

statewide importance within the region surrounding the Stevens Point site. Furthermore, a 

portion of the site is currently zoned for light industrial use, and, therefore, this portion of the site 

would not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to the Act.

Impacts on land use from construction would be SMALL, based on the relatively small amount 

of farmland and forested areas that would be permanently converted to industrial use, the lack 

of qualifying important farmland soils within a portion of the affected areas, and the lack of any

effect on special land use or mineral resources.

Operations

Operation of the SHINE facility would not require any new land or require land use changes 

beyond those required for construction. Therefore, impacts on land use during operations 

would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve 

heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Land 

requirements to perform these activities would be similar to those required during construction. 

After decommissioning activities are complete, the Stevens Point site could remain industrial or 

be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. Given that land requirements would be 

similar to those described during construction and that, after decommissioning is complete, the 

land would be industrial, agricultural, or an open space, the NRC staff determined that the 

impacts on land use during decommissioning would be SMALL.

Visual Resources

The visual setting of the area that would be affected by the proposed SHINE facility at the 

Stevens Point site includes agricultural, forested, and light industrial viewsheds. The viewshed

to the north, south, and east of the Stevens Point site is mainly flat or has slightly rolling 

cultivated fields and deciduous forest. The viewshed to the west is a light industrial landscape, 

with a few warehouses and other buildings adjacent to the Stevens Point site.

Construction

The activities associated with constructing the proposed SHINE facility (e.g., excavation, 

earthmoving, pile driving, and erecting the facility) and extending currently existing infrastructure 

to the site (e.g., roads, electrical lines, and pipelines) would require large pieces of construction 

equipment, significantly altering the appearance and partially obstructing views of the existing 
Alternatives

5-53

landscape. Portions of the Stevens Point site with agricultural fields have low scenic quality 

caused by a lack of notable features, low vegetation diversity, and mute colors. The forested 

portion of the site has a higher scenic quality because of its natural setting and higher diversity 

of vegetation. The viewshed surrounding the site also varies from low to moderate to the mixed 

presence of cultural modified landscapes (agricultural fields, buildings, and warehouses) along 

with natural wooded areas.

The Stevens Point site has a low-to-moderate sensitivity rating, as it is located in an area with 

low scenic values resulting from a low amount of use by viewers and a lack of special natural 

and wilderness areas. The sensitivity rating could be moderate because several sensitive 

viewing areas exist within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the Stevens Point site, including the following: 

more than 100 residences, a preschool, two child daycare facilities, a medical clinic, a city park, 

and an exercise track. Nonetheless, trees and existing buildings would block the view from 

most of these locations, resulting in a partial view of the Stevens Point site during construction. 

In addition, the viewshed surrounding the Stevens Point site is partially aesthetically altered by 

light industrial buildings, such as warehouses and other buildings, and agricultural fields. If 

SHINE clears the majority of the onsite wooded areas, visibility of the new facility and the 

contrast between the surrounding landscape and the new facility would be greater. Based on 

the low-to-moderate scenic quality and the forested and light industrial viewshed in the vicinity

of the Stevens Point site, construction-related aesthetic impacts would be SMALL to 

MODERATE during construction.

Operations

The appearance of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would not change during 

operation, other than a small steam plume that may be visible coming from the exhaust stack. 

The steam plume from the exhaust stack is expected to be minimal, because opacity associated 

with the natural-gas-fired boiler and heaters tends to be low, as described in Section 4.2.2.1. 

The steam plume would be more visible during periods of cold weather, although the size of the 

steam plume would still be relatively small. Therefore, visual impacts during operations would 

be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities, as they would involve 

heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. After 

SHINE completed decommissioning activities, the Stevens Point site could remain industrial, or 

be reconverted to agricultural land or open space. As the facility would be located in a district 

partially zoned for light industrial use, and the viewshed surrounding the Stevens Point site is 

partially aesthetically altered by light industrial buildings, the NRC staff would not expect any 

changes to the landscape during decommissioning to significantly affect any viewsheds. 

Therefore, visual impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL.

5.2.3.2 Air Quality and Noise

Air Quality

The climate at Stevens Point is similar to that in Janesville but is colder and has more snowfall, 

since the site is farther north. According to NCDC records for the years 1981 to 2010 

(NCDC 2010b), the average annual temperature is 44 °F (6.5 °C), average annual snowfall is 

44.7 in. (114 cm), and average annual precipitation (rain) is 32.63 in. (82.8 cm). July is the 

warmest month of the year and January the coldest. The NCDC records identify the following 

extreme weather events in Portage County from 1996 to 2013: thunderstorms (56 events), 

lightning (11 events), hail (60 events), tornadoes (5 events), heavy rain (7 events), and floods

(5 events) (NCDC 2014b). The Stevens Point site is located in Portage County and is part of 
Alternatives

5-54

the North Central Wisconsin Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.157). Portage 

County is designated as an attainment area for sulfur dioxide and an attainment/unclassifiable 

area for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter 

(40 CFR 81.350). Therefore, criteria pollutant concentrations in the county are lower than the 

NAAQS or there is insufficient data to determine if the NAAQS are met. The ROI for the air 

quality analysis discussed below is Portage County, because air quality designations are made 

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

Construction

Sources of air pollutant emissions during construction of the facility at Stevens Point site would 

include fugitive dust from earth-moving equipment and other vehicles, criteria pollutants from 

diesel engines, and exhaust gases from worker vehicles as they commute to and from the 

Stevens Point construction site. Air emissions from construction of the facility at Stevens Point 

would be similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), 

since construction activities and sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel 

equipment, equipment activity, fuel combustion). Additional air emissions would also result from 

the additional infrastructure needed at the Stevens Point site, such as roads, electrical lines, 

and pipelines. Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, 

carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4–3. Construction air emissions 

would be temporary and localized. Portage County, as discussed above, is designated an 

attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. Based on the 

estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect emissions from 

construction activities at the Stevens Point site to contribute to concentrations in the air that 

would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Portage County’s attainment/unclassifiable 

designation. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.2.1, SHINE may be required to obtain a

Type A Registration Construction Permit from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR); SHINE would be required to comply with the requirements and limitations stipulated 

within the Type A Registration Construction Permit obtained from WDNR.

Given the low emissions, the temporary nature of construction activities (18 months), and the 

pollution control measures that would be required in air permits from WDNR, the NRC staff 

concludes that air quality impacts during construction would be SMALL.

Operations

Sources of air emissions from operating the facility would be from radioisotope production, fuel 

combustion associated with processing and facility heating, and vehicular traffic from workers

commuting and from monthly truck shipments in and out of the facility. Air pollutants from these 

sources will include nitrogen oxides (from radioisotope production, fuel combustion, vehicular 

traffic), sulfur dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), particulate matter (from fuel 

combustion and vehicular traffic), carbon dioxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic), 

and carbon monoxide (from fuel combustion and vehicular traffic). Air emissions would be 

similar to those calculated for the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since 

operation activities and sources would be similar (worker vehicles, fuel combustion associated 

with processing and facility heating, and the production process). Portage County, as discussed 

above, is designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and therefore air quality is generally 

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.
Alternatives

5-55

expect emissions from a facility at the Stevens Point site to contribute to concentrations in the 

air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Portage County’s 

attainment/unclassifiable designation. Furthermore, SHINE would be required to comply with 

the requirements and limitations stipulated within the Type A Registration Operation Permit from 

WDNR.

Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded, that the Portage County air quality status 

is good, and that pollution control measures would be required in air permits from WDNR, the 

NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts during operation would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities would be similar to construction activities in type and duration. 

Sources of air emissions would be from diesel equipment, vehicle worker emissions, and 

fugitive dust from earth-moving activities. Air emissions would be similar to those calculated for 

the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville (Section 4.2), since decommissioning activities and 

sources would be similar (e.g., worker vehicles, diesel equipment, equipment activity, fuel 

combustion). Air emissions would include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, 

carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as provided in Table 4–9. Air emissions from 

decommissioning would be temporary and localized. Portage County, as discussed above, is 

designated an attainment/unclassifiable area and, therefore, air quality is generally good. 

Based on the estimated air emissions presented in Section 4.2, the NRC staff does not expect 

emissions from decommissioning at the Stevens Point site to contribute to concentrations in the 

air that would exceed NAAQS or that would deteriorate Portage County’s 

attainment/unclassifiable designation.

Given that NAAQS are not expected to be exceeded, the decommissioning activities would be 

temporary, and the Portage County air quality is good, the NRC staff concludes that air quality

impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL.

Noise

The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of Stevens Point. 

There are a number of noise-sensitive receptors within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the Stevens 

Point site and the closest noise-sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 2,060 ft 

(628 m) from the center point of the Stevens Point site and 1,050 ft (320 m) from the Stevens 

Point site boundary. The NRC staff did not identify or obtain noise surveys of the Stevens Point 

site and surrounding area. As discussed in Section 5.3.2.1, the Stevens Point site and 

surrounding area are agricultural land. Background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA in 

agricultural cropland areas (EPA 1978).

Construction

Noise sources during construction of the Stevens Point site would include construction 

equipment on site and increased traffic volumes. The maximum number of worker vehicles 

expected on site during construction is 451. The Stevens Point Site is bordered by Eisenhower 

Road to the west, McDill Avenue to the south, Burbank Road to the east, and Old Highway 18 to 

the north. The entrance road to the Stevens Point site would connect to a new road that the 

City of Stevens Point would construct along the northern boundary of the site (Section 5.2.3.10

below). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Eisenhower Highway and McDill Avenue 

will experience an increase in traffic volumes, regardless of the specific route taken to get to the 

site, and subsequently will see an increase in noise. Furthermore, because of the location of 

the entrance road, the nearest resident (approximately 1,050 ft (320 m) away) may experience 

increased noise levels as workers access the site. The NRC staff expects that, similar to the 

Janesville site, noise levels from construction traffic would increase no more than 3 dBA.
Alternatives

5-56

The types of equipment that would be used on site during construction are listed in Table 4–2. 

The closest noise-sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 1,060 ft (320 m) from 

the facility site boundary and 2,060 ft (628 m) from the center point of the Stevens Point facility. 

The NRC staff estimates noise levels of 58 dBA at the nearest residence to the Stevens Point 

site. Compared to estimated background noise levels (45 dBA), noise levels from construction 

may be noticeable to people in the vicinity of the site.

Given the distance of the nearest resident to the Stevens Point site and the noise levels from 

construction activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to 

MODERATE.

Operations

Noise sources during operation would be from worker vehicular traffic. Noise from operating 

equipment would be contained inside buildings and is not expected to be audible outside the 

proposed building facility. The number of worker vehicles expected during operation is 150

(SHINE 2013a). As discussed above, Eisenhower Road, McDill Road, and the entrance road 

will experience noise from operations worker’s traffic. Additional traffic volume will increase

noise levels by about 1 dBA.

Given that noise emissions from operating equipment are not expected to be audible beyond 

the building facility and additional noise emissions from worker vehicles are minor, the NRC

staff concludes that impacts from facility operation would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Noise sources during decommissioning of the Stevens Point site would include construction 

equipment on site and increased traffic volumes, similar to construction activities. The 

maximum number of worker vehicles expected on site during decommissioning is 261. As 

discussed above, Eisenhower Road, McDill Road, and the entrance road will experience noise 

from operation worker traffic. Noise levels from decommissioning traffic would be similar to 

those during construction and would increase about 2 dBA.

The types of equipment that would be used on site during decommissioning are listed in

Table 4–9. The closest noise-sensitive receptor is a residence located approximately 1,060 ft 

(320 m) from the facility site boundary and 2,060 ft (628 m) from the center point of the Stevens 

Point facility. The NRC staff estimates noise levels of about 52 to 58 dBA at the residence 

nearest to the Stevens Point site. Compared to estimated background noise levels (45 dBA), 

noise levels from construction may be noticeable to people in the vicinity of the site.

Given the distance of the nearest resident to the Stevens Point site and the noise levels from 

decommissioning activities, the NRC staff estimates that noise impacts would be SMALL to 

MODERATE.

5.2.3.3 Geologic Environment

The Stevens Point site is situated on the boundary between the Wisconsin Northern Highland 

and Central Plain physiographic provinces. This is between the Superior Upland and Central 

Lowland physiographic provinces of the United States (USGS 2003; SHINE 2013a). The site 

location is near a dividing line between areas affected by the younger Wisconsin glaciations that 

ended about 11,700 years ago and older glaciations of Illinoian age (WGNHS 2011). These 

events are further discussed in Section 3.3.1.

The topography of the site is flat to slightly hummocky. At the time of the NRC environmental 

site audit, portions of the site were being actively cultivated, with the remainder in forest 

coverage. A center point elevation of 1,113 ft (339 m), with a general slope gradient of 
Alternatives

5-57

southwest was established during the Phase I site assessment of the property (GAI 2012a, 

2012b). This is consistent with spot elevations taken from USGS topographic map coverage.

The surficial geologic unit at the Stevens Point site is mapped as meltwater sand and gravel 

(glacial outwash) of the Horicon formation. This unit is extensive across the central portion of 

Portage County and encompasses much of Stevens Point, including the proposed site. These 

sediments primarily consist of gravelly sands with dolomitic pebbles and cobbles in the upper 

part. It was deposited directly on the land surface by shallow, braided streams emanating from 

the Green Bay ice lobe to the east of the site (Clayton 1986).

SHINE contracted a preliminary geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation of the site, 

which included the installation of four monitoring wells (GAI 2012a, 2012b). Logs from the well 

borings revealed approximately 1 ft (0.3 m) of topsoil underlain by brown, medium-to-coarse 

grained-silty sand with trace gravel to a depth of 9- to 14-ft (2.7- to 4.3-m) bgs. Below this 

depth, the sediment consisted of medium-to-coarse grained and poorly graded sands, with silt 

up to 31-ft (9.4-m) deep, where the boreholes had to be terminated because of caving. All the 

sands were characterized as loose and wet, with no cobbles or larger fragments noted during 

drilling. Although not logged, an additional borehole was advanced to a depth of 140 ft (43 m) 

through sediments, without reaching bedrock (GAI 2012a, 2012b).

As for bedrock beneath the glacial sediments, county-level geological mapping shows the site to 

be located near the contact between Cambrian age sandstones of the Elk Mound Group and 

Precambrian intrusive igneous rocks (i.e., quartz monzonite and granite) (Greenberg and 

Brown 1986).

Construction sand and gravel is a commodity in the county (USGS 2013a). Geologic maps 

indicate several recent or historic quarrying operations in the vicinity of the site. Specifically, 

construction aggregate has been mined from large pits east and southeast of Stevens Point 

from glacial outwash materials (Clayton 1986).

Soil unit mapping by NRCS identifies the vast majority of soils across the site as consisting of 

Richford loamy sand, 0- to 2-percent slopes. This soil mapping unit is composed of somewhat 

excessively drained loamy sands to sandy loams, with sand in the lower portion of the soil 

profile at 41 to 60 in. (104 to 152 cm). The soil occurs on outwash plains and developed from 

sandy outwash materials. The depth to the water table in these soils is generally greater than 

80 in. (200 cm) and they are not prone to ponding. The only building site limitation these soils 

have is that excavations tend to be very unstable because of the coarse and loose sandy 

texture of subsoils. The southeast corner of the site is mapped as Billet sandy loam, 0- to 

2-percent slopes. This soil has characteristics similar to those of the Richford loamy sand. 

The Richford soil is classified as farmland of statewide importance while the Billet soil is prime 

farmland where otherwise not committed to developed uses (NRCS 2013b; 7 CFR 657.5).

As further described in Section 3.3.3, the State of Wisconsin lies within the central portion of the 

stable North American craton. Regional seismicity is characterized by relatively infrequent, 

small-to-moderate earthquakes that are typical of much of the central and eastern United States 

(USGS 2013b). Similar to the Janesville site, seismic hazard estimates prepared by the USGS 

indicate that the site is located within one of the lowest earthquake hazard areas in the 

conterminous United States (Petersen et al. 2011).

Within a radius of 200 mi (322 km) of the Stevens Point site, there have been 5 earthquakes 

with a magnitude equal to or greater than 2.5 recorded since 1973. The closest was a 

magnitude 2.6 earthquake with an epicenter approximately 180 mi (290 km) southeast of the

site near Campton Hills, Illinois (USGS 2013c). The largest earthquake was a magnitude 

3.8 event in the same general area of Illinois in February 2010 (USGS 2013d).
Alternatives

5-58

Construction

Ground-disturbing activities associated with facility construction would have impacts on geologic 

and soil resources similar to those discussed for the Janesville site (Section 4.3.1). Earthwork 

requirements and the ease of excavation would be very similar, as soils and surficial strata are 

comparable for the two sites. The depth to bedrock is not a concern for excavation work for the 

below-grade portions of the facility.

As at the Janesville site, shallow excavations could be prone to slumping. In addition, the 

presence of loose, water-bearing soils at depths below about 10-ft (3-m) bgs could require the 

use of bracing in trenches and other measures (e.g., cofferdams) during construction of the 

below-grade portion of the facility. The potential for soil erosion and loss would be similar to 

that at the Janesville and Chippewa Falls sites. However, as described in Section 4.3.1, 

adherence to standard BMPs for soil erosion and sediment control, and compliance with the 

provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4), would serve to 

minimize soil erosion and loss.

Site work and the creation of an impervious surface would result in the irretrievable loss of 

important farmland soils equal to the acreage disturbed and converted to an impervious surface. 

However, as a result of adherence to the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

No. WI-S067831-4) and implementation of the associated BMPs, the NRC staff finds that the 

overall impacts on the geologic environment from the construction of the proposed SHINE

facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

Operations

There would be no additional impact on geology and soils from facility operations at the Stevens 

Point site. Land temporarily disturbed during construction within the site boundary and lying 

outside the facility footprint would be revegetated and would not be subject to continued soil

erosion.

Regardless of the site location, the proposed SHINE facility would be sited, designed, and 

constructed in accordance with all applicable building codes, which provide for the evaluation of 

site geologic and soil conditions, including potential seismic hazards. As a result of these 

considerations, the NRC staff finds that the operational impacts associated with the geologic 

environment at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Facility demolition and other ground-disturbing activities associated with decommissioning 

would have impacts on soils and sediments similar to those described for construction. As site 

activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable local, State, and other Federal 

regulations and permits, the NRC staff finds that the impacts on the geologic environment from 

decommissioning the facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

5.2.3.4 Water Resources

Surface Water 

No streams or other surface-water bodies exist within the boundaries of the Stevens Point site. 

The only major surface-water feature in the immediate vicinity of the site is McDill Pond, an 

impoundment on the Plover River, located approximately 2.1 mi (3.4 km) west of the site. 

McDill pond covers 261 ac (106 ha) and attains a maximum depth of 20 ft (6.1 m) (University of 

Wisconsin 2005). Outflow from the south end of the impounded Plover River at the McDill Dam 

enters the Wisconsin River at a point approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) southwest of the site and 

south of Stevens Point. Drainage from the site would be expected to travel south and 
Alternatives

5-59

southwest toward the Plover River drainage. The Plover and Little Plover River watershed

drains an area of 202 mi2 (523 km2

) (WDNR 2013a).

There are no USGS gaging stations immediately downstream of the Stevens Point site. There 

is a USGS gaging station upstream of McDill Pond on the Plover River (Station 05400513) with 

a short period of record, as well as a station downstream of Stevens Point on the Wisconsin 

River at Wisconsin Rapids (Station 05400760). For the Plover River upstream of McDill Pond at 

Highway 66, the mean annual discharge measured at the USGS gage for water years 2010 

to 2012 is 185 cfs (5.23 m3

/s). The 90 percent exceedance flow, a measure of drought 

conditions, is 90 cfs (2.5 m3

/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 

(430 km2) (USGS 2012b).

No floodplains have been delineated on or near the site (City of Stephens Point 2006), and no 

tributaries to the Plover or Wisconsin Rivers originate on or near the site that could present 

backwater flooding concerns.

The State of Wisconsin has established water-quality standards and numeric criteria and 

associated designated-use categories for all waters of the State, as previously described in 

Section 3.4.1, and in accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 102 and 

NR 104). Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify “impaired” water for which 

effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water-quality 

standards in such waters. The segment of the Plover River including McDill Pond has a 

designated use for fish and aquatic life, has good water quality, and is listed as attaining 

designated uses (WDNR 2013a). Upstream of McDill Pond, the Plover River has experienced 

high fecal coliform bacteria levels that have resulted in the closure of the public beach at Iverson 

Park at some point during most swimming seasons. The contamination has been attributed to 

upstream livestock farms. The City of Stevens Point has focused on urban runoff as a 

water-quality concern for McDill Pond (City of Stevens Point 2006).

In Portage County, surface water is extensively used for self-supplied industrial and commercial 

uses but with very minor use for irrigation and livestock watering. However, groundwater is the 

primary and almost exclusive source for the domestic and municipal water supply 

(Buchwald 2011; City of Stevens Point 2006).

No industrial wastewater discharges have been identified in the site vicinity. Sanitary sewer 

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

/d), with a 

recorded peak demand of 3.68 mgd (13,900 m3

/d) (City of Stevens Point 2006).

Groundwater 

Except for the northwest portion, the surficial aquifer system is extensive across Portage County 

and is the principal water-bearing unit (Olcott 1992; Portage County 2004). As noted in 

Section 5.2.3.3, the aquifer is locally composed of meltwater sand and gravel (glacial outwash) 

of the Horicon formation. Locally, wells completed in the sand and gravel aquifer of the sand 

plain province of the county, in which the proposed site is located, have a potential yield 

exceeding 1,000 gpm (3,780 Lpm) of water (Portage County 2004). Well completion 

information for the four monitoring wells installed on the site in December 2011 indicates 

water-table conditions at depths ranging from about 8- to 11-ft (2.4- to 3.4-m) bgs (GAI 2012b). 

Other wells drilled in the vicinity of the site reflect groundwater depths ranging from 7 to 20 ft 

(2.1 to 6.1 m) bgs (SHINE 2013a). Groundwater in the vicinity of the site is mapped as flowing 

to the southwest, which is consistent with the topographic gradient in the vicinity of the site 

(Portage County 2004).
Alternatives

5-60

No groundwater quality data were obtained from the four monitoring wells installed on the site, 

and the wells were properly abandoned (closed) in March 2012 (GAI 2012b). However, the 

quality of groundwater across the county is reported as generally good, except for some natural 

occurrences of iron, manganese, radionuclides, and corrosive (i.e., soft-acidic) groundwater. 

Agricultural and petrochemical contamination of the local surficial (sand and gravel) aquifer is a 

concern, including nitrate and the pesticide atrazine (Portage County 2004). The State of 

Wisconsin regulates groundwater quality and administers groundwater protection programs in 

accordance with the Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 140).

As referenced above, groundwater is the source of potable and municipal water in Portage 

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

/d) 

(City of Stevens Point 2006, 2014). These wells are all completed in the local surficial (sand 

and gravel) aquifer at depths ranging from 53 to 90 ft (16 to 27 m) (WDNR 2013b). The 

Stevens Point water supply is protected both within and beyond the city limits by wellhead 

protection ordinances adopted by the various communities and by Portage County (City of 

Stevens Point 2006).

Construction

Facility construction activities at the Stevens Point site would not have any direct impact on 

surface-water resources, as no streams or other surface-water bodies originate within the 

boundaries of the site. The only major surface-water feature nearby is McDill Pond, an 

impoundment of the Plover River, located approximately 2.1 mi (3.4 km) west of the site. 

Because of the apparent shallow depth to the water table beneath the site, the need for 

groundwater dewatering would be likely during construction. Water removed from facility 

excavations would need to be discharged in accordance with appropriate State and local 

permits. The relatively shallow depth to groundwater would also likely require the installation of 

subdrain or permanent dewatering systems for the below-grade portions of the facility.

As discussed above (Geologic Environment) and detailed in Section 4.4.1.1 for the Janesville 

site, ground-disturbing activities at the site would be subject to a Wisconsin General Permit 

(WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This General Permit requires the development of 

appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures and spill prevention and waste 

management practices to minimize suspended sediment, the transport of other deleterious 

materials, and potential water-quality impacts.

No surface water or onsite groundwater would be withdrawn to support construction at the site. 

The relatively small volume of water required to support construction activities (averaging about 

0.012 mgd (45 m3

/day)) would be supplied by the City of Stevens Point, which uses 

groundwater. Water could either be supplied by a temporary water tap or trucked to the point of 

use. Wastewater generation would be limited to sanitary waste from the construction workforce 

and would likely be accommodated through the use of portable restroom facilities.

As no natural surface-water features occur on the site, SHINE would not divert or withdraw 

surface water to support facility construction, there would be no onsite withdrawal of 

groundwater, and SHINE would be subject to the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

No. WI-S067831-4), the NRC concludes that the impacts on surface and groundwater 

hydrology, water quality, and water use from the construction of the proposed SHINE facility at 

the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

Operations

Normal facility operations would not have any direct impact on surface-water or groundwater 

hydrology or quality. Compliance with the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 
Alternatives

5-61

No. WI-S067831-4), as described for construction, specifically requires the development of a 

stormwater management plan with appropriate BMPs to address runoff from buildings and other 

impervious surfaces. As detailed in Sections 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.2.2 for the Janesville site, the 

design, construction, and operation of the proposed facility would include necessary structural 

controls, and operations would be subject to appropriate plans and procedures to prevent any 

spills or other releases from reaching soils or surfaces where they could be conveyed to surface 

waters or groundwater.

Total water use is projected to be 6,073 gpd (22,990 Lpd), or 0.006 mgd (23 m3

/day) and would 

be supplied by the City of Stevens Point by a service connection. Projected water use would be 

a small percentage of the City of Stevens Point’s supply capacity.

Operation of the proposed SHINE facility would entail no direct discharge of wastewater

effluents to either surface water or groundwater. Wastewater generated by facility operations, 

composed primarily of sanitary waste, would be discharged to the City of Stevens Point WTP. 

Section 5.2.3.9 discusses the management of other waste forms.

Given that no natural surface-water features occur on the site, SHINE would not divert or 

withdraw surface water to support facility operation, and no direct discharge of wastewater

effluents to surface or groundwater would occur, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on 

surface water and groundwater hydrology, water quality, and water use from the operation of 

the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Facility decontamination, demolition, and site restoration activities would be similar regardless of 

the site, with the potential magnitude of the impacts on surface water and groundwater similar to 

those discussed for construction. All decommissioning activities would be conducted in 

accordance with appropriate BMPs and would observe waste handling and pollution prevention 

practices and spill prevention and response procedures during decommissioning, so that no 

materials or contaminants are released to soils or exposed to stormwater, where they could 

contaminate water resources.

Small quantities of water that may be required for dust control and soil compaction in 

association with site restoration activities would be supplied from municipal sources, as 

discussed for construction. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on water 

resources from facility decommissioning would be SMALL.

5.2.3.5 Ecological Resources

The Stevens Point site consists of 30.6 ac (12.4 ha) of agricultural land, 48.2 ac (19.5 ha) of 

deciduous forest, and 1.6 ac (0.6 ha) of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest (Table 5–9). 

Plant species on the site vary depending on previous land uses (Table 5–10). For example, 

approximately two-thirds of the site is a second-growth deciduous and evergreen forest. 

Common tree types include oaks (Quercus spp.), maples (Acer spp.), and pines (Pinus spp.). 

Various flower plants and grasses such as goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and aster

(Symphyotrichum spp.) occur along the edge of cultivated fields. Such species are 

representative of an early successional plant community, or type of species found in the few 

years after a large disturbance, such as plowing. Actively cultivated crops on the site primarily

include corn (Zea mays) (SHINE 2013a).
Alternatives

5-62

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

The Stevens Point site provides habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other 

wildlife tolerant of open fields, cultivated grasses, and frequent disturbances from human 

activity. During a reconnaissance survey, SHINE observed several birds at the Stevens Point

site, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), red-bellied 

woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), American 

crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), and various 

sparrows (SHINE 2015a). Common mammals that inhabit the site likely include deer, raccoons, 

squirrels, and rabbits. Common reptiles and amphibians that inhabit the site likely include frogs, 

turtles, and snakes.

No wetlands, water bodies, or other aquatic habitats exist within the boundaries of the Stevens 

Point site. The closest wetland is approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) north of the site boundary. In 

addition, the Plover River is approximately 2.0 mi (3.2 km) northwest of the site and the 

Wisconsin River is approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) southwest of the site. However, runoff is not 

expected to flow into these aquatic habitats because of drainage patterns, the distance from the 

site to the habitats, and the number of human-made features (such as roads, buildings, and 
Alternatives

5-63

railroads) separating the site from the aquatic habitats. Several ditches occur within the vicinity 

of the site, which provide minimal, low-quality aquatic habitats.

In correspondence with the NRC, FWS (2013) stated that the Stevens Point site is within the 

high potential range for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), a Federally 

endangered species (FWS 2013). Habitat for the Karner blue butterfly includes dry sandy 

prairie, oak savanna, jack pine forests, and sandy open scrub-shrub areas (FWS 2013). In 

Wisconsin, Karner blue butterflies are found along utility and road right-of-ways, abandoned 

agricultural fields, forest openings, and managed forests (FWS 2013; WDNR 2014d). The only 

food plant for the Karner caterpillar is wild blue lupine (Lupinus perennis) and, therefore, 

occurrence of this species is greatly limited to areas with wild blue lupine (FWS 2008). 

Caterpillars generally hatch from eggs in April and then pupate and emerge from their 

cocoon-like chrysalis by the end of May or in early June. A second generation generally 

hatches from eggs in late June and pupates and emerges as adults in July (FWS 2008).

Two species of special concern and two State-threatened species could occur within 6 mi 

(10 km) of the Stevens Point site (Table 5–11) (SHINE 2013a; WDNR 2014a). While these 

species may occur within the vicinity of the site, the Stevens Point site provides unsuitable 

habitat for any of the four State-protected species (SHINE 2015a; WDNR 2014a). SHINE did 

not observe any Federally or State-protected species on the Stevens Point site during 

reconnaissance surveys (SHINE 2015a).

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

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

The FWS also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which prohibits anyone from taking 

native migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The majority of the bird species that 

occur in Wisconsin, except for resident games birds and feral species, are protected under the 

Act (WDNR 2014c). In the vicinity of the site, migratory birds rely on riparian, forested, 

grassland, and wetland habitats as important areas for foraging, resting, avoiding predators, 

and, for some species, breeding. On the Stevens Point site, migratory birds could use trees for 

resting, breeding, nesting, and foraging.
Alternatives

5-64

Construction 

Construction of the facility at the Stevens Point site would result in permanently converting 

13.9 ac (5.6 ha) of deciduous forest and 3.6 ac (1.4 ha) of agricultural fields into an industrial 

facility or developed open space, such as parking lots. Furthermore, 13.6 ac (5.5 ha) of 

cropland would be temporarily disturbed during construction. Additional forested or agricultural 

land adjacent to the site would be disturbed to extend existing infrastructure to the site, such as 

roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. In addition to a loss of habitat from construction activities, 

noise from construction activities could disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such 

disturbances, birds and wildlife could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar 

habitat within the vicinity.

During construction, bird collisions with construction equipment and the new facility could result 

in mortality from the presence of tall structures and artificial night lighting during nighttime 

construction. The size of structures and the likelihood of mortality from bird collisions would be 

similar to that described in Section 4.5 for the proposed SHINE site in Janesville. In that 

analysis, the NRC staff determined that impacts from bird collisions would be negligible and 

unlikely to affect local or migratory populations, based on previous reviews of bird collisions at 

nuclear power plants that are similar or larger in height and size than the proposed SHINE 

facility.

Construction at the Stevens Point site is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic 

resources, such as habitat loss, because no aquatic resources occur on the Stevens Point site. 

Runoff from the site could affect the offsite aquatic resources, such as drainage ditches, by 

increasing turbidity or introducing various chemicals or other pollutants. SHINE (2013a) stated,

in its ER, that if the Stevens Point site is selected, SHINE would implement appropriate soil

erosion and sediment control BMPs to minimize the transport of suspended sediment and other 

pollutants. In addition, SHINE would be required, in its stormwater permit, to develop a 

site-specific plan to minimize pollution and runoff (Section 5.2.3.4).

In response to the NRC staff’s request for endangered and threatened species that could be 

affected by the proposed construction and operation, FWS (2013) stated that the Stevens Point 

site is within the high potential range for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). 

Furthermore, if the Stevens Point is selected as the proposed site for construction, FWS (2013) 

recommended surveys for the presence of wild blue lupines, and if present, then additional 

surveys to determine the presence of Karner blue butterflies. Therefore, if the Stevens Point 

site is selected for construction, additional consultation with FWS would be required to 

determine the potential occurrence of the Karner blue butterfly at the Stevens Point site.

FWS (2013) also stated that migratory birds could occur either on or within the vicinity of the 

site. If the Stevens Point site is selected, FWS (2013) recommended that any tree removal 

occur before May 1 or after August 30 to minimize impacts on breeding migratory birds that 

might use the trees for breeding, nesting, foraging, or resting.

Given that construction would not permanently or temporarily affect any high-quality habitats 

such as grasslands, undisturbed forests, or wetlands; permanently and temporarily affected 

habitats are available within the region; mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible; 

and no aquatic resources occur on the Stevens Point site, impacts on ecological resources 

during construction would be SMALL. If the Stevens Point site is selected, additional 

consultation with FWS would be required, under the Endangered Species Act, to determine the 

potential presence of, and any effects on, the Karner blue butterfly.
Alternatives

5-65

Operations

During operations, impacts on ecological resources could result from bird collisions, herbicide 

applications for landscape maintenance activities, elevated noise levels, and increased turbidity 

or introduction of pollutants from runoff. As described in Section 4.5, mortality from bird 

collisions is expected to be negligible, given that the tallest structure would be a stack at 

approximately 66 ft (20 m) tall. Disturbance from daily activities, herbicide applications, or 

elevated noise levels is likely to have minimal impacts on wildlife and plant species, given that 

the species identified at the Stevens Point site are generally tolerant of disturbance, because 

portions of the site have been actively farmed or modified for human use over the past several 

decades. In response to any disturbances during operation, birds and wildlife could move out of 

the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat within the vicinity.

Operation of the facility is not expected to result in any direct impacts on aquatic resources, 

because wastewater would be discharged to the City of Stevens Point sanitary sewer system 

after being treated (SHINE 2013a). Indirect impacts during operations could include runoff that 

may contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces, or herbicides. However, 

as described above, impacts on aquatic resources are expected to be minimal, because nearby 

aquatic resources are drainage ditches that provide low-quality habitat, and SHINE would be 

required, in its stormwater permit, to use appropriate soil erosion and sediment control BMPs.

Given that mortality from bird collisions is expected to be negligible, habitat disturbances during 

operations would be minimal, any disturbed wildlife could find similar habitat in the vicinity, and 

BMPs would be required in the SHINE stormwater permit, impacts on ecological resources 

during operations would be SMALL. As described above, if the Stevens Point site is selected, 

additional consultation with FWS would be required, under the Endangered Species Act, to 

determine the potential presence of, and any effects on, the Karner blue butterfly.

Decommissioning

Decommissioning activities would have similar impacts to those that occur during construction 

of the proposed facility. For example, SHINE would use construction equipment to dismantle 

large buildings, which could result in disturbances to wildlife and birds and potential runoff to 

nearby water bodies. In addition, some land on the site could be used as staging areas for the 

equipment and to conduct certain dismantling activities. As described above, if noise or other 

activities disturb birds or wildlife, similar habitat is available in nearby offsite areas. No surface 

water would be used during decommissioning, and SHINE would develop and implement spill 

prevention and response procedures as part of State permit requirements for ground-disturbing 

activities. Therefore, impacts during decommissioning are expected to be SMALL. As 

described above, if the Stevens Point site is selected, additional consultation with FWS would 

be required under the Endangered Species Act to determine the potential presence of, and any 

effects on, the Karner blue butterfly.

5.2.3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

A review of databases maintained by the National Park Service indicates that there are 

18 properties listed in the NRHP within Portage County (NPS 2015b). These historic properties 

reflect the historic cultural contexts for the proposed Stevens Point site and include historic 

buildings, structures, and districts dating from the mid-19th to mid-20th centuries. However, no 

historic properties are located within the APE, the Stevens Point site, or its immediate vicinity. 

The closest NRHP-listed property is Nelson Hall, approximately 3.8 mi (6.1 km) northwest of the 

Stevens Point site, surrounded by commercial and residential land. Nelson Hall was the first 

dormitory established at the Stevens Point Normal School, the precursor to University of 

Wisconsin―Stevens Point (NRHP 2013b). No archeological survey was commissioned by 
Alternatives

5-66

SHINE for the Stevens Point site. The NRC staff queried the Archaeological Sites Inventory 

and Architectural History Inventory, Burial Sites Inventory, and the Bibliography of 

Archaeological Reports at the Wisconsin Historical Society. No known historic or cultural 

resources or historic properties were found at the Stevens Point site (NRC 2013). In July 2015, 

the NRC received a determination from the WHS that no historic properties would be affected 

(WHS 2015) (see Appendix D). 

As there are no known historic properties, under 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), or historic and cultural 

resources located within the APE, impacts on these resources are not likely during the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility. The facility 

would also incur little or no visual or aesthetic impact, as potential visual impacts during 

construction and decommissioning would be temporary. The proposed SHINE facility is a 

low-profile build, and the nearest NRHP site is approximately 3 mi (5 km) away and is 

surrounded by residential and commercial properties. However, previously unidentified cultural 

resources could be inadvertently discovered during land-disturbing activities associated with 

construction, maintenance during operations, and decommissioning. It is expected that SHINE 

would employ a CRMP, similar to the one discussed in Section 4.6, to manage and protect 

as-yet-unidentified cultural resources.

Based on (1) no known NRHP-eligible historic properties or historic and cultural resources on 

the proposed SHINE facility site, (2) CRMP procedures, and (3) cultural resource assessment 

and consultations, construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the 

Stevens Point site would have no impact on known historic and cultural resources. However, 

given the possibility of the inadvertent discovery of unidentified cultural resources caused by 

land disturbance during construction, operations, and decommissioning, the overall impact 

would be SMALL.

5.2.3.7 Socioeconomics

Affected Environment

For the purposes of this analysis, the ROI is Portage County, Wisconsin, with special 

consideration being given to the site of the facility in Stevens Point. The City of Stevens Point is 

the county seat located in Portage County. According to the 2010 Census, the total population

of Portage County was 70,019, while the City of Stevens Point had a population of 26,717 

(USCB 2014e). Approximately one third of the population of Portage County resides in Stevens 

Point. The population in Portage County steadily increased from 1970 to 2010. According to 

the 2010 Census, there were 11,220 total housing units in the City of Stevens Point and 

30,054 housing units in Portage County. The total number of vacant housing units in the City of 

Stevens Point was 622 (5.5 percent) and 2,240 (7.5 percent) in Portage County (USCB 2014f).

Portage County had the highest employment by industry in trade, transportation, and utilities at 

7,368 employed (27.11 percent of employment), followed by manufacturing, with 

4,254 employed (15.65 percent), and financial activities, with 4,240 employed (15.60 percent) 

(BLS 2013). Several industries are represented in Stevens Point, which include insurance, 

education, medical, government, and manufacturing. The top three employers in Portage 

County are in Stevens Point: Sentry Insurance A Mutual Co., University of Wisconsin―Stevens 

Point, and Stevens Point Public School (WDWD 2013).

There was a slight decline in the labor force and employment totals between 2011 and 2012 in 

the City of Stevens Point. In 2011, the labor force total was 15,784, and it declined to 15,621 

in 2012. The employed total was 14,536 in 2011, and it dropped to 14,357 in 2012. There were 

also small declines in the labor force and employment totals for Portage County. The State of 

Wisconsin had a slight decline in the labor force figure, but the employment figure rose slightly 
Alternatives

5-67

from 2011 to 2012. The unemployment rate in Stevens Point was 8.1 percent, which was 

1.5 percent higher than the Portage County total of 6.6 percent and 1.2 percent higher than the 

6.9 percent for the State of Wisconsin in 2012 (BLS 2013). According to the Migrant Population 

Report issued by the WDWD, 268 migrant workers were employed in Portage County in 

agricultural and food processing jobs in 2011 (WDWD 2014).

According to 2007–2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the median family 

income for the City of Stevens Point was $56,992, while Portage County was $64,227. The per 

capita income for Stevens Point during the same time period was $21,893, while Portage 

County was slightly higher at $25,207. Tax rates vary by jurisdiction. Portage County has a 

0.5 percent county tax rate. The City of Stevens Point’s proposed government budget for 2014 

is $2,894,227, and the general property taxes in 2012 were $2,213,414 (City of Stevens 

Point 2013a).

The Stevens Point Area Public School District had a total of 7,402 students enrolled in pre-K to 

12th grade in 2012–2013. Nine elementary schools, two junior high schools, one senior high 

school, two specialized schools, and a 4K (kindergarten for 4 year olds) program make up the 

school district (Stevens Point Area Public School District 2013). Mid-State Technical College 

and the University of Wisconsin―Stevens Point are located in Stevens Point.

The City of Stevens Point has a number of recreational facilities, including several trails for 

walking, biking, and cross-country skiing. In addition there are 43 campgrounds in Stevens 

Point, numerous local parks, and the Main Street Historic District (WDNR undated). Cultural 

institutions include a Central Wisconsin Children’s Museum and a Museum of Natural History, 

Observatory, and Planetarium at the University of Wisconsin―Stevens Point.

Impact Analysis 

The estimated number of workers needed to construct, operate, and decommission the SHINE

facility at the Stevens Point site would be the same as the number of workers required for the 

proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site.

Construction

The 451 workers needed to construct the proposed SHINE facility would represent 2 percent of 

the total population (26,717) of Stevens Point and less than 1 percent of the population of 

Portage County (70,019) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). Most construction workers would likely reside 

within the ROI and would not permanently relocate because of the relatively short duration 

(18 months) of construction. In addition, the support infrastructure within the ROI would be able 

to accommodate a temporary increase in population. Since most of the 451 construction 

workers would likely already reside in the ROI, there would be no increase in demand for public 

services. Assuming that SHINE would enter into a TIF agreement with the City of Stevens 

Point, similar to the agreement in Janesville, in the first 10 years of the proposed project, the TIF 

agreement would allow SHINE to make payments in lieu of taxes to the City of Stevens Point. 

Tax payments totaling $600,000 per year would be used to offset infrastructure expenses. 

SHINE would also pay property taxes estimated to be $35,000 per year, based on the assessed 

property before improvements during this 10-year period (SHINE 2015a). The Stevens Point 

Area Public School District would receive a portion of the property tax benefits, since the 

Stevens Point site is located in that district. Sales tax revenue would also increase if materials 

and services were purchased within the ROI during construction. However, the total amount of 

tax revenue generated within the ROI during construction would be relatively small in 

comparison to the established tax base of Stevens Point and Portage County; Stevens Point’s 

2012 collected taxes were approximately $16.4 million, while Portage County collected 
Alternatives

5-68

$32.1 million in taxes in 2012 (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact 

during the construction of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL.

Operations

The 150 operations workers would represent 1 percent of the total 2010 population of Stevens 

Point (26,717) and less than 1 percent of Portage County (70,019) (USCB 2014a). It is likely 

that some workers would relocate to the ROI. However, the total number of operations workers 

would not create a significant socioeconomic impact. There is sufficient housing available in the 

ROI to accommodate any increase in the population from the proposed SHINE facility. There is 

also sufficient capacity in the public schools to accommodate the small increase in the 

school-age population when the proposed SHINE facility operations workers and their families 

relocate to the ROI. Public services, including water utilities, would be able to support the 

increased needs of operations workers and their families. SHINE would continue to make 

payments in lieu of taxes (estimated $600,000) and property taxes (estimated $35,000) during 

facility operations. However, after expiration of the 10-year TIF agreement with the City of 

Stevens Point, SHINE would pay property taxes of approximately $660,000 per year (SHINE 

2015a). The amount of property taxes could change, depending on the assessed value of the 

proposed SHINE facility. Stevens Point Area Public School District would also continue to 

receive property tax revenue from SHINE during facility operations. In addition, overall sales 

and property tax revenues would increase within the ROI, caused by the increase in the 

population from operations workers relocating to the ROI. However, the total amount of tax 

revenue generated during this period within the ROI would be relatively small in comparison to 

the established tax base of Stevens Point and Portage County. In 2012, Stevens Point received 

approximately $16.4 million in tax revenue, while Portage County received approximately 

$32.1 million (WDOR 2014). Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during SHINE facility 

operations would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

The 261 decommissioning SHINE workers would represent less than 1 percent of the total 

population of Stevens Point (26,717) and Portage County (70,019) in 2010 (USCB 2014a). 

Because of the short duration of decommissioning (6 months), workers would not likely relocate 

permanently to Stevens Point, and some of the SHINE operations workers could transition to 

decommissioning. Since it is likely that most decommissioning workers would already reside in 

the ROI, there would be little or no increased demand for public services. In addition, support 

infrastructure within the ROI would be able to accommodate any temporary increase in 

population. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact during the decommissioning of the 

SHINE facility would be SMALL.

5.2.3.8 Human Health

Construction

The construction of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that for the 

Janesville site. For example, there would be no significant physical differences in the design of 

the facility, workers would be exposed to similar construction hazards, and SHINE would 

implement similar construction methods and safety practices (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.8 of 

this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the 

Janesville site would be SMALL. In addition, existing infrastructure would need to be extended 

to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and pipelines. Construction workers would encounter 

potential hazards typical of any industrial or road construction site. The NRC staff assumed that 

normal construction safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) regulations, such as safety training, safety equipment, and supervision 
Alternatives

5-69

of the work force, would promote worker safety and reduce the likelihood of worker injury during 

construction (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, because there are no significant differences between 

the two sites or their facility design and injuries during the construction of related infrastructure 

would be minimized through normal construction safety practices, the NRC staff concludes the 

impacts from construction of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Points Falls site would 

also be SMALL.

Operations

The radiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that 

for the Janesville site. Radiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the Stevens 

Points site, including radiation sources and radioactive effluents, as well as implementation of a 

radiation protection program to minimize and ensure compliance with worker and public dose

limits in 10 CFR Part 20, would be essentially the same as those for a SHINE facility at the 

Janesville site (SHINE 2015a).

The nonradiological operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be 

similar to that for the Janesville site. Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at 

the Stevens Point site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste 

management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, 

physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive 

material, would be essentially the same as those for a SHINE facility at the Janesville site

(SHINE 2015a).

In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from operation of the proposed 

SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no 

significant differences between the two sites or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the 

radiological and nonradiological impacts on human health from operations at the proposed 

SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be SMALL.

Decommissioning

The decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar to that 

proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between the two 

sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2015a).

After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and 

associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe 

condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition 

until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. Facility workers would continue to receive 

radiation exposure during work activities relating to the cleanup, movement, storage, and 

disposal of radioactive material. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in 

Section 3.8 of this EIS would be used during decommissioning to ensure that worker and public 

radiation doses and exposure to nonradioactive chemicals remain within NRC and State limits.

In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from decommissioning the proposed 

SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there would be no 

significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and operation, and 

radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to ensure hazards to workers and 

the public would be within NRC and State limits, the NRC staff concludes the impacts on human 

health from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also 

be SMALL.
Alternatives

5-70

5.2.3.9 Waste Management

Construction

The construction of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Points site would generate similar types 

and volume of waste to those for the Janesville site. For example, there are no significant 

physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that would affect the 

potential types and volume of waste generated from construction (SHINE 2015a). In addition, 

existing infrastructure would need to be extended to the site, such as roads, electrical lines, and 

pipelines. Nonradiological waste would be generated during the construction of such 

infrastructure. The NRC staff assumed waste would be minimized because waste management 

systems would be implemented in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. In 

Section 4.9 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during construction of the 

proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are 

no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and because waste 

generated during the construction of related infrastructure would be minimized in accordance 

with applicable regulatory requirements, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from construction 

of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would also be SMALL.

Operations

The radiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would 

generate similar types and volumes of radioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. There 

are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites that 

would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the proposed 

facility (SHINE 2015a). In addition, the management of the radioactive waste would be similar, 

regardless of the location of the proposed facility. Implementation of a radiation protection 

program to minimize radiation exposure from the radioactive waste and ensure compliance with 

worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 would be essentially the same as those 

discussed in Section 4.8 of this EIS for a proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site

(SHINE 2015a).

The nonradiological operations of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would 

generate similar types and volumes of nonradioactive waste to those for the Janesville site. 

There are no significant physical differences between the design of the facility or the two sites 

that would affect the potential types and volume of waste generated from operation of the 

proposed facility (SHINE 2015a). Nonradiological factors associated with a SHINE facility at the 

Stevens Point site, including nonradioactive chemical sources, nonradioactive waste 

management and effluent control systems, chemical exposure to the workers and the public, 

physical occupational hazards, and mitigation measures to minimize exposure to nonradioactive 

material, would be essentially the same as those discussed in Section 4.8 of this EIS for a 

proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a).

In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from radiological and nonradiological 

waste generated during facility operations at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site 

would be SMALL. Therefore, because there are no significant differences between the two sites 

or their facility design, the NRC staff concludes the radiological and nonradiological impacts on 

human health from waste generated from operating the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens 

Point site would also be SMALL.

Decommissioning

The decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be similar

to that proposed for the Janesville site. There are no significant physical differences between 

the two sites that would affect the potential impacts from decommissioning (SHINE 2015a).
Alternatives

5-71

After permanent cessation of operations, the equipment used for radioisotope production and 

associated processing equipment would be taken out of service and maintained in a safe 

condition. The uranium fuel and other radioactive materials would be stored in a safe condition 

until packaged and transported to a disposal facility. The types and amounts of radioactive and 

nonradioactive wastes generated during decommissioning would be similar to those generated 

at the Janesville site. The radiological and nonradiological controls discussed in Section 3.8 of 

this EIS would be used during decommissioning to protect workers and the public from the 

waste (SHINE 2013a).

In Section 4.8 of this EIS, the NRC concluded the impacts from waste during decommissioning 

of the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. Therefore, because there 

would be no significant differences between the two sites or their facility design and operation, 

and radiological and nonradiological controls would be in place to protect workers and the public 

from the waste, the NRC staff concludes the impacts on human health from waste during

decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

5.2.3.10 Transportation

Major roads and transportation features in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site are shown in 

Figure 5–5. The site lies east of the town of Stevens Point, near Interstate 39, and there are 

currently no roads that access or border the undeveloped site. Existing local roads nearest to 

the Stevens Point site are County Highway R (Eisenhower Road), approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) 

to the west; County Highway HH (McDill Avenue), approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) to the south; and 

Burbank Road, approximately 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the east. County Highway R is an undivided 

four-lane road with a curbed shoulder, whereas County Highway HH and Burbank Road are 

two-lane roads with minimal paved shoulders. Interstate 39 would provide major highway 

access to the site using U.S. Highway 10 to the north or County Highway HH to the south 

(SHINE 2013a).

Annual average daily traffic volumes for various roads and locations in the vicinity of the 

Stevens Point site are listed in Table 5–12. Morning, midday, and evening peak hourly traffic 

counts for associated locations are listed in Table 5–13. Available traffic data for road segments 

near the Stevens Point site suggests that peak volume along County Road R averages 

approximately 450 to 800 vehicles per hour, while peak volume along County Road HH 

averages approximately 300 to 500 vehicles per hour (WDOT 2011a).

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
Alternatives

5-72

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

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

Construction

Construction of the Stevens Point site would require new access roads to the site. As shown in 

Figure 5–2, the SHINE facility entrance road would connect with a new east-west street that 

would be constructed by the City of Stevens Point along the northern boundary of the site, 

between County Highway R to the west and Burbank Road to the east. A second street, 

running north-south along the western boundary of the site, would also be constructed to 

connect the new east-west street with County Highway HH to the south (SHINE2015a).

Given that construction at the Stevens Point site would be very similar to that described for the 

proposed Janesville site, SHINE estimated that construction of the proposed facility at the 

Stevens Point site would require an average of 420 deliveries per month (14 deliveries per day) 

and 9 offsite waste shipments per month using heavy vehicles (dump trucks/delivery trucks) 

(SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during construction would add an estimated 

451 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff similarly 

assumed that, with a total of 465 vehicles per day, each having an arrival and departure trip, 

and some vehicles making return trips during the day (e.g., off site trips for lunch), vehicle 

counts immediately adjacent to the proposed SHINE facility may temporarily increase by 

approximately 1,000 trips per day.

As with the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, no sources or routes for construction 

materials, including concrete, have been specified, and SHINE plans to ensure that delivery 

routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas associated with the Stevens Point site

(SHINE 2013b). SHINE and the common-carrier trucks would be required to adhere to the 

applicable regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material in 

NRC’s regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State of Wisconsin’s Administrative Code, 

Chapter 326, “Transportation”; and DOT requirements (49 CFR Parts 172 and 173)

(SHINE 2015a). Table 5–12 indicates that County Highway R and County Highway HH 

experience approximately 8,000 and 6,100 vehicles per day, respectively, near the Stevens 

Point site. Accordingly, the addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips 
Alternatives

5-73

per day) from SHINE construction activities would result in increased traffic volumes on County 

Highway R and County Highway HH of approximately 13 and 16 percent, respectively. 

Additionally, the percentage of heavy trucks on this route would temporarily increase. However, 

available traffic counts do not distinguish between types of vehicles currently traveling this route,

and the increase in traffic volume would be temporary and limited to the period of construction.

SHINE’s traffic analysis indicated that projected levels of peak construction-related traffic could

noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, but these delays would not be sufficient to 

destabilize the transportation infrastructure (SHINE 2015a). SHINE plans to use a staggered 

construction work shift schedule to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto County Highway R and 

County Highway HH and schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help mitigate the potential 

increases in traffic that could occur during peak periods (SHINE 2013b). Increased traffic 

volumes may also merit mitigation in the form of infrastructure upgrades, such as widening or 

adding turning lanes. Increased traffic volumes on other roads in the vicinity are expected to be 

less but could still be significant (SHINE 2015a). Therefore, the impact on transportation 

infrastructure during construction would be MODERATE.

Operations

Given that operation of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be very similar to that 

described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that a maximum of 150 worker vehicles 

distributed over three work shifts per day would access the site using the planned new access 

roads that would be constructed (SHINE 2014, 2015a). The NRC staff estimated that each 

vehicle would require separate trips to and from the proposed SHINE facility, plus a number of 

trips to and from the proposed facility during the midshift, resulting in approximately 

325 additional worker vehicle trips daily. The additional 325 vehicle trips associated with the 

Stevens Point site represents an increase of 5 percent or less to the average annual daily traffic

on roads in the area.

In addition to operations employees commuting to the proposed facility, SHINE estimates traffic

to and from the facility would also include:

• an average of 36 truck deliveries per month to the proposed SHINE facility, which 

would include both radioactive and nonradioactive materials (SHINE 2015a, 2015b);

• an average of 39 outbound product shipments per month through the Stevens Point 

Municipal Airport (SHINE 2015b);

• an average of 25.6 radioactive waste shipments per year (SHINE 2015b); and 

• an average of one shipment per month of nonradioactive domestic and industrial 

waste (SHINE 2015a, 2015b).

SHINE’s preferred method for shipping radioisotope products from the Stevens Point site would 

be to transport them by truck to Stevens Point Municipal Airport, approximately 4 miles (6 km) 

away, for subsequent air transport to customers. Other airports that would be suitable for 

shipping these products, including Minneapolis–St. Paul Airport, Dane County Regional Airport, 

and O’Hare International Airport, would be more than 2 hours away by truck (SHINE 2015a).

The NRC staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

SHINE facility to increase slightly above current levels during operation but not to an 

appreciable extent when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the 

immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site, as presented in Tables 5–12 and 5–13.

Similar to the activities that would occur at the Janesville site, SHINE would transport 

radioactive waste from the Stevens Point site to an offsite storage, treatment, or disposal facility. 
Alternatives

5-74

A common-carrier truck would likely transport the waste. SHINE and the common-carrier trucks 

would be required to adhere to the applicable regulatory packaging and transportation 

requirements for radioactive material in NRC’s regulations (10 CFR Parts 20 and 71); the State 

of Wisconsin’s Administrative Code, Chapter 326, “Transportation”; and DOT requirements 

(49 CFR Parts 172 and 173) (SHINE 2015a). These regulations help ensure public health and 

safety on roadways.

Based on the relatively small increase in traffic compared to the average daily and annual traffic 

flows near the Stevens Point site, and because SHINE and common-carrier trucks would be 

required to adhere to the applicable NRC, DOT, and the State of Wisconsin regulatory 

packaging and transportation requirements for radioactive material, the NRC staff concludes 

that the impact on transportation infrastructure during operations would be SMALL.

Decommissioning

Given that decommissioning the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be very similar to 

that described for the Janesville site, SHINE estimates that an average of 72 truck deliveries 

and 191 offsite waste shipments per month, (a total of approximately nine heavy-vehicle 

shipments per day) would be required (SHINE 2014, 2015a). Peak worker traffic volume during 

decommissioning would add an estimated 261 vehicles per day (SHINE 2014, 2015a). 

Therefore, the NRC staff estimates that there could be an increase of approximately 580 trips a 

day on local roads during the decommissioning phase, increasing average daily traffic on roads 

in the immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site from what was being experienced during the 

operations phase.

Peak decommissioning-related traffic could noticeably alter existing transportation conditions, 

but these delays would not be sufficient to destabilize the transportation infrastructure. SHINE

could use a staggered work shift schedule, similar to that employed during construction, to 

reduce the hourly traffic flow onto new site access roads and schedule truck deliveries early in 

the day to help reduce traffic congestion (SHINE 2013b). However, the change in average daily 

traffic flows in the immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site and an increase in commuter, 

truck delivery, and waste traffic directly related to decommissioning activities, could affect local 

commuting patterns. Therefore, the impact on transportation infrastructure during the 

decommissioning phase would be MODERATE.

5.2.3.11 Accidents

SHINE stated, in its ER, that no conditions have been identified for the Stevens Point site that 

would significantly affect the radiological or nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents

differently than at the proposed facility at the Janesville site (SHINE 2015a). The NRC staff 

considers this assumption reasonable, because the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be essentially the same 

as at the Janesville site since the design, construction, operations, and decommissioning are 

similar. In addition, the same radiological and nonradiological safety regulations applicable to 

the Janesville site would apply to the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2015a).

In Section 4.11 of this EIS, the NRC concluded that the impacts from radiological and 

nonradiological accidents at the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site would be SMALL. 

Given that no significant differences exist between the two sites or their facility design and 

operations, the NRC staff concludes the impacts from potential accidents at the proposed 

SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.
Alternatives

5-75

5.2.3.12 Environmental Justice

This section describes the potential human health and environmental effects from the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on minority and 

low-income populations living in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site. The NRC staff addresses 

environmental justice issues and concerns by first identifying potentially affected minority and 

low-income populations, and then determining whether there would be any potential human 

health or environmental effects and whether these effects may be disproportionately high and 

adverse.

Minority-population data were available for Census block groups within a 5-mi (8-km) radius 

around the Stevens Point site. Low-income population data were only available at the Census 

tract level because of the limited availability of poverty data at the block group level. To protect 

confidentiality, USCB does not publish information about small geographic areas if the 

population size is too small. Race and ethnicity and poverty Census data were used to identify 

the location of minority and low-income populations near the Stevens Point site. If the Census 

tract and block group boundaries crossed the 5-mi (8-km) radius boundary, the entire Census 

tract or Census block group data were used. Geographic information system software was 

used to create the maps.

Minority Populations

According to 2010 Census information, approximately 11 percent of the population in the City of 

Stevens Point identified themselves as a minority. The largest minority population was Asian, 

comprising approximately 5 percent of the total population, followed by Hispanic or Latino (of 

any race) comprising approximately 2 percent of the total population. In Portage County, 

7.3 percent of the total population identified themselves as minority (USCB 2014e).

Table 5–14 lists minority populations within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. 

Within this radius, 7.2 percent of the total population identified as a minority (UCSB 2014c). The 

largest minority group was Asian (3.3 percent), followed by Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 

(2.2 percent) (USCB 2014e).

Figure 5–7 shows minority populations within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. 

Census block groups were considered minority population block groups if the percentage of the 

minority population within any block group exceeded 7.2 percent. Twelve of the 23 Census 

block groups were found to have meaningfully greater minority populations. The Stevens Point 

site is located in Census Tract 9607.02, Block Group 1, a minority population block group with a 

minority population of 8.3 percent.
5-76

Table 5–14. Minority Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) 

of the Stevens Point Site

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

5-77

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

Source: USCB 2014e, 2010 Census Summary File 1. Table P9. Hispanic or Latino or Not 

Hispanic or Latino by Race

Low-Income Population

According to 2006–2010 American Community Survey estimates, 6 percent of families residing 

within Portage County were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold. Within the 

City of Stevens Point, 7.6 percent of families and 22.8 percent of all people were identified as

living below the Federal poverty threshold. The 2010 Federal poverty threshold was $22,314 for 

a family of four (USCB 2014f).

Table 5–15 lists low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens 

Point site; 10.9 percent of the total population within that radius was identified as living below 

the Federal poverty level (UCSB 2014f).

Census tracts groups were considered low-income population tracts if the percentage of 

individuals living below the Federal poverty level exceeded 10.9 percent. Figure 5–8 shows 

low-income population Census tracts within a 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. 

Three of the nine Census tracts were found to have meaningfully greater low-income 

populations. The Stevens Point site is located within Census Tract 9607.02, with 7 percent of 

people living below the Federal poverty level, which is not considered a low-income Census 

tract.
Alternatives

5-78

Table 5–15. Low-Income Populations Within 5 mi (8 km) 

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.

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

Source: USCB 2014f, 2006–2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table DP03 

Selected Economic Characteristics
Alternatives

5-79

Analysis of Impacts

As previously discussed, the environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for 

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 

low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility. Some of these potential effects have been described in the other 

resource areas discussed in this EIS. Chapter 5 presents the assessment of environmental and 

human health impacts for each environmental resource area.

In the impact analysis, the NRC first identified all potential human health and environmental 

effects and then determined the significance of the impact and whether or not minority or 

low-income populations would experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. The 

NRC then considered whether the radiological or other health effects were significant or above 

generally accepted norms, whether the risk or rate of the hazard was significant and appreciably 

in excess of that of the general population, and whether the radiological or other health effects 

would occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from 

environmental hazards. The NRC determined whether the following human health and 

environmental effects have the potential to disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

populations living in close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility site:

• radiological and nonradiological human health impacts (Section 5.2.3.8),

• noise impacts (Section 5.2.3.2), and

• traffic impacts (Section 5.2.3.10).

The NRC also considered whether there would be an impact on the natural or physical 

environment that would significantly and adversely affect a particular group, whether there 

would be any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or are likely to 

appreciably exceed those on the general population, and whether environmental effects would 

occur in populations affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from an 

environmental hazard.

Construction 

Similar to constructing the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville location, potential impacts 

on minority and low-income populations residing near the Stevens Point site would mostly 

consist of environmental effects during construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and 

housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during construction would be short term and 

primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority populations residing along site access roads, 

particularly in Census Tract 9607.02, Block Group 1, could be disproportionately affected by 

increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic and noise and dust from construction. However, 

because of the temporary nature of construction, these effects are not likely to be high and 

adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain hours of the day. 

Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause rental housing costs 

to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations within the ROI (Portage County),

who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of construction workers

and the likelihood that most workers would already reside within the ROI, workers could 

commute to the construction site, thereby reducing the need for rental housing.

Operations 

Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations during SHINE facility operations at the 

Stevens Point site would mostly consist of radiological and nonradiological human health and 

environmental (e.g., noise and traffic) effects. Everyone living near the Stevens Point site would 
Alternatives

5-80

be exposed to the same potential operational effects, and any impacts would depend on the

magnitude of the change in current environmental conditions.

As discussed in the Human Health section of this EIS (Section 5.2.3.8), the level of potential 

radiological doses to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual 

dose limit and well within the NRC and the State of Wisconsin’s regulatory limits. As a result, 

minority or low-income populations, as well as the general population living in close proximity to 

the proposed SHINE facility site, would not be adversely affected by radiation exposure during 

facility operations. Permitted nonradiological air emissions are expected to remain within 

regulatory standards.

As discussed in the Noise section of this EIS (Section 5.2.3.2), noise emissions from commuter 

traffic during SHINE facility operations would increase. Noise from operating equipment would 

be contained inside buildings and would not be audible outside the proposed SHINE facility 

buildings at the site. However, additional noise emissions from worker vehicles would be minor 

(1 dBA), and noise emissions from shipments are not anticipated to increase noise levels 

beyond current levels.

Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would be directly affected 

by increased commuter vehicle and truck traffic during facility operations. However, as 

discussed in the Transportation section of this EIS (Section 5.2.3.10), the only appreciable 

impact would be a “slight degradation of service” (i.e., traffic delays) at intersections during the 

morning peak hour. The overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

SHINE facility would increase slightly during facility operations but would not be of an 

appreciable nature when compared with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the 

immediate vicinity of the Stevens Point site.

Therefore, offsite noise and traffic impacts caused by the proposed SHINE facility operations 

would be SMALL for both of these resource areas. Nevertheless, given the fact that the 

Stevens Point site is located in a designated minority block group, minority populations living in 

close proximity to the proposed SHINE facility during operations could be disproportionately 

affected. However, based on the analyses of impacts conducted for other resource areas 

discussed in this EIS, impacts on minority or low-income populations, as well as on the general 

population living in close proximity to the Stevens Point site, would not be considered high and 

adverse.

Decommissioning

Similar to construction impacts, potential impacts to minority and low-income populations 

residing near the Stevens Point site would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic 

effects during decommissioning (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). 

Noise and dust impacts during the decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility at the 

Stevens Point site would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and 

low-income populations residing along site access roads, particularly in Census Tract 9607.2, 

Block Group 1, could be disproportionately affected by increased commuter vehicle and truck 

traffic and noise and dust during decommissioning. However, because of the temporary nature 

of decommissioning, these effects are not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained 

within a limited period during certain hours of the day. Increased demand for rental housing 

during decommissioning could cause rental costs to rise, disproportionately affecting lowincome populations who rely on inexpensive housing. However, given the small number of 

decommissioning workers and the likelihood that most of the workers would already reside 

within the ROI, workers could commute to the Stevens Point site, thereby reducing the need for 

rental housing.
Alternatives

5-81

In addition, the environmental impacts from decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility would 

be SMALL for all resource areas. There is no evidence that impacts from decommissioning 

would be disproportionately high and adverse to minority or low-income populations.

Subsistence and Special Conditions

As discussed in Section 4.12, the special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the 

environmental justice analysis, because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or 

cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area, such as migrant workers

or Native Americans. Based on the air and water quality discussions and the discussion of 

human health effects in this EIS, it is unlikely that there would be any disproportionately high 

and adverse human health impacts in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a 

result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, or wildlife. The operation of the 

SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would not have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects on these populations.

Summary

The Steven’s Point site is located in a minority population block group. Similar to the Janesville 

site, any minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads or near the site 

could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and vehicular

traffic during construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and 

decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. 

Facility operations at the Stevens Point site would not adversely affect minority and low-income 

populations living near the existing industrial park. The level of potential radiological doses to 

the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well 

within the NRC and the State of Wisconsin’s regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are 

expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income 

populations residing near the Stevens Point site could experience short-term disproportionate, 

but not high and adverse, environmental effects during construction and decommissioning. In 

addition, based on the discussions of air and water quality and human health effects for this 

alternative, SHINE facility operations at the Stevens Point site would not likely cause high and

adverse human health or environmental effects for minority and low-income populations.

5.2.3.13 Cumulative Impacts

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects and other actions 

that could result in cumulative impacts at the Stevens Point site were identified by reviewing 

published and unpublished data, including economic development plans, permit lists, news 

releases, and similar sources of information. An effort was made to identify all relevant activities 

conducted, regulated, or approved by a Federal agency or non-Federal entity within 5 mi (8 km) 

of the Stevens Point site. Available information about the projects and other activities identified 

is provided in Table 5–16.
Alternatives

5-82

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

Actions Retained for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Within a 5-mi (8-km) ROI of the 

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
Alternatives

5-83

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

Land Use and Visual Resources

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on land use and visual 

resources, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.1

serves as baseline conditions for the cumulative impact assessment of land use and visual

resources. The incremental impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility on land use and visual resources would be SMALL, as described in 

Section 5.2.3.1.

Land Use

The projects and activities described in Table 5–16 would result in minimal changes to existing 

land uses, because new construction would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, 

or within areas that are currently zoned for industrial or residential use. Future urbanization and 

global climate change could contribute to additional decreases in agricultural lands, forests, 

grasslands, and wetlands. Urbanization in the vicinity of the Stevens Point site would alter 

important attributes of land use. Urbanization would reduce natural vegetation and agricultural 

fields, resulting in an overall decline in the extent and connectivity of wetlands, forests, 

grasslands, and wildlife habitat. Global climate change could reduce crop yields and livestock 

productivity (USGCRP 2014), which might change portions of agricultural land uses. However, 

existing parks, reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas. 

In addition, zoning laws and comprehensive land use plans would help ensure a proper balance 

of development (City of Stevens Point 2006).
Alternatives

5-84

Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act and its implementing regulations, the presence of 

important farmland soils (7 CFR 657.5), including prime farmland, was included in the 

cumulative impacts analysis. Development projects listed in Table 5–16 would incrementally

and cumulatively add to the loss of important farmland soils, including prime farmland soils, in 

the region surrounding the proposed site. Otherwise qualifying farm lands in or already 

committed to urban development; lands acquired for a project on or before August 4, 1984; and 

lands acquired or used by a Federal agency for national defense purposes are exempt from the 

Act’s provisions (7 CFR 658.2 and 658.3). Because many of the proposed projects have been 

committed to development, those sites do not have qualifying important farmland soils subject to 

the Act. The conversion of otherwise qualifying soils by projects within 5 mi (8 km) of the 

Stevens Point site would have a relatively minor impact on the inventory of important farmland 

soils within Portage County, as much of the northern and eastern sections of the county have 

lands mapped as prime farmland and prime farmland, if drained, in addition to farmland of 

statewide importance (Portage County 2006).

Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities would occur within or adjacent to 

existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use, cumulative impacts on

land use resources would be SMALL.

Visual Resources

The projects and activities described in Table 5–16 could result in changes to the existing 

viewshed, because the viewshed is varied and includes both aesthetically altered landscapes 

(agricultural fields, building, and warehouses) and natural wooded areas. New construction 

would occur either within or adjacent to existing facilities, or within areas that are currently 

zoned for industrial or residential use and, therefore, would have minimal impacts on visual 

resources. However, some could occur within wooded areas. Construction and operation of 

facilities within these areas would alter onsite conditions, and the contrast between the 

surrounding landscape and the new facility would be greater. Currently existing trees and 

buildings could partially obstruct views of the modified landscape.

Given that reasonably foreseeable new construction activities could occur within or adjacent to 

existing facilities or within areas zoned for industrial or residential use and of low scenic quality, 

or could occur within naturally wooded areas where there would be a noticeable contrast 

between the new facility and the forested viewshed, the NRC staff determined that cumulative 

impacts on visual resources would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Air Quality and Noise

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on air quality and noise, when 

added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. The incremental impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of

the proposed SHINE facility on air quality would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.3.2. 

The incremental impacts from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility on noise would be SMALL to MODERATE, as described in 

Section 5.2.3.3.

Air Quality

The ROI considered for the air quality analysis for a facility located in Stevens Point is Portage 

County, since air quality designations for criteria air pollutants are generally made at the county 

level.
Alternatives

5-85

As shown in Table 5–16, the ongoing and future projects located within 5 mi (8 km) of the 

Stevens Point site involve air permits. While these projects increase air-emission 

concentrations within the county, the activities would need to comply with the requirements

stipulated in the permit. Therefore, these activities and projects are not expected to have 

significant impacts on air quality. Climate changes can affect air quality, as a result of changes 

in meteorological conditions. The combination of higher temperatures, stagnant air masses, 

sunlight, and emissions of precursors may make it difficult to meet NAAQS (USGCRP 2014). 

States, however, must continue to comply with the Clean Air Act and ensure air quality

standards are met.

The NRC staff determined that the potential cumulative air quality impact associated with 

SHINE operations, in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would be SMALL, 

primarily because projects that have overlapping impacts with the proposed SHINE facility 

would need to comply with requirements stipulated in air permits and would have relatively low 

emissions.

Noise

The ROI considered for noise is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the site boundary of the SHINE

facility at the Stevens Point site. Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When distance is 

doubled from a point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (MPCA 2014). For example, at 

half-a-mile distance from construction equipment with noise levels in the range of 85-90 dBA, 

noise levels can drop to 51–61 dBA and at a 1-mi (1.6-km) distance, levels drop further to 

45-55 dBA. Generally, a 3-dBA change over existing noise levels is considered to be a “just 

noticeable” difference, and a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in 

loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (NWCC 2002). To 

account for noise near the site boundary during construction and decommissioning, the ROI 

considered is a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius from the boundary of the proposed facility.

Some of the projects in Table 5–16 could produce increases in ambient noise that might affect 

some of the same areas at the Stevens Point site, since they involve construction activities. 

However, most of these projects are located 1 to 5 mi (1.6 to 8 km) from the Stevens Points site 

and noise impacts are not expected to be significant. For those projects that are within the 1-mi 

(1.6-km) radius ROI, construction equipment can result in noise levels in the range of

85-90 dBA; however, noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance, such that at half-a-mile

distance from construction equipment, noise levels can drop to 51–61 dBA (NRC 2002). 

Therefore, these projects would not be expected to have significant overlapping noise impacts if 

construction occurred at the Stevens Point site. Given the distance of the nearest resident to 

the Stevens Point site and noise levels from construction and decommissioning activities, the 

NRC staff concludes that cumulative impacts on noise levels would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Geologic Environment

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on the geologic environment,

when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. The cumulative impacts on the geologic environment primarily relate to land 

disturbance and the potential for soil erosion and loss, as well as the projected consumption of 

geologic resources. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.3 serves as 

the baseline for the cumulative impact assessment of the geologic environment. The 

geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on soil resources includes the 

5-mi (8-km) vicinity surrounding the proposed site. For geologic resources, the extent of the 

geologic area of analysis has been expanded to all of Portage County to encompass potential 

commercial sources of rock and mineral resources to support construction activities at the 
Alternatives

5-86

proposed site and vicinity. As the aspects of land disturbance and conversion are addressed 

separately in the Land Use section above, the cumulative impacts analysis here will focus on 

soil loss and consumption of geologic resources.

The NRC staff concludes that the incremental impacts from construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility on the geologic environment, including 

geologic and soil resources, would be SMALL, as described in Section 5.2.3.3.

New development and expansion projects listed in Table 5–16 would consume or extract 

geologic resources, including rock and mineral resources, or would require materials derived 

from such geologic resources (e.g., concrete). However, common construction materials such 

as sand and gravel and crushed stone are available and widely abundant in the county 

(Section 5.2.3.3) or are available regionally. Neither the geologic resource requirements to

construct the proposed SHINE facility nor the resource requirements of any of the other 

identified facility expansion, development, or transportation projects are on a scale that would

be likely to affect the regional sources and supplies of the identified resources. In conclusion, 

the NRC staff finds that cumulative impacts on geologic and soil resources would be SMALL.

Water Resources

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on water resources, when 

added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. The cumulative impacts on surface-water resources relate to issues concerning water 

use, water quality, and potential climate change. This further encompasses water withdrawal, 

effluent discharges, accidental spills and releases, and stormwater drainage and runoff. The 

description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.4 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impact assessment of water resources. For surface-water resources, the extent of 

the geolographic area of analysis has been expanded to include McDill Pond, an impoundment 

on the Plover River. For groundwater resources, the area considered encompasses the local 

groundwater basin in which groundwater is recharged and flows to discharge points and those 

aquifers from which groundwater is withdrawn through wells. Specifically, the cumulative 

impacts analysis focuses on those projects and activities that, when combined with the 

proposed action, would: (1) withdraw water from or discharge wastewater to McDill Pond and 

the Plover River downstream of the proposed site or (2) would use groundwater or could 

otherwise affect the same aquifers that would supply water to the proposed site. As discussed 

in Section 5.2.3.4, impacts on water resources at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL.

In addition to the proposed SHINE facility, new development and expansion projects listed in 

Table 5–16 and disturbing greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha) of land would have to obtain and comply 

with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit No. WI-S067831-4). This 

permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific construction site erosion

control plan, including specific BMPs, and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction

stormwater management).

Permits issued to all new stormwater and industrial wastewater dischargers would include 

provisions as part of Wisconsin-issued NPDES permits to comply with applicable 

water-quality-based effluent limitations and wasteload allocations established for downstream 

receiving waters. The proposed SHINE facility would have no direct sanitary or other 

wastewater discharges to surface water or groundwater. The SHINE facility would be served by 

the City of Stevens Point WTP, which has excess treatment capacity (Section 5.2.3.4).

The protection of groundwater quality in surficial aquifers and conservation of local groundwater 

supplies is a concern across Wisconsin. The City of Stevens Point’s groundwater supply 
Alternatives

5-87

system is considered adequate to meet water supply needs over the short term. However, it 

has long-term plans to assure future supply while addressing issues with poor performing 

supply wells and wells with poor quality water (City of Stevens Point 2006). As a result of 

climate change, the Midwest may continue to experience an increase in annual precipitation,

along with an increase in annual and seasonal temperatures. Increased precipitation, 

particularly during the spring and winter months, could increase groundwater recharge 

(USGCRP 2014). Regardless, the proposed SHINE facility would be served by the City of 

Stevens Point municipal water system (Section 5.2.3.4). Furthermore, neither the proposed 

SHINE facility nor each of the projects identified in Table 5–16 would be expected to require 

exorbitant volumes of groundwater or surface water that would affect water availability for other 

potential uses or users.

Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts on water resources

would be SMALL.

Ecological Resources

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site on ecological resources, when 

added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. The description of the affected environment in Section 5.2.3.5 serves as a baseline for 

the cumulative impact assessment of ecological resources. The geographic area of analysis for 

evaluating cumulative impacts on ecological resources includes the area surrounding the

Stevens Point site that is ecologically connected to the onsite ecological resources (e.g., the 

watershed surrounding the Stevens Point site). The incremental impacts from construction, 

operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL, as 

described in Section 5.2.3.5.

Since European settlement, prairies, forests, and wetlands have been greatly reduced by at 

least 50 to 80 percent and converted into agricultural fields, industrial uses, and residential and 

commercial areas. Remaining tracts of grasslands, forests, and wetlands tend to be relatively 

small and isolated, which results in lower quality habitat than large tracts of habitat because of

the different biological and physical characteristics along the edge of a habitat patch 

(WDNR 2013c).

Current threats to terrestrial and aquatic habitats include increased soil, nutrients, and other 

pollutants washing into streams and lakes from urban and agricultural stormwater runoff; 

continued conversion and fragmentation of wildlife habitat from development (Table 5–16); 

introduction of invasive species; and climate change (WDNR 2013c; USGCRP 2014). These 

activities will likely decrease the overall availability and quality of forested, grassland, and 

wetland habitats. Species with threatened, endangered, or declining populations are likely to be 

more sensitive to declines in habitat availability and quality and the introduction of invasive 

species.

As environmental stressors, such as future development and climate change, continue over the 

next few decades, certain attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (such as habitat

quality) are likely to change noticeably. The NRC staff does not expect these impacts to 

destabilize any important attributes of the terrestrial and aquatic environment, because such 

impacts will cause gradual change, which should allow most terrestrial and aquatic resources to 

adapt appropriately. The staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of the proposed 

construction and operation of the SHINE facility, plus other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects or actions, would result in MODERATE impacts to terrestrial and 

aquatic resources.
Alternatives

5-88

Historic and Cultural Resources

This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on historic and cultural 

resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE

facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area considered in this analysis is 

the APE associated with the proposed SHINE facility, the proposed SHINE site, and its 

immediate vicinity. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.6, the impacts on historic and cultural 

resources from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility would 

be SMALL.

The archaeological record for the region indicates prehistoric and historic occupation. Historic 

land development and prolonged agricultural use of the APE resulted in impacts on, and the 

loss of, cultural resources in the APE and its immediate vicinity. As described in 

Section 5.2.3.6, no known historic or cultural resources or historic properties are present within 

the APE. However, there remains the possibility for inadvertent discovery of historic or cultural 

resources within the APE. Direct impacts would occur if historic and cultural resources in the 

APE were to be physically removed or disturbed. Indirect visual or noise impacts could occur 

from new construction or maintenance. The only foreseeable project within the APE is the 

SHINE facility and the potential discovery of cultural resources on the proposed site. Should 

they be discovered, any cultural resources would be managed using SHINE BMPs developed 

for the proposed Janesville site (e.g., cultural resource management procedures and training)

(SHINE 2013b). Therefore, the cumulative impact on historic and cultural resources of the 

proposed SHINE facility, when combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable 

future activities, would be SMALL.

Socioeconomics

This section addresses the direct and indirect contributory effects on current socioeconomic 

conditions within the ROI from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE

facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the effects from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. The description of the affected environment in 

Section 5.2.3.7 serves as a baseline for the cumulative socioeconomic impact assessment. The 

geographic area of analysis is the ROI, Portage County. Section 5.2.3.7 found that 

socioeconomic impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

SHINE facility would be SMALL.

Table 5–16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI

that could contribute to cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Relevant “other actions” that are 

considered in this cumulative impacts analysis are future construction projects that would bring 

new business and people to the ROI.

Depending on the number of workers needed to support the operation of the Central Wisconsin 

Alcohol Inc. and the Copps Food Center, there is the potential for increased population, 

employment, tax revenue, and demand for public services in the ROI. However, a majority of 

the workers would likely already reside within the ROI and are currently using public services. 

As discussed in Section 5.2.3.7, Portage County has adequate public services and water 

utilities capable of accommodating any population changes. Therefore, the contributory effects 

from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens 

Point site, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, would be 

SMALL.
Alternatives

5-89

Human Health

This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects on human 

health of the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens 

Point site, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts 

on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site.

The Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital, which conducts radiological procedures, is 3.5 mi 

(5.7 km) from the Stevens Point site (SHINE 2013a). The use of radioactive materials for 

medical diagnosis and treatment is regulated by the State of Wisconsin. The NRC and the 

Governor of Wisconsin signed an agreement transferring regulatory authority over byproduct, 

source, and special nuclear materials to the State of Wisconsin, which became the 

33rd Agreement State, effective August 11, 2003. As an Agreement State, the Wisconsin 

Department of Health Services is responsible for licensing and inspecting the above-named 

materials, except at nuclear power plants and Federal facilities (WDHS 2014).

No nuclear fuel cycle facilities occur within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed 

Stevens Point site that would contribute to the cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the 

NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative radiological impacts from the proposed SHINE

facility at the Stevens Point site and the potential impacts from the use of radioactive materials 

at the Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital. Both facilities are or would be licensed and regulated, 

SHINE by the NRC and the Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital by the State, and both are or 

would be required to maintain radiation doses to their workers and members of the public within 

Federal and State dose limits. Also, given that SHINE would be 3.54 mi (5.69 km) from the 

Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital, radioactive emissions that are within regulatory limits would be 

reduced through the processes of dispersion and dilution as they travel in the atmosphere. 

Based on the regulatory controls that are and would be in place to control radiation exposure, 

the distance between the facilities, and the dilution of the radioactive materials, the NRC staff 

concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts to human health would be SMALL.

Table 5–16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI

that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates 

the use of nonradioactive materials (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at the Ministry 

Saint Michael’s Hospital and would regulate their use at the proposed SHINE facility at the 

Stevens Point site. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS, the State of Wisconsin has 

regulations for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin

Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization;

transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous 

solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500 (SHINE 2015a). 

Both SHINE and the Ministry Saint Michaels’s Hospital are or would be regulated by the State 

and are or would be required to maintain chemical exposure to their workers and members of 

the public within State limits. Also, based on the distance between each facility, nonradioactive 

emissions that are within regulatory limits are or would be reduced through the processes of 

dispersion and dilution as they travel in the atmosphere. Based on the regulatory controls that 

are or would be in place to control chemical exposure, the distance between the facilities listed 

in Table 5–16, and the dilution of the nonradioactive materials, the NRC staff concludes that the 

cumulative nonradiological impacts to human health would be SMALL.

Waste Management

This section addresses the radiological and nonradiological direct and indirect effects of the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site 

from radioactive and nonradioactive wastes, when added to the aggregate effects of other past, 
Alternatives

5-90

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic area of analysis for 

evaluating cumulative impacts on human health is the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the 

proposed Stevens Point site.

In Section 5.2.2.9, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from types and volumes of 

radioactive and nonradioactive wastes from the construction, operations, and decommissioning 

of the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site would be SMALL. There are no nuclear 

fuel cycle facilities located within the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens 

Point site that would contribute to the cumulative impacts from radioactive wastes. Therefore, 

the NRC staff assessed the potential cumulative impacts from radioactive waste from the 

proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site and the potential impacts from the disposal of 

radioactive waste at the Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital. Radioactive waste at both facilities 

will be regulated, SHINE by the NRC and the Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital by the State. 

The facilities will be required to store, process, and dispose of radioactive wastes in accordance 

with Federal and State requirements. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS, radioactive 

wastes generated by the proposed SHINE facility will be packaged and transported off site to a 

licensed low-level radioactive waste facility for disposal (SHINE 2015a). In Section 4.9 of this 

EIS, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts from radioactive wastes generated and disposed 

of from the proposed SHINE facility would be SMALL. Radioactive waste generated at the 

Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital would also be packaged and transported off site to a licensed 

low-level radioactive waste facility for disposal. Based on the regulatory controls on packaging 

and transporting radioactive wastes, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts from 

radioactive waste would be SMALL.

Table 5–16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the ROI

that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological impacts. The State of Wisconsin regulates 

the use and disposal of nonradioactive waste (i.e., chemicals and hazardous materials) at the 

Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital and will regulate their use and disposal at the proposed SHINE

facility at the Stevens Point site. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIS, the State of Wisconsin 

has regulations for the safe use, storage, and disposal of nonradioactive materials. Wisconsin

Administrative Code NR 660 addresses the identification; generation; minimization;

transportation; and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. Nonhazardous 

solid waste general requirements are detailed in Administrative Code NR 500 (SHINE 2015a). 

SHINE and the facilities listed in Table 5–16 will be regulated by the State and will be required 

to safely store, package, transport, and dispose of nonradioactive wastes in accordance with 

State requirements. Based on the State’s regulatory controls that will be in place to control 

nonradioactive wastes, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts from 

nonradioactive wastes would be SMALL.

Also, the projects and activities identified in Table 5–16 that are near the Stevens Point site 

generally are relatively small and would not be expected to have significant impacts from 

nonradioactive waste in the same areas affected by the proposed SHINE facility 

(SHINE 2015a).

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential cumulative impacts from radioactive and 

nonradioactive wastes from the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site in conjunction 

with other reasonably foreseeable future projects would be SMALL.

Transportation

This section addresses the direct and indirect effects on transportation from the construction, 

operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to 

the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

geographic area of analysis for evaluating cumulative impacts on transportation includes the site 
Alternatives

5-91

boundary and the 5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed Stevens Point site. However, 

the roads for routes that could be used for delivery of medical isotopes (if air transport is not 

possible) or disposal of wastes were also considered. Transportation infrastructure includes 

roadways, rail lines, airports, and traffic-control devices. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.10, 

transportation impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Construction projects in Table 5–16 could produce an increase in vehicular traffic on roads 

within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of the Stevens Point site. For example, construction of new or 

expanded businesses could add construction-related vehicles or employees commuting on 

roads near the Stevens Point site. Depending on the number of workers required and whether 

construction projects within the vicinity of the Stevens Point site were occurring at the same time 

as the SHINE facility’s construction, operations, or decommissioning, traffic on access roads 

would increase. Most existing roads would be sufficient to handle the construction project 

transportation activities, and alternative routes could be used to minimize transportation 

impacts. In some cases, however, a noticeable increase in traffic could occur, especially if 

construction timeframes overlapped and construction workers and vehicles used the same 

roads. Therefore, depending on whether other construction projects overlapped with 

construction, operations, or decommissioning of the SHINE facility, or whether increased 

vehicular activity from workers or residents on roads near the Stevens Point site had a 

noticeable impact on traffic, the NRC staff concludes that cumulative transportation impacts 

would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Environmental Justice

The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential contributory 

human health and environmental effects from the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site, when added to the effects from 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on minority and low-income 

populations, and whether these effects might be disproportionately high and adverse. Minority 

and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing near the Stevens Point

site, and everyone would be exposed to the same environmental effects generated by the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility.

As discussed in Section 5.2.3.12, the Stevens Point site is located in a block group that exceeds 

the geographic area average for minority populations. The geographic area of analysis is the 

5-mi (8-km) region surrounding the proposed SHINE facility at the Stevens Point site. Minority 

and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be disproportionately 

affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during 

construction, operations, and decommissioning. However, during construction and 

decommissioning, these would be short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Facility 

operations at the Stevens Point site would not have high and adverse human health and 

environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

Table 5–16 identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the 

geographic area of analysis that could contribute cumulative human health and environmental 

effects. Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of 

environmental effects from construction (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing 

impacts). However, noise and dust impacts during construction and decommissioning would be 

short term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations 

residing along site access roads could be disproportionately affected by noise and dust and 

increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during construction. However, these effects are 

not likely to be high and adverse and would be contained within a limited period during certain 

hours of the day. Increased demand for temporary housing during construction could cause 
Alternatives

5-92

rental housing costs to rise, disproportionately affecting low-income populations who rely on 

inexpensive housing. However, given the availability of workers and the likelihood of workers 

commuting to the construction site, the need for rental housing could be reduced.

Operational emissions from manufacturing or industrial facilities within the 5-mi (8-km) radius of 

the Stevens Point site could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations living 

in the vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility. However, everyone would be exposed to the 

same potential contributory effects, and any impacts would depend on the magnitude of the 

change in current environmental conditions. Permitted air emissions from all manufacturing and 

industrial facilities, including the contributory effects from the proposed SHINE facility, would be 

expected to remain within regulatory standards.

Based on this information and the analysis of human health and other environmental impacts 

presented in this section of the EIS, the contributory effects of constructing, operating, and 

decommissioning the SHINE facility are not likely to create high and adverse human health and 

environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living in the vicinity of the 

Stevens Point site.

5.3 Alternative Technologies

5.3.1 Identification of Reasonable Alternatives

The purpose of the SHINE facility is to use low-enriched uranium fission technology to 

domestically produce three medical isotopes: molybdenum-99, iodine-131, and xenon-133

(Section 2.0). Other alternative medical radioisotope production technologies exist that could be 

used to create these isotopes (e.g., Making Medical Isotopes: Report of the Task Force on 

Alternatives for Medical-Isotope Production (TRIUMF 2008) and Homogeneous Aqueous 

Solution Nuclear Reactors for the Production of Mo-99 [molybdenum-99] and other Short Lived 

Radioisotopes (IAEA 2008)).

While various publications have described a broad range of other technologies, the NRC staff 

considered three technologies for the purposes of this alternatives analysis.

These three alternative technologies are the following:

(1) neutron capture technology,

(2) aqueous homogenous reactor technology, and

(3) linear-accelerator-based technology.

These three technologies were chosen for the alternatives analysis, because they appear to be 

technologically reasonable. For example, the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA), through the Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation’s Global Threat 

Reduction Initiative, awarded cooperative agreements to commercial entities proposing a new 

technology to accelerate the dual objectives of eliminating the use of proliferation-sensitive 

highly enriched uranium in the production of medical radioisotopes and establishing reliable 

domestic supplies of molybdenum-99 to meet U.S. medical needs. In awarding these 

cooperative agreements, NNSA based its decision, in part, on an evaluation of the technical 

feasibility. The NRC staff notes that this alternatives analysis is not an endorsement of any type 

of technology but rather is an analysis of three alternatives that appear to be technologically 

reasonable. Further, the NRC staff notes that several commercial entities have proposed other 

methods to produce molybdenum-99, such as heterogeneous reactors. For the purposes of this 

EIS, the NRC staff has limited the alternatives analysis to the three technologies that NNSA is 

supporting through its cooperative agreements (as of February 2015) because when there are 
Alternatives

5-93

potentially a large number of alternatives, NEPA only requires that an agency analyze a 

reasonable number of examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives, in the EIS 

(46 FR 18026).

In this analysis of the alternative technologies, the NRC staff evaluated the potential 

environmental impacts if a commercial entity were to construct and operate a facility on the 

proposed SHINE site in Janesville, Wisconsin, using alternative technology. The NRC staff 

notes that no commercial entity (other than SHINE) has proposed building or operating a facility 

at the proposed SHINE site. For the purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff reviewed 

environmental documents and technological descriptions related to the three alternative 

technologies, as described in further detail below.

5.3.2 Neutron Capture Alternative

For the neutron capture alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by neutron irradiation

of raw molybdenum in a boiling water reactor (GE Hitachi 2011). However, the proposed 

Janesville site does not contain a boiling water reactor. The NRC staff does not consider 

construction of a new boiling water reactor to support the neutron capture technology to be 

considered reasonable, as the currently proposed site has insufficient space and other 

resources to support a power reactor. Alternatively, a research reactor could be used to 

produce molybdenum-99 using neutron capture technology. Sufficient space likely occurs on 

the proposed Janesville site to construct a new research reactor as part of the neutron capture 

alternative.

No commercial entity, however, has submitted an application to construct or operate a reactor 

using neutron capture, as of February 2015. Given the conceptual stage of the neutron capture 

technology and the lack of environmental data regarding the potential impacts from 

construction, operations, and decommissioning, the NRC staff determined that insufficient 

environmental information exists to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts of this 

technology in detail. For these reasons, the NRC staff does not consider the neutron capture 

technology a reasonable alternative and has excluded it from further consideration.

5.3.3 Aqueous Homogenous Reactor Alternative

For the low-enriched uranium aqueous homogenous reactor alternative, molybdenum-99 would 

be produced using an aqueous homogenous reactor fueled by a uranium salt solution, followed 

by a series of chemical processes to extract the molybdenum-99 (IAEA 2008; B&W 2012). The 

size of each reactor would be approximately 200 to 240 kilowatts, and it would be capable of 

producing about 1,100 6-day curies (Ci) on a weekly basis (IAEA 2008). The reactor fuel 

solution would contain low-enriched uranium salt dissolved in water and acid. This solution 

would also be the target material for molybdenum-99 production, as fissioning the uranium-235 

would produce molybdenum-99 and other isotopes. The reactor would be operated until a 

sufficient amount of molybdenum-99 occurred in the fuel solution. The fuel solution would be 

removed and processed using chemical purification to extract the molybdenum-99 (IAEA 2013). 

Afterwards, the molybdenum-99 would be transported to an end-user medical facility.

During operations, the aqueous homogenous reactors would produce radiolytic and other 

off-gases such as nitrogen oxides (IAEA 2008). The production process would also generate 

liquid waste from both the reactors and the processing of molybdenum-99 within the hot cells 

(IAEA 2008, 2013).

Several technical documents have been published that describe conceptual aqueous 

homogenous reactors to produce molybdenum-99 (e.g., IAEA 2008, 2013; B&W 2012). No 
Alternatives

5-94

commercial entity, however, has submitted an application to construct or operate an aqueous 

homogenous reactor, as of February 2015. Given the conceptual stage of the aqueous 

homogenous reactor technology and the lack of environmental data regarding the potential 

impacts from construction, operations, and decommissioning, the NRC staff determined that 

insufficient environmental information exists to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts 

of this technology in detail. For these reasons, the NRC staff does not consider the aqueous 

homogenous reactor technology a reasonable alternative and has excluded it from further 

consideration.

5.3.4 Linear-Accelerator-Based Alternative

For the linear-accelerator-based alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by utilizing an 

accelerator to irradiate natural molybdenum that has been enriched in the radioisotope

molybdenum-100. For the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff assumed the facility would be 

similar to the facility described in NNSA’s Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical 

Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99

(DOE 2012). The NRC acknowledges that other commercial entities have proposed methods of 

producing molybdenum-99 using linear-accelerator-based technology, such as Niowave, Inc. 

(Niowave 2015). However, for the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff used the 

environmental parameters included in NNSA’s environmental assessment for the NorthStar 

Medical Radioisotope facility because this commercial entity was awarded a cooperative 

agreement by NNSA and because sufficient environmental data exist regarding this proposed 

technology.

The facility for the linear-accelerator-based alternative would have the capacity to produce 

approximately 3,000 6-day Ci per week. To produce molybdenum-99, the operator would use a 

target made of molybdenum enriched in the radioisotope molybdenum-100 and would irradiate 

(or bombard) the targets using a pair of accelerators. Up to 16 accelerators would be 

constructed and used during operations (DOE 2012). After bombardment, the targets would be 

removed and chemically processed in hot cells to produce the molybdenum-99 radiochemical. 

The operator would then ship the molybdenum-99 radiochemical from the facility to an end-user 

medical facility. After further processing at the end-user medical facility, the spent or unusable 

portion of the radiochemical from the end-user facility would be returned.

During operations, the facility would produce radiolytic and other off-gases such as nitrogen 

oxides (DOE 2012). The production process would also generate radioactive and 

nonradioactive liquid waste (DOE 2012).

The NRC staff assumed that the operator would construct a containment building for the

accelerators and radioactive waste facility (DOE 2012). In addition, a separate building or parts 

of the building would contain the processing facility (e.g., hot cells and chemical laboratories), 

areas for shipping and receiving, and a waste management center. Support facilities, such as 

administration buildings, parking lots, and holding tanks, would be similar to those for the SHINE

facility.

The sections below evaluate the environmental impacts of the linear-accelerator-based 

alternative. For the purpose of this analysis, the NRC staff used the same environmental and 

engineering parameters described in NNSA’s Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical 

Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99

(DOE 2012). However, the NRC staff assumed the linear-accelerator-based facility would be 

constructed at the Janesville site. The NRC staff notes that, if a linear-accelerator-based facility 

were constructed at the Janesville site, similar to NorthStar’s facility, the State of Wisconsin 

could maintain authority over byproduct material, as described in 10 CFR Part 30. Therefore, 
Alternatives

5-95

the facility operator would not need to apply to the NRC for a construction permit or operating 

license. The purpose of the assessment below is to evaluate the environmental consequences 

of an alternative technology to the proposed technology at the Janesville site.

5.3.4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources Impacts

Constructing, operating, and decommissioning the linear-accelerator-based alternative at the 

Janesville site would disturb approximately 13 ac (5.3 ha) of agricultural land to build and 

operate areas for irradiation, processing facilities, waste management facilities, administration 

buildings, parking lots, and other support structures (DOE 2012). The highest structure would 

be the emissions stack for chemical processing, which would extend approximately 18 m (60 ft) 

in height, with a diameter of 0.6 m (2 ft) (DOE 2012). Therefore, the size, height, and footprint 

of the buildings for the accelerator-based alternative would be bounded by the parameters 

analyzed for the SHINE facility in Section 4.1. As described in Section 4.1, land use impacts 

during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be SMALL, because the entire site 

is currently zoned for industrial use, and the permanently converted agricultural land would be a 

small portion of available agricultural land within the vicinity. As described in Section 4.1, 

aesthetic impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be SMALL at the 

Janesville site, given that a light industrial development landscape surrounds part of the site and 

the visual setting is generally flat and has a uniform landform with low vegetation diversity and a 

low visual-quality rating. Based on a similar or smaller footprint, building size, and building 

height for the linear-accelerator-based alternative, land use and visual impacts would be SMALL 

during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

5.3.4.2 Air Quality and Noise Impacts

Air quality and noise impacts during construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

linear-accelerator-based alternative at the Janesville site would be very similar to those 

described in Section 4.2, based on the similar period of construction (18 months), construction 

methods, and operational activities (DOE 2012). The primary impacts would be from dust, 

vehicular emissions, and noise. For example, construction activities would generate air 

pollutant emissions from site-disturbing activities, such as grading, filling, compacting, trenching, 

and operating construction equipment. However, the NRC staff assumed that the operator 

would meet State and local regulations and ordinances. Additionally, given that less land would 

be disturbed and the footprint of the facility would be less for the linear-accelerator-based 

alternative, air quality and noise impacts are bounded by what is described in Section 4.2. 

Given the similar construction duration (18 months), construction methods, and operational and 

decommissioning activities, the NRC staff concludes that air quality and noise impacts would be 

SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

5.3.4.3 Geologic Environment

Direct impacts on the geologic environment, including the consumption of geologic resources,

from the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the linear-accelerator-based 

alternative at the Janesville site would likely be similar to or less than those described in 

Section 4.3. This is because the area of disturbance would be the same or less than that 

described for the SHINE facility (DOE 2012). In particular, the potential for soil erosion and loss 

would likely be much less, as the area of land disturbance, associated earthwork, and overall 

need for geologic resources would be somewhat less, compared to the proposed action. During 

construction, grading activities would likely affect the upper 1.5 m (5 ft) of surface soil and would 

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 (28,000 cubic 

yards (yd3

)) of soil and rock material (DOE 2012). Given that the area of disturbance and the 

potential for soil erosion and loss would be the same or less than those described for the SHINE 
Alternatives

5-96

facility, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on the geologic environment would be SMALL 

during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

5.3.4.4 Water Resources

Construction, operations, and decommissioning of the linear-accelerator-based alternative at 

the Janesville site would not entail direct impacts on natural surface-water drainages or on 

groundwater hydrology. The impacts of construction would be similar to or somewhat less than 

those from the proposed action, as presented in Section 4.4, because of similar construction 

methods and the size of the facilities (DOE 2012). Facility construction would have to be 

conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Wisconsin General Permit (WPDES Permit 

No. WI-S067831-4). This permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific 

construction erosion control plan, including specific BMPs to minimize water-quality impacts, 

and a stormwater management plan (for postconstruction stormwater management).

Makeup water requirements for potable and process use to support facility operations would 

likely be the same or less than those for the proposed alternative, and water would be supplied 

from municipal sources (DOE 2012). Likewise, there would be no direct impact on water 

resources during operations and no direct discharge of liquid effluent (including sanitary or 

industrial wastewater) to surface water or groundwater. All wastewater would be conveyed to 

the City of Janesville WTP and would be subject to the city’s influent acceptance requirements 

for industrial users and in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act.

Given that there would be no direct impact on natural surface-water drainages or on 

groundwater hydrology and that water would be supplied from municipal sources, the NRC staff 

concludes that the impact on water resources would be SMALL during construction, operations, 

and decommissioning.

5.3.4.5 Ecological Resources

As described in Section 5.3.4.1, the linear-accelerator-based alternative would disturb less land 

at the Janesville site than the proposed SHINE facility. Directly affected vegetation would be 

limited to cultivated crops and weedy species, both of which are abundant within the region and 

provide relatively low-quality habitat for birds and wildlife in comparison to forests, grasslands, 

and wetland habitats. In addition to a loss of habitat, noise from construction activities could 

disturb birds and wildlife. In response to such disturbances and loss of habitat, birds and wildlife 

could move out of the immediate area and find adequate, similar habitat (agricultural fields) 

within the vicinity. All other impacts on ecological resources, such as bird collisions, disturbance 

during maintenance activities, and potential runoff to offsite aquatic resources, are expected to 

be similar to those described for the proposed SHINE facility in Section 4.5 because of similar 

construction methods, similar or smaller building size and footprint, and similar operating and 

decommissioning activities. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on ecological 

resources would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

5.3.4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

As described in Section 4.6, no historic or cultural resources were identified within the proposed 

Janesville site, and therefore, historic and cultural resources would not be affected by the

linear-accelerator-based technology. Additionally, as described in Section 5.3.4.1, the

linear-accelerator-based alternative would disturb less land at the Janesville site than the 

proposed SHINE facility, which reduces the likelihood of disturbing undocumented remains. 

During construction, operations, and decommissioning, the operator would use the same 

cultural resource management plan to manage and protect unidentified cultural resources as 

discussed in Section 4.6, regardless of which technology was chosen. Therefore, impacts on 
Alternatives

5-97

historic and cultural resources would be SMALL during construction, operations, and 

decommissioning.

5.3.4.7 Socioeconomics

Socioeconomic impacts from the linear-accelerator-based alternative would be similar to those 

described for the proposed SHINE facility in Section 4.7. For example, the linear accelerator 

workforce during construction, operations, and decommissioning would be similar to or less than 

the number of workers needed for the proposed SHINE facility discussed in Section 4.7

(DOE 2012). Some workers would need to relocate (temporarily or permanently) to the ROI. 

This would lead to an increase in tax revenue and an increased demand for temporary and 

permanent housing. As described in Section 4.7, the ROI has sufficient housing available to 

support any increase in population and has sufficient capacity to accommodate any increased 

demand for public services. Given the similar size of the estimated workforce for the proposed 

SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based alternative, socioeconomic impacts would be 

SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

5.3.4.8 Human Health

Impacts on human health from the linear-accelerator-based alternative are expected to be 

similar to those described in Section 4.8 for the proposed SHINE facility, based on the similar 

construction methods; radiological controls; and other policies, procedures, and regulations that 

protect public health and safety. For example, the NRC staff assumed that access controls 

during construction would allow only authorized personnel access to the site and prevent 

members of the public from coming on site. During construction, operations, and 

decommissioning, the NRC staff further assumed that the facility operator would implement 

normal safety practices contained in Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations 

and that limits for toxic chemicals stored or used at the site would be below the threshold 

amounts listed in the Wisconsin Administrative Code (DOE 2012). Further, the design of the 

facility would likely incorporate measures to minimize radiation exposure to workers and 

members of the public (DOE 2012). Given the radiological controls and other policies, 

procedures, and regulations that the operator would follow to protect public health and safety, 

the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on human health would be SMALL during 

construction, operations, and decommissioning.

5.3.4.9 Waste Management

Construction activities would generate approximately 160 metric tons (175 tons) of solid waste

in the form of wood, metal, concrete, or other miscellaneous construction debris (DOE 2012). 

This amount of waste would likely be similar to that produced for the SHINE facility, given the 

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

) of low-level 

radioactive waste, 2.4 m3 (3.1 yd3

) of hazardous waste, and 45 m3 (59 yd3) of solid waste 

annually (DOE 2012). The NRC staff determined that existing commercial or municipal 

treatment and disposal facilities would be able to accommodate all projected quantities of waste 

generated by the linear-accelerator-based facility. During construction, operations, and 

decommissioning, the operator would likely implement waste management systems to protect 

the workers and the public from radiological exposures and processes to minimize chemical

contamination. The operator would also be required to comply with NRC, DOT, and State of 

Wisconsin radiation protection requirements, as applicable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 

that impacts would be SMALL during construction, operations, and decommissioning.
Alternatives

5-98

5.3.4.10 Transportation

Transportation impacts during construction and decommissioning would come, for example, 

from the removal of excavated materials, shipment of construction materials or dismantled 

buildings to or from the site, transport of worker personnel, and movement of heavy equipment 

for onsite construction or decommissioning activities. Transportation impacts would be similar 

to those described for the SHINE facility in Section 4.10, because construction and 

decommissioning activities would be very similar and operate over a similar time span at the 

same location. Therefore, the increased level of traffic during construction and 

decommissioning could have a noticeable impact on traffic.

Transportation impacts during operation would come from shipments of hazardous and 

radioactive waste to treatment and disposal facilities; receipt of processing materials (e.g., acids 

and other chemicals); receipt of target materials; shipment of the molybdenum-99 and other 

medical radioisotopes; and, potentially, the return of technetium-99m generators. The operator 

of the facility and transportation vehicles would be required to adhere to the applicable NRC, 

DOT, and State of Wisconsin regulatory packaging and transportation requirements for 

radioactive material. Based on the similar transportation impacts that are expected for the 

SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to 

transportation would be MODERATE during construction and decommissioning and SMALL 

during operations.

5.3.4.11 Accidents

DOE (2012) assessed a range of accidents involving radioactive molybdenum-99 or chemicals 

that would be used during the production process for a linear-accelerator-based facility. 

Accident scenarios included a severe accident from the release of the entire helium inventory 

from the accelerator cooling system, a severe accident to a member of the public from direct 

exposure to a freshly irradiated molybdenum target, and an accident resulting from an 

intentional destructive act involving the release of a significant portion of a freshly irradiated 

target (DOE 2012). Given the radiological controls and other policies, procedures, and Federal 

and State regulations that the operator would follow to protect public health and safety, the NRC

staff concludes that the impacts to a member of the public from a potential accident would be 

SMALL.

5.3.4.12 Environmental Justice

The environmental justice impacts from a linear-accelerator-based alternative would be the 

same as those discussed for the SHINE facility in Section 4.12. Minority and low-income 

populations residing along site access roads or near the site could be disproportionately 

affected by noise and dust and increased commuter and other vehicular traffic during the 

construction, operations, and decommissioning of either technology. However, during 

construction and decommissioning, these impacts would be short term and primarily limited to 

onsite activities. Operation of either technology would not adversely affect minority and 

low-income populations living near the Janesville site. The level of potential radiological doses 

to the public from SHINE facility operations would be well below the annual dose limit and well 

within the NRC and the State of Wisconsin’s regulatory limits. Permitted air emissions are 

expected to remain within regulatory standards. As a result, minority and low-income 

populations residing near the existing industrial park and the proposed SHINE facility could 

experience short-term disproportionate, but not high and adverse, human health and 

environmental effects from the linear-accelerator-based alternative.
Alternatives

5-99

5.3.4.13 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts for the linear-accelerator-based alternative would be similar to those 

described in Chapter 4 for the SHINE facility at the Janesville site, because the direct 

contributory effects from construction, operations, and decommissioning for the two 

technologies would be similar.

5.4 Cost-Benefit Comparison

NEPA and CEQ require that all agencies of the Federal government prepare detailed 

environmental statements on proposed major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment. One of NEPA’s principal objectives is to require each Federal 

agency to consider, in its decisionmaking process, the environmental impacts of each proposed 

major action. In particular, as stated below, Section 102 of NEPA requires all Federal agencies 

to the fullest extent possible to:

(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the 

Council on Environmental Quality established by Title II of this Act, which will 

insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be 

given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and 

technical considerations. (42 U.S.C. 4321)

However, neither NEPA nor CEQ requires the benefits and costs of a proposed action to be 

quantified in dollars or any other common metric. The intent of this section is not to identify and 

quantify all potential societal benefits of the proposed action and compare them to potential 

costs. Instead, it focuses only on those benefits and costs of such magnitude or importance 

that including them in this analysis can inform the decisionmaking process.

This section compiles the expected impacts from operations of the proposed SHINE facility and 

aggregates them into two final categories: (1) the expected costs and (2) the expected benefits 

derived from approving the proposed action. Table 5–17 describes the following information on 

major environmental costs and benefits, including:

• average annual production of commercial products,

• expected increase in tax payments to State and local tax jurisdictions during 

construction and operations,

• other benefits,

• environmental degradation, which includes impacts on: land use and visual 

resources, air quality, geologic environment, water resources, ecological resources, 

historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, noise, traffic congestion, 

environmental justice, and increased demand for public services,

• effects on human health, and

• other costs, which include lost tax revenues, decreased recreational value, and 

transportation (as appropriate).
Alternatives

5-100

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

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 

developed 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
Alternatives

5-101

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
Alternatives

5-102

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
Alternatives

5-103

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 

low-income 

populations would 

not be expected to 

experience any high 

and adverse effects

The financial costs related to the construction, operations, and decommissioning of the 

proposed SHINE facility are described below. Regulations at 10 CFR 50.33(f)(1) state that an 

applicant for a construction permit shall demonstrate that it possesses or has reasonable 

assurance of obtaining the necessary funding needed to cover estimated construction and 

related fuel cycle costs. Further, the applicant shall indicate the source(s) of funds to cover 

these costs. In Chapter 15 of the PSAR, SHINE stated that it has obtained financing for its 

development and construction project using various sources of financing, including equity, debt,

and government grants. SHINE listed the following financial commitments:

• cost sharing agreement with the DOE/NNSA: $25 million,

• equity financing raised to-date: $11.4 million,

• Alliant Energy shared savings program loan: $4.8 million,

• State of Wisconsin Enterprise Zone Tax Credits: $11.2 million,

• City of Janesville loan packages/guarantees: $4.6 million,

• 90 ac (36 ha) of land for the building site provided by the City of Janesville: 

$1.0 million,

• an additional equity capital investment from outside investor: to be determined, and

• other financing sources (SHINE 2015a).

SHINE’s operational cost estimates provided in Chapter 15 of the PSAR include the total annual 

operating costs for the first 5 years (SHINE 2015a). SHINE expects that revenue from the sale 

of molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) and other radioisotopes will exceed operating costs. For 

decommissioning the facility, SHINE provided a preliminary cost estimate of $60 million 

(SHINE 2015a).

5.4.1 Benefit and Costs of Alternatives

This section compares the environmental impacts for the alternative sites and alternative 

technology with the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville. Table 5–18 provides a tabular 
Alternatives

5-104

comparison of the potential environmental impacts of constructing, operating, and 

decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, Wisconsin, with each of the

alternative sites (Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point) and the no-action alternative. Both 

Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point alternative sites would have some resource areas with 

MODERATE impacts. For example, these alternative sites would have MODERATE noise and 

transportation impacts during construction and decommissioning. In addition, the Stevens Point 

alternative site would have a MODERATE visual impact during construction. The financial costs 

of construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the alternative sites 

would likely be similar to the financial costs at the proposed SHINE site due to the facility’s

design and operational plan. The no-action alternative would have SMALL impacts for every 

resource area, because there would be no change in current environmental conditions at the 

proposed site.

Table 5–19 provides a tabular comparison of the potential environmental impacts of 

constructing, operating, and decommissioning a linear-accelerator-based alternative with the 

proposed SHINE facility, both in Janesville, Wisconsin. Both the proposed SHINE facility and 

the linear-accelerator-based alternative would have SMALL to MODERATE transportation 

impacts as a result of traffic. The impacts would be SMALL for all other resource areas.

Construction and operation of the proposed facility at an alternative site or using an alternative 

technology would not reduce or avoid adverse effects, compared with constructing and 

operating the proposed SHINE facility in Janesville, Wisconsin. The adverse environmental 

impacts from the no-action alternative would be SMALL. However, the no-action alternative 

would not fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed action.

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

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

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

Environmental 

Justice

No high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 

low-income populations
Alternatives

5-105

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

5.4.2 Cost Benefit Conclusions

In Chapter 4 and the preceding sections of Chapter 5, the NRC staff described the costs and 

benefits of the proposed action as well as alternatives to the proposed action. In weighing the 

costs and benefits, the NRC staff concludes that the overall benefits of constructing, operating, 

and decommissioning the proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site outweigh the 

disadvantages and costs based upon the following considerations:

• U.S. policy is to ensure a reliable supply of medical radioisotopes while minimizing 

the use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes (NNSA 2011; 

White House 2012),

• the small environmental impact, including radiological impacts and risk to human 

health, which would be caused by constructing, operating, and decommissioning the 

proposed SHINE facility at the Janesville site,

• the economic benefit of constructing and operating the proposed SHINE facility to 

communities located near the Janesville site, and

• the increased availability of medical isotopes for U.S. public health needs.

Constructing, operating, and decommissioning the SHINE facility at the Janesville site would 

have slightly less environmental costs than at either alternative site because impacts from noise 

would be SMALL to MODERATE at both the Chippewa Falls and the Stevens Point sites, in part 

because the nearest resident would be closer, and the noise more audible to the closest 

resident, than at the Janesville site. In addition, the impacts to visual resources would also be 

greater at the Stevens Point site (SMALL to MODERATE), if SHINE clears the majority of the 

onsite wooded areas, which would increase the visibility of the new facility. However, the 

overall benefits of constructing and operating the proposed SHINE facility at any of the sites 

would outweigh the environmental disadvantages and costs for the reasons outlined above.

Installation of an alternative technology (e.g., linear-accelerator-based) would not result in any 

greater economic advantages or disadvantages over the proposed SHINE technology and the 

environmental costs and benefits would be similar to those described for the proposed SHINE 
Alternatives

5-106

facility at the Janesville site. Therefore, the overall benefits and costs of utilizing an alternative 

technology at the Janesville site would be the same and would outweigh the environmental 

disadvantages and costs for the reasons outlined above.

5.5 Alternatives Summary

In this chapter, the NRC staff considered the following alternatives to construction, operations, 

and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin:

• the no-action alternative;

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

Falls site (Alternative Site No. 1);

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

Point site (Alternative Site No. 2); and

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

at the SHINE site (alternative technology).

The impacts for the proposed action, the no-action alternative, the two alternative sites, and the 

alternative technology are summarized in Tables 5–18 and 5–19.

In conclusion, the NRC staff notes that the no-action alternative would result in SMALL impacts 

to all resource areas. The no-action alternative, however, does not fulfill the purpose and need 

of the project. The environmentally preferred alternatives are the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility at the Janesville, 

Wisconsin, site. The impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternative 

technology would be SMALL for all resource areas, except for traffic, which would incur 

MODERATE impacts during construction and decommissioning. The other alternatives capable 

of meeting the purpose and need of the project would entail potentially greater impacts than the 

proposed action of constructing the SHINE facility. For example, the impacts at both alternative 

sites would be SMALL for most resource areas; however, the NRC staff determined that 

impacts from noise would be SMALL to MODERATE at both the Chippewa Falls and the 

Stevens Point sites and the impacts to visual resources would be SMALL to MODERATE at the 

Stevens Point site. Similar to the proposed Janesville site, the impacts at both the Chippewa 

Falls and the Stevens Points site would be SMALL to MODERATE for traffic.

5.6 References

7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, “Important 

farmlands inventory.”

7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, “Farmland and 

protection policy act.”

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

protection against radiation.”

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

production and utilization facilities.”

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

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

5-107

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

Part 1508, “Terminology and index.”

46 FR 18026. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning the CEQ’s [Council on Environmental 

Quality’s] National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. Federal Register

46(55):18026-18028. March 23, 1981. 

[AET] American Engineering Testing, Inc. 2011. Report of Subsurface Exploration. AET Job 

No: 31-00144. January 21, 2011. ADAMS No. ML13309B619.

[B&W]. Babcock and Wilcox Technical Services Group. 2012. “B&W Medical Isotope 

Production System (MIPS).” May 11, 2012. Available at <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/commission/slides/2012/20120511/spickard-20120511.pdf> (accessed 

29 October 2014).

[BLS] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Preliminary data for 2012. “Location Quotient 

Calculator, Preliminary Data for 2012.” Available at 

<http://data.bls.gov/location_quotient/ControllerServlet>.

Buchwald, C.A. 2011. Water Use in Wisconsin, 2005. Open-File Report 2009–1076. 

Version 1.1. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. November 2011. Available at 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1076/pdf/ofr20091076.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014).

Chippewa Area Unified School District. 2013. “Chippewa Area Unified School District Home 

Page.” Available at <http://cfsd.chipfalls.k12.wi.us>.

Chippewa County. 2010. “Chippewa County, Wisconsin, Comprehensive Plan.” July 20, 2010. 

Available at <http://www.co.chippewa.wi.us/government/planning-zoning/comprehensiveplanning> (accessed 3 January 2014).

Chippewa Herald. 2012. “EOG Sand Operation Underway.” January 8, 2012. Available at 

<http://chippewa.com/news/local/eog-sand-operation-underway/article_8f360c64-398f-11e1-

91cf-001871e3ce6c.html> (accessed 25 September 2013).

Chippewa Herald. 2013. “Developer Will Revisit Wissota Shores Plan after Plan Commission 

Defeat.” March 13, 2013. Available at <http://chippewa.com/news/local/developers-will-revisitwissota-shores-plan-after-plan-commission-defeat/article_6e30c360-8c04-11e2-a917-

0019bb2963f4.html> (accessed 25 March 2013).

City of Chippewa Falls. 1999. “Comprehensive Land Use Plan.” Available at 

<http://www.chippewafalls-wi.gov/your-government/planning-economicdevelopment/planning/comprehensive-land-use-plan> (accessed 9 October 2014).

City of Stevens Point. 2006. City of Stevens Point Comprehensive Plan. Adopted 

January 16, 2006, amended June 19, 2006. Available at 

<http://stevenspoint.com/index.aspx?NID=602> (accessed 3 January 2014).

City of Stevens Point. 2011a. Report of City Plan Commission: Request from McDill Lake 

District. December 5, 2011. Available at 

<http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/732> (accessed 29 August 2014).

City of Stevens Point. 2011b. Board of Water and Sewage Commissioners Meeting Minutes. 

December 12, 2011. Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/736> 

(accessed 26 September 2013).

City of Stevens Point. 2012a. Report of City Plan Commission. April 2, 2012. Available at 

<http://stevenspoint.com/Archive/ViewFile/Item/877> (accessed 17 October 2014).
Alternatives

5-108

City of Stevens Point. 2012b. Regular Council Meeting. January 16, 2012. Available at 

<http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/792> (accessed 17 October 2014).

City of Stevens Point. 2012c. “Stevens Point receives $225,640 from Focus on Energy.” 

Available at <http://www.ci.stevens-point.wi.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=799&ARC=1671> 

(accessed 26 September 2012).

City of Stevens Point. 2012d. “More of Michigan Avenue to Close.” July 18, 2012. Available at 

<http://stevenspoint.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=829&ARC=1683> (accessed 21 August 2014).

City of Stevens Point. 2012e. Board of Public Works Meeting Agenda. October 8, 2012. 

Available at <http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1065> (accessed 

17 October 2014).

City of Stevens Point. 2013a. Special Joint Common Council/Water and Sewerage 

Commissioners Meeting. April 29, 2013. Available at 

<http://stevenspoint.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1307> (accessed 17 October 2014).

City of Stevens Point. 2013b. “Waste Water History.” Available at 

<http://www.stevenspoint.com/index.aspx?nid=520> (accessed 6 November 2014).

City of Stevens Point. 2014. “Facilities and Wells.” Available at <http://wistevenspoint.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=275> (accessed 3 January 2014).

Clayton, L. 1986. Pleistocene Geology of Portage County, Wisconsin. Information Circular 56. 

Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at 

<http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

Copps. 2014. “Store Locator.” Available at <http://www.copps.com/#!/storelocator> (accessed 

8 December 2014).

[CN]. 2014. “CN’s newest intermodal terminal opens in Chippewa Falls, Wis.”

February 3, 2012. Available at 

<http://www.cn.ca/en/news/2012/02/media_news_chippewa_falls_open_20120203> (accessed 

26 March 2014).

[DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2012. Environmental Assessment for NorthStar Medical 

Technologies LLC Commercial Domestic Production of the Medical Isotope Molybdenum-99 

(DOE/EA-1929). July 2012. Available at <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/EA-1929-DEA2012.pdf> (accessed 30 September 2014).

[EOG Resources]. 2012. “EOG Resources Reports First Quarter 2012 Results and Raises 

2012 Liquids Production Growth Target.” May 8, 2012. Available at 

<http://investor.shareholder.com/eogresources/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=671644> 

(accessed 25 September 2013).

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Protective Noise Levels: Condensed 

Version of EPA Levels Document. Available at 

<http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20012HG5.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&I

ndex=1976+Thru+1980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&

Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFie

ldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C76thru80%5CTxt%5C0000

0008%5C20012HG5.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-

&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Dis

play=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%

20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL> (accessed 19 March 2014).
Alternatives

5-109

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “List of 156 Mandatory Class I Federal 

Areas.” Available at <http://www.epa.gov/visibility/class1.html> (accessed 19 March 2014).

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq.

[FWS] Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. “Fact Sheet: Karner Blue Butterfly.” Available at 

<http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/kbb/pdf/kbbFactSheet.pdf> (accessed 

10 February 2014).

[FWS] Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Letter from Fasbender PJ, FWS Field Supervisor to 

Wong M, NRC, Branch Chief. Subject: SHINE Medical Inc. (SHINE) Radioisotope Production 

Facility Portage, Chippewa, and Rock Counties Wisconsin. August 15, 2013. ADAMS 

No. ML13234A020.

[GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. SHINE

Medical, Stevens Point, WI. Duluth, MN: Golder Associates Inc., submitted to SHINE Medical 

Technologies. Project No. 113–81093, Rev. 1. May 11, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13303A887.

[GAI] Golder Associates, Inc. 2012b. Well Installation, Stevens Point, Wisconsin. Duluth, MN: 

Golder Associates Inc., submitted to SHINE Medical Technologies. Project No. 113-81093, 

Rev. 2. September 26, 2012. ADAMS No. ML13303A887.

[GE Hitachi]. 2011. GE Hitachi Production of Molybdenum-99 Using Neutron Capture. NNSA

Mo-99 Topical Meeting Presentation. Presented by John Berger. December 6, 2011. Available 

at <http://mo99.ne.anl.gov/2011/pdfs/Mo99%202011%20Web%20Presentations/S7-

P2_Berger.pdf> (accessed 30 September 2014).

Greenberg, JK, Brown, BA. 1986. Bedrock Geology of Portage County, Wisconsin. 

Information Circular 53. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 

Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

[IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 2008. Homogeneous Aqueous Solution Nuclear 

Reactors for the Production of Mo-99 and other Short Lived Radioisotopes. TECDOC-1061. 

September 2008. Available at <http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1601_web.pdf> (accessed 30 September 2014).

[IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency. 2013. Non-HEU Production Technologies for 

Molybdenum-99 and Technetium-99m. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-5.4. 

February 2013. Available at <http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/10386/Non-HEUProduction-Technologies-for-Molybdenum-99-and-Technetium-99m> (accessed 

8 January 2015). 

Jerde, L. 2011. “Columbia Energy Center state’s No. 1 mercury emitter.” Portage Daily 

Register. November 17, 2011. Available at 

<http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/article_bdcdca56-11a5-11e1-886d001cc4c03286.html> (accessed 26 September 2013).

Jerde, L. 2014. “Columbia Energy Center launches $600M air-quality system.” Portage Daily 

Register. Available at 

<http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/local/article_e02caab7-3824-5815-838d1c626e3c7273.html> (accessed 1 September 2014).

Lippelt, ID. 1988. Potential Yields of Wells in the Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer of Chippewa

County, Wisconsin. Miscellaneous Map Series. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and 

Natural History Survey. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 

16 January 2015).
Alternatives

5-110

Melillo JM, Richmond TC, and Yohe GW, editors. 2014. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research 

Program. 841 p. Available at 

<http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/system/files_force/downloads/high/NCA3_Climate_Change_I

mpacts_in_the_United%20States_HighRes.pdf?download=1> (accessed 25 November 2014).

[MSMH] Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital. 2014. “Ministry Saint Michael’s Hospital Home 

Page.” Available at <http://ministryhealth.org/SMH/home.nws> (accessed 5 December 2014).

[MPCA] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2014. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota. 

Available at <http://www.nonoise.org/library/sndbasic/sndbasic.htm> (accessed 

24 February 2014). 

Mudrey, MG Jr., Brown, BA, and Greenberg, JK. 1982. Bedrock Geologic Map of Wisconsin. 

Madison, WI: University Of Wisconsin–Extension, Geological and Natural History Survey. 

Available at <http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/geologic.htm> (accessed 3 January 2014).

[Niowave] Niowave, Inc. 2015. Letter from Grimm TL, Niowave, President and Senior Scientist 

to Region III, NRC. Subject: Combined Application for a License to Produce and Possess 

Accelerator Produced Radionuclides for Research and Development (NRC Control 

No. 584728). February 11, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A755.

[NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2010a. “1981–2010 Normals Data Access, 

Annual/Seasonal Normals, Chippewa Falls, WI US.” Available at 

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climatenormals/1981-2010-normals-data> (accessed 6 February 2014).

[NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2010b. “1981–2010 Normals Data Access, 

Annual/Seasonal Normals, Stevens Point, WI US.” Available at 

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climatenormals/1981-2010-normals-data> (accessed 6 February 2014).

[NCDC] National Climate Data Center. 2014a. “NCDC Storm Events Database: Chippewa 

County.” Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/> (accessed 24 March 2014).

[NCDC] National Climate Data Center. 2014b. “NCDC Storm Events Database: Portage 

County.” Available at <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/> (accessed 24 March 2014).

[NWCC] National Wind Coordinating Committee. 2002. Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: A 

Handbook. Washington, DC: NWCC Siting Subcommittee. August 2002. Available at 

<https://nationalwind.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/publications/permitting2002.pdf>.

Olcott, PG. 1992. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Wisconsin. HA-730-J. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Ground Water. Available 

at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_j/index.html> (accessed 20 December 2013).

Olson, K. 2013. “(Not) The Same Old McDill—Improvements for Our Lakes and Rivers.” 

Stevens Point City-Times. March 15, 2013. Available at <http://spcitytimes.com/?p=5509> 

(accessed 8 December 2014).

Petersen, MD, Frankel, AD, Harmsen, SC, Mueller, CS, Haller, KM, Wheeler, RL, Wesson, RL, 

Zeng, Yuehua, Boyd, OS, Perkins, DM, Luco, Nicolas, Field, EH, Wills, CJ, and Rukstales, KS. 

2011. Seismic-Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States, 2008: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3195, 6 sheets. Denver, CO: USGS. Page update 

January 9, 2013. Available at <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3195/> (accessed 20 December 2013).

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

5-111

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

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

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

(accessed 14 June 2013).

[NPS] National Park Service. 2015a. “National Register of Historic Places Program: 

Research– Chippewa County, Wisconsin.” Available at <http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/> 

(accessed 21 January 2015).

[NPS] National Park Service. 2015b. “National Register of Historic Places Program: 

Research– Portage County, Wisconsin.” Available at <http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/> 

(accessed 21 January 2015).

[NRHP]. National Register of Historic Places. 2013a. “Notre Dame Church and Goldsmith 

Memorial Chapel,” Chippewa Falls, Chippewa County, Wisconsin. Reference No. 83003369.

[NRHP]. National Register of Historic Places. 2013b. “Nelson Hall,” Stevens Point, Portage 

County, Wisconsin. Reference No. 05000643.

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013a. “Web Soil Survey, Soil Map–

Chippewa County, Wisconsin.” (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; 

map unit description; suitabilities and limitations for use, building site development). Updated 

December 6, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. 

Available at <http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013b. “Web Soil Survey, Soil Map–Portage 

County, Wisconsin.” (Search parameters: soil map; soil data explorer: soil reports; map unit 

description; suitabilities and limitations for use, building site development). Updated 

December 6, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Cooperative Soil Survey. 

Available at <http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1: Regarding the Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG–0586, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, DC: NRC. 

November 30, 2002. 516 p. ADAMS Nos. ML023470327, ML023500228, and ML023500295.

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

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

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

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

Acceptance Criteria,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous 

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

Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013. Meeting Summary: NRC visit to Wisconsin 

Historical Society. July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13226A537.

Portage County. 2004. Groundwater Management Plan. Adopted March 16, 2004. Available 

at <http://www.co.portage.wi.us/groundwater/index.htm> (accessed 3 January 2014).

Portage County. 2006. Map 5.1 Highly Productive Agricultural Soils. Portage County Planning 

and Zoning. Available at 

<http://www.co.portage.wi.us/Comprehensive%20Plan/Rural%20Planning%20Committee/Map5

1_041.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014).
Alternatives

5-112

Portage County. 2012. “Town of Hull Zoning Map.” Portage County. Map Updated 

November 2, 2012. Available at 

<http://www.co.portage.wi.us/planningzoning/ZoningMaps/hull.pdf> (accessed 9 October 2014).

[PCBC] Portage County Business Council. 2013. “Portage County Business Council Home 

Page.” Available at <www.portagecountybiz.com> (accessed 8 January 2015).

[PCBC] Portage County Business Council. 2014. “Portage County Business Park.” Available 

at <http://portagecountybiz.com/economic-development/business-parks/> (accessed 

5 December 2014).

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

(PSAR), Chapter 13, “Accident Analysis,” Chapter 15, “Financial Qualifications,” and 

Chapter 19, “Environmental Report.” Monona, WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS 

No. ML15175A274.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit, Response to Request for Additional Information. 

February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404.

[SPJ] Stevens Point Journal. 2008. “Area Home Designer Touts New Efficient Home.” 

August 7, 2008. Available at 

<http://archive.stevenspointjournal.com/article/99999999/SPJ0101/808020654/Area-homedesigner-touts-new-efficient-home> (accessed on 16 January 2015).

Stevens Point Area Public School District. 2013. “2012–13 Budget Report.” Available at 

<http://www.wisp.k12.wi.us/education/components/docmgr/default.php?sectiondetailid=27052&f

ileitem=24771&catfilter=ALL> (accessed 8 January 2015). 

Syverson, KM. 2007. Pleistocene Geology of Chippewa County, Wisconsin. Bulletin 103. 

Madison, WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Available at 

<http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/publications-home/> (accessed 16 January 2015).

TRIUMF. 2008. Making Medical Isotopes: Report of the Task Force on Alternatives for 

Medical-Isotope Production. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Available at 

<http://www.triumf.ca/report-medical-isotope-production> (accessed 18 December 2014).

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. 2005. McDill Pond Final Results, Portage County Lake 

Study. April 5, 2005. Available at 

<http://www.co.portage.wi.us/planningzoning/PCL/McDill_Pond/mcdill_pond_main.htm> 

(accessed 3 January 2014).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. “American Fact Finder: 2007–2011 American 

Community Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Chippewa County, City of 

Chippewa Falls, Portage County, and City of Stevens Point, Wisconsin Selected Economic 

Characteristics.” Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov>

(accessed February 2014).
Alternatives

5-113

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. “American FactFinder: 2010 American Community 

Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Portage County, City of Stevens Point, 

Chippewa County, and Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin Housing Characteristics.” Available at 

<http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed February 2014).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014c. “American FactFinder: 2010 American Community 

Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Chippewa County, City of Chippewa Falls, 

and Block Groups within Chippewa County, Wisconsin.” Available at 

<http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014d. “American FactFinder: 2006–2010 5-Year Estimates 

American Community Survey Data Profile and Highlights, Information on Chippewa County, 

City of Chippewa Falls, and Census Tracts within Chippewa County, Wisconsin.” Available at 

<http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014e. “American FactFinder: 2010 American Community 

Survey and Data Profile Highlights, Information on Portage County, City of Stevens Point, and 

Block Groups within Portage County, Wisconsin.” Available at <http://factfinder.census.gov>

and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

[USCB] U.S. Census Bureau. 2014f. “American FactFinder: 2006–2010 5-Year Estimates 

American Community Survey Data Profile and Highlights, Information on Portage County, City 

of Stevens Point, and Census Tracts within Portage County, Wisconsin.” Available at 

<http://factfinder.census.gov> and <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (accessed January 2014).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. “Physiographic Regions of the Lower 48 United States.” 

Updated April 17, 2003. Available at <http://tapestry.usgs.gov/physiogr/physio.html> (accessed 

27 August 2013).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. “National Land Cover Database.” Available at 

<http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer> (accessed 4 October 2013).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012a. Water-Data Report 2012, 05365500 Chippewa River 

at Chippewa Falls, WI, Chippewa Basin, Lower Chippewa Subbasin. Available at 

<http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/05365500.2012.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012b. Water-Data Report 2012, 05400513 Plover River at 

Hwy 66 Stevens Point, WI, Wisconsin Basin, Castle Rock Subbasin. Available at 

<http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2012/pdfs/05400513.2012.pdf> (accessed 3 January 2014).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013a. 2009 Mineral Yearbook, Wisconsin. Reston, VA: 

USGS. April 2013. Available at <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2009/myb2-

2009-wi.pdf> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013b. “Earthquakes in the Stable Continental Region.” 

Earthquake Hazards Program. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/product/tectonicsummary/usc000te4p/us/1420825648040/tectonic-summary.inc.html> (accessed 

16 January 2015).

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013c. “Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive 

Search and URL Builder, Search Results.” (Radius search parameters: center latitude 

44.9616N, center longitude -91.36498 W, outside radius 322 km). Page updated 

November 7, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/> (accessed 

20 December 2013).
Alternatives

5-114

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2013d. “Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Archive 

Search and URL Builder, Search Results.” (Radius search parameters: center latitude 

44.50703 N, center longitude -89.49590W, outside radius 322 km). Page updated 

November 7, 2013. Available at <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

Vetter, C. 2013. “Irvine Park Zoo plans $2.3M exhibit building.” Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. 

October 7, 2013. Available at 

<http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/front_page/article_28e0c8ca-2fd1-11e3-b3d2-

001a4bcf887a.html> (accessed 8 January 2015).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and 

Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation, Chapter NR 102, “Water Quality Standards for 

Wisconsin Surface Waters.” Revised February 2004. Available at 

<https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/102> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 104. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and 

Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation, Chapter NR 104, “Uses and Designated Standards.” 

Revised February 2004. Available at 

<https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/104> (accessed 

20 December 2013).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 140. Natural Resources, Fish, Game and 

Enforcement, Forestry and Recreation, Chapter NR 140, “Groundwater Quality.” Revised 

January 2012. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/100/140> 

(accessed 20 December 2013).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 460. Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Source Categories-General Provisions. Available at 

<http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/ admin_code/nr/400/460/Title> (accessed 

17 January 2014).

[WDHS] Wisconsin Department of Health Services. “Radiation Protection.” 2014. Available at 

<http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/radiation> (accessed 12 August 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015a. “Air Management Program, 

Facility Information for Indianhead Plating, Inc.” Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3001907> (accessed 

20 January 2015).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015b. “Air Management Program, 

Facility Information for Spectrum Industries.” Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=10641> (accessed 

20 January 2015).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015c. “Air Management Program, 

Facility Information Great Northern Corporation.” Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=19054951> (accessed 

20 January 2015).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015d. “Air Management Program, 

Facility Information for Dairyland Power Cooperative—Seven Mile Creek Landfill Gas to 

Renewable Energy Station.” Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=17105222> (accessed 

20 January 2015).
Alternatives

5-115

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015e. “Air Management Program, 

Facility Information for Central Wisconsin Alcohol, Inc.” Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3002320> (accessed 

20 January 2015).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012f. “Air Management Program 

Facility Information for Donaldson Company.” Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3002330> (accessed 

20 January 2015).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015g. “Air Management Program, 

Facility Information for WIMME Sand and Gravel Plants 1 & 2.” Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=4003218> and 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=13797133> (accessed 

20 January 2015).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013a. “Upper Rock River Basin.” 

Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/uprock/> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013b. “DNR Drinking Water System: 

High Capacity Wells.” Page updated January 6, 2014. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Groundwater/data.html> and 

<http://prodoasext.dnr.wi.gov/inter1/hicap$.startup> (accessed 20 December 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013c. “Southeast Glacial Plains 

Ecological Landscape.” Revised January 23, 2012. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=9> (accessed 

23 December 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. “Wisconsin Natural Heritage 

Working List.” Revised January 9, 2014. Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/nhi/wlist.html> 

(accessed 23 January 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014b. “Wisconsin’s Natural 

Communities.” Revised October 7, 2014. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Communities.asp> (accessed 

7 November 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014c. “Wisconsin’s endangered and 

threatened species laws.” Revised January 9, 2014. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/endangeredresources/laws.html> (accessed 28 January 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014d. “Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa 

samuelis).” Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Animals.asp?mode=detail&SpecCode=IILEPG5

021> (accessed 10 February 2014).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Undated. “Find Campgrounds—

ReserveAmerica.” Available at <http://wisconsinstateparks.reserveamerica.com/campground

SearchResult.do?startIdx=0> (accessed 26 February 2014).

[WDOR] Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2014. “County and Municipal Revenues and 

Expenditures 2012, Bulletin No. 112.” January 2014. Available at

<http://www.revenue.wi.gov/slf/cotvc/cmreb12.pdf> (accessed 27 February 2014).
Alternatives

5-116

[WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2008a. “Average Annual Daily Traffic for 

City of Chippewa Falls, Chippewa County.” Available at 

<http://www.dot.state.wi.us/travel/counts/docs/chippewa/chippewafalls2008.pdf> (accessed 

9 October 2014).

[WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2008b. “Average Annual Daily Traffic for 

City of Stevens Point, Portage County.” Available at 

<http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/counts/portage.htm> (accessed 9 October 2014).

[WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2011a. “Hourly Traffic Volume Reports—

Chippewa County, 2011.” The WisTransPortal System, Wisconsin Traffic Operations and 

Safety Laboratory, University of Wisconsin—Madison. Available at 

<http://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourly-traffic-data/bysiteid/chippewa.html> (accessed 

9 October 2014).

[WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2011b. “Hourly Traffic Volume Reports –

Portage County, 2011.” The WisTransPortal System, Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety 

Laboratory, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Available at 

<http://transportal.cee.wisc.edu/products/hourly-traffic-data/bysiteid/portage.html> (accessed 

9 October 2014).

[WDOT] Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2012. “Connections 2030: Long-Range 

Multimodal Transportation Data, Marshfield/Rapids Connection Corridor—Abbotsford to 

Stevens Point.” Updated November 27, 2012. Available at 

<http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/connections2030.htm> (accessed 

1 September 2014).

[WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2013. “Labor market Information 

for 2011, 2012, and first quarter in January 2013.” Available at <http://www.dwd.wisconsin.gov> 

(accessed 25 July 2013).

[WDWD] Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2014. “Bureau of Migrant Labor 

Services 2011 Migrant Population Report.” Available at 

<http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/migrants/pdf/migrantpoprep2011.pdf> (accessed 20 February 2014).

[WEDC] Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. 2014a. “Lake Wissota Business 

Park.” Available at <http://inwisconsin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ChipFalls.pdf> 

(accessed 9 October 2014).

[WEDC] Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. 2014b. “Lake Wissota Business 

Park.” Available at <http://eagl-i.com/chippewa/config/chippewa/LWBP.pdf> (accessed 

5 December 2014).

[WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2005. Bedrock Geology of 

Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Extension, Geological and Natural History 

Survey. April 1981 (Revised 2005). Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/ES051/> 

(accessed 16 January 2015).

[WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2011. Glaciation of Wisconsin. 

Educational Series 36. Fourth edition. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/es0362011/> 

(accessed 16 January 2015).

[WGNHS] Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. 2014. Frac Sand in Wisconsin. 

Factsheet 05. Available at <http://wgnhs.uwex.edu/pubs/fs05/> (accessed 16 January 2015).
Alternatives

5-117

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

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

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

[WHS] Wisconsin Historical Society. 2015. Letter from Eisenberg L, Compliance Archeologist, 

to Bladey C, Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Subject: Draft EIS for the 

Construction Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, 

Janesville, Wisconsin. June 26, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15191A323.

6-1

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

This environmental impact statement (EIS) contains the environmental review of the SHINE

Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), application for a construction permit under Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 that would allow construction of the SHINE 

medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) in Janesville, Wisconsin. This EIS 

follows the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51, which are the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s (NRC’s) regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969. This chapter presents conclusions and recommendations from the environmental review 

of the SHINE facility. Section 6.1 summarizes the environmental impacts of construction, 

operations, and decommissioning. Section 6.2 compares the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action, the construction of the SHINE facility at two alternative sites, and the 

construction of an alternative technology at the proposed site at Janesville, Wisconsin.

Section 6.3 discusses unavoidable impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the 

proposed action and identifies resource commitments. Section 6.4 presents conclusions and 

staff recommendations. Finally, Section 6.5 provides a list of references.

6.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

The NRC staff concludes that issuing a construction permit for the SHINE facility would have 

SMALL impacts for all resource areas with the exception of transportation. The impacts to 

transportation would be SMALL to MODERATE because of the noticeable increase in average 

daily traffic flow. The addition of up to 465 vehicles per day (or approximately 1,000 trips per 

day) from construction activities and 261 vehicles per day (or approximately 580 trips a day) 

from decommissioning activities at the proposed SHINE facility would result in an increased 

traffic volume on U.S. Highway 51. This increase in traffic would not likely destabilize traffic 

conditions near the SHINE site because traffic analyses indicate that the level of 

construction- and decommissioning-related traffic would not affect the level of service anywhere 

in the transportation infrastructure; therefore, the transportation infrastructure would not require 

any modifications (SHINE 2015a). During operations, a “slight degradation of service” 

(i.e., traffic delays) would occur at the intersection of westbound State Trunk Highway 11 onto 

southbound U.S. Highway 51 during the morning during peak hours of commuting. The NRC 

staff expects the overall daily traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SHINE facility 

to increase slightly during the operation phase, but it would not be appreciable when compared 

with the average daily and annual traffic flow of roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

SHINE facility. Table 6–1 summarizes the potential impacts.

The staff also considered cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes them. 

In Section 4.13, the staff concluded that the cumulative impacts would be SMALL for all areas 

with the exception of ecological resources and transportation. For ecological resources, the 

NRC staff concluded that the cumulative impacts would be MODERATE. For transportation, the 

NRC staff concluded that the cumulative impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.
Conclusions

6-2

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

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 

developed 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
Conclusions

6-3

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
Conclusions

6-4

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.

6.2 Comparison of Alternatives

In Chapter 5, the NRC staff considered the following alternatives to construction, operations, 

and decommissioning of the SHINE facility at the proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin:

• the no-action alternative;

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

Falls site (Alternative Site No. 1);

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

Point site (Alternative Site No. 2); and

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

at the SHINE site (alternative technology).

Tables 5–18 and 5–19 summarize the impacts for the proposed action, the no-action alternative, 

the two alternative sites, and the alternative technology.

In conclusion, the NRC staff notes that the no-action alternative would result in SMALL impacts 

to all resource areas. However, the no-action alternative does not fulfill the purpose and need 

of the project. The environmentally preferred alternatives are the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility and the linear-accelerator-based facility at the Janesville

site. The impacts associated with the proposed action and the alternative technology would be 

SMALL for all resource areas with the exception of traffic, which would incur SMALL to 

MODERATE impacts. The other alternatives capable of meeting the purpose and need of the 

project would entail potentially greater impacts than the proposed action of constructing the 

SHINE facility. For example, the impacts at both alternative sites would be SMALL for most 

resource areas; however, the NRC staff determined that impacts from noise would be 

MODERATE at both the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point sites and that the impacts to visual 

resources would be SMALL to MODERATE at the Stevens Point site. Similar to those at the 

proposed Janesville site, the impacts at both the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point sites would 

be SMALL to MODERATE for traffic.
Conclusions

6-5

6.3 Resource Commitments

6.3.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

Section 102(2)(C)(ii) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that an EIS 

include information on any adverse environmental effect that cannot be avoided should the 

proposal be implemented. Unavoidable adverse impacts are predicted adverse environmental 

impacts that cannot be avoided and that have no practical means of further mitigation. 

Table 6–2 presents the unavoidable adverse impacts from construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the proposed SHINE facility and presents mitigations and controls intended 

to lessen the adverse impact. Unless noted otherwise, mitigation measures were from SHINE’s 

Environmental Report (SHINE 2015a) or from responses to requests for additional information

(SHINE 2013, 2014, 2015b). 

As described above, impacts to all resource areas would be SMALL with the exception of 

transportation. For those resource areas that would have SMALL impacts, the environmental 

effects would not be detectable or would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor 

noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For transportation, the NRC staff 

determined that the proposed action could noticeably alter traffic conditions on U.S. Highway 51

as described above in Section 6.1. To mitigate the increase in traffic and to help reduce traffic 

congestion, SHINE plans to use a staggered construction work-shift schedule to reduce the 

hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to schedule truck deliveries early in the day. In 

addition, SHINE would ensure that delivery routes would avoid residential and sensitive areas.

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.
Conclusions

6-6

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. 

SHINE would develop a comprehensive 

program to avoid and control GHG emissions 

associated with the facility that may include 

developing a GHG emission inventory and 

investigating and implementing methods for 

avoiding or controlling the GHG emissions 

identified in the inventory; implementing 

energy efficiency and conservation programs 

at the SHINE facility, such as installing solar 

panels and/or purchasing electricity generated 

from renewable energy sources; and 

encouraging carpooling or other measures to 

minimize GHG and other emissions due to 

vehicle traffic during construction and 

operation of the SHINE facility.

Short-term, localized 

increases in fugitive dust and 

air emissions would primarily 

occur at and near the 

proposed SHINE facility. 

Increases in GHG emissions 

from construction equipment, 

worker vehicle commuting, 

and facility operations. 

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. 
Conclusions

6-7

Resource Area Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impact

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.

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.
Conclusions

6-8

Resource Area Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impact

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.

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.
Conclusions

6-9

Resource Area Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impact

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.

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 westbound State 

Highway 11 to southbound U.S. Highway 51 

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

approaching 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.
Conclusions

6-10

Resource Area Mitigation Measures

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impact

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.

In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted comments on the draft 

EIS in which EPA recommended that SHINE incorporate several potential mitigation measures

(EPA 2015). These recommended mitigation measures have been provided to SHINE for their 

consideration and are summarized below.

Green Infrastructure

• Any locations on the site that are not planned for operations should be 

considered for conversion to native habitats, increasing the area that can be 

beneficially used for wildlife, infiltration or stormwater retention, and aesthetics, 

among other functions.

• Any roads, parking lots, sidewalks, or other surfaces slated for driving or walking 

should be constructed using permeable pavement to reduce runoff.

• Construction schedules of the new facilities should be staggered so that no 

additional undisturbed land is permanently disturbed; this could mean having one 

temporary laydown area (that is ultimately slated for a permanent use) serving 

the construction of new permanent facilities.

• Construction of all buildings should meet Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) standards. 

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

• Clean energy options, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy, should

be considered in the purchase of maintenance equipment, new equipment, and 

vehicles. 

• Implementation of any measures that may reduce the facility’s carbon dioxide 

(CO2) footprint, particularly from fuel combustion during the life of operations. 

• Consider the need to develop adaptation measures to address impacts from 

climate change on the facility, such as increased intensity and frequency of storm 

and flood events.

• EPA notes that the diesel emissions reduction measures, as recommended in its

August 14, 2013, scoping letter, were included in the draft EIS. EPA commends 

the NRC for including this language and continues to encourage the applicant to 

incorporate these measures into its construction planning.
Conclusions

6-11

Transportation

• SHINE and the Janesville Transit System should determine whether a stop at the 

facility would benefit employees of the facility and help to alleviate potential 

degradation to traffic patterns along U.S. Highway 51.

• Continue ongoing coordination with local traffic authorities to ensure levels of 

service remain appropriate and that users of the road are kept updated on

closures and delays. 

The NRC staff did not consider these mitigation measures when determining the potential 

impacts from the proposed action because SHINE has not committed to incorporating the 

suggested mitigation measures. SHINE is not required to implement the suggested mitigation 

measures because they are recommendations, and not requirements, from EPA . 

6.3.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

The construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility and alternatives to the 

proposed action would result in short-term uses of the environment, as described in Chapters 4 

and 5. “Short-term” is the period of time during which construction, operations, and 

decommissioning activities would take place.

The construction, operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility would require 

short-term use of the environment and commitment of resources and would commit certain 

resources (e.g., land and energy), indefinitely or permanently. Short-term resource 

commitments would be similar at the two alternative sites and for the alternative technology if it 

were to be developed at the proposed Janesville site. These alternatives and the proposed 

action would result in similar relationships between local short-term uses of the environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. However, the no-action 

alternative would not result in resource commitments because no new facilities would be 

constructed or operated.

Construction, operations, and decommissioning would require up to 91.1 ac (36.9 ha) of 

agricultural land and 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) of developed open areas that would be committed to 

industrial land use during the short term. In addition, the facility would partially obstruct the 

current viewshed. Construction, operations, and decommissioning could also displace wildlife

through destruction of habitat or noise. However, after decommissioning the SHINE facility and 

restoring the area, the land could be available for other future productive uses, and the onsite 

viewshed could be restored to the current condition. In addition, wildlife may return to the site 

once construction or decommissioning is completed if it is restored to suitable habitat. 

Air emissions from construction, operations, and decommissioning would introduce small 

amounts of radiological and nonradiological constituents at the facility site. Over time, these 

emissions would result in increased concentrations and exposure; however, such emissions are 

not expected to affect air quality or radiation exposure to the extent that they would impair public 

health and long-term productivity of the environment.

Noise emitted by construction, operations, and decommissioning activities would increase the 

ambient noise levels on site and in adjacent offsite areas. However, once decommissioning 

activities were completed, noise would return to ambient levels, and no effects would have an 

impact on the long-term productivity of the proposed SHINE facility.

Construction, operations, and decommissioning activities could affect up to 91 ac (37 ha) of 

onsite soils that are considered prime farmland (when they are not committed to developed 
Conclusions

6-12

uses) or farmland of statewide importance at the proposed SHINE facility. The majority of the 

soils on site, however, would not likely be affected from construction, operations, and 

decommissioning. Affected soils could affect the long-term productivity of the site if 

construction, operations, or decommissioning activities damage such soils in a manner that 

would degrade the soil properties associated with prime farmland or farmland of statewide

importance designation.

Increased employment, expenditures, and tax revenues generated during construction, 

operations, and decommissioning activities directly benefit local, regional, and State economies 

over the short term. Local governments investing project-generated tax revenues into 

infrastructure and other required services could enhance economic productivity over the long 

term.

The management and disposal of low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and 

nonhazardous waste requires an increase in energy and consumes space at treatment, storage, 

or disposal facilities. Regardless of the location, the use of land to meet waste disposal needs 

would reduce the long-term productivity of the land.

Worker vehicles and the delivery and shipment of materials would increase the volume of traffic

on local roads. Worker and delivery vehicles would cease once decommissioning is completed 

and, therefore, would not affect long-term productivity.

Installation of water and sewer lines during construction of the proposed SHINE facility would 

connect the facility to the City of Janesville water supply system. This additional infrastructure 

would be available and beneficial for any future use of the proposed SHINE facility after its 

decommissioning.

6.3.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

This section describes the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that have 

been noted in this EIS. Resources are irreversible when primary or secondary impacts limit 

future options for a resource. An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or consumption of 

resources that are neither renewable nor recoverable for future use. Irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources for construction, operations, and decommissioning of a 

medical isotope facility include the commitment of water, energy, raw materials, and other 

natural and man-made resources. In general, the commitment of capital, energy, labor, and 

material resources are also irreversible.

The implementation of the alternative sites or the alternative technology considered in this EIS 

would entail the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy, water, chemicals, fossil 

fuels, and other natural and man-made resources. These resources would be unrecoverable. 

For example, SHINE would consume materials during the construction, as described in 

Chapter 2. These materials would be irretrievable unless SHINE recycles them during 

decommissioning (e.g., finds another facility to use such materials). During operations, uranium

used as the source for the molybdenum isotope would be the main resource that would be 

irreversibly and irretrievably committed.

Up to 91 ac (37 ha) of soils that are considered prime farmland (when they are not committed to 

developed uses) or farmland of statewide importance on the proposed SHINE facility could be 

irreversibly damaged such that the soil properties associated with the prime farmland 

designation would be irreversibly damaged. Mineral and other geologic resources, such as 

concrete, granular road base, pavement aggregate, and asphalt necessary for construction of 

the facility, would be irreversibly committed for construction of the SHINE facility. In addition, a 
Conclusions

6-13

small amount of soils and sediments would be lost to wind and water erosion during 

construction, operations, and decommissioning.

A negligible increase in the mortality of birds could occur because of their collisions with facility 

structures. The loss of these birds would be irreversible and irretrievable.

Nonradiological irreversible commitments to occupational human health resources may occur.

Such impacts would be similar to potential hazards that occur at any industrial construction site.

Energy expended would be in the form of fuel for equipment, vehicles, and facility operations 

and electricity for equipment and facility operations. Electricity and fuel would be acquired from 

offsite commercial sources. Water would be obtained from existing water supply systems. 

These resources are readily available, and the amounts required are not expected to deplete 

available supplies or exceed available system capacities.

6.4 Recommendation

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

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

safety issues mandate otherwise, the issuance of the construction permit to SHINE. The NRC 

staff based its recommendation on the following factors:

• SHINE’s Environmental Report;

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

• the NRC staff’s independent environmental review; and

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

6.5 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

protection against radiation.” 

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

production and utilization facilities.”

10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, “Domestic licensing of 

special nuclear material.”

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and 

transportation of radioactive material.” 

49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, “Hazardous 

materials table, special provisions, hazardous materials communications, emergency response 

information, training requirements, and security plans.”

49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, “Shippers—

general requirements for shipments and packaging.”

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Letter from Westlake K, EPA, to Moser M, 

NRC. Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the 

SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Janesville, Wisconsin - NUREG-2183 -CEQ

#20150133. July 2, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15201A575.

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

6-14

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc., 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

(PSAR), Chapter 13, “Accident Analysis,” and Chapter 19, “Environmental Report.” Monona, 

WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404.

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter 326. Motor Carrier Safety Requirements for 

Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Available at 

<https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/trans/326> (accessed 17 November 2014).
7-1

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation (NRR) prepared this environmental impact statement with support from other NRC 

organizations, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA), Los Alamos Technical Associates (LATA), and Idoneous Consulting. Idoneous 

Consulting provided support for technical editing reviews. Table 7–1 identifies each 

contributor’s name, affiliation, and function or expertise.

Table 7–1. List of Preparers

(in alphabetical order)

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

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

Joanie Dix NNSA Project Manager

Rilla Hamilton NNSA Project Manager

Randy Howell NNSA Project Manager

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

8-1

8.0 INDEX

accidents, 4-37, 4-40, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 

4-49, 4-51, 4-52, 5-31, 5-74, 5-98, 5-102, 

6-3, 6-9, A-3, A-4, A-9, A-42, A-43, A-44

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP), xxi, 1-7, 4-28, 

4-83, 9-3, B-4, C-2, C-4, D-3, D-4, D-5

agricultural land, 2-18, 3-1, 3-6, 3-30, 

3-32, 3-39, 3-40, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-25, 

4-29, 4-31, 4-63, 4-70, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 

5-11, 5-13, 5-19, 5-39, 5-43, 5-50, 5-51, 

5-52, 5-53, 5-55, 5-61, 5-64, 5-83, 5-95, 

5-100, 6-2, 6-5, 6-11, A-11

alternatives, iii, xix, xx, 1-4, 2-18, 5-1, 5-6, 

5-92, 5-105, 5-106, 6-1, 6-4, 6-11, 6-13, 

A-1, A-8, A-11, A-24, A-28, A-37, A-40, 

B-2, D-2

American Medical Isotopes Production 

Act, 1-3, 1-5, 1-8, 2-16, 2-19, 4-42, 4-74, 

A-17, A-49

best management practices (BMPs), 4-8, 

4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 

4-66, 4-68, 4-71, 4-78, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 

5-21, 5-22, 5-42, 5-44, 5-58, 5-61, 5-64, 

5-65, 5-86, 5-88, 5-96, 5-101, 6-2, 6-6, 

6-7, A-13

bird, 3-30, 3-33, 3-37, 4-26, 4-27, 5-20, 

5-21, 5-22, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-96, 6-7

chemical, 2-15, 3-3, 3-26, 3-28, 3-52, 4-37, 

4-38, 4-41, 4-43, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 

4-51, 4-52, 4-64, 5-9, 5-26, 5-27, 5-45, 

5-69, 5-70, 5-89, 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-97, 

5-102, 6-3, 6-8, 6-9, A-4, A-13, A-19, 

A-20, A-42, B-5

Clean Air Act (CAA), xxi, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15, 

3-57, 3-58, 4-9, 4-64, 4-81, 5-40, 5-85, 

A-29, B-3, B-10, B-14

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 

xxi, 1-4, 4-1, 4-52, 4-53, 4-80, 5-1, 5-99, 

5-107, 6-13, A-21, A-40, A-49

critical habitat, 3-35, 4-27, B-4, D-1, D-2

demographic, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-65, 4-54

discharges, 2-16, 3-25, 3-26, 3-29, 4-18, 

4-20, 4-21, 4-40, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 5-17, 

5-42, 5-59, 5-86, A-13, A-15

dose, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 

4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 

4-52, 4-59, 4-60, 4-73, 5-26, 5-27, 5-36, 

5-38, 5-45, 5-69, 5-70, 5-80, 5-81, 5-89, 

5-98, 5-102, 6-3, 6-8, 6-9, A-4, A-10, 

A-16, A-22, A-23, A-27, A-29, A-30, A-42, 

A-43, B-2, B-3

education, 2-17, 3-43, 3-45, 3-46, 3-67, 

4-31, 4-33, 4-35, 4-36, 5-23, 5-24, 5-66, 

5-112, A-24

emissions, 3-12, 3-13, 3-15, 3-51, 4-6, 4-7, 

4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 

4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-36, 4-39, 4-40, 4-59, 

4-60, 4-64, 4-65, 4-70, 4-72, 4-76, 4-77, 

5-12, 5-13, 5-36, 5-38, 5-40, 5-45, 5-47, 

5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-80, 5-81, 5-85, 5-89, 

5-92, 5-95, 5-98, 5-100, 5-103, 6-2, 6-4, 

6-6, 6-10, 6-11, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-9, A-10, 

A-20, A-21, A-22, A-23, A-35, A-47, B-3, 

B-10

employment, 3-42, 3-43, 4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 

4-35, 4-59, 4-60, 4-72, 4-76, 5-23, 5-36, 

5-37, 5-44, 5-47, 5-66, 5-79, 5-80, 5-88, 

5-91, 6-8, 6-12

endangered species, 1-6, 3-36, 5-5, 5-63, 

B-1

Endangered Species Act (ESA), xxii, 1-6, 

1-8, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-56, 3-57, 4-27, 

5-64, 5-65, A-8, B-4, B-14, C-1, D-1, D-2, 

D-6

Environmental Report (ER), iii, xvii, xx, 

xxii, 1-4, 1-5, 1-9, 2-8, 2-11, 2-15, 2-18, 

2-20, 3-1, 3-35, 3-51, 3-62, 4-44, 4-46, 

4-49, 4-61, 4-73, 4-84, 5-2, 5-21, 5-31, 

5-64, 5-74, 5-112, 6-5, 6-13, 6-14, A-4, 

A-5, A-8, A-18, A-22, A-23, A-25, A-27, 

A-28, A-29, A-34, A-38, A-39, A-42

erosion, 3-3, 3-19, 3-21, 4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 

4-26, 4-66, 4-68, 5-9, 5-16, 5-18, 5-21, 

5-22, 5-41, 5-42, 5-58, 5-60, 5-64, 5-65, 

5-85, 5-86, 5-95, 5-96, 5-101, 6-2, 6-7, 

6-13, A-14, B-7, B-12

Essential fish habitat (EFH), 3-38, 4-28
Index

8-2

farmland of statewide importance, 3-3, 

3-6, 3-22, 4-3, 5-9, 5-52, 5-57, 5-84, 6-12

fission, xviii, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 

4-47, 4-48, 5-92, A-8, A-31, A-32

fugitive dust, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-15, 4-16, 

5-12, 5-13, 5-54, 5-55, 6-6

greenhouse gas, xxii, 3-12, 3-14, 3-56, 4-8, 

A-22, A-45, A-46

habitat, 3-26, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 

3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-60, 4-25, 4-26, 

4-27, 4-28, 4-63, 4-70, 4-77, 5-5, 5-19, 

5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-39, 5-43, 5-62, 5-63, 

5-64, 5-65, 5-83, 5-87, 5-96, 5-101, 6-2, 

6-7, 6-11, A-8, B-4, D-1, D-2, D-3

hazardous waste, 2-16, 4-43, 5-45, 5-46, 

5-89, 5-90, 5-97, 6-9, 6-12, A-14, A-15, 

A-36, A-38, B-5, B-7, B-11

hot cell, 2-10, 2-15, 2-16, 4-38, 4-41, 4-42, 

4-74, 5-93, 5-94, 6-8, A-29, A-32

iodine-131, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-6, 

2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-14, 3-51, 5-92, A-31, 

A-33

irradiation, 1-2, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-13, 

2-16, 4-42, 4-47, 4-48, 4-74, 5-93, 5-95, 

A-17, A-19, A-39, A-46

Janesville, Wisconsin, iii, xiii, xv, xvii, xviii, 

1-1, 1-3, 1-5, 2-1, 2-6, 3-1, 3-10, 3-38, 

3-57, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-63, 4-72, 4-73, 

4-80, 4-83, 4-86, 5-2, 5-6, 5-93, 5-100, 

5-104, 5-106, 5-117, 6-1, 6-4, 6-13, 9-1, 

9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, A-1, A-11, A-15, A-17, 

A-26, A-34, B-8

jobs, 3-43, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 5-67, 5-100, 

6-8, A-10

Karner blue butterfly, 5-5, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65

low-enriched uranium, 1-3, 1-4, 5-92, 

5-93, 5-100

low-level radioactive waste, 2-15, 3-51, 

3-52, 5-46, 5-90, 5-97, 6-9, 6-12, A-16

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA), 4-28, B-4, D-3, D-6

mineral resources, 4-2, 4-66, 4-77, 5-8, 

5-10, 5-41, 5-50, 5-52, 5-85, 5-86

mitigation, 4-23, 4-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-29, 

5-69, 5-70, 5-73, 6-5, 6-7, 6-10, 6-11, A-6, 

A-22, A-23, A-36, A-39, A-46

mixed waste, A-38, B-11

molybdenum-99, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 

1-9, 2-1, 2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-14, 2-20, 

5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-92, 5-93, 5-94, 5-98, 

5-100, 5-103, 5-117, A-7, A-24, A-33

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), xvii, xviii, xxiv, 1-1, 1-3, 1-5, 1-8, 

2-19, 3-66, 4-2, 4-29, 4-52, 4-53, 4-80, 

4-82, 5-1, 5-10, 5-52, 5-93, 5-99, 5-107, 

5-110, 6-1, 6-5, 6-13, 9-4, A-8, A-22, 

A-24, A-25, A-27, A-40, A-49, A-50, B-2, 

B-4, B-15, D-1, D-3, D-6

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), 3-34, 3-35, 3-38, 3-60, 4-27, 

4-28, B-4, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-6

National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA), xviii, xxiv, 1-3, 1-5, 1-8, 2-1, 

2-18, 4-81, 5-92, 5-94, 5-103, 5-105, 

5-109, 5-111, 7-1, 9-3, A-8

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES), xxiv, 4-18, 4-21, 4-68, 

5-42, 5-86, A-39, B-1, B-5, B-14

National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP), xxiv, 3-40, 3-60, 4-28, 4-30, 

4-31, 4-79, 5-6, 5-22, 5-23, 5-65, 5-66, 

5-101, 5-111, 6-2, 6-8, B-4, D-3

no-action alternative, iii, xix, 5-1, 5-2, 

5-104, 5-106, 6-4, 6-11

nonattainment, 3-12, 3-13

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), xxiv, 3-17, 3-50, 

3-61, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 5-68, 

5-97, 5-101, 6-3, 6-8, A-11, B-4

personal protective equipment, 2-16, 

4-41

population, 3-2, 3-38, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 

3-60, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-49, 4-51, 

4-53, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-70, 

4-72, 4-76, 4-78, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-31, 

5-32, 5-34, 5-35, 5-36, 5-37, 5-44, 5-66, 

5-67, 5-68, 5-75, 5-77, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 

5-88, 5-97, 6-8, A-11, B-3

population centers, 3-2

prime farmland, 3-3, 3-6, 3-21, 4-2, 4-3, 

4-63, 4-66, 5-8, 5-10, 5-15, 5-16, 5-39, 

5-41, 5-50, 5-52, 5-57, 5-84, 6-11, 6-12, 

B-4, B-6
Index

8-3

production facility, iii, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-4, 

2-1, 2-8, 3-50, 3-60, 4-1, 4-10, 4-31, 4-41, 

4-47, 4-48, 4-72, 4-81, 5-1, 5-2, 6-1, A-1, 

A-8, A-19, A-27, A-44, A-49, B-2, D-1

public health, 2-13, 2-14, 3-12, 3-50, 4-44, 

4-45, 5-30, 5-74, 5-97, 5-98, 5-105, 6-11, 

A-29, B-1, B-3, B-8

public services, 4-72, 4-78, 5-24, 5-25, 

5-44, 5-67, 5-68, 5-88, 5-97, 5-99, 6-8

radioactive waste, 2-6, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 

2-15, 2-16, 2-18, 2-19, 3-51, 3-52, 4-36, 

4-37, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-44, 4-45, 

4-47, 4-74, 4-75, 5-27, 5-30, 5-46, 5-70, 

5-73, 5-90, 5-94, 5-97, 5-98, 5-102, 6-3, 

6-9, 6-12, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-29, A-31, 

A-37, A-38

radioisotope, iii, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 

2-1, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 

2-14, 3-50, 3-60, 4-1, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 

4-13, 4-24, 4-31, 4-36, 4-39, 4-41, 4-46, 

4-47, 4-48, 4-61, 4-75, 4-81, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 

5-12, 5-26, 5-27, 5-54, 5-69, 5-71, 5-73, 

5-92, 5-94, 5-100, 6-1, A-1, A-8, A-16, 

A-19, A-24, A-37, A-49, B-2, D-1

Rock River, xiii, 3-3, 3-19, 3-20, 3-23, 3-25, 

3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 

3-34, 3-35, 3-48, 3-59, 3-62, 3-63, 3-65, 

3-66, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 

4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-84, 4-85, 5-115, A-14, 

A-38, D-3

runoff, 2-5, 3-23, 3-25, 3-26, 3-29, 4-18, 

4-19, 4-20, 4-24, 4-26, 4-27, 4-67, 4-70, 

4-77, 5-18, 5-21, 5-22, 5-42, 5-43, 5-59, 

5-61, 5-62, 5-64, 5-65, 5-86, 5-87, 5-96, 

6-7, 6-10, A-13, A-14, A-39, A-45, B-5, 

B-7, B-10

safety evaluation report (SER), xxv, 4-38, 

4-46, 4-49, 4-52, 5-102, 6-3, A-4, A-10, 

A-22, A-23, A-27, A-28, A-37, A-42, A-43, 

A-44

schools, 3-47, 4-32, 4-34, 5-4, 5-24, 5-25, 

5-67, 5-68

scoping, xvii, 1-4, 1-5, 1-8, 3-1, 4-29, 4-61, 

4-81, 6-10, A-1, A-2, A-22, A-49, D-4, D-5

shielding, 2-7, 2-15, 4-26, 4-38, 4-41, 4-42, 

4-47, 4-48, 6-7, 6-8

SHINE, iii, ix, xi, xiii, xiv, xv, xvii, xviii, xix, 

xx, xxv, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 

1-8, 1-9, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 

2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 

2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 3-1, 

3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-8, 3-9, 3-11, 

3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 

3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 

3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 

3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-40, 3-42, 3-47, 3-48, 

3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-55, 3-58, 3-59, 

3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 

4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 

4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 

4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 

4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 

4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 

4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 

4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 

4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 

4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 

4-69, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 

4-77, 4-78, 4-81, 4-83, 4-84, 4-86, 5-1, 

5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 

5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 

5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 

5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 

5-35, 5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-41, 

5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 

5-49, 5-50, 5-51, 5-52, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 

5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-61, 5-62, 

5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-66, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 

5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 5-74, 5-75, 5-79, 

5-80, 5-81, 5-83, 5-84, 5-85, 5-86, 5-87, 

5-88, 5-89, 5-90, 5-91, 5-92, 5-93, 5-94, 

5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-99, 5-100, 

5-101, 5-102, 5-103, 5-104, 5-105, 5-106, 

5-109, 5-112, 5-117, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 

6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, 

6-13, 6-14, 9-1, A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, 

A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, 

A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-20, A-21, A-22, 

A-23, A-24, A-25, A-26, A-27, A-28, A-29, 

A-30, A-31, A-32, A-33, A-34, A-35, A-36, 

A-37, A-38, A-39, A-40, A-41, A-42, A-43, 

A-44, A-46, A-47, A-48, A-49, A-50, B-1, 

B-8, B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, B-15, 

C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-6, D-1, D-2, D-3

soil, 3-3, 3-6, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-25, 3-29, 

3-50, 3-61, 4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 4-25, 4-26, 

4-66, 4-68, 4-70, 4-74, 4-83, 5-9, 5-15, 

5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-40, 5-41, 
Index

8-4

5-43, 5-57, 5-58, 5-60, 5-61, 5-64, 5-65, 

5-85, 5-86, 5-87, 5-95, 5-101, 5-111, 6-2, 

6-7, 6-12, A-28

solid waste, 2-16, 2-17, 4-40, 4-43, 5-45, 

5-46, 5-89, 5-90, 5-97, A-36, B-1

State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO), xxv, 1-7, 4-28, 9-1, A-26, D-5

stormwater, 2-1, 2-5, 4-1, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 

4-21, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-67, 

4-68, 4-70, 5-18, 5-19, 5-22, 5-42, 5-43, 

5-61, 5-64, 5-65, 5-86, 5-87, 5-96, 6-7, 

6-10, A-13, A-14, A-39, A-45, B-5, B-7, 

B-10

tax, 3-46, 3-47, 4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 

4-72, 5-24, 5-25, 5-44, 5-67, 5-68, 5-88, 

5-97, 5-99, 6-8, 6-12, A-11

technetium-99m, 1-1, 5-98

traffic, xx, xxv, 3-14, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-54, 

3-55, 3-56, 3-67, 4-6, 4-7, 4-9, 4-10, 4-13, 

4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-43, 

4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-65, 

4-75, 4-76, 4-78, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-28, 

5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-36, 5-37, 5-46, 5-47, 

5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 5-74, 

5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-91, 5-98, 5-99, 5-102, 

5-103, 5-104, 5-106, 5-116, 6-1, 6-3, 6-4, 

6-5, 6-6, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, A-11, 

A-12, A-22, A-35, A-36, A-41, A-47

tritium, 2-7, 2-10, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 3-51, 

4-38, 4-42, 6-8, A-31

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), iii, xviii, 

xxii, 1-3, 1-5, 1-8, 2-1, 2-16, 2-18, 2-19, 

4-42, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-65, 4-72, 4-74, 

4-80, 4-81, 5-92, 5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 

5-98, 5-103, 5-108, 7-1, 9-3, A-8, A-17, 

A-37, A-45, A-46, A-49, C-4

U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT), xxii, 2-11, 2-13, 2-15, 4-42, 4-43, 

4-44, 4-45, 4-75, 4-82, 5-29, 5-30, 5-72, 

5-74, 5-97, 5-98, 5-102, 6-3, 6-9, A-41, 

B-6, B-7, B-10, B-11

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), xxii, 1-8, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 

3-16, 3-17, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 4-8, 4-11, 

4-12, 4-16, 4-18, 4-43, 4-49, 4-50, 4-64, 

4-68, 4-74, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 5-12, 

5-13, 5-54, 5-55, 5-108, 5-109, 6-10, 

6-11, 6-13, 9-2, 9-4, 9-5, A-2, A-5, A-17, 

A-18, A-20, A-22, A-26, A-27, A-29, A-30, 

A-35, A-36, A-37, A-38, A-40, A-43, A-45, 

A-48, A-49, B-1, B-3, B-5, B-10, B-14, 

C-3, C-6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), xxii, 

1-7, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-56, 3-58, 4-27, 

5-5, 5-6, 5-20, 5-21, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 

5-109, 9-2, 9-3, B-4, C-1, C-4, C-6, D-1, 

D-2, D-3, D-6

U.S. Highway 51, 2-1, 2-2, 2-12, 3-1, 3-2, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-23, 3-26, 

3-52, 3-54, 3-55, 4-4, 4-5, 4-9, 4-10, 4-13, 

4-17, 4-20, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-59, 4-65, 

6-1, 6-5, 6-9, 6-11, A-12, A-35

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC), iii, v, xiii, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxiv, 

1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 

2-1, 2-5, 2-6, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-18, 2-20, 

3-1, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-21, 3-23, 3-26, 

3-27, 3-29, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-50, 3-51, 

3-52, 3-58, 3-60, 3-61, 3-66, 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 

4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 

4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 

4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 

4-30, 4-31, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 

4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 

4-48, 4-49, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-58, 4-59, 

4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 

4-78, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-86, 

5-1, 5-2, 5-6, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 

5-15, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 

5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-35, 

5-36, 5-38, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 

5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-52, 5-53, 5-54, 

5-55, 5-56, 5-58, 5-60, 5-61, 5-63, 5-64, 

5-66, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 

5-74, 5-75, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-84, 5-85, 

5-86, 5-87, 5-89, 5-90, 5-91, 5-92, 5-93, 

5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-101, 

5-102, 5-105, 5-106, 5-109, 5-110, 5-111, 

5-117, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-9, 6-10, 

6-11, 6-13, 7-1, 9-4, A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, 

A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12, 

A-13, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-19, A-20, 

A-21, A-22, A-23, A-24, A-25, A-26, A-27, 

A-28, A-29, A-30, A-31, A-32, A-33, A-34, 

A-35, A-36, A-37, A-38, A-39, A-40, A-41, 

A-42, A-43, A-44, A-45, A-46, A-47, A-48, 

A-49, A-50, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-9, B-14, 
Index

8-5

C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, D-1, D-2, 

D-3, D-4, D-5

uranium, xviii, xxii, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-8, 

2-10, 2-14, 2-16, 3-50, 4-39, 4-42, 4-74, 

5-26, 5-27, 5-69, 5-71, 5-92, 5-93, 5-100, 

5-105, 6-12, A-3, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, 

A-12, A-14, A-17, A-29, A-37, A-42, A-43

utilization facility, 2-18, A-15, A-44

viewshed, 3-8, 4-4, 4-6, 4-61, 4-63, 4-71, 

5-10, 5-11, 5-40, 5-52, 5-53, 5-84, 5-100, 

6-2, 6-5, 6-11

wastewater, 2-12, 2-16, 3-49, 3-50, 3-66, 

4-20, 4-21, 4-27, 4-39, 4-67, 4-68, 4-74, 

4-77, 5-17, 5-19, 5-22, 5-42, 5-59, 5-61, 

5-65, 5-86, 5-96, A-28, A-29, B-12

wildlife, 3-26, 3-30, 3-31, 3-33, 3-48, 3-56, 

4-26, 4-27, 4-60, 4-63, 4-67, 4-70, 5-19, 

5-21, 5-22, 5-37, 5-39, 5-43, 5-62, 5-64, 

5-65, 5-81, 5-83, 5-87, 5-96, 6-7, 6-10, 

6-11, A-24, A-45, B-4, B-5, B-6

Wisconsin Administrative Code (WAC), 

xxv, 2-16, 3-12, 3-15, 3-17, 3-26, 3-28, 

3-34, 3-64, 3-65, 4-9, 4-18, 4-36, 4-37, 

4-41, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-84, 4-85, 5-17, 

5-45, 5-46, 5-59, 5-60, 5-89, 5-90, 5-97, 

5-114, 6-8, 6-9, 6-14, A-4, A-11, A-13, 

A-38, A-39, A-50, B-6, B-7, B-10, B-11

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR), xxv, 1-7, 2-16, 3-3, 

3-14, 3-25, 3-26, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 

3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-48, 3-49, 

3-62, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 4-9, 4-12, 

4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 4-61, 4-62, 4-65, 4-68, 

4-69, 4-70, 4-74, 4-85, 5-5, 5-6, 5-12, 

5-13, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-20, 5-21, 5-24, 

5-38, 5-39, 5-43, 5-54, 5-55, 5-59, 5-60, 

5-63, 5-67, 5-82, 5-87, 5-100, 5-114, 

5-115, 6-2, 6-6, A-2, A-4, A-8, A-13, A-14, 

A-18, A-23, A-24, A-36, A-39, A-50, B-5, 

B-6, B-7, B-10, B-11, C-1, C-4, C-6

workers, 2-4, 2-6, 2-14, 2-18, 3-17, 3-40, 

3-42, 3-43, 3-46, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 4-6, 

4-9, 4-10, 4-14, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 

4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 

4-42, 4-46, 4-47, 4-59, 4-60, 4-72, 4-73, 

4-74, 4-76, 4-78, 5-12, 5-13, 5-23, 5-24, 

5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-36, 5-37, 5-44, 5-45,

5-46, 5-47, 5-54, 5-55, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 

5-70, 5-71, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-88, 5-89, 

5-91, 5-92, 5-97, 6-3, 6-8, A-4, A-5, A-6, 

A-10, A-11, A-30, A-34, A-35, A-42, A-43, 

B-1, B-2

xenon-133, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-6, 

2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-14, 3-51, 5-92, A-31, 

A-33

9-1

9.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS 

TO WHOM COPIES OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT ARE SENT

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

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

Laura Bub, Environmental Analysis and Review 

Specialist

State of Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources

3911 Fish Hatchery Road

Fitchburg, WI 53711

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, WI 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
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons

9-2

Name and Title Affiliation and Address

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

Dave Dobson Friends of Welty Environmental Center

P.O. Box 131

Beloit, WI 53512

Teri Engelhart, REP Section Supervisor Wisconsin Emergency Management

2400 Wright Street

Madison, WI 53704

Environmental Impact Statement Filing Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Jim Farrell 18 North Jackson Street

Janesville, WI 53545

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

Niel Johnson Janesville Gazette

1 South Parker Drive

P.O. Box 5001

Janesville, WI 53547

Grace Goldtooth-Campos, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Office

Lower Sioux Indian Community 

39527 Reservation Highway 1

P.O. Box 308 

Morton, MN 56270
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons

9-3

Name and Title Affiliation and Address

Jon Greendeer, President Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin 

P.O. Box 667 

W9814 Airport Road 

Black River Falls, WI 54615

David Grignon, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Office

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin 

P.O. Box 910 

Keshena, WI 54135

Richard Gruber Mercy Health System

P.O. Box 5003

Janesville, WI 53547-5003

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

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

Douglas Marklein, Janesville City Council City Council

City Hall

P.O. Box 5005

Janesville, WI 53547-5005

Bill McCoy None given

Wanda McFaggen, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Office

St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin 

St. Croix Tribal Center 

24663 Angeline Avenue

Webster, WI 54893

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

401 F Street NW, Suite 308

Washington, DC 20001

Raymond New None given

Liana Onnen, Chairperson Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation 

16281 Q Road 

Mayetta, KS 66509
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons

9-4

Name and Title Affiliation and Address

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

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

Bill Quackenbush, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Office

Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin 

P.O. Box 667 

W9814 Airport Road 

Black River Falls, WI 54615

Bruce Renville, Tribal Chairman Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse 

Reservation

P.O. 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
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons

9-5

Name and Title Affiliation and Address

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

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

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SHINE MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE

PRODUCTION FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

A-1

A. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SHINE MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE 

PRODUCTION FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

A.1 Comments Received During the Scoping Period

The scoping process for the environmental review of the construction permit application for the 

SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE 

facility) began on July 1, 2013, with the publication of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s (NRC’s) Notice of Intent to conduct scoping in the Federal Register

(78 FR 39343). The scoping process included two public meetings held in 

Janesville, Wisconsin, on July 17, 2013. Approximately 60 people attended the meetings. After 

the NRC presented its prepared statements on the construction permit review process, the 

meetings were open for public comments. Attendees provided oral statements that were 

recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. A summary and transcripts of the 

scoping meetings are available through the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The scoping meetings summary can be found 

under ADAMS No. ML13260A294. Transcripts for the afternoon and evening meetings can be 

found under ADAMS Nos. ML13260A280 and ML13260A281, respectively. In addition to 

comments that the NRC received during the public meetings, the agency also received 

comments electronically and through the mail.

Each commenter was given a unique identifier to allow every comment to be traced back to its 

author. Table A–1. identifies the individuals who provided comments and an ADAMS No. to 

identify the source document of the comments.

Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific 

objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues raised by commenters. 

Comments have been grouped into the following general categories:

• Specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of 

the NRC environmental regulations related to a construction permit. These 

comments address issues related to the construction, operations, and 

decommissioning of the SHINE facility. The comments also address 

alternatives to proposed action and related Federal actions.

• General comments in support of, or opposed to, the SHINE facility or 

comments regarding the construction permit process, the NRC’s regulations, 

and the regulatory process.

• Comments that address issues that do not fall within, or are specifically 

excluded from, the purview of NRC environmental regulations related to the 

construction permit process. These comments may address issues, such as 

emergency preparedness, security, and safety.
Appendix A

A-2

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

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

Comments that are general or outside the scope of the SHINE facility environmental review are 

not included here but appear in the Scoping Summary Report (ADAMS No. ML15062A111). To 

maintain consistency with the Scoping Summary Report, Appendix A retains the unique 

identifiers used in that report for each comment. The Scoping Summary Report provides the 

comments addressed in this Appendix A in their original form at the end of the report.

The NRC staff placed comments received during the scoping comment period applicable to this 

environmental review into categories based on topics in the environmental impact statement. 

These categories are listed in Table A–2. .

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

The following pages contain the comments, identified by the commenter’s identification and 

comment number, and the NRC staff’s response. Comments are presented in the same order 

as listed in Table A–2. 
Appendix A

A-3

A.1.1 Accidents 

Comments:

01-2: My only other concern would have to do with the issue of aircraft landing because the site 

is very close to the airport, planes coming in to land at Rock County airport. It is important to 

make sure that the facility is built in such a way that nothing serious would happen in terms of 

any kind of radioactive release if the largest airplane that’s going to land at the airport were to 

crash right into the building. So that is one of the important considerations there.

05-3: There is a matter that the FFA [FAA] may have concerns with the proximity, size, type & 

use of this proposed Shine building, considering the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport and 

its runways being right across the street. Even though its runways may not be directly in line 

with the proposed building, many airport crashes occur where the airplanes veer off the runway 

to either left or right of the runway. Additional concerns would be the height of the proposed 

building possibly impeding line of sight for pilots. Would the proposed building withstand a large 

cargo or other large plane that could crash into it due to some malfunction, and cause release of 

contaminated material and cause environmental dangers?

05-13: The local citizens have concerns and possibly the FFA [FAA] with the Shine building 

location, height and its uranium content being right across the street from the Southern 

Wisconsin Regional Airport and its runways. There are possibilities of an airplane crash and 

potential uranium exposure or contamination from a demolished building and its contents. 

Could there be an impediment to pilot's line of sight in evaluating their approach to land? Is the 

height of Shine's building too high and raise the risk of a plane strike when something goes 

wrong with the resulting environmental concerns?

05-15: The large Seneca Foods canning company and its processing of vegetables is located 

just to the North/East, down-wind of the Shine site. There are hundreds of acres of farm crops 

that they harvest from this entire nearby area for their plant. Any accident, leakages, or 

contaminations to air, water, land could be very harmful to the editable crops, the entire food 

chain and to this business. The present environment could be greatly threatened.

07-1: Number one, the airport issue that was just brought up is how the building is going to be 

done, what protection are we going to have. What if we have some idiot wants to fly into it like 

we’ve had in other places, you know. I mean I’ve done helicopters when I was in Vietnam. 

Anything could happen. Anything. So even a plane motor can fall off and land into it and bust it 

all to pieces. What protection are we going to have from a leakage with that uranium because 

we’ve also got the farms out there. We also got Seneca right down the road here, which is less 

than a mile and a half from where we are sitting right now. They have fields across the 

highway. They’ve got fields out towards the Blackhawk Tech and all this over here that if the 

fumes that would go over that would destroy those crops from being put in that particular time of 

need. So we’ve got to think about it. Seneca also wants the addition over here. Right, City 

Council members? So we’re going to have to worry about that because that is one thing that we 

are very concerned about.

11-7: The Draft EIS should discuss facility and system features to ensure safety and minimize 

off-site releases in the event of an accident or other unanticipated event.

Response:

These comments express concerns regarding potential accidents from aircraft or other 

radiological exposures caused by accidents or leaks. One comment also expressed concern on

the potential impact from the facility on pilots and aircraft coming to and from the Southern 

Wisconsin Regional Airport.
Appendix A

A-4

Section 4.11 of the environmental impact statement (EIS) discusses the environmental impacts 

associated with potential radiological and hazardous chemical accidents that might occur at the 

proposed SHINE facility. The term “accident,” as used in this EIS, refers to any off-normal event 

that releases radioactive or hazardous chemicals into the environment that may affect facility 

workers and members of the public.

Potential initiating events and credible operational accidents for the proposed SHINE facility 

constitute the design-basis accidents. In its Environmental Report (ER), SHINE considered the 

impacts of an aircraft collision as a design-basis accident. In Section 4.11, however, the NRC

staff considers the potential impacts from the maximum hypothetical accident as the basis for 

the analysis of environmental impact from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility. 

The maximum hypothetical accident considers a potential accident that would result in the same 

or higher radiological exposures as a credible design-basis accident, such as an aircraft 

collision with the SHINE facility or another accident that could result in radioactive releases. 

Therefore, the analysis in this EIS considers the potential exposures from accidents that would 

result in the same or higher exposures as that from an aircraft collision. 

SHINE determined that the calculated doses for the maximum hypothetical accident at the 

proposed SHINE facility would be within the annual dose limits of 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) 

in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 20.1301 to a member of the public. 

Section 4.11 describes various ways in which SHINE would minimize radioactive releases in 

case of an accident. As described in Section 4.11, the NRC staff is conducting a thorough 

independent review of the potential dose to the public from the maximum hypothetical accident. 

The NRC staff’s safety evaluation report (SER) will document this independent evaluation. 

Assuming that the NRC staff determines in its SER that the hypothetical accident dose is within 

the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential 

radiological accidents, including aircraft collisions, would be SMALL.

In addition, see A.1.7, Human Health, for a discussion of potential radiological exposures to the 

public during normal operations. 

As described in Appendix B of the EIS, SHINE must meet the requirements of several other 

Federal agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The NRC staff notes that 

the FAA’s review of the SHINE project is outside the scope of the NRC’s environmental review. 

However, for the purpose of responding to this comment, the NRC staff provides the following 

information. As described in the Environmental Report, SHINE submitted structure evaluation 

requests to the FAA on October 26, 2011. The purpose of this request was to ensure that the 

building heights and other facility components met FAA’s regulations and requirements, given 

the proximity of the proposed SHINE site to the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. The FAA 

issued “Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation to SHINE” on November 9 and 15, 2011.

A.1.2 Air Quality

Comment:

03-3: A review regarding an air permit should be thoroughly examined by the project 

proponents. The project involves the addition of at least one stationary source (the stand-by 

emergency diesel generator). SHINE is evaluating the eligibility of this stationary source for a 

Type A Registration Permit. At this time, further review regarding the air permit applicability is 

required, per s. NR 405, 406, and 407 Wisconsin Administrative Code.

Response:

This comment describes the types of air permits that SHINE could require from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). As described in Section 4.2, SHINE would be 
Appendix A

A-5

required to comply with any Federal and State air quality requirements and operate within the 

limitations stipulated within any Federal or State permits.

Comment:

11-1:

• EPA notes that both diesel and natural gas are identified as fuel sources in 

the ER. The draft EIS should include why two sources are necessary. 

Further, we recommend SHINE consider the use of renewable energy 

sources either in lieu of or to supplement the proposed diesel and natural gas 

sources. If SHINE or NRC dismisses the use of alternative energy sources, 

the draft EIS should state why.

Response:

The comment suggests that the draft EIS should discuss why diesel and natural gas sources 

are necessary and for SHINE to consider the use of renewable energy sources. As discussed 

in Section 4.2 of the EIS, during construction and decommissioning of the proposed SHINE 

facility, diesel equipment is needed for construction and decommissioning; furthermore, 

natural-gas-fired heaters and one boiler would be needed to meet heating and hot water 

requirements for the proposed SHINE facility. The NRC staff notes that it is beyond the 

agency’s regulatory authority to require SHINE to utilize alternative energy sources. 

Nonetheless, as discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIS and the Environmental Report, SHINE 

plans to implement programs, where practical, to promote energy efficiency and conservation at 

the SHINE facility, install solar panels and/or purchase electricity generated from renewable 

energy sources (SHINE 2013a), and implement diesel emissions reduction techniques. 

Comment:

11-5:

• The draft EIS should describe how diesel emissions will be minimized 

throughout construction and decommissioning of the facility. EPA suggests 

the following diesel emission reduction techniques be employed to further 

minimize impacts:

− Using low-sulfur diesel fuel (15 parts per million sulfur maximum) in 

construction vehicles and equipment.

− Retrofitting engines with an exhaust filtration device to capture diesel 

particulate matter before it enters the construction site.

− Positioning the exhaust pipe so that diesel fumes are directed away from 

the operator and nearby workers, thereby reducing the fume 

concentration to which personnel are exposed.

− Using catalytic converters to reduce carbon monoxide, aldehydes, and 

hydrocarbons in diesel fumes. These devices must be used with low 

sulfur fuels.

− Ventilating wherever diesel equipment operates indoors at the Meredosia 

and injection well sites. Roof vents, open doors and windows, roof fans, 

or other mechanical systems help move fresh air through work areas. As 

buildings under construction are gradually enclosed, remember that 

fumes from diesel equipment operating indoors can build up to dangerous 

levels without adequate ventilation.
Appendix A

A-6

− Attaching a hose to the tailpipe of diesel vehicles running indoors and 

exhaust the fumes outside, where they cannot re-enter the workplace. 

Inspect hoses regularly for defects and damage.

− Using enclosed, climate-controlled cabs pressurized and equipped with 

high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters to reduce the operators’ 

exposure to diesel fumes. Pressurization ensures that air moves from 

inside to outside. HEPA filters ensure that any incoming air is filtered 

first.

− Regularly maintaining diesel engines, which is essential to keep exhaust 

emissions low. Follow the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance 

schedule and procedures. Smoke color can signal the need for 

maintenance. For example, blue/black smoke indicates that an engine 

requires servicing or tuning.

− Reducing exposure through work practices and training, such as turning 

off engines when vehicles are stopped for more than a few minutes, 

training diesel equipment operators to perform routine inspection, and 

maintaining filtration devices.

− Purchasing new vehicles that are equipped with the most advanced 

emission control systems available.

− Using electric starting aids, such as block heaters, with older vehicles to 

warm the engine reduces diesel emissions.

− Using respirators, which are only an interim measure to control exposure 

to diesel emissions. In most cases, an N95 respirator is adequate. 

Workers must be trained and fit-tested before they wear respirators. 

Depending on work being conducted, and if oil is present, concentrations 

of particulates present will determine the efficiency and type of mask and 

respirator. Personnel familiar with the selection, care, and use of 

respirators must perform the fit testing. Respirators must bear a National 

Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approval number. 

Never use paper masks or surgical masks without NIOSH approval 

numbers.

Response:

The comment suggests that the draft EIS should describe how diesel emissions would be 

minimized throughout construction and decommissioning of the facility and provides 

suggestions on how SHINE could minimize diesel emissions. 

The NRC staff notes that it is beyond the agency’s regulatory authority to require or implement 

mitigation measures to minimize diesel emissions. Nonetheless, as described in Section 4.2 of 

the EIS and in SHINE’s request for additional information response (SHINE 2013b), SHINE 

plans to implement the following diesel emissions reduction techniques, where practical:

(1) Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 parts per million sulfur maximum) will be used in the 

diesel equipment.

(2) Exhaust filtration devices (diesel oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate matter filters, 

and/or catalytic converters) will be used.

(3) Diesel fumes from exhaust pipes will be directed away from workers and operators of 

equipment.
Appendix A

A-7

(4) New diesel equipment that is purchased will have the required emission control 

systems.

(5) Engine idling time will be minimized.

(6) Diesel equipment inspection and necessary maintenance will be performed to ensure 

proper condition of the exhaust filtration devices.

(7) Contractor(s) will be responsible for implementing diesel equipment recommended 

maintenance, procedures, and periodic checks to ensure that emissions are kept 

low.

(8) Diesel equipment that operates indoors will be vented to the outside using fitted 

hoses or portable ductwork.

A.1.3 Alternatives 

Comments:

05-9: In British Columbia, engineers and other experts have successfully developed medical 

isotopes using a cyclotron. These isotopes for scans can be created by in hospital run 

cyclotrons, eliminating transportation dangers and the rush to hospital due to short use life. 

Would not that be safer and healthier from production, to transportation, and to actual use on a 

patient and even for disposal? Why would not the NRC curtail the unnecessary use of uranium

for a better, cleaner, and healthier environment? Why would you even grant any medical 

isotope licenses to any who would use uranium processed isotopes without fail safe methods 

and procedures all through the process?

The North Star isotope facility in Beloit, Wi., 12 miles from Janesville, will be producing medical 

isotopes with a different process within a year of two, from what I read. Would it not make more 

sense to regionalize as to site locations of the four companies planning to produce isotopes in 

the U.S.? To not bunch them up? Transportation and timing would be much more efficient. So 

why would the NRC approve an already outdated process that Shine proposes? The North Star 

site is ahead of Shine. In my opinion, Shine took the wrong course in going the current uranium

route. The Arizona proven process and North Star took the better route. Don’t feel sorry for 

Shine Medical Technologies, some technologies succeed, some do not.

05-19: Why have two medical isotope places (North star & Shine) within 12 miles of each 

other? With the processed products short life and needed short transportation times, would it 

not make more sense to allow four regional sites, spaced across the country, because I 

understand there are four isotope companies planning sites and operations now? Other sites 

that Shine had looked at would be much better & safer in my opinion.

07-7: They’ve got other sites they have looked at. Now why didn’t they take one of those other 

sites?

08-1: Actually, I was coming across a comment on—I saw an article in Popular Science. They 

were talking about using, in Canada, where they use these isotopes and make it [in] a hospital. 

And I thought is this going to be effective somewhere down the line, but when Mr. Mackey 

actually explained to us, well, it’s completely different, but it’s just a point that is this facility, five 

years down the road, going to go bust. In other words, technologies change.

Response:

These comments suggest alternative technologies or alternative sites to produce 

molybdenum-99.
Appendix A

A-8

Chapter 5 of the EIS describes alternatives to granting a construction permit for the proposed 

SHINE facility, including alternative sites (Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point) and an alternative 

technology (linear-accelerator-based), and the environmental impacts of those alternatives. The 

need to compare the proposed action with alternatives arises from the requirements in the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); the 

NRC regulations implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 50); and the final interim staff guidance in

NUREG–1537 (NRC 2012), which states that the EIS will include an analysis that considers and 

weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects.

The decision to produce radioisotopes is at the discretion of applicants (NRC 2012), such as 

SHINE. Similarly, the NRC does not have a role in the planning decisions as to whether a 

particular medical radioisotope production facility should be constructed and operated.

Therefore, it is beyond the NRC’s regulatory authority to require an applicant to construct a 

facility at a specific location or to use a specified technology.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a cooperating agency on the EIS (NRC 2015). If the 

NRC issues the required permits and licenses, the proposed Federal action for the DOE 

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

financial support to SHINE under a cooperative agreement to accelerate the commercial 

production of medical radioisotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium. The funding 

would help accelerate activities such as construction, purchase of equipment, and initial 

operation using a subcritical fission process.

A.1.4 Ecological Resources 

Comment:

03-1: SHINE submitted an Endangered Resources Review (ER Log #12-020) request on 

January 19, 2012, to the WDNR Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation (formerly known as 

the Bureau of Endangered Resources) for their proposed facility location in Janesville. The 

purpose of the review is to obtain information on rare plants and animals, including state and 

federally listed species, high quality natural communities, and other endangered resources that 

may be impacted by the project. The review also includes recommendations to help projects 

comply with Wisconsin’s Endangered Species Law (Wis. Stats. 29.604), the Federal 

Endangered Species Act, and other laws and regulations protecting endangered resources. 

The review concluded that no action would be needed to avoid impacts to rare or sensitive 

species or communities. The current condition of the property as an active agricultural field far 

from any wetlands, water, or buffer areas makes it unsuitable habitat for any listed species or 

natural communities located in the area.

Response:

This comment describes the rare plants and animals, including State and Federally listed 

species, high-quality natural communities, and other endangered resources, that could occur on 

the proposed SHINE site. As described in the comment and in Section 4.5 of the EIS, the 

proposed SHINE site is an active agricultural field and provides unsuitable habitat for any State 

or Federally listed animals.
Appendix A

A-9

A.1.5 Geologic Environment 

Comment:

05-7: How deep will the building excavation be? How much of the building be below ground 

level?

Response:

This comment is asking how deep SHINE would excavate and what portion of the building 

would occur below ground. As described in Section 4.3.1 and based on the preliminary design, 

construction of the Production Facility Building would require excavation to a depth of 39 feet 

(12 meters). Utility routings and other foundation slabs and footings would require excavation to 

a depth of about 5 feet (1.5 meters). A portion of the Production Facility Building would be 

located below ground.

A.1.6 Historic and Cultural Resources 

Comment:

02-1: As this project occurs within Potawatomi ancestral and previously occupied lands, we 

would like to express our concerns with any impacts to historic and cultural properties located 

within the project area of potential effect for the project mentioned above.

We appreciate receiving results of an archival review, cultural resource investigation studies, 

and archaeological reports. Should there be an impact or effect to cultural or historic properties 

as a result of this project, we will request consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, as amended.

Response:

This comment expresses concerns regarding impacts to historic and cultural properties located 

within the project area. The comment also asks to be kept informed of any related reports or 

studies.

As described in Section 4.6 of the EIS, there are no known historic properties under 

36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) or historic and cultural resources located within the area of potential effect 

on the proposed SHINE site. The NRC staff has attempted to contact representatives of the 

Forest County Potawatomi to discuss the undertaking. The last attempt to contact the Forest 

County Potawatomi was in March 2015.

A.1.7 Human Health 

Comments:

05-2: This proposed site is less than ,06 [.06] of a mile South of a Trailer Court. Potential 

Environmental risks causes those residents concern about any planned or unplanned release of 

any dangerous or contaminated airborne emissions from the site, and being carried by normal 

Southerly or S/W winds directly over the nearby trailer court. There is also the potential risk of 

fire or explosion or other accidents that could pose a danger to the nearby residents at the 

Trailer Court. This location appears contrary to NRC desires that uranium facilities of all kinds 

be located outside of cities and in more remote areas to reduce dangers, hazardous exposures,

and protect the public from such exposures and more easily protect the environment and 

humans.
Appendix A

A-10

05-4: There are a number of other environmental concerns. One involves nearby high quality 

agriculture land and its following food chain. There is the large Macfarlane Pheasant farm and 

meat processing facility approximately less than a mile to the North. Any releases of hazardous 

materials, particles, or radiation emissions could cause great harm to his business and to those 

who may eat contaminated products before receiving knowledge of it.

There is also much high quality farm land to the East of the proposed Shine site, where 

hundreds of acres of corn and other crops are raised and harvested for & by the canning 

company Senica Foods. They have a large nearby processing plant in town, just to the 

North/East, down wind of the proposed site. Any leak of hazardous material or waste like 

uranium contaminated material or air particles could be a disaster to important food production, 

for who knows how long. There could also be ground and ground water contamination from 

hidden or undiscovered leakage of hazardous materials, like radiation or uranium products or 

waste.

05-12: The occupied Trailer Court, is less than .06 of a mile down-wind from the Shine site. If 

there should be any fire, explosion, leaks or accident’s with dangerous or contaminated airborne 

emission releases or other waste from the site, that could pose potential dangers and risks to 

those residing downwind in this nearby Trailer Court. That's a potential environmental risk.

05-14: Other environmental concerns involve risks to the food chain. There is a large pheasant 

farm and it's meat processing plant less than a mile to the North and downwind of the Shine 

site. Release of hazardous materials, airborne harmful particles or radiation emissions could 

cause great harm to feed, pheasants, their business and loss of jobs, and potential 

contamination of the food supply for human consumption.

07-4: That’s another thing we've got to worry about folks, our food chain. We also got the 

pheasant farm right across the road from there. That stuff gets on feathers. You think that man 

is going to be able to sell his pheasants? I don't think so. How do we know how much 

contamination? What does this give us, 72 hours? Well, how do we know it’s not already in 

their system? Now, I did have a hard thing up in Madison at the VA. I don’t know what it was, 

but I know I was allergic to it. It caused me problems. But I didn’t ask what it was. They told 

me it’s similar to what this was and I said that’s close to what this is and he says well, it’s 

similar. I said well, you know something, if I’m allergic, how many more of these other people 

might be allergic to it accidentally?

Response: 

These comments express concerns regarding radiological and nonradiological exposures to 

workers and the public as a result of operations of the SHINE facility. Section 4.8 of the EIS

provides the NRC’s assessment of the potential radiological and nonradiological effects from the 

proposed SHINE facility.

As described in Section 4.8 of the EIS, radiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility 

would include offsite doses to members of the public and onsite doses to facility workers. 

SHINE determined that the maximum dose to a member of the public would be within the 

annual dose limits of 100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) in 10 CFR 20.1301. Further, the NRC staff is 

conducting a thorough independent review of the potential dose to the public from operations of 

the SHINE facility. The NRC staff’s SER will document this independent evaluation. Assuming 

that the NRC staff determines in its SER that the maximum dose to workers and the public is 

within the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from potential 

radiological exposures would be SMALL. In addition, the design of the facility incorporates 

measures to minimize radiation exposure to workers and members of the public by limiting the 

release of radioactive gaseous effluents; SHINE would operate the proposed facility in 
Appendix A

A-11

accordance with all applicable Federal and State of Wisconsin regulatory requirements; and the 

NRC has the authority to issue, inspect, and enforce radiation protection standards.

Nonradiological exposures from the proposed SHINE facility to workers and members of the 

public would be regulated by the State of Wisconsin in accordance with the Wisconsin 

Administrative Code. In addition, SHINE would manage and minimize nonradiological 

exposures by complying with Occupational Safety and Health Administration and State of 

Wisconsin regulations and by using multiple planned features (e.g., facility design, Chemical 

Hygiene Plan, supervision, training, and protective equipment). Therefore, the NRC staff 

concludes, in Section 4.8 of this EIS, that nonradiological impacts to workers and members of 

the public during routine facility operations would be SMALL.

In addition, see Section A.1.1, Accidents, for a discussion of potential impacts to the public 

during a maximum hypothetical accident and Section A.1.8, Land Use, for a discussion of 

potential impacts to land use, such as agricultural lands. 

A.1.8 Land Use 

Comments:

05-1: First, in your material on this, the NRC presented incorrect important information, on 

page 4, by stating the proposed Shine facility would be located approximately four miles south 

of Janesville, Wisconsin. This site is within the Janesville city limits, on land purchased by the 

city and connected to other city tax incremental financing district land.

05-11: The NRC information mailed out was incorrect by stating the proposed Shine site would 

be located approximately 4 miles South of Janesville, WI. The fact is, it will be within the city 

limits of Janesville. I understood the NRC preferred sites that were away from population, 

animal, crops and food chain sources and operations, was I wrong?

07-8: How close is it? Now there’s a pamphlet that we received from the NRC which I’ve 

already discussed with an individual here, that was this thing that said this thing was four miles 

outside of the City of Janesville. Well, it’s not. It might be from the center of town four miles.

Response:

The comments express concern regarding the correct distance between the proposed SHINE

site and the City of Janesville. As described in the EIS, the proposed SHINE site is 

approximately 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) from the center of the City of Janesville.

In addition, see A.1.7, Human Health, and Section 4.8 of the EIS, for a discussion of potential 

radiological exposures to the public and regulatory protections that limit radiological exposures 

to the public. Also, see Section A.1.3, Alternatives, and Chapter 5 of this EIS for a discussion of 

alternatives considered. 

A.1.9 Transportation 

Comment:

11-6: The Draft EIS should identify any traffic management or infrastructure improvements to 

US Highway 51 that will be required to handle increased capacity of truck and employee traffic. 

Any improvements and resultant impacts should be considered connected actions.

The Draft EIS should indicate whether SHINE intends to use the adjacent Southern Wisconsin 

Regional Airport as a means of shipping and receiving materials. If yes, any improvements to 

the airport should be disclosed and considered connected actions.
Appendix A

A-12

Response:

The comments express concern regarding potential environmental impacts from traffic

management or infrastructure improvements on U.S. Highway 51 and at the Southern 

Wisconsin Regional Airport. As described in Section 4.10 of the EIS, SHINE plans to use 

staggered work shift schedules to reduce the hourly traffic flow onto U.S. Highway 51 and to 

schedule truck deliveries early in the day to help reduce traffic congestion. Although traffic 

signal timing could be optimized to further enhance traffic flow, no modifications to the 

transportation infrastructure would be required.

Section 4.10 of the EIS also describes SHINE’s estimate to transport up to 39 monthly medical 

isotope shipments. Most of these shipments would be by air through the Southern Wisconsin 

Regional Airport.

A.1.10 Water Resources 

Comments: 

05-5: Water use concerns: Senica [Seneca] Foods is in the process of enlarging and already 

using a very large unknown amount of water in million of gallons and will be using much more 

after enlarging their processing of vegetables production. Now Shine alone, indicates it will use 

about 6600 gallons per day or 2,409,000 gallons per year. Both of these businesses may 

threaten our well water & pumping resources in the summer. We have at least two city wells

that have high levels of nitrates that can’t be used for drinking alone and in recent news Rock 

County has just experienced a huge increase of nitrate in wells throughout the County. Where 

will we get good drinking water? Last year many area wells went dry according to news reports.

We must preserve our water and other natural resources and address environmental concerns.

05-16: There are water use concerns. Shines indicates it would use approximately 6,600 

gallons of water per day, that amounts to 2,409,000 gallons per year. The nearby Seneca 

Foods uses even much higher amounts of water as well, and will be expanding and using more 

water yet. The large water use may threaten our water resources and even pumping capacities 

during the hot summer. We need to preserve our drinking water resources.

07-2: Now our water. All the wells that we have here in this community are drinking water in 

this community. This is something that’s also in here with Al’s. We’ve got a well right across 

the little bit of a pond right here. We’ve got another one across the road. We’ve got another 

one right over here on the corner. And we’ve already had some problems with some nitrogen 

problems and everything with some of our water wells around here. Well, you know, we don’t 

want no uranium problems because you don’t know how far that thing is going to seep down in 

our ground.

The gentleman said where he was at said that 21 something that’s supposed to have a water 

well up there. Well, wait a minute. Last we was told, there is no water well is now to be drilled 

up there. That would contaminate our water. Enough is enough is said about that. You want to 

contaminate our water?

Response: 

These comments express concern regarding groundwater use, drinking water availability, and 

groundwater quality. One comment also expresses concern regarding SHINE’s drilling of onsite 

wells. 

Section 4.4 of the EIS describes the potential impacts to water use and quality and Section 

4.13.4 of the EIS describes the potential cumulative impacts from other water users on water 

use and quality. In Section 4.4.2, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater 
Appendix A

A-13

hydrology, quality, and use from construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed 

SHINE facility would be SMALL. SHINE would not use onsite groundwater during construction, 

operations, and decommissioning. Instead, SHINE would obtain water from the City of 

Janesville Water Utility water treatment plant. Total water use during operations is projected to 

be 6,073 gallons per day (22,990 liters per day), or 0.006 million gallons per day (23 cubic 

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/day). Thus, the 

incremental contribution of influent from the proposed SHINE facility is a very small percentage 

(i.e., 0.13 percent) of the available treatment capacity and would not affect the water treatment 

plant’s ability to provide for the treatment of other current or reasonably foreseeable residential, 

commercial, and industrial dischargers to the water treatment plant.

As also described in Section 4.4.2, the NRC staff expects that construction, operations, and 

decommissioning would not have any impact on local groundwater quality because of the depth 

of groundwater and provisions for proper design and construction of the facility site’s stormwater

management and drainage system. SHINE has stated that all equipment and material storage 

areas would comply with appropriate regulations requiring secondary containment of stored 

liquids and materials to prevent their release where such materials could contaminate site soils 

or stormwater runoff, or infiltrate to contaminate groundwater. There would be no discharge of 

effluents to the subsurface at the site. SHINE installed onsite groundwater monitoring wells to 

determine the depth to groundwater, and onsite groundwater wells would not be used to 

withdraw groundwater. 

Comments:

03-2: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Construction Site and Industrial Storm 

Water Discharge Permitting, NR 216, Wisconsin Administrative Code:

As described in Subchapter III of NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code, landowners of construction projects 

where one or more acres of land will be disturbed must obtain a WPDES [Wisconsin Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System] Construction Site Storm Water Discharge Permit. A Water 

Resources Application for Project Permits (WRAPP) 

(http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/construction/forms.html) and applicable fee must be 

submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at least 14 working days before 

construction will begin. Permittees must develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a 

Storm Water Management Plan describing the best management practices that will be 

implemented on-site. Weekly on-site inspections throughout the duration of the project and 

after storm water events are also required.

Additionally, industrial facilities that must obtain industrial storm water discharge permit 

coverage are listed in NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code, Subchapter II. The determination of whether 

an industrial facility must obtain storm water discharge permit coverage is based both on the 

facility’s Standards Industrial Classification (SIC) code and whether or not the facility has the 

potential to contaminate storm water. Permitted facilities must develop a site-specific Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The goal of this plan is to encourage source-area 

control through identification of a storm water pollution prevention individual, site-specific best 

management practices, and implementation schedules to help decrease the amount of 

contaminated storm water runoff from a facility. Some industrial facilities may also be required 

to conduct annual chemical monitoring for pollutants in runoff from their sites. Facilities with 

discharges composed entirely of storm water and at which there is no exposure of industrial 

materials and activities to storm water, may qualify for a Conditional No Exposure Exclusion, as 

detailed in s. NR 216.21(3). Industrial Notice of Intent and No Exposure Certification forms can 

be found online at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/ industrial/forms.html and shall be 
Appendix A

A-14

submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at the same time as the 

construction site WRAPP (at least 14 working days prior to expected start of construction).

07-6: Our water, our environmental. They say that they’re not going to have to use our 

stormwater sewage. Well, where is that stuff going to go to if it’s on their property, it’s going to 

have to run somewhere? It’s sure not going to run and stay on their land. You’re going to have 

roads there. It’s going to be running down the roads right down through everything, right? How 

do we know they ain’t going to leak?

Response:

The first comment describes the types of construction and industrial stormwater discharge 

permits that SHINE must obtain. The second comment expresses concern regarding the 

potential environmental impacts from stormwater sewage and other runoff. As described in 

Section 4.4 of the EIS, SHINE would be required to perform all activities in accordance with the 

Wisconsin General Permit to Discharge Construction Site Storm Water Runoff (WPDES Permit 

No. WI-S067831-4) (WDNR 2013). SHINE would be required to prepare a site-specific plan 

that details stormwater pollution prevention measures. In accordance with this permit, these 

measures would be required to include proper management of all construction materials and 

chemicals to prevent them from being exposed to, and conveyed by, stormwater to waters of 

the State. The permit would explicitly 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 from the SHINE facility would 

be conveyed to the City of Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant through a sanitary sewer line.

A.1.11 Waste Management 

Comments: 

05-6: Now the second part, where will Shine’s hazardous waste and all those 2,409,000 gallons 

of salt brine/uranium waste water go, much of it contaminated water? What kind of monitoring 

systems will be required for leaks and waste filtering and radon levels in all areas, including all 

waste products, as well as incoming uranium sources? How can they filter out all the salt brine 

and the trace uranium from the waste water? We can’t drain all this inferior water into the Rock 

River and contaminate our sewage disposal system and underground water supplies. Has a 

study been down on the depth and capacities of our underground water supply and aquifer 

levels? How far down beneath the building site does one reach the first water table? How far 

down to the second water table?

Who is responsible for site clean up, should an accident take place and contaminate the entire 

site? What if Shine would just pick up and leave? Can the site be cleaned up say after ten 

years use, so that the site can safely be used for any other purpose? How much contaminated 

waste water or material can be accepted and stored on site and for how long? Shine has said it 

will be using a salt brine in their accelerators in conjunction with uranium. There is great 

concern that this will quickly cause great dangerous erosion/corrosion to all elements and cause 

further damage disposing waste salt water with uranium contaminated water. These two 

products together presents and accelerates all the dangers resulting from corrosion caused by 

salt brine.

05-17: Shine's use of salt brine within the accelerators with uranium appears very risky, with 

the increased corrosion dangers of salt brine and expected leaks. Shine says they clean them 

every 5 1⁄2 days. How do they clean them and what products can they use to clean them? 

Where does all the waste water and salt brine water go? How is that water safely cleaned or 

filtered?
Appendix A

A-15

07-3: What are we going to do with the water which is the—this stuff is put into the accelerators 

which is done by a salt brine. They’re going to have tanks there to haul this stuff away. It’s my 

understanding they had some tanks similar to that up in Pennsylvania or Connecticut or 

somewhere just recently that NRC had to go and check on something about them leaking. Well, 

these things will have to be hauled out of here. They’ve got to be hauled down to Arizona and 

Texas. Wait a minute here, folks. We got not only changes to worry about, we’ve got this stuff 

being hauled all over across the country and where did it come from? Janesville, Wisconsin.

Response:

These comments express concern regarding the disposal of nonradiological and radiological 

waste that would be generated at the SHINE facility and potential exposure from the generation 

of nonradiological and radiological waste. Section 4.9 of the EIS describes the waste 

management programs for radiological waste. In this section, the NRC staff concludes that 

nonradiological and radioactive waste is expected to be managed in accordance with applicable 

Federal and State regulatory requirements based on SHINE’s proposed waste management 

systems; engineered designs features to minimize radioactive contamination; and the NRC’s, 

the Department of Transportation’s, and State of Wisconsin’s radiation protection requirements. 

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that impacts from radiological waste would be SMALL 

during construction, operations, and decommissioning.

As described in Section 2.7 of the EIS, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, a licensed 

production or utilization facility that permanently ceases operations shall submit a 

decommissioning report. The regulation at 10 CFR 50.33(k) requires that a report indicate how 

reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the facility.

In addition, see A.1.7, Human Health, and Section 4.8 of the EIS for a discussion of potential 

radiological exposures to the public during construction, operations, and decommissioning. In 

addition, see Section 4.8 of the EIS for a discussion of water use and discharges during 

construction, operations, and decommissioning. 

Comment:

03-4: SHINE has indicated that they will submit a notification of exemption from State 

regulations regarding treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste under Wis. 

Stats. 291, Wis. Admin. NR 660 and Wis. Admin. NR 662 for waste generated and managed 

under an NRC license.

Response:

The comment suggests that SHINE will submit a notification of exemption from the State 

regarding the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. In Section 2.7.2 of the EIS, 

the NRC staff states that SHINE does not intend to treat or permanently store hazardous wastes 

on site. SHINE would dispose of hazardous wastes generated at the facility at a licensed 

hazardous waste disposal site. Because SHINE will not store or treat hazardous wastes on site, 

it will not require a hazardous waste treatment or storage permit under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).

Comment:

11-2: 

• The Draft EIS should describe how the facility will comply with Underground 

Storage Tanks (UST) regulations under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) for underground storage of fuel.
Appendix A

A-16

Response:

This comment questions how SHINE will comply with underground storage tank regulations 

under RCRA for underground storage of fuel. As described in Sections 2.7 and 4.9.2 of the EIS, 

SHINE would implement management systems to control, handle, process, store, and transport 

nonradioactive materials and waste generated during construction, operations, and 

decommissioning. The NRC staff expects that these management systems would ensure that 

the nonradioactive materials and wastes generated at the proposed SHINE facility would be 

managed in accordance with all Federal and State regulatory requirements, including those 

under RCRA. 

Comments:

11-4:

• The Draft EIS should describe the disposal facility options available in the 

event that an anticipated disposal or storage facility is no longer available. 

Waste stream and disposal facility availability should be reviewed on an 

annual basis to confirm knowledge of the waste streams relative to the 

disposal options available and to avoid a situation of accumulating waste 

without a disposal path. The availability of options for each solid and liquid 

waste stream should also be discussed.

• Section 19.2.5.3.1 (Solid Radioactive Waste Handling System) discusses the 

generation and management of a used resin classified as Greater than Class 

C (GTCC) waste that would be shipped to Waste Control Specialists (WCS) 

of Texas for long-term storage.

• The Draft EIS should acknowledge that currently there is not a permanent 

disposal option available for commercially-generated GTCC waste, hence the 

need for long-term storage at WCS. The Draft EIS should evaluate whether it 

is possible to modify the system so that the used resin is generated as either 

Class A, B, or C low-level radioactive waste, which currently have available 

disposal options.

• The Draft EIS should provide information on the radionuclide inventory 

anticipated at the site during typical operations, with information on what 

would be considered process material, waste material temporarily stored on 

site for eventual off-site transport and disposal, or other site-specific 

material/product/waste designations. Radionuclide inventory limits under the 

NRC license should also be described.

Response: 

These comments express concerns regarding the accumulation of waste and radionuclides on 

site, as well as disposal facility options. Section 2.7 of the EIS describes the storage, treatment, 

and transportation of radioactive and nonradioactive waste. Section 2.7 states that 

construction, operations, and decommissioning would result in the accumulation of radioactive 

and nonradioactive wastes. SHINE does not anticipate any long-term storage of radioactive or 

nonradioactive materials, such as medical radioisotope products, target solution, reagents, or 

resulting wastes. SHINE would treat and temporarily store the solid radioactive and 

nonradioactive waste generated as part of the radioisotope production process within the facility 

until it could ship the waste off site for disposal. While temporarily stored on site, NRC

regulations require that radioactive material within the facility and radioactive effluents released 

into the environment meet the radiation protection dose-based limits in 10 CFR Part 20. NRC 
Appendix A

A-17

regulations also require occupational and public exposure to radioactive material be as low as is 

reasonably achievable, as required by 10 CFR 20.1101(b).

Section 2.7 of the EIS further describes the waste disposal options for radiological and 

nonradiological waste. In addition, a provision of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act

of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii)) states that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would 

take title to, and be responsible for, the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the 

irradiation, processing, or purification of uranium leased from DOE if it determines that the 

producer (e.g., SHINE) does not have access to a disposal path. For example, if a disposal 

pathway for GTCC waste does not exist, DOE will be responsible for its safe storage and 

disposal. 

A.2 Comments Received on the Draft EIS

On May 11, 2015, the NRC made publicly available the Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Construction Permit Application for the SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Draft 

Report for Comment (NUREG–2183, referred to as the draft EIS) to Federal, State, regional, 

local government agencies, tribes, and interested members of the public. The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its Notice of Availability regarding the draft 

EIS on May 22, 2015 (80 FR 29701). The public comment period ended on July 6, 2015 

(80 FR 27710). As part of the process to solicit public comments on the draft EIS, the NRC did 

the following:

• placed a copy of the draft EIS at the Hedberg Public District Library in 

Janesville, Wisconsin;

• made the draft EIS available in the NRC’s Public Document Room in 

Rockville, Maryland;

• placed a copy of the draft EIS on the NRC Web site, at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr2183/;

• provided a copy of the draft EIS to members of the public who requested one;

• sent copies of the draft EIS to certain Federal, tribal, state, and local 

government agencies;

• published a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register on 

May 14, 2015 (80 FR 27710);

• filed the draft EIS with the EPA (80 FR 29701); and 

• announced and held two public meetings at the Rotary Botanical Gardens in 

Janesville, Wisconsin, the afternoon and evening of June 10, 2015, to 

describe the preliminary results of the environmental review and take public 

comments.

Approximately 25 people attended the afternoon meeting and 25 people attended the evening 

meeting. A certified court reporter prepared written transcripts of the meetings. A meeting 

summary, presentation slides, and transcripts are available in ADAMS (No. ML15170A262). 

The NRC received eight written comments on the draft EIS through http://www.regulations.gov/,

written letter, and written comments provided during public meetings, as well as one oral 

comment provided during the public meetings. Some of the commenters who spoke at the 

public meetings also submitted written comments. The total number of commenters is nine. 
Appendix A

A-18

To identify individual comments, the NRC reviewed the comment submittals and the afternoon 

and evening meeting transcripts, assigning each commenter a unique identifier, so every 

comment could be traced back to its author. Table A–3 identifies the individuals who provided 

comments and the Commenter ID associated with each person’s set of comments. The 

comments received and associated responses are provided below to make it easier for 

commenters to find their comments and the NRC staff response. 

Table A–3. Individuals Providing Comments During the Draft EIS Comment Period

Each commenter is identified, along with an affiliation, and the source of the comment.

Commenter

Affiliation

(if stated) ID Comment Source ADAMS No.

Bill McCoy Self 1 Afternoon public 

meeting

ML15181A447

Bill McCoy Self 2 Written comment ML15188A088

Alfred Lembrich Self 3 Written comment ML15188A089

R. Vann Bynum SHINE Medical 

Technologies, Inc.

4 Written comment ML15182A117

Logan Pappenfort Peoria Tribe of Indians of 

Oklahoma

5 Written comment ML15175A169

Kenneth Westlake U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

6 Written comment ML15201A575

Laura Bub Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources

7 Written comment ML15189A069

Lindy Nelson U.S. Department of the 

Interior

8 Written comment ML15191A322

Leslie Eisenberg Wisconsin Historical 

Society

9 Written comment ML15191A323

In the sections below, each comment has a comment ID consisting of two numbers separated 

by a hyphen. The part of the comment ID before the hyphen is the Commenter ID from 

Table A–3. The part of the comment ID after the hyphen is the comment number, which refers 

to the sequential comment given by the commenter. For example, comment X-Y is the 

Y comment from commenter X. 

The following sections present the comments and the NRC responses to them. Consistent with 

10 CFR 51.91, when comments have resulted in modification or supplemental information 

presented in the draft EIS, those changes are noted within the NRC response. When 

comments do not warrant further response, the NRC staff explains why, citing sources, 

authorities, or reasons that support the explanation, as appropriate. Changes made to the draft 

document are marked with a change bar (vertical lines) on the side margin of the page. Some 

of the references have been updated in the final EIS, such as the most current version of the 

SHINE ER (SHINE 2015a). The response to comments refers to citations as they are cited in 

the chapter that they appear in the final EIS. 

The NRC staff placed comments received during the comment period into categories based on 

topics in the EIS. These categories are listed in Table A–4.
Appendix A

A-19

Table A–4. Issue Categories

Technical Issues

Accidents

Air Quality

Alternatives

Ecological Resources

Historic and Cultural Resources

Human Health

Land Use 

Proposed Action

Socioeconomics

Transportation

Waste Management

Water Resources

In addition, the NRC staff received comments on the environmental review process; opposition 

to the proposed action; siting, safety, and emergency planning; other out-of-scope comments; 

and editorial comments. The following pages contain the comments, identified by the

commenter’s identification and comment number, and the NRC staff’s response. Comments 

are presented in the same order as listed in Table A–4.

A.2.1 Accidents

Comment 4-45:

Page 4-47, Line 12: The radiation effects of the postulated maximum hypothetical accident 

(MHA) in the radioisotope production facility would be mitigated by the walls in the noble 

gas removal system room and isolated by Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) 

Ventilation Zone 1 (RVZ1) and RCA Ventilation Zone 2 (RVZ2), as described in 

Subsection 13b.2.1.3 of the PSAR. Recommend revising the wording to state, “The 

radiation effects of this MHA in the radioisotope production facility would be mitigated by 

the walls in the noble gas removal system room and isolated by RVZ1 and RVZ2.”

Response: 

This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. Consistent with the 

comment, the NRC staff revised the maximum hypothetical accident discussion to reflect that 

the radiological effects of the MHA would be mitigated by the walls in the noble gas removal 

system room and isolated by Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) Ventilation Zone 1 (RVZ1) 

and RCA Ventilation Zone 2 (RVZ2).

Comment 4-46:

Page 4-47, Line 28: Only the RVZ1 and RVZ2 portions of the RCA Ventilation System (RV) are 

safety-related. RCA Ventilation Zone 3 (RVZ3) and Facility Ventilation Zone 4 (FVZ4) 

are nonsafety-related (see Table 3.5-1 of the PSAR). Recommend revising the wording 

to state, “These safety-related structures, systems, and components include the systems 

described above (i.e., the irradiation unit cell confinement, radiation monitoring system, 

pipe penetration shields, TSV off-gas system, noble gas removal system walls, RVZ1, 

RVZ2, secure chemical containers, and other safety-related structures, systems, and 

components).”
Appendix A

A-20

Response:

This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC revised the 

maximum hypothetical accident discussion to reflect that only the Radiologically Controlled Area 

(RCA) Ventilation Zone 1 (RVZ1) and RCA Ventilation Zone 2 (RVZ2) (rather than the entire 

RCA ventilation system) are safety-related, as suggested by the comment.

Comment 4-47:

Page 4-48, Line 1: SHINE revised the description of the hazardous chemical dispersion 

analysis for the SHINE facility provided in Subsections 13b.3.2 and 19.4.11.2.13 of the 

PSAR via Reference (4) [SHINE 2015b]. Recommend revising the description of the 

SHINE hazardous chemical dispersion analysis contained in Section 4.11.2, including 

the results reported in Table 4–13, to be consistent with the revised 

Subsection 19.4.11.2.13 and Table 19.4.11–1 provided via Reference (4)

[SHINE 2015b].

Response:

This comment suggests that the NRC staff include a revised version of SHINE’s description of 

the hazardous chemical dispersion model as described in SHINE’s response to the NRC’s 

requests for addition information (RAIs) submitted on June 16, 2015. The NRC staff revised the 

description of the hazardous chemical dispersion analysis and Table 4-13 in the EIS 

(Section 4.11.2) to be consistent with the information provided in SHINE’s June 2015 response 

to RAIs, as suggested by the comment.

A.2.2 Air Quality

Comment 4-27:

Page 4-7, Line 14: As shown in Revision 6 of CALC-2013-0007, provided as Attachment 3 to 

Enclosure 1 of Reference (2) [SHINE 2015c], hydrocarbons emissions from diesel 

equipment exhaust are estimated to be 22 tons/year, not 2 tons/year. Recommend 

revising the value to 22 tons/year, and the corresponding “Total” and “Percent of Rock 

County Annual Emissions” for hydrocarbons accordingly.

Response:

This comment suggests that the NRC staff include SHINE’s revised assumptions for the

estimated hydrocarbon emissions from diesel equipment exhaust. The NRC staff revised the 

hydrocarbon emissions from diesel equipment, total hydrocarbon emissions, and percent of 

Rock County annual emissions in Table 4–3 of the EIS to reflect the revisions in SHINE’s 

response to RAIs submitted on February 6, 2015, as suggested by the comment.

Comment 4-28: 

Page 4-7, Line 14: Reference MRI 2006 describes a recommended PM2.5/PM10 ratio of 0.1, 

not PM10/PM2.5. Recommend revising Note (b) of Table 4–3 to state, “...and for 

PM2.5/PM10, a ratio of 0.1 (EPA 1984; MRI 2006).”
Appendix A

A-21

Response:

This comment suggests a correction to a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

PM2.5/PM10 ratio in note (b) in Table 4–3 and Table 4–9 of the EIS, as suggested by the 

comment.

Comments 4-30 and 4-32:

4-30:

Page 4-12, Line 17: SHINE does not expect to ship all off-site (radiological) waste shipments to 

Clive, Utah. In order to determine bounding emissions values during the operations 

phase, SHINE assumed all off-site (radiological) waste shipments are shipped to the 

EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah, as it is furthest disposal facility from the SHINE 

facility. The expected waste disposal facilities for SHINE’s off-site (radiological) waste 

shipments are provided in Subsection 19.4.10.1.1 of the PSAR. Recommend revising 

the wording to state, “However, these emissions would be emitted beyond the ROI 

because they are expected to be shipped to facilities in Clive, Utah; Andrews, Texas; 

and/or Kingston, Tennessee (SHINE 2013a) and would therefore traverse various 

counties, AQCRs, and states.”

4-32:

Page 4-14, Line 8: SHINE does not expect to ship all offsite (radiological) waste shipments to 

Clive, Utah. See previous comment for Page 4-12, Line 17 [Comment 4-30].

Response:

These comments suggest a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

discussions regarding offsite (radiological) waste shipments, as suggested by the comment. 

Comment 4-33:

Page 4-15, Line 1: Since the decommissioning phase is only expected to be six months, SHINE

provided air emissions estimates during decommissioning in tons, not as an annual rate 

(i.e., tons/year). Recommend revising the units in Table 4-9 to tons.

Response:

This comment suggests a correction to a table in the EIS. The NRC revised Table 4–9 of the 

EIS, as suggested by the comment, to state the estimated number of tons for decommissioning. 

Comment 4-34:

Page 4-15, Line 1: SHINE revised the total emissions during the decommissioning phase in 

Revision 6 of CALC-2013-0007, provided as Attachment 3 to Enclosure 1 of 

Reference (2) [SHINE 2015c]. Recommend revising Table 4-9 to reflect the most 

current SHINE estimation of emissions during the decommissioning phase.

Response:

This comment suggests a revision in the EIS to reflect SHINE’s revised emissions calculations 

included in SHINE’s response to RAIs submitted on February 6, 2015. The NRC staff reviewed 

SHINE’s response to RAIs and revised Table 4–9 in the EIS accordingly, consistent with 

SHINE’s revised emission calculations. 

Comment 6-9:

On December 18, 2014, the Council on Environmental Quality released revised draft guidance 

for public comment that describes how Federal departments and agencies should consider the 
Appendix A

A-22

effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change in their NEPA reviews. The 

revised draft guidance supersedes the draft GHG and climate change guidance released by 

CEQ in February 2010. This guidance explains that agencies should consider both the potential 

effects of a proposed action on climate change, as indicated by its estimated GHG emissions, 

and the implications of climate change for the environmental effects of a proposed action.

Recommendation: As discussed above under “Green Infrastructure,” EPA recommends that the 

Applicant identify opportunities to minimize GHG emissions associated with construction and 

operation of the facility to the extent feasible. For example, clean energy options, such as 

energy efficiency and renewable energy, can be considered in the purchase of maintenance 

equipment, new equipment and vehicles. We also recommend any measures that may reduce 

the facility's carbon dioxide (C02) footprint, particularly from fuel combustion during the life of 

operations. Finally, EPA recommends that the applicant consider the need to develop 

adaptation measures to address impacts from climate change on the facility, such as increased 

intensity and frequency of storm and flood events.

EPA notes that our diesel emissions reduction measures, as recommended in our 

August 14, 2013 scoping letter, were included in the Draft EIS. EPA commends NRC for 

including this language and continues to encourage the Applicant to incorporate these 

measures into their construction planning.

Response: 

This comment recommends that the applicant identify opportunities to minimize greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions associated with the construction and operation of the facility to the extent 

feasible. The NRC does not have the authority to require mitigation measures. The NRC staff 

has forwarded the commenter’s recommendation to the applicant. In its ER, SHINE stated that 

it is committed to minimizing GHG emissions and that it will develop a comprehensive program 

to avoid and control GHG emissions associated with the facility. Initiatives to reduce GHG 

emissions may include:

• participating in EPA initiatives, such as the Climate Leaders Program, 

ENERGY STAR Commercial Buildings Program, Green Power Partnership, 

and SmartWay Transport Partnership;

• developing a GHG emissions inventory and investigating and implementing 

methods for avoiding or controlling the GHG emissions identified in the 

inventory;

• implementing energy efficiency and conservation programs at the SHINE

facility, installing solar panels, and/or purchasing electricity generated from 

renewable energy sources; and

• encouraging carpooling or other measures to minimize GHG emissions due 

to vehicle traffic during construction and operation of the SHINE facility.

The comment also recommends that the applicant consider the need to develop adaptation 

measures to address impacts from climate change on the facility. Such climate change 

adaptation measures are out of scope for the environmental review, which documents the 

potential environmental impacts of construction, operations, and decommissioning on the 

environment, and, therefore, were not evaluated in the development of this EIS. However, the 

NRC staff’s safety evaluation report (SER) considers the geography and demography; nearby 

industrial, transportation, and military facilities; meteorology; hydrology; and geology, 

seismology, and geotechnical engineering related to the proposed SHINE site to ensure that the 

facility meets the regulatory occupational and public dose limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20. For 
Appendix A

A-23

example, Chapter 2 in the SER evaluates the preliminary design of structures, components, 

equipment, and systems intended to ensure safe operation, performance, and shutdown when 

subjected to extreme weather, floods, seismic events, missiles (including aircraft impacts or 

from extreme weather events), and loss of offsite power. As a part of this review, the NRC staff 

evaluates whether any potential radiological releases would be within the regulatory 

occupational and public dose limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20. 

Chapter 2, “Site Characteristics,” of NUREG-1537, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing 

Applications for the Licensing of Non Power Reactors,” Parts 1 and 2, provided the guidance for 

reviewing and evaluating the SHINE site characteristics, as described in the SHINE preliminary 

safety analysis report. “Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, ‘Guidelines for 

Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors,’ for Licensing 

Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors,” Parts 1 and 2, 

provided relevant supplemental nonreactor guidance for reviewing the SHINE site 

characteristics. The NRC staff will document its evaluation in Chapter 2 of the SHINE SER. 

In response to this comment, the NRC staff revised Table 6–2 in the EIS to include the 

mitigation measures SHINE may include to reduce GHG emissions.

Comment 7-2:

The dEIS states that, “As of February 2014, the WDNR was actively working with SHINE to 

determine which of these permits would be required (WDNR 2014a),” and “SHINE intends to 

submit an application for a Type A Registration Construction Permit to the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (SHINE 2013b).” It should be noted that the 

Department has not yet received an application for an air pollution control permit from SHINE.

Section 4.2.2 discusses air emissions from operations. The Department is unable to confirm the 

assumed emissions without a permit application.

Response:

This comment states WDNR cannot confirm SHINE’s estimated emissions because, as of 

June 2015, SHINE has not submitted an application to WDNR. In response to this comment, 

the NRC staff deleted the statement in the EIS regarding WDNR working with SHINE to 

determine the applicability of air quality permits from WDNR. Consistent with SHINE’s ER and 

its response to a request for additional information (RAI) submitted on November 19, 2013, the 

EIS states that SHINE intends to submit a Type A Registration Construction Permit application. 

A.2.3 Alternatives

Comments 1-2 and 3-3: 

1-2: There's other places in the State of Wisconsin that this building could be put, Badger Army 

Depot is for one. It’s less than a five minute helicopter flight to Dane County Airport. I just left 

from up there this morning to do the fast track. So my recommendation is because of the 

contaminated land already up there, to save us from having contaminated land down here in 

Janesville.

3-3: There are also many remote, somewhat useless land site available elsewhere, like former 

mining sites, etc.

Response:

These two comments suggest additional alternative sites for the NRC staff to examine in the 

final EIS. The NRC staff acknowledges that a large number of potential alternative sites could

exist within Wisconsin and the surrounding region. When a large number of potential 
Appendix A

A-24

alternatives exist, NEPA requires that an agency analyze a reasonable number of examples in 

the EIS (46 FR 18026). For the purposes of this EIS, the NRC staff determined that examining 

two alternative sites in depth was reasonable, because the proposed site and the two alternative 

sites are located in other regions and environments within Wisconsin and the SHINE site 

selection process evaluated several other sites.

The Badger Army Ammunition Plant, suggested as an alternative by one commenter, is located 

in Sauk County, Wisconsin, and includes 7,354 acres (2,976 hectares) of industrial buildings, 

grasslands, and open space. The Badger Plant was constructed in 1942 as an ammunition 

propellant production factory in support of World War II. The plant was also used to produce 

ammunition during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 1997, the U.S. Army announced its 

intention to decommission the plant as part of a larger effort to decommission ordnance plants 

no longer needed after the Cold War. In early 2000, the Sauk County Board of Supervisors 

initiated a planning process for reusing the site, including the development of the Badger Reuse 

Plan (Badger Reuse Committee 2001). The plan calls for the site to be managed in various 

ways, including conservation, prairie and savanna restoration, agriculture, education, and 

recreation. The General Services Administration is in charge of the redistribution of this land 

and has offered portions of it to the following Federal and State agencies, local government, and 

Tribe: U.S. Department of Agriculture Dairy Forage, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Ho-Chunk 

Nation, National Park Service and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Town of 

Sumpter, and Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 

Based on the above information, the NRC staff excluded the Badger Army Ammunition Plant 

from detailed evaluation because the land is not currently available for private development and 

because construction and operation of the SHINE facility is not compatible with the goals of the 

Badger Reuse Plan. In addition, NEPA does not require the NRC staff to analyze every 

possible alternative site in situations when a large number of potential alternatives exist. The 

NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to these comments. 

Comment 4-51: 

Page 5-96, Line 9: Although molybdenum-100 is a naturally occurring isotope, molybdenum 

enriched in molybdenum-100 is not naturally occurring. Recommend revising the 

wording, “For the linear-accelerator-based alternative, molybdenum-99 would be 

produced by irradiating natural molybdenum (molybdenum enriched in the radioisotope

molybdenum-100) in an accelerator.” to state, “For the linear-accelerator-based 

alternative, molybdenum-99 would be produced by utilizing an accelerator to irradiate 

natural molybdenum that has been enriched in the radioisotope molybdenum-100.”

Response:

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

statement in the EIS, as suggested by the comment.

A.2.4 Ecological Resources

Comment 4-19:

Page 3-33, Line 1: Table 3–8, Common and Abundant Wildlife Observed on or Near the 

Proposed Site, contains wildlife which SHINE did not classify as either Common or 

Abundant. SHINE field surveys classified the abundance of Canadian geese as 

“occasional,” the abundance of red-tailed hawk as “uncommon,” the abundance of 

killdeer as “occasional,” and the abundance of field sparrow as “uncommon.” In 

addition, although the field survey abundance of avifaunal species was provided by 

SHINE in Table 19.3.5–5 of the PSAR, SHINE did not classify the abundance of 
Appendix A

A-25

mammals or reptiles and amphibians in field surveys. Recommend revising the title of 

Table 3–8 to “Wildlife Observed On or Near the Proposed Site.”

Response:

This comment suggests that Table 3–8 in the EIS be revised to reflect, consistent with the ER, 

that certain species listed in Table 3-8 are not “common” or “abundant,” but that are observed to 

be “occasional” or “uncommon.” The NRC staff has revised the title of Table 3–8 to “Wildlife 

Observed On or Near the Proposed Site,” to show that SHINE’s observations indicated that the 

species listed in the table are common, abundant, occasional, or uncommon. 

Comment 4-37:

Page 4-24, Line 29: The proposed SHINE facility would permanently convert 0.18 ac. of 

developed open space into an industrial area, not developed or open areas. 

Recommend revising accordingly.

Response:

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff agrees and 

revised the EIS by changing “developed or open areas” to “developed open space,” as 

suggested by the comment.

A.2.5 Historic and Cultural Resources

Comment 5-1:

The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma is unaware of any documentation directly linking Indian 

Religious Sites to the newly proposed project location. There appear to be no objects of cultural 

significance or artifacts linked to our tribe located on or near the project location.

The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma is unaware of items covered under NAGPRA (Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) to be associated with the proposed project 

site. These items include: funerary or sacred objects; objects of cultural patrimony; or ancestral 

human remains.

The Peoria Tribe has no objection at this time to the proposed SHINE Medical Radioisotope 

Production Facility. If, however, at any time items are discovered which fall under the protection 

of NAGPRA, the Peoria Tribe requests immediate notification and consultation. In addition 

state, local and tribal authorities should be advised as to the findings and construction halted 

until consultation with all concerned parties has occurred.

Response:

This comment states that the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma is unaware of any 

documentation directly linking Indian religious sites to the newly proposed project location, and 

the Peoria Tribe requests immediate notification and consultation if, at any time, items are 

discovered that fall under the protection of NAGPRA. The NRC coordinates with Federal, State, 

and local agencies, as appropriate, throughout its NEPA review process. Consistent with the 

NRC standard review plan, documentation of all coordination and consultation activities is 

included in the EIS (Appendix D). Section 4.6.4.1 of the EIS describes SHINE’s sitewide 

cultural resource management plan (CRMP) to manage and protect as-yet unidentified cultural 

resources, which describes when further notifications and consultations would occur. For 

example, if cultural resources or materials are discovered during construction, the activity would 

be immediately halted; the area would be protected; the SHINE Environment, Health, and 

Safety (ES&H) Manager would be notified; and consultation with the Wisconsin Historical 

Society might be initiated. Consultation may require additional investigation and preservation 
Appendix A

A-26

plans, which would be developed by the SHINE ES&H Manager. All investigation and 

preservation plans would be approved by SHINE management and in consultation with the 

Wisconsin Historical Society. Work that uncovered potential cultural resources would not 

recommence without SHINE management approval. If actual or suspected human remains are 

unearthed during construction, construction activities would halt immediately, and the area 

would be protected. The procedures for uncatalogued burial sites found in Wisconsin 

Statute 157.70 would be followed, and local law enforcement would be contacted, as described 

in SHINE’s response to RAIs on November 19, 2013. Additionally, SHINE would educate its 

employees and contractors on requirements of the CRMP if they are engaged in the 

construction of the proposed site in a capacity that disturbs the ground or that could result in the 

discovery of cultural resources. Actions for the special case of the discovery of human remains 

would be discussed in the training CRMP.

The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment.

Comment 9-1:

I have reviewed the specifications for the entire project on behalf of the Wisconsin State Historic 

Preservation Office and agree with the “no historic properties” determination presented for the 

proposed site in Janesville, Wisconsin, and for the two alternate sites located in Chippewa Falls 

and Stevens Point, Wisconsin.

Response:

This comment states that the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office agrees with the NRC

staff’s determination of “no historic properties.” In response to this comment, the NRC staff has 

updated the Historic and Cultural resources discussions in Sections 4.6, 5.2.2.6, and 5.2.3.6 in 

the EIS to reflect the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office’s determination.

A.2.6 Human Health

Comment 4-42:

Page 4-39, Line 34: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-2 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014] clarified 

the duration of the decommissioning phase for the SHINE facility (six months). 

Recommend revising the duration of decommissioning period and the resulting estimate 

of recordable cases of non-fatal workplace injuries and illnesses during the 

decommissioning period.

Response:

This comment suggests that the NRC staff use an estimate of 6 months for the 

decommissioning phase, as clarified in SHINE’s response to RAIs submitted on 

October 15, 2014. The NRC staff revised Section 4.8.3 to reflect a decommissioning period of 

6 months, as suggested by the comment. In addition, the NRC staff updated the estimates of 

recordable cases of nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses consistent with SHINE’s response 

to the RAIs. As noted in Section 4.8.3, using a 6-month duration reduced the estimated number 

of recordable cases of nonfatal workplace injuries and illness.

Comment 6-4: 

The Draft EIS includes several determinations about whether a potential impact is based on

models. In most instances, the name of the model and specifics about model inputs and

assumptions are not included in the Draft EIS. EPA is aware that this information could be

proprietary or included in other documents.
Appendix A

A-27

Recommendation: EPA recommends that the Final EIS include the name of the models, inputs, 

and assumptions identified in the Draft EIS for the following determinations, with locations in the 

Draft EIS given in parentheses. If this information is provided elsewhere, please provide 

specific locations. Or, if this information is proprietary, please contact us to discuss comment 

resolution in the Final EIS.

• Estimate values for gaseous radioactive effluents and determination for

exposure potential to an individual(s) off site. (Table 2–2, page 2-16);

• Determining compliance with regulatory requirements for public exposure to

radiation (Section 3.8.1.2, page 3-54, lines 1–5; Section 4.8.2.1, page 4–36,

lines 44–46, and page 4–37, lines 1–2; Section 4.11.1, page 4-4 7, 

lines 18–25; Section 4.13.8, page 4–70, lines 38–46; Section 5.2.2.13, 

page 5–46, lines 21–47, and page 5–47, lines 1–2; Section 5.2.3.8, 

page 5–71, lines 5–10; Section 5.2.3.13, page 5-91, lines 28-44)

Response:

This comment expresses concerns regarding the level of detail in descriptions of computer 

models to determine the potential impacts in the EIS. The purpose of the EIS is to provide the 

public and the Commission with a description of potential environmental impacts. In 

accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A, and 40 CFR 1502.15, the level of detail provided 

within the EIS is commensurate with the potential for adverse or significant environmental 

impacts. This is consistent with one of the goals of NEPA, which is to concentrate on issues 

significant to the proposed action and their potential environmental impacts, and further, that 

affected resources are analyzed in proportion with their importance and the expected level of 

impact to them. In addition to the EIS, the NRC staff’s thorough independent review of the 

potential dose to the public from operating the SHINE facility will be documented in the NRC 

staff’s SER. Part of this independent review will verify that the radiological exposure to the 

members of the public would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20. How the 

NRC staff gathered data for the EIS, as well as additional information that will be provided in the 

final SER, is described below. 

For the values of the gaseous radioactive effluents used to determine potential exposure to 

offsite individuals found in Table 2–2 of the EIS, the NRC staff used the gaseous effluent 

numbers provided by SHINE in Table 19.4.2–1 from its ER. The development of those numbers 

is documented in S&L 2012-08751 Rev. 2, “Normal Gaseous Effluent Releases: Radionuclide 

Concentrations and Dose Assessment,” a proprietary document produced by the consulting firm 

Sargent & Lundy. Those numbers are based on an estimate of 50 weeks of operation a year for 

SHINE’s production facility, as described in SHINE’s ER. The NRC staff reviewed the estimates 

and found them acceptable to discuss the impacts associated with the proposed action. For 

more information, Section 2.7.1.1 of the EIS contains a gaseous waste effluent discussion, and 

Section 19.4.2.1.2.1.1 of SHINE’s ER discusses the gaseous effluents from isotope production.

SHINE also used models to calculate the radioactive dose estimates presented in 

Sections 3.8.1.2, 4.8.2.1, and 4.11.1 of the EIS. Additional information on the dose estimates of 

the maximally exposed individual referred to in Section 3.8.1.2 and the maximum dose to a 

member of the public from radioactive gaseous effluents referred to in Section 4.8.2.1 of the EIS

is in Section 19.4.8.2.4.1 of the ER, which includes a discussion of computer models and 

calculations. The calculated number for the maximum dose to a member of the public from 

radioactive gaseous effluents is presented in Table 19.4.8–5 of SHINE’s ER. Additional 

information on the maximum hypothetical accident dose estimates referred to in Section 4.11.1 

of the EIS is in Section 19.4.11.2.1 of the ER, and it includes a discussion of the methodology 

and calculations used for those dose estimates. The NRC staff reviewed the dose estimates for 
Appendix A

A-28

the maximally exposed individual, the maximum hypothetical accident, and the maximum dose 

to a member of the public from radioactive gaseous effluents and found them to be below the 

dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, as well as below the as low as is reasonably achievable

(ALARA) dose constraints found in 10 CFR 20.1101. As noted above, the NRC staff’s thorough 

independent review of dose estimates will be documented in the NRC staff’s SER. Part of this 

independent review will be to verify that the radiological exposure to the members of the public 

would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20. 

The comment also seeks clarification for the assumptions made in determining the human 

health impacts in the cumulative analysis in Section 4.13.8 of the EIS. To determine those 

impacts, the NRC staff reviewed the information provided in Section 19.4.13.8.2 of SHINE’s ER. 

Facilities listed therein as having the potential for adding radiological exposure to members of 

the public were considered in the cumulative impacts analysis in Section 4.13.8 of the EIS. As 

discussed in Section 4.13.8 of the EIS, the NRC staff will complete its thorough independent 

safety evaluation to verify that the cumulative radiological exposure to the members of the 

public would be below the regulatory limits set in 10 CFR Part 20 and document its findings in 

its SER. 

The comment also seeks clarification for the assumptions made in determining the human 

health impacts in the alternatives analysis within Sections 5.2.2.13, 5.2.3.8, and 5.2.3.13. The 

NRC staff notes that, according to the Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, 

Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power 

Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria” (NRC 2012), the NRC staff may 

present a qualitative discussion of potential impacts to each resource area, such as that 

provided in Sections 5.2.2.13, 5.2.3.8, and 5.2.3.13. For example, Sections 5.2.2.13, 5.2.3.8, 

and 5.2.3.13 of the EIS qualitatively discuss the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the 

Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point alternative sites, respectively. In determining those impacts, 

the NRC staff reviewed the information provided in Sections 19.5.2.1.2.1.9, 19.5.2.1.2.2, and 

19.5.2.1.2.2.14 of SHINE’s ER. Table 19.5.2–1 and Table 19.5.2–14 in SHINE’s ER lists sites 

near the Chippewa Falls and Stevens Point alternative sites that use radioactive materials. The 

NRC staff reviewed all of the data presented in SHINE’s ER regarding the alternative sites and 

determined that, based on the regulatory controls that are or would be in place to control 

radiation exposure, the distance between the facilities that use radioactive material, and the 

dilution of the radioactive materials, the cumulative radiological impacts on human health would 

be SMALL.

Because sufficient detail is already included in the EIS, the NRC staff did not revise the EIS in 

response to this comment. 

Comment 6-5: 

The Applicant will employ three separate water treatment processes: a demineralization 

process, a cooling water treatment process, and a facility heating water treatment process. 

Rock County, Wisconsin is a Zone One Radon County 

(http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html), meaning there are relatively high concentrations of 

naturally occurring radiation in the soil and groundwater in this area. Water treatment and 

demineralization will have a tendency to concentrate naturally occurring radioactive materials.

Recommendation: The Final EIS should address plans for monitoring and subsequent handling 

and disposal of wastewater and wastewater treatment residuals should high concentrations of

radium or other radionuclides be encountered during the production process.
Appendix A

A-29

Response:

This comment suggests that the EIS address plans for SHINE’s wastewater treatment 

processes in regard to naturally occurring radioactive materials. Section 2.7.12 of the EIS 

describes SHINE’s radioactive liquid waste treatment and disposal processes. Treatments for 

radioactive liquid wastes would include radioactive decay, pH adjustment, volume reduction 

through evaporation, and solidification in a hot cell using Portland cement. In its ER, 

SHINE (2015a) stated that radioactive wastes would be stored on site long enough for 

radioactive decay before being packaged and shipped out to a disposal facility. As discussed in 

Section 2.5.1 of the EIS, SHINE would obtain water for operations from the Janesville Water 

Utility. Water from the Janesville Water Utility would be treated prior to SHINE’s use, and 

therefore, would be below the maximum contaminant level for uranium and other radionuclides, 

which is a standard set and enforced by EPA and States in accordance with the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. As such, it would be unlikely that SHINE would accumulate much naturally occurring 

radioactive material in its radioactive liquid waste streams during the production process. If any 

were to accumulate, it would be handled by the same processes described in Section 2.7.12 of 

the EIS for treatment and disposal. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this 

comment because the information suggested by the comment is described in the EIS. 

Comment 6-6: 

Agreement States and NRC regulated facilities are to keep all exposures of the public to as low 

as reasonably achievable (ALARA). In order for EPA to rescind regulation of airborne dose

exposure from NRC-licensed or Federal facilities, NRC and any delegated program would meet 

the requirements of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 61, Subpart I requirements, 

as outlined in the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and EPA.

Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify how the Applicant plans to achieve ALARA to 

the airborne dose exposure to radionuclides as agreed to between NRC and EPA in the 

1998 MOU regarding 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, prior to the rescission.

Response: 

This comment suggests that the EIS clarify how SHINE plans to achieve the ALARA dose

criteria for public exposure to airborne radioactive effluent releases, as described in 

40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, before the rescission. Subpart I does not apply to SHINE, as stated 

in 40 CFR 61.100:

The provisions of this subpart apply to facilities owned or operated by any 

Federal agency other than the Department of Energy and not licensed by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, except that this subpart does not apply to 

disposal at facilities regulated under 40 CFR part 191, subpart B, or to any 

uranium mill tailings pile after it has been disposed of under 40 CFR part 192, or 

to low energy accelerators.

Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 61 was last updated in 1996 (61 FR 68972) and in the rule summary, it 

states:

As required by section 112(d)(9) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, EPA

has determined that the NRC regulatory program for licensed facilities other than 

commercial nuclear power reactors protects public health with an ample margin 

of safety, the same level of protection that would be afforded by continued 

implementation of subpart I.

Section 3.8.1.2 of the EIS describes the NRC regulatory requirements for public exposure to 

radioactive effluents. The ALARA dose constraint, which is applicable to the SHINE facility, is 

found in 10 CFR 20.1101(b) and requires NRC licensees to use, to the extent practical, 
Appendix A

A-30

procedures and controls based on sound radiation protection principles to achieve ALARA

doses to members of the public (and facility workers). Guidance for regulatory compliance for 

applicants of non-power reactors is found in NUREG-1537, Part 1, “Guidelines for Preparing 

and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors.”

The NRC staff notes that neither agency could locate an 1998 MOU. Nonetheless, as 

described above, 10 CFR 20.1101(b) requires NRC licensees to use, to the extent practical, 

procedures and controls based on sound radiation protection principles to achieve ALARA

doses to members of the public (and facility workers). 

Because SHINE has to comply with the ALARA dose criteria in 10 CFR 20.2101(b) as stated in 

Section 3.8.1.2 of the EIS, EPA has determined that NRC regulations provide adequate public 

protection from radioactive effluents, and 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, does not apply to SHINE, 

the NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. 

A.2.7 Land Use

Comments 4-17, 4-24, 4-52, and 4-54: 

4-17:

Page 3-1, Line 35: 0.2 percent of the proposed SHINE site is developed open space, not 

developed land or open space. Recommend revising accordingly.

4-24:

Page 4-1, Line 33: The proposed SHINE site currently includes 0.18 ac. of developed open 

space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising accordingly.

Page 4-1, Line 35: The proposed SHINE site currently includes 0.18 ac. of developed open 

space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising accordingly.

4-52:

Page 5-102, Line 2: The proposed SHINE site would include 0.18 ac. of developed open space, 

not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising the description provided for the cost 

benefit category “Land Use” accordingly.

Page 6-2, Line 1: The proposed SHINE site would include 0.18 ac. of developed open space, 

not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising the Summary of Impact for Land 

Use accordingly.

4-54:

Page 6-10, Line 6: Construction, operations, and decommissioning would require 0.18 ac. of 

developed open space, not undeveloped open areas. Recommend revising accordingly.

Response:

These comments suggest revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the

text to describe portions of the SHINE site as “open developed space” throughout the EIS, as 

suggested by the comments.

A.2.8 Proposed Action

Comment 4-2:

Page 2-5, Line 8: As described in the SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-1 (Reference 1) 

[SHINE 2014], a concrete batch plant will not be located on the proposed SHINE site 
Appendix A

A-31

during construction. Recommend removing “concrete batch plant operation” from the list 

of activities included in construction.

Page 2-5, Line 14: As described in the SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-1 (Reference 1) 

[SHINE 2014], a concrete batch plant will not be located on the proposed SHINE site 

during construction. Recommend removing the discussion of feed materials necessary 

for operating the concrete batch plant.

Response:

These comments suggest revisions to correct a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff deleted

the discussion of an onsite concrete batch plant, as suggested by the comment.

Comment 4-3: 

Page 2-7, Line 1: The SHINE Waste Staging and Shipping Building is incorrectly labeled as the 

Waste Storage and Shipping Building. Recommend revising accordingly.

Response:

This comment suggests a revision to correct an illustration in the EIS. The NRC staff revised 

Figure 2–4 to include the correct label in the EIS, as suggested by the comment.

Comment 4-4: 

Page 2-7, Line 17: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-7 (Reference 2) [SHINE 2015c] clarified 

the expected number of truck deliveries per month (36), the number of medical isotope 

shipments per month (39), the average number of radioactive waste shipments per year 

(25.6), and the number of off-site (non-radiological) waste shipments per month (1). 

Recommend revising the number of shipments and deliveries accordingly.

Response: 

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

number of shipments and deliveries in the EIS, as suggested by the comment.

Comment 4-6: 

Page 2-11, Line 10: It is stated that the deuterium ion beam strikes tritium nuclei, resulting in 

lighter hydrogen atoms and neutrons being produced. However, the deuterium ion 

beam striking the tritium gas results in the production of helium nuclei and neutrons 

rather than lighter hydrogen atoms, as described in Subsection 19.2.2.1 of the PSAR. 

Recommend revising accordingly.

Response:

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

statement in the EIS to indicate that the resulting ion beam would strike the tritium gas and 

produce helium nuclei and neutrons, as suggested by the comment.

Comment 4-7:

Page 2-11, Line 28: The off-gas system being described recombines radiolytically-produced 

hydrogen and oxygen and captures iodine using an adsorption material. The off-gas 

system handles and contains radiolytic and fission products gases, rather than 

specifically recovering xenon-133 and iodine-131. Recommend revising accordingly.

Response: 

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

statement in the EIS to indicate that the off-gas system would be used to handle and contain 
Appendix A

A-32

radiolytic and fission product gases released from the target solution, as suggested by the 

comment.

Comment 4-8:

Page 2-11, Line 32: The hot cells in the SHINE facility are not containments. Recommend 

revising the parenthetical to state, “shielded nuclear radiation confinement chambers.”

Response: 

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

parenthetical statement in the EIS to indicate that the SHINE hot cells are shielded nuclear 

radiation confinement chambers, as suggested by the comment.

Comment 4-9:

Page 2-11, Line 41: The purification process described would yield a high-purity product. The 

dissolution and evaporation processes, which occur as part of the SHINE extraction 

process, yield a crude Mo-99 product, rather than a high purity product. Recommend 

revising accordingly.

Response:

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

statement in the EIS to indicate that the SHINE dissolution and evaporation processes yield a 

crude Mo-99 product, as suggested by the comment.

Comment 4-10:

Page 2-12, Line 38: The SHINE facility does not include a diesel-driven fire pump system. The 

fire water supply system, described in Subsection 9a2.3.3 of the PSAR, includes an 

electric motor-driven fire pump and a diesel engine-driven fire pump. In addition, as 

described in the SHINE Response to Proposed Action Request #3 (Reference 3) 

[SHINE 2013b], the 1,860 annual gallons of diesel fuel estimate includes testing and 

maintenance on both the standby diesel generator and the diesel-driven fire pump. 

Recommend revising accordingly.

Response: 

This comment suggests revisions to clarify statements in the EIS. The NRC staff revised 

statements in the EIS to indicate that SHINE would use approximately 1,860 gal (7,000 L) of 

diesel fuel annually to maintain and test a standby diesel generator, as well as a diesel 

engine-driven fire pump, as suggested by the comment.

Comment 4-11:

Page 2-12, Line 42: The SHINE facility includes a single natural gas-fired boiler, as described 

in the SHINE Response to Air Quality Request #9 (Reference 3) [SHINE 2013b]. 

Recommend revising accordingly.

Response: 

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

statement in the EIS to indicate that SHINE has a single natural gas-fired boiler, as suggested 

by the comment.

Comment 4-13:

Page 2-14, Line 10: As described in Subsection 5a2.1.1 of the PSAR, the Primary Closed Loop 

Cooling System (PCLS) removes heat from the target solution vessel (TSV) via the 
Appendix A

A-33

exterior surfaces of the TSV. Recommend revising the wording to state, “The primary 

closed-loop cooling system would remove heat from the target solution vessel by actively 

circulating water along the exterior surfaces of the vessel.”

Response: 

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

statement in the EIS to indicate that the cooling system would remove heat from the target 

solution vessel by actively circulating water along the exterior surfaces of the vessel, as

suggested by the comment.

Comment 4-14:

Page 2-15, Line 4: The neutron drivers are expected to be replaced on an approximately yearly 

basis, as described in Subsection 19.2.5.3.1. Recommend revising the parenthetical to 

state, “i.e., the neutron driver that would be periodically replaced”.

Response: 

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

parenthetical statement to indicate that the neutron driver would be periodically replaced, as 

suggested by the comment.

Comment 4-15:

Page 2-15, Line 22: The TSV is part of the subcritical assembly system, which is separate from 

the TSV off-gas system. Recommend revising the wording to reflect 

Subsection 19.4.2.1.2.1.1 of the PSAR, which states, “Process off-gases are treated in 

two separate, but connected, systems: the target solution vessel (TSV) off-gas system 

and the process vessel vent system (PVVS).”

Response: 

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

statement in the EIS to indicate that gaseous radioactive effluents would be routed through the 

target solution vessel off-gas system and the process vessel vent system, as suggested by the 

comment.

Comment 6-3: 

The Draft EIS lists three isotopes currently slated for production at the facility (molybdenum-99,

iodine-131, and xenon-133). The Draft EIS is unclear if the Applicant anticipates needing to add

additional isotopes to the facility’s production capabilities (based on market conditions or

technological advancements, for example).

Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify whether the Applicant anticipates needing to 

add additional isotope production capabilities (other than the ones listed). If the Applicant 

anticipates needing additional production capabilities, the Final EIS should identify potential 

expansion locations and resultant impacts, including anticipated management of waste streams 

associated with additional isotope production.

Response: 

This comment seeks to clarify SHINE’s intentions to add production capability for radioisotopes 

other than those listed in its construction permit application. The radioisotopes listed in SHINE’s 

construction permit application are molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), iodine-131 (I-131), and xenon-133

(Xe-133). The EIS evaluates the environmental impacts from the proposed action, as described 

in Section 1.2 in the EIS, which includes the production of Mo-99, I-131, and Xe-133. If, in the 

future, SHINE decides to produce radioisotopes other than those listed in its construction permit 
Appendix A

A-34

application, SHINE would need to determine whether an amendment to its license would be 

necessary. If an amendment is necessary, the NRC staff would then review the amendment

application and the environmental impacts of producing the additional radioisotopes.

A.2.9 Socioeconomics

Comment 4-21:

Page 3-49, line 44: The Fireside Theater is the Fireside Dinner Theatre, and it is located on 

Janesville Avenue in Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin. It is not located in Janesville, Wisconsin.

Recommend removing the Fireside Theater from the list of tourist attractions and activity 

centers in Janesville.

Response: 

This comment suggests revisions to correct a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff removed the 

Fireside Theater from the list of tourist attractions and activity centers in Janesville, as 

suggested by the comment.

Comment 4-22:

Page 3-50, Line 28: The nearest snowmobile trail to the SHINE site was described in 

Subsection 19.3.7.2.5.3 of the PSAR. Recommend revising the citation (SHINE 2013b) 

to (SHINE 2013a).

Response: 

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. As suggested by the 

comment, the NRC staff revised the EIS reference citation to SHINE 2015, which is the most 

recent version of the ER that describes the nearest snowmobile trail. Note that in some 

chapters, such as Chapter 3, the most recent version of the ER is cited as SHINE 2015a.

Comment 4-39:

Page 4-31, Line 29: SHINE estimated there would be 26 Equipment Operator/Engineers 

available in Rock County during the Decommissioning Phase, as shown in 

Table 19.4.7-1 of the PSAR. Recommend revising the “Available Labor Force in ROI” 

for Equipment Operator/Eng. during Decommissioning from 20 to 26, and revising the 

corresponding “Total” accordingly.

Response: 

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. As suggested by the 

comment, the NRC staff revised Table 4–12 in the EIS to indicate the availability of 

26 equipment operators/engineers in the region of influence during decommissioning and the 

corresponding total.

Comment 4-40:

Page 4-36, Line 6: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-5 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014, 

ML14296A189] clarified the peak number of workers at the site during the construction 

phase (451). Recommend revising the peak number of workers at the site during 

construction from 421 to 451.

Response:

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

peak number of workers at the site during construction from 421 to 451, as suggested by the 

comment.
Appendix A

A-35

Comment 4-49:

Page 5-69, Line 26: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-5 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014, 

ML14296A189] clarified the peak number of workers that SHINE anticipates at the site 

during the construction phase (451). Recommend revising the number of workers 

needed to construct the proposed facility from 420 to 451.

Page 5-69, Line 31: The SHINE Response to RAI 19.2-5 (Reference 1) [SHINE 2014, 

ML14296A189] clarified the peak number of workers that SHINE anticipates at the site 

during the construction phase (451). Recommend revising the number of workers

needed to construct the proposed facility from 420 to 451.

Response:

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

peak number of workers needed at the site during construction from 420 to 451, as suggested 

by the comment.

A.2.10 Transportation

Comment 4-53:

Page 6-9: SHINE will not be providing a traffic signal at the entrance and exit to the SHINE site, 

as described in the SHINE Response to Transportation Request #1 (Reference 3) 

[SHINE 2013b]. The increase in traffic volume from employees working at the SHINE 

facility results in a slight degradation in the level of service at the intersection of 

U.S. Highway 51 and State Highway 11 during the morning peak hour, resulting in an 

increased delay at the intersection, as described in Subsection 19.4.7.2.1 of the PSAR. 

Optimizing the signal timing at the intersection to accommodate a greater turning 

movement from westbound State Highway 11 to southbound U.S. Highway 51 would 

mitigate traffic delays. Recommend revising the Mitigation Measures for Transportation 

accordingly.

Response: 

This comment suggests revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

statement to explain that optimizing the signal timing for vehicles turning from westbound State 

Highway 11 to southbound U.S. Highway 51 would mitigate traffic delays.

Comment 6-10:

The Draft EIS states that the Beloit-Janesville Express operates weekdays between Beloit and

Janesville (Section 3.9.1 - Roads); the closest stops to the facility are Kellogg Ave (to the north) 

and Sunny Lane (to the south). At this time, there are no plans to include a new stop on this 

route serving the facility.

Recommendation: EPA recommends the Applicant and the Janesville Transit System 

determine whether a stop at the facility would benefit employees of the facility and help to 

alleviate potential degradation to traffic patterns along U.S. Highway 51.

The Applicant anticipates an additional 1,000 vehicle trips daily associated with the facility (or an 

approximately 11 % increase from current conditions) in traffic volumes on U.S. Highway 51

during construction activity (Section 4.10.1 Transportation - Construction). EPA commends the 

Applicant for already committing to staggered work schedules during construction and 

demolition, during which an increase in the number of trucks and vehicles would be highest. 

We also commend the Applicant for planning to implement a carpooling program for employees 

during operation to minimize worker vehicle emissions.
Appendix A

A-36

Recommendation: EPA recommends on-going coordination with local traffic authorities to 

ensure levels of service remain appropriate and that users of the road are kept updated of 

closures and delays. Any anticipated system or infrastructure upgrades deemed necessary as 

a result of the facility should be identified in the Final EIS.

Response:

This comment recommends that the applicant work with the Janesville Transit System to 

determine ways to help alleviate potential traffic. The NRC does not have the authority to 

require this mitigation measure. The NRC staff has forwarded these recommendations to the 

applicant. In addition, the recommended mitigation has been added to Section 6.3.1 in the final

EIS, which discusses mitigation measures recommended by EPA. 

A.2.11 Waste Management

Comments 4-16 and 4-43: 

4-16:

Page 2-16, Line 29: Class A waste is shipped approximate yearly to the EnergySolutions 

disposal site, as described in Subsection 19.2.5.3.1 of the PSAR; however, one year is 

not a limit of accumulation/storage. Recommend revising the wording to state, “Class A 

waste is shipped approximately yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site.”

4-43:

Page 4-40, Line 38: Class A waste is shipped approximate yearly to the EnergySolutions 

disposal site, as described in Subsection 19.2.5.3.1 of the PSAR; however, one year is 

not a limit of accumulation/storage. Recommend revising the wording to state, “Class A 

waste is shipped approximately yearly to the EnergySolutions disposal site.”

Response: 

These comments suggest revisions to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

EIS to reflect that Class A waste is shipped approximately yearly to the EnergySolutions 

disposal site, as suggested by the comments.

Comment 6-11:

The Draft EIS states that the Applicant does not intend to treat or permanently store hazardous 

wastes on site, meaning it will not require a hazardous waste treatment or storage permit under 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Section 2.7.2 Nonradioactive Waste, 

page 2-17, lines 38–42).

Recommendation: EPA recommends this section be clarified to indicate that Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources is the permitting authority for hazardous waste treatment and 

storage per RCRA.

Response: 

This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

EIS to show that WDNR is the permitting authority for hazardous waste treatment and storage 

per the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Comment 6-1: 

EPA has reviewed the Draft EIS and cited reference materials regarding radioactive solid 

wastes. Table 11.2-1, “Waste Stream Summary” (reference SHINE 2013a Chapter 11 –

Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management of the Preliminary Safety Analysis 
Appendix A

A-37

Report) provides the destinations of the solid, resin, and liquid wastes. Zeolite Beds and 

another proprietary waste stream are said to be generated as greater-than-class-C (GTCC) with 

Waste Control Specialists listed as a destination. Waste Control Specialists has GTCC storage 

capability, but not GTCC disposal capability. The Draft EIS states that if a disposal pathway for 

GTCC waste does not exist, the Department of Energy (DOE) will be responsible for its safe 

storage and disposal in accordance with the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 

(42 U.S.C. 2065(c)(3)(A)(ii) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2065). There is 

currently no disposal path for GTCC waste and DOE is currently evaluating alternatives for 

GTCC disposal (http://www.gtcceis.anl.gov).

Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify whether DOE or the Applicant will be 

responsible for the storage of the facility's GTCC wastes at Waste Control Specialists. The 

Final EIS should state that once DOE establishes a disposal pathway for GTCC, it should 

promptly facilitate the disposal of the Applicant’s GTCC wastes. EPA also recommends that the 

Applicant clarify whether a radioisotope production process can be engineered so as to 

eliminate the generation of GTCC waste for which there is no current disposal path, and 

otherwise reduce or limit the generation of other waste streams to Class A levels.

Response:

This comment states that greater than Class C (GTCC) waste would be generated during 

operation of the SHINE facility, and it recommends that the final EIS clarify whether DOE or the 

applicant would be responsible for the storage of the facility’s GTCC waste once it is shipped to 

Waste Control Specialists, given that no disposal pathway exists for GTCC. DOE may have a 

role in final disposition of GTCC wastes, due to a mandate in the American Medical Isotopes 

Production Act of 2012 (AMIPA). The AMIPA requires DOE to establish a Uranium Lease and 

Take Back (ULTB) Program, which includes, inter alia, a requirement that DOE be responsible 

for the final disposition of radioactive waste generated in medical isotope production using 

DOE-leased uranium, for which DOE determines a producer does not have access to a disposal 

path. However, the ULTB Program has not yet been established, so the Department cannot yet 

describe the process through which wastes would be accepted or disposed.

Chapter 11 of the SHINE PSAR describes SHINE’s proposed radioactive waste management 

program, radioactive waste controls, and release of radioactive waste. The NRC staff 

documented its evaluation of these areas for the purposes of issuing a construction permit in 

Chapter 11 of its SER. If SHINE submits an application for an operating license, further 

evaluation of the programs and controls related to SHINE’s waste management would occur 

during the review of SHINE’s FSAR in support of an operating license application. In addition, 

10 CFR 51.95(b) requires that the NRC staff prepare a supplement to the EIS that would update 

the prior review based on any new or updated information provided in the operating license 

application or identified during the NRC’s staff independent review.

The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. 

Comment 6-2: 

UREX process raffinate is listed as a Class B liquid waste with Energy Solutions as the 

destination. Energy Solutions is not authorized to receive Class B and Class C waste according 

to its waste acceptance criteria document (http://www.energvsolutions.com/wpcontentluploads/2014/J 1 /B WF-W AC-Rev-93.pdf).

Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify how Energy Solutions can be a destination for 

Class B UREX process raffinate waste.
Appendix A

A-38

Response: 

This comment seeks clarification regarding the disposal of UREX raffinate, a Class B 

radioactive waste. Table 19.2.5–1 in SHINE’s ER states that UREX raffinate would be 

generated as a Class B radioactive waste. However, as described in a letter dated 

October 1, 2015, SHINE indicated that UREX raffinate would be stored on site, during which 

time decay would occur. SHINE expects that sufficient decay would occur such that the waste 

would be classified as Class A waste and, at which point, SHINE would transport it to 

EnergySolutions (SHINE 2015d). See Section 2.7.1 of the EIS for a further description of 

SHINE’s radioactive waste processes.

The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in response to this comment. 

Comment 7-3:

There is reference in the dEIS to properly handling the low level mixed waste that is proposed to 

be generated. It should be noted that in January 2014, the Department communicated with 

SHINE related to this topic and SHINE was informed of the Department’s requirements.

Several times in the document, NR 460, Wisconsin Administrative Code, is referenced 

regarding hazardous waste and nonhazardous waste. See the following from the draft:

“In the State of Wisconsin, EPA has delegated the primary responsibility for implementing 

RCRA regulations to the State of Wisconsin. For example, Wisconsin Administrative Code

NR 460 addresses the identification; generation; minimization; transportation; and final 

treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste.”

This should be corrected to reference NR 660, Wisconsin Administrative Code (not NR 460) and 

the reference to nonhazardous waste should be deleted or should include that the 

nonhazardous Solid Waste General requirements are detailed in NR 500, Wisconsin 

Administrative Code.

Response:

This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. As suggested by the 

comment, the NRC revised the EIS to show that State of Wisconsin RCRA regulations are in 

NR 660 and that nonhazardous waste requirements are covered by NR 500.

A.2.12 Water Resources

Comment 4-18:

Page 3-29, Line 34: As described in Section 3.3.1 of the Preliminary Hydrological Analyses of 

the SHINE site, provided as Attachment 23 to Enclosure 1 of Reference (3) 

[SHINE 2013b], advective travel time analyses would be updated for the Preliminary 

Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) when a full year of groundwater monitoring data is 

available. Table 2.4-13 of the PSAR provides the SHINE estimate for advective travel 

time to the Rock River. Recommend revising the wording to state, “SHINE estimated 

that the expected travel time to the Rock River is 9.0 years.”

Response:

This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

discussion as suggested by the commenter and included the updated information from the 

preliminary safety analysis report, which is cited as SHINE 2015a in Section 3.4.2.1 of the final 

EIS.
Appendix A

A-39

Comment 4-35:

Page 4-21, Line 43: An estimate of the amount of water to be used for dust mitigation and 

suppression during construction was provided via Reference (3) [SHINE 2013b]. 

Recommend revising the reference citation from (SHINE 2013a) to (SHINE 2013b).

Response:

This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff corrected the 

reference citation to refer to SHINE’s response to RAIs, which is SHINE 2013 in Chapter 4 of 

the final EIS. 

Comment 4-36:

Page 4-23, Line 12: Figure 19.2.3-1 of the PSAR provides an average daily demand quantities 

for the SHINE facility, and those average values are not based on 5.5 days of water 

usage per week. Though a single irradiation cycle is 5.5 days, the SHINE facility will be 

in operation seven days per week. Recommend revising Note (a) of Table 4-11 to state, 

“Values are average daily demand. Conversions are rounded.”

Response:

This comment suggests a revision to clarify a statement in the EIS. The NRC staff revised the 

footnote as suggested. 

Comment 7-1:

Within the document, lines 40-42 of page 4-19 currently state that:

“This stormwater system would be designed to address the 1-year, 2-year, and 24-hour storm 

events per State regulations and the 10-year and 100-year events, as required by the City of 

Janesville (SHINE 2013a).”

The Department recommends that the storm water system design reference compliance with 

NR 151 and NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code instead of (or in addition to) the specific regulations. The 

peak discharge requirement (from various storm events) that is referenced is only one of the 

storm water requirements and there are other specific regulatory obligations that would need to 

be met (total suspended solids reduction & infiltration, for example). Additionally, referencing 

compliance with NR 151 and NR 216, Wis. Adm. Codes, incorporates both the Construction Site 

Storm Water Runoff permit and the Industrial Storm Water permit that are both required of this 

site. The sentence might be most simply re-worded to read, “The storm water system(s) shall 

be designed to comply with NR 151 and NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code and the City of Janesville’s 

requirements.”

Response: 

This comment discusses the conceptual design basis of SHINE’s proposed stormwater

management system, as described in its ER, and the appropriate State regulations that would 

be applicable to the SHINE project. Section 4.4.1.2 of the EIS discusses the applicability of 

Wisconsin NPDES permit requirements to the project, including the need for SHINE to obtain a 

Wisconsin General Permit for construction site stormwater runoff. Section 4.3.1 of the EIS also 

references compliance with NPDES permitting provisions and, specifically, the applicability of 

Wisconsin Administrative Codes NR 151 and NR 216. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS in 

response to this comment. 
Appendix A

A-40

A.2.13 Environmental Review Process

Comment 3-2: 

Our ground water is precious and our high quality land and dairy use is very important as well 

as the safety of our citizens. One of you sub- environmental agencies reported that it was not 

their duty to rule on the building permit process. That means the environmental component 

didn’t even investigate fully any of our concerns apparently.

Response: 

This comment suggests that an environmental agency does not review the building permit. The 

NRC staff conducts an environmental review for a construction permit application in accordance 

with its NEPA regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. In addition, SHINE is required to receive various 

permits and approvals from other Federal, State, and local agencies, some of which are 

intended to protect the environment. Appendix B of the EIS provides a summary of the other 

Federal, State, and local permits and approvals that would be required for SHINE to build and 

operate the proposed facility. The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment.

Comment 6-13: 

EPA continues to recommend clear and objective metrics or thresholds be identified for the 

three significance levels (SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE), particularly for where there are 

ranges.

Response: 

This comment recommends providing a clear and objective explanation of thresholds or metrics 

at which an impact will be defined as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, especially when the 

impact level is a range (e.g., SMALL to MODERATE). Impacts to resources affected by the 

proposed action and the various alternatives are defined in the Final Interim Staff Guidance 

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

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

Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors; and Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and 

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

Acceptance Criteria” (NRC 2012). The Final Interim Staff Guidance established a standard of 

significance for each environmental resource area based on the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) terminology for “significantly” (see 40 CFR 1508.27). Since the significance and 

severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, both “context” and 

“intensity,” as defined in CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1508.27, were considered. Context is the 

geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects will occur. In the case of the 

SHINE environmental review, the context is the environment surrounding the proposed or 

alternative site, and intensity refers to the severity of the impact in whatever context it occurs. 

Based on this, the NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts:

SMALL—environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of 

assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not 

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

MODERATE—environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, 

important attributes of the resource.

LARGE—environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important 

attributes of the resource.
Appendix A

A-41

These above definitions are in Section 1.4 of this EIS. The NRC staff also used the following 

definitions:

• Significance indicates the importance of likely environmental impacts and is

determined by considering two variables: context and intensity.

• Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects 

will occur.

• Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, in whatever context it occurs.

Ranges of impacts may be provided if environmental conditions are uncertain, or if there are 

multiple circumstances associated with environmental conditions surrounding the proposed or 

alternate sites. For example, at the proposed SHINE site, the potential impact on transportation 

during operations would range from SMALL to MODERATE. Most of the time, the impacts 

would be SMALL because of the relatively small increase in traffic as compared to the average 

daily and annual traffic flows near the proposed SHINE site and because 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, 

impacts would be MODERATE during periods of morning peak-hour traffic delays 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.

In response to this comment, the NRC staff revised Section 1.4 to better define “significance,” 

“context,” and “intensity.” In addition, the NRC staff revised the introduction to Section 4.0 to 

describe situations in which the NRC staff may use a range of impact levels. 

A.2.14 Opposition to the Proposed Facility

Comments 1-1, 1-3, and 3-4: 

1-1: I know two years ago I spoke on the same; for safety around the airport and everything 

else. I did talk to pilots going in and out of the airport, and they said this is the wrong place for 

this building to be put. They would hope the NRC would see to deny the building permit for this.

1-3: As a citizen of Janesville, I am saying no for the building permit to be issued to SHINE. 

I don’t care what the city official says; I’m speaking on behalf of a citizen of Janesville.

3-4: I feel that the location is not protected by sufficient safeguards when it is placed within the 

city limit of a city with 63,000 inhabitants, to say nothing about the dangers to our land and 

resources and so close to a busy airport and highways. Shine even admits that they need much 

more money to move forward. Any building permit should be delayed until much, much later to 

really determine the need for Shines production, especially at this site. It is the worst possible 

site for such an outdated dangerous process.

Also no permits should be issued until Shine has the money in hand before even moving an 

inch forward on this process. Any building permit would be premature. The NRC should face 

the facts and ask itself if this facility and location is really needed considering the modern 

advancement of technology that has been tested and has been proven to produce of Molly 99 

by a much safer method.

As a resident of this city, I therefore request that the NRC deny any building permit requested by 

Shine at this time and at this proposed location within the Janesville city limits. Especially 

because in my opinion this site is a very poor location and there are way too many all-around 

safety issues that have not been properly investigated or resolved and concerning the 
Appendix A

A-42

environment. It seemingly also lacks a great many safeguards at this location and because of 

outdated processes.

Response:

The above comments express opposition to the proposed SHINE facility. The commenters cite 

the potential for accidents—including those from an aircraft, potential siting issues due to the 

proximity of the City of Janesville, and general safety concerns—as reasons for their opposition.

These comments express general opposition to the SHINE facility or discuss safety-related 

concerns but provide no substantive information relevant to the environmental review. 

Therefore, these comments are outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the 

following information is provided to respond to portions of the comments related to in-scope 

topics, such as potential accidents.

Commenters expressed concerns regarding potential accidents from aircraft or other 

radiological exposures. Section 4.11 discusses the environmental impacts associated with 

potential radiological and hazardous chemical accidents that might occur at the proposed 

SHINE facility. The term “accident,” as used in this EIS, refers to any off-normal event that 

releases radioactive or hazardous chemicals into the environment that may affect facility 

workers and members of the public.

Potential initiating events and credible operational accidents for the proposed SHINE facility 

constitute the design-basis accidents. In its ER, SHINE considered the impacts of an aircraft 

collision as a design-basis accident. In Section 4.11, however, the NRC staff considers the 

potential impacts from the maximum hypothetical accident as the basis for the analysis of 

environmental impact from potential accidents at the proposed SHINE facility. The maximum 

hypothetical accident considers a potential accident that would result in the same or higher 

radiological exposures as a credible design-basis accident, such as an aircraft collision with the 

SHINE facility or another accident that could result in radioactive releases. Therefore, the 

analysis in this EIS considers the potential exposures from accidents that would result in the 

same or higher exposures as that from an aircraft collision. 

SHINE determined that the calculated doses for the maximum hypothetical accident at the 

proposed SHINE facility would be within the annual dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301 of 

100 millirem (1.0 millisievert) to a member of the public. Section 4.11 describes various ways in 

which SHINE would minimize radioactive releases in case of an accident. As described in 

Section 4.11, the NRC staff will complete a thorough independent review of the potential dose to 

the public from the maximum hypothetical accident. The NRC staff’s SER will document this 

independent evaluation. Assuming that the NRC staff determines, in its SER, that the 

hypothetical accident dose is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, the NRC staff concludes 

that the impacts from potential radiological accidents, including aircraft collisions, would be 

SMALL.

Also see the response to Comment 3-1 in A.2.15, “Out of Scope: Siting, Safety, and 

Emergency Planning.” The NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of these comments.

A.2.15 Out of Scope: Siting, Safety, and Emergency Planning

Comment 3-1: 

Why would the NRC allow the use of uranium based processes to produce Molly 99 within the 

city limits of a city with excess of 63,000 inhabitants. It was my understanding that the NRC 

once said that they prefer any uranium used in production or use should be beyond 10 miles 

from, densely populated areas or cities.
Appendix A

A-43

Why would the NRC allow this at this time when there are much safer production methods 

without using the kind of uranium that Shine proposes, such as North Star in Beloit, 10 miles 

away. There are other modern methods to meet the demand for Molly 99 without the dangers 

of contamination and accidents within our city limits. I thought the NRC was interested in safety 

and reducing the amount of uranium being used around the country instead of expanding the 

dangers everywhere by allowing it all over among populated areas.

Response:

This comment expresses concerns related to the siting of the SHINE facility and general safety 

concerns. This comment is outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the 

following information is provided as background regarding the safety review for the SHINE 

construction permit application.

The NRC staff will evaluate the geography and demography; nearby industrial, transportation, 

and military facilities; meteorology; hydrology; and geology, seismology, and geotechnical 

engineering related to the proposed SHINE site to ensure that the facility meets the regulatory 

occupational and public dose limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20. Chapter 2, “Site 

Characteristics,” of NUREG-1537, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the 

Licensing of Non Power Reactors,” Parts 1 and 2, provided the guidance for reviewing and 

evaluating the SHINE site characteristics, as described in the SHINE preliminary safety analysis 

report. “Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, ‘Guidelines for Preparing and 

Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors,’ for Licensing Radioisotope 

Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors,” Parts 1 and 2, provided relevant 

supplemental nonreactor guidance for reviewing the SHINE site characteristics.

The NRC staff will complete a thorough independent safety review that will be documented in 

the NRC staff’s SER. This review will include an assessment of impacts from radiological 

exposures to members of the public and onsite doses to facility workers. NRC’s review will 

evaluate whether the maximum dose to a member of the public during normal operations and 

during the maximum hypothetical accident would be within the limits defined in 10 CFR Part 20. 

The NRC would not issue the construction permit unless the NRC staff’s independent review 

verifies that the maximum dose to a member of the public during normal operations and during 

the maximum hypothetical accident would be within the limits defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The 

NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment.

Comment 6-7: 

The facility will produce more than 500,000 Curies per year of radioactive material. EPA

recognizes that the probability of an accident is low, given the type of technology used at the 

facility. However, given the large amount of radioactive material produced and since this is the 

first of its kind in the area, the section detailing accidents and response should be strengthened 

(Section 4.11 Accidents).

Recommendation: EPA recommends the Applicant provide additional details on accident 

preparedness plans. We recommend including reference to any agreements with local, state, or 

Federal emergency responders. We also recommend the Final EIS include details of public 

outreach specifically related to emergency response (such as handouts sent to adjacent 

property owners).

Response:

This comment expresses concerns regarding the level of detail provided in SHINE’s description 

of its emergency plan and a description of the emergency plan within the EIS. This comment is 

outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the following information is provided 
Appendix A

A-44

as background regarding the emergency planning review for the SHINE construction permit 

application.

With respect to emergency planning, NUREG-0849, Section 3.0, “Organization and 

Responsibilities,” Evaluation Items 1.a. and 1.c., state that the emergency plan should describe 

“[t]he functions as applicable to emergency planning of Federal, State, and local government 

agencies and the assistance that they would provide in the event of an emergency” and “[t]he 

arrangements and agreements, confirmed in writing with local support organizations that would 

augment and extend the capability of the facility's emergency organization.”

The NRC has reviewed SHINE’s preliminary emergency plan as required by 

10 CFR 50.34(a)(10) and described in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. 

The SHINE Preliminary Emergency Plan, Rev. 0, in Section 3.7, addresses arrangements and

agreements made with local support organizations that would augment and extend the 

capability of the facility’s emergency organization.

In response to an RAI issued by the NRC staff, SHINE stated the following in its 

October 15, 2014 (ADAMS No. ML14296A192) reply:

SHINE will provide letters of agreement made with local support 

organizations that would augment and extend the capability of the 

facility’s emergency organization with the SHINE Emergency Plan, which 

will be provided as part of the SHINE OL Application.

The NRC staff will evaluate the adequacy of these agreements during its review of the operating 

license application, if it is submitted to the NRC, and will detail those findings in its SER. The 

NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this comment.

Also see responses under Section A.2.1, Accidents, regarding the adequacy of the accidents

analysis in the EIS and additional analyses that will be conducted in the SER.

A.2.16 Out of Scope: Other

Comment 2-1: 

Building is only good for 35 years then has to go down. That will cost 7 to 10 percent more to 

put down this building.

Response:

This comment expresses concerns related to the adequacy of funds during decommissioning. 

This comment is outside the scope of the environmental review. However, the following 

information is provided as background regarding NRC’s role in verifying the financial viability of 

SHINE.

As described in Section 2.7, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, a licensed production or 

utilization facility that permanently ceases operations shall submit a decommissioning report. 

The regulation at 10 CFR 50.33(k) requires that an applicant for an operating license submit a

report to indicate how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to 

decommission the facility. 

Comment 6-8: 

The Draft EIS details the locations of permanent structures, buildings, and roads required for the 

facility, including an estimate of the type and amount of construction materials required. 

Structures and building includes an administrative building, water and fuel tanks, production 

facility, and other various support buildings. This site would also include an entrance road and 
Appendix A

A-45

parking lots. Overall, approximately 41 acres would be disturbed, of which 15 acres would be 

temporary.

EPA commends the Applicant for already identifying several ways to reduce environmental 

impacts, such as committing to conversion of unused, temporarily disturbed lands to native 

prairies. EPA has several recommendations regarding immediate site land use planning and 

green infrastructure. Please note that we are aware of NRC’s limited ability to include the 

following recommendations in the license; however, we find these measures to further reduce 

environmental impacts and would encourage the Applicant to incorporate them into site 

planning.

• The Final EIS should clarify to what extent the DOE (as a cooperating agency 

and prospective provider of funding to the Applicant under a cooperative 

agreement) would require energy efficiency measures, greenhouse gas

reductions, and other sustainability measures, per Executive Order 13693.

• Any locations on the site which are not planned for operations should be 

considered for conversion to native habitats, increasing the area which can 

be beneficially used for wildlife, infiltration or stormwater retention, and 

aesthetics, among other functions.

• The Final EIS should include more information on the sources of the required 

construction materials, as listed in Table 2–1 (Estimated Construction 

Material Requirements). Please outline whether this material can be made of 

second-sourced material (i.e., reclaimed aggregate). EPA understands there 

are specific safety codes that may prevent this; however, we recommend that 

any auxiliary buildings, new roads, and other non-safety related structures be 

constructed with materials that are recycled, if possible. If you need more 

information about this, please see our website about environmentally 

responsible purchasing at www.epa.gov/epp.

• Any roads, parking lots, sidewalks, or other surfaces slated for driving or 

walking should be constructed using permeable pavement to reduce runoff.

• EPA recommends staggering construction schedules of the new facilities so 

that no additional undisturbed land is permanently disturbed. This could 

mean having one temporary laydown area (that is ultimately slated for a 

permanent use) serving the construction of new permanent facilities.

• EPA encourages the Applicant to construct all buildings to Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. If LEED standards are 

pursued, this information should be included in the Final EIS. Any potential 

use of Energy Star appliances, EPA’s WaterSense program, or other similar 

programs should be identified in the Final EIS. In lieu of including this 

commitment in the license, the Applicant should report to EPA once these 

measures have been implemented, if applicable.
Appendix A

A-46

Response:

This comment recommends ways that the applicant could mitigate impacts by using green 

infrastructure and modifying site planning, construction, and operational methods. The NRC

does not have the authority to require these mitigation measures. The NRC staff has forwarded 

the recommendations to the applicant. In response to this comment, the NRC staff added the 

recommended mitigations to Section 6.3.1 in the EIS.

This comment also recommends that the final EIS clarify to what extent the DOE would require 

energy efficiency measures, greenhouse gas reductions, and other sustainability measures, per 

Executive Order 13693. The DOE would not require any of the measures described in the 

comment. The SHINE facility would be considered a non-Federal facility, and is therefore not 

subject to such Federal facility requirements.

A.2.17 Editorial

Comments 4-1, 4-5, 4-12, 4-20, 4-23, 4-25, 4-26, 4-29, 4-31, 4-38, 4-41, 4-44, 4-48, 4-50, 

and 4-55: 

4-1:

Page 1-3, Line 36: A single value of 5,000 6-day curies (Ci) is converted to two values of 6-day 

becquerels (Bq) (2x1014 and 3x1014). Recommend removing the 3x1014 6-day Bq value.

Page 1-3, Line 44: The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 appears to have 

been incorporated into Section 2065 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, not Section 3171. 

Subpart F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which includes 

Section 3171, describes the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 

Recommend revising the U.S. Code reference to 42 U.S.C. 2065, consistent with 

Section 2.7.1.2, Section 4.9.1, and Section 4.13.9.

Page 1-8, Line 4: The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 appears to have been 

incorporated into Section 2065 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, not Section 3171. Subpart F 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which includes 

Section 3171, describes the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 

Recommend revising the U.S. Code reference to 42 U.S.C. 2065, consistent with 

Section 2.7.1.2, Section 4.9.1, and Section 4.13.9.

4-5:

Page 2-8, Line 5: Typographical error. Recommend replacing “An individual irradiation unit 

would comprise...” with “An individual irradiation unit would be comprised of...”.

4-12: 

Page 2-13, Line 38: Typographical error. Recommend replacing “Ordiance” with “Ordinance”.

Page 2-14, Line 3: Typographical error. Recommend replacing “Ordiance” with “Ordinance”.

4-20:

Page 3-33, Line 1: The scientific name of the northern cardinal is “Cardinalis cardinalis” and the 

scientific name of the striped skunk is “Mephitis mephitis.” Recommend revising 

Table 3-8 accordingly.

Page 3-37, Line 41: Recommend revising the wording “Given the available information, the 

NRC staff concludes that no Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species is unlikely 

to occur within the action area.” to “Given the available information, the NRC staff 
Appendix A

A-47

concludes that no Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species is likely to occur 

within the action area.”

4-23:

Page 4-1, Line 26: Typographical error. Recommend replacing “describe” with “described in”.

4-25:

Page 4-2, Line 30: The total value of temporarily disturbed land in Table 4-1 does not account 

for the 0.62 ac. of off-site land. Recommend revising the total value of disturbed land to 

15.16 ac. (6.13 ha.).

4-26:

Page 4-6, Line 9: Typographical error in the words “Semi Tractor” in the equipment listing 

provided in Table 4-2.

4-29:

Page 4-8, Line 34: Section 4.14 does not contain a reference for (SHINE 2013). Recommend 

revising the citation to (SHINE 2013b), which provided measures to minimize emissions

due to worker vehicles.

Page 4-9, Line 31: Typographical error. Recommend replacing “construction” with “operations.”

Page 4-11, Line 3: Typographical error. Recommend replacing “Version 123145” with 

“Version 12345.”

4-31:

Page 4-13, Line 31: Typographical error in the Total Activity for the Backhoe/Loader Cat 430. 

Recommend revising the Total Activity to 3,542 hours.

Page 4-13, Line 31: Typographical error in the Total Activity for the Pickup Truck F-250. 

Recommend revising the Total Activity to 9,583 hours.

4-38:

Page 4-28, Line 19: Per the NRC’s response to Comment 02-1 in Section A.1.6 of Appendix A, 

the last attempt to contact the Forest County Potawatomi was in February 2015. 

Recommend revising accordingly.

4-41:

Page 4-37, Line 31: A description of the Chemical Hygiene Plan was provided via 

Reference (3) [SHINE 2013, ML13303A887]. Recommend revising the reference 

citation from (SHINE 2013a) to (SHINE 2013b).

Page 4-37, Line 38: A description of the Chemical Hygiene Plan was provided via 

Reference (3) [SHINE 2013, ML13303A887]. Recommend revising the reference 

citation from (SHINE 2013a) to (SHINE 2013b).

Page 4-37, Line 45: A description of the Chemical Hygiene Plan was provided via 

Reference (3) [SHINE 2013, ML13303A887]. Recommend revising the reference 

citation from (SHINE 2013a) to (SHINE 2013b).

4-44:

Page 4-42, Line 40: Table 3-21 provides average daily traffic counts in the vicinity of the 

proposed SHINE facility. Recommend revising the table reference from Table 3-14 to 

Table 3-21.
Appendix A

A-48

Page 4-46, Line 2: Recommend removing underline from the text.

Page 4-46, Line 3: Recommend removing underline from the text.

4-48:

Page 4-70, Line 17: Section 4.14 does not contain a reference for (SHINE 2013). Recommend 

revising the citation to (SHINE 2013a).

Page 5-10, Line 9: Typographical error in the total acreage within a five mile radius of the 

SHINE site provided in Table 5-2. Recommend revising the total acreage within a five 

mile radius of the SHINE site from “50,2645 ac” to “50,265 ac”.

Page 5-20, Line 39: Typographical error. Recommend replacing “common cottontail” with 

“common cattail”.

Page 5-65, Line 21: Recommend removing underline from the text of both plants in Table 5-11.

4-50:

Page 5-77, Line 32: The Stevens Point site is located in Census Tract 9607.02, not Census 

Tract 9607.2. Recommend revising accordingly.

Page 5-81, Line 33: The Stevens Point site is located in Census Tract 9607.02, not Census 

Tract 9607.2. Recommend revising accordingly.

4-55:

Page A–17, Line 21: The American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012 appears to have 

been incorporated into Section 2065 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, not Section 3171. 

Subpart F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which includes 

Section 3171, describes the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 

Recommend revising the U.S. Code reference to 42 U.S.C. 2065, consistent with 

Section 2.7.1.2, Section 4.9.1, and Section 4.13.9.

Response:

These comments recommend editorial changes to the EIS. The NRC staff incorporated all the 

revisions into the EIS. All changes to the EIS text can be identified by change bars in the 

margin of each page.

Comment 6-12: 

To facilitate the review, EPA continues to recommend figures be provided in color, where 

appropriate and where color gradient is used in analyzing the information.

Response:

This comment recommends that the NRC provide figures in color. No substantive information 

was provided. The NRC staff did not make this editorial change because the electronic version 

of the EIS contains color figures. Further, the use of black, white, and gray scale is in 

accordance with NRC’s guidance for preparing documents such as the EIS in NUREG-0650, 

“Preparing NUREG-Series Publications,” and because the use of color printing is significantly 

more expensive than black and white, NRC staff did not revise the EIS as a result of this 

comment.

A.3 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

protection against radiation.”
Appendix A

A-49

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

production and utilization facilities.”

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800, “Protection of historic properties.”

46 FR 18026. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning the CEQ’s [Council on Environmental 

Quality's] National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. Federal Register

46(55):18026-18028. March 23, 1981. 

61 FR 68972. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “National Emission Standards for 

Radionuclide Emissions From Facilities Licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 

Federal Facilities not Covered by Subpart H [Final rule].” Federal 

Register 61(251):68972-68981. December 30, 1996.

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

[Intent to prepare environmental impact statement and conduct scoping process; public 

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

80 FR 27710. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Construction Permit Application for the 

SHINE Medical Radioisotope Production Facility [Draft environmental impact statement; public 

meetings and request for comment].” Federal Register 80(93):27710-27711. May 14, 2015.

80 FR 29701. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Environmental Impact Statements; 

Notice of Availability.” Federal Register 80(99):29701-29702. May 22, 2015.

American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012. 42 U.S.C. §2065 et seq.

Badger Reuse Committee. 2001. Final Report on the Work of the Badger Reuse Committee 

including Values, Criteria, and Concept Plan Map for the Reuse of the Badger Army Ammunition 

Plant Property. March 28, 2001. Available at 

<https://www.co.sauk.wi.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/baap-finalreport.pdf> (accessed 

16 July 2015). 

Forest County Potawatomi. 2013. Letter from Cook M, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, to 

Wong MC, NRC. Subject: Request for scoping comments concerning the SHINE Medical 

Technologies radioisotope production facility. July 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13224A164.

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

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

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.

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

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

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

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

Acceptance Criteria,” for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous 

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

Nos. ML12156A069 and ML12156A075.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. “Approval of Memorandum of Agreement 

between DOE and NRC on the Environmental Review Related to the Issuance of Authorizations 

to Construct Build and Operate SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.” Washington, DC: NRC.

February 3, 2015. ADAMS No. ML13304B666.
Appendix A

A-50

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

(PSAR): Chapter 13, “Accident Analysis,” and Chapter 19, “Environmental Review.” Monona, 

WI: SHINE. March 26, 2013, and May 31, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13172A324.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2013b. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

Information. November 19, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13303A887. 

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2014. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information.

October 15, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14296A189.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015a. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 

(PSAR): Chapter 13, “Accident Analysis,” and Chapter 19, “Environmental Review.” Monona, 

WI: SHINE. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A274.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015b. Letter from Vann Bynum R, SHINE, to 

NRC, Document Control Desk. Subject: SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for 

Construction Permit, Revision to Sections 13b.3 and 19.4 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis 

Report. June 16, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15175A131.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015c. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional 

Information. February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A395.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015d. Letter from Piefer G, SHINE, to NRC, 

Document Control Desk. Subject: SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for 

Construction Permit, Description of the SHINE Process for Preparing Consolidated Liquid 

Waste Streams for Disposal as Class A Waste. October 1, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15274A539.

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 216. Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System Chapter NR 216. Storm Water Discharge Requirements. 

Revised April 2013. Available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/toc/nr> (accessed 

3 January 2013).

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 405. Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

July 2014. Available at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/405.pdf>.

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 406. Construction Permits. March 2014. Available 

at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/406.pdf>.

[WAC] Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 407. Operation Permits. February 2014. Available 

at <http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/400/407.pdf>.

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Construction Site Storm Water 

Permit Overview. Web page updated November 12, 2013. Available at 

<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Stormwater/construction/overview.html> (accessed 3 January 2013).

[WDNR] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. Letter from Heggelund E, 

WDNR Environmental Analysis and Review Specialist, to Moser M, NRC Environmental Project 

Manager. Subject: WDNR Comments for the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental 

Impact Statement and Scoping for SHINE Medical Technologies Radioisotope Production 

Facility. February 7, 2014. ADAMS No. ML14045A298.
APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS

B-1

B. APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER 

REQUIREMENTS

A number of Federal laws and regulations affect environmental protection, health, safety, 

compliance, and consultation at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed facilities. 

Certain Federal environmental requirements have been delegated to State authorities for 

enforcement and implementation. Furthermore, States have enacted laws to protect public 

health and safety and the environment. It is the agency’s policy to ensure that NRC-licensed 

facilities are operated in a manner that provides adequate protection of public health and safety 

and of the environment through compliance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, 

and other requirements.

The requirements that may be applicable to the operation of NRC-licensed facilities encompass 

a broad range of Federal laws and regulations that address environmental, historical and 

cultural, health and safety, transportation, and other concerns. Generally, these laws and 

regulations relate to how a facility would conduct the work involved in performing a proposed 

action to protect workers, the public, and environmental resources. Some of these laws and 

regulations require permits or consultation with other Federal agencies or State, Tribal, or local 

governments.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), authorizes the 

NRC to enter into agreement with any State to assume regulatory authority for certain activities 

(42 U.S.C. 2021). The NRC and the Governor of Wisconsin signed an agreement transferring 

NRC regulatory authority over byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials (in quantities 

not sufficient to form a critical mass) to the State of Wisconsin, which became the 33rd

Agreement State, effective August 11, 2003. As an Agreement State, the Wisconsin 

Department of Health Services is responsible for licensing and inspecting the above-named 

materials, except at nuclear power plants and Federal facilities (WDHS 2014).

In addition to carrying out some Federal programs, State legislatures develop their own laws. 

State statutes supplement, as well as implement, Federal laws for the protection of air, water 

quality, and groundwater. State legislation may address solid waste management programs, 

locally rare or endangered species, and historical and cultural resources.

The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., herein referred to as CWA), 

allows for primary enforcement and administration through State agencies, given that the State 

program is at least as stringent as the Federal program. The State program must conform to 

the CWA and to the delegation of authority for the Federal National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) program from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

the State. The primary mechanism to control water pollution is the requirement for direct 

dischargers to obtain an NPDES permit or a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

permit, when the authority has been delegated from the EPA, under the CWA, as is the case for 

Wisconsin.

One important difference between Federal regulations and certain State regulations is the 

definition of waters regulated by the State. Certain State regulations may include underground 

waters, whereas the CWA only regulates surface waters.

B.1 Federal, State, and Local Requirements

Construction and operation of the SHINE facility would be subject to Federal, State, and local

requirements. Tables B–1, B–2, and B–3 identify the principal Federal, State, county, and city
Appendix B

B-2

environmental regulatory requirements that may be applicable to the proposed SHINE Medical 

Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility) or the 

alternative sites. Along with each regulatory requirement is a brief description. The 

requirements are organized into categories, such as general requirements, water resources, 

and pollution prevention.

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.
Appendix B

B-3

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.
Appendix B

B-4

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
Appendix B

B-5

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.
Appendix B

B-6

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.

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.
Appendix B

B-7

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.
Appendix B

B-8

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.

B.2 Operating permits and other requirements

Table B–4 lists the permits and licenses that SHINE plans to obtain from Federal, State, and 

local authorities to construct and operate the SHINE facility.
Appendix B

B-9

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.
Appendix B

B-10

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 CWA; 

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 CWA; 

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.
Appendix B

B-11

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.
Appendix B

B-12

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.
Appendix B

B-13

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

B.3 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

protection against radiation.”

10 CFR Part 30. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 30, “Rules of general 

applicability to domestic licensing of byproduct material.”

10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, “Domestic licensing of 

source material.”

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

production and utilization facilities.”

10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, “Domestic licensing of 

special nuclear material.”
Appendix B

B-14

14 CFR Part 77. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Aeronautics and Space, Part 77, “Safe, 

efficient use, and preservation of the navigable airspace.”

29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational 

safety and health standards.”

29 CFR Part 1960. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1960, “Basic program 

elements for federal employee occupational safety and health programs and related matters.”

33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

Part 320, “General regulatory policies.”

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800, “Protection of historic properties.”

40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, 

“National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards.”

40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112, 

“Oil pollution prevention.”

40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, 

“EPA administered permit programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.”

40 CFR Part 260. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 260, 

“Hazardous Waste Management System: General.”

49 CFR Part 107. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 107, “Hazardous 

materials program procedures.”

59 FR 7629. Executive Order No. 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register 59(32):7629–7633. 

February 16, 1994.

60 FR 6381. Executive Order No. 12948. “Amendment to Executive Order No. 12898.” 

Federal Register 60(21):6381. February 1, 1995.

62 FR 19885. Executive Order No. 13045. “Protection of Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks.” Federal Register 62(78):19885–19888. April 21, 1997.

69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal 

Register 69(163):52040–52048. August 24, 2004.

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

Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.

Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq.

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

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §5801 et seq.

[FAA] Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-1, “Notice of Proposed Construction or 

alteration.” February 1, 2012.

[FAA] Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-2, “Supplemental Notice.” July 1, 1998.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq.
Appendix B

B-15

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §661 et seq.

Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1975, as amended. 49 U.S.C. §5101 et seq.

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 

16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.

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

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.

Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4901 et seq.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. 29 U.S.C. §651.

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C. §13101 et seq.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.

[SHINE] SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 2015. SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. 

Application for Construction Permit Response to Request for Additional Information. 

February 6, 2015. ADAMS No. ML15043A404.

[WDHS] Wisconsin Department of Health Services. “Radiation Protection.” 2014. Available at 

<http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/radiation> (accessed 12 August 2014).

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1271 et seq.

CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE

C-1

C. CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

CORRESPONDENCE

This appendix, along with Appendix D, contains a chronological listing of correspondence 

between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and external parties as part of its 

environmental review for the SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc. (SHINE), Medical Radioisotope 

Production Facility (SHINE facility). Appendix D contains the chronological listing of 

consultation correspondence associated with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(16 U.S.C. 1531) and the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1801–1884). Appendix C contains all other correspondence.

All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information, are available 

electronically in the NRC’s Library, which is found on the Internet at the following Web address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain access to the NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 

image files of the agency’s public documents. The following list includes the ADAMS number 

for each document. If you need assistance in accessing or searching in ADAMS, contact the 

Public Document Room Staff at 1-800-397-4209.

C.1 Environmental Review Correspondence

Table C–1 lists the environmental review correspondence in date order, beginning with the 

request by SHINE to construct the SHINE facility.

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
Appendix C

C-2

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
Appendix C

C-3

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
Appendix C

C-4

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

May 8, 2015 NRC letter to SHINE, Notice of Availability of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement

ML15105A335

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15107A465

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

ML15107A403
Appendix C

C-5

Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No.

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Wisconsin Historical Society, Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15107A183

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Prairie Island Indian Community, Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 

Indians, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, 

Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, 

Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South 

Dakota, Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Forest County Potawatomi Community, 

Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Hannahville Indian Community, Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Sac and Fox Nation, Notice of Availability of 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Lower Sioux Indian Community, Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Santee Sioux Nation, Notice of Availability of 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake 

Traverse Reservation, Notice of Availability of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Spirit Lake Tribe, Notice of Availability of the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Upper Sioux Community, Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Notice 

of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 NRC letter to Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ML15118A820

May 14, 2015 FRN for Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

ML15105A291

May 18, 2015 Meeting Notice for the Public Meeting on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement

ML15138A271

June 9, 2015 Comment from Logan Pappenfort, Peoria Tribe of Indians 

of Oklahoma

ML15175A169
Appendix C

C-6

Date Correspondence Description ADAMS No.

June 10, 2015 Comment from Bill McCoy ML15188A088

June 16, 2015 Comment from R. Vann Bynum, SHINE Medical 

Technologies, Inc. 

ML15182A117

June 16, 2015 SHINE letter to NRC, Response to Requests for 

Additional Information for the SHINE Radioisotope 

Production Construction Permit Review

ML15175A131

June 17, 2015 Comment by Al Lembrich ML15188A089

June 26, 2015 Comment by Leslie Eisenberg, Wisconsin Historical 

Society

ML15191A323

July 1, 2015 Meeting Summary for the Public Meeting on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement

ML15170A262

July 2, 2015 Comment by Kenneth Westlake, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

ML15201A575

July 2, 2015 Comment by Laura Bub, Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources

ML15189A069

July 6, 2015 Comment by Lindy Nelson, U.S. Department of Interior 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

ML15191A322
CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE

D-1

D. CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE

D.1 Section 7 Consultation

D.1.1 Federal Agency Obligations Under ESA Section 7

As a Federal agency, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must comply with the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1531 et seq.; 

herein referred to as ESA), as part of any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency, such as the proposed agency action that this environmental impact statement (EIS) 

evaluates: whether to issue a construction permit under 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow 

construction of the SHINE medical radioisotope production facility (SHINE facility). Under 

section 7 of the ESA, the NRC must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (referred to jointly as “the Services” and 

individually as “Service”), as appropriate, to ensure that the proposed agency action is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

The ESA and the regulations that implement ESA section 7, 50 CFR Part 402, “Interagency 

cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,” describe the consultation 

process that Federal agencies must follow in support of agency actions. As part of this process, 

the Federal agency shall either request that the Services provide a list of any listed or proposed 

species or designated or proposed critical habitats that may be present in the action area or 

request that the Services concur with a list of species and critical habitats that the Federal 

agency has created (50 CFR 402.12(c)). If it is determined that any such species or critical 

habitats may be present, the Federal agency is to prepare a biological assessment to evaluate 

the potential effects of the action and determine whether the species or critical habitat are likely 

to be adversely affected by the action (50 CFR 402.12(a); 16 U.S.C. 1536(c)). Furthermore, 

biological assessments are required for any agency action that is a “major construction activity” 

(50 CFR 402.12(b)), which the ESA regulations define to include major Federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; herein referred to as NEPA)

(50 CFR 402.02).

Federal agencies may fulfill their obligations to consult with the Services under ESA section 7 

and to prepare a biological assessment in conjunction with the interagency cooperation 

procedures required by other statutes, including NEPA (50 CFR 402.06(a)). In such cases, the 

Federal agency should include the results of the ESA section 7 consultation in the NEPA 

document (50 CFR 402.06(b)). Accordingly, Section D.1.2 describes the biological assessment 

prepared for the proposed agency action evaluated in this EIS, and Section D.1.3 describes the 

chronology and results of the ESA section 7 consultation.

D.1.2 Biological Assessment

The NRC considers this EIS to fulfill its obligation to prepare a biological assessment under ESA

section 7. Accordingly, the NRC did not prepare a separate biological assessment for the 

proposed SHINE facility construction permit.

Although the contents of a biological assessment are at the discretion of the Federal agency 

(50 CFR 402.12(f)), the ESA regulations suggest information that agencies may consider for 

inclusion. The NRC has considered this information in the following EIS sections.
Appendix D

D-2

Section 3.5 describes the action area and the Federally listed and proposed species and 

designated and proposed critical habitat that have the potential to be present in the action area. 

This section includes information pursuant to 50 CFR 402.12(f)(1), (2), and (3).

Section 4.5 provides an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed construction, 

operations, and decommissioning of the SHINE facility on the species and critical habitat

present and the NRC’s effect determinations, which are consistent with those identified in 

Section 3.5 of the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1998). The 

NRC also addresses cumulative effects and alternatives to the proposed action. This section

includes information under 50 CFR 402.12(f)(4) and (5).

D.1.3 Chronology of ESA Section 7 Consultation

Upon receipt of SHINE’s construction permit application, the NRC staff considered whether any 

Federally listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitats may be present 

in the action area (as defined at 50 CFR 402.02) for the proposed construction, operations, and 

decommissioning. No species under the NMFS’s jurisdiction occur within the action area. 

Therefore, the NRC staff did not consult with the NMFS. With respect to species under the 

FWS’s jurisdiction, the NRC staff requested information from FWS on Federally listed, 

proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of the SHINE site 

and the two alternative sites, in accordance with the ESA section 7 regulations at 

50 CFR 402.12(c) in a letter dated July 1, 2013. The FWS responded to the NRC staff’s 

request in a letter dated August 15, 2013, and stated that “no Federally-listed, proposed, or 

candidate species would be expected within the project area. No critical habitat is present. If

any construction is to take place within these two sites, there is no need for further action as 

required by the 1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended.” In Section 3.5, the NRC staff 

concludes that no ESA-protected species or critical habitats occur in the action area, and 

Section 4.5 concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on any ESA-protected 

species or critical habitats. The FWS (2013) does not typically provide its concurrence with “no 

effect” determinations by Federal agencies. Thus, the ESA does not require further informal 

consultation or the initiation of formal consultation with the FWS for the proposed SHINE 

construction permit. Nonetheless, because this EIS constitutes the NRC’s biological 

assessment, the NRC staff submitted a copy of the draft EIS to the FWS for its review in 

accordance with 50 CFR 402.12(j) in a letter dated May 13, 2015. In response, the 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance stated that 

the DOI has no comments on the draft EIS. Accordingly, the NRC has fulfilled its obligations 

under ESA section 7 for the review of SHINE’s construction permit.

Table D–1. lists the letters, e-mails, and other correspondence related to the NRC’s ESA

obligations with respect to its review of the SHINE construction permit application.
Appendix D

D-3

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

May 13, 2015 D. Wrona (NRC) to 

P. Fasbender (FWS)

and T. Melius (FWS)

Availability of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Construction 

Permit for the Proposed SHINE Medical 

Radioisotope Production Facility, and the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

Determination that the Proposed Action 

Would Have No Effect on Federally Listed 

or Proposed Species or Critical Habitats

ML15107A465

July 6, 2015 L. Nelson (DOI) to 

C. Bladey (NRC)

DOI Comments of the Draft EIS ML15191A322

(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/.

D.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation

The NRC must comply with the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., herein referred to as MSA), for any actions 

authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that 

may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under the MSA.

In Section 3.5 of this EIS, the NRC staff concludes that NMFS has not designated essential fish 

habitat under the MSA in the Rock River and that the proposed SHINE construction permit 

would have no effect on essential fish habitat. Thus, the MSA does not require the NRC to 

consult with NMFS for the proposed SHINE construction permit.

D.3 Section 106 Consultation

D.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., herein 

referred to as NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on 

historic properties and consult with applicable State and Federal agencies, tribal groups, and 

individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking before taking 

action. Historic properties are defined as resources eligible for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places. The historic preservation review process (NHPA, Section 106) is outlined in 

regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 36 CFR Part 800. 

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC has elected to use the NEPA process to comply 

with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA.
Appendix D

D-4

Table D–2. lists the chronology of consultations and consultation documents related to the NRC

Section 106 review. The NRC staff is required to consult with the noted agencies and 

organizations in accordance with the statutes listed above.

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
Appendix D

D-5

Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS No.(a)

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

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

May 13, 2015 D. Wrona (NRC) to Tribal 

Nations recipients of 

request for scoping

comments/notification of 

Section 106 review letter 

Request for DSEIS comments ML15118A820

May 13, 2015 D. Wrona (NRC) to 

R. Nelson (ACHP)

Request for DSEIS comments ML15107A403

May 13, 2015 D. Wrona (NRC) to 

E. Brown, Wisconsin 

Historical Society

Request for DSEIS comments ML15107A183

June 9, 2015 L. Pappenfort, Peoria 

Tribe of Indians of 

Oklahoma to C. Bladey 

(NRC)

Letter indicating no known linkage or 

association with the proposed project 

location.

ML15175A169

June 26, 2015 L. Eisenberg, Wisconsin 

Historical Society to 

C. Bladey (NRC)

Wisconsin State Historic Preservation 

Office documentation of No Historic 

Properties determination

ML15191A323

(a) These documents can be accessed through ADAMS at http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/.

D.4 References

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

production and utilization facilities.”
Appendix D

D-6

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800, “Protection of historic properties.”

50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, 

“Interagency cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.”

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

[FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. “Endangered Species Program: What We Do: 

Consultations: Frequently Asked Questions.” July 15, 2013. Available at 

<http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/faq.html#8> (accessed 5 June 2014).

[FWS and NMFS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. 

Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and 

Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. March 1998. 315 p. 

Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf>

(accessed 8 July 2013).

[MSA] Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 

16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.

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

[NHPA] National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.




NUREG-2183

Final

Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the SHINE 

Medical Radioisotope Production Facility