NUREG-1815, Vol. 1 

 

Environmental Impact

Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP)

at the Exelon ESP Site

Final Report

Main Report

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, DC 20555-0001
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 Public Electronic Reading Room at

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

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

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

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402–0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161–0002

 www.ntis.gov 

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

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: Office of Administration, 

 Reproduction and Distribution 

 Services Section,

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address

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

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

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

the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and 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 contractor-prepared 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).
 

 

 NUREG-1815, Vol. 1

Environmental Impact

Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP)

at the Exelon ESP Site

Final Report

Main Report

Manuscript Completed: July 2006

Date Published: July 2006

Division of New Reactor Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

July 2006 iii NUREG-1815

Abstract

This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to an application

submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Exelon Generation Company,

LLC (Exelon) for an early site permit (ESP). The proposed action requested in Exelon’s

application is for the NRC to (1) approve a site within the existing Clinton Power Station (CPS)

boundaries as suitable for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power generating

facility and (2) issue an ESP for the proposed site identified as the Exelon ESP site located

adjacent to the CPS. In its application, Exelon proposes a plan for redressing the

environmental effects of certain site-preparation and construction activities, i.e., those activities

allowed by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50.10(e)(1), performed by an ESP

holder under 10 CFR 52.25. In accordance with the plan, the site would be redressed if the

NRC issues the requested ESP (containing the site redress plan), the ESP holder performs

these site-preparation and construction activities, the ESP is not referenced in an application for

a construction permit or combined operating license, and no alternative use is found for the site. 

This EIS includes the NRC staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts

of constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site or at alternative sites,

and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes

the staff’s recommendation to the Commission regarding the proposed action.

The staff’s recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the |

proposed action is that the ESP should be issued. The staff’s evaluation of the site safety and

emergency preparedness aspects of the proposed action have been addressed in the staff’s

final safety evaluation report dated February 17, 2006. |

This recommendation is based on (1) the application, including the Environmental Report (ER),

submitted by Exelon; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the

staff’s independent review; (4) the staff’s consideration of comments related to the

environmental review that were received during the public scoping process and on the draft EIS; |

and (5) the assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential mitigation measures

identified in the ER and this EIS. In addition, in making its recommendation, the staff

determined that there are no environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites. Finally, the

staff has concluded that the site-preparation and construction activities allowed by 10 CFR

50.10(e)(1) requested by Exelon in its application would not result in any significant adverse

environmental impact that cannot be redressed.

Contents

July 2006 v NUREG-1815

Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii

Abbreviations/Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxi

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

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

1.1.1 Plant Parameter Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1.1.2 Site-Preparation and Preliminary Construction Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1.1.3 ESP Application and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.2 The Proposed Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.5 Compliance and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.6 Report Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

2.0 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.2 Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.2.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

2.2.3 The Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
Contents

NUREG-1815 vi July 2006

2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2.3.1 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

2.3.1.1 Wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

2.3.1.2 Atmospheric Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

2.3.1.3 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

2.3.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

2.3.1.5 Severe Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

2.3.2 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

2.3.3 Meteorological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

2.4 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

2.5 Radiological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

2.6 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

2.6.1 Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

2.6.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

2.6.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22

2.6.1.3 Hydrological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22

2.6.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2.6.2.1 Surface-Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2.6.2.2 Groundwater Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

2.6.3 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

2.6.3.1 Surface-Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

2.6.3.2 Groundwater Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

2.6.3.3 Thermal Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

2.6.3.4 Chemical Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
Contents

July 2006 vii NUREG-1815

2.7 Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

2.7.1.1 Terrestrial Communities of the Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

2.7.1.2 Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

2.7.1.3 Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34

2.7.2.1 Aquatic Communities of the Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34

2.7.2.2 Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39

2.7.2.3 Aquatic Ecology Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39

2.8 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-41

2.8.1 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42

2.8.1.1 Transient Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44

2.8.1.2 Migrant Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45

2.8.2 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45

2.8.2.1 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46

2.8.2.2 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-55

2.8.2.3 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57

2.8.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-58

2.8.2.5 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-58

2.8.2.6 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60

2.8.2.7 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-64

2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-66

2.9.1 Cultural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-66

2.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-67

2.9.3 Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-69

2.10 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-70

2.11 Related Federal Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-72

2.12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-75
Contents

NUREG-1815 viii July 2006

3.0 Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.2 Plant Parameter Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.2.1 Plant Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.2.1.1 Plant Water Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.2.1.2 Plant Water Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.2.2 Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.2.2.1 Description and Operational Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.2.2.2 Component Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

3.2.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.2.4.1 Effluents Containing Chemicals or Biocides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.2.4.2 Sanitary System Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.2.4.3 Other Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12

3.3 Power Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12

3.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14

4.0 Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Land-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

4.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.2.1 Construction Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.2.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
Contents

July 2006 ix NUREG-1815

4.3 Water-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

4.3.1 Hydrological Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

4.3.2 Water-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.3.3 Water Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.4 Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.4.1.1 Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

4.4.1.2 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

4.4.1.3 Terrestrial Ecosystem Impact Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

4.4.2 Aquatic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

4.4.3 Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

4.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

4.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

4.5.1.2 Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

4.5.1.3 Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

4.5.1.4 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

4.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

4.5.3 Impacts to the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

4.5.3.1 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

4.5.3.2 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27

4.5.3.3 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29

4.5.3.4 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31

4.5.3.5 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32

4.5.3.6 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33

4.5.3.7 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38
Contents

NUREG-1815 x July 2006

4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38

4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39

4.8.2 Noise Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

4.8.3 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

4.9 Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

4.9.4 Total Dose to Site-Preparation Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Site-Preparation 

Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45

4.11 Site Redress Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45

4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48

4.13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48

5.0 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 Land-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.2.1 Cooling Tower Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.2.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.2.3 Transmission Line Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.3 Water-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.3.1 Hydrological Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.3.2 Water-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.3.3 Water Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
Contents

July 2006 xi NUREG-1815

5.4 Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

5.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

5.4.1.1 Cooling Tower Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

5.4.1.2 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

5.4.1.3 Shoreline Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

5.4.1.4 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12

5.4.1.5 Impacts of Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna 

 (Plants, Agricultural Crops, Honeybees, Wildlife, Livestock) . . . 5-13

5.4.1.6 Floodplains and Wetlands on Transmission Line 

 Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13

5.4.1.7 Summary of Terrestrial Ecosystems Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

5.4.2.1 Water Intake and Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

5.4.2.2 Water Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

5.4.2.3 Summary of Aquatic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-23

5.4.3 Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24

5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-27

5.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-27

5.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-27

5.5.1.2 Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29

5.5.1.3 Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-30

5.5.1.4 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-30

5.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-31

5.5.3 Impacts to the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-32

5.5.3.1 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-32

5.5.3.2 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-33

5.5.3.3 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-36

5.5.3.4 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-36

5.5.3.5 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-38

5.5.3.6 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-39

5.5.3.7 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-41
Contents

NUREG-1815 xii July 2006

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-42

5.7 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-43

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-44

5.8.1 Thermophilic Microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-44

5.8.2 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-44

5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-45

5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-46

5.8.5 Occupational Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-47

5.8.6 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-47

5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-47

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-48

5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-50

5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-51

5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-51

5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-53

5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-53

5.9.3.2 Population Dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-55

5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts to Members of 

 the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-56

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-56

5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-57

5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-57

5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-58

5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Biota Doses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-59

5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-59
Contents

July 2006 xiii NUREG-1815

5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-61

5.10.1 Design Basis Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-62

5.10.2 Severe Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-67

5.10.3 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-77

5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation . . . . . . . . . 5-78

5.12 Summary of Operational Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-80

5.13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-83

6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1.1 Light-Water Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1.1.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

6.1.1.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

6.1.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

6.1.1.4 Chemical Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

6.1.1.5 Radioactive Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

6.1.1.6 Radioactive Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13

6.1.1.7 Occupational Dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

6.1.1.8 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

6.1.1.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

6.1.2 Gas-Cooled Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

6.1.2.1 Fuel Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

6.1.2.2 Enrichment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

6.1.2.3 Uranium Hexafluoride Production – Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19

6.1.2.4 Uranium Milling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

6.1.2.5 Uranium Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

6.1.2.6 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

6.1.2.7 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Decontamination 

 and Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

6.1.2.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21
Contents

NUREG-1815 xiv July 2006

6.2 Transportation of Radioactive Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-24

6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-24

6.2.1.2 Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-29

6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-30

6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-31

6.2.2.2 Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-35

6.2.2.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-39

6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-40

6.2.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-42

6.3 Decommissioning Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-43

6.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-43

7.0 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.2 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.3 Water Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

7.6 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice . . . . 7-8

7.7 Nonradiological Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9

7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10

7.9 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10

7.10 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11
Contents

July 2006 xv NUREG-1815

7.11 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-12

8.0 Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

8.2 Energy Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

8.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

8.2.1.1 Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

8.2.1.2 Purchased Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

8.2.1.3 Extending the Service Life of Existing Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

8.2.1.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

8.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

8.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

8.2.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11

8.2.3 Other Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-17

8.2.3.1 Wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-17

8.2.3.2 Geothermal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18

8.2.3.3 Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18

8.2.3.4 Solar Thermal Power and Photovoltaic Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18

8.2.3.5 Wood Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-19

8.2.3.6 Municipal Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-20

8.2.3.7 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-20

8.2.3.8 Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-21

8.2.3.9 Oil-Fired Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-21

8.2.3.10 Combination of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22

8.2.4 Evaluation of Alternative Energy Sources and Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22

8.3 System Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-25

8.3.1 Plant Cooling System: Wet Cooling Towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-25

8.3.2 Plant Cooling System: Hybrid Wet/Dry Cooling Towers . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-25

8.3.3 Plant Cooling System: Dry Cooling Towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26
Contents

NUREG-1815 xvi July 2006

8.4 Region of Interest and Site-Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26

8.4.1 Exelon’s Region of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26

8.4.2 Exelon’s Alternative Site-Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-27

8.5 Evaluation of Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30

8.5.1 Dresden Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30

8.5.1.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line 

Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31

8.5.1.2 Hydrology, Water Use, and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32

8.5.1.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . 8-33

8.5.1.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . 8-35

8.5.1.5 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-37

8.5.1.6 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-43

8.5.1.7 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-43

8.5.2 Braidwood Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

8.5.2.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line 

Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

8.5.2.2 Hydrology, Water Use, and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-45

8.5.2.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . 8-45

8.5.2.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . 8-47

8.5.2.5 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-48

8.5.2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-52

8.5.2.7 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-53

8.5.3 LaSalle County Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-53

8.5.3.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line 

Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-54

8.5.3.2 Hydrology, Water Use, and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-55

8.5.3.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . 8-55

8.5.3.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . 8-57

8.5.3.5 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-58

8.5.3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-63

8.5.3.7 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-63
Contents

July 2006 xvii NUREG-1815

8.5.4 Quad Cities Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-64

8.5.4.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line 

Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-64

8.5.4.2 Hydrology, Water Use, and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-65

8.5.4.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . 8-66

8.5.4.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . 8-69

8.5.4.5 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-71

8.5.4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-76

8.5.4.7 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-76

8.5.5 Byron Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-77

8.5.5.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line 

Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-77

8.5.5.2 Hydrology, Water Use, and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-78

8.5.5.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . 8-79

8.5.5.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . 8-81

8.5.5.5 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-82

8.5.5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-86

8.5.5.7 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-86

8.5.6 Zion Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-86

8.5.6.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line 

Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-87

8.5.6.2 Hydrology, Water Use, and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-88

8.5.6.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . 8-88

8.5.6.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . 8-91

8.5.6.5 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-92

8.5.6.6 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-96

8.5.6.7 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-96

8.6 Issues Among Sites Handled Generically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-96

8.6.1 Land Use and Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-97

8.6.2 Terrestrial Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-97

8.6.3 Aquatic Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-100

8.6.4 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-100

8.6.5 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-104

8.6.6 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-105

8.6.7 Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-105
Contents

NUREG-1815 xviii July 2006

8.6.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-105

8.6.9 Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-106

8.7 Summary of Alternative Site Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-107

8.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-112

9.0 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites . . . . . . 9-1

9.1 Comparison of the Proposed Site with the Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

9.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8

9.3 Obviously Superior Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

9.4 Comparison with the No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

9.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10

10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

10.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4

10.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-8

10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 

of the Human Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-8

10.4 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-9

10.5 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-9

10.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11

Appendix A - Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B - Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C - Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Exelon Generation Company, LLC’s (Exelon’s) Application for

an Early Site Permit at the Exelon ESP Site in Clinton, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Contents

July 2006 xix NUREG-1815

Appendix D - Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Appendix E - Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments and Responses . . . . . . E-1

Appendix F - Exelon Generation Company, LLC’s (Exelon’s) Key Early Site Permit

Consultation Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Appendix G - Environmental Impacts of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

Appendix H - Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment . . . . . . . . . . H-1

Appendix I - Authorizations and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Appendix J - Plant Parameter Envelope Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1

Appendix K - Key Statements Made in the Environmental Report Considered in the

NRC Staff’s Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1
NUREG-1815 xx July 2006

Figures

2-1 Location of ESP Structures Relative to CPS Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2-2 Exelon ESP 80-km (50-mi) Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2-3 Exelon ESP 10-km (6-mi) Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2-4 Land Use/Land Cover in the Vicinity of the Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

2-5 Sangamon River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38

2-6 Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (Shown in Shaded Areas) 

Within an 80-km (50-m) Radius of Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-73

2-7 Locations of Low-Income Populations (Shown in Shaded Areas) Within an

80-km (50-m) Radius of Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-74

4-1 Areas Proposed for the Structures of a New Nuclear Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

4-2 Location of Exelon ESP Structures Relative to Existing CPS Facility . . . . . . . . . . 4-42

5-1 Exposure Pathways to Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-49

5-2 Exposure Pathways to Biota Other than Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-50

6-1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

8-1 Sites Considered by Exelon for an Early Site Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-28

G-1 Illustration of Truck Stop Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-15
July 2006 xxi NUREG-1815

Tables

2-1 Land-Use Classification of the Exelon ESP Site and Vicinity, Region, and 

Potentially Affected Transmission Line Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2-2 2002 Major Agricultural Crops and Land in Production within 80 km (50 mi) 

of the Exelon ESP Site, (hectares [acres]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

2-3 2002 Livestock Production and Farm Value within 80 km (50 mi) of the 

Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2-4 Federally Listed Terrestrial Species that May Occur in the Vicinity of the

Exelon ESP Site and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32

2-5 State-Listed Aquatic Species in Illinois That May Be Present in the Vicinity 

of the Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39

2-6 Resident Population Distribution from 2000 to 2060 Within 80 km (50 mi) 

of the Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42

2-7 Estimated Age Distribution of Population in 2000 for Counties and 

State of Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-43

2-8 Population Growth in Champaign, DeWitt, Logan, McLean, Macon, and 

Piatt Counties, 1970 to 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44

2-9 Transient Population Distribution from 2000 to 2060 Within 80 km (50 mi) 

of the Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45

2-10 Major Employers by City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47

2-11 Percent Unemployment, Individual Poverty, and Median Household Income . . . . 2-48

2-12 Regional Employment Trends,1990 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49

2-13 County Employment by Proprietorship and by Industry, 1990 and 2000 . . . . . . . . 2-50

2-14 Aggregated Employment by Industry or Business Type for Champaign, 

DeWitt, Logan, McLean, Macon, and Piatt Counties, 1990 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . 2-51

2-15 Total Property Tax Revenues Generated in DeWitt County and Other 

Taxing Districts, Total Property Taxes AmerGen Paid to These Jurisdictions, 

1997 to 2002, and Percent of AmerGen Property Taxes Paid of Total 

Property Tax Revenues Collected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-56

2-16 Real Estate Assessment of CPS Compared to Total Real Estate Assessment 

of DeWitt County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57

2-17 Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County During 

1990 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-59

2-18 Vacant Housing Units for Clinton, Farmer City, Monticello, and Lincoln, 2000 . . . 2-61

2-19 Public Water Supply Systems in Select Towns and Cities in the Region 

of the Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-62

2-20 Waste Water Treatment Systems in Select Towns and Cities in the Region 

of the Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63

3-1 Power Ratings for Reactor Designs Considered in the PPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Tables

NUREG-1815 xxii July 2006

4-1 Characterization of Impacts from Construction of a New Nuclear Unit at the 

Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49

5-1 Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual from Gaseous Effluent Pathway . . . . 5-52

5-2 Annual Doses to Population from Gaseous Effluent Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-53

5-3 Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates for a New 

Nuclear Unit from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents to 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, 

Design Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-54

5-4 Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates from Liquid 

and Gaseous Effluents to 40 CFR Part 190 Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-55

5-5 Comparison of Biota Doses from the Exelon ESP Site to 40 CFR Part 190 . . . . . 5-58

5-6 Comparison of Biota Doses from a New Nuclear Unit at the Exelon ESP 

Site to Relevant Guidelines for Biota Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-60

5-7 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Exelon ESP Site Design Basis Accident 

Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-64

5-8 Design Basis Accident Doses for an ABWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-65

5-9 Design Basis Accident Doses for an AP1000 Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-65

5-10 Potential Consequences of Postulated Loss-of-Coolant Accidents for the 

ESBWR and ACR-700 Reactor Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-66

5-11 Mean Environmental Risks from ABWR Severe Accidents at the Exelon 

ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-70

5-12 Mean Environmental Risks from Surrogate AP1000 Severe Accidents at 

the Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-72

5-13 Comparison of Environmental Risks for an ABWR or a Surrogate AP1000 

at the Exelon ESP Site with Risks for Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1150 . . . . 5-73

5-14 Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by 

Internal Events for an ABWR or a Surrogate AP1000 at the Exelon ESP 

Site with Risks Initiated by Internal Events for Plants Undergoing Operating 

License Renewal Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-74

5-15 Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-81

6-1 Table S–3 from 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle 

Environmental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

6-2 Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by an Individual from 

All Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13

6-3 Fuel Cycle Environmental Impacts from Gas-Cooled Reactor Designs 

for the Exelon ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17

6-4 Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for Each Advanced 

Reactor Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25

6-5 Radiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to Advanced 

Reactor Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-26
Tables

July 2006 xxiii NUREG-1815

6-6 Routine (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the 

Public from Shipping Spent Fuel from Potential ESP Sites to a Spent 

Fuel Disposal Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-32

6-7 Routine (Incident-Free) Population Doses from Spent Fuel Transportation, 

Normalized to Reference LWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-33

6-8 Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations 

for Each Advanced Reactor Type, Bq/MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-36

6-9 Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for Advanced Reactors, 

Normalized to Reference 1000-MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation . . . . . . . . . 6-39

6-10 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments for Advanced Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . 6-41

8-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation -

2200 MW(e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12

8-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Power Generation -

2200 MW(e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16

8-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources -

2200 MW(e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-23

8-4 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Alternative Energy Sources to 

a New Nuclear Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-24

8-5 Characterization of Construction Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites . . . . . . . . . 8-108

8-6 Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites . . . . . . . . . . 8-110

9-1 Comparison of Construction Impacts at the Exelon ESP Site and 

Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4

9-2 Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Exelon ESP Site and 

Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

10-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-6

10-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-7

10-3 Summary of Environmental Significance of Station Location at the Exelon 

ESP Site and at Alternative Sites and for the No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . 10-10

D-1 Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3

E-1 Individuals Providing Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-4

E-2 Order of Comment Categories in Appendix E, by Section Numbers and Title . . . . E-13

E-3 Comments Indexed Alphabetically by Comment Category with Corresponding

Section Numbers and Commenters’ Identification Numbers (ID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-14
Tables

NUREG-1815 xxiv July 2006

G-1 Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for Each Advanced 

Reactor Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-5

G-2 RADTRAN 5 Input Parameters for Unirradiated Fuel Shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-7

G-3 Radiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to ESP Sites . . . . . . . . . . G-8

G-4 Transportation Route Information for Shipments from ESP Sites to the

Proposed High-Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-12

G-5 RADTRAN 5 Incident-Free Exposure Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-14

G-6 Routine (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the

Public from Shipping Fuel from Potential ESP Sites to the Proposed

High-Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-16

G-7 Routine (Incident-Free) Population Doses from Spent Fuel Transportation,

Normalized to Reference LWR Net Electrical Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-18

G-8 Comparison of Incident-Free Doses from NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977a)

Spent Fuel Shipments and Spent Fuel Shipment from Quad-Cities to

the Proposed High-Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-22

G-9 Radionuclide Inventories Used in the Transportation Accident Risk

Calculations for Each Advanced Reactor Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-24

G-10 Severity and Release Fractions Used to Model Spent Fuel Transportation

Accidents (Sprung et al. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-26

G-11 Unit Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Risks for Advanced Reactors . . . . . . . . . G-29

G-12 Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for Advanced

Reactors, Normalized to Reference LWR Net Electrical Generation . . . . . . . . . . . G-30

G-13 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments for Advanced Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . G-32

H-1 Parameters Used in Calculating Dose to the Public from Liquid 

Effluent Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-2

H-2 Comparison of Doses to the Public from Liquid Effluent Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . H-4

H-3 Impact on Dose from Remaining Radionuclides in Liquid Effluent 

Source Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-5

H-4 Parameters Used in Calculating Dose to Public from Gaseous 

Effluent Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-6

H-5 Comparison of Doses to the Public from Noble Gas Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-9

H-6 Comparison of Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual from Gaseous

Effluent Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-10

H-7 Comparison of Population Doses from Gaseous Effluent Releases . . . . . . . . . . . H-11

H-8 Comparison of Dose Estimates to Biota from Liquid Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-13

H-9 Comparison of Dose Estimates to Biota from Gaseous Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-13

I-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

J-1 Plant Parameter Envelop Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-2
Tables

July 2006 xxv NUREG-1815

K-1 Key Statements Made in the Environmental Report Related to Future 

Actions and Activities by Exelon and the Impacts of Those Activities 

Considered in the NRC Staff’s Environmental Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-2

K-2 Key Statements Made in the Environmental Report Not Directly

Considered in the NRC Staff’s Environmental Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-22

K-3 Key Statements Made in the Environmental Report Related to Actions 

and Activities of Others and the Impacts of Those Activities Considered 

in the NRC Staff’s Environmental Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-39

July 2006 xxvii NUREG-1815

Executive Summary

On September 25, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an

application from Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) for an early site permit (ESP) for a

location identified as the Exelon ESP site, adjacent to the Clinton Power Station (CPS), Unit 1. 

The Exelon ESP site is located in DeWitt County, Illinois, approximately 10 km (6 mi) east of the

City of Clinton. An ESP is a Commission approval of a location for siting one or more nuclear

power facilities and is a separate action from the filing of an application for a construction permit

(CP) or combined CP and operating license (combined license or COL) for such a facility. An

ESP application may refer to a reactor’s or reactors’ characteristics or plant parameter envelope

(PPE), which is a set of postulated design parameters that bound the characteristics of a reactor

or reactors that might be built at a selected site; alternatively, an ESP application may refer to a |

detailed reactor design. The ESP is not a license to build a nuclear power plant; rather, the

application for an ESP initiates a process undertaken to assess whether a proposed site is

suitable should Exelon decide to pursue a CP or COL.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq.) |

directs that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for major Federal actions that

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented |

Section 102 of NEPA in Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The NRC |

regulations related to ESPs are delineated in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 52. As set forth in |

10 CFR 52.18, the Commission has determined that an EIS will be prepared during the review

of an application for an ESP. The purpose of Exelon’s requested action, issuance of the ESP,

is for the NRC to determine whether the Exelon ESP site is suitable for a new nuclear unit by

resolving certain safety and environmental issues before Exelon incurs the substantial

additional time and expense of designing and seeking approval to construct such a facility at the

site. Part 52 of Title 10 describes the ESP as a “partial construction permit.” An applicant for a

CP or COL for a nuclear power plant or plants to be located at the site for which an ESP was

issued can reference the ESP, thus reducing the review of siting issues at that stage of the

licensing process. However, a CP or COL to construct and operate a nuclear power plant is a

major Federal action and will require an EIS be issued in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.

Three primary issues – site safety, environmental impacts, and emergency planning – must be

addressed in the ESP application. Likewise, in its review of the application, the NRC assesses

Exelon’s proposal in relation to these issues and determines if the application meets the

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the NRC regulations. This EIS addresses the

potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of a new nuclear

unit at the Exelon ESP site.

In its application, Exelon requested authorization to perform certain site-preparation activities

after the ESP is issued. The application, therefore, includes a site redress plan that specifies

how Exelon would stabilize and restore the site to its pre-construction condition (or conditions
Executive Summary

NUREG-1815 xxviii July 2006

consistent with an alternative use) in the event a nuclear power plant is not constructed on the

approved site. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), Exelon did not address the benefits of the

proposed action (e.g., the need for power). In accordance with 10 CFR 52.18, the EIS is

focused on the environmental effects of construction and operation of a reactor, or reactors, that

have characteristics that fall within the postulated site parameters.

Upon acceptance of the Exelon ESP application, the NRC began the environmental review

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

(68 FR 66130) to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping. The staff held a public scoping meeting

in Clinton, Illinois, on December 18, 2003, and visited the Exelon ESP site in March 2004. 

Subsequent to the scoping meeting and the site visit and in accordance with NEPA and

10 CFR Part 51, the staff determined and evaluated the potential environmental impacts of

constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. Included in this EIS are

(1) the results of the NRC staff’s analyses, which consider and weigh the environmental effects

of the proposed action (issuance of the ESP) and of constructing and operating a new nuclear

unit at the ESP site, (2) mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects, (3) the

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and (4) the staff’s

recommendation regarding the proposed action. 

| During the course of preparing this EIS, the staff reviewed the application (through revision 4),

including the Environmental Report (ER) submitted by Exelon, consulted with Federal, State,

Tribal, and local agencies, and followed the guidance set forth in review standard RS-002,

Processing Applications for Early Site Permits, to conduct an independent review of the issues. 

The review standard draws from the previously published NUREG-0800, Standard Review

Plans for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants, and NUREG-1555,

Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP). In addition, the staff considered the public

comments related to the environmental review received during the scoping process. These

comments are provided in Appendix D of this EIS.

| Following the practice the staff used in of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact

| Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, and in the supplemental license renewal

EISs, environmental issues are evaluated using the three-level standard of significance –

SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed by NRC using guidelines from the Council on

Environmental Quality. Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, provides the

following definitions of the three significance levels:

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.
Executive Summary

July 2006 xxix NUREG-1815

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

important attributes of the resource.

Mitigation measures were considered for each environmental issue and are discussed in the

appropriate sections.

The results of this evaluation were documented in a draft EIS issued for public comment in |

February 2005. During the comment period, the staff conducted a public meeting on April 19, |

2005, near the Exelon ESP site to describe the results of the NRC environmental review,

answer questions, and provide members of the public with information to assist them in

formulating comments on the draft EIS. After the comment period closed, the staff considered |

and dispositioned all the comments received. These comments are addressed in Appendix E of |

this EIS. |

The staff’s recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the |

proposed action is that the ESP should be issued. The staff’s evaluation of the site safety and

emergency preparedness aspects of the proposed action have been addressed in the staff’s

final safety evaluation report, published May 1, 2006. |

This recommendation is based on (1) the application, including the ER submitted by Exelon;

(2) consultation with other Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent

review; (4) the staff’s consideration of public comments related to the environmental review that |

were received during the review process; and (5) the assessments summarized in the EIS, |

including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and this EIS. In addition, in

making its recommendation to the Commission, the staff has determined that there are no

environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites. Finally, the staff has concluded that the

site-preparation and construction activities allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) would not result in

any significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be redressed.

July 2006 xxxi NUREG-1815

Abbreviations/Acronyms

ABWR Advanced Boiling Water Reactor

ac acre(s)

ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ACR-700 Advanced Canada Deuterium Uranium Reactor

ADAMS Agencywide Document Access and Management System

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable

AmerGen AmerGen Energy Company, LLC

ANSI American National Standards Institute

AP1000 Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor

APE area of potential effect

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

AQI Air Quality Index

ATWS anticipated transient without scram

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation

BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

BOW Bureau of Economic Analysis

Bq becquerel

Btu British thermal unit(s)

BWR boiling water reactor

°C Celsius

CANDU Canada Deuterium Uranium

CARB

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

Ci curie(s)

cm centimeter(s)

CNWRA Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis

CO carbon monoxide

COL combined license

CP construction permit

CPS Clinton Power Station

CWA Clean Water Act of 1977 (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act)

DBA design basis accident

DEIS draft environmental impact statement

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DO dissolved oxygen
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1815 xxxii July 2006

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DU depleted uranium

EAB exclusion area boundary

ECL effluent concentration limits

EGC Exelon Generation Company

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS environmental impact statement

EFL extremely low frequency

EMF electromagnetic field

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESBWR Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor

ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan

ER Environmental Report

ERA Environmental Resource Associates

ESP early site permit

Exelon Exelon Generation Company, LLC

°F Fahrenheit

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FR Federal Register

fps feet per second

ft foot/feet

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act of 1977)

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FY fiscal year

gal gallon(s)

GEIS generic environmental impact statement

GEn&SIS Geographical, Environmental and Siting Information

GIS geographic information system

gpm gallons per minute

GT-MHR Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor 

ha hectare(s)

hr hour(s)

HRCQ highway route controlled quantity
Abbreviations/Acronyms

July 2006 xxxiii NUREG-1815

I interstate

IAC Illinois Administration Code

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

ICRP International Commission on Radiation Protection

IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources

IDOCEO Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity

IDOR Illinois Department of Revenue

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics

IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

IHPA Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency

in. inch(es)

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

INHS Illinois Natural History Survey

IOC Illinois Office of the Controller

IPC Illinois Power Company

IRIS International Reactor Innovative and Secure

ISA Illinois Stewardship Alliance

ISGS Illinois State Geological Survey

ISU Illinois State University

J Joules

kg kilogram(s)

km kilometers)

kV kilovolt(s)

kWh kilowatt hour(s)

L liter(s)

lb pound(s)

L/d liters per day

LLRWPAA Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

LOS level-of-service 

LPZ low population zone

LR License Renewal

LWR light water reactor

m meter(s)

m3 cubic meter(s)

m/s meter(s) per second

m3

/d cubic meter(s) per day
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1815 xxxiv July 2006

m3/s cubic meter(s) per second

m3

/yr cubic meter(s) per year

MEI maximally exposed individual

mgd million gallons per day

mg/L milligrams per liter

mGy milligray(s)

mi mile(s)

mL milliliter(s)

mph miles per hour

mrad millirad(s)

mrem millirem(s)

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

MSL mean sea level

mSv millisievert(s)

MT metric ton(s) (or tonne[s])

MTU metric ton(s) uranium

MW megawatt(s)

MWd/MTU megawatt days per metric ton of uranium

MW(e) megawatt(s) electric

MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal

MWh megawatt hour(s)

ng/J nanogram per Joule

NAGPRA Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NAS National Academy of Science

NCI National Cancer Institute

NCDC National Climate Data Center

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

NEIS Nuclear Energy Information Service

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NGO non-governmental organization

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NIST National Institute of Standards

N north

NE northeast

NNE north northeast

NOx nitrogen oxide(s)

NOI notice of intent

NOT notice of termination

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Abbreviations/Acronyms

July 2006 xxxv NUREG-1815

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NUREG Nuclear Regulation

NWFR Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PARs Publicly Available Records

PBMR Pebble Bed Modular Reactor

PGDP Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

pH potential of hydrogen

PM particulate matter

PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of fewer than 10 micrometers

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

PPE plant parameter envelope

PPWMP Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization Program

PV photovoltaic 

PVC polyvinyl chloride

PWR pressurized water reactor

FRCIC reactor core isolation cooling

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program

REPS Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard

RI radio interference

rms root mean square

ROI region of interest

RPHP Radiation and Public Health Project

RSICC Radiation Safety Information Computational Center

RTO Regional Transmission Operator

Ryr-1 per reactor year

s second(s)

scf standard cubic feet

SE southeast

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement

SER safety evaluation report

SFP spent fuel pool

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SNF spent nuclear fuel

SOx sulfur oxide(s)
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1815 xxxvi July 2006

SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure

Sr-90 strontium-90

SR State Route

SRS Savannah River Site

SSAR site safety analysis report

SW southwest

SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plans

SWR Service Water Reservoir

SWU separative work units

TEDE total effective dose equivalent

TIF tax increment financing (districts)

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter

TSP total suspended particulates

TVI television interference

U3O8 yellowcake

UF6 uranium hexafluoride

UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

UHS ultimate heat sink

UO2 uranium oxide

U.S. United States

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS United States Geological Survey

WCR Waste Confidence Rule

yr year(s)

Y-9 yttrium
July 2006 1-1 NUREG-1815

1.0 Introduction

On September 25, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an

application from Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) for an early site permit (ESP) for a

location identified as the Exelon ESP site adjacent to the Clinton Power Station (CPS), Unit 1, in

Clinton, Illinois. This application has been revised, through Revision 4, which was submitted to |

the NRC by Exelon on April 14, 2006. Under the NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of |

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52, and in accordance with the applicable provisions of

10 CFR Part 51, which are the NRC regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (NEPA), the NRC is required to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS)

as part of its review of an ESP application. As required by 10 CFR 51.26, the NRC has

published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent (68 FR 66130) to prepare an EIS, conduct

scoping, and publish a draft EIS for public comment. The staff considered the public comments |

in developing the final EIS. A separate safety evaluation report (SER) has been prepared in |

accordance with 10 CFR Part 52.

1.1 Background

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site or sites for one or more nuclear power facilities. 

The filing of an application for an ESP is a process that is separate from the filing of an

application for a construction permit (CP) or combined construction and operating license

(combined license or COL) for such a facility. The ESP application and review process makes it

possible to evaluate and resolve safety and environmental issues related to siting before the

applicant makes large commitments of resources. If the ESP is approved, then the applicant

can “bank” the site for up to 20 years for future reactor siting. In addition, if the ESP includes a

site redress plan, the ESP holder could conduct specific site-preparation activities pursuant to |

10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). An ESP does not authorize construction and operation of a nuclear power

plant. To construct and operate a nuclear power plant, an ESP holder must obtain a CP and

operating license or a COL, which is a separate major Federal action and will require that an

EIS be issued in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.

As part of its evaluation of the environmental impacts of the action proposed in an ESP

application, the NRC prepares an EIS in accordance with 10 CFR 52.18. Because the site

suitability encompasses construction and operational parameters, the EIS addresses impacts of

both construction and operation of reactors and associated facilities. In a review separate from

the EIS process, the NRC analyzes the safety characteristics of the proposed site and

emergency planning information. These latter two analyses are documented in a SER that

presents the conclusions reached by the NRC regarding whether there is reasonable assurance

that a reactor or reactors having characteristics that fall within the parameters for the site can be

constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public, whether

there are significant impediments to the development of emergency plans, and whether site 
Introduction

NUREG-1815 1-2 July 2006

characteristics are such that adequate security plans and measures can be developed. In

| addition, if the applicant proposes major features of emergency plans or complete and

integrated emergency plans, the SER will document whether such major features are

| acceptable or whether the complete and integrated emergency plans provide reasonable

assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a

radiological emergency. 

1.1.1 Plant Parameter Envelope

The applicant for an ESP need not provide a detailed design of a reactor or reactors and the

associated facilities, but should provide sufficient bounding parameters and characteristics of

the reactor or reactors and associated facilities so that an assessment of site suitability can be

made. Consequently, the ESP application may refer to a plant parameter envelope (PPE) as a

surrogate for a nuclear power plant and its associated facilities.

A PPE is a set of values of plant design parameters that an ESP applicant expects will bound

the design characteristics of the reactor or reactors that might be constructed at a given site. 

The PPE values are a surrogate for actual reactor design information. Analysis of

environmental impacts based on a PPE approach permits an ESP applicant to defer the

| selection of a reactor design until the CP or COL stage. The PPE reflects upper or lower

| bounds (as appropriate) of the values for each parameter it encompasses rather than the

characteristics of any specific reactor design. The PPE is discussed in more detail in Section

3.2 of this EIS.

1.1.2 Site-Preparation and Preliminary Construction Activities

The holder of an ESP, or an applicant for a CP (10 CFR Part 50) or a COL (Subpart C of

10 CFR Part 52) that references an ESP with an approved site redress plan, may in accordance

with 10 CFR 52.25(a), perform the site-preparation activities and preliminary construction

activities allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1), provided that the final ESP EIS concludes that the

| activities will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be

| redressed. Exelon provided a site redress plan as part of its ESP application (Exelon 2006) to

obtain authorization to conduct certain site-preparation and preliminary construction activities. 

Activities permitted under an ESP include preparation of the site for construction of the facility,

installation of temporary construction support facilities, excavation for facility structures,

construction of service facilities, and construction of certain structures, systems, and

components that do not prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents

(10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)). This is discussed in more detail in Section 4.11 of this EIS.
Introduction

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all |

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and Addendum 1. |

July 2006 1-3 NUREG-1815

1.1.3 ESP Application and Review

In accordance with 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), Exelon submitted an Environmental Report (ER) as part

of its ESP application (Exelon 2006). The ER focuses on the environmental effects of |

construction and operation of reactors with characteristics that fall within the PPE. The ER also

includes an evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether there is an obviously superior

alternative to the proposed site. An ESP ER is not required to include an assessment of energy

alternatives or the benefits of the proposed action, e.g., the need for power. Exelon did not

include a discussion on need for power; however, there is a discussion of energy alternatives

that is evaluated in Chapter 8 of this EIS.

The NRC standards for review of the ESP application are outlined in 10 CFR 52.18. Like the |

ER, this EIS focuses on the environmental effects of construction and operation of reactors that

have characteristics that fall within the PPE developed by Exelon, and includes an evaluation of

alternative sites to determine whether there is any obviously superior alternative to the proposed

Exelon ESP site. The EIS does not include an assessment of the benefits of the proposed

action.

The NRC staff conducts its reviews of ESP applications in accordance with guidance set forth in

review standard RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site Permits (NRC 2004). The

review standard draws from the previously published NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plans for

the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1987), and NUREG-1555,

Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000). RS-002 provides guidance to NRC

staff reviewers to help ensure a thorough, consistent, and disciplined review of any ESP

application. As stated in RS-002, an applicant may elect to use a PPE approach instead of

supplying specific design information. The staff’s June 23, 2003, responses to comments

received on draft RS-002 (ML031710698) provide additional insights on the staff’s expectations

and potential approach to the review of an application employing the PPE approach

(NRC 2003). Specifically, the NRC staff tasked to perform the environmental review has been

trained in using the guidance in the ESRP and RS-002, and in incorporating the PPE concept |

into their review. The reviewers adapted the ESRP review guidance to account for the PPE |

concept and the findings of this EIS reflect that approach. |

In addition, the staff also considered the information and analyses provided in the Generic |

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal (GEIS) (NRC 1996)(a) in its review. |

Because the GEIS included a review of data from all operating nuclear power plants, some of |

the information was useful for the environmental review of the proposed action. The staff has |

identified in the text those areas where this information has been used. |
Introduction

NUREG-1815 1-4 July 2006

| Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.18, an EIS prepared by the NRC staff on an application for an ESP

| focuses on the environmental effects of construction and operation of a reactor, or reactors, that

have characteristics that fall within the postulated site parameters. Such an EIS must also

| include an evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether there is any obviously superior

| alternative site to the site proposed. The Commission’s regulations recognize that certain

| matters need not be resolved at the ESP stage (i.e., an assessment of the benefits, need for

| power) and, thus, may be deferred until an applicant decides to apply for a CP or COL. Further,

| the NRC staff realizes that certain information pertaining to the environmental impacts of

| construction and operation of new nuclear power facilities may not be available during the NRC

staff review of the ESP application.

| In its application and in responses to requests for additional information (RAIs), Exelon did not

| or was unable to provide sufficient information and analysis for certain issues to allow the NRC

| staff to complete their independent analysis of these issues without making speculative

| assumptions. The staff was unable to determine a single significance level for such issues in

| Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of this EIS, and therefore, these issues are unresolved for the Exelon ESP

| site. In their analysis of other issues, the staff relied on reasonable assumptions made by

| Exelon or the staff. These assumptions are identified in each section and are documented in

| Appendixes J and K in this EIS. The NRC staff intends to confirm these assumptions at the CP

| or COL stage to determine whether there is new and significant information from that discussed

| herein.

| As provided by 10 CFR 52.39(a)(2), the Commission shall treat those matters that are resolved

| through this EIS as resolved in any later proceeding on an application for a CP or COL

| referencing the requested Exelon ESP unless new and significant information pertaining to

| these issues is identified. This complements the obligation of a COL applicant referencing an

| ESP to provide information to resolve any significant environmental issue not considered in the

| previous proceeding on the ESP. Inasmuch as an ESP and a COL are major Federal actions,

| both actions require the preparation of an EIS pursuant to 10 CFR 51.20. As provided in

| 10 CFR 52.79 and under NEPA, the CP or COL environmental review will be informed by the

| EIS prepared at the ESP stage, and the NRC staff intends to use tiering and incorporation-by-

| reference whenever it is appropriate to do so. The CP or COL applicant must address any other

| issue not considered and unresolved in the EIS for the ESP. Moreover, pursuant to 10 CFR

| 51.70(b), the NRC is required to independently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of

| all information used in an EIS prepared for a CP or COL application, and the staff may (1)

inquire into the continued validity of information disclosed in an EIS for an ESP that is

| referenced in a COL application, and (2) look for any new information that may affect the

| assumptions, analyses, or conclusions reached in the ESP EIS.

| In addition, measures and controls to limit any adverse impact will be identified and evaluated

for feasibility and adequacy in limiting adverse impacts at the ESP stage, where possible, and at

the CP or COL stage. As a result of the staff’s environmental review of the ESP application, 
Introduction

July 2006 1-5 NUREG-1815

the staff may determine that conditions or limitations on the ESP may be necessary in specific

areas, as set forth in 10 CFR 52.24. Therefore, the staff has identified in this EIS when and

how assumptions and bounding values limit its conclusions on the environmental impacts to a

particular resource.

Following requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and the guidance in RS-002, on |

November 25, 2003, the NRC published a notice of intent in the Federal Register to prepare an

EIS and conduct scoping (68 FR 66130). The NRC environmental staff (and its technical

experts from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory retained to assist the staff) held a

scoping meeting on December 18, 2003, to obtain public input on the scope of the

environmental review and visited the Exelon ESP site and the alternative sites (Dresden, Quad

Cities, Braidwood, Byron, LaSalle, and Zion) in March 2004 to gather information and to

become familiar with the sites and their environs. During these site visits, the staff and its |

contractors met with Exelon staff, public officials, and the public. The staff reviewed the

comments received during scoping and contacted Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local

agencies to solicit comments. A list of the organizations contacted is provided in Appendix B. 

Other documents related to the Exelon ESP site were reviewed and are listed as references

where appropriate.

The results of the NRC staff’s analysis were documented in a draft EIS (DEIS) issued for public |

comment on March 2, 2005. A 75-day comment period began on March 11, 2005, when the |

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a Notice of Availability (70 FR 12211) of the draft

EIS to allow members of the public to comment on the results of the NRC staff’s review. A

public meeting was held April 19, 2005, near the site during the public comment period. During |

this public meeting, the staff described the results of the NRC environmental review, answered |

questions related to the review, and provided members of the public with information to assist

them in formulating their comments. Comments on the draft EIS and the staff’s response are |

provided in Appendix E. This final EIS has change bars in the margin to denote where changes |

have been made since the DEIS was published.

On August 6, 2004, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admitted a contention of Intervenors |

(Environmental Law and Policy Center, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Blue Ridge |

Environmental Defense League, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and Public Citizen) |

referred to as the Clean Energy Alternatives Contention. Following the issuance of the DEIS, |

Exelon moved for summary disposition of the contention on March 17, 2005. Shortly thereafter, |

the Intervenors sought to amend their contention. On July 28, 2005, the Board denied the |

motion to amend the environmental contention and granted summary disposition of the |

contention; the Board also terminated the contested portion of the proceeding. On August 12, |

2005, the Intervenors filed a petition for Commission review of the Board’s dismissal of the |

contention. On December 12, 2005, the Commission denied the petition for review (see |
Introduction

NUREG-1815 1-6 July 2006

Exelon Generation Company, LLC [Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site], CLI-05-29, 62

| NRC 801(205)). On February 8, 2006, the Intervenors petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for

| the Seventh Circuit for review of the Board and Commission decisions. The appeal is pending

| before the Court of Appeals.

To guide its assessment of environmental impacts of a proposed action or alternative actions,

the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts using Council on Environmental

Quality guidance (40 CFR 1508.27). Using this approach, the NRC established three

significance levels: SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The definitions of the three significance

levels are as follows:

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.

This EIS presents the staff’s analysis, which considers and weighs the environmental impacts of

the proposed action at the Exelon ESP site, including the environmental impacts associated

with construction and operation of reactors at the site, the impacts of construction and operation

of reactors at alternative sites, the environmental impacts of alternatives to granting the ESP,

and the mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

| This EIS also provides the NRC staff’s recommendation to the Commission regarding the

suitability of the Exelon ESP site for the construction and operation of reactors that have

characteristics that fall within the PPE.

1.2 The Proposed Federal Action

The proposed Federal action is issuance, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52, of an ESP for

| the Exelon site for one additional nuclear unit that has characteristics that fall within the Exelon

| PPE (see Appendix J). In addition, Exelon proposes a plan for redressing the environmental

effects of certain site-preparation and preliminary construction activities, i.e., those activities

allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1), performed by an ESP holder under 10 CFR 52.25. In

accordance with the plan, the site would be redressed if the NRC issues the requested ESP

(containing the site redress plan), the ESP holder performs these site-preparation and

preliminary construction activities, the ESP is not referenced in an application for a CP or COL,

and no alternative use is found for the site. While the applicant is not currently proposing

construction and operation of a new nuclear unit, this EIS analyzes the environmental impacts

that could result from the construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP
Introduction

(a) Exelon also states that a third option, use of a dry cooling system, is being proposed. However, the

applicant further states that full wet or hybrid wet/dry cooling processes have been assumed for most

purposes because out of the options proposed, they have the greatest consumptive water uses. The

applicant does not provide information on a dry cooling system to support an environmental analysis

nor does the applicant address the adverse environmental impacts of such a system (noise, large

footprint, and inefficiency). Therefore, the staff did not evaluate a dry cooling system. Should Exelon

choose to use a dry cooling system at the ESP site in a CP or COL application, the staff will evaluate

the environmental impacts of construction and operation of the system during that review.

July 2006 1-7 NUREG-1815

site or at one of the six alternative sites. These impacts are analyzed to determine if the

proposed ESP site is suitable for the addition of the new nuclear unit and whether there is an

alternative site that is obviously superior to the proposed site.

The site proposed by Exelon is located in DeWitt County in central Illinois, near the City of

Clinton. The site is approximately 35 km (22 mi) south of Bloomington, Illinois, and 35 km

(22 mi) north of Decatur, Illinois. The site is completely within the confines of the current CPS

site, with the new unit to be adjacent to the existing Unit 1.

No specific plant design has been chosen by Exelon for the new nuclear unit; instead, a set of

bounding plant parameters known as a PPE has been specified to envelop the design to be

considered for the ESP site. The PPE is based on the addition of power generation of one new

nuclear unit composed of one to eight reactors or reactor modules, as described in Section 3.2. 

These multiple reactors or modules (the number of which may vary depending on the reactor

type selected) would be grouped into one facility or unit. In this EIS, the proposed site is

evaluated for construction and operation of various numbers of new reactors and/or modules,

configured as one operating unit, up to a total of 6800 MW(t). The new unit would use either a

wet cooling (natural draft or mechanical draft cooling towers) or a hybrid wet/dry

cooling system.(a)

1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose and need for the proposed action (issuance of an ESP) is to provide stability in the

licensing process by addressing safety and environmental issues before plants are built, rather

than after construction is completed. This process allows for early resolution of many safety

and environmental issues that may be identified for the ESP site. In the absence of an ESP, an |

applicant may apply for a CP and operating licenses under 10 CFR Part 50 when safety and |

environmental reviews of applications would continue during plant construction. Alternatively, |

all safety and environmental issues would have to be addressed at the time of the staff’s review

of a COL submitted under 10 CFR Part 52 if no ESP for the site were referenced. Although

actual construction and operation of the facility would not take place until a COL is granted, 
Introduction

NUREG-1815 1-8 July 2006

certain lead-time activities, such as ordering and procuring certain components and materials

necessary to construct the plant, may begin before the COL is granted. As a result, without the

ESP review process, there could be a considerable expenditure of funds, commitment of

resources, and passage of time before site safety and environmental issues are finally resolved.

1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

| Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA (42 USC 4321, et seq.) states that EISs will include a detailed

statement on alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC regulations for implementing

Section 102(2) of NEPA provide for inclusion of a chapter in an EIS discussing the

environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix A). Chapter 8 of this EIS discusses the environmental impacts of four categories of

alternatives: (1) the no-action alternative, (2) alternative energy sources, (3) system design

alternatives, and (4) alternative sites. The Commission determined that evaluation of energy

alternatives is not required for an ESP; however, Exelon included a discussion of energy

alternatives in its ER, and, therefore, the staff conducted an evaluation of energy alternatives.

The six alternative sites that are considered are all Exelon sites located in Illinois: Braidwood,

Byron, Dresden, Quad Cities, LaSalle, and Zion. The environmental analysis was performed

using reconnaissance-level information. Chapter 8 also includes sections discussing

(1) Exelon’s region of interest for identification of alternative plant sites, (2) the methodology

used by Exelon to select alternative sites and the proposed Exelon ESP site, and (3) generic

issues consistent among alternative sites. Chapter 9 compares the environmental impacts at

the Exelon ESP site to the alternative sites and to the no-action alternative and qualitatively

determines whether an obviously superior alternative site to the proposed site exists.

1.5 Compliance and Consultations

Prior to construction and operation of a new reactor, Exelon is required to hold certain Federal,

State, and local environmental permits, as well as meet applicable Federal and State statutory

requirements. In its ER, Exelon provides a list of environmental approvals and consultations

associated with the Exelon ESP. Because an ESP is limited to establishing the acceptability of

the proposed site for future development, the authorizations Exelon will need from Federal,

State, and local authorities for construction and operation are not yet required; therefore, they

have not been obtained. However, Exelon will need to obtain the necessary authorizations to

conduct the site-preparation activities specified in the site redress plan. Potential authorizations

and consultations relevant to the proposed ESP are included in Appendix I. The information

provided in Appendix I is based on guidance from NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard

Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000).
Introduction

July 2006 1-9 NUREG-1815

The staff reviewed the list and has contacted the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies

to identify any compliance, permit, or significant environmental issues of concern to the

reviewing agencies that may impact the suitability of the Exelon ESP site for the construction

and operation of the reactors that fall within the PPE.

1.6 Report Contents

The subsequent chapters of this EIS are organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the

proposed site and discusses the environment that would be affected by the addition of a new

nuclear unit. Chapter 3 examines the power plant characteristics to be used as the basis for

evaluation of the environmental impacts. The evaluations described in Chapter 3 are based on

the PPE as well as site characteristics for which information is currently available. Chapters 4

and 5 examine site suitability by analyzing the environmental impacts of construction

(Chapter 4) and operation (Chapter 5) of the proposed new nuclear unit. Chapter 6 analyzes

the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, transportation of radioactive materials, and

decommissioning, while Chapter 7 discusses the cumulative impacts of the proposed action as

defined in 40 CFR Part 1508. Chapter 8 explains how the alternative sites were selected and

analyzes the alternative sites and systems. Chapter 9 compares the proposed action with the

alternatives, and Chapter 10 summarizes the findings of the preceding chapters and presents

the staff’s recommendation with respect to (1) the Commission’s approval of the proposed site |

for an ESP based on the staff’s evaluation of environmental impacts and (2) the conclusions

regarding the site redress plan.

The appendixes to the EIS provide the following additional information.

 C Appendix A – Contributors to the EIS

 C Appendix B – Organizations Contacted

 C Appendix C – Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related

to Exelon Generation Company, LLC’s Application for Early Site Permit at the Exelon

ESP Site

 C Appendix D – Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses

 C Appendix E – Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments and Responses |

 C Appendix F – Key Correspondence

 C Appendix G – Data and Information to Support Transportation Discussion
Introduction

NUREG-1815 1-10 July 2006

 C Appendix H – Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment

 C Appendix I – Required Authorizations and Consultations

 C Appendix J – Plant Parameter Envelope Values

 C Appendix K – Key Statements from the Exelon Environmental Report Considered in the

NRC Staff’s Environmental Analysis.

1.7 References

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.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

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

Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.”

68 FR 66130. “Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Clinton Early Site Permit; Notice of Intent to

Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Federal Register. Docket No. 52-007. 

November 25, 2003.

| 70 FR 12211. “EIS No. 050096, Draft EIS, NRC, IL, Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Exelon ESP

| Site, Application for ESP on One Additional Nuclear Unit, within the Clinton Power Station

| (CPS).” Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Federal Register. March 11,

| 2005.

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006. Exelon Generation Company LLC, Early

| Site Permit Application: Environmental Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plan for the Review of

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, NRC, Washington, D.C.
Introduction

July 2006 1-11 NUREG-1815

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement |

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, NRC, Washington, D.C. |

Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/ |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan. 

NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Letter from J.L. Lyons, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, NRC, to R.L. Simard, Nuclear Energy Institute, dated June 23, 2–3,

“U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Responses to Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Comments

on Draft RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site Permits (ML031710698).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Processing Applications for Early Site

Permits. RS-002, NRC, Washington, D.C. (May 3, 2004).

July 2006 2-1 NUREG-1815

2.0 Affected Environment

The site proposed by Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) for an early site permit (ESP)

is located in DeWitt County, Illinois, within the existing boundaries of the current Clinton Power

Station (CPS). The CPS property is owned by AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 

The site is located on the shore of Clinton Lake approximately 10 km (6 mi) east of the City of

Clinton. One generating unit (Unit 1) is currently located on the CPS site. The station location

is described in Section 2.1, with the land, meteorology and air quality, geology, radiological

environment, water, ecology, socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, and

environmental justice of the site presented in Sections 2.2 through 2.10, respectively. 

Section 2.11 examines related Federal projects, and references are presented in Section 2.12.

2.1 Site Location

Exelon’s proposed ESP location is within the CPS site (see Figure 2-1). The ESP facility would

be located 213 m (700 ft) south of the current CPS facility. |

The ESP site is located in rural DeWitt County, which had a population of approximately 17,000

in 2000. Figure 2-2 shows the location of the CPS in relationship to the counties and principal |

cities and towns within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the site. The site is located between |

Bloomington and Decatur, which are 35 km (22 mi) to the north and 35 km (22 mi) to the south, |

respectively. In addition, the site is located between the Cities of Lincoln and ChampaignUrbana, 45 km (28 mi) to the west and 48 km (30 mi) to the east, respectively. Illinois State |

Route (SR) 54 passes approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) north of the ESP site; Illinois SR 10 passes

approximately 5 km (3 mi) south; and Illinois SR 48 is approximately 8 km (5 mi) east of the

ESP site (see Figure 2-3). There is one active railroad line within the vicinity: the Canadian

National Railroad runs parallel to Illinois SR 54 and traverses the vicinity approximately 1.6 km

(1 mi) north of the site. There are three active private airports nearby: the Martin Airport is

located approximately 6 km (4 mi) south of the site; the Thorp Airport is located approximately

8 km (5 mi) northwest of the site; and the Baker Strip is located approximately 8 km (5 mi)

southeast of the site. The ESP site is situated on Clinton Lake, which was formed by the |

construction of an earthen dam across Salt Creek, 366 m (1200 ft) downstream from the |

confluence of Salt Creek with the North Fork of Salt Creek. The ESP site is approximately 5 km

(3 mi) northeast of the dam, located on a peninsula between the two arms of the lake, at an

approximate grade elevation of 224 m (736 ft). The normal lake pool elevation is 210 m (690 ft),

with a surface area of 1981 ha (4895 ac). The station occupies approximately 187 ha (461 ac)

of land. All site land, subsurface lands, and mineral rights are owned by AmerGen.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-2 July 2006

Figure 2-1. Location of ESP Structures Relative to CPS Facilities
|

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Figure 2-2. Exelon ESP 80-km (50-mi) Region |

July 2006 2-3 NUREG-1815

Affected Environment
|

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Figure 2-3. Exelon ESP 10-km (6-mi) Vicinity |

NUREG-1815 2-4 July 2006

Affected Environment
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-5 NUREG-1815

In its Environmental Report (ER), Exelon states that agreements between Exelon and AmerGen |

will be in place to ensure that Exelon has the necessary authority, control, and rights related to

the proposed ESP site (Exelon 2006a). |

Clinton Lake, an artificial reservoir, was created in 1977. The lake was filled by early 1978. The

lake has a storage capacity of 9.15 x 107

 m3 (74,200 acre-ft) at normal pool elevation. Clinton

Lake was created primarily as a source of cooling water for the CPS although it has become a

popular recreation area, and the dam provides downstream flood control. The lake is used as a

source of potable water for the CPS. Clinton Lake is managed by the Illinois Department of |

Natural Resources (IDNR) through a lease agreement with AmerGen. There were 972,616 |

visitors to the lake during 2000 (IOC 2001). |

2.2 Land

This section discusses land-related issues for the Exelon ESP site. Section 2.2.1 describes the

site and the vicinity around the site. Section 2.2.2 discusses the existing transmission line

rights-of-way and offsite areas. Section 2.2.3 discusses the region, defined as the area within

80 km (50 mi) of the ESP site.

2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity

For purposes of this environmental impact statement (EIS), the Exelon ESP site refers to the

area that will be directly affected by construction and operation of the new nuclear unit and

includes all the land area within the ESP site boundary, or approximately 187 ha (461 ac). The

vicinity includes all land within a 10-km (6-mi) radius of the proposed ESP site.

The Exelon ESP site is located in DeWitt County in central Illinois, just over 10 km (6 mi) east of

the city of Clinton, the county seat of DeWitt County. The proposed site lies within the existing

boundaries of the current CPS site. The new nuclear unit would be sited adjacent to the

existing nuclear power station.

The Exelon ESP site is situated on a peninsula of Clinton Lake, between the Salt Creek North

Fork arm and the Salt Creek arm. Clinton Lake was created when the Illinois Power Company

erected a dam on the main stem of Salt Creek, just northwest of the community of Lane in 1977,

and filled the lake in 1978. The earthen dam lies about 366 m (1200 ft) downstream from the |

confluence of Salt Creek and the Salt Creek North Fork, approximately 5 km (3 mi) to the

southwest of the ESP site. Salt Creek flows southwesterly, joining the Sangamon River at a

point about 85 km (53 mi) west of the site. At a normal pool elevation of 210 m (690 ft), the lake |

covers 1981 ha (4895 ac) and extends up Salt Creek to about 19 km (12 mi) from the dam and

up the Salt Creek North Fork about 11 km (7 mi) from the dam. Most of Clinton Lake’s 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-6 July 2006

immediate shoreline is owned by AmerGen and managed by the IDNR as the Clinton Lake

State Recreation Area. Figure 2-3 illustrates the geography of the site and vicinity.

Within the ESP site, 100 percent (187 ha [461 ac]) has been graded or otherwise developed for

the operation of the existing nuclear power plant. Except for the CPS plant structures, there are

| no industrial, residential, commercial, or institutional structures on the site. The ESP site in its

entirety is zoned for transportation and industrial use. Except for the dam that was built across

Salt Creek to create Clinton Lake, no structures have been built in the preconstruction 100-year

floodplain of the ESP site. Several structures were built along the edges of the flood-prone area

of the ESP site, including the intake and discharge structures, modified highway bridges, a

marina, and seven boat ramps.

The closest communities to the ESP site include DeWitt, Lane, Weldon, and Clinton. DeWitt

has a population of about 188 and is located nearly 5 km (3 mi) east of the ESP site. Lane has

| a population of 126 and is located just about 5 km (3 mi) south of the site. Weldon has a

population of 440 and is located more than 8 km (5 mi) southeast of the site. The city of Clinton

has a population of 7485, and is located more than 10 km (6 mi) west of the site. The nearest

resident to the site is 1.2 km (0.73 mi) to the southwest. The nearest school is 7.7 km (4.8 mi)

west of the site, the nearest church is 6.1 km (3.8 mi) south of the site, and the nearest

| campground is approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) west of the site (Exelon 2006a).

The ESP site vicinity is 84 percent agricultural land (24,622 ha [60,842 ac]). Industrial land use

within the vicinity is less than 1 percent and is limited to areas near Clinton and Weldon. Less

than 1 percent of land within the site vicinity is residential and consists primarily of residential

| areas in Clinton and Weldon (Exelon 2006a). There are no known significant mineral resources

(e.g., sand and gravel, coal, oil, natural gas, and ores) in the vicinity of the ESP site

| (Exelon 2006a). Table 2-1 illustrates the land-use and land-cover characteristics of the site

and vicinity.

Recreational areas are the only special land uses within the vicinity. They include the Clinton

Lake State Recreation Area, the Moscoutin Recreation Site, and the Weldon Springs State

| Recreation Area. Clinton Lake State Recreation Area is 3764 ha (9300 ac), including the

1981-ha (4895-ac) Clinton Lake, and offers snowmobiling, ice fishing, ice skating, boating,

fishing, water skiing, picnicking, camping, swimming, hiking, and hunting. Weldon Springs State

Recreation Area encompasses approximately 150 ha (370 ac) and contains an 11-ha (28-ac)

lake. Weldon Springs State Recreation Area offers facilities for fishing, picnicking, boating, and

hiking during the summer, and sledding, tobogganing, ice fishing, and cross-country skiing

during the winter.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-7 NUREG-1815

Table 2-1. Land-Use Classification of the Exelon ESP Site and Vicinity, Region, and

Potentially Affected Transmission Line Rights-of-Way(a) |

Land-Use Class

80-km (50-mi) Region 10-km (6-mi) Vicinity

Transmission Line |

Rights-of-Way

Area, ha

(ac)

Percent

of Total

Area, ha

(ac)

Percent

of Total

Area, ha

(ac)

Percent

of Total

Agricultural 1,894,793

(4,682,136)

93.1 24,622

(60,842)

84.0 365

(903)

84.9 |

|

Developed

Nonresidential

10,524

(26,006)

0.5 64

(158)

0.2 2

(5)

0.5 |

Residential 27,467

(67,873)

1.3 67

(165)

0.2 0

(0)

0.0 |

Undeveloped 67,090

(165,782)

3.3 2433

(6012)

8.3 49

(122)

11.5 |

Water or

Wetlands

35,117

(86,775)

1.7 2119

(5236)

7.2 13

(33)

3.1 |

Total Acreage 2,034,990

(5,028,571)

29,304

(72,411)

430

(1063)

|

|

(a) U.S. Geological Survey land-cover classes have been aggregated for presentation purposes. Rounding may |

affect totals. The ESP site is 187 ha (461 ac) in size and is zoned for transportation and industrial use. Land |

covers vary within the site. Recreation areas are not a designated land-cover class and are not separated in |

this table (Vogelmann et al. 2001). |

The topography of the vicinity is generally flat, even to the exclusion of hedgerows and forested

tracts. Along the major drainage courses, however, the land is gently rolling to steeply sloped

and usually forested. Elevations range from approximately 244 m (800 ft) above mean sea level |

(MSL) in the north-central portion of the vicinity to 210 m (690 ft) above MSL along Clinton Lake |

(USGS 2001). |

Figure 2-3 shows the transportation and utility networks, comprised of highways, rail lines, and

utility rights-of-way, which cross the site and vicinity. Illinois Route 54 is approximately 1.6 km

(1 mi) north of the ESP site. Illinois Route 10 is approximately 5 km (3 mi) south, and Illinois

Route 48 is approximately 8 km (5 mi) east of the ESP site. As shown, access to the site is

limited primarily by Illinois Route 54. The Canadian National Railroad runs parallel to Illinois

Route 54 and traverses the vicinity approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) north of the ESP site. A rail |

spur from that line runs south into the ESP site. There are three private airports within the |

vicinity of the site: the Martin Airport is located approximately 6 km (4 mi) south of the site; the

Thorp Airport is located approximately 8 km (5 mi) northwest of the site; the Baker Strip is 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-8 July 2006

located approximately 8 km (5 mi) southeast of the site. The waterways within the vicinity

include Clinton Lake, Salt Creek, the North Fork of Salt Creek, which branches off Clinton Lake,

and Weldon Springs Lake. There is one canoe access area north of the site. In addition, there

is one marina with boat access south of the site, and four boat access areas, one in each

cardinal direction from the site. There are no known significant mineral resources (e.g., sand

| and gravel, coal, oil, natural gas, and ores) in the vicinity of the ESP site (Exelon 2006a).

In 1992, DeWitt County published a comprehensive plan to guide overall development in the

area. Use of the ESP site for a new nuclear unit will not conflict with proposed zoning because

the facility will be constructed within the existing CPS site, which is already designated for

transportation and utilities. The plan states that DeWitt County should encourage new spin-off

development or related expansion at the CPS site (University of Illinois 1992).

2.2.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas

The anticipated transmission line rights-of-way for the Exelon ESP facility are the existing rightsof-way used to transmit power generated from the CPS. The transmission line rights-of-way are

comprised of two sections. Based on geographic information system (GIS) analysis, the staff

| estimates the northern section is approximately 37 km (23 mi) long with a width of 76 m (250 ft)

| (an area of 283 ha [700 ac]). Based on the description in the ER, the staff estimates that the

| southern section is approximately 19 km (12 mi) long with a width of 76 m (250 ft) (an area of

| 147 ha [363 ac]). The northern section runs north of the ESP site, and then turns west and

terminates at the Brokaw substation just west of Bloomington. The southern section runs

| southwest of the ESP site past Clinton Lake, and then turns south and would terminate at a

point near the intersection of the Latham-Rising 384 kV transmission line. Figures 2-2 and 2-3

show the transmission line rights-of-way that are anticipated to be upgraded. Table 2-1

describes the percentage and actual area devoted to the major land-use and land-cover

classifications that were confirmed with a review of aerial photographs and onsite inspection. 

Section 3.3 describes the specific upgrades anticipated for the transmission line rights-of-way.

Recreation areas, including the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area, are the only special land

uses along the transmission line rights-of-way. Clinton Lake State Recreation Area is 3760 ha

(9300 ac), which includes the 1981-ha (4895-ac) Clinton Lake. The topography of the

| transmission line rights-of-way is generally flat. Along the major drainage courses, however, the

land is gently rolling to steeply sloped and usually forested. Elevation ranges from

| approximately 240 m (800 ft) above MSL in the north-central portion of the transmission rights-

| of-way to 210 m (690 ft) above MSL near Clinton Lake.

| Figure 2-3 shows the transportation network, including highways and rail lines that cross the

transmission line rights-of-way. The highways that traverse the transmission line rights-of-way

are U.S. Highway 150, Interstate 74, U.S. Highway 136, Illinois SR 54, and Illinois SR 10. The 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-9 NUREG-1815

Norfolk Southern Railroad traverses the northern portion of the transmission line right-of-way. 

The railroad also has a line that runs parallel to Interstate 74 and traverses the north-central

portion of the transmission line rights-of-way. The Canadian National Railroad runs parallel to

Illinois SR 54 and traverses the transmission line right-of-way approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) north

of the ESP site. There are three private airports and one public airport within 2.4 km (1.5 mi) of

the transmission line rights-of-way. The public airport is Bloomington-Normal Airport, located

approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) west of the northern tip of the transmission line right-of-way. The

private airports include the Martin Airport, Thorp Airport, and the Baker Strip, discussed |

previously in Section 2.1.

The waterways that the transmission line rights-of-way cross include Clinton Lake, Salt Creek,

and North Fork Salt Creek. There is one canoe access area near the northern section of the

transmission line right-of-way that crosses Salt Creek. The southern section of the transmission

line right-of-way crosses Salt Creek below Clinton Lake Dam, near a recreation site on the

creek. There are no known significant mineral resources (sand and gravel, coal oil, natural gas,

or ores) within the transmission line rights-of-way (Exelon 2006a). |

The comprehensive plan published in DeWitt County in 1992 (University of Illinois 1992)

indicates that the transmission line rights-of-way do not conflict with any proposed zoning for the

county. DeWitt County has designated an area approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) southwest of the

CPS and Clinton Lake as a possible area for a new restaurant and a golf course. Bicycle and

hiking trails are planned along the Canadian National Railroad. The transmission line rights-ofway would not interfere with the county’s land-use plan because only existing rights-of-way are

anticipated to be used for a new nuclear unit at the Clinton ESP site.

McLean County published a regional comprehensive plan in August 1999 (McLean County

1999). The transmission line rights-of-way would not conflict with any proposed zoning for the

county. McLean County plans to make some improvements to the roads that either cross or are

adjacent to the transmission line rights-of-way. The transmission line right-of-way would not

interfere with the county’s land-use plan because only an existing right-of-way is anticipated to

be used for a new nuclear unit at the Clinton ESP site.

2.2.3 The Region

The region, defined as the area extending 80 km (50 mi) from the ESP unit centerpoint, includes |

all or portions of the following counties in Illinois: Champaign, Christian, Coles, DeWitt,

Douglas, Ford, Iroquois, Livingston, Logan, Macon, Mason, McLean, Menard, Moultrie, Piatt,

Sangamon, Shelby, Tazewell, Vermilion, and Woodford. Major land-use classifications, 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-10 July 2006

| waterways, recreation areas, highways, roads, and other transportation routes in the region are

shown in Figure 2-2.

Regionally, the Exelon ESP site lies approximately 82 km (51 mi) northeast of Springfield,

Illinois, 48 km (30 mi) west of Champaign, Illinois, 35 km (22 mi) southeast of Bloomington,

Illinois, and about 200 km (125 mi) south of Chicago, Illinois. The site is near the center of a

| triangle formed by the large cities of Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, and Springfield,

Illinois. Interstates 74 and 72 pass within 18 km (11 mi) to the northwest and 19 km (12 mi) to

the southwest of the site, respectively. Illinois SR 51 passes about 11 km (7 mi) west of the

site. Figure 2-2 illustrates the extent of the region considered in this EIS.

Land use within the region varies with distance from major population centers and high-use

transportation corridors. The metropolitan areas of Springfield, Bloomington-Normal, and

| Champaign-Urbana contain the highest density of residential, commercial, and industrial land

use. Land use in the immediate vicinity of the ESP site and the areas outside the noted

metropolitan areas and transportation corridors is primarily agricultural, with several small towns

and communities. The region, comprising about 14.2 percent of the total area of Illinois,

| encompasses four main land-use classes (Exelon 2006a). Cropland covers the vast majority of

the land area in the region, followed by urbanized areas, forested riparian areas, and park and

| recreation area reserves. Table 2-2 identifies agricultural land use by major crop in the affected

| region. Table 2-3 provides information on the region’s livestock production.

There are four airports with scheduled passenger air service within the region: Springfield

Capital Airport, Decatur Airport, Central Illinois Regional Airport in Bloomington, and the

University of Illinois-Willard Airport in Champaign. The Rantoul National Aviation Center - Frank

Elliot Field, formerly the Chanute Air Force Base, lies about 61 km (38 mi) northwest of the ESP

site.

Much of the region comes under the Illinois Governor’s Office regional plan for the North-Central

Region of the State, which covers DeWitt, Fulton, Livingston, Marshall, Mason, McLean, Peoria,

Stark, Tazewell, and Woodford Counties. The Governor’s “Opportunity Returns” plan for North

Central Illinois (State of Illinois 2003) consists of five primary goals to address the economic and

workforce development needs of the region: investing in entrepreneurship and innovation,

improving transportation infrastructure, strengthening education and job training, investing in

renewable energy and the environment, and encouraging investment and opening markets.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-11 NUREG-1815

Table 2-2. 2002 Major Agricultural Crops and Land in Production within 80 km (50 mi) of the Exelon ESP Site (hectares [acres]) |

County

(Illinois)

Total Land

Area 

Harvested Area of Major Crops Major Crop

Land

Harvested

Total Land |

in Crop |

Production | All Hay Oats

Corn 

(Grain)

Corn 

(Other) Soybeans All Wheat

Champaign 258,172 1390 163 112,311 67 104,803 973 219,707 226,320 |

(637,956) (3434) (403) (277,527) (165) (258,974) (2405) (542,908) (559,248) |

Christian 183,646 1334 255 79,343 73 71,380 1146 153,531 157,575 |

(453,799) (3297) (629) (196,060) (180) (176,385) (2833) (379,384) (389,376) |

Coles 131,645 2232 16 44,498 129 45,829 494 93,199 96,552 |

(325,303) (5516) (40) (109,957) (319) (113,246) (1221) (230,299) (238,586) |

De Witt 102,972 989 66 38,178 33 37,105 116 76,486 78,027 |

(254,449) (2443) (162) (94,339) (82) (91,689) (286) (189,001) (192,809) |

Douglas 107,967 1461 370 43,851 298 42,097 197 88,273 90,327 |

(266,792) (3609) (914) (108,357) (736) (104,025) (487) (218,128) (223,202) |

Ford 125,847 473 141 53,967 77 53,662 918 109,238 111,923 |

(310,975) (1168) (348) (133,356) (191) (132,601) (2269) (269,933) (276,567) |

Iroquois 289,154 2805 283 129,532 541 119,403 1453 254,018 262,401 |

(714,514) (6932) (699) (320,080) (1338) (295,052) (3591) (627,692) (648,406) |

Livingston 270,332 1776 422 118,664 251 119,564 1974 242,652 247,639 |

(668,006) (4389) (1044) (293,226) (620) (295,449) (4878) (599,606) (611,929) |

Logan 160,098 1189 143 69,406 133 63,337 343 134,551 138,763 |

(395,610) (2938) (354) (171,505) (329) (156,508) (848) (332,482) (342,890) |

Macon 150,355 720 78 61,119 11 57,945 99 119,971 122,554 |

(371,535) (1778) (193) (151,029) (26) (143,185) (244) (296,455) (302,838) |

Mason 139,585 1586 226 47,129 8 37,675 2186 88,810 105,092 |

(344,923) (3919) (558) (116,459) (20) (93,096) (5402) (219,454) (259,687) |
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-12 July 2006 Table 2-2. (contd) |

|

County |

(Illinois) |

Total Land

Area 

Harvested Area of Major Crops | Major Crop

Land

Harvested

Total Land

in Crop

Production All Hay Oats

Corn 

(Grain)

Corn 

(Other) Soybeans All Wheat

McLean | 306,532 1936 254 132,320 671 124,919 407 260,507 266,859

| (757,457) (4783) (627) (326,970) (1659) (308,682) (1005) (643,726) (659,423)

Menard | 81,390 963 7 26,336 94 24,148 538 52,085 56,463

| (201,118) (2379) (17) (65,078) (232) (59,670) (1329) (128,705) (139,523)

Moultrie | 86,919 1153 222 34,852 275 33,563 314 70,379 71,561

| (214,781) (2848) (548) (86,121) (679) (82,937) (777) (173,910) (176,831)

Piatt | 113,965 390 47 51,236 56 47,868 219 99,816 101,603

| (281,614) (964) (115) (126,608) (139) (118,285) (540) (246,651) (251,066)

Sangamon | 224,858 2416 45 95,081 83 71,977 292 169,894 176,634

| (555,636) (5971) (110) (234,951) (205) (177,858) (721) (419,816) (436,471)

Shelby | 196,453 4336 65 67,463 1070 68,140 5293 146,367 151,681

| (485,447) (10,715) (161) (166,704) (2643) (168,378) (13,080) (361,681) (374,811)

Tazewell | 168,054 2097 180 58,595 196 52,017 962 114,048 122,203

| (415,270) (5183) (445) (144,791) (485) (128,538) (2377) (281,819) (301,970)

Vermilion | 232,861 2211 135 83,319 146 81,727 758 168,297 173,571

| (575,411) (5464) (334) (205,886) (360) (201,953) (1874) (415,871) (428,904)

Woodford | 136,738 1742 288 55,879 91 51,754 923 110,677 114,715

| (337,888) (4305) (712) (138,079) (226) (127,886) (2280) (273,488) (283,467)

Region | 3,330,804 31,456 3116 1,347,200 4212 1,257,160 18,683 2,661,828 2,757,745

| (8,230,596) (77,730) (7701) (3,329,004) (10,408) (3,106,511) (46,167) (6,577,521) (6,814,537)

Source: USDA 2004 |
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-13 NUREG-1815

Table 2-3. 2002 Livestock Production and Farm Value within 80 km (50 mi) |

of the Exelon ESP Site |

County

Livestock Inventory Farm Inventory |

Beef

Cattle

(Head)

Milk Cows

(Head)

Hogs and

Pigs

(Head)

Chickens

Sold

(Number) Farms

Average

Value per

Farm ($)

Average |

Value per |

Acre ($) |

Champaign (a) (a) 21,158 412 1285 1,416,465 2890 |

Christian 2852 11 27,742 (a) 796 1,468,856 2530 |

Coles 2446 220 3058 470 684 1,074,094 2716 |

DeWitt (a) (a) 22,107 383 459 1,542,195 3012 |

Douglas 374 1469 8,863 48,597 576 1,200,817 2970 |

Ford 594 12 29,874 0 530 1,575,153 2608 |

Iroquois 3667 1007 32,137 1038 1386 1,287,988 2402 |

Livingston 1497 812 125,275 550 1330 1,388,250 2658 |

Logan (a) (a) 80,755 (a) 692 1,522,254 2808 |

Macon (a) (a) 6397 (a) 646 1,636,567 3057 |

Mason 3154 0 13,521 (a) 443 1,570,696 2183 |

McLean 3884 2840 92,321 (a) 1442 1,398,865 2912 |

Menard 2475 109 30,859 (a) 329 1,255,196 2421 |

Moultrie 943 1111 9346 (a) 441 1,267,450 2952 |

Piatt 701 113 8072 30 442 1,999,015 2981 |

Sangamon 4499 252 50,810 40 970 1,451,434 2829 |

Shelby 6120 2375 56,285 0 1228 879,981 2341 |

Tazewell 3513 608 74,762 240 918 1,095,311 2862 |

Vermilion 3031 167 19,056 241 909 1,403,687 2467 |

Woodford 3240 205 82,337 (a) 919 1,127,894 2993 |

Region 42,990 11,311 794,735 52,001 16,425 1,414,745 2708 |

Note: (a) Value not disclosed by US Dept of Agriculture, not included in totals. |

Source: USDA 2004 |

2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality

The following three sections describe the climate and air quality of the Exelon ESP site. 

Section 2.3.1 describes the climate of the region and area in the immediate vicinity of the ESP

site. Section 2.3.2 describes the air quality in the region. Section 2.3.3 describes the

meteorological monitoring program at the site.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-14 July 2006

2.3.1 Climate

The Exelon ESP site has a typical continental climate with moderately cold winters and warm

summers. Air masses may approach the region from the south, west, or north. The closest

first-order weather stations with long periods of record are Peoria, about 88 km (55 mi)

northwest of the site, and Springfield, about 79 km (49 mi) west-southwest of the site. These

stations provide a good indication of the general climate at the ESP site because of their

proximity and similarities in topography and vegetation. The ESP site is relatively flat with no

topographic features that would cause the local climate to deviate significantly from the

regional climate.

The following climatological statistics are derived from local climatological data for Peoria and

Springfield (NCDC 2004a, b). Temperatures are more variable in the winter than in the summer

because of the differences in air mass source regions. Day time maximum temperatures range

from about 0°C (32°F) in January to about 30°C (86°F) in July, while night time minimum

temperatures range from about -9°C (16°F) in January to about 19°C (65°F) in July. Monthly

average wind speeds range from about 3.5 m/s (8 mph) in the summer to about 5 m/s (12 mph)

in the winter and early spring. Precipitation is rather uniformly distributed throughout the year

with an average of 7.5 cm (3 in.) or more of rain falling each month from March through

September. Snow generally occurs between November and March with the month of January

having an average snowfall of about 20 cm (7.8 in.).

Relative humidity generally varies diurnally with a maximum in the early morning hours and a

minimum in the afternoon. Regionally, the noon relative humidity ranges from about 70 percent

in the winter to about 55 percent in the early spring and fall. During the summer, the noon

relative humidity is about 60 percent. On about 20 days per year, the air becomes saturated

and fog forms, which limits the visibility to less than 400 m (0.25 mi).

2.3.1.1 Wind

| Regionally, the prevailing wind directions in Peoria and Springfield in all months are from the

| south. Wind speeds in Peoria range from about 3.2 m/s (7.1 mph) in August to about 5.2 m/s

| (12 mph) in March. Monthly average wind speeds in Springfield range from 3.4 m/s (7.7 mph) in

August to 5.8 m/s (13 mph) in March (NCDC 2004a, b). Winds measured onsite by the CPS

| meteorological system from April 1972 through April 1977 and January 2000 through

| August 2002, indicate that the dominant wind direction at the site is from the south. The annual

| average wind speed for the site is about 4.2 m/s (9.3 mph) (Exelon 2006a).

Wind persistence at the site was evaluated using the 1972 through 1977 data. The maximum

persistence period of 33 hours occurred twice. During one period, the wind was from the south-

| southwest, and during the other it was from the northeast (Exelon 2006a).
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-15 NUREG-1815

2.3.1.2 Atmospheric Stability

Atmospheric stability is a meteorological parameter that describes the dispersion characteristics

of the atmosphere. It can be determined by the difference in temperature between two heights. 

A seven-category atmospheric stability classification scheme based on temperature differences

is set forth in Safety Guide 23 (AEC 1972). When the temperature decreases rapidly with

increasing height, the atmosphere is unstable and atmospheric dispersion is good. In contrast,

when the temperature increases with height, the atmosphere is stable and dispersion is limited.

Temperature difference measurements made on the CPS meteorological tower indicate that

unstable atmospheric conditions exist at the site approximately 18 percent of the time, and

stable conditions exist about 44 percent of the time (Exelon 2006a). During the remaining |

38 percent of the time, the atmospheric stability is neutral, and atmospheric dispersion is

moderate. |

Comparison of the atmospheric stability distributions for the 1972 to 1977 and the 2000 to 2002 |

measurement periods indicates that there may have been a shift in the distribution toward

unstable conditions between the earlier period and the later period. It is unlikely that such a

shift would be a natural occurrence. It is more likely that the lower level of the temperature

difference measurement system may be affected by Clinton Lake, which is heated by the

cooling water from the CPS. Clinton Lake was not created until 1977, and it was not heated

until 1987.

2.3.1.3 Temperature

The temperature measured at the 10-m (33 ft) level of the CPS meteorological tower is

considered to be representative of the ESP site. Temperature data from the tower for the 1972

through 1977 time period show the daily average temperature ranges from a low of -5.1°C

(23°F) in January to a high of 23.6°C (74.5°F) in July. During this 5-year period, the absolute

minimum temperature was -28.8°C (-19.8°F), and the absolute maximum temperature was

35.2°C (95.4°F). These temperatures are consistent with long-term values for Peoria and

Springfield.

2.3.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture

The moisture content of the atmosphere can be represented in a variety of ways. The most

common are relative humidity, precipitation, and fog. Precipitation is measured at the CPS site,

but relative humidity and fog are not.

During the 1972 through 1977 period, the annual average precipitation at the CPS was about

65 cm (25.5 in.), with monthly averages ranging from about 3.0 cm (1.2 in.) in February to about 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-16 July 2006

10.7 cm (4.2 in.) in June. These values are consistent with averages for Springfield. 

Precipitation was recorded for about 4 percent of the hours. The maximum number of

consecutive hours with precipitation was 14, and the maximum number of consecutive hours

without precipitation was 807.

The CPS meteorological system does not measure relative humidity, but it does measure the

dew point temperature. The dew point temperature is the temperature at which air becomes

saturated when it is cooled, i.e., the relative humidity becomes 100 percent when air is cooled to

the dew point. The ambient temperature and dew point temperature can be used in the design

of wet cooling systems, and the difference between the temperature and dew point can be used

to predict the occurrence of fog.

Climatological records at Peoria and Springfield indicate that fog occurs on an average of two to

three times per month from November through March and on an average of about one day per

month for the remainder of the year. These records are representative of the conditions in

Dewitt County. However, they may not be representative of conditions in the immediate vicinity

of the site. The site is surrounded by Clinton Lake, which is heated by the existing CPS. The

potential effects on fog from the heated water in the lake and in the flume leading from the CPS

to the lake have been analytically estimated (AmerGen 2001c). Based on the analytical model,

several hundred hours of fog are expected on roads in the vicinity of the site, but this fog is not

expected to extend beyond about 1.6 km (1 mi) from the lake, and icing on roads is not

expected to extend more than 150 m (500 ft) from the lake.

2.3.1.5 Severe Weather

The site can experience severe weather in the form of thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, and snow

and ice. Thunderstorms occur on about 47 days per year with an average of more than

five thunderstorm days per month from April through August. Over the last 10 years, DeWitt

| County, which includes the Exelon ESP site, along with Macon and McLean Counties have

averaged more than one hail storm with hail size of at least 1.9 cm (0.75 in.) per year

(NCDC 2004c).

From 1950 through 2003, 18 tornadoes were reported in DeWitt County (NCDC 2004c),

including one magnitude F4 tornado (wind speed between 92 and 116 m/s [207 and 260 mph]).

Using tornado data for the period from January 1, 1950, through August 31, 2003, the best

estimate tornado strike probability and 10-7 probability design wind speed for the Exelon ESP

site are 1.2 x 10-3 per year and 134 m/s (300 mph), respectively (Ramsdell 2004).

The average snowfall in the area is about 64 cm (25 in.) with most of the snow falling in

December, January, and February. About twice each winter, there is a heavy snow storm, ice

storm, or other winter storm of note (NCDC 2004c). These storms generally cover much of

central Illinois.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-17 NUREG-1815

2.3.2 Air Quality

The Exelon ESP site is in DeWitt County, Illinois, which is on the western edge of the East

Central Illinois Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR). The West Central Illinois Intrastate

AQCR lies to the south and west of DeWitt County, and the Burlington-Keokuk Interstate AQCR

lies northwest of DeWitt County. All of the counties in these AQCRs near the ESP site are in

compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 81.314). There are no |

mandatory Class 1 Federal Areas where visibility is an important value in Illinois or Indiana

within 160 km (100 mi) of the ESP site.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) operates a statewide air-monitoring

network comprising 41 sites. However, none of the monitoring stations is in DeWitt County. 

The closest monitoring stations are in Normal and Decatur, and slightly more distant stations

are located in the Peoria, Springfield, and Champaign-Urbana areas. Results of monitoring at

these locations show that there were no days on which the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter were exceeded

(IEPA 2003). Similarly, there were no days on which the new 1-hour ozone standard was

exceeded. However, the 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded on 4 days each at the Normal

and Decatur monitoring locations, on 1 day in the Champaign-Urbana area, and on 2 days in

the Peoria area.

Statewide monitoring data for the last 10 years indicate that the air quality in 2002 was generally

consistent with air quality in recent years (IEPA 2003). Where air quality trends appear to exist,

they indicate that air quality in Illinois is improving.

The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a national standard method for reporting air-pollution levels for the

general public. The AQI is based on comparison of the concentrations of six pollutants with

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The six pollutants are ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen

dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers (PM10), and

particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). The air-pollution level for each day is

placed in one of six categories based on the AQI. In order of decreasing air quality, the

categories are Good, Moderate, Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups, Unhealthy, Very Unhealthy,

and Hazardous.

According to the IEPA (IEPA 2003), there were no days in 2002 in which the air quality was

classified as Unhealthy, Very Unhealthy, or Hazardous in the vicinity of DeWitt County. The air |

quality was classified as Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups on 5 days in the Bloomington-Normal

area, 4 days in Decatur, 3 days in Peoria, and 1 day in the Champaign-Urbana area. For the |

remainder of the time, the air quality was classified as Good or Moderate, with Good days far

outnumbering Moderate days.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-18 July 2006

All of the areas for which there are monitoring data and AQIs are more densely populated than

DeWitt County and the area around the ESP site. Consequently, air quality at the site should be

better than indicated by the monitoring data and AQIs.

2.3.3 Meteorological Monitoring

There has been a meteorological monitoring program at the Exelon ESP site since April 1972. 

The initial instrumentation was installed to provide the onsite meteorological information

required for licensing of the CPS. It has continued in operation in support of the CPS. The

instrumentation is described briefly in the CPS Final Environmental Statement (AEC 1974), in

more detail in the CPS Updated Safety Analysis Report (AmerGen 2001c), and in the ER for the

| ESP site (Exelon 2006a).

The meteorological monitoring system consists of a 60-m (199-ft) tower located approximately

550 m (1800 ft) south-southeast of the center of the ESP power block footprint, meteorological

instrumentation located on and near the tower, and signal conditioning and recording

equipment. Wind, temperature (or temperature difference), and dew point are measured at the

10- and 60-m (33- and 199-ft) levels of the tower. Precipitation is measured at ground level

near the base of the tower. Data from the instruments were initially recorded on strip charts and

then manually transferred to punch cards. Data are now recorded on strip charts in the control

room and fed to a microprocessor that records the data electronically. Backup wind instruments

are located at the 10-m (33-ft) level of a microwave tower about 1160 m (3800 ft) north of the

center of the ESP power block footprint.

Instruments and other components of the meteorological system have been replaced

periodically over the years, but the basic meteorological system has remained essentially the

same as the system installed in 1972. A major upgrade of the system is planned for the

near future.

Atmospheric dispersion factors (P/Q values) are used to evaluate the potential consequences of

routine and accidental releases at the ESP site. Meteorological data of the period from

January 2000 through August 2002 were used to develop atmospheric dispersion factors for

| comparison with the atmospheric data Exelon presented in its ER. Exelon (Exelon 2006a)

provided the staff with meteorological data for the full 3-year period from January 2000 through

| December 2003. The staff used these data to estimate atmospheric dispersion factors for

comparison with those presented in the ER.

The staff viewed the meteorological site and instrumentation, reviewed the available information

on the meteorological measurement program, and evaluated data collected by the program. 

Based on this information, the staff concludes that the program provides data that represent the 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-19 NUREG-1815

onsite meteorological conditions as required by 10 CFR 100.20. The data also provide an

acceptable basis for making estimates of atmospheric dispersion for the evaluation of the

consequences of routine and accidental releases required by 10 CFR 50.34 and 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix I.

2.4 Geology

A detailed description of the geological, seismological, and geotechnical conditions at the

proposed site is provided in the Site Safety Analysis Report (Exelon 2006c). A brief summary of |

the geology of the proposed ESP site is provided in Section 2.6 of the ER submitted by Exelon

(Exelon 2006a). This description was based in part on earlier reports prepared for the existing |

units at the site. Additionally, results of subsurface investigations performed recently as part of

the ESP application provided further basis for this description. The staff’s description of the site

and vicinity geological features and the detailed analyses and evaluation of geological,

seismological, and geotechnical data as required for an assessment of the site-safety issues

related to the specific proposed ESP site is included in the staff’s safety evaluation report. |

The Exelon ESP site lies within the Central Lowlands Physiographic Province (Lloyd and

Lyke 1995), which is characterized by a low-relief surface formed by glacial till, outwash plains,

and glacial lake plains. The glacial materials overlay consolidated Paleozoic-age materials

throughout most of the Province.

Groundwater aquifers in the region of the ESP site are described by Exelon in Section 2.3.1.3 of |

its ER (Exelon 2006a). Aquifers in the Central Lowlands Province occur in unconsolidated sand |

and gravel of the Quaternary age and consolidated sandstone, limestone, and dolomite of the

Paleozoic age. At the ESP site, loess and alluvium along the floodplains overlays glacial drift |

deposits. Based on Exelon’s borings at the site location, the glacial drift is generally more than

61 m (200 ft) thick beneath the site.

The Illinois State Geologic Survey identified the Parnell and Wapella E. oil fields in the vicinity of

the proposed site but none beneath it (ISGS 2006). No known mining activities would likely be |

precluded from the granting of an ESP.

Geotechnical properties of the glacial material beneath the site would be unsuitable for use as a

fill material for plant construction. Therefore, fill material would need to be imported to the ESP

site during construction and excavated material would have to be removed to another location,

either on or off the site. Assuming best management construction practices would be

employed, the low-relief terrain and geotechnical properties of the surficial materials make

significant landslides in the region of the site unlikely.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-20 July 2006

2.5 Radiological Environment

A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been conducted around the CPS

site since 1980 (AmerGen 2000a). The REMP includes the following pathways: direct

radiation, atmospheric, aquatic, and terrestrial environments, and ground and surface water. A

pre-operational environmental operating program was conducted from 1980 to 1987 to establish

a baseline to observe fluctuations of radioactivity in the environment after operations began. 

After routine operation of Unit 1 started in 1987, the monitoring program continued to assess the

radiological impacts to workers, the public, and the environment. The results of this monitoring

are documented in an annual environmental operating report for CPS. The U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviewed historical data from the REMP reports for a 4-year

| period (1999-2002) and found that environmental measurements of this time period were similar

to those during the preoperational monitoring phase (AmerGen 2000a, 2001b, 2002b, 2003).

Each year, AmerGen issues a report entitled Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for

the Clinton Power Station, which documents gaseous and liquid releases and resulting doses

from the CPS. The NRC staff reviewed annual radioactive effluent release reports for calendar

years 1999, 2000, and 2001 (AmerGen 2000b, 2001a, 2002a). Maximum doses to a member of

the public were calculated using effluent concentration and historical meteorological data for the

site. For the 3 years reviewed, the maximum annual dose to a member of the public was less

than 3 x 10-5 mSv (less than 0.003 mrem). The data showed that doses to the maximally

exposed individuals around CPS were a small fraction of the limits specified in Federal

environmental radiation standards, 10 CFR Part 20; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I; and

40 CFR Part 190. 

2.6 Water

This section describes the hydrologic features and processes governing movement and

distribution of water in the existing environment at the Exelon ESP site. Two circumstances

were considered: (1) the existing unit in operation and (2) the existing unit not in operation. 

The most limiting of circumstances is the existing environment with the current unit in operation,

and, unless mentioned otherwise, it is this scenario that is used throughout this analysis.

2.6.1 Hydrology

This section describes site-specific and regional hydrological features of the existing

environment that could be altered by construction, operation, or decommissioning of a new

nuclear unit at the ESP site. A description of the site’s hydrological features is presented in 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-21 NUREG-1815

Section 2.3.1 of the ER (Exelon 2006a). Hydrological features of the site related to site safety |

(e.g., probable maximum flood) are described in the Site Safety Analysis Report portion of

the application.

2.6.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology

The dominant hydrological feature of the Exelon ESP site is Clinton Lake. The site is located

between the two main arms of Clinton Lake, which was created by impounding Salt Creek and

the North Fork of Salt Creek behind a dam 366 m (1200 ft) downstream from the historical |

confluence of the two streams. The pool formed behind Clinton Lake Dam has a volume of

9.15 x 107

 m3 (74,200 acre-ft) at the normal pool level elevation of 210 m (690 ft) above MSL. 

The normal pool level is the height of the crest of the service spillway. An additional

7.29 x 107

 m3 (59,100 acre-ft) are available for flood-control storage up to the crest of the

auxiliary spillway at elevation 213 m (700 ft) above MSL. Three sluice gates located near the |

service spillway are used to provide the minimum downstream release from Clinton Lake. |

The lake has two arms with the dam at the western end of the lake. The Salt Creek arm is

larger than the North Fork of the Salt Creek arm. The existing CPS and the ESP site are

located on the peninsula between the two arms. The CPS unit withdraws cooling water from the |

North Fork arm and returns it to Salt Creek arm. This results in a circulation between the two

locations whenever the inflow into the North Fork arm is less than the intake demands for the

CPS unit’s once-through cooling system. The surface area of the lake is 1981 ha (4895 ac) at

normal pool elevation.

The watershed above Clinton Lake drains 476 km2

 (296 mi2) of predominately agricultural fields

with very little relief. Water released from Clinton Lake Dam continues to flow down Salt Creek

until it joins the Sagamon River. Pursuant to the CPS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permit, IEPA currently requires a minimum release of 0.14 m3

/s (5 cfs) from

the Clinton Lake Dam.

Evaporation from the large surface area of Clinton Lake reduces the total amount of water

available to flow downstream of the dam. The average annual evaporation reported by Roberts

and Stall (1967) for reservoirs in nearby Peoria and Springfield is 90.68 and 90.62 cm |

(35.70 and 35.68 in.), respectively. The maximum monthly average evaporation for these two

locations occurs in July with monthly evaporation values of 16.28 and 16.13 cm (6.41 and

6.35 in.), respectively. The minimum monthly average evaporation for these two locations

occurs in January with monthly evaporation values of 1.12 and 1.22 cm (0.44 and 0.48 in.), |

respectively. In addition to this natural evaporation, induced evaporation results from heat

added to the waters of Clinton Lake from the once-through heat dissipation system of the

existing CPS unit. These two components (presence of the lake plus reject reactor heat)

combine to produce evaporation rates that likely exceed the historical pre-impoundment

evapotranspiration rates that would have occurred in the area that the lake has inundated. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-22 July 2006

Therefore, the presence of the lake and the discharge of heat to the lake from the existing CPS

unit have increased evaporation and reduced the total quantity of water available for release

downstream of the dam. It should be noted, however, that the dam provides a beneficial flow

stabilization impact, and historical pre-dam minimum flows were less than the current post-dam

minimum discharges released from the dam, frequently less than 0.14 m3

/s (5 cfs) during dry

summer months.

| In an average year in the watershed, precipitation approximately equals natural evaporation. 

Mean annual precipitation for Peoria, Illinois, is reported as 89 cm (35 in.) (van der Leeden

et al. 1990). However, in drought years, the decrease in precipitation is often paired with an

increase in evaporation resulting in significant water deficits.

Seasonal patterns of precipitation and evaporation also impact water availability. While July is

| the month of maximum precipitation, 10.13 cm (3.99 in.), the natural lake evaporation in July is

significantly greater, 16.28 cm (6.41 in.). On a monthly average basis, natural evaporation

exceeds precipitation in May through August.

2.6.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology

| The groundwater aquifers in the region of the ESP site are described in Section 2.3.1.3 of the

| ER (Exelon 2006a). The ESP site lies within the Central Lowlands Physiographic Province. 

Aquifers in the Central Lowlands occur in unconsolidated sand and gravel of the Quaternary

age and consolidated sandstone, limestone, and dolomite of the Paleozoic age. At the ESP

site, alluvium along the floodplains overlays glacial drift deposits. Based on Exelon’s borings at

the site location, the glacial drift is generally more than 61 m (200 ft) thick beneath the site. 

| Exelon reports that a test well completed during the planning stage for the existing unit had high

| methane levels dissolved in the water. Based on the methane issue and the availability of

surface water from Clinton Lake, it was decided not to use groundwater for the existing unit.

The hydraulic connection between Clinton Lake and nearby aquifers results in a rise of the

water table for those aquifers in proximity to the lake. Given the relatively small fluctuations of

lake water surface elevation, it is not expected that the water table in these aquifers would vary

significantly. No aquifers in Illinois have been designated as sole-source aquifers (EPA 2004).

2.6.1.3 Hydrological Monitoring

This section describes the pre-application hydrological monitoring programs. Thermal and

chemical monitoring programs are discussed in Sections 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.4, respectively.

As a result of ongoing monitoring associated with the existing CPS unit, Exelon was able to

consider the information from this existing monitoring program as part of the pre-application

monitoring program for the ESP site. Many of these same monitoring activities would likely be 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-23 NUREG-1815

continued if the ESP unit was constructed and would become part of the construction and

operational monitoring for a new nuclear unit. Flow measurements directly associated with |

current site operation are required under the terms of the CPS existing NPDES permit. Exelon |

proposes to: (1) augment the groundwater and aquifer characterization program performed |

before construction of the CPS unit, (2) design and implement a groundwater monitoring |

program prior to construction and (3) continue its recent subsurface investigations conducted in |

2002 with additional piezometers and test wells to more accurately assess the impact of unit |

construction and operation on local groundwater users.

Since 1942, the U.S. Geological Survey has maintained a streamflow gauge downstream of

Clinton Lake at Rowell, Illinois. There are no streamflow gauges upstream of Clinton Lake. 

Because of the absence of inflow data, it is not possible to create a reliable water budget for

Clinton Lake directly from inflow and discharge measurements.

No water velocity measurements within Clinton Lake have been reported by Exelon. Velocity

measurements are important both for understanding the hydrodynamics of the lake and

calibrating numerical models of fluid and heat transport process in the lake. The lack of these

measurements limits detailed process modeling of lake temperature and elevation levels. 

Exelon has committed to collecting current velocity measurements concurrently with monthly

thermal and chemical monitoring. These measurements including inflow discharge to the lake, |

would become part of the Exelon’s pre-application (referring to the construction permit [CP] or

combined operating license [COL] application) monitoring program (Exelon 2006a). Exelon has |

also committed to collect bathymetric transects of the lake and record daily lake pool elevation

and discharge data at the dam as part of this pre-application monitoring program.

2.6.2 Water Use

Consideration of water use requires estimating the magnitude and timing of consumptive and

non-consumptive water use. Non-consumptive water use does not result in a reduction in the

water supply available. For instance, water used to rinse fish impinged on intake screens off

the screens would result in no change in the water supply, as the same volume of water

pumped from the lake would eventually be returned to the lake. However, consumptive water

use results in a reduction of the water supply available. For instance, lake evaporation results

in a transfer of water from the lake to the atmosphere, thereby reducing the lake volume. The

following two sections describe existing consumptive and non-consumptive uses of surface

water and groundwater.

2.6.2.1 Surface-Water Use

The existing CPS unit is the only significant consumptive and non-consumptive water user of |

Clinton Lake. In the ER, Exelon stated that when the CPS unit is operating, pumps draw water |
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-24 July 2006

| from Clinton Lake at a rate of 35,700 L/s (566,000 gpm) in the summer and 28,075 L/s (445,000

| gpm) in the winter. However, most of the CPS water usage is non-consumptive. The large

volume of water withdrawn from Clinton Lake for condenser cooling is entirely returned to the

lake. While there is no consumptive use of water between intake and discharge, the elevated

| temperature of the discharged water does result in some induced evaporative losses from

Clinton Lake.

In Section 2.3 of its ER, Exelon identified no domestic surface-water users either upstream or

downstream from Clinton Lake other than the CPS unit. Clinton Lake was constructed as a

cooling water source for the original two proposed CPS units.

Increases in urban development generally result in increased areas of impervious surface. 

Impervious surface results in less groundwater recharge and higher fractions of surface water

runoff. Due to the limited projected development in the upstream drainage and policies

promoting the use of storm water management practices that limit the impact of impervious

surfaces, upstream land-use changes are not expected to appreciably alter the patterns of

inflow to Clinton Lake. 

2.6.2.2 Groundwater Use

Exelon describes groundwater use in the vicinity of the ESP site in Section 2.3.2.3 of the ER

| (Exelon 2006a). Groundwater is used for public water supplies and agricultural demands

throughout the vicinity. Exelon reports that 65 percent of the total public groundwater supplies

within a 24-km (15-mi) radius of the ESP site are pumped from the Mahomet Bedrock Valley

| aquifer. The remaining wells, except for wells at Heyworth (19.2 km [12 mi] northwest of the

| site), that pump from alluvial deposits, are pumped from glacial deposits.

2.6.3 Water Quality

The following sections describe the water quality of surface-water and groundwater resources in

the vicinity of the ESP site. Pre-application monitoring programs for thermal and chemical water

quality are also described.

2.6.3.1 Surface-Water Quality

This section describes the surface-water quality of Clinton Lake, the tributaries draining into

Clinton Lake, and Salt Creek downstream of the lake. Exelon presents a discussion of the

| water quality conditions in Sections 2.3.3.1 and 2.3.3.2 of the ER (Exelon 2006a). The thermal

load discharged into the lake from the existing CPS unit results in localized elevated

temperatures in the lake. These elevated temperatures are the most significant water quality

concern associated with the existing unit. Operational impacts of a new nuclear unit on Clinton 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-25 NUREG-1815

Lake water quality are discussed in Section 5.3.3 of this EIS. Monitoring programs for thermal |

and chemical water quality are discussed in Sections 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.4, respectively.

Clinton Lake, a stream reach upstream of Clinton Lake, and several downstream reaches are

on the Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List – 2006 (IEPA 2006) as |

impaired for one or more of the following attributes: excess algal growth, metals, fecal coliform,

dissolved oxygen, organics, and loss of habitat. The only upstream impairment was a loss of

habitat with no listed source of the impairment. Fecal coliform is noted at several downstream

reaches with no listed source of impairment. Excess algal growth and metals impairments were

listed for Clinton Lake. The existing CPS unit has a NPDES permit from the IEPA. Before a

new nuclear unit could begin to operate, Exelon would be required to obtain a NPDES permit for

the discharge. 

2.6.3.2 Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality is discussed in Section 2.3.3.3 of the ER (Exelon 2006a). Groundwater |

samples from the Mahomet Aquifer collected in 1974 at the CPS test well were similar to

groundwater samples taken by the Illinois State Water Survey in 2000 from five locations within

the Mahomet Aquifer. Groundwater in the region is characterized by high levels of total |

dissolved solids. |

2.6.3.3 Thermal Monitoring

This section describes pre-application and pre-operational thermal monitoring programs. As a

result of ongoing monitoring associated with the existing CPS unit, Exelon is able to consider

this existing monitoring program as part of the pre-application and pre-operational monitoring

program at the ESP site. Many of these same monitoring activities would be continued if the

ESP unit were completed and would become part of the operational monitoring for the ESP unit. 

In Section 6.1 of its ER, Exelon describes the lake temperature measurements directly

associated with the current site operation that are required under the terms of its existing

NPDES permit (Exelon 2006a). Clinton Lake is also part of the IEPA Bureau of Water’s ambient |

lake program (BOW 2004). Additionally, thermal lake data is collected as part of the |

environmental monitoring program for Clinton Lake. |

Baseline data were collected at the Rowell gauge before construction of the dam and after its 

completion. The Illinois State Geologic Survey has continued to monitor temperatures at the

Rowell gauge downstream of Clinton Lake after the CPS Unit 1 went online. The IEPA monitors

temperatures as part of its ambient lake program. Additionally, the operator of the 

existing CPS unit is required to sample temperatures within the discharge plume and 

approximately 30 m (100 ft) downstream of the dam. In addition to the existing CPS monitoring 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-26 July 2006

locations, Exelon proposes two new sampling locations to better understand the temperature of

the inflow coming into the lake and the temperature of flow before being discharged from

the dam.

2.6.3.4 Chemical Monitoring

| This section describes the pre-application and operational chemical monitoring programs. As

| part of pre-application monitoring, the applicant will collect data in addition to that already

available from monitoring required by the CPS NPDES permit. 

The CPS NPDES permit establishes chemical discharge limits at a variety of locations internal

| to the CPS unit and at the discharge flume. Chemical monitoring of a variety of constituents is

required, including pH, chloride, mercury, nitrate, suspended solids, and dissolved oxygen. 

| Data collection for the pre-operational and operational monitoring program will include monthly

| or more frequent sampling of dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and pH at two depths in

| Salt Creek below the Clinton Dam. The thermal monitoring program conducted for the CPS

| under its NPDES permit constitutes a portion of the monitoring program for Clinton Lake. The

| applicant will conduct additional pre-application monitoring of Clinton Lake at four locations that

| coincide with CPS monitoring locations and two new locations, one located upstream from

| farthest CPS monitoring location and the other located in Clinton Lake near the dam. The

| NPDES permit for the ESP unit will determine the analytical parameters to be monitored. The

| applicant will also implement a pre-application monitoring program for groundwater to define

| baseline groundwater quality conditions, using piezometer measurements at selected wells.

| Construction and pre-operational monitoring will be an extension of the pre-application

| monitoring program until the operation of the ESP unit started to assess water quality changes

| that may result from construction of the ESP unit. Operational monitoring program will be an

| extension of the construction and pre-operational monitoring program (Exelon 2006a).

2.7 Ecology

All of the Exelon ESP site has been graded or otherwise developed for operation of the existing

CPS. Consequently, most of the area proposed for construction of a new nuclear unit at the

ESP site (including permanent structures and laydown areas) consists of weedy habitats,

cleared areas, impervious surfaces, existing structures, dirt roads, etc. A small amount of forest

habitat is located within the footprint of the power block, and the area designated for the new

intake structure is forested. There are four minor herbaceous wetlands (less than 0.4 ha [1 ac])

within the ESP site boundary, but none of these would be located within the footprint of a new

nuclear unit. Generally, wildlife species found on the ESP site are representative of those

commonly found in the central Illinois region.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-27 NUREG-1815

Sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 provide general descriptions of terrestrial and aquatic environments on |

and near the ESP site. They provide detailed descriptions, where needed, to support the |

analysis of potential environmental impacts of construction, operation, and decommissioning of

a new nuclear unit. The descriptions are provided to support mitigation activities identified

during the assessment to avoid, reduce, minimize, rectify, or compensate for potential impacts. 

Descriptions are also provided to facilitate comparison of the alternatives to the ESP site. Also

included are descriptions of monitoring programs for terrestrial and aquatic environments.

2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology

The ESP site is located in the Central Cornbelt Plains ecoregion (Omernik 1987). This

ecoregion consists of glaciated plains that were once dominated by extensive prairie

communities intermixed with oak-hickory forests. Farms are now extensive over the ecoregion

where little native prairie remains. Land use surrounding the ESP site consists primarily of a |

patchwork of agricultural fields and pasture.

2.7.1.1 Terrestrial Communities of the Exelon ESP Site

Vegetation

A variety of vegetation communities in various stages of ecological succession can be found 

near the vicinity of the ESP site (Figure 2-4) and along the transmission line rights-of-way. 

Agriculture (including hay, row crops, and small grains) is the predominant land use within

10 km (6 mi) of the site. Open lands that are not used for active agricultural purposes are

commonly used as pasture. Herbaceous plant species commonly found in upland pasture and

open field habitats include common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Kentucky bluegrass

(Poa pratensis), red sorrel (Rumex acetosella), Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus), timothy

(Phleum pratense), and common yarrow (Achillea millefolium). Shrub species include multiflora

rose (Rosa multiflora), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and hawthorn (Crataegus spp.). Open field

habitats dominate the landscape at and adjacent to the ESP site (Exelon 2006a). |

Upland forest communities in the vicinity of the ESP site harbor overstory and herbaceous

species that are common and typical of the region. Herbaceous species include multiflora rose,

may apple (Podophyllum peltatum), trillium (Trillium spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), aster

(members of the family Asteraceae), and Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum). Overstory

species include several species of oak (Quercus spp.) and elm (Ulmus spp.), black cherry

(Prunus serotina), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), black walnut (Juglans nigra), hackberry

(Celtis spp.), honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos), and red mulberry (Morus rubra)

(Exelon 2006a). |
Figure 2-4. Land Use/Land Cover in the Vicinity of the Exelon ESP Site (Exelon 2006a) |

Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-28 July 2006
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-29 NUREG-1815

Herbaceous wetlands are located within 10 km (6 mi) of the Exelon ESP site. Three 100-year

floodplain areas containing forest, emergent, and scrub-shrub communities are also located

within 10 km (6 mi) of the site and along the transmission line rights-of-way. These generally

are associated with small tributaries of Salt Creek and the North Fork of Salt Creek. Tree

species commonly found within wetland and floodplain forests include hackberry, elm, black

walnut, silver maple (Acer saccharinum), and box elder (Acer negundo). Common understory

species include Canadian woodnettle (Laportea canadensis), avens (Geum spp.), and

beggarticks (Bidens spp.). Invasive perennial weeds, including purple loosestrife (Lythrum

salicaria) and cutleaf teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus), are becoming increasingly more common in

wet areas. Cutleaf teasel is known to occur on the ESP site near the existing facilities

(Exelon 2006a). |

Important terrestrial habitats in the vicinity of the ESP site include Clinton Lake State Recreation

Area, Weldon Springs State Recreation Area, and wetlands recognized in the National

Wetlands Inventory database. Clinton Lake is part of the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area,

consisting of approximately 3764 ha (9300 ac), operated by the IDNR since 1978 via a long- |

term lease with AmerGen. Major habitat types of the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area

include forest (38 percent of the area), grassland (32 percent), shrubs (21 percent), cropland

(6 percent), and wetlands (3 percent). In addition, there are several habitats, including wet

meadows, pine forest, and a marsh, that are important for a variety of birds (Exelon 2006a). |

The IDNR carries out its programs to improve wildlife habitat (e.g., planting warm season

grasses and cool season brood habitat for northern bobwhite [Colinus virginianus] and ringnecked pheasant [Phasianus colchicus], planting food plots, tree planting, mowing, chemical

brush control, maintenance of wood duck nest boxes, etc.) within the recreation area with the

permission of AmerGen.

Weldon Springs State Recreation Area is a 150-ha (370-ac) park located southeast of the City

of Clinton and approximately 10 km (6 mi) from the ESP site. Woodlands in the recreation area

are vegetated predominantly with a variety of oak, hickory (Carya spp.), maple (Acer spp.), ash

(Fraxinus spp.), black walnut, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus

occidentalis), and honeylocust. Wetlands include lake, pond, and stream habitats, in addition to

marsh, forested wetland, and riparian areas (Exelon 2006a). |

According to the National Wetland Inventory database, there are four minor herbaceous

wetlands (less than 0.4 ha [1 ac]) within the Exelon ESP site boundary (see Figure 2-4). These

generally consist of open water in association with constructed sediment basins and have

palustrine unconsolidated bottoms (Exelon 2006a). |

Wildlife

Wildlife species found in the vicinity of the ESP site and along the transmission line rights-ofway are representative of those commonly found in the central Illinois region. A number of 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-30 July 2006

mammal species have been identified, including the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus),

white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), various

shrew species (including shorttail and least shrews [Blarina brevicauda and Cryptotis parva,

respectively]), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus

floridanus), beaver (Castor canadensis), coyote (Canis latrans), fox (Vulpes fulva or Urocyon

cinereoargenteus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon

(Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), mink (Mustela vison), and thirteen-lined

ground squirrel (Citellus tridecemlineatus). Wildlife diversity is highest in the forest communities

| (Exelon 2006a).

Habitats located in the vicinity of the ESP site and along the transmission line rights-of-way are

suitable for a variety of migrating songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors. Ninety-six

avian species have been identified in the vicinity during spring and fall. Of the 96 species,

36 are summer residents, 29 are migratory, 28 are permanent residents, and 3 are winter

| residents (Exelon 2006a).

Common terrestrial bird species include red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), common

grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), redheaded woodpecker

(Melanerpes erythrocephalus), various species of sparrows, dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis),

black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapilla), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), mourning dove

(Zenaida macroura), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), downy woodpecker (Picoides

pubescens), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and starling (Sturnus vulgaris). The

most common game birds include ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), northern

bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). A variety of rare

terrestrial bird species have been documented in the vicinity, including the gyrfalcon (Falco

| rusticolus) and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) near Clinton Lake (Exelon 2006a).

Clinton Lake and other water bodies located within the vicinity provide suitable habitat for

waterfowl, including American widgeon (Anas americana), American black duck (Anas

rubripes), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), coot (Fulica americana), lesser scaup (Aythya

affinis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), northern pintail (Anas acuta), redhead (Aythya

americana), wood duck (Aix sponsa), and Canada goose (Branta canadensis). Common

migratory shorebirds include a variety of sandpipers and herons. Clinton Lake also supports

| loons, grebes, and wintering gulls (Exelon 2006a).

Reptiles and amphibians that commonly occur in the vicinity of the ESP site include various

species of frogs, salamanders, snakes, and turtles, most of which are commonly found

| throughout the region (Exelon 2006a).
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-31 NUREG-1815

State-Listed Species

Location information for State-listed species within 3.2 km (2 mi) and 16 km (10 mi) of the ESP |

site was obtained from the IDNR (IDNR 2004a). The IDNR Natural Heritage Program also |

maintains current lists of State-listed threatened or endangered species at its website

(IDNR 2004b).

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) (Table 2-4), both |

Federally listed species further described in Section 2.7.1.2, are also State-listed (IDNR 2004b) |

but are not known to occur within 16 km (10 mi) of the Exelon ESP site (IDNR 2004a). There

are no other State-listed threatened or endangered animal species known to occur on or in the |

vicinity of the Exelon ESP site (IDNR 2004a). However, according to the applicant |

(Exelon 2006a) the local Audubon Society and other sources of birding in Illinois have reported |

sightings of State-listed threatened or endangered bird species in the general area. These |

include the snowy egret (Egretta thula [endangered]), Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus

henslowii [endangered]), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus [endangered]), peregrine falcon

(Falco peregrinus [endangered]), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax

[endangered]), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus [endangered]), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis

[threatened]), pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps [threatened]), bald eagle (threatened),

brown creeper (Certhia americana [threatened]), and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus

[threatened]). |

There are no State-listed threatened or endangered plant species known to occur within a

16-km (10-mi) radius of the ESP site (IDNR 2004a; Exelon 2006a). |

2.7.1.2 Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species

This section describes Federally listed and proposed threatened or endangered terrestrial

species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may occur in the vicinity of the Exelon

ESP site and transmission line rights-of-way. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) |

maintains current lists of Federally listed threatened or endangered species at its website

(FWS 2004a). General information on the distribution and habitat use of Federally listed

species in the region, including their presence or absence in DeWitt County, was obtained from

the FWS (FWS 2004b). Location information for Federally listed species within 3.2 km (2 mi)

and 16 km (10 mi) of the ESP site was obtained from the IDNR (IDNR 2004a). |

The staff has prepared a biological assessment (Appendix F, see letter dated April 7, 2005) of |

the Federally listed threatened and endangered terrestrial animal species identified by the FWS |

as potentially occurring in the project area (Table 2-4) (FWS 2004b). Life history attributes of |

these species that are pertinent to the staff’s review of Exelon’s ESP application, as well

information on the occurrence of these species in the project area, are provided in the biological

assessment and in this section.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-32 July 2006

| Table 2-4. Federally Listed Terrestrial Species that May Occur in the Vicinity of the 

Exelon ESP Site and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a) Source

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle FT/ST FWS 2004a, IDNR 2004a

Myotis sodalis Indiana bat FE/SE FWS 2004a, IDNR 2004a

(a) Federal status rankings developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species

| Act, FE = Federal endangered, FT = Federal threatened. State status rankings are SE = state

| endangered, ST = state threatened.

| There are two Federally listed terrestrial animal species, the threatened bald eagle and the

| endangered Indiana bat, which may occur in the vicinity of the ESP site and transmission line

rights-of-way (FWS 2004b). There are no Federally proposed threatened or endangered animal

| species or designated or proposed critical habitat known to occur on or in the general area of

| the ESP site (IDNR 2004a; Exelon 2006a; FWS 2004b).

Bald Eagle - Threatened

The bald eagle is known to winter along large rivers, lakes, and reservoirs in DeWitt County

| (FWS 2004b) and has been observed in the general area of the ESP site (Exelon 2006a),

although there are no documented records of its occurrence within 16 km (10 mi) of the site

| (IDNR 2004a). During the winter, this species feeds on fish in open water areas created by dam

tailwaters, by warm water effluents of power plants and municipal and industrial discharges, or

by power plant cooling ponds. The more severe the winter, the greater the ice coverage and

the more concentrated the eagles become. Bald eagles roost at night in groups in large trees

adjacent to associated bodies of water in areas that are protected from harsh winter weather. 

During the day, they perch in large shoreline trees to rest or feed on fish. There is no critical

habitat designated for this species (FWS 2004b).

Indiana Bat - Endangered

The Indiana bat potentially occurs throughout Illinois (FWS 2004b) and, thus, may occur on or in

the vicinity of the ESP site. However, there are no records of its occurrence within 16 km

| (10 mi) of the site (IDNR 2004a). Critical habitat has been designated for this species

(FWS 2004b); however, the only critical habitat in Illinois is the Blackball Mine in LaSalle County

(41 FR 41914).

During the summer, the Indiana bat frequents the corridors of small streams with well-developed

riparian woods as well as mature upland forests. It forages for insects along stream corridors,

within the canopy of floodplains and upland forests, over clearings with early successional

vegetation (old fields), along the borders of croplands, along wooded fencerows, 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-33 NUREG-1815

over farm ponds, and in pastures. The foraging range for the species may be as large as 33 ha

(81 ac) and varies by season, age, and sex. It roosts and rears its young beneath the loose

bark of large dead or dying trees, and the species tends to be philopatric, i.e., returning to the

same roosting area year after year. Indiana bats winter in caves and abandoned mines

(FWS 2004b).

Suitable summer habitat in Illinois is considered to have the following characteristics within a

0.8-km (0.5-mi) radius of any project site

 C Forest cover of 15 percent or greater

 C Permanent water

 C One or more of the following tree species: shagbark and shellbark hickory that may be dead

or alive, dead bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), American elm (Ulmus americana), 

slippery elm (U. rubra), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), silver maple, white oak |

(Quercus alba), red oak (Q. rubra), post oak (Q. stellata), and shingle oak (Q. imbricaria) |

with slabs or plates of loose bark |

 C At least one potential roost tree per 1 ha (2.5 ac)

 C Potential roost trees with greater than 10 percent coverage of loose bark (FWS 2004b).

Federally Listed or Proposed Plants

There are no Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered plant species, or

associated designated or proposed critical habitat, known to occur on or in the vicinity of the

ESP site and transmission line rights-of-way (IDNR 2004a; Exelon 2006a; FWS 2004b). |

2.7.1.3 Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring

As stated in NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000), |

terrestrial ecological monitoring programs should cover ecosystem elements for which a causal |

relationship between facility construction and/or operation and adverse change is established or |

strongly expected. An initial baseline assessment and subsequent monitoring of generic wildlife |

and vegetation communities were conducted in the vicinity of the ESP site for CPS |

(Exelon 2006a). These studies were designed to provide data on naturally occurring year-to- |

year variations during preconstruction, construction, and post-construction phases of the project |

(Exelon 2006a). |

The applicant has stated that it will conduct a similar generic wildlife and vegetation monitoring |

program for the ESP unit and along the transmission line rights-of-way, as appropriate, e.g., in |
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-34 July 2006

| forested areas (Exelon 2006a). The monitoring program will document changes in plant and

| animal species composition, abundance, and distribution over time, in order to confirm that

| changes are not occurring as a result of the ESP unit (Exelon 2006a). The elements and timing

| of this monitoring program are described in this EIS, because site preparation and limited

| construction activities may be conducted under the ESP, e.g., clearing, grading, and

| construction of non-safety-related facilities (Exelon 2006d). The elements and timing of this

| monitoring program are currently anticipated to be similar to those undertaken previously for

| CPS and are described below. These may be modified and further defined prior to or during the

| CP or COL phase and would be presented in future environmental documentation.

| Five vegetation communities will be inventoried annually in May of each year, using quadrant,

| quarter, and transect sampling techniques (Exelon 2006a). Waterfowl surveys at Clinton Lake

| and other water bodies in the near vicinity will be performed during migration and nesting, in

| May, July, November, and February of each year (Exelon 2006a). In addition, the results of

| avian surveys performed by local groups, including the Audubon Society, will be reviewed. 

| Small mammal populations will be surveyed at five locations in the vicinity, via trapping and

| recording of sightings and sign (Exelon 2006a). Monitoring of important species (e.g., Federal

| and State listed species) and habitats (e.g., wetlands, floodplains, State natural areas), as

| defined in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), either on or in the vicinity the ESP site, is currently not

| anticipated for the ESP unit (Exelon 2006a).

2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology

This section describes the aquatic ecological resources existing at and within the vicinity of the

ESP site. This description focuses on the habitats and species that could be affected by the

construction or operation of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site.

2.7.2.1 Aquatic Communities of the Exelon ESP Site

Clinton Lake is the largest and most important aquatic resource in the vicinity of the ESP site.

The 1981-ha (4895-ac) reservoir was filled in 1978, creating a lake environment where there

once were two free-flowing streams. The earthen dam constructed across Salt Creek created

| the reservoir. The reservoir has no fish passage facilities, and restricts upstream movement of

fish past the dam.

The deepest region of the lake is near the dam (approximately 13 m [40 ft]), but the average

water depth is approximately 5 m (15 ft). The ESP site is located approximately 5 km (3 mi)

northeast of the dam between the North Fork of Salt Creek and Salt Creek arms of the lake. 

| The lake is the main attraction for the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area, a 3764-ha (9300-ac)

facility located 5 km (3 mi) east of Clinton, Illinois. The park land is owned by AmerGen 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-35 NUREG-1815

Energy Company, LLC, the owner and operator of the CPS. Since 1978, the State of Illinois

has operated the park through a lease agreement with the utility company (IDNR 2003b). 

People use the park’s lake, marsh, and riverine habitats for boating, swimming, and recreational

fishing.

Besides the lake, other important aquatic habitats near the ESP site include portions of Tenmile

Creek and Salt Creek, Weldon Springs State Recreation Area, and several small wetland areas. 

Illinois designates some environmentally sensitive areas, such as Illinois Natural Areas, and

provides varying degrees of protection under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Nature Preserves

Commission. There are two of these environmentally sensitive areas near the ESP site. The

first includes a portion of Tenmile Creek west of the City of Clinton and approximately 8 km

(5 mi) from the site. It is designated as critical habitat (i.e., medium gradient creek) by the IDNR

and as a unique aquatic resource by the IEPA (Exelon 2006a). The second environmentally |

sensitive area is along Salt Creek, approximately 5 km (3 mi) from the ESP site. Weldon

Springs State Recreation Area is located southeast of the City of Clinton, approximately 10 km

(6 mi) from the proposed ESP site. The area includes a 11-ha (28-ac) spring-fed lake, as well

as pond, stream, marsh, forested wetland, and riparian areas. Several small wetland areas,

generally associated with small tributaries to Salt Creek and the North Fork of Salt Creek, are

present within 10 km (6 mi) of the ESP site and along the proposed transmission line rights-ofway. These wetland areas include forested, shrub-scrub, and emergent vegetation

communities. Additionally, four small wetland areas, each less than 0.4 ha (1 ac), are present

on the site. These are open water resources, such as constructed sediment basins

(Exelon 2006a), some of which are used by IDNR as fish-rearing ponds. |

There are no Federally or State-listed fish species found in DeWitt County (FWS 2003a, 2003b; |

IDNR 1999; Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) 2004; see Section 2.7.2.2). There are also no |

commercial fisheries in the vicinity of the ESP site (Exelon 2006a). However, Clinton Lake does |

provide sport fishing opportunities, and many of the fish species that inhabit the lake have

recreational value and are considered important, as defined in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000). 

These include such species as the channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), flathead catfish

(Pylodictis olivaris), bullhead (Ameiurus spp.), white bass (Morone chrysops), striped bass

(Morone saxatilis), hybrid striped bass (a cross between white and striped bass), largemouth

bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), walleye |

(Sander vitreus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), |

bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and other sunfish species (Lepomis spp.) (City of Clinton 2006; |

IDNR 2003b). Tiger muskellunge (an artificial cross between muskellunge [Esox masquinongy]

and northern pike [Esox lucius]), sauger (Sander canadensis), and common carp |

(Cyprinus carpio) are also present, and sometimes caught by sport fishermen (IDNR 2003c). 

While much of the fishing activity occurs during the warmer months, ice fishing also attracts

people to Clinton Lake in winter (IDNR 2003b). |
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-36 July 2006

Some recreational fish species are stocked by the IDNR to provide improved fishing

opportunities for the public. In 2004, these were expected to include hybrid striped bass, striped

bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, and white crappie (IDNR 2003c). These species either do not

reproduce naturally in Clinton Lake, have exhibited poor recruitment (due in part to lack of

appropriate spawning and rearing habitat, such as emergent aquatic vegetation), or are still in

the process of recovering their population structure as a result of flood events that occurred

between 1993 and 1995 (IDNR 1999b). Most of the fish are supplied through an offsite IDNR

hatchery program, but there is also a limited number of smallmouth bass, walleye, and white

crappie produced by IDNR in small ponds located on the CPS site.

The Clinton Lake fishery is managed by IDNR. To provide balance between fishing opportunity

and fish population structure and abundance, IDNR imposes a minimum length and daily creel

| limit on some species (IDNR 2003b). Periodic creel surveys are conducted at Clinton Lake by

the Illinois Natural History Survey, and the results are provided to IDNR. Various portions of the

lake are designated as no-wake, electric motor only, or no-boat areas for safety and security

reasons. Areas closed to public access in 2004 included the water-intake area for CPS, the

spillway and the dam areas east of the spillway, and the water surface of the discharge canal

(IDNR 2006a).

Besides the sport fish, many other fish species common to Illinois lakes and reservoirs are

present in Clinton Lake. The Clinton Lake fish community is dominated by gizzard shad

| (Dorosoma cepedianum), common carp, quillback (Carpoides cyprinus), and bigmouth buffalo

(Ictiobus cyprinellus). Several shiner species, creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), and white

sucker (Catostomus commersoni) are also present.

There is currently a statewide methyl-mercury advisory for pregnant women, nursing women,

women of child-bearing age, and children under 15 years of age. These more sensitive

populations are advised to consume no more than one meal per week of predator fish, including

some species that occur in Clinton Lake: sauger, walleye, all bass species, and flathead catfish

(IDNR 2006).

The section of Salt Creek between Clinton Lake and Kickapoo Creek (Figure 2-5) was cited in

2001 as supporting endangered mussel species and as having high mussel diversity (i.e., more

than ten live species or with a Shannon-Weaver Diversity index greater than 2.5), according to

data collected post-1976 (IPCB 2001).

There are currently no known nuisance aquatic species in Clinton Lake. However, at least one

of four species of exotic Asian carp (i.e., bighead carp [Hypophthalmichthys nobilis], black carp

[Mylopharyngodon piceus], grass carp [Ctenopharyngodon idella], or silver carp

[Hypophthalmichthys molitrix]) has been confirmed by IDNR as present in Salt Creek

downstream of the Clinton Lake Dam. The concern from an ecological perspective is that these

species, originally imported for use in the aquaculture industry, may become as widely 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-37 NUREG-1815

distributed and abundant as the common carp, potentially outcompeting native fish and shellfish

for habitat and food (FWS 2004c). To date, another aquatic nuisance species of concern in the

region, the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), has not been identified in Clinton Lake

(IDNR 2006a). These mussels may unwittingly be transported to new water bodies by boaters

and can harm native aquatic species through competition for such food items as phytoplankton

and zooplankton. Should the Asian carp or zebra mussel invade Clinton Lake, the current

balance of species in the lake ecosystem could be disrupted.

State-Listed Species

The IDNR endangered and threatened species list is revised every 5 years by the Illinois

Endangered Species Protection Board. The current list was generated in 2004 (IDNR 2004b). |

Eighteen fish are State-listed as endangered; eight as threatened. None of the State-listed

species found in the INHS fish collection was collected from DeWitt County (INHS 2003a).

Twenty mussel species were State-listed as endangered; seven as threatened. However, only

two of the mussels, both threatened, are included on the INHS list, “Mussels of DeWitt County”

(INHS 2003b): the slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta viridis) and the spike (Elliptio dilatata). 

The slippershell mussel inhabits creeks and the headwaters of large rivers in sand, mud, or fine

gravel (Table 2-5). A map of Midwest mussel habitats indicates that the slippershell mussel

may be present in DeWitt County and the surrounding region (Cummings and Mayer 1992). 

The spike inhabits small to large streams and, occasionally, lakes in mud or gravel. It is

widespread, but sporadic, in distribution. The INHS range map for this species indicates the

spike may be present in DeWitt County and the surrounding region (Cummings and

Mayer 1992). Exelon queried the 2002 IDNR GIS database and found documented

occurrences of the spike 16 km (10 mi) from the ESP site. There were no documented

occurrences of the spike in Clinton Lake, or any other watercourses within a 10-km (6-mi) radius

of the site (Exelon 2006a). Database queries for each of the State-listed plant species |

(263 endangered; 75 threatened) were made of the extensive INHS vascular plant collection

(INHS 2003a). No State-listed aquatic plants were found in the INHS database for DeWitt

County. The results of the staff’s review of the IDNR species list, INHS database, and Exelon’s

ER indicate that no State-listed threatened or endangered aquatic plant species are known to

occur on or in the vicinity of the ESP site (IDNR 2004b; Exelon 2006a). |
Figure 2-5. Sangamon River Basin (Exelon 2006a) |

NUREG-1815 2-38 July 2006

Affected Environment
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-39 NUREG-1815

Table 2-5. State-Listed Aquatic Species in Illinois That May Be Present in the Vicinity of the

Exelon ESP Site

Scientific Name Common Name Status Comments

Alasmidonta viridis Slippershell mussel Threatened Mussel

Elliptio dilatata Spike Threatened Mussel

2.7.2.2 Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species

This section describes Federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed aquatic species

and designated and proposed critical habitats known to occur on or in the vicinity of the

ESP site.

A review of the FWS database of county distributions of Federally listed species in Illinois

indicated that 15 aquatic animal species are listed as threatened or endangered (FWS 2006). |

However, none is known to be present in DeWitt County or in any of the counties surrounding

the ESP site (i.e., Logan, Macon, McLean, or Piatt Counties). The FWS database also

indicated that no Federally listed or proposed aquatic plant species or critical habitat are known

to be present in DeWitt County or in any of the counties surrounding the ESP site (i.e., Logan,

Macon, McLean, or Piatt Counties) (Exelon 2006a; FWS 2003a). For confirmation, the staff |

requested a list of endangered, threatened, candidate, and proposed species, and designated

and proposed critical habitat that might be in the vicinity of the CPS site and its transmission line

rights-of-way along with any other information considered appropriate under the provisions of

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (NRC 2004b). In its response, the FWS

indicated that there were no known occurrences of aquatic species or critical habitat in DeWitt

or McLean Counties (FWS 2004b).

2.7.2.3 Aquatic Ecology Monitoring

As stated in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), aquatic ecological monitoring programs should cover

ecosystem elements for which a causal relationship between facility construction and/or

operation and adverse change is established or strongly expected. An initial baseline

assessment and subsequent monitoring efforts have already been conducted at the ESP site

under the Illinois Power Company and Exelon environmental monitoring programs

(Exelon 2006a; IPC 1973, 1982). In these studies, aquatic ecology data were gathered to |

characterize the ecology of the site before and during construction of the CPS and following

CPS operation. Data gathered during pre-construction and construction periods included

information on water quality, the periphytic algal community, benthic macroinvertebrates

(organisms that live on or in the lake substrate), and fish. In general, two effects were noted

due to lake and CPS construction activities. There was a temporary increase in turbidity and 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-40 July 2006

nonfilterable residue downstream from the Clinton Lake Dam construction site and changes to

the algal community resulting from the shift from a variable stream flow prior to dam closure to a

stable stream flow after dam closure (IPC 1982). Benthic macroinvertebrate and fish species

composition changed somewhat, but the overall abundance and species variety seemed

unaffected by construction (IPC 1982).

Post-operational effluent and aquatic ecology monitoring at CPS has been conducted under the

| direction of the IEPA, through the NPDES permit (effective permit IL0046919). This is the

| agency delegated by the U.S. EPA to be responsible for regulation of aquatic issues under the

| Clean Water Act that involve water quality and aquatic biota. For example, fish impingement

studies were conducted over a 1-year period after operation of CPS Unit 1 commenced, as

required by the CPS NPDES permit in effect at that time (Pallo 1988). The research indicated

that more than 99 percent of fish impinged were young-of-the-year gizzard shad, a prolific

forage fish species that typically experiences a naturally high young-of-the-year mortality rate

and commonly demonstrates mass mortality in winter when water temperatures approach 4°C

(39°F).

Under the current NPDES permit, discharge to Clinton Lake must meet specific requirements for

flow, pH, total residual chlorine, total residual oxidants, and temperature (IEPA 2000). There

are also temperature requirements associated with water discharged from the Clinton Lake Dam

to Salt Creek (IPCB 1993). There is currently no specific aquatic ecological monitoring of the

algal community, benthic invertebrates, or fish required by this NPDES permit or by the NRC

under the CPS Unit 1 Environmental Protection Plan (nonradiological), other than reporting any

occurrence of an unusual or important event causally related to plant operation that could result

in significant environmental impact (IPC 1987). However, since 1978, the Clinton Lake State

Recreation Area, which consists of approximately 3764 ha (9300 ac) including Clinton Lake, has

been operated by IDNR through a long-term lease agreement with the owners of CPS

| (Exelon 2006a). The IDNR conducts its own surveys of aquatic biota primarily to ensure

conservation and enhancement of the fishery resource while providing fishing opportunities to

the public. In addition to netting, seining, and electroshocking to sample fish species

composition, relative abundance, condition, and size distributions, the IDNR Division of

Fisheries conducts a number of creel surveys on different lakes and rivers each year to

determine the relative success of fisheries management activities and fish stocking efforts

(IDNR 2003a). The IDNR also attempts to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic

nuisance species in Illinois waters and tracks the presence of these nuisance species.

Elements of the monitoring program for the ESP site are described below. Data collected under

this program would be similar to those collected during monitoring activities in support of

construction and operation of the CPS. The purpose of such data is to establish species

composition and abundance and characterize naturally occurring annual variation within the

communities, so that changes in these communities due to construction or operation of the ESP 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-41 NUREG-1815

facility can be detected (Exelon 2006a). The hydrological, thermal, and chemical monitoring |

outlined in Section 2.6 of this EIS will also contribute significantly to the overall understanding of |

how aquatic species and habitats may be affected by construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the site.

Site preparation and construction monitoring, pre-operational monitoring, and operational

monitoring programs would be provided at the CP or COL phase, in accordance with the

schedule provided in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000). Exelon expects that monitoring would be

required by the IEPA (e.g., impingement) and performed in conjunction with construction and

operation of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site.

Exelon proposes to reinstate a fisheries monitoring program based on the one established in

support of the 1973 CPS ER for the CP stage (IPC 1973). Recommendations for improving on

this monitoring program were made by the Illinois Power Company in the 1982 ER for CPS for

the operating license stage (IPC 1982), and the NRC intends to revisit these at the CP or COL

phase. Because the IDNR currently implements routine fish sampling programs in the vicinity of

the proposed ESP facility, Exelon will coordinate with IDNR so that the program will adequately

monitor fishery resources and Exelon does not duplicate any IDNR data collection and sampling

efforts (Exelon 2006a). |

Exelon has not conducted surveys for Federally listed aquatic threatened or endangered or

proposed species or of designated or proposed critical habitats, because none is known to

occur in the vicinity of the ESP site (Exelon 2006a). Similarly, there will be no monitoring of |

State-listed aquatic threatened or endangered species because none is known to occur within

10 km (6 mi) of the ESP site.

The requirement for additional pre-application aquatic monitoring would be at the discretion of |

the IEPA. Monitoring of the aquatic ecology during CPS pre-construction and construction

phases involved sampling periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and zooplankton. Exelon

has not committed to monitoring any of these aquatic ecological resources, unless directed to

do so by the IEPA, as these species are not of commercial or recreational importance and are

not expected to be adversely affected by construction or operation of a new nuclear unit at the

ESP site (Exelon 2006a). |

2.8 Socioeconomics

This section presents the socioeconomic resources that could be potentially impacted by the

construction, operation, and decommissioning of a new nuclear unit. The section contains two

subsections: (1) demography and (2) community characteristics. These subsections include 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-42 July 2006

discussions on spatial (e.g., regional, vicinity, and site) and temporal (e.g., 10-year increments

of population growth) considerations, where appropriate, as referenced. The area of interest for

the socioeconomic analysis that follows is the Counties of Champaign, DeWitt, Logan, Piatt,

Macon, and McLean.

2.8.1 Demographics

The resident population distribution around the ESP site out to an 80-km (50-mi) radius is based

| on the 2000 Census. Table 2-6 presents the population in the concentric rings starting from 0 to

16 km (0 to 10 mi), 16 km to 40 km (10 to 25 mi), 40 km to 60 km (25 to 37 mi), and 60 km to

80 km (37 to 50 mi), and projected population increases in those rings from 2000 to 2060 in 10-

| year increments. Population projections for 2010 and 2020 are based on a methodology

| developed by Illinois State University (Exelon 2006a). They are based on 1990 populations and

fertility, mortality, and migration rates from the early 1990s. The data have not been adjusted

for the more recent 2000 Census population. The State of Illinois is preparing population

projections based on the 2000 Census, but these are not expected to be released until 2004 to

| 2006 (Exelon 2006a). A ratio of the population in 2010 and 2020 was used to determine the

projected population for the years 2030, 2040, 2050, and 2060. The population annual growth

percentage ranges between 0.44 percent (for years 2000 to 2010) and 0.31 percent (for years

2050 to 2060). Total growth in population between 2000 and 2060 is projected at 23 percent.

| All or parts of 20 counties and four major cities (Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana,

Decatur, and Springfield) are located within 80 km (50 mi) of the ESP site and are principal

economic centers in the region. Decatur (population 81,860), due south of the ESP site, and 

Table 2-6. Resident Population Distribution from 2000 to 2060 Within 80 km (50 mi) of the

Exelon ESP Site

Year

0 to 16 km

(0 to 10 mi)

16 to 40 km

(10 to 25 mi)

40 to 60 km

(25 to 37 mi)

60 to 80 km

(37 to 50 mi) Total

Annual

Growth

Percent

2000 12,358 222,424 267,376 262,208 764,366 -

2010* 11,767 229,680 283,901 272,986 798,334 0.44

2020* 11,506 237,333 296,856 281,481 827,176 0.35

2030* 11,244 244,987 309,812 289,978 856,021 0.34

2040* 10,983 252,640 322,764 298,476 884,863 0.33

2050* 10,727 260,289 335,723 306,972 913,711 0.32

2060* 10,462 267,946 348,680 315,468 942,556 0.31

| *Estimated population. Source: Exelon 2006a
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-43 NUREG-1815

Bloomington-Normal (population 110,194), due north of the site, lie within 16 to 40 km (10 to |

25 mi) (USCB 2000a). Champaign-Urbana (population 103,913), due east of the ESP site, |

lies within 60 to 80 km (37 to 50 mi) (USCB 2000a). Springfield (the State capitol,

population 114,454), southwest of the ESP site, straddles the 80-km (50-mi) radius and is also a

principal economic center (USCB 2000a). Other smaller communities within 80 km (50 mi)

include Lincoln (population 15,369), due west of the ESP site and within the 40- to-60-km

(25-to-37-mi) radius; Monticello (population 5138), southeast of the site and within the 60- to80-km (37-to-50-mi) radius; and Taylorville (population 11,427), southwest of the site and along

the 80-km (50-mi) radius (USCB 2000a). The largest population center within the 16-km (10-mi)

area is the City of Clinton (population 7485), due west of the ESP site (USCB 2000a).

Table 2-7 lists the age distribution in DeWitt, Logan, Macon, McLean, Champaign, and Piatt |

Counties in 2000 and compares it to the age distribution in the State of Illinois. The counties’

age-distributed populations closely track within approximately 4 percent of each other. The

exceptions are McLean and Champaign Counties, which for the 18 to 24 age range are at

19 and 23 percent, respectively, of the total population, versus the other counties, which range

between 7 and 11 percent, and Illinois at 10 percent. The reason for the difference with the |

other counties is the presence of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana (enrollment at |

38,872 during Fall 2003 [University of Illinois 2003]) and Illinois State University (enrollment at

20,705 during Fall 2003 [ISU 2003]) at Bloomington-Normal. In the 65-and-over age group,

McLean and Champaign Counties are at 10 percent, versus the other counties which range

between 15 and 16 percent and Illinois at 12 percent. McLean and Champaign Counties are

also somewhat lower than the other counties for the 45-to-64 age group at 18 and 19 percent,

respectively, versus 22 to 25 percent for the remaining counties and 21 percent for Illinois.

Table 2-8 contains data on population, projected population, and annual growth rates for the |

area of potential impact (Champaign, DeWitt, Logan, McLean, Piatt, and Macon Counties) from

Table 2-7. Estimated Age Distribution of Population in 2000 for Counties and State of Illinois

Champaign 

County

DeWitt 

County

Logan

County

Macon

County

McLean

County

Piatt

County

State of 

Illinois

Age

Group

Population %Population %Population %Population %Population %Population %Population %

Under 18 37,819 21 4126 25 6824 22 28,171 25 35,292 23 4115 25 3,245,451 26

18 to 24 41,432 23 1302 8 3617 11 11,214 10 28,000 19 1117 7 1,210,898 10

25 to 44 50,603 28 4760 28 9249 30 30,312 26 43,896 29 4518 28 3,795,544 31

45 to 64 32,345 18 3944 23 6802 22 27,528 24 28,624 19 4086 25 2,667,375 21

65 and

over

17,470 10 2666 16 4691 15 17,481 15 14,621 10 2529 15 1,500,025 12

Totals 179,669 16,798 100 31,183 100 114,706 100 150,433 100 16,365 100 12,419,293 100

Source: USCB 2000b
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-44 July 2006

Table 2-8. Population Growth in Champaign, DeWitt, Logan, McLean, Macon, and Piatt

Counties, 1970 to 2020(a)

Year

Champaign DeWitt Logan McLean Macon Piatt

Population

Annual

Growth

Percent

Population

Annual

Growth

Percent

Population

Annual

Growth

Percent

Population

Annual

Growth

Percent

Population

Annual

Growth

Percent

Population

Annual

Growth

Percent

1970 163,281 16,975 33,538 104,389 125,010 15,509

1980 168,392 0.3 18,108 0.6 31,802 -0.5 119,149 1.3 131,375 0.5 16,581 0.7

| 1990 173,025 0.3 16,516 -0.9 30,798 -0.3 129,180 0.8 117,206 -1.1 15,548 -0.6

| 2000 179,669 0.4 16,798 0.2 31,183 0.1 150,433 1.5 114,706 -0.2 16,365 0.5

2010 194,953 0.8 16,018 -0.5 33,449 0.7 156,685 0.4 117,906 0.3 16,636 0.2

| 2020 206,417 0.6 15,635 -0.2 33,965 0.2 165,592 0.6 118,505 0.1 17,270 0.4

Sources: USCB (for 1970 to 1990) 2000h and IDOCEO 2004

(a) Projected population for 2010 and 2020; values for 1970 through 2000 are actual census population numbers.

1970 through 2020. The fastest growing counties in the region over the 50-year period,

including projected populations between 2000 and 2020, are McLean and Champaign Counties. 

During the 1990s, McLean County grew at an annual rate of 1.5 percent while Champaign

County grew at annual rate of 0.4 percent. DeWitt County, the county most impacted

economically by CPS, actually lost population during the 1980s and gained a small amount of

population during the 1990s. DeWitt County is projected to lose population between 2000 and

| 2020. Logan, Macon, and Piatt Counties also lost population during the 1990s.

2.8.1.1 Transient Population

The area within the first 16 km (10 mi) of the ESP site is predominately rural and characterized

by farmland, which accounts for 82 percent or 24,229 ha (59,870 ac) of the total land area. 

Industrial land use within the vicinity is less than 1 percent and is limited to areas near Clinton

and Weldon. Less that 1 percent of the land within the site vicinity is residential and consists

primarily of residential areas near Clinton and Weldon. The land use was confirmed by Exelon

| with a review of recent aerial photographs taken by the U.S. Geological Survey (Exelon 2006a).

There are approximately 130 small businesses located within the 16-km (10-mi) radius of the

ESP site. Exelon considered employees of businesses within the radius as transients and not

living within the 16-km (10-mi) radius. Other populations considered transients include the

hotel/motel population; special populations such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and

correctional facilities; and visitors at the annual Apple and Pork Festival, held in Clinton

| (Exelon 2006a).
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-45 NUREG-1815

2.8.1.2 Migrant Labor

Agribusiness is a major industry in the area surrounding the ESP site. In 2002, DeWitt County |

had 459 individual farms, Macon County 646, Logan County 692, Piatt County 442, Champaign |

County 1285, and McLean County had 1442 (USDA 2000). In 2001, approximately 6554 farm |

workers worked in the six-county area (BEA 2001). Migrant workers are typically members of |

minority or low-income populations. Because migrant workers travel and can temporarily spend

a significant amount of time in an area without being actual residents, they may be unavailable

for inclusion in the census. If this occurs, migrant workers would be under-represented in the |

census minority and low-income population counts. Based on average statewide statistical data

provided by the Illinois Agricultural Statistics Service, 14 percent of the agricultural workforce in

the six-county area, or 918 workers, is estimated to be migrant labor. These migrant laborers |

were considered transients by Exelon (Exelon 2006a). |

Table 2-9 presents estimates of the projected transient population distribution from 2000 to

2060 within 80 km (50 mi) of the ESP site. The methods employed in projecting the population

estimates for Table 2-6 are also employed for Table 2-9. The estimated annual percentage

growth rate for the transient population ranged between 0.21 (2010) and 0.35 (2030).

2.8.2 Community Characteristics

A number of areas are used to define community characteristics. This section addresses the

following: (1) local economy around the ESP site, (2) property taxes in the area,

(3) transportation in the region, (4) the aesthetics and recreational activities near the ESP site,

(5) housing in the area, (6) public services available, and (7) education in the region.

Table 2-9. Transient Population Distribution from 2000 to 2060 Within 80 km (50 mi)

of the Exelon ESP Site

Year

0 to 16 km

(0 to 10 mi)

16 to 40 km

(10 to 25 mi)

40 to 60 km

(25 to 37 mi) 

60 to 80 km

(37 to 50 mi) Total

% Annual

Growth

2000 11,834 7354 8677 48,029 75,894 –

2010* 11,542 7616 9100 49,242 77,500 0.21

2020* 11,213 7965 9399 51,616 80,193 0.34

2030* 11,086 8315 9698 53,981 83,080 0.35

2040* 10,946 8666 9996 56,357 85,965 0.34

2050* 10,817 9015 10,295 58,721 88,848 0.33

2060* 10,595 9365 10,594 61,097 91,651 0.31

*Estimated Population.

Source: Exelon 2006a |
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-46 July 2006

2.8.2.1 Economy

The principal economic centers within 80 km (50 mi) of the proposed ESP site are the Cities of

| Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, Decatur, and Springfield. In addition, East Peoria,

Lincoln, Monticello, Morton, Pekin, Pontiac, Rantoul, Taylorville, and Washington are smaller

communities within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. These communities collectively support the

agricultural industry throughout the region. Other types of industries and major employers

include manufacturing, transportation, public utilities, government, retail trade, medical services,

and education (including institutions of higher education).

Table 2-10 presents the top employers for the major urban centers and counties located

predominately within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the ESP site (Champaign, DeWitt, Logan,

Macon, McLean, and Piatt Counties). DeWitt County is the major beneficiary of the current CPS

tax base and has the greatest number of current CPS employees living in the county,

approximately 33 percent of the existing workforce. Macon and McLean Counties have

approximately 24 and 21 percent, respectively, of the CPS workforce residing in the counties. 

Piatt County, which is adjacent to DeWitt County and contains the City of Monticello, is home to

| 4.5 percent of the CPS workforce. Champaign County is the home of approximately 10 percent

| of the CPS workforce and approximately 2 percent live in Logan County (Exelon 2004a).

The economic impacts of the existing nuclear facility at CPS are less noticeable in Macon and

| McLean Counties, and the economic benefits of plant operation on these larger counties are

dispersed over a larger economic base. The main economic benefit to these counties is the tax

benefits derived from having CPS employees, who are well paid, living in the counties, and

paying sales and use taxes on purchases made in those counties, and property taxes on owned

residences. Piatt and Logan Counties, which have 4.5 and 2 percent, respectively, of the

existing CPS workforce residing within their boundaries, but none of the property tax benefits of

the CPS plant, also receive some of the sales and use and property tax benefits of the

CPS workforce. 

The two largest cities in the region of interest (counties within or almost wholly within the 80-km

| [50-mi] radius of the ESP site) are Champaign-Urbana and Bloomington-Normal, approximately

| a 2-hour drive south of Chicago. Both cities are major centers of economic activity in the region. 

| The largest employer in Champaign-Urbana is the University of Illinois, with 20,571 employees,

| while State Farm Insurance is the largest employer in Bloomington–Normal at 14,132

employees (IDOCEO 2004, 2005).
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-47 NUREG-1815

Table 2-10. Major Employers by City |

Employer Product Number of Employees

Champaign-Urbana, Champaign County

University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana Higher education 20,571 |

Carle Clinic Association Health care 2918

Carle Foundation Hospital Health care 2100

Champaign Community Unit School District #4 Public education 1305

Kraft Foods, Inc. Food processing 1300

Parkland College Higher education 1200

Clinton, DeWitt County |

AmerGen Power generation 550 |

Wallace Computer Services Printed forms 240

Action Technology Plastic extrusion 94

McElroy Metal Mill, Inc. Metal buildings 75

Miller Container Corrugated cartons 60

National Environmental Medical waste 35

Lincoln, Logan County |

Logan & Lincoln Correctional Centers Corrections 750

Eaton Cutler Hammer Circuit breakers 680

Abraham Lincoln Memorial Hospital Health services 289

Precision Products Lawn and garden equipment 236

Saint – Gobain Containers Glass containers 209

Decatur, Macon County |

Archer Daniels Midland Corn and soybean processing 3500

Decatur Memorial Hospital Health care 2266

Caterpillar Mining and construction vehicles 2000

Decatur Public School District Education 1500

St. Mary’s Hospital Health care 1058

Tate and Lyle/A. E. Scaley Corn processing 720

Bloomington-Normal, McLean County |

State Farm Insurance Companies Insurance 14,132 |

Illinois State University Higher education 3211 |

Country Insurance and Investment Insurance and finance 2289 |

Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing Automobile 1979 |

BroMenn Health Care Health care 1950 |

Unit 5 Schools Education 1487 |

Monticello, Piatt County |

Monticello Schools – Unit #25 Education 174

Piatt County Nursing Home Health care 150

City of Monticello Government 150

Kirby Hospital Health care 105

Neighborcare Pharmaceutical 87

County of Piatt Government 70

Sources: BNM 2003; EDCDM 2003; IDOCEO 2003, 2004, 2005; Exelon 2006b |
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-48 July 2006

Table 2-11 shows the unemployment rate for November 2003, the percent of individuals below

the poverty line for 2000, and the median household income for 2000 for the six counties and

the State of Illinois. McLean County has the lowest unemployment (2.6 percent) and the

highest median household income ($47,021). Champaign County has the next lowest

| unemployment (3.1 percent), the highest percentage of individuals below poverty (16.1 percent),

| and the lowest median household income ($37,780). DeWitt County (home to CPS) had 7.4

percent unemployment rate, 8.2 percent of its individuals below the poverty line, and a median

household income at $41,256. This compares to the State of Illinois unemployment rate of

| 6.3 percent, individuals below poverty at 10.7 percent, and median household income

of $46,590.

Regional employment trends are shown in Table 2-12 for the years 1990 and 2000. McLean

County grew the fastest in employment during the decade at 35.7 percent. Macon and

Champaign Counties were next at 10.4 and 9.0 percent, respectively. Most of the counties

showed a favorable drop in unemployment over the decade: Champaign County dropped from

| 4.2 percent (1990) to 3.6 percent (2000); Piatt County dropped from 4.4 percent to 3.7 percent;

| and Macon County increased from 4.0 percent to 5.2 percent. This compares to

November 2003 unemployment estimates (Table 2-11), when Champaign, Piatt, and McLean

| Counties had unemployment rates of 3.1, 5.2, and 2.6 percent, respectively. DeWitt County’s

| unemployment declined between 1990 and 2000, from 6.6 to 5.5 percent. 

Table 2-11. Percent Unemployment, Individual Poverty, and Median Household Income

Unemployment (Percent

November 2003)

Individuals Below

Poverty Level

(Percent Estimated 2000)

Median Household

Income (2000 $)

| Champaign

County

3.1 16.1 37,780

| DeWitt County 7.4 8.2 41,256

| Logan County 6.8 8.1 39,389

| Macon County 6.7 12.9 37,859

| McLean County 2.6 9.7 47,021

| Piatt County 5.2 5.0 45,752

| State of Illinois 6.3 10.7 46,590

| Sources: BLS 2003a and 2003b; USCB 2000c
Affected Environment

(a) The increases and decreases in jobs between the years 1990 and 2000 were obtained by dividing the |

1990 total jobs by category (e.g., construction) and county into the year 2000 total jobs by category |

and county. |

July 2006 2-49 NUREG-1815

Table 2-12. Regional Employment Trends,1990 and 2000 |

County

Workers Employed 

Full- and 

Part-time,

1990

Workers Employed

Full- and

Part-time,

2000

Percent

Change in

Workers

Employed,

1990 to 2000

Unemployment

Rate, 1990

Unemployment

Rate, 2000

Champaign 113,390 123,555 9.0 4.2 3.6 |

DeWitt 8382 8770 4.6 6.6 5.5 |

Logan 15,609 15,433 -1.1 5.4 3.9 |

Macon 65,419 72,246 10.4 4.0 5.2 |

McLean 80,513 109,249 35.7 6.6 3.4 |

Piatt 5882 6342 7.8 4.4 3.7 |

Sources: BEA 2001; County and City Data Books 1994a; USDOL 2000 |

Table 2-13 presents employment by proprietorship and industry, by county for 1990 and 2000. 

Nonfarm proprietorship employment (self-employed individuals) increased for all counties during

the decade of the 1990s. Farm proprietorship employment and farm employment fell across all

the counties, i.e., farmers were discontinuing farming by either retiring, going into another line of

work, or being bought out, among other possibilities. The agricultural services, fishing, and the

other-industry category, on the other hand, were mixed, increasing in those counties where data

were available for 1990 and 2000, except for Champaign County where it declined. 

Construction held its own with minor fluctuations, except in Champaign and McLean Counties,

where there was growth of 35 and 73 percent, respectively. Manufacturing either declined or |

held its own during the decade, except for Champaign County where it increased 22 percent. 

Other industries seeing increases in employment were transportation, public utilities (although

DeWitt and Piatt Counties saw declines) and retail trade, which had increases across all |

counties except Piatt, which showed some minor declines. 

Another strong growth industry was services, which showed strong growth across most of the

counties, except for a 6.4-percent decline in Logan County. Government and government

enterprises were stable employers, showing a decline of some significance only in

Champaign County, where they declined by 12.5 percent.(a) |
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-50 July 2006

Table 2-13. County Employment by Proprietorship and by Industry, 1990 and 2000 

Industry

Champaign

County

DeWitt 

County

Logan 

County

McLean

County

Macon 

County

Piatt 

County

1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000

Proprietorships

Proprietor

employment

15,672 17,928 1951 2404 3386 3595 11,132 15,257 9295 9890 2012 2259

Nonfarm

proprietor

employment

14,048 16,459 1383 1888 2465 2818 9339 13,650 8466 9163 1439 1781

Farm proprietor

employment

1624 1469 568 516 921 777 1793 1607 829 727 573 478

Industry

Farm

employment

1894 1701 675 625 1239 999 2117 1834 1079 962 708 581

Agriculture

services, fishing,

and other

1421 1207 97 192 178 (a) 1394 2230 532 615 96 (a)

Mining 164 88 25 18 (a) (a) 72 46 251 100 25 (a)

Construction 3976 5367 273 453 (a) 542 2988 5167 4204 4391 322 294

Manufacturing 10,869 13,297 1084 962 2155 1685 8095 7826 14,730 14,076 515 553

Transportation

and public

utilities

2957 4213 1616 1332 434 579 3317 3392 4703 5494 282 246

Wholesale trade 3891 3415 313 293 554 550 2961 3024 2092 2365 250 348

Retail trade 17,743 21,814 1312 1497 2800 3119 14,212 18,960 11,012 12,698 1124 1069

Finance,

insurance, and

real estate

5625 7205 348 553 732 915 13,621 23,217 3530 3912 353 536

Services 27,642 32,689 1544 1564 4223 3951 19,848 29,077 17,075 20,623 1163 1425

Government and

government

enterprises

37,208 32,559 1095 1281 2537 2684 11,888 14,476 6211 7010 1044 1066

Source: BEA 2001

(a) Indicates that the data were not reported due to privacy concerns because individual firms in the county could be

identified.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-51 NUREG-1815

Table 2-14 is an aggregation of the data presented in Table 2-13 and totals employment by

industry or business type for 1990 and 2000 for the same six counties. Between 1990 and

2000, non-farm proprietor employment increased 23 percent while farm proprietor employment |

declined by 12 percent and farm employment decreased by 13 percent. Based on the |

proprietorship decline and the fact that the “agricultural services, fishing, and other” category is

up by 14 percent (recognizing that some data are missing for Piatt and Logan Counties), it |

would appear that the agricultural industry may be going through a consolidation phase of fewer

but larger farms.

Table 2-14. Aggregated Employment by Industry or Business Type for Champaign,

DeWitt, Logan, McLean, Macon, and Piatt Counties, 1990 and 2000

Industry or Business

Type 1990 Employment 2000 Employment Percent Change

Proprietorships

Proprietor employment

43,448 51,333 18.1

Nonfarm proprietor

employment

37,140 45,759 23.2

Farm proprietor

employment

6308 5574 -11.6

Industry

Farm employment 7712 6702 -13.1 |

Agricultural services, |

fishing, and other

3718 4244 Incomplete(a)

Mining 537 252 Incomplete(a)

Construction 11,763 16,214 Incomplete(a)

Manufacturing 37,448 38,399 2.5

Transportation and public

utilities

13,309 15,256 14.6

Wholesale trade 10,061 9995 -0.7

Retail trade 48,203 59,157 22.7

Finance, insurance, and

real estate

24,209 36,338 50.1

Services 71,495 89,329 24.9

Government and |

government enterprises

59,983 59,076 -1.5

Source: BEA 2001

(a) Incomplete, as some county data not available.
Affected Environment

(a) Personal interviews were conducted March 3, 2004, in the City of Clinton with Roger Cyrulik (Mayor of

Clinton), Steve Lobb (Director of Public Works, Clinton), and Tim Followell (Administrative Assistant,

Clinton). A group interview was conducted March 2, 2004, in Clinton, Illinois, with Duane Harris,

(DeWitt County Board Chairman), Terry Ferguson (DeWitt County Board and Land Use Chairman),

Sherrie Brown (Administrator, DeWitt County Zoning), Sandy Moody (DeWitt County Supervisor of

Assessments), Dee Dee Rentmeister (Administrative Assistant, DeWitt County Board of Supervisors),

and Christy Long (DeWitt County Treasurer).

(b) Personal interview conducted on March 2, 2004, in the City of Clinton, Illinois, with Sandi Thayer,

Thayer Real Estate.

NUREG-1815 2-52 July 2006

The growth industries that could be quantified over the decade between 1990 and 2000 include

finance, insurance, and real estate (50 percent increase), the services industry (25 percent

increase), and retail trade (23 percent increase). Manufacturing held its own in employment

through the decade, increasing by approximately 2.5 percent. Generally, the economy across

the region can be viewed as being economically diversified.

DeWitt County lost about 1000 jobs over the last 5 to 7 years as manufacturing firms have

shifted jobs overseas or to other places in the United States and through businesses 

consolidating, merging, or going out of business.(b) The general thinking of county and city

officials in the Clinton area is that the economy is soft but that they have reached bottom.(a) |

New firms are moving into the county and creating new jobs. However, the wages paid for

these jobs are lower than the wages paid for the lost jobs.

Commodity prices are up, helping the agriculture sector. The market value of farmland is

increasing, especially for the larger contiguous pieces of land, those from 160 to 320 ha (400 to

800 ac). Farmers in and around the Chicago area are selling their land for development and

buying new farms involving non-taxable Starker exchanges. This has increased the price of

farmland in and around Clinton to $4000 per acre.(b)

The number of building permits issued by the county is remaining stable, numbering about

170 permits annually from 2000 to 2003, of which new residential permits are holding steady

between 42 and 45 annually over the same 4-year period (Brown 2004).

The county infrastructure is fairly new. A new courthouse and jail combination have been built. 

The county does not have any growth moratoriums in place. The City of Clinton also appears to

have a fairly new, modern town hall.

The City of Clinton is going through a transition period economically. Manufacturing

outsourcing and downsizing have made some realize that it is possible that Clinton may not

return to the economy that characterized it during the decade of the 1990s and before. 

| Clinton’s strategic placement, midway between Decatur, Champaign-Urbana, BloomingtonNormal, and Springfield has suggested to some town and county officials that the City of 
Affected Environment

(a) Group interview conducted March 2, 2004, in Clinton, Illinois, with Duane Harris, (DeWitt County

Board Chairman), Terry Ferguson (DeWitt County Board and Land Use Chairman), Sherrie Brown

(Administrator, DeWitt County Zoning), Sandy Moody (DeWitt County Supervisor of Assessments),

Dee Dee Rentmeister (Administrative Assistant, DeWitt County Board of Supervisors), and

Christy Long (DeWitt County Treasurer), and personal interview conducted March 3, 2004, in the City

of Clinton, Illinois, with Stephen Vandiver (Economic Development Director, City of Clinton).

(b) Personal interview conducted March 3, 2004, in the City of Clinton, Illinois, with Stephen Vandiver 

(Economic Development Director, City of Clinton).

(c) Person interviews conducted on March 2, 2004, in the City of Clinton, Illinois, with Sandi Thayer,

(Thayer Real Estate). |

July 2006 2-53 NUREG-1815

Clinton might begin to promote itself as a bedroom community to these larger communities,

instead of a commercial manufacturing hub.(a)

The City of Clinton has had limits placed on its growth for a number of years for two reasons. 

First, there was an overtaxing of its sewer system in the early 1990s. The problem was caused

by an inadequate combined storm water/sewer system, which has been corrected. The city has

also expanded its water-treatment plant. Second, until approximately 1996, Clinton was locked

into trust lands and could not annex new land into the town. The problem was resolved in 1996,

and since then Clinton has annexed 80 ha (200 ac) and plans to extend utilities and other

services to the annexed lands within the next 3 to 5 years.(b)

The City of Clinton has also taken advantage of tax increment financing districts to fund

infrastructure improvements, such as street improvements (curbs, gutters, and a center turn

lane on business U.S. Highway 51, which has greatly alleviated congestion through town). 

Under tax increment financing districts, tax revenues collected in a defined district are capped in |

the amount that goes to the town. Taxes collected above the cap go into a fund, which the town

manages to pay for improvements within the district. Clinton also passed an increase to the

local sales tax, which has also been used to fund improvements.(b)

Because of the presence of the CPS in DeWitt County, property taxes in Clinton and the county

have been lower than those of neighboring counties. An owner of a house in McLean County

(Bloomington-Normal) whose house was assessed at $150,000 would pay $4000 per year in

property taxes. The same house in Clinton/DeWitt County would pay property taxes between

$2800 to $3000 per year.(c) |

The real estate market in both agricultural and residential housing is strong. Prices for

residential housing are rising about 3 percent per year. The commercial sector is stable. The

rental market, as the 2000 Census figures show, is very tight (see more detailed discussion in

Section 2.8.2.5). There are not many vacancies, and those that do occur are filled quickly by

word of mouth. According to two realtors, Clinton itself is increasingly becoming a bedroom 
Affected Environment

(a) Personal interviews conducted on March 2, 2004, in the City of Clinton, Illinois, with Sandi Thayer

(Thayer Real Estate), and on March 3, 2004, in the City of Clinton, Illinois, with Camill Tedrick,

(General Manager, Brady Weaver Real Estate).

(b) Personal interviews conducted on March 2, 2004, in the City of Clinton, Illinois, with Sandi Thayer,

(Thayer Real Estate), on March 3, 2004, with Stephen Vandiver (Economic Development Director,

City of Clinton), and on March 3, 2004, with Camill Tedrick (General Manager, Brady Weaver Real

Estate).

| (c) Personal interview conducted March 2, 2004, in the City of Clinton, Illinois, with Sandi Thayer (Thayer

Real Estate).

(d) Group interview conducted March 5, 2004, in the City of Monticello, Illinois, with Sue Gortner

(Executive Director, Monticello Chamber of Commerce and Tourism), Bill Mitze (Mayor, Town of

Monticello), Mary Jo Hetrick (Community and Economic Development Director, Monticello),

Floyd Allsop (Superintendent of City Services, Monticello), and Lawrence J. McNabb, Ph.D.

(Superintendent, Monticello Community Unit School District 25).

NUREG-1815 2-54 July 2006

| community to the larger cities of Champaign-Urbana, Springfield, Decatur, and

Bloomington-Normal.(a)

There is also some building of residential housing in and around the City of Clinton. The

average sale price of a used house is in the $75,000 to $80,000 range for three bedrooms, oneand-a-half baths, and a single-car garage on two-tenths of an acre. At the upper end, $285,000

will buy a five-bedroom, five-bath house on a one-and-one-third-acre lot. Houses are on the

market an average of 60 to 75 days. Rents for apartments and residential housing range

between $385 to $680 per month.(b)

Clinton Lake is heavily used for recreation, but its impact on the economy of Clinton is

minimal.(d) In the vicinity of the lake, a 7.6-ha (19-ac) lot can be bought for $150,000.(c) A threebedroom, two-bath house with unfinished basement, family room, and two fireplaces on 0.5 ha

(1.3 ac) recently sold for $150,000.(d) No properties around the lake actually abut the lake. CPS

owns the lake and 91 m (100 yards) up the shoreline from the lake. There is approximately a

10-percent differential in values between lake properties and properties in Clinton, with the lake

properties being higher.(d)

In adjoining Piatt County and the Town of Monticello, the economy is better and more

diversified. Monticello is close to neighboring Champaign County and the University of Illinois,

as well as to Decatur. Highway I-72 runs past Monticello, and a number of its residents

| commute to jobs in Champaign-Urbana and Decatur. Like Clinton, it is a bedroom community to

these larger cities.

Also like Clinton, Piatt County and Monticello have lost industry and jobs over the past few

| years, although some new industry has been attracted to the area. Those firms coming in are

generally paying lower wages than those that left. Agriculture, a large part of the county’s

economy, is currently strong, with improvements in commodity prices and rising land values.(d)
Affected Environment

(a) Personal interviews conducted March 5, 2004, in the City of Mt. Pulaski, Illinois, with William Glaze

(Mayor, City of Mt. Pulaski) and Michael R. Partridge (Director of Public Works, City of Mt. Pulaski).

(b) Personal interview conducted March 5, 2004, in the City of Mt. Pulaski Illinois with William Glaze |

(Mayor, City of Mt. Pulaski) and Michael R. Partridge (Director of Public Works, City of Mt. Pulaski). |

July 2006 2-55 NUREG-1815

Four new subdivisions are underway in Monticello with 91 lots available in March 2004

(Monticello 2004). The infrastructure (water and sewer) is in place to support new construction

for 5 years, with 25 to 30 new building permits annually. New housing construction ranges in

price between $165,000 and $275,000.(a) Older houses with three bedrooms and one-and-ahalf baths can be purchased for around $80,000. The price range for all houses sold in 2003

ranged from just under $50,000 to $350,000 (Monticello 2004). There are approximately

80 homes on the market at any given time, which in 2003 were on the market an average of

109 days.(a)

Mt. Pulaski, a small town in Logan County adjacent to and west of DeWitt County, is a bedroom

community to Springfield, the State capitol. The economy in Logan County is considered

strong. Agriculture, as in Piatt and DeWitt Counties, is a major component of Logan County

economy. However, two prisons are the primary employers. Within the City of Mt. Pulaski,

there are two industries: Inland Tools and Mt. Pulaski Products, Inc. Generally, the

infrastructure (water, sewer, and roads) is sound, but the sewer system is being upgraded.(a)

The rental market in Mt. Pulaski is tight, with no apartments available and limited places to build

(only six lots are available and no houses are built on speculation – a buyer must enter into a

contract before construction starts). If building does take place, it is considered important not to

“overbuild,” i.e., building an expensive house with lots of amenities, because it would be

difficult to sell.

A three-bedroom house in Mt. Pulaski would generally sell for between $75,000 and $100,000. 

When houses do become available, they sell rather quickly. Two houses were built in 2003,

both by Habitat for Humanity.(b) |

2.8.2.2 Taxes

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, owner of CPS, pays annual property taxes to the following |

jurisdictions: DeWitt County, Clinton Community School District 15, and Harp Township

(including Richland Community College District 537, Multi-Township Assessment District 3,

Vespasian Warner Public Library District, and Mahomet Valley Water Authority).

Table 2-15 presents information on the total property taxes AmerGen pays to all jurisdictions, |

the total property taxes collected, and the percent of the total property taxes that are paid by

AmerGen. The preponderance of taxes are paid to DeWitt County and Clinton School |

District 15. The AmerGen annual property tax payments to DeWitt County for the 7-year period |

1996 to 2002 averaged approximately 66.5 percent of the total property taxes collected.
Affected Environment

(a) Telephone conversation with Frederic Lane, counsel; Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton and Taylor,

Ltd.; Chicago, Illinois, January 17, 2006.

(b) Personal communication March 2, 2004, from Sandy Moody (DeWitt County Assessor).

NUREG-1815 2-56 July 2006

Table 2-15. Total Property Tax Revenues Generated in DeWitt County and Other Taxing

| Districts, Total Property Taxes AmerGen Paid to These Jurisdictions, 1997 to

| 2002, and Percent of AmerGen Property Taxes Paid of Total Property Tax

Revenues Collected

Year

Total Property Tax

Revenues

($)

Property Tax Paid

by AmerGen

($)

Percent of Total Property

| Taxes Paid to the

Jurisdiction

1996 22,818,230 17,883,087 78

1997 23,120,605 17,801,100 77

1998 22,086,537 16,412,640 74

1999 21,071,703 15,398,610 73

2000 18,289,345 10,128,580 55

| 2001 17,524,729 9,558,990 55

2002 17,344,778 9,165,355 53

| Source: Long 2004

Deregulation of the Illinois electric utility industry has had, and is continuing to have, a major

impact on the finances of DeWitt County and other taxable entities receiving property tax

| revenue from AmerGen. For the period 2000 to 2002, the AmerGen property taxes paid to

| DeWitt County averaged 54.3 percent of the total property taxes received, or a drop of

21.5 percent from the average of the four previous years. This drop represents a transition

period of declining property tax collections due to deregulation. Whereas in pre-deregulation

| years the property taxes paid were based on the depreciated book value of the CPS, postderegulation the amount of property taxes paid will be based on the market value of power

produced from the plant or by other methods. As of January 2006, negotiations are on going

| with AmerGen to arrive at a negotiated, more quantitatively based value for CPS. The

| approaches being explored include (1) an income method based on the value of sold power;

| (2) the cost today of building a new nuclear plant at the CPS site; and (3) market data – what

have been the sale prices of recently sold nuclear power plants.(a) As reflected in Table 2-16,

the assessed value of the plant has dropped from $708 million, county-assessed valuation in

| 1999, to $411 million (tentative) for 2003. Before 2000, the Illinois Power Company was valued

| at $470 million (1999) to a projected $165 million by 2003; the CPS is now owned by AmerGen

| (a subsidiary of Exelon Generation Company, LLC). The county currently is in a transition

period from pre-deregulation to deregulation and does not know how CPS will be valued after

2005 (Moody 2004).(b)
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-57 NUREG-1815

Table 2-16. Real Estate Assessment of CPS Compared to Total Real Estate Assessment of

DeWitt County

Year

DeWitt County Total

Assessed Evaluation

($)

CPS Assessed 

Valuation

($)

Percent of CPS

Assessed Valuation to

County Total

1996 760,669,126 558,689,373 73

1997 751,432,800 540,000,000 72

1998 704,173,862 480,000,000 68

1999 707,995,785 470,000,000 66

2000 466,246,810 220,000,000 47

2001 453,754,329 210,000,000 46

2002 440,622,585 195,000,000 44

2003(a) 410,928,943 165,000,000 40

Source: Moody 2004 |

(a) Estimated.

2.8.2.3 Transportation

In Champaign-Urbana, four interstate highways cut through or end at the metropolitan area. |

Interstate-57 runs north-south through Champaign-Urbana and connects with Chicago to the |

north. Interstate-74 connects with the cities from the east and then runs northwest through

Bloomington-Normal and Peoria and eventually connects with I-80 just east of Davenport, Iowa. 

Interstate-72 begins in Champaign and runs southwest, connecting Decatur with Champaign- |

Urbana to the northeast and Springfield to the west. |

Bloomington-Normal has three interstate freeways running through it. Interstate-55 comes in

from the southwest from Springfield, and runs northeast connecting to Chicago to the north. 

Interstate-74 comes in from the southeast and connects to Champaign-Urbana to the southeast |

and Peoria to the northwest. Interstate-39 comes in from Rockford, Illinois, to the north and

intersects Interstates I-74 and I-55 at Bloomington-Normal. 

Decatur has I-72 that connects it to Champaign-Urbana (terminating at I-57) to the northeast |

and Springfield to the west. Interstate-72 runs through Springfield to the west and continues

west, while I-55 runs northeast and south, connecting Bloomington-Normal to the north and

St. Louis to the south. All three cities (Decatur, Champaign-Urbana, and Bloomington-Normal) |

have regional airports offering flights to Chicago, Detroit, and other destinations.

The City of Clinton has two highways running through it. U.S. Highway 51 runs north-south

through Clinton, connecting to Bloomington-Normal to the north and Decatur to the south. State

Route 54 runs northeast to the southwest through Clinton, connecting with I-74 to the northeast |

and Springfield and to I-55 to the southwest. |
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-58 July 2006

| With the improvements to its streets, Clinton has greatly alleviated congestion during shift

| changes at CPS. The CPS employs 550 workers. During refueling outages the temporary

| workforce can increase to 1300 for a period up to three weeks (Exelon 2006b). Access to the

CPS site is via good roads. Congestion only exists at shift changes and is short-lived, usually

dissipating within a half-hour.

2.8.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation

Clinton Lake State Recreation Area is 3760 ha (9300 ac), including Clinton Lake, which is the

cooling water source for the current CPS. The lake, 1981 ha (4895 ac) in size, is located just

3 miles east of the City of Clinton. Numerous recreational sites are located around the

| reservoir, including boat ramps, camping sites, and picnic areas (IDNR 2004b). Although

AmerGen owns the lake and 91 m (100 yards) up the shoreline from the lake, public access is

available to most of the lake. However, for security purposes, a small part of the lake is off

limits to public access, primarily around the plant itself and its water intake structures.

Clinton Lake State Recreation Area is heavily used for recreation. Recreational activities

include boating, hiking, swimming, and camping, among other activities. Fishing has been

described as outstanding, with species available including crappie, catfish, walleye, stripers,

bass, and bluegill (IDNR 2004c).

The CPS can be seen from several vantage points around Clinton Lake. The terrain around the

lake is gently undulating and wooded. From these areas, most of the CPS structures are

screened from public view. Noise from the plant is not particularly noticeable, even from

vantage points where the plant can be clearly seen.

2.8.2.5 Housing

The largest number of current employees at CPS’s nuclear facility live in three areas: 

approximately 30 percent live in DeWitt County, 30 percent in Macon County (Decatur), and

20 percent in McLean County (Bloomington-Normal). The remaining 20 percent are scattered in

| other communities, generally within a 80-km (50-mi) radius of the ESP site (Exelon 2004a).

Within the 80-km (50-mi) radius, residential areas are found in the cities, towns, and smaller

communities with farmsteads scattered throughout the area. Rental property is scarce in the

| rural regions, but is found in the larger cities such as Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana,

Decatur, and Springfield. Near the vicinity of the ESP site, residential areas are generally older

single-family residences and mobile homes. Newer residential developments are primarily

located in the four cities previously mentioned.

Table 2-17 provides the number of housing units and housing unit vacancies for the region of

| potential impact for 1990 and 2000 for Champaign, DeWitt, Logan, McLean, Macon, and Piatt 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-59 NUREG-1815

Table 2-17. Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County During

1990 and 2000

1990 2000 |

Approximate

Percentage Change

(1990 to 2000)

Champaign County

Total Housing Units 68,416 75,280 10.0

Occupied Units 63,900 70,597 10.5

 Owner-occupied 34,857 39,329 12.8

 Renter-occupied 29,043 31,268 7.7

Vacant Units 4516 4683 3.7

DeWitt County

Housing Units 6942 7282 4.9

Occupied Units 6488 6770 4.3

 Owner-occupied 4599 5076 10.4

 Renter-occupied 1889 1694 -10.3

Vacant Units 454 512 12.8

Logan County

Housing Units 11,638 11,872 2.0

Occupied Units 11,033 11,113 0.7

 Owner-occupied 7476 7925 6.0

 Renter-occupied 3557 3188 -10.4

Vacant Units 605 759 25.5

McLean County

Housing Units 49,164 59,972 22.0

Occupied Units 46,796 56,746 21.3

 Owner-occupied 29,696 37,710 27.0

 Renter-occupied 17,100 19,036 11.3

Vacant Units 2368 3226 36.2

Macon County

Housing Units 50,049 50,241 0.4

Occupied Units 45,996 46,561 1.2

 Owner-occupied 32,268 33,345 3.3

 Renter-occupied 13,728 13,216 -3.7

Vacant Units 4053 3680 -9.2

Piatt County

Housing Units 6227 6798 9.2

Occupied Units 5934 6475 9.1

 Owner-occupied 4539 5191 14.4

 Renter-occupied 1395 1284 -8.0

Vacant Units 293 323 10.2

Sources: USCB 2000d; County and City Data Books 1994b
Affected Environment

| (a) These values were obtained by dividing 1990 housing data by category (e.g., vacant units) into the

| 2000 housing data of the same category.

| (b) Values were obtained by totaling each category (e.g., total housing units) by county for 2000 and

| dividing that total into the totals (over all counties) for the categories “renter occupied” and “vacant

| units.”

NUREG-1815 2-60 July 2006

| counties. Total housing units further subdivide into owner-occupied, renter-occupied, and

vacant. The percentages change for each classification over the decade of the 1990s is

| presented in the table.

Generally, the counties with the larger populations (Champaign, McLean, and Macon) have

more available vacant housing. The percentage change in the number of vacant units between

1990 and 2000 in the region ranges from 3.7 percent (Champaign County) to 36.2 percent

(McLean County). The counties with smaller populations (e.g., Piatt, DeWitt, and Logan) show

a percent change in vacant units ranging between 10.2 percent (Piatt) and 25.5 percent

(Logan). Macon County had a decline in the number of vacant units (-9.2 percent).(a) |

| In 2000, there were 211,445 total housing units for Champaign, DeWitt, Logan, McLean, Macon,

| and Piatt Counties. Of that total, 69,686 were renter-occupied (33 percent of the total). Vacant

units numbered 13,183 (6.2 percent of the total for 2000).(b) |

Table 2-18 presents more detailed 2000 Census data on vacant housing units for communities

close to the ESP site: Clinton, Farmer City, Monticello, and Lincoln. Of the 238 vacant houses

in Clinton, 110 were for rent. Of its 426 vacant units, Lincoln had 124 units available for rent. 

| Of its 80 vacant units, Monticello had 14 units available for rent. Farmer City had 76 vacant

| units and 29 units available for rent.

2.8.2.6 Public Services

| Public services and facilities consist of public utilities (water and waste water treatment), police,

| fire departments, medical services, social services. Education (schools) is discussed in

| Section 2.8.2.7. Most of these services are located in municipal boundaries and are near

| population centers (Exelon 2006a).

Water and Waste Water Treatment

In the vicinity of the ESP site, drinking water is primarily obtained from groundwater via wells.

The Clinton Sanitary District Sewage Treatment Plant serves the waste water needs of the City

of Clinton. In the region, rural communities generally have private wells for water and septic

systems for sanitary wastes. Larger communities obtain water from groundwater extraction

wells and are served by public waste water treatment systems. Individual residents in rural 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-61 NUREG-1815

Table 2-18. Vacant Housing Units for Clinton, Farmer City, Monticello, and Lincoln, 2000

Number

Percent of Total

Vacant Units

Clinton

Vacant housing units 238

For rent 110 46.2 |

For sale only 37 15.5

Rented or sold, not occupied 24 10.1

For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 20 8.5 |

For migratory workers 0 0.0

Other vacant 47 19.7

Farmer City

Vacant housing units 76

For rent 29 38.2

For sale only 12 15.8

Rented or sold, not occupied 1 1.3

For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 8 10.5

For migratory workers 0 0.0

Other vacant 26 34.2

Monticello

Vacant housing units 80

For rent 14 17.4

For sale only 17 21.3

Rented or sold, not occupied 11 13.8

For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 4 5.0

For migratory workers 0 0.0

Other vacant 34 42.5

Lincoln

Vacant housing units 426

For rent 124 29.1

For sale only 89 20.9

Rented or sold, not occupied 101 23.7

For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 14 3.3

For migratory workers 0 0.0

Other vacant 98 23.0

Source: USCB 2000e
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-62 July 2006

areas obtain their water primarily from wells. A survey was performed for water and water

facilities in the region, and the facilities were found to have excess capacity to accommodate

| potential population increases (Exelon 2006a). An independent analysis conducted by the NRC

| staff confirms Exelon’s finding (Tables 2-19 and 2-20).

Table 2-19 summarizes the source and daily peak, average, and excess capacity of water

consumed in the major towns and cities within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the ESP site. Excess

capacity exists in the public water supply systems of all major cities and towns within the region. 

| Springfield has the largest water-treatment capability. Its peak demand is 144 million L/d

(38 million gallons per day [mgd]), average daily demand is 83 million L/d (22 mgd), and excess

capacity is 30 million L/d (8 mgd). Closer to the ESP site, the Cities of Clinton, Farmer City,

Monticello, and Lincoln all have excess capacity ranging from 1.1 million L/d (0.3 mgd) (Clinton)

to 5.7 million L/d (1.5 mgd) (Lincoln). The combined excess capacity for these four small towns,

| all within 25 miles of the CPS, is 10 million L/d (2.7 mgd).

Table 2-20 summarizes the type and treatment capacity, current load, and excess capacity of

the waste water treatment facilities in the same cities and towns within 80 km (50 mi) of the ESP

site. Excess capacity exists in the public waste water treatment systems of all major cities and

towns within the region. Springfield has the largest waste-treatment excess capacity. Its daily

peak is 227 million L/d (60 mgd), current load of 83 million L/d (22 mgd), and excess 

capacity of 144 million L/d (38 mgd). Closer into the ESP site, the Cities of Clinton, Farmer 

City, Monticello, and Lincoln all have excess capacity ranging from 1.6 million L/d (0.4 mgd)

Table 2-19. Public Water Supply Systems in Select Towns and Cities in the Region of the

Exelon ESP Site

Water System Source

Peak Daily

Demand, Million

L/d (mgd)

Average Daily

Use, million

L/d (mgd)

Excess

Capacity, million

L/d (mgd)

Clinton (DeWitt) Well 6.4 (1.7) 5.3 (1.4) 1.1 (0.3)

Monticello (Piatt) Well 3.4 (0.9) 2.5 (0.7) 1.3 (0.4)

Farmer City (DeWitt) Well 0.8 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 1.9 (0.5)

| Lincoln (Logan) Well 12.5 (3.3) 9.5 (2.5) 5.7 (1.5)

| Champaign-Urbana (Champaign) Well 125.3 (33.1) 73.1 (19.3) 26.3 (6.9)

Decatur (Macon) Lake 166.2 (43.9) 146.5 (38.7) 27.5 (7.3)

Bloomington (McLean) Lake 75.7 (20.0) 141.6 (11.0) 7.6 (2.0)

Normal (Macon) Well 19.5 (5.2) 15.2 (4.0) 17.0 (4.5)

Springfield (Sangamon) Lake 143.9 (38.0) 83.3 (22.0) 30.3 (8.0)

Sources: IDOCEO 2002, 2003
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-63 NUREG-1815

Table 2-20. Waste Water Treatment Systems in Select Towns and Cities in the Region of

the Exelon ESP Site

Water System

Type of

Treatment

Treatment

Capacity,

million L/d (mgd)

Current Load, 

million L/d

(mgd)

Excess

Capacity, 

million L/d

(mgd)

Clinton (DeWitt) Tertiary 6.4 (1.7) 4.9 (1.3) 1.6 (0.4)

Monticello (Piatt) Tertiary 3.8 (1.0) 2.1 (0.6) 1.7 (0.5)

Farmer City (DeWitt) Tertiary 3.4 (0.9) 1.4 (0.4) 2.0 (0.5)

Lincoln (Logan) Tertiary 45.0 (12.0) 19.0 (5.0) 26.0 (7.0)

Champaign-Urbana

(Champaign)

Tertiary 87.8 (23.2) 65.1 (17.2) 22.6 (6.0) |

Decatur (Macon) Secondary 155.2 (41.0) 117.0 (31.0) 38.0 (10.0)

Bloomington-Normal

(McLean)

Tertiary 118.1 (31.2) 61.0 (16.0) 57.5 (15.2)

Springfield (Sangamon) Tertiary 227.0 (60.0) 83.0 (22.0) 144.0 (38.0)

Sources: IDOCEO 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 |

(Clinton) to 26 million L/d (7 mgd) (Lincoln). The combined excess capacity for these four small |

towns, all within 25 miles of the CPS site, is 31.3 million L/d (8.4 mgd). |

“Secondary treatment” usually employs a biological process whereby a large population of |

micro-organisms help converts the remaining organic material into other forms, which can be |

easily separated into solids and clear liquids (Reclamation District 2006). Secondary treatment |

is the minimum treatment requirement for most municipal sewage treatment plants |

(LGAN 2006). “Tertiary treatment” is required when the final effluent must be so clean that

95 percent or more of the contaminants must be removed by waste-water treatment. Tertiary |

treatment may include filtration, removal of ammonia and other contaminants, and disinfection |

to destroy bacteria causing human diseases (Reclamation District 2006). Should a town or city |

be limited in its growth because of water quality issues associated with secondary treatment, |

tertiary treatment, because it is more advanced technologically, can be employed and thereby |

help alleviate the growth moratorium, allowing growth to occur. |

Public water supply and waste water treatment are not a constraint to growth in the vicinity of

the ESP site, assuming that growth increases hold to the historical norm. However, there are

no limitations on new sources of water from groundwater. In addition, most treatment plants

located in the area have reserve treatment capacity.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-64 July 2006

Police, Fire, and Medical Services

Within the 16-km (10-mi) radius of the ESP site, there is one fire department and there are two

| police (city police and county sheriff) departments that serve the City of Clinton. In the region of

| interest, there are a total of 89 fire departments and 75 police departments. Outside of the

| major cities of the area (Decatur, Champaign-Urbana, Bloomington-Normal, and Springfield),

| communities typically share fire-fighting services (Exelon 2006a).

Within the 16-km (10-mi) radius of the ESP site, there are two nursing homes and one hospital

serving Clinton. Within the (80-km [50-mi]) region, there are 52 hospitals and 84 nursing

homes. Exelon concludes that the projected capacity of public services is adequate and is

expected to expand modestly to meet the demands of a slight population growth

| (Exelon 2006a). Annual population growth projections of less than 0.8 percent a year would

tend to support this conclusion (see Table 2-8).

Social Services

Social services in Illinois are overseen at the State level of government by the Department of

Human Services, which is the largest agency in Illinois, with more than 15,000 employees and

an annual budget of nearly $5 billion. The services of the agency are provided through nearly

200 local offices and in partnership with a network of local providers that reaches every part of

Illinois. The services touch the lives of one out of five Illinois citizens in the course of a year

| (IDHS 2006).

The Department of Human Services serves Illinois citizens through seven main programs: 

(1) alcoholism and substance abuse treatment and prevention services; (2) developmental

disabilities; (3) health services for pregnant women and mothers, infants, children, and

adolescents; (4) prevention services for domestic violence and at-risk youth; (5) mental health;

(6) rehabilitation services; and (7) welfare programs, including temporary assistance for needy

| families, food stamps, and child care (IDHS 2006).

2.8.2.7 Education

The public school systems in the region are organized into 110 primary, secondary, or unit

school districts. Within DeWitt County, there are two school districts. The Blue Ridge

Community School District 18 is based in Farmer City, Illinois. It has one high school

(enrollment 285), a junior high school (enrollment 150), an elementary school (enrollment 240),

and a pre-school (enrollment 290) (School 2004a). Clinton School District 15 has one high

school (enrollment 750), a junior high school (enrollment 500), and three elementary schools 
Affected Environment

(a) CPS is owned by AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Exelon Generating Company, |

LLC. |

(b) Personal interview March 3, 2004, with Roger Little (Superintendent, Clinton Unit School District 15).

(c) Personal interview conducted on March 5, 2004, in the City of Monticello, Illinois, with Lawrence J.

McNabb (Superintendent, Monticello Community School District 25).

(d) Personal interviews conducted on March 3, 2004, in the City of Clinton, Illinois, with Roger A. Little

(Superintendent, Clinton Unit School District 15), and on March 5, 2004, in the City of Monticello,

Illinois, with Lawrence J. McNabb (Superintendent, Monticello Community School District 25).

(e) Personal communication February 11, 2004, with Nancy Cooper (Dean, Enrollment Services,

Richland Community College, Decatur, Illinois).

July 2006 2-65 NUREG-1815

(enrollment 1050, including pre-school) (School 2004b). Clinton School District 15 is the main

beneficiary of the current CPS tax base(a) (Exelon 2006a). |

Over the last several years, Clinton School District 15 has been meeting obligations by cutting

its budget by $3 million and spending reserves. For the first time since 1965, the school district

had to go before the voters in mid-March (2004) to request an increase in the tax rate to |

$1.20 per thousand of assessed valuation,(b) only to have it defeated by a three-to-one margin. 

It has seen the percentage of the property taxes from AmerGen to total property taxes collected |

in DeWitt County decline from 80 percent in 1996 to 53 percent in 2002.(b)

Monticello Community Unit School District’s 25 schools are financially stable. The district has

had some financial strain from their reliance on the corporate profit tax because of the recession

and firms closing and leaving the area. There have been recent improvements in corporate

profit tax collection as a result of renewed economic growth in the area. The income tax for

corporations is 7 percent, which includes the 2.5-percent personal property replacement tax

(Lawrence County 2004). A $21-million construction phase has been undertaken, and with the

new construction there will be excess capacity in the school system.(c)

A survey of class size of some schools in the region was performed and found that of those

districts surveyed (a total of 69), 67 percent of all the schools within these districts have class |

sizes at or below the national average (Exelon 2004c). From this, Exelon concluded that this is |

an indication that there is sufficient capacity in the classrooms for a small increase in

population. Although the Blue Ridge and Clinton school districts were not included in the

Exelon survey, the NRC staff interviewed the superintendents of the Clinton and Monticello

school districts. They found classrooms to be adequate for the numbers of students.(d)

There are three community colleges and eight 4-year colleges and universities in the region. 

Richland Community College District has students on the main campus in Decatur and is a

beneficiary of the Exelon property taxes. It has a full-time equivalent enrollment of 1155.(e)

Other 4-year colleges and universities with enrollment are as follows (Exelon 2006a): Eureka |

College, Eureka (525); Illinois Central College, Peoria (13,930); Illinois State University,

Bloomington (20,504); Illinois Wesleyan, Bloomington (2028); Millikin University, 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-66 July 2006

Decatur (2079); Parkland College, Champaign (9280); Southern Illinois University, Carbondale

| and Springfield (4334); and University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana (36,936).

2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources

This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and archaeological

resources at the Exelon ESP site and in the surrounding area of DeWitt County. It also details

| the approach that will be taken to protect cultural resources, and describes consultation efforts

accomplished to date.

2.9.1 Cultural Background

The area in and around the ESP site has a rich cultural history and a substantial record of

significant prehistoric and historic resources. In March 2004, NRC staff conducted a site file

search at the Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA). The site files identified a total

| of 95 archaeological sites and isolated finds within a 3.2-km (2-mi) radius of the CPS unit. Ten

archaeological sites contained features or artifacts dating from the historic period (after

| A.D. 1600); 92 sites contained features and/or artifacts from the prehistoric period.

The Salt Creek River system flows through the area and influenced settlement in the area. Of

the 92 sites with prehistoric remains, 22 sites are dateable. The record indicates that prehistoric

occupation of the area began in the Early Archaic period (ca. 8000 B.C. - 1000 B.C.) and

extended through the Woodland Period (1000 B.C. - A.D. 900) and the Mississippian Period

(A.D. 900 - 1600).

When Euroamericans arrived in the area in approximately 1600 A.D., the area was occupied by

American Indian groups associated with the Illini Confederacy and the Kickapoo, who remained

in the area until the 1820s. Present-day tribes with ancestral ties to the area include the

Kickapoo of Kansas Tribal Council, the Kickapoo of Oklahoma Business Committee, the

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, the Eastern Delaware Tribe, the Delaware Tribe of

Western Oklahoma, and the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.

The historic period in this region began with the pioneers who entered the area as part of the

general westward expansion. The first permanent settlers came from Kentucky and Tennessee

to farm the land in the 1830s. Clinton emerged as a major commercial center with the arrival of

| the Illinois Central Railroad in 1854. DeWitt County retains many of the rural characteristics that

| were part of its early history. 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-67 NUREG-1815

2.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Exelon ESP Site

The original CPS project consisted of the CPS site and the portion of the North Fork Salt Creek |

dammed to make Clinton Lake, which supports operations. Most of the lake was subsequently |

leased to the IDNR and has been developed as the Clinton State Recreation Area. Although

much of the current CPS unit consists of disturbed areas impacted by industrial facilities, roads, |

parking lots, and former laydown yards, portions of the site remain undisturbed or minimally |

disturbed.

A Phase 1 archaeological survey was conducted in the early 1970s prior to the construction of

the CPS unit. In addition to the area proposed for the CPS unit, the survey included selected |

portions of the Salt Creek floodplain and adjacent uplands (Lewis 1973), recording 132 sites. 

The exact areas surveyed are not known, but were concentrated in the North Fork Salt Creek

drainage, which was planned to be dammed to create a lake to serve water intake and outflow

needs of the CPS unit. Ten sites that had diagnostic evidence, such as a projectile point to |

provide an age, were recommended for additional investigation.

The Illinois State Museum performed archaeological testing of the 10 recommended sites in

1974 (Lewis 1975). In 1975, the Museum conducted an additional archaeological excavation at

the Pabst Site (11DW32), located near the proposed water intake structure, and recovered a

substantial amount of archaeological data (Lewis 1976). The Pabst Site was an area that

prehistoric peoples repeatedly occupied beginning approximately 4000 years ago. The site

appears to have been a base camp from which small task groups departed to hunt and gather

foods to bring back to use at the camp. Remains from these activities formed an archaeological

deposit 1 m (3.3 ft) thick and 2 ha (5 ac) in size. Lewis reports that he prepared an application

for nominating the Pabst Site to the National Register of Historic Places and that the application

was accepted on April 30, 1975 (Lewis 1976); however, no records of this acceptance were

found at the IHPA in 2004.

Also prior to the original construction, research identified the Valley Mill (ca. 1850; 11DWH24), |

located on the North Fork, and eight iron bridges (ca. 1870s), which crossed the North Fork and

Salt Creek, as historic resources worthy of attention. All of these would be inundated by the

proposed reservoir. Plans were made to move two of the bridges for use as footbridges and to

move the Valley Mill to higher ground where the DeWitt County Museum Association would

assist with interpretation to the public (AEC 1974). Neither of these events ever occurred.

In 2000, Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc., funded an archaeological survey prior to |

construction of a wastewater treatment plant to be located near the CPS water outfall structure |

(Howe 2000). Background historical research indicated the presence of a road through the area

and a historic structure as early as 1875 on an 32-ha (80-ac) parcel owned by P. Wakefield. 

During the archaeological survey, one historic site (11DW360) was recorded, characterized by a

small scatter of historic debris such as glass, pottery, and brick. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-68 July 2006

Subsequent shovel-testing failed to identify any intact prehistoric or historic deposits, and no

additional work was recommended.

| To determine if significant impacts to historic and cultural resources could result from this

| project, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 106 process was integrated with

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8. As

part of this integration, an Area of Potential Effect (APE), that is, the area within which cultural

| and historical sites could be impacted, was defined as

...the area at the power plant site and its immediate environs which may be impacted by

land-disturbing activities associated with the construction and operation of the new

unit(s), and construction and operation of new transmission lines that may follow parallel

with some of the existing transmission line systems now serving the Clinton Power

Station (NRC 2003).

The APE includes the areas where new facilities and associated infrastructure are planned. 

This includes all areas where construction laydown yards may be located. Because laydown

yards and, in some cases, associated infrastructure have yet to be identified, the APE is that

| area within the current CPS unit boundary. Disturbed areas within the APE are considered

because the extent of disturbance in many areas is not known. Previous laydown yards, for

example, are clearly disturbed at the surface, but that disturbance may be relatively shallow. 

Other areas were farmed previously, causing significant disturbance within the plow-zone;

however, plowed fields are not considered totally disturbed because prehistoric archaeological

deposits are often found below the plow-zone in Illinois. If these areas were selected for siting

portions of a new nuclear unit, additional work might need to be conducted, such as tilling the

area, conducting an archeological pedestrian survey, and performing shovel-tests.

Within the APE, previous cultural resource identification efforts indicate the presence of several

archaeological sites and the potential for additional sites. The most significant known site is the

Pabst Site (11DW32), located near the proposed water-intake structure. The Pabst Site was

| excavated in 1975 to mitigate the effects of the CPS unit; a large number of prehistoric artifacts

from a Late Archaic midden, dated approximately 4000 to 6000 years ago, were recovered

(Lewis 1976). The site is currently under water, but may be exposed when construction of the

| water intake structure begins. According to the project archaeologist who performed the original

excavations at the Pabst Site, the site may no longer exist:

It is extremely doubtful that further archaeological investigations will ever be undertaken

at Pabst. A visit to the site in February of 1976 showed that much of the site was buried

under fill from earthmoving along the crest of the bluff. The construction of the ultimate

heat sink will undoubtedly remove more of the site area. Finally, the reservoir waters will

eventually cover what remains, if anything (Lewis 1976).
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-69 NUREG-1815

Two additional sites (11DW223 and 224) were identified during the original 1974 survey in the

area between the ESP unit new power plant footprint and its proposed cooling towers. Both |

sites are small prehistoric occupations of unknown cultural affiliation. These sites were not

further investigated due to the lack of diagnostic material. Nevertheless, the presence of these

sites and the discovery of similar sites nearby suggest that there is high potential for prehistoric

sites in this general area (Ahler 1990a, 1990b). Prior to construction, this area will need to be

further investigated using appropriate methods such as tilling, surveying, and shovel-testing.

Previous investigations did not discover any human remains. During initial consultation efforts

with American Indian tribes formerly from this area, some of the tribes have requested they be

contacted if human remains are discovered during construction.

Documentary research indicates that a 19th-century road and several farms were located in the

area to be impacted by the proposed construction (Warner and Beers 1875; Ogle 1915). 

Previous investigations have not identified significant archaeological resources associated with

these farms; however, the possibility remains that such deposits exist.

No analysis of historic and cultural resources was conducted for the transmission line rights-ofway. The full extent of potential land-use impacts in the transmission line rights-of-way can be

estimated only after following the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission process for

connecting new large generation sources to the grid. This process is detailed more specifically

in Section 3.3.

2.9.3 Consultation

In December 2003, the NRC initiated consultation on the proposed action by writing the IHPA

and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Also in December 2003, the NRC initiated

consultations with the Kickapoo of Kansas Tribal Council, the Kickapoo of Oklahoma Business

Committee, the Eastern Delaware Tribe, the Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma, the Peoria

Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, and the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas by first calling and

then following up with a letter. In the letters, the NRC provided information about the proposed

action, indicated that review under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 would be

integrated with the NEPA process in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8, invited participation in the

identification and possible decisions concerning historic properties, and invited participation in

the scoping process (see Appendix F).

On December 18, 2003, NRC conducted a public scoping meeting in Clinton, Illinois. No

comments or concerns regarding historic and cultural resources were made at this meeting. 

The NRC did receive two letters in response to its earlier communications. The Peoria Tribe

indicated that it had no objection to the proposed construction, but requested that if human

remains or objects falling under Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act were |

discovered, construction would stop until State and Tribal representatives were contacted 
Affected Environment

(a) Minority categories are defined as: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or

other Pacific Islander; Black races; Hispanic ethnicity; and “other,” considered a separate minority

category. The 2000 Census included multi-racial data. Some minority populations can be composed

of one or more minority races (USCB 2000f).

| (b) NRC issued a policy statement on Environmental Justice and an update to LIC 203 (see 69 FR 52040

and NRC 2004a, respectively).

(c) Personal interviews were conducted: on March 2, 2004, with Sandi Thayer (Thayer Real Estate),

Duane Harris (DeWitt County Board Chairman), Terry Ferguson (DeWitt County Board and Land Use

Chairman), Sherrie Brown (Administrator, DeWitt County Zoning), Sandy Moody (DeWitt County

Supervisor of Assessments), Dee Dee Rentmeister (Administrative Assistant, DeWitt County Board of

Supervisors), and Christy Long (DeWitt County Treasurer); on March 3, 2004, with Roger Cyrulick

(Mayor of Clinton), Steve Lobb, (Director of Public Works, Clinton), Tim Followell (Administrative

Assistant, Clinton), Steven Vandiver (Economic Development Director, Clinton), Camill Tedrick

| (General Manager, Brady Weaver Real Estate), Cheryl Leitz (Executive Director, DeWitt County

NUREG-1815 2-70 July 2006

| (Froman 2004). The Delaware Nation Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Office requested that NRC work with the State Historic Preservation Officer to take appropriate

steps and that the Delaware Nation be kept informed of any changes and cultural work

completed; they also requested that work stop and that the State and tribe be contacted in the

case of inadvertent discovery of human remains or other archaeological materials

(Wahahrockah-Tasi 2003).

| During discussions with the NRC staff in March 2004, the IHPA indicated that cultural resource

studies should be conducted prior to construction, depending on where construction would

| occur. Federal, State, local, and Tribal organizations as well as members of the public were

| afforded the opportunity to comment on the draft version of the ESP EIS.

2.10 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each executive agency identifies

and addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse impacts on human health

or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority(a) or low-income

populations. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal executive agencies to

consider environmental justice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The

Council on Environmental Quality has provided guidance for addressing environmental justice

(CEQ 1997). Although it is not subject to the Executive Order, the Commission has voluntarily

committed to undertake environmental justice reviews. The staff uses as guidance the NRC

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation office instruction number LIC-203 (NRC 2004a(b) | ).

The staff examined the geographic distribution of minority and low-income populations within an 

80-km (50-mi) radius of the CPS site, employing the 2000 Census (USCB 2000f, 2000g). The

analysis was also supplemented by field inquiries to planning, economic development, real

estate, and social service agencies and to county and city officials.(c)
Affected Environment

Human Resources Center), and Roger Little (Superintendent, Clinton Unit School District 15); and on

March 5, 2004, with Sue Gortner (Executive Director, Monticello Chamber of Commerce and

Tourism), Bill Mitze (Mayor, Town of Monticello), Mary Jo Hetrick (Community and Economic

Development Director, Monticello), Floyd Allsop (Superintendent of City Services, Monticello), and

Lawrence J. McNabb (Superintendent, Monticello Community Unit School District 25).

(a) A census block group is a combination of census blocks, which are statistical subdivisions of a census

tract. A census block is the smallest geographic entity for which the U.S. Census Bureau collects and

tabulates decennial census information. A census tract is a small, relatively permanent statistical

subdivision of counties delineated by local committees of census-data users in accordance with

U.S. Census Bureau guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census data. 

Census block groups are subsets of census tracts (USCB 2001).

(b) Low-income households should be identified using the annual statistical poverty threshold from the

U.S. Census Bureau (NRC 2004a).

July 2006 2-71 NUREG-1815

For the purpose of the staff’s review, a minority population exists if the percentage of any

minority or aggregated minority category within the census block groups(a) within the 80-km

(50-mi) radius of the proposed ESP site exceeds the corresponding percentage of minorities in

the entire State of Illinois by 20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of minorities within

the census block group is at least 50 percent. A low-income population exists if the percentage

of low-income population within a census block group exceeds the corresponding percentage

of low-income population in the entire State of Illinois by 20 percent, or if the corresponding

percentage of low-income population within a census block group is at least 50 percent. For

counties and census block groups within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the ESP site, the

percentage of minority and low-income populations is compared to the percentage of minority

and low-income populations in Illinois, as applicable.(b)

Exelon followed the convention of including census blocks in its evaluation. It used 2000

Census data for both minority and low-income populations. However, their approach to

assessing minority and low-income populations did not follow NRC guidance. Exelon’s reason

for not following NRC guidelines was the presence of one Native American in one census block

(the only person in that census block), 1.2 km (0.75 mi) from the ESP site (Exelon 2006a). |

Exelon aggregated within the 80-km (50-mi) radius the total population and the total minority

and low-income populations. It then calculated the percentage of total minority and low-income

populations in the region and compared the resultant figures against the percentage of minority

and low-income populations in Illinois. The total minority population within the region was

13 percent, while that of Illinois was 39 percent. For low-income populations, 10 percent of the

population within the region had incomes below the poverty level, compared to the State of

Illinois as a whole, which had 11 percent of the population below the poverty level

(Exelon 2006a). By not following NRC convention, Exelon under-emphasized individual census |

block groups where the corresponding percentage of minority or low-income populations 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-72 July 2006

exceed the 20- or 50-percent criterion. However, in deriving the minority and low-income maps

contained in the ER, Exelon showed all census blocks with minority or low-income populations,

| including blocks containing 0 to 5 percent minority or low-income populations (see Figures 2.5-8

| and 2.5-9 of the ER) (Exelon 2006a).

| The staff employed the Geographical Environmental and Siting (GEn&SIS) database and

followed the convention of using census block groups to determine distribution of minority

| populations within the 80-km (50-mi) radius (GEn&SIS 2004). Figure 2-6 shows the distribution

of minority populations (shaded areas) within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. All census blocks with

at least 50 percent of their area within the 80-km (50-mi) radius around the CPS site are

included in the analysis. Data from the 2000 Census characterize 32.2 percent of the Illinois

population as minority (USCB 2000a). The percentage that the staff determined is different

from the percentage that Exelon determined (39 percent). Applying the NRC criterion of “more

than 20 percent greater,” the census block groups were identified to contain minority

populations. Within the 80-km (50-mi) radius, census block groups containing minority

| populations are concentrated in the larger cities of Champaign-Urbana, Decatur, and

| Springfield. The shaded area in Logan County (the county adjacent and west of DeWitt County)

is where two prisons are located.

| Figure 2-7, generated using the GEn&SIS database, shows the distribution of low-income

populations (shaded areas) within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. All census blocks with at least

50 percent of their area within the 80-km (50-mi) radius around the CPS site are included in the

analysis. Data from the 2000 Census classified 10.7 percent of Ilinois individuals as low-income

(USCB 2000b). Applying the NRC criterion of “more than 20 percent greater,” the census block

groups were identified to contain low-income populations. Within the 80-km (50-mi) radius,

census block groups containing low-income populations are concentrated in the larger cities of

| Champaign-Urbana, Decatur, Bloomington-Normal, and Springfield. 

2.11 Related Federal Projects

The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the

granting of an ESP to Exelon. Any such activities could result in cumulative environmental

impacts and the possible need for a Federal agency to become a cooperating agency for

preparation of the EIS (10 CFR 51.10(b)(2)).

After reviewing the Federal activities in the vicinity of the ESP site, the staff determined that

there were no Federal project activities that would make it desirable for another Federal agency

to become a cooperating agency for preparation of this EIS. Future Federal actions related to

this project include permits and licenses that may be required at the time of the CP or COL

application. Other Federal projects may be required at the CP or COL stage, such as 
Figure 2-6. Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (shown in shaded areas) Within an 80-km (50-m) Radius of

Exelon ESP Site

Affected Environment

July 2006 2-73 NUREG-1815
Figure 2-7. Locations of Low-Income Populations (shown in shaded areas) Within an 80-km (50-m)

Radius of Exelon ESP Site

Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-74 July 2006
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-75 NUREG-1815

transmission-related studies by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or permitting |

actions by the Army Corps of Engineers. However, these activities do not relate to the ESP and |

have not been started. In summary, no other Federal activities or projects are associated with

the permitting of this ESP site.

The geographic region covered by this EIS extends as far as Pontiac, Illinois, to the north. As

such, the extreme northern portion of the region is overlapped by the regions of several other

nuclear power stations, including Braidwood 1 and 2, Dresden 2 and 3, and LaSalle 1 and 2 (all

considered possible alternative sites) and the CPS unit. As such, the 80-km (50-mi) region for |

the ESP site would encompass the communities in the area of Pontiac, Chattsworth, Fairbury,

Forrest, and Chenoa, Illinois, as would several of the alternative ESP sites considered. These

communities would be within the 80-km (50-mi) region of seven nuclear power stations if a new

nuclear unit were constructed at the Exelon ESP site.

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

Criteria.” 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

“Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.”

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

“Environmental Radiation Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

41 FR 41914. “Determination of Critical Habitat for American Crocodile, California Condor,

Indiana Bat, and Florida Manatee.” Federal Register. Vol. 41, No. 187. 1976. 

59 FR 7629. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations." Executive Order 12898, Federal Register. February 16, 1994.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-76 July 2006

69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

Regulations and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register. Vol. 69, No. 163. August 24, 2004.

Ahler, S.R. 1990a. Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment of Dredging Operations at the

Clinton Power Station: Archaeological Survey Short Report. Prepared for Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency and United States Army Corps of Engineers. Illinois State Museum Society,

Springfield.

Ahler, S.R. 1990b. Phase II Cultural Resource Evaluation of Dredge Disposal Facility at the

Clinton Power Station: Archaeological Survey Short Report. Prepared for Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency and United States Army Corps of Engineers. Illinois State Museum Society,

Springfield.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2000a. 1999 Annual Environmental Operating

Report for Clinton Power Station. Attached to AmerGen letter from Michael A. Reandeau to the

NRC Document Control Desk, April 24, 2000.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2000b. Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

Report for the Clinton Power Station, January 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2001a. Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

Report for the Clinton Power Station, January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. Prepared

by Chemistry Department. 2001. 

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2001b. Clinton Power Station 2000 Annual

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Attached to AmerGen letter from

Michael A. Pacilio to the NRC Document Control Desk, April 25, 2001.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2001c. Clinton Power Station Updated Safety

Analysis Report. Revision 10, October 2001.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2002a. Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

Report for the Clinton Power Station, January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001. Attached

to AmerGen letter from Michael J. Pacilio to the NRC Document Control Desk, March 8, 2002.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2002b. Clinton Power Station 2001 Annual

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Attached to AmerGen letter from

Michael J. Pacilio to the NRC Document Control Desk, April 29, 2002.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2003. Clinton Power Station 2002 Annual

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Attached to AmerGen letter from

Michael A. Reandeau to the NRC Document Control Desk, April 7, 2003.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-77 NUREG-1815

Bloomington Normal – McLean County (BNM). 2003. 2003 Demographic Profile. Accessed on

the Internet February 5, 2004, at http://www.bnareaedu.org/demographics02.pdf. 

Brown, Sherrie. 2004. Administrator, DeWitt County Zoning. Total building and new residence

permits – 2000 to 2003. Information obtained March 2, 2004.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2001. CA25 – Total Full-time and Part-time Employment

by Industry – 1990 and 2000. Illinois – Champaign, DeWitt, Logan, McLean, Macon and Piatt

Counties. Accessed on the Internet February 9, 2004, at

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2003a. U.S. Department of Labor. Regional Statistics. Local

Area Unemployment Statistics. Illinois. Accessed July 27, 2005 at http://www.bls.gov/cgi- |

bin/dsry. |

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2003b. U.S. Department of Labor. Unemployment Rates by |

State, Not Seasonally Adjusted - November 2003. Accessed on the Internet January 14, 2006, |

at http://data.bls.gov/map/servlet/map.servlet.MapToolServlet?datatype=unemployment&year |

=2003&period=M11&survey=la&map=state&seasonal=u. |

Bureau of Water, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (BOW). 2004. “DRAFT Illinois 2004

Section 303(d) List.” IEPA/BOW/04-004, April 2004, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

Springfield, Illinois.

City of Clinton. 2006. Accessed on the Internet February 1, 2006, at |

http://www.clintonillinois.com/tourism/lake.html. |

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

County and City Data Books - County Level Data. 1994a. Geospatial and Statistical Data

Center. University of Virginia Library. Civilian Labor Force, Percent Unemployed 1990. Illinois

– Champaign, De Witt, Logan, McLean, Macon and Piatt Counties. Accessed on the Internet

February 10, 2004, at http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/ccdbbin/countysort2.cgi. |

County and City Data Books - County Level Data. 1994b. Geospatial and Statistical Data

Center. University of Virginia Library. Housing Units Total 1990; Occupied Housing Units 1990;

Owner - Occupied Housing Units 1990; Renter – Occupied Housing Units 1990. Select Illinois

Counties. Accessed on the Internet February 9, 2004, at

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/ccdb/county94.html. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-78 July 2006

Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest.

Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5. Accessed on the Internet January 29, 2004, at

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/mussel_man/page86_7.html. 

Economic Development Corporation of Decatur and Macon County (EDCDM). 2003. 

Community Profile. Major Employers. Accessed on the Internet February 5, 2004, at

http://www.decaturedc.com/communityprofile/community_population.htm. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2004a. Employee Location by Zip Code. 

Personal communication from William Maher. February 2, 2004.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2004b. “Exelon Generation Company, LLC

(Exelon) Application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) Environmental Requests for Additional

Information (TAC No. MC1125).” Letter report from Exelon Generation Company

(Kennett Square, Pennsylvania) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(Washington, D.C.). 

| Exelon Generating Company, LLC (Exelon). 2004c. Working File on Class Size. Received

| March 2, 2004 at site audit and can be found in NRC Note to file (Accession number

| ML0412003740).

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006a. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Early

| Site Permit Application: Environmental Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania. 

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006b. Emergency Plan for the Generation

| Company, LLC, Early Site Permit, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kenneth Square, Pennsylvania.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006c. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Early

| Site Permit Application: Site Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania. 

| Exelon Generation Company (Exelon). 2006d. Site Redress Plan for the EGC Early Site

| Permit, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended. 16 USC 661, et seq. 

Froman, John P. 2004. Letter to NRC regarding “Early Site Permit (ESP) Review for the

Clinton ESP Site.” Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Miami, Oklahoma. January 13, 2004.

| Geographical, Environmental, and Siting Information (GEn&SIS). 2004. Developed by

| Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

| Accessed on the Internet May 10, 2004, at http://gensis.llnl.gov/default.asp.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-79 NUREG-1815

Howe, W.G. 2000. “Phase 1 Archaeological Survey for Proposed Construction at the

Wastewater Treatment Plant, Clinton Power Station, DeWitt County, Illinois. Illinois State

Museum Archaeological Survey Report No. 2000-35-6. Springfield, Illinois.

Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (IDOCEO). 2002. Community |

Profiles - Farmer City. Accessed on the Internet February 11, 2004, at |

http://www.illinoisbiz/flipmaps/cp3.htm. |

Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (IDOCEO). 2003. Community

Profiles–Springfield, Normal, Bloomington, Decatur, Urbana-Champaign, Lincoln, Farmer City,

Clinton, and Monticello. Accessed on the Internet February 11, 2004, at

http://www.illinoisbiz.biz/flipmaps/cp3.htm. 

Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (IDOCEO). 2004. Population

Data. Population Projections 2010 and 2020 for Champaign, DeWitt, Logan, Macon and

McLean Counties. Accessed on the Internet May 3, 2004, at

http://www.illinoisbiz.biz/bus/research/econ/population_projections.html. 

Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (IDOCEO). 2005. Community |

Profiles - Springfield, Normal, and Bloomington. Accessed on the Internet January 20, 2006, at |

http://www.commerce.state.il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Community_Development/CommProfiles/Default |

.htm. |

Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS). 2006. Accessed on the Internet |

January 21, 2006, at http://www.dhs.state.il.us/about. |

Ilinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 1999a. “Illinois Department of Natural

Resources, Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, 1999, Endangered and Threatened

Species List.” Accessed on the Internet December 5, 2003, at

http://dnr.state.il.us/espb/datelist.htm.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 1999b. “Status of Walleye in Illinois,

January 1999.” Accessed on the Internet December 5, 2003, at

http://dnr.state.il.us/conservation/fisheries/WALL.htm.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2003a. “2003 Illinois Fishing Information:

Effective April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.” Illinois Department of Natural Resources,

Springfield, Illinois.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2003b. Accessed on the Internet

December 5, 2003, at http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/Landmgt/PARKS/R3/Clinton.htm. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-80 July 2006

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2003c. “Status of Bass Fishery in Illinois,

January 2003.” Accessed on the Internet December 5, 2003, at

http://dnr.state.il.us/fish/BassStatus.htm.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2004a. Electronic data from DNR

(Springfield, IL), regarding the locations of federal- and state-listed threatened and endangered

species within 2 mi and 10 mi of the Exelon ESP site and alternate sites (Braidwood, Byron,

Dresden, LaSalle County, Quad Cities, and Zion) to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

(Richland, Washington), February 19, 2004.

| Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2004b. “Illinois Department of Natural

| Resources, Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, 2004 Endangered and Threatened

| Species List.” Accessed on the Internet May 4, 2006, at

| http://dnr.state.il.us/espb/datelist.htm#top.

| Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2004c. Clinton Lake - State Recreation Area. 

| Accessed on the Internet February 4, 2004, at http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/PARKS/

| R3/clinton.htm.

| Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2006. Accessed on the Internet May 17,

| 2006, at http://dnr.state.il.us/fish/fishadvisoryfactsheet2002.htm.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). 2000. National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES). CPS Permit to Discharge from IEPA. Permit No. IL0036919. 

April 24, 2000.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). 2003. Illinois Annual Air Quality Report 2002. 

Illinois Bureau of Air, Springfield, Illinois.

| Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). 2006. Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report

| and Section 303(d) List - 2006. Illinois Bureau of Water, Springfield, Illinois.

| Illinois Power Company (IPC). 1987. Appendix B to Facility License No. NPF-62, Clinton

| Power Station Unit No 1, “Environmental Protection Plan (Non-Radiological), Section 4.1

| “Unusual or Important Environmental Events.”

Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS). 2003a. “INHS Fish Collection.” Accessed on the

Internet February 5, 2004, at http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/collections/fish/fishintro.html.

Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS). 2003b. “Mussels of DeWitt County.” Accessed on the

Internet December 9, 2003, at http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/main/misc/mussel/dewitt.html.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-81 NUREG-1815

Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS). 2004. Accessed on the Internet February 5, 2004, at

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/collections/fish/fishintro.html. 

Ilinois Office of the Controller (IOC 2001), Fiscal Focus, May/June 2001. Available online at

http://www.apps.10G.state.11.us/10c-pdf/fiscalfocusMayJun01.pdf.

Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB). 1993. Opinion and Order of the Board in the Matter of

the Petition of Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station) for Hearing Pursuant to 35 Ill.

Admin. Code 302.211(j) to Determine Specific Thermal Standards, PCB 92-142 (Thermal

Demonstration), August 26, 1993.

Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB). 2001. In the matter of: Revisions to Antidegradation

Rules: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105, 303.205, 303.206 and 106.990-106.995. 

Illinois Power Company (IPC). 1973. “Clinton Power Station Units 1 and 2 Environmental

Report - Construction Permit Stage.” CPS-ER (CPS).

Illinois Power Company (IPC). 1982. “Clinton Power Station Environmental Report - Operating

License Stage, Supplement 3.” CPS-ER (OLS), April 1982. 

Illinois Power Company (IPC). 1987. Appendix B to Facility License No. NPF-62, “Clinton |

Power Station Unit No. 1, Environmental Protection Plan (Non-Radiological),” Section 4.1, |

“Unusual or Important Environmental Events.” |

Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS). 2006. “Illinois Oil and Gas Resources.” Accessed on

the Internet March 29, 2006, at http://runoff.isgs.uiuc.edu/website/iloil/viewer.htm. |

Illinois State University (ISU). 2003. “Planning and Institutional Research.” Accessed on the

Internet February 6, 2004, at http://www.ir.ilstu.edu/quickfacts.htm. |

Lawrence County. 2004. “Illinois Corporate Tax Information. State and Local Taxes on

Corporations.” Accessed on the Internet April 22, 2004, at

http://www.lawrencecountyillinois.com/corptaxinfo.htm.

Lewis, S.D. 1973. “An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Clinton Reservoir, Dewitt

County, Illinois.” Illinois State Museum. Springfield, Illinois.

Lewis, R.B. 1975. “Archaeological Salvage Investigations in the Proposed Clinton Reservoir, |

Dewitt County, Illinois.” Illinois State Museum. Springfield, Illinois.

Lewis, R.B. 1976. “Archaeological Salvage Investigations at the Papst Site, Dewitt County,

Illinois.” Illinois State Museum. Springfield, Illinois.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-82 July 2006

Lloyd, Orville B. and William L. Lyke. 1995. Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. 

Ground Water Atlas of the United States. United States Geologic Survey, Reston, Virginia.

| Local Government Assistance Network (LGAN). 2006. “Secondary Treatment of Municipal

| Wastewater.” Accessed on the Internet March 29, 2006, at

| http://www.lgean.org/html/fedregsguide/iib.cfm.

| Long, C. 2004. DeWitt County Treasurer. “1996 to 2003: Payable Real Estate Taxes.”

Lutterbie, G. 2002. Clinton Lake Access Areas and Fishing Guide. Illinois Department of

Natural Resources, Division of Fisheries, March 2002.

McLean County. 1999. “Visions: McLean County Regional Comprehensive Plan.” Accessed

on the Internet at http://www.mcplan.org/e_o/archive/2-3_Fal99.pdf.

Monticello, City of (Monticello). 2004. “City Report.” Chamber of Commerce Presentation. 

| Moody, S. 2004. “Supervisor of Assessments. Table of Assessments: Years of 1993-2002.” 

| AmerGen Nuclear Power Plant.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004a. “2003 Local Climatological Data Annual

Summary with Comparative Data – Peoria, Illinois.” NCDC, Asheville, North Carolina.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004b. “2003 Local Climatological Data Annual

Summary with Comparative Data – Springfield, Illinois.” NCDC, Asheville, North Carolina.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004c. “Storm Events.” Accessed on the Internet

| August 18, 2004, at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990.

Ogle, G.A. 1915. Standard Atlas of DeWitt County, Illinois. Geo A. Ogle and Company. 

Chicago. 

Omernik, J. 1987. “Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (Scale 1:7500000).” 

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(1):118-125.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-83 NUREG-1815

Pallo, M.S. 1988. Clinton Power Station Fish Impingement Report, April 1987 - May 1988. 

Illinois Power Company, Environmental Affairs Department, Field Biology Laboratory, Decatur, Illinois.

Petro, J. 2004. Conversation with John Petro (Environmental Manager, AmerGen) during the

NRC visit to the EGC ESP site at Clinton Power Station, March 2, 2004.

Ramsdell, J.V., Jr. 2004. “Technical Evaluation Report on Design Basis Tornadoes for the

Clinton ESP Site.” Technical Report submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under NRC Job Code JCN-J3067, ML043370309.

Roberts, Wyndham J. and John B. Stall. 1967. Lake Evaporation in Illinois. Bulletin 57. State

Water Survey Division. Urbana, Illinois.

School Information (School). 2004a. School Districts in DeWitt County. Blue Ridge Unit

School District 15. Accessed on the Internet February 11, 2004, at http://www.myaasite.com/

programs/schools/countyView.asp?State=IL&County=DE%20WITT.

School Information (School). 2004b. School Districts in DeWitt County. Clinton Unit School

District 15. Accessed on the Internet February 11, 2004, at http://www.myaasite.com/

programs/schools/countyView.asp?State=IL&County=DE%20WITT.

State of Illinois. 2003. “Opportunity Returns: The North-Central Region Regional Development

Plan.” Office of the Governor, Springfield, Illinois. (Available online at

http://www.illinoisbiz.biz/regionalplans/ncentralpl4.pdf). 

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (Reclamation District). 2006. |

“Treatment Processes.” Accessed on the Internet March 29, 2006, at |

http://www.mwrdge.dst.il.US/Processes/process.htm. |

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Onsite Meteorological Programs. Safety

Guide 23, Regulatory Guide 1.23, AEC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Proposed Clinton Power Station, Units 1 and 2. AEC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. American Fact Finder - Census 2000 - Fact Sheet, by

Town or City. Accessed on the Internet February 5, 2004, at http://factfinder.census.gov/ |

servlet/SAFFFacts?geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_

lang=en&_sse=on. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-84 July 2006

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. American Fact Finder - Census 2000 - Age Groups and

Sex - Table QT-P1: By County in Illinois. Accessed on the Internet February 3, 2004, at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetTableListServlet?_ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_ty

pe=table&_program=DEC&_lang=en&_ts=93896866734. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000c. American Fact Finder - Highlights from the Census 2000

Demographics Profiles - Illinois, Champaign, DeWitt, Logan, Macon, McLean and Piatt

Counties. Accessed on the Internet February 5, 2004, at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

SAFFFacts?geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=e

n&_sse=on. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000d. American Fact Finder - Census 2000 - Table QT-H1:

General Housing Characteristics: Counties in Illinois. Accessed on the Internet

February 10, 2004, at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTGeoSearchByListServlet?

ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_lang=en&_ts=94559405687. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000e. American Fact Finder - Census 2000 - Table QT-H1: 

General Housing Characteristics: Clinton, Farmer City, Lincoln and Monticello, Illinois. 

Accessed on the Internet February 12, 2004, at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTGeo

SearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&state=qt&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_Q

TH1&_lang=en&_ts=94652119881. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000f. American Fact Finder - Census 2000 - Summary File 1

(SF – 1), 100 Percent Data: P4.Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race (73) –

| Total population - Illinois. Accessed on the Internet May 3, 2004, at

| http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTSubjectShowTablesServlet?. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000g. American Fact Finder - Census 2000 - Summary File 3

(SF 3) – Sample Data. QT-P34. Poverty Status in 1999 of Individuals. Accessed on the

| Internet August 28, 2004, at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTSubjectShowTables

Servlet?_ts=100784583453. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000h. County Population Census Counts 1900 - 1990. 

Accessed on the Internet May 3, 2004 at http://www.census.gov/populations/www/

censusdata/cencountys.html.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. Census 2000 - Glossary - Definition and Explanations –

Decennial Census Terms. Accessed on the Internet April 3, 2001, at

http://www.census.gov/main/www/glossary.html.

| U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture Illinois State and

| County Data. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 13, AC-02-A-13. Accessed at

| http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/index.asp.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-85 NUREG-1815

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). 2000. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area

Unemployment Statistics. Illinois. Counties and Equivalents. Accessed on the Internet July 25, |

2005 at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv. |

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. “Designated Sole Source Aquifers in EPA

Region V.” Accessed on the Internet October 7, 2004, at

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/ssa/reg5.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003a. “County Distributions of Federally Listed Species

in Illinois.” FWS, Rock Island, Illinois. Accessed on the Internet December 5, 2003 at

http://midwest.fws.gov/RockIsland/activity/endangrd/il_list.htm (last updated May 2003).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003b. “USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species

System: Listings with a Current Range in Region 3 as of 12/05/2003.” Accessed on the internet

December 5, 2003 at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpageRegionLists?

lead_region=3#IL. (Last updated December 5, 2003).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. “Threatened and Endangered Species System

(TESS) Listings by State and Territory as of 10/06/2004. Illinois.” Accessed on the Internet

October 6, 2004 at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpageUsaLists?state=IL.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. Provision of information regarding federally listed

threatened or endangered species, that may occur in the vicinity of the Exelon ESP site and

alterative sites (Byron, Dresden, LaSalle County, and Quad Cities), from FWS (Rock Island,

Illinois, Field Office) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (Washington, D.C.). 

April 6, 2004.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004c. “Asian carp.” Accessed on the Internet

May 4, 2004, at http://midwest.fws.gov/Fisheries/library/broch-asiancarp.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006. “Threatened and Endangered Species System |

(TESS) Listings by State and Territory as of 02/01/2006. Illinois.” Accessed on the Internet |

February 1, 2006, at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TessWebpageUsaLists?State=IL. |

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. “Clinton Quadrangle, Topographic Map.” myTopo.com, |

Red Lodge, Montana. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan

(ESRP). NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1815 2-86 July 2006

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Early Site Permit (ESP) Review for the

Clinton ESP Site. Letter to Mr. Maynard Crossland, Director, Illinois Historic Preservation

Agency. December 23, 2003.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(NRR). “Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering

Environmental Issues.” NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Request for information by NRC

(Washington, D.C.) regarding Federally listed species that may occur in the vicinity of the

Exelon ESP site and alternate sites (Byron, Dresden, LaSalle County, and Quad Cities) by letter

to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Rock Island, Illinois, Field Office). March 17, 2004. 

University of Illinois (Vol. 1). 1992. DeWitt County Comprehensive Plan. University of Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. 

University of Illinois (Vol. 1). 2003. “UIUC On-Campus Student Enrollment by Curriculum, Sex,

Race, and Residency Fall Term 2003.” Accessed on the Internet February 6, 2004, at

http://www.dmi.uiuc.edu/stuenr/ethsex03.htm. 

van der Leeden, F., F.L. Troise, and D.K. Todd. 1990. The Water Encyclopedia. Lewis

Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.

Vogelmann, J.E., S.M. Howard, L. Yang, C.R. Larson, B.K. Wylie, and N. Van Driel. 2001. 

“Completion of the 1990s National Land Cover Data Set for the Conterminous United States

from Landsat Thematic Mapper Data and Ancillary Data Sources,” Photogrammetric

Engineering and Remote Sensing 67:650-652.

Wahahrockah-Tasi, P. 2003. Letter regarding “Proposed Project-Early Site Permit Application

at Clinton, Illinois Site,” sent to Chief, Rules and Directive Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, dated December 22, 2003. Delaware Nation NAGPRA Office, Anadarko, Oklahoma.

Warner and Beers. 1875. Atlas of DeWitt County, Illinois. Warner and Beers. Chicago, Illinois. 
July 2006 3-1 NUREG-1815

3.0 Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

The site for the proposed Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) early site permit (ESP) is

located in DeWitt County in rural central Illinois, within the current Clinton Power Station (CPS)

boundary. The site is situated approximately 10 km (6 mi) east of the City of Clinton, Illinois. 

This chapter describes the approach Exelon used to identify the key plant parameters and site

characteristics that Exelon and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff used to

assess the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The site layout and existing facilities

are discussed in Section 3.1. The plant parameters and power transmission system are

discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively, and references for this chapter are in

Section 3.4.

3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout

The existing CPS site consists of one operating boiling water reactor manufactured by General

Electric, a turbine building, a switchyard, intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. 

The site is located on the shore of Clinton Lake, an impoundment that was created in 1977 by

erecting a dam on the arm of Salt Creek as a cooling source for the CPS. The existing unit

uses Clinton Lake as an ultimate heat sink (UHS). A radioactive waste disposal system, a fuelhandling system, and the auxiliaries, structures, and other onsite facilities required for a

complete nuclear power station exist on the CPS site. The existing CPS site development is

shown in Figure 2-1. The existing CPS site would remain as is. The ESP site is located in a

previously disturbed area adjacent to the existing unit.

A specific plant design has not been chosen for a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site;

instead, a set of bounding plant parameters known as a plant parameter envelope (PPE) has

been specified to envelop the design to be considered for the ESP site. This PPE is based on

the addition of a new nuclear unit, which would be a stand-alone plant with its own support |

systems. Exelon states that a new nuclear unit would share ancillary support structures, such

as maintenance facilities, office centers, or waste- and water-treatment plants. A new nuclear

unit may consist of one or more reactors or reactor modules. These multiple reactors or

modules (the number of which may vary depending on the reactor type selected) would be

grouped into one operating unit, and could have a total core thermal power rating between

approximately 2400 and 6800 MW(t) (Exelon 2006a). For the purposes of the evaluation |

described in this environmental impact statement (EIS), the staff assumed a power rating of

6800 MW(t), unless stated otherwise. For the cooling system, Exelon has proposed either a wet

cooling system that will utilize mechanical or natural draft cooling towers, or a hybrid wet/dry

cooling system that will use a combination of the wet and dry systems. Exelon also states that a

third option, use of a dry cooling system, is being proposed. However, the applicant states that

full wet or hybrid wet/dry cooling processes have been assumed for most purposes because out

of the options proposed, they have the greatest consumptive water uses. Exelon does not
Site Layout

NUREG-1815 3-2 July 2006

| provide information on a dry cooling system to support an environmental analysis nor does the

applicant address the adverse environmental impacts of such a system (noise, large footprint,

and inefficiency). Therefore, the staff did not evaluate a dry cooling system during its review. 

Should Exelon choose to use a dry cooling system at the ESP site in a construction permit (CP)

| or a combined CP and operating license (combined license or COL) application, the staff will

evaluate the environmental impacts of construction and operation of the system during that

review.

3.2 Plant Parameter Envelope

As described in Subpart A of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52, the

applicant for an ESP need not provide a detailed design of a reactor or reactors and the

associated facilities but must provide sufficient bounding parameters and characteristics of the

reactor or reactors and the associated facilities so that an assessment of site suitability can be

made. Consequently, the ESP application may refer to a PPE as a surrogate for a nuclear

power plant and its associated facilities.

A PPE is a set of values of plant design parameters that an ESP applicant expects will bound

the design characteristics of the reactor or reactors that might be constructed at a given site. 

The PPE values are a surrogate for actual reactor design information. Analysis of

environmental impacts based on a PPE approach permits an ESP applicant to defer the

| selection of a reactor design until the CP or COL stage. The PPE reflects upper or lower

bounds (as appropriate) of the values for each parameter that it encompasses rather than the

characteristics of any specific reactor design. Appendix J lists the complete set of PPE values

that are provided in the Exelon ESP application.

Reactor Designs Considered in the PPE

In its ESP application, Exelon used a composite of values from seven reactor designs to

| develop the PPE (Exelon 2006a). The values used for the seven reactor designs are not

necessarily the same values used in the safety evaluation. The values in this report are not

design-specific; rather, they are used to determine the environmental impacts of a reactor

design that falls within the values used in this report. The reactor designs used to develop the

| PPE include the following five light water reactors (LWRs) and two gas-cooled reactors:

 C Advanced Canada Deuterium Uranium Reactor (ACR-700) – This reactor, developed by

Atomic Energy Canada Limited, is an evolutionary extension of the CANDU 6 plant using

very slightly enriched uranium fuel and light water coolant.
Site Layout

July 2006 3-3 NUREG-1815

 C Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) – This reactor, developed by General Electric

Company, is a standardized plant that has been certified under the NRC requirements in

10 CFR Part 52. The ABWR is fueled with slightly enriched uranium and uses a light

water cooling system.

 C Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (AP1000) – This is an earlier version of the

AP1000 reactor final design that was developed by Westinghouse Electric Company and

subsequently approved by the NRC. The design uses slightly enriched uranium and a

light water cooling system. Because the ESP environmental report (ER) was developed

before the staff’s review of the AP1000 was complete, this design is not the AP1000 that |

was certified under the NRC requirements in 10 CFR Part 52. It is an earlier version that

is referred to as the “surrogate AP1000” throughout the rest of this report.

 C Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) – This reactor, developed by

General Electric Company, is fueled with slightly enriched uranium and uses a light

water cooling system.

 C International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) next-generation pressurized water

reactor (PWR) – This reactor is under development by a consortium led by

Westinghouse Electric Company and is a modular light water reactor.

 C Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) – This reactor, developed by General

Atomics, is a modular helium-cooled graphite-moderated reactor.

 C Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) – This reactor, developed by PBMR (Pty) Ltd., is a

modular graphite-moderated helium-cooled gas turbine reactor.

For illustration, power ratings and the number of reactors or modules identified as a potential

single unit for the ESP site are listed in Table 3-1. The facility or unit that might be built on the

ESP site might consist of one to eight reactors of the types listed in Table 3-1, or a combination

of these different designs. Moreover, Exelon would not be required to use any of these designs

if it elects to proceed with a CP or COL application; however, the applicant would have to

demonstrate that the characteristics of the reactor(s) or reactor module(s) ultimately selected

were within the bounds of the PPE for the assessment of a given characteristic contained in this

EIS to be applicable.
Site Layout

NUREG-1815 3-4 July 2006

Table 3-1. Power Ratings for Reactor Designs Considered in the PPE

ABWR ESBWR

AP100

0 ACR-700 IRIS GT-MHR PBMR

Power rating per reactor or

reactor module (MW(t))

3926

(4300)(a) 4000 3400 1983 1000 600 400

Number of reactors or

| reactor modules per unit 1 1 2 2 348

Power rating per unit

(MW(t))

3926

(4300)(a) 4000 6800 3966 3000 2400 3200

| (a) Exelon states that the site-related parameters for the ABWR are based on one 3926-MW(t) reactor. 

| However, Exelon used parameters from an uprated 4300-MW(t) ABWR reactor in some of its analyses.

Other Considerations in the Review

Site-specific values were used to determine the atmospheric dispersion factors. Atmospheric

dispersion factors were calculated using site meteorological conditions to determine the dilution

capability of the site. At the CP or COL stage, the staff will need to verify that the atmospheric

dispersion factors for the selected reactor are bounded by the values specified by the site

atmospheric dispersion factors. 

In its evaluation of uranium fuel cycle impacts for the Exelon ESP site, Exelon used the PPE

approach for the advanced LWR designs but not for the two gas-cooled reactors. In its

evaluation of the impacts from transportation of radioactive materials, Exelon did not use the

PPE approach but rather evaluated each reactor design individually. In situations where

designs were evaluated individually, Exelon would have to perform a new evaluation if a

different design is proposed at the CP or COL stage. In its evaluation of the radiological

consequences on the environment of potential design basis accidents, Exelon used the PPE

| approach focusing on two LWRs: the certified ABWR with a power level of 3926 MW(t) and a

| surrogate AP1000 reactor design with a power level of 3412 MW(t). The PPE does not include

source terms for severe accidents; therefore, Exelon used source terms for the ABWR and the

surrogate AP1000 reactors instead of PPE values. The staff did not evaluate the design basis

or severe accident impacts for gas-cooled reactors. Therefore, at the CP or COL stage, Exelon

and the staff will need to evaluate whether the environmental impacts of design basis and

severe accidents at the Exelon ESP site remain bounded by the impacts from the surrogate

(ABWR and AP1000) designs. The staff’s evaluation of this analysis can be found in

Section 5.10.

Review Approach

| NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000), and review standard

RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site Permits (NRC 2004), provide guidance to the

NRC staff to help ensure a thorough, consistent, and disciplined review of any ESP application. 
Site Layout

July 2006 3-5 NUREG-1815

The staff’s June 23, 2003, responses to comments received on draft RS-002 (NRC 2003)

provide additional insights on the staff’s expectations and approach to the review of an

application employing the PPE approach.

If PPE values are used as a surrogate for design-specific values, the staff expects Exelon to

provide sufficient information for the staff to develop a reasonable independent assessment of

potential impacts to specific environmental resources. In some cases, the design-specific

information called for in the ESRP may not have been provided in the Exelon ESP application

because it did not exist or was not available, so the NRC staff could not apply the ESRP

guidance in these review areas. In these cases, the NRC staff used its experience and

judgement to adapt the review guidance in the ESRP and to develop assumptions necessary to

evaluate impacts to certain environmental resources to account for this missing information. 

These assumptions are discussed in the appropriate sections of the EIS.

Because the Exelon PPE values do not reflect a specific design, they were not reviewed by the

NRC staff for correctness. However, the NRC staff made a determination that the application

was sufficient to enable the staff to conduct its required environmental review and that the PPE

values are not unreasonable for consideration by the staff when making its finding in

accordance with Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 52. During its environmental review, the staff used

its judgement to determine whether Exelon provided sufficient information for the staff to

perform its independent assessment of the environmental impacts of construction and operation

of a new nuclear unit. The staff considered the PPE values to be bounding parameters. 

Therefore, the staff’s evaluation serves as a bounding estimate of the potential environmental

impacts resulting from constructing and operating the new nuclear unit.

Throughout the ER (Exelon 2006b) supporting the Exelon ESP application, Exelon provides |

(1) Commitments to address certain issues in the design, construction, and operation of the

facility

(2) Statements of planned compliance with current laws, regulations, and requirements

(3) Commitments to future activities and actions that it will take should it decide to apply for a

CP or COL

(4) Descriptions of Exelon’s estimate of the environmental impacts resulting from the

construction and operation of a new nuclear unit on the ESP site 

(5) Descriptions of Exelon’s estimates of future activities and actions of others and the likely

environmental impacts of those activities and actions that would be expected should Exelon

decide to apply for a CP or COL. |
Site Layout

(a) The listing is not intended to be a complete list of the commitments described in the ER.

(b) Those actions required to be undertaken by current law could change through the passage of future

| laws and regulations and, therefore, are listed in Appendix K to provide a listing of those laws and

regulations considered during the staff’s ESP environmental review.

NUREG-1815 3-6 July 2006

The activities described include, but are not limited to, such actions as:

 C Considering the results of testing and monitoring during the development of the CP or

COL application

 C Complying with NRC and other agency regulations, including obtaining appropriate

permits from other agencies

 C Taking actions to mitigate adverse environmental impacts, including following industry or

company standards, practices, or protocols

 C Addressing certain issues at the CP or COL stage that were not addressed in the ESP

application.

Some of these future actions are those that Exelon would be required to implement because

they are currently required by law, and others are actions that Exelon has indicated that they will

implement without the obligation of law to take such actions. Those matters considered by the

staff in determining the level of impacts to a resource are discussed throughout this EIS and are

listed in Appendix K.(a) Table K-1 lists those matters that were considered in the staff’s

evaluation of the environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. Table K-2 lists those matters that are identified in the ER,

| but were not directly considered by the staff in its evaluation. Table K-3 lists statements related

| to activities and actions likely to be undertaken by others that were considered by the staff.

The staff performed its evaluation of the impacts of constructing and operating a new nuclear

unit at the ESP site assuming that these commitments, activities, and actions would be

undertaken by Exelon and others during future licensing activities.(b) As discussed previously,

the staff developed assumptions necessary to evaluate impacts to certain environmental

resources to account for missing detailed information. In addition to other sources of

information obtained independently, the staff considered the commitments, future activities and

actions, and estimates of expected environmental impacts that were identified by Exelon in its

ER and listed in Appendix K, as well as the PPE values listed in Table J-1, when developing the

inputs and assumptions used in the staff’s own independent evaluation of the environmental

impacts of constructing and operating a new unit on the Exelon ESP site.
Site Layout

July 2006 3-7 NUREG-1815

In addition, as a result of the staff’s environmental review of the Exelon ESP application, the

staff determined that conditions or limitations on the ESP may be necessary in specific areas,

as set forth in 10 CFR 52.24. Therefore, the staff identified when and how assumptions and

bounding values limit its conclusion on the environmental impacts to a particular resource,

where appropriate.

During the review of a CP or COL application referencing an ESP, the staff will assess the

environmental impacts of the construction and operation of a specific plant design. If the

environmental impacts addressed in an ESP EIS are found to be bounding by the staff, no |

additional analysis of these impacts will be required, even if the ESP applicant employed the

PPE approach. However, environmental impacts not considered or not bounded at the ESP

stage have to be assessed at the CP or COL stage. In addition, measures and controls to limit

adverse impacts will need to be identified and evaluated for feasibility and adequacy in limiting

adverse impacts at the CP or COL stage. The inputs and assumptions that were used or

considered during the staff’s evaluation of the ESP application (listed in Appendixes J and K)

will provide the basis for the staff’s verification review in which the staff must determine whether

or not a specific design in a CP or COL application falls within the PPE, and the environmental

impacts of the construction and operation of that specific design fall within the bounds of

environmental impacts estimated by the staff at the ESP stage.

3.2.1 Plant Water Use

The PPE provides bounding constraints on portions of the ESP unit water use. Other |

constraints on plant water use are based on site-specific information. This EIS assesses the

impacts of plant water use bounded by the PPE and site-specific constraints. The following

sections describe both the consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses of the proposed ESP

unit and the associated plant water-treatment systems. The cooling systems are described in |

more detail in Section 3.2.2.

3.2.1.1 Plant Water Consumption

The primary water demand for the proposed ESP unit is for condenser cooling. Exelon |

discusses using either a wet tower closed-loop cooling system or a hybrid wet/dry closed-loop |

cooling system. The PPE provides bounds for a wet tower cooling system but no similar values

for the hybrid wet/dry cooling system. The staff assumed that water use for the hybrid wet/dry

cooling system is bounded by the wet cooling system values. Therefore, the following

discussion is limited to the wet tower system. The hybrid wet/dry cooling system will not be

addressed further in this EIS.

The current CPS relies on once-through cooling. The original environmental analysis for the

CPS found that Clinton Lake was expected to be able to support two once-through cooling 
Site Layout

NUREG-1815 3-8 July 2006

units. In its ER, however, Exelon proposed that a closed-cycle cooling tower be used with the

| new nuclear unit (Exelon 2006b). While the nonconsumptive water use of a closed-cycle tower

is far less than a once-through cooling system, the consumptive water use is greater. For a wet

tower, the majority of water withdrawn from Clinton Lake would be lost to the atmosphere as

evaporation. To prevent the concentration of solids and dissolved solids from increasing to a

level that would impair the functioning of the cooling tower, a fraction of the water in the tower is

| continuously released as blowdown. By contrast, a once-through system returns the same

amount of water as it withdraws; however, the elevated temperature returned to Clinton Lake

from a once-through cooling system does result in some induced evaporation from the lake to

the environment.

A new nuclear unit would normally withdraw 2829 L/s (44,843 gpm) through the intake structure. 

| Blowdown from the normal heat sink cooling tower(s) would return approximately 760 L/s

(12,000 gpm) as blowdown to Clinton Lake via the discharge flume.

A new nuclear unit would also have demands for potable water, demineralized water, filtered

water, and fire protection water. In Table 3.3-2 of its ER, Exelon estimates these combined

| consumptive water uses would be 49.1 L/s (778 gpm) under normal conditions and 226.7 L/s

(3593 gpm) when demands are at maximum levels (including filling the fire protection system to

| full capacity) (Exelon 2006a). Blowdown from the UHS towers is expected to return normal flow

| rate of 9.1 L/s (144 gpm) (44 L/s [700 gpm] maximum) to the lake via the discharge flume

| (Exelon 2006b).

For safety-related cooling, the UHS for a new nuclear unit would provide cooling water to

reactor cooling systems and safety-related components. Exelon proposes to use the same

| UHS reservoir as the CPS uses for its UHS reservoir, which was designed to accommodate two

units. The UHS reservoir will provide makeup water to mechanical draft UHS towers.

3.2.1.2 Plant Water Treatment

| Because a specific design has not been selected, the water-treatment system for the ESP unit

| is not specified. Details and limits of the plant water-treatment system will be provided in the CP

or COL application. The water quality of effluents from any water treatment would be regulated

by the new nuclear unit’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

3.2.2 Cooling System

In Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of its ER, Exelon describes the operational modes and components,

| respectively, for the cooling systems for a new nuclear unit (Exelon 2006b). While the design of

the cooling system has not been specified, parameters from the PPE are used to bound the 
Site Layout

July 2006 3-9 NUREG-1815

impacts of the cooling system on the environment. The specific details and limits of the cooling

system will be provided in the CP or COL application. 

3.2.2.1 Description and Operational Modes

The following sections describe the operating modes under normal operating conditions and

emergency/shutdown conditions for a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site using wet-tower |

closed-cycle cooling. |

Normal Cooling

During normal operation at full power, based on the PPE, the cooling tower system is required

to reject a heat load of 4420 MW (15.1 x 109

 Btu/hr) to the environment. The new unit will reject

this heat load using cooling towers. Based on the PPE, the maximum blowdown temperature is

38.3°C (101°F). |

During low-water conditions, the existing CPS unit is allowed to operate down to a lake-level

elevation of 206 m (677 ft) above mean sea level. Exelon is proposing that the new nuclear unit

also be allowed to operate down to 206 m (677 ft) above mean sea level (Exelon 2006a). |

Ultimate Heat Sink

Based on the PPE, during shutdown, the UHS system would reject 121 MW (411.4 x 106

 Btu/hr) |

to the environment. Makeup water for the mechanical draft UHS cooling towers is withdrawn

from the UHS reservoir. The reservoir is required to maintain an adequate supply of water for

30 days of emergency operation. Based on the PPE, the maximum blowdown discharged to the

discharge canal is 44 L/s (700 gpm). |

3.2.2.2 Component Descriptions

The following sections describe the intake, discharge, and heat-dissipation systems. Pursuant

to the 316(a) and 316(b) provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251), prior to any

construction activities, Exelon will be required to obtain approval from the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (IEPA) by documenting plant design and site-specific analyses regarding the

impacts of the thermal discharges and intake systems on the Clinton Lake aquatic environment.

Intake System

The proposed location of the intake structure is shown on Figure 2-1 (Exelon 2006b). The |

location of the intake would be approximately 20 m (65 ft) south of the location of the CPS

intake structure. The intakes for both the normal heat sink and UHS of a new nuclear unit 
Site Layout

NUREG-1815 3-10 July 2006

would be at the same location. Trash racks and traveling screens (or similar facilities) would be

used to prevent debris from entering the intake pumps. The approach velocity to the intake

would be limited to no more than 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s).

Discharge System

The proposed location of the discharge structure for a new nuclear unit is shown in Figure 2.1

| (Exelon 2006b). The cooling tower blowdown and other discharges would enter the discharge

flume near the location of the CPS discharge. 

Heat Dissipation Systems

No specific design information on the normal heat dissipation systems was provided in the

Exelon ESP application. While a cooling tower system bounded by the PPE is required to reject

4420 MW (15.1 x 109

 Btu/hr) to the environment, the exact design is unknown. To meet UHS

needs, Exelon proposed mechanical draft UHS cooling towers with makeup water withdrawn

| from the UHS reservoir. The UHS reservoir is a submerged pond within the North Fork arm of

| Clinton Lake formed by a submerged dam. The UHS reservoir also provides the heat sink for

| the emergency cooling system of the existing CPS unit.

3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Management System

| Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste-management systems would be used to collect

| and treat the radioactive materials that are produced as a by-product of operating the proposed

nuclear unit on the Exelon ESP site. These systems would process radioactive liquid, gaseous,

and solid effluents to maintain releases within regulatory limits and to levels as low as

reasonably achievable before releasing them to the environment. Waste-processing systems

| would be designed to meet the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (“Numerical

Guide for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion ‘As Low

| as is Reasonably Achievable’ for Radiological Material in Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power

| Reactor Effluents”). Radioactive material in the reactor coolant would be the primary source of

gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive wastes in LWRs. Radioactive fission products build up

| within the fuel as a consequence of the fission process. These fission products would be

contained in the sealed fuel rods, but small quantities escape the fuel rods and contaminate the

reactor coolant. Neutron activation of the primary coolant system would also be responsible for

coolant contamination.

Exelon did not identify specific radioactive waste-management systems for a new nuclear unit

on the ESP site. The PPE concept was used to provide an upper bound on liquid radioactive

| effluents, gaseous radioactive effluents, and solid radioactive waste releases (Exelon 2006a). 

Bounding effluent concentrations were determined, based on a composite of the highest activity 
Site Layout

July 2006 3-11 NUREG-1815

content of the individual isotopes from two surrogate AP1000 reactors (6800 MW(t)), three IRIS |

reactors (3000 MW(t)), one ABWR reactor (3926 MW(t)), one ESBWR reactor (4000 MW(t)),

two ACR-700 reactors (3966 MW(t)), four GT-MHR modules (2400 MW(t)), and eight PBMR |

modules (3200 MW(t)). Bounding liquid effluent releases are found in Table 3.5-1 of the ER

(Exelon 2006b). Bounding gaseous effluent releases are found in Table 3.5-3 and bounding |

solid waste activities in Table 3.5-5 of the ER (Exelon 2006b). The bounding total annual |

volume of solid radioactive waste is estimated at 427.2 m3/yr (15,087 ft3/yr) with a bounding total

amount of radioactive material activity of 2.2 x 1014 Bq (5900 Ci/yr), as found in the Site Safety

Analysis Report in the application for the ESP (Exelon 2006a). |

3.2.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

The following sections provide descriptions of the nonradioactive waste systems for a new

nuclear unit at the ESP site, including systems for chemical, biocide, and sanitary effluents, as |

well as other effluents.

3.2.4.1 Effluents Containing Chemicals or Biocides

In the PPE approach, specific quantities and concentrations of chemicals or biocides used for

proper water chemistry in the reactors are not identified. Exelon identified principal chemical, |

biocide, and pollutant sources that may be produced during operations, including sodium

hydroxide and sulfuric acid (to regenerate resins), phosphate in cleaning solutions, biocides

used for condenser defouling, boiler blowdown chemicals, oil and grease from plant floor drains,

chloride, sulphates, copper, iron, and zinc (Exelon 2006b). These chemicals would be |

discharged to the environment through treatment of domestic water, circulation water, and plant

blowdown. Exelon (2006b) states that the approved NPDES permit for the ESP site issued by |

the IEPA will limit the volume and concentration of these discharges. The combined effluents of |

the CPS and ESP units would remain within the bounds of the existing CPS unit’s NPDES

permit issued by IEPA. |

Table 3.6-1 of the ER (Exelon 2006b) provides bounding concentrations of impurities in the |

blowdown water. Small volumes of waste water from other station systems will be combined

with cooling water discharges. EPA’s blowdown effluent guidelines (40 CFR Part 423) would |

regulate the chemistry of blowdown water. |

3.2.4.2 Sanitary System Effluents

Sanitary systems during pre-construction and construction activities will include the use of

portable toilets. During operation, sanitary system wastes will likely be handled through the 
Site Layout

NUREG-1815 3-12 July 2006

existing CPS sanitary sewage treatment plant. Discharges from this plant will be controlled in

| accordance with an approved NPDES permit issued by the IEPA. Based on the PPE, the

| normal sanitary discharge rate is 3.8 L/s (60 gpm) and the maximum discharge rate is

| 12.5 L/s (198 gpm).

3.2.4.3 Other Effluents

Discharges from the chemical waste-treatment system, plant drains, and storm drainage will go

into Clinton Lake. The bounding liquid effluent discharges are 20.4 L/s (323 gpm) for normal

operation and 29.7 L/s (470 gpm) maximum. Exelon indicated that the design of the plant storm

water drainage systems will be presented at the CP or COL stage.

In the PPE, Exelon has identified bounding estimates for the total quantity of sulfur oxides

(SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons, and suspended particulates to be discharged

annually during station operations by diesel engines, gas turbines, and heating facilities. The

bounding annual pollutant amounts are provided in Tables 3.6-4 and 3.6-5 of the ER

| (Exelon 2006b) for auxiliary boilers, standby generators, and standby power system gas turbine

flue gas.

3.3 Power Transmission System

The proposed ESP site is adjacent to the CPS, which is owned and operated by AmerGen

within the service area of the Illinois Power Company (the regional electrical transmission

system owner/operator). The primary electrical transmission system in central Illinois operates

| at 345 kV with secondary systems operating at 138 kV. The CPS connects to the AmerenIP

transmission system at the CPS 345-kV switch station. From the CPS switch station, the

| AmerenIP has 345-kV interconnections to the Brokaw, Oreana, Rising, and Latham substations.

The existing transmission system from the CPS switch station has excess capacity and could

handle a portion, but not all, of the power generated by a new nuclear unit. To the extent that

additional transmission lines would be required to transmit power from the site, Exelon

| considers it most likely that the interconnections would be at the junction point of the CPS-

| Oreana line with the Latham-Rising line, about 5 km (3 mi) east of the town of Maroa

| (Exelon 2006b). According to the ER, four new transmission lines would be required. Two

parallel, double-circuit lines would run north approximately 37 km (23 mi) to the Brokaw

| substation near Bloomington, and two parallel, double-circuit lines would run south-southwest

| approximately 19 km (12 mi) to the junction of the CPS-Oreana line and the Latham-Rising line

| (Exelon 2006b).
Site Layout

July 2006 3-13 NUREG-1815

According to the ER, the existing transmission line rights-of-way between the CPS and the

Brokaw and Oreana substations are generally 40 m (130 ft) wide. If past Illinois Power

Company practices were to be followed, these rights-of-way would have to be widened to 76 m

(250 ft) to accommodate a pair of parallel lines. Use of more typical designs for steel-lattice

structures or monopoles could reduce the rights-of-way requirement to about 49 m (160 ft). 

However, in any case, it is likely that securing additional rights-of-way would be required. Land |

use in the existing rights-of-way is discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this report. Land-use impacts

of construction of additional transmission lines along the existing rights-of-way and in the

general area are discussed in Section 4.1.2, and land use impacts associated with operation of

new lines are discussed in Section 5.1.2.

Exelon has not submitted an interconnection request to AmerenIP. The following paragraphs |

describe the process for requesting connection to the transmission system that Exelon would be

required to follow should it decide to build a new nuclear unit at the ESP site. It is expected that

the process for obtaining transmission services would be completed before submission of an

application for construction and operation of a new nuclear unit.

Procedures for requesting connection to the transmission line rights-of-way system are set forth

by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 18 CFR Part 35 and by the State of |

Illinois in the AmerenIP Open Access Transmission Tariff. The FERC process starts when an |

interconnection customer, in this case Exelon, submits an interconnection request to the

transmission provider (AmerenIP). When the interconnection request is determined to be valid, |

the transmission provider and interconnection customer have a meeting to discuss alternative |

interconnection options and exchange information. On the basis of this meeting, the

interconnection customer designates its point of interconnection and one or more alternative

points of interconnection.

Following the scoping meeting, the transmission provider conducts an Interconnection

Feasibility Study to preliminarily evaluate the feasibility of the proposed interconnection to the

transmission line system. This study includes a power flow and short-circuit analysis. The

Interconnection Feasibility Study is followed by an Interconnection System Impact Study that

focuses on the impact of the interconnection on the reliability of the transmission line system. 

Finally, the transmission provider conducts an Interconnection Facilities Study to specify and |

estimate the cost of the equipment, engineering, procurement, and construction work needed to

implement the conclusions of the Interconnection System Impact Study, in accordance with

good utility practice, to physically and electrically connect the interconnection facility to the

transmission line system. The cost of these studies, which are conducted by the transmission |

line provider, are borne by the interconnection customer. |
Site Layout

NUREG-1815 3-14 July 2006

3.4 References

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing

of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

18 CFR Part 35. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 18, Conservation of Power and Water

Resources, Part 35, “Filing of Rate Schedules and Tariffs.”

| 40 CFR Part 423. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 423,

| “Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.”

Clean Water Act (CWA). 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act).

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006a. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Early

| Site Permit Application: Site Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania.

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006b. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Early

| Site Permit Application: Environmental Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan

(ESRP). NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Letter from J.L. Lyons, Office of Nuclear

| Reactor Regulation, NRC, to R.L. Simard, Nuclear Energy Institute, dated June 23, 2003,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Responses to Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Comments

on Draft RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site Permits (ML031710698).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Processing Applications for Early Site

Permits. RS-002, NRC, Washington, D.C.
July 2006 4-1 NUREG-1815

4.0 Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

This chapter examines the environmental issues associated with the potential site-preparation

activities and construction of the proposed new nuclear unit adjacent to the Clinton Power

Station (CPS) as described in the application for an early site permit (ESP) submitted by Exelon

Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). As part of this application, Exelon submitted an

Environmental Report (ER) and a site redress plan (Exelon 2006a). The ER provides the plant |

parameter envelope (PPE) as the basis for the environmental review. The parameters included

in the PPE and their values are listed in Appendix J. The site redress plan allows for specific

site-preparation activities to be conducted with approval of an ESP. The activities evaluated for

the Exelon ESP site are those permitted by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

50.10(e)(1) and 52.25(a). In the event that the ESP is approved and Exelon conducts site- |

preparation activities but does not build the new nuclear unit, Exelon would be required to

implement its site redress plan.

In Sections 4.1 through 4.9, the staff evaluates the potential impacts on land use, meteorology

and air quality, water, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics, historic and cultural

resources, environmental justice, nonradiological and radiological health effects, and applicable

measures and controls that would limit the adverse impacts of station construction. In

accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, impacts have been analyzed, and a significance level of

potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to each

analysis. In the area of socioeconomics, related to taxes, the impacts may be considered

beneficial and are stated as such. Possible mitigation of adverse impacts, where appropriate, is

presented in Section 4.10, followed by a description of the site redress plan in Section 4.11. A

summary of the construction impacts is presented in Section 4.12. Full citations for the

references cited in this chapter are listed in Section 4.13. Cumulative impacts of construction

and operation are discussed in Chapter 7. The technical analyses provided in this chapter

support the results, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Chapters 9 and 10.

The staff relied on the mitigation measures and the required Federal, State, and local permits

and authorizations presented in the ER in reaching its conclusion on the significance level of the

adverse impacts. The staff relied on the infrastructure upgrades planned by the counties, cities,

and towns, in assigning significance levels to the impacts. Failure to implement such |

infrastructure upgrades may result in larger impact levels.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-2 July 2006

4.1 Land-Use Impacts

This section provides information regarding land-use impacts associated with site-preparation

activities and construction of a proposed new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. Topics

discussed include land-use impacts at the site and in the vicinity of the site, land-use impacts in

transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas, and impacts on historic and cultural resources.

4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

The ESP site is located entirely within the existing CPS site, which is zoned for transportation

| and industrial use by DeWitt County. 

| The granting of an ESP to Exelon would permit many preconstruction activities under

| 10 CFR 50.10 that may result in impacts to land use. At the discretion of the ESP holder,

| Exelon indicates in its Site Redress Plan that some, none, or all of the following activities may

| be carried out prior to construction of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site (Exelon 2006b):

| C Preparation of the site for construction of the facility (including such activities as clearing,

| grading, construction of temporary access roads, and borrow areas) as allowed by

10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)(i)

| C Installation of temporary construction support facilities (including items such as

| warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading

| facilities, and construction support buildings) as allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)(ii)

| C Excavation for facility structures as allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)(ii)

| C Construction of service facilities (including facilities such as roadways, paving, railroad

| spurs, fencing, exterior utility and lighting systems, transmission lines, and sanitary

| sewerage treatment facilities as allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)(iv)

| C Drilling sample/monitoring wells or additional geophysical borings as allowed by

| 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)(v)

| C Construction of plant cooling tower structures that are not safety-related as allowed by

| 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)(v)

| C Construction of plant intake structures that are not safety-related as allowed by

| 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)(v)
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-3 NUREG-1815

 C Installation of non-safety-related fire detection and protection equipment as allowed by |

10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)(v) |

 C Expansion of the existing CPS switchyard to accommodate the construction of the |

proposed ESP facility |

 C Expansion of the CPS transmission system |

 C Modification of the existing CPS discharge flume, as necessary, to accommodate the |

ESP facility outflow |

 C Construction of any other additional structures, systems, and components, which do not |

prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue |

risk to the health and safety of the public. |

These activities would be accomplished using best construction practices and would follow all |

applicable laws and regulations (Exelon 2006a). Similar activities were undertaken for the

original CPS construction utilizing the ESP site, and would be expected to be contained within |

the footprint of previously disturbed areas in preparation for construction of a new nuclear unit at |

the Exelon ESP site.

All construction activities for a new nuclear unit, including ground-disturbing activities, would

occur within the Exelon ESP site boundary. The area that would be affected on a long-term

basis as a result of permanent facilities is approximately 39 ha (96 ac) (Exelon 2006a). |

Additional areas within the existing CPS site would be disturbed on a short-term basis as a

result of temporary activities, facilities, and laydown areas.

No new or modified highways or railroad lines are planned to support a new nuclear unit

(Exelon 2006a). Clearing and removal of trees growing within the ESP site would be required. |

No agricultural lands would be directly affected by construction activities.

A few small wetland areas exist on the ESP site. Exelon intends to avoid wetlands to the extent

possible during any construction (Exelon 2006a). Any work that has the potential to impact a |

wetland would be performed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Any work conducted immediately adjacent to the Clinton Lake Recreation Area would be

performed in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations,

permits, and authorizations. Therefore, construction-related impacts would not affect the

recreational uses of Clinton Lake or other areas in the vicinity (Exelon 2006a). See Section 4.4 |

for potential ecological impacts and Section 4.5.1 for physical impacts associated with a new

nuclear unit.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-4 July 2006

Construction of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site and its associated intake structure

would not cause any alteration in flood levels because no facilities would be constructed in the

post-construction flood-prone area. Therefore, no construction-related impacts would be

expected to affect current land uses within floodplains.

Offsite land-use changes as a result of construction activities are expected to be minimal. The

majority of the construction workforce would be expected to commute from other communities,

and, therefore, little impact in terms of new housing construction would be expected in the

vicinity of the ESP site.

The staff reviewed the available information on the land-use impacts of constructing a new

nuclear unit at the CPS site. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there are no land-

| use impacts that would render the site unsuitable for a new nuclear unit. Therefore, the staff

concludes that the environmental impact resulting from land use would be SMALL, and

mitigation would not be warranted.

4.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas

| In its ER, Exelon states that construction of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site would

| require interconnection to an upgraded transmission system, and hypothesized that existing

| transmission lines running north and south from the ESP site would be expanded

| (Exelon 2006a). If the new unit at the Exelon ESP site is constructed, the actual need for and

| type of transmission system improvements would be determined by the transmission and

| distribution system owner and operator (currently AmerenIP) under provisions of 18 CFR

| Part 35. In general, the process is designed to determine the optimal routing of new

| transmission service by performing feasibility, impact, and facilities studies associated with the

| transmission interconnection request. This process is discussed in Section 3.3. The staff

| assumed that once the transmission routing is determined, if required, State or local agencies

| governing the actual siting of transmission facilities would be consulted.

| Upgrading the existing transmission system would be necessary to accommodate the full

| generating capacity of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site. To accomplish this upgrade, one or

| more new rights-of-way could be needed, or all upgrades could be sited within the existing

| rights-of-way with no right-of-way expansion necessary. The addition of new support structures

| and transmission lines and vegetation clearing would be required. Based on values in

| Table 2-1, the staff estimated that the land-use impact of doubling the width of the rights-of-way

| or a new routing would include conversion of as much as 25 ha (61 ac) of currently 

| undeveloped forested land to vegetation-managed land along the widened portions of the 

| rights-of-way. The staff assumed that the vegetation-clearing activities would involve logging of

| existing forested land bordering the existing rights-of-way. Although noticeable, this impact is 

| not expected to be significant nor to noticeably alter significant existing land uses because the 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-5 NUREG-1815

existing rights-of-way traverse land in active agricultural production. Minimal plots of land would |

be removed from agricultural production where new transmission towers would be sited. In their |

ER, Exelon states that any land-clearing or construction activities in the existing rights-of-way |

would follow best management practices and would be mitigated to the extent possible. |

The likely pathway of any new transmission lines required to deliver power from a new unit at |

the ESP site almost exclusively would cross land currently in seasonal agricultural production, |

whether the existing rights-of-way are doubled or new rights-of-way are used. The principal |

impacts from construction activities would be minimal and mostly temporary and would alter the |

land use on a relatively minimal amount of land. Given the information provided in the |

applicant’s ER and the staff’s independent review, construction-related impacts on land use in |

the transmission line rights-of-way that require upgrading and offsite areas would be SMALL |

and additional mitigation beyond what Exelon has indicated is not warranted. |

4.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 describe the meteorological characteristics and air quality of the

Exelon ESP site. The primary impacts of construction of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP

site on local meteorology and air quality would be from dust from construction activities, open

burning, emissions from equipment and machinery used in construction, concrete batch plant

operations, and emissions from vehicles used to transport workers and materials to and from

the site.

4.2.1 Construction Activities

Activities associated with construction of a new nuclear unit would be similar to the activities

associated with construction of any large structure. There would be ground-clearing, grading,

excavation, and movement of materials and machinery. Ground-clearing, grading, and

excavation activities would raise dust, and fugitive dust would be raised by the movement of

materials and machinery. Fugitive dust might also rise from cleared areas during windy periods.

A State air permit is not required for dust generated by construction activities

(35 IAC 201.146(tt)). However, Exelon stated in its ER (Exelon 2006a) that dust from |

construction activities would be mitigated to the extent possible. In addition, Exelon stated that

applicable air quality regulations would be adhered to as they apply to open burning and fuelburning equipment.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-6 July 2006

| The ER (Exelon 2006a) lists several measures that would be taken to mitigate air emissions

from construction sources, including wetting during dry periods, seeding of bare areas, paving

the most traveled construction roads, obtaining permits and certificates for construction

equipment and activities, maintaining fuel-burning equipment in good condition, and equipping

concrete facilities with dust-control systems.

Construction activities take place for a limited duration and can be controlled using standard

measures. Impacts on meteorology and air quality that might occur would be temporary and

limited in magnitude. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts from construction activities

at the Exelon ESP site would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted.

4.2.2 Transportation

Exelon estimates that construction activities would generate approximately 3300 additional car

| and truck trips daily on Illinois State Routes (SRs) 10 and 54 (Exelon 2006a). Exhaust from

these vehicles will decrease air quality somewhat, but it is unlikely that air quality would be

degraded sufficiently to be noticeable beyond the immediate vicinity of these highways. The

effects of vehicle exhaust from 2300 cars (4600 trips per day) were considered in NUREG-1437

(NRC 1996) and found to be of potential concern if the trips were made in an area where air

quality was out of compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Air quality in

DeWitt County and the surrounding counties is in compliance with all standards. Therefore, the

staff concludes that the impact on air quality of increased traffic associated with construction at

the Exelon ESP site would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted.

4.3 Water-Related Impacts

| Water-related impacts involved in the construction of a nuclear unit are similar to impacts that

would be associated with any large industrial construction project. Likewise, Exelon must

| secure the same permits and follow the same construction best management practices as any

other builder of a large industrial facility. Before initiating construction, Exelon is required to

obtain permits regulating alterations to the hydrologic environment. These permits may include:

 C Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit. This permit would be issued by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and regulate impacts of construction activities on

wetlands and management of dredged material.

 C CWA Section 401 certification. This certification would be issued by the State of Illinois

and ensure that projects do not conflict with State water quality management programs.

 C CWA Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm

water permit. This permit would be issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-7 NUREG-1815

Agency (IEPA) and regulates point-source storm water discharges. The

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 1990 Phase 1 Storm Water Regulation

(see EPA 2004) established requirements for storm water discharges, listing various |

activities including construction activities disturbing an area of at least 2.0 ha (5.0 ac). 

The EPA has delegated the responsibility for administering the NPDES program in

Illinois to the IEPA.

4.3.1 Hydrological Alterations

According to the National Wetland Inventory database, there are four minor herbaceous

wetlands (less than 0.4 ha [1 ac]) within the Exelon ESP site boundary. These wetlands do not

occur within the power block, cooling tower, switchyard expansion, or new intake footprint areas

and, therefore, are not anticipated to be impacted by construction of these structures

(Exelon 2006a). However, the locations of associated equipment laydown and fill disposal |

areas and the conduit for the new intake are currently unknown and could, thus, impact these

wetlands, depending on their ultimate locations. Exelon plans to site these areas so as to |

preclude impacts to the wetlands (Exelon 2006a). |

The descriptions of wetlands in the National Wetland Inventory database are based on

interpretation of visible geography, vegetation, and hydrology in high altitude aerial photos. As

such, the aerial extent and characteristics of these wetlands are not considered to be sufficiently

accurate to be used as a baseline for potential construction impacts. Consequently,

delineations and jurisdictional determinations of the upland wetlands, and any submerged lake

areas, that could be impacted by construction have not yet been made. Exelon would have to

submit an application for a 404 permit to the ACE that would address these areas before

undertaking any construction activities. The ACE’s permitting process ensures that impacts of

construction are limited by requiring the appropriate construction best management practices.

The ACE would require that Exelon obtain a certification that is required pursuant to |

Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) before issuing a 404 permit. |

Exelon currently has not obtained a 401 certification from the State of Illinois for construction |

activities on the ESP site. The applicant indicated that because the purpose of the ER is only to |

establish the feasibility of the proposed location, it would not apply for such permits until the |

COL phase (Exelon 2006a). In its letter dated October 11, 2005, the staff asked Exelon for the |

status of activities related to the 401 certification. The staff was concerned that some of the site |

preparation and limited construction activities that would be authorized pursuant to 10 CFR

52.25(a) and 50.10(e)(1), if the ESP were issued, would require, among other approvals, a |

Section 401 certification or a waiver of that certification. In addition, the staff is aware of the |

requirement in Section 401 of the FWPCA that “No license or permit shall be granted until the |

certification required by this section has been obtained or has been waived ...” (CWA, |

33 USC 1251).
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-8 July 2006

| As a result of this issue, Exelon began discussions with the Illinois Environmental Protection

| Agency (IEPA), the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirements of Section 401 of

| the FWCPA in Illinois. As a result of these discussions, Exelon proposed to the IEPA that the

| following permit condition be included in the ESP, should it be issued, in order to meet the intent

of the FWPCA and ensure compliance with that statute (NRC 2006):

| The Permit Holder is prohibited from conducting any activity authorized by this Permit

| without first submitting to the NRC:

| (a) a copy of a 401 certification (which constitutes the certification required under FWPCA

| § 401), issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) under 35 Illinois

| Administrative Code Part 395, or

| (b) its determination that no 401 certification is required.

| The Permit Holder shall submit to the IEPA annually (with a copy to the NRC) or some other

| mutually agreed upon periodicity, an advisory letter regarding any activities it expects to

| conduct under this Permit for the following period (e.g., 1 year), including a determination of

| whether such activities require a 401 certification. For those site preparation or limited

| construction activities which the Permit Holder has determined do not require a 401

| certification, the Permit Holder is prohibited from conducting those activities for 30 days of

| the date of the advisory letter unless it receives a formal written response from the IEPA. 

| No such notification is required if no work is expected to be performed under this Permit for

| the designated period.

| Should the IEPA determine that this permit condition is an appropriate approach for complying

| with the intent of the FWPCA and ensuring compliance with that statute, any ESP that the staff

| might issue would include the permit condition.

Many of the possible reactor designs covered in the PPE would require that dewatering systems

be installed during construction of the foundation of the reactor and various other buildings. 

Dewatering systems would depress the water table in the local vicinity and possibly change the

direction of groundwater flow and the available capacity of local wells. These impacts would be

temporary. The staff therefore concludes that impacts of hydrologic alterations due to

construction activities would be localized and temporary. The IEPA 401 and ACE 404 permit

process would be adequate to ensure that impacts of hydrologic alterations are SMALL.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-9 NUREG-1815

4.3.2 Water-Use Impacts

Water-use requirements for construction activities are similar to other large industrial

construction projects. Additional potable water supplies for the construction workforce would be

required. Dewatering systems that are active during excavation and construction would result in

a decline in the local water table. Water for various standard construction activities, such as

dust abatement, would be required. The staff assumed that water use during construction

would be less than 10 percent of the consumptive water loss from the wet towers at a new

nuclear unit. The staff therefore concludes that water-use impacts due to construction activities

would be SMALL, localized, and temporary. 

4.3.3 Water Quality Impacts

Water quality impacts for the construction activities are similar to those for other large industrial

construction projects. Once Exelon has established formal construction plans, a CWA |

Section 402(p) NPDES storm water permit from IEPA would be required before any construction |

activities could commence at the site. Construction best-management practices would ensure |

that accidental spills and storm water runoff will have minimal impact on the lake and |

surrounding areas. Due to the low water velocities within the lake, sediment discharge to the |

lake during construction would likely settle out in the lake and not result in downstream impacts. |

The staff, therefore, concludes that water quality impacts due to construction activities would be |

SMALL, localized, and temporary. |

4.4 Ecological Impacts

This section describes the potential impacts to ecological resources from construction of a new

nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site and anticipated transmission system upgrades for the new |

unit. The section is divided into three subsections: terrestrial impacts, aquatic impacts, and |

impacts to threatened and endangered species.

4.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts

The staff considered impacts on habitat, wildlife, and State-listed species during the

construction of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. However, certain details of |

construction activities at the Exelon ESP site are not known at this time. Consequently, the |

staff’s analysis was not performed to the depth warranted for actual construction. It is, however, |

sufficient for the purpose of comparing the proposed action to the alternatives.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-10 July 2006

4.4.1.1 Habitat

| A total of 187 ha (461 ac) is located within the Exelon ESP site (Exelon 2006a). All of the ESP

| site has been graded or otherwise developed for operation of the existing CPS (Exelon 2006a).

Most of the footprint of the new nuclear unit at the ESP site consists of areas that would be

occupied by the power block structures, normal heat sink cooling towers, switchyard expansion,

new intake structures, and safety-related cooling towers. The anticipated footprint of these

structures is provided in Figure 4-1. Existing access roads and infrastructure (see Chapter 2,

| Figure 2-1) would primarily be used for construction of the new nuclear unit. Construction would

| disturb up to approximately 38 ha (93 ac), comprising permanent facilities and equipment

laydown areas, most of which would occur about 213 m (700 ft) south of the existing CPS

| (Figure 4-1) (Exelon 2006a).

| Construction of a new nuclear unit would occur primarily in previously disturbed areas (e.g.,

impervious surfaces, crushed stone, existing structures, etc.), and in open fields (e.g.,

previously used as equipment laydown areas during construction of the CPS, etc.)

| (Exelon 2006a). However, two small forest stands of about 1.2 ha (3 ac) and about 0.2 ha

(0.5 ac) in the northern corner of the power-block footprint and within the new intake footprint

| (see Figure 4-1), respectively, would be cleared. Consequently, a loss of a total of 1.4 ha

(3.5 ac) of forest habitat onsite is anticipated. Because these are small stands of young

regenerating forest (by virtue of the fact that the entire ESP site was disturbed for construction

of the existing CPS) that do not support any important species (as defined in NRC 2000), their

| loss is considered minor.

Construction of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site would not be anticipated to adversely affect

wetlands onsite. The four minor wetlands (less than 0.4 ha [1 ac]) listed in the National

Wetlands Inventory database do not occur within the power block, cooling tower, switchyard

expansion, or new intake footprint areas and, therefore, would not be impacted by construction

| of these structures (Exelon 2006a). The locations of associated equipment laydown and fill

| disposal areas and the conduit for the new intake are currently unknown; however, they would

| not be anticipated to adversely affect wetlands and associated forest habitat onsite. Exelon

| would site these so as to preclude impacts to these wetlands (Exelon 2006a).

The descriptions of wetlands in the National Wetland Inventory database are based on

interpretation of visible geography, vegetation, and hydrology in high altitude aerial photos. As

such, the aerial extent and characteristics of these wetlands are not considered to be sufficiently

accurate to be used as a baseline for potential construction impacts. Consequently,

delineations and jurisdictional determinations of the wetlands that could be impacted by

| construction have not yet been determined. An applicant referencing the Exelon ESP in an

| application for a CP or COL would need to obtain an ACE Section 404 permit that would
Figure 4-1. Areas Proposed for the Structures of a New Nuclear Unit (Exelon 2006a) |

Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-11 NUREG-1815
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-12 July 2006

address these areas before undertaking any construction activities. The ACE’s permitting

process ensures that impacts of construction are limited by requiring that the appropriate

| construction best management and mitigation practices be followed.

Exelon currently anticipates that four new 345-kV transmission lines (two parallel, double-circuit

| lines running north to the Brokaw Substation near Bloomington and two running south to a point

| near the junction of the Latham-Rising Line, about 19 km [12 mi] from the CPS switchyard)

would be required to accommodate the bounding case of an output of 2180 MW(e) from a new

| nuclear unit at the ESP site (see Section 3.3) (Exelon 2006a). Exelon anticipates that any

| transmission system upgrades would be located within or immediately adjacent to the existing

| CPS substation (for necessary switchyard expansion) and within or along the existing

| transmission line rights-of-way. Although transmission system improvements, such as the

| addition of new lines and support structures, would occur within the existing rights-of-way to the

| greatest extent possible, Exelon acknowledges that widening the existing rights-of-way from

40 m (130 ft) to 76 m (250 ft) likely would be required (Exelon 2006a).

However, the actual need for and nature of any transmission system improvements would be

| determined by the transmission and distribution system owner and operator (currently

| AmerenIP) under FERC Order No. 2003 (18 CFR Part 35), Standardization of Generator

Interconnection Agreements and Procedures (FERC 2004). This order mandates performance

of feasibility, system impact, and facilities studies when there is a proposed load increase on the

existing transmission system of 20 MW(e) or more. If a new nuclear unit was constructed, any

| transmission system improvement studies and associated environmental impacts would be

| evaluated definitively by the transmission and distribution system owner and operator under

| FERC Order No. 2003 before or during the CP or COL stage.

| The following is a description of three reasonable scenarios that span the range of construction

| impacts that could be incurred should new transmission lines be added to the existing system. 

| In the first scenario, new transmission lines would be added to existing structures (e.g., via

| stacking) such that the effects of associated construction would occur entirely within the existing

| corridors currently used to transmit electricity from CPS (see Section 3.3). In this scenario,

| impacts would occur to wildlife habitat in established rights-of-way that are currently maintained

| via mechanical means and herbicides (see Section 5.4.1.4). The resulting impacts to wildlife

habitat would be SMALL.

| In the second scenario, new transmission lines and support structures would be added adjacent

| to the existing rights-of-way and the effects of associated construction would result in a doubling

| of the existing rights-of-way. This could result in the loss of 25 ha (61 ac) of adjacent forest

| (see Section 4.1.2). This loss of forested wildlife habitat over the approximately 69-km (43-mi)

| transmission line corridors would also be considered SMALL. Because the majority of 

| land use along the existing transmission corridor is agricultural, the existing corridor does not 

| cross any sensitive habitat areas, and because best management practices would limit the 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-13 NUREG-1815

clearing of forest to the extent practicable, the resulting impacts to wildlife habitat under this |

scenario would be considered SMALL. |

In the third scenario, one or more new rights-of-way would be needed to accommodate the |

addition of new transmission lines. The locations of any such new rights-of-way cannot be |

predicted with any reliability at this time. It is likely that the majority of the length of any new |

rights-of-way would traverse primarily agricultural land because it is the most prevalent land use |

in the region surrounding the ESP site. However, it is also possible that habitats set aside for |

the purpose of wildlife conservation (e.g., State wildlife areas) or relatively uncommon habitats |

(e.g., forest, prairie, wetlands, etc.) important to wildlife and/or to Federally protected species |

(e.g., the Indiana bat [Myotis sodalis] [see Section 4.4.3]) could be traversed by new rights-of- |

way. In this case, construction impacts to wildlife habitat from creation of one or more new |

corridors could range from SMALL to LARGE. |

Construction for any transmission system improvements would impact agriculture and open

fields within or along the existing rights-of-way, but these would be replanted and allowed to

revegetate, respectively, to pre-construction conditions. Consequently, there would be only a

temporary loss of agricultural or open field habitat resulting from construction of transmission

system improvements. Where right-of-way expansion would be required in forested lands,

cutting would be conducted to minimize disturbance. The actual amount of disturbance |

associated with any transmission system improvements would be contingent, among other

factors, on the construction techniques used; these would be determined following submittal of |

an application for a CP or COL. |

Right-of-way clearing and waste disposal methods would be dictated in large part by landowner

requirements. However, without direction from the property owner, clearing would be done in

accordance with industry guidelines and best practices (Exelon 2006a). These include use of |

approved erosion and sediment control measures to prevent transport of silts and sediments |

from the area of disturbance, topsoil stripping to avoid mixing and compaction of soils, special |

construction techniques in wetlands and other sensitive areas, and post-construction restoration |

measures approved by local, State, and Federal agencies (Exelon 2006a). |

There are three 100-year floodplains within the existing transmission line rights-of-way, and

there are minor wetland areas in the vicinity. Adverse impacts to watercourses, wetlands, and

floodplains would be avoided to the greatest extent possible during construction for any |

transmission system upgrades. For example, transmission towers would be sited in upland |

areas (Exelon 2006a), which would help minimize potential impacts on watercourses, wetlands, |

and floodplains. Further, if impacted, these would be restored so that there would be no net

loss of these resources. 

Before issuing a construction permit, the transmission system owner and operator would also |

need to ensure that an applicant referencing the Exelon ESP in an application for a CP or COL |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-14 July 2006

| would obtain an ACE Section 404 permit that would address such areas as wetland filling,

| vegetation clearing, hydrological alterations, etc. The ACE’s permitting process ensures that

| impacts of construction are limited by requiring that the appropriate construction best

| management and mitigation practices be followed. Future environmental documentation would

| provide sufficient information about the wetlands to support a detailed description of potential

| construction impacts, and best management practices and mitigation that would limit impacts.

4.4.1.2 Wildlife

During construction of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site, wildlife could be destroyed or

displaced, primarily as a result of operating heavy equipment (e.g., for land clearing). Less

mobile animals (e.g., reptiles, amphibians, small mammals) would likely incur greater mortality

than more mobile animals (e.g., birds). Relatively large tracts of open fields and some small

forest parcels would be available to displaced animals just west and south of the power-block

and cooling tower footprints. Species that can adapt to disturbed or developed areas,

e.g., raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and northern cardinal (Cardinalis

cardinalis), might recolonize portions of the disturbed area where suitable habitat remained or

had been replanted. To minimize construction-related impacts to wildlife (e.g., destruction of

nests and eggs of migratory birds), Exelon would adhere to any permit conditions designed to

restrict the timing of construction activities based on important biological periods (e.g., nesting

of migratory birds).

Construction impacts to wildlife in the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area would likely be

negligible because of the very small section of shoreline that would be disturbed for the new

intake, relative to the total 132 km (82 mi) of shoreline. Impacts associated with the new intake

would be expected to consist of very localized destruction and displacement of wildlife during

| construction, with some recolonization following construction. Due to its distance from the

Exelon ESP site (10 km [6 mi]), no impacts to wildlife within the Weldon Springs State

Recreation Area would be anticipated as a result of construction of a new nuclear unit

| (Exelon 2006a).

Construction of a new nuclear unit would proceed according to Federal and State regulations,

permit conditions, existing procedures, good construction practices, and established best

management practices (e.g., directed drainage ditches, silt fencing). Fugitive dust would be

minimized by watering the access roads and construction site as necessary. Thus, impacts

from dust would be considered negligible and further mitigation would not be warranted. 

Emissions from heavy construction equipment would be minimal due to scheduled equipment

maintenance procedures.

Construction activities would generate noise due to the movement of workers, materials, and

equipment, and the operation of construction equipment (e.g., earth-moving equipment, 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-15 NUREG-1815

portable generators, pile drivers, pneumatic equipment, and hand tools). Noise generated by

human activity can affect wildlife by inducing physiological changes, nest or habitat

abandonment, and behavioral modifications, or it may disrupt communications required for

breeding or defense. However, wildlife often adapt to noise generated by human activity |

(Larkin 1996). It has been estimated that construction noise levels 15 m (50 ft) from the source

would range from 76 to 100 decibels on the A scale (Exelon 2006a). These noise levels would |

not be expected to extend far beyond the boundaries of the ESP site because at a distance of

122 m (400 ft) from the source most construction noise ranges from approximately 60 to

100 decibels on the A scale (Golden et al. 1980). Much of the noise in this range is below the |

threshold of 80 to 85 decibels on the A scale at which birds and small mammals are startled or

frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Additionally, construction would occur near the CPS, where

wildlife has presumably become accustomed to typical operating facility noise levels. Thus,

noise from construction activities would not be likely to disturb wildlife beyond 122 m (400 ft)

from the source and impacts within this distance are considered negligible because there are no |

important terrestrial species (as defined in NRC 2000) on the ESP site. |

Avian collisions with fabricated structures are a result of numerous factors related to species’

characteristics, such as flight behavior, age, habitat use, seasonal habits, and diurnal habitats,

as well as to environmental characteristics, such as weather, topography, land use, and

orientation of the structures. Most authors on the subject of avian collisions with utility

structures agree that collisions are not a biologically significant source of mortality for thriving

populations of birds with good reproductive potential (EPRI 1993). The NRC (1996) reviewed

monitoring data concerning avian collisions at nuclear power plants with large cooling towers

and determined that the overall avian mortality is low. No avian collisions with existing

structures at the CPS site have been reported (Exelon 2006a); however, there is currently no |

monitoring plan in place at the CPS that facilitates detection and reporting of dead birds. The

number of construction-related bird collisions with structures is expected to be negligible.

Daily traffic on Illinois SR 54 and 10 near the Exelon ESP site currently consists of 2750 cars

and 2000 trucks. During construction, daily traffic on these highways would be expected to

increase by an additional 1650 cars and trucks on each highway (an increase of about 60 and

83 percent for Illinois SR 54 and 10, respectively). During that time, wildlife mortalities due to

collisions would thus be expected to increase, but only marginally (Exelon 2006a). |

Consequently, impacts to wildlife from increased traffic are expected to be negligible.

No impacts to State-listed threatened or endangered terrestrial plant species are anticipated

because none is known to occur on or within 16 km (10 mi) of the Exelon ESP site (IDNR 2004).

There are no State-listed threatened or endangered terrestrial animal species known to occur

on or within 16 km (10 mi) of the Exelon ESP site (IDNR 2004). However, according to Exelon,

the local Audubon Society and other birding sources in Illinois have reported sightings of |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-16 July 2006

several State-listed threatened or endangered bird species in the vicinity (see Section 2.7.1.1

| for additional details) (Exelon 2006a). Individuals of these species that frequent the vicinity of

the ESP site would be expected to be minimally exposed, if at all, to disturbance (e.g., noise,

| human presence, etc.) associated with construction of a new nuclear unit at the site and any

| transmission system upgrades. Consequently, it is expected that construction impacts to Statelisted animal species would be negligible. 

4.4.1.3 Terrestrial Ecosystem Impact Summary

On the ESP site the impacts of construction (including land-clearing, construction noise, fugitive

| dust, equipment emissions, avian collisions with structures, and traffic mortality) on wildlife,

| including State-listed species, and on wildlife habitat, including loss of forest, would be minimal. 

| No construction impacts to wetlands onsite are anticipated. Impacts on wildlife habitat and

| wildlife populations associated with the transmission system could be SMALL if additional

| transmission capacity were to be accommodated within the existing right-of-way, and SMALL if

| the existing right-of-way required expansion. However, they could range from SMALL to

| LARGE if new rights-of-way were to be required. Therefore, the staff concludes that this issue

| is unresolved, and analysis would need to be conducted by the transmission and distribution

| system owner and operator prior to or during the CP or COL phase.

4.4.2 Aquatic Impacts

Impacts to the aquatic ecosystem from construction of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site

would mainly be associated with construction of a new cooling water intake structure. It is

expected there would be loss of benthic macroinvertebrates and some open water and

shoreline habitat at Clinton Lake, as well as temporary displacement of other aquatic species.

The proposed location for a new cooling water intake structure is approximately 19.8 m (65 ft)

| west of the existing CPS intake structure (see Figure 4-1) (Exelon 2006a). Based on the

anticipated intake velocity and flow rate for a new nuclear unit at the ESP site, Exelon expects

| the intake would be approximately 34 by 46 m (110 by 150 ft) in dimensions (Exelon 2006a). 

During construction, fish (including those with recreational value, as described in

Section 2.7.2.1) might be displaced from part of the nearshore as a result of methods used to

displace water from the construction zone. Noise associated with the construction activity and

increased turbidity and boating activity associated with dredging activities might also cause fish

to leave the area temporarily. Use of best management practices to minimize sedimentation

and timing of construction activities to minimize impacts on fish during critical spawning or

rearing periods are both ways to mitigate potential impacts. Once construction was complete, it

is expected that fish would return to the area. Benthic macroinvertebrates and nearshore

habitat would be lost as a result of dredging, dewatering, and other construction activities. 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-17 NUREG-1815

However, the amount of open water, shoreline, benthic habitat, and benthic fauna that would be

lost would be a small fraction of the total present at Clinton Lake.

No impacts to the aquatic ecosystem as a result of construction of a new nuclear unit are

anticipated at any of the important aquatic habitats described in Section 2.7.2 (Exelon 2006a). |

These include the environmentally sensitive areas along Tenmile Creek and Salt Creek, the

Weldon Springs State Recreation Area, and the several small wetlands associated with

tributaries to Salt Creek, the North Fork of Salt Creek, and the sediment basins within the

CPS site.

Two State-listed threatened mussel species, the slippershell mussel (Alasmidenta viridis) and |

the spike (Elliptio dilatata) are included in the INHS list, “Mussels of DeWitt County” |

(INHS 2003). Exelon queried a 2002 IRNR GIS database and found no documented |

occurrences of the slippershell mussel in Clinton Lake or any other watercourse in the vicinity of |

the ESP site (Exelon 2006a). The spike is known to occur approximately 16 km (10 mi) from |

the ESP site. However, adverse impacts to this species are not anticipated because this

nonmotile mussel is so distant from the cooling-water intake construction site (Exelon 2006a). |

No impacts to any other State-listed threatened or endangered aquatic animal or plant species

is anticipated because none is known to occur in the vicinity of the ESP site (Exelon 2006a; |

IDNR 1999). Exelon has committed to contact the IDNR before commencement of construction

activities to ensure that these assumptions remain valid.

In conclusion, impacts to aquatic species and habitat from construction of a new nuclear unit at

the Exelon ESP site are expected to be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted.

4.4.3 Threatened or Endangered Species

This section describes the potential impacts to Federally listed or proposed threatened or |

endangered aquatic and terrestrial species and associated designated and proposed critical

habitat resulting from construction of a new nuclear unit on the Exelon ESP site, and anticipated |

transmission system upgrades. The biology of these species is presented in Sections 2.7.1 |

and 2.7.2.

The staff has prepared a biological assessment documenting the expected impacts resulting

from construction of a new nuclear unit to the Federally listed threatened and endangered

terrestrial species described in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) correspondence

(FWS 2004). The staff’s impact determinations from the biological assessment are reiterated in |

this section.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-18 July 2006

There are two Federally listed species, the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

and the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), that may occur in the vicinity of the ESP site

| and transmission line corridors (FWS 2004).

Bald Eagle - Threatened

Bald eagles are not known to nest, but are known to winter along large rivers, lakes, and

| reservoirs in DeWitt County (FWS 2004) and have been observed in the vicinity of the ESP site

| (Exelon 2006a). However, there are no known night roost sites in DeWitt County (FWS 2004). 

Further, no concentrations of foraging eagles have been reported on or in the vicinity of the

| Exelon ESP site (Exelon 2006a; FWS 2004; IDNR 2004). Individual bald eagles that frequent

the vicinity of the ESP site could be exposed, albeit minimally if at all, to disturbance (e.g.,

| noise, human presence, etc.) associated with construction of a new nuclear unit or any

| transmission system upgrades. If transmission system improvement studies (see Section

| 4.4.1.1) indicated that transmission system upgrades required clearing forest habitats, the

| transmission and distribution system owner and operator would determine the presence of any

| eagles in the vicinity and conduct an evaluation of potential impacts. No critical habitat is

| designated for the bald eagle (FWS 2004). Consequently, because there are no known nests,

| night roosts, or foraging concentrations in the vicinity of the ESP site or along the existing

| transmission corridors, construction impacts to bald eagles are expected to be negligible.

Indiana Bat - Endangered

Because the Indiana bat potentially occurs throughout Illinois where forest habitat is present

| (FWS 2004), it could occur on and in the vicinity of the ESP site although there are no records

of its occurrence within 16 km (10 mi) (IDNR 2004). If present, Indiana bats would most likely

occur in association with small streams with well-developed riparian woods, as well as with

mature floodplain and upland forests. The Indiana bat roosts and rears its young beneath the

loose bark of large dead or dying trees and tends to return to the same roosting area year after

| year (FWS 2004).

To be impacted by the project, suitable Indiana bat summer habitat must occur within 0.8 km

| (0.5 mi) of the project site. If suitable summer habitat occurred in any area on the ESP site or

| along any transmission line rights-of-way where construction would take place and the species

was present, impacts could occur if forests are cleared. Large-scale habitat alterations within

known or potential Indiana bat summer habitat should not be undertaken without a bat survey

and/or consultation with the FWS Rock Island, Illinois, Field Office. Minor alterations of summer

habitat (e.g., clearing small forest stands) should be limited to non-maternity periods between

September 16 and April 14. All potentially suitable habitat should be surveyed to determine if it

| is suitable and, if so, if it is occupied (FWS 2004).
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-19 NUREG-1815

The staff expects that an applicant referencing the Exelon ESP in an application for a CP or |

COL would determine, before commencement of construction, if the approximately 1.2-ha (3-ac) |

forest stand within the power block footprint and the approximately 0.2-ha (0.5-ac) forest stand

within the new intake footprint, for a total of 1.4 ha (3.5 ac), were potentially suitable for Indiana |

bats, using the criteria found in Section 2.7.1.2 or other contemporaneous criteria established

by the FWS. If these forest stands were not potentially suitable, they could be cleared without |

any timing restrictions for Indiana bats, but timing restrictions imposed for other species, e.g.,

migratory birds, are still applicable. However, if they were found to be potentially suitable, they

would be surveyed to determine their suitability and there would be a determination of whether

or not they were occupied by the Indiana bat. If the forest habitat was suitable and unoccupied,

clearing could be undertaken during the nonmaternity period between September 16 and |

April 14. However, if the habitat was suitable and occupied, forest clearing activities should not

take place without first consulting with the FWS Rock Island, Illinois, Field Office. The NRC |

staff would undertake a Section 7 FWS consultation, if appropriate. |

If transmission system improvement studies (see Section 4.4.1.1) indicated that transmission |

system upgrades required clearing forest habitats, the transmission and distribution system |

owner and operator would determine its suitability as Indiana bat summer habitat and |

occupancy, as explained above, before forest clearing activities were undertaken. Furthermore, |

compliance would be necessary with any timing or other contemporaneous restrictions imposed |

by FWS for protection of the Indiana bat.

Indiana bats winter in caves and abandoned mines (FWS 2004), but such habitat features are |

not known to occur on the ESP site or along its transmission line rights-of-way. The only critical

habitat designated for the Indiana bat is the Blackball Mine in LaSalle County, Illinois

(FWS 1976). Consequently, there would be no construction impacts to Indiana bat critical

habitat because none occurs in the vicinity of the ESP site.

Because there are no known occurrences of the Indiana bat within 16 km (10 mi) of the ESP |

site, impacts from construction to the species are expected to be negligible. |

Federally Listed or Proposed Aquatic Animals

No impacts to Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered aquatic animal species or |

associated proposed or designated critical habitat are anticipated (Exelon 2006a; FWS 2003, |

2004; IDNR 1999), because none is known to occur on or within 16 km (10 mi) of the ESP site |

or in the vicinity of the transmission line corridor (FWS 2004). |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-20 July 2006

Federally Listed or Proposed Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants

| No impacts to Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered terrestrial (FWS 2004) or

| aquatic (Exelon 2006a; FWS 2003, 2004; IDNR 1999) plant species are anticipated because

none are known to occur on or within 16 km (10 mi) of the ESP site (IDNR 2004) or in the

| vicinity of the transmission line corridor (FWS 2004).

Conclusions

| In summary, there would be no construction impacts to Federally listed or proposed terrestrial or

| aquatic plant species. There would be no construction impacts to Federally listed or proposed

aquatic animal species. Construction impacts to Federally listed terrestrial animal species, the

| bald eagle and Indiana bat, are expected to be negligible. There would be no construction

| impacts to designated or proposed critical habitat for Federally listed or proposed terrestrial or

aquatic animal species. Exelon has committed to contact the FWS before beginning

construction activities to ascertain whether these assumptions remain valid or whether further

evaluation is needed.

Based on its review of impacts resulting from construction of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon

ESP site and associated transmission line rights-of-way, the staff determined that the impacts of

| construction on Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered aquatic or terrestrial

| species would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted. The conclusion of SMALL

| impacts by the NRC staff is predicated on certain assumptions made by the staff. These

| include the current occurrence of Federally listed threatened and endangered species and

| critical status of such species, and the current designation of critical habitat.

4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

This section discusses the socioeconomic impacts of construction activities. It includes impacts

that could result from the construction-related activities at the Exelon ESP site and from the

activities and demands of the workforce on the surrounding region. Evaluated socioeconomic

impacts include potential effects on individual communities, the surrounding region, and minority

and low-income populations.

4.5.1 Physical Impacts

Construction activities at the ESP site might cause temporary and localized physical impacts,

including, but not limited to, noise, odor, vehicle exhaust, and dust. This section qualitatively

addresses these potential impacts as they might affect people, buildings, roads, and

recreational facilities (such as Clinton Lake).
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-21 NUREG-1815

4.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public

Within the ESP site boundary, 100 percent (187 ha [461 ac]) has been graded or otherwise

developed for the operation of the existing nuclear power plant. Except for the CPS, there are

no industrial, commercial, or institutional structures on the site property. Industrial land use is

the only type of land use within the site (Exelon 2006a). |

The area around the CPS site is 82 percent agricultural land. Industrial land use is less than

1 percent and is limited to areas near Clinton and Weldon. Less than 1 percent of land within

the site vicinity is residential and consists primarily of areas in Clinton and Weldon

(Exelon 2006a). |

Recreational areas are the only special land uses within the vicinity (16.6 percent of total land

use), consisting of the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area and Weldon Springs State

Recreation Area (Exelon 2006a). |

People who work or live around the proposed ESP site could be subjected to noise, fugitive

dust, and gaseous emissions resulting from construction activities. Construction workers and

personnel working onsite could be the most impacted. Next impacted would be individuals

working or living immediately adjacent to the site and least impacted would be transient

populations, such as temporary employees, recreational visitors to Clinton Lake, and tourists

passing through the area.

Onsite mitigation efforts and the relative isolation of the ESP site from neighboring residential

houses would mitigate the potential adverse impacts normally expected from increased noise

levels. Activities with significant noise impacts, such as blasting, would be limited to normal

weekday business hours. In addition, noise levels would be controlled by using the following

State and Federal criteria (Exelon 2006a): |

 • The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) noise-exposure limit to workers

and workers’ annoyance that are determined through consideration of acceptable noise

levels for offices, control rooms, etc. (29 CFR 1910.95)

 • Federal (40 CFR Part 204) noise-pollution control regulations

 • State regulation, the Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35, Environmental Protection, |

Subtitle H: Noise, or local noise-pollution control rules (35 IAC 2003, 2004, and 2006). |

Dust emissions would occur with onsite construction activity and exhaust emissions with the

operation of construction equipment and vehicles. Fugitive dust and fine particulate matter

emissions, including those less than 10 microns (PM10) in size, will be generated during earthmoving, material-handling, and open burning of construction waste. PM10 emissions can impact 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-22 July 2006

| human health, e.g., respiratory diseases. Other pollutants of potential concern are emissions of

oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, and sulfur dioxide.

Sensitive receptors are not proximate to the construction site. The nearest residence to the

planned construction site is 1.2 km (0.73 mi) away and the nearest campground, church, and

school are 1.6 km (1 mi), 6.1 km (3.8 mi), and 7.7 km (4.8 mi) distant from the site, respectively

| (Exelon 2006a). Exelon would be subject to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations

governing emissions from construction activities and vehicular traffic. In Illinois, dust generated

| as part of construction activities is exempt from State permit requirements (Exelon 2006a), even

though fugitive dust and fine particulate matter emissions may be subject to EPA air-pollution

standards.

Exelon has stated it would adhere to applicable air-pollution control regulations as they relate to

open burning or the operation of fuel-burning equipment. Even though dust generated from

construction activities is exempt from State permit requirements, Exelon has committed to

| mitigate dust emissions to the extent possible (Exelon 2006a).

In summary, offsite noise impacts would be expected to be minor because of the noise-control

devices on the vehicles, the adherence to applicable State and Federal criteria, the distance of

nearby residences to the site, and the fact that construction activities entailing significant noise

impacts would be limited to normal weekday business hours. Exelon has stated it would adhere

to applicable air-pollution control regulations as they relate to open burning or the operation of

fuel-burning equipment and mitigate dust emissions from construction to the extent possible. 

Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent verification

during a site visit the week of March 1, 2004, the staff concludes that any physical impacts of

construction to the workers and the local public would be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond

the mitigation actions stated above would not be warranted.

4.5.1.2 Buildings

It is not expected that construction activities would impact any offsite buildings. Most buildings

not located on the site are well away from the site boundaries. The buildings most vulnerable to

shock and vibration from pile driving are those located on the ESP site.

Based on the staff’s independent review and verification during a site visit the week of

March 1, 2004, the staff concludes that any physical impacts of construction on offsite buildings

would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) Telephone conversation with Terry Ferguson (DeWitt County Board, Land Use chairman and Harp |

Township Highway Commissioner), January 9, 2006. |

(b) Telephone conversation with Craig Fink (DeWitt County Highway Department), January 10, 2006. |

July 2006 4-23 NUREG-1815

4.5.1.3 Roads

Exelon stated that none of the roads and highways in the vicinity would be physically impacted

by constructing a new nuclear unit at the ESP site. The roads and highways would have to

accommodate an increase of approximately 3300 vehicle trips. Exelon estimated that if each

construction worker commuted individually, 50 additional miscellaneous trips would occur

throughout the day and 100 truck deliveries during the peak hours of the workday. Exelon

concludes that, because these roads and highways are two-lane, rural, and not heavily traveled,

they could withstand the increase in vehicular traffic (Exelon 2006a). |

The major State highways in the area of the proposed Exelon ESP site (Routes 10 and 54), |

have maximum weight limitations set by Illinois at 36,281 kg (80,000 lbs). While there are |

weight limitations on some of the bridges on these routes, there are ways, using State, county |

and Harp Township roads and overweight permits, of getting loads in excess of 36,281 kg |

(80,000 lbs) into the Exelon ESP site. For example, loads in excess of 54,422 kg (120,000 lbs) |

have been brought into the CPS in the past.(a)(b) However, if loads of this weight were |

consistently hauled over roads with an 36,281 kg (80,000 lbs) weight limitation, one could |

expect some physical impacts on the roads’ conditions. |

The staff observed during its site visit that the roads in the vicinity of the ESP site are lightly |

traveled and well maintained. However, if all construction materials were hauled over these

roads by truck, the rural roads might be physically impacted by the heavy loads. Exelon did not

give any justification for its statement that none of the roads or highways in the vicinity would be

adversely physically impacted. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon, the |

staff’s independent verification during a site visit the week of March 1, 2004, and follow up |

discussions with knowledgeable DeWitt County and Harp Township officials, the staff concludes |

that any impacts of construction on roads would be SMALL to MODERATE. Mitigation of

moderate impacts could be achieved by upgrading the existing rail line into the Exelon ESP site

and hauling the heavier construction material by rail and/or keeping the weight of trucks hauling |

construction materials under the 36,281 kg (80,000 lbs) weight limitations set by Illinois. |

4.5.1.4 Aesthetics

The proposed construction site is far removed from most of the permanent population that

would view the construction activities. The closest residence is approximately 1.2 km (0.73 mi)

to the southwest, and the closest town is DeWitt, which is approximately 5 km (3 mi) to the east.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-24 July 2006

Recreational users of Clinton Lake would be able to view the construction areas from certain

parts of the lake surface. However, for most of Clinton Lake, the construction area would not

visually impact most recreational users and areas of the lake. Mitigation measures planned by

Exelon to lessen the visual impact of construction activities from the lake would include

restricting construction laydown to as small an area as possible and removing construction

| debris from the site in a timely and suitable manner (Exelon 2006a). 

Construction of new transmission line rights-of-way would be required to support a new nuclear

unit at the ESP site. These lines would be within the existing maintained utility rights-of-way to

the greatest extent possible and hence would be in rights-of-ways already disturbed. 

Construction of the proposed transmission line rights-of-way might temporarily impact

watercourses existing along the proposed rights-of-ways, including Clinton Lake. It is expected

| that the visual impacts caused by construction would be temporary (Exelon 2006a).

In summary, the staff considered the overall visual impacts at distances away from the

proposed ESP site, which revealed that the visual impacts of construction on offsite viewers

would be limited. The impacts of constructing or installing new transmission lines within existing

rights-of-ways would be temporary. Exelon stated that it would abide by applicable Federal and

State laws to control runoff and sedimentation in the lake, which could affect the aesthetic

enjoyment of the lake, and, if necessary, they would do more to control runoff to Clinton Lake. 

Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review

during a site audit the week of March 1, 2004, the staff concludes that the impacts of

construction on aesthetics would be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the mitigation

actions stated above would not be warranted.

4.5.2 Demography

Population within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the region is 764,366 and projected to grow to

| 942,556 by 2060, for a total increase over the 60-year period of 23.3 percent (see Table 2-6). 

Exelon anticipates employing 3150 construction workers to build a new nuclear unit at the ESP

| site (Exelon 2006a). Most of these workers are anticipated to come from within the region (see

further discussion under Section 4.5.3.1). Thus, increases in population directly attributable to

the construction workforce would be minimal.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) In the multiplier effect, each dollar spent on goods and services by a construction worker becomes

income to the recipient who saves some but re-spends the rest. His re-spending becomes income to

someone else, who in turn saves part and re-spends the rest. The number of times the final increase

in consumption exceeds the initial dollar spent is called the “multiplier.”

July 2006 4-25 NUREG-1815

Some new jobs might result from the multiplier effect(a) attributable to the construction

workforce. But these increases, when compared to the total population base in the region,

would be minimal as well.

Should a larger-than-expected number of construction workers decide to locate to DeWitt

County, there could be a noticeable increase in population, but it would not be excessive. If

20 percent of the construction workforce, or 650 workers, decided to relocate temporarily to

DeWitt County, it would represent only a 3.9-percent increase in total population, based on

2000 Census data. Any multiplier effects resulting from construction worker expenditures would

most likely mean that some residents would obtain new or higher-paying jobs as a result of the

increased economic activity.

In summary, most construction workers would be expected to come from within the region. The

number of construction workers who might relocate to the region is a small percentage of the

larger population base. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s

independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction on increases in

population within the region would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

4.5.3 Impacts to the Community

This section evaluates the social, economic, infrastructure, and community impacts to the

surrounding region as a result of constructing a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. The

evaluation assesses impacts of construction and of those demands placed by the workforce on

the surrounding region. It is expected that construction activities would last up to 5 years and

employ up to 3150 construction workers (Exelon 2006a). This is in addition to the estimated |

550 permanent operations personnel currently employed at the CPS site and the |

1300 temporary workers during refueling outages lasting up to three weeks (Exelon 2006c). |

4.5.3.1 Economy

The impacts of construction at the ESP site on the local and regional economy depend on the

region’s current and projected economy and population. Some insight can be obtained on the

projected economy and population by consulting county comprehensive plans and data from the

U.S. Census Bureau. The ESP, if approved, will be in effect for 20 years after approval. Within

that period, construction of safety-related facilities could start at any time once a CP or COL |

authorizing construction has been issued. In addition, the issuance of an ESP allows, |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-26 July 2006

under certain regulatory conditions, the start of limited early construction activities. Therefore,

the positive economic benefits of construction could begin some time before the start of the

construction of the principal structures of the facility.

It is expected that construction activity would last between 3 and 5 years and employ

| 3150 construction workers at the peak (in addition to the estimated 550 permanent operating

| personnel currently employed at the CPS and 1300 temporary workers employed during

| refueling outages). The construction workforce peak usually occurs during the installation of

piping and electrical wiring, which takes place when 50 to 70 percent of construction is

completed. Exelon anticipates that the workforce would then continue to decline steadily until

| completion of the job (Exelon 2006a). 

The employment of such a large workforce for such a period of time would have economic

impacts on the surrounding region. DeWitt County would probably be the most impacted. From

there, the impacts would become diffuse as a result of interacting with the economic base of the

surrounding counties, particularly the larger economies of Macon, McLean, and Champaign

Counties. The magnitude of the impacts hinges on (1) the percentage of the construction

workforce who would come from within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the region and thus

commute to the construction site and (2) those who would relocate to the area to live in DeWitt,

Piatt, or Logan Counties or the larger cities of the area such as Decatur, Bloomington–Normal,

or Urbana-Champaign.

The construction workforce of 3150 workers would create additional jobs in the region through

the multiplier effect of direct employment. The expenditures of the construction workforce in the

| region for food and services could, through the multiplier effect of those expenditures, also

create a number of new jobs.

During its review, the staff questioned whether there would be a sufficient number of

construction workers (3150) available, with the requisite skills, to build a new nuclear unit at the

ESP site. The staff analysis and information obtained from the interviews conducted by the staff

during a site visit the week of March 1, 2004, confirm that sufficient numbers of construction

workers would be available to meet demand.

In the counties surrounding the ESP site (Champaign, DeWitt, Logan, McLean, Macon, and

| Piatt Counties), there are 16,214 workers in the construction industry (see Table 2-14). In the

region (within 80 km [50 mi]) of the CPS, there were 38,485 people employed in the

| construction industry in the year 2000 (Exelon 2006a). In the construction of the CPS, more

than 9000 workers were employed, with a significant number of that workforce coming from

| within the region (Exelon 2006a). In addition, it is not unusual for construction workers to

commute fairly long distances to a project site. Based on the information provided by Exelon

and the staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that there would be little problem in

| recruiting the required labor skills to enable construction of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-27 NUREG-1815

In summary, the magnitude of the positive economic impacts of construction would be diffused |

in the larger economic bases of Macon, McLean, and Champaign Counties. DeWitt County is

the site of the construction, and as a result, would be impacted more than Piatt and Logan

Counties. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent

review, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction on the economy of the region would

be beneficial and SMALL everywhere in the region except DeWitt County, where the impacts

could be beneficially MODERATE, and that mitigation would not be warranted. |

4.5.3.2 Taxes

The type of reactor selected would impact the size of the workforce and, thus, the amount of

taxes paid. Because reactor selection would occur only if Exelon decides to proceed with a CP

or a COL, only a qualitative assessment of the impacts to the surrounding area and region of

interest can be provided at this time.

There would be several types of taxes generated by the construction of the plant and the

workforce employed there. These include income taxes on wages and salaries paid and

corporate profits, sales and use taxes on construction-related purchases, on other purchases by |

the construction workers and the sale and use taxes from the resultant multiplier effects; and |

property taxes related to the building of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site. Each is briefly |

discussed in turn.

Income Taxes

Illinois has a personal income tax, a flat tax of 3 percent on taxable income. As the Illinois

return is based on the Federal return’s adjusted gross income, income that is taxable at the

Federal level is also generally taxed by Illinois (IDOR 2003). Construction workers and

employees of Exelon would pay income taxes to Illinois if their residences were in Illinois or if

they were nonresidents working in Illinois (IDOR 2003). While the exact amount of tax payable

to Illinois is not known, it could be fairly large over a 3- to 5-year construction period.

Corporations in Illinois pay a flat 4.8 percent income tax and a 2.5 percent replacement tax. 

Before 1979, business entities were required to pay personal property taxes. Legislation then

abolished the personal property taxes. To replace the money lost by units of local government

and school districts, the replacement tax was enacted. The replacement tax is income taxes |

received from corporations (including S corporations), partnerships and trusts, collected by the

State of Illinois and paid to local governments (IDOR 2004a).

Corporations undertaking the construction of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site would

pay corporate income and replacement taxes on the net income earned from the construction 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-28 July 2006

activity (IDOR 2004a). Again, while the exact amount of tax payable to Illinois is not known, it

could be fairly large, in absolute terms, over the 3- to 5-year construction period.

| The salaries of the construction workforce would have a multiplier effect, where money is spent

and re-spent within the region. Because of the multiplier effect, local businesses in and around

the City of Clinton probably would see an increase in business, especially in the retail and

services sectors. This would have a positive impact on the business community within the

vicinity, could provide opportunities for new businesses to get started, and could provide

increased job opportunities for residents of the area. In addition, these businesses and

employees would have profits or increases in profits upon which income taxes would be paid, as

well.

Sales and Use Taxes

Illinois has two types of sales and use taxes. Sales taxes are imposed on a seller’s receipts

from sales of tangible personal property for use or consumption. In Illinois, the term “sales tax”

actually refers to several tax acts. Sales taxes are a combination of “occupation” taxes that are

| imposed on seller’s “receipts” and “use” taxes that are imposed on amounts paid on purchases. 

Sellers owe the occupation tax to the Illinois Department of Revenue; they reimburse

themselves for this liability by collecting use tax from the buyers.

The “sales tax” is the combination of all state, local, mass transit, water commission, home-rule

occupation and use, non-home-rule occupation and use, and county public safety taxes. The

tax rate is 1 percent for qualifying food, drugs, and medical appliances and 6.25 percent for

everything else (IDOR 2004b). Of that, 5 percent goes to the State of Illinois, 1 percent goes to

the municipalities in which it was collected, and 0.25 percent goes to the county in which it

was collected.

Illinois and the counties surrounding the Exelon ESP site would experience an increase in the

amount of sales and use taxes collected from construction materials and supplies purchased for

the project. Additional sales and use taxes would be generated by retail expenditures of

construction workers (restaurants, hotels, merchant sales, and food). It is difficult to assess

which counties and local jurisdictions would be most impacted by the expenditures and resultant

sales and use taxes collected. It is probable that the City of Clinton could receive a large

increase in taxes collected given its location near the ESP site. Other towns of significant size

are more than 30 km (20 mi) from the site, making it more likely that workers would seek

services and make purchases at locations closer to the ESP site.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-29 NUREG-1815

Property Taxes |

Property taxes would be paid on the ESP Facility as it is constructed, and would accrue to |

DeWitt County and other jurisdictions currently benefitting from the property taxes paid by CPS. |

In addition, DeWitt and surrounding counties would benefit from property taxes resulting from |

any new construction precipitated as a result of the construction of a new nuclear unit at the |

ESP site; e.g., new houses and businesses. However, these impacts are expected to be |

beneficially small, especially from new housing construction since most construction workers |

are expected to already reside in the region. |

Summary of Tax Impacts

In summary, the amount of income taxes collected over a potential 3- to 5-year construction

period could be large in absolute amount, but small when compared to the total amount of taxes

that Illinois collects in any given year or in a 5-year period. In absolute terms, the amount of

sales and use taxes collected over a potential 3- to 5-year construction period could be large,

but small when compared to the total amount of taxes collected by Illinois and the governmental

jurisdictions within the region. However, given its proximity to the ESP site and smaller

economic base, the City of Clinton could be the exception and the sales and use taxes collected

could have a moderate impact. The taxes collected would be of benefit to both State and local

jurisdictions. The amount of property taxes collected from the ESP site’s construction is |

expected to increase as the percentage of construction completeness rises. The property taxes |

would accrue to DeWitt County and other jurisdictions currently receiving property taxes from |

CPS. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent |

review, the staff concludes that the potential beneficial impacts of taxes collected during

construction would be beneficially SMALL, except DeWitt County where they would be |

beneficially MODERATE and that mitigation would not be warranted. |

4.5.3.3 Transportation

To the extent possible, the CPS roads would be used for construction traffic. The site has at

least one access road that can be used to transport heavy construction equipment

(Exelon 2006a). Traffic and traffic-control impacts during construction might include, but are not |

limited to, the following: working adjacent to or in active roadways (day/night), traffic-control

zones, traffic-control device installation and removal, flagging, inspection and maintenance of

traffic-control devices, equipment, and general roadway traffic-control zone safety

(Exelon 2006a). |

The expected 3150 construction workers, the existing CPS permanent workforce of |

550 employees and the 1300 temporary workers during refueling outages lasting up to three |

weeks, (Exelon 2006a, 2006c) would put increased traffic on the road system in the vicinity of |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) Group interview conducted March 2, 2004, in Clinton, Illinois, with Duane Harris (DeWitt County Board

Chairman), Terry Ferguson (DeWitt County Board and Land Use Chairman), Sherrie Brown

(Administrator, DeWitt County Zoning), Sandy Moody (DeWitt County Supervisor of Assessments),

Dee Dee Rentmeister (Administrative Assistant, DeWitt County Board of Supervisors), and Christy

Long (DeWitt County Treasurer) and personal interview conducted March 3, 2004, in the City of

Clinton, Illinois, with Stephen Vandiver (Economic Development Director, City of Clinton).

NUREG-1815 4-30 July 2006

the proposed Exelon ESP site. Increased use of the roads in the vicinity of the site would be

particularly noticeable during shift changes.

To determine the impact of additional workers on traffic, Exelon obtained average daily traffic

counts from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) website for Illinois SRs 54 and 10. 

| Near the Exelon ESP site and using updated data, 2500 cars and trucks and 1850 cars and

trucks travel daily on Illinois SRs 54 and 10, respectively (IDOT 2004). According to IDOT’s

Bureau of Design and Environmental Manual, the typical average daily traffic count for a rural

| two-lane highway is 5000 cars and trucks (Exelon 2006a).

Exelon calculated that during construction of the Exelon ESP facility, there could be an

additional 1650 cars and trucks added to each highway. To arrive at these estimates, Exelon

assumed a total of 3200 vehicle trips, plus 100 truck deliveries. The increased traffic was

divided equally between Illinois SRs 54 and 10. Based on the addition of the average daily

traffic counts and the assumed expected number of additional trips due to construction, Exelon

concluded that the additional construction workers would not put an excessive amount of

burden on the roadways near the ESP site. In its estimates, Exelon does not appear to have

accounted for the existing operations workforce for the CPS.

| As shown in Table 2-8, the population in DeWitt County, the county most impacted by the

presence of the CPS and a new nuclear unit at the ESP site is projected to decrease from

approximately 16,798 to 16,018, a decline of approximately 0.5 percent, between 2000 and

2010. It is expected to decrease by another 0.2 percent between 2010 and 2020. However,

Clinton is billing itself as a bedroom community to the larger Cities of Champaign-Urbana,

Decatur, Bloomington–Normal, and, to a lesser extent, Springfield.(a) It could be expected that if

such billing is successful, increased growth in and around Clinton could occur. Another

attraction, which could encourage such growth, is the relatively low tax base of DeWitt County

when compared to other surrounding counties (see Section 2.8). So, while the Illinois

Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity forecasts a decline in population for

DeWitt County as a whole, Clinton’s growth aspirations, if successful, could increase the

| county’s population, thus placing additional traffic on the area’s roads and highways.

During the site visit the week of March 1, 2004, the staff observed that most of the roadways

within DeWitt, Logan, and Piatt Counties are rural and lightly traveled. The current road system

in the vicinity of the site is well-maintained, rural, and lightly traveled most times of the day. As 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-31 NUREG-1815

discussed in Section 2.8, business route U.S. 51 through Clinton has had a center turn-lane

constructed, which has alleviated congestion through Clinton at shift changes. Population

growth could put pressure on the local transportation system but, given the state of the current

transportation system around the ESP site, in DeWitt County and those counties abutting

DeWitt, the local transportation system would probably not be overwhelmed with added

construction traffic.

Should there be congestion, there are Federal regulations for traffic control signs, signals, and

barricades (29 CFR Part 1926). Illinois State and U.S. Department of Transportation plans may

have more stringent requirements. Exelon states that local, State, and Federal requirements

would be adhered to regarding traffic control onsite and offsite during construction activities

(Exelon 2006a). In addition, a way to alleviate truck traffic congestion is to upgrade the rail link |

to the ESP site.

In summary, the roads are currently lightly traveled and, except at shift changes, would not be

overly congested by increased construction traffic. Exelon has stated it would adhere to

applicable local, State, and Federal requirements regarding traffic control during construction of

a new nuclear unit at the ESP site. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and

the staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of construction on

the transportation system would be SMALL and that mitigation, beyond that previously stated,

would not be warranted. 

4.5.3.4 Recreation

From most of Clinton Lake, the construction area would not be seen. Mitigation measures

planned by Exelon would lessen the impact from the few places on the lake where the

construction would be visible. Therefore, it is expected that the visual impacts of construction

would have minimal impact on the recreational experiences of lake users.

There would be the potential for short-term water quality impacts on the lake from construction,

which, if left unchecked, could impact open water, shoreline habitats (including benthic

ecosystems), and water quality. Some fish species might be temporally displaced as a result of

minor water quality impact disturbances surrounding the construction of the water-intake

structure. This could, in turn, impact recreational opportunities on the lake, including fishing. 

Exelon has stated it would abide by applicable Federal and State regulations governing runoff

and, where necessary, would implement additional special control measures to minimize

impacts to the lake and lake users (Exelon 2006a). |

In summary, the distance of recreational access points to the plant site effectively limits the

impacts of construction to recreational users of the lake, and Exelon has committed to mitigation

activities during construction, which should lessen impacts on the lake’s water quality. 

Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-32 July 2006

staff concludes that the potential impacts of construction of a new nuclear unit on aesthetic and

recreational opportunities at Clinton Lake would be SMALL and that mitigation would not be

warranted beyond Exelon’s commitments.

4.5.3.5 Housing

Rental property is scarce in the rural counties in proximity to the Exelon ESP site, but is found in

more plentiful supply in the larger cities such as Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana,

Decatur, and Springfield. Generally, the counties with larger populations (Champaign, McLean,

| Macon, and Springfield-Sangamon) have more available vacant housing. In 2000, there were

211,445 total housing units in counties close to the ESP site, i.e., Champaign, DeWitt, Logan,

| McLean, Macon, and Piatt Counties. Of the total housing units, 69,686 were renter-occupied, or

| 33 percent of the total. Vacant units numbered 13,183, or 6.2 percent of the total. The

percentage vacancy rate varied, ranging from a low of 4.8 percent (Piatt County) to a high of

7.3 percent (Macon County). Macon County showed a decline in rental and vacant units

| between 1990 and 2000 (see Table 2-17).

Exelon estimates it would need a construction workforce of 3150 over a 3- to 5-year period to

| construct a new nuclear unit (Exelon 2006a). Impacts on housing from the construction

workforce depend on how many workers come from within the region of interest (80 km [50 mi])

and already have housing, and those who might need to relocate to the area and thus require

housing. Exelon maintains in its ER that the majority of the construction workforce would come

| from within the region (Exelon 2006a).

If the entire workforce was derived from within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the region, there

would be little or no impact on housing, except potentially on the smaller counties of DeWitt,

Piatt, and Logan and the Cities of Monticello, Farmer City, Lincoln, and Clinton and only if

| workers sought more housing there than was available (see Tables 2-17 and 2-18).

Some construction workers might originate from outside the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the region. 

It is not unusual for construction workers to drive 80 km (50 mi) or more from their place of

residence to a job site, and some might commute to the job site, stay the work week, and then

return to their place of residence on the weekends. These workers would likely share motel

accommodations, rooms over existing businesses and in homes in the area, and trailers and

campers at existing mobile home parks. Increased demand for RV/trailer spaces could result in

an increase in the number of spaces being made available through new construction. The issue

of having adequate water and sewer services available is discussed in Section 4.5.3.6 of

this EIS.

Assuming that trends remain much the same in the future as they were in 2000, there would be

sufficient vacant housing to meet the demands put on the housing system by 3150 construction

workers. This also assumes that some of the vacant units could and would be converted to 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-33 NUREG-1815

rental housing. Most of the vacant units and rental-occupied housing would be found in the

larger cities within 48 to 80 km (30 to 50 mi) of the Exelon ESP site.

However, if these assumptions prove incorrect, there could be a problem with housing

availability, particularly in the smaller counties of DeWitt, Logan, and Piatt, where there is

shortage of rental housing (see Tables 2-17 and 2-18). If too many “imported” workers tried to |

live in these counties, one would expect an upward effect on rents paid for housing. Some lowincome populations could be priced out of their rental housing if there was upward pressure on

rents. Such pressures are less likely to occur in the larger metropolitan area where there is a

greater supply of rental housing.

In summary, most of the construction workforce would be expected to come from within the

region. Generally, housing is available in the larger cities to accommodate any construction

workers who might move into the region. However, if the assumption that most of the

construction workforce would come from within the region is invalid, then there could be a |

shortage of housing in DeWitt, Logan, and Piatt Counties if too many “imported” workers tried to |

live in these counties. In addition, there could be upward pressure on rents. The |

1300 temporary workers employed during refueling outages could further exacerbate any |

problems. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent |

review, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of the new nuclear unit construction on

housing would be SMALL, if all the workers generally come from within the region and chose |

not to locate closer to work in DeWitt, Piatt, or Logan counties. But it could be MODERATE in

DeWitt, Piatt, and Logan counties, if the assumption that all the workers would come from within |

the region proves invalid, or if a number of construction workers decide to relocate to these

counties to be closer to work. Mitigation would not be warranted where the impacts are small. |

Mitigation of the moderate impacts would most likely be market-driven with temporary

accommodations being provided and/or constructed.

4.5.3.6 Public Services

Water Supply and Waste Water Treatment Facilities

In the vicinity of the Exelon ESP site, drinking water is primarily obtained from municipal |

groundwater sources via wells. Only a small number of residents have private well systems. |

The Clinton Sanitary District Sewage Treatment Plant serves the waste water needs of the City

of Clinton. In the region, rural communities generally have private wells for water and septic

systems for sanitary wastes. Larger communities obtain water from groundwater extraction

wells or lakes and are served by public waste water treatment systems. Exelon performed a |

survey of water and waste water facilities in the region and found that the facilities have excess

capacity to accommodate potential population increases (Exelon 2006a). An independent |

analysis conducted by the NRC staff confirms Exelon’s conclusion (see Tables 2-19 and 2-20). |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-34 July 2006

Public water supply and waste water treatment are not a constraint to growth in the vicinity and

region of the Exelon ESP site, assuming that growth increases hold to the historical norm. 

Should there be a disproportionate increase in the populations of Clinton, Monticello, and

Farmer City as a result of construction, there could be some capacity constraints. The small

number of vacant and rental housing units available in these three areas, however, would

constrain water supply and treatment usage. Therefore, based on the information provided by

Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of

construction of a new nuclear unit on water and waste water treatment facilities would be

SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted.

Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

Within a 16-km (10-mi) radius of the ESP site, there is one fire department, the sheriff’s

department of DeWitt County, and the City of Clinton police force. In the region, there are a

| total of 89 fire departments and 75 police departments. Outside the major cities of the area,

| communities typically share fire-fighting services (Exelon 2006a).

Within a 16-km (10-mi) radius of the proposed ESP site, there are two nursing homes and one

hospital serving Clinton. Within the region (80 km [50 mi]), there are 52 hospitals and

84 nursing homes. Exelon concludes that the projected capacity of public services is adequate

and is expected to expand modestly to meet the demands of a slight population growth

| (Exelon 2006a). Annual population growth projections of 0.8 percent or less per year (between

| 2000 and 2020) would tend to support their conclusion (see Table 2-8). Exelon plans to employ

| its own security force for a new nuclear unit at the ESP site (Exelon 2006a).

The construction workforce is generally considered to come from within the region; hence, the

demand for services would be on established entities, which could provide adequate service to

the existing and small increases in population expected in the future. Therefore, based on the

information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the

potential impacts of a new nuclear unit on police, fire, and medical facilities would be SMALL

and that mitigation would not be warranted.

Social Services

This section focuses on the potential impacts of construction on the social and related services

provided to disadvantaged segments of the population in DeWitt and Logan Counties. This

section is distinguished from issues surrounding environmental justice, which is discussed in

more depth in Section 4.7.

Generally, construction of the new units at the Exelon ESP site would be viewed as beneficial

economically to the disadvantaged population segments served by the Departments of Human

| Resources for DeWitt, Piatt, and Logan Counties. Construction of a new nuclear unit might 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) Personal interviews conducted on March 3, 2004 in the City of Clinton with Roger A. Little,

Superintendent, Clinton Unit School District 15, and on March 5, 2004 in the City of Monticello with

Lawrence J. McNabb, 2004, Superintendent, Monticello Community School District 25.

July 2006 4-35 NUREG-1815

enable the disadvantaged to improve their social and economic position by having construction

jobs. At a minimum, the expenditures of the construction workforce in the counties for food and

services would have a multiplier effect and increase the number of jobs that could be filled by

the disadvantaged. Because it might take some time to get hired, there might be an increased

demand for social services for construction workers newly moving to the area and looking for

work either at the ESP construction site or in secondary jobs created by the construction.

Summary of Public Services

In summary, public water supply and waste water treatment are not a constraint to growth in the

vicinity and region of the ESP site, assuming that growth increases hold to the historical norm. 

Because the construction workforce is generally considered to come from within the region, the

demand for police, fire, and medical services would impact established entities, which could

provide adequate service to the existing population and the small increases in population

expected in the future. The construction of the ESP facility would have a beneficial economic

impact to the economically disadvantaged population, which should lessen the demand for

social services. There could be an initial increase in demand for social services at the

beginning of the construction period, but this is considered manageable. Therefore, based on

the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that

the potential impacts of construction of a new nuclear unit on the demand for social and related

services would be SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted.

4.5.3.7 Education

Exelon undertook a survey of class size of some schools within the region and found that of

those districts surveyed (a total of 69), 67 percent of the schools have class sizes at or below |

the national average (Exelon 2004, 2006a). From this, Exelon concludes that there is sufficient |

capacity for a small increase in school population. The Blue Ridge and Clinton school districts,

based in DeWitt County, were not included in the Exelon survey. 

NRC staff interviews of the superintendents of the Clinton and Monticello school districts

indicated that an increased number of students per classroom was not an issue,(a) which, at

least locally around the Exelon ESP site, tends to support Exelon’s conclusions.

The majority of the construction workers would be expected to come from the region, with little

anticipated in-migration of construction workers from outside the region. Should there be

construction workers coming from outside the region, chances are they would commute to the 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-36 July 2006

construction site, stay for the week, and return to their permanent residences on the weekends. 

If that is the case, there would be minimal impact of additional children being placed in the

educational systems within the region. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon

and the staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of construction

of a new nuclear unit construction on education would be SMALL and that mitigation would not

be warranted.

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) requires Federal agencies

to take into account the potential effects of their undertakings on the cultural environment, which

includes archaeological sites, historic buildings, and traditional places important to local

| populations. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended through 2000

| (NHPA), also requires Federal agencies to consider impacts to those resources if they are

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (such resources are referred to as

“Historic Properties” in NHPA). As outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, “Coordination with the National

| Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” the NRC coordinated compliance with Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act in meeting the requirements of NEPA.

Construction, operation, and decommissioning of new power units can affect either known or

undiscovered cultural resources. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of NHPA and

NEPA, the NRC is required to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic

properties in the area of potential effect (APE) and, if present, determine if any significant

impacts are likely to occur. Identification is to occur in consultation with the State Historic

Preservation Officer, American Indian Tribes, interested parties, and the public. If significant

impacts are possible, efforts should be made to mitigate them. As part of the NEPA/NHPA

integration, if no historic properties (i.e., places eligible for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places) are present or affected, the NRC is required to notify the State Historic

Preservation Officer before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present,

the NRC is required to assess and resolve adverse effects of the undertaking.

For specific historic and cultural information on the Exelon ESP site, see Section 2.9.

In conducting its analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources from construction at the

| Exelon ESP site, the NRC defined an APE as the area that includes the ESP unit and its

| immediate environs. The APE is that area that might be impacted by the construction and

operation of a new nuclear unit and construction and operation of new transmission line rights-

| of-way that might follow, parallel with some of the existing transmission line rights-of-way, now

| serving the CPS unit. Because laydown yards and, in some cases, associated infrastructure

| have yet to be identified, the APE is that area within the current CPS site boundary. Disturbed 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-37 NUREG-1815

areas within the APE are considered because the extent of disturbance in many areas is not

known.

Exelon has indicated that construction of the additional ESP unit would involve land disturbance |

within a designated site (a previously disturbed area), the ESP cooling tower area, and areas

designated for support facilities for functions such as water intake and outfalls. The area

designated for the cooling towers and associated infrastructure exhibits less previous ground

disturbance than the area where the ESP unit would be constructed. Additionally, temporary |

parking, module fabrication areas, and laydown zones would involve some ground disturbance. 

Following construction activities, disturbed support areas would be landscaped and replanted to

match the overall site appearance.

As explained in Section 2.9.2, previous cultural resource identification efforts indicated the

presence of several archaeological sites and the potential for additional sites, primarily in the

areas associated with the construction of the cooling towers. Before construction, consultation

by the applicant with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency would identify any protective |

measures that should be taken (Exelon 2006a). Possible measures might include methods |

such as tilling, surveying, and shovel testing. One area of potential concern is the area adjacent

to a new water intake structure, where the National Register-eligible Pabst Site (IIDW32) was

located. Although the site was excavated in the 1970s and impacted by the original

construction of the CPS unit, some remnants of the site may still exist under fill or within the lake |

(Lewis 1976).

To date, literature reviews and consultations with regional American Indian Tribes have not

identified any traditional cultural properties in the vicinity of the proposed construction area of

the ESP unit. |

No analysis of cultural and historic resources was conducted for the transmission line rights-ofway. The full extent of potential land-use impacts in the transmission line rights-of-way can be

estimated only after following the FERC process for connecting new large generation sources to

the grid. This process is detailed more specifically in Section 3.3. Once this process is

completed, the appropriate cultural resource studies will be undertaken to ensure that resources

are identified and addressed before construction. In addition, consultation by the applicant with |

the State of Illinois would establish requirements to follow should archaeological, historical, or

other cultural resources be uncovered during construction (Exelon 2006a). |

Based on (1) the pre-construction and construction measures that Exelon would take to avoid

adverse impacts to significant cultural resources and (2) the staff’s cultural resource analysis

and consultation, it is the staff’s conclusion that the potential impacts on historic and cultural

resources would be SMALL. Mitigation might be warranted in the event of an inadvertent

discovery.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-38 July 2006

4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations. On

August 24, 2004, the Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of environmental

| justice matters in licensing actions (69 FR 52040; NRC 2004). Figures 2-6 and 2-7

(Section 2.10) show the locations of minority and low-income populations around the Exelon

ESP site and within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the region.

The staff identified the pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with

construction of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site could affect human populations. The staff

then evaluated whether minority and low-income populations could be disproportionately

affected by these impacts. During its March 2004 site audit, the staff interviewed local

government officials and the staff of social welfare agencies concerning potentially

disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income populations. The staff found no unusual

resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing through

which the populations could be disproportionately impacted by construction of a new nuclear

unit and that would result in those populations being adversely affected. In addition, the staff

did not identify any location-dependent disproportionately high and adverse impacts affecting

minority and low-income populations.

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the staff

concludes that offsite impacts of construction of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site to

minority and low-income populations would be SMALL and that additional mitigation would not

be warranted.

4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

| Exelon (2006a) indicated that the physical impacts of construction, including public health,

occupational health, and noise, would be small and were discussed qualitatively. The area

around the Exelon ESP site is predominantly rural with a population of approximately

12,400 people within 16 km (10 mi) of the site. No significant industrial or commercial facilities

are currently located or planned in this area. The following sections discuss the results of the

staff’s assessment of nonradiological health impacts for the ESP site.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-39 NUREG-1815

4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health

Public Health

Exelon stated in its ER that the physical impacts to the public from construction at the ESP site |

might include dust, smoke, engine exhaust, and concrete operations as sources of air pollution

during site preparation and redress. Exelon stated that operational controls would be imposed

to mitigate dust emissions, employing such methods as providing good drainage and dry

weather wetting, seeding bare areas to provide ground cover, and paving most traveled

construction roads. The concrete facility would be equipped with dust-control systems to

minimize releases of concrete dust (Exelon 2006a). Dust generated by construction activities |

is exempt from State permit requirements pursuant to Illinois Administrative

Code 35 IAC 201.146tt. |

Engine exhaust would be minimized by maintaining fuel-burning equipment in good mechanical

order. Exelon (2006a) stated that applicable air-pollution control regulations would be adhered |

to as they relate to open burning or the operation of fuel-burning equipment to reduce smoke. 

Permits and operating certificates would be secured where required.

The public would not be close to the construction site. The nearest residence is 1.2 km

(0.73 mi), and the nearest campground, church, and school are 1.6 km (1 mi), 6.1 km (3.8 mi),

and 7.7 km (4.8 mi) respectively, from the Exelon ESP site (Exelon 2006a). Based on the |

mitigation measures identified by Exelon in its ER, the permits and authorizations required by

State and local agencies, and the staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the

nonradiological health impacts to the public from construction activities would be SMALL and

that additional mitigation beyond the actions stated above would not be warranted.

Site Preparation Worker Health

In general, human health risks for construction workers and personnel working onsite would be

expected to be dominated by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electrocution, asphyxiation) to

workers engaged in activities such as construction, maintenance, and excavation. Historically,

actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the average

U.S. industrial rates. Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to

NRC and OSHA safety standards, practices, and procedures. Appropriate State and local

statutes must also be considered when assessing the occupational hazards and health risks

associated with construction. The staff assumes strict adherence to NRC, OSHA, and State

safety standards, practices, and procedures during construction activities.

Other nonradiological impacts to construction workers include noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous

emissions resulting from construction activities. Mitigation measures discussed in this section 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-40 July 2006

| for the public (e.g., a dust control system on a concrete facility) would also help limit exposure to

construction workers. Onsite impacts to construction workers would also be mitigated through

training and use of personal protective equipment to minimize the risk of potentially harmful

exposures. Emergency first-aid care and regular health and safety monitoring of construction

personnel could also be undertaken.

Based on mitigation measures identified by Exelon in its ER, on permits and authorizations

required by State and local agencies, and on the staff’s independent review, the staff concludes

that the nonradiological health impacts to workers from construction activities would be SMALL

and that additional mitigation beyond the actions stated above would not be warranted.

4.8.2 Noise Impacts

Large construction projects involve many noise-generating activities. Regulations governing

noise from construction activities are generally limited to worker health. Federal regulations

governing construction noise are found in 29 CFR Part 1910 and 40 CFR Part 204. The

regulations in 29 CFR Part 1910 deal with noise exposure in the construction environment, and

the regulations in 40 CFR Part 204 generally govern the noise levels of compressors. Illinois

noise-control regulations are found in the Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35, Environmental

Protection, Subtitle H: Noise.

Activities associated with construction of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site would generate

noise levels typical of larger construction projects. The PPE indicates that construction noise

would be between 76 and 101 decibels at a distance of 15 m (50 ft) from the source. Noise

levels for common construction activities are typically about 90 decibels at a distance of 3 m

(10 ft). At 30 m (100 ft), the noise level would be about 70 decibels, and at a distance of 300 m

(1000 ft), the noise level would be 50 decibels. A 10-decibel decrease in noise level is generally

perceived as cutting the loudness in half. A few activities (e.g., jack hammering) have noise

levels of about 110 decibels.

Many of the construction activities at the Exelon ESP site would take place near the existing

CPS unit. It is unlikely that much of the noise from this location would be discernable at the

exclusion area boundary or offsite. A 90-decibel noise at the center of the exclusion area would

decrease to less than 40 decibels at the nearest residence, and a 110-decibel noise would

decrease to about 60 decibels. The nearest school, almost 8 km (5 mi) from the site, would not

be impacted by construction noise.

Construction activities would be expected to take place 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. 

| However, the ER (Exelon 2006a) lists a number of measures that would be taken to mitigate 

the potential adverse effects of construction noise. Among the mitigation measures are 

compliance with Federal and State regulations, use of standard noise-control devices, 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-41 NUREG-1815

development of a hearing conservation program, and limitation of activities with significant noise

impacts to weekdays.

Considering the temporary nature of construction activities and the location of the Exelon ESP

site, the staff concludes that the noise impacts from construction would be SMALL and that

further mitigation beyond that discussed above would not be warranted.

4.8.3 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

The staff reviewed the information in the Exelon ER (Exelon 2006a) and concludes that

nonradiological health impacts to construction workers, workers at the current Clinton Power |

Station facility, and the local population from fugitive dust, occupational injuries, and noise |

would be SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted. |

4.9 Radiological Health Impacts

The sources of radiation exposure for construction workers include direct radiation exposure,

exposure from liquid radioactive waste discharges, and exposure from gaseous radioactive

effluents from the existing CPS unit during the site-preparation and construction phase. For the

purposes of this discussion, construction and site preparation workers are assumed to be

members of the public, and therefore, the dose estimates are compared to the dose limits for

the public, pursuant to 10 CFR 20, Subpart D. Exelon (2006a) noted that all major construction |

activities are expected to occur outside the CPS protected area boundary but inside the

restricted area boundary, as shown in Figure 4-2.

4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures

In its ER, Exelon identified two sources of direct radiation exposure from the CPS: (1) the

cycled condensate storage tank located at the northern boundary of the protected area adjacent

to the existing switchyard, and (2) skyshine from the nitrogen-16 activity present in the reactor

steam in the high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, the intercept valves, and the associated

piping located on the main floor of the turbine building (Exelon 2006a). The staff did not identify

any additional sources of direct radiation during the site visit or during document reviews.

Exelon used fenceline thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and environmental TLDs to

measure direct radiation levels at locations in and around the CPS protected area

(Exelon 2006a). Eleven fenceline TLDs are located along the protected area fence. The |

protected area fenceline is shown in Figure 4-2. Environmental TLDs are located in two rings |

around the CPS, an inner ring near the site boundary, and an outer ring about 8 km (5 mi) from

the plant (AmerGen 2002b). All these TLDs are read quarterly and measure any contribution to |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-42 July 2006

 Protected

 Area

 Fenceline

Figure 4-2. Location of Exelon ESP Structures Relative to Existing CPS Facility
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-43 NUREG-1815

dose from the cycled condensate storage tank and skyshine from nitrogen-16 activity present in |

the turbine buildings. |

For 2001, the average quarterly reading for the inner- and outer-ring environmental TLDs was

0.181 mSv (18.1 mrem) with measurements ranging from 0.131 to 0.219 mSv (13.1 to

21.9 mrem) (AmerGen 2002b). This compared to average quarterly readings from control

locations of 0.169 mSv (16.9 mrem) with measurements ranging from 0.150 to 0.195 mSv

(15.0 to 19.5 mrem) (AmerGen 2002b). AmerGen concluded that these results were not

significantly different and showed no increase in environmental gamma radiation levels resulting

from plant operations at the CPS. Similar results were observed for the past several years

(AmerGen 2000a, 2001b, 2003).

Exelon estimated direct radiation exposure to construction workers by using protected area |

fenceline TLD measurements. The average quarterly readings for the fenceline TLDs for a |

2-year period (second quarter 2001 to first quarter 2003) was 0.265 mSv (26.5 mrem). This

corresponds to a dose rate of 0.121 :Sv/hr (12.1 :rem/hr). A construction worker present for |

2080 hours per year in a dose rate field of 0.121 :Sv/hr (12.1 :rem/hr) would receive an annual |

dose of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) (Exelon 2006a). The Exelon construction worker dose estimate is |

conservative for the following reasons: (1) the fenceline TLD readings on the south side of the

protected area closest to the new nuclear unit were lower than the average of all the values (i.e.,

using the TLD results from the south side of the protected area only would result in an

estimated annual dose to the construction worker of only 0.14 mSv [14 mrem]), (2) dose rate

estimates were adjusted to consider the reactor operating 100 percent of the time, and (3) |

adjustments to subtract out background radiation were not made. AmerGen (2002b) reported

an average quarterly background reading of 0.169 mSv (16.9 mrem). Adjusting for worker

occupancy, a construction worker would get approximately 0.16 mSv (16 mrem) annually from

natural background.

4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents

The CPS releases gaseous effluents via the common station heating, ventilating, and air

conditioning stack and the standby gas treatment system vent. Exelon (2006a) estimated |

construction worker dose from gaseous effluents by taking the dose estimates to the maximally

exposed member of the public from the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report

(AmerGen 2002a). The highest annual dose to a member of the public from gaseous effluents

was 3 x 10-5 mSv (0.003 mrem) to an individual using the public access road in the southeast 

sector of the site within the CPS site boundary. This dose was based on an occupancy of

243 hr/yr (Exelon 2006a), which represents the estimated amount of time a member of the |

public would spend on the public access road annually. Adjusting this dose for the expected

occupancy of a construction worker (i.e., 2080 hours per year), the annual dose from gaseous |

effluent releases becomes 3 x 10-4 mSv (0.03 mrem). A review of annual effluent release |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-44 July 2006

reports for the past several years showed this dose to be typical. The dose to construction

workers from the gaseous effluent releases would be negligible compared to the dose from

direct radiation exposure.

4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents

Exelon considered radiation exposures from liquid effluents to be negligible for estimating dose

| to construction workers (Exelon 2006a). The CPS has not released any liquid radioactive

effluents to the environment since 1992 (AmerGen 2002a). A review of radioactive effluent

release reports for the past several years confirmed that there have been no radioactive liquid

effluents released from CPS in recent years (AmerGen 2000b, 2001a, 2002a).

4.9.4 Total Dose to Site-Preparation Workers

Exelon has estimated an annual dose to a site-preparation worker of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) from

the direct radiation pathway. Doses from liquid and gaseous effluent releases are negligible

| compared to the dose from direct radiation. The annual dose estimate for the site preparation

| workers was approximately 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) which is less than the 1 mSv (100 mrem)

| annual dose to an individual member of the public found in 10 CFR 20.1301. If the dose

| estimate had exceeded 100 mrem annually, the site preparation workers would need to be

| treated as radiological workers and would be subject to the annual occupational dose limit of

| 0.05 Sv (5 rem) found in 10 CFR 20.1201. 

The maximum estimated annual collective dose to site-preparation workers, based on an annual

individual dose of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) and an estimated workforce of 3150 workers, is

| 0.80 person-Sv (80 person-rem). 

4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts

Having reviewed Exelon’s estimate of dose to site preparation workers during construction

activities, the staff found the doses to be well within NRC exposure limits designed to protect

| the public health, even if workers exceeded the 2080 hr/yr occupancy factor. Assuming the

| location of the proposed new nuclear unit does not change, the staff concludes that the impacts

of radiological exposures to site preparation workers would be SMALL and that no mitigation

would be warranted.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-45 NUREG-1815

4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During

Site-Preparation Activities

The following measures and controls would limit adverse environmental impacts:

 C Compliance with applicable Federal, Illinois, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations

intended to prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid waste

management, erosion and sediment control, air emissions, noise control, storm water

management, spill response and cleanup, hazardous material management)

 C Compliance with applicable requirements of existing permits and licenses (e.g., the

IEPA/NPDES Permit and the Operating License) for the existing units and other permits

or licenses required for construction of the new units (e.g., ACE Section 404 Permit,

Illinois Department of Environmental Quality wetlands permit)

 C Compliance with existing Exelon processes and/or procedures applicable to construction

environmental compliance activities for the Exelon ESP site (e.g., solid waste

management, hazardous waste management, and spill prevention and response)

 C Incorporation of environmental requirements into construction contracts

 C identification of environmental resources and potential impacts during the development

of the ER and the ESP process.

4.11 Site Redress Plan

Site-Preparation and Preliminary Construction Activities

Exelon requested that it be allowed to conduct site-preparation activities at the ESP site as

authorized by 10 CFR 52.17(c), 10 CFR 52.25, and 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). Exelon stated that it

might choose to perform none, some, or all of the activities described in Section 1-3 of the site

redress plan (Exelon 2006a). Exelon included in its application, as required by |

10 CFR 52.17(c), a site redress plan that would be implemented if site-preparation activities

were performed, should the ESP expire before the issuance of a CP or COL by the NRC

(Exelon 2006b). The objective of the site redress plan is to ensure that the ESP site would be |

returned to an environmentally stable and aesthetically acceptable condition suitable for nonnuclear uses consistent with DeWitt County zoning requirements. Under the site redress plan,

areas that were permanently disturbed would be stabilized and contoured to conform to

surrounding areas. Revegetation of disturbed lands would be conducted.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-46 July 2006

Prerequisites of site-preparation activities that must be fulfilled before performing such activities

include:

 C Documentation of existing site conditions within the Exelon ESP site by way of

photographs, surveys, listings of existing facilities and structures, or other

documentation — This record would serve as the baseline for redressing the site in the

event ESP site-preparation activities were terminated as a result of project cancellation

or expiration of the ESP.

 C Coordination of the movement of the existing CPS protected area boundary, as

required — These activities would be coordinated with the CPS to accomplish the

movement of structures reflected in the CPS licensing basis in a manner consistent with

its operating license and the applicable regulations governing that license.

 C Movement, demolition, or ownership transfer of existing CPS buildings and structures

within the Exelon ESP site — These activities will be coordinated with the CPS to

accomplish the movement, demolition, or ownership transfer of structures reflected in

the CPS licensing basis in a manner consistent with its operating license and the

applicable regulations governing that license.

 C Obtaining the necessary permits to perform preconstruction activities, such as local

building permits, IEPA NPDES permit, IEPA CWA permit, IEPA General Storm Water

Permit, etc. 

After these prerequisites were completed, planned site-preparation activities could proceed and

might include none, some, or all of the following activities pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(c) and

10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). In the ESP application, Exelon requested approval to perform the following

| site-preparation activities for a new nuclear unit at the ESP site (Exelon 2006a):

 C Prepare the site for construction of the facilities (including such activities as clearing,

grading, construction of temporary access roads, and preparation of borrow areas)

 C Install temporary construction support facilities (including items such as warehouses,

shop facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading facilities, and

construction support buildings)

 C Excavate for facility structures
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) As discussed in Section 3.3 of this EIS, Exelon has not submitted an Interconnection Request to

AmerenIP. The process for obtaining transmission services discussed in that section would have to |

be completed before construction of the transmission lines could begin.

July 2006 4-47 NUREG-1815

 C Construct service facilities (including items such as roadways, paving, railroad spurs,

fencing, exterior utility and lighting systems, transmission lines(a), and sanitary sewage

treatment facilities)

 C Drill sample/monitoring wells or additional geophysical borings

 C Construct structures, systems, and components that do not prevent or mitigate the

consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health and

safety of the public, including but not limited to

 - cooling towers

 - intake and discharge structures

 - circulating water lines

 - fire protection equipment

 - switchyard and onsite interconnections

 - transmission system(a)

 - underground utilities.

The environmental impacts of site-preparation activities allowed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)

are bounded by environmental impacts for construction of the entire facility. In many cases, the

impacts of site-preparation activities and construction may be similar, but the impacts resulting

solely from site-preparation activities would be of a shorter duration. In the preceding sections

in this chapter, the staff has presented impacts of construction that bound the impacts of site

preparation. If the ESP expires before an application for a CP or COL is received under

10 CFR Part 52, Subpart C, and site-preparation activities have occurred, the site redress plan

would be activated to return the ESP site to an environmentally stable and aesthetically

acceptable condition suitable for future alternative use (presumably non-nuclear) that conforms

to local zoning laws, thus minimizing the long-term environmental impacts.

Site Redress Plan

Exelon provided a site redress plan as part of its ESP application in the event that sitepreparation work did not proceed to full construction (Exelon 2006b). The plan identifies the |

overall objective as providing “an environmentally stable, self-draining, self-maintaining,

esthetically acceptable site that can be left unattended.” In its plan, Exelon states that redress 
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-48 July 2006

activities would reflect applicable land-use and zoning requirements and identifies the following

five general redress activities for consideration:

 C Recontouring, revegetation, and replanting of cleared areas

 C Restoration of sensitive water resource features disturbed for intake and/or discharge

structures

 C Habitat replacement

 C Use of constructed facilities for alternative purposes, or their removal

 C Remediation of contamination resulting from site-preparation or site redress activities.

The staff has reviewed the list of allowed site-preparation activities in the event that the ESP is

granted and has reviewed the full site redress plan submitted by Exelon. As a result of its own

independent review, the staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.25(a), concludes that the potential

site-preparation activities described in Exelon’s site redress plan would not result in any

significant adverse environmental impacts that could not be redressed.

4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts

Impact level categories are denoted in Table 4-1 as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE as a

measure of their expected adverse environmental impacts, if any. A brief statement explains

the basis for the impact level. Some impacts, such as the addition of tax revenue from Exelon

for the local economies, are likely to be beneficial impacts to the community.

| Impacts related to terrestrial ecology were estimated for the purpose of comparison to

| alternatives, but the issue is unresolved because significant information on the proposed action

| is lacking at the ESP stage. An applicant for a CP or COL that references the Exelon ESP

| would need to provide this information to enable analysis at that time.

4.13 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.”
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-49 NUREG-1815

Table 4-1. Characterization of Impacts from Construction of a New Nuclear Unit at the Exelon

ESP Site

Category Comments Impact Level

Land-Use Impacts

Site and Vicinity Construction activities would take place within existing site

boundaries.

SMALL

Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

and Offsite Areas 

Existing rights-of-way likely to be expanded. SMALL

Meteorological and Air 

Quality Impacts

Construction Activities and

Transportation

Construction activities would be conducted in accordance with

applicable State administrative codes, and dust and emissions

would be minimized through a dust control plan.

Air quality would not be degraded sufficiently to be noticeable

beyond the immediate vicinity.

SMALL

Water-Related Impacts

Hydrological Alterations Impacts localized and temporary. IEPA 401 permit process

will be adequate to ensure impacts will be SMALL.

SMALL

Water Use Dewatering may cause localized declines in the water table. 

Water needed for construction activities will be far less than

the consumptive water loss from a wet tower. 

SMALL

Water Quality Construction would be conducted using best management

practices to control spills and storm water runoff.

SMALL

Ecological Impacts

Terrestrial Ecosystems |

|

|

Construction within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way would

likely have minimal impacts on terrestrial species and habitat. 

Up to LARGE impacts for construction of new rights-of-way.

Unresolved, |

likely to be |

SMALL |

Aquatic Ecosystems Construction activities would have minimal impact to aquatic

ecological resources and habitat.

SMALL

Threatened and Endangered

Species

Construction impacts to Federally listed species are expected

to be negligible.

SMALL

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Impacts

Workers/Local Public Impacts to the public would be minimal due to construction

activities taking place within existing plant boundaries.

SMALL

Buildings Construction would not affect any offsite buildings. SMALL

Roads Construction traffic could physically impact the road system,

particularly heavy truckloads of construction equipment. 

These impacts could be mitigated by upgrading the rail line

into the CPS site.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Aesthetics Construction activities would be temporary, and observation

points would be limited because of site location.

SMALL

Demography Percentage of construction workers relocating to the region

would be small. Most would already live within the region.

SMALL
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-50 July 2006

Table 4-1. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

Impacts to Community - Social and Economic

Economy Economic impacts of construction overall are beneficial to

local economies. DeWitt County impacts may be

MODERATE.

| Beneficially

SMALL to

MODERATE

Taxes

| Income Taxes

Sales and Use Taxes

| Property Taxes

Generally, impacts are beneficial to State and local

| governments. DeWitt County impacts may be MODERATE.

| Beneficially

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impacts to Community - Infrastructure and Community

Transportation Roads are lightly traveled and, except at shift changes, would

not be overly congested by increased construction traffic. If

congestion does occur or is anticipated, mitigation measures

can be undertaken.

SMALL

Recreation Recreational impacts would be minimal and temporary during

construction activities.

SMALL

Housing

|

|

|

Rental property is scarce near the ESP site, but found near

larger cities. Generally, there is sufficient housing to meet the

demands put on the housing system by construction workers if

they live in the larger cities. There could be greater impact if

the worker choose to live in DeWitt, Logan, or Piatt counties.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Public Services Public services are adequate for any temporary influx of

workers due to the construction at the ESP site. Construction

may lessen the demand for social services due to beneficial

economic impacts.

SMALL

Education Majority of construction workers are expected to already live in

the region.

SMALL

Historic and Cultural Resources Proposed construction area is previously disturbed, except

where cooling towers might be built. Exelon would need to

consult with IHPA at the CP or COL stage. Exelon has

committed to develop procedures to manage cultural

resources in the event of an inadvertent discovery.

SMALL

Environmental Justice No unusual resource dependencies in the area. SMALL

Nonradiological Health Impacts Emission controls and remote location of the ESP site would

keep nonradiological health impacts small. Adherence to

Federal and State Regulations assumed to protect

occupational workers.

SMALL

Radiological Health Impacts Exposures would be below annual occupational and public

dose limits.

SMALL
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-51 NUREG-1815

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 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

18 CFR Part 35. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 18, Conservation of Power and Water

Resources, Part 35, “Filing of Rate Schedules and Tariffs.”

29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational

Safety and Health Standards.” 

29 CFR Part 1926. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor. Part 1926, “Safety and |

Health Regulations for Construction.” 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.”

40 CFR Part 204. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 204,

“Noise Emission Standards for Construction Equipment.”

35 Illinois Administrative Code [IAC] Subtitle H, 2003, 2004, and 2006. “Noise.” Accessed on |

the Internet April 27, 2004 and March 29, 2006, at |

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/View/Collection–1694. |

35 Illinois Administrative Code [IAC] 201, Title 35, Environmental Protection, Subtitle B, “Air

Pollution.” Accessed on the Internet May 3, 2004, at |

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/Get/File-11908. |

69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

Regulations and Licensing Actions.” Action: Final Policy Statement. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission. Washington D.C., Federal Register. Vol. 69, No. 163. August 24, 2004.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2000a. “1999 Annual Environmental Operating

Report for Clinton Power Station.” Attached to AmerGen letter from Michael A. Reandeau to the

NRC Document Control Desk, April 24, 2000.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2000b. “Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

Report for the Clinton Power Station, January 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999.”
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-52 July 2006

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2001a. “Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

Report for the Clinton Power Station, January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000.” Prepared

by Chemistry Department. 2001.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2001b. “Clinton Power Station 2000 Annual

Radiological Environmental Operating Report.” Attached to AmerGen letter from

Michael J. Pacilio to the NRC Document Control Desk, April 25, 2001.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2002a. “Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

Report for the Clinton Power Station, January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001.” Attached

to AmerGen letter from Michael J. Pacilio to the NRC Document Control Desk, March 8, 2002.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2002b. “Clinton Power Station 2001 Annual

Radiological Environmental Operating Report.” Attached to AmerGen letter from

Michael J. Pacilio to the NRC Document Control Desk, April 29, 2002.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2003. “Clinton Power Station 2002 Annual

Radiological Environmental Operating Report.” Attached to AmerGen letter from

Michael A. Reandeau to the NRC Document Control Desk, April 7, 2003.

Clean Water Act (CWA). 33 USC 1251, et seg. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act).

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1993. Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility

Structures. International Workshop. EPRI TR-103268, EPRI, Palo Alto, California.

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2004. “Working File on Average Class Size.” 

Received from Exelon on March 2, 2004.

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006a. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Early

| Site Permit Application: Environmental Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania.

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006b. Exelon Generation Company, LLC Early

| Site Permit Application: Site Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania.

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006c. Emergency Plan for the Exelon

| Generation Company, LLC, Early Site Permit, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-53 NUREG-1815

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2004. Standardization of Generator

Interconnection Agreements and Procedures. FERC Order No. 2003-A, Docket

No. RM02-1-001. FERC, Washington, D.C.

Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 1999. “Illinois Department of Natural

Resources, Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, 1999 Endangered and Threatened

Species List.” Accessed on the Internet December 5, 2003, at

http://dnr.state.il.us/espb/datelist.htm.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2004. Electronic data from DNR (Springfield, |

Illinois) regarding the locations of federal- and state-listed threatened and endangered species |

within 2 mi and 10 mi of the Exelon ESP site and alternate sites (Braidwood, Byron, Dresden, |

LaSalle, Quad Cities, and Zion) to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Richland, |

Washington), February 19, 2004. |

Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR). 2003. “2003 Form IL-1040 Instructions.” Accessed on

the Internet April 30, 2004, at

http://www.revenue.state.il.us/taxforms/incm2003/ind/Il1040-inst.pdf.

Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR). 2004a. “Frequently Asked Questions – Business

Income Tax.” Accessed on the Internet April 30, 2004, at

http://www.revenue.state.il.us/Businesses/faq/bit.htm#anchor2.

Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR). 2004b. “Sales and Use Tax.” Accessed on the

Internet April 30, 2004, at http://www.revenue.state.il.us/Businesses/sales/rot.htm. 

Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). 2004. “Illinois Travel Statistics.” Accessed on the

Internet May 2, 2004, at http://www.dot.state.il.us/adttravelstats.html.

Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS). 2003. “Mussels of DeWitt County.” Accessed on the |

Internet December 9, 2003, at http://www.inhs.uic.edu/cbd/main/misc/mussel/dewitt.html. |

Larkin, R.P. 1996. Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. USACERL

Technical Report 96/21, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Lab, Champaign,

Illinois. Accessed on the Internet at

http://nhsbig.inhs.uiuc.edu/bioacoustics/noise_and_wildlife.txt.

Lewis, R.B. 1976. “Archaeological Salvage Investigations at the Pabst Site, DeWitt County,

Illinois.” Illinois State Museum, Springfield, Illinois.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1815 4-54 July 2006

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Historic Presentation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 16 USC 70, et seq.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

Systems (NPDES), Phases of the NPDES Stormwater Program. Accessed on the Internet

December 16, 2004, at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swphases.cfm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1976. “Determination of Critical Habitat for American

Crocodile, California Condor, Indiana Bat, and Florida Manatee.” Federal Register, Vol. 41,

No. 187, pp. 41914-41916.

| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003. “County Distributions of Federally Listed Species

in Illinois.” Accessed on the Internet December 5, 2003, at

http://midwest.fwsgov/RockIsland/activity/endangrd/il_list.htm.

| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. Provision of information regarding Federally listed

threatened or endangered species, that may occur in the vicinity of the Exelon ESP site and

alterative sites (Byron, Dresden, LaSalle County, and Quad Cities) by letter from FWS (Rock

Island, Illinois Field Office) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),

| Washington, D.C., April 6, 2004.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, NRC, Washington, D.C.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

| for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report. “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1

| Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final

| Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan

(ESRP). NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

| (NRR). Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering

| Environmental Issues. NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, NRC, Washington, D.C.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. Letter to Mr. Bruce Yurdin, Illinois

| Environmental Protection Agency, Transmitting a Summary of Discussions Regarding

| Compliance with Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Concerning Exelon

| Generation Company’s Application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Exelon ESP Site,

| June 30, 2006.
July 2006 5-1 NUREG-1815

5.0 Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

This chapter examines environmental issues associated with operation of the proposed new

nuclear unit at the early site permit (ESP) site to be located adjacent to the Clinton Power

Station (CPS), for an initial 40-year period as described by Exelon Generation Company, LLC

(Exelon). As part of this application, Exelon submitted an Environmental Report (ER) that

discussed the environmental impacts of station operation (Exelon 2006a). This chapter is |

divided into 13 sections. Sections 5.1 through 5.11 discuss the potential operational impacts on

land use, meteorology and air quality, water, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems,

socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, environmental justice, nonradiological and

radiological health effects, postulated accidents, and applicable measures and controls that

would limit the adverse impacts of station operation during the 40-year operating period. In

accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51, impacts have been

analyzed and a significance level of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or

LARGE) has been assigned to each analysis. In the area of socioeconomics related to taxes,

the impacts may be considered beneficial and are stated as such. The staff’s determination of

significance levels is based on the assumption that the mitigation measures identified in the ER

or activities planned by various State and county governments, such as infrastructure upgrades,

as discussed throughout this chapter, are implemented. Failure to implement these upgrades

might result in a change in significance level. Possible mitigation of adverse impacts is also

presented, where appropriate. Negligible impacts are categorized as SMALL impacts. |

Beneficial impacts are categorized as a range from SMALL, MODERATE to LARGE. A |

summary of these impacts is presented in Section 5.12. The references cited in this chapter are |

listed in Section 5.13. For issues that are considered resolved under 10 CFR 52.39(a)(2), the |

staff will verify the continued applicability of all assumptions used in its environmental analysis, |

should an applicant for a CP or COL reference the Exelon ESP. |

5.1 Land-Use Impacts

Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 contain information regarding land-use impacts associated with

operation of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon site. Section 5.1.1 contains a discussion of landuse impacts at the site and in the vicinity of the site. Section 5.1.2 contains a discussion of

land-use impacts in transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas.

5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the staff

concludes that the operation of the proposed unit at the ESP site may result in the need for

more local housing in the vicinity, which could have SMALL land-use impacts associated with

land conversion to residential use. Such impacts are not certain and would result from changes

in socioeconomic conditions, as described in Section 5.5.
Station Operation Impacts

| (a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

| references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

NUREG-1815 5-2 July 2006

| Based on information presented in Section 5.5.2, the staff finds that relocating workers would

| tend to seek housing where it is currently most available and where the choice of homes is

| greatest, such as Decatur, Bloomington-Normal, or Champaign-Urbana. If workers relocate in

| proportion to the current distribution of worker residences, increased demand for housing in

| DeWitt County would lead to minimal land use impacts associated with new housing

| construction. It is not possible to know what real estate or land development might occur in

| DeWitt County as a result of siting and operating the new nuclear unit at the ESP site. 

| Therefore, the staff concludes that land-use impacts from development of new housing would

| occur, but such impacts would be widely disbursed and would not be concentrated in any one

| community. Such impacts might include land-cover alteration on private lands, new property

| access roads, or conversion from private agricultural to residential use.

| Adding the new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site to the current CPS site would introduce

| staggered refueling and maintenance outages. It is likely that outages would be scheduled for

| one facility at a time, increasing the frequency of the need for temporary outage workers

| (1300 workers during CPS outages and 1000 workers during ESP facility outages)

| (Exelon 2006b). This increase in frequency would lead to increased impacts at local

| campgrounds and other local temporary housing facilities in the vicinity on a sustained basis. 

| However, these impacts would not be expected to noticeably alter current land uses in

| the vicinity.

| Another potential impact to land use includes the effects of salt drift on crops, timber, and other

| vegetation from operation of wet cooling towers (either natural or mechanical draft) that are

| included in the plant parameter envelope (PPE) for a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. 

| Crops would be in the path of vapor plumes carried on northerly or westerly winds and could

| thus be affected by salt drift. It is assumed that new cooling towers would produce salt

| concentrations similar to cooling towers at existing nuclear power plants. New cooling towers

| would be located WSW of the ESP unit. The impact of salt drift on crops, ornamental

| vegetation, and native plants was evaluated for existing nuclear power plants in the Generic

| Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), (NRC 1996

and 1999(a) | ) and was found to be of minor significance. This determination also included

| existing nuclear power plants with more than one cooling tower. Consequently, damage to

| timber or crops from the operation of cooling towers for the Exelon ESP facility would be

| negligible.

| Impacts to land use that would occur include minor land cover alterations because of the

| geographically disbursed construction of new housing for ESP unit workers. Therefore, the staff

| concludes that land-use impacts in the vicinity of the ESP unit due to operations would be

| SMALL, and additional mitigation would be warranted.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-3 NUREG-1815

5.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas

In its ER, Exelon states that the transmission owner would conduct two types of activities as part of |

normal transmission line maintenance and in accordance with existing right-of-way agreements |

with landowners. These include routine vegetation clearing activities and access road construction |

for temporary maintenance needs. Exelon assumes these activities would be carried out in |

consultation with affected landowners (Exelon 2006a). In the event that upgraded transmission

lines are constructed in the existing transmission line rights-of-way, the staff finds that only SMALL

impacts to land use would occur as a result of normal transmission maintenance activities such as

right-of-way vegetation clearing, line maintenance, and other normal access needs.

5.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 contain a discussion of the meteorological characteristics and air

quality of the Exelon ESP site. The primary impacts of operation of a new nuclear unit on local

meteorology and air quality would be from releases to the environment of heat and moisture

from the primary cooling system (cooling towers), operation of auxiliary equipment (generators

and boilers), and emissions from workers’ vehicles. The potential impacts of releases from

operation of the cooling system are discussed in Section 5.2.1. Section 5.2.2 covers potential

air quality impacts from nonradioactive effluent releases at the ESP site, and Section 5.2.3

covers the potential air quality impacts of transmission line rights-of-way during plant operation.

5.2.1 Cooling Tower Impacts

The proposed cooling system for a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site is a wet cooling

tower with a hybrid wet/dry cooling system as an alternative. The most apparent impacts of wet

cooling towers are the land-use and aesthetic impacts associated with visible plumes. The air

quality impacts of wet cooling towers are associated with the drift from the cooling towers and

possible interactions between the moist plumes and other pollutants. Existing wet cooling

towers at nuclear plants have drift eliminators to reduce drift. The use of hybrid wet/dry cooling

towers at a new nuclear unit could reduce potential impacts of wet cooling towers and reduce

the amount of water vapor and drift of the plume.

Drift comprises small water droplets that are carried out of the cooling tower. These droplets

evaporate, leaving particles that contain residual salts and chemicals from the cooling water. 

Drift from mechanical draft cooling towers is deposited near the cooling tower, and drift from

natural draft towers is deposited farther downwind. Based on a review of the measurements of

deposition of drift from nuclear power plants in NUREG-1437, the staff found that

“...measurements indicate that, beyond about 1.5 km (1 mile) from the nuclear plant cooling

tower, salt deposition is not significantly above background levels” (NRC 1996).
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-4 July 2006

There are no major air pollution sources near the Exelon ESP site. Diesel generators and

boilers at the CPS operate for limited periods; generators and boilers that would be associated

with a new nuclear unit would also be operated for limited periods. Interactions between

pollutants emitted from these sources and the plumes from the cooling towers for a new nuclear

unit would be intermittent and would not have a significant impact on air quality.

Based on the above considerations and the assumption that cooling towers associated with a

new nuclear unit would be similar to cooling towers at existing nuclear plant sites, the staff

concludes that cooling tower impacts on air quality would be SMALL and that additional

mitigation of air quality impacts would not be warranted. The CPS does not use wet cooling

towers, and there are no other cooling towers in the immediate vicinity of the ESP site. 

Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no cumulative impacts of cooling towers on

air quality.

5.2.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

A new nuclear unit at the ESP site would include additional standby diesel generators and

auxiliary power systems for emergency power and auxiliary steam purposes. These systems

would be used on an infrequent basis and pollutants discharged (e.g., particulates, sulfur

oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides) would be in accordance with

| State and Federal regulatory requirements. Exelon (2006a) provides bounding values for these

pollutants. Because these systems would be used on an infrequent basis (i.e., typically a few

hours per month) and there would be no significant industrial activities within 16 km (10 mi) of

the Exelon ESP site, the staff concludes that the environmental impact of pollutants from these

sources would be SMALL and that additional mitigation would not be warranted.

| Exelon did not estimate the carbon dioxide emissions from the proposed action. Nuclear power

| generation by itself does not result in carbon dioxide emissions, and the emissions associated

| with auxiliary equipment are small because of the intermittent operation of the equipment. 

| However, when the uranium fuel is considered, there are carbon dioxide emissions associated

| with nuclear power. Table S–3 in 10 CFR 51.51 indicates that the oxides of nitrogen emitted in

| the fuel cycle are approximately 5 percent of the oxides of nitrogen emitted by a coal-fired plant. 

| Extending this analogy to carbon dioxide and considering advances in fuel cycle technology, the

| staff estimates that uranium fuel cycle carbon dioxide emissions for the postulated plant would

| be less than 0.8 million metric tons (0.9 million tons).

5.2.3 Transmission Line Impacts

| Impacts of existing transmission lines on air quality are addressed in the GEIS (NRC 1996). 

Small amounts of ozone and smaller amounts of oxides of nitrogen are produced by

transmission lines. The small amounts of these gases were found to be insignificant for 745-kV 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-5 NUREG-1815

lines (the largest lines in operation) and for a prototype 1200-kV line. In addition, it was

determined that potential mitigation measures would be very costly and would not be warranted. 

The largest lines currently used by the AmerenIP transmission system are 345-kV lines |

(Exelon 2006a), well within the range of lines considered in the GEIS. Therefore, the staff |

concludes that the potential impacts of transmission lines on air quality are SMALL and that

mitigation measures beyond those normally taken in construction and operation of transmission

lines would not be warranted.

5.3 Water-Related Impacts

Managing water resources requires understanding and balancing the tradeoffs between various,

often conflicting, objectives. The objectives of water management at Clinton Lake and Salt

Creek downstream of Clinton Lake include recreation, visual aesthetics, a fishery, and a variety

of beneficial consumptive uses of water, such as industrial uses (e.g., cooling water for power

generation). The responsibility for regulating water use and water quality is delegated to the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) through both Federal laws and laws of the State

of Illinois. Water resource management is subject to considerable uncertainty because of the

limited ability to reliably predict the future supply of and demand for water that results from |

natural climate variability. The ability to manipulate the water supply to balance periods of

excess water supply with periods of excess water demand is limited by the available water

infrastructure. While the water supply is regularly being replenished by precipitation, conflicts

over water resources typically grow along with population. 

Both Exelon and the staff conducted independent analyses of the changes in Clinton Lake’s

water supply that would result from operating a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. These

calculations employed different approaches and relied on different data sources. For a more

complete description of Exelon’s analysis, refer to Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.2 of the ER (2006a). |

See Section 2.6 for the staff’s description of the hydrologic conditions in the vicinity of the site.

5.3.1 Hydrological Alterations

The reduced volume of water in Clinton Lake, due to the water loss associated with the cooling

towers, would result in shorter times for the water to travel from the discharge back to the

intake. By reducing the travel time, the average temperature in the lake would increase, thereby

contributing to additional induced evaporation in the lake. Based on the relatively

one-dimensional flow pattern between the discharge and the intake, the staff concludes that the

increase in lake temperatures would advance farther from the discharge towards the intake. 

However, the impacts of the increased velocities would not be expected to detrimentally impact |

the lake.
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-6 July 2006

The reduced volume of water in Clinton Lake would decrease the lake’s pool elevations and

increase the frequency and duration that the releases from Clinton Lake would be at the

minimum release level. Exelon’s and the staff’s independent assessments of this change in the

pool elevation and downstream releases are described in the following section.

5.3.2 Water-Use Impacts

| The existing CPS unit is one the largest users of water in the region. The ESP site, likewise,

| would be a major water-user. Most of the CPS water usage is water drawn from Clinton Lake

| for condenser cooling, which is returned to the lake. However, the existing facility’s operation

| does result in a consumptive water loss as a result of induced evaporation of water from Clinton

Lake caused by the increase in the lake’s temperature from the once-through cooling discharge. 

| Operations of a new nuclear unit would result in a significant increase in consumption of water.

The impacts on water use are related to the water budget. The consumptive use of water by a

new unit would directly reduce the water supply. Additionally, by reducing the lake volume, a

new unit would indirectly increase the induced evaporation in Clinton Lake, thereby further

reducing the water supply. The reduction in the water supply would result in decreases in the

| lake’s pool elevation and an increase in the frequency and duration of releases from the lake at

the minimum release values.

The water budget for Clinton Lake is limited to a relatively small number of inputs and outputs. 

| The fixed weir design of the Clinton Lake dam does not allow for active management of the lake

pool levels or downstream releases. Water in excess of the weir height freely spills over the

weir and down the spillway. Once the lake pool elevation drops below the weir height,

downstream flows are maintained at the release minimums with a submerged pipe and gate

with a limited flow capacity. The inputs to the Clinton Lake water budget would include direct

precipitation to the lake and surface and subsurface discharges from the contributing

watershed. The outputs would include spills over the dam’s weir, releases from the dam’s

release gate, natural evaporation, induced evaporation, and consumptive loss of water from the

new nuclear unit’s cooling towers. If the sum of the inflows were to exceed the sum of the

outflows, the storage in the lake would increase. If the outflows exceed the inflows, the storage

in the lake would decrease.

In response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) request for additional information

| (NRC 2004a), Exelon calculated the lake water surface elevation changes for a 24-year period

| of record from June 1, 1978, to April 31, 2002 (Exelon 2004a). Exelon provided information on

the predicted pool elevation if an ESP facility had been operating during this period. Exelon

used a water budget approach, wherein the change in lake storage is the result of an imbalance

between inflows and outflows. Inflows were considered from direct precipitation onto the lake 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-7 NUREG-1815

and upstream drainage. Model outflows were the sum of water passed either over the spillway |

or through the dam, natural evaporation, and induced plus direct evaporation due to both CPS |

Unit 1 and the ESP unit. |

Both the staff’s and Exelon’s water budget models of Clinton Lake are based on a simplified

representation of the conservation of mass. The principle of conservation of mass can be

restated specifically for water as “the change in storage of water at any time is equal to the

water inflow less the water outflow.” In both water budget models, changes in lake storage over

time would be equal to the differences between the inflows and the outflows. Inflows would

include the drainage from the basin upstream of the lake and the precipitation occurring directly

on the lake. Outflow includes natural, direct and induced evaporation plus releases, either over |

the spillway or through the dam. Groundwater could either flow from the aquifer into Clinton |

Lake or from Clinton Lake into the aquifer. Based on groundwater elevation measurements,

flow from Clinton Lake into the adjacent subsurface would only occur as the lake level rises |

after an extended period of low lake level evaluations and would be limited to the soils a short |

distance from the bank. The change in storage would be reflected by a change in pool |

elevation.

The staff and Exelon made different assumptions to estimate the inflow to Clinton Lake. 

Because of the absence of tributary flow measurements, there is no direct way to estimate the

total inflow into Clinton Lake from its tributaries. The outflow from Clinton Lake’s dam was

estimated by Exelon from the U.S. Geological Survey gauge downstream from the dam at

Rowell, Illinois, after correcting for the additional contributing area downstream between the

dam and the Rowell gauge. Evaporation estimates were based on calculations with Exelon’s

lake temperature model, discussed in Section 5.2.1 of the ER (Exelon 2006a). |

Because historical pool elevation records were not available, the only information available to

calibrate the inflow estimates was discharge recorded at the Rowell gauge downstream of the |

Clinton Dam. For the tributary inflows, Exelon estimated monthly average runoff yield |

coefficients (ratio of runoff to rainfall), which were multiplied by the recorded rainfall during the

period of record to generate a runoff record. By considering only rainfall (excluding snowfall)

the approach resulted in conservative annual water yield. However, these estimates would not

necessarily provide conservative estimates in warm dry years. Therefore, the staff applied a

different approach, estimating inflows by using stream flow data from an adjacent unregulated,

undiverted watershed.

The staff found an adjacent streamflow gauge on Kikapoo Creek at Waynesville, IL. The

drainage of Kikapoo Creek is adjacent to that of the North Fork of the Salt Creek and is located

to the northwest. The Kikapoo Creek gauge at Waynesville is approximately 24.5 km (15.3 mi) |

from the Clinton Dam. This gauge, which is minimally affected by streamflow regulation, is

comparable in size of its contributing area (588 km2

 [227 mi2]) to that of the drainage area

(748.9 km2

 [289.2 mi2]) that contributes flow to Clinton Lake. To estimate inflows into Clinton 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-8 July 2006

Lake, the staff scaled the stream flow observed at Kikapoo Creek at Waynesville by the ratio of

contributing area at Clinton Dam to the contributing area at the Waynesville gauge. The time

period used for estimating inflow was January 28, 1948, to September 30, 2001.

The staff and Exelon also made different assumptions as to the consumptive use of water due

to the induced evaporation caused by the existing CPS unit. Exelon based its evaluation on the

monthly induced evaporation estimates derived in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

| (Exelon 2003). The staff used 80 percent of the bounding value of an equivalent wet tower

evaporation rate for the CPS unit at its current rated power. This assumes that 20 percent of

the heat would be dissipated by heat transfer processes other than evaporation such as longwave back radiation and conduction. The staff’s estimate of induced evaporation due to the

existing CPS unit is significantly greater than the applicant’s and is considered very

conservative.

The results of the staff’s independent analysis show that the additional consumptive water loss

of a new nuclear unit’s wet cooling tower would result in longer and more frequent periods of

minimum releases from Clinton Dam. Based upon 100% unit operation and the 51-year period

between 1948 and 1999, the estimated percentage of time that minimum flows would have been

| released from the dam (i.e., when water surface elevations were below 210 m (690 ft) increased

| from 43 percent (CPS only) to 68 percent (CPS and ESP unit). The pool elevation would also

be lowered due to the consumptive water loss caused by a new nuclear unit. The percentage of

| time with pool elevations below 207 m (680 ft) and 206 m (677.5 ft) would increase from 0

| percent (only the CPS unit) to 9 percent and 5 percent, respectively, if both the CPS and a new

nuclear unit were operating. Both of these impacts would be greater in years with lower-thannormal precipitation.

| The staff found that the frequency and duration of low water conditions would increase if the

| ESP unit were constructed. Impacts could be minor during periods with average or above-

| average precipitation. Therefore, the staff concludes that during normal water years, the water-

| use impacts would be SMALL and mitigation would not be warranted. During the years of

| below-average precipitation, the impact level could be MODERATE until normal water

| conditions return. In such cases, Exelon would need to coordinate with IEPA on appropriate

| measures, such as derating or even temporary shutdown of the unit.

5.3.3 Water Quality Impacts

Because a specific design has not been selected, the ultimate water treatment systems for a

new nuclear unit at the Clinton ESP site have not been specified. Currently, raw cooling water

from Clinton Lake for condenser cooling and service water needs is not treated. Makeup water

for the new unit and the ultimate heat sink systems would require treatment with biocides, 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-9 NUREG-1815

antiscalants, and dispersants. Makeup of ultrapure water systems, such as condensate and

primary cooling, would employ technologies such as reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration.

As discussed above, the consumptive water use from a new nuclear unit would reduce the |

volume of water in the lake during low water periods that is available to absorb the heat rejected |

by the currently operating CPS. As a result, the temperature of the water in Clinton Lake would |

increase. This increase in temperature, combined with the increased velocity caused by |

reduced lake volume, would tend to push the thermal plume farther toward the intake. |

However, impacts to the lake would be lessened during periods of relative water excess (lake |

water surface elevations above 210 m [690 ft]) because the lake volume would be |

approximately the same regardless of ESP unit operation. Exelon has committed to keeping the |

combined discharge of the CPS and ESP unit effluent within the bounds of the CPS’s existing |

NPDES permit, which IEPA has determined provides adequate protection to the environment. |

The staff, therefore, concludes that impacts of the new nuclear unit on lake water quality would |

be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.4 Ecological Impacts

This section describes the potential impacts to ecological resources from operation of a new

nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site, transmission line operation, and transmission line right-of- |

way maintenance. The impacts are discussed for terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems, |

and threatened and endangered species.

5.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts

Exelon has not determined the cooling tower configuration and design parameters for a new |

nuclear unit. This would have to be evaluated by the staff at the CP or COL stage. The new

nuclear unit could use a wet, dry, or hybrid wet/dry system for plant cooling. For a wet system,

mechanical or natural draft cooling towers would be employed, whereas a dry system would |

employ dry towers. Depending on the type of cooling towers that would be used to dissipate |

heat from the new nuclear unit, the rejected heat would be manifested in the form of vapor (wet

system) and/or thermal (dry system) plumes from one or more locations within the cooling tower

footprint. With vapor plumes, associated impacts due to salt drift, fogging, and icing would be

possible. Because dry towers do not expose cooling water directly to the air, there would be no

evaporative loss, and hence no vapor plumes, salt drift, fogging, or icing. Dry thermal plumes

are not normally expected to result in significant environmental impacts (Exelon 2006a). For |

wet cooling processes, the resulting vapor plumes could impact crops and ornamental

vegetation and native plants, and water losses could affect shoreline habitat. In addition, bird

collisions and wildlife disturbance due to noise are possible with wet or dry cooling towers. 

Each of these topics is discussed below.
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-10 July 2006

Transmission systems associated with nuclear power plants have the potential to impact

terrestrial ecological resources through right-of-way management practices, bird collisions with

power lines, and electromagnetic fields. Exelon currently anticipates that four new 345-kV

transmission lines (two parallel, double-circuit lines running north to the Brokaw Substation near

| Bloomington and two running south-southwest to a point near the junction of the CPS-Oreana

| line and the Latham-Rising Line, about 19 km [12 mi] from the CPS switchyard) would be

| required to accommodate the bounding case of an output of 2180 MW(e) from a new nuclear

| unit (see Section 3.3) (Exelon 2006a). However, if a new unit is constructed, the actual need for

| and nature of any transmission system improvements would be determined definitively before or

| during the CP or COL stage by the transmission and distribution system owner and operator

(currently Illinois Power) under FERC Order No. 2003 (18 CFR Part 35), Standardization of

Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures (FERC 2004). The magnitude of the

environmental impacts, given any transmission system improvements, would be established

definitively by the transmission and distribution system owner and operator at that time. The

impacts normally associated with transmission line operation and maintenance (right-of-way

| management [cutting and herbicide application] and associated impacts to floodplains and

wetlands, bird collisions with power lines, and electromagnetic fields) are discussed below in

| light of any changes to the existing transmission system.

5.4.1.1 Cooling Tower Impacts

Impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants might result from cooling tower salt

drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity. The heat dissipation system at the CPS is oncethrough. Because it has no cooling towers, there is no history of salt drift at the CPS that can

be used to help evaluate this issue for a new nuclear unit. It is assumed that one or more new

cooling towers at the ESP site would produce salt concentrations similar to those at other

nuclear power plants that employ cooling towers. Impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and

| native plants have been evaluated at existing nuclear plants and found to be of small

| significance (NRC 1996). This determination included existing nuclear plants with various types

| and numbers of cooling towers. There are no important terrestrial plant species or habitats

(defined in NRC 2000b) onsite, or in the immediate site vicinity, except for four minor (less than

0.4 ha [1 ac]) herbaceous wetlands that consist of open water in association with constructed

| sediment basins (Exelon 2006a). Consequently, based on previous staff evaluations

| (NRC 1996), a lack of important terrestrial plant species and habitats, and extensive agricultural

land use onsite and in the immediate vicinity, the staff concludes that the potential impacts on

crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants from addition of one or more cooling towers for

a new nuclear unit at the ESP site would be minimal and that mitigation would not be warranted.

| Although the Exelon ESP site is located in central Illinois at a considerable distance from the

| Mississippi River, it lies in proximity to one of the principal routes of the Mississippi flyway. The

| CPS has a once-through cooling system. Because it has no cooling towers, there is no history 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-11 NUREG-1815

of bird collisions at the CPS that can be used to help evaluate this issue for a new nuclear unit. |

However, the staff has concluded that bird collisions with cooling towers are of small |

significance at all operating nuclear power plants, including those with various types and |

numbers of cooling towers (NRC 1996). Consequently, the number of bird collisions, if any, |

associated with the addition of one or more cooling towers for a new nuclear unit at the ESP site |

would be negligible and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.4.1.2 Noise

For both natural and mechanical draft cooling towers, the noise level from cooling tower |

operation is anticipated to be 55 decibels at 300 m (1000 ft) (Exelon 2006a). Noise levels from |

dry cooling tower operation would be less than 65 decibels (Dominion 2002). Noise levels from

these three types of cooling towers are well below the 80-to-85-decibel threshold at which birds

and small mammals are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Thus, noise from operating

any of these types of cooling towers would not be likely to disturb wildlife beyond the ESP site. 

Consequently, the potential impacts to wildlife posed by noise resulting from the addition of one |

or more cooling towers at the ESP site would be minimal and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.4.1.3 Shoreline Habitat

Addition of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site would reduce water volume in Clinton Lake, due

to evaporative water loss from wet cooling tower operation. Additionally, by reducing the lake

volume, a new unit would increase lake water temperature and evaporation above that caused

by the discharge of once-through cooling water from the existing CPS. This would further

reduce the lake volume. The reduction in water volume would decrease pool elevation and

increase the amount and duration of lakebed exposed along the Clinton Lake shoreline. This |

would alter the amount and distribution of soil water which could alter the composition of

shoreline vegetation. Existing vegetation could eventually be replaced with more drought hardy

or exotic opportunistic species, which could affect wildlife use of shoreline habitat.

The staff analyzed the Clinton Lake water budget for the CPS and the CPS plus a new nuclear

unit for a 51-year period between 1948 and 1999 (see Section 5.3). The estimated percentage

of time minimum flows (0.14 m3

/sec [5 cfs]) would have to be released from the dam (i.e., water

surface elevations below 210 m [690 ft]) increased from 43 percent (CPS only) to 68 percent

(CPS plus new nuclear unit). The percentage of time with pool elevations below 207 m (680 ft)

and 206 m (677.5 ft) would increase from 0 percent (CPS only) to 9 percent and 5 percent,

respectively, if the CPS and new nuclear unit were operating. These represent substantial

reductions in surface water elevation, and these would be expected to be greater in years with

lower than normal precipitation.
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-12 July 2006

Consequently, the additional water loss of a new nuclear unit’s wet cooling tower(s) would result

in longer, more extensive, and more frequent periods of lakebed exposure. However, because

Clinton Lake bathymetry data are lacking, it is unknown where these drawdowns would expose

the most lakebed along the lake perimeter. Without bathymetry data, it is also unknown how

extensive the area of shoreline exposure would be. However, the upper arms of the lake, near

the ingress of Salt Creek and North Fork Salt Creek, would probably be two of the areas most

affected, because they are generally shallower than other parts of the lake. Lakebed exposure

would likely be most severe during late summer and during drought years. 

| Based on the above water budget analysis, pool elevations estimated for the ESP unit plus CPS

| that would be below pool elevations estimated for the CPS only, could last up to about 1 month

| in late summer in any given year. Only minor long-term changes, if any, in shoreline vegetation

| and other wildlife use would be expected to result from exposed shoreline during such a

| relatively brief period, regardless of where along the shoreline the lakebed was exposed or the

| aerial extent of the exposure. For example, drawdowns would be expected to minimally affect,

| if at all, the reproduction of birds that nest in emergent vegetation (e.g., pied-billed grebe

| [Podilymbus podiceps] [see Section 2.7.1.1]) via stranding of nests and increased predator

| access, because young would already have been reared by that time of year. Consequently,

| changes in shoreline vegetation and wildlife use due to the addition of a new nuclear unit would

| be negligible and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.4.1.4 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Routine inspections of the existing transmission line rights-of-way for vegetation control are

conducted by helicopter three times per year. Routine vegetation control, which consists of

clearing vegetation that encroaches on the line exclusion area, is performed every 4 years

unless required sooner. No vegetation over 3 m (10 ft) tall is allowed within the transmission

line exclusion area. Tree species with the potential for resprouting may be controlled with an

environmentally acceptable selective basal spray herbicide. The same vegetation management

| practices currently in effect for the rights-of-way would be applied to any rights-of-way for a new

| nuclear unit. Transmission line right-of-way maintenance activities have been evaluated and

| the impacts were found to be of small significance at operating nuclear power plants, including

| those with variable numbers of rights-of-way of variable widths (NRC 1996). Consequently, the

| incremental impacts of right-of-way management for any transmission system upgrades (see

| Section 4.4.1.1) for a new nuclear unit would be minimal and mitigation would not be warranted.

There are no known reports by transmission-line-operation and right-of-way maintenance

| personnel of dead birds resulting from collisions with the existing transmission system

| structures. However, there is currently no monitoring plan in place that would facilitate 

| detection and reporting of dead birds under transmission lines. Bird collisions with transmission 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-13 NUREG-1815

lines have been determined to be of small significance at operating nuclear power plants, |

including those with variable numbers of rights-of-way and power lines (NRC 1996). |

Thus, although upgrading of the existing transmission system could be required for a new |

nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site, this would likely present few new opportunities for bird

collisions beyond those currently in existence. Further, the additional number of bird collisions,

if any, would not be expected to cause a noticeable reduction in local bird populations. 

Consequently, the incremental number of bird collisions posed by possible transmission-system |

upgrades for a new nuclear unit at the ESP site would be negligible and mitigation would not |

be warranted.

5.4.1.5 Impacts of Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna (Plants, Agricultural

Crops, Honeybees, Wildlife, Livestock)

As discussed in the GEIS for License Renewal (NRC 1996), a careful review of the biological

and physical studies of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) has not revealed consistent evidence

linking harmful effects with field exposures. Since 1997, over a dozen studies have been |

published that looked at cancer in animals that were exposed to power-frequency |

electromagnetic fields for all of, or most of, their lives. These studies have found no evidence |

that power-frequency fields cause any specific types of cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 2004). |

EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing

radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced and long-term effects, if real, are

subtle. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna

are of small significance at operating nuclear power plants, including those with variable

numbers of transmission lines (NRC 1996). Consequently, the incremental EMF impacts posed |

by possible addition of new transmission lines for a new nuclear unit at the ESP site would be |

minimal and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.4.1.6 Floodplains and Wetlands on Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

The same vegetation management practices currently in effect for the existing rights-of-way |

(see Section 5.4.1.4) would be applied to any expanded or new rights-of-way that might result |

from transmission system upgrades for a new nuclear unit. Vegetation management could thus |

occur over a larger floodplain/wetland interface. The effects of transmission line right-of-way |

maintenance activities on floodplains and wetlands have been evaluated and the impacts were |

found to be of small significance at operating nuclear power plants, including those with variable |

numbers of transmission line rights-of-way of variable widths (NRC 1996). Consequently, the |

incremental effects of transmission line right-of-way management on floodplains and wetlands |

posed by any transmission system upgrades for the new nuclear unit would be negligible and |

mitigation would not be warranted.
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-14 July 2006

5.4.1.7 Summary of Terrestrial Ecosystems Impacts

The potential impacts of operating one or more cooling towers on the Exelon ESP site for a new

| nuclear unit are considered negligible for crops, ornamental vegetation, native plants, bird

collisions, wildlife due to noise, and vegetation and wildlife due to alteration of shoreline habitat. 

| The potential impacts of transmission line right-of-way management activities (cutting and

| herbicide application), related impacts on floodplains and wetlands in transmission line rights-of-

| way, impacts on wildlife due to EMF, and on bird collisions with power lines resulting from any

| transmission system upgrades are also considered negligible. 

| After reviewing information related to the proposed new nuclear unit for the ESP site, including

| the associated heat dissipation system, transmission system structures, and associated right-ofway maintenance, the staff concludes that the impacts from operation of a new nuclear unit

would be SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted.

5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts

Section 2.7.2 contains a discussion of the aquatic ecology of the Exelon ESP site. Impacts of a

| new nuclear unit on aquatic organisms in Clinton Lake and/or Salt Creek may arise through

water intake, consumption, and discharge. The location, design, and operation of a new intake

| structure would be regulated by the IEPA to minimize impingement and entrainment of aquatic

| organisms. The IEPA also regulates thermal limits for heated water discharges, which can

| affect organisms indirectly by impacting water quality, such as dissolved oxygen, and directly

| when water is heated or cooled to a temperature outside an organism’s acclimation tolerance

range. Exelon plans to maintain the cooling water discharge from a new nuclear unit within the

existing NPDES limits for the CPS. Exelon’s and the staff’s independent assessment of the

potential for impacts to the local aquatic ecology from operation are discussed in

Sections 5.4.2.1 and 5.4.2.2, and then summarized in Section 5.4.2.3.

5.4.2.1 Water Intake and Consumption

For aquatic resources, the primary concerns of water intake and consumption are the amount of

water drawn from the cooling water source (i.e., Clinton Lake), the design and location of the

cooling water intake structure, and the potential for organisms to be impinged on the intake

screens or entrained into the cooling-water system. Impingement takes place when organisms

are trapped against intake screens by the force of the water passing through the cooling-water

| intake structure. Impingement can result in starvation and exhaustion, asphyxiation (water

velocity forces may prevent proper gill movement or organisms may be removed from the water

| for prolonged periods of time), and descaling and other mechanical damage. Entrainment

occurs when organisms are drawn through the cooling water intake structure into the cooling

system. Organisms that become entrained are normally relatively small benthic, planktonic, 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-15 NUREG-1815

and nektonic organisms, including early life stages of fish and shellfish, and often serve as food

for larger organisms. As entrained organisms pass through a plant’s cooling system, they are |

subject to mechanical, thermal, and/or toxic stress.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated regulations that implement

Section 316(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 for new and existing electric

power producing facilities (66 FR 65255; 69 FR 41576). The regulations apply to facilities that

employ a cooling water intake structure and are designated to withdraw 50 million gallons per

day or more of water from waters of the United States for cooling purposes. The new nuclear

unit would be subject to these regulations. The regulations establish performance standards

that are designed to reduce impingement mortality by 80 to 95 percent and entrainment by 60 to

90 percent. The new regulations state that if the facility employs a closed-cycle cooling system,

the facility is deemed to have met the performance standards to reduce impingement mortality

and entrainment. Exelon has not yet finalized a detailed design of the cooling water system. 

However, the applicant proposes a PPE that includes a cooling system that employs

mechanical draft, natural draft, or a wet/dry hybrid cooling systems, all of which are considered

closed-cycle cooling systems. |

The responsibility for making the determination that the cooling water intake structure reflects

the best available technology for minimizing adverse impacts rests with the EPA or its designee,

i.e., IEPA, which would make decisions implementing Section 316(b) on a case-by-case, site- |

specific basis. Exelon would work with the IEPA to design the intake system to comply with the |

EPA regulations for new intake structures. |

The specific components and design of the cooling water system at a new nuclear unit would |

not be determined before the COL phase. However, Exelon’s ER (Exelon 2006a) provides |

general descriptions of a nuclear unit’s cooling system operational modes, component

descriptions, normal heat sink and ultimate heat sink, and cooling system instrumentation. 

The primary water demand for a new nuclear unit would be for condenser cooling. In its ER, |

Exelon discusses using either a wet tower closed-loop cooling system or a hybrid wet/dry

closed-loop cooling system. The PPE provides bounds for a wet tower cooling system but no

similar values for the hybrid wet/dry cooling system. The staff has assumed that water used for

the hybrid wet/dry cooling system is bounded by the wet cooling system values. Therefore, the

following discussion is limited to the wet tower system. The hybrid wet/dry cooling system will

not be addressed further in this section. |

Based on the expected intake velocity and flow rate, the new intake structure would be

approximately 34 m x 46 m (110 ft x 150 ft) in shore-to-lake dimensions. Preliminary plans call

for water drawn from Clinton Lake to pass through bar racks or a similar device that are

designed to keep large debris (e.g., tree branches) from entering the cooling water system. The

water would then pass through traveling screens that allow water to pass but remove small 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-16 July 2006

debris (e.g., leaves) by the rotation of the screens and with the help of a water spray. The

debris removed from the screens would be held in trash collection baskets so it could be

inspected before disposal. The velocity of the water approaching the traveling screens would

be limited to a maximum of 0.15 m/s (0.50 fps) at the normal lake-level elevation of 210 m

| (690 ft) above mean sea level (Exelon 2006a).

| Exelon has stated that it plans to maintain a discharge rate within the current NPDES permit

limits for the CPS. The current CPS relies on once-through cooling. The expectation of the

original environmental assessment for the CPS was that Clinton Lake would be able to support

two once-through cooling units. In its ER, however, Exelon proposed a closed-cycle cooling

tower for a new nuclear unit, which requires less water to be drawn from Clinton Lake than does

a once-through cooling system.

| The relatively low overall water use estimated for the closed-cycle cooling water intake for a

| new nuclear unit would minimize impingement and entrainment, and compliance with the EPA

| regulations for new intake structures would ensure that aquatic organisms are protected. 

| Nationwide experience with similar operating cooling-tower-based systems has indicated that

| “the relatively small volumes of makeup and blowdown water needed for closed-cycle cooling

| systems result in concomitantly low entrainment, impingement, and discharge effects” (NRC

1996).

The adjacent CPS intake structure would be considered an “existing” structure under a separate

EPA ruling for existing facilities and would also be required to meet performance standards that

protect aquatic organisms based on the facility’s source water (e.g., lake or reservoir). On

July 9, 2004, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register (69 FR 41576) addressing

cooling water intake structures at existing power plants whose flow levels exceed a minimum

threshold value of 190,000 m3

/d (50 mgd). The rule is Phase II in EPA’s development of

regulations under Section 316(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (also

| referred to as the Clean Water Act) and establishes national requirements applicable to the

location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at existing

facilities that exceed the threshold value for water withdrawals. The national requirements,

implemented through NPDES (or equivalent State) permits, minimize the adverse environmental

impacts associated with the continued use of the intake systems. Licensees are required to

demonstrate compliance with the Phase II performance standards at the time of renewal of their

NPDES (or equivalent State) permit. Licensees may be required as part of the permit renewal

to alter the intake structure, redesign the cooling system, modify station operation, or take other

mitigation measures as a result of this regulation. The new performance standards are

designed to significantly reduce impingement and entrainment losses due to water withdrawals

| associated with cooling water intake structures used for power production. Therefore,

| impingement and entrainment losses as a result of continued operation of the CPS will continue

to be minimized under the EPA regulations.
Station Operation Impacts

(a) Personal communication on March 2, 2004, with Mike Garthaus (Illinois Department of National

Resources).

July 2006 5-17 NUREG-1815

Information on recent entrainment studies, if any, was not available for the CPS. A discussion

of entrainment in the CPS Final Environmental Statement (AEC 1974) indicated that the |

recreational fish species in Clinton Lake (e.g., sunfish, bass, crappie, walleye, and catfish) are

nest builders, and that the eggs and small juveniles are closely associated with nest sites

located in the shallow, littoral zones of the lake or in the two creeks that feed the lake

(Lutterbie 2002). The intakes for the CPS and a new nuclear unit are located in a relatively

deep portion of this shallow lake (at approximately 6.4 m [21 ft] depth), where these species are

less likely to spawn. Combined with the EPA requirements to meet best available technology

for new and existing cooling water intake structures and the fish-stocking programs managed by

the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), the location of the intakes decreases the |

likelihood of significant entrainment impacts to important aquatic species from the operation of

an intake for a new unit, either on its own or in combination with the CPS cooling water intake. |

A fish-impingement study was conducted during the first year of CPS operation, from April 1987

to May 1988 (Pallo 1988). Eight fish species were collected during 84 sampling days. Gizzard

shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) composed over 99 percent of the total estimated count and the

biomass of impingement collections. Other species observed in descending order of estimated

annual abundance were white crappie (Pomoxis annularis, n = 2338), freshwater drum

(Aplodinotus grunniens, n = 758), black bullhead (Ameiurus melas, n = 148), bluegill (Lepomis

macrochirus, n = 82), hybrid striped bass (Morone saxatilis X M. chrysops, n = 26), channel

catfish (Ictalurus punctatus, n = 17), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides, n = 16). It

was estimated that over 43-million gizzard shad, mostly young-of-the-year, were impinged

during the study. This number, though high, must be taken in context of the gizzard shad’s

fecundity. Females may contain between 22,400 and 543,000 eggs each (Jenkins and

Burkhead 1993). This prolific forage fish species typically experiences a naturally high youngof-the-year mortality rate and commonly demonstrates mass mortality in winter when water

temperatures approach 4°C (39.2°F). Most of the fish were collected in winter (December

through March) when water temperatures declined and then held steady between 4° to 6°C

(39.2° to 42.8°F) (Pallo 1988). Fortunately, the species has the ability to compensate for high

juvenile mortality by producing a large amount of young. Abundance of gizzard shad has been

high since operation of the CPS began, indicating that there are no apparent adverse impacts to

the population as a result of current cooling water intake withdrawals. In fact, gizzard shad in |

Clinton Lake are smaller on average than gizzard shad in many other Illinois lakes, possibly |

indicating that overabundance of the fish is creating strong competition among shad for food

and other resources.(a) The almost exclusive impingement of the abundant gizzard shad,

combined with the EPA requirements to meet best available technology for new and existing

cooling water intake structures and the recreational fish-stocking programs managed by IDNR,

decreases the likelihood of significant impingement impacts to important fish species from the 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-18 July 2006

operation of an intake for a new nuclear unit, either on its own or in combination with the CPS

cooling water intake operation. However, a full review of anticipated impacts to important fish

resources due to impingement cannot be performed without a specific cooling water intake

| design. The new intake structure would be located on the North Fork of Salt Creek, along with

| the existing CPS intake structure. Because of the relatively small volume of water in the North

| Fork, there is a potential for localized cropping of some species when the CPS and the ESP unit

| are both operational, affecting impingement or entrainment rates.

| There would be a reduced volume of water in Clinton Lake, due to increased evaporative water

loss associated with the cooling towers of a new nuclear unit. This would result in shorter times

for the water to recirculate from the discharge back to the intake (see also Section 5.3.1). This

reduction in travel time would increase average temperature in the lake, thereby contributing to

additional induced evaporation in the lake. The reduced volume of water in Clinton Lake would

decrease the pool elevations and would increase the amount of shoreline exposed. The

increased water use and evaporative loss from operation of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site

could also increase the amount of time additional shoreline is exposed. Depending on the

season and the duration and amount of shoreline exposure, it is possible that shoreline

vegetation and aquatic organisms could be affected. However, because the mechanism for

drawdown would be evaporation and/or discharge of 0.14 m3

/s (5 cfs) to Salt Creek, the

drawdown would likely be slow enough to allow most aquatic organisms to adjust to the lower

water levels. In severe cases, it is possible that some shallow-water fish spawning areas could

be exposed, but this is unlikely to have a lasting impact on the Clinton Lake fish community

structure. Other potential impacts associated with an increase in average lake temperature are

a decrease in the amount of cool-water summer refugia for fish and an alteration in the timing of

fish spawning events. These issues would be evaluated in detail at the CP or COL stage.

5.4.2.2 Water Discharge

For aquatic resources, the primary concerns related to water discharge are the effects of heated

effluents on fish and other aquatic organisms (NRC 1996). Heated effluent temperatures may

be high enough to kill some organisms, especially in the area nearest the effluent discharge

structure. The amount of suitable habitat available to important aquatic species (i.e., within the

species’ tolerance range of temperature and dissolved oxygen) may be reduced during warm

summer months. In addition to heat effects, there may be impacts to important aquatic species

if they are exposed to a sudden decrease in temperature when artificial heating ceases. For

example, the condition known as cold shock may occur if power plants are shut down suddenly

in winter (NRC 1996).

The NPDES permit program, authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), controls water

pollution, including heated effluents, by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into

waters of the United States. The CPS currently discharges waste water to Clinton Lake under 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-19 NUREG-1815

NPDES permit IL0036919 issued by the IEPA (IEPA 2000). Future waste water discharges

from the new nuclear unit would be in compliance with a similar approved NPDES permit with

discharge limits established by the IEPA. The IEPA is required to take into consideration the

cumulative impacts of multiple discharges to the same waterbody, and discharges from the CPS

and other area facilities would be included in the review and development of permit

requirements for any new nuclear unit. Additionally, all NPDES permits must be renewed every

5 years, allowing IEPA to ensure that the permits provide the appropriate level of protection to

the environment.

A new nuclear unit, under all of the cooling alternatives, would add its discharge to the existing

CPS discharge flume. The only modification would require making a new unit’s discharge pipe

connect to the portion of the existing flume that was originally provided for the circulating water

discharge of the CPS Unit 2, which was never constructed (Exelon 2006a). Exelon has |

expressed a goal of maintaining the combined CPS and new unit discharge flows and

temperatures within the conditions of the current NPDES permit for the CPS (Exelon 2006a; |

IEPA 2000).

If a new nuclear unit were to operate alone (no concurrent discharge from the CPS), lake

temperature increases would likely be proportional to the increase in flow and temperature that

has been observed for the CPS facility. 

The average lake temperature, determined by monitoring during the CPS pre-operational period

(1985 and 1986), was 13.3°C (55.9°F) (IPC 1992). The average lake temperature monitored

over 5 years after CPS operation (1987 through 1991) was 21.1°C (70.0°F) (IPC 1992). Based |

on these data, the CPS unit has increased lake temperatures approximately 7.8°C (14°F) over |

the pre-operational conditions, although temperatures were not collected during some |

operational period winter months which may bias this comparison (IPC 1992). Temperature |

differences between pre-operational and CPS operational periods were most noticeable at the

discharge sampling station and at the 1- and 2-m (3- and 7-ft) depth strata (IPC 1992). Water

temperature increases would be most critical near the discharge and during the summer

months, when recirculating water volumes, ambient air temperatures, and water temperatures

are high. Exelon states in its ER that “if a cooling method is selected that has a consumption

rate that exceeds the available water for drought conditions, it may be necessary for periods of

time to reduce or curtail plant operation to protect the minimum lake level and integrity of the

ultimate heat sink” (Exelon 2006a). This may also be necessary to keep temperatures below |

the limits allowed by the NPDES permit at the discharge and by the Illinois Pollution Control

Board at the Salt Creek monitoring station, 30.5 m (100 ft) downstream of the Clinton

Lake Dam.

Water temperature is an important factor in the maintenance of a healthy aquatic environment. 

Temperature regulates the metabolism and composition of aquatic communities. Elevated

temperatures increase metabolism, respiration, and oxygen demand for aquatic organisms 
Station Operation Impacts

(a) Personal communication on March 2, 2004, with Mike Garthaus (Illinois Department of Natural

Resources).

NUREG-1815 5-20 July 2006

(IPC 1992). During warm weather, an upper, heated layer of water may form at the lake

surface. In most lakes, this is a result of the absorption of solar energy. In Clinton Lake, this

| thermal stratification is caused by the combination of solar energy and the discharge of heat

| from the CPS. The heated upper layer floats over a cooler, deeper, more dense layer of water. 

During sustained thermal stratification, mixing between layers is inhibited and the deep waters

may not have any direct contact with the atmosphere. As biota living in the deep waters respire,

the amount of oxygen is depleted. As a result, there may be periods when only the upper layers

are able to support a diversity of aerobic aquatic life. Between 1978 and 1991, the Illinois

| Power Company (IPC) monitored temperature in Clinton Lake at five sites. Stratification

occurred each year, but not at every site sampled. In general, the deeper sites were more likely

to exhibit complete stratification, and stratification was most likely to occur between May and

September (IPC 1992).

IPC analyzed the potential impacts of high lake temperatures on fish in the lake before CPS

operation (IPCB 1993). The thermal tolerance limits of six fish species were compared to the

43.7°C (110.7°F) maximum and the 37.2°C (99°F) 90-day limit allowed under the NPDES

permit. The six species were gizzard shad, common carp, channel catfish, bluegill, largemouth

bass, and white crappie. An EPA protocol was used to assess impacts on reproduction, growth,

and survival for each species, using preferred thermal limits and habitats for each species

drawn from the existing literature. Minimal impacts were predicted for the reproduction, growth,

and survival of gizzard shad, common carp, and bluegill. Minimal impacts were likewise

predicted for the survival and growth of channel catfish and largemouth bass, but reproduction

in these species was predicted to be limited during the spawning season. Substantial impacts

| were predicted for white crappie. Under severe ambient summer conditions, the species was

not predicted to survive. Since operation of the CPS began, the white crappie population has

indeed experienced a decline. However, the black crappie population has increased

proportionally over the same time period and now comprises greater than 80 percent of the

crappie population in the lake (Lutterbie 2002).(a) The IDNR does manage and stock a number

| of recreational sport fish species in the lake annually, including hybrid striped bass, striped

| bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, and white crappie (IDNR 2004a). The stocking program

ensures that the number and variety of recreational species is maintained from year to year.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are also important to the protection and maintenance of a wellbalanced aquatic community. Concentrations of DO vary inversely with temperature and may

vary widely between day and night as plants photosynthesize (DO increases) and respire (DO

decreases). There has been a significant decrease in the average DO concentration in Clinton

Lake since operation began, from 10.2 mg/L to 7.8 mg/L (IPC 1992). In general, a DO

concentration of 5 mg/L is sufficient to support a healthy aquatic community (EPA 1986). 
Station Operation Impacts

(a) Personal communication on March 2, 2004, with Mike Garthaus (Illinois Department of Natural

Resources).

July 2006 5-21 NUREG-1815

During the CPS operational period, 4 percent of the DO samples monitored were below 5 mg/L,

compared to less than 1 percent during the pre-operational period. The DO reached its lowest

levels during August and September and generally decreased with increasing water depth. 

However, the majority of the lake had DO levels above 5 mg/L at any given time (IPC 1992).

It is not uncommon for lakes in Illinois to have depleted DO in bottom waters during the

summer. Fish generally avoid areas that exhibit a water temperature or DO concentration

outside their preferred range by swimming to another region of the lake. However, there has

been at least one occasion when striped bass inhabiting cooler waters in the deep portions of

the lake (e.g., submerged gravel pits located near the Clinton Lake Marina) have died as a

result of low oxygen levels associated with thermal stratification during the summer.(a) These

instances are rare, however, and under current CPS operating conditions, the balance of

indigenous and stocked recreational fish populations in the lake is being maintained.(a) The

small increase in average lake temperature during combined operations of the CPS and a new

nuclear unit, so long as it remains within the NPDES limits currently in place, are not expected

to adversely affect important aquatic organisms or upset the balance of the aquatic community

in Clinton Lake or its tributaries (i.e., Salt Creek and the North Fork of Salt Creek).

The effects of heated discharges on other organisms is generally limited to localized areas,

usually in the vicinity of the discharge. In this area, localized reductions in coldwater species or

increases in warmwater species are possible, but the effects are limited to small areas and have

not been found to alter large geographic distributions (NRC 1996). Because the heated effluent

discharge of a new nuclear unit would be combined with that from the CPS, the localized area

impacted would likely increase somewhat as increased water temperatures advanced farther

from the discharge toward the intake.

Impacts to Salt Creek, downstream from the Clinton Dam, have also been considered under the

current permitted NPDES limits. It is expected that water temperatures immediately 

downstream of the Clinton Dam would increase slightly with the addition of heated effluent 

discharge from a new nuclear unit to that of the CPS (Exelon 2006a). Summer stream |

temperatures currently range between 1.1° and 4.4°C (2° and 8°F) higher than those at the 

Rowell gauging station located 19.3 km (12 mi) downstream of the Clinton Dam 

(Exelon 2006a). However, the influence of the additional heated effluent would likely diminish |

over distance and be undetectable at the Rowell gauging station (Exelon 2006a). Temperature |

data collected from pre-dam to post-CPS operation indicate that Salt Creek temperatures at 

Rowell have not been influenced by increased temperatures in Clinton Lake (Exelon 2006a). |

Based on CPS post-operational monitoring data, the Illinois Pollution Control Board found in 

1993 that no abnormal temperature changes have occurred in Salt Creek below the dam, that 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-22 July 2006

normal seasonal fluctuations are maintained in the creek, and that water temperatures in Salt

Creek have not exceeded 2.8°C (5°F) above background temperature for more than 1 percent

of the time in a given calendar year. Therefore, it is expected that impacts resulting from

discharge of heated effluent on the distribution of aquatic organisms would be minimal. 

Another factor related to thermal discharges that may affect aquatic biota is cold shock. Loss of

heat input to the discharge flume during cold winter months results in a large drop in lake

temperature in the vicinity of the discharge flume. Many fish species congregate in the warm

lake waters surrounding the discharge during winter, as fishermen can attest. Nuclear plants

must cease operation to refuel on a periodic basis. This is often planned for winter time when

demand for electricity is relatively low. A planned station shutdown is generally conducted over

a lengthy period of time so that heated discharge is gradually reduced and fish have time to

acclimate to the change in water temperature. If water temperature drops too rapidly, fish may

be overly stressed and die. Whenever possible, the removal of heat from the discharge stream

should be very gradual, especially in winter. It is generally accepted that a 2°C per hour (3.6°F

per hour) change in temperature is adequate for most fish species and individuals to acclimate

without adverse effect (Oliver and Fidler 2001).

Two fish-kill events caused by cold shock have been recorded for the CPS in winter since

operation began, the first in January 2001 and the second in February 2004 (Petro 2001;

Bement 2004). While there are no requirements to monitor Clinton Lake for fish kills, there are

procedures set forth in the CPS Environmental Protection Plan that dictate when the NRC and

other agencies must be notified in the event of an unusual or important environmental event,

such as a fish kill. Upon discovery, the NRC must be notified within 24 hours, along with other

agencies with responsibility for protecting the aquatic environment (i.e., IDNR and IEPA). IDNR,

in accordance with the CPS Lake Management Agreement, has the responsibility to patrol the

lake and conduct initial assessments of any fish kills (Petro 2001). A followup report must be

| submitted to the NRC within 30 days of the occurrence of a nonroutine event that (a) describes,

| analyzes, and evaluates the event, including the extent and magnitude of the impact and plant

| operating characteristics, (b) describes the probable cause of the event, (c) indicates the action

taken to correct the reported event, (d) indicates the corrective action taken to preclude

repetition of the event and to prevent similar occurrences involving similar components or

| systems, and (e) indicates the agencies notified and their preliminary responses (IPC 1987). A

similar Environmental Protection Plan and requirements for the disclosure, investigation, and

| analysis of nonroutine environmental impacts would be expected to be part of an operating

license for a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. This could be included as part of a COL.

| In the 2001 and 2004 events, the IDNR investigated the fish kill and performed shoreline

surveys to identify and quantify the numbers of fish killed. The majority of fish observed are not

| usually considered sport fish: bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus), gizzard shad, freshwater

| drum, quillback (Carpoides cyprinus), and carp (Cyprinus carpio). The loss of these fish was 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-23 NUREG-1815

localized and likely to be temporary in nature (Petro 2001; Bement 2004). Some of the sport

fish that were lost in the event are stocked annually by IDNR to provide recreational fishing |

opportunities for anglers. As these sport fish will be replaced during future stocking events, the

overall abundance will not be reduced.

Overall, the number of fish lost was considered small in relation to the total abundance of these

fish species throughout Clinton Lake and throughout the surrounding region (Petro 2001;

Bement 2004). Their loss did not have any long-term adverse effect on the future fish |

population structure. A species-specific evaluation of the number of fish lost compared to the

number of fish estimated to inhabit Clinton Lake (carrying capacity) would provide a more

accurate assessment of the relative impact of these losses to the Clinton Lake fish population;

however, these data are unavailable. |

The possibility of a cold shock event is less likely when two sources are producing heated

effluent and discharging it to the lake at the same location because it is unlikely that both plants |

would be shut down simultaneously. However, some cold shock could still occur with sudden

shutdown of the CPS, because blowdown from a closed-cycle new nuclear unit would not

produce as much heated effluent as the CPS.

One of the plant operational activities that would require consideration under the NPDES permit

is chemical treatment of the cooling water and of the water processed through the reactorcoolant cleanup system. This might entail the periodic use of scale inhibitors, corrosion

inhibitors (chloride), and sulfuric acid for pH adjustment (Exelon 2006a). Biological inhibitors |

such as biocides, dispersants, and molluscicides might also be required on a periodic basis to

reduce biofouling of the cooling towers and the shell side of the primary heat exchangers

(Exelon 2006a). If a wet cooling system were selected for a new nuclear unit, it might also be |

necessary to incorporate a de-icing compound in the cooling water during colder months

(Exelon 2006a). If proven necessary, potable water used throughout the plant might be treated |

with an antibacterial inhibitor such as chlorine and monitored on a monthly basis

(Exelon 2006a). It is expected that the discharge limits set forth by IEPA for these chemical |

additives would be sufficient to protect aquatic biota.

5.4.2.3 Summary of Aquatic Impacts

Given the information provided in the applicant’s ER and the staff’s independent review, impacts |

on aquatic ecosystems from operation of the intake system would likely be SMALL during

normal water years, provided the velocity through the screens is less than 0.5 ft/sec and the

applicant uses a closed cycle or a hybrid cooling system. The intake structure design and |

permit requirements that would be set by the IEPA are unknown at this time. The cooling water |

intake system impacts could be MODERATE if best available technology is not utilized at the 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-24 July 2006

| CPS and localized reduction or “cropping” of fish occurs beyond what natural spawning or

| “recruitment” can replace, as a result of joint operation of the CPS and ESP unit.

| The staff also concludes that during normal water years, operational impacts of the plant cooling

| water system other than impingement and entrainment would be SMALL. During low water

| years, however, the impact to the water level, and thus to the water temperature and available

| habitat, could be MODERATE until normal water conditions and lake level return. In such

| cases, the applicant would need to coordinate with IEPA on appropriate measures, including

| derating or even temporary unit shutdown.

| An applicant for a CP or COL referencing any ESP that may be issued for the Exelon ESP site

| would need to provide additional information on the intake structure design and expected

| NPDES permit requirements regarding impingement, entrainment, and thermal effects on

| aquatic organisms in order for the staff to make a significance determination with respect to this

| resource.

| Based on its review, the staff concludes that additional information on the intake structure

| design and NPDES permit requirements for the ESP unit is needed in order to determine the

| impacts to aquatic ecology due to the operation of one or more nuclear units at the Exelon ESP

| site. Therefore, the staff concludes that the aquatic ecology issues associated with operation of

| a proposed ESP unit are unresolved.

5.4.3 Threatened or Endangered Species

| This section describes the potential impacts to Federally listed or proposed threatened or

endangered species and associated designated and proposed critical habitat from operation of

a new nuclear unit on the Exelon ESP site, transmission lines, and maintenance of associated

| rights-of-ways. The biology of these species is presented in Sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2.

The staff prepared a biological assessment documenting the impacts of operation of a new

nuclear unit on the Federally listed threatened and endangered terrestrial species described in

| the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) correspondence (FWS 2004). The staff’s impact

determinations from the biological assessment are reiterated in this section.

There are two Federally listed species, the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

and the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), that may occur in the vicinity of the ESP site

| and existing transmission corridors (FWS 2004).
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-25 NUREG-1815

Bald Eagle - Threatened

Bald eagles are not known to nest but are known to winter along large rivers, lakes, and

reservoirs in DeWitt County and have been observed in the vicinity of the Exelon ESP

site (Exelon 2006a). However, there are no known night roost sites in DeWitt County |

(FWS 2004). Further, no concentrations of foraging eagles have been reported on or in the |

vicinity of the ESP site (Exelon 2006a; FWS 2004; IDNR 2004b). No critical habitat is |

designated for the bald eagle (FWS 2004). |

Bald eagles may be affected by an operating nuclear unit via collisions with cooling towers and

transmission lines. Generic impacts of cooling towers on bird collisions were evaluated in

Section 5.4.1 and were found to be minimal. The bald eagle is an infrequent visitor to the

project area and typically roosts at night when visibility is poorest and the possibility for

collisions with cooling towers is greatest. This further minimizes the potential for bald eagle

collisions with cooling towers.

Generic impacts of transmission lines on bird collisions were also evaluated in Section 5.4.1

and were found to be minimal. Again, because the bald eagle is an infrequent visitor to the

project area, the potential for collisions with transmission lines is further minimized.

Indiana Bat - Endangered

Because the Indiana bat potentially occurs throughout Illinois where forest habitat is present

(FWS 2004), it could occur in forested areas on and in the vicinity of the Exelon ESP site and |

along the transmission line rights-of-way, although there are no records of its occurrence within |

16 km (10 mi) (IDNR 2004b). If present, Indiana bats would most likely occur in association with

small streams with well-developed riparian woods, as well as with mature floodplain and upland

forests. It roosts and rears its young beneath the loose bark of large dead or dying trees, and

tends to return to the same roosting area year after year (FWS 2004). Indiana bats winter in |

caves and abandoned mines (FWS 2004). |

To be impacted by operation of a new nuclear unit, suitable Indiana bat summer habitat would

have to occur within a transmission line right-of-way, where bats could be affected by right-of- |

way management (i.e., cutting and herbicide application) and EMFs. It is very unlikely that |

suitable summer habitat would occur in a transmission line right-of-way, because right-of-way |

maintenance practices preclude vegetation over 3 m (10 ft) tall (see Section 5.4.1.4) and thus |

preclude riparian woods, mature floodplain and upland forests, and large trees. Further, generic |

impacts of right-of-way management and EMFs were evaluated in Section 5.4.1 and were found |

to be minimal. Consequently, impacts from operation of a new nuclear unit on Indiana bats are

expected to be negligible. |
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-26 July 2006

The only critical habitat designated for the Indiana bat is the Blackball Mine in LaSalle County,

Illinois (41 FR 41914). Consequently, there would be no operational impacts to Indiana bat

critical habitat because none occurs in the vicinity of the Exelon ESP site.

Federally Listed or Proposed Aquatic Animals

No impacts to Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered aquatic animal species or

associated proposed or designated critical habitat are anticipated, because none is known to

| occur on or within 16 km (10 mi) of the Exelon ESP site (Exelon 2006a; FWS 2004; IDNR 1999)

| or in the vicinity of the transmission line corridor (FWS 2004).

Federally Listed or Proposed Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants

No impacts to Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered terrestrial or aquatic plant

species are anticipated, because none is known to occur on or within 16 km (10 mi) of the

| Exelon ESP site (IDNR 2004b; FWS 2004) or in the vicinity of the transmission line corridor

| (FWS 2004).

Conclusions

| In summary, there would be no operational impacts to Federally listed or proposed terrestrial or

| aquatic plant species and no operational impacts to Federally listed or proposed aquatic animal

species. Operational impacts to Federally listed terrestrial animal species, the bald eagle and

| Indiana bat, are expected to be negligible. There would also be no operational impacts to

| designated or proposed critical habitat for Federally listed or proposed terrestrial or aquatic

| animal species. Exelon has committed to contact the FWS before beginning operation to

ascertain whether these assumptions remain valid or whether further evaluation is needed.

| Based on its review of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site and associated heat

| dissipation and transmission systems, the staff concludes that the impacts of operation on

| Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered aquatic or terrestrial species would be

| SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted. The conclusion of SMALL impacts by the NRC

| staff is predicated on certain assumptions made by the staff. These include the current

| occurrence of Federally listed threatened and endangered species and critical habitat in the

| project area, the current listing status of such species, and the current designation of critical

| habitat.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-27 NUREG-1815

5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

This section describes the socioeconomic impacts of operating a new nuclear unit at the Exelon

ESP site and of the activities and demands of the operating workforce on the surrounding

region. Socioeconomic impacts include potential impacts on individual communities, the

surrounding region, and minority and low-income populations.

5.5.1 Physical Impacts

This section assesses the potential physical impacts on the nearby communities caused by

operation of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site, including noise, odors, exhausts,

thermal emissions, and visual intrusions. As stated in its ER, Exelon plans to manage these

physical impacts to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local environmental regulations

and, therefore, operation of a new nuclear unit would not significantly affect the ESP site and

the vicinity (Exelon 2006a). The staff’s evaluations are discussed in the following sections. |

5.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public

A new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site would be co-located and operated on the site of the

CPS, 210 m (700 ft) south of the CPS and adjacent to the CPS’s 1981-ha (4895-ac) cooling

reservoir, Clinton Lake. Except for the structures at the CPS, there are no industrial,

commercial, or institutional structures on the site. Industrial is the only type of land use on the

site (Exelon 2006a). Main access to the Exelon ESP site is provided by Illinois State Route 54. |

The terrain around and on the plant site is undulating and wooded. The region surrounding

Clinton Lake and the Exelon ESP site is farmland, interspersed with occasional forest and

brushwood. Most of the existing CPS site structures are screened from public view, except for

visitors near Weldon off State Route 10 and near the visitors center off State Route 54. It is

expected that a new nuclear unit would have similar visual limitations.

There are no residential areas located within the Exelon ESP site boundary. The nearest

residence to the site is (1.2 km) (0.73 mi) away. The nearest towns are DeWitt (population 188)

and Weldon (population 440) (USCB 2000a). The City of Clinton is 10 km (6 mi) west of the

site. The population in the vicinity of the Exelon ESP site is about 2940 (Exelon 2006a). |

The existing CPS produces noise from the operation of pumps, transformers, turbines,

generators, and switchyard equipment. It is expected that this would continue with the

installation of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site. Most equipment would be located inside

structures that would tend to reduce the outdoor noise level. Building walls would reduce

outside noise levels as much as 15 decibels. Further reduction would be achieved as the noise

travels to the site’s property line (Exelon 2006a). |
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-28 July 2006

The many pieces of large industrial equipment needed for operations at a nuclear unit (freight

trucks, forklifts, etc.) would also be a source of noise and air pollution. It is expected that

standard noise suppression devices on trucks and other equipment would be sufficient to keep

offsite noise levels well within acceptable levels. In addition, activities requiring the use of

heavy equipment would be limited on weekends. Finally, Exelon states it would adhere to

applicable air pollution regulations as they relate to the operation of fuel-burning equipment

| (Exelon 2006a).

Exelon is evaluating several cooling options, including a proposed wet cooling system that

would utilize mechanical or natural draft cooling towers. Natural and mechanical draft cooling

towers emit broadband noise; therefore, the noise associated with the cooling towers is largely

indistinguishable and unobtrusive. It is expected that the anticipated noise levels from either of

the cooling tower options would not be significantly greater than background levels. It is

anticipated that the heat dissipation system would have a noise level of up to 55 decibels at a

| distance of 300 m (1000 ft) from the system (Exelon 2006a). This level is below the typical

outside noise criterion, 65 decibels, for residential areas (24 CFR Part 51).

Exelon states that a Hearing Conservation Program would be developed to control and protect

onsite workers from excessive noise levels, which are defined as an 8-hour exposure of

85 decibels or more. The program would comply with the requirements specified in

| 29 CFR 1910.95 (Exelon 2006a). In addition, noise levels at a new nuclear unit would be

governed in accordance with the following regulations:

 C Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) noise-exposure limit to workers

and workers’ annoyance from the noise

 C Consideration of acceptable noise levels for offices, control rooms, etc. (29 CFR

Part 1910)

 C Federal (40 CFR Part 204) noise-pollution control regulations

 C State (35 Illinois Administrative Code Subtitle H) or local noise-pollution control

| regulations (35 IAC 2003, 2004, and 2006).

There are few rural families close to the site that might be affected by an increase in traffic noise

generated by station employees’ cars, delivery trucks, and offsite shipments. Traffic from the

operation workforce driving to and from the site would increase the level of vehicular noise for

those residents living along routes that access a new nuclear unit.
Station Operation Impacts

(a) “Attainment” means that an area meets applicable air-pollution standards (EPA 2006). |

(b) “Unclassified” means that an area cannot be classified as meeting or not meeting the applicable

air-pollution standards (CARB 2003). |

July 2006 5-29 NUREG-1815

Traffic on the roads is controlled by speed limits. The staff assumes that access roads to the |

ESP site would be paved. Most vehicle trips are anticipated to occur during normal weekday |

business hours. Given that these are rural roads, lightly traveled and with appropriate speed

limits, it is anticipated that even with the added traffic, noise levels would be below the noise

criteria for residential areas (24 CFR Part 51).

A new nuclear unit could have standby diesel generators for auxiliary power. The generators

would be required to have air-emission permits, which would ensure their compliance with

applicable Federal and State air-pollution requirements. Also, it is expected that these

generators would see limited use and, if used, would be used for only short periods of time

(Exelon 2006a). |

In summary, it is expected that offsite noise impacts would be minor because of the noisecontrol devices on the vehicles, the adherence to applicable State and Federal criteria, the

distance of nearby residences to the site, and the fact that operations activities entailing

significant noise would be limited to normal weekday business hours. Exelon has stated it

would adhere to applicable air-pollution control regulations as they relate to the operation of

fuel-burning equipment. In addition, central Illinois is in attainment(a) or is an unclassified(b) area

for the criteria pollutants. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the NRC

staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of station operation on

the workers and the local public would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.5.1.2 Buildings

DeWitt and Weldon are the two closest small towns to the Exelon ESP site and are located

5 and 8 km (3 and 5 mi), respectively, from the site. No physical impacts from operation of a

new nuclear unit would affect these two rural communities, which include small businesses,

houses, and farms. No physical impacts to structures, including residences near the site or

vicinity, are anticipated from operation of a new nuclear unit on the ESP site.

Therefore, based on the staff’s independent verification during a site visit the week of

March 1, 2004, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of station operation on offsite

buildings would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted. 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-30 July 2006

5.5.1.3 Roads

The roads and highways in the vicinity of the site would experience an increase of

approximately 580 additional vehicle trips per day, in addition to the 550 vehicle trips per day

associated with the existing CPS operating workforce. The roads and highways are two-lane,

well-maintained, rural, and lightly traveled. Given that they are expected to handle an even

heavier construction-labor workforce without undue congestion, it is expected they could also

withstand the increase in vehicular traffic of the permanent operating workforce.

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent verification during a

site visit the week of March 1, 2004, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of station

operation on roads in the vicinity of the site would be SMALL and mitigation would not be

warranted.

5.5.1.4 Aesthetics

A new nuclear unit would marginally change the view existing from the current CPS operating

facility. The CPS has a power-block structure approximately 60 m (200 ft) tall, and a new

nuclear unit at the ESP site would have a power block structure that could be up to 71.3 m

(234 ft) tall. The heat dissipation system could have a height of up to 168 m (550 ft). An off-gas

structure might also be required and would range in height between that of the power block

structure and the height of the heat dissipation system. An additional visible plume might result

from the heat dissipation system. Occasionally during cold weather, vapor/moisture plumes

from the towers might be visible from some offsite locations, depending on wind direction and

| other meteorological parameters (Exelon 2006a).

| A new nuclear unit on the Exelon ESP site would not substantially alter an already visually

disturbed CPS site. The CPS and a new nuclear unit would be visible from several vantage

points around the site and outside the site boundary. However, the Exelon ESP site is far

removed from most of the permanent population, with the closest residence approximately

1.2 km (0.73 mi) to the southwest and the closest town, DeWitt, which is approximately 5 km

(3 mi) to the east. Recreational users of Clinton Lake would be able to observe the operation of

the new unit only by the visible moisture plumes from the heat dissipation units that may appear

under certain meteorological conditions. Users of the lake would be able to see the CPS and

new nuclear unit from certain parts of the lake.

There is a concern about the impact of the facility’s cooling system on lake levels during times

of severe drought. The consumptive water loss to the atmosphere from the cooling tower,

added to the existing consumptive loss of the CPS once-through cooling system during times of

drought, could lower the water levels of the lake significantly.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-31 NUREG-1815

In summary, a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site would have visual impacts similar to

those of the existing CPS. As the area is sparsely populated, the facility would have a minor

(small) impact on aesthetic quality for nearby residences and on recreational users of Clinton

Lake. However, the impacts could also be moderate due to the consumptive use of water for

cooling and impacts on Clinton Lake during times of severe drought. Therefore, based on the

information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent verification during a site visit the

week of March 1, 2004, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of station operation on

aesthetics would be SMALL and mitigation would not be warranted. During times of severe

drought the impacts would be MODERATE, and mitigation would not be generally warranted

due to the temporary nature of the potential impact.

5.5.2 Demography

Population within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the region is 764,366 and projected to grow to

942,556 by 2060, for a total increase over the 60-year period of 23.3 percent (see Table 2-6). |

The economy in the region is considered recovering from the economic recession of 2001.

There are an estimated 550 permanent operating personnel employed at the CPS site

(Exelon 2006b). Approximately 580 additional permanent workers would be required for the |

operation of a new nuclear unit (Exelon 2006a). Exelon expects that most of the new operating

workforce will come from within the region (Exelon 2006a). But even if the 580 additional |

employees and their families were to come from outside the region, the potential increases in

population of the most impacted counties would not be significant. For example, the

580 additional employees would translate into an increase in population of about 2320,

assuming each new employee represents a family of four. Assuming that the geographic |

distribution of new employees would be the same as for the existing employees of the CPS (see

Section 2.8.2), about 190 new employees would settle in DeWitt County, 140 in Macon County, |

and 120 in McLean County. The remaining approximately 130 employees would be scattered

throughout the other counties within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Exelon ESP site. 

The addition of the new employees and their families would equate to the following percentage

increases in population (using 2000 Census data; see Table 2-8): DeWitt County 4.5 percent, |

Macon County 0.49 percent, and McLean County 0.32 percent. Overall, the potential increases

in population do not represent a large percentage increase in the total population for the most

impacted counties.

Some new jobs might result from employment of the new operating personnel through the

multiplier effect attributable to the operations workforce. But when these increases are

compared to the total population base in the region, it is expected that they would be minimal as

well. And many of these new jobs would be filled by workers already living within the region.
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-32 July 2006

In summary, the number of new employees and their families would represent a very small

increase to the counties’ total population. Therefore, based on the information provided by

Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of station

operation on increases in population would be SMALL and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.5.3 Impacts to the Community

This section evaluates the social, economic, infrastructure, and community impacts to the

surrounding region as a result of operation of a new nuclear unit. The evaluation assesses

impacts of operation and of those demands placed by the workforce on the surrounding region. 

Operation of a new nuclear unit could last up to 60 years (a potential 40-year initial operating

license, plus 20 years additional operation under license renewal) and employ up to an

| additional 580 workers (Exelon 2006a). This is in addition to the 550 permanent operations

| personnel currently employed at the CPS site (Exelon 2006b).

5.5.3.1 Economy

The impacts of station operation on the local and regional economy are dependent on the

region’s current and projected economy and population. Some insight can be obtained on the

projected economy and population by consulting county comprehensive plans and data from the

U.S. Census Bureau. The economic impacts, given the potential 60-year period of station

operation, are qualitatively discussed below.

Exelon states that it is expected that most new operating personnel would come from inside the

| region (Exelon 2006a). The employment of the operations workforce for such an extended

| period of time (i.e., potentially 60-year operating life of the facility) would have economic and

social impacts on the surrounding region. DeWitt County would be the most impacted, and Piatt

County might be the second most impacted in percentage terms (the relationship of the net

economic benefits of a new nuclear unit to the total economy of the county). Further impacts

become diffuse as a result of interacting with the larger economic base of the surrounding

counties and cities. Impacts would affect traffic, taxes, housing, and public services, among

others, all of which are discussed separately below. The magnitude of the impacts hinge on

(1) the percentage of the workforce that would come from within the region of interest (80 km

[50 mi]) and thus commute to the site and (2) those workers who might relocate to the area and

whether they would relocate to DeWitt and Piatt Counties or elsewhere in the region.

The economic impacts to the region would be beneficial. The new jobs, as with the construction

workforce, would also create new jobs in the region through the multiplier effect. 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-33 NUREG-1815

Any multiplier effect resulting from the operating personnel expenditures in the region would

most likely mean that some residents would obtain new or higher paying jobs as a result of the

increased economic activity.

In summary, the magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused in the larger economic

bases of Macon, McLean, and Champaign Counties. DeWitt County would be the site of a new

nuclear unit and would benefit more, as a result, than Piatt and Logan Counties. Therefore,

based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the staff

concludes that the impacts of station operation on the economy would be beneficial and SMALL

everywhere in the region except DeWitt County, where the impacts could be MODERATE, and

that mitigation would not be warranted.

5.5.3.2 Taxes

There will be several types of taxes generated by the increase in the permanent operations

workforce at a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. These include income taxes on

corporate profits and on wages and salaries paid, sales and use taxes on purchases, and

property taxes on owned real property. Each is briefly discussed below. Taxes collected are

viewed as a benefit to the State and the local jurisdictions in the region.

Personal and Corporate Income Taxes

As discussed in Section 4.5.3.2, Illinois has a personal and corporate income tax. Employees |

of a new nuclear unit would pay taxes on their wages and salaries to Illinois if their residence is

in Illinois. Exelon would also pay Illinois a corporate income tax on the profits received from the

facility. While the exact amount of tax payable to Illinois is not known, it could be substantial

over the potential 60-year life of the operating facility. Although the amount of taxes collected

over the potential lifetime of the project could be large in absolute amounts, it is small when

compared to the total amount of taxes Illinois collects in any given year or over the

60-year period.

Sales and Use Taxes

Illinois and the counties surrounding the Exelon ESP site would experience an increase in the

amount of sales and use taxes collected as a result of the operation of a new nuclear unit. 

Additional sales and use taxes would be generated by retail expenditures (restaurants, hotels,

and motels, merchant sales, and food) of the operating workers. |

At this point, it is difficult to assess which counties and local jurisdictions would be most

impacted by the expenditures and resultant sales and use taxes collected. In absolute terms,

the amount of taxes collected over a potential 60-year operating period could be large, but 
Station Operation Impacts

| (a) A current (January 2006) discussion of deregulation can be found in Section 2.8.2.2.

NUREG-1815 5-34 July 2006

small when compared to the total amount of taxes collected by Illinois and the governmental

jurisdictions within the region. The exception could be Clinton, which is close to the Exelon ESP

| site and would be a convenient shopping point for the workforce at the new nuclear unit. In

addition, approximately 33 percent of the current CPS employees live in DeWitt County. Should

this pattern be replicated with the operating workforce of a new nuclear unit, it is probable that

Clinton could receive a large increase in taxes collected. Because towns of significant size are

30 km (20 mi) or more from the site, it would be more likely that workers would seek services

and make purchases at locations closer to the Exelon ESP site.

Property Taxes

A main economic impact related to the operation of an additional unit would be associated with

payment of property taxes. The value of an additional unit would exceed that of the CPS, which

has depreciated with time and deregulation (see discussion in Section 2.8).(a) It is not possible

to estimate the actual amount of taxes on the new facility that would be paid to DeWitt County

| and to other jurisdictions in the county. DeWitt County, Clinton Community School District

| No. 15, and the other taxing districts listed in Section 2.8.2.2 would be the beneficiaries of

these taxes.

| As previously stated, the full potential effects of electric utility deregulation in Illinois are not

known at this time. Before deregulation, the property taxes paid by the CPS represented more

than 70 percent of the total property taxes received by DeWitt County. During the transition

period, as a result of deregulation, they still represent more than 50 percent of the total property

| taxes collected by the County as of 2002 (see Table 2-15). It is expected that the addition of a

new nuclear unit would represent a significant source of property tax revenue for the County,

even with deregulation.

The second source of property taxes would be on the housing owned by the permanent

employees at a new nuclear unit. The operating workforce would consist of up to

580 employees. Exelon expects that, while some of the workforce might relocate from outside

the region, a significant number of them would already be located in the region. Exelon bases

its conclusion on the fact that a significant number of employees at the CPS already lived within

the region before operations at that facility began and did not move to the vicinity but remained

| in the region (Exelon 2006a).

If Exelon’s assumptions are true, there would not be a substantial shift or increase in property

| taxes paid from housing within the region and vicinity. Some potential employees might move

up to more expensive housing because of better paying jobs, but this would be a minor

economic perturbation within the regional economy.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-35 NUREG-1815

However, if Exelon’s assumptions do not hold, two things could happen. First, if the available |

workers with the requisite skills could not be found within the region, they would be recruited

from outside and move into the region. Some new workers could construct new housing or

increase the demand for existing housing, which could put some upward pressure on housing |

prices, increasing values and property taxes paid, particularly DeWitt County. New |

construction, even without upward pressure on housing values, would add to the property tax |

base. If this addition to the tax base were to occur in the larger cities in the region, the increase |

in property taxes paid, though important and large when aggregated over time, would be

insignificant when compared to the total taxes collected by these jurisdictions.

On the other hand, in the smaller jurisdictions, such as DeWitt, Piatt, and Logan Counties, the

effects could be more significant. Approximately 33 percent of CPS employees live in DeWitt

County. If 33 percent of the permanent employees for a new nuclear unit decided to move to

and live in DeWitt County, it would account for about 190 families. However, at the present

time, there is no housing of the right type available in DeWitt County to accommodate this

increase. New housing construction would have to be undertaken to meet the demand. 

Because of the increased demand for housing, it could be expected that prices of existing

housing would rise (thus increasing property values and property taxes, as well) and

constructed new housing would be added to the tax rolls. DeWitt County (and the other |

surrounding counties to a lesser extent) would benefit from increased property values and the

addition of new houses to the tax rolls. A more complete discussion of housing impacts is found |

in Section 5.5.3.5. |

At this time, it is not possible to know whether Exelon’s assumptions about the new permanent

operating workforce coming from within the region will hold up or not, nor of the magnitude of

property taxes that might be collected on new or existing residential housing as a result of the

additional operations workforce.

Summary of the Impact of Taxes

The staff evaluated the effect of taxes from income on wages and salaries of Exelon 

employees, and sales, use, and property taxes of these employees, as well as taxes on 

Exelon’s corporate profits. These represent beneficial sources of income for the State, some of |

which would benefit the counties in the region. Property tax paid by Exelon would directly 

benefit DeWitt County, (and other jurisdictions currently receiving property from AmerGen and, |

as a result, the proposed new nuclear unit), as would property taxes from employees living in |

the county. Sales and use taxes could beneficially impact the City of Clinton, due to its 

proximity to a new nuclear unit. Personal and corporate income taxes would be paid to the 

State of Illinois. Although the amount of taxes collected over the potential lifetime of the project 

could be large in absolute amounts, it is small when compared to the total amount of taxes 

Illinois collects in any given year or would collect over the 60-year life of operation of a new 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-36 July 2006

nuclear unit. Based on a review of the overall impacts on the region, the beneficial impacts

| would be SMALL to LARGE (DeWitt County) and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.5.3.3 Transportation

The roads and highways within the vicinity of the Exelon ESP site would experience an increase

in use of approximately 580 additional vehicle trips during the peak hours of the workday. This

is in addition to the 550 existing vehicles of the CPS workers, bringing the total vehicle trips

from the combined CPS and new nuclear unit to 1130, assuming one employee per vehicle

| (Exelon 2006a). In addition, for a period of up to three weeks on an average 24-month cycle,

| from 1000 to 1300 temporary workers (the proposed new nuclear unit and CPS, respectively)

| would be employed during refueling outages (Exelon 2006b). The majority of the impacts would

be the congestion at shift changes.

Most of the roadways within DeWitt, Logan, and Piatt Counties are rural and, as the staff

observed during the site visit (March 1 to 5, 2004), lightly traveled and well-maintained. While

population growth could put pressure on the local transportation system, it probably would not

overwhelm the current transportation system in these counties. Upon leaving the ESP site,

| workers are expected to travel and disperse in all directions (Exelon 2006a). In addition, as

discussed in Section 2.8, business route U.S. 51 through Clinton has had a center turn-lane

constructed, which has greatly alleviated congestion through Clinton.

In summary, the rural roads are well maintained and lightly traveled. The addition of the

workforce to operate a new nuclear unit would cause congestion only at shift changes. 

Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the

staff concludes that the impacts of station operation on the transportation system would be

SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted.

5.5.3.4 Recreation

There are four issues with respect to recreation at Clinton Lake. First is the impact of a new

nuclear unit, in conjunction with the existing CPS, on Clinton Lake’s water quality and

temperature and, in turn, their impact on recreation. Second is the impact on recreation

because of the potential increase in the use of the lake as a result of hiring the operations

workforce. Third is the potential consumptive loss of water in Clinton Lake during a severe

drought as a result of a new nuclear unit’s cooling system. Fourth is the potential health

| impacts a new nuclear unit’s cooling system might have on users of the lake. Changes in the

| recreational use of Clinton Lake could have economic impacts to the surrounding area. The

| following discussion addresses the first three issues. The fourth issue concerning potential

| health impacts is discussed in Section 5.8.1 of this EIS.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-37 NUREG-1815

Clinton Lake is cited in Illinois 2004 Section 303(d) (IEPA 2004), which identifies it as an |

impaired waterbody (Exelon 2006a). Impaired water quality (including both metals and |

sediments) can impact recreational use of the lake. The causes of impaired use include excess |

algal growth and metals. Algal growth is related to nutrient levels in the water column that |

originate from the dominant agricultural land use and crop production. Other sources may also

contribute to the availability of nutrients in the water column, such as recreational boating, which

may increase sediment resuspension and shoreline erosion. Power plant operation is not

considered a significant source of nutrients to Clinton Lake (Exelon 2006a). Metals |

concentrations in the water column and sediment have a number of sources, including natural

geologic formations, agricultural practices, and industrial sources. The CPS, an industrial |

source, is also a potential source of metals (Exelon 2006a). |

For both impairments (sediments and metals), storm water management and erosion-control

practices for sediment control are the best control options. Nutrients and metals attach to the

sediments and are effectively controlled with control of sediments in storm water. Industrial

pollution-control practices, strategic materials selection, and corrosion control are also expected

to be effective in reducing metals contributions from industrial sources.

The second issue is the impact an increase in the operations workforce for a new nuclear unit

might have on Clinton Lake and other nearby facilities, such as Weldon Springs, due to

increased crowding. If the workforce to be hired was already in the region and did not relocate

to DeWitt County and the City of Clinton, there would be minimal impact on the recreation taking

place at Clinton Lake and nearby facilities. However, if the workforce was recruited from

outside the region or if there was a relocation of existing operating personnel to Clinton and

DeWitt County, there could be increased demand for the recreational services provided by the

lake and other facilities. Currently, 33 percent of the CPS workforce resides in Clinton or DeWitt

County. Given an expected operating workforce at a new nuclear unit of 580 individuals with an

assumed 33 percent moving to Clinton or DeWitt County, there could be 190 new families (or |

760 individuals, assuming four individuals per family) moving into these areas. This could result

in increased crowding, a decline in overall recreational enjoyment, and potentially a decrease in

water quality which, in turn, impacts the recreational experiences at these facilities.

The third issue is potential impairment of recreation on the lake due to lower water levels during

periods of severe drought. The consumptive water loss to the atmosphere from the cooling

tower of a new nuclear unit could lower the water levels of the lake significantly during times of

drought. This could impact both boating (lower water levels) and fishing (lower water levels and

elevated temperatures) at the lake. One mitigating factor at Clinton Lake is that the steep banks

might mean less land exposed during drops in the pool elevation. Another is that a drought

severe enough to impact lake levels and water quality is a rare event.

In summary, severe drought in conjunction with the consumptive use of water for cooling at both

the CPS and a new nuclear unit could impact lake pool elevations and temperature, which 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-38 July 2006

in turn could impact boating and fishing. A drought severe enough to impact lake levels and

| water quality is a rare event. Mitigative actions could include reducing the power output or

| shutting down the CPS and/or the proposed new nuclear unit. The impacts of the operating

workforce on Clinton Lake and other nearby recreational facilities hinge on whether the

operating workforce would come primarily from within the region (with most staying at their

existing places of residence and commuting to a new nuclear unit) or would relocate to DeWitt

County and Clinton to be nearer work. If the latter, then the recreational experience at Clinton

Lake could deteriorate, which would cause those recreationists using the lake to look

elsewhere, lessening the demand on the lake for recreation – a form of mitigative action. 

Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the

staff concludes that potential impacts of station operation on recreation would be SMALL to

MODERATE. Mitigation would be warranted only when a drought occurs and could be

| undertaken by changing the way in which the proposed new and existing nuclear unit is

operated.

5.5.3.5 Housing

An accurate estimate of the number of housing units that would be available in the region in the

year a new nuclear unit would begin operation is not possible. If Exelon’s assumptions hold and

| the operational workforce of 580 already reside in the region and do not relocate closer to the

new nuclear unit, then housing supply within the region would be more than adequate to meet

the needs of a small number of operating employees relocating from outside the region.

Otherwise, it all depends on where the potential new growth takes place, as discussed in

| Section 5.5.3.2. Again, while there is no way of accurately estimating the number of available

housing units at the commencement of operations, Section 2.8.2 reviews the current availability

| of housing in the region. Table 2-17 shows that the availability of vacant housing units in the

region could easily accommodate the expected permanent workforce of 580 new employees. In

2000, there were 13,183 vacant housing units in Champaign, DeWitt, Logan, Macon, McLean,

and Piatt Counties. The counties in the vicinity of the Exelon ESP site and within the region are

addressing the needs of the projected increases in population through their county

comprehensive plans. As such, an adequate number of housing units likely would be available,

especially in the larger towns.

| Currently, in smaller towns and counties around the Exelon ESP site, the housing market is

| much tighter. In 2000, there were 1594 vacant housing units in DeWitt, Piatt, and Logan

| counties and, of those, 155 were for sale in Clinton, Farmer City, Monticello, and Lincoln. 

| Clinton had 37 houses for sale on the market in 2000 (see Table 2-18) and DeWitt County had

97 (USCB 2000b). While in absolute numbers there would be enough housing to 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-39 NUREG-1815

accommodate 190 new families, not all units would necessarily be the type of housing

purchased by higher income families, as most likely would be representative of the permanent

operating workforce at the Exelon ESP.

With respect to housing prices, DeWitt County does not have a growth moratorium. Given that

the incomes of the new workforce would be expected to be higher than the overall average

incomes in DeWitt, Piatt, and Logan Counties, the prices that the operations workforce would be |

willing to pay for housing would be expected to be on the high end of the price range within |

those counties. Therefore, it is expected that the impact on housing prices of workers relocating

to these counties, especially to DeWitt County, would be impacted, and new construction would

most likely have to be undertaken to meet demand. However, the abundance of existing

housing within the surrounding region could mitigate against some of the effects on residential |

housing prices as a result of the increase in the operations workforce.

In summary, county comprehensive plans could address the issue of new housing, but there

has been a history in the counties closer to the Exelon ESP site of generally not building “spec” |

housing (see Section 2.8.2.1). Therefore, advanced existing and new construction to handle

potential population increases might not occur in a timely manner. One potential reason for the

lack of “spec” building is that Piatt, Logan, and DeWitt Counties have had negative population

growth during the 1990s (see Table 2-8). Based on the information provided by Exelon and the |

staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that potential impacts of a new nuclear unit on

housing would be SMALL in the region and potentially MODERATE in DeWitt, Piatt, and Logan |

Counties. The MODERATE impact rating depends on whether the operations workforce comes |

from outside the region and/or locates in DeWitt, Piatt, or Logan counties to be nearer the work |

site at the proposed new nuclear unit. Market forces, represented by increased housing |

demand, would result in more housing being built, which, over time, would mitigate any

housing shortages.

5.5.3.6 Public Services

This section describes the impacts of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site on local and

regional water supplies and waste water treatment; on police, fire, and medical facilities; and on

social services.

Water Supply and Waste Water Treatment

In the vicinity of the Exelon ESP site in DeWitt County, drinking water is primarily obtained from |

municipal groundwater sources via wells. Only a small number of residents have private well |

systems. The Clinton Sanitary District Sewage Treatment Plant serves the waste water needs

of the City of Clinton. In the region, rural communities generally have private wells for water and

septic systems for sanitary wastes. Larger communities obtain water from groundwater 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-40 July 2006

| extraction wells or lakes and are served by public waste water treatment systems. A survey

was performed for water and waste water facilities in the region, and the facilities have excess

| capacity to accommodate potential population increases (Exelon 2006a). Within the last

decade, Clinton has upgraded its waste water system and now has excess capacity. An

independent analysis conducted by the NRC staff confirmed Exelon’s conclusion (see

| Tables 2-19 and 2-20).

Public water supply and waste water treatment are not a constraint to growth in the vicinity of

the Exelon site, assuming that growth increases hold to the historical norm. Should there be a

disproportionate increase in the populations of Clinton, Monticello, or Farmer City as a result of

relocation of the operations workforce within the region or the importation of workers into Clinton

| and DeWitt Counties, there could be some capacity constraints. One potential restraint to this

happening is the small number of vacant housing units available in these small towns.

Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

Section 4.5.3.6 discusses the availability of police, fire, and medical facilities in the region. 

Exelon concludes that the projected capacity of these public services is adequate and is

expected to expand modestly to meet the demands of a slight population growth

| (Exelon 2006a). The fact that annual population growth projections are less than 0.8 percent

| (Champaign County 2000 to 2010) a year within the region tends to support its conclusion (see

Table 2-8). Exelon plans to employ its own security force for a new nuclear unit on the ESP site

| (Exelon 2006a).

If 190 workers were to locate to Clinton and/or DeWitt County, there could be some pressure on

fire-protection providers. The degree of pressure would be dependent on where these workers

locate, whether in developed areas such as Clinton, where fire services are already provided, or

in the county, where the services might not be available but could be provided given a

demonstrated need. The increased property taxes coming from a new nuclear unit could help

fund such services. Medical facilities within the larger communities are within commuting

distance of the smaller communities.

Social Services

This section focuses on the potential impacts of station operation on the social and related

services provided to disadvantaged segments of the population in DeWitt County. This section

is distinguished from issues surrounding environmental justice, which is discussed in more

depth in Section 5.7.

Station operation would be viewed as beneficial economically to the disadvantaged population

served by the Department of Human Resources in DeWitt County. Station operation might

enable the disadvantaged to improve their social and economic position by moving up to higher 
Station Operation Impacts

(a) Personal interviews conducted on March 3, 2004, in the City of Clinton with Roger A. Little,

Superintendent, Clinton Unit School District 15, and on March 5, 2004, in the City of Monticello with

Lawrence J. McNabb, 2004, Superintendent, Monticello Community School District 25.

July 2006 5-41 NUREG-1815

paying jobs created by the multiplier effect of station-operation jobs. Based on where the

current operations workforce for the CPS lives and given that new employees would follow

similar location patterns, many of these benefits could accrue to DeWitt County, where, because

of the smaller economic base, they might have a more noticeable impact.

Summary of Public Services

In summary, a survey was performed for water and waste water facilities in the region, and the

facilities have excess capacity to accommodate potential population increases. The projected

capacity of police, fire, and medical services in the region is currently adequate and is expected

to expand modestly to meet the demands of a slight population growth. The increases in tax

revenue could help with the infrastructure and resource requirements for any potential increase

in demand for services (police, fire, etc.). Station operation would be beneficial economically to

the disadvantaged population served by the Department of Human Resources in DeWitt

County, enabling them to improve their social and economic status, thereby potentially cutting

back on the amount of social services required. Therefore, based on the information provided

by Exelon and the staff’s independent evaluation, the staff concludes that the potential impact

on the demand for public services as a result of a new nuclear unit would be SMALL and that

mitigation would not be warranted.

5.5.3.7 Education

Exelon undertook a survey of class size of some schools within the region and concluded that

there is sufficient capacity for a small increase in school population (Exelon 2004b, 2006a). |

When NRC staff interviewed the superintendents of the Clinton and Monticello School Districts,

overcapacity in the number of students per class room was not an issue.(a) At least locally this |

would tend to support Exelon’s conclusions that there is a sufficient capacity in the education

system to handle a small increase in population. Exelon assumes that the majority of the

operations workforce would come from within the region, where educational requirements are

already being met. Thus, the school systems in these areas would not experience any major

influx of students because of the operation of a new nuclear unit (Exelon 2006a). |

Even if some of the operating workforce were to come from outside the region, the majority of

the new workers would likely move to the more populous areas in the surrounding communities,

having access to the more developed public services. Workers with school-aged children 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-42 July 2006

would be interested in communities with good school districts, for example. There are a number

of private schools located in the region, which would further increase educational options for

incoming workers and their families.

Should workers relocate to Clinton and DeWitt County to be closer to a new nuclear unit, the

local school district could accommodate an increase in the student population. Should there be

small adverse impacts to local school districts due to the influx of plant workers into a

community, these would likely be at least partially offset by increased sales, property, and

income tax revenues paid by facility personnel, which in turn could be used to build additional

classrooms or schools to accommodate the increased student population.

The majority of the operations workers are expected to come from within the region, with little

anticipated in-migration of operations workers from outside. Should workers come from outside

the region, they might commute to the site from the larger cities in the region. Should they

relocate to Clinton and DeWitt County to be closer to the site, it would appear that the local

school district could accommodate an increase in the student population. Therefore, based on

the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that

the potential impact of the operation of a new nuclear unit on educational facilities would be

SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted.

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) requires Federal agencies

to take into account the potential effects of their undertakings on the cultural environment, which

includes archaeological sites, historic buildings, and traditional places important to local

| populations. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended through 2000

| (NHPA), also requires Federal agencies to consider impacts to those resources if they are

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (such resources are referred to as

“Historic Properties” in NHPA). As outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, “Coordination with the National

| Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” the NRC coordinated compliance with Section 106 of the

NHPA in meeting the requirements of NEPA.

| The NRC has determined that evaluating suitability of a potential ESP unit within the existing

| CPS site for construction, operation, and decommissioning of a new nuclear unit is an

undertaking that could possibly affect either known or potential historic properties that may be

located at the site. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of NHPA and NEPA, the NRC

is required to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties in the areas

of potential effect and, if present, determine if any significant impacts are likely to occur. 

Identification is to occur in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, American

Indian tribes, interested parties, and the public. If significant impacts are possible, efforts

should be made to mitigate them. As part of the NEPA/NHPA integration, if no historic 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-43 NUREG-1815

properties (i.e., places eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places) are present

or affected, the NRC is required to notify the State Historic Preservation Officer before

proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present, the NRC is required to

assess and resolve adverse effects of the undertaking.

For specific historic and cultural information on the Exelon ESP site, see Section 2.9.

The staff does not expect any significant impacts on cultural and historic resources during ESP |

unit operation. Any new ground-disturbing activities that might occur during operation would |

follow Exelon procedures, which would require further evaluation to determine if additional |

archaeological review is necessary (Exelon 2006a). Therefore, the staff concludes that the |

impacts from operations would be SMALL. Mitigation might be warranted in the event of an

inadvertent discovery.

5.7 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations. In 2004, |

the Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of environmental justice matters in

licensing actions (69 FR 52040 and NRC 2004c). Section 2.10 discusses the locations of |

minority and low-income populations around the Exelon ESP site and within the 80-km

(50-mi) radius.

The staff identified the pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with

operating a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site could affect human populations. The staff |

then evaluated whether minority and low-income populations could be disproportionately

affected by these impacts. During its March 2004 site audit, the staff interviewed local

government officials and the staff of social welfare agencies concerning potentially

disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income populations. The staff found no unusual

resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing through

which the populations could be disproportionately impacted by operation of a new unit that

would result in those populations being adversely affected. In addition, the staff did not identify

any location-dependent disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and low-income

populations.

In summary, no disproportionately high or adverse health or environmental effects impacting

minority or low-income populations were found. Therefore, based on the information provided

by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the offsite impacts of

station operation of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site to minority and low-income

populations would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted.
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-44 July 2006

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

This section addresses the health impacts of operating a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP

site from nonradiological parameters. Health impacts to the public from the cooling system,

noise generated by operations, and EMFs are discussed. Health impacts from the same

sources are also evaluated for workers at a new nuclear unit. Health impacts from radiological

sources during operations are discussed in Section 5.9.

5.8.1 Thermophilic Microorganisms

In its ER, Exelon notes that lake temperature appears to be the most significant water quality

| change from CPS operations (Exelon 2006a). Lake cooling is the primary cooling process used

by the CPS. Heated non-contact cooling water is cooled by contact with the soil and air as the

water passes down the 5.5-km (3.4-mi) discharge flume and around the Clinton Lake cooling

loop back to the plant intake.

The new nuclear unit would use either wet cooling systems (i.e., mechanical or natural draft

| cooling towers) or a combination of hybrid wet/dry cooling systems. The impact of this type of

cooling process would not be significant for water temperature in Clinton Lake when compared

| to the open-cycle cooling process (i.e., cooling lake) used for the CPS. Lake temperature

| increases from cooling tower blowdown are not expected to be significant. Changes in lake

temperature can increase the number of thermophilic microorganisms. Thermophilic

microorganisms include enteric pathogens such as Salmonella sp., Pseudomonas aeriginosa,

and thermophilic fungi, bacteria such as Legionella sp., and free-living amoeba such as

Naegleria fowleri and Acanthomoeba. These microorganisms could be causative agents of

| potentially serious human infections. However, the small temperature increase expected as a

result of operating the new nuclear unit would not significantly increase the abundance of these

organisms and the staff concludes that the impacts on human health would be SMALL and that

no mitigation would be warranted.

5.8.2 Noise

| In the GEIS (NRC 1996), the staff discusses the environmental impacts of noise at existing

nuclear power plants. Common sources of noise from plant operation include cooling towers,

transformers, and loud speakers with intermittent contributions from auxiliary equipment. These

noise sources are generally sufficiently distant from the plant boundaries that the noise

generated by the plant is attenuated to near-ambient levels before reaching critical receptors

outside the plant boundary.

The existing unit at the CPS has an open-cycle cooling system that uses water from Clinton

Lake. This system does not contribute significantly to noise at the plant site or plant boundary. 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-45 NUREG-1815

Exelon’s ER (Exelon 2006a) specifies that a new nuclear unit at the ESP site would be cooled |

by wet or hybrid wet/dry cooling towers. If the ESP was approved and cooling towers were

used at the site, the towers would be a major noise source on the site.

The ER does not directly specify the sound intensity for cooling towers. However, the PPE

specifies that cooling tower noise will be less than 55 decibels at 300 m (1000 ft). In general,

the decrease in sound intensity with distance from the source is inversely proportional to the

square of the distance. At its closest point of approach, the site fence line is approximately

90 m (300 ft) from the area where cooling towers would be located; the exclusion area boundary

is about 520 m (1700 ft) from the cooling tower location, and the closest residence is about

730 m (2400 ft). Using these distances, the inverse square relationship, and the PPE cooling

tower noise specification, the corresponding sound intensities at the closest points on the fence

line, exclusion area boundary, and nearest residence are estimated to be approximately 65, 50,

and 47 decibels, respectively. For context, Tipler (1982) lists the sound intensity of a quiet

office as 50 decibels, normal conversation as 60 decibels, busy traffic as 70 decibels, and a

noisy office with machines or an average factory as 80 decibels. Construction noise (at 3 m

[10 ft]) is listed as 110 decibels, and the pain threshold is 120 decibels.

According to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), noise levels below 60 to 65 decibels are considered to

be of small significance. More recently, the impacts of noise were considered in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586,

Supplement 1) (NRC 2002a). The criterion for assessing the level of significance was not

expressed in terms of sound levels but based on the effect of noise on human activities and on

threatened or endangered species. The criterion in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, is stated

as follows:

The noise impacts ... are considered detectable if sound levels are sufficiently high to disrupt

normal human activities on a regular basis. The noise impacts ... are considered

destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently high that the affected area is essentially

unsuitable for normal human activities, or if the behavior or breeding of a threatened or

endangered species is affected.

Given the postulated noise levels for cooling towers, the staff concludes that the noise impacts

would be SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted.

5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

EMFs are produced by electrical devices including transmission lines. Two issues related to the

health effects of EMFs are addressed in some detail in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) relative to 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-46 July 2006

renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. Those issues are acute effects (shock

hazard) and chronic effects (effects of long-term exposure).

Acute effects can result from direct contact with transmission lines. Transmission line

construction practices minimize public access to the lines. Acute effects can also be caused by

induced currents. The 1981 revision of National Electric Safety Code added criteria related to

construction of transmission lines to minimize potential impacts associated with induced

currents.

| Section 3.7.5 of the ER (Exelon 2006a) discusses grounding measures that would be taken to

minimize the acute effects of induced currents in structures near transmission lines. 

Section 3.7.2 of the ER ends with the statement that transmission system design, construction,

and operation would comply with the relevant local, state, and industry standards, including the

National Electric Safety Code and various American National Standards Institute of Electrical

and Electronics Engineers standards. This includes standards for ground clearances, EMFs,

and other factors.

Given these considerations, the staff concludes that the impacts associated with transmission

line rights-of-way for a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site would be SMALL and that no

mitigation would be warranted.

5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Research on the potential for chronic effects from 60-Hz EMFs from transmission lines was

reviewed in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). At that time, research results were not conclusive. The

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related research through

the U.S. Department of Energy. A NIEHS report (1999) contains the following conclusion:

The NIEHS concludes that extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field (ELF-EMF)

exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to

warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the

United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive

regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the

public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The

NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide

sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.

This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to consider the potential impact as significant

to the public. However, because conclusive information is not available, this issue is

| unresolved.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-47 NUREG-1815

5.8.5 Occupational Health

In general, human health risks for a new nuclear unit are expected to be dominated by

occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electric shock, asphyxiation) to workers engaged in activities

such as maintenance, testing, and plant modifications. Historically, actual injury and fatality

rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the average U.S. industrial rates. 

Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to NRC and OSHA safety

standards (29 CFR Part 1910), practices, and procedures. Appropriate State and local statutes |

must also be considered when assessing the occupational hazards and health risks for new

nuclear unit operation. The staff assumes strict adherence to NRC, OSHA, and State safety

standards, practices, and procedures during new nuclear unit operation.

Occupational health impacts from thermophilic microorganisms would be the same as those

discussed in Section 5.8.1. Health impacts to workers from noise and EMFs would be

monitored and controlled in accordance with the applicable OSHA regulations and would

be SMALL.

5.8.6 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

The staff evaluated health impacts to the public and the workers. Health risks to workers are |

expected to be dominated by occupational injuries at rates below the average U.S. industrial |

rates. Health impacts to the public and workers from thermophilic microoganisms, noise

generated by unit operations, and acute impacts of EMFs would be minimal. Based on the

information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the

potential impacts of nonradiological effects resulting from the operation of a new nuclear unit

would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted. The staff has not come to |

conclusions on the chronic impacts of EMFs; consequently, this issue is not resolved. |

5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

This section addresses the radiological impacts of normal operations of a new nuclear unit on

the Exelon ESP site, including a discussion of the estimated radiation dose to a member of the

public and to the biota inhabiting the area around the ESP site. Estimated doses to workers are

also discussed. Radiological impacts were determined using the PPE approach where the

bounding direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radiological effluents were used in the

evaluation (see discussion in Section 3.2.3).
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-48 July 2006

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways

The public and biota would be exposed to increased ambient background radiation from a

nuclear unit via the liquid effluent, gaseous effluent, and direct radiation pathways. Exelon

estimated the potential exposures to the public and biota by evaluating exposure pathways

typical of those surrounding a nuclear unit at the ESP site. They considered pathways that

could cause the highest calculated radiological dose based on the use of the environment by

| the residents located around a new nuclear unit (Exelon 2006a). For example, factors such as

the location of homes in the area, consumption of milk from dairy cows in the area, and

consumption of vegetables grown in area gardens were considered.

For the liquid effluent release pathway, the ER considered the following exposure pathways in

evaluating the dose to the maximally exposed individual: (1) ingestion of aquatic food (i.e., fish),

(2) direct radiation exposure from shoreline activities, and (3) direct radiation exposure from

swimming and boating activities (see Figure 5-1). The irrigation and drinking water exposure

pathways were not considered, as water from Clinton Lake and Salt Creek is not used for either

irrigation or public drinking water. Population dose estimates for the public within 80 km (50 mi)

of a new nuclear unit were not calculated for the liquid effluent pathway because Clinton Lake

and Salt Creek are not a source of public drinking water and no commercial fishing is allowed

on them. Liquid effluents were assumed to be released into Clinton Lake at the end of the

5.5-km (3.4-mi) discharge flume.

For the gaseous effluent release pathway, Exelon considers the following exposure pathways in

evaluating the dose to the maximally exposed individual and to the population: (1) external

exposure to the airborne plume (i.e., air submersion), (2) external exposure to contaminated

ground, (3) inhalation of airborne activity (i.e., gaseous effluents), and (4) ingestion of

contaminated agricultural products (see Figure 5-1).

| Exelon (2006a) states that direct radiation from the condensate storage tank and skyshine from

| nitrogen-16 in the CPS turbine building would be the dominant source of direct radiation

exposure to the public from the Exelon ESP site. Exelon assumes that contained sources of

radiation at a new nuclear unit would be shielded and would not contribute to the external dose

of the maximally exposed individual or the population.

Exposure pathways considered in evaluating dose to the biota are shown in Figure 5-2 and

included

 C Ingestion of aquatic foods

 C Ingestion of water

 C External exposure from water immersion or surface effect

 C Inhalation of airborne radionuclides
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-49 NUREG-1815

Figure 5-1. Exposure Pathways to Humans
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-50 July 2006

Figure 5-2. Exposure Pathways to Biota Other than Humans

 C External exposure to immersion in gaseous effluent plumes, and

 C Surface exposure from deposition of iodine and particulates from gaseous effluents

| (Exelon 2006a; NRC 1977).

| The staff reviewed the exposure pathways for the public and biota identified by Exelon (2006a)

| and found them to be appropriate, based on a documentation review, a tour of environs, and

interviews with Exelon staff during the site visit in March 2004.

5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public

Exelon calculated the dose to the maximally exposed individual from both the liquid and

| gaseous effluent release pathways (Exelon 2006a). As discussed in the previous sections,

direct radiation exposure to the maximally exposed individual from sources of radiation at a new

nuclear unit would be negligible.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-51 NUREG-1815

5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway

Liquid pathway doses were calculated using the LADTAP II computer program (Strenge et al.

1986) for the following activities: eating fish caught near the discharge point, swimming and

boating activities near the discharge point, and using the shoreline for recreational purposes

near the discharge point. The liquid effluent releases used in the estimate of dose to the

maximally exposed individual are found in Table 3.5-1 of the ER (Exelon 2006a). Other |

parameters used as inputs to the LADTAP II program include effluent discharge rate, dilution

factor for discharge, lake volume, and liquid pathway consumption and usage factors (i.e., fish

consumption, shoreline usage, swimming exposure, and boating) and are found in Tables 5.4-1 |

and 5.4-2 of the ER (Exelon 2006a). |

Exelon calculated liquid pathway doses to the maximally exposed individual. The maximum

annual dose to the total body for an adult was 0.0095 mSv (0.95 mrem). The maximum annual

dose to the thyroid was 0.0003 mSv (0.03 mrem). The maximum annual dose to the liver for a |

teen was 0.0133 mSv (1.33 mrem). |

The staff recognizes the LADTAP II computer program as an appropriate method for calculating

dose to the maximally exposed individual for liquid effluent releases. The staff performed an

independent evaluation of liquid pathway doses using input parameters from the ER and found

similar results. All input parameters used in Exelon calculations were judged by the staff to be

appropriate. Results of the staff's independent evaluation are found in Appendix H.

5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway

Gaseous pathway doses to the maximally exposed individual were calculated by Exelon using

the GASPAR II computer program (Strenge et al. 1987) at the following locations: the nearest

residence, nearest garden, nearest meat animal, nearest milk cow, nearest milk goat, and the

exclusion area boundary. The GASPAR II computer program was also used to calculate annual

population doses. The following activities were considered in the dose calculations: (1) direct

radiation from immersion in the gaseous effluent cloud and from particulates deposited on the

ground, (2) inhalation of gases and particulates, (3) ingestion of milk and meat from cattle eating

contaminated grass, and (4) ingestion of foods contaminated by gases and particulates. The

gaseous effluent releases used in the estimate of dose to the maximally exposed individual and

population are found in Table 3.5-3 of the ER (Exelon 2006a). Other parameters used as inputs |

to the GASPAR II program, including population data, milk production rates, vegetable

production rates, meat production rates, atmospheric dispersion factors, ground deposition

factors, receptor locations, and consumption factors, are found in Tables 5.4-3 and 5.4-4 of the |

ER (Exelon 2006a) or were obtained by the staff during the March 2004 site visit. |
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-52 July 2006

Gaseous pathway doses to the maximally exposed individual calculated by Exelon are found in

Table 5-1. Table 5-2 shows the annual whole body and thyroid doses to the population from

various pathways calculated by Exelon.

Table 5-1. Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual from Gaseous Effluent Pathway(a)

Location Pathway

Total Body

Dose

(mSv/yr)(b)

Thyroid Dose

(mSv/yr)(b)

Skin Dose

(mSv/yr)(b)

Exclusion area boundary (1.0 km [0.64 mi]

NNE)

Plume 8.75 x 10-3 - 2.94 x 10-2

Nearest residence (1.2 km [0.73 mi] SW) Plume 3.9 x 10-3 - 1.4 x 10-2

Nearest residence (1.2 km [0.73 mi] SW) Inhalation

Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

1.2 x 10-3

1.2 x 10-3

1.1 x 10-3

6.3 x 10-4

4.8 x 10-3

6.0 x 10-3

7.0 x 10-3

6.0 x 10-3

-

-

-

-

Nearest garden (1.5 km [0.93 mi] N) Vegetable

Adult

Teen

Child

2.7 x 10-3

3.6 x 10-3

6.8 x 10-3

2.6 x 10-2

3.6 x 10-2

7.0 x 10-2

-

-

-

Nearest meat animal (1.5 km [0.93 mi] N) Meat

Adult

Teen 

Child

6.1 x 10-4

4.5 x 10-4

7.3 x 10-4

-

-

-

-

-

-

Nearest milk cow (8.1 km [5 mi] N)(c) Cow Milk 

Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

9.7 x 10-5

1.4 x 10-4

2.7 x 10-4

5.0 x 10-4

1.5 x 10-3

2.4 x 10-3

4.7 x 10-3

1.1 x 10-2

-

-

-

-

Nearest milk goat (7.1 km [4.4 mi] SE)(d) Goat Milk 

Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

1.5 x 10-4

2.0 x 10-4

3.4 x 10-4

5.9 x 10-4

1.7 x 10-3

2.7 x 10-3

5.4 x 10-3

1.3 x 10-2

-

-

-

| (a) Source was the Exelon ER (2006a), Tables 5.4-6 and 5.4-9. No infant doses were calculated for the vegetable

or meat pathway because the doses that infants receive from this diet would be bounded by the dose calculated

| for the child.

(b) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr.

(c) This distance and direction from the ESP site represents the location of the nearest cow producing milk for

human consumption.

| (d) This distance and direction from the ESP site represents the location of the nearest milk goat. In Table 2.7-54 of

| the ER (Exelon 2006a), the largest relative deposition factor for the nearest milk goat is listed at a distance of

| 8 km (5 mi) north-northeast of the ESP site. This relative deposition factor is approximately 20 percent greater

| than the relative deposition factor used in Exelon’s calculation; however, it would not result in a significant

increase in the dose to the maximally exposed individual.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-53 NUREG-1815

Table 5-2. Annual Doses to Population from Gaseous Effluent Pathway(a)

Pathway

Calculated Dose to Total Body

(person-Sv/yr)(b)

Calculated Dose to Thyroid (worst case

organ) (person-Sv/yr)(b)

Plume 4.03 x 10-3 4.03 x 10-3

Ground 1.45 x 10-3 1.45 x 10-3 |

Inhalation 4.80 x 10-3 1.53 x 10-2

Vegetable ingestion 1.08 x 10-3 1.09 x 10-3

Cow milk ingestion 3.92 x 10-3 3.35 x 10-2

Meat ingestion 2.98 x 10-3 4.20 x 10-3 |

Total 1.83 x 10-2 5.95 x 10-2

(a) Source was Exelon (2006a), Table 5.4-11. |

(b) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain person-rem/yr.

The staff recognizes the GASPAR II computer program as an appropriate tool for calculating

dose to the maximally exposed individual and population from gaseous effluent releases. The

staff performed an independent evaluation of gaseous pathway doses and found similar results. 

All input parameters used in the Exelon calculations were judged to be appropriate by the staff. 

Results of the staff's independent evaluation are found in Appendix H. 

5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public

This section describes the staff’s evaluation of the estimated impacts from radiological releases

and direct radiation of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. The evaluation addresses

dose from operations to the maximally exposed individual located at the ESP site and the

population dose (collective dose to the population within 80 km [50 mi]) around the ESP site.

5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual

Exelon (Exelon 2006a) states that total body and organ dose estimates to the maximally |

exposed individual from liquid and gaseous effluents for a new nuclear unit would be within the

design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Doses to total body and maximum organ at

Clinton Lake from liquid effluents were well within the respective 0.03-mSv/yr (3-mrem/yr) and

0.1-mSv/yr (10-mrem/yr) Appendix I design objectives. Doses at the exclusion area boundary

from gaseous effluents were well within the Appendix I design objectives of 0.1 mGy/yr

(10 mrad/yr) air dose from gamma radiation, 0.2 mGy/yr (20 mrad/yr) air dose from beta

radiation, 0.05 mSv/yr (5 mrem/yr) to the total body, and 0.15 mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr) to the skin.
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-54 July 2006

| In addition, dose to the thyroid was within the 0.15 mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr) Appendix I design

objective. A comparison of dose estimates for a new nuclear unit to the Appendix I design

objectives is found in Table 5-3.

Gaseous and liquid effluents from the CPS contribute a small fraction of the Appendix I design

objectives (i.e., less than 1 percent) (AmerGen 2002). Therefore, the cumulative effects of both

the current operating unit and a new nuclear unit would be within Appendix I design objectives.

| Exelon (Exelon 2006a) states that dose estimates from combined liquid and gaseous effluents

to the maximally exposed individual at the site boundary from a new nuclear unit are well within

the regulatory standards of 40 CFR Part 190. As stated earlier, exposure at the site boundary

| from direct radiation sources at a new nuclear unit would be negligible. Table 5-4 compares

calculated Exelon doses to the dose standards from 40 CFR Part 190, i.e., 0.25 mSv/yr

(25 mrem/yr) to the total body, 0.75 mSv/yr (75 mrem/yr) to the thyroid, and 0.25 mSv/yr

(25 mrem/yr) to any other organ. 

| Table 5-3. Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates for a New Nuclear

Unit from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents to 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, Design

Objectives

| Pathway/Type of Dose Exelon (2006a)(a)

Appendix I Design

Objectives(a)

Liquid Effluents

Total body dose 0.0095 mSv/yr (adult) 0.03 mSv/yr

Maximum organ dose 0.0133 mSv/yr (teen liver) 0.1 mSv/yr

Gaseous Effluents (Noble gases only)

Gamma air dose 0.0135 mGy/yr 0.1 mGy/yr

Beta air dose 0.0289 mGy/yr 0.2 mGy/yr

Total body dose 0.00875 mSv/yr 0.05 mSv/yr

Skin dose 0.0294 mSv/yr 0.15 mSv/yr

Gaseous effluents (Radioiodines and

particulates)

Organ dose 0.0944 mSv/yr (thyroid) 0.15 mSv/yr

(a) Multiply mSv/yr or mGy/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr or mrad/yr.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-55 NUREG-1815

Table 5-4. Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates from Liquid and

Gaseous Effluents to 40 CFR Part 190 Standards

Dose

Exelon (2006a) Estimate

(mSv/yr)(a)(b)

40 CFR Part 190 |

Standards (mSv/yr)(b)

Whole body dose equivalent 0.0321 0.25

Thyroid dose 0.0947 0.75

Dose to another organ 0.0133 (teen liver) - liquid 

0.0371 (bone) - gaseous 

0.25

(a) Sum of dose from liquid and gaseous effluent releases.

(b) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr.

Doses to the maximally exposed individual from the CPS are smaller than the dose estimates

for a new nuclear unit. Section 2.5 states that the maximum annual dose to a member of the

public from gaseous and liquid effluents at the CPS is typically less than 3 x 10-5 mSv (less than

0.003 mrem). Section 4.9 states that direct radiation exposures from the CPS do not vary

significantly from background radiation levels at the site boundary. Therefore, the combined

dose to the maximally exposed individual from the CPS and a new nuclear unit would be well

within the 40 CFR Part 190 standards, 10 CFR Part 20 standards, and 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix I, design objectives.

5.9.3.2 Population Dose

Exelon estimates the collective total body dose within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Exelon

ESP site to be 0.0183 person Sv/yr (1.83 person-rem/yr) (Exelon 2006a). The estimated |

collective dose to the same population from natural background radiation is estimated to be

2300 person-Sv/yr (230,000 person-rem/yr) (Exelon 2006a). The dose from natural background |

radiation was calculated by multiplying the projected 80-km (50-mi) population data for 2010 of

approximately 800,000 people by the annual background dose rate of 2.85 mSv/yr

(285 mrem/yr) (Exelon 2006a). |

Collective dose was estimated using the GASPAR II computer code and was attributed to the

gaseous effluent pathway. Collective dose from the liquid effluent pathway was not calculated

since Clinton Lake and Salt Creek are not a source of public drinking water or irrigation water,

and no commercial fishing is allowed (Exelon 2006a). The staff performed an independent |

evaluation of population doses and found similar results (see Appendix H).

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection |

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of causing

cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-56 July 2006

Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the relationship

| between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report by the

| National Research Council (2006), BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold dose

| response model. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an

incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative

model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

| over estimates those risks.

Based on this model, the staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from International

| Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) Publication 60 (ICRP 1991). This coefficient was

multiplied by the estimated collective whole body population dose of 0.0183 person-Sv/yr

(1.83 person-rem/yr) to calculate that the population living within 80 km (50 mi) of the Exelon

ESP site would incur a total of approximately 0.0013 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe

hereditary effects annually. The risks from the cumulative radiation exposure from the CPS and

the proposed ESP plant would be only slightly higher. This risk is very small compared to the

estimated 170 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects that the same

population would incur annually from exposure to natural sources of radiation.

In addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the NCI conducted a study and published,

“Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities,” in 1990 (NCI 1990). This report included

an evaluation of health statistics around all nuclear power plants, as well as several other

nuclear fuel cycle facilities, in operation in the United States in 1981 and found “no evidence

that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near nuclear facilities” (NCI 1990).

5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts to Members of the Public

The staff evaluated the health impacts from routine gaseous and liquid radiological effluent

releases from a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. Based on the information provided by

Exelon and on its own independent evaluation, the staff concludes there would be no

observable health impacts to the public from normal operation of a new nuclear unit, and the

health impacts would be SMALL.

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers

Limited information was available on occupational dose estimates from the advanced reactor

| designs. Dominion and Bechtel (2002) reported annual occupational dose estimates of

1.5 person-Sv (150 person-rem) for the advanced pressurized water reactor (AP1000), the

International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS), and gas turbine modular helium reactor

| designs. On the basis of information contained in NUREG-0713 (NRC 2002b) the average 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-57 NUREG-1815

annual collective dose per operating reactor in the United States was 1.72 person-Sv/yr |

(172 person-rem/yr) for the time period of 1992-2001. The estimated occupational doses for the

advanced reactor designs were slightly less than the annual occupational doses for current light

water reactors (LWRs). |

Exelon (2006a) concluded that occupational exposures for the new nuclear unit would likely be |

bounded by occupational exposures from currently operating LWRs based on the following: 

(1) advanced LWR designs have or will incorporate radiation protection features that are

improved over the designs provided in currently operating LWRs and (2) gas-cooled reactor

design-basis source terms and expected operating characteristics exhibit lower radiation levels

during normal operation and for abnormal operating occurrences than currently

operating LWRs. |

The licensee of a new plant will need to maintain individual doses to workers within 0.05 Sv |

(5 rem) annually as specified in 10 CFR 20.1201 and apply the ALARA process to maintain

doses below this limit. |

The staff concludes that the health impacts from occupational radiation exposure would be |

SMALL based on individual worker doses being maintained within 10 CFR 20.1201 limits and |

collective occupational doses being typical of doses found in current operating LWR reactors. |

5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Members of the Public

Exelon estimated doses to surrogate biota species, including fish, invertebrates, algae, muskrat,

raccoon, heron, and duck. Fish, invertebrates, and algae are referred to as aquatic species. 

Muskrats, raccoons, herons, and ducks are referred to as terrestrial species. Important biota

species for the Exelon ESP site and the corresponding surrogate species are as follows: 

(1) spike (freshwater mussel) - invertebrate, (2) channel catfish, hybrid striped bass, largemouth

bass, and walleye - fish, (3) whitetail deer, turkey, rabbit, squirrel, and raccoon - raccoon and

muskrat, (4) duck, teal, coot, and Canada goose - duck, and (5) sandpiper and heron - heron

(Exelon 2006a). Surrogate species are well-defined and provide an acceptable method for |

judging doses to the biota. Exposure pathways considered in evaluating dose to the biota were

discussed in Section 5.9.1 and shown in Figure 5-2.

5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway

Exelon (2006a) used the LADTAP II computer code to calculate doses to the biota from the |

liquid effluent pathway. In estimating the concentration of radioactive effluents in Clinton Lake,

Exelon (2006a) used a partially mixed impoundment model. Liquid pathway doses were higher |

for biota compared to man because of considerations for bioaccumulation of radionuclides,

ingestion of aquatic plants, ingestion of invertebrates, and increased time spent in water and 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-58 July 2006

shoreline compared to man. The liquid effluent releases used in estimating biota dose are

| found in Table 3.5-1 of the ER (Exelon 2006a). Input parameters into the LADTAP II computer

code assumed no credit for dilution or transit time from the outflow. Parameters for surrogate

| species are found in Tables 5.4-15, 5.4-16, and 5.4-17 of the ER (Exelon 2006a) and were

taken from Strenge et al. (1986) and NRC (1977). These parameters include food intake, body

mass, effective body radius, shoreline exposure, and swimming exposure. Total body dose

estimates to the surrogate species from the liquid pathway are shown in Table 5-5.

5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway

Gaseous effluents would contribute to the total body dose of the terrestrial surrogate species

(i.e., muskrat, raccoon, heron, and duck). The exposure pathways include inhalation of airborne

radionuclides, external exposure due to immersion in gaseous effluent plumes, and surface

exposure from deposition of iodine and particulates from gaseous effluents. The dose

calculated to the maximally exposed individual from gaseous effluent releases in Table 5-1

would also be applicable to terrestrial surrogate species with one modification. The one

| modification defined in Exelon (2006a) was increasing the ground deposition factors by a factor

of two as terrestrial animals would be closer to the ground than the maximally exposed

individual. The gaseous effluent releases used in estimating dose are found in Table 3.5-3 of

| the ER (Exelon 2006a). The ER used doses at the exclusion area boundary (1.03 km [0.64 mi])

NNE of the ESP site) in estimating terrestrial species doses. Total body dose estimates to the

surrogate species from the gaseous pathway are shown in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5. Comparison of Biota Doses from the Exelon ESP Site to 40 CFR Part 190(a)

Biota

Liquid

Effluents -

Internal Dose

(mGy/yr)(b)

Liquid Effluents -

External Dose

(mGy/yr)(b)

Gaseous

Effluents -

Internal

Dose

(mGy/yr)(b)

Gaseous

Effluents -

External

Dose

(mGy/yr)(b)

Total Body

Biota Dose

All

Pathways

(mGy/yr)(b)

40 CFR Part

190 Total

Body Dose

Limit

(mSv/yr)(a)

Fish 2.43 x 10-2 3.82 x 10-2 - - 6.25 x 10-2 2.5 x 10-1

Invertebrate 6.11 x 10-2 7.63 x 10-2 - - 1.37 x 10-1 2.5 x 10-1

Algae 2.78 x 10-1 7.18 x 10-5 - - 2.78 x 10-1 2.5 x 10-1

Muskrat 1.34 x 10-1 2.55 x 10-2 1.66 x 10-3 1.06 x 10-2 1.72 x 10-1 2.5 x 10-1

Raccoon 4.57 x 10-2 1.91 x 10-2 1.66 x 10-3 1.44 x 10-2 8.09 x 10-2 2.5 x 10-1

Heron 6.63 x 10-1 2.55 x 10-2 8.3 x 10-4 6.27 x 10-3 6.96 x 10-1 2.5 x 10-1

Duck 1.2 x 10-1 3.82 x 10-2 1.66 x 10-3 1.16 x 10-2 1.72 x 10-1 2.5 x 10-1

| (a) Data taken from Table 5.4-18 of Exelon (2006a).

(b) Multiply mGy/yr or mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrad/yr or mrem/yr.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-59 NUREG-1815

5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Biota Doses

Table 5-5 also compares the annual total body dose estimates to surrogate biota species from a

new nuclear unit to the annual whole body dose standard in 40 CFR Part 190. Although the

40 CFR Part 190 standards apply to members of the public in unrestricted areas and not to

biota, they are provided here for comparative purposes. Dose estimates to the biota from the

CPS would not be significant when compared to those of a new nuclear unit because the

current operating plant has not had any liquid effluent releases in the past 9 years. Radiation

doses to the biota are expressed in units of absorbed dose (mGy [mrad]) because dose

equivalent (mSv [mrem]) only applies to human radiation doses. Exelon assumed that mSv

(mrem) and mGy (mrad) are approximately equivalent for comparison of biota doses to the

40 CFR Part 190 standards. Annual dose to algae and heron-surrogate species exceeded the

dose standard in 40 CFR Part 190. The biota dose estimates of a new nuclear unit are

conservative because they do not consider dilution or decay of liquid effluents during transit. 

Actual doses to the biota are likely to be much less.

The International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP 1977; ICRP 1991) states that if |

humans are adequately protected, other living things are also likely to be sufficiently protected. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992) and the National Council on Radiation |

Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1991) reported that a chronic dose rate of no greater than |

10 mGy/d (1000 mrad/d) to the maximally exposed individual in a population of aquatic |

organisms would ensure protection of the population. IAEA (1992) also concluded that chronic |

dose rates of 1 mGy/d (100 mrad/d) or less do not appear to cause observable changes in |

terrestrial animal populations. Table 5-6 compares the estimated total body dose to the biota

from a new nuclear unit to the IAEA chronic dose rate values for aquatic organisms and

terrestrial animals. The cumulative effects of the CPS and a new nuclear unit result in dose

rates less than those of the NCRP and IAEA studies. |

The staff performed an independent evaluation of doses to biota and found similar results. 

Results of the staff’s independent evaluation are found in Appendix H.

Based on the information provided by Exelon and its own independent evaluation, the staff

concludes that the radiological impact on biota from the routine operation of a new nuclear unit

at the proposed ESP site would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted.

5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring

Exelon would establish a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) for the Exelon

ESP site to monitor the radiological environment around the site during pre-construction and

construction phases and during operation of a new nuclear unit (Exelon 2006a). The purpose |
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-60 July 2006

Table 5-6. Comparison of Biota Doses from a New Nuclear Unit at the Exelon ESP Site

to Relevant Guidelines for Biota Protection(a) |

| Biota

Total Body Dose - Exelon ESP Unit

(mGy/d)(b)

IAEA/NCRP Guidelines for

Protection of Biota Populations

(mGy/d)(b)

Fish 1.71 x 10-4 10

Invertebrate 3.76 x 10-4 10

Algae 7.62 x 10-4 10

Muskrat 4.71 x 10-4 1

Raccoon 2.22 x 10-4 1

Heron 1.91 x 10-3 1

Duck 4.70 x 10-4 1

(a) Total dose from liquid and gaseous effluents in Table 5-5.

(b) Multiply mGy/d times 100 to obtain mrad/d.

| IAEA = International Atomic Energy Agency.

| NCRP = National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.

of the REMP is to sample, measure, analyze, and monitor the radiological impact of proposed

reactor operations on the environment.

The program would be implemented in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1501 and 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix A, General Design Criterion 64. The program would consist of two phases: preoperational and operational. The pre-operational program would evaluate radiation exposure

rates and concentrations in the environment that contribute to construction worker dose. The

pre-operational program would be developed from baseline data already established for the

| CPS (Exelon 2006a). The operational and pre-operational phases would be essentially the

same. To the greatest extent practical, the REMP for the ESP program would utilize the

sampling locations used by the CPS. Additional sampling locations might be added

as necessary.

The REMP would include the following six environmental elements: direct radiation,

atmosphere, aquatic, terrestrial environments, groundwater, and surface water. Analyses

performed on environmental samples collected would include gross alpha and beta analysis,

gamma spectroscopy analysis, tritium analysis, strontium analysis, and gamma dose (using

thermoluminescent dosimetry only).

In an annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (e.g., AmerGen 2002) for the entire

site, including both the CPS and a new nuclear unit, data will be compared with those for

previous years. In addition, an inter-laboratory comparison program currently exists and an 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-61 NUREG-1815

independent laboratory will continue to verify the program results. A quality assurance program

will be implemented for the program. The staff reviewed Exelon’s proposed REMP and finds it

adequate.

5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

The staff considered the radiological consequences on the environment of potential accidents at

a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. Consequence estimates are based on the General

Electric advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) standard reactor design, which has been

certified by the NRC, and the surrogate Westinghouse AP1000. The term “accident,” as used in

this section, refers to any off-normal event not addressed in Section 5.9 that results in release of

radioactive materials into the environment. The focus of this review is on events that could lead

to releases substantially in excess of permissible limits for normal operations. Normal release

limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2.

Numerous features combine to reduce the risk associated with accidents at nuclear power

plants. Safety features in the design, construction, and operation of the plants, which comprise

the first line of defense, are intended to prevent the release of radioactive materials from the

plant. The design objectives and the measures for keeping levels of radioactive materials in

effluents to unrestricted areas is as low as reasonable achievable are specified in 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix I. There are additional measures that are designed to mitigate the

consequences of failures in the first line of defense. These include the NRC’s reactor site

criteria in 10 CFR Part 100, which require the site to have certain characteristics that reduce the

risk to the public and the potential impacts of an accident, and emergency preparedness plans

and protective action measures for the site and environs, as set forth in 10 CFR 50.47, 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix E, and NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 (NRC 1980). All of these safety features,

measures, and plans make up the defense-in-depth philosophy to protect the health and safety

of the public and the environment.

This section discusses (1) the types of radioactive materials, (2) the paths to the environment,

(3) the relationship between radiation dose and health effects, and (4) the environmental

impacts of reactor accidents, both design basis accidents (DBAs) and severe accidents. The

environmental impacts of accidents during transportation of spent fuel are discussed in

Chapter 6.

The potential for dispersion of radioactive materials in the environment depends on the

mechanical forces that physically transport the materials and on the physical and chemical

forms of the material. Radioactive material exists in a variety of physical and chemical forms. 

The majority of the material in the fuel is in the form of nonvolatile solids. However, there is a

significant amount of material that is in the form of volatile solids or gases. The gaseous

radioactive materials include the chemically inert noble gases (e.g., krypton and xenon), which

have a high potential for release. Radioactive forms of iodine, which are created in substantial
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-62 July 2006

quantities in the fuel by fission, are volatile. Other radioactive materials formed during the

operation of a nuclear power plant have lower volatilities and, therefore, have a lower tendency

to escape from the fuel than the noble gases and iodines.

Radiation exposure to individuals is determined by their proximity to radioactive material, the

duration of their exposure, and the extent to which they are shielded from the radiation. 

Pathways that lead to radiation exposure include (1) external radiation from radioactive material

in the air, on the ground, and in the water, (2) inhalation of radioactive material, and

(3) ingestion of food or water containing material initially deposited on the ground and in water.

The risks of health effects from radiation exposure are either too small to be observed or are

nonexistent below 0.1 Sv (10 rem) (HPS 2004). Incidence of cancer in the exposed general

population may begin to develop after a lapse of 2 to 15 years (latent period) after exposure and

then level off over a period of about 30 years (plateau period). In the case of radiation exposure

of fetuses, cancer may begin to develop as early as at birth (no latent period) to the age of 10.

Physiological effects are clinically detectable should individuals receive radiation exposure

resulting in a dose greater than about 0.25 Sv (25 rem) over a short period of time (hours). 

Doses of about 2.5 to 5.0 Sv (250 to 500 rem) received over a relatively short period (hours to a

few days) can be expected to cause some fatalities.

5.10.1 Design Basis Accidents

Exelon evaluated the potential consequences of postulated accidents to demonstrate that a new

nuclear unit could be constructed and operated at the Exelon ESP site without undue risk to the

health and safety of the public. These evaluations used a set of surrogate DBAs that are

representative of the range of reactor designs being considered for the ESP site and sitespecific meteorological data. The set of accidents covers events that range from relatively high

probability of occurrence with relatively low consequences to relatively low probability with high

consequences.

The DBA review focuses on two LWR designs: the ABWR and the surrogate AP1000. The

bases for analyses of postulated accidents for these designs are well established because they

have been considered as part of the NRC’s advanced reactor design certification process. 

Accidents for the other reactor designs listed in the application are not as well defined as those

for the ABWR and AP1000; acceptable assumptions and methodologies for the evaluation of

postulated accidents have not been fully established. Because the source terms for accident

analyses are generically proportional to the power level, for the purpose of this site-suitability

evaluation, the potential consequences of accidents for the other reactor designs are expected

to be bounded by those for the ABWR and the surrogate AP1000 designs. For example,

preliminary information on source terms for the IRIS and ACR-700 reactor designs indicates 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-63 NUREG-1815

that the source terms for the surrogate AP1000 loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) will bound the

worst case accident releases for these advanced reactor designs. Similarly, the ABWR source

term will bound the source term for the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR)

design. The advanced gas reactor designs (Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor [GT-MHR]

and pebble bed modular reactor [PBMR]) postulate relatively small releases to the environment

compared to water reactor technologies (Exelon 2006a). |

Should an application that references an ESP at the Exelon site be made to build and operate

one of the designs other than the ABWR or surrogate AP1000, Exelon would be required to

show - and the staff would verify - that the radiological consequences of DBAs for the proposed

reactor(s) are bounded by the consequences of DBAs evaluated in this EIS.

Potential consequences of DBAs are evaluated following procedures outlined in regulatory

guides and standard review plans. The potential consequences of accidental releases depend

on the specific radionuclides released, the amount of each radionuclide released, and the

meteorological conditions. The source terms for the ABWR reactor design are based on

TID-14844 (AEC 1962) guidance, and guidance on methods for evaluating potential accidents

for the ABWR are set forth in NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987), Regulatory Guide 1.3 (NRC 1974a),

and Regulatory Guide 1.25 (NRC 1974b). The source terms for the surrogate AP1000 reactor

and methods for evaluating potential accidents are based on guidance in Regulatory

Guide 1.183 (NRC 2000a).

For environmental reviews, consequences are evaluated assuming realistic meteorological

conditions. Meteorological conditions are represented in these consequence analyses by an

atmospheric dispersion factor, which is also referred to as P/Q. Acceptable methods of

calculating P/Q for DBAs from meteorological data are set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.145

(NRC 1983).

Table 5-7 lists P/Q values pertinent to the evaluation of the suitability of the Exelon ESP site. 

The first column lists the time periods and boundaries for which P/Q and dose estimates are

needed. For the exclusion area boundary, the postulated DBA dose and its atmospheric

dispersion factor are calculated for a short-term, i.e., 2 hours, and for the low population zone,

they are calculated for the course of the accident, i.e., 30 days (720 hours) composed of four

time periods. The second column lists the P/Q values presented in Exelon’s ER Section 2.7.6

using the site meteorological information discussed in ER Section 2.7.4 and the exclusion area

boundary and low population zone distances (Exelon 2006a). No credit was taken for |

building wake.
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-64 July 2006

Exelon calculated the P/Q values listed in Table 5-7 (1) using a set of meteorological data for

the ESP site that covered 32 months, and (2) assuming the release point was located at the

center of the proposed ESP facility footprint. The staff evaluated possible changes in the P/Q

values (1) based on 36 months (2000 - 2002) of meteorological data, and (2) assuming that the

release point would be 220 m (722 ft) closer to the exclusion area boundary and low population

zone in each downwind sector. These changes in the P/Q values were small and would not

significantly change the calculated doses.

Small P/Q values are associated with greater dilution capability. Thus, if the design P/Q values

for a specific reactor design identified as part of a CP or COL application are greater than or

equal to the site P/Q values, atmospheric dispersion at the site is sufficient such that the doses

predicted for postulated DBAs for the design will be below regulatory limits if the source terms

are bounded by the PPE.

| The staff concludes that the atmospheric dispersion characteristics of the Exelon ESP site are

| acceptable with respect to the potential environmental consequences of postulated DBAs for

| reactor designs with design P/Q values falling within the bounds set by the site P/Q values. At

| the CP or COL stage, the applicant would need to demonstrate that the P/Q values used in

| analyzing the reactor design proposed at the CP or COL stage are equal to or greater than the

| site P/Q values specified in the ESP. Additional evaluation will be needed if reactor design P/Q

| values do not meet this criterion.

Tables 5-8 and 5-9 list the set of surrogate DBAs considered by Exelon and present its estimate

of the environmental consequences of each accident in terms of total effective dose equivalent

(TEDE). TEDE is the sum of the committed effective dose equivalent from inhalation and the

deep dose equivalent from external exposure. Dose conversion factors from Federal Guidance 

Table 5-7. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Exelon ESP Site Design Basis Accident

Calculations

Time Period and Boundary P/Q (s/m3)

0 to 2 hr, Exclusion Area Boundary 3.56 x 10-5

0 to 8 hr, Low Population Zone 3.40 x 10-6

8 to 24 hr, Low Population Zone 2.85 x 10-6

1 to 4 d, Low Population Zone 1.85 x 10-6

4 to 30 d, Low Population Zone 1.00 x 10-6
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-65 NUREG-1815

Table 5-8. Design Basis Accident Doses for an ABWR

TEDE (Sv)(a)

Accident

Standard Review

Plan Section(b)

Exclusion Area

Boundary

Low

Population

Zone

Review

Criterion

Main steam line break 15.6.4

 Pre-existing iodine spike 6.8 x 10-4 6.5 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-1 (c)

 Accident-initiated iodine spike 3.4 x 10-5 3.3 x 10-6 2.5 x 10-2 (d)

Loss-of-coolant accident 15.6.5 2.3 x 10-3 7.6 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-1 (c)

Failure of small lines carrying primary

coolant outside containment

15.6.2 3.0 x 10-5 5.7 x 10-6 2.5 x 10-2 (d)

Fuel handling 15.7.4 8.0 x 10-4 9.8 x 10-5 6.25 x 10-2 (d)

(a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply by 100.

(b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987).

(c) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) and 10 CFR 100.11 criteria. |

(d) Standard Review Plan criterion.

Table 5-9. Design Basis Accident Doses for an AP1000 Reactor

TEDE in Sv(a)

Accident

Standard

Review Plan

Section(b) EAB(c) LPZ(d)

Review

Criterion

Main steam line break 15.1.5

 Pre-existing iodine spike 4.2 x 10-4 1.3 x 10-4 2.5 x 10-1(e)

 Accident-initiated iodine spike 4.7 x 10-4 5.0 x 10-4 2.5 x 10-2(f)

Steam generator rupture 15.6.3

 Pre-existing iodine spike 1.8 x 10-3 8.8 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-1(e)

 Accident-initiated iodine spike 8.9 x 10-4 6.6 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-2(f)

Loss-of-coolant accident 15.6.5 1.5 x 10-2 2.6 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-1(e)

Rod ejection 15.4.8 1.8 x 10-3 4.5 x 10-4 6.25 x 10-2(f)

Reactor coolant pump rotor seizure (locked rotor) 15.3.3 1.5 x 10-3 1.5 x 10-4 2.5 x 10-2(f)

Failure of small lines carrying primary coolant

outside containment

15.6.2 7.7 x 10-4 7.6 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-2(f)

Fuel handling 15.7.4 1.4 x 10-3 1.5 x 10-4 6.25 x 10-2(f)

(a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply by 100.

(b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987).

(c) Exclusion area boundary.

(d) Low population zone.

(e) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) and 10 CFR 100.21 criteria.

(f) Standard Review Plan criterion.
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-66 July 2006

Report 11 (Eckerman et al. 1988) were used to calculate the committed effective dose

equivalent. Similarly, dose conversion factors from Federal Guidance Report 12 (Eckerman and

Ryman 1993) were used to calculate the deep dose equivalent. Equivalent TEDE values were

estimated for the ABWR by multiplying the thyroid dose by a factor 0.03 (the organ weighing

factor for the thyroid in the TEDE methodology) and adding the product to the whole body dose. 

The review criteria used in the staff’s safety review of DBA doses are included in Tables 5-8 and

5-9 to illustrate how small the calculated environmental consequences (TEDE doses) are.

In addition to the evaluation of consequences of the DBAs for the ABWR and surrogate AP1000

designs described above, Exelon evaluated the consequences of postulated LOCAs for the

ESBWR and Advanced Canada Deuterium Uranium Reactor (ACR-700) reactor designs. 

Table 5-10 lists the estimated TEDE for each design. The review criteria used in the staff’s

safety review of DBA doses are included in Table 5-10 to illustrate how small the calculated

environmental consequences (TEDE doses) are.

In all cases, the calculated TEDE values are considerably smaller than the TEDE doses used

as safety review criteria. Therefore, the staff concludes that the Exelon ESP site is suitable for

| operation of new advanced LWRs. Should an applicant for a CP or COL reference an LWR

| design, the applicant would need to demonstrate that P/Q values used in analyzing the reactor

| design proposed at the CP or COL stage are equal to or greater than the site P/Q values

| specified in the ESP. Additional evaluation will be needed if reactor design P/Q values do not

| meet this criterion. The environmental impacts of DBAs have not been explicitly evaluated for

| gas-cooled reactors because necessary design information is lacking. Therefore, the impacts of

| gas-cooled reactors are unresolved. However, the staff expects that releases to the

environment under accident conditions would be small for such designs.

Table 5-10. Potential Consequences of Postulated Loss-of-Coolant Accidents

for the ESBWR and ACR-700 Reactor Designs

Reactor Design

TEDE (Sv)(a)

Exclusion Area

Boundary Low Population Zone Review Criterion(b)

ESBWR 3.1 x 10-3 4.7 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-1

ACR-700 3.8 x 10-3 4.2 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-1

(a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply by 100.

(b) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) criterion.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-67 NUREG-1815

Summary of Design Basis Accident Impacts

Although Exelon chose to use the PPE approach in its ESP application, the applicant based its

evaluation of the environmental impacts of DBAs on characteristics of the ABWR and the

surrogate AP1000 reactor designs with the explicit assumption that these impacts would bound

the impacts of other advanced LWR designs (Exelon 2006a). The NRC staff reviewed the |

analysis in the ER, which is based on analyses performed for design certification of these reactor

designs. The results of the Exelon analyses indicate that the environmental risks associated with

DBAs, if an advanced LWR were to be located at the Exelon ESP site, would be small compared

to the TEDE doses used as safety review criteria. On this basis, the staff concludes that the

consequences of DBAs at the Exelon ESP site are of SMALL significance for advanced LWRs

and that the Exelon ESP site is suitable for operation of advanced LWRs. Should an applicant

for a CP or COL reference an LWR design, the applicant would need to demonstrate that P/Q |

values used in analyzing the reactor design proposed at the CP or COL stage are equal to or |

greater than the site P/Q values specified in the ESP. Additional evaluation will be needed if |

reactor design P/Q values do not meet this criterion. The environmental impacts of DBAs for |

gas-cooled reactors have not been explicitly evaluated and are, therefore, unresolved. These |

impacts would need to be evaluated at the CP or COL stage if such a design were selected. |

5.10.2 Severe Accidents

In its ER, Exelon bases its evaluation of the potential environmental consequences of severe

accidents on the evaluation of potential consequences of severe accidents for the currentgeneration reactors presented in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). Three pathways were considered: 

(1) the atmospheric pathway, in which radioactive material is released to the air, (2) the surface

water pathway, in which airborne radioactive material falls out on open bodies of water, and

(3) the groundwater pathway, in which groundwater is contaminated by a basemat melt-through

with subsequent contamination of surface water by the groundwater.

In response to an NRC request for additional information, dated May 11, 2004 (NRC 2004a),

Exelon performed a site-specific analysis of the potential environmental consequences of

postulated severe accidents at the Exelon ESP site. Because the PPE does not include source

terms for severe accidents Exelon used the source terms for the ABWR and surrogate AP1000 |

reactors as PPE values. Exelon used the MACCS2 computer code (Chanin et al. 1990;

Jow et al. 1990) for the analysis. Input to the MACCS2 code and summarized results of the

analysis were submitted to the NRC in a letter dated July 23, 2004 (Exelon 2004a). |

The MACCS computer code was developed to evaluate the potential offsite consequences of

severe accidents for the sites covered by NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). MACCS2 (Chanin and |

Young 1997) is the current version of MACCS. The MACCS and MACCS2 codes evaluate the 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-68 July 2006

consequences of atmospheric releases of material following a severe accident. The pathways

modeled include exposure to the passing plume, exposure to material deposited on the ground

and skin, inhalation of material in the passing plume and resuspended from the ground, and

ingestion of contaminated food and surface water. The primary enhancements in MACCS2 are

that MACCS2 has (1) a more flexible emergency-response model, (2) an expanded library of

radionuclides, and (3) a semidynamic food-chain model (Chanin and Young 1997).

Three types of severe accident consequences were assessed: (1) human health, (2) economic

costs, and (3) land area affected by contamination. Human health effects are expressed in

terms of the number of cancers that might be expected if a severe accident were to occur. 

These effects are directly related to the cumulative radiation dose received by the general

population. MACCS2 estimates both early cancer fatalities and latent fatalities. Early fatalities

are related to high doses or dose rates and can be expected to occur within a year of exposure

(Jow et al. 1990). Latent fatalities are related to exposure of a large number of people to low

doses and dose rates and can be expected to occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15)

years. Population health-risk estimates are based on the population distribution within an

80-km (50-mi) radius of the site. Economic costs of a severe accident include the costs

associated with short-term relocation of people; decontamination of property and equipment;

interdiction of food supplies, land, and equipment use; and condemnation of property. The

affected land area is a measure of the areal extent of the residual contamination following a

| severe accident. Farm land decontamination is an estimate of the area that has an average

whole body dose rate for the 4-year period following the release that would be greater than

0.005 Sv/yr (0.5 rem/yr) if not reduced by decontamination and that would have a dose rate

| following decontamination of less than 0.005 Sv/yr (0.5 rem/yr). Decontaminated land is not

| necessarily suitable for farming.

Risk is the product of the frequency and the consequences of an accident. For example, the

probability of a severe accident without loss of containment for an ABWR is estimated to be

1.34 x 10-7 per reactor year (Ryr-1), and the cumulative population dose associated with a severe

accident without loss of containment at the Exelon ESP site is calculated to be

8.18 x 101

 person-Sv (8.18 x 103 person-rem). The population dose risk for this class of

accidents is the product of 1.34 x 10-7 Ryr-1 and 8.18 x 101

 person-Sv, or 1.10 x 10-5 person-Sv

Ryr-1 (1.10 x 10-3 person-rem Ryr-1). The following sections discuss the estimated risks

associated with each pathway.

The risks presented in the tables that follow are risks per year of reactor operation. Exelon has

indicated that the ESP site could hold two reactors of the surrogate AP1000 design. The

consequences of a severe accident would be the same regardless of whether one or two

surrogate AP1000 reactors were built. However, if two of the surrogate AP1000 reactors were 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-69 NUREG-1815

built, the risks would apply to each reactor, and the total risk for new reactors at the site would

be twice the risk for a single reactor. Even if the risk values were doubled, the risks would still

be significantly smaller than the risks associated with current-generation reactors.

Air Pathway. The MACCS2 code directly estimates consequences associated with releases to

the air pathway. The results of the MACCS2 runs are presented in Tables 5-11 and 5-12. The

core damage frequencies given in these tables are for internally initiated accident sequences

while the plant is at power. Internally initiated accident sequences include sequences that are

initiated by human error, equipment failures, loss of offsite power, etc. Based on insights from

the review of the advanced LWR probabilistic risk assessments, the core damage frequencies

for externally initiated events and during shutdown would be comparable to or lower than those

for internally initiated events.

Tables 5-11 and 5-12 show that the probabilistically weighted consequences, i.e., risks, of

severe accidents for an ABWR or surrogate AP1000 reactor located on the Exelon ESP site are

small for all risk categories considered. For perspective, Tables 5-13 and 5-14 compare the

health risks from severe accidents for the ABWR and the surrogate AP1000 reactors at the

Exelon ESP site with the risks for current-generation reactors at various sites.

In Table 5-13, the health risks estimated for the ABWR and surrogate AP1000 reactors at the

Exelon ESP site are compared with health-risk estimates for the five reactors considered in

NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). Although risks associated with both internally and externally

initiated events were considered for the Peach Bottom and Surry reactors in NUREG-1150, only

risks associated with internally initiated events are presented in Table 5-13. The health risks

shown for the ABWR and surrogate AP1000 reactors at the Exelon ESP site are significantly

lower than the risks associated with current generation reactors presented in NUREG-1150.

In addition, the last two columns of Table 5-13 provide average individual fatality risk estimates

for comparison to the Commission’s safety goals. The Commission has set safety goals for

average individual early fatality and latent cancer fatality risks from reactor accidents in the

Safety Goal Policy Statement (NRC 1986). The Policy Statement expressed the Commission’s

policy regarding the acceptance level of radiological risk from nuclear power plant operation as

follows:

 C Individual members of the public should be provided a level of protection from the

consequences of nuclear power plant operation such that individuals bear no significant

additional risk to life and health

 C Societal risks to life and health from nuclear power plant operation should be comparable to

or less than the risks of generating electricity by viable competing technologies and should

not be a significant addition to other societal risks.
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-70 July 2006 Table 5-11. Mean Environmental Risks from ABWR Severe Accidents at the Exelon ESP Site Environmental Risk Release Category Description (Accident Class) Core Damage Frequency (Ryr-1) Population Dose (person-Sv Ryr-1)(a) Fatalities (Ryr-1) Cost(d) ($ Ryr-1) Farm Land Decontamination(e) (ha Ryr-1) Population Dose from | Water Ingestion (person-Sv Ryr-1)(a) Early(b) Latent(c) 0 No loss of containment 1.34 x 10-7 1.10 x 10-5 0 4.76 x 10-7 3.58 x 10-1 2.71 x 10-6 1.20 x 10-8 1 Transients followed by failure of high- pressure coolant makeup and failure to depressurize in timely fashion 2.08 x 10-8 1.59 x 10-6 0 7.88 x 10-8 6.45 x 10-2 2.58 x 10-7 2.08 x 10-9 2 Short-term station blackout with reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) failure, onsite power recovery in 8 hr 1.00 x 10-10 3.80 x 10-9 0 1.63 x 10-10 3.82 x 10-5 1.71 x 10-11 1.93 x 10-12 | 3 Station blackout with RCIC available for about 8 hr 1.00 x 10-10 2.33 x 10-7 0 1.08 x 10-8 2.07 x 10-2 5.05 x 10-7 8.55 x 10-10 4 Station blackout (more than 8 hr) with RCIC failure 1.00 x 10-10 1.52 x 10-7 0 6.77 x 10-9 1.36 x 10-2 3.54 x 10-7 6.19 x 10-10 5 Transients followed by failure of high- pressure coolant makeup, successful depressurization of reactor, failure of low-pressure coolant makeup 1.00 x 10-10 6.32 x 10-8 0 2.43 x 10-9 1.32 x 10-2 1.50 x 10-7 2.05 x 10-10 6 Transient, loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), and anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) events with successful coolant makeup, but potential prior failure of containment 1.00 x 10-10 7.81 x 10-7 6.83 x 10-15 3.51 x 10-8 6.53 x 10-1 1.35 x 10-5 3.00 x 10-8 7 Small/medium LOCA followed by failure of high-pressure coolant makeup and failure to depressurize 3.91 x 10-10 3.24 x 10-6 2.33 x 10-12 1.43 x 10-7 2.98 x 10+0 5.98 x 10-5 1.51 x 10-7 8 LOCA followed by failure of high- pressure coolant makeup 4.05 x 10-10 4.21 x 10-6 6.64 x 10-10 1.84 x 10-7 4.78 x 10+0 8.46 x 10-5 3.50 x 10-7
July 2006 5-71 NUREG-1815

Station Operation Impacts

Table 5-11. (contd)

Environmental Risk

|

Release Category Description

(Accident Class)

Core Damage

Frequency (Ryr-1)

Population Dose

(person- Sv Ryr-1)(a)

Fatalities (Ryr-1)

Cost(d)

($ Ryr-1)

Farm Land 

Decontamination(e)

(ha Ryr-1)

Population Dose from

Water Ingestion 

(person-Sv Ryr-1)(a) Early(b) Latent(c)

9 ATWS followed by boron injection

failure and successful high-pressurecoolant makeup

1.70 x 10-10 2.28 x 10-6 1.26 x 10-10 1.08 x 10-7 2.24 x 10+0 3.74 x 10-5 2.50 x 10-7

Total 1.56 x 10-7 2.35 x 10-5 7.93 x 10-10 1.04 x 10-6 1.11 x 10+1 1.99 x 10-4 7.97 x 10-7(a) To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100.(b) Early fatalities are fatalities related to high doses or dose rates that generally can be expected to occur within a year of the exposure (Jow et al. 1990).

(c) Latent fatalities are fatalities related to low doses or dose rates that can be expected to occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years.(d) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not include costs associated with health

effects (Jow et al. 1990).

(e) Land risk is area where the average whole body dose rate for the 4-year period following the accident exceeds 0.005 Sv/yr (0.5 rem/yr) but can be reduced to less than |

0.005 Sv/yr (0.5 rem/yr) by decontamination. To convert hectares (ha) to acres, multiply by 2.47. |
NUREG-1815 5-72 July 2006

Station Operation Impacts Table 5-12. Mean Environmental Risks from Surrogate AP1000 Severe Accidents at the Exelon ESP Site Environmental Risk

Release Category Description

(Accident Class)

Core Damage

Frequency (Ryr-1)

Population Dose

(person-Sv Ryr-1)(a)

Fatalities (Ryr-1) Cost(d)

($ Ryr-1)

Farm Land

Decontamination(e)

(ha Ryr-1)

Population Dose from |

Water Ingestion

(person Sv Ryr-1)(a) Early(b) Latent(c)

CFI | Intermediate containment failure, after

core relocation but before 24 hr

1.89 x 10-10 1.22 x 10-6 5.76 x 10-11 6.52 x 10-8 4.54 x 10-1 3.70 x 10-6 3.31 x 10-8 |

CFE Early containment failure, after onset

of core damage but before corerelocation

7.47 x 10-9 5.59 x 10-5 3.10 x 10-9 2.69 x 10-6 4.16 x 10+1 8.74 x 10-4 2.05 x 10-8

IC Intact containment 2.21 x 10-7 1.24 x 10-5 0.00 x 10+0 6.03 x 10-7 5.81 x 10-1 3.89 x 10-6 2.94 x 10-8BP Containment bypass, fission products

released directly to environment 

1.05 x 10-8 1.43 x 10-4 1.03 x 10-8 7.76 x 10-6 1.45 x 10+2 2.65 x 10-3 1.31 x 10-5

CI Containment isolation failure occurs

prior to onset of core damage

1.33 x 10-9 9.23 x 10-6 4.40 x 10-11 5.11 x 10-7 6.08 x 10+0 1.08 x 10-4 3.19 x 10-7

CFL Late containment failure occurring after

24 hr

3.45 x 10-13 9.97 x 10-10 6.66 x 10-14 5.80 x 10-11 1.07 x 10-3 8.59 x 10-9 7.56 x 10-12

Total 2.40 x 10-7 2.21 x 10-4 1.35 x 10-8 1.16 x 10-5 1.94 x 10+2 3.64 x 10-3 1.35 x 10-5(a) To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100.(b) Early fatalities are fatalities related to high doses or dose rates that generally can be expected to occur within a year of the exposure (Jow et al. 1990).

(c) Latent fatalities are fatalities related to low doses or dose rates that can be expected to occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years.(d) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not include costs associated with health

effects (Jow et al. 1990).

(e) Land risk is area where the average whole body dose rate for the 4-year period following the accident exceeds 0.005 Sv/yr (0.5 rem/yr) but can be reduced to less than |

0.005 Sv/yr (0.5 rem/yr) by decontamination. |
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-73 NUREG-1815 Table 5-13. Comparison of Environmental Risks for an ABWR or a Surrogate AP1000 at the Exelon ESP Site with Risks for Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1150(a) Core Damage Frequency (Ryr-1) 50-mi (80-km) Population Dose Risk (person-Sv Ryr-1)(b) Fatalities Ryr-1 Average Individual Fatality Risk Ryr-1 Early Latent Early Latent Cancer Grand Gulf(c) 4.0 x 10-6 5 x 10-1 8 x 10-9 9 x 10-4 3 x 10-11 3 x 10-10 Peach Bottom(c) 4.5 x 10-6 7 x 10+0 2 x 10-8 5 x 10-3 5 x 10-11 4 x 10-10 Sequoyah(c) 5.7 x 10-5 1 x 10+1 3 x 10-5 1 x 10-2 1 x 10-8 1 x 10-8 Surry(c) 4.0 x 10-5 5 x 10+0 2 x 10-6 5 x 10-3 2 x 10-8 2 x 10-9 Zion(c) | 3.4 x 10-4 5 x 10+1 4 x 10-5 2 x 10-2 9 x 10-9 1 x 10-8 | ABWR(d) 1.6 x 10-7 2.4 x 10-5 7.9 x 10-10 1.0 x 10-6 3.8 x 10-14 3.9 x 10-12 AP1000(d) 2.4 x 10-7 2.2 x 10-4 1.4 x 10-8 1.2 x 10-5 6.4 x 10-13 5.5 x 10-11 (a) NRC 1990 (b) To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100. (c) Risks were calculated using the MACCS code and presented in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). (d) Calculated with MACCS2 code using Exelon ESP site-specific input.
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-74 July 2006

 Table 5-14. Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal

Events for an ABWR or a Surrogate AP1000 at the Exelon ESP Site with Risks

Initiated by Internal Events for Plants Undergoing Operating License Renewal

Review

Core Damage Frequency

(yr-1)

80-Km (50-mi) Population

Dose Risk (person-Sv Ryr-1)

(a)

Current Reactor Maximum(b) 2.4 x 10-4 6.9 x 10-1

Current Reactor Mean(b) 3.6 x 10-5 15 x 10-1

Current Reactor Median(b) | 2.8 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-1

Current Reactor Minimum(b) 1.9 x 10-6 5.5 x 10-3

ABWR(c) 1.6 x 10-7 2.4 x 10-5

AP1000(c) 2.4 x 10-7 2.2 x 10-4

(a) To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100.

(b) Based on MACCS and MACCS2 calculations for current plants undergoing operating license renewal.

(c) Calculated with MACCS2 code using Exelon ESP site-specific input.

The following quantitative health objectives are used in determining achievement of the safety

goals:

 C The risk to an average individual in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant of prompt fatalities

that might result from reactor accidents should not exceed one-tenth of 1 percent

(0.1 percent) of the sum of prompt fatality risks resulting from other accidents to which

members of the U.S. population are generally exposed.

 C The risk to the population in the area near a nuclear power plant of cancer fatalities that

might result from nuclear power plant operation should not exceed one-tenth of 1 percent

(0.1 percent) of the sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes.

These quantitative health objectives are translated into two numerical objectives as follows:

C The individual risk of a prompt fatality from all “other accidents to which members of the

U.S. population are generally exposed,” such as fatal automobile accidents, is about

5 x 10-4 per year. One-tenth of one percent of this figure implies that the individual risk of

prompt fatality from a reactor accident should be less than 5 x 10-7 per reactor year.

C “The sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes” for an individual is taken to

be the cancer fatality rate in the U.S. which is about 1 in 500 or 2 x 10-3 per year. 
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-75 NUREG-1815

One-tenth of 1 percent of this implies that the risk of cancer to the population in the area

near a nuclear power plant because of its operation should be limited to 2 x 10-6 per reactor

year.

MACCS2 calculates average individual early and latent cancer fatality risks. The average |

individual early fatality risk is calculated using the population distribution within 1.6 km (1 mi) of

the plant boundary. The average individual latent cancer fatality risk is calculated using the

population distribution within 16 km (10 mi) of the plant. For the plants considered in

NUREG-1150, these risks were well below the Commission’s safety goals. Risks calculated for

the ABWR and the surrogate AP1000 designs at the Exelon ESP site are lower than the risks

associated with the current generation reactors considered in NUREG-1150 and are well below

the Commission’s safety goals.

The staff compared the core damage frequencies and population dose risk estimates for the

ABWR and surrogate AP1000 reactors at the Exelon ESP site with statistics summarizing the

results of contemporary severe accident analyses performed for 28 current generation operating

reactors at 23 sites. The results of these analyses are included in the final site-specific

Supplements 1 through 20 to the GEIS for License Renewal, NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), and in

the ERs included with license renewal applications for those plants for which supplements have

not been published. All of the analyses were completed after publication of NUREG-1150

(NRC 1990), and 23 of the analyses used MACCS2, which was released in 1997. Table 5-14

shows that the core damage frequencies estimated for the ABWR and surrogate AP1000

reactors are significantly lower than those of current-generation reactors. Similarly, the

population doses estimated for the advanced reactors at the Exelon ESP site are well below the

mean and median values for current-generation reactors undergoing license renewal.

The staff compared the risk estimates given in Tables 5-11 and 5-12, the comparisons of air

pathway risks in Tables 5-13 and 5-14, and the comparison of average individual early fatality

and average individual latent cancer fatality risks in Table 5-13 with the Commission’s safety

goals. Preliminary information on the IRIS and the ACR-700 reactor designs indicates that the

surrogate AP1000 will likely bound the risk for these advanced reactor designs. Similarly, the

ESBWR risk is expected to be bounded by the risk for the ABWR. On this basis, the staff

concludes that the Exelon ESP site is suitable for operation of advanced LWRs.

If, as stated in the ER, the releases from the gas-cooled reactor designs are bounded by the

releases from the advanced LWR designs, the site would be suitable for these gas-cooled

reactors. The PPE does not contain specific parameters related to severe accidents for gascooled reactors. The consequences of severe accidents have not been explicitly evaluated for

gas-cooled reactors and will need to be evaluated at the CP or COL stage. For the evaluation

in this EIS to bound the reactor design selected at the CP or COL stage, Exelon and the staff 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-76 July 2006

will need to verify that the environmental impacts of the air pathway releases for severe

accidents at the Exelon ESP site remain bounded by the environmental impacts from the

surrogate designs.

Surface-Water Pathways. Surface-water pathways are an extension of the air pathway. These

pathways cover the effects of radioactive material deposited on open bodies of water. The

surface-water pathways of interest include external radiation from submersion in water and

activities near the water, ingestion of water, and ingestion of fish and other aquatic creatures. 

Of these pathways, the MACCS2 code evaluates only the ingestion of contaminated water. The

risks associated with this surface-water pathway calculated for the Exelon ESP site are included

in the last columns of Tables 5-11 and 5-12. These dose estimates are extremely conservative

because no drinking water is withdrawn from surface waters in the vicinity of the ESP site

| (Exelon 2006a). For each accident class, the population dose risk from ingestion of water is a

small fraction of the dose risk from the air pathway.

Clinton Lake is used for recreational activities including swimming and fishing. Doses from

these surface-water pathways are not modeled in MACCS or MACCS2. NUREG-1437

(NRC 1996) considered typical population exposure risk for the aquatic food pathway for plants

located on small rivers. For these plants, the population dose from the food pathway was well

below the population dose from the air pathway. The CPS site, which is co-located with the

ESP site, is classified as being on a small river. Analysis of water-related exposure pathways at

the Fermi reactor (NRC 1981) suggests that population exposures from swimming are

significantly lower than exposures from the aquatic ingestion pathway.

Exelon owns Clinton Lake, which is the major surface-water body in the vicinity of the Exelon

ESP site. Clinton Lake is managed by the IDNR. In the event of a large release of radioactive

material, population exposures through the surface-water pathways could be minimized by

controlling access to the lake.

After considering the water-ingestion dose estimates, the NUREG-1437 evaluations, and Exelon

and the State of Illinois control over Clinton Lake access, the staff concludes that the Exelon

ESP site is suitable for operation of an ABWR or a surrogate AP1000 reactor; in a similar

fashion to the air pathway, the environmental impacts of the surface-water pathway for other

advanced LWRs are expected to be bounded by the ABWR and the surrogate AP1000. The

environmental impacts of severe accidents for gas-cooled reactors have not been evaluated. 

The PPE does not contain specific parameters related to severe accidents for gas-cooled

reactors, and the consequences of severe accidents for gas-cooled reactors will need to be

evaluated at the CP or COL stage. For this evaluation to bound the reactor design selected at

the CP or COL stage, Exelon and the staff will need to verify that the environmental impacts of

the surface-water pathway releases for severe accidents at the Exelon ESP site remain

bounded by the environmental impacts from the surrogate designs.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-77 NUREG-1815

Groundwater Pathway. Neither MACCS nor MACCS2 evaluates the environmental risks

associated with severe accident releases of radioactive material to groundwater. However, this

pathway has been addressed in NUREG-1437 in the context of renewal of licenses for currentgeneration reactors (NRC 1996). NUREG-1437 assumes a 1 x 10-4 Ryr-1 probability of

occurrence of a severe accident with a basemat melt-through leading to potential groundwater

contamination, and the staff concluded that groundwater generally contributes a small fraction

of the risk attributable to the atmospheric pathway. Although the staff assumed that the

probability of occurrence of a release via the groundwater pathway is significantly larger than a

release via the atmospheric pathway for either the ABWR or the surrogate AP1000, the

groundwater pathway is more tortuous and affords more time for implementing protective

actions and, therefore, results in a lower risk to the public. As a result, the staff concludes that

the risks associated with releases to groundwater are sufficiently small that they would not have

a significant effect on determination of suitability of the Exelon ESP site.

Summary of Severe Accident Impacts. Although Exelon chose the PPE approach in the overall

ESP application, it based its evaluation of the environmental impacts of severe accidents on

characteristics of the ABWR and surrogate AP1000 reactor designs with the explicit assumption

that these impacts would bound the impacts of other potential designs (Exelon 2006a). The |

NRC staff has reviewed the analysis in the ER and conducted its own confirmatory analysis

using the MACCS2 code. The results of both the Exelon analysis and the NRC analysis

indicate that the environmental risks associated with severe accidents if an advanced LWR

were to be located at the Exelon ESP site would be small compared to risks associated with

operation of current-generation reactors at the Exelon ESP site and other sites. These risks are

well below the NRC safety goals. On these bases, the staff concludes that the probability

weighted consequences of severe accidents at the Exelon ESP site are of SMALL significance

for an advanced LWR and that the Exelon ESP site is suitable for operation of an advanced

LWR. The environmental impacts of severe accidents of designs not evaluated in this EIS, |

including gas-cooled designs, are unresolved because information is lacking. Consequently, |

these impacts would need to be evaluated at the CP or COL stage. |

For this evaluation to bound the reactor design selected at the CP or COL stage, Exelon and the

staff would need to verify that the environmental impacts of severe accidents at the Exelon ESP

site remain bounded by the environmental impacts from the surrogate designs.

5.10.3 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts

The staff evaluated the environmental impacts from DBAs and severe accidents using the

ABWR and the surrogate AP1000 to characterize the environmental impacts from advanced

LWRs. As described previously, preliminary information on the IRIS and the ACR-700 reactor

designs indicate that the surrogate AP1000 would likely bound the source term, doses, and

probability weighted consequences of design basis and severe accidents. Similarly, the 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-78 July 2006

ESBWR source term, doses, and probability weighted consequences of design basis and

severe accidents is expected to be bounded by the ABWR.

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the staff

concludes that the potential environmental impacts from a postulated accident from the

| operation of a new nuclear unit would be SMALL. The staff did not explicitly evaluate the design

| basis or severe accident impacts for gas-cooled reactors because of lack of information. 

| Consequently, the impacts of gas-cooled reactors are unresolved.

5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During

Operation

| The staff relied on the following general measures and controls in its evaluation of

| environmental impacts of operation of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. These

| measures and controls include those which would be required by applicable permits and

| authorizations (Federal, State, and local) listed in Table 1.2-1 of the ER. They also include the

| feasible measures and controls contained in Section 5.10 of the ER (Exelon 2006a):

 C Compliance with the applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and

regulations that prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid waste

management, erosion and sediment control, air emission control, noise control, storm

water management, spill response and cleanup, and hazardous material management)

 C Compliance with applicable requirements of permits and licenses required for operation

(e.g., NPDES and IEPA permits and operating license requirements)

 C Compliance with Exelon procedures applicable to environmental control and

management.

Some of these permits or approvals include:

 C NPDES permit requirements imposed on water discharges from the new units

(ER Sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.5)

 C IEPA permit limits and regulations for installing and operating air emission sources

(See Appendix K)
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-79 NUREG-1815

Exelon specifically identified the following general plans or specific mitigation measures in its

ER (Exelon 2006a) on which the staff relied in its evaluation: |

 C Noise levels will be controlled by engineering designs to operate within OSHA’s noise

exposure limit to workers (29 CFR 1910); Federal noise pollution control regulations

(24 CFR 51); and State or local noise pollution control regulations, as applicable

(35 IAC Subtitle H). (ER Section 5.10.3.1) |

 C Care will be taken to control undesirable dust and exhaust emissions. Applicable airpollution control regulations will be followed. Permits and operating certificates will be

secured where required. (ER Section 5.10.3.2)

 C Erosion and sedimentation controls will be implemented to retain sediment onsite to the

greatest extent practicable. Erosion and sediment runoff will be controlled through the

use of structural and/or stabilization practices, good housekeeping, and maintenance of

sediment pond capacity. (ER Section 5.10.3.3)

 C Measures such as leak detection systems and drip pans will be taken to control

discharges of pollutant sources onsite and offsite from fueling stations and vehicle

maintenance operations. Runoff from excavated areas and associated stockpiles will

be contained or appropriately diverted. Housekeeping practices will ensure

containment of onsite materials and proper treatment of trash. (ER Section 5.10.3.4)

 C Local, State, and Federal traffic requirements onsite and offsite from active facility

operations will be adhered to for traffic control. (ER Section 5.10.3.5)

 C Transmission line right-of-way operation and maintenance activities will be conducted

in a manner similar to the existing transmission facilities. (ER Section 5.10.3.6.3)

 C A target for the Exelon ESP is to maintain a discharge rate within the existing Clinton |

Dam permit, in which the 0.14-m3 (5-cfs) minimum discharge from Clinton Lake to Salt |

Creek will be maintained. Water quality, water temperature, and hydrology will be

operated in compliance with NPDES water quality requirements and other Federal

laws. (ER Sections 5.10.3.7 and 5.10.3.8; see also Section 5.3)

 C Total residual chemical concentrations in the discharges to Clinton Lake from treatment

to limit biological growth and for deicing and antiscaling, which are subject to limits

established by IEPA, will be selected for their effectiveness and ability to 
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-80 July 2006

minimize the impacts on water quality. The discharge-monitoring program will be revised,

as necessary, to monitor for potential water quality impacts. (ER Section 5.10.3.9)

 C Monitoring will be performed, as appropriate and if required, for the presence of

thermophilic organisms, and the potential health risk will be evaluated during

pre-application monitoring. (ER Section 5.10.3.9.4.1)

 C Appropriate construction procedures and best management practices will be utilized to

make certain that the adverse impacts to any environmentally sensitive areas or

important habitats potentially occurring along the proposed transmission line rights-ofway are avoided. (ER Section 5.10.3.12.1)

 C Ground faults will be installed to limit induced currents from the EMF given off by the

transmission lines. Sufficient ground rods will be installed to reduce the resistance to

10 ohms or less under normal atmospheric conditions. (ER Section 5.10.3.12.3.4) 

| Exelon evaluated the measures and controls shown in Section 5.10 of the ER (Exelon 2006a)

and considered them feasible from both a technical and economic standpoint. In addition,

| Exelon expects these measures and controls would be adequate for avoiding or mitigating

potential adverse impacts associated with operation of the new units. The staff considered

these measures and controls in its evaluation of station operation impacts.

5.12 Summary of Operational Impacts

Impact level categories are denoted in Table 5-15 as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE as a

measure of their expected adverse impacts, if any. With the socioeconomic issues for which the

impacts are likely to be beneficially MODERATE or LARGE, this is noted in the Comments

| column. The Impact column designates beneficial impacts as SMALL. Impacts related to the

| chronic effects of EMFs and accident impacts for the gas-cooled designs are unresolved

| because of lack of information. An applicant proposing a gas-cooled reactor design at the CP

| or COL stage that references the Exelon ESP would need to provide this information to enable

analysis at that time.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-81 NUREG-1815

Table 5-15. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Exelon ESP Site

Category Comments

Impact

Level

Land-use impacts --

The site and vicinity Operation of a new nuclear unit within existing site. 

Possible new housing and retail space added in

vicinity due to potential growth.

SMALL

Transmission line |

rights-of-way

Normal maintenance of upgraded transmission lines

in previously existing rights-of-way. 

SMALL

Air quality impacts Cooling tower, meteorological, and transmission line

impacts are expected to be negligible. Pollutants

emitted during operations considered insignificant

and limits could be incorporated under existing

Exclusionary Permit.

SMALL

Water-related impacts

Water use During normal water years, the impact would be

small. During critical low-water years, the impacts

could be temporarily moderate.

SMALL to 

MODERATE

Water quality Water effluents are regulated by IEPA and the

NPDES permit.

SMALL

Ecological impacts

Terrestrial ecosystems Impacts from operation of a new nuclear unit,

including the associated heat dissipation system,

transmission lines, and right-of-way maintenance

would be SMALL.

SMALL

|

Aquatic ecosystems Exelon’s adherence to the NPDES permit would

likely result in the maintenance of balanced aquatic

populations. Potential impacts during drought years

could result in increased impact level up to

MODERATE.

Unresolved, |

likely to be |

SMALL |

Threatened or Endangered

species

Operational impacts to Federally listed species are

expected to be negligible.

SMALL |

|

Socioeconomic impacts

Physical impacts

Workers/public Workers would use protective equipment, receive

training to mitigate any possible impact, and meet

applicable Federal/State regulations. Exelon ESP

site is relatively remote, the public would not be

impacted. 

SMALL

Buildings No anticipated impact to onsite or offsite buildings. SMALL
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-82 July 2006

Table 5-15. (contd)

Category Comments

Impact

Level

Roads Roads are two-lane, rural, and lightly traveled and

would not be substantially physically impacted by

operational workforces.

SMALL

|

Aesthetics Visual impact would be minimal due to remote

location and sparse population. Visual impacts of

operation would be similar to those existing. Could

be moderate during severe drought due to

consumptive water use.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Demography Number of new employees small in proportion to

population base.

SMALL

Impacts to Community - Social and Economic

Economy Increased jobs would benefit the area economically,

up to a moderate beneficial impact, possibly in

DeWitt County.

| Beneficially

SMALL to

MODERATE

| Taxes

|

|

|

|

Depends on residence location; generally, impacts

would be beneficial. The potential benefits would

generally be SMALL everywhere except DeWitt

County where they could be LARGE due to property

tax collection from the ESP facility.

| Beneficially

| SMALL to

LARGE

Impacts to Community - Infrastructure and Community

Transportation Most local roadways are rural, lightly traveled, and

well-maintained.

SMALL

Recreation Overall impacts to recreation minimal. Traffic

around and use of lake could increase. Lower water

levels, and their effect on shoreline exposure and

recreational usage during severe drought, could

temporarily impact area, probably at the

MODERATE level.

SMALL to

MODERATE

Housing Adequate housing is available to handle operational

workers if Exelon’s assumptions on workforce are

correct. DeWitt, Piatt, and Logan Counties could

have a temporary housing shortage, possibly at the

MODERATE impact level. 

SMALL to

MODERATE

Public Services Adequate in all counties for any population increase

due to operation workforce. 

SMALL
Station Operation Impacts

Table 5-15. (contd)

Category Comments

Impact

Level

July 2006 5-83 NUREG-1815

Education Majority of workers are expected to be from within

the region. Current schools could handle any

additional students. 

SMALL

Historic and cultural

resources

A cultural resource procedure is in place for

minimizing impacts from routine land disturbances.

SMALL

Environmental justice No unusual resource dependence in the area. SMALL

Nonradiological health

impacts |

|

|

|

Small estimated lake temperature increase would

not significantly increase abundance of thermophilic

microorganisms. Health impacts of noise, EMF, and

occupational injuries would be monitored and

controlled in accordance with OSHA regulations.

SMALL

Unresolved

for chronic

effects of

EMF

Radiological health impacts

|

Doses to the public and occupational workers would

be monitored and controlled in accordance with

NRC limits.

SMALL

Impacts of postulated

accidents

|

Design basis accidents Doses for new advanced LWRs are expected to be

a small fraction of the regulatory dose limits. Staff

would verify that doses for postulated DBAs on

chosen reactor designs are within regulatory limits.

SMALL for

LWR

Unresolved

for gascooled

designs

Severe accidents Risks would be small. SMALL for

LWR

Unresolved

for gascooled

design

5.13 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.”
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-84 July 2006

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 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

| Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

Criteria.”

18 CFR Part 35. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 18, Conservation of Power and Water

Resources, Part 35, “Filing of Rate Schedules and Tariffs.” 

24 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 24, Housing and Urban Development,

Part 51, “Environmental Criteria and Standards.”

29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational

Safety and Health Standards.” 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property

on Historic Preservation, Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operation.”

40 CFR Part 204. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 204,

“Noise emission standards for construction equipment.”

| 35 Illinois Administrative Code [IAC] Subtitle H, 2003, 2004, and 2006. “Noise.” Accessed on

| the Internet April 27, 2004 and March 29, 2006, at

| http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/View/Collection-1694. 

41 FR 41914. “Determination of Critical Habitat for American Crocodile, California Condor,

Indiana Bat, and Florida Manatee.” Federal Register. Vol. 41, No. 187. 1976.

66 FR 65255. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Final Regulations to Establish

Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase I Existing Facilities; Final Rule." 

Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 243. December 18, 2001.

69 FR 41576. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Final Regulations to Establish

Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Final Rule.” 

Federal Register. Vol. 69, No. 131. July 9, 2004.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-85 NUREG-1815

69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

Regulations and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register. Vol. 69, No. 163. 2004.

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2002. Clinton Power Station 2001 Annual

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Prepared by Robert J. Campbell, Attached to

AmerGen letter from Michael J. Pacilio to the NRC Document Control Desk, April 29, 2002.

Bement, R.S. 2004. Letter from R.S. Bement (Site Vice President, Clinton Power Station) to

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Non-routine Report on Clinton Lake Fish Loss,” dated

March 25, 2004, Docket Number 50-461.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2003. Glossary of Air Pollution Terms. Accessed on |

the Internet January 26, 2006 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/glass.htm. |

Chanin, D.I., J.L. Sprung, L.T. Ritchie, and H. N. Jow. 1990. MELCOR Accident Consequence

Code System (MACCS), User’s Guide. NUREG/CR-4691, Vol 1., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Chanin, D. and M.L. Young. 1997. Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume1, User’s Guide. 

SAND97-0594, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Clean Water Act (CWA) (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 

33 USC 1251, et seq.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). 2002. Clinton Power Station Updated Safety Analysis Report. |

Revision 10. |

Dominion Energy, Inc. and Bechtel Power Corporation. 2002. Study of Potential Sites for the |

Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States. U.S. Department of Energy |

Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC07-021D1431, Glen Allen, Virginia. Available at |

http://www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/ESP_Study/ESP_Study_Dominion1.pdf. |

Eckerman, K.F., A.B. Wolbarst, and A.C.B. Richardson. 1988. Limiting Values of Radionuclide

Intake and Air Concentrations and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and

Ingestion. Federal Guidance Report No. 11, EPA-520/1-88-202, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, D.C.

Eckerman, K.F. and J.C. Ryman. 1993. External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and

Soil. Federal Guidance Report No. Agency, Washington, D.C.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2003. Clinton Power Station Updated Safety |

Analysis Report (CPS USAR), Rev. 10. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania. |
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-86 July 2006

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2004a. Letter dated July 23, 2004 from M.C. Kray

to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC request dated

May 11, 2004. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania.

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2004b. Working File on Class Size. Received

| March 2, 2004, at the Site Audit and can be found in NRC Note to File (Accession Number

| ML412003740). Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006a. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Early

| Site Permit Application: Environmental Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania.

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006b. Emergency Plan for the Exelon

| Generation Company, LLC, Early Site Permit, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2004. Standardization of Generator

Interconnection Agreements and Procedures. FERC. Order No. 2003-A,

Docket No. RM02-1-001. FERC, Washington, D.C.

Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Health Physics Society (HPS). 2004. “Radiation Risk in Perspective.” Health Physics Society,

McLean, Virginia.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 1999. “Illinois Department of Natural

Resources, Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, 1999 Endangered and Threatened

Species List.” Accessed on the Internet December 5, 2003, at

http://dnr.state.il.us/espb/datelist.htm. 

| Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2004a. Clinton Lake - State Recreation Area. 

Accessed on the Internet February 4, 2004, at

| http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/PARKS/R3/clinton.htm.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2004b. Electronic data from DNR

(Springfield, IL), regarding the locations of federally and state-listed threatened and endangered

species within 2 mi and 10 mi of the Exelon ESP site and alternate sites (Braidwood, Byron,

Dresden, LaSalle County, Quad Cities, and Zion) to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

(Richland, Washington), February 19, 2004.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-87 NUREG-1815

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). 2000. National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES). CPS Permit to Discharge from IEPA. Permit No. IL0036919. 

April 24, 2000.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). 2004. Illinois Water Quality Report. Illinois |

2004 Section 303(d) List. Bureau of Water. IEPA/BOW/04-006. Springfield, Illinois. Accessed |

on the Internet January 29, 2006 at http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/water-quality/305b- |

2004.pdf. |

Illinois Power Company (IPC). 1987. Appendix B to Facility License No. NPF-62, “Clinton |

Power Station Unit No. 1, Environmental Protection Plan (Non-Radiological),” Section 4.1, |

“Unusual or Important Environmental Events.” |

Illinois Power Company (IPC). 1992. Clinton Power Station Environmental Monitoring Program

Water Quality Report, January 1978 through December 1991. Illinois Power Company.

Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB). 1993. Opinion and Order of the Board in the Matter of

the Petition of Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station) for Hearing Pursuant to 35 Ill. 

Admin. Code 302.211(j) to Determine Specific Thermal Standards, PCB 92-142 (Thermal

Demonstration), August 26, 1993.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and |

Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series |

No. 332. Vienna, Austria. |

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1977. Recommendations of the

International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 26, 1977, Pergamon

Press, New York.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of |

the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, November

1990, Pergamon Press, New York.

Jow, H.N., J.L Sprung, J.A. Rollstin, L.T. Ritchie, and D.I. Chanin. 1990. MELCOR Accident

Consequence Code System (MACCS), Model Description. NUREG/CR-4691, Vol 2.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Lutterbie, G. 2002. Clinton Lake Access Areas and Fishing Guide. Illinois Department of

Natural Resources, Division of Fisheries, Springfield, Illinois.
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-88 July 2006

| Moulder, J.E. 2004. Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health: Power Lines and Cancer

| FAQs. Available at http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-faq/toc.html#16B,

| Accessed December 3, 2004. Last updated October 8, 2004. 

National Cancer Institute (NCI). 1990. Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities,

Bethesda, Maryland.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1991. Effects of Ionizing

Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland.

| National Electric Safety Code (NESC). 1981. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,

| New York, New York.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health

Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication

No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

| National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks for Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing

| Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low

| Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council, National Academies Press,

| Washington, D.C.

Oliver, G.G. and L.E. Fidler. 2001. Towards a Water Quality Guideline for Temperature in the

Province of British Columbia. Prepared for Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Water

Management Branch, Water Quality Section, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Pallo, M.S. 1988. Clinton Power Station Fish Impingement Report, April 1987 - May 1988. 

Illinois Power Company, Environmental Affairs Department, Field Biology Laboratory,

Decatur, Illinois.

Petro, J. 2001. Letter from John Petro (Exelon Generation Company, LLC) to Roger Calloway

(Illinois Environmental Protection Agency), “Report on December 2000 Clinton Lake Fish Kill,”

dated April 18, 2001.

Petro, J. 2004. Conversation with John Petro (Environmental Manager, AmerGen) during the

NRC visit to the EGC ESP site at Clinton Power Station, March 2, 2004.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-89 NUREG-1815

Strenge, D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II - Technical Reference and

User Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, April 1986, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,

Washington.

Strenge, D.L., T.J. Bander, and J.K. Soldat. 1987. GASPAR II - Technical Reference and User

Guide. NUREG/CR-4653, March 1987, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Tipler, P.A. 1982. Physics. Worth Publishers, New York.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1962. Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and

Test Reactor Sites. TID-14844. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Final Environmental Statement related to the |

proposed Clinton Power Station Units 1 and 2. United States Atomic Energy Commission, |

Directorate of Licensing, October 1974. |

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. American FactFinder. Table P1. Total Population [1] -

Universe: Total population. Census 2000 Summary file (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. Accessed on

the Internet December 6, 2004 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-

state=dt&-context=dt&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-mt_name=DEC_2000-SF1_U_P001&-

tree_id=4001&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=16000US1719798&-

geo_id=16000US1779683&-search_results=16000US1779683&-format=&-_lang=en.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. American FactFinder. Table QT-H1. General Housing

Characteristics: 2000 – DeWitt County. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1)

100 Percent Data. Accessed on the Internet February 10, 2004 at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-state=qt&-context=qt&-

qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-tree_id=4001&-

redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=05000US17039&-geo_id=NBSP&-format=&-

_lang=en.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for

Dissolved Oxygen. EPA 440/5-86-003, Criteria and Standards Division, EPA, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Office of Air Quality, Planning and |

Standards. The Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act. Accessed on the Internet January 29,

2006 at http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/epaprintonly.cgi.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003a. “County Distributions of Federally Listed Species

in Illinois.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island, Illinois. Accessed on the Internet

December 5, 2003 at http://midwest.fws.gov/RockIsland/activity/endangrd/il_list.htm (last

updated May 2003).
Station Operation Impacts

NUREG-1815 5-90 July 2006

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003b. “USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species

System: Listings with a Current Range in Region 3 as of 12/05/2003.” Accessed on the

Internet December 5, 2003 at

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpageRegionLists?lead_region=3#IL (last updated

December 5, 2003).

| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. Provision of information regarding Federally listed

threatened or endangered species that may occur in the vicinity of the Exelon ESP Site and

alternate sites (Byron, Dresden, LaSalle County, and Quad Cities), from FWS (Rock Island,

Illinois, Field Office) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (Washington, D.C.),

April 6, 2004.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1974a. Assumptions Used for Evaluating the

Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors.

Regulatory Guide 1.3, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1974b. Assumptions Used for Evaluating the

Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and

Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors. Regulatory Guide 1.25 (Safety

Guide 25), NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from

Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory Guide 1.109, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA). 1980. Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response

Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1

Rev 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement

Related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Addendum No.1. NUREG-0769, 

Addendum 1, NRC, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for

Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.145, Rev. 1, NRC,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear

Power Plants; Policy Statement.” 51 FR 30028, August 21, 1986.
Station Operation Impacts

July 2006 5-91 NUREG-1815

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plans for the Review of

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment

for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plant, NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement |

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, NRC, |

Washington, D.C. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000a. Alternative Radiological Source Terms

for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.183, NRC, 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000b. Environmental Standard Review Plan

(ESRP). NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Occupational Radiation Exposure at

Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2001. NUREG-0713, Vol. 23, Office 

of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Letter dated May 11, 2004, from

T.J. Kenyon (NRC) to M.C. Kray requesting additional information related to the environmental

report submitted with the Exelon Generating Company application for an early site permit at the

Clinton site. NRC, Washington, D.C. (Accession No. ML0413301880)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Request for information by NRC

(Washington, D.C.) regarding Federal-listed species that may occur in the vicinity of the Exelon

ESP Site and alternate sites (Byron, Dresden, LaSalle County, and Quad Cities) by letter to

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Rock Island, Illinois, Field Office). March 17, 2004.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004c. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |

(NRR). “Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering |

Environmental Issues.” NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, NRC, Washington, D.C. |

July 2006 6-1 NUREG-1815

6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

This chapter addresses the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle and solid

waste management, (2) transportation of radioactive material, and (3) decommissioning for a

new nuclear unit at the early site permit (ESP) site. Distinctions between the impacts of

advanced light water reactor (LWR) designs and the gas-cooled reactor designs are discussed.

In its evaluation of uranium fuel cycle impacts from a new nuclear unit at the ESP site, Exelon

Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) used the plant parameter envelope (PPE) approach for the

advanced LWR designs but not for the two gas-cooled reactors. In its evaluation of the impacts

from transportation of radioactive materials, however, Exelon did not use the PPE approach but

rather evaluated each reactor design individually. Exelon would, therefore, have to perform a

new evaluation if a different design is proposed at the construction permit (CP) or combined

operating license (COL) stage.

6.1 Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management

This section discusses the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

management for both the advanced LWR designs and gas-cooled reactor designs. The impacts

of the two types of design are presented separately because Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), Section 51.51 (10 CFR 51.51) provides specific criteria for evaluating the

environmental impacts only for LWR designs. Issues related to fuel cycle impacts and solid |

waste management are unresolved because of the current lack of data to validate impacts from |

gas-cooled designs.

6.1.1 Light-Water Reactors

The regulations in 10 CFR 51.51(a) state that 

Every environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage of a light-watercooled nuclear power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 1979, shall take

Table S–3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for evaluating the |

contribution of the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of

uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel,

transportation of radioactive materials and management of low level wastes and high level

wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the

nuclear power reactor. Table S–3 shall be included in the environmental report and may be |

supplemented by a discussion of the environmental significance of the data set forth in the

table as weighed in the analysis for the proposed facility.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-2 July 2006

The PPE for a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site uses the bounding input parameters

from the following LWR designs:

 C Advanced Canada Deuterium Uranium Reactor (ACR-700) – This reactor, developed by

| Atomic Energy Canada Limited, is an evolutionary extension of the CANDU 6 plant using

very slightly enriched uranium fuel and light water coolant.

| C Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) – This reactor, developed by the General

| Electric Company, is a standardized plant that has been certified under the U.S. Nuclear

| Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements in 10 CFR Part 52. The ABWR is fueled

| with slightly enriched uranium and uses a light water cooling system. In the fuel cycle

| analysis, the applicant conservatively assumed the ABWR to be the updated design

| power level of 4300 MW(t) rather than the certified design power level of 3926 MW(t).

 C Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (AP1000) – This is an earlier version of the

AP1000 reactor final design developed by Westinghouse Electric Company and

| subsequently approved by the NRC, using slightly enriched uranium and a light water

| cooling system. This design is not the AP1000 that has been certified under the NRC

| requirements in 10 CFR Part 52; therefore, this design will be referred to as the

“surrogate AP1000.”

| C Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) – This reactor, developed by the

General Electric Company, is fueled with slightly enriched uranium and uses a light

water cooling system.

 C International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) next-generation pressurized water

reactor (PWR) – This reactor, under development by a consortium led by the

Westinghouse Electric Company, is a modular LWR.

| These light water designs all use uranium dioxide fuel; therefore, Table S–3 (10 CFR 51.51(b))

can be used to assess environmental impacts. Table S–3 values are normalized for a reference

| 1000-MW(e) LWR at an 80-percent capacity factor. The 10 CFR 51.51(a) Table S–3 values are

reproduced in Table 6-1. The PPE power rating for the Exelon ESP site is 6800 MW(t),

| assuming that two AP1000 units would be located on the ESP site (Exelon 2006), with a PPE

| capacity factor of 95 percent (INEEL 2003) [which corresponds to 2200 MW(e)].

| Specific categories of natural resource use are included in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). These

categories relate to land use, water consumption and thermal effluents, radioactive releases,

burial of transuranic and high-level and low-level wastes, and radiation doses from

| transportation and occupational exposures. In developing Table S–3, the staff considered two
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-3 NUREG-1815

Table 6-1. Table S–3 from 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle |

Environmental Data(1)

Environmental considerations Total Maximum effect per annual fuel requirement or

reference reactor year of model 1000 MWe LWR

Natural Resource Use 

Land (acres):

Temporarily committed2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Undisturbed area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Disturbed area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Equivalent to a 100 MWe coal-fired power plant.

Permanently committed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Overburden moved (millions of MT) . . . . . . . 2.8 Equivalent to 95 MWe coal-fired power plant.

Water (millions of gallons):

Discharged to air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 =2 percent of model 1,000 MWe LWR with cooling 

tower.

Discharged to water bodies . . . . . . . . . . . 11,090

Discharged to ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,377 <4 percent of model 1,000 MWe LWR with oncethrough

Fossil fuel:

Electrical energy (thousands of MW-hr) . . 323 <5 percent of model 1,000 MWe LWR output. 

Equivalent coal (thousands of MT) . . . . . 118 Equivalent to the consumption of a 45 MWe coal-fired

power plant.

Natural gas (millions of standard cubic feet) . . 135 <0.4 percent of model 1,000 MWe energy output. 

Effluents--Chemical (MT)

Gases (including entrainment):3

SOx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,400

NOx

4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,190 Equivalent to emissions from 45 MWe coal-fired plant 

for a year.

Hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.6

Particulates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,154

Other gases: 

F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Principally from UF6 production, enrichment, and

reprocessing. Concentration within range of state

standards—below level that has effects on human

health. 

HCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .014
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-4 July 2006

Table 6-1. (continued)

Environmental considerations Total Maximum effect per annual fuel requirement or

reference reactor year of model 1,000 MWe LWR

Liquids:

SO–

4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing

steps. Components that constitute a potential for

adverse environmental effect are present in dilute

concentrations and receive additional dilution by

receiving bodies of water to levels below permissible

standards. The constituents that require dilution and

the flow of dilution water are: NH3—600 cfs.,

NO3—20 cfs., Fluoride—70 cfs.

NO–

3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8

Fluoride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.9

Ca++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4

C1- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5

Na+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1

NH3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0

Fe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Tailings solutions (thousands of MT) . . . . . . . . . 240 From mills only—no significant effluents to

environment.

Solids 91,000 Principally from mills-no significant effluents to

environment.

Effluents--Radiological (curies)

Gases (including entrainment):

Rn-222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presently under reconsideration by the Commission.

Ra-226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02

Th-230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02

Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .034

Tritium (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.1

C-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Kr-85 (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400

Ru-106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Principally from fuel reprocessing plants.

I-129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3

I-131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Tc-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presently under consideration by the Commission.

Fission products and transuranics . . . . . . . . . . .203

Liquids:

Uranium and daughters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Principally from milling—included tailings liquor and

returned to ground—no effluents; therefore, no effect

on environment. 

Ra-226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0034 From UF6 production. 

Th-230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0015

Th-234 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .01 From fuel fabrication plants—concentration 10 percent

of

10 CFR 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel

requirements for model LWR. 

| Fission and activation products ............ 5.9x10-6

Solids (buried on site): 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Table 6-1. (continued)

Environmental considerations Total Maximum effect per annual fuel requirement or

reference reactor year of model 1,000 MWe LWR

July 2006 6-5 NUREG-1815

Other than high level (shallow) . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,300 9,100 Ci comes from low level reactor wastes and

1,500 Ci comes from reactor decontamination and

decommissioning—buried at land burial facilities.

600 Ci comes from mills—included in tailings

returned to ground. Approximately 60 Ci comes from

conversion and spent fuel storage. No significant

effluent to the environment. 

TRU and HLW (deep) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1x107 Buried at Federal Repository.

Effluents—thermal (billions of British thermal

units) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4,063 <5 percent of model 1,000 MWe LWR

Transportation (person-rem): 

Exposure of workers and general public . . . . . 2.5

Occupational exposure (person-rem) . . . . . . . . . 22.6 From reprocessing and waste management. 1

 In some cases where no entry appears it is clear from the background documents that the matter was addressed and |

that, in effect, the Table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been made. However, there are other areas that

are not addressed at all in the Table. Table S–3 does not include health effects from the effluents described in the

Table, or estimates of releases of Radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle or estimates of Technetium-99 released from

waste management or reprocessing activities. These issues may be the subject of litigation in the individual licensing

proceedings. 

Data supporting this table are given in the “Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,” WASH—1248, April

1974; the “Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle,”

NUREG—0116 (Supp.1 to WASH—1248, NRC 1976); the “Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding

the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,”

NUREG—0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH—1248) (NRC 1977b); and in the record of the final rulemaking pertaining to

Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts from Spent Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Management, Docket RM—50—3.

The contributions from reprocessing, waste management and transportation of wastes are maximized for either of the

two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle). The contribution from transportation excludes transportation of cold fuel

to a reactor and of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from a reactor which are considered in Table S–4 of Sec.

51.20(g). The contributions from the other steps of the fuel cycle are given in columns A-E of Table S–3A of WASH1248. 

2

 The contributions to temporarily committed land from reprocessing are not prorated over 30 years, since the complete |

temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor for one year or 57 reactors for 30 years. 3 Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation. 4

 1.2 percent from natural gas use and process. 

fuel cycle options, which differed in the treatment of spent fuel removed from a reactor. “No

recycle” treats all spent fuel as waste to be stored at a Federal waste repository; “uranium only

recycle” involves reprocessing spent fuel to recover unused uranium and return it to the system. 

Neither cycle involves the recovery of plutonium. The contributions in Table S–3 resulting from |

reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for both of the

two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle); that is, the identified environmental impacts are

based on the cycle that results in the greater impact. The uranium fuel cycle is defined as the 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-6 July 2006

total of those operations and processes associated with provision, utilization, and ultimate

disposition of fuel for nuclear power reactors.

| During the Carter administration, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-242

| (22 USC 3201 et seq.), was enacted; it significantly impacted the disposition of spent nuclear

| fuel by deferring indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel produced

| in the U.S. commercial nuclear power program. While the ban on the reprocessing of spent fuel

| was lifted during the Reagan administration, economic circumstances changed, reserves of

| uranium ore increased, and the stagnation of the nuclear power industry provided little incentive

for industry to resume reprocessing. During the 109th | Congress, the Energy Policy Act of 2005,

| Pub. L. No. 109-58 (119 Stat. 594 [2005]), was enacted. It authorized DOE to conduct an

| advanced fuel recycling technology research and development program to evaluate

| proliferation-resistant fuel recycling and transmutation technologies that minimize environmental

| or public health and safety impacts. Consequently, while Federal policy does not prohibit

| reprocessing, additional DOE efforts would be required before commercial reprocessing and

| recycling of spent fuel produced in the U.S. commercial nuclear power plants could commence.

| The no-recycle option is presented schematically in Figure 6-1. Natural uranium is mined in

either open-pit or underground mines or by an in situ leach solution mining process. In situ

leach mining, the primary form of mining in the United States today, involves injecting a lixiviant

solution into the uranium ore body to dissolve uranium and then pumping the solution to the

surface for further processing. The ore or in situ leach solution is transferred to mills where it is

processed to produce “yellowcake” (U3O8 | ). A conversion facility prepares the uranium oxide by

| converting it to uranium hexafluoride, which is then processed by an enrichment facility to

| increase the percentage of the more fissile isotope uranium-235 and decrease the percentage

| of the non-fissile isotope uranium-238. At a fuel-fabrication facility, the enriched uranium, which

is approximately 5 percent uranium-235, is then converted to UO2. The UO2 is pelletized,

sintered, and inserted into tubes to form fuel assemblies. The fuel assemblies are placed in the

reactor to produce power. When the content of the uranium-235 reaches a point where the

nuclear reactor has become inefficient with respect to neutron economy, the fuel assemblies are

withdrawn from the reactor. After onsite storage for sufficient time to allow for short-lived fission

product decay and to reduce the heat generation rate, the fuel assemblies would be transferred

to a waste repository for internment. Disposal of spent fuel elements in a repository constitutes

the final step in the no-recycle option. 

The following assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle as related to the

| operation of the proposed project is based on the values given in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) and

the staff’s analysis of the radiological impact from radon-222 and technetium-99. In 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

July 2006 6-7 NUREG-1815

Figure 6-1. The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option (derived from NRC 1999)

NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

(GEIS) (NRC 1996),(a) the staff provides a detailed analysis of the environmental impacts from

the uranium fuel cycle. Although NUREG-1437 is specific to the impacts related to license

renewal, the information is relevant to this review because the advanced LWR designs

considered here use the same type of fuel; the staff’s analyses in Section 6.2.3 of NUREG-1437

are summarized and set forth here.

The fuel cycle impacts in Table S–3 are based on a reference 1000-MW(e) LWR operating at an |

annual capacity factor of 80 percent for a net electric output of 800 MW(e). In the following

review and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff considered the

capacity factor of 95 percent with a total net electric output of 2200 MW(e) for a new nuclear

unit at the ESP site (INEEL 2003); this is approximately three times the impact values in |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-8 July 2006

| Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). Throughout this chapter, this will be referred to as the 1000-MW(e)

| LWR scaled model, reflecting 2200 MW(e) for the site.

Recent changes in the fuel cycle may have some bearing on environmental impacts; however,

as discussed below, the staff is confident that the contemporary fuel cycle impacts are below

| those identified in Table S–3.

| The values in Table S–3 were calculated from industry averages for the performance of each

type of facility or operation within the fuel cycle. Recognizing that this approach meant that

there would be a range of reasonable values for each estimate, the staff followed the policy of

choosing the assumptions or factors to be applied so that the calculated values would not be

under-estimated. This approach was intended to ensure that the actual environmental impacts

| would be less than the quantities shown in Table S–3 for all LWR nuclear power plants within

the widest range of operating conditions. Many subtle fuel cycle parameters and interactions

were recognized by the staff as being less precise than the estimates and were not considered

| or were considered but had no effect on the Table S–3 calculations. For example, to determine

| the quantity of fuel required for a year’s operation of a nuclear power plant in Table S–3, the

staff defined the model reactor as a 1000-MW(e) light water cooled reactor operating at

80-percent capacity with a 12-month fuel reloading cycle and an average fuel burnup of

| 33,000 MWd/MTU. This is a “reactor reference year” or “reference reactor year” depending on

the source (either Table S–3 or NUREG-1437), but it has the same meaning. The sum of the

initial fuel loading plus all of the reloads for the lifetime of the reactor can be divided by the now-

| more-likely 60-year lifetime (40-year initial license term and 20-year license renewal term) to

obtain an average annual fuel requirement. This was done in NUREG-1437 for both boiling

water reactors (BWRs) and PWRs; the higher annual requirement, 35 metric tonnes (MT) of

uranium made into fuel for a BWR, was chosen in NUREG-1437 as the basis for the reference

| reactor year. A number of fuel management improvements have been adopted by nuclear

power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel and separative work

(enrichment) requirements. Since Table S–3 was promulgated, these improvements have

reduced the annual fuel requirement.

Another change is the elimination of the U.S. restrictions on the importation of foreign uranium. 

| The economic conditions of the uranium market favor utilization of foreign uranium at the

expense of the domestic uranium industry. These market conditions have forced the closing of

most U.S. uranium mines and mills, substantially reducing the environmental impacts in the

| United States from these activities. Factoring in changes to the fuel cycle suggests that the

environmental impacts of mining and tail millings could drop to levels below those given in

| Table S–3; however, Table S–3 estimates have not been reduced.

Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 discusses the sensitivity to recent changes in the fuel cycle on the

environmental impacts in greater detail.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-9 NUREG-1815

6.1.1.1 Land Use

The total annual land requirement for the fuel cycle supporting the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled |

model is about 138 ha (339 ac). Approximately 15 ha (39 ac) are permanently committed land,

and 123 ha (300 ac) are temporarily committed. A “temporary” land commitment is a

commitment for the life of the specific fuel cycle plant (e.g., a mill, enrichment plant, or

succeeding plants). Following completion of decommissioning, such land can be released for

unrestricted use. “Permanent” commitments represent land that may not be released for use

after plant shutdown and decommissioning because decommissioning activities do not result in

removal of sufficient radioactive material to meet the limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E for

release of that area for unrestricted use. Of the 123 ha (300 ac) of temporarily committed land,

96 ha (237 ac) are undisturbed and 27 ha (66 ac) are disturbed. In comparison, a coal-fired

power plant using the same MW(e) output as the LWR scaled model and using strip-mined coal |

requires the disturbance of about 243 ha (600 ac) per year for fuel alone. The staff concludes

that the impacts on land use to support the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model would be small. |

6.1.1.2 Water Use

The principal water use for the fuel cycle supporting a 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model is that |

required to remove waste heat from the power stations supplying electrical energy to the

enrichment step of this cycle. Scaling from Table S–3, of the total annual water use

of 1.29 x 108

 m3 (3.41 x 1010 gal), about 1.26 x 108 m3 (3.33 x 1010 gal) are required for the |

removal of waste heat, assuming that a new nuclear unit uses once-through cooling. Other

water uses involve the discharge to air (e.g., evaporation losses in process cooling) of about

1.82 x 106

 m3/yr (4.80 x 108 gal/yr) and water discharged to ground (e.g., mine drainage) of |

about 1.44 x 106

 m3/yr (3.81 x 108 gal/yr). |

On a thermal effluent basis, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are about 4 percent

of the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model using once-through cooling. The consumptive water use |

of 1.8 x 106

 m3/yr (4.8 x 108 gal/yr) is about 2 percent of the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model |

using cooling towers. The maximum consumptive water use (assuming that all plants supplying

electrical energy to the nuclear fuel cycle use cooling towers) would be about 6 percent of the

1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model using cooling towers. Under this condition, thermal effluents

would be negligible. The staff concludes that the impacts on water use for these combinations

of thermal loadings and water consumption would be small.

6.1.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts

Electric energy and process heat are required during various phases of the fuel cycle process. 

The electric energy is usually produced by the combustion of fossil fuel at conventional power

plants. Electric energy associated with the fuel cycle represents about 5 percent of the annual 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-10 July 2006

electric power production of the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR. Process heat is primarily

generated by the combustion of natural gas. This gas consumption, if used to generate

| electricity, would be less than 0.4 percent of the electrical output from the model plant. The staff

concludes that the fossil fuel impacts from the direct and indirect consumption of electric energy

for fuel cycle operations would be small relative to the net power production of the proposed

project.

6.1.1.4 Chemical Effluents

The quantities of chemical, gaseous, and particulate effluents with fuel cycle processes are

given in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR. The quantities of

effluents would be approximately three times greater for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled

model. The principal effluents are SOx, NOx, and particulates. Based on data in the Seventh

| Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 1976), these emissions constitute

a small additional atmospheric loading in comparison with emissions from the stationary fuel

combustion and transportation sectors in the United States, which is about 0.06 percent of the

| annual national releases for each of these effluents.

Liquid chemical effluents produced in fuel cycle processes are related to fuel enrichment and

fabrication and may be released to receiving waters. These effluents are usually present in

dilute concentrations such that only small amounts of dilution water are required to reach levels

of concentration that are within established standards. Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) specifies the

amount of dilution water required for specific constituents. Additionally, all liquid discharges into

the navigable waters of the United States from plants associated with the fuel cycle operations

will be subject to requirements and limitations set by an appropriate Federal, State, regional,

| local, or affected Native American Tribal regulatory agency.

Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process and are not released in

quantities sufficient to have a significant impact on the environment.

The staff determined that the impacts of these chemical effluents would be small.

6.1.1.5 Radioactive Effluents

Radioactive effluents estimated to be released to the environment from waste management

activities and certain other phases of the fuel cycle process are set forth in Table S–3 (see

| Table 6-1). Using these effluents in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the staff calculated the

| 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle of 1 year of

| operation of the model 1000-MW(e) LWR. The total overall whole body gaseous dose

| commitment and whole body liquid dose commitment from the fuel cycle (excluding reactor

| releases and dose commitments due to radon-222 and technetium-99) were calculated to be 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-11 NUREG-1815

approximately 4 person-Sv (400 person-rem) and 2 person-Sv (200 person-rem), respectively. |

Scaling these dose commitments by a factor of 3 for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model results |

in whole body dose commitment estimates of 12 person-Sv (1200 person-rem) for gaseous |

releases and 6 person-Sv (600 person-rem) for liquid releases. For both pathways, the |

estimated 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population would be

approximately 18 person-Sv (1800 person-rem) for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model. |

Currently, the radiological impacts associated with radon-222 and technetium-99 releases are |

not addressed in Table S–3. Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling

operations and as emissions from mill tailings, whereas principal technetium-99 releases occur

from gaseous diffusion enrichment facilities. Exelon provided an assessment of radon-222 and

technetium-99 in its response to a request for additional information on December 13, 2004

(Exelon 2004a). This evaluation relied on the information discussed in NUREG-1437

(NRC 1996).

In Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the staff estimated the radon-222 releases from

mining and milling operations and from mill tailings for each year of operations of the reference |

1000-MW(e) LWR. The estimated releases of radon-222 for the reference reactor year for the |

1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model, or for the total electric power rating for the site for a year, are |

approximately 5.8 x 1014 Bq (15,600 Ci). Of this total, about 78 percent would be from mining,

15 percent from milling operations, and 7 percent from inactive tails before stabilization. For

radon releases from stabilized tailings, the staff assumed that the scaled model would result in

an emission of 1.1 x 1011 Bq (3 Ci) per site year; i.e., three times the NUREG-1437 estimate for

the reference reactor year. The major risks from radon-222 are from exposure to the bone and |

the lung although there is a small risk from exposure to the whole body. The organ-specific |

dose weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20 were applied to the bone and lung doses to

estimate the 100-year dose commitment from radon-222 to the whole body. The estimated

100-year environmental dose commitment from mining, milling, and tailings before stabilization

for each site year (assuming the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model) would be approximately |

28 person-Sv (2800 person-rem) to the whole body. From stabilized tailings piles, the estimated

100-year environmental dose commitment would be approximately 0.52 person-Sv

(52 person-rem) to the whole body. Additional insights regarding Federal policy/resource |

perspectives concerning institutional controls comparisons with routine radon-222 exposure and |

risk and long-term releases from stabilized tailing piles are discussed in NUREG-1437

(NRC 1996).

Also as discussed in NUREG-1437, the staff considered the potential health effects associated

with the releases of technetium-99. The estimated releases of technetium-99 for the reference

reactor-year for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model are 7.4 x 108

 Bq (0.02 Ci) from chemical |

processing of recycled uranium hexafluoride before it enters the isotope enrichment cascade

and 5.5 x 108

 Bq (0.015 Ci) into the groundwater from a repository. The major risks from

technetium-99 are from exposure of the gastrointestinal tract and kidney although there is a 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-12 July 2006

small risk from exposure to the whole body. Applying the organ-specific dose weighting factors

from 10 CFR Part 20 to the gastrointestinal tract and kidney doses, the total-body 100-year

dose commitment from technetium-99 to the whole body was estimated to be 3 person-Sv

| (300 person-rem) for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model.

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

| below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of causing

cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. 

Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the relationship

| between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report by the

| National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold dose

| response model. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an

incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative

model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

overestimates those risks.

Based on this model, the staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from International

| Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) Publication 60 (ICRP 1991). This coefficient was

| multiplied by the sum of the estimated whole body population doses from gaseous effluents,

| liquid effluents, radon-222, and technetium-99 discussed above, (approximately 49 person-Sv/yr

| [4900 person-rem/yr]), to calculate that the U.S. population would incur a total of approximately

3.6 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects annually. This risk is quite

small compared to the number of fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects

that would be estimated to the U.S. population annually from exposure to natural sources of

radiation using the same risk estimation method.

Radon releases from tailings are indistinguishable from background radiation levels at a few

| kilometers from the tailings pile (at less than 1 km in some cases) (NRC Docket 50-488 1986). 

The public dose limit in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s regulation, 40 CFR

Part 190, is 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to the whole body from the entire fuel cycle, but most

NRC licensees have airborne effluents resulting in doses of less than 0.01 mSv/yr (1 mrem/yr)

(61 FR 65120).

In addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a

| study and published “Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities” in 1990 (NCI 1990). 

This report included an evaluation of health statistics around all nuclear power plants, as well as

several other nuclear fuel cycle facilities, in operation in the U.S. in 1981 and found “no

evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near nuclear 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-13 NUREG-1815

facilities” (NCI 1990). The contribution to the annual average dose received by an individual

from fuel cycle-related radiation and other sources as reported in NCRP Report 93 |

(NCRP 1987) is listed in Table 6-2. The nuclear fuel cycle contribution to an individual’s annual

average radiation dose is extremely small (less than 0.01 mSv [1 mrem] per year).

Based on the analyses presented above, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of

radioactive effluents from the fuel cycle are small.

6.1.1.6 Radioactive Wastes

The quantities of buried radioactive waste material (low-level, high-level, and transuranic

wastes) are specified in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). For low-level waste disposal at land burial

facilities, the Commission notes in Table S–3 that there will be no significant radioactive

releases to the environment. For high-level and transuranic wastes, the Commission notes that

these are to be buried at a repository, such as the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada, and that no release to the environment is expected to be associated with such disposal |

because it has been assumed that all of the gaseous and volatile radionuclides contained in the |

spent fuel are released to the atmosphere before the disposal of the waste. In NUREG-0116

(NRC 1976), which provides background and context for the high-level and transuranic

Table S–3 values established by the Commission, the staff indicates that these high-level and

transuranic wastes will be buried and will not be released to the environment.

Table 6-2. Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by an Individual from All Sources |

Source

Dose

(mSv/yr)(a) Percent of Total

Natural

Radon 2 55

Cosmic 0.27 8

Terrestrial 0.28 8

Internal (body) 0.39 11

Total natural sources 3 82

Artificial

Medical x-ray 0.39 11

Nuclear medicine 0.14 4

Consumer products 0.10 3

Total artificial sources 0.63 18

Other

Occupational 0.009 <0.30

Nuclear fuel cycle <0.01 <0.03

Fallout <0.01 <0.03

Miscellaneous sources <0.01 <0.03

(a) To convert mSv/yr to mrem/yr, multiply by 100.

Source: NCRP Report 93, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States (NCRP 1987) |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-14 July 2006

On February 15, 2002, subsequent to receipt of a recommendation by Secretary Abraham,

U.S. Department of Energy, the President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the

development of a repository for the geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level

| nuclear waste (White House Press release 2002).

The EPA developed Yucca Mountain-specific repository standards, which were subsequently

adopted by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 63. In an opinion, issued July 9, 2004, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated EPA’s radiation protection

standards for the candidate repository, which required compliance with certain dose limits over

| a 10,000-year period (U.S. Court of Appeals 2004). The Court’s decision also vacated the

| compliance period in NRC’s licensing criteria for the candidate repository in 10 CFR Part 63. In

| response to the Court’s decision, EPA issued its proposed revised standards on

| August 22, 2005, that would revise the radiation protection standards for the candidate

| repository (70 FR 49014). In order to be consistent with EPA’s revised standards, NRC

| proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 63 on September 8, 2005 (70 FR 53313). The 10 CFR

| Part 63 rulemaking, RIN 3150-AH68, is titled “Implementation of a Dose Standard after

| 10,000 years,” and the comment period was extended to December 7, 2005. The proposed

| standards are 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) per year for 10,000 years following disposal and 3.5 mSv

| (350 mrem) per year for 10,000 years through 1-million years after disposal. RIN 3150 will not

| be finalized by the time this EIS is issued. 

| Consequently, at this time, for the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the

fuel cycle, there is some uncertainty with respect to regulatory limits for offsite releases of

| radionuclides for the current candidate repository site. However, prior to promulgation of the

affected provisions of the Commission’s regulations, the staff assumed that limits were

developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences report, Technical Bases

for Yucca Mountain Standards, and that in accordance with the Commission’s Waste

Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository can and likely will be developed at some site

that will comply with such limits, with peak doses to virtually all individuals of 100 millirem

(1 mSv) per year or less (NAS 1995; NRC 1996).

| Despite the current uncertainty with respect to these rules, some judgment as to the National

| Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) implications of offsite radiological impacts of spent

fuel and high-level waste disposal should be made. The staff concludes that these impacts are

| acceptable in that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion

that the construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site should be denied.

Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) describes the generation, storage, and ultimate

disposal of low-level waste, mixed waste, and spent fuel from power reactors. For the reasons

stated above, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of radioactive waste disposal

are small.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-15 NUREG-1815

6.1.1.7 Occupational Dose

In the review and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff considered

the higher capacity factor of 95 percent with a total net electric output of 2200 MW(e) for a new |

nuclear unit at the ESP site (INEEL 2003). This is referred to as the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled |

model. The annual occupational dose attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the

1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model is about 18 person-Sv (1800 person-rem). This is based on a |

6 person-Sv (600 person-rem) occupational dose estimate attributable to all phases of the fuel |

cycle for the model 1000 MW(e) LWR (NRC 1996). The environmental impact from this |

occupational dose is considered small because the dose to any individual worker is maintained |

within the limits of 10 CR Part 20, which is 0.05 Sv/yr (5 rem/yr). |

6.1.1.8 Transportation

The transportation dose to workers and the public totals about 0.025 person-Sv |

(2.5 person-rem) annually for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR per Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). |

This corresponds to a dose of 0.075 person-Sv (7.5 person-rem) for the 1000-MW(e) |

LWR-scaled model. For comparative purposes, the estimated collective dose from natural

background radiation to the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the Exelon ESP site is

2300 person-Sv/yr (230,000 person-rem/yr) (Exelon 2006). On the basis of this comparison, the |

staff concludes that environmental impacts of transportation would be small.

6.1.1.9 Conclusion

The staff evaluated the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle as given in Table S–3

(see Table 6-1), considered the effects of radon-222 and technetium-99, and appropriately

scaled the impacts for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model. Based on this evaluation, the staff |

concludes that the impacts would be SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted.

6.1.2 Gas-Cooled Reactors

As noted earlier, issues related to reactors based on non-LWR designs are unresolved because |

of the lack of information to validate values and impacts. However, the following analyses were |

performed using data from Exelon for the purposes of estimation only.

The gas-cooled reactors analyzed for the uranium fuel cycle are: |

 C Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) – This reactor, developed by General |

Atomics, is a modular helium-cooled graphite-moderated reactor. |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-16 July 2006

| C Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) – This reactor, developed by PBMR (Pty), Ltd., is

| a modular graphite-moderated helium-cooled gas turbine reactor.

| Table S–3 from 10 CFR 51.51(b) (see Table 6-1) can be used as a basis for bounding the

environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle only for LWRs. Exelon performed an

assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle for gas-cooled reactor designs by

comparing key parameters for these reactor designs to those used to generate the impacts in

| Table S–3 (Exelon 2006). Key parameters are energy usage, material involved, and number of

shipments for each major fuel cycle activity (i.e., mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel

fabrication, and radioactive waste disposal). Exelon sought to demonstrate in its ER that the

impacts for the gas-cooled reactor designs were comparable to the environmental impacts

identified in the technical basis document, WASH-1248, “Environmental Summary of the

Uranium Fuel Cycle” (AEC 1974) and its Supplement 1 (NUREG-0116) (NRC 1976) for

Table S–3.

| As discussed in Section 6.1.1, the fuel cycle impacts in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) were based

on a reference 1000-MW(e) LWR operating at an annual capacity factor of 80 percent for a net

| electric output of 800 MW(e). This is termed the “reference reactor year.” For the purposes of

evaluating fuel cycle impacts for a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site, it was assumed that

the additional LWR site-wide fuel impacts would be based on a total net electric output of

| 2200 MW(e) at 95 percent annual capacity factor. This was termed the 1000-MW(e) LWR

| scaled model and resulted in a factor about 3 times (i.e., 2200/800) the impacts in Table S–3.

One of the other-than-LWRs considered by Exelon, the GT-MHR, is a four-module, 2400-MW(t),

nominal 1140-MW(e) unit assumed to operate at an annual capacity factor of 88 percent for a

| net electric output of 1003 MW(e). Therefore, the maximum number of GT-MHR units that

could be sited at the Exelon ESP site and remain below the 2200-MW(e) total net electric output

| PPE for the site is two (i.e., 2 x 1003). 

| The second other-than-LWR considered by Exelon, the PBMR, is an eight-module, 3200-MW(t),

nominal 1320-MW(e) unit assumed to operate at an annual capacity factor of 95 percent for a

net electric output of 1253 MW(e). Therefore, the comparable number of PBMR units to remain

| below the 2200-MW(e) total net electric output PPE for the site is one (i.e., 1 x 1253).

| Exelon (2006) compared the impacts in Table S–3 LWR with those of the gas-cooled reactor

designs. The comparison used an annual fuel loading as a starting point and then proceeded in

reverse direction through the fuel cycle (i.e., fuel fabrication, enrichment, conversion, milling,

mining, radioactive waste). Table 6-3 provides an estimate of the impacts for each phase of the

| uranium fuel cycle, assuming that the ESP site would host two four-module GT-MHR units or

| one eight-module PBMR unit.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-17 NUREG-1815

Table 6-3. Fuel Cycle Environmental Impacts from Gas-Cooled Reactor Designs for the

Exelon ESP Site(a)

Reactor Technology Facility/Activity

GT-MHR,

4 Modules

(2400 MW(t) total

.1140 MW(e) total;

88 percent capacity:

multiplier=2) |

PBMR,

8 Modules

(3200 MW(t) total

.1320 MW(e) total;

95 percent capacity:

multiplier=1) |

Mining Operations

Annual ore supply (MT) 674,280 337,140 |

Milling Operations

Annual yellowcake (MT) 606 303 |

UF6 Production

Annual UF6 (MT) 758 379 |

Enrichment Operations

Enriched UF6 (MT) 16 12.3 |

Annual separative work units (MT) 408 194 |

Fuel Fabrication Plant Operations

Enriched UO2 (MT) 12.2 9.5 |

Annual fuel loading (MTU) 10.8 8.3 |

Solid Radioactive Waste

Annual low-level waste from reactor operations (Ci) 2200 Ci(b); 196 m3 65.4 Ci | (b); 800 drums

Low-level waste from reactor decontamination and

decommissioning (Ci per reference reactor-year)

Data not available 2.2 x 104 |

(a) Values calculated by multiplying values from Table 5.7-1 of ER (Exelon 2006) by multiplier. |

Notes:

- The enrichment separative work units (SWU) calculation was performed using the United States Enrichment

Corporation, Inc., SWU calculator and assumes a 0.30 percent tails assay. |

- The information on the reference reactor (mining, milling, UF6, enrichment, fuel fabrication values) was taken from

NUREG-0116, Table 3.2, no recycling (NRC 1976).

- The information on the reference reactor (solid radioactive waste) was taken from 10 CFR 51.51, Table S–3.

- The calculated information on the reference reactor uses the same methodology as for the reactor technologies.

- The normalized information is based on 1000 MW(e) and the reactor vendor-supplied unit capacity factor.

- For the new reactor technologies, the annual fuel loading was provided by the reactor vendor.

- The SWU calculator also calculated the kilograms of uranium feed. This number was multiplied by 1.48 to get the

necessary amount of UF6.

- The annual yellowcake number was generated using the relationship 2.61285 lb. of U3O8 to 1 kg U of UF6; 1.185

kg of U3O8 to 1.48 kg.

- The annual ore supply was generated assuming an 0.1-percent ore body and a 90-percent recovery efficiency. |

- Cobalt-60 with a 5.26-yr half-life and iron-55 with a 2.73-yr half-life are the main nuclides listed for the PBMR |

decontamination and decommissioning waste.

(b) To convert from Ci to Bq, multiply by 3.7 x 1010.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-18 July 2006

6.1.2.1 Fuel Fabrication

The quantity of UO2 required for reactor fuel is a key parameter. The more UO2 required, the

greater the environmental impacts (i.e., more energy, greater emissions, and increased water

| usage). The 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model described in Section 6.1.1 would require the

equivalent of 120 MT of enriched UO2 | annually. This compares to 9.5 to 12.2 MT of enriched

UO2 annually for the gas-cooled reactor technologies.

GT-MHR fuel consists of microspheres of uranium oxycarbide coated with multiple layers of

pryrocarbon and silicon carbide referred to as TRISO coating. Two types of microspheres are

| used in the GT-MHR fuel, one enriched to 19.8-percent uranium-235 and one with natural

uranium. The microspheres and graphite shims are bound together into a rod-shaped compact,

which is stacked into graphite blocks referred to as fuel elements. A reactor core consists of

1020 fuel elements.

PBMR fuel consists of UO2 | kernels (enriched to 12.9-percent uranium-235) that are TRISO

coated, similar to the GT-MHR fuel. The TRISO-coated particles are imbedded into a graphite

matrix to form a fuel sphere that is 60 millimeters in diameter. Each fuel sphere contains

approximately 15,000 TRISO-coated particles. Approximately 260,000 fuel spheres make up a

core of a single reactor module.

The fuel described above for gas-cooled reactors is fabricated differently than fuel for LWRs. 

There are no currently operating large-scale fuel fabrication facilities producing gas-cooled

reactor fuels in the United States; thus, a direct comparison of environmental impacts is not

possible. Based on some environmental impacts from a small-scale fuel fabrication facility

producing gas-cooled reactor fuel, Exelon concluded that the environmental impacts from

producing gas-cooled reactor fuel would be “not inconsistent” with those of LWRs

| (Exelon 2006). By comparison with the fuel fabrication impacts for LWR technologies, the staff

concludes that the environmental impacts from producing gas-cooled reactor fuel likely would

be small, but these impacts will need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage, when the staff will

consider the environmental data that is available on a large-scale, fuel fabrication facility for

gas-cooled reactors.

6.1.2.2 Enrichment

| Exelon (2006) identified two quantities of interest for enrichment. These were (1) the amount of

energy required to enrich the fuel measured in separative work units (SWUs), and (2) the

amount of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) needed. A SWU is a measure of energy required to

enrich the fuel. The major environmental impacts for the entire uranium fuel cycle are from the

emissions of the fossil fuel plants used to supply energy for the gaseous diffusion plants that 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-19 NUREG-1815

enrich the uranium. An enrichment technology developed since the impacts in Table S–3 (see

Table 6-1) were evaluated includes the gas centrifuge process that uses 90 percent less energy |

than the gaseous diffusion process NRC (1996). |

In order to produce the 40 MT of enriched UO2 for the reference LWR in WASH-1248, the |

enrichment plant needed to produce 52 MT of UF6, which required 127 MT of SWU (NRC 1976). |

Therefore, to produce 120 MT of enriched UO2 for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model, the |

enrichment plant needs to produce about 156 MT of UF6, which requires approximately 400 MT

of SWU. For gas-cooled reactor technologies, the needed enriched UF6 ranges from 12.3 to |

16 MT of UF6. The amount of energy to produce these quantities of enriched UF6 for the gas- |

cooled reactor designs ranges from 194 to 408 MT of SWU. The upper range is slightly higher |

than the energy required for the reference LWR. Exelon (2006) concluded that the large |

reduction in energy associated with using an alternate enrichment technology (e.g., centrifuge)

and its associated environmental impacts would more than offset the increase in SWUs. The

staff concludes that, on balance, the environmental impacts of enriching gas-cooled fuels by

comparison with the impacts of enriching LWR fuel would likely be small, but these impacts will

need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage, when the staff will consider impacts from the

enrichment technology in use at that time.

6.1.2.3 Uranium Hexafluoride Production – Conversion

There are two uranium conversion processes: a wet and a dry process. In NUREG-1437

(NRC 1996), the NRC stated that environmental releases from the conversion facilities are small

compared to the overall fuel cycle impacts and that changing from 100-percent use of one |

process to 100-percent use of the other would make no significant difference in the overall

impacts. Conversion technologies that would be used today to produce UF6 are similar to those

considered when determining the environmental impacts that are part of Table S–3 of

10 CFR 51.51(b) (see Table 6-1).

The conversion facility would need to produce 1080 MT of UF6 annually for the reference

1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model, compared to 379 to 758 MT of UF6 for the gas-cooled reactors |

based on the SWU calculator (Exelon 2006; see Table 6-3, note a, above). The other-than- |

LWR values are less than the amount of UF6 required for the LWR; therefore, the associated |

environmental impacts are expected to be comparable. On this basis, the staff concludes that

the environmental impacts from producing UF6 for gas-cooled reactors would be small.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-20 July 2006

6.1.2.4 Uranium Milling

Annual yellowcake (U3O8) production is the metric of interest for uranium milling. Plants

requiring less yellowcake production than the reference plant would require less energy, have

fewer emissions, and use less water.

| The uranium mill for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model would produce about 900 MT of

yellowcake. The uranium mill for the gas-cooled reactor technologies would need to produce

| 303 to 606 MT of yellowcake, which is less than the amount of yellowcake needed for the

| scaled LWR (Exelon 2006). On this basis, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts

from uranium milling for the gas-cooled reactors would be small.

6.1.2.5 Uranium Mining

Annual ore supply is the metric of interest for uranium mining. The less ore mined, the smaller

the environmental impacts (i.e., less energy used, fewer emissions, less water usage). For the

| 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model, 816,000 MT of raw ore would be required to produce 900 MT

of yellowcake. For the gas-cooled reactor technologies, the scaled ore requirements range

| from 337,140 to 674,280 MT of ore, a range that is less than the amount of ore required for the

| reference 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model. For this reason, the staff concludes that the

environmental impacts from uranium mining for the gas-cooled reactors would be small.

6.1.2.6 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Operations

Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) of 10 CFR 51.51(a) states that there are 3.4 x 1014 Bq (9100 Ci) of

low-level waste generated annually from operation of the reference LWR; operation of the

1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model would result in 1 x 1015 | Bq (27,300 Ci) of low-level waste

annually. Gas-cooled reactor technologies are projected to generate 2.4 x 1012 | Bq to

8.1 x 1013 | Bq (65.4 to 2200 Ci) of low-level waste scaled annually, far below the amounts

| generated by the reference LWR. For this reason, the staff concludes that the environmental

impacts from low-level radioactive waste operations for gas-cooled reactors would be small.

6.1.2.7 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Decontamination and Decommissioning

In Table S–3 (see Table 6-1), the Commission states that 5.6 x 1013 Bq (1500 Ci) per referencereactor year “...comes from reactor decontamination and decommissioning — buried at land

| burial facilities.” Exelon (2006) notes that gas-cooled reactor technologies would (1) generate

less waste than the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR, and (2) produce less heavy metal radioactive

waste due to the higher thermal efficiency and higher fuel burnup. The gas-cooled reactor

designs are also more compact than the reference LWR design, which would be expected to

| result in less decontamination and decommissioning waste (Exelon 2006). Exelon expects that 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-21 NUREG-1815

low-level waste impact from decontamination and decommissioning will be comparable to or

less than that of the reference LWR (Exelon 2006). On this basis, the staff concludes that the |

environmental impacts from solid low-level radioactive waste generated during decontamination

and decommissioning for gas-cooled reactors would likely be small, but these impacts will need

to be assessed again at the CP or COL stage.

6.1.2.8 Conclusions

The staff expects that the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle activities and solid |

waste management activities for the proposed gas-cooled reactors would be SMALL. However,

because of the uncertainty in the final design of the gas-cooled reactors and the change in

technology that could be applied to uranium fuel cycle activities, this issue is unresolved. |

Should an applicant reference one of these designs, additional staff reviews would be needed at |

the CP or COL stage in the following areas: fuel fabrication, enrichment, and solid low-level

waste operation during decontamination and decommissioning.

6.2 Transportation of Radioactive Materials

This section addresses both the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts from

normal operating and accident conditions resulting from (1) shipment of unirradiated fuel to a

nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site, (2) shipment of spent fuel to a monitored retrievable storage

facility or a permanent repository, and (3) shipment of low-level radioactive waste and mixed

waste to offsite disposal facilities, as well as the transportation impacts of advanced LWR |

designs and gas-cooled reactor designs. |

The NRC evaluated the environmental effects of fuel and waste for light water reactors in |

WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) and NUREG-75/038 (NRC 1975) and found the impact to be SMALL. 

These documents provided the basis for Table S–4 in 10 CFR 51.52, which summarizes the

environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste to and from one LWR of 3000 to

5000 MW(t) (1000 to 1500 MW(e)). Impacts are provided for normal conditions of transport and

accidents in transport for a reference 1100-MW(e) LWR. 

Dose to transportation workers during normal transportation operations were estimated to result |

in a collective dose of 0.04 person-Sv (4 person-rem) per reference reactor year. The combined |

dose to the public along the route and dose to onlookers were estimated to result in a collective |

dose of 0.03 person-Sv (3 person-rem) per reference reactor year. Environmental risks |

(radiological) during accident conditions were determined to be small. Nonradiological impacts |

during accident conditions were estimated as 1 fatal injury in 100 reference reactor years and 1 |

nonfatal injury in 10 reference reactor years. Subsequent reviews of transportation impacts in 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-22 July 2006

NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977a) and Sprung et al. (2000) concluded that impacts were bounded by

Table S–4 in 10 CFR 51.52.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.52(a), a full description and detailed analysis of transportation

impacts is not required when licensing an LWR (i.e., impacts are assumed bounded by

Table S–4) if an LWR meets the following criteria:

| C The reactor has a core thermal power level not exceeding 3800 MW(t)

 C Fuel is in the form of sintered UO2 pellets having a uranium-235 enrichment not

| exceeding 4 percent by weight, and pellets are encapsulated in zirconium-clad fuel rods

 C Average level of irradiation of the fuel from the reactor does not exceed

33,000 MWd/MT, and no irradiated fuel assembly is shipped until at least 90 days after it

| is discharged from the reactor

 C With the exception of irradiated fuel, all radioactive waste shipped from the reactor is

| packaged and in solid form

 C Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck; irradiated fuel is shipped from the

reactor by truck, rail, or barge; and radioactive waste other than irradiated fuel is shipped

from the reactor by truck or rail.

The environmental impacts of the transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and from

nuclear power facilities were resolved generically in 10 CFR 51.52, provided that the specific

conditions in the rule (see above) are met; if not, then a full description and detailed analysis is

required for initial licensing. The NRC may consider requests for licensed plants to operate at

conditions above those in the facility’s licensing basis, for example, higher burnups (above

| 33,000 MWd/MTU), enrichments (above 4 percent uranium-235), or thermal power levels

| (above 3800 MW(t)). 

| Exelon has not identified a specific reactor design for the Exelon ESP site but used bounding

parameters from seven reactor designs. Five of the designs are LWRs and include the

| ACR-700 (3964 MW(t)/unit); the ABWR (4300 MW(t)/unit); the AP1000 (3400 MW(t)/unit); the

| ESBWR (4000 MW(t)/unit); and the IRIS (3000 MW(t)/unit). For the ACR-700, two reactors

make up a unit. For the IRIS design, three reactors (modules) make up a unit. For the

| remaining LWR designs, one reactor makes up a unit. 

None of the proposed LWR designs meets all the conditions in 10 CFR 51.52(a); therefore, a 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-23 NUREG-1815

full description and detailed analysis are required for each LWR design. This conclusion is

based on the following:

 C Departures from the conditions itemized in 10 CFR 51.52(a) must be supported by a full |

description and detailed analysis of the environmental effects of transporting fuel and |

radioactive waste to and from the reactor, as specified by 10 CFR 51.52(b). |

 C Some designs exceed the 3800-MW(t) core thermal power-level limit – the ACR-700 |

(3964 MW(t)/unit, with two modules, each producing 1982 MW(t)), ABWR (singlemodule unit producing 4300 MW(t)), AP1000 (6800 MW(t)/unit, with two modules, each |

producing 3400 MW(t), and ESBWR (single-module unit producing 4300 MW(t)). |

 C The ABWR, AP1000, ESBWR, and IRIS designs require fuel that exceeds the

uranium-235 enrichment of 4 percent.

 C The ABWR, AP1000, ESBWR, and IRIS designs are expected to exceed the average

irradiation level of 33,000 MWd/MTU.

The remaining two designs are gas-cooled reactors: the GT-MHR and the PBMR. Each

GT-MHR unit is a four-module, 2400-MW(t), 1140-MW(e) gas-cooled reactor designed to

operate at a unit capacity factor of 88 percent. Each PBMR is an eight-module, 3200-MW(t),

1320-MW(e) gas-cooled reactor designed to operate at a unit capacity factor of 95 percent. 

This compares to the reference reactor in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), which is a single-unit,

1100-MW(e) LWR with a unit capacity factor of 80 percent. The gas-cooled reactor designs do

not meet the conditions in 10 CFR 51.52 because these reactors are not LWR designs upon

which Table S–4 impacts were based. Therefore, a full description and detailed analysis was

required for each gas-cooled reactor design. This was provided by Exelon in its response to a

request for additional information on September 23, 2004 (Exelon 2004b). 

Exelon used a sensitivity analysis to show that transportation impacts from advanced LWR

designs would be bounded by the criteria identified in Table S–4 (Exelon 2006). The GEIS |

Addendum 1 (NRC 1999) was referenced as the basis for exceeding 4-percent uranium-235 |

enrichment and 33,000 MWd/MTU. However, the GEIS, Addendum 1 applies to reactors that |

are listed in the GEIS, Appendix A, which does not address advanced reactors. |

Exelon also used a sensitivity analysis to show that transportation impacts from the advanced

gas-cooled reactor designs would be bounded by the criteria identified in Table S–4

(Exelon 2006); however, as discussed previously, this type of analysis does not adequately |

meet the requirements of 10 CFR 51.52. Exelon (2006) identified the major contributors to |

transportation risk to be the number and type of shipments (shipment risk) and the kind of |

material being shipped (material risk). Its evaluation of shipment risk showed that fewer |

shipments of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and low-level waste would be required for the 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-24 July 2006

advanced gas-cooled reactors compared to the reference LWR when averaged over 40 years of

operation. Regarding material risk, Exelon (2004b) concluded the following:

 C The estimated total spent fuel radioactive inventory and fission product inventory was

| less for the gas-cooled reactors when compared to the reference LWR.

 C Actinide inventories would be greater for the gas-cooled reactors (55 to 65 percent

| greater) due to the increased burnup for these types of reactors; however, because the 

GT-MHR was assumed to ship about one-third less spent fuel on a MTU basis,

| Exelon (2004b) determined that the actinide inventory per shipment would be about

| one-half that in the reference LWR shipment. The PBMR is assumed to ship the same

| amount of spent fuel in a spent fuel shipping cash as the reference LWR, so there is

| about a 60-percent increase in actinide inventories from PBMR spent fuel shipments

| relative to the reference LWR.

 C Gas-cooled reactors would generate fewer kilowatts of decay heat per MTU and fewer

kilowatts of decay heat per truck cask at the time of shipment.

6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel

The staff performed an independent review of the environmental impacts of transporting

| unirradiated (fresh) fuel to the Exelon ESP site. Environmental impacts of normal operating

conditions and transportation accidents are discussed in this section. Appendix G provides the

details of the analysis.

6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions

Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as “incident-free” transportation, are transportation

activities in which shipments reach their destination without releasing any radioactive cargo to

the environment. Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that

penetrate the unirradiated fuel shipping casks.

Truck Shipments

Table 6-4 provides an estimate of the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel for each

advanced reactor design compared to those of the reference 1100-MW(e) reactor specified in

| WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). Estimates are normalized for an equivalent 1100-MW(e) generating

| capacity. The basis for the shipment estimates can be found in Appendix G of this EIS. Only 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-25 NUREG-1815

Table 6-4. Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for Each Advanced Reactor Type

Reactor Type

Number of Shipments

per Reactor Unit Unit Electric ||

Generation,

MW(e)(c)

Capacity

Factor(c)

Normalized, |

Shipments |

per 1100

MW(e)(d) |

Initial

Core(a)

Annual

Reload Total(b)

Reference LWR

(WASH-1238)

18 6 252 1100 0.8 252

ABWR/ESBWR 30 6.1 267 1500 0.95 165 |

AP1000 28 7.6 322 2300(e) 0.95 130 |

ACR-700 30 15.4 628 1462(f) 0.9 420 |

IRIS 34 4.3 201 1005(g) 0.96 184 |

GT-MHR 51 20 831 1140(h) 0.88 729 |

PBMR 44 20 824 1320(i) 0.95 579 |

NOTE: The reference LWR shipment values have all been normalized to 880-MW(e) net electrical generation.

(a) Shipments of the initial core have been rounded up to the next highest whole number.

(b) Total shipments of unirradiated fuel over a 40-year plant lifetime (i.e., initial core load plus 39 years of |

average annual reload quantities).

(c) Unit capacities and capacity factors were taken from INEEL (2003).

(d) Normalized to net electric output for WASH-1238 reference LWR (i.e., 1100-MW(e) facility at 80 percent or

net electrical output of 880 MW(e)). Ranges of capacities given in INEEL (2003) for fresh fuel shipments |

were derived using the upper limit of the ranges.

(e) The AP1000 site includes two reactors at 1150 MW(e) per reactor. |

(f) The ACR-700 unit includes two reactors at 731 MW(e) per reactor. |

(g) The IRIS unit includes three reactors at 335 MW(e) per reactor. |

(h) The GT-MHR unit includes four reactors at 285 MW(e) per reactor. |

(i) The PBMR unit includes eight reactors at 165 MW(e) per reactor. |

the ACR-700 (two units), AP1000 (two units), PBMR, and GT-MHR reactor designs exceeded |

the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel estimated for the reference LWR in

WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). The largest number of shipments, in excess of 700 shipments over |

40 years, is for the GT-MHR. However, the combined annual shipments of unirradiated fuel, |

spent fuel, and radioactive waste equate to far less than the one truck shipment per day |

specified in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52 for all reactor types. |

Shipping Mode and Weight Limits

To comply with the conditions of 10 CFR 51.52(a)(5), all unirradiated fuel must be shipped to |

the reactor by truck. In information provided by Exelon, Exelon specifies that unirradiated fuel |

will be shipped to the reactor site by truck for all reactor designs that it references

(INEEL 2003). In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.52(c), truck shipments must not exceed |

33,100 kg (73,000 lb), as governed by Federal or State gross vehicle weight restrictions. All the

advanced reactor designs would meet this weight restriction for unirradiated fuel (INEEL 2003).
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-26 July 2006

| Radiological Doses to Transport Workers and the Public

10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4, includes conditions related to radiological dose to transport workers

and members of the public along transport routes. These doses are a function of many

variables, including the radiation dose rate emitted from the unirradiated fuel shipments, the

number of exposed individuals and their locations relative to the shipment, the time in transit

(including travel and stop times), and the number of shipments to which the individuals are

| exposed. For this EIS, the radiological dose impacts of the transportation of unirradiated fuel

were calculated for the worker and the public using the RADTRAN 5 computer code

(Neuhauser et al. 2003). Details of the calculations are found in Appendix G.

| Table 6-5 presents the radiological impacts from the advanced reactor designs to workers,

| public onlookers (persons at stops and sharing the road), and members of the public along the

| route (i.e., residents within 800 m [0.5 mi] of the highway). The cumulative annual dose

| estimates in Table 6-5 were normalized to 1100 MW(e). The NRC staff performed an

independent review and determined that all dose estimates are bounded by the Table S–4

conditions of 0.04 person-Sv/yr (4 person-rem/yr) to transportation workers, 0.03 person-Sv/yr

| (3 person-rem/yr) to onlookers, and 0.03 person-Sv (3 person-rem) to members of the public

along the route.

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

| data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

| below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of causing 

Table 6-5. Radiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to Advanced Reactor Sites

|

Plant Type

Normalized

Average

Annual

Shipments

| Cumulative Annual Dose, person-Sv/yr per

1100 MW(e)(a)

Workers

Public -

Onlookers

Public - Along

Route

| Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 6.3 1.1 x 10-4 4.2 x 10-4 1.0 x 10-5

| ABWR/ESBWR 4.1 7.1 x 10-5 2.7 x 10-4 6.6 x 10-6

AP1000 3.3 5.6 x 10-5 2.2 x 10-4 5.2 x 10-6

ACR-700 10.5 1.8 x 10-4 7.0 x 10-4 1.7 x 10-5

IRIS 4.6 7.9 x 10-5 3.1 x 10-4 7.4 x 10-6

GT-MHR 18.2 3.1 x 10-4 1.2 x 10-3 2.9 x 10-5

PBMR 14.5 2.5 x 10-4 9.6 x 10-4 2.3 x 10-5

| 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4

condition

<1 per day 4.0 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-2

(a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-27 NUREG-1815

cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. 

Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the relationship

between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report by the |

National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold dose |

response model. This theory states that any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in |

an incremental increase in health risk. NRC accepts this theory as a conservative model for |

estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

overestimates those risks. |

Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1000 person-rem]) from ICRP Publication 60

(ICRP 1991). All the public doses presented in Table 6-5 are less than or equal to |

1.2 x 10-3 person-Sv/yr (1.2 x 10-1 person-rem/yr); therefore, the total detriment estimates |

associated with these doses would all be less than 1 x 10-4 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe heredity effects per year. These risks are very small compared to the fatal cancers, |

nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects that would be expected to occur annually in the |

same population from exposure to natural sources of radiation. |

Maximally Exposed Individuals Under Normal Transport Conditions |

A scenario-based analysis was conducted to develop estimates of incident-free radiation doses |

to maximally exposed individuals (MEIs). The analysis is based on DOE (2002) and |

incorporates information about exposure times, dose rates, and the number of times an |

individual may be exposed to an offsite shipment. Adjustments were made where necessary to |

reflect the fuel and waste shipments addressed in this EIS. In all cases, it was assumed that |

the dose rate emitted from the shipping containers is 0.1 mSv/hr (10 mrem/hr) at 2 m (6.6 ft) |

from the side of the transport vehicle, the maximum dose rate allowed by U.S. Department of |

Transportation (DOT) regulations, even though unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste will have |

much lower dose rates than the regulations allow. An MEI is a person who may receive the |

highest radiation dose from a shipment to and/or from the advanced reactor site. The analysis |

is described below. |

Truck Crew Member |

Truck crew members would receive the highest radiation doses during incident-free transport |

because of their proximity to the loaded shipping container for an extended period of time. The |

analysis assumed that crew member doses are limited to 0.02 Sv (2 rem) per year, which is the |

DOE administrative control level (DOE 2002). This limit is anticipated to apply to spent nuclear |

fuel shipments to a disposal facility, as DOE will take title to the spent fuel at the reactor site. |

Spent nuclear fuel represents the bulk of the fuel and waste shipments to/from advanced |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-28 July 2006

| reactor sites and those with the highest radiation dose rates, so crew doses from unirradiated

| fuel and radioactive waste shipments will be lower than the spent nuclear fuel shipments. The

| NRC limit for occupational exposures is 0.05 Sv/yr (5 rem/yr).

| Inspectors

| Radioactive shipments are inspected by Federal or state vehicle inspectors, for example, at

| state ports of entry. DOE (2002) assumed that inspectors would be exposed for 1 hour at a

| distance of 1 m (3.3 ft) from the shipping containers. The dose rate at 1 m (3.3 ft) is about

| 0.14 mSv/hr (14 mrem/hr), so the dose per shipment is about 0.14 Sv (14 mrem). This is

| independent of the location of the advanced reactor site. Based on this conservative value, the

| annual doses to vehicle inspectors were calculated to be in the range of 9 to 18 mSv/yr (900 to

| 1800 mrem/yr), assuming the same person inspects all shipments of fuel and waste to and from

| the advanced reactor sites. The high end of the range is the ACR-700 and the low end is the

| surrogate AP1000. All of the values are less than the 20 mSv/yr (2000 mrem/yr) administrative

| control level on individual doses.

| Resident

| The analysis assumed that a resident lives 30 m (100 ft) from the point where a shipment would

| pass and would be exposed to all shipments along a particular route. Exposures to residents

| on a per-shipment basis were extracted from RADTRAN 5 output files. These dose estimates

| are based on an individual located 30 m (100 ft) from the shipments that are traveling 24 km/hr

| (15 mph). The potential radiation doses to maximally exposed residents, which are independent

of the location of the advanced reactor site, ranged from about 2.7 x 10-4 | mSv/yr

(2.7 x 10-2 mrem/yr) for the surrogate AP1000 to 5.5 x 10-4 mSv/yr (5.5 x 10-2 | mrem/yr) for the

| ACR-700.

| Individual Stuck in Traffic

| This scenario addresses potential traffic interruptions that could lead to a person being exposed

| to a loaded shipment for 1 hour at a distance of 1.2 m (4 ft). The analysis assumed this

| exposure scenario would occur only one time to any individual. The dose to the MEI was

| calculated in DOE (2002) to be 0.016 mSv (1.6 mrem). 

| Person at a Truck Service Station 

| This scenario estimates doses to an employee at a service station where all truck shipments

| to/from the advanced reactors would stop. DOE (2002) assumed that this person is exposed for

| 49 minutes at a distance of 16 m (52 ft) from the loaded shipping container. This results in a 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-29 NUREG-1815

dose of about 7 x 10-4 mSv/shipment (7 x 10-2 mrem/shipment) and an annual dose in the range |

from 0.044 mSv (4.4 mrem) for the surrogate AP1000 to 0.09 mSv/yr (9 mrem/yr) for the |

ACR-700. |

6.2.1.2 Accidents

Accident risks are a combination of accident frequency and consequence. Accident frequencies |

for transportation of fuel to and from future reactors are expected to be lower than those used in |

the analysis in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), which forms the basis for Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52,

because of improvements in highway safety and security and an expected decrease in traffic

accident, injury, and fatality rates. There is no significant difference in the consequences of |

accidents severe enough to result in a release of unirradiated fuel particles to the environment

between advanced LWRs and current-generation LWRs because the fuel form, cladding, and

packaging are similar to those analyzed in WASH-1238. Consequently, the impacts of |

accidents during transport of unirradiated fuel for advanced LWRs to the Exelon ESP site are |

expected to be smaller than the impacts listed in Table S–4 for current-generation LWRs.

With respect to the advanced gas-cooled reactors, accident rates (accidents per unit distance) |

and associated accident frequencies (accidents per year) would be expected to follow the same |

trends as for LWRs (i.e., overall reduction relative to the accident rates used in the WASH-1238

analysis). The consequences of accidents involving gas-cooled reactor unirradiated fuel,

however, are more uncertain. The staff assumed that the gas-cooled reactor unirradiated fuel

shipments would have the same abilities as LWR unirradiated fuel to maintain functional

integrity following a traffic accident. This assumption is considered to be conservative because

gas-cooled reactor fuel operates at significantly higher temperatures, and thus maintains

integrity under more severe thermal conditions than LWR fuel. Detailed information about the

behavior of the gas-cooled reactor fuel under impact conditions was not available. However,

packaging systems for unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuel will be required to meet the same

performance requirements as unirradiated LWR fuel packages, including fissile material controls |

to prevent criticality during normal and accident condition. Consequently, it is expected |

that packaging systems for unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuels would provide protection |

equivalent to those packages designed for unirradiated LWR fuels. In addition, the fuel forms |

for the gas-cooled reactors are similar to LWRs (i.e., UO2 for the PBMR and uranium |

oxycarbide for the GT-MHR versus UO2 for LWRs); thus, the inherent failure resistance |

provided by unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuels should be similar to that provided by LWRs. |

Based on the assumption that unirradiated gas-cooled and LWR fuels and associated |

packaging systems would provide similar resistance to various environmental conditions, the |

staff concludes that the impacts of accidents involving unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuel likely |

would not be significantly different than for unirradiated LWR fuel and would be within the |

impacts listed in Table S–4 for current-generation LWRs. However, these impacts are not |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-30 July 2006

| considered to be resolved, and would need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage when

| specific information is available regarding other-than-LWR fuel performance, if the applicant

| references such designs.

6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel

The staff performed an independent review of the environmental impacts of transporting spent

| fuel from the proposed new nuclear unit or units at the Exelon ESP site to a spent fuel disposal

repository. The Yucca Mountain, Nevada, location is a possible location for a geologic

repository. The staff considers an estimate of the impacts of the transportation of spent fuel to a

| possible repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to be a reasonable bounding estimate of the

| transportation impacts to a storage or disposal facility because of the distances involved and the

| representativeness of the distribution of members of the public in urban, suburban, and rural

| areas (i.e., population distribution) along the shipping routes. Environmental impacts of normal

operating conditions and transportation accidents are discussed in this section.

| This analysis is based on the shipment of spent fuel by legal-weight trucks in casks with

characteristics similar to casks currently available (i.e., massive, heavily shielded, cylindrical

metal pressure vessels). Each shipment is assumed to consist of a single shipping cask loaded

on a modified trailer. These assumptions are consistent with assumptions made in the

| evaluation of the environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel in Addendum 1 to the

| GEIS (NRC 1999). These assumptions are conservative because the alternative assumptions

involve rail transportation or heavy-haul trucks, which would reduce the overall number of spent

fuel shipments (NRC 1999).

Environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel were calculated using the RADTRAN 5

computer code (Neuhauser et al. 2003). Routing and population data used in the RADTRAN 5

code for truck shipments were obtained from the TRAGIS routing code (Johnson and

| Michelhaugh 2000). The population data in the TRAGIS code are based on the 2000 U.S.

Census.

| The staff’s evaluation reviewed the impacts of spent fuel shipments originating from the Exelon

| ESP site and the alternative sites: Braidwood, Quad Cities, and Zion. Three other alternative

sites (Byron, Dresden, and LaSalle) were considered by Exelon in its ER, but were not

evaluated by the staff because the route characteristics of distance and population would not be

significantly different to produce results different from the Braidwood, Quad Cities, and Zion

| sites. Appendix G provides the details of the analysis.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-31 NUREG-1815

6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions

Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as “incident-free” transportation, are transportation

activities in which shipments reach their destination without an accident occurring en route. |

Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that penetrate the

heavily shielded spent fuel shipping cask. Radiation doses would occur to (1) persons residing |

along the transportation corridors between the Clinton ESP site and the proposed repository; |

(2) persons in vehicles traveling on the same route as a spent fuel shipment; (3) persons at |

vehicle stops for refueling, rest, and vehicle inspections; and (4) transportation crew workers.

Shipping casks have not been designed for the advanced reactor designs. Information in

INEEL (2003) indicates that advanced LWR fuel designs would not be significantly different from

existing LWR designs; therefore, the characteristics of current shipping cask designs were used

for the analysis for advanced LWR designs. No information is available on spent fuel shipping

cask designs for the gas-cooled reactors. For purposes of this Chapter 6 analysis, their design |

was assumed to be the same as those used for the existing LWRs. Spent fuel shipping cask

designs for gas-cooled reactors have not been defined and, therefore, impacts are unresolved. |

Impacts would be evaluated at the CP or COL stage if the applicant references such designs. |

Radiation doses are a function of many parameters, including vehicle speed, traffic count, dose

rate at 1 m (3 ft) from the vehicle, packaging dimensions, number of persons in the truck crew,

stop time, and population density at stops. For a listing of the values for these and other

parameters, refer to Appendix G. Table 6-6 presents radiation dose estimates to the transport

workers and the public for the primary and alternative ESP sites. Doses are presented on a

per-shipment basis. The per-shipment dose estimates are independent of reactor technology

because they were calculated based on an assumed external radiation dose rate emitted from

the cask, which was fixed at the regulatory maximum limit for the advanced reactor designs (i.e.,

0.1 mSv/hr [10 mrem/hr] at 2 m [7 ft]). |

Population dose estimates per reference reactor year are presented in Table 6-7 for specific

advanced reactor designs. Population doses were calculated by multiplying the number of

spent fuel shipments per year for each advanced reactor design times the dose per shipment

from Table 6-6. Population doses were normalized to the reference LWR design in WASH-1238

(880 net MW(e)) (AEC 1972). This corresponds to an 1100-MW(e) LWR operating at |

80-percent capacity. Appendix G provides the basis upon which the number of spent fuel

shipments was derived for each advanced reactor design.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-32 July 2006

Table 6-6. Routine (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the

Public from Shipping Spent Fuel from Potential ESP Sites to a Spent

Fuel Disposal Facility

ESP Site

Population Dose, person-Sv/shipment(a)

Crew Onlookers Along Route

Clinton 7.2 x 10-4 2.5 x 10-3 4.5 x 10-5

Braidwood 7.1 x 10-4 2.4 x 10-3 4.4 x 10-5

Quad Cities 6.7 x 10-4 2.1 x 10-3 4.1 x 10-5

Zion 7.3 x 10-4 2.5 x 10-3 5.2 x 10-5

(a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.

| The bounding cumulative doses to the exposed population given in Table S–4 (10 CFR

| 51.52(c)) are

| C 0.04 person-Sv (4 person-rem) per reference reactor year to transport workers

| C 0.03 person-Sv (3 person-rem) per reference reactor year to general public (onlookers)

and members of the public along the route.

| Population doses to the crew for the ACR-700 and the onlookers for the ABWR, ESBWR,

| AP1000, ACR-700, IRIS, and GT-MHR, exceed Table S–4 values. Two key reasons for the

| higher population doses compared to Table S–4 are the higher number of spent fuel shipments

estimated for some of the reactor technologies and the longer shipping distances assumed for

the analyses (i.e., to a possible repository in Nevada) than were used in WASH-1238. 

WASH-1238 used a “typical” distance for a spent fuel shipment of 1600 km (1000 mi), whereas

the shipping distances used in this assessment ranged from about 3000 km (1800 mi) to

4700 km (2900 mi). The higher numbers of shipments are based on spent fuel shipping casks

designed to transport shorter-cooled fuel (i.e., 150 days out of the reactor). It was assumed in

this analysis that the shipping cask capacities are 0.5 MTU/shipment, roughly equivalent to one

PWR or two BWR spent fuel assemblies per shipment.

Newer shipping cask designs are based on longer-cooled spent fuel (i.e., 5 years out of reactor)

and have larger capacities than those used in this assessment. DOE (2002) spent fuel shipping

cask capacities were approximately 1.8 MTU/shipment, or up to four PWR or nine BWR fuel

assemblies per shipment. Use of the newer shipping cask designs will reduce the number of

spent fuel shipments and the associated environmental impacts. On balance, if the population

doses are adjusted for the shipping distance and shipping cask capacity, the routine population 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-33 NUREG-1815 Table 6-7. Routine (Incident-Free) Population Doses from Spent Fuel Transportation, Normalized to Reference LWR Reactor Type Reference LWR (WASH-1238) ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 ACR-700 | Shipments per Year 60 41 40 90 Environmental Effects, person-Sv(a) per reference reactor-year | Reactor Site Crew Onlookers Along Route Crew Onlookers Along Route Crew Onlookers Along Route Crew Onlookers Along Route Clinton 0.04 0.15 0.0027 0.03 0.1 0.0018 0.028 0.097 0.0018 0.064 0.22 0.0041 Braidwood | 0.04 0.15 0.0026 0.03 0.1 0.0018 0.028 0.097 0.0017 0.063 0.22 0.0039 Quad Cities | 0.04 0.13 0.0024 0.027 0.09 0.0017 0.026 0.084 0.0016 0.06 0.19 0.0036 Zion 0.044 0.15 0.0031 0.03 0.1 0.0021 0.029 0.097 0.002 0.065 0.22 0.0046 Reactor Type IRIS GT-MHR PBMR Shipments per Year 35 34 12 Environmental Effects, person-Sv(a) per reference reactor year | Reactor Site Crew Onlookers Along Route Crew Onlookers Along Route Crew Onlookers Along Route Clinton | 0.025 0.085 0.0016 0.024 0.082 0.0015 0.008 0.028 0.00051 Braidwood 0.025 0.085 0.0015 0.024 0.082 0.0015 0.0079 0.027 0.00049 Quad Cities 0.023 0.074 0.0014 0.022 0.071 0.0014 0.0075 0.024 0.00046 Zion 0.025 0.085 0.0018 0.024 0.082 0.0017 0.0082 0.028 0.00058 (a) To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-34 July 2006

doses from spent fuel shipments from all reactor types and all sites fall within Table S–4

| requirements.

| Other conservative assumptions in the staff's calculation include the following:

 C Use of the regulatory maximum dose rate (0.1 mSv/hr [10 mrem/hr] at 2 m) in the

RADTRAN 5 calculations. The shipping casks assumed in the EIS prepared in support

of the application for a geologic repository at the proposed Yucca Mountain site

(DOE 2002) were designed to transport spent fuel that has cooled for 5 years. In reality,

most spent fuel will have cooled for much longer than 5 years before it is shipped to a

possible geologic repository. Sprung et al. (2000) developed a probabilistic distribution

of dose rates based on fuel cooling times that indicates that approximately three-fourths

of the spent fuel to be transported to a possible geologic repository will have dose rates

less than half of the regulatory limit. Consequently, the estimated population doses in

Table 6-7 could be divided in half if more realistic dose rate projections are used.

 C Use of 30 minutes as the average time at a truck stop in the calculations. Many stops

made for actual spent fuel shipments are short-duration stops (i.e., 10 minutes) for brief

visual inspections of the cargo (checking the cask tie-downs). These stops typically

occur in minimally populated areas, such as an overpass or freeway ramp in an

unpopulated area. Furthermore, empirical data provided in Griego et al. (1996) indicate

| that a 30-minute stop is toward the high end of the stop-time distribution. Average stop

times observed by Griego et al. (1996) are on the order of 18 minutes. Based on these

observations, it was concluded that the stop model assumptions used in this study

| overestimate public doses at stops by at least a factor of 2. Consequently, the doses to

| onlookers given in Table 6-7 could be reduced by a factor of 2 to reflect more realistic

truck shipping conditions.

Exelon performed its own RADTRAN 5 calculations looking at the impact of “incident-free”

transport of spent fuel to a spent fuel disposal facility. The assumed transport of spent fuel

| originated from the Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant (a distance farther than the Clinton site) and

terminated at a disposal facility assumed to be at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Dose estimates per

shipment were similar to those calculated by the staff.

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

| data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

| below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of causing

cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. 

Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the relationship

| between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report by the

| National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold dose 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-35 NUREG-1815

response model. This theory states that any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in |

an incremental increase in health risk. NRC accepts this theory as a conservative model for |

estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

overestimates those risks.

Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from ICRP

Publication 60 (ICRP 1991). All the population doses presented in Table 6-7 are less than |

1 person-Sv/yr (100 person-rem/yr); therefore, the total detriment estimates associated with

these population doses would all be less than 1 x 10-1 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe hereditary effects per year. These risks are very small compared to the fatal cancers, |

nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects that would be expected to occur annually in the |

same population from exposure to natural sources of radiation. |

Dose estimates to the MEI from the transport of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and waste under |

normal conditions are presented in Section 6.2.1.1. |

6.2.2.2 Accidents

As discussed previously, the staff used the RADTRAN 5 computer code to estimate impacts of

transportation accidents involving spent fuel shipments. RADTRAN 5 considers a spectrum of

potential transportation accidents, ranging from those with high frequencies and low

consequences (e.g., “fender benders”) to those with low frequencies and high consequences

(e.g., accidents in which the shipping container is exposed to severe mechanical and thermal |

conditions). Details of the analysis are discussed in Appendix G.

Radionuclide inventories are important parameters in the calculation of accident risks. The

radionuclide inventories used in this analysis were from Early Site Permit Environmental Report

Sections and Supporting Documentation (INEEL 2003). This report included hundreds of

radionuclides for each advanced reactor type. A screening analysis was conducted to select

the dominant contributors to accident risks to simplify the RADTRAN 5 calculations. The

screening identified the radionuclides that would contribute more than 99.999 percent of the

dose from inhalation of radionuclides released following a transportation accident. The

dominant radionuclides are similar regardless of the fuel type (i.e., advanced LWR fuel or

gas-cooled reactor fuel). Spent fuel inventories used in the staff analysis are presented

in Table 6-8. The list of radionuclides provided in the table includes all of the radionuclides that |

were included in the analysis conducted by Sprung et al. (2000), which validates the screening |

process used in this EIS. Also note that the INEEL (2003) analysis relied upon by Exelon in its |

application did not provide radionuclide source terms for radioactive material deposited on the |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-36 July 2006

Table 6-8. Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for

Each Advanced Reactor Type, Bq/MTU(a)

Radionuclide ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR

Am-241 4.96 x 1013 2.69 x1013 8.18 x1013 7.55 x1013

Am-242m 1.24 x 1012 4.85 x 1011 5.03 x 1011 8.51 x 1011

Am-243 1.20 x 1012 1.24 x 1012 5.14 x 1011 4.77 x 1012

Ce-144 4.22 x 1014 3.28 x 1014 2.15 x 1015 1.19 x 1015

Cm-242 2.04 x 1012 1.05 x 1012 1.51 x 1012 2.78 x 1012

Cm-243 1.37 x 1012 1.14 x 1012 2.02 x 1011 1.96 x 1012

Cm-244 1.80 x 1014 2.87 x 1014 2.83 x1013 5.48 x 1014

Cm-245 2.43 x 1010 4.48 x 1010 1.65 x 108 5.29 x 1010

Co-60 1.01 x 1014 (b) (b) (b)

Cs-134 1.78 x 1015 1.78 x 1015 2.21 x 1015 4.03 x 1015

Cs-137 4.59 x 1015 3.44 x 1015 1.08 x 1016 1.41 x 1016

Eu-154 3.81 x 1014 3.38 x 1014 3.23 x1014 3.74 x 1014

Eu-155 1.93 x 1014 1.71 x 1014 8.77 x1013 1.08 x 1014

Pm-147 1.25 x 1015 6.51 x 1014 6.92 x 1015 5.07 x 1015

Pu-238 2.27 x 1014 2.25 x 1014 1.17 x 1014 4.55 x 1014

Pu-239 1.43 x 1013 9.44 x 1012 2.25 x1013 1.11 x1013

Pu-240 2.28 x 1013 2.01 x1013 3.96 x1013 3.32 x1013

Pu-241 4.51 x 1015 2.58 x 1015 8.33 x 1015 7.18 x 1015

Pu-242 8.29 x 1010 6.73 x 1010 1.56 x 1011 4.51 x 1011

Ru-106 6.07 x 1014 5.74 x 1014 1.48 x 1015 1.68 x 1015

Sb-125 1.99 x 1014 1.42 x 1014 2.21 x 1014 2.51 x 10 14

Sr-90 3.27 x 1015 2.29 x 1015 8.95 x 1015 1.08 x 1016

Y-90 3.27 x 1015 2.29 x 1015 8.95 x 1015 1.08 x 1016

(a) To convert Bq/MTU to Ci/MTU, divide the value by 3.7 x 1010.

(b) Cobalt-60 is an activation product. Only the ABWR/ESBWR submittal in INEEL (2003) provided inventory data

for activation products.

| external surfaces of LWR spent fuel rods (commonly called “crud”). In addition, data on

| activation products were provided only for the advanced BWR. The advanced BWR spent fuel

| transportation risks were calculated assuming that the entire cobalt-60 inventory is in the form 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-37 NUREG-1815

of crud. This is very conservative as the source term used here is about 2 orders of magnitude |

greater than that given in Sprung et al. (2000). Because crud is deposited from corrosion |

products generated elsewhere in the reactor cooling system and the complete reactor design |

and operating parameters are uncertain, the quantities and characteristics of crud deposited on |

advanced reactor spent fuel are unknown at this time. Consequently, the impacts of crud and |

activation products on spent fuel transportation accident risks will need to be examined at the |

CP/COL stage. |

INEEL (2003) did not provide radionuclide inventory data for the ACR-700 and IRIS advanced |

reactors. Because transportation accident risks were not quantified for these reactor types, |

these accident risks are unresolved and would need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage if |

the applicant references either of these designs. |

Robust shipping casks are used to transport spent fuel because of the radiation shielding and |

accident resistance required by 10 CFR Part 71. Spent fuel shipping casks must be certified

Type B packaging systems, meaning they must withstand a series of severe postulated accident |

conditions with essentially no loss of containment or shielding capability. These casks are also |

designed with fissile material controls to ensure that the spent fuel remains subcritical under |

normal and accident conditions. According to Sprung et al. (2000), the likelihood of |

encountering accident conditions that would lead to shipping cask failure is less than

0.01 percent (i.e., more than 99.99 percent of all accidents would result in no release of

radioactive material from the shipping cask). The staff assumed that shipping casks for

advanced reactor spent fuels will provide equivalent mechanical and thermal protection of the

spent fuel cargo. 

The RADTRAN 5 accident risk calculations were performed using unit radionuclide inventories

(Bq/MTU) for the spent fuel shipments from the various reactor types. The resulting risk

estimates were then multiplied by assumed annual spent fuel shipments (MTU/yr) to derive

estimates of the annual accident risks associated with spent fuel shipments from each potential

advanced reactor site. As was done for routine exposures, the staff assumed that the numbers |

of shipments of spent fuel per year are equivalent to the annual discharge quantities.

For this assessment, release fractions for current-generation LWR fuels were used to

approximate the impacts from the advanced reactor spent fuel shipments. This assumes that

the fuel materials and containment systems (i.e., cladding, fuel coatings) behave similarly to

current LWR fuel under applied mechanical and thermal conditions. Because of the lack of |

experimental data on gas-cooled reactor fuels, it is currently not known if this approach is

bounding. However, gas-cooled reactors operate at much higher temperatures than LWRs;

therefore, high-temperature conditions anticipated in transportation accident fires should have

less of an effect on radionuclide releases than they do for LWR fuels. Thus, smaller release 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

| (a) Internal dose from ingestion of contaminated food was not considered, as the staff assumed

| evacuation and subsequent interdiction of foodstuffs following a potential transportation accident.

NUREG-1815 6-38 July 2006

fractions are anticipated for advanced gas-cooled reactor fuels than for LWR fuels subjected to

| thermal transients. However, this issue is unresolved because of the lack of information on gas-

| cooled reactor designs.

| The NRC staff used RADTRAN 5 to calculate the population dose from the radioactive material

released to the environment for four of five possible exposure pathways.(a) | These pathways are:

| C External dose from exposure to the passing cloud of radioactive material

| C External dose from the radionuclides deposited on the ground by the passing plume

| (groundshine). The staff's analysis included the radiation exposure from this pathway

even though the area surrounding a potential accidental release would be evacuated

| and decontaminated, thus preventing long-term exposures from this pathway.

| C Internal dose from inhalation of airborne radioactive contaminants (inhalation).

| C Internal dose from resuspension of radioactive materials that were deposited on the

| ground (resuspension). The staff’s analysis included the radiation exposures from this

pathway even though evacuation and decontamination of the area surrounding a

potential accidental release would prevent long-term exposures.

Table 6-9 presents the environmental consequences of transportation accidents when shipping

| spent fuel from the Clinton ESP site and alternative sites to the proposed Yucca Mountain,

| repository. The shipping distances and population distribution information for the routes were

the same as those used for the normal “incident-free” conditions (for details, see Appendix G). 

| Table 6-9 presents estimates of population dose (person-Sv/reference reactor year) for several

of the advanced reactor designs. These values are normalized to the WASH-1238 reference

reactor (880-MW(e) net electrical generation, 1100-MW(e) reactor operating at 80-percent

| capacity) (AEC 1972).

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

| below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of causing

cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. 

Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the relationship

| between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report by the 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-39 NUREG-1815

Table 6-9. Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for Advanced Reactors,

Normalized to Reference 1000-MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation |

MTU/yr

Advanced Reactor Type

ABWR/ESBWR AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR |

20.3 19.7 6 5.8

Population dose, person-Sv per reference reactor year(a) |

Clinton 2.3 x 10 | -6 2.0 x 10-7 9.1 x 10-8 1.5 x 10-7

Braidwood 2.1 x 10 | -6 2.0 x 10-7 8.9 x 10-8 1.5 x 10-7

Quad Cities 2.1 x 10 | -6 1.8 x 10-7 8.4 x 10-8 8.1 x 10-8

Zion 3.0 x 10-6 2.7 x 10-7 1.2 x 10-7 2.0 x 10-7

(a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain person-rem/yr.

National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold dose |

respense model. This theory states that any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in |

an incremental increase in health risk. NRC accepts this theory as a conservative model for |

estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

overestimates those risks.

Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from ICRP

Publication 60 (ICRP 1991). All the population doses presented in Table 6-9 are less than |

1 x 10-5 person-Sv/yr (1 x 10-3 person-rem/yr); therefore, the total detriment estimates

associated with these population doses would all be less than 1 x 10-6 fatal cancers, nonfatal

cancers, and severe hereditary effects per year. These risks are quite small compared to the

fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects that would be expected to occur |

annually in the same population from exposure to natural sources of radiation. |

6.2.2.3 Conclusion

The values determined by this analysis represent the contribution of such effects to the |

environmental costs of licensing the reactor. Because of the conservative approaches and data |

used to calculate doses, actual environmental effects are not likely to exceed those calculated |

in the EIS. Thus, the staff concludes that the overall transportation accident risks associated |

with advanced reactor spent fuel shipments are likely to be SMALL and are consistent with the |

risks associated with transportation of spent fuel from current-generation reactors presented in |

Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. The fuel performance characteristics, shipping casks, and |

accident risks for other-than-LWR designs are unresolved and would need to be assessed at |

the CP or COL stage if the applicant references such designs. |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-40 July 2006

6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste

| This section discusses the environmental effects of transporting waste from advanced reactor

| sites. The conditions listed in 10 CFR 51.52(a) that apply to shipments of radioactive waste are

as follows:

 C Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) is packaged in solid form.

 C Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) is shipped from the reactor by truck or rail.

 C The weight limitation is 33,100 kg (73,000 lb) per truck and 100 tons per cask per railcar.

 C The traffic density limitation is less than one truck shipment per day or three railcars per

month.

| In INEEL (2003), it is stated that all the radioactive waste will be transported by truck. Exelon

plans to solidify and package its waste regardless of which advanced reactor technology it

chooses. In addition, waste from any of the advanced reactor technologies will be subject to

| NRC (10 CFR Part 71) and DOT (49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, and 178) regulations for the

| shipment of radioactive material. Radioactive waste from any of the advanced reactor

| technologies is expected to be capable of being shipped in compliance with Federal or state

| weight restrictions.

Table 6-10 presents estimates of annual waste volumes and annual waste shipment numbers

for the advanced reactor types normalized to the reference 1100-MW(e) LWR defined in

WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). Annual waste volumes and waste shipments for the advanced

reactor technologies were less than those for the 1100-MW(e) reference reactor, which was the

basis for Table S–4 for all designs except the PBMR. 

As shown in the table, only the PBMR would be expected to generate a larger volume of

| radioactive waste than the reference LWR in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). However, the GT-MHR

| and PBMR information in INEEL (2003) assumed that the applicant would ship wastes using

two different packaging systems: one that hauls 28.3 m3

 per shipment (1000 ft3 per shipment)

and one that hauls 5.7 m3

 per shipment (200 ft3 per shipment). Under those conditions, the

| number of shipments of radioactive waste per year, normalized to 1100 MW(e) generation

capacity, would be about six shipments per year per 1100 MW(e) (880 net MW(e)) for the

GT-MHR and seven shipments per year per 1100 MW(e) for the PBMR. These estimates are

| well below the reference LWR (46 shipments per year per 1100 MW(e)). However, impacts

| from gas-cooled reactor designs are unresolved because of the lack of verifiable information.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-41 NUREG-1815

Table 6-10. Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments for Advanced Reactors

Reactor Type |

INEEL (2003)

Waste

Generation

Information

Annual Waste

Volume, m3

/yr

per unit

Electrical

Output, MW(e)

per unit

Normalized

Rate, m3

/1100

MW(e)

(880 MW(e)

net)(a)

Shipments/

1100 MW(e)

(880 MW(e)

net) Electrical

Output(b) |

Reference LWR

(WASH-1238) |

100 m3/yr

per unit

108 1100 108 46

ABWR

|

100 m3/yr

per unit

100 1500 62 27

|

ESBWR

|

100 m3/yr

per unit

100 1500 62 27

|

AP1000

|

55 m3/yr

per unit

110 (2 units) 2300(c) 45 20 |

|

ACR-700

|

47.5 m3/yr

per unit

95 (2 units) 1462(d) 64 28 |

IRIS |

|

25 m3/yr

per unit

75 (3 units) 1005(e) 67 29 |

|

GT-MHR |

|

98 m3/yr

(4 unit facility)

98 (4 units) 1140(f) 86 37(h) |

|

PBMR |

|

100 drums/yr

per unit

168 (8 units) 1320(g) 118 51(h) |

|

Conversions: 1 m3 = 35.31 ft3. Drum volume = 210 liters (0.21 m3).

(a) Capacity factors used to normalize the waste generation rates to an equivalent electrical generation output are

given in Table 6-3 for each reactor type. All are normalized to 880-MW(e) net electrical output (1100-MW(e)

plant with an 80-percent capacity factor).

(b) The number of shipments per 1100 MW(e) was calculated assuming the WASH-1238 average waste shipment

capacity of 2.34 m3

/shipment (108 m3/yr divided by 46 shipments/yr).

(c) The AP1000 site includes two reactors at 1150 MW(e) per reactor.

(d) The ACR-700 site includes two reactors at 731 MW(e) per reactor.

(e) The IRIS site includes three reactors at 335 MW(e) per reactor.

(f) The GT-MHR site includes four reactors at 285 MW(e) per reactor.

(g) The PBMR site includes eight reactors at 165 MW(e) per reactor.

(h) The applicant states in INEEL (2003) that 90 percent of the waste could be shipped on trucks carrying 28 m3

(1000 ft3) of waste and the remaining 10 percent in shipments carrying 5.7 m3 (200 ft3) of radioactive waste. 

This would result in five to six shipments per year after normalization to the reference LWR electrical output.

The sum of the daily shipments of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste is well |

below the one truck shipment per day condition given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4 for all reactor

types. Doubling the shipment estimates to account for empty return shipments is still well below |

the one-shipment-per-day condition.

Dose estimates to the MEI from transport of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and waste under |

normal conditions are presented in Section 6.2.1.1. |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-42 July 2006

6.2.4 Conclusions

An analysis was conducted of the impacts of transporting unirradiated fuel to advanced reactor

| sites and spent fuel and wastes from advanced reactor sites to disposal facilities under normal

| operating and accident conditions. To make comparisons to Table S–4, the environmental

| impacts are normalized to a reference reactor year. The reference reactor is an 1100-MW(e)

reactor that has an 80-percent capacity factor, for a total electrical output of

880 MW(e) per year. The environmental impacts can be adjusted to calculate impacts per site

by multiplying the normalized impacts by the ratio of the total electric output for the advanced

reactor sites to the electric output of the reference reactor.

| Because of the conservative approaches and data used to calculate doses, actual

| environmental effects are not likely to exceed those calculated in the EIS. Thus, the staff

| concludes that the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and

| from advanced LWR designs would be SMALL and would be consistent with the risks

| associated with transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes from current-generation reactors

| presented in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. For gas-cooled designs, the impacts are likely to be

| small, but this issue is unresolved because of the lack of verifiable information on these

| designs. At the CP or COL stage, an applicant referencing these designs would need to be

| provided the necessary data and the staff would need to validate the assumptions used in this

| transportation analysis.

| Assumptions that will need validation if a gas-cooled reactor is selected include the following:

| C Verifying that unirradiated and spent fuel from gas-cooled reactors have the same

| abilities as LWR unirradiated and spent fuel to maintain fuel and cladding integrity

following a traffic accident

| C Verifying that shipping cask design assumptions (for example, cask capacities) are

| equal to or bounded by the assumptions in this analysis

| C Verifying that unirradiated fuel initial core/refueling requirement, spent fuel generation

| rates, and radioactive waste generation rate assumptions are equal to or bounded by the

| assumptions in this analysis

| C Verifying that shipping cask capacities and accident source terms, including spent fuel

| inventories, severity fractions, and release fractions, are equal to or bounded by the

| assumptions in this analysis.

Should the ACR-700 or IRIS reactors be chosen for the ESP site, a transportation accident

| analysis will be performed because spent fuel inventories were not available for this analysis.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-43 NUREG-1815

6.3 Decommissioning Impacts

At the end of the operating life of a power reactor, the NRC regulations require that the facility

undergo decommissioning. Decommissioning is the removal of a facility safely from service and

the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC license. The

regulations governing decommissioning of power reactors are found in 10 CFR 50.82, 50.75,

and 50.82.

Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any LWR

before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental

Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1

(NRC 2002). If an applicant for a CP or COL referencing the Exelon ESP applies for a license |

to operate a new nuclear unit at the ESP site, there is a requirement to provide a report

containing a certification that financial assurance for radiological decommissioning will be |

provided. At the time an application is submitted, the requirements in 10 CFR 50.33, 50.75, and |

52.77 (and any other applicable requirements) will have to be met.

At the ESP stage, applicants are not required to submit information regarding the process of |

decommissioning, such as the method chosen for decommissioning, the schedule, or any other

aspect of planning for decommissioning. Exelon did not provide this information in its |

application. The regulatory requirements on decommissioning activities are expected to limit |

the impacts of decommissioning to a SMALL impact. For the new nuclear unit, if LWR designs

are chosen or if gas-cooled reactors that were considered in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 |

(NRC 2002) are chosen, the impacts from decommissioning are expected to be within the |

bounds described in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1. In such cases, the staff expects the impact

from decommissioning is likely to be SMALL. However, for whatever design that is selected, the |

impacts from decommissioning are unresolved and would have to be assessed at the CP or |

COL stage.

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

|
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-44 July 2006

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

| Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 63, “Disposal of HighLevel Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.”

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and

Transportation of Radioactive Material.”

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

| 49 CFR Part 171. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 171, “General

| Information, Regulations, Definitions.”

| 49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, “Hazardous

| Materials Table, Special Provisions.”

49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, “Shippers -

General Requirements for Shipments and Packaging.”

49 CFR Part 178. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 178,

“Specifications for Packaging.”

61 FR 65120. December 10, 1996. “10 CFR Part 20. Resolution of Dual Regulation of

Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials; Clean Air Act.” Federal Register, Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

| 70 FR 49014. August 22, 2005. “Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection

| Standards for Yucca Mountain, NV.” Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

| 70 FR 53313. September 8, 2005. “Implementation of a Dose Standard after 10,000 years.” 

| Federal Register. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

| Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1976. The Seventh Annual Report of the Council on

| Environmental Quality. Executive Office of the President, Administrative Operations Branch,

Washington, D.C.

| Energy Policy Act of 2005. Public Law 109-58.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-45 NUREG-1815

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2004a. Letter dated December 13, 2004 from

M.C. Kray to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC request, dated

November 15, 2004. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2004b. Letter dated September 23, 2004 from

M.C. Kray to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC request, dated

August 23, 2004. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Early |

Site Permit Application: Environmental Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square, |

Pennsylvania. |

Griego, N.R., J.D. Smith, and K.S. Neuhauser. 1996. “Investigation of RADTRAN Stop Model

Input Parameters for Truck Stops.” In Conference Proceedings - Waste Management 96, |

CONF-960212-44, Tucson, Arizona.

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 2003. Early Site Permit

Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation. Engineering Design File

Number 3747, INEEL, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. Recommendations of the |

International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon Press, |

Oxford, United Kingdom.

Johnson, P.E., and R.D. Michelhaugh. 2000. Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic

Information System (WebTRAGIS) Users Manual. ORNL/TM-2000/86, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed on the Internet February 7, 2005, at

http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/v823/rpt/106749.pdf.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Cancer Institute (NCI). 1990. Cancer in Populations Living Near Facilities. National

Institutes of Health, Washington, D.C.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1987. Ionizing Radiation

Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 93, NCRP, Bethesda,

Maryland.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1815 6-46 July 2006

| National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing

| Radiation: BEIR VII – Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low

| Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council, National Academies Press,

| Washington, D.C. 

Neuhauser, K.S., F.L. Kanipe, and R.F. Weiner. 2003. RADTRAN 5 User Guide. 

SAND2003-2354, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Accessed on the

Internet February 7, 2005, at http://infoserve.sandia.gov/sand_doc/2003/032354.pdf. 

| Nuclear Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

| Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978. Public Law 95-242.

Sprung, J.L., D.J. Ammerman, N.L. Breivik, R.J. Dukart, F.L. Kanipe, J.A. Koski, G.S. Mills,

K.S. Neuhauser, H.D. Radloff, R.F. Weiner, and H.R. Yoshimura. 2000. Reexamination of

Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR-6672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of

Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1238, AEC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel

Cycle. WASH-1248, AEC, Washington, D.C.

| U.S. Court of Appeals. 2004. Nuclear Energy Institute v. EPA, 373 F.3d:1251.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic

Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca

Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management, DOE, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1975. Environmental Survey of Transportation of

Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1. NUREG-75/038, NRC,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing

| and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to

WASH-1248), NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977a. Final Environmental Statement on

| Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170, Vol. 1, NRC,

Washington, D.C.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-47 NUREG-1815

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977b. Public Comments and Task Force

Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management

Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248), NRC,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report.” 

NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, NRC, Washington, D.C.

White House Press Release. 2002. “Yucca Mountain Statement.” Available at |

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/release/2002/02/20020215-11.html. |

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

July 2006 7-1 NUREG-1815

7.0 Cumulative Impacts

When evaluating the potential impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the

site proposed by Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) in the early site permit (ESP)

application, the staff considered potential cumulative impacts that fall within the plant parameter

envelope. For purposes of this analysis, past actions are those related to the existing Clinton

Power Station (CPS) Unit 1. Present actions are those related to resources at the time of the

ESP application until the start of construction. Future actions are those that are reasonably

foreseeable through construction and operation of the proposed ESP unit, including

decommissioning. The geographical area over which past, present, and future actions could

contribute to cumulative impacts is dependent on the type of action considered and is described

below for each impact area.

The environmental impacts of the alternatives are evaluated using the NRC’s three-level

standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed using Council on

Environmental Quality guidelines and set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. The impact categories

evaluated in this chapter are the same as those used in the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2

(NRC 1996, 1999)(a) with the additional impact category of environmental justice. 

The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Chapters 4 and 5, are combined with other

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the CPS site that

would affect the same resources impacted by CPS Unit 1, regardless of what agency (Federal

or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. These combined impacts are defined

as “cumulative” in 40 CFR 1508.7 and include individually minor but collectively significant

actions taking place over a period of time. It is possible that an impact that may be SMALL by

itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE 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 issues considered to be resolved, the staff will |

verify the continued applicability of all assumptions should an applicant for a construction permit |

(CP) or a combined license (COL) reference the Exelon ESP. |

For some issues related to the construction and operation of a proposed ESP nuclear unit, there |

was not sufficient information to allow the staff to evaluate the impacts. These issues are |
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1815 7-2 July 2006

| unresolved and an evaluation of cumulative impacts for these issues cannot be completed until

| additional information is provided by an applicant for a CP or COL that references an ESP for

the Exelon ESP site.

7.1 Land Use

For purposes of this analysis, the geographic area considered for cumulative impacts to land

use resulting from construction and operation of a new nuclear unit encompasses DeWitt

County, Illinois.

The staff reviewed the available information on the land-use impacts of constructing an

additional nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. DeWitt County has developed a comprehensive

plan, which includes zoning specifications and other land-use considerations. The cumulative

impacts for land use include possible additional growth and land conversions to accommodate

new workers and services. However, these impacts would be SMALL as the construction

workforce and the operations workforce would be drawn from an area much wider than DeWitt

| County to include the large cities of Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, and Decatur. 

Because the workforce would be diffused over these larger cities in the labor supply region,

induced land-use impacts resulting from either construction or operation of a new nuclear unit at

the Exelon ESP site would not be likely. Property tax revenue from a new nuclear unit might

| also increase infrastructure improvements in DeWitt County generally and the City of Clinton

specifically. Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review,

the staff concludes that, while lower tax rates or better services might encourage development,

| the comprehensive plan would control development in DeWitt County. Based on Section 4.1.2,

| the one-time upgrading of the existing transmission system or construction of a new

| transmission system would be expected to have only minimal impact on land use and would not

| be expected to cause any cumulative impacts. Therefore, the staff concludes that the

cumulative land-use impacts would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted.

7.2 Air Quality

The Exelon ESP site is located in an area that is in attainment for criteria pollutants. In addition,

| the State regulates any emissions to the atmosphere. The air-quality impacts of construction

and operations are estimated to be small. No other significant impacts from other actions were

identified. Based on its evaluation, the staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of air quality

would be SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted.
Cumulative Impacts

July 2006 7-3 NUREG-1815

7.3 Water Use and Quality

The staff, while preparing this assessment, did not identify any other industrial, commercial, or

public installations that would be located in the general vicinity of the Exelon ESP site before the

end of the proposed Exelon unit operations. The intake of water from, and the discharge of

water to, Clinton Lake from a new nuclear unit would be regulated by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (IEPA), just as the existing CPS unit is presently regulated by the IEPA. The

intake and discharge limits for each installation are set by considering the overall or cumulative

impact of all of the other regulated activities in the area. Compliance with the permits issued

under the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

minimizes the cumulative effects on aquatic resources. Operation of a new nuclear unit would |

require discharge permits from IEPA, which would address changing requirements so that

cumulative water-quality objectives are served. Therefore, the staff concludes that the potential |

cumulative water impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site

would be SMALL. The staff concludes that in normal years the potential cumulative water

impacts of operation of a new unit would be SMALL. However, the staff also concludes that in

dry years, the potential cumulative water impacts of operation of a new unit would be

MODERATE.

7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem

The impacts from construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site were

evaluated to determine the magnitude of their contribution to regional cumulative adverse

impacts to terrestrial ecological resources. Determinations for construction were made for the

important terrestrial species (animal and plant) and habitats (as defined in NRC 2000) by

evaluating construction effects in light of other past, present, and future actions in the region. 

Determinations for operation were made by considering resource attributes normally affected by

cooling tower operation and transmission line operation and right-of-way maintenance and by

evaluating effects in light of other past, present, and future actions in the region. For this

analysis, the geographic region encompassing past, present, and foreseeable future actions

includes the area around the ESP site, the existing CPS transmission line rights-of-way, and |

Clinton Lake.

The area around the ESP site, transmission line rights-of-way, and Clinton Lake currently

consists mostly of agricultural fields and pasture. This area incurred major losses of prairie

species and habitats during agricultural conversion. Construction of a new nuclear unit at the |

ESP site would occur in areas that were previously disturbed for the CPS and now consist

mostly of early successional plant species and a small amount (about 1.4 ha [3.5 ac]) of forest |

habitat. Construction is anticipated not to adversely affect the four minor wetlands (less than 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1815 7-4 July 2006

| 0.4 ha [1 ac] each) onsite. Finally, construction of a new nuclear unit likely would not destroy or

| displace any important terrestrial species or habitats onsite, because none (except for the four

minor wetlands noted above) is currently known to occur on or within 16 km (10 mi) of the ESP

site. 

| In addition, an undetermined amount of wildlife habitat, including any areas set aside for wildlife

| conservation (e.g., State wildlife areas) and relatively uncommon habitats (e.g., forest, prairie,

| wetlands, etc.) important to wildlife and/or to Federally protected species (e.g., Indiana bat

| [Myotis sodalis] [see Section 4.4.3]), could be disturbed by construction for transmission system

| upgrades (see Section 4.4.1.1). If construction for the addition of new transmission lines

| occurred entirely within or required expansion of the existing rights-of-way (see Section 4.4.1.1),

| the overall contribution of construction of the proposed ESP unit to cumulative losses of

| important species and habitats in the region would be minor. However, if construction for the

| addition of new transmission lines required creation of one or more new rights-of-way (see

| Section 4.4.1.1), the overall contribution of construction of the proposed ESP unit to cumulative

| losses of important species and habitats in the region could range from minor to extensive. 

| During the review for the ESP site, the staff did not identify any other present or future actions in

the region that could significantly impact terrestrial species or habitats.

During the review for the ESP site, the staff did not identify any other past, present, or future

actions in the region that could significantly affect wildlife and wildlife habitat in ways similar to

those associated with cooling operation of a new nuclear unit (i.e., cooling tower noise,

exposure of Clinton Lake shoreline habitat due to cooling tower drawdown of the lake, adverse

effects on crops and ornamental vegetation and native plants from cooling tower salt drift, and

birds via collisions with cooling towers). Thus, because these types of impacts were considered

| negligible for the new nuclear unit (see Section 5.4.1), cumulative adverse impacts of these

| types in the region would also be considered minor. 

During the review for the ESP site, the staff did not identify any other past, present, or future

actions in the region that could significantly affect wildlife and wildlife habitat in ways similar to

those associated with transmission line operation and right-of-way maintenance for a new

nuclear unit (i.e., birds via collisions with transmission lines, flora and fauna [plants, agricultural

| crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock] from electromagnetic fields and right-of-way maintenance,

and floodplains and wetlands via right-of-way maintenance). Thus, because these types of

impacts were considered negligible for a new nuclear unit (see Section 5.4.1), cumulative

| adverse impacts of these types in the region would also be considered minor. 

| In summary, Exelon anticipates the addition of new transmission lines to upgrade the existing

| transmission system, but has not initiated selection of one or more transmission-system routes

| at this time. The actual need for and nature of transmission-system upgrades and the

| magnitude of associated construction impacts to terrestrial ecosystems would be evaluated by

| the transmission and distribution system owner and operator under the regulatory process 
Cumulative Impacts

July 2006 7-5 NUREG-1815

described in Section 4.4.1.1 prior to or during the CP or COL phase. Therefore, the staff

concludes that the contribution of construction of the ESP unit to cumulative impacts on |

terrestrial ecological resources in the region is unresolved. The staff also concludes that the |

contribution of operations (including cooling tower operation, operation of the upgraded |

transmission system, and maintenance of the associated transmission line rights-of-way) and |

eventual decommissioning of the unit to cumulative impacts on terrestrial ecological resources |

in the region would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. |

7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem

The staff evaluated construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site to

determine the magnitude of their contribution to regional cumulative adverse impacts to aquatic

ecological resources. Determinations for construction were made for the generic categories of

important aquatic species (animal and plant) and habitats (as defined by NRC 2000) by

evaluating construction effects in light of other past, present, and future actions in the region. 

Determinations for operation were made for resource attributes normally affected by the cooling

water system. This includes an evaluation of potential effects of water intake, consumption, and

discharge in light of other past, present, and future actions in the region. For this analysis, the

geographic region encompassing past, present, and foreseeable future actions includes

Clinton Lake and Salt Creek immediately downstream of the Clinton Lake Dam.

From an aquatic ecological perspective, the construction of the CPS in the late 1970s converted

what was once rural land and approximately 24 ha (60 ac) of flowing water at the confluence of

Salt Creek and the North Fork Salt Creek to a 1981-ha (4895-ac) reservoir (AEC 1974). The |

Clinton Lake Dam moderated the flow to Salt Creek, decreasing the natural wide variation in

stream temperatures, flows, and water levels. Thus, the site has already experienced a

dramatic change in habitat type and species composition. 

Since the filling of Clinton Lake, some aquatic organisms have disappeared or have been

displaced while others have been favored by the lake conditions. Clinton Lake currently

supports a variety of species common to other Illinois lakes and reservoirs. There is a strong

sport fishery supported and managed by the Illinois Department of National Resources,

although there are no commercial fisheries in the vicinity of the ESP site. There are no

Federally or State-listed threatened or endangered aquatic species found in Clinton Lake or

immediately downstream in Salt Creek. During its review of the Exelon ESP site, the staff did |

not identify any other present or future actions in the region that could significantly alter aquatic

species or habitats. Construction of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site would occur in areas

that have been previously disturbed at CPS. Impacts to aquatic organisms would primarily be

associated with construction of a new cooling water intake structure adjacent to the existing

CPS intake structure. Benthic macroinvertebrates and nearshore habitat would be lost as a

result of dredging, dewatering, and other construction activities; however, the amount of open 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1815 7-6 July 2006

water, shoreline, benthic habitat, and benthic fauna that would be lost is a small fraction of the

| total found at Clinton Lake (Exelon 2006). Fish and other mobile aquatic organisms might be

temporarily displaced due to water displacement at the construction site, machinery noise,

increased turbidity, and boating activities, but would be expected to return to the area once

construction was complete. Therefore, the staff concludes that the contribution of construction

| impacts of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site to cumulative losses of important species

and habits in the region would be SMALL.

The staff considered potential cumulative effects of impacts related to water consumption and to

impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. Past and present records indicate that

water consumption (and discharge) of the existing CPS once-through unit is approximately

35,700 L/s (566,000 gpm) in summer and 28,100 L/s (445,000 gpm) in winter. This is well

within the current NPDES permitted discharge limit of 42,300 L/s (670,000 gpm). Entrainment

data are not available for the CPS although the recreationally important fish species are not

considered to be highly susceptible to entrainment based on their general spawning habitat

preferences for shallow littoral zones, which are not associated with the deeper water at the

cooling water intake structure (Lutterbie 2002). Previous impingement studies indicate that

| gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) make up approximately 99 percent of the total number of

| fish and biomass impinged on the intake screens at CPS (Pallo 1988). While the number of fish

impinged is large, the abundance of gizzard shad has been consistently high since operation of

the CPS began, indicating that there are no apparent adverse impacts to the population as a

| result of current cooling water intake withdrawals related to operation of the CPS. 

| Exelon has stated that it would operate the new ESP unit within the limits of the current NPDES

| permit for CPS. An estimated 6564 L/s (104,000 gpm) in summer and 14,200 L/s

| (225,000 gpm) in winter would be available for withdrawal by a new nuclear unit under the

| existing NPDES permit (Exelon 2006). Water-use requirements estimated for a new nuclear

| unit under the cooling options being considered are well below 6564 L/s (104,000 gpm)

| (Exelon 2006). Although a full review of anticipated impacts due to impingement and

entrainment cannot be performed without a specific cooling water intake design, the relatively

| low water consumption estimated for a new nuclear unit intake would keep impingement and

| entrainment low, and compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for

| new intake structures would protect aquatic organisms (see Section 5.4.2.1) (66 FR 65255). 

The regulations require intake structures to meet best available technology standards for new

and existing cooling water intake structures, through design and construction technologies,

operational measures, or restoration measures. The adoption of these performance standards

| would make it likely that cumulative impacts from operation of two independent cooling water

intake systems on Clinton Lake would not affect the maintenance of a balanced, indigenous

| population of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms, and impacts would be SMALL. 

| However, the intake structure design and permit requirements that would be set by IEPA are

| unknown at this time. The impact could be MODERATE if best available technology is not 
Cumulative Impacts

July 2006 7-7 NUREG-1815

utilized at the CPS and localized reduction of fish occurs, beyond what natural recruitment can |

replace, as a result of joint operation of the CPS and the ESP unit.

The staff also considered the potential cumulative effects of impacts related to thermal

discharge. Since operation of the CPS began, heated effluent has been discharged to the lake. 

The amount of water, its temperature, and chemical composition are regulated by IEPA through

the NPDES permit program. The IEPA regulates point sources discharging pollutants to ensure

the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and other

aquatic organisms. The IEPA is required to take into consideration the cumulative impacts of

multiple discharges to the same waterbody and discharges from the CPS and other area

facilities will be included in the review and development of permit requirements for a new

nuclear unit. Additionally, all NPDES permits must be renewed every 5 years, allowing IEPA to

ensure that the permit limits provide the appropriate level of protection to the environment. 

During the staff’s review of the suitability of the Exelon ESP site, it considered impacts from

discharge of heated effluent (e.g., water temperature, dissolved oxygen, thermal stratification,

impacts to Salt Creek fauna), cold shock, and chemical treatment of the cooling water. 

Because the NPDES permit issued by IEPA would govern the operational impacts to the aquatic

environment whether the facility operated alone or jointly with the CPS, the operational impacts

of water discharge from a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site on aquatic organisms would

normally be SMALL. However, following dry years, the cumulative impacts of operation on the

aquatic environment could be MODERATE.

In addition to the impacts from construction of a new ESP unit and operation of the CPS and a |

new ESP unit, the staff considered the cumulative impacts for decommissioning once the power |

plants permanently cease operation. Decommissioning would result in the cessation of water |

consumption from the lake by the power plants and impingement and entrainment impacts

would end. The decommissioning of one unit before the other would result in a decrease in |

water consumption and impingement and entrainment effects proportional to the amount of

water that was consumed by the power plant that would have gone out of service. Therefore,

based on the above information, the staff concludes that the contribution of a new nuclear unit

cooling water intake operation to cumulative impacts on aquatic organisms in the region would

be SMALL.

In summary, the staff concludes that the contribution of construction of the proposed Exelon

ESP unit to the cumulative impact on aquatic ecological resources in the region would be |

SMALL, and mitigation measures are not warranted. The staff concludes that contribution of |

operational activities associated with the proposed Exelon ESP unit to the cumulative impacts |

related to water consumption and to impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms would |

be SMALL to MODERATE, and the contribution to cumulative impacts of thermal discharge |

could be SMALL to MODERATE. However, additional information on the intake structure |
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1815 7-8 July 2006

design and NPDES permit requirements for the ESP unit is needed in order to determine the

| impacts to aquatic ecology due to the operation of one or more nuclear units at the Exelon ESP

| site. Therefore, the staff concludes that the cumulative aquatic ecology issues associated with

| operation of a proposed ESP unit are unresolved. Finally, the staff concludes that the

| contribution of eventual decommissioning of the facility to the cumulative impact on aquatic

ecological resources in the region would be SMALL, and mitigation measures are not

| warranted.

7.6 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources,

Environmental Justice

Much of the analyses of the socioeconomic impacts presented in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 already

incorporate cumulative impact analysis because the metrics used for analysis only make sense

when placed in the total or cumulative context. For instance, the impact of the total number of

additional housing units that may be needed can only be evaluated with respect to the total

number that will be available in the impacted area. Therefore, the geographical area of the

cumulative analysis varies depending on the particular impact considered, and may depend on

specific boundaries, such as taxation jurisdictions, or may be distance-related, as in the case of

environmental justice.

The construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site would not likely

add to any cumulative socioeconomic impacts beyond those already evaluated in Sections 4.5

and 5.5. In other words, the impacts of issues such as transportation or taxes would not likely

be detectable beyond the regions previously evaluated and would quickly decrease with

increasing distance from the site. The staff concludes that construction and operational impacts

would generally be SMALL but that there are exceptions. In Chapter 4, the staff concluded that

| the impacts of construction on traffic would be SMALL considering the construction workforce,

| the normal CPS workforce, and the temporary workforce associated with refueling outages. 

| However, the staff concludes that the physical impacts to roads in the vicinity of the Exelon ESP

| site would be SMALL to MODERATE due to the heavy weight of trucks hauling construction

| materials into the site. Mitigation of the moderate impacts could be achieved by upgrading the

| existing rail line into the ESP site and using it to haul the heavier construction materials to the

site.

In terms of beneficial effects, the impact on regional economies and tax revenues would be

beneficially MODERATE, particularly property taxes to DeWitt County resulting from station

operations. Impacts of station construction and operation on housing would be SMALL to

MODERATE, particularly in DeWitt, Piatt, and Logan Counties if workers decided to locate to

these smaller counties where housing is less available (but this is considered a low probability

because of available housing in the larger cities near the ESP site). Aesthetic impacts of station

operation would be SMALL to MODERATE. There is a concern about the impact of a 
Cumulative Impacts

July 2006 7-9 NUREG-1815

new nuclear unit’s cooling system on Clinton Lake water levels during times of severe drought

(considered a rare event), which in turn could have impacts on the recreational use of the lake. 

With regard to historic and cultural resources, the construction and operation of the ESP unit |

are not expected to add to any cumulative impacts to these resources beyond those identified in |

Sections 4.6 and 5.6. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the ESP unit would not |

affect land outside the bounds of the current CPS site; therefore, additional cumulative impacts |

would be negligible. The staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of construction and

operation on historic and cultural resources would be SMALL and that mitigation would not

be warranted.

The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices through which minority or lowincome populations would be disproportionately affected. As a result, cumulative impacts of

environmental justice would be SMALL.

Based on the above considerations, the staff concludes that construction and operation of a

new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site would not likely make a detectable contribution to the

cumulative effects associated with any of the socioeconomic issues, including environmental

justice. The majority of overall cumulative impacts would be SMALL, and impacts that could be

more severe are based on events of low probability or events that could be managed. The staff

concludes that the overall cumulative impacts would be SMALL and no mitigation measures

other than those identified by Exelon would be warranted.

7.7 Nonradiological Health

In Section 5.8.1, the health impacts of operation of the existing CPS and a new nuclear unit at |

the Exelon ESP site on the ambient temperature of Clinton Lake with regard to potential

formation of thermophilic microorganisms were evaluated. The evaluation showed that the

addition of a new nuclear unit would not increase the temperature in Clinton Lake enough to

create an environment conducive to the optimal growth of thermophilic microorganisms. Health

risks to workers can be expected to be dominated by occupational injuries at rates below the

average U.S. industrial rates. Health impacts to the public and workers from noise, dust

emissions, and acute electromagnetic fields were also evaluated and found to be small. The

staff concludes that the cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation of the |

existing CPS unit and the proposed new nuclear unit on nonradiological health would be |

SMALL, and that mitigation would not be warranted. Impacts from chronic electromagnetic |

fields remain unresolved.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1815 7-10 July 2006

7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation

The radiological exposure limits and standards for the protection of the public and for

occupational exposures have been developed assuming long-term exposures and, therefore,

incorporate cumulative impacts. As described in Section 5.9, the public and occupational doses

predicted from the proposed operation of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site are well

| below regulatory limits and standards. Specifically, the site boundary dose to the maximally

| exposed individual from CPS and the proposed ESP unit combined would be well within the

| regulatory standard of 40 CFR Part 190. For purposes of this analysis, the area within an

| 80-km (50-mi) radius of the ESP site was included. 

| As stated in Section 2.5, AmerGen has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring

| program around the CPS site since 1980. The radiological environmental monitoring program

measures radiation and radioactive materials from all sources including CPS. The U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission and the State would regulate any reasonably foreseeable future actions

that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts.

Therefore, the staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts of operation of a new

nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site and the currently operating CPS would be SMALL and that

| additional mitigation would not be warranted. Issues related to gas-cooled reactor design

| accidents are unresolved because of the lack of information.

7.9 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

| The addition of the proposed new unit on the Exelon ESP site would result in the need for

| additional fuel. The impacts of producing this fuel include mining of the uranium ore, milling of

| the ore, conversion of the uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride, enrichment of the uranium

| hexafluoride, fuel fabrication where the uranium hexafluoride is converted into uranium oxide

| fuel pellets, and disposition of the spent fuel in a proposed Federal waste repository. As

| discussed in Section 6.1 of this EIS, the environmental impacts of fuel cycle activities for the

| proposed unit would be approximately three times those presented in Table S–3 of 10 CFR

| 51.51. Table S–3 provides the environmental impacts from uranium fuel cycle operations for a

| model 1000-MW(e) light water reactor operating at 80 percent capacity with a 12-month fuel

| loading cycle and an average fuel burnup of 33,000 MWd/MTU. Per 10 CFR 51.51(a), the staff

| considers the impacts in Table S–3 to be acceptable for the 1000-MW(e) reference reactor. As 

| discussed in Section 6.1.1 of this EIS, advances in reactors since the development of 

| Table S–3 impacts will have the effect of reducing environmental impacts of the operating 

| reference reactor. For example, a number of fuel management improvements have been 

| adopted by nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel and 

| separative work (enrichment) requirements. Fuel cycle impacts would occur not only at the 

| Exelon ESP site but would also be scattered though other locations in the United States, or in 
Cumulative Impacts

July 2006 7-11 NUREG-1815

the case of foreign-purchased uranium, in other countries. The staff considers the cumulative |

fuel cycle impacts of operating CPS and the proposed ESP unit to be SMALL. Cumulative |

impacts for other than light-water reactor designs are unresolved. |

The addition of the proposed new unit would result in additional shipments of unirradiated fuel to |

the site and additional shipments of spent fuel and waste from the site. Cumulative impacts

would be approximately twice that of the existing operating plant. Environmental impacts from |

transportation of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and waste are found in Section 6.2 of this |

environmental impact statement based on specific reactor types proposed for the proposed ESP |

unit. The following conclusions were derived from the staff’s analysis of unirradiated fuel

shipments: (1) the number of unirradiated fuel shipments equates to less than one truck |

shipment per day within criteria specified in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52, (2) annual dose to |

workers and the public would be less than dose specified in Table S–4, and (3) health impacts |

are projected to be small (i.e., less than 1 x 10-4 detriment/yr). The following conclusions were |

derived from the staff’s analysis of spent fuel: (1) after accounting for conservative assumptions |

in the staff’s evaluation, doses to the worker and the public would be within criteria specified in |

Table S–4, and (2) health impacts from normal conditions and accident conditions would be |

small (i.e., less than 0.1 detriment/yr). Regarding transportation of waste shipments, the staff |

concluded that the normalized number of waste shipments would be within the value specified |

in Table S–4 for the 1100-MW(e) reference reactor. Cumulative impacts of transportation for |

operating both CPS and the proposed ESP unit would be SMALL. Cumulative impacts for other |

than light-water reactor designs are unresolved. |

As discussed in Section 6.3 of this EIS, environmental impacts from decommissioning are |

expected to be small as the licensee would have to comply with decommissioning regulatory |

requirements. In Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586, Generic Environmental Impact Statement on |

Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, the NRC found the impacts on radiation dose to workers |

and the public, waste management, water quality, air quality, ecological resources, and |

socioeconomics to be small (NRC 2002). Therefore, the cumulative impacts for both the CPS |

and the proposed ESP unit would be SMALL. However, because Exelon was not required to |

(and did not) submit information regarding decommissioning in its ESP application, this issue is |

unresolved. |

7.10 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

The staff considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation |

of a new nuclear unit during the past, present, and future actions in the Exelon ESP site area. 

For each impact area, the staff concludes the potential cumulative impacts resulting from |

construction and operation are generally SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be |

warranted. However, several areas (water use and socioeconomic impacts) have the potential |

for a MODERATE impact. In these cases, mitigation measures may be warranted, including |
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1815 7-12 July 2006

| derating, and even shutdown, of the unit and assistance with infrastructure and public services. 

| In certain cases (terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, nonradiological health, and radiological

| impacts of operation of non-light-water reactor designs), information was not available to resolve

| issues. In these cases, an applicant for a construction permit or a combined license referencing

| the Exelon ESP would have to provide the necessary information at that stage.

7.11 References

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

| Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

| 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

| “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

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

Part 1508, “Council on Environmental Quality.”

| 66 FR 65255 “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Final Regulations to Establish

| Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase 1 Existing Facilities; Final Rule.” 

| Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 243. December 18, 2001.

Clean Water Act (CWA). 1977. 33 USC 1251, et seq.

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Early

| Site Permit Application: Environmental Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania.

Lutterbie, G. 2002. Clinton Lake Access Areas and Fishing Guide. Illinois Department of

Natural Resources, Division of Fisheries, Springfield, Illinois.

Pallo, M.S. 1988. Clinton Power Station Fish Impingement Report, April 1987–May 1988. 

Illinois Power Company, Environmental Affairs Department, Field Biology Laboratory,

Decatur, Illinois.

| U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. “Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Proposed Clinton Power Station Units 1 and 2.” Illinois Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-461

and 50-462. Prepared by U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

| for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, NRC, Washington, D.C.
Cumulative Impacts

July 2006 7-13 NUREG-1815

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement |

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, NRC, |

Washington, D.C. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan

(ESRP). NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement |

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of |

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. |

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

July 2006 8-1 NUREG-1815

8.0 Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives

This chapter describes alternatives to the proposed action and discusses the environmental

impacts of those alternatives. The evaluation of alternative sites is a two-step process, as set

forth in NUREG-1555, Section 9.3 (NRC 2000), and stems from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) decision related to licensing the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant (CLI-77-8, |

5 NRC 503, 1977). The first step looks at a full suite of environmental issues, using |

reconnaissance-level information to determine if any of the alternative sites are environmentally

preferable to the proposed site. If an alternative site appears environmentally preferable to the

proposed site, then the analysis proceeds to the second step. If not, then the evaluation of

alternative sites ends at the first step. The second step considers economic, technological, and

institutional factors among the environmentally preferred sites to determine if any site is |

obviously superior to the proposed site. If there is no obviously superior site, then the proposed

site prevails. A staff conclusion that an alternative site is obviously superior to Exelon’s

proposed site would normally lead to a recommendation that the early site permit (ESP)

application be denied.

The environmental impacts of the alternatives are evaluated using the NRC’s three-level

standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed using Council on

Environmental Quality guidelines and set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. The impact categories

evaluated in this chapter are the same as those used in the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2

(NRC 1996, 1999)(a), including the additional impact category of environmental justice. While |

the GEIS was developed for license renewal, it provides useful information for this review and is

referenced throughout this chapter.

Because 10 CFR Part 52 does not require an Environmental Report (ER) or environmental

impact statement (EIS) for an ESP to include consideration of the benefits of construction and

operation of a new reactor or reactors at the ESP site, this EIS does not consider such matters. 

Accordingly, should the NRC issue an ESP for the Exelon site, these matters would be |

considered in the EIS for any construction permit (CP) or combined license (COL) application

that references such an ESP.

Section 8.1 discusses the no-action alternative. Section 8.2 addresses alternative energy

sources. Section 8.3 examines the design alternatives. Section 8.4 reviews Exelon’s region of

interest (ROI) and examines the suitability of the ROI and Exelon’s alternative site-selection

process. It describes the method Exelon used to select the candidate and alternative sites. 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-2 July 2006

Section 8.5 evaluates the selected alternative sites individually. Section 8.6 examines issues

that are common to all the sites and addresses them collectively for all the sites. Section 8.7

summarizes the environmental impacts for the alternative sites. The comparison of the

alternative sites with the proposed site is made in Chapter 9.

8.1 No-Action Alternative

For purposes of this ESP application, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which the

NRC would deny the ESP request. Upon such a denial, the construction and operation of a new

nuclear power station at the proposed ESP location in accordance with the 10 CFR Part 52

process referencing an approved ESP would not occur.

The no-action alternative consists of two parts. First, the no-action alternative would include a

scenario in which the NRC would not issue the ESP. There are no environmental impacts

associated with not issuing the ESP except that the impacts associated with site-preparation

and preliminary work allowed pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(c) and 10 CFR 52.25(a) would be

avoided. Second, given that the EIS addresses the environmental effects of construction and

operation as directed by the Commission in 10 CFR 52.18(a)(2), the no-action alternative would

result in no such construction and operation. Therefore, the impacts predicted in this EIS would

not occur. 

In this context, the no-action alternative would accomplish none of the benefits intended by the

ESP process, which would include (1) early resolution of siting issues prior to large investments

of financial capital and human resources in new plant design and construction, (2) early

resolution of issues on the environmental impacts of construction and operation of reactors that

fall within the plant parameters, (3) the ability to bank sites on which nuclear plants may be

located, and (4) the facilitation of future decisions on whether to build new nuclear plants.

8.2 Energy Alternatives

This section examines the potential environmental impacts associated with electric generating

sources other than a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site; purchasing electric power from

other sources to replace power that would have been generated by a new unit at the ESP site; a

combination of new generating capacity and conservation measures; and other generation

alternatives that were deemed not to be viable replacements for a new unit at the ESP site.

A new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site would be constructed and operated as a merchant

independent power producer (also referred to as a “merchant plant” or “merchant generator”). 

The power produced would be sold on the open wholesale market, without specific

consideration to supplying a traditional service area or satisfying a reserve margin objective. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-3 NUREG-1815

Thus, for the purpose of this alternatives analysis, an ROI has been defined by Exelon as the

State of Illinois rather than the more traditional “relevant service area.” The delineation of this

ROI is in keeping with current deregulation policies and the proposed location of the facility

within the State of Illinois.

8.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity

As described in its ER, from Exelon’s perspective, alternatives not requiring additional

generation are not reasonable alternatives to a merchant plant. Nevertheless, Exelon

considered alternatives not requiring new generating capacity (Exelon 2006). This section |

provides an assessment of the economic and technical feasibility of supplying the demand for

energy without constructing new generating capacity. Specific elements of analysis could

include one or more of the following:

 • Initiating energy-conservation measures (including implementing demand-side management

actions)

 • Purchasing power from other utilities or power generators

 • Reactivating or extending the service life of existing plants within the power system.

8.2.1.1 Energy Conservation

Historically, State regulatory bodies have required regulated utilities to institute programs

designed to reduce demand for electricity. Demand-side management programs included

energy-conservation and load-modification measures. In the current deregulated Illinois market,

Exelon anticipates that it will not be able to offer competitively priced power if it has to retain an

extensive program involving conservation and load-modification incentives (Exelon 2006). |

The Commission determined (NRC 2005) that conservation or demand side management |

programs are not a reasonable alternative to an ESP for a base load nuclear power plant. |

Consequently, that alternative is not further considered. |

8.2.1.2 Purchased Power

Power generation is expected to be fully deregulated by the time Exelon would apply for a CP or

COL for the ESP site (Exelon 2006). Overall, Illinois is a net exporter of electricity. |

If available, purchased power from other sources could make a new nuclear unit at the ESP site

unnecessary. Imported power from Canada or Mexico is unlikely to be available to supply the 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-4 July 2006

equivalent capacity of a new unit at the site. In Canada, 60 percent of the country’s electricity

capacity is derived from renewable sources, principally hydropower (DOE/EIA 2004a). Canada

has plans to continue developing hydroelectric power, but the plans generally do not include

large-scale projects (DOE/EIA 2004a). Canada’s nuclear generation is projected to increase

from 10,018 megawatts in 2001 to 15,207 megawatts by 2020, or an increase of 52 percent,

| before beginning to decline to 12,351 megawatts at the end 2025 (DOE/EIA 2004a). The

| U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that total

gross U.S. imports of electricity from Canada and Mexico will gradually increase from

47.4 billion kilowatt-hours in 2000 to 66.1 billion kilowatt-hours in 2005, and then gradually

decrease to 47.4 billion kilowatt-hours in 2020 (DOE/EIA 2001a). 

Exelon has evaluated conventional and prospective purchase power supply options that could

be reasonably implemented in Illinois. In 1999, Unicom’s subsidiary ComEd completed a sale

of its coal, gas, and oil units to Midwest Generation. As part of the sale, Unicom entered into

long-term purchase contracts with Midwest Generation to provide firm capacity and energy

(ComEd 1999). Power covered by these contracts is already included in current and future

capacity estimates. Therefore, Exelon does not consider the power purchased by these

contracts to be available to satisfy the purchased power alternative.

If power to replace the capacity of a new nuclear unit were to be purchased from sources within

the United States or from a foreign country, the generating technology likely would be one of

those described in the GEIS for License Renewal (probably coal, natural gas, or nuclear)

(NRC 1996). The description of the environmental impacts of other technologies described in

the GEIS is representative of the impacts associated with the construction and the operation of

a new nuclear unit at the ESP site. Under the purchased power alternative, the environmental

impacts of power production would still occur, but would be located elsewhere within the region

| or the Nation or in another country. The environmental impacts of coal-fired and natural gas-

| fired plants are discussed in Section 8.2.2.

If the purchased power alternative is implemented, the only environmental unknown is whether

new transmission line rights-of-way would be required. The construction of these lines could

| have both environmental and aesthetic consequences, particularly if new transmission line

rights-of-way have to be acquired. The staff concludes that the local environmental impacts

from purchased power would be SMALL when existing transmission line rights-of-way are used

and could range from SMALL to LARGE if acquisition of new rights-of-way is required. The

environmental impacts of power generation depend on the generation technology and location

of the generation site and are, therefore, unknown.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-5 NUREG-1815

8.2.1.3 Extending the Service Life of Existing Plants

Fossil plants slated for retirement, predominately coal- and natural-gas-fired plants, tend to be

ones that are old enough to have difficulty in economically meeting today’s restrictions on aircontaminant emissions and, as a result, would require extensive refurbishing to meet the more

restrictive environmental standards at great economic cost. As a result, Exelon concluded that

the environmental impacts of a refurbishment scenario are bounded by its coal- and naturalgas-fired alternatives.

Nuclear power plants are initially licensed for a period of 40 years. The license can be renewed

for 20 years, and regulations permit additional license renewal. Exelon did not consider nuclear

power plant license renewal in its ER. However, renewed operating licenses were granted for

Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, and Dresden, Units 2 and 3, which are located at alternative ESP

sites. The operating licenses for reactors at the Braidwood, Byron, and LaSalle sites may be

renewed in the future. The reactors at the Zion site have permanently ceased operation, and

the option of renewal of the operating licenses no longer exists for these reactors.

The environmental impacts of continued operation of a nuclear power plant are significantly less

than construction of a new plant. However, continued operation of an existing nuclear plant

does not provide additional generating capacity.

The NRC regulates the maximum power at which a commercial nuclear power plant may |

operate to ensure safety of the plant. Licensees may request NRC approval to increase the |

maximum power level of a plant (i.e., a power uprate). Exelon has already requested and |

obtained approval for power uprates for each of its nuclear power plants in Illinois. The NRC |

approved power uprates for LaSalle Units 1 and 2 in 2000; Byron Units 1 and 2, Braidwood |

Units 1 and 2, Dresden Units 2 and 3, and Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 in 2001; and Clinton in |

2002. Additional power uprates for these plants will not provide the new generating capacity |

being considered by Exelon. |

8.2.1.4 Conclusions

The staff concludes that the options of purchasing electric power from other suppliers, |

reactivating retired power plants, and extending the operating life of existing power plants are |

not reasonable alternatives to providing new base load power generation capacity. |

8.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity

In keeping with the NRC’s evaluation of alternatives to license renewal, a reasonable set of

energy alternatives to the construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Clinton ESP

site should be limited to analysis of single discrete power generation sources and those power 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-6 July 2006

generation technologies that are technically reasonable and commercially viable (NRC 1996). 

The current mix of power-generation options in Illinois is one indicator of the feasible choices for

electrical generation technology within the State. Exelon employed the criterion of generation

capacity (installed technology choices in terms of its potential output) and utilization

characteristics (the degree to which each choice is actually used) to select those technologies

to be evaluated.

8.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation

In 2001, coal-fired steam electric plants provided about 49 percent of the electric power

generation in the United States. The share of coal-fired power generation is projected to

increase from 49 percent in 2001 to 52 percent in 2025 as rising natural gas prices improve the

cost competitiveness of coal-fired technologies. Some 112 gigawatts of new coal-fired

generating capacity is expected to be constructed by 2025 (DOE/EIA 2004b). However, in

Illinois coal-fired generation fell from 46.1 percent of total generating capacity in 1993 to

35.0 percent in 2002 (DOE/EIA 1998).

The environmental impacts of constructing and operating a typical coal-fired steam plant are

well known and can be substantial. Exelon defined the coal-fired alternative as four 550-MW(e)

units. Exelon chose this configuration to have parity with the gas-fired alternative described in

Section 8.2.2.2. Exelon based its emission-control technology and percent-control assumptions

on alternatives that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified as being

available for minimizing emissions (EPA 1998). For the purposes of analysis, Exelon has

assumed that coal and lime (calcium oxide) would be delivered by rail to the Clinton site. The

staff has reviewed Exelon’s assumptions, compared them to other resource material (including

NRC 1996), and has found them to be reasonable.

Two types of cooling systems can be used for a coal-fired system: closed-cycle and oncethrough cooling. A closed-cycle system uses cooling towers, thus creating some aesthetic

impacts and potential ecological impacts from cooling tower spray drift. Once-through cooling

systems do not use cooling towers, resulting in less land being impacted. However, with

respect to surface-water use and quality, there would be an increased thermal load on the

receiving body of water, with ecological and aquatic impacts. 

Air Quality

The fugitive dust emissions from construction activities for a coal-fired generation plant are

expected to be mitigated using best management practices; emissions will be temporary. The

impacts to air quality from coal-fired generation would vary considerably from those of nuclear

power generation because of emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon

monoxide (CO), particulates, and hazardous air pollutants, such as mercury. Exelon has 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-7 NUREG-1815

assumed a plant design that would minimize air emissions through a combination of boiler

technology and post-combustion pollutant removal. Exelon (Exelon 2006) estimates the coal- |

fired alternative emissions for SOx, NOx, CO, and total suspended particulates (TSP) and its

subset of particulate matter (PM) of 10 microns in diameter or less (PM10) to be as follows:

 C SOx = 7373 MT (8127 tons) per year

 C NOx = 1863 MT (2054 tons) per year

 C CO = 1921 MT (2118 tons) per year

 C PM:

 -TSP = 265 MT (292) tons per year

 -PM10 = 61 MT (67 tons) per year

In 2002, emissions of SO2, NOx, and CO from Illinois’s generators ranked 11th, 4th, and 6th

highest nationally, respectively (DOE/EIA 2004b). In fact, 17 Illinois generators were cited in the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which required that they be in compliance with stricter

emission controls for SO2 and NOx by 1995 (Exelon 2006). The acid rain requirements of the |

Clean Air Act Amendments capped the Nation’s SO2 emissions from power plants. Exelon

would have to obtain sufficient pollution credits either from a set-aside pool or purchases on the

open market to cover annual emissions from the plant.

The market-based allowance system used for sulfur dioxide emissions is not used for nitrogen

oxide emissions. Therefore, this approach may not be feasible for NOx emissions. The Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) allocated NOx credits among the existing coal-fired

generating units in the State (IAC 2004). A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the

new source performance standard for such plants (40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1)), which limits the

discharge of any gases that contain nitrogen oxides (expressed as nitrogen dioxide) to 200 ng/J

(1.6 lb/MWh) of gross energy output, based on a 30-day rolling average. Mitigation efforts for

air-pollution emissions (e.g., emissions trading) generally apply to nonattainment areas. The

Clinton ESP site is in an attainment area. Only a small percentage of credits were set aside by

the IEPA for new sources. The ESP site would be classified as a new source (Exelon 2006). |

Under the current circumstances, mitigation strategies for air emissions could be

economically prohibitive.

A new coal-fired generation plant would likely need a prevention of significant deterioration

permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The plant would

need to comply with the new source performance standards for such plants in 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart Da. The standards establish emission limits for particulate matter and opacity

(40 CFR 60.42a), sulfur dioxide (40 CFR 60.43a), and nitrogen oxide (40 CFR 60.44a).

The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51,

Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in an

area designated as attainment for unclassified for criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act. 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-8 July 2006

Criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act are lead, ozone, particulates, carbon monoxide,

nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. Ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants are in

40 CFR Part 50. The Clinton ESP site is in an area designated as in attainment or unclassified

for criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.325).

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a National goal of preventing

future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when

impairment occurs because of air pollution resulting from human activities. In addition, EPA

regulations provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State, the

State must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress toward achieving natural

visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility

for those days on which visibility is most impaired over the period of the implementation plan

and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least visibility-impaired days over the same period

(40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). If a new coal-fired power generation station were located close to a

mandatory Class I area, then additional air pollution control requirements would be imposed. 

There are no mandatory Class I Federal areas in Illinois or downwind in Indiana.

| Exelon did not estimate the carbon dioxide emissions from its coal-fired alternative. However,

| assuming a typical carbon dioxide emission rate of 1 kg/kWh (2 lb/kWh) for coal-fired power

| plants (DOE/EPA 2000) and a capacity factor of 0.85 (Exelon 2006), the coal-fired alternative

| would result in emission of approximately 15 million MT (16 million tons) of carbon dioxide per

| year. These estimates only consider the carbon dioxide release by the power plant; they do not

| include carbon dioxide releases in the remainder of the coal fuel cycle.

The staff concludes that the environmental impacts on air quality of coal-fired power generation

of 2200 MW(e) at the Exelon ESP site would be MODERATE to LARGE. The impacts would be

clearly noticeable and, given the current state of Illinois air quality for SOx and NOx, could

destabilize air quality.

Waste Management

Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution

generates additional ash, and scrubber sludge. Exelon estimates that coal-fired generation of

2200 MW(e) would consume 7.7 x 106

 MT (8.5 x 106 tons) of coal and produce approximately

5.3 x 105

 MT (5.8 x 105 tons) of recoverable ash per year. Eighty-seven percent of the ash

would be recycled, leaving approximately 6.9 x 104

 MT (7.6 x 104 tons) of ash per year for

disposal. SOx-control equipment would generate another 4.0 x 105

 MT (4.4 x 105 tons) per year

of waste in the form of scrubber sludge. Approximately 94 ha (234 ac) would be required as

a waste disposal site for both the ash and sludge over the 40-year life of the plant

| (Exelon 2006).
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-9 NUREG-1815

In May 2000, the EPA issued a “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the

Combustion of Fossil Fuels” (EPA 2000). The EPA concluded that some form of national

regulation is warranted to address coal-combustion waste products because of health concerns. 

Accordingly, EPA announced its intention to issue regulations for disposal of coal-combustion

waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Exelon |

concludes that waste disposal would not destabilize any resources with proper placement of the

facility, coupled with current waste-management and monitoring practices. There would be

space within the ESP site footprint for this disposal. After closure of the waste site and

revegetation, the land would be available for other uses (Exelon 2006). |

For the reasons stated above, the staff concludes that the impacts of disposing of waste

generated from burning coal would be MODERATE.

Human Health

Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, worker and

public risks from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risks from disposal of

coal-combustion wastes, and public risks from inhalation of stack emissions. In addition, the

discharges of uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can produce radiological doses in

excess of those from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993).

Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, set air-emission standards and

requirements based on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific

emission limits as needed to protect human health. The EPA has recently concluded that

certain segments of the United States population (e.g., the developing fetus and subsistence

fish-eating populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse health effects due to

mercury exposures from sources such as coal-fired power plants. However, given the

regulatory oversight exercised by the EPA and State agencies, the staff concludes that the

human health impacts from radiological doses and inhaling toxins and particulates generated by

burning coal at newly constructed coal-fired plants would be SMALL.

Other Impacts

Construction of the power block and coal storage area would impact approximately 120 ha

(300 ac) of land at the Clinton site. This land was disturbed during construction of Clinton

Power Station (CPS). Additional land might be needed in the site vicinity for transportation

facilities, infrastructure facilities, waste disposal, rail spur, and cooling water intake and

discharge facilities. Further impacts for coal and limestone mining would occur in areas remote

from the ESP site. Therefore, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts of siting,

constructing, and operating a coal-fired unit at the ESP site would be MODERATE.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-10 July 2006

Constructing and operating a coal-fired generation plant would have ecological impacts that

could include wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation, reduced productivity, and a local reduction

in biological diversity. The impacts could occur at the ESP site and at the sites used for coal

and limestone mining. Extraction of additional cooling makeup water could have adverse

impacts on aquatic resources. Construction and maintenance of a rail spur and, if needed, new

or improved transmission lines would have ecological impacts. Cooling tower drift would have

minimal impacts on terrestrial ecology. Disposal of fly ash could affect water quality and the

aquatic environment. The impacts to threatened or endangered species would be similar to

those of a new nuclear plant. Overall, the staff concludes that the ecological impacts would be

MODERATE to LARGE.

Erosion and sedimentation from construction activities would be minimized by using best

management practices. Impacts to water use and water quality would be MODERATE due to

the plant’s use of a new cooling water system if once-through cooling were used. Use of

cooling towers for coal-fired generation would reduce cooling water intake and discharge water

usage by 90 percent compared to once-through cooling. Hybrid wet/dry cooling towers might be

used to reduce makeup water consumption to match water demand with available water supply. 

The staff concludes that the impacts to water resources would be SMALL, if cooling towers were

employed, or MODERATE to LARGE, if they were not.

Socioeconomic impacts would result from the approximately 250 people needed to operate the

coal-fired facility, demands on housing and public services during the construction period, and

loss of jobs after construction. The staff concludes that these impacts would be SMALL, due to

the mitigating influence of the site’s proximity to the surrounding population area and the small

number of employees required to operate the plant. The plant would pay property taxes to

DeWitt County. Considering the population and economic condition of the County, the staff

concludes that the taxes would have a MODERATE to LARGE (beneficial) impact on

the County.

Constructing and operating a coal-fired unit would be consistent with the industrial nature of the

ESP site. Coal delivery would add noise and transportation impacts associated with train traffic. 

Considering the rural character of the surrounding area, the staff concludes that these impacts

would be SMALL. Although best management practices would be expected to be implemented

to mitigate impacts (for example, noise), the viewshed would be impacted by the presence of

large physical structures and plumes from a stack and from cooling towers, if cooling towers

were employed. Therefore, the staff concludes that visual and aesthetic impacts of coal-fired

power generation would be MODERATE.

The ESP site was disturbed during construction of the CPS. As a result, historic and cultural

resource impacts would be unlikely and could be minimized by survey and recovery techniques,

if needed. A cultural resources inventory would likely be needed for any on-site property that

had not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to support the plant 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-11 NUREG-1815

would also likely need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and recovery of

existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of the adverse effect

from ground-disturbing actions. Before construction, studies would likely be needed to identify,

evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impact of new power plant construction on

cultural resources. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at

the proposed plant site, any offsite affected areas, such as mining and waste disposal sites, and

along associated corridors where new construction would occur (for example, roads,

transmission line rights-of-way, rail lines, or other rights-of-way). Therefore, the staff concludes

that historic and cultural resource impacts would be SMALL.

There is no evidence of environmental justice issues at the ESP site. Therefore, the staff

concludes that environmental justice impacts would be SMALL.

Other construction and operation impacts would be SMALL. In most cases, the impacts

would be detectable, but they would not destabilize any important attribute of the resource

involved. Due to the minor nature of these impacts, mitigation would not be warranted beyond

that discussed.

The environmental impacts of constructing coal-fired power generation of 2200 MW(e) at the

ESP site are summarized in Table 8-1.

8.2.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation

Exelon chose to evaluate natural-gas-fired generation. Four natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle

plants of 550-MW(e) net capacity, consisting of two 184-MW(e) gas turbines (e.g., General

Electric Frame 7FA) and 182 MW(e) of heat-recovery capacity were considered for a total of

2200 MW(e). Exelon based its emission control technology and emission control assumptions

on alternatives that the EPA has identified as being available for minimizing emissions

(EPA 1998). For the purposes of analysis, Exelon has assumed that there would be sufficient

natural gas available. The staff reviewed Exelon’s assumptions and found them reasonable.

Natural gas-fired generators can also employ closed-cycle or once-through cooling systems. A

closed-cycle system uses cooling towers, thus creating some aesthetic impacts and potential

ecological impacts from cooling tower spray drift. Once-through cooling systems do not use

cooling towers, resulting in less land being impacted. However, with respect to surface-water

use and quality, there would be an increased thermal load on the receiving body of water, with

ecological and aquatic impacts. The environmental impacts would be similar to those of a coalfired generating system employing the same technology. 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-12 July 2006

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation -

2200 MW(e) 

Impact

Category Impact Comment

Air Quality MODERATE to

LARGE

SOx: 7373 MT (8127 tons) per year

NOx: 1863 MT (2054 tons) per year

CO: 1921 MT (2118 tons) per year

TSP: total PM: 265 MT (292 tons) per year

 PM10: 61 MT (67 tons) per year

Some hazardous air pollutants.

Waste

Management

MODERATE 69,000 MT (76,000 tons) of ash would require disposal. 400,000 MT

(440,000 tons) of scrubber sludge would require disposal. 94 ha

(234 ac) would be needed for ash and sludge disposal.

Human Health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of human

health.

Land Use MODERATE 120 ha (300 ac) of previously disturbed land at the ESP site for

power block and coal storage area. Additional land may be needed

for infrastructure and other facilities. Mining activities would have

additional impacts offsite.

Ecology MODERATE to

LARGE

Construction of a new cooling-water system. Potential impacts from

transmission; potential habitat loss and fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological diversity; impacts to terrestrial ecology

from cooling tower drift.

Water Use and

Quality

SMALL to

LARGE

Impact depends on volume of water withdrawal and discharge, the

constituents in the discharge water, and the characteristics of the

surface-water body. Discharge of cooling tower blowdown would

have impacts if cooling towers were built.

Socioeconomic SMALL

(Adverse) to

LARGE

(Beneficial)

Impacts from 250 people to operate plant would be absorbed easily

across the region. Property tax impacts to DeWitt County would

have a significant beneficial impact. Construction worker impacts

would be temporary.

Aesthetics MODERATE ESP site is zoned industrial and located in a rural area. Existing

operating nuclear facility onsite. Construction impacts minimized

through use of best management practices. Viewshed would have

permanent impacts from physical structures and plumes.

Historic and

Cultural

Resources

SMALL Any potential impacts could likely be effectively managed. Most of

the facility and infrastructure would be built on previously disturbed

ground. Impacts to offsite properties could be mitigated by inventory,

identification and recovery techniques.

Environmental

Justice

SMALL No evidence of environmental justice issues around the ESP site.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-13 NUREG-1815

Air Quality

It is expected that the fugitive dust emissions from construction activities for a natural gas-fired

generation plant would be mitigated using best management practices, so emissions would be

temporary. Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fossil fuel and is more efficient in

generating electricity than a similar size coal-fired plant. It would release similar types of

emissions, but in lesser quantities than the coal-fired alternative. Exelon estimated the naturalgas-fired alternative emissions as follows (Exelon 2006): |

 C SOx = 161 MT (177 tons) per year

 C NOx = 515 MT (568 tons) per year

 C CO = 109 MT (120 tons) per year

 C TSP = 90 MT (99 tons) per year (all particulates are PM10).

Control technology for natural-gas-fired turbines focuses on the reduction of NOX emissions. 

Clean Air Act requirements for coal-fired generation, discussed in 8.2.2.1, are also applicable to

the gas-fired generation alternative. NOx effects on ozone levels, SOx allowances, and NOx

emission offsets could be issues of concern for gas-fired combustion. There are no mandatory

Class I Federal areas in Illinois or downwind in Indiana. 

Exelon did not estimate the carbon dioxide emissions from its gas-fired alternative. However, |

assuming a typical carbon dioxide emission rate of 0.6 kg/kWh (1.3 lb/kWh) for gas-fired power |

plants (DOE/EPA 2000) and a capacity factor of 0.85 (Exelon 2006), the gas-fired alternative |

would result in emission of approximately 10 million MT (11 million tons) of carbon dioxide per |

year. These estimates only consider the carbon dioxide release by the power plant; they do not |

include carbon dioxide released in the remainder of the gas fuel cycle. |

The staff concludes that the environmental impacts on air quality of natural gas-fired power

generation of 2200 MW(e) at the Exelon ESP site would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Waste Management

Natural gas-fired power generation would result in almost no waste generation. Combustion of

natural gas results in few by-products because of the clean nature of the fuel. The only

significant waste generated at a natural-gas-fired plant would be the catalyst used in control of

NOx emissions. The spent catalyst, estimated by the NRC staff to be approximately 38 m3

/yr,

could be regenerated or disposed of offsite. Overall, the staff concludes that the waste impacts

would be SMALL for natural gas-fired power generation.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-14 July 2006

Human Health

In the GEIS for License Renewal, the staff identified cancer and emphysema as potential health

risks from natural gas-fired plants (NRC 1996). NOx emissions contribute to ozone formation,

which in turn affects human health. However, it is not expected that human health effects would

be detectable. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of natural gas-fired power

generation on human health would be SMALL.

Other Impacts

The staff estimates that 44 ha (110 ac) would be needed for a four natural gas-fired, combinedcycle plant. The disturbed land area at the ESP site exceeds this land requirement

| (Exelon 2006). The construction of a pipeline to bring natural gas to the CPS site would result

in land impacts. To minimize such impacts, Exelon would route the pipeline along previously

disturbed rights-of-way to the extent practical. There could be some temporary ecological

damage associated with the burial of the pipeline underground. An easement encompassing 12

| to 16 ha (30 to 40 ac) would need to be graded to install the pipeline (Exelon 2006). Therefore,

the staff concludes that the land use environmental impacts would be SMALL.

Constructing and operating a natural gas-fired generation plant would have limited ecological

impacts at the ESP site. Withdrawal of additional cooling makeup water could have adverse

impacts on aquatic resources. Construction and maintenance of the natural gas pipeline and, if

needed, new or improved transmission lines would have ecological impacts. Cooling tower drift

would have minimal impacts on terrestrial ecology. The impacts to threatened or endangered

species would be similar to those of a new nuclear unit. Overall, the staff concludes that the

ecological impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Erosion and sedimentation from construction activities would be minimized by using best

management practices. Impacts to water use and water quality would be MODERATE due to

the unit’s use of a new cooling water system if once-through cooling were used. Use of cooling

towers for gas-fired generation would reduce cooling water intake and discharge water usage

by 90 percent compared to once-through cooling. Hybrid wet/dry cooling towers might be used

to reduce makeup water consumption to match water demand with available water supply. The

staff concludes that the impacts to water resources would be SMALL, if cooling towers were

employed, or MODERATE to LARGE, if they were not.

Socioeconomic impacts would result from the approximately 40 to 80 people needed to operate

the natural gas-fired facility, demands on housing and public services during the construction

period, and loss of jobs after construction. The staff concludes that these impacts would be

SMALL due to the mitigating influence of the site’s proximity to the surrounding population area 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-15 NUREG-1815

and the small number of employees required to operate the unit. The plant would pay property

taxes to DeWitt County. Considering the population and economic condition of the County, the

staff concludes that the taxes would have a MODERATE to LARGE (beneficial) impact on

the County.

Constructing and operating a natural gas-fired unit would be consistent with the industrial nature

of the ESP site. Considering the rural character of the surrounding area, the staff concludes

that noise-related impacts would be SMALL. Although best management practices would be

expected to be implemented to mitigate impacts, the viewshed would be impacted by the

presence of large physical structures and plumes from a stack and from cooling towers, if

cooling towers were employed. Therefore, the staff concludes that visual and aesthetic impacts

of natural gas-fired power generation would be MODERATE.

The ESP site was disturbed during construction of the CPS. As a result, historic and cultural

resource impacts would be unlikely and could be minimized by survey and recovery techniques,

if needed. A cultural resources inventory would likely be needed for any on-site property that

had not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to support the unit

would also likely need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and recovery of

existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of the adverse effect

from ground-disturbing actions. Before construction, studies would likely be needed to identify,

evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impact of new power plant construction on

cultural resources. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at

the proposed plant site and any offsite affected areas where new construction would occur (for

example, roads, transmission line rights-of-way, pipelines, or other rights-of-way). Therefore,

the staff concludes that historic and cultural resource impacts would be SMALL.

There is no evidence of environmental justice issues at the ESP site. Therefore, the staff

concludes that environmental justice impacts would be SMALL.

Other construction and operation impacts would be SMALL. In most cases, the impacts would

be detectable, but they would not destabilize any important attribute of the resource involved. 

Due to the minor nature of these impacts, mitigation would not be warranted beyond

that mentioned.

The environmental impacts of constructing natural gas-fired power generation of 2200 MW(e) at

the ESP site are summarized in Table 8-2.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-16 July 2006

Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas-Fired Power Generation -

2200 MW(e) 

Impact

Category Impact Comment

Air Quality SMALL to

MODERATE

SOx: 161 MT (177 tons) per year

NOx: 515 MT (568 tons) per year

CO: 109 MT (120 tons) per year

TSP: all PM10: 90 MT (99 tons) per year

Some hazardous air pollutants.

Waste

Management

SMALL 38 m3

 of spent catalyst would be regenerated or would require

disposal. 

Human Health SMALL Health effects would not be detectable if technology met

regulatory controls.

Land Use SMALL 44 ha (110 ac) of previously disturbed land at the ESP site for

power block, offices, roads, and parking areas. Additional land

might be needed for infrastructure and other facilities.

Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

Construction of a new cooling-water system. Potential impacts

from transmission; limited habitat loss and fragmentation; limited

impact to productivity and biological diversity; impacts to

terrestrial ecology from cooling tower drift.

Water Use and

Quality

SMALL to LARGE Impact depends on volume of water withdrawal and discharge,

the constituents in the discharge water, and the characteristics of

the surface-water body. Discharge of cooling tower blowdown

would have impacts if cooling towers were built.

Socioeconomic SMALL (Adverse) to

LARGE (Beneficial)

Impacts from 40-80 people to operate plant would be absorbed

easily across the region. Property tax impacts to DeWitt County

would have a significant beneficial impact. Construction worker

impacts would be temporary. 

Aesthetics MODERATE ESP site is zoned industrial and located in a rural area. Existing

operating nuclear facility onsite. Construction impacts minimized

through use of best management practices. Viewshed would

have permanent impacts from physical structures and plumes.

Historic and

Cultural

Resources

SMALL Any potential impacts could likely be effectively managed. Most

of the facility and infrastructure would be built on previously

disturbed ground. Impacts to offsite properties could be

mitigated by inventory, identification and recovery techniques.

Environmental

Justice

SMALL No evidence of environmental justice issues around the

ESP site.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-17 NUREG-1815

8.2.3 Other Alternatives

This subsection discusses alternatives that Exelon has determined are not reasonable, the

basis given by Exelon for this determination, and the staff conclusions about the overall

environmental impact of each alternative. A new nuclear unit at the ESP site would be a

baseload generator and merchant plant. Any feasible alternative to this facility would need to

generate baseload power. In performing its initial evaluation in the ER, Exelon relied heavily on

the GEIS for License Renewal (NRC 1996). Subsequently, in response to an NRC request,

Exelon submitted an updated analysis of the wind and solar alternatives (Exelon 2004b). The

staff reviewed the information submitted by Exelon and conducted its own independent review

and finds that Exelon’s conclusion that these generation options are not reasonable alternatives

to a new nuclear unit is acceptable.

The staff has not assigned significance levels to the environmental impacts associated with the

alternatives discussed in this section because, in general, the generation alternatives would

have to be installed at a location other than the ESP site. Any attempt to assign significance

levels would require staff speculation about the unknown site.

8.2.3.1 Wind

The current estimate of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory is that there are |

approximately 1800 km2 (700 mi2) of land in Illinois suitable for wind development with a 9000-

MW(e) wind potential (NREL 2004). The closest region to the ESP site with a good wind

resource is found in the Bloomington area, about 40 km (25 mi) north of the site.

There have been various environmental concerns related to wind generation, including land

usage and bird collisions. Approximately 20 ha (50 ac) are required per installed MW(e). This

requirement is about a factor of 3 lower than estimated in the GEIS for License Renewal

(NRC 1996) and assumed by Exelon (2006). Although the land requirement for wind generation

is large, only a small fraction of the total land requirement need be dedicated solely to wind

generation. Much of the land in the vicinity of wind turbines can be used for agriculture. Bird

collisions have not proven to be the problem that was predicted. They have only been a serious

concern at one location, Altamont Pass in California. The wind industry has learned to avoid

locations that pose problems for birds (DeMeo and Parsons 2003).

However, wind power, by itself, is not suitable for large baseload capacity. As discussed in the

GEIS for License Renewal (NRC 1996), wind has a high degree of intermittence, and average

annual capacity factors for wind plants are relatively low (less than 30 percent). In conjunction

with energy storage mechanisms, wind power might serve as a means of providing base-load

power. However, current energy storage technologies are too expensive for wind power to

serve as a large baseload generator. Based on the intermittent nature of the wind resource, the 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-18 July 2006

staff concludes that wind power generation is not a viable alternative to the baseload capacity

that would be offered by a new nuclear unit at the ESP site.

8.2.3.2 Geothermal

Although geothermal plants might be sited in the western continental United States, Alaska, and

Hawaii, where hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent (NRC 1996), there are no hightemperature geothermal sites in Illinois. Therefore, the staff concludes that geothermal is not a

reasonable alternative to a new nuclear unit at the ESP site.

8.2.3.3 Hydropower

A small portion (about 80 MW) of Illinois utility generating capacity is hydroelectric. As

discussed in the GEIS for License Renewal (NRC 1996), the percentage of U.S. generating

capacity from hydropower is expected to decline because hydroelectric facilities have become

difficult to site as a result of public concern over flooding, destruction of natural habitat, and

destruction of natural river courses. According to the U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment

for Illinois (INEL 1997), there are no remaining sites in Illinois that would be environmentally

suitable for a large hydroelectric facility.

The GEIS for License Renewal (NRC 1996) estimates land-use requirements of 4100 km2

(1600 mi2) per 1000 MW(e) for hydroelectric power. Based on this estimate, a project the size

of a new nuclear unit at the ESP site would require the flooding of more than 9120 km2

(3520 mi2 | ) of land, resulting in a large impact on land use (Exelon 2006). Further, operation of a

hydroelectric facility could alter aquatic habitats above and below the dam, thereby impacting

existing aquatic species. Exelon concluded that, due to the lack of suitable sites in Illinois and

the amount of land needed, hydropower is not a reasonable alternative to a new nuclear unit at

| the ESP site (Exelon 2006).

The staff reviewed Exelon’s discussion on hydropower and independently verified the analysis. 

The staff concludes that hydropower is not a reasonable alternative to a new nuclear unit at the

ESP site.

8.2.3.4 Solar Thermal Power and Photovoltaic Cells

Solar technologies use energy and light from the sun to provide heating and cooling, light, hot

water, and electricity for consumers. Solar power technologies (both photovoltaic and thermal)

cannot currently compete with conventional nuclear and fossil-fueled technologies in gridconnected applications because of solar power’s higher capital cost per kilowatt of capacity. 

The cost of solar power using concentrating technologies is $0.09 to $0.12 per kilowatt-hour

(SNL 2005). Energy storage requirements also limit the use of solar energy systems as 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-19 NUREG-1815

baseload electricity supply. In the GEIS for license renewal, the staff determined that the

average capacity factor of photovoltaic cells is about 25 percent, and the capacity factor for

solar thermal systems is about 25 to 40 percent (NRC 1996).

Construction of solar generating facilities has substantial impacts on natural resources (such as

wildlife habitat, land-use, and aesthetics). As stated in the GEIS for License Renewal, land

requirements are high—142 km2

 (55 mi2) per 1000 MW(e) for photovoltaic (NRC 1996) and

approximately 57 km2

 (22 mi2) per 1000 MW(e) for solar thermal systems (NRC 1996). 

Although more recent information indicates that these land requirement estimates may be high

(e.g., SNL 2005), neither type of solar electric system would fit the land area footprint available

at the Exelon ESP site. |

The solar resource for the Exelon ESP site is an annual average of 4.0 to 4.5 kWhr2 per day for |

flat-plate solar systems, and 3.5 to 4.0 kWhr/m2 per day for solar concentrating systems. Areas

in the southwest United States receive up to 7.5 kWhr/m2

 per day (DOE 2005). For the

preceding reasons, the staff concludes that a solar energy facility at or in the vicinity of the

Exelon ESP site would not be a viable alternative to a nuclear power generation plant that would |

be operated as a baseload plant.

8.2.3.5 Wood Waste

A wood-waste burning facility can provide baseload power and operate with an average annual

capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 20 to 25 percent energy-conversion

efficiency (NRC 1996). The energy-conversion efficiency of a conventional fossil-fired plant is

on the order of 35 percent.

The fuels required for a wood-waste burning facility are variable and site-specific. A significant

barrier to the use of wood waste to generate electricity is the high delivered fuel cost and high

construction cost per MW of generating capacity. The larger wood-waste power plants are only

40 to 50 MW(e) in size. Estimates in the GEIS for License Renewal (NRC 1996) suggest that

the overall level of construction impact per MW of installed capacity would be approximately the

same as that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities using wood waste for fuel would be built at

smaller scales (NRC 1996). Like coal-fired plants, wood-waste plants require large areas for

fuel storage and processing and involve the same type of combustion equipment. The use of

wood waste to generate electricity is largely limited to those states with significant wood

resources, such as California, Oregon, Washington, Maine, Georgia, Minnesota, and Michigan

(Exelon 2006). |

Due to uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a baseload generating facility, ecological impacts of large-scale timber cutting (e.g., soil erosion and 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-20 July 2006

loss of wildlife habitat), relatively low energy-conversion efficiency, and potential air pollution

from emission, the staff concludes that wood waste combustion is not a reasonable alternative

to a new nuclear unit at the ESP site.

8.2.3.6 Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal waste combustors incinerate waste and use the resultant heat to generate steam, hot

water, or electricity. The combustion process can reduce the volume of waste by up to

90 percent and the weight of the waste by up to 75 percent (EPA 2001). The decision to burn

municipal waste to generate energy is usually driven by the need for an alternative to landfills,

rather than by energy considerations. The initial capital costs for municipal solid-waste plants

are greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at wood-waste facilities (NRC 1996).

Growth in the municipal waste-combustion industry slowed dramatically during the 1990s after

rapid growth during the 1980s. Increasingly, these plants have come under increasingly

stringent environmental regulations that increased the capital cost necessary to construct and

maintain the combustion facilities (DOE/EIA 2001b).

Estimates in the GEIS for License Renewal were that the overall level of construction impacts

from a waste-fired plant are on the order of those incurred in building a coal-fired plant

(NRC 1996). In addition, the operation of waste-fired plants have the same or greater

environmental impacts as coal-fired plants, including air and waste disposal impacts of the ash.

Based on the above considerations, the staff concludes that generating electricity from

municipal solid waste would not be a reasonable alternative to a new nuclear unit at the

ESP site.

8.2.3.7 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels

In addition to wood and municipal solid waste fuels, there are several other concepts for fueling

electric generators, including crops, crops converted to a liquid fuel such as ethanol, and crops

(including wood waste) that have been converted to a gas. As discussed in the GEIS for

License Renewal, none of these technologies has progressed to the point of being competitive

on a large scale or of being reliable enough to replace a baseload plant such as a new nuclear

unit at the ESP site (NRC 1996).

The GEIS for License Renewal (NRC 1996) further suggests that the overall level of

construction impacts from a crop-fired plant would be approximately the same as those of a

wood-waste-fired plant. Crop-fired plants would have similar operational impacts (including

impacts on the aquatic environment and air). In addition, these systems have large impacts on 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-21 NUREG-1815

land use, due to the acreage needed to grow the energy crops. Exelon concludes that, due to

the high costs and lack of obvious environmental advantage, burning other biomass-derived

fuels is not a reasonable alternative.

The staff reviewed Exelon’s assumptions and analysis and finds their conclusions reasonable. 

The staff concludes that converting biomass-derived fuels to energy is not a reasonable

alternative to a new nuclear unit at the ESP site.

8.2.3.8 Fuel Cells

Fuel cells work without combustion and its environmental side effects. Power is produced

electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode and air over a cathode and

separating the two by an electrolyte. The only by-products are heat, water, and carbon dioxide.

Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology and are

commercially available at a cost of approximately $4500 per kW of installed capacity

(DOE 2002). Higher-temperature, second-generation fuel cells achieve higher fuel-to-electricity

ratios and thermal efficiencies.

During the past three decades, significant efforts have been made to develop more practical

and affordable fuel cell designs for stationary power applications, but progress has been slow

(DOE 2004). Today, the most widely marketed fuel cells cost about $4500 per kWh of installed

capacity. By contrast, a diesel generator costs $800 to $1500 per kWh of installed capacity,

and a natural gas turbine can cost even less (DOE 2004).

DOE has launched an initiative – the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance – to bring about

dramatic reductions in fuel cell cost. DOE’s goal is to cut costs to as low as $400 per kWh of

installed capacity by the end of this decade, which would make fuel cells competitive for virtually

every type of power application (DOE 2004).

As market acceptance and manufacturing capacity increase, natural-gas-fueled fuel-cell plants

in the 50- to 100-MW range are projected to become available. The staff concludes that, at the

present time, fuel cells are not economically or technologically competitive with other

alternatives for baseload electricity generation and that the fuel cell alternative is not a

reasonable alternative to a new nuclear unit at the ESP site.

8.2.3.9 Oil-Fired Generation

The EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little of the new generation capacity in

the United States through the year 2020 because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies 

(DOE/EIA 2001c). Illinois, for example, has several oil-fired units, producing less than 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-22 July 2006

1 percent of the State’s electricity. The cost of an oil-fired operation is much higher than that of

nuclear or coal-fired power generation. As a result, from 1997 to 1998, production of electricity

by oil-fired plants dropped by about 40 percent in Illinois (DOE/EIA 1998). In the GEIS for

License Renewal, the staff estimated that construction of a 1000-MW(e) oil-fired plant would

require about 49 ha (120 ac) (NRC 1996). Operation of oil-fired plants would have

environmental impacts (including impacts on the aquatic environment and air) that would be

similar to those from a coal-fired plant. On these bases, the staff concludes that oil-fired

generation is not a reasonable alternative to a new nuclear unit at the ESP site.

8.2.3.10 Combination of Alternatives

| Individual alternatives to the construction of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site might not

be sufficient on their own to generate Exelon’s target capacity because of the small size of the

resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that a

combination of alternatives might be cost-effective. There are many possible combinations

of alternatives.

Section 8.2.2.2 assumes the construction of four 550 MW(e) natural gas combined-cycle

generating units at the ESP site. As a reasonable combined alternatives option, the staff

assessed the environmental impacts assuming a combination of three 550 MW(e) natural gas

combined-cycle generating units at the site; 60 MW(e) of wind energy, hydropower, or pumped

storage; 90 MW(e) from biomass sources, including municipal solid waste; and 400 MW(e) from

purchased power, conservation and demand-side management. The impacts associated with

the combined-cycle natural-gas-fired units would be the same as shown in Table 8-2 with

magnitudes scaled for reduction in capacity from 2200 MW(e) to 1650 MW(e). While the

demand-side management measures would have few environmental impacts, operation of the

new natural gas-fired plant would result in increased emissions and other environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts associated with power purchased from other generators

would still occur, but would be located elsewhere within the region or the Nation or in another

country. A summary of the environmental impacts of this combination of alternatives is given

in Table 8-3.

8.2.4 Evaluation of Alternative Energy Sources and Systems

This section evaluates the environmental impacts from what Exelon has determined to be

reasonable alternatives to a new nuclear unit at the ESP site: coal-fired generation and naturalgas-fired generation. The NRC staff evaluated Exelon’s approach and analysis and finds that

its findings and approach are reasonable. The environmental impacts of constructing and
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-23 NUREG-1815

Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources -

2200 MW(e) 

Impact

Category Impact Comment

Air Quality SMALL to

MODERATE

SOx: 121 MT (133 tons) per year

NOx: 387 MT (426 tons) per year

CO: 82 MT (90 tons) per year

TSP: all PM10: 68 MT (75 tons) per year

Some hazardous air pollutants.(a)

Waste

Management

SMALL 28 m3 of spent catalyst would be regenerated or would require

disposal.(b)

Human Health SMALL Health effects would not be detectable if technology met

regulatory controls.

Land Use SMALL Power block, offices, roads, and parking areas would use

previously disturbed land at the ESP site. Additional land might

be needed for infrastructure and other facilities. 

Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

Construction of a new cooling-water system. Potential impacts

from transmission; limited habitat loss and fragmentation; limited

impact to productivity and biological diversity; limited impact from

bird strikes on wind turbines; impacts to terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift.

Water Use and

Quality

SMALL to LARGE Impacts would depend on volume of water withdrawal and

discharge, the constituents in the discharge water, and the

characteristics of the surface-water body. Discharge of cooling

tower blowdown would have impacts if cooling towers were built.

Socioeconomic SMALL (Adverse) to

LARGE (Beneficial)

Impacts from limited number of people (less than 80) to operate

facilities would be absorbed easily across the region. Property

tax impacts to DeWitt County would have a significant beneficial

impact. Construction worker impacts would be temporary. 

Aesthetics MODERATE ESP site is zoned industrial and located in a rural area. Existing

operating nuclear facility onsite. Construction impacts minimized

through use of best management practices. Wind turbines have

limited noise impacts. Viewshed would have permanent impacts

from physical structures and plumes.

Historic and

Cultural

Resources

SMALL Any potential impacts could likely be effectively managed. Most

of the facility and infrastructure would be built on previously

disturbed ground. Impacts to offsite properties could be

mitigated by inventory, identification and recovery techniques.

Environmental

Justice

SMALL No evidence of environmental justice issues around the

ESP site.

(a) Impacts are principally from natural gas power generation. Municipal solid waste or biomass

facilities may generate some additional emissions.

(b) Impacts are principally from natural gas power generation. Municipal solid waste or biomass

facilities may generate some additional waste.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-24 July 2006

operating a new nuclear unit at the ESP site and the alternative energy sources of coal- and

natural gas-fired power generation at the same site, and a combination of power alternatives are

summarized in Table 8-4.

When compared to the viable energy alternatives, a new nuclear unit at the ESP site is either

environmentally equivalent or preferable to either coal-fired or natural gas-fired power

generation, or a reasonable combination of power generation alternatives. A new nuclear unit

at the ESP site is preferable to coal-fired power generation in the areas of air resources, waste

management, land resources, ecological resources, water resources, and aesthetics. A new

nuclear unit at the ESP site is preferable to natural gas-fired power generation and the

combination of alternatives in the areas of air resources, ecological resources, water resources,

and aesthetics.

Based on this analysis, the staff concludes that none of the economically viable alternative

energy-generating technologies is environmentally preferable to a new nuclear unit at the

ESP site.

Table 8-4. Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Alternative Energy Sources to

a New Nuclear Unit

Impact Category Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Combination

Air quality SMALL MODERATE to

LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Waste management SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL

Human health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Land use SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL

| Ecology (including

threatened or

endangered species)

SMALL to LARGE MODERATE to

LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Water use and quality SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE

Socioeconomic SMALL (Adverse)

to LARGE

(Beneficial)

SMALL (Adverse) 

to LARGE

(Beneficial)

SMALL (Adverse)

to LARGE

(Beneficial)

SMALL (Adverse)

to LARGE

(Beneficial)

Aesthetics SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Historic and cultural

resources

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-25 NUREG-1815

8.3 System Design Alternatives

The purpose of the plant cooling system is to dissipate energy to the environment. The various

cooling system options differ in how the energy transfer takes place and, therefore, have

different environmental impacts. Sections 8.3.1, 8.3.2, and 8.3.3 contain information regarding

alternative closed-cycle plant cooling systems for a new nuclear unit. Once-through cooling |

does not use cooling towers. Because of the 2001 EPA final rule on cooling water intake |

structures for new facilities (66 FR 65255), it is unlikely that new nuclear power facilities will |

employ once-through cooling. Section 8.3.1 discusses wet cooling tower heat dissipation |

systems, Section 8.3.2 hybrid wet/dry cooling tower heat dissipation systems, and Section 8.3.3

dry cooling towers’ heat dissipation systems.

Exelon (2006) proposes the use of all three types of systems but states that full wet or hybrid |

wet/dry cooling processes have been assumed for most purposes because, of the range of

options proposed, they have the greatest consumptive water use. Exelon does not provide

information on a dry cooling system to support an environmental assessment nor does the |

applicant address the adverse environmental impacts of such a system (noise, large footprint,

and inefficiency). Therefore, the staff did not perform a detailed site-specific evaluation of a dry |

cooling system during its review. The specific cooling system design for a new nuclear unit at

the Exelon ESP site has not been selected; therefore, system design alternatives would be

discussed at the CP or COL stage if an application were submitted to build a new plant at

the site.

8.3.1 Plant Cooling System: Wet Cooling Towers

Wet cooling towers (mechanical or natural draft) systems transfer energy to the atmosphere via

evaporation. This design results in a consumptive loss of about 2.0 m3

/s (70 cfs) of water

because the majority of the rejected heat is dissipated through the conversion of liquid water to

atmospheric water vapor. A consumptive loss of about 2.0 m3

/s (70 cfs) from Clinton Lake’s

water budget would result in reduced downstream flows and lower lake elevations during dry

periods. While not discharging significant amounts of heat as blowdown to the lake, by

decreasing the volume of water available in the lake to assimilate and dissipate the rejected

heat in the once-through discharge from the existing CPS unit, a new nuclear unit would also

contribute to higher temperatures in Clinton Lake. These higher temperatures, in turn, would

contribute to greater induced evaporation.

8.3.2 Plant Cooling System: Hybrid Wet/Dry Cooling Towers

A hybrid wet/dry cooling system uses dry cooling to reduce evaporative losses associated with a

wet cooling tower. Exelon did not include bounds for a hybrid wet/dry cooling system design 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-26 July 2006

in the plant parameter envelope (PPE). Therefore, the staff assumed that a hybrid wet/dry

design would be bounded by the combined maximum values of the wet and dry cooling towers. 

This assumption would need to be validated at the COL stage if Exelon were to proceed with a

hybrid wet/dry design at that time.

8.3.3 Plant Cooling System: Dry Cooling Towers

The use of dry cooling towers would largely eliminate the impacts on the lake and the aquatic

ecosystem from a new nuclear unit. The lake would not be heated by rejected heat from that

unit, and there would be no additional consumptive water use.

A dry cooling tower heat dissipation system reduces water-related impacts of operating, but it

also has disadvantages. In particular, dry cooling systems are not as efficient as wet systems. 

They require movement of a large amount of air through the heat exchanger to achieve the

necessary cooling. The fans that force the air through the heat exchanger use a significant

amount of power. This power reduces the net power output of the facility. In addition, the fans

| and the large volume of air required for cooling make dry cooling towers noisy. Exelon did not

| provide information on dry cooling towers. Therefore, staff did not make a site-specific

| evaluation on the impacts of dry cooling.

8.4 Region of Interest and Site-Selection Process

NRC regulations require that the ER submitted in conjunction with an application for an ESP

include an evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether there is any obviously superior

alternative to the site proposed (10 CFR 52.17(a)(2)). This section includes subsections

discussing Exelon’s ROI for selecting alternative sites and its alternative site-selection process. 

The alternative sites considered in this EIS are six other nuclear power plant sites in Illinois.

8.4.1 Exelon’s Region of Interest

The ROI is the geographical area considered in searching for candidate sites. Before

deregulation of the power industry, the ROI for a utility typically would have been the state in

which the proposed site was located or its service area. However, Exelon’s proposal involves

siting a merchant plant that would sell generated power in a deregulated marketplace. Exelon

defines its ROI to be the State of Illinois on the basis of current deregulation policies, the

availability of transmission facilities in the state, market flexibility, and the proximity of Exelon’s

| customer base (Exelon 2006). The NRC staff considers Exelon’s definition of its ROI to be

reasonable.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-27 NUREG-1815

8.4.2 Exelon’s Alternative Site-Selection Process

Candidate sites are those sites within the ROI that are considered to be among the best sites

that can be reasonably identified and made available for the siting of a nuclear power plant. |

Alternative sites are those that are specifically compared to the proposed site to determine if

there is an obviously superior site. Existing nuclear power plant sites, greenfield sites, and

brownfield sites within the ROI were all considered by Exelon as candidates. The candidatesite criteria presented in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000) were used to select the alternative sites

from among the candidate sites. The alternative sites selected were: Braidwood Generating

Station, Byron Generation Station, Dresden Generating Station, LaSalle County Station, Quad

Cities Generating Station, and Zion Generating Station. The locations of these sites are shown

in Figure 8-1.

Exelon undertook a site-by-site comparison of alternative sites with the proposed site in the ER

to “determine if there are any alternative sites that are environmentally preferable to the

proposed site.” Their review process involved the two-part sequential test outlined in

NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000). The first stage of the review uses reconnaissance-level information

to determine whether there are environmentally preferable sites among the alternatives. If

environmentally preferable sites are identified, the second stage of the review considers

economics, technology, and institutional factors for the environmentally preferred sites to see if

any is obviously superior to the proposed site.

Exelon developed a two-phase, three-step process for reviewing the sites. This process is

outlined below.

 • Step 1 – Identify the alternative sites. The proposed site is co-located with an existing

nuclear facility (Clinton Power Station). Therefore, Exelon chose its other nuclear facilities

within the ROI as alternative sites. Thus, there are six alternative sites to Clinton, each

co-located with an existing nuclear facility site. In addition, Exelon considered a generic

greenfield site and brownfield sites.

 • Step 2a – Consider sites without existing nuclear facilities. The initial step was evaluation of

undeveloped greenfield and brownfield sites. The impacts of building on a greenfield site

would be greater than building at an existing site with a nuclear facility (disturbing land that

had not previously been disturbed). Therefore, greenfield sites were determined not to be

environmentally preferable to the proposed site. Most brownfield sites in the ROI are not

large enough to meet the size requirements for a new nuclear plant: 200 to 400 ha (500 to

1000 ac). Exelon concluded that the environmental impacts from building on a brownfield

site would be greater than or equal to those at the proposed ESP site (Exelon 2004a).
Figure 8-1. Sites Considered by Exelon for an Early Site Permit

NUREG-1815 8-28 July 2006

Impacts of the Alternatives
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-29 NUREG-1815

 • Step 2b – Consider sites with existing nuclear facilities. The next step was evaluation of

sites with an existing nuclear facility to determine if the sites met the minimum land

requirements specified in the plant parameter envelope (PPE), set forth in the ESP |

application (Exelon 2006). If additional land would be required, Exelon assumed that the |

environmental impacts of developing a new nuclear facility would be similar to the impacts

for developing a previously undeveloped site. Alternative sites with an existing facility but

with insufficient land were deemed “not environmentally preferable” to the proposed site and

excluded from further analysis (Exelon 2004a). Exelon relied on NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996)

as a basis of defining land requirements for building a new nuclear unit at the ESP site and

used these land requirements as one basis for eliminating three of the six alternative sites

with nuclear facilities (Byron, Quad Cities, and Dresden). Although Exelon eliminated three

of the alternative sites, the staff considered all six sites in its review.

 • Step 3 – Compare remaining alternative sites with proposed ESP site. The environmental

impacts of siting a new nuclear unit at remaining alternative sites were compared against

the impacts for siting a new unit at the proposed site. The comparisons made using the

candidate site criteria and reconnaissance-level information did not indicate that the

alternative sites were environmentally preferable. Exelon did not identify any

environmentally preferable site in its evaluation process. Therefore, Exelon did not continue

the evaluation process.

In its ER, Exelon summarized the advantages of the proposed ESP site over the alternative

sites as follows:

 • The postulated consumptive use of water by a new unit at the proposed ESP site would be

no greater than water use at the alternative sites.

 • The proposed ESP site does not contain any critical habitat for or occurrence of listed,

threatened, or endangered species. Therefore, impacts of development of a new unit at the

proposed site on endangered species would be no greater than impacts postulated for the

alternative sites.

 • The proposed ESP site does not contain spawning grounds for any threatened or

endangered species. Thus, the impacts on spawning areas would be no greater than

impacts at the alternative sites.

 • The proposed ESP site impact review does not postulate effluent discharge beyond the

limits of existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits or

regulations. Based on the information available for the alternative sites, the impacts from

effluent discharge at the proposed site would be no greater than impacts at the

alternative sites.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-30 July 2006

 • The siting of a new unit at the proposed ESP site would not require preemption or land-use

changes for construction and operation. Therefore, land-use impacts at the proposed site

would be no greater than the impacts at the alternative sites.

 • The potential impacts of a new nuclear facility on terrestrial and aquatic environments at the

proposed ESP site would be no greater than the impacts at the alternative sites.

 • The proposed ESP site is in a rural setting and has a population density that meets the

population criteria of 10 CFR Part 100.

 • The ESP site does not require decommissioning or dismantlement of an existing facility, as

| would be required for the Byron, Quad Cities, and Dresden alternative sites (Exelon 2004a).

On the basis of its review, Exelon concluded that the proposed ESP site is the environmentally

preferred candidate site, so the applicant stopped its alternative site evaluation and did not go

on to the second stage of the two-part sequential test.

The NRC staff reviewed the methodology used by Exelon for selecting and evaluating the

alternative sites and considers Exelon’s methodology to be reasonable. The NRC staff also

concludes that the Exelon findings of LARGE and MODERATE significance levels for certain

environmental impacts at greenfield and brownfield sites, respectively, are reasonable.

8.5 Evaluation of Alternative Sites

The staff reviewed Exelon’s findings for each of the alternative sites, visited each of these sites,

and collected additional reconnaissance-level information about the sites. The following

sections present the results of the staff’s review and evaluation of the information.

8.5.1 Dresden Generating Station

The Dresden Generating Station is located in Goose Lake Township, Grundy County, Illinois, on

the south shoreline of the Illinois River at the confluence of the Des Plaines and Kankakee

Rivers (immediately below the junction of the Kankakee and Des Plaines Rivers at River

Mile 272.4) (Exelon 2002a).

The Dresden site consists of approximately 1000 ha (2500 ac) owned by Exelon with an

additional 0.4 ha (1 ac) of river frontage leased from the State of Illinois. In addition to the two

operating nuclear reactors and their turbine building, intake and discharge canals, cooling pond

and canals, and auxiliary buildings, the site includes switchyards and Dresden Unit 1

| (permanently ceased operation on August 31, 1984) (Exelon 2002a).
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-31 NUREG-1815

The station uses once-through cooling with the Illinois River as the source and receiving water. |

The station also has a cooling canal and cooling pond to reduce the heat load in the river during |

periods of high water temperature. |

No major metropolitan areas exist within 10 km (6 mi) of the Dresden site. The nearest town is

Channahon, approximately 5 km (3 mi) northeast of the site. The site is approximately 13 km

(8 mi) east of Morris, Illinois; 24 km (15 mi) southwest of Joliet, Illinois; and 80 km (50 mi)

southwest of downtown Chicago. The area within 10 km (6 mi) of the site includes parts of both

Grundy and Will Counties.

8.5.1.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Portions of the site outside the Dresden station footprint have been leased to a neighboring

farmer for grazing cattle and raising crops. Hunting is also permitted outside security areas. 

Current land use is industrial. Given the fact that the entire Dresden site has been a large

power-generating facility since 1965, the current land use would not be expected to change with

construction of a new nuclear unit at the Dresden site (Exelon 2006). |

The local terrain is level to gently undulating, except for the Kankakee Bluffs just northeast of

Dresden on the north bank of the Illinois River. The area around Dresden is largely rural,

characterized by farmland, woods, and small residential communities. The area around

Dresden has become increasingly urbanized, and it is expected that the trend will continue. 

The construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the site would not be expected to affect

the land-use patterns of the area (Exelon 2006). |

In its ER, Exelon states that the Dresden site does not have additional available land within its

boundaries to build a new nuclear unit. To build a new nuclear unit, an operating unit or Unit 1

would need to be decommissioned and dismantled so that the new nuclear unit could be

constructed on the decommissioned unit footprint (Exelon 2006). |

Overall, the land-use factors of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit are not

particularly site-dependent. The staff visited the Dresden site on March 9, 2004. The footprint

of the new nuclear unit would be about 41 ha (100 ac) (Exelon 2006) and, based on observation |

of the site, the staff believes that a new unit could be configured to fit within previously disturbed

land on the existing 1000-ha (2500-ac) Dresden site. On this basis, the staff concludes that

land-use impacts associated with site-preparation and construction, or resulting from operation

of a new nuclear unit, at the Dresden site would be SMALL.

The impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit on air quality would be similar

at each of the alternative sites and would not be a significant factor in determination of

environment preferability. Therefore these impacts are discussed generically in Section 8.6.1.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-32 July 2006

| Seven transmission line rights-of-way, spanning 353 km (220.5 mi) and covering about 2440 ha

| (6030 ac), connect Dresden Units 2 and 3 to the electric grid (NRC 2004b). Although not stated

by Exelon, the staff assumed that the existing transmission lines serving Dresden do not have

the capacity to carry the power that would be generated by a new nuclear unit. The procedures

for adding the new transmission lines that would be required to connect a new nuclear unit at

the Dresden site to the transmission grid are similar to those described in Section 3.3. They

involve both the power provider and the transmission provider, with the transmission provider

having the ultimate responsibility for determining the nature of modifications to the existing

transmission system to accommodate the additional load. It is likely that new transmission

lines, and possibly additional rights-of-way, would be needed. The additional transmission lines

could be installed via expansion of existing rights-of-way, which the staff believes to be the likely

scenario, or they could follow a new right-of-way. The staff assumes that any transmission

system modifications would be expansions of existing rights-of-way. For reasons similar to

those discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 related to expansion of the rights-of-way for the Exelon

ESP site, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts of transmission-line rights-of-way

| expansion would be SMALL.

8.5.1.2 Hydrology, Water Use, and Water Quality

The staff assumed that a new nuclear unit at Dresden would withdraw makeup water from the

| Illinois River. It would use wet cooling towers for station cooling. The staff estimated the 7Q10

(7-day average minimum annual flow) and 30Q2 (median 30-day minimum annual discharge)

based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge 05543500 (Illinois River

at Marseilles, Illinois). Data for the period of record from 1919 through 2003 were used to

estimate the 7Q10 and 30Q2 values. This gauge is slightly downstream of Dresden. The

drainage area upstream of the gauge that is near the site was reported by the USGS to be

21,391 km2

 (8259 mi2). The 7Q10 and 30Q2 values estimated by staff are 75 m3 | /s (2661 cfs)

and 111 m3/s (3911 cfs), respectively. The net consumptive loss for a wet cooling tower, based

on the PPE, is 2.0 m3 | /s (70 cfs) or 2.6 and 1.8 percent of the Illinois River 7Q10 and 30Q2,

respectively. Wet towers were used as the basis of the assessment because wet towers

represent the greatest consumptive loss of water.

Any releases of contaminants to the waters of the State of Illinois would be regulated by the

IEPA through the NPDES permit process to ensure that water quality is protected.

Based on the requirements of the NPDES permit and the above analysis, the staff concludes

that the water-use and water quality impacts of an additional unit at the Dresden site would

be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-33 NUREG-1815

8.5.1.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

The Dresden site occupies approximately 1000 ha (2470 ac). Undeveloped areas are located |

mostly on the western half of the site and support a mosaic of habitats, including old fields, |

wetlands, and woodland vegetation (NRC 2004b). |

The seven transmission lines that currently serve Dresden traverse primarily farmland but also |

cross a small amount of forest and four natural terrestrial habitat areas: Goose Lake Prairie |

State Natural Area (containing tall grass prairie and marshes), Des Plaines Fish and Wildlife |

Area (containing river shorelines, lakes, swamps, marshes, and prairie), Midewin National |

Tallgrass Prairie (previously disturbed, with plans to restore tallgrass prairie vegetation), and |

Heidecke Lake State Fish and Wildlife Area (cooling lake area leased to Illinois Department of |

Natural Resources [IDNR] for hunting and fishing) (NRC 2004b). It is assumed that the seven |

existing transmission lines do not have the capacity to carry the power that would be generated |

by a new unit at the Dresden site, and it is likely that new transmission lines, and thus expanded |

rights-of-way would be needed. |

There are 30 State-listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species known to occur within |

3.2 km (2 mi) to 16 km (10 mi) of the Dresden site, and 14 that occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) |

(IDNR 2004c). |

Construction Impacts |

It is assumed that structures for a new nuclear unit at the Dresden site (power block structures, |

normal heat-sink cooling towers, switchyard expansion, new intake structures, and safety- |

related cooling towers) would be constructed in developed areas on the eastern half of the |

Dresden site and in old field areas, where possible, and would minimally impact woodlands and |

wetlands. Consequently, terrestrial ecological impacts from construction of a new unit at the |

Dresden site would be minimal. |

For the purpose of this analysis, the staff assumed that any transmission system upgrades |

would be expansions of existing rights-of-way and that such expansions would consist of |

doubling the current corridor width. Terrestrial ecological impacts associated with the upgrade |

could range from minor to extensive, depending on potential impacts to Goose Lake Prairie |

State Natural Area, Des Plaines Fish and Wildlife Area, Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, and |

Heidecke Lake State Fish and Wildlife Area. |

Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff |

concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from construction of a new nuclear unit at |

the Dresden site and construction associated with possible upgrade of the existing Dresden |

transmission system could range from SMALL to LARGE. |
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-34 July 2006

| Operational Impacts

| Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from operation a new nuclear unit at the Dresden

| site include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. Impacts resulting from

| the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines would be of similar magnitude at all the

| alternative sites, and thus cannot be used to discriminate between them. Therefore, operational

impacts are discussed generically in Section 8.6.

| Threatened or Endangered Species

| There are nine Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species that may occur in

| the vicinity of the Dresden site or its transmission lines: the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis

| sodalis), the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the endangered Hine’s emerald

| dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana), the endangered leafy prairie clover (Dalea foliosa), the

| threatened lakeside daisy (Hymenoxys herbacea), the threatened eastern prairie fringed orchid

| (Platanthera leucophaea), the threatened prairie bush clover (Lespedeza leptstachya), the

| threatened Mead’s milkweed (Asclepias meadii), and the threatened decurrent false aster

| (Boltonia decurrens) (NRC 2004b; FWS 2004a). Of these nine species, designated critical

| habitat exists only for the Indiana bat (NRC 2004b; FWS 1976, 2004a). There is also one

| Federal candidate species that may occur in the vicinity of the Dresden site or its transmission

| lines, the eastern massasauga (rattlesnake) (Sistrurus catenatus) (NRC 2004b).

| The 10 Federally protected or candidate species listed above are known to occur in counties

| traversed by the transmission lines (NRC 2004b). These species are associated with prairie,

| wetland, or open water habitats and could occur along portions of the transmission line rights-

| of-way where suitable habitat is present (NRC 2004b). Six of these Federally protected or

| candidate species could also occur on the undeveloped portion of the Dresden site: bald eagle,

| Indiana bat, eastern prairie fringed orchid, Mead’s milkweed, prairie bush clover, and eastern

| massasauga (FWS 2004a).

| The bald eagle is known to winter along large rivers, lakes, and reservoirs in Grundy County. 

| However, no night roost sites are known to occur there (FWS 2004a). The bald eagle is likely to

occur at least occasionally in the vicinity of the Dresden site as a winter visitor to the Illinois

| River, Heideke Lake, or the Dresden cooling pond (NRC 2004b).

| The Indiana bat potentially occurs throughout Illinois where forest habitat is present

| (FWS 2004a). Its occurrence on the Dresden site is considered possible (NRC 2004b). The

| only designated critical habitat for the Indiana bat in Illinois is the Blackball Mine in LaSalle

| County (FWS 1976).

| The eastern prairie fringed orchid is known to occur in Grundy County (FWS 2004a), within

| 3.2 to 16 km (2 to 10 mi) of the Dresden site (IDNR 2004c). The eastern prairie fringed orchid 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-35 NUREG-1815

prefers mesic to wet prairie habitat and potentially occurs throughout Illinois. It occurs in |

tallgrass silt-loam or sand prairies, sedge meadows, fens, and occasionally sphagnum bogs |

(FWS 1999). It appears to be adapted to disturbance and occasionally colonizes early |

succession habitats or recolonizes previously occupied areas (NRC 2004b). Although no |

populations of eastern prairie fringed orchid are known from the project area, it is possible that |

undeveloped portions of the Dresden site and associated transmission line rights-of-way could |

support this species (NRC 2004b). |

The primary habitat of Mead’s milkweed is mesic to dry mesic, upland tallgrass prairie. |

Although no populations of Mead’s milkweed are known from the project area, it is possible that |

undeveloped portions of the Dresden site and associated transmission line rights-of-way could |

support this species (NRC 2004b). |

The prairie bush clover occurs on dry gravel and sand prairies and is rare throughout its range. |

Although no populations of the prairie bush clover are known to occur in the project area, it is |

possible that undeveloped portions of the Dresden site and associated transmission line rights- |

of-way could support the species (NRC 2004b). |

The eastern massasauga is usually found in or near wet areas including wetlands, wet prairie, |

and nearby woodland or shrub habitat. The species also uses dry old fields with goldenrod |

(Solidago spp.) and woody species, such as dogwood (Cornus spp.) or multiflora rose |

(Rosa multiflora). Dry upland areas up to 2.4 km (1.5 mi) away from wet habitat are used during |

the summer (NRC 2004b). Although the eastern massasauga is not known to occur in the |

project area, undeveloped portions of the Dresden site and associated transmission line rights- |

of-way could support the species. |

Because these six Federally protected or candidate species could occur on the Dresden site |

and along the associated transmission line rights-of-way, impacts to these species from |

construction of a new nuclear unit at the Dresden site and possible expansion of the |

transmission line rights-of-way could range from minor to extensive (NRC 2004b). |

Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff |

concludes that impacts on threatened or endangered species from construction of a new |

nuclear unit at the Dresden site and construction associated with possible upgrade of the |

existing Dresden transmission system could range from SMALL to LARGE. |

8.5.1.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

The Dresden facility draws water from the Kankakee River and discharges into the Illinois River

(Exelon 2006). Fish sampling conducted during 2001 in the Dresden Pool and downstream of |

the Dresden Island Lock and Dam yielded 54 fish species and two hybrids. Numerically, the 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-36 July 2006

catch was dominated by gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), emerald shiner (Notropis

atherenoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), spotfin shiner (Notropis spilopterus), bluntnose

| minnow (Pimephales notatus), and bullhead minnow (Pimephales vigilax) (NRC 2004b). Other

species present in significant numbers (greater than 1 percent of the sample) included green

sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), largemouth bass (Micropterus

salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), sand shiner (Notropis stramineus),

threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), common carp

| (Cyprinus carpio), and golden redhorse (Moxostoma erythrurum) (NRC 2004b). Benthic

community studies of the Dresden Pool conducted in 1999 and 2001 found that the benthic

community was poor and dominated by tolerant and facultative taxa, such as Oligochaeta

| (aquatic worms) and Chironomidae (midge larvae) (NRC 2004b). The non-indigenous Asiatic

| clam (Corbicula fluminea) is found in the Kankakee River in the vicinity of the site (USGS 2004),

and the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) began infesting the Dresden cooling pond in

| 1991 (NRC 2004b). The round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) is another invasive species

| found in the vicinity of the Dresden site (NRC 2004b).

| Construction Impacts

The construction of both a cooling water intake structure and discharge might be necessary if a

new nuclear unit was built at the Dresden site. While aquatic biota, including recreational sport

fish, would be temporarily displaced during the construction period, they would be expected to

recolonize the area after construction was complete. It is expected that the disturbance to

aquatic resources from construction would be localized and of relatively short duration. The

NRC staff has reviewed the information provided by Exelon and visited the Dresden site and

concludes that the environmental impacts of construction of a new nuclear unit at the Dresden

| site on aquatic resources would be SMALL.

| Operation Impacts

With respect to operation of a new nuclear unit at the Dresden site, the ecology of the area

surrounding the Dresden cooling pond and the intake and discharge structures has been

studied extensively since the late 1960s. Studies of the lower trophic levels (phytoplankton,

zooplankton, periphyton, and benthic invertebrates) and the fish community indicate that

operation of the existing Dresden nuclear units has not had a measurable detrimental impact on

the ecology of the Illinois River system.

In addition, impingement sampling was conducted at the traveling intake screens at the

operating Dresden nuclear units from 1977 to 1987. The study concluded that the number of

fish impinged at Dresden was low and that the fish in the adjacent river system were not being

| adversely impacted by Dresden operations. Entrainment and impingement both occur as a

result of operation of the intake of the existing units and would be expected to continue during

| the operations of a new nuclear unit at the Dresden site (Exelon 2006). However, any new 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-37 NUREG-1815

nuclear unit at the Dresden ESP site would be required to meet the new EPA Phase I ruling, |

which is likely too require closed-cycle cooling. Operation of the new ESP unit utilizing closed- |

cycle cooling would withdraw substantially less water from the Illinois River than do Dresden

units 2 and 3, resulting in significantly less impingement and entrainment loss. |

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts to aquatic

ecosystems, from operation of a new nuclear unit at the Dresden site, would be SMALL. |

Threatened or Endangered Species |

No Federally listed aquatic plant or animal species have been found in the vicinity of the

Dresden site (NRC 2004b). Three Illinois listed endangered or threatened species - the pallid |

shiner (Notropis amnis), the greater redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi), and the river |

redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum) - have been collected in low numbers near the Dresden site. |

The pallid shiner has only been collected downstream of Dresden Island Lock and Dam, and |

both redhorse species prefer a more complex channel substrate than is found near Dresden. |

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff |

concludes that the overall impact on Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species |

from construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Dresden site would be SMALL. |

8.5.1.5 Socioeconomics

This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Dresden site. The evaluation assesses

impacts of construction and station operation and of those demands placed by the workforce on

the surrounding region.

Physical Impacts

The physical impacts of the construction and operation of a new nuclear unit are similar for each

of the alternative sites. They are discussed generically in Section 8.6.4.

Demography

Dresden is in Grundy County, Illinois, adjacent to Will County and approximately 80 km (50 mi)

southwest of Chicago. Both counties are components of the nine-county Chicago Primary

Metropolitan Statistical Area, which boasted a regional 2000 population of 8,272,768 (based on 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

(a) In the multiplier effect, each dollar spent on goods and services by a construction worker becomes

income to the recipient, who saves some but re-spends the rest on consumption. His re-spending

becomes income to someone else, who in turn saves part and re-spends the rest. The number of

times the final increase in consumption exceeds the initial dollar spent is called the “multiplier.”

NUREG-1815 8-38 July 2006

the 2000 Census) and includes the City of Chicago (USCB 2000a). Grundy County has a total

population of 37,575 and Will County 502,266 (USCB 2000b). As derived from Census Bureau

information, 337,882 people live within 32 km (20 mi) of Dresden and 7,078,561 people live

within 80 km (50 mi) (Exelon 2002a).

It is expected that most construction workers would come from within the region. Should a

larger than expected number of construction workers decide to locate to Grundy County, there

could be a noticeable increase in population, but it would not be excessive. If 20 percent of the

construction workforce, or about 650 workers (without their families), decided to relocate

| temporarily to Grundy County or Will County, it would represent only a 1.7 and 0.19 percent

increase in total population, respectively, based on 2000 Census data.

Some new jobs might result from the multiplier effect(a) attributable to the construction workforce

and might result in some increase in population in the region. But these increases, when

compared to the total population base in the region, would be minimal. Any multiplier effects

resulting from construction worker expenditures would most likely mean that some residents

would obtain new or higher paying jobs as a result of the increased economic activity. 

Therefore, based on information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the demographic impact of

construction of a new unit at Dresden would be SMALL.

Exelon employs a permanent workforce of approximately 870 workers and an additional 120 to

130 contract and matrixed employees at Dresden to operate two functioning reactors

(Exelon 2002a). Approximately 580 additional permanent workers would be required for the

| operation of a new unit at Dresden (Exelon 2006). Exelon expects that most of the new

| operating workforce would come from within the region (Exelon 2006). But even if the

580 additional employees and their families were to come from outside the region, the potential

| increases in population of the most impacted counties would not be significant. For example,

the 580 additional employees would translate into an increase in population of about 2320,

assuming each new employee represented a family of four. The addition of the new employees

and their families would equate to a population increase for Grundy County of 6.2 percent and

| for Will County of 0.69 percent (assuming all 2320 individuals located to one county or the

other). Overall, the potential increases in population do not represent a large percentage

increase in the total population for the most impacted counties. Therefore, based on the staff’s

independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the

demographic impact of operation of a new unit at Dresden would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-39 NUREG-1815

Impacts to the Community - Social and Economic

This subsection discusses the site-specific impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the Dresden site. Some of the impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit that are generic are discussed in Section 8.6.4.

Economy

Grundy County is one of Illinois’s commercial and agricultural centers. Grundy County has a

smaller economic base than Will County, which means that economic impacts such as

construction of a new nuclear unit would have more of an impact than in neighboring Will

County. While the County’s agriculture sector ranks high in production relative to other Illinois

counties, it ranks relatively low in employment when compared to the County’s other major

industries (Exelon 2002a). As of 2001, Grundy County’s industrial profile was led by retail trade |

(17 percent), manufacturing (14 percent), health care and social assistance (12 percent), and

accommodation and food services (11 percent) (USCB 2001a).

In the late 1800s, Will County’s prairie soil, soft coal, and river access spurred the emergence of

a steel and manufacturing industry. When the steel industry eventually waned, the County

embraced a broader base of industrial and commercial enterprise (CPN 2004). Today, Will

County’s dominant industries are manufacturing (18 percent), retail trade (13 percent),

construction (11 percent), and health care and social services (9 percent) (USCB 2001b).

The annualized unemployment rate for the State of Illinois in 2000 was 4.3 percent. In

comparison, Will and Grundy Counties had year-2000 unemployment rates of 5.2 and |

4.1 percent, respectively (IDES 2000a and 2000b). |

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the beneficial impacts of construction

and station operation on the economy of the region would be SMALL everywhere in the region

except Grundy County, where the impacts could be MODERATE.

Taxes

Corporate and personal income taxes and sales and use taxes would be collected during both

the construction and operation of a new unit at the Dresden site. Property taxes would be

collected during construction. Taxes collected as a result of constructing and operating a new |

unit at Dresden would be of benefit to the State and the local jurisdictions that collected and

spent them. In absolute terms, the personal and corporate income, sales, and use taxes

associated with construction and operation of a new nuclear unit would be large, but the total

would be small when compared to the total amount of taxes Illinois collects annually. Based on

information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

(a) Given the facility’s potential value and property taxes paid to Grundy County, the staff assumed that

the facility’s impact on collected property taxes would, at a minimum, be SMALL and could be

MODERATE when compared to the taxes the facility could pay and the total property taxes collected

by the county.

| (b) LOS defines the flow of traffic on a designated highway. LOS designations can range from traffic

| freely flowing to a point where traffic flow exceeds the design capacity of the highway resulting in

| severe congestion.

NUREG-1815 8-40 July 2006

information, the staff concludes that the overall beneficial impacts of corporate and personal

| income, sales, use, and property taxes during construction would be SMALL.

Following the construction period and at the start of operation of a new nuclear unit, Dresden

would pay annual property taxes to Grundy and Will Counties. For the years 1997 to 2000, the

Dresden property taxes provided between 13 and 20 percent of Grundy County’s total levy

extension and between 13 and 21 percent of Grundy County’s total collections available for

distribution. For these years, Dresden’s property taxes provided less than 1 percent of Will

County’s total levy. Exelon projects that the Dresden annual property taxes will change in the

| future due to deregulation of the electric utility industry in Illinois (see Section 2.8.2.2 for a

| discussion of deregulation) (Exelon 2002a). Based on the information provided by Exelon and

the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that

impacts of a new nuclear unit on property tax collections during operation would be SMALL to

MODERATE (depending on the impacts of deregulation) for Grundy County(a) and SMALL for

Will County. In all cases, the tax impacts would be beneficial to the receiving counties.

|

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community

This subsection discusses the site specific impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the Dresden site concerning transportation, aesthetics and recreation, and

housing. Some of the impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit that are

generic (such as public services) are discussed in Section 8.6.4.

Transportation

Road access to Dresden is via Dresden Road, a two-lane paved road. Dresden Road intersects

with Pine Bluff Road approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) south of the station. Continuing south for

approximately 6.4 km (4 mi), Dresden Road ends at the Coal City limits. Most employees from

Grundy and Will Counties travel on these roads to reach the Dresden Generating Station. The

State of Illinois does not make level-of-service (LOS)(b) | determinations in rural, non-metropolitan

areas such as Dresden unless it is deemed necessary. Neither Dresden Road nor Pine Bluff

Road has had an LOS determination calculated by the Illinois Department of Transportation

(Exelon 2002a).
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-41 NUREG-1815

A daily average of approximately 4050 cars traveled Dresden Road from the plant to Pine Bluff

Road in 1996. The Dresden plant employs 1000 permanent and contract employees. During |

refueling operations approximately 760 temporary workers are employed over a two week |

period. Refueling is on a 24-month staggered cycle for each unit (Exelon 2002a). If each of the |

3150 construction workers commuted alone to the Dresden site, this could put an additional

3150 cars on a two-lane highway, causing potential congestion during shift changes. Also, the

traffic of hauling construction materials to the site could bring additional congestion to Dresden

and Pine Bluff Roads during certain times of the day, particularly at shift changes.

With respect to the operations of the facility, adding an additional 580 cars and up to 760 cars |

during refueling outages (again assuming a single occupant per car) to the existing 4050 cars |

on the road would not materially congest the highway, except potentially at shift changes, which

could be staggered between the two plants (Dresden and the new unit) so that the traffic

increases would not occur at the same time.

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction of a new

nuclear unit at Dresden on transportation would be SMALL to MODERATE where some |

mitigation actions might need to be undertaken. Mitigation measures could include traffic

control zones, staggered shift changes, and traffic control devices, among others. Construction

could bring congestion to Dresden and Pine Bluff Roads. Based on the staff’s independent

review of reconnaissance level information, the staff concludes that the impacts on

transportation of the operations workforce at the new unit at Dresden would be SMALL, and that

mitigation would not be warranted.

Aesthetics and Recreation

The terrain of the Dresden site is relatively flat. Portions of the site are relatively open and clear

of woods while other parts of the site have woods with trees of small diameter, indicating that at

one time the site was logged. Light residential development is close to the site, including a

house sitting just outside the main gate and three new houses going up around the cooling

reservoir. There are several marinas located in the area on the rivers. Construction of a new |

unit at Dresden would be noticed by these close residents.

The local terrain is level to gently undulating, except for the Kankakee Bluffs just northeast of

Dresden on the north bank of the Illinois River. The area around Dresden is largely rural,

characterized by farmland, woods, and small residential communities (NRC 2004b). The |

Kankakee River supports a sports fishery. The Illinois River is used for commercial traffic such

as barges.

A new nuclear unit at Dresden probably would have visual impacts similar to those of the

existing Dresden facility. But the use/discharge by another unit of additional heated water to 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-42 July 2006

the cooling reservoir and the use of cooling towers could exacerbate fog conditions during

adverse meteorological conditions, warranting some mitigation such as fog drift eliminators on

the cooling towers. There could be additional impacts on aesthetic quality for nearby

residences in the area as a result of the fog, even though the area is predominately in

agricultural use.

Based on information provided by Exelon, the staff’s independent review of reconnaissancelevel information, and information collected during the site visit on March 4, 2004, the staff

concludes that the aesthetic impacts of station construction and operation would be SMALL.

Housing

| In Will County there are 175,524 housing units, of which 7982 are vacant (or approximately

5 percent); in Grundy County, there are 15,040 total housing units, of which 747 are vacant

(5 percent) (USCB 2000b). A 5-percent vacancy rate would appear to indicate a potential

| shortage of housing for the construction workforce of 3150 and an operations workforce of up to

580. However, in an area that has a population of 7,078,561 within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of

| Dresden (Exelon 2002a) and, assuming the construction workforce would commute from all

over the 80-km (50-mi) radius, there should not be discernable impacts on housing availability,

rental rates, housing values, or the spurring of housing construction or conversion. There might

be a shortage of housing if construction workers decided to locate in Will and Grundy Counties,

but this would be unlikely if they were already located in the region. Based on the information

provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the

staff concludes that the impacts of construction on the availability of housing would be SMALL.

| If built, a new nuclear unit at Dresden would have up to 580 employees when operational

| (Exelon 2006). Exelon assumes that the operating workforce would come from within the

| region. There would be minimal impacts on housing availability, rental rates, housing values, or

| the spurring of housing construction or conversion in such instance.

Of the current employees at Dresden, 72 percent live in Will and Grundy Counties

| (Exelon 2002a). If it is assumed that the new workforce would not come from within the region

and that the new workforce would follow past practices, then approximately 400 of the new

operating employees would locate in the two counties. There are no growth restrictions in either

county. Depending on how the new employees split between the two counties, there could be

small to moderate impacts on housing values and rents and a similar incentive for new

construction. Based on the information provided by Exelon and staff independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of station operation on

the availability of housing would be SMALL in both Will and Grundy counties, if workers came

| from the region, to SMALL (Will County) to MODERATE (Grundy County), if workers relocate to

the region. Mitigative measures would operate through market forces leading to construction of

additional housing.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-43 NUREG-1815

8.5.1.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The impacts on historic and cultural resources of construction and operation of a new unit at

Dresden and at the other alternative sites are discussed generically in Section 8.6.5.

8.5.1.7 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations. Exelon

followed NRC guidance (NRC 2001) in applying environmental justice criteria in its ER for

license renewal of Dresden (Exelon 2002a). The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis using

updated guidance (NRC 2004a; 69 FR 52040). |

The 2000 Census and block groups were used for ascertaining environmental justice issues for

minority populations for license renewal, and the 1990 Census and census tracts were used for

low-income environmental justice issues. There are 5503 block groups within an 80-km (50 mi)

radius of Dresden. Based on the “more than 20 percent” criterion, no Native Hawaiians or other |

Pacific Islanders live in the geographic area; American Indian or Alaskan Native minority

populations exist in one block group; Asian minority populations exist in 83 block groups; and

black minority populations exist in 1470 block groups “All Other Single Minorities” populations |

exist in 628 block groups; “Multi-racial” minority populations exist in 7 block groups; “Aggregate |

of Minority Races” populations exist in 2023 block groups; and “Hispanic Ethnicity” minority |

populations exist in 1004 block groups (Exelon 2002a). Data from the 2000 Census |

characterized 32.2 percent of the Illinois population and 14.2 percent of Indiana’s population as |

minority (USCB 2000a). |

The Census Bureau data characterize 11.47 percent of Illinois households as low-income, while

10.78 percent of Indiana households are similarly classified. Based on the “more than

20 percent” criterion, 263 census tracts out of a possible 1693 contain a low-income population

(Exelon 2002a).

The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence

agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which the populations could be disproportionately

affected. In addition, the staff did not identify or observe any location-dependent

disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and low-income populations. Based on a

review of the Dresden ER for license renewal, the staff’s independent review, and a visual

reconnaissance during the site visit to Dresden (March 9, 2004), the staff concludes that

environmental justice consequences of the construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at

Dresden would be SMALL, and that mitigation would not be warranted.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-44 July 2006

8.5.2 Braidwood Generating Station

The Braidwood Generating Station is located on a site in the southwest corner of Will County,

| southwest of Joliet about 17 km (11 mi) southeast of the Dresden Generating Station. The site

covers 1804 ha (4457 ac), of which the cooling pond occupies about 1027 ha (2537 ac). 

Braidwood is on the Kankakee plain, in a region characterized by abandoned strip coal mines. 

The site itself is located on a former strip mine (Exelon 2000; AEC 1974a). Braidwood was

| originally developed for four units. Two nuclear units are currently operating (Exelon 2006).

| The site is approximately 5 km (3 mi) west of the Kankakee River at a point 22 km (14 mi)

upstream from its confluence with the Des Plaines River. The Mazon River and its branches

(East Fork, Reddick Run, Crane Creek, and Granary Creek) are to the west, southwest,

and south of the site. The Mazon River passes within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the southwestern

site boundary.

8.5.2.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

The terrain surrounding the site is flat. Despite its proximity to Joliet and Chicago, the area is

not heavily industrialized and remains primarily agricultural. The Kankakee River is a popular

recreational area and supports numerous sports such as fishing and hunting. No land would be

preempted for additional facilities built at this station. Exelon states that Braidwood has

| sufficient land to construct a new unit at the site (Exelon 2006). The NRC staff visited the

Braidwood site on March 9, 2004, and met with Exelon personnel.

Overall, the land-use factors of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit are not

particularly site-dependent. The footprint of a new unit would be about 41 ha (100 ac)

| (Exelon 2006) and could be configured to fit within the existing, previously disturbed area of the

Braidwood site. The staff concludes that land-use impacts associated with site-preparation,

construction, and operation of a new nuclear unit at Braidwood would be SMALL.

The impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit on air quality would be similar

at each of the alternative sites and would not be a significant factor in determinating

environmental preferability. Therefore, these impacts are discussed generically in

Section 8.6.1.

| There are two transmission lines, spanning a total of 134 km (84 mi) and covering 962 ha

| (2376 ac), that currently serve Braidwood (NRC 1996). Land cover along these lines consists of

| farmland (85 percent), open woodland and hedgerows (10 percent), and riparian woodlands

| (5 percent) (AEC 1974a).
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-45 NUREG-1815

The staff assumed that the existing transmission lines serving Braidwood do not have the

capacity to carry the power that would be generated by a new unit at the site. It is likely that

new transmission lines, and possibly additional rights-of-way, would be needed. The additional

transmission lines could be installed via expansion of existing rights-of-way, which the staff

considers to be the most likely scenario, or could follow a new right-of-way. Assuming that any

transmission system modifications would be expansions of existing rights-of-way, for reasons

similar to those discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 for expansion to support the ESP site, the staff

concludes that the land-use impacts associated with right-of-way expansion would be SMALL. 

The procedures for adding new transmission lines to connect a new unit at Braidwood to the

transmission grid are similar to those described in Section 3.3.

8.5.2.2 Hydrology, Water Use, and Water Quality

A new nuclear unit at Braidwood was assumed to withdraw makeup water from the Kankakee

River. It would use cooling towers for station cooling. The staff estimated the 7Q10 (7-day |

average minimum annual flow) and 30Q2 (median 30-day minimum annual discharge) based on

data from the USGS stream gauge 05527500 (Kankakee River near Wilmington, Illinois). Data

for the period of record from 1914 through 2003 was used to estimate the 7Q10 and

30Q2 values. The drainage area upstream of the gauge is reported by the USGS to be

13,338 km2

 (5150 mi2). The 7Q10 and 30Q2 values estimated by the staff are 13.1 m3/s

(463 cfs) and 21.7 m3

/s (765 cfs), respectively. The net consumptive loss for a wet cooling

tower, based on the PPE, is 2.0 m3

/s (70 cfs) or 15 and 9.2 percent of the Kankakee River 7Q10 |

and 30Q2, respectively.

Any releases of contaminants to the waters of the State of Illinois would be regulated by the

IEPA through the NPDES permit process to ensure that water quality was protected. Based on

the requirements of the current Braidwood NPDES permit and the above analysis, the staff

concludes that the water-use and water quality impacts of an additional unit at the Braidwood

site would be SMALL.

8.5.2.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

Between the years 1940 and 1974, about 971 ha (2400 ac), about 54 percent of the 1804-ha |

(4457-ac) Braidwood site, was used for coal strip-mining (AEC 1974a). The majority of the |

remainder of the site consists of Braidwood Lake (IDNR 2003). The Braidwood site includes |

strip-mine spoils, cultivated fields, fallow fields, and open woodlands; no climax plant |

communities (tallgrass prairie with areas of deciduous forest) were found within its boundaries. |

Strip-mine spoils were interspersed with excavations containing stagnant water, and some |

marshy areas were found along roadsides and railroad tracks and between fields. Spoil areas |

were characterized as having packed, infertile soils with low vegetation density, and strip-mine |

spoils were reclaimed via revegetation programs that included planting woody and herbaceous |
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-46 July 2006

| species (AEC 1974a). Currently, partially to fully forested habitats occupy the area just west of

| the Braidwood site infrastructure whereas areas to the east appear to be mostly cleared of

forest, based on 1998/1999 digital orthophoto quadrangle data (ISGS 2004).

| There are two transmission corridors, which extend over 134 km (84 mi) (AEC 1974a) and cover

| 962 ha (2377 ac) (NRC 1996), that currently serve Braidwood Generating Station. Land cover

along these lines consists of farmland (85 percent), open woodland and hedgerows

| (10 percent), and riparian woodlands (5 percent) (AEC 1974a). It is assumed that the two

| existing transmission lines do not have the capacity to carry the power that would be generated

| by a new unit at the Braidwood site, and it is likely that new transmission lines, and thus

| expanded rights-of-way, would be needed.

| There are 24 State-listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species that occur within a 16-km

| (10-mi) radius of the Braidwood site, but only one of these, the endangered upland sandpiper

| (Bartramia longicauda), is known to occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the site (IDNR 2004c).

| Construction Impacts

| It is assumed that structures for a new nuclear unit (power block structures, normal heat-sink

| cooling towers, switchyard expansion, new intake structures, normal heat-sink cooling towers,

| switchyard expansion, new intake structures, and safety-related cooling towers) would be

| primarily constructed in areas already cleared of forest, if possible, and that forested habitat

| would thus be minimally impacted. Consequently, terrestrial ecological impacts from

| construction of a new unit at the Braidwood site would be negligible.

| For the purpose of this analysis, the staff assumed that any transmission system upgrades

| would be expansions of existing rights-of-way and that such expansions would consist of

| doubling the current corridor width. Based on this assumption, a loss of at least 48 ha (119 ac)

| of woodland could occur. Terrestrial ecological impacts associated with the upgrade would be

| expected to be negligible, because most of the land cover is agricultural and because loss of

| this amount of woodland over 134 km (84 mi) would be insignificant.

| Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff

| concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from construction of a new nuclear unit at

| the Braidwood site and construction associated with possible upgrade of the existing Braidwood

| transmission system would be SMALL.

| Operational Impacts

| Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from operation a new nuclear unit at the Braidwood

| site include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. Impacts resulting from 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-47 NUREG-1815

the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines would be of similar magnitude at all the |

alternative sites and, thus, cannot be used to discriminate between them. Therefore, |

operational impacts are discussed generically in Section 8.6. |

Threatened or Endangered Species |

There is one Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species that may occur in the |

vicinity of the Braidwood site and transmission lines, the threatened eastern prairie fringed |

orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) (FWS 2004b). The eastern prairie fringed orchid is known to |

occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) to 16 km (10 mi) of the Braidwood site (IDNR 2004c). Its habitat |

includes, but is not restricted to, mesic prairie, sedge meadows, marsh edges, and bogs |

(FWS 2004b). It is unlikely that this species occurs on the Braidwood site, given the above |

description of habitats onsite, which appear to be unsuitable. There is no designated critical |

habitat for this species. Consequently, impacts to Federally listed species, from construction of |

a new nuclear unit on the Braidwood site and possible expansion of the transmission line rights- |

of-way would be minimal. |

Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff |

concludes that impacts to threatened or endangered species from construction of a new nuclear |

unit at the Braidwood site and construction associated with possible upgrade of the existing |

Braidwood transmission system would be SMALL.

8.5.2.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

Braidwood Lake was constructed in the late 1970s and impounded during 1980 and 1981 with

water pumped from the Kankakee River. Several surface-mined pits were flooded within the

lake, and fisheries management actually began in 1978 before the lake existed (IDNR 2003). 

The lake was a semi-private area used by employees of the power station until 1981 when the

Department of Conservation (now the Illinois Department of Natural Resources) acquired a

long-term lease agreement that allowed general public access. Braidwood Lake currently is

used for recreational but not commercial fishing and is larger than any of the more than

200 water impoundments in the area which range from 0.3 to 12 ha (0.75 to 30 ac). The water

area is managed by IDNR for sport fish and currently contains largemouth bass, smallmouth

bass, bluegill, green sunfish, crappie, channel catfish, and bullhead (IDNR 2003). The area is

also managed for other resident or migratory game and non-game fish species. |

Construction Impacts |

Water from the Kankakee River is used to cool the existing Braidwood station and would be

expected to be used to cool a new nuclear unit constructed at that site. As the site was

designed for four units, the space is already set aside for construction of an additional unit. 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-48 July 2006

Although aquatic biota, including recreational sport fish, would be temporarily displaced during

the construction period, they would be expected to recolonize the area after construction is

complete. It is assumed that any disturbance to aquatic resources from construction would be

localized and of relatively short duration. The NRC staff has reviewed information provided by

Exelon and concludes that the environmental impacts of construction of a new nuclear unit at

| Braidwood on aquatic resources would be SMALL.

| Operational Impacts

The aquatic impact most likely to occur as a result of operations of a new unit at Braidwood is

| entrainment and impingement of organisms from the Kankakee River (ComEd 1973;

| Exelon 2003a). Any new nuclear unit at the Braidwood ESP site would be required to meet the

| new EPA Phase I regulations, which is likely to require closed-cycle cooling. Operation of the

| new ESP unit utilizing closed-cycle cooling would withdraw substantially less water from the

| Kankakee River than the two existing Braidwood reactors, resulting in little additional

| impingement and entrainment loss. Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC

| staff’s independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts on aquatic resources during

| operation of a new nuclear unit at the Braidwood site would be SMALL.

| Threatened or Endangered Species

| No Federally protected aquatic species are found in the vicinity of the Braidwood site

| (Sackschewsky 2004). Based on the information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s

| independent review, the staff concludes that the overall impact to Federally listed threatened or

| endangered species from construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Braidwood site

| would be SMALL.

8.5.2.5 Socioeconomics

This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

constructing and operating a new unit at the Braidwood site. The evaluation assesses impacts

of construction and station operation and of those demands placed by the workforce on the

surrounding region.

Physical Impacts

The physical impacts of construction and operation of a new unit at Braidwood are similar to

those of construction and operation of a new unit at the other alternative sites. They are

discussed generically in Section 8.6.4.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-49 NUREG-1815

Demography

The Town of Godley (population 594) is about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from the site. Within a 8-km

(5-mi) radius, there are the Towns of Coal City (population 4797) and Braidwood

(population 5203) (USCB 2000c). Projected population of the area suggests that the

population, including the transient population, within 16 km (10 mi) of the Braidwood Station will

reach nearly 86,000 by the year 2020 (Exelon 2006). The population between 16 and 80 km |

(10 and 50 mi) includes the Chicago metroplex, and the total population is predicted to reach

more than 5 million by the year 2020 (Exelon 2006). There are approximately 22 urban centers |

within a 48-km (30-mi) radius of the site (Exelon 2006). |

As with Dresden, most construction and operation workers are expected to come from within the

region. The total number of workers hired would be the same as with Dresden. Should some

decide to relocate to Will County, the increase in population would be very small when

compared to the total population already resident in the county.

As with Dresden, some new jobs might result from the multiplier effect attributable to the

construction and operations workforce and might result in some increase in population in the

region. However, when compared to the total population base in the region, these increases

would be minimal. Any multiplier effects resulting from construction and operations workers’

expenditures would most likely mean that some residents would obtain new or higher paying

jobs as a result of the increased economic activity. Based on the information provided by

Exelon and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff

concludes that the demographic impacts of construction and station operation on increases in

population within the region would be SMALL.

Impacts to the Community - Social and Economic

This subsection discusses the site-specific impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the Braidwood site. Some of the impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit that are generic are discussed in Section 8.6.4.

Economy

The economy surrounding Braidwood would be similar to Dresden’s, which is described in

Section 8.5.1.5. Will County would be the main beneficiary of construction and operation of a

new nuclear unit at Braidwood. In Will County, the magnitude of the economic impacts would

be diffused within the larger economic base, as is also the case in the surrounding counties. 

Thus, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the beneficial impacts of construction

and station operation on the economy of the region would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

| (a) More precise numbers for the Braidwood plant were not available. These estimates are based on the

| requirements at Dresden, a similar, sister facility to Braidwood (Exelon 2002a).

NUREG-1815 8-50 July 2006

Taxes

All of Braidwood is in Will County. As a result, all of the property taxes paid by Exelon on the

facility at Braidwood would go to Will County. The taxes, while large in absolute amount, would

be small when compared to the total taxes collected by Illinois and Will County. In addition, Will

County has a larger economic base than some of the surrounding counties. Thus, the

percentage of total property taxes collected from Exelon for the Braidwood site would not be

significant when compared to the total property taxes collected in the county. Therefore, the

NRC staff concludes that the beneficial tax impacts (property, income, sales, and use taxes) of

constructing and operating a new facility at Braidwood would be SMALL.

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community

This subsection discusses the site specific impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the Braidwood site concerning transportation, aesthetics and recreation, and

housing. Some of the impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit that are

generic (such as public services) are discussed in Section 8.6.4.

Transportation

Braidwood is located off Interstate (I) 55, which is less than 3.6 km (2 mi) west-northwest of the

plant. Illinois State Routes (SRs) 53 and 129 are located less than 1.6 km (1 mi) to the

northwest of the site. SR 113, located approximately 3.6 km (2 mi) north of the site, also

provides access to the interstate and state highways.

| There are currently 760 workers at Braidwood operating the two nuclear units. Construction of

a new nuclear unit at Braidwood would employ 3150 workers, in addition to the 1000 or so

| employees already employed at Units 1 and 2. In addition, there would be approximately

| 1000 temporary workers employed during refueling outages. Refueling outages would most

| likely last approximately two weeks and refueling would most likely be on a 24-month staggered

cycle for each unit.(a) | Truck traffic would increase greatly and rail traffic would increase as well. 

Heavy loads of materials might necessitate additional maintenance on the roads leading to the

site. While traffic counts on the roads around and leading to Braidwood were not available,

congestion on the roads leading to and around the site could be expected, particularly at shift

changes, which could be mitigated by staggering shifts so that all employees would not enter or 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-51 NUREG-1815

leave the site at the same times. Based on the information provided by Exelon and the NRC

staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the

impacts of construction on transportation would be SMALL to MODERATE and some mitigating

actions might need to be undertaken.

With respect to the operations workforce at the facility, adding approximately 580 cars, in |

addition to the cars of the temporary workers during refueling outages, (assuming a single |

occupant per car) to the existing 1000 cars on the road of employees of Braidwood Units 1 and

2 would not materially congest the highway except at shift changes. These impacts could be

mitigated by staggering the shift changes between the two plants (Braidwood and a new nuclear

unit) so that they would not all occur at the same time. Therefore, based on the information

provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the

staff concludes that the impacts of the operations workforce on transportation would be SMALL,

and that mitigation would not be warranted.

Aesthetics and Recreation

The terrain of the Braidwood site is relatively flat and open. The local terrain around the site is

very flat and is largely rural and agricultural, characterized by farmland, woods, and small

residential communities. Residential development exists to the northeast and south-southeast

of the site. There are two boat-launching ramps on Braidwood’s cooling reservoir that were in

use at the time of the NRC staff visit (March 9, 2004).

The construction of a new nuclear unit at Braidwood could be viewed from offsite at certain

locations, but the addition of another facility would not substantially change the view of the

current Braidwood units. There might be a need to construct a cooling-water intake structure

and discharge at the site. As the cooling reservoir is currently at maximum use with Braidwood

Units 1 and 2, a new nuclear unit at the site would need one or more cooling towers. The

operation of a new nuclear unit probably would have visual impacts similar to those of the

existing Braidwood units, with the addition of occasional visible plumes from cooling towers. 

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and

operation of a new nuclear unit on aesthetics would be SMALL and that further mitigation would

not be warranted.

Housing

In Will County, there are 175,524 housing units, of which 7982 (5 percent) are vacant 

(USCB 2000b). A 5-percent vacancy rate would, on its surface, indicate a potential shortage of

housing near the Braidwood site for the Exelon construction workforce of 3150. Assuming that

the construction workforce would commute from an area within a 80-km (50-mi) radius of

Braidwood, which has a population of several million, there would be few discernible impacts on |
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-52 July 2006

housing availability, rental rates or housing values, or housing construction or conversion in Will

County. Those who chose to relocate to the region would find adequate housing available.

Therefore, based on information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction on

housing would be SMALL.

| If built, a new nuclear unit at Braidwood would have up to 580 employees when it became

| operational (Exelon 2006). It is assumed, as with Dresden, that of the current employees at

Braidwood, 72 percent live in Will and Grundy Counties. If it is assumed that the new operating

workforce would not come from within the region, but would relocate to the region, and follow

similar past practices, one would expect as many as 415 of the new operating employees to

locate in the two counties. There are no growth restrictions in either Will or Grundy Counties. If

the workers were not already in the region, Will County would have a sufficient number of

housing units to handle the station operations personnel and their families. Should all of the

415 new employees locate to Will County, it is unlikely there would be discernible impacts on

housing availability, rental rates, or housing values. There might be some new construction of

housing, but it would be minor as a result of operating a new nuclear unit. Grundy County has a

smaller housing base and vacant units. If all the new employees decided to relocate to Grundy

County, there could be upward pressure on housing prices, on values, and on new construction.

It is expected that most of the operational workforce would already be in the region and have

residences. Should this be the case, there would be little demand for housing. However, if the

workers were not already in the region, Will County currently has a sufficient number of housing

units to handle the station operations personnel and their families. Grundy County has a

smaller housing base and less vacant units. If all the new employees decided to relocate to

Grundy County, there could be upward pressure on housing prices. Therefore, based on the

staff’s independent review and on reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the

impacts of station operation on the availability of housing would be SMALL for Will County and

MODERATE for Grundy County, and mitigation would occur through market forces, leading to

the construction of new housing.

8.5.2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit on historic and cultural

resources at the alternative sites are discussed generically in Section 8.6.5.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-53 NUREG-1815

8.5.2.7 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations.

The staff used the Geographical, Environmental and Siting Information (GEn&SIS) database to

develop maps of minority and low-income populations around the Braidwood site

(GEn&SIS 2004). The data used are based on the 2000 Census and census blocks and

followed the NRC criteria for determining the presence of low-income or minority populations

(NRC 2004a; 69 FR 52040). Maps were created showing census blocks of minority and low- |

income populations within a 80-km (50-mi) radius of Braidwood. There is a concentration of

minority populations located about 48 km (30 mi) to the southwest of Braidwood near Pontiac. 

Another concentration of minority populations lies 48 km (30 mi) to the southeast of the site,

near Bourbonnais, Bradley, and Kankakee, and another concentration east of there along the |

Illinois-Indiana State line. To the northeast, the Chicago area has numerous concentrations of |

minority populations. For low-income populations, there is a concentration around Kankakee, |

another due east of Kankakee near and along the Indiana-Illinois State line, and within the |

Chicago metropolitan area.

The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence

agriculture, hunting, or fishing, through which the populations could be disproportionately

affected. In addition, the staff did not identify or observe any location-dependent

disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and low-income populations. Based on the

staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information including a site visit to

Braidwood (March 9, 2004), the staff concludes that environmental justice consequences of the

construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at Braidwood would be SMALL and that

mitigation would not be warranted.

8.5.3 LaSalle County Generating Station

The LaSalle County Generating Station is located on a site in the southeast corner of LaSalle

County, Illinois. It is approximately 112 km (70 mi) southwest of the center of Chicago and |

approximately 39 km (24 mi) west-southwest of Dresden Nuclear Power Station. It is

approximately 8 km (5 mi) south of the Illinois River, which at that point flows to the west. The

land use around the site is predominately agricultural. Nearby towns around the site include

Seneca (population 2053), Marseilles (population 4655), and Ransom (population 409)

(USCB 2000d).

LaSalle occupies approximately 1238 ha (3060 ac) with two nuclear units in operation. The |

Illinois River is the primary surface-water source for the facility. LaSalle does not significantly 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-54 July 2006

| affect surface-water use from the Illinois River because of an 833-ha (2058-ac) cooling pond. 

| Exelon assumes that a cooling pond for a new nuclear facility would have roughly the same

| general environmental impact as that of the existing facility (Exelon 2006).

8.5.3.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

LaSalle County and the two counties adjacent to its southeast corner, Livingston and Grundy

Counties, are predominantly agricultural areas. All three have a large percentage of their land

under cultivation. Principal crops are corn, soybeans, and wheat; other crops include barley,

| rye, and hay. Livestock is another production commodity (AEC 1973). Land use remains

predominantly agricultural. No new land will be preempted if new units are placed on the site.

Overall, the land-use factors of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit are not

particularly site-dependent. The footprint of a new unit would be less than 41 ha (100 ac)

| (Exelon 2006) and could be configured to fit within previously disturbed land on the LaSalle site.

Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that the potential land-use impacts

associated with site-preparation and construction and resulting from operation of a new unit at

the LaSalle site would be SMALL.

The impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit on air quality would be similar

at each of the alternative sites and would not be a significant factor in determination of

environmental preferability. Therefore, these impacts are discussed generically in

Section 8.6.1.

| There are 165 km (103 mi) of transmission lines covering 922 ha (2278 ac) that currently serve

| LaSalle (NRC 1996). Land cover along these lines consists primarily of farmland (NRC 1978).

The existing transmission lines for LaSalle do not have the capacity to carry the power that

would be generated by a new nuclear unit. It is likely that new transmission lines, and possibly

additional rights-of-way, would be needed. The additional transmission lines could be installed

via expansion of an existing right-of-way, which the staff believes to be likely, or could follow a

new right-of-way. Assuming that any additional transmission system modifications would be

expansions of existing rights-of-way, for reasons similar to those discussed in Chapters 4 and 5

for expansion to support the Exelon ESP site, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts

associated with the expansion would be SMALL. The procedures for adding the new

transmission lines to connect a new nuclear unit at LaSalle to the transmission grid are similar

to those described in Section 3.3.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-55 NUREG-1815

8.5.3.2 Hydrology, Water Use, and Water Quality

A new nuclear unit at LaSalle was assumed by the staff to ultimately withdraw makeup water |

from the Illinois River. It is assumed that it will utilize wet cooling towers for station cooling. The |

staff estimated the 7Q10 (7-day average minimum annual flow) and 30Q2 (median 30-day

minimum annual discharge) based on data from the USGS stream gauge 05543500 on the

Illinois River near Marseilles, Illinois. Data for the period of record from 1919 through 2003 was

used to estimate the 7Q10 and 30Q2 values. This gauge is slightly downstream of the

alternative ESP site. The drainage area upstream of the gauge near the site is reported by the

USGS to be 21,391 km2

 (8259 mi2). The 7Q10 and 30Q2 values estimated by the staff are

85.7 m3

/s (3028 cfs) and 126 m3/s (4451 cfs), respectively. The net consumptive loss for a wet

cooling tower, based on the PPE, is 2.0 m3

/s (70 cfs), or 2.3 and 1.6 percent of the Illinois River |

7Q10 and 30Q2, respectively.

Any releases of contaminants to the waters of the State of Illinois would be regulated by the

IEPA through the NPDES permit process to ensure that water quality is protected. Based on

the requirements of the current LaSalle NPDES permit and the above analysis, the staff

concludes that the water use and water quality impacts of an additional unit at the LaSalle site

would be SMALL.

8.5.3.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

The 1238-ha (3060-ac) LaSalle site supports five plant communities: upland woods, Illinois |

River floodplain woods, creek bottom woods, cleared woods on transmission line rights-of-way, |

and old fields in various stages of succession (NRC 1978). Partially to fully forested habitat is |

found north and northeast of the existing LaSalle site infrastructure, and areas cleared of forest |

are found to the west, south, and east, based on 1998/1999 digital orthophoto quadrangle data |

(ISGS 2004). The remainder of the site remains largely unaltered since the late 1970s. |

There are 165 km (103 mi) of transmission lines (NRC 1978) covering 922 ha (2278 ac) |

(NRC 1996) that currently serve LaSalle. Land cover along these lines consists primarily of |

farmland (NRC 1978). It is assumed that these transmission lines do not have the capacity to |

carry the power that would be generated by a new nuclear unit at the LaSalle site, and it is likely |

that new transmission lines and, thus, expanded rights-of-way would be needed. |

There is one State-listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species known to occur within |

3.2 km (2 mi) to 16 km (10 mi) of the LaSalle site, and none that occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) |

(IDNR 2004c). |
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-56 July 2006

| Construction Impacts

| The staff assumed that structures for a new nuclear unit (power block structures, normal heat-

| sink cooling towers, switchyard expansion, new intake structures, and safety-related cooling

| towers) would be primarily constructed in areas already cleared of forest, if possible, and that

| forest habitat would thus be minimally impacted. Consequently, terrestrial ecological impacts

| from construction of a new nuclear unit on the LaSalle site would be negligible.

| For the purpose of this analysis, the staff assumed that any transmission system upgrades

| would be expansions of existing rights-of-way and that such expansions would consist of

| doubling the current corridor width. Terrestrial ecological impacts associated with the upgrade

| would be expected to be negligible because most of the land cover is agricultural.

| Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff

| concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from construction of a new nuclear unit at

| the LaSalle site and construction associated with possible upgrade of the existing LaSalle

| transmission system would be SMALL.

| Operational Impacts

| Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from operation of a new nuclear unit at the LaSalle

| site include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. Impacts resulting from

| the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines would be of similar magnitude at all the

| alternative sites and, thus, cannot be used to discriminate between them. Therefore,

| operational impacts are discussed generically in Section 8.6.

| Threatened or Endangered Species

| There are two Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species that may occur in

| the vicinity of the LaSalle site and transmission lines: the threatened bald eagle

| (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) (FWS 2004a). 

| The bald eagle is known to winter along large rivers, lakes, and reservoirs in LaSalle County;

| however, no night roost sites are known to occur there. The Indiana bat potentially occurs

| throughout Illinois where forest habitat is present (FWS 2004a). However, there is no suitable

| habitat for the Indiana bat near LaSalle and the species does not occur on or near the site

| (NRC 1978). Designated critical habitat exists for only one of these two Federally listed

| species, the Indiana bat (FWS 2004a). The only critical habitat in Illinois is the Blackball Mine

| (FWS 1976), located near Utica in LaSalle County, about 32 km (20 mi) northwest of the

| LaSalle site (NRC 1978). Consequently, impacts to Federally listed species from construction

| of a new nuclear unit on the LaSalle site and possible expansion of the transmission line rightsof-way would be minimal.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-57 NUREG-1815

Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff |

concludes that the impacts on threatened or endangered species from construction of a new |

nuclear unit at the LaSalle site and construction associated with a possible upgrade of the |

existing LaSalle transmission system would be SMALL. |

8.5.3.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

LaSalle is approximately 6.6 km (4 mi) south of the Illinois River in southeast LaSalle County. 

The Illinois River near the plant has been reported to have essentially no commercial or

recreational value for fishing because of reduced biological diversity related to pollutants

(AEC 1973). LaSalle Lake is an 833-ha (2058-ac) reservoir that serves as a cooling reservoir |

for LaSalle. Soil excavated for the lake’s construction was used to build the shoreline and

internal dikes, which are covered with rock riprap. The raised dikes are used to direct cooling

water through a 5-day circulation pattern from the discharge channel back to the intake channel. 

There is typically an 11°C (20°F) water-temperature difference between the two channels. The

average depth of LaSalle Lake is 4.6 m (15 ft), but there are excavated areas within the lake up

to 21.3 m (70 ft) deep (IDNR 2004b). The lake is popular with anglers who may encounter |

walleye, muskellunge, tiger muskie, yellow bass, white bass, striped bass, hybrid striped bass,

largemouth and smallmouth bass, white crappie, black crappie, bluegill, bullhead and channel

catfish, freshwater drum, carp, goldfish, minnows, suckers, and threadfin shad (LaSalle Cooling

Lake 2004). Largemouth and smallmouth bass, channel catfish, walleye, sauger, crappie, and

hybrid striped bass have all been stocked since 1989 (Madeja 2002). |

Construction Impacts |

While aquatic biota, including recreational sport fish, would be temporarily displaced during the

construction period, they would be expected to recolonize the region after construction was

complete. It is expected that the disturbance to aquatic resources would be localized and of

relatively short duration. Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s

independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the

environmental impacts of construction of a new nuclear unit on aquatic resources would |

be SMALL.

Operational Impacts |

LaSalle does not significantly affect surface-water use from the Illinois River because of the

833-ha (2058-ac) cooling reservoir. However, according to plant personnel (interviewed during |

a site visit on March 11, 2004, by NRC staff), the reservoir is near its cooling capacity in serving

the two existing nuclear units at the site.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-58 July 2006

Even if water for a new nuclear unit was withdrawn from the Illinois River, adverse impacts to

aquatic environments as a result of impingement and entrainment are not expected to result. 

The Illinois River is best characterized as a recovering river system, and abundance and

diversity of aquatic species and habitats are restricted by upstream pollutants, commercial and

recreational boat traffic, and continuing habitat alteration. These factors arise from offsite use of

the river corridor; operation of the current LaSalle nuclear facility is not a significant factor in the

| overall quality of aquatic habitats in the vicinity of the plant (Exelon 2006). In addition, any new

nuclear unit at the LaSalle ESP site would be required to meet the new EPA Phase I

| regulations, which is likely to require closed-cycle cooling. Operation of a new ESP unit utilizing

| closed-cycle cooling would withdraw little water from the Illinois River, resulting in little additional

| entrainment or impingement loss.

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the potential for adverse impacts to

| aquatic resources from operation of a new nuclear unit at LaSalle would be SMALL.

| Threatened or Endangered Species

| No Federally protected aquatic species are found in the vicinity of the LaSalle site

| (Sackschewsky 2004). Based on the information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s

| independent review, the staff concludes that the overall impact to Federally listed threatened or

| endangered species from construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the LaSalle site

| would be SMALL.

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the potential for adverse impacts to

aquatic resources, including Federally listed threatened or endangered species, from operation

of a new nuclear unit at LaSalle. The impact would be SMALL.

8.5.3.5 Socioeconomics

This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the LaSalle site. The evaluation assesses

impacts of construction and station operation and of those demands placed by the workforce on

the surrounding region.

Physical Impacts

The physical impacts of the construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at LaSalle are

similar to those for the other alternative sites. They are discussed generically in Section 8.6.4.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-59 NUREG-1815

Demography

LaSalle is located in the southeast corner of LaSalle County, Illinois (population 115,509)

(USCB 2000d). It is approximately 110 km (70 mi) southwest of the center of Chicago and

approximately 39 km (24 mi) west-southwest of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station. It is

approximately 8 km (5 mi) south of the Illinois River, which at that point flows to the west. The

land use around the site is predominantly agricultural. Nearby towns around the site include

Seneca (population 2053), Marseilles (population 4655), and Ransom (population 409)

(USCB 2000d).

Most construction and operation workers are expected to come from within the region. The total

number of workers hired would be about 3150. Should some decide to relocate to LaSalle

County, the increase in population would be very small when compared to the total population

already resident in the county.

Some new jobs might result from the multiplier effect attributable to the construction and

operations workforce and might result in some increase in population in the region. But these

increases, when compared to the total population base in the region, would be minimal. Any

multiplier effects resulting from construction and operations workers’ expenditures would most

likely mean that some residents would obtain new or higher paying jobs as a result of the

increased economic activity.

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the demographic impacts of

construction and station operations within the region would be SMALL.

Impacts to the Community - Social and Economic

This subsection discusses the site-specific impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the LaSalle site. Some of the impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit that are generic are discussed in Section 8.6.4.

Economy

LaSalle County and the two counties adjacent to its southeast corner, Livingston and Grundy

Counties, have a large agricultural base. All three counties have a large percentage of their

land in cultivation. Crops grown include corn, soybeans, wheat, barley, rye, and hay; livestock

are also raised.

LaSalle County’s business profile is led by retail trade, which has 18 percent of the County’s

total employment, followed by manufacturing (17 percent) and health care and social 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

(a) Personal telephone communication with Gary Kleinhans, Chief Deputy to the LaSalle County

Treasurer, May 28, 2004.

| (b) The MODERATE impact is based on the impact of deregulation (see Section 2.8.2.2). While a new

nuclear unit would potentially operate in a deregulated environment, the impacts of deregulation on

the facility’s value, and thus property taxes paid by the facility, are not fully known. Given the facility’s

potential value and property taxes paid to LaSalle County, the staff assumed that the facility’s impact

on collected property taxes would, at a minimum, be SMALL and could be MODERATE when

compared to the taxes the facility could pay and the total property taxes collected by the county.

NUREG-1815 8-60 July 2006

assistance (13 percent) (USCB 2001c). The unemployment rate for LaSalle County in 2000

| was 5.3 percent, while that for Illinois as a whole was 4.3 percent (IDES 2000a, 2000b).

In counties other than LaSalle County, which will not experience the direct benefits of

construction or operation, the magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused within the

larger economic base. In LaSalle County, Exelon contributes moderately to the tax base (see

discussion under “Taxes” below). By inference, the same would be expected in the other

economic contributions to the county’s economy. Based on the information provided by Exelon

and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that

the impacts of construction and station operation on the economy of the region would be

SMALL in all counties in the region except LaSalle County, where it could be MODERATE. In

all cases, the impacts would be beneficial.

Taxes

Taxes collected as a result of constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at LaSalle would be

| of benefit to the State and to local jurisdictions that collect and spend them. Exelon would pay

annual property taxes to LaSalle County. For the tax year 2003 to 2004, Exelon paid

| approximately 15 to 18 percent of the total property taxes paid in LaSalle County for the existing

LaSalle nuclear facility.(a) |

Personal and corporate income taxes and sales and use taxes would also be collected during

the construction and operating periods of a new nuclear unit. While large in absolute amount,

these tax amounts would be small when compared to the total taxes collected by Illinois as a

whole and by LaSalle County. Based on the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level

information, the staff concludes that for LaSalle County the beneficial impacts of taxes collected

| during construction would be beneficially SMALL, that the beneficial impacts of taxes collected

during operation would be beneficially SMALL to MODERATE,(b) | and that further mitigation

would not be warranted.
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) More precise numbers for the LaSalle plant were not available. These estimates are based on the |

requirements at Dresden, a similar, sister facility to LaSalle (Exelon 2002a). |

July 2006 8-61 NUREG-1815

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community

This subsection discusses the site specific impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the LaSalle site concerning transportation, aesthetics and recreation, and

housing. Some of the impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit that are

generic (such as public services) are discussed in Section 8.6.4.

Transportation

The major transportation routes near the site include the Illinois River, approximately 5 km

(3 mi) north of the northern boundary; Illinois State Highway 170, 0.8 km (0.5 mi) east of the

eastern boundary of the site; and I-80, 13 km (8 mi) north of the northern site boundary. The

Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railroad, approximately 5 km (3 mi) north of the northern site

boundary, is the closest operable railroad line (Exelon 2006). |

The construction workforce would number 3150 (Exelon 2006), in addition to what are believed |

to be about 1000-plus operating employees of LaSalle Units 1 and 2. There are approximately |

760 temporary workers employed over a two-week period during refueling outages. Refueling is |

on an approximate 24-month staggered cycle for each unit.(a) If the construction of a new |

nuclear unit were to follow past practices when Units 1 and 2 were constructed, construction

would attract a large number of workers who would commute to the site from the surrounding

area (AEC 1973). Highway transport would be used in the conveyance of construction

materials to the site. Both of these events would put more traffic on the roads leading to the

site, resulting in more congestion, particularly at shift changes. Corrective measures probably

could be taken to minimize traffic congestion and safety hazards, such as using multi-shift

workforces.

The NRC staff observed highway traffic around LaSalle during its site visit. The addition of

upwards of 3150 cars, in addition to the approximately 760 cars of the temporary workers during |

refueling outages, (assuming a single occupant per car) on the road leading to the site could |

cause congestion, particularly at shift changes, and could be exacerbated with the addition of

trucks carrying construction materials to the site. Based on the information provided by Exelon

and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that

the impacts of construction on transportation would likely be SMALL, provided that impacts are

actively mitigated, to MODERATE, if mitigation does not take place.

During operation of a new nuclear unit, adding approximately 580 cars, in addition to the |

approximately 760 cars of the temporary workers during refueling outages, (assuming a single |
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-62 July 2006

occupant per car), to what are believed to be about 1000 cars for operating employees of

LaSalle Units 1 and 2, would not materially congest the highway except at shift changes. These

impacts could be mitigated by staggering the shift changes among the plants (the current units

and the new unit). Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s

independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of

a new nuclear unit on transportation would be SMALL, and that mitigation is not warranted.

Aesthetics and Recreation

The Rock River is the major waterway for the area surrounding the LaSalle site. The Illinois

River is the primary surface-water source for the facility and an important source of commercial

and recreational navigation. The topography of the site is flat, with open grassland and few

woods, except in the corridor that contains the pipelines for intake and discharge of cooling

| water to the Illinois River. LaSalle has a cooling reservoir, which is open for recreation.

Construction of a new nuclear unit would not be expected to have major impacts on the Illinois

River due to the distance of the site from the river. Any impacts to the river of an additional

cooling-water structure, if needed, would be transitory. Based on the staff’s independent review

of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts on aesthetics and

recreation of construction of a new nuclear unit at LaSalle would be SMALL and that mitigation

would not be warranted.

The main visual impacts of operating a new nuclear unit would be the addition of a cooling

tower onsite. None currently exists, but the cooling reservoir is near its capacity because of the

heat load of LaSalle Units 1 and 2. In some meteorological conditions, the plume from a cooling

tower could be seen for miles. This would add marginally to the visual impacts. However,

recreation on the cooling reservoir likely would not be materially impacted. Based on the staff’s

independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of

construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at LaSalle would be SMALL, and that

mitigation is not warranted.

Housing

In the six-county area of LaSalle, Bureau, Grundy, Kendall, DeKalb, and Lee Counties in 2000, 

there were a total 143,626 housing units, of which 8009 units were vacant (6 percent of the total

[USCB 2000d]). Most construction workers would come from within the region and commute to

the job site. Most of the workers hired for the initial construction of LCGS came from

neighboring communities, such as Streator, Ottawa, Joliet, and Kankakee (NRC 1978). Thus,

with the construction of a new nuclear unit, relatively few workers would be expected to

move and take up residence in the area, and those that did could find housing within the

six-county area.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-63 NUREG-1815

When operational, a new nuclear unit would have up to 580 employees (Exelon 2006). |

Information on where the current 1000-plus operating employees of LaSalle Units 1 and 2 live

was not available, although Commonwealth Edison estimated that less than 20 percent of the

total operating staff for LaSalle Units 1 and 2 relocated to the local area, defined as Ottawa,

Streator, and Marseilles (NRC 1978). There are 3021 vacant housing units in LaSalle County, a

6.5-percent vacancy rate (USCB 2000d). If 115 (20 percent of the 580 new operations |

employees) employees decided to live in LaSalle County, there would not be a discernable

impact on housing availability, rental rates, or housing values. Based on the information

provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the

staff concludes that the impacts of station construction and operation on the availability of

housing would be SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted.

8.5.3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the LaSalle site on historic

and cultural resources are discussed generically in Section 8.6.5.

8.5.3.7 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations.

The staff used the GEn&SIS database to develop maps of minority and low-income populations

around the LaSalle site (GEn&SIS 2004). The data used are based on the 2000 Census and

census blocks and followed the NRC criteria for determining the presence of minority or lowincome populations (NRC 2004a; 69 FR 52040). Maps were created showing census blocks of |

minority and low-income populations within 80 km (50 mi) of the LaSalle site.

There is a concentration of minority populations about 48 km (30 mi) south of LaSalle, near

Pontiac. Another concentration of minority populations lies 48 km (30 mi) to the southeast of

the site, near the Towns of Bourbonnais, Bradley, and Kankakee, and another small

concentration east of there along the Illinois-Indiana State line, 64 km (40 mi) from the site. The |

Chicago area to the northeast has large concentrations of minority populations. Low-income

populations are concentrated around Kankakee, another due east of Kankakee near and along |

the Indiana-Illinois State line, and within the Chicago metropolitan area. |

The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence

agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which the populations could be disproportionately

affected. In addition, the staff did not identify or observe any location-dependent

disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and low-income populations. Based on the 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-64 July 2006

staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information including a site visit to LaSalle

on March 11, 2004, the staff concludes that the environmental justice consequences of the

construction and operation of a new nuclear facility would be SMALL and that mitigation would

not be warranted.

8.5.4 Quad Cities Generating Station

The Quad Cities Generating Station is located in Rock Island County, Illinois, on the east bank

of Pool 14 of the Mississippi River, about 26 km (16 mi) below Dam 13 and 21 km (13 mi) from

Dam 14. The station is approximately 800 km (500 mi) upstream from the Mississippi’s

confluence with the Ohio River (i.e., River Mile 506.5) (Exelon 2002b).

The Quad Cities metropolitan area, consisting of the cities of Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa,

and Rock Island, Moline, and East Moline, Illinois, is located 32 km (20 mi) southwest of the

Quad Cities site. The station is about 6 km (4 mi) north of Cordova, Illinois, and 16 km (10 mi)

southwest of Clinton, Iowa (Exelon 2002b). The region within 10 km (6 mi) of the site includes

portions of Rock Island and Whiteside Counties in Illinois and Scott and Clinton Counties

in Iowa.

The Quad Cities site consists of 331 ha (817 ac) and includes two nuclear reactors and their

turbine buildings, intake and discharge canals, and ancillary buildings, switchyards, and a

| retired spray canal now used to raise fish (NRC 2004c). Most of the western portion of the

Quad Cities site is industrial, containing the major generating facilities, switchyard, warehouses,

parking lots, and roads. Open fields and areas of planted pines occupy most of the eastern

portion of the Quad Cities site. With the exception of an industrial park immediately north of the

site and some forested bottom lands between the developed portion of the site and the

Mississippi River, the surrounding lands are mostly agricultural, with large fields planted in grain

| (primarily corn) and forage crops. The station uses a once-through cooling system with the

| Mississippi River as source and receiving waters.

8.5.4.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Land around the station supports a combination of agricultural and industrial uses. Some land

in the region has been set aside for recreational and environmental use. The Mississippi River

supports a large sport fishery as well as commercial and recreational boating. Current land use

at the Quad Cities site is not expected to change or expand, and there would be no preemption

or adverse effects on land that has been set aside for environmental or recreational uses

| (Exelon 2006).
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-65 NUREG-1815

In its ER, Exelon states that the site does not have additional available land within its

boundaries to build a new nuclear unit. An operating unit would need to be decommissioned

and dismantled so that the new nuclear unit could be constructed on the decommissioned unit’s

footprint (Exelon 2006). |

Overall, the land-use factors of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit are not

particularly site-dependent. The staff visited the Quad Cities site in March 2004. The footprint

of a new unit would be less than 41 ha (100 ac) (Exelon 2006) and, based on observation of the |

site, the staff believes it could be configured to fit within the existing, previously disturbed

331 ha (817 ac) of the Quad Cities site. Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that

the potential land-use impacts associated with site-preparation and construction and resulting

from operation of a new unit at the Quad Cities site would be SMALL.

The impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit on air quality would be similar

at each of the alternative sites and would not be a significant factor in the determination of

environmental preferability. Therefore, these impacts are discussed generically in

Section 8.6.1. 

Five transmission lines connect Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 to the electric grid. These lines span |

184 km (115 mi) and cover approximately 890 ha (2200 ac), traversing 90 to 95 percent |

agricultural land along with some natural terrestrial habitats, the upper Mississippi River |

National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (NWFR), and the Princeton Wildlife Management Area |

(NRC 2004c). |

The existing transmission lines serving the Quad Cities site are assumed not to have the

capacity to carry the power that would be generated by a new nuclear unit. It is likely that new

transmission lines and possibly additional rights-of-way would be needed. An additional

transmission line could be installed via an expansion of an existing right-of-way, which the staff

believes to be the likely scenario, or could follow a new right-of-way. Assuming that any

transmission system modifications would be expansions of existing rights-of-way for reasons

similar to those discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 for expansion to support the Exelon ESP site,

the staff concludes that the land impacts associated with the expansion would be SMALL. The

procedures for adding the new transmission lines to connect a new nuclear unit at Quad Cities

to the transmission grid are similar to those described in Section 3.3.

8.5.4.2 Hydrology, Water Use, and Water Quality

The staff assumed that a new nuclear unit at the Quad Cities site would use cooling towers for |

station cooling and withdraw makeup water from the Mississippi River. Because there is no |

stream gauge on the Mississippi River near the Quad Cities location, the staff estimated the

7Q10 (7-day average minimum annual flow) and 30Q2 (median 30-day minimum annual 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-66 July 2006

discharge) based on data from three USGS stream gauges: 05420500 (Mississippi River at

Clinton, Iowa), 05422000 (Wapsipinicon River near DeWitt, Iowa), and 05446500 (Rock River

near Joslin, Illinois). Data for the period of record from 1939 through 2003 were used to

estimate the 7Q10 and 30Q2 values. The drainage area contributing to the site was estimated

to be 253,819 km2

 (98,000 mi2). The 7Q10 and 30Q2 values estimated by the staff are 439 m3/s

(15,490 cfs) and 723 m3

/s (25,532 cfs), respectively. The net consumptive loss for a wet cooling

tower, based on the PPE, is 2.0 m3

/s (70 cfs) or 0.5 and 0.3 percent of the Mississippi River

| 7Q10 and 30Q2, respectively.

Any releases of contaminants to the waters of the State of Illinois would be regulated by the

IEPA through the NPDES permit process to ensure that water quality is protected. 

Based on the requirements of the current Quad Cities NPDES permit and the above analysis,

the staff concludes that the water-use and water quality impacts of an additional unit at the

Quad Cities site would be SMALL.

8.5.4.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

| The 331-ha (818-ac) Quad Cities site is located in an area with sandy soil and little shrub or

| forest habitat. The site consists of developed and undeveloped areas. The developed areas

| mostly occupy the western half of the site. Undeveloped areas are located generally on the

| eastern half of the site and support habitats that include open fields and planted pines

| (NRC 2004c).

| Five transmission lines connect Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 to the electric grid. These lines are

| 185 km (116 mi) long and traverse 90 to 95 percent agricultural land, along with some natural

| terrestrial habitats, the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (NWFR) and

| Princeton Wildlife Management Area (NRC 2004c). They cover approximately 880 ha (2200

| ac). It is assumed that these transmission lines do not have the capacity to carry the power that

| would be generated by a new unit at the Quad Cities site, and it is likely that new transmission

| lines and, thus, expanded rights-of-way would be needed.

| There are four State-listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species known to occur within

| 3.2 km (2 mi) to 16 km (10 mi) of the Quad Cities site, and one (the river otter

| [Lutra canadensis]) that occurs within 3.2 km (2 mi) (IDNR 2004c).

| Construction Impacts

| The staff assumed that structures for a new nuclear unit (power block structures, normal heat-

| sink cooling towers, switchyard expansion, new intake structures, and safety-related cooling

| towers) would be constructed primarily in developed areas of the Quad Cites site, where 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-67 NUREG-1815

possible. However, if construction were to occur in undeveloped portions of the site, it would |

also of be of minor ecological consequence because of the disturbed nature of the habitats that |

occur there (e.g., open fields and planted pines). Consequently, terrestrial ecological impacts |

from construction of a new nuclear unit at the Quad Cities site would be negligible. |

For the purpose of this analysis, the staff assumed that any transmission system upgrades |

would be expansions of existing rights-of-way and that such expansions would consist of |

doubling the current corridor width. Terrestrial ecological impacts associated with the upgrade |

could range from minor to extensive, depending on potential impacts to the Upper Mississippi |

River NWFR and Princeton Wildlife Management Area. |

Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff |

concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from construction of a new nuclear unit at |

the Quad Cities site and construction associated with possible upgrade of the existing Quad |

Cities transmission system could range from SMALL to LARGE. |

Operational Impacts |

Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from operation of a new nuclear unit at the Quad |

Cities site include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. Impacts |

resulting from the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines would be of similar |

magnitude at all the alterative sites and, thus, cannot be used to discriminate between them. |

Therefore, operational impacts are discussed generically in Section 8.6. |

Threatened or Endangered Species |

There are six Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species that may occur in the |

vicinity of the Quad Cities site and its transmission lines: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), bald |

eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Iowa Pleistocene snail (Discus macclintocki), western prairie |

fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara), eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea), |

and prairie bush clover (Lespedeza leptstachya) (NRC 2004c; FWS 2004a). Of these six |

species, designated critical habitat exists only for the Indiana bat (FWS 1976, 2004a; |

NRC 2004c). |

The endangered Indiana bat potentially occurs throughout Illinois where forest habitat is present |

(FWS 2004a). However, its occurrence on the Quad Cities site has not been noted |

(NRC 2004c). The only critical habitat for the Indiana bat in Illinois is the Blackball Mine in |

LaSalle County (FWS 1976). |

The threatened bald eagle is known to winter and night roost along large rivers, lakes, and |

reservoirs in Rock Island County (FWS 2004a). The bald eagle is a common visitor to the |

Upper Mississippi River Valley (within which the Savanna District of the Upper Mississippi River |
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-68 July 2006

| NWFR is located), to which the Quad Cities site is adjacent. The bald eagle uses this area as a

| winter migration corridor and for nesting. The bald eagle nest nearest to the Quad Cities site is

located on Beaver Island, 11 km (7 mi) to the north (NRC 2004c; IDNR 2004c).

| The endangered Iowa Pleistocene snail inhabits algific (i.e., cold-producing) talus slopes, within

| the leaf litter of cool and moist hillsides. The snail has been found at approximately 30 sites in

| Iowa and Illinois, but not at the Quad Cities site. Suitable habitat is unlikely to occur at the site

| because the majority of the land is flat and agricultural (NRC 2004c).

| The threatened western prairie fringed orchid occurs in mesic to wet tallgrass prairies and

| meadows, but is also found in old fields and roadside ditches. It is restricted to areas west of

| the Mississippi River and is thus unlikely to be found at the Quad Cities site (NRC 2004c).

| The threatened eastern prairie fringed orchid prefers mesic to wet tallgrass prairie or grassland

| habitats, but can also occupy bogs, fens, and sedge meadows. No occurrences of this species

| have been documented on the Quad Cities site (NRC 2004c).

| The threatened prairie bush clover occurs on dry gravel and sand prairies, in areas too rocky or

| steep to be plowed. Fourteen known populations occur in Illinois at present, but none of these

| is in Rock Island County (NRC 2004c).

| Occurrences of the Indiana bat, Iowa Pleistocene snail, western and eastern prairie fringed

| orchids, and prairie bush clover on the Quad Cities site are unlikely. The bald eagle nest

| nearest to the Quad Cities site is sufficiently distant to preclude disturbance. Consequently,

| potential impacts to these species from construction of a new nuclear unit on the Quad Cities

| site would be minimal.

| The six Federally listed species noted above could occur in areas along the Quad Cities

| transmission lines. However, occurrence of the Indiana bat along the Quad Cities transmission

| lines has not been noted (NRC 2004c). The bald eagle nest nearest to a Quad Cities

| transmission line is located on Beaver Island, 7.2 km (4.5 mi) north of the Rock Creek

| transmission line (NRC 2004c). Suitable habitat for the Iowa Pleistocene snail is unlikely to

| occur in the immediate vicinity of the Quad Cities transmission line rights-of-way because the

| majority of this land is flat and agricultural (NRC 2004c). The western prairie fringed orchid

| could be found along the Davenport and Rock Creek transmission lines but has not been

| documented there (NRC 2004c). The eastern prairie fringed orchid could be found along the

| Quad Cities transmission lines but has not been documented there (NRC 2004c). It is unlikely

| that the prairie bush clover would be along the Quad Cities transmission lines because it grows

| primarily on agricultural land.

| Occurrences of the Indiana bat, Iowa Pleistocene snail, western and eastern prairie fringed

| orchids, and prairie bush clover along the Quad Cities transmission lines are unlikely. The bald 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-69 NUREG-1815

eagle nest nearest to the Quad Cities transmission lines is sufficiently distant to preclude |

disturbance. Consequently, potential impacts to these species from possible expansion of the |

transmission line rights-of-way would be minimal. |

Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff |

concludes that the impacts on threatened and endangered species from construction of a new |

nuclear unit at the Quad Cities site and construction associated with possible upgrade of the |

existing Quad Cities transmission system would be SMALL. |

8.5.4.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

The principal aquatic resources in the vicinity of the Quad Cities site are associated with the

Mississippi River. Other important aquatic habitats include several tributaries of the Mississippi

River (e.g., the Wapsipinicon River in Iowa that flows into the Mississippi River immediately

upstream of the Quad Cities site) and the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 retired spray canal. The

spray canal is currently used to raise walleye (Sander vitreus) primarily for release into Pool 14 |

of the Mississippi River (NRC 2004c). |

The overall fish biodiversity of the Upper Mississippi River has been persistent and resilient. 

Fish species considered abundant within the Upper Mississippi River include gizzard shad

(Dorosoma cepedianum), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), emerald shiner (Notropis

atherinoides), river shiner (N. blennius), bullhead minnow (Pimephales vigilax), and bluegill

(Lepomis macrochirus). Common species include longnose and shortnose gar (Lepisosteus

osseus and L. platostomus), bowfin (Amia calva), mooneye (Hiodon tergisus), spottail shiner

(N. hudsonius), river carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio), quillback (C. cyprinus), bigmouth buffalo

(Ictiobus cyprinellus), shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum), channel catfish

(Ictalurus punctatus), white and hybrid white bass (Morone chrysops and M. chrysops x

M. saxatilis), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and river

darter (Percina shumardi) (NRC 2004c). Favorite sport fish species include walleye, sauger |

(Sander canadensis), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass |

(Micropterus dolomieu), white bass (Morone chrysops), bluegill, black and white crappie |

(Pomoxis nigromaculatus and P. annularis), pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), and channel catfish

(Ictalurus punctatus). Commercial fisheries also exist for some species, such as the bigmouth

buffalo, common carp, catfish and bullheads (Ictaluridae), and freshwater drum |

(Aplodinotus grunniens) (NRC 2004c). |

The impoundments for the navigation system on the Mississippi River favor submersed aquatic

vegetation by increasing shallow water surface area and stabilizing low-discharge water levels

(NRC 2004c). Generally, benthic macroinvertebrate densities are low throughout the Upper |

Mississippi. The Upper Mississippi River contains a rich assemblage of freshwater mussels. 

The non-indigenous zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) became established in the Upper 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-70 July 2006

Mississippi River by 1992 and has continued to spread throughout the river system. Its increase

causes a decline in many native mussels, as it can out-compete native species for oxygen and

food and is so prolific that it can smother native mussel beds.

| Construction Impacts

The construction of a cooling-water intake structure and discharge might be necessary if a new

nuclear unit were to be located at the Quad Cities site. Aquatic biota, including recreational

sport fish, would be temporarily displaced during the construction period. However, they would

be expected to recolonize the region after construction is complete. It is expected that the

disturbances to aquatic resources would be localized and of relatively short duration.

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of construction

| of a new nuclear unit at the Quad Cities site on aquatic resources would be SMALL.

| Operational Impacts

The aquatic impact most likely to occur as a result of operations of a new nuclear unit at the

Quad Cities site would be impingement and entrainment of organisms from the

| Mississippi River. Any new nuclear unit at the Quad Cities ESP site would be required to meet

| the new EPA Phase I ruling, which is likely to require close-cycle cooling. Operation of the new

| ESP unit utilizing closed-cycle cooling would withdraw substantially less water from the

| Mississippi River than the two Quad Cities reactors, resulting in significantly less impingement

| and entrainment loss. Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts to aquatic resources from

operation of a new nuclear unit at Quad Cities would be SMALL.

| Threatened or Endangered Species

| One endangered aquatic species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Higgins’ eye

| pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii), has the potential to occur in the vicinity of Quad Cities

| (NRC 2004c). Two areas designated as Essential Habitat Areas are located as near as 1.6 km

| (1 mi) downstream of the Quad Cities site (NRC 2004c; FWS 2003). These Essential Habitat

| Areas are locations known to contain reproducing populations of the Higgins’ eye pearlymussel

| in association with a healthy and diverse community (e.g., mussel beds). This species is found

| in sand/gravel substrates and swift-flowing currents.

| Prior to any in-river activities during construction, a survey of the river bottom could be

| conducted to determine if the Higgins’ eye pearlymussel is present in the area of impact. If

| present, individual mussels could be relocated from the site, either temporarily or permanently,

| in advance of in-water construction activities.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-71 NUREG-1815

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff |

concludes that the overall impact on Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species |

from construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Quad Cities site would be SMALL if |

mitigation measures are followed, but could be MODERATE if measures are not followed to |

protect the endangered Higgins’ eye pearlymussel. |

8.5.4.5 Socioeconomics

This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Quad Cities site. The evaluation assesses

impacts of construction and operation and of those demands placed by the workforce on the

surrounding region.

Physical Impacts

The physical impacts of the construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at Quad Cities are

similar to those for the other alternative sites. They are discussed generically in Section 8.6.4.

Demography

The Quad Cities site is located in Rock Island County, Illinois, on the east bank of the

Mississippi River, 6.4 km (4 mi) north of Cordova, Illinois, and 16 km (10 mi) southwest of

Clinton, Iowa (Exelon 2002b). The site is approximately 800 km (500 mi) upstream from the |

Mississippi’s confluence with the Ohio River (Exelon 2002b) and approximately 264 km (165 mi) |

west of Chicago. The Quad Cities metropolitan area, consisting of the Cities of Davenport and

Bettendorf, Iowa, and Rock Island, Moline, and East Moline, Illinois, is located 20 miles

southwest of Quad Cities. The region within 6 miles of the site includes portions of Rock Island

and Whiteside Counties in Illinois and Scott and Clinton Counties in Iowa (Exelon 2002b). |

Rock Island County is a part of the Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, Iowa-Illinois Metropolitan

Statistical Area (MSA) which also includes East Moline, Illinois and Bettendorf, Iowa. The

2000 Census population of the Metropolitan Statistical Area was 359,062 (USCB 2000e).

Some new jobs might result from the multiplier effect attributable to the construction and

operations workforce and might result in some increase in population in the region. But these

increases, when compared to the total population base in the region, would be minimal. Any

multiplier effects resulting from construction and operation workers’ expenditures would most 

likely mean that some residents would obtain new or higher paying jobs as a result of the 

increased economic activity. Most of the construction and operation workers would be 

expected to come from within the region. Even if all the construction and operation workforce 

were to relocate to the region, they would represent a small percentage increase in the total 

population base. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-72 July 2006

independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of

construction and operation on increases in population within the region would be SMALL.

Impacts to the Community - Social and Economic

This subsection discusses the site-specific impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the Quad Cities site. Some of the impacts of construction and operation of a new

unit that are generic are discussed in Section 8.6.4.

Economy

The recession of the early 1980s affected the agricultural sector and the smokestack industries

that relied upon the farm business. During that recession, the region’s workforce declined by

| 1.1 percent (Exelon 2002b). The area is still recovering; however, a shift has taken place from

an economy that was heavily reliant on agriculture to one centered on service providers

| (Exelon 2002b).

The nonprofessional services sector realized a 121.1 percent increase in employment between

1980 and 1996. During that same period, manufacturing employment declined by 41 percent,

durable goods production by 54.4 percent, and non-electrical machine production by

| 63.3 percent (Exelon 2002b). For Rock Island County, the 2001 leading economic employment

| sectors and respective rankings were as follows: manufacturing (14 percent), retail trade

| (12 percent), and health care and social assistance (13 percent) (USCB 2001g). For Scott

| County, Iowa, the leading sectors were manufacturing (16 percent), retail trade (14 percent),

| and healthcare and social assistance (12 percent) (USCB 2001h). For Whiteside County,

| Illinois, the 2001 leading sectors were manufacturing (30 percent), healthcare and social

| assistance (17 percent), and retail trade (16 percent) (USCB 2001i).

The annualized unemployment rate for the State of Illinois for 2000 was 4.3 percent. In

| comparison, Rock Island and Whiteside Counties had 2000 unemployment rates of 4.6 and

| 4.2 percent, respectively (IDES 2000a). For the State of Iowa, the annualized unemployment

| rate for 2000 was 2.7 percent. Scott County’s 2000 unemployment rate was 3.3 percent (not

seasonally adjusted) (IWD 2000a, 2000b).

In summary, the magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused within the larger

economic base of the Quad Cities region. Therefore, based on the information provided by

Exelon and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff

concludes that the beneficial impacts of construction and operation on the economy of the

region would be SMALL. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-73 NUREG-1815

Taxes

Taxes collected as a result of constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Quad Cities

site would be of benefit to the State and to local jurisdictions that collected and spend them. |

The Quad Cities site would pay property taxes to Rock Island and other jurisdictions within the |

County. For the years 1997 to 2000, the Quad Cities property taxes provided approximately |

2.8 percent of Rock Island County’s total collections available for distribution (Exelon 2002b). 

Personal and corporate income taxes and sales and use taxes would also be collected over the

construction and operating periods for a new facility. While large in absolute amount, the

amounts collected would be small when compared to the total taxes collected by Illinois and

Rock Island County. Similarly, while the total sales, use, and income taxes would be large in

absolute amounts, they would be small when compared to the total taxes collected. Therefore,

based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the beneficial impacts of construction

and operation on taxes collected would be SMALL. 

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community

This subsection discusses the site specific impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the Quad Cities site concerning transportation, aesthetics and recreation, and

housing. Some of the impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit that are

generic (such as public services) are discussed in Section 8.6.4.

Transportation

Road access to the Quad Cities site is via Illinois State Route 84, a two-lane paved road. 

Route 84 intersects with I-80 approximately 23 km (14 mi) south of the site. Other freeways

transecting the area near Quad Cities include I-74 and I-88. The State of Illinois does not make

LOS determinations in rural, nonmetropolitan areas such as at the Quad Cities site unless it is

deemed necessary. Consequently, Route 84 and I-80 do not have LOS determinations

calculated by the Illinois Department of Transportation (Exelon 2002b). During its site visit, the

staff observed that the roads in the vicinity of the site were lightly traveled and well maintained.

The construction workforce would number 3150 (Exelon 2006). This number is in addition to |

the 980 permanent and contract operating employees. The permanent and contract workforce |

increases by roughly 1100 (for approximately 20 days) during refueling outage. QCNPS is on a |

24-month refueling cycle (Exelon 2002b). Highway transport would be used in the conveyance |

of construction materials to the site. This would put more traffic on the roads leading to the site,

resulting in congestion, particularly at shift changes. Corrective measures probably could be

taken to minimize traffic congestion and safety hazards, such as using multi-shift workforces. 

Once the employees reached the vicinity of the Quad Cities site, they could easily disperse

throughout the region on the interstates and state routes traversing the area. Therefore, based 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

(a) It appears that when Exelon purchased the six reactor sites in Illinois that are now being considered

as alternatives to the proposed ESP site, land deemed to be excess was sold off. In the case of the

Quad Cities site, a fairly large parcel of land, located due east and across Route 84 from the Quad

Cities site, was sold within the last 18 to 24 months (from the date of the March 4, 2004, site visit). 

The land is currently in agricultural production and, if not sold, could have been used for construction

of a new facility. Even without this acreage, the staff’s observations during the March 4, 2004, site

visit suggested that sufficient land exists on the current site to construct and operate a new facility.

NUREG-1815 8-74 July 2006

on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissancelevel information, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction on transportation would be

SMALL, if impacts are actively mitigated, to MODERATE, if mitigation does not take place. 

| Up to an additional 580 cars on the road for operating employees of a new nuclear unit plus the

| 980 operating QCGS employees and 1100 temporary refueling workforce (assuming a single

| occupant per car) would not materially increase the congest the highway except at shift

changes. These impacts could be mitigated by staggering the shift changes between the plants

(currently operating at the Quad Cities site and a new unit). Based on the information provided

by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff

concludes that the impacts of operation on transportation would be SMALL and could be

mitigated.

Aesthetics and Recreation

Topographic relief at the Quad Cities site is low and relatively flat. The station elevation

represented by the ground-floor level of the reactor building is 182 m (595 ft) above MSL. The

ground surface drops off abruptly at the bank of the Mississippi River, forming a bluff about 9 m

(30 ft) high. The station is located on a 331-ha (817-ac) tract of land(a) and has a 94-m (310-ft)

| cooling tower (Exelon 2006).

That part of the site that has not been developed has slightly undulating to flat terrain and is

lightly wooded with scrub oak and other trees. The trees are of small diameter, which would

indicate that at one time bigger trees were harvested from the site.

The Quad Cities site is in a predominantly agricultural area. The area around the site is

sparsely populated. There are some residential homes on large lots along the Mississippi River

due south of the plant boundary.

The upper Mississippi River’s aquatic resources in the vicinity of the Quad Cities site are

diverse and abundant. The overall fish biodiversity of the Upper Mississippi River has been

persistent and resilient. Recreational fishing takes place on the river, and two popular

gamefish, walleye and hybrid striped bass, have increased in the vicinity since 1985 as a result

| of a stocking program carried out by Southern Illinois University and Exelon (Exelon 2006).
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-75 NUREG-1815

The Quad Cities generating facilities are not generally visible from the main-access highway,

but the plume from the cooling tower is visible from some distance, given the right

meteorological conditions. Exelon assumed that a new nuclear facility would have roughly the

same general environmental impact as the existing facility (Exelon 2006). An additional visible |

plume could result from the heat-dissipation system of a new facility. |

A new facility probably would have visual impacts similar to those of the existing operating units |

at Quad Cities. There would be minor impacts on aesthetic quality for nearby residences, which |

are located in an agricultural area. Cooling tower plumes from a new unit would be visible

under certain meteorological conditions in addition to plumes from the existing cooling tower. 

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and

operation on aesthetics and recreation would be SMALL and that additional mitigation would not

be warranted. 

Housing

Since 1970, Rock Island County has experienced a decline in population. The 10.4 percent

population decline between 1980 and 1990 was directly related to the faltering economy of the

region. There has been a shift from dependence on heavy industry and manufacturing to

nonprofessional service provision and retail trade. Because the younger population is leaving

the County and the area, accommodations for population growth through increases in available

housing has not been a concern (Exelon 2002b). In 2000, in the three counties of Rock Island

and Whiteside Counties, Illinois, and Scott County, Iowa, there were 155,163 housing units,

8433 of which were vacant (5.4 percent). In the Quad Cities metropolitan area, consisting of the

cities of Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa, and Rock Island, Moline, and East Moline, Illinois,

there were 100,411 housing units, with 5663 vacant houses (5.6 percent) (USCB 2000f).

Most of the construction workers for a new unit are assumed to come from within the region and

commute to the job site. Thus, relatively few workers would be expected to move and take up

residence in the area, and those that did could find housing within the six-county area.

If built, the ESP facility would have up to 580 employees when operational (Exelon 2006). |

There are 980 permanent and contracting operating personnel, approximately 77 percent of

whom live in Rock Island and Whiteside Counties (Illinois) or in Scott County (Iowa) (total

population 368,695) (USCB 2000f; Exelon 2002b). If 77 percent (or approximately 445) of the

new employees and their families were to locate in these three counties, there would be an

increase in population of approximately 1780 (assuming a family of four for each worker), or an

increase in the population of the three-county area of 0.46 percent.

Most of the construction and operation workforce is expected to already be in the region and

have residences in the region. Should this be the case, there would be little increase in 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-76 July 2006

demand for housing as a result. If the workers were not already in the region and some decided

to relocate, the area would have a sufficient number of housing units to accommodate any

relocations. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s

independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of

construction and operation on the availability of housing would be SMALL and that mitigation

would not be warranted.

8.5.4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The impacts of construction and operation of a new facility on historic and cultural resources are

discussed generically in Section 8.6.5.

8.5.4.7 Environmental Justice

Exelon followed NRC guidance (NRC 2001) in applying environmental justice criteria in its ER

| for license renewal of the Quad Cities facility (Exelon 2002b). The NRC staff has reviewed the

| analysis using updated NRC guidance (NRC 2004a; 69 FR 52040).

The 2000 Census and block groups were used for ascertaining environmental justice issues for

minority populations for license renewal and the 1990 Census and census tracts were used for

| low-income environmental justice issues. Based on the “more than 20 percent or exceeds

| 50 percent criteria,” no American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other

| Pacific Islander and no multi-racial minorities live in the geographic area. Based on the “more

| than 20 percent” criterion, Black Races minority populations live in 23 block groups (out of 637). 

| Based on the “more than 20 percent” criterion, “All Other Single Minorities” minority populations

exist in three block groups. Based on the “exceeds 50 percent” criterion, the aggregate of

| minority races populations exist in 33 block groups. Based on the “more than 20 percent

| criterion, Hispanic Ethnicity minority populations live in 12 block groups (Exelon 2002b). For

low-income populations, based on the “more than 20 percent” criterion, one census tract

contains a low-income population (out of 202 census tracts) (Exelon 2002b).

The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence

agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which populations could be disproportionately affected. 

In addition, the staff did not identify or observe any location-dependent disproportionate impacts

affecting these minority and low-income populations. Most of the minority and low-income

populations are located in the Quad Cities, approximately 32 km (20 mi) south of Quad Cities, or

at greater distances. Based on a review of the Quad Cities ER for license renewal and the

staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, including a site visit on

March 9, 2004, the staff concludes that the environmental justice consequences of the

construction and operation of a new nuclear facility at the Quad Cities site would be SMALL and

that mitigation would not be warranted.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-77 NUREG-1815

8.5.5 Byron Generating Station

The Byron Generating Station is located in northern Illinois, 6 km (3.7 mi) south-southwest of

the City of Byron (population 2917), 27 km (17 mi) southwest of Rockford, Illinois (population

150,115), 3.5 km (2.2 mi) east of the Rock River, in Ogle County (USCB 2000g) and |

approximately 112 km (70 mi) west of downtown Chicago. DeKalb, Illinois (population 39,018), |

is approximately 45 km (28 mi) southeast of the plant (USCB 2000g). The site is situated in the

approximate center of Ogle County in a predominantly agricultural area (Exelon 2006). |

Byron occupies approximately 721 ha (1782 ac) of land. The main site area occupies

approximately 566 ha (1398 ac), while the transmission line right-of-way occupies the remaining

155 ha (384 ac). Two nuclear units are in operation at the site and their two 151-m (495-ft) |

cooling towers dominate the site. The total footprint for the plant itself is approximately 40 ha

(100 ac). The Rock River provides source and receiving waters. There are no industrial, |

institutional, commercial, recreational, or residential structures on the site, other than those

used by Exelon in the normal conduct of its utility business. The development of the site for

uses other than power generation and agriculture is not planned (Exelon 2002c). Exelon

assumed that a new nuclear facility at the site would have roughly the same general

environmental impact as the existing facility. The station utilizes closed-cycle cooling tower |

system with the Rock River as the source and receiving waters. |

8.5.5.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Land use within the 8-km (5-mi) radius of the Byron site is agricultural. There is little industry in

the vicinity, and what exists primarily supports the agrarian economy. Wheat, corn, and

soybeans are the primary products. The principal land use in the region of the site is also

agriculture (Exelon 2002c; AEC 1974b). |

In its ER, Exelon states that the Byron site does not have additional available land within its

boundaries to build a new nuclear unit. An operating unit would need to be decommissioned

and dismantled so that the new nuclear unit could be constructed on the decommissioned unit’s

footprint (Exelon 2006). |

The footprint of a new plant would be about 41 ha (100 ac) (Exelon 2006) and after visiting the |

Byron site on March 10, 2004, the NRC staff believes that the facility could be configured to fit

within the existing 566 ha (1398 ac) of the main site. Overall, the land-use factors of

construction and operation of a new nuclear unit are not particularly site-dependent. The staff

concludes that potential land-use impacts associated with site-preparation and construction and

operation of a new unit at the Byron site would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-78 July 2006

The impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit on air quality would be similar

at each of the alternative sites and would not be a significant factor in determination of

environmental preferability. Therefore, these impacts are discussed generically in

Section 8.6.1. 

| Byron is connected to the electric grid via 86 km (54 mi) of transmission line rights-of-way that

| cover about 800 ha (1977 ac) (NRC 1996). When the two existing nuclear units were

| constructed, these rights-of-way crossed primarily agricultural land (83 percent), mixed forest

| and field (9 percent), and forest (7 percent) (AEC 1974b). 

The existing transmission lines serving Byron are assumed not to have the capacity to carry the

power that would be generated by a new nuclear unit at the site. It is likely that new

transmission lines and possibly additional rights-of-way would be needed. The additional

transmission lines could be installed via expansion of an existing right-of-way, which the staff

believes to be the likely scenario, or could follow a new corridor. Assuming that any

transmission system modifications would be expansions of existing rights-of-way for reasons

similar to those discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 for expansion to support the Exelon ESP site,

the staff concludes that the land-use impacts associated with the expansion would be SMALL. 

The procedures for adding the new transmission lines to connect a new nuclear unit at the

Byron site to the transmission grid would be similar to those described in Section 3.3.

8.5.5.2 Hydrology, Water Use, and Water Quality

| The staff assumed a new nuclear unit at Byron would use wet cooling towers and withdraw

makeup water from the Rock River. The staff estimated the 7Q10 (7-day average minimum

annual flow) and 30Q2 (median 30-day minimum annual discharge) based on data from USGS

stream gauge 05443500 on the Rock River at Como, Illinois. Data for the period of record from

1914 through 2003 were used to estimate the 7Q10 and 30Q2 values. This gauge is slightly

downstream of Byron. The drainage area upstream of the gauge is reported by the USGS to be

22,670 km2

 (8753 mi2), whereas the drainage area upstream of the site was estimated to be

20,717 km2

 (7999 mi2). The 7Q10 and 30Q2 values estimated by staff are 26.2 m3/s (927 cfs)

and 47.3 m3

/s (1670 cfs), respectively. The net consumptive loss for a wet cooling tower, based

on the PPE, is 2.0 m3 | /s (70 cfs) or 7.6 and 4.2 percent of the Rock River 7Q10 and 30Q2,

respectively.

Any releases of contaminants to the waters of the State of Illinois would be regulated by the

IEPA through the NPDES permit process to ensure that water quality is protected. Based on

the requirements of the current Byron NPDES permit and the above analysis, the staff

concludes that the water use and water quality impacts of an additional unit at the Byron site

would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-79 NUREG-1815

8.5.5.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

Before construction of the existing plant, the Byron site was mainly an agricultural area |

(50 percent crop land), containing smaller areas of grassland and fallow fields (about |

35 percent) and remnant forest (about 15 percent) (AEC 1974b). |

Byron Generating Station is connected to the electric grid via 80 km (50 mi) of transmission |

lines (AEC 1976b) covering 800 ha (1977 ac) (NRC 1996). These lines cross primarily |

agricultural land (83 percent), mixed forest and field (9 percent), and forest (7 percent) |

(AEC 1974b). It is assumed that these transmission lines do not have the capacity to carry the |

power that would be generated by a new unit at the Byron site, and it is likely that new |

transmission lines and, thus, expanded rights-of-way would be needed. |

There are 30 State-listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species known to occur within |

3.2 km (2 mi) to 16 km (10 mi) of the Byron site, and one that occurs within 3.2 km (2 mi) |

(redroot [Ceanothus ovatus]) (IDNR 2004c). |

Construction Impacts |

The staff assumed that structures for new facility (power block structures, normal heat-sink |

cooling towers, switchyard expansion, new intake structures, and safety-related cooling towers) |

would be constructed primarily in agricultural/fallow field areas of the Byron site, where possible, |

with minimal impacts to remnant forest or grassland. Consequently, terrestrial ecological |

impacts from construction of a new nuclear unit at the Byron site would be negligible.

For the purpose of this analysis, the staff assumed that any transmission system upgrades |

would result in expansions of existing rights-of-way and that such expansions would consist of |

doubling the current corridor width. Based on this assumption, a loss of at least 57 ha (140 ac) |

of forest would be anticipated. Terrestrial ecological impacts associated with the upgrade would |

be expected to be negligible because most of the land cover is agricultural and because loss of |

this amount of forest over 86 km (54 mi) of corridor would be insignificant.

Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff |

concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from construction of a new nuclear unit at |

the Byron site and construction associated with possible upgrade of the existing Byron |

transmission system would be SMALL. |

Operational Impacts |

Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from operation of a new nuclear unit at the Byron site |

include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. Impacts resulting from |
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-80 July 2006

| the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines would be of similar magnitude at all the

| alternative sites and, thus, cannot be used to discriminate between them. Therefore,

| operational impacts are discussed generically in Section 8.6.

| Threatened or Endangered Species

| There are four Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species that may occur in

| the vicinity of the Byron site and the transmission lines: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), bald eagle

| (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea), and prairie

| bush clover (Lespedeza leptstachya) (FWS 2004a). Of these four species, designated critical

habitat exists only for the Indiana bat (FWS 1976).

| The endangered Indiana bat potentially occurs throughout Illinois where forest habitat is present

| (FWS 2004a). The only critical habitat for the Indiana bat in Illinois is the Blackball Mine in

| LaSalle County (FWS 1976). It is unlikely that the Indiana bat occurs on the Byron site because

the preponderance of the site is unforested (AEC 1974b).

| The threatened bald eagle is known to nest and winter along large rivers, lakes, and reservoirs

| in Ogle County (FWS 2004a). However, there are no known bald eagle occurrences within

| 16 km (10 mi) of the Byron site (IDNR 2004c).

| The threatened eastern prairie fringed orchid occupies wet grassland habitats and may occur in

| Ogle County (FWS 2004a); however, it is not known to occur within 16 km (10 mi) of the Byron

| site (IDNR 2004c). 

| The threatened prairie bush clover occupies dry to mesic prairies with gravelly soil (FWS 2004a)

| and is known to occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) to 16 km (10 mi) of the Byron site (IDNR 2004c). It is

| unlikely that the prairie bush clover occurs on the Byron site due to a preponderance of

agricultural habitat and a paucity of prairie habitat.

| Consequently, impacts to Federally listed species from construction of a new nuclear unit on the

| Byron site and possible expansion of the transmission line rights-of-way would be minimal.

| Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff

| concludes that the impacts on threatened and endangered species from construction of a new

| nuclear unit at the Byron site and construction associated with possible upgrade of the existing

| Byron transmission system would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-81 NUREG-1815

8.5.5.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

The two operating units at Byron draw makeup water from the Rock River for cooling system

operation and discharge blowdown from cooling towers to the same river. Water from the

Rock River would likely serve these functions for any new nuclear unit placed on the site

(Exelon 2006). The Rock River contains populations of recreational sport fish, including |

channel catfish, walleye, northern pike, largemouth and smallmouth bass, sauger, white bass,

bluegill, flathead catfish, drum, and bullheads. A limited number of commercial fishing contracts

are available on the Rock River for carp, big mouth buffalo, freshwater drum, suckers,

carpsuckers, gar, bowfin, grass carp, Asian carp, and gizzard shad (IDNR 2004a). |

Construction Impacts |

The construction of a cooling-water intake structure and discharge would be necessary if a new |

nuclear unit were to be located at the Byron site. Sport and commercial fisheries and other

aquatic organisms and habitats would only be temporarily affected by construction. It is

expected that the disturbance to aquatic resources from construction would be localized and of

relatively short duration.

The NRC staff reviewed the information provided by Exelon and concludes that the

environmental impacts of construction of a new nuclear unit on aquatic resources at the Byron |

site would be SMALL.

Operational Impacts |

The aquatic impact most likely to occur as a result of operation of a new nuclear reactor at the

Byron site is impingement and entrainment of organisms from the Rock River. Any new nuclear |

unit at the Byron ESP site would be required to meet the new EPA Phase I regulations, which is |

likely to require closed-cycle cooling. Operation of the new ESP unit utilizing closed-cycle |

cooling would withdraw little water from the Rock River, resulting in little impingement and |

entrainment loss. |

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the potential for adverse impacts to

aquatic resources from operation of a new nuclear unit at the Byron site would be SMALL. |

Threatened or Endangered Species |

No Federally protected aquatic species are found in the vicinity of the Byron site |

(Sackschewsky 2004). Based on the information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-82 July 2006

| independent review, the staff concludes that the overall impact to the Federally listed threatened

| or endangered species from construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Byron site

would be SMALL.

8.5.5.5 Socioeconomics

This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Byron site. The evaluation assesses

impacts of construction and operation and of those demands placed by the workforce on the

surrounding region.

Physical Impacts

The physical impacts of the construction and operation of a new nuclear unit are similar for each

of the alternative sites. They are discussed generically in Section 8.6.4.

Demography

| Construction and operation would generate up to 3150 and 580 jobs, respectively. However,

the increases, when compared to the total population base in the region, would be minimal. Any

multiplier effects resulting from construction and operations workers’ expenditures would most

likely mean that some residents would obtain new or higher paying jobs as a result of the

increased economic activity. Most of the construction and operations workers are expected to

come from within the region. Even if all the construction and operations workforce were to

relocate to the region, they would represent a small percentage increase in the total population

base. Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and

operation on population within the region would be SMALL and that no mitigation would be

warranted.

Impacts to the Community - Social and Economic

This subsection discusses the site-specific impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the Byron site. Some of the impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit that are generic are discussed in Section 8.6.4.

Economy

Byron lies near the Rock River in Ogle County, Illinois. Ogle County’s business profile is led by

manufacturing (37 percent of the county’s total employment), followed by retail trade 
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) Personal communication, John Coffman, Ogle County, Illinois, Treasurer, May 28, 2004.

(b) The MODERATE impact is based on the impact of deregulation at Clinton Power Station (see

Section 2.8.2.2). While the facility would potentially operate in a deregulated environment, the |

impacts of deregulation on the facility’s value, and thus property taxes paid by the facility, are not fully

known. Given the facility’s potential value and property taxes paid to Ogle County, the staff assumed

that the facility’s impact on collected property taxes would, at a minimum, be SMALL and could be

MODERATE when compared to the taxes the facility could pay and the total property taxes collected

by the county.

July 2006 8-83 NUREG-1815

(11 percent) and wholesale trade (8 percent) (USCB 2001d). The unemployment rate for Ogle

County in 2000 was 4.3 percent, the same as for the State of Illinois (IDES 2000a, 2000b). |

In neighboring DeKalb County, the business profile is led by manufacturing (24 percent of the

county’s total employment), followed by retail trade (17 percent), and health care and social

assistance (15 percent) (USCB 2001e). The unemployment rate in DeKalb County was

3.6 percent in 2000 (IDES 2000b). |

The magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused within the larger economic base of

the surrounding counties. In Ogle County, the existing Byron units contribute significantly to the

tax base (see discussion under “Taxes” below). By inference, the same would be expected in

the other economic contributions to the county’s economy. Therefore, based on the information

provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the

staff concludes that the beneficial impacts of construction and station operation on the economy

of the region would be beneficially SMALL in all counties, except Ogle County where it could be

beneficially MODERATE.

Taxes

Taxes collected as a result of constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Byron site

would be of benefit to the State and to the local jurisdictions that collect and spend them. A new |

nuclear unit would pay annual property taxes to Ogle County. For the tax year 2003 to 2004,

the Byron Generating Station was responsible for about 30 percent of the total property taxes

paid in Ogle County.(a)

Personal and corporate income taxes and sales and use taxes would also be collected over the

construction and operating period a new nuclear unit. While large in absolute amount, the

amounts collected would be small when compared to the total taxes collected by Illinois and by

Ogle County. Therefore, based on the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level

information, the staff concludes that the beneficial impacts of station construction on taxes

collected would be SMALL. The staff also concludes that the beneficial impacts of station

operations on taxes collected would be SMALL, to MODERATE for Ogle County, depending on

the impacts of deregulation.(b)
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-84 July 2006

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community

This subsection discusses the site specific impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the Byron site concerning transportation, aesthetics and recreation, and housing. 

Some of the impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit that are generic (such

as public services) are discussed in Section 8.6.4.

Transportation

Illinois SR 2, which is the closest major highway to the site, is located 4 km (2.5 mi) west of the

plant and has an annual average traffic flow per 24-hour period that ranges from 4000 cars

between the cities of Byron and Oregon to 8800 cars in Oregon. SRs 72 and 64 are also well

| traveled, having 24-hour annual averages of approximately 2000 cars (Exelon 2006). A railroad

spur to the site exists. Interstate-39 (U.S. Highway 51) runs near the site, connecting LaSalle to

| the south with Rockford on the north. U.S. Highway 51 continues south from LaSalle to the

| Bloomington!Normal area and Decatur. In addition, there are approximately 1000 temporary

| employees at the site during outages.

| The construction workforce would number 3150 (Exelon 2006). This number is in addition to

| the 780 estimated operating employees for Byron Units 1 and 2. In addition, there are

| approximately 1000 temporary employees during refueling outages. If the construction of a new

nuclear unit at Byron were to follow past practices (when Byron Units 1 and 2 were

constructed), then heavy loads could be expected to be transported to the site by rail, with

highway transport the most widely used. Corrective measures, such as using multi-shift

workforces, traffic control zones, and flagging, probably would need to be taken to minimize

traffic congestion and safety hazards. 

| The NRC staff observed highway traffic around Byron during its site visit on March 10, 2004. 

The addition of approximately 3150 cars (assuming a single occupant per car), in addition to the

| approximately 780 cars of the existing operations workforce, and the 1000 cars of the temporary

| refueling outage workforce on the road leading to the site could cause congestion, particularly at

shift changes, and could be exacerbated with the addition of trucks carrying construction

materials to the site. Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent

review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction

on transportation would be SMALL if the impacts are actively mitigated to MODERATE if they

are not. 

| With respect to the operation of a new nuclear unit, adding up to an additional 580 cars

| (assuming a single occupant per car) to the existing 780 cars and the 1000 cars of the

| temporary refueling outage workforce on the road would not congest the highway except at shift

changes. These impacts could be mitigated by staggering the shift changes between the 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-85 NUREG-1815

current units and the new unit. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the

staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the

impacts of operation on transportation would be SMALL.

Aesthetics and Recreation

The topography of the site is characterized by the northern half being dissected and sloping

generally to the north. In the southern half of the site, the land is more dissected and rolling; it

slopes to the southwest. The northern portion of the site is generally wooded, with some crop

land near the boundary; the southern half is largely crop land. During the site visit on

March 10, 2004, the staff observed that the topography of the site was generally sloping toward

the Rock River.

There are several recreational facilities in the low-population zone, which for the Byron site is

defined as a 4.8-km (3-mi) radius around the site. Peak daily usage of these facilities occurs on

the weekends. The Rock River is the major waterway for the area surrounding the Byron site

and is a popular recreation spot (Exelon 2006). |

Construction of a new nuclear unit is not expected to have major impacts on the Rock River due

to the distance of the site from the river (over 3.2 km [2 mi]). Any impacts to the river due to 

construction of an additional cooling-water structure, if needed, would be transitory. The main

visual impacts of the site are the cooling towers for Units 1 and 2. Given certain meteorological

conditions, the plumes from the towers can be seen for miles. The addition and operation of a

new nuclear unit at Byron would most likely also require a cooling tower. This would add

marginally to the visual impacts of the existing towers. Therefore, based on the staff’s

independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of

station construction and operation on aesthetics and recreation would be SMALL and that

mitigation would not be warranted.

Housing

In 2000, in the three-county area around Byron (Ogle, Winnebago, and DeKalb Counties), there

were a total 167,812 housing units, of which 8880 units were vacant (5 percent) (USCB 2000g). 

Winnebago County, where the City of Rockford is located, had 6424 vacant units in 2000. If the

past experience of the construction of Byron holds, most of the construction workers would

come from within the region and commute to the job site. The site is fairly close to northwest

metropolitan Chicago and Rockford and accessible via major highways and interstates. 

Relatively few workers would be expected to move and take up residence in the area, and those

who did could find housing within the 3-county area.

If built, a new nuclear unit at Byron would have up to 580 employees when operational |

(Exelon 2006). As with the other alternative sites, the operations workforce is assumed to |
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-86 July 2006

come from within the region. If all 580 employees decided to live in one of the counties, which

is highly unlikely, there would be a discernable impact on housing availability, rental rates, and

housing values. Should the employees scatter out over the three counties of Ogle, Winnebago,

| and DeKalb, which is a more likely scenario, then the chances of these impacts occurring would

be lessened. Therefore, based on the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level

information, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and operation on housing would

be SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted.

8.5.5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Byron site on historic and

cultural resources are discussed generically in Section 8.6.5.

8.5.5.7 Environmental Justice

The staff used the GEn&SIS database to develop maps of minority and low-income populations

around the Byron site (GEn&SIS 2004). The data used are based on the 2000 Census, used

census blocks, and followed the NRC criteria for determining the presence of minority or low-

| income populations (NRC 2004a; 69 FR 52040). Maps were created showing census blocks of

minority and low-income populations within 80 km (50 mi) of the site.

| There is a concentration of minority populations located southwest of the Byron site, near the

| Town of Dixon. Another concentration of minority populations lies in Rockford, Illinois, and

| another directly east of Rockford at Harvard. There is another concentration of minority

| population northwest of the site at Freeport. The Chicago area to the northeast has numerous

concentrations of minority populations. There is a concentration of low-income populations 

around Malta, southeast of Byron, and in Rockford.

The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence

agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which populations could be disproportionately affected. 

In addition, the staff did not identify or observe any location-dependent disproportionate impacts

affecting minority and low-income populations. Therefore, based on the staff’s independent

review of reconnaissance-level information, including a site visit to Byron on March 9, 2004, the

staff concludes that the environmental justice consequences of construction and operation of a

new nuclear unit would be SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted. 

8.5.6 Zion Generating Station

Both units at Zion Generating Station permanently ceased operation in 1998. The units are

| currently in SAFSTOR with active decontamination and dismantling scheduled to begin in 2014. 

The generators are still in place and have been converted to synchronous condensers to 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-87 NUREG-1815

stabilize system voltage (Exelon 2003b). The Zion site is located at the extreme eastern edge |

of the City of Zion (population 22,866) in Lake County Illinois, on the west shore of Lake

Michigan. It is approximately 5 km (3 mi) south of the Illinois-Wisconsin state line, 67 km |

(42 mi) south of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (population 596,574), about 13 km (8 mi) south of

Kenosha, Wisconsin (population 90,352), and 10 km (6 mi) north-northeast of Waukegan,

Illinois (population 87,901). Lake County (population 644,356) is in the northern suburb region

of the Chicago metropolitan area (AEC 1972; Exelon 2006; USCB 2000h). |

8.5.6.1 Land Use, Air Quality, and Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Land use at the Zion site and surrounding vicinity is expected to remain industrial; however, the

residential and business districts of the City of Zion are close to the site. Exelon states that Zion

has enough land for a new nuclear unit, assuming the existing units are decommissioned and

removed (Exelon 2006). Exelon assumes that a new nuclear unit in the area would have |

roughly the same general environmental impact that the Zion Generating Station had when it

was operating (Exelon 2006). Based on observations made during its site visit on |

March 1, 2004, the staff assumes that there is not sufficient land at the existing Zion site to

support use of cooling towers for normal cooling. 

The terrain in the area consists of low marsh lands isolated 30 to 610 m (100 to 2000 ft) inland |

from the shoreline, sand beaches, and dunes. Illinois Beach State Park stretches for 10.4 km |

(6.5 mi) along the shore of Lake Michigan at Zion. It encompasses the only remaining beach

ridge shoreline left in the state. The 1683-ha (4160-ac) park, consisting of two separate areas

north and south of the Zion site, accommodates swimming, boating, picnicking, hiking, fishing,

and camping (IDNR 2004b).

Additional land would need to be acquired to accommodate the footprint of cooling towers. The |

staff believes this would be unlikely because of the adjacent state park and close proximity to |

the town of Zion. |

The staff concludes that the potential land-use impacts associated with site-preparation and

construction and operation of a new unit at Zion would be SMALL (assuming that the existing

units are decommissioned and removed).

The impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit on air quality would be similar

at each of the alternative sites and would not be a significant factor in the determination of

environmental preferability. Therefore, these impacts are discussed generically in

Section 8.6.1. 

The transmission lines serving Zion were constructed to carry the load from the two Zion units,

which had a combined design rating of 6500 MW(t) (ComEd 1972). These transmission lines 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-88 July 2006

| are still in place and operational. Zion transmission line rights-of-way cover 59 ha (146 ac)

| (NRC 1996) and traverse farmland, unused fields and marshes, industrial land, and in some

| instances residential areas (AEC 1972). Therefore, the staff assumes that if a new nuclear unit

were constructed at the Zion site, the existing transmission lines would be capable of carrying

the load from the new nuclear unit. Should modifications to the transmission system involving

new transmission lines be required, the transmission lines could be installed via an expansion of

an existing right-of-way, which the staff believes is the most likely scenario, or could require new

rights-of-way. Assuming that any transmission system modifications would be expansion of

existing rights-of-way for reasons similar to those discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 for expansion

of the Exelon ESP site, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts associated with expansion

would be SMALL. The procedures for adding the new transmission lines to connect a new

nuclear unit at the Zion site to the transmission grid would be similar to those described in

Section 3.3.

8.5.6.2 Hydrology, Water Use, and Water Quality

The staff assumed a new nuclear unit at Zion would withdraw water for cooling from Lake

Michigan. Any release of contaminants to the waters of the State of Illinois would be regulated

by the IEPA through the NPDES permit process to ensure that water quality is protected. 

Based on the requirements of the NPDES permit and the volume of Lake Michigan, the staff

concludes that the water-use and water quality impacts of an additional unit at the Zion site

would be SMALL.

8.5.6.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

| The terrestrial environment at the Zion site is a beach succession series, consisting of dunes,

| swales, peat bogs, and marsh, as well as zones of prairie and forest, each with its distinctive

| flora and fauna (AEC 1972). More than 650 species of plants have been recorded in the dunes

| area alone around the Zion site (IDNR 2004c). The terrain in general consists of a series of low

| dunes and sand ridges (former Lake Michigan sand bars) running parallel with the shore of

| Lake Michigan and interspersed with marshes. Further inland, there is a residuum of a tallgrass

| prairie. The Zion site borders Illinois Beach State Park, which serves as an outdoor laboratory

| for ecological research. The area comprising the Zion site and Illinois Beach State Park is

| unique in being the only remaining dune area in Illinois (AEC 1972).

| Zion transmission line rights-of-way cover 59 ha (146 ac) (NRC 1996) and traverse farmland,

| unused fields and marshes, industrial land, and, in some instances, residential areas

| (AEC 1972). Zion transmission line rights-of-way also have adjacent woodlands and traverse a

| portion of Illinois Beach State Park near its western border, away from the Lake Michigan

| shoreline. It is assumed that the existing transmission lines would be capable of carrying the

| load from a new nuclear unit that would replace the two existing Zion units that would be 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-89 NUREG-1815

decommissioned. However, if a transmission system upgrade involving new transmission lines |

was needed, it would be accomplished via expansion of the existing rights-of-way. |

There are 52 State-listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species known to occur within |

3.2 km (2 mi) to 16 km (10 mi) of the Zion site, and 38 that occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) |

(IDNR 2004c). |

Construction Impacts |

The staff assumed that the existing structures at the Zion site would be decommissioned and |

removed and that a new nuclear unit (power block structures, safety-related cooling systems, |

switchyard expansion, and new intake and discharge structures) would occupy the footprint of |

the former structures. Additional land would need to be acquired offsite for normal closed-cycle |

wet cooling towers. Cooling towers could hypothetically be sited in an area with relatively low or |

high ecological value. Consequently, terrestrial ecological impacts from construction of a new |

nuclear unit at the Zion site could range from minor to extensive. |

For the purpose of this analysis, the staff assumed that any transmission system upgrades |

would result in expansions of existing rights-of-way and that such expansions would consist of |

doubling the current corridor width. Terrestrial ecological impacts associated with the upgrade |

could range from minor to extensive, depending on potential impacts to Illinois Beach State Park |

biota.

Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff |

concludes that the impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from construction a new nuclear |

unit at the Zion site and construction associated with possible upgrade of the existing Zion |

transmission system could range from SMALL to LARGE. |

Operational Impacts |

Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from operation of a new nuclear unit at the Zion site |

include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. Impacts resulting from the |

operation of cooling towers and transmission lines would be of similar magnitude at all the |

alternative sites and, thus, cannot be used to discriminate between them. Therefore, |

operational impacts are discussed generically in Section 8.6. |

Threatened or Endangered Species |

There are three Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species that are known or |

believed to occur in the near vicinity of the Zion site and transmission lines: Karner blue |

butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea), |

and Pitcher’s thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) (FWS 2004b). There is no designated critical habitat for |
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-90 July 2006

| any of these three species (FWS 2004b). Although the endangered piping plover

| (Charadrius melodus) is not currently known from the site vicinity, designated critical habitat for

| the piping plover occurs adjacent to the Zion site (FWS 2004b).

| The endangered Karner blue butterfly is believed to occur in Illinois Beach State Park

| (FWS 2004b) and is known to occur within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the Zion site (IDNR 2004c). Lupine

| is the sole food source of the Karner blue butterfly (FWS 2004b). This species is consequently

| associated with remnant barrens and savanna ecosystems, and other areas that have soils

| and/or management (soil disturbance or suppression of perennial shrubs and herbaceous

| vegetation [e.g., transmission line rights-of-way]) suitable for wild lupine (Lupinus perennis)

| growth.

| The threatened eastern prairie fringed orchid is located in Illinois Beach State Park. Its habitat

| includes, but is not restricted to, mesic prairie, sedge meadows, marsh edges, and bogs

| (FWS 2004b).

| The threatened Pitcher’s thistle is also located in Illinois Beach State Park and is part of the

| dynamic dune ecosystem. Its habitat includes beach, foredune, interdunal trough, and

| secondary dune areas (FWS 2004b).

| Portions of the lake shoreline within Illinois Beach State Park, including shoreline adjacent to

| the Zion site, are designated critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population of the

| piping plover.

| The existing structures at the Zion site would be decommissioned and removed and a new

| nuclear unit, with the exception of normal closed-cycle wet cooling towers, would be constructed

| so as to occupy the footprint of the former structures. Cooling towers would need to be

| constructed offsite. Thus, none of the above three threatened or endangered species could be

| affected onsite, if they were to occur there. The cooling towers could hypothetically be located

| in an area where they may or may not affect the three threatened or endangered species and/or

| critical habitat. Furthermore, the three threatened or endangered species might or might not be

| affected by transmission system upgrades. Consequently, impacts to Federally listed species

| and designated critical habitat from construction of a new nuclear unit on the Zion site and

| possible expansion of the transmission line rights-of-way could range from minor to extensive.

| Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff

| concludes that impacts on threatened and endangered species from construction of a new

| nuclear unit at the Zion site and construction associated with a possible upgrade of the existing

| Zion transmission system could range from SMALL to LARGE.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-91 NUREG-1815

8.5.6.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

The Zion site is located on the western shore of Lake Michigan. Lake Michigan is characterized

by low nutrient concentrations and biological productivity. Near the Zion site, inshore waters are

characterized as mesotrophic or intermediate, with respect to nutrients. Although substantial

declines in fish populations have occurred in Lake Michigan due to pollution and other impacts,

Lake Michigan has the largest sport fishery on the Great Lakes, valued at more than

$250 million annually (UW Sea Grant Institute 1998). Besides its world-class trout and salmon

fisheries, the lake also supports substantial commercial whitefish and yellow perch fisheries

(UW Sea Grant Institute 1998). Inshore regions that have sand-gravel bottoms are potential

spawning areas for a number of fish species (AEC 1972). |

Construction Impacts |

The construction of a new cooling water intake structure and discharge might be necessary if a

new nuclear unit were to be located at Zion. While aquatic biota, including commercial and

recreational fish, would be temporarily displaced during the construction period, they would be

expected to recolonize the region after construction is complete. The timing of the construction |

and in-water work window could help mitigate the impacts, especially if fish are spawning on the

inshore sand-gravel bottom regions (ComEd 1972). It is expected that the disturbance to

aquatic resources from construction would be localized and of relatively short duration.

The NRC staff reviewed the information provided by Exelon and concludes that the

environmental impacts of construction of a new nuclear unit on aquatic resources would be

SMALL, assuming that appropriate mitigative actions are employed.

Operational Impacts |

Nothing in Zion’s environmental statement or the decommissioning safety analysis report

indicates that operation of a new facility at the site would adversely affect aquatic environments

(ComEd 1972; Exelon 2003b). However, because fish may spawn in areas near Zion, there is |

the potential for adverse impacts to local aquatic habitat and biota due to impingement and

entrainment. Any new nuclear unit at the Zion ESP site would be required to meet the new EPA |

Phase I regulations, which is likely to require close-cycle cooling. Operation of the new ESP |

unit utilizing closed-cycle cooling would withdraw little water from Lake Michigan, resulting in

minimal impingement and entrainment loss. Therefore, the staff concludes that the |

environmental impacts due to operations of a new nuclear unit at the Zion site would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-92 July 2006

| Threatened or Endangered Species

| No Federally protected aquatic species are found in the vicinity of the Zion site (Sackschewsky

| 2004). Based on the information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review,

| the staff concludes that the overall impact on Federally listed threatened or endangered species

| from construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Zion site would be SMALL.

8.5.6.5 Socioeconomics

This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

constructing and operating a new unit at the Zion site. The evaluation assesses impacts of

construction and station operation and of those demands placed by the workforce on the

surrounding region.

Physical Impacts

The physical impacts of the construction and operation of a new nuclear unit are similar for each

of the alternative sites. They are discussed generically in Section 8.6.4.

Demography

| Construction and operation would generate up to 3150 and 580 jobs, respectively. But these

increases, when compared to the total population base in the region, would be minimal. Any

multiplier effects resulting from construction and operations workers’ expenditures would most

likely mean that some residents would obtain new or higher paying jobs as a result of the

increased economic activity. Most of the construction and operations workers are expected to

come from within the region. Even if all the construction and operations workforce were to

relocate to the region, they would represent a small percentage increase in the total population

base. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent

review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction

and operation on population within the region would be SMALL.

Impacts to the Community - Social and Economic

This subsection discusses the site-specific impacts of construction and operation of a new

| nuclear unit at the Zion site. Some of the impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit that are generic are discussed in Section 8.6.4.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-93 NUREG-1815

Economy

Zion is located in Lake County, Illinois, where manufacturing comprises 17 percent of the

county’s total employment, followed by retail trade (13 percent) and health care and social

assistance (9 percent) (USCB 2001f). The unemployment rate for Lake County in 2000 was

3.7 percent, while that for Illinois was 4.3 percent (IDES 2000a, b). |

Zion is less than 80 km (50 mi) from Chicago, with a current population of more than 5 million. 

Additionally, the Waukegan-North Chicago area is predominantly an industrial region with

144 manufacturing establishments. The product of the largest of these manufacturing firms is

pharmaceuticals and chemicals. The most predominant product of the remainder is in the

metallurgical and fabricated metal products field. The Zion-Winthrop Harbor area is a small

industrial region. A portion of this industry, which involves light manufacturing, is located

between the western boundary of the Zion site and the Chicago and Northwestern railroad

tracks, approximately 1.3 km (0.8 mi) west of the plant location (Exelon 2006). |

The magnitude of the economic impacts of a new nuclear plant would be diffused within the

larger economic base of Lake County and the Chicago Metropolitan area. Therefore, based on

the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level

information, the staff concludes that the beneficial impacts of construction and operation on the

economy of the region would be SMALL.

Taxes

Taxes collected as a result of constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at Zion would be of

benefit to the State and local jurisdictions collecting and spending them. A new nuclear unit at |

Zion would pay annual property taxes to Lake County. Personal and corporate income taxes

and sales and use taxes would also be collected over the construction and operating period for

a new nuclear unit. While large in absolute amount, the amounts collected are small when

compared to the total taxes collected by Illinois and Lake County. Therefore, based on the

staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the

beneficial impacts of construction and operation on taxes would be SMALL.

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community

This subsection discusses the site specific impacts of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at the Zion site concerning transportation, aesthetics and recreation, and housing. 

Some of the impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit that are generic (such

as public services) are discussed in Section 8.6.4.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-94 July 2006

Transportation

The major transportation routes near the site include Lake Michigan, which has ship and barge

traffic. Due west of the site is Interstate (I) 94, which runs north-south and connects Chicago on

the south with Milwaukee to the north. U.S. Route 41 parallels I-80 and SR 173 runs east to

west and connects the City of Zion to Rockford, Illinois, to the west. Access to Zion is off

| SR 137 via Shilo Road. There is a railroad spur leading to Zion, which probably would need

upgrading if a new nuclear unit were constructed at the site.

| The construction workforce would number 3150 (Exelon 2006). If the construction of a new

nuclear unit were to follow past practices when other nuclear units were constructed by

Commonwealth Edison, the construction jobs would attract a large number of construction

workers, who would commute to the site from the surrounding area (AEC 1972). Highway

transport would be used in the conveyance of construction materials to the site. Railroad

transportation would probably be employed for some of the heavier construction equipment and

materials. There will be more traffic on the roads leading to the site, resulting in more

congestion, particularly at shift changes. Corrective measures, such as using multi-shift

workforces, probably could be taken to minimize traffic congestion and safety hazards.

| The NRC staff observed highway traffic around Zion during its site visit on March 1, 2004. Shilo

Boulevard exits onto a very busy SR 137. An additional 3150 cars (assuming a single occupant

per car) on the road leading to the site could cause congestion, particularly at shift changes,

and could be exacerbated with the addition of trucks carrying construction materials to the site. 

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction of a new

unit on transportation would be MODERATE, if impacts are actively mitigated, to LARGE, if they

are not.

With respect to the operations of a new unit at Zion, up to an additional 580 cars (assuming a

single occupant per car) would not congest the highway except at shift changes. These impacts

could be mitigated by staggering the shift changes so that shift changes would not all occur at

the same time. Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review

of reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of station operation on

transportation would be SMALL and could be mitigated through minor actions.

Aesthetics and Recreation

| Lake Michigan is the major waterway for the area and is immediately east of the Zion site. The

| topography of the site is generally flat. Most of the site is open. The site is bordered on the

| north and south by Illinois Beach State Park. There is both recreational and commercial fishing 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-95 NUREG-1815

on Lake Michigan. Exelon does not anticipate that any additional land would be preempted if |

the site were used for a new nuclear unit (Exelon 2006). If this is the case, the wetlands and |

low marsh lands of the site would not be impacted. The site itself is zoned industrial |

(Exelon 2006). |

The main aesthetic and recreational impacts would result from the construction and operation of |

the cooling systems for a new nuclear unit. As discussed in Section 5.4.2.1, the EPA Final |

Rule, as amended, on cooling water intake structures for new facilities (66 FR 65255) makes it |

unlikely that a new nuclear unit will employ once-through cooling on the Great Lakes. In |

addition, based on observations made during their March 1, 2004, site visit, the staff assumed |

that insufficient land exists at Zion to support the use of new cooling towers for the proposed |

new unit. Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent |

review, the staff concludes that the impacts of station construction and operation on aesthetics |

and recreation at the Zion site would be SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted. |

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review, the staff

concludes that the impacts of station operation on aesthetics and recreation would be SMALL

and that mitigation is not warranted.

Housing

In Lake County, there are 225,919 housing units, of which 9622 units (4.3 percent of the total)

are vacant. To the south, Cook County (Chicago) has 2,096,121 total housing units of which

121,940 are vacant, or 5.8 percent (USCB 2000h). Most of the construction workers (if the past

experience holds on the construction of several other nuclear power plants that Exelon owns)

would come from within the region and commute to the job site. Most of the construction

workers hired for the initial construction of Zion probably came from the Chicago, Milwaukee, 

and Kenosha metropolitan areas and commuted to the Zion site. Thus, with the construction of

a new nuclear unit, relatively few workers would be expected to move and take up residence in

the area, and those who did could find housing within the metropolitan areas.

If built, a new nuclear unit at the Zion site would have up to 580 employees when it is |

operational (Exelon 2006). If all employees decided to live in either Lake or Cook County, the |

staff would not expect to see a discernable impact on housing availability, rental rates, or

housing values. Therefore, based on the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level

information, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and operation on housing would

be SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted.
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-96 July 2006

8.5.6.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit on historic and cultural

resources at the alternative sites are discussed generically in Section 8.6.5.

8.5.6.7 Environmental Justice

The staff used the GEn&SIS database to develop maps of minority and low-income populations

around the Zion site (GEn&SIS 2004). The data used are based on the 2000 Census, used

census blocks, and followed the NRC criteria for determining the presence of minority or low-

| income populations (NRC 2004a; 69 FR 52040). Maps were created showing census blocks of

minority and low-income populations within 80 km (50 mi) of Zion.

There are concentrations of minority populations located north of the Zion site in Milwaukee,

Racine, and Kenosha, Wisconsin. One concentration of minority populations lies due west of

the Zion site, another due south of the site toward Waukegan and North Chicago, and a third, a

very large concentration, along Lake Michigan and near the Illinois-Indiana State line.

For low-income populations, there are large concentrations in Milwaukee and within the

Chicago metropolitan area, particularly along Lake Michigan and near the Illinois-Indiana

| State line.

The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence

agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which the populations could be disproportionately

affected. In addition, the staff did not identify or observe any location-dependent

disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and low-income populations. Therefore,

| based on the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff

concludes that environmental justice consequences of construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit at Zion would be SMALL and that mitigation would not be warranted.

8.6 Issues Among Sites Handled Generically

In evaluating the alternative sites, the NRC staff identified several areas where the potential

impacts of construction and operation of new nuclear power plants would be sufficiently similar

to the proposed and alternative sites that detailed site-specific evaluation of the potential

impacts would be unlikely to contribute to the determination that one or more of the alternative

sites is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. These areas, which include

nonradiological health impacts, radiological impacts of normal operation, cultural and historic

resources, and impacts on public service facilities are addressed in this section.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-97 NUREG-1815

8.6.1 Land Use and Air Quality

Land use has been covered in the sections for each of the alternative sites because the

variation among the sites is sufficiently large that a generic discussion was not appropriate.

Air quality impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit would likely be similar at

the proposed ESP site and the alternative sites. The construction impacts would include dust

from disturbed land, roads, and construction activities and emissions from construction

equipment. These impacts would be similar to the impacts associated with any large

construction project. Exelon has discussed measures that it would take to mitigate air quality

impacts at the proposed ESP site. The staff assumes that the same or similar measures would

be taken if a new nuclear unit were to be constructed at any of the alternative sites. The staff

concludes that air quality impacts of construction of a new nuclear unit at the alternative sites

likely would be SMALL. 

For purposes of the evaluation of alternative sites, the staff assumes that the air quality impacts

of emissions from vehicles used for construction worker transportation likely would be SMALL at

all sites. However, the Braidwood, Dresden, and Zion sites are located in areas that have been

designated by the EPA as “nonattainment” relative to both the 1-hour and 8-hour national

ambient air quality standards for ozone (40 CFR 81.314). Additional analysis would be required

to verify that the significance level for air quality impacts of construction worker transportation

would be SMALL should one of these sites be determined to be environmentally preferable to

the proposed ESP site.

Impacts of operation of a new nuclear plant on air quality are related primarily to the operation of

standby generators, boilers, and cooling towers. The operation of standby generators and

boilers is independent of the site. Similarly, the quantity of cooling tower drift is a function of

cooling tower design, not the site. The staff assumes that Exelon would comply with all

regulations related to emissions from generators and boilers and that cooling towers would use

current technology to minimize drift. On these bases, the staff concludes that the impacts of

operation of a new nuclear unit at the alternative sites on air quality would be SMALL. 

8.6.2 Terrestrial Ecology

Terrestrial ecological impacts that may result from operation of a new nuclear unit at the |

alternative sites include those associated with cooling towers, transmission system structures, |

and maintenance of transmission line rights-of-way. An evaluation of impacts resulting from |

operation of cooling towers and transmission lines and transmission line right-of-way |

maintenance cannot be conducted in any detail due to missing information, such as the type, |

number, and specific location of cooling towers at each alternative site, and the number of new |

transmission lines and locations of any new rights-of-way that could result from transmission |
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-98 July 2006

| system upgrades. Consequently, conclusions in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement

| for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) were used to assess

| terrestrial impacts resulting from the operation of cooling towers.

| The GEIS (NRC 1996) evaluated terrestrial ecological impacts resulting from operation of

| existing nuclear power plants. Because the types of terrestrial ecological impacts resulting from

| operation of a new nuclear unit would be similar to those of existing nuclear power plants, the

| GEIS (NRC 1996) is useful for this analysis.

| For impacts resulting from transmission line operation and transmission line right-of-way

| maintenance, the staff assumed that the existing transmission lines at the alternative sites

| would not have the capacity to carry the power that would be generated by a new nuclear unit. 

| The staff also assumed that any transmission system upgrades would require the addition of

| new lines that would result in expansions of the existing rights-of-way and that such expansions

| would consist of doubling current corridor widths. Given these assumptions, conclusions in the

| GEIS (NRC 1996) were used for impacts resulting from transmission line operation and

| transmission line right-of-way maintenance.

| Cooling Towers

| Impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants from cooling tower drift cannot be

| evaluated in detail in the absence of information on the type (mechanical or natural draft),

| number, and specific location of cooling towers at each alternative site. Similarly, bird collisions

| with cooling towers cannot be evaluated in the absence of information on the type (mechanical

| or natural draft for a wet cooling system; dry for a dry system) and number of cooling towers at

| each alternative site. However, all of the alternative sites are the sites of existing power plants. 

| The impacts of cooling tower drift and bird collisions for existing power plants were evaluated in

| NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) and found to be of minor significance for all plants, including those

| with various numbers and types of cooling towers. In addition, the staff concluded that no

| additional mitigation was warranted for the existing cooling towers. On this basis, the staff

| concludes, for the purpose of comparing the alternative sites, that the impacts of cooling tower

| drift and bird collisions with cooling towers resulting from operation of a new nuclear unit at all of

the alternative sites would be minor.

| For both natural and mechanical draft cooling towers, the anticipated noise level from cooling

| tower operation is anticipated to be 55 decibels on the A scale (dBA) at 305 m (1000 ft)

| (Exelon 2006). The noise level for dry cooling towers is somewhat higher. This noise level is

| well below the 80- to 85-dBA threshold at which birds and small mammals are startled or

| frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Thus, noise from operating cooling towers at any of the

| alternative sites would not be likely to disturb wildlife beyond 305 m (1000 ft) from the source. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-99 NUREG-1815

Further, impacts within this distance would be considered negligible because no important |

terrestrial species (as defined in NRC 2000) are known to occur on any of the alternative sites. |

Consequently, the staff concludes that the impacts of cooling tower noise on wildlife would be |

minimal at all the alternative sites. |

Transmission Lines |

The impacts associated with transmission line operation consist of bird collisions with |

transmission lines and electromagnetic field (EMF) effects on flora and fauna. The impacts |

associated with right-of-way maintenance activities are loss of habitat due to cutting and |

herbicide application, and similar impacts where rights-of-way cross floodplains and wetlands. |

Bird collisions with transmission lines are of minor significance at operating nuclear power |

plants, including transmission line rights-of-way with variable numbers of power lines |

(NRC 1996). Thus, although additional transmission lines would be required for a new nuclear |

unit at the alternative sites, these would likely present few new opportunities for bird collisions. |

The additional number of bird collisions, if any, would not be expected to cause a measurable |

reduction in local bird populations. Consequently, the incremental number of bird collisions |

posed by the addition of new transmission lines for a new nuclear unit would be negligible at all |

the alternative sites. |

EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing |

radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they |

exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). A careful review of biological and physical studies of EMFs did |

not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures (NRC 1996). The |

impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small significance at operating nuclear |

power plants, including transmission systems with variable numbers of power lines (NRC 1996). |

Since 1997, over a dozen studies have been published that looked at cancer in animals that |

were exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives (Moulder 2005). These studies have found |

no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 2005). |

Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by addition of new transmission lines for a new |

nuclear unit would be negligible at all the alternative sites. |

Existing roads providing access to the existing transmission line rights-of-way at the alternative |

sites would likely be sufficient for use in any expanded rights-of-way and no new roads would be |

required. It is assumed that the same vegetation management practices currently employed to |

maintain the existing rights-of-way at the alternative sites would be applied to any expanded

rights-of-way associated with a new nuclear unit. Thus, vegetation management would occur

along the same rights-of-way, but over twice the area. Transmission line right-of-way |

management activities (cutting and herbicide application) and related impacts on floodplains |

and wetlands in transmission line rights-of-way are of minor significance at operating nuclear |

power plants, including those with transmission line rights-of-way of variable widths 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-100 July 2006

| (NRC 1996). Consequently, the incremental effects of transmission line right-of-way

| management and associated impacts to floodplains and wetlands posed by doubling the widths

| of the existing rights-of-way for a new nuclear unit would be negligible at all the alternative sites.

| Conclusion

| Based on information provided by Exelon and the NRC staff’s independent review, the staff

| concludes that the impacts from operation of a new nuclear unit (including cooling towers,

| transmission lines, and transmission line rights-of-way) to terrestrial ecology at any of the

| alternative sites would be SMALL.

8.6.3 Aquatic Ecology

| Aquatic ecological impacts that may result from construction and operation of a new nuclear unit

| at the alternative sites include those associated with cooling water intake, consumption, and

| water discharge. A detailed evaluation of impacts resulting from operation of a new nuclear unit

cannot be reasonably conducted due to missing information. However, all of the alternative

| sites are located at the sites of existing power plants. Operational impacts resulting from

| continued operation of an existing plant are likely to be similar to operational impacts from a

| new nuclear plant. Ten operational impacts of cooling water systems on aquatic ecology

| (including issues concerning gas supersaturation, water quality, nuisance organisms, and

| others) were determined to be applicable to current operating nuclear power plants and were

| evaluated in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). These impacts were found to be SMALL for all current

| operating plants, and the staff concluded that no additional mitigation was warranted for

| these issues.

| However, other potential impacts of water intake and discharge systems on aquatic ecosystems

| at nuclear power plants depend on site-specific factors and on factors related to specific

| features of the design and construction of these systems. Therefore, a generic discussion of

| impingement and entrainment of fish and shellfish and of heat shock is not appropriate, and

| these impacts are discussed separately for each of the alternative sites.

8.6.4 Socioeconomics

There are several socioeconomic areas where generic treatment of issues related to

construction and operation of a new nuclear unit is reasonable. These areas fall within the

general categories of physical impacts and community characteristics. Demography and the

remaining areas relating to physical impacts and community characteristics are discussed

separately for each of the alternative sites.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-101 NUREG-1815

Physical Impacts

Many of the physical impacts of construction and operation would be similar regardless of

the sites. 

Workers and Local Public

The physical impacts of construction would be similar at all six alternative sites. People who

work or live around the alternative sites could be exposed to noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous

emissions from construction activities. Construction workers and personnel working onsite

could be the most impacted. Air pollution emissions are expected to be controlled by applicable

best management practices and Federal, State, and local regulations. All sites are zoned

industrial.

During station operation, standby diesel generators used for auxiliary power would have airpollution emissions. It is expected that these generators would see limited use and, if used,

would be used for only short time periods. Applicable Federal, State, and local air-pollution

requirements would apply to all fuel-burning engines. At the site boundary for most sites, the

annual average exposure from gaseous emission sources is anticipated not to exceed

applicable regulations during normal operations. The impacts of station operations on air

quality are expected to be minimal. As with construction impacts, potential offsite receptors are

generally located well away from the site boundaries.

Residential and commercial areas are located well away from the alternative site boundaries,

applicable air-pollution regulations would have to be met by Exelon, and applicable best

management practices would be put in place. Therefore, based on information provided by

Exelon and the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level information, the staff

concludes that the physical impacts of station construction and operation on workers and the

local public would be SMALL.

Buildings

Construction activities and station operations are not expected to impact any offsite buildings. 

Most buildings not located onsite are well removed from the site boundaries. Buildings most

vulnerable to shock and vibration from pile-driving and other related activities are those located

on the alternative sites. No physical impacts to structures, including any residences near the

site boundaries, would be expected. Therefore, based on the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, including visits to all the alternative sites during the period

March 1 through 11, 2004, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of station construction

and operation on offsite buildings would be SMALL. 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-102 July 2006

Roads

During construction, an additional 3150 cars and 100 trucks per day were assumed to use the

| roads in the vicinity of each alternative site. This is in addition to the existing operations

| workforce at most of the alternative sites and the approximately 1000 temporary workers hired

| during refueling outages. Heavy loads of construction materials and equipment and the

increased traffic might necessitate additional maintenance and repair of roads. Railroad spurs

leading to some of the sites could be used for delivery of the heavier construction materials and

equipment, alleviating some road damage and increased maintenance expenses. The rail

| spurs would most likely need upgrading to accommodate these loads. Based on the staff’s

independent review of reconnaissance-level information, including visits to the alternative sites,

| the staff concludes that the physical impacts of construction on roads in the vicinity of the

alternative sites would be SMALL if railroad spurs were used for delivery of heavy construction

materials and equipment and MODERATE if they are not.

During station operations, the roads and highways within the vicinity of the alternative sites

would experience an increase of approximately 580 cars per day from the addition of operations

personnel. This is in addition to the existing operations workforce for the current operating units

at each of the sites, except Zion where the new units would replace existing units that are no

| longer operational. In addition, there are approximately 1000 temporary workers hired for

| refueling outages. It is expected that increased commuter traffic from station operations would

not place undo wear and tear on the roads or cause them to physically deteriorate at a faster

rate than they do now. Therefore, based on the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-

| level information, including visits to the alternative sites, the staff concludes that the physical

impacts of operations on roads would be SMALL, and that mitigation would not be warranted.

Aesthetics

Construction at all the alternative sites could be viewed from outside the sites at certain

locations. All sites, except Zion, are located in rural areas with sparse residential or commercial

development near the site. Construction of cooling-water intake structures could impact the

body of water within which the construction takes place. The impacts could increase

suspended solids concentrations in the water bodies and fish species might be temporarily

displaced as a result of minor disturbances associated with construction activities, including

noise, dredging, etc. This in turn could impact recreation and recreational opportunities such as

fishing. However, such impacts are transitory and are not expected to have any long-term,

permanent consequences. Onsite erosion and stormwater runoff control measures would be

expected to be implemented in accordance with Illinois and Federal regulations.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-103 NUREG-1815

The sites, except for Zion, are located in rural areas. Any construction impacts on the view

would be temporary. Based on the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level

information, including visits to the alternative sites, the staff concludes that the impacts of

construction on aesthetics would be SMALL at all sites.

The aesthetic impacts of station operations would be influenced by the type of nuclear reactor

and cooling system Exelon chooses. The facility might have a power block structure that is

72 m (234 ft) tall. The heat dissipation system could have a height up to 168 m (550 ft). An offgas structure that would range in height between the power-block structure and the height of the

heat dissipation system might also be required. An additional visible plume might result where

cooling towers were used, particularly during cold weather (Exelon 2006). At sites already |

having cooling towers, the additional cooling towers would be a marginal addition to an already

visually disturbed site. Based on the staff’s independent review of reconnaissance-level

information, including visits to the alternative sites, the staff concludes that the physical impacts

of station operation on aesthetics would be SMALL, and that mitigation would not be warranted.

Demography

Because of the dissimilarities among the sites, the demography of each of the alternative sites

has been covered in the site-specific discussions.

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community

Two aspects related to infrastructure and community impacts are sufficiently similar for all of the

alternative sites that they can be discussed as generic issues: public services and education.

Public Services

Public services include water supply and waste water treatment facilities; police, fire, and

medical facilities; and social services. Both construction and station operating personnel are

expected to come from within the region. Those workers living outside the region would most

likely commute to the job site from their residences. Any new construction employees relocating

to the region would most likely be scattered throughout the region where there is available

housing. New operations employees relocating from outside the region would most likely live in

residentially developed areas. It is not expected that public services would be materially

impacted by these workers.

There might be an increased demand for some social services for construction workers moving

to the area and looking for work either at a new nuclear unit or in secondary jobs created by the

construction. However, the construction and operation of the facility would have a beneficial

economic impact to the economically disadvantaged, which would likely lessen the demand for

social services in the longer-term. |
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-104 July 2006

Therefore, based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and

operations on public services would be SMALL, and that mitigation would not be warranted.

Education

The majority of the construction workers would be expected to come from the region, with little

anticipated in-migration of construction workers from outside the region. Should there be

construction workers coming in from outside the region, chances are they would commute to the

construction site, stay for the week, and go back to their permanent residence on weekends. 

Should that be the case, there would be minimal impact from additional children being placed in

the educational systems within the region.

Exelon assumes that the majority of the operations workforce would come from within the region

where their educational requirements are already being met. As such, the school systems in

these areas would not experience any major influx of students because of the operation of a

| new nuclear unit (Exelon 2006). Even if some of the operating workforce were to come from

outside the region, the majority of the new workers likely would move to the more populous

areas in the surrounding communities, having access to the more developed public services. 

Workers with school-aged children would be interested in communities with good school

districts, for example.

Based on the information provided by Exelon and the staff’s independent review of

reconnaissance-level information, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of the facility

construction and operations on education would be SMALL and that mitigation would not

be warranted.

8.6.5 Historic and Cultural Resources

The alternative sites do not appear to present significant issues concerning historic and cultural

| resources. Information about each alternative site was obtained from a review of two final

| environmental impact statements, Supplements 16 (Quad Cities) and 17 (Dresden) to the

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

| (NUREG-1437; NRC 1996), and a records review at the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

(IHPA). If one of the alternative sites were selected, consultation with the IHPA would be

required to identify additional measures to be taken. Based on (1) the staff’s reconnaissancelevel review of information obtained from IHPA, (2) previous environmental reports, and (3) the

protective measures that would be in place before and during construction and operation, the

| staff concludes that the impacts of construction and operation of an ESP unit on historic and

| cultural resources at any of the alternative sites would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-105 NUREG-1815

8.6.6 Environmental Justice

The staff evaluated the environmental justice consequences of locating a new nuclear unit at

each of the alternative sites and concludes that the environmental justice impacts are SMALL

for each site. However, because of the importance of the site-specific factors considered in

reaching these conclusions, environmental justice has been discussed for each alternative site.

8.6.7 Nonradiological Health Impacts

Nonradiological health impacts from construction of a new nuclear unit on the construction

workers at the alternative sites would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8. They include

occupational injuries, noise, odor, vehicle exhaust, and dust. Applicable Federal and State

regulations on air quality and noise would be complied with during the plant construction phase. 

None of the alternative sites has site characteristics that would be expected to lead to fewer or

more construction accidents than would be expected for any of the other alternative sites. All

the alternative sites, except Zion, are in rural areas and construction impacts would likely be

minimal on the surrounding population. The staff concludes that health impacts to construction

workers resulting from the construction of a new nuclear unit at any of the alternative sites

would be SMALL.

Occupational health impacts to operational employees would likely be the same for all the

alternative sites. Thermophilic microorganisms would not be a concern at the alternative sites

using either a wet or hybrid wet/dry cooling process. Health impacts to workers from

occupational injuries, noise, and electric fields would be similar. None of the alternative sites

has site characteristics that would be expected to lead to fewer or more operational accidents

than would be expected for any of the other alternative sites. Noise and electric fields would be

monitored and controlled in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health

Administration regulations. 

The staff expects that the occupational health impacts to operations employees of a new

nuclear unit at any of the alternative sites would be SMALL. Similarly, impacts to public health

of a new nuclear unit’s operation at the Clinton site or any of the alternative sites would be

expected to be minimal. The staff concludes that the public health impacts would be SMALL.

8.6.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

Exposure pathways for gaseous and liquid effluents from a new nuclear unit on the ESP site or |

an alternative site would be similar. Gaseous effluent pathways include external exposure to

the airborne plume, external exposure to contaminated ground, inhalation of airborne activity,

and ingestion of contaminated agricultural products. Liquid effluent pathways include ingestion 
Impacts of the Alternatives 

NUREG-1815 8-106 July 2006

of aquatic foods, ingestion of drinking water, external exposure to shoreline sediments, and

external exposure to water through boating and swimming.

Section 5.9 discusses the estimates of doses to the maximally exposed individual and the

general population for a new nuclear unit at the proposed Exelon ESP site for both liquideffluent and gaseous-effluent pathways. The estimated doses to the maximally exposed

individual were well within the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. The same

bounding liquid and gaseous effluent releases would be used to evaluate doses to the

maximally exposed individual and the population at each alternative site. Even with differences

in pathways, atmospheric and water dispersion factors, and population, doses estimated to the

maximally exposed individual for the alternative sites would be expected to be well within the

Appendix I design objectives. Population doses within 80 km (50 mi) of the proposed facility

would be higher for those alternative sites closer to major population centers (i.e., Braidwood,

Dresden, and Zion); however, they would still be small compared to the population dose from

natural background radiation. Therefore, the staff concludes that radiation doses and

resultant health impacts from a new nuclear unit’s operations would be SMALL at all of the

alternative sites.

Occupational doses to workers at a new unit would be the same for the alternative sites as they

are for the proposed site. The advanced reactor design of a new unit would likely result in less

occupational exposure annually than from current operating plants. The staff concludes that the

occupational radiation doses from a new nuclear unit’s operation would be SMALL for all of the

alternative sites.

Table 5-5 provides the annual total body dose estimates to surrogate biota species for a new

nuclear unit. Annual dose to algae and heron surrogate species exceeded the dose standard in

40 CFR Part 190. The 40 CFR 190 standards apply to members of the public in unrestricted

areas and not specifically to biota. The estimates are conservative as they not do consider any

dilution or decay of liquid effluents during transit. Actual doses to biota are likely to be much

lower. The staff reviewed the available information relative to the radiological impact on biota

other than humans, and performed an independent estimate of dose to the biota. The staff

concludes that no measurable radiological impact on biota is expected from the radiation and

radioactive material released to the environment as a result of the routine operation of a new

nuclear unit and that the impacts to biota of radiation doses at any one of the alternative sites

would be SMALL.

8.6.9 Postulated Accidents

In Section 5.10, the staff considered a suite of design-basis accidents for a new nuclear unit at

the proposed Clinton ESP site. The evaluation involved calculation of doses for specified

periods at the exclusion area and low-population zone boundaries, and comparison of those 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-107 NUREG-1815

doses with doses based on regulatory limits and guidelines. Similar analyses have not been

conducted for the alternative sites. Had such evaluations been conducted, the differences in

the results would only have been due to meteorological conditions and the distances to the site

boundaries. The release characteristics would have been the same at all sites.

For the Clinton site and meteorology, the doses for each accident sequence considered were

well below the corresponding regulatory limits and guidelines. The general climatological

conditions at the proposed site are sufficiently similar to the conditions at the alternative sites

that it is highly unlikely that differences in local meteorological conditions would be sufficient to

cause doses from design-basis accidents for a new nuclear unit at any of the alternative sites to

exceed regulatory limits or guidelines. Similarly, because each of the alternative sites is located

at an existing nuclear power site, it is unlikely that differences in distances to the exclusion area

and low-population zone boundaries would be sufficient to cause doses from design-basis

accidents for a new nuclear unit at any of the alternative sites to exceed regulatory limits or

guidelines. Therefore, the staff concludes that for the purposes of consideration of alternative

sites, the impact of design basis accidents at each of the alternative sites would be SMALL.

Section 5.10 also includes a detailed analysis of the potential consequences of severe

accidents for the postulated plants for the Clinton site. Similar analyses have not been

conducted for the alternative sites. Had such evaluations been conducted, the differences in

the results would only have been due to site-specific factors such as meteorological conditions,

population distribution, and land-use distribution. The release characteristics would have been

the same at all sites.

The probability-weighted consequences estimated for severe accidents for a new nuclear unit at

the proposed site are well below the consequences estimated for severe accidents at current

generation reactors (see Section 5.10). This result suggests that the consequences of severe

accidents at the any of the alternative sites would be less than the consequences of a severe

accident at an existing plant at the site. The Commission has determined that the probabilityweighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL for all existing plants (10 CFR 51,

Subpart B, Table B-1). On this basis, the staff concludes that, for the purposes of consideration

of alternative sites, the impact of severe accidents at each of the alternative sites likely would be

SMALL.

8.7 Summary of Alternative Site Impacts

A summary of the impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at each of the six

alternative sites selected by Exelon is presented in Tables 8-5 and 8-6. Discussion of the

stated impacts is presented in the individual site sections (Sections 8.5.1 through 8.5.6) and the

generic impacts section (Section 8.6). A comparison of the alternative site impacts with impacts

at the proposed ESP site at Clinton and with impacts of the no-action alternative is presented

in Chapter 9. 
Table 8-5. Characterization of Construction Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites

Category Dresden Braidwood LaSalle Quad Cities Byron Zion |

Land-Use Impacts |

The site and vicinity SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Transmission line rights-of-way SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Air quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |

Water-Related Impacts |

Water use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Water quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |

Ecological Impacts |

Terrestrial ecosystems

|

SMALL toLARGE(a)

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

LARGE(b)

SMALL SMALL to |

LARGE(c) |

Aquatic ecosystems | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLThreatened or endangered |species |

SMALL toLARGE(a)

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(d) |

SMALL SMALL to |

LARGE(c)

Socioeconomic Impacts |

Physical Impacts |

Workers and local public SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Buildings SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Roads SMALL to

MODERATE(e)

SMALL toMODERATE(e)

SMALL toMODERATE(e)

SMALL toMODERATE(e)

SMALL toMODERATE(e)

SMALL to |MODERATE(e) |

Aesthetics SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |

Impacts to the Community - Social and Economic |

Economy SMALL to

MODERATE(f)

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(g)

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(h)

SMALL |

Taxes (beneficial impact) | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |

Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1815 8-108 July 2006
Table 8-5. (contd)

Category | Dresden Braidwood LaSalle Quad Cities Byron Zion

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community |

Transportation | SMALL to

MODERATE(i)

SMALL toMODERATE(j)

SMALL toMODERATE(k)

SMALL toMODERATE(l)

SMALL toMODERATE(m)

MODERATE toLARGE(n)

Aesthetics and recreation | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLHousing | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLPublic and social services and |infrastructure |

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Education | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Historic and cultural resources | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLEnvironmental justice | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLNonradiological health | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLRadiological health | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) Related to transmission system upgrades. See Section 8.5.1.3. |(b) Related to transmission system upgrades. See Section 8.5.4.3. |(c) Related to siting cooling towers and transmission system upgrades. See Section 8.5.6.3. |(d) Related to Higgins’ eye pearlymussel. See Section 8.5.4.4. |(e) Related to potential road and rail construction. See Section 8.6.4. |(f) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for Grundy County. See Section 8.5.1.5. |(g) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for LaSalle County. See Section 8.5.3.5. |(h) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for Ogle County. See Section 8.5.5.5. |(i) See Section 8.5.1.5. |(j) See Section 8.5.2.5. |(k) See Section 8.5.3.5. |(l) See Section 8.5.4.5. |(m) See Section 8.5.5.5. |(n) See Section 8.5.6.5. |

July 2006 8-109 NUREG-1815

Impacts of the Alternatives
Table 8-6. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites

Category Dresden Braidwood LaSalle Quad Cities Byron Zion |

Land-Use Impacts |The site and vicinity | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Transmission-line rights-of-way SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Air quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |

Water-Related Impacts |

Water use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Water quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |

Ecological Impacts |

Terrestrial ecosystems SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Aquatic ecosystems | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLThreatened or endangered |species

SMALL toLARGE

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL SMALL |

Socioeconomic Impacts |

Physical Impacts |

Workers and local public SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Buildings SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Roads SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |

Aesthetics SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |Impacts to the Community - Social and Economic |

Economy SMALL to

MODERATE(b)

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(c)

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(d)

SMALL |

Taxes (beneficial impact) | SMALL to

MODERATE(b)

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(c)

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(d)

SMALL

NUREG-1815 8-110 July 2006 |

Impacts of the Alternatives
Table 8-6. (contd)

Category | Dresden Braidwood LaSalle Quad Cities Byron Zion

Impacts to the Community - Infrastructure and Community |

Transportation | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Aesthetics and recreation | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLHousing | SMALL to

MODERATE(e)

SMALL toMODERATE(f)

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Public and social services and |infrastructure |

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Education | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Historic and cultural resources | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLEnvironmental justice | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLNonradiological health | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLRadiological health | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLPostulated Accidents |

Design-basis accidents | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Severe accidents | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) Related to Higgins ‘eye pearlymussel. See Section 8.5.4.4. |(b) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for Grundy County. See Section 8.5.1.5. |(c) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for LaSalle County. See Section 8.5.3.5. |(d) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for Ogle County. See Section 8.5.5.5. |(e) Moderate impact for Grundy County. See Section 8.5.1.5. |(f) Moderate impact for Grundy County. See Section 8.5.2.5. |

July 2006 8-111 NUREG-1815

Impacts of the Alternatives
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1815 8-112 July 2006

8.8 References

5 NRC 503, 516. Public Service Company of New Hampshire. 1977. Seabrook Station,

Units 1 and 2. CLI-77-8.

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

Production and Utilization Facilities.” Appendix I. Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and

Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion "As Low as is Reasonably Achievable"

for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents. 

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 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

Criteria.”

40 CFR Parts 9, 122-125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,

Part 9, “OMB Approvals Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,” Subpart 122, “EPA Administered

Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,” Subpart 123, “State

Permit Requirements,” Subpart 124, “Procedures for Decision Making,” Subpart 125, “Criteria

and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.”

| 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 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60,

| “Standards for Performance of New Stationary Sources.”

| 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

| “Designation of Areas of Air Quality Planning Purposes.”

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

| 65 FR 32214. “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil

| Fuels.” Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 99. May 22, 2000.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-113 NUREG-1815

66 FR 65255. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Regulations Addressing |

Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities: Final Rule.” Federal Register. Vol. 66, |

No. 243. December 18, 2001. |

69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register. August 24, 2004. Vol. 69, No.163.

Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended. 1986. 42 USC 7401, et seq., Public Law 88-206. |

Clean Water Act (CWA). 1977. 33 USC 1251, et seq. |

Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd). 1972. Final Environmental Impact Statement. |

Related to the Zion Nuclear Power Station – Units 1 and 2. Prepared for the U.S. Atomic |

Energy Commission. Directorate of Licensing. Washington, D.C. |

Commonwealth Edison (ComEd). 1973. Braidwood Station Environmental Report, |

Construction Permit Stage. Environmental Report for the Exelon Generation Company, LLC |

Early Site Permit. ComEd, Chicago, Illinois. |

Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd). 1999. “Unicom Completes Sale of Fossil Plants

and Peaking Units.” Available at: 

http://www.ceco.com/news/comed/display.asp?a=ComEd&rec_id=398. December 15, 1999.

Community Profile Network, Inc. (CPN). 2004. Joliet Illinois History. Accessed on the Internet

May 25, 2004, at http://www.villageprofile.com/illinois/joliet/03his/main.html. 

DeMeo, E., and B. Parsons. 2003. “Some Common Misconceptions about Wind Power.” 

Presented May 22, 2003 at the All States Wind Summit, Austin, Texas. Accessed on the

Internet September 9, 2004, at

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windpoweringamerica/where_is_wind.html. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2000. As cited in Exelon. 2003 Environmental |

Report for the Exelon Braidwood Generating Station Updated Safety Analysis Report. |

Revision 8. Exelon Generation Company, LLC Early Site Permit. |

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2002a. Applicant’s Environmental Report

Operating License Renewal Stage. Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3. Exelon

Nuclear, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania.

Exelon Generation Company LLC (Exelon). 2002b. Applicant’s Environmental Report

Operating License Renewal Stage. Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2. Exelon

Nuclear, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1815 8-114 July 2006

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2002c. Byron Generating Station Updated Safety

Analysis Report. Revision 9. December 2002. As cited in Exelon, 2003, Exelon Generation

Company, LLC Early Site Permit Application: Environmental Report. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2003a. Environmental Report for the Exelon

Braidwood Generating Station Updated Safety Analysis Report. Revision 8 Exelon Generation

Company, LLC Early Site Permit Application.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2003b. Zion Generating Station Decommissioning

Safety Analysis Report. August 1998. As cited in Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon)

| 2003a. Environmental Report for the Exelon Generation Company, LLC Early Site Permit

Application.

Exelon Generating Company (Exelon). 2004a. Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC). ESP

Application of Alternative Site Comparison Process. March 15, 2004.

Exelon Generating Company (Exelon). 2004b. Letter dated September 23, 2004 from

M.C. Kray to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC request dated

August 23, 2004. Exelon, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania.

| Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Early

| Site Permit Application: Environmental Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania.

Gabbard, A. 1993. “Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger,” Oak Ridge National

Laboratory Review. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed on the

Internet June 24, 2004 at http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html. 

Geographical, Environmental and Siting Information (GEn&SIS). 2004. Developed by

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Accessed on the Internet May 27, 2004 at http://gensis.llnl.gov/default.asp.

Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). 1997. U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment

for Illinois. DOE/ID-10430(IL). Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Accessed on the Internet June 25, 2004 at

http://hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/il/. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-115 NUREG-1815

Illinois Administrative Code (IAC). 2004. Title 35, Environmental Protection, Part 217: Nitrogen

Oxide Emissions, Subpart W: NOx Trading Program for Electrical Generating Units. Accessed

on the Internet June 25, 2004 at

http://www.legis.state.il.us/commission/jcar/admincode/035/03500217sections.html. 

Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES). 2000a. Local Area Unemployment

Statistics. Accessed on the Internet February 4, 2006 at |

http://lmi.ides.state.il.us/laus/county00.htm. 

Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES). 2000b. January-December, Annual

Average 2000 Labor Force Estimates for State, Metro Areas, Counties and Cities (Revised

April 2004). Month 13 Records are annual averages. Accessed on the Internet May 25, 2004

at http://lmi.ides.state.il.us/PDFs/2000-moaa.pdf. 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2003. Mazonia Braidwood State Fish &

Wildlife Area. Accessed on the Internet May 10, 2004 at

http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/parks/r2/mazonia.htm (last updated in 2003).

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2004a. Ecology and Conservation of Illinois’

Fur Resources. Accessed on the Internet June 29, 2004 at

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/dnr/fur/index.html. 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2004b. LaSalle Lake State Fish & Wildlife

Area. Accessed on the Internet May 10, 2004 at

http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/PARKS/R1/LASALLE.HTM (last updated March 11, 2004).

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2004c. Provision of electronic data from |

IDNR (Springfield, Illinois), regarding the locations of Federally and State-listed threatened or |

endangered species within 2 mi and 10 mi of the Exelon ESP site and alternative sites

(Braidwood, Byron, Dresden, LaSalle County, Quad Cities, and Zion), to Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory (Richland, Washington). February 19, 2004.

Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS). 2004. Illinois Natural Resources Geospatial Data

Clearinghouse. Accessed on the Internet June 28, 2004 at:

http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/nsdihome/webdocs/doqs/launchims.html. 

Iowa Workforce Development (IWD). 2000a. Iowa Labor Force Employment and |

Unemployment Data--Iowa. Accessed on the Internet February 4, 2006 at |

http://www.iowaworkforce.org/lmi/laborforce/etables/historic2000/lforceia.txt. |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1815 8-116 July 2006

| Iowa Workforce Development (IWD). 2000b. Iowa Labor Force Employment and

| Unemployment Data--Scott County. Accessed on the Internet May 21, 2004 at

| http://www.iowaworkforce.org/lmi/laborforce/etables/historic2000/area82.txt.

LaSalle Cooling Lake. 2004. Accessed on the Internet May 10, 2004 at

http://pages.ripco.net/~jwn/lasalle.html (undated webpage).

Madeja, R. 2002. “Fishing in Chicago? You might be surprised.” Accessed on the Internet

May 10, 2004 at http://www.lake-link.com/anglers/articles/article.cfm?ArticleID=131 (last

updated May 2004).

| Moulder, J.E. 2005. Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health: Power Lines and Cancer

| FAQs. Accessed on the Internet December 7, 2005 at

| http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlines-cancer-faq/toc.html#16B, (dated July, 2005).

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2004. Illinois Wind Resource Maps. 

Accessed on the Internet September 9, 2004 at

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windpoweringamerica/where_is_wind_illinois.html. 

| Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA). 42 USC 6901, et seq.

Sackschewsky, M.R. 2004. Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating

Nuclear Power Generating Plants. PNNL-14468. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory, Richland, Washington for the License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Branch,

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

U.S. Department of Energy.

Sandia National Laboratory (SNL). 2005. “DOE’s Concentrating Solar Power Overview.” 

Accessed on the Internet February 14, 2005 at

http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab.overview.htm (undated webpage)

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Final Environmental Impact Statement Related

to the Zion Nuclear Power Station – Units 1 and 2. Directorate of Licensing. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Related to the Proposed LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station – Units 1 and 2. Directorate of

Licensing. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974a. Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Related to the Proposed Braidwood Station. Directorate of Licensing. Washington, D.C.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-117 NUREG-1815

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974b. Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Related to the Proposed Byron Station – Units 1 and 2. Directorate of Licensing. 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. P.1. Total Population (1) - Universe: Total

population. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100 Percent Data. Accessed on the Internet

May 24, 2004 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name= |

DEC_2000_SF1_U&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P001&-tree_id=4001&-red

oLog=false&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=38500US16021600&-geo_id=38500US16022960&-geo

_id=38500US16023740&-geo_id=38500US16023800&-format=&-_lang=en&-SubjectID=83260

92. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. American FactFinder. Fact Sheet – Highlights from the

Census 2000 Demographic Profiles: General Characteristics. Grundy and Will Counties,

Illinois. Accessed on the Internet May 25, 2004 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFF

Facts?geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_ss

e=on. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000c. Highlights from the Census 2000 Demographic Profiles –

Godley, Coal City and Braidwood, Illinois. Accessed on the Internet May 27, 2004 at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_ci

tyTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000d. Highlights from the Census 2000 Demographic Profiles –

Seneca, Marseilles and Ransom, Illinois and LaSalle, Bureau, Grundy, Kendall, DeKalb and Lee

Counties. Accessed on the Internet May 28 and 30, 2004 at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_ci

tyTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000e. Census 2000 PHC-T-3 Ranking Tables for Metropolitan

Areas: 1990 and 2000 – Table 3: Metropolitan Areas Ranked by Population: 2000. Accessed

on the Internet May 21, 2004 at http:/www.census.gov/. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000f. Highlights from the Census 2000 Demographic Profiles -

Davenport, Behendorf, and Scott Counties, Iowa; Rock Island, Moline, East Moline, and

Whiteside Counties, Illinois. Accessed on the Internet on September 5, 2004 at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_ci

tyTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1815 8-118 July 2006

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000g. Highlights from the Census 2000 Demographic Profiles –

Byron and Rockford, Illinois and the Counties of Ogle, Winnebago and DeKalb. Accessed on

| the Internet May 27 and May 28, 2004 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?

geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000h. Highlights from the Census 2000 Demographic Profiles –

Zion and Waukegan, Illinois and Kenosha and Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Lake and Cook

Counties Illinois. Accessed on the Internet May 31, 2004 at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_ci

tyTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001a. County Business Patterns (NAICS) – Grundy County.

Accessed on the Internet May 25, 2004 at http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsect.pl. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001b. County Business Patterns (NAICS) – Will County.

Accessed on the Internet May 25, 2004 at http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsect.pl. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001c. County Business Patterns (NAICS) – LaSalle County.

Accessed on the Internet May 30, 2004 at http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsect.pl. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001d. County Business Patterns (NAICS) – Ogle County.

| Accessed on the Internet May 25, 2004 at http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsect.pl. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001e. County Business Patterns (NAICS) – DeKalb County.

Accessed on the Internet September 6, 2004 at http://censtats.census.gov/. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001f. County Business Patterns (NAICS) – Lake County.

| Accessed on the Internet May 31, 2004 at http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsect.pl. 

| U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001g. 2001 County Business Patterns (NAICS) - Rock Island. 

| Accessed on the Internet February 4, 2006 at http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-

| bin/cbpnaic/cbpsect.pl.

| U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001h. 2001 County Business Patterns (NAICS) - Scott County,

| IA. Accessed on the Internet February 4, 2006 at http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-

| bin/cbpnaic/cbpsect.pl.

| U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001i. 2001 County Business Patterns (NAICS) - Whiteside

| County. Accessed on the Internet February 4, 2006 at http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-

| bin/cbpnaic/cbpsect.pl.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-119 NUREG-1815

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002. “Fuel Cell Technology.” Available at

http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/fuelcells/index.shtml. As cited in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. 

Supplement 11, Regarding St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. Final Report. Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. “Future Fuel Cells.” Accessed on the Internet

September 30, 2004 at http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/fuelcells/ (dated

August 11, 2004).

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005. “Illinois Solar Resources.” Accessed on the Internet

February 14, 2005 at http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy/tech_solar.cfm?state=IL (last

updated February 7, 2005)

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 1998. Electricity Net

Generation By Fuel, 1988, 1993-1997, Illinois. Accessed on the Internet June 25, 2004 at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/tables/il2p1.html.

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001a. International

Energy Outlook 2001. DOE/EIA-0484(2001). Washington, D.C. Available at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/fore_pub.html. February 19, 2002. As cited in Exelon Generating

Company (Exelon). 2003. Environmental Report for the Exelon Generation Company, LLC

Early Site Permit.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001b. Renewable

Energy 2000: Issues and Trends. DOE/EIA-0628(2000), Washington, D.C. Accessed on the

Internet June 25, 2004 at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/renewables/06282000.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001c. Annual

Energy Outlook 2002 with Projections to 2020. DOE/EIA-0383(2002), Washington, D.C. 

Accessed on the Internet June 25, 2004 at

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/0383(2002).pdf. 

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2004a. 

“International Energy Outlook 2004. Washington, D.C. Accessed on the Internet June 23, 2004

at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html. 

U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2004b. State

Electricity Profiles 2002. DOE/EIA-0629. Accessed on the Internet June 23, 2004 at

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/electricity/stateprofiles/02st_profiles/062902.pdf.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1815 8-120 July 2006

| U.S. Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency (DOE/EPA). 2000. Carbon

| Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States. Accessed on the

| Internet February 2, 2006 at

| http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss99.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. External Combustion Sources. 

Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal Combustion AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Accessed on

the Internet June 23, 2004 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. “Municipal Solid Waste Disposal.” 

Accessed on the Internet June 25, 2004 at

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/disposal.htm. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1976. “Determination of Critical Habitat for American

Crocodile, California Condor, Indiana Bat, and Florida Manatee.” Federal Register Vol. 41,

No. 187, pp. 41914-41916.

| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1999. “Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera

| leucophaea).” Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, pp 62.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003. “Higgins Eye Pearly Mussel (Lampsilis higgensii)

Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Division of

Endangered Species, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. “Provision of information regarding federally

listed threatened or endangered species that may occur in the vicinity of the Exelon ESP site

| and alternate sites (Byron, Dresden, LaSalle, and Quad Cities).” From FWS (Rock Island,

Illinois Field Office) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Washington, D.C. 

| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. Provision of information regarding Federally

listed threatened or endangered species that may occur in the vicinity of the Braidwood and

Zion sites (alternate sites to the EGC ESP Site), by letter from FWS (Chicago, Illinois Field

Office) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (Washington, D.C.). 

| U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Data Base - Corbicula

| fluminea. Accessed on the Internet May 10, 2004 at

| http://nas.er.usgs.gov/quer/es/spCollections.asp.speciesID=92&State=IL&HucNumber=.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1978. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Operation of LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2. NUREG-0486. Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Washington, D.C.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-121 NUREG-1815

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report. “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final

Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Standard Review Plans for Environmental

Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. |

NRR Office Instruction Change Notice. Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental |

Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. Appendix D – Environmental Justice |

Guidance and Flow Chart, NRC, Washington, D.C. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. Supplement 1. Regarding the Decommissioning of

Nuclear Power Reactors. Main Report, Appendices A through M. Final Report. Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Procedural Guidance for Preparing |

Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues, NRC Office Instruction

Change Notice, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement |

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 Supplement 17, Regarding Dresden

Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3. Final Report. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

NRC, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement |

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 Supplement 16, Regarding Quad Cities

Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3. Final Report. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

NRC, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. In the Matter of Exelon Generating |

Company, LLC. LLI-05-29, NRC, Washington, D.C. |

University of Wisconsin (UW) Sea Grant Institute. 1998. “Gifts of the Glaciers.” Accessed on

the internet May 10, 2004 at http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/communications/greatlakes/

GlacialGift/lake_michigan.html (last updated October 23, 2002).

July 2006 9-1 NUREG-1815

9.0 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed

Action and the Alternative Sites

The need to compare the proposed Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) early site permit

(ESP) site with alternative sites arises from the requirement in Section 102(2)(c)(iii), 42 USC

4321(c)(iii) et seq. of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) that environmental |

impact statements include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action. The U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) criteria to be employed in assessing whether a proposed ESP |

site is to be rejected in favor of an alternative site is based on whether the alternative site is

“obviously superior” to the site proposed by the applicant (Public Service Co. of New

Hampshire 1977). An alternative site is “obviously superior” to the proposed site if it is “clearly

and substantially” superior to the proposed site (Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978).

The standard of “obviously superior” “is designed to guarantee that a proposed site will not be |

rejected in favor of an alternate unless, on the basis of appropriate study, the Commission can

be confident that such action is called for” (New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 1978). 

The “obviously superior” test is appropriate for two reasons. First, the analysis performed by the

NRC in evaluating alternative ESP sites is necessarily imprecise. Key factors considered in the |

alternative site analysis, such as population distribution and density, hydrology, air quality,

aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources, aesthetics, land use, and socioeconomics are

difficult to quantify in common metrics. Given this difficulty, any evaluation of a particular site

must necessarily have a wide range of uncertainty. Second, Exelon’s proposed ESP site has

been analyzed in detail, with the expectation that most adverse environmental impacts

associated with the site have been identified. By design the alternative sites have not |

undergone a comparable level of detailed study. For these reasons, a proposed ESP site may

not be rejected in favor of an alternative site when the alternative is “marginally better” than the |

proposed site, but only when it is “obviously superior” (Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978). 

NEPA does not require that a nuclear plant be constructed on the single best site for

environmental purposes. Rather, “all that NEPA requires is that alternative sites be considered

and that the effects on the environment of building the plant at the alternative sites be carefully

studied and factored into the ultimate decision” (New England Coalition on Nuclear

Pollution 1978).

The NRC staff’s review of alternative sites consists of a two-part sequential test for “obviously |

superior” (NRC 2000). The first part of the test determines whether there are “environmentally |
Comparison of Impacts

(a) An “environmentally preferred” alternative site is one for which the environmental impacts are

sufficiently less than for the proposed site so that environmental preference for the alternative site can

be established (NRC 2000).

NUREG-1815 9-2 July 2006

preferred”(a) sites among the candidate ESP sites. The staff considers whether Exelon has

(1) reasonably identified alternative sites, (2) evaluated the likely environmental impacts of

construction and operation at these sites, and (3) used a logical means of comparing sites that

led to Exelon’s selection of the proposed site. Based on the staff’s independent review, the staff

then determines whether any of the alternative sites are environmentally preferable to Exelon’s

proposed ESP site.

| If the staff determines that one or more alternative ESP sites are environmentally preferable,

| then it would compare the estimated costs (environmental, economic, and time) of constructing

the proposed plant at the proposed site and at the environmentally preferable site or sites

(NRC 2000). To find an alternative site obviously superior, the staff must determine that (1) one

or more important aspects, either singly or in combination, of a reasonably available alternative

site are obviously superior to the corresponding aspects of the applicant’s proposed site and

(2) the alternative site does not have offsetting deficiencies in other important areas. A staff

conclusion that an alternative site is obviously superior to Exelon’s proposed site would

normally lead to a recommendation that the application for the ESP be denied. 

9.1 Comparison of the Proposed Site with the Alternative

Sites

| The staff reviewed the Environmental Report submitted by Exelon (Exelon 2006) and supporting

documentation and conducted site visits at the Exelon ESP site and the alternative sites. The

staff found that Exelon had reasonably identified alternative sites, evaluated the environmental

impacts of construction and operation, and used a logical means of comparing sites. The

following section summarizes the staff’s independent assessment of the proposed and

alternative sites.

The staff’s characterization of the expected environmental impacts of constructing and

operating a new nuclear unit at the proposed ESP site and alternative sites within the bounds of

Exelon’s plant parameter envelope are summarized in Tables 9-1 and 9-2. Explanations for the

particular characterizations are in Chapters 4 and 5 for the proposed site and in Sections 8.5

| and 8.6 for the alternative sites. For those impacts to environmental resources for which the

| staff was unable to reach a single significance level in Chapters 4 and 5 for the Exelon ESP site

| due to insufficient information, it is necessary to identify the most likely level of impact for the

| purposes of comparison to alternative sites. In the following analysis, the staff indicated a likely

| impact level for these unresolved issues based on professional judgement, experience, and 
Comparison of Impacts

July 2006 9-3 NUREG-1815

consideration of controls likely to be imposed under required Federal, State, or local permits |

that would not be acquired until an application for a construction permit or combined license is |

underway. These considerations and assumptions were similarly applied at each of the |

alternative sites to provide a common basis for comparison. These impact levels are, therefore, |

best estimates of impacts that the staff used for its “obviously superior” determination. No new |

data were collected. |

Some environmental impacts considered for the Exelon ESP site or for the alternative sites are

generic to all sites and, therefore, do not influence the comparison of impacts between the

Exelon ESP site and the alternative sites. The generic environmental impacts common to all

sites are: air quality, nonradiological and radiological health impacts, environmental impacts

from postulated accidents, and historic and cultural resources, as well as some aspects of

ecology and socioeconomics.

The environmental impact areas shown in Tables 9-1 and 9-2 have been evaluated using the

NRC’s three-level standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed

using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines and set forth in the footnotes to

Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

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.

The staff determined the impact level from construction for most of the environmental issues at

most of the sites is SMALL (see Table 9-1). For some ecological and socioeconomic issues,

there are factors related to a site that could cause the impact level to increase from SMALL to

LARGE. These issues and sites are identified in the table by footnotes that briefly describe the |

factor and location in the EIS for additional information. More detailed information on these |

issues is presented in Chapter 4 for the Exelon ESP site at Clinton Power Station (CPS) site, |

and Chapter 8 for the alternative sites. It is the staff’s expectation that, if an applicant holding |

the Exelon ESP chooses to undertake activities permitted by an ESP, it would exercise due |

diligence to evaluate the potentially adverse impacts and take appropriate measures to mitigate

the impacts.

Similarly, the staff determined that the impact level from operations for most of the

environmental issues at most of the sites is SMALL (see Table 9-2). Again, there are a few 
Table 9-1. Comparison of Construction Impacts at the Exelon ESP Site and Alternative Sites

Impact Category Clinton Dresden Braidwood LaSalle Quad Cities Byron Zion

Land-use

The site and vicinity SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLTransmission line rights-of- way SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Air quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLWater use and quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLEcological

Terrestrial ecosystems |

||

Unresolved

Likely to be

SMALL(a)

SMALL to

LARGE(b)

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

LARGE(c)

SMALL SMALL to

LARGE(d)

Aquatic ecosystems | SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Threatened and endangered species

SMALL SMALL to

LARGE(b)

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(e)

SMALL SMALL to

LARGE(d)

Socioeconomic

Physical impacts | SMALL to

MODERATE(f)

SMALL to

MODERATE(g)

SMALL to

MODERATE(g)

SMALL to

MODERATE(g)

SMALL to

MODERATE(g)

SMALL to

MODERATE(g)

SMALL to

MODERATE(g)

Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1815 9-4 July 2006
Table 9-1. (contd)

Impact Category Clinton Dresden Braidwood LaSalle Quad Cities Byron Zion

Impacts to the Community -Social and Economic (beneficial)

SMALL to

MODERATE(h)

SMALL to

MODERATE(i)

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(j)

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(k)

SMALL

Impacts to the Community -Infrastructure and Community

SMALL to

MODERATE(l)

SMALL to

MODERATE(m)

SMALL to

MODERATE(n)

SMALL to

MODERATE(o)

SMALL to

MODERATE(p)

SMALL to

MODERATE(q)

SMALL to

LARGE(r)

Historic and cultural resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLEnvironmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLNonradiological health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLRadiological health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL(a) Related to transmission system upgrades. See Section 4.4.1. |(b) Related to transmission system upgrades. See Section 8.5.1.3. |(c) Related to transmission system upgrades. See Section 8.5.4.3. |(d) Related to transmission system upgrades. See Section 8.5.6.3. |(e) Related to Higgins’ eye pearlymussel. See Section 8.5.4.4. |(f) Related to potential road and rail construction. See Section 4.5.1. |(g) Related to potential road and rail construction. See Section 8.6.4. |(h) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for DeWitt County. See Section 4.5.3. |(i) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for Grundy County. See Section 8.5.1.5. |(j) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for LaSalle County. See Section 8.5.3.5. |(k) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for Ogle County. See Section 8.5.5.5. |(l) See Section 4.5.3. |(m) See Section 8.5.1.5. |(n) See Section 8.5.2.5. |(o) See Section 8.5.3.5. |(p) See Section 8.5.4.5. |(q) See Section 8.5.5.5. |(r) See Section 8.5.6.5. |

July 2006 9-5 NUREG-1815

Comparison of Impacts
Table 9-2. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Exelon ESP Site and Alternative Sites

Impact Category Clinton Dresden Braidwood LaSalle Quad Cities Byron Zion

Land-use impacts

The site and vicinity SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLTransmission line rights-of-way SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Air quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLWater-use and quality

Water use and quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLWater use in drought years MODERATE(a) SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Ecological

Terrestrial ecosystems SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLAquatic ecosystems | Unresolved,

likely to be

SMALL(b)

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Threatened and endangered |

species

SMALL SMALL(b) to

LARGE

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(c)

SMALL SMALL

Socioeconomic

Physical | SMALL to

MODERATE(d)

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

NUREG-1815 9-6 July 2006

Comparison of Impacts
Table 9-2. (contd)

Category Clinton Dresden Braidwood LaSalle Quad Cities Byron Zion

Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLImpacts to the Community -Social and Economic (beneficial)

SMALL to

LARGE(e)

SMALL to

MODERATE(f)

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(

g)

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE(

h)

SMALL |

Impacts to the Community -Infrastructure and Community

SMALL to

MODERATE(i)

SMALL to

MODERATE(j)

SMALL to

MODERATE(k)

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL |

Historic and cultural resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLEnvironmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLNonradiological health SMALL

Unresolved for

chronic effects

of EMF(l)

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

|||

Radiological health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLPostulated accidents SMALL

Unresolved for

gas-cooled

designs(m)

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

|||

(a) Temporary MODERATE impact during critical low-water years. See Section 5.3. |(b) Temporary MODERATE impact during critical low-water years. See Section 5.4.2. |(c) Related to Higgins’ eye pearlymussel. See Section 8.5.4.4. |(d) Temporary MODERATE impact during critical low-water years. See Section 5.5.1. |(e) Beneficial impact with up to a LARGE impact for DeWitt County. See Section 5.5.3. |(f) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for Grundy County. See Section 8.5.1.5. |(g) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for LaSalle County. See Section 8.5.3.5. |(h) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for Ogle County. See Section 8.5.5.5. |(i) See Section 5.5.3. |(j) See Section 8.5.1.5. |(k) See Section 8.5.2.5. |(l) See Section 5.8.4. |(m) See Section 5.10. |

July 2006 9-7 NUREG-1815

Comparison of Impacts
Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1815 9-8 July 2006

ecological and socioeconomic issues for which the level of significance could rise to

MODERATE. These issues and sites are identified in Table 9-2 by footnotes that briefly

| describe the factor. More detailed information on these issues is presented in Chapter 5 for the

| Exelon EPS site, and Chapter 8 for the alternative sites.

The socioeconomic impact category reflects only the potential adverse impacts. Positive

impacts (that is, tax receipts to local government and public support of the proposed project)

would occur but are not addressed here. Significance levels for the positive impacts are given

| in Chapters 4, 5, and 8.

9.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites

Construction

| The impacts of construction at the Exelon ESP site are generally SMALL for all impact

categories. However, as noted in Section 4.5, there are two impact areas under Physical and

Community Characteristics for which the impacts could rise to the MODERATE level. These

areas are the impact of construction traffic on roads and the potential impact of construction

workers on housing. The SMALL to MODERATE impact of construction traffic on roads is

| common to the Exelon ESP site and the alternative sites. The potential MODERATE impact of

construction on housing could occur if the construction workers relocated to the CPS area

rather than commute from their present residences.

There are SMALL to potentially MODERATE impacts on threatened and endangered species at

| Quad Cities and SMALL to potentially LARGE impacts at Dresden and Zion. In addition to the

SMALL to MODERATE impact of construction traffic on roads at all sites, construction workers

| would be expected to have potentially MODERATE impacts on transportation at all six of the

| alternative sites. Mitigation measures would be available to limit the impact.

While there are some differences in the environmental impacts of construction at the Exelon

ESP site and the alternative sites, the staff concludes that none of these differences is sufficient

to determine that any of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable to the proposed

Exelon ESP site.

Operations

The impacts of operations at the Exelon ESP site would be SMALL for all impact categories

except for the recreation and housing areas under the Community Characteristics. Under

normal water availability, the impact of operation of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site 
Comparison of Impacts

July 2006 9-9 NUREG-1815

on recreation would be SMALL. However, in severe drought years, the water use of the unit

could cause the level of Clinton Lake to drop enough to limit use of the lake for recreational

purposes. In those periods, the impact level would be MODERATE. The residences of the

workforce required to operate a nuclear unit at the ESP site are expected to be distributed

throughout the area. In this case, the impact on housing would be SMALL. However, should

the workforce locate predominately in the smaller towns in the area, the impacts on housing in

those towns could be MODERATE.

Most of the impacts of operating a new nuclear unit at the alternative sites would be SMALL. 

Should a unit be located at either the Dresden or Braidwood sites, there could be MODERATE

impacts on housing if the operational workforce located predominantly in Grundy County. 

These impacts would be similar to the housing impacts that could occur in small towns near the

CPS site. For two sites, Dresden and Quad Cities, they could potentially be SMALL to LARGE |

impacts if there were threatened or endangered species located in the transmission line |

rights-of-way. |

Although there would be some differences in the environmental impacts of operation at the

Exelon ESP site and the alternative sites, the staff concludes that none of these differences is

sufficient to determine that any of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable to the

Exelon ESP site.

9.3 Obviously Superior Sites

None of the alternative sites was determined to be environmentally preferable to the Exelon

ESP site. Therefore, none of the alternative sites is obviously superior to the Exelon ESP site.

9.4 Comparison with the No-Action Alternative

The no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which NRC denies the ESP request. If the ESP

application for the Exelon ESP site were denied, the impacts of the site preparation activities

would not occur. Further, denial of the ESP application would prevent early resolution of safety

and environmental issues for the site. These issues would have to be addressed during a

future licensing action (ESP, construction permit, or combined license), should an applicant

decide to pursue construction and operation activities for a nuclear facility at the site at a

later time.

In the event that NRC denies the ESP application, Exelon could follow any of several paths to

satisfy its electric power needs: (1) reapplying for an ESP at the Exelon ESP site using a

revised plant parameter envelope or a specific reactor design, (2) seeking an ESP, a

construction permit, or combined license for a new nuclear unit for a different location,

(3) purchasing of power from other electricity providers, (4) establishing conservation and 
Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1815 9-10 July 2006

demand-side management programs, (5) constructing new generation facilities other than

nuclear at the Exelon ESP site, (6) constructing new generation facilities at other locations,

(7) delaying retirement of existing Exelon generating facilities, or (8) reactivating previously

retired Exelon generating facilities. The preceding paths could be pursued individually or in

combination. Each of the paths would have associated environmental impacts.

| The activities that are permissible under an ESP are limited to site preparation activities allowed

by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). Site preparation activities are permissible only if the final environmental

impact statement concludes that the activities would not result in any significant environmental

impacts that could not be redressed. The results of the staff’s assessment of the site redress

| plan are discussed in Section 4.11. As discussed in that section, the staff concludes that the

potential site-preparation activities described in Exelon’s site redress plan would not result in

any significant adverse impacts that could not be redressed.

9.5 References

| 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.”

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Early

| Site Permit Application: Environmental Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq.

New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. 1978. New England Coalition on Nuclear

Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Circuit 1978).

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire. 1977. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook

Station, Units 1 & 2). CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977), affirmed, New England Coalition on

Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Circuit 1978).

Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project

Nuclear Unit No. 1), ALAB-502, 8 NRC 383, 397 (1978), affirmed CLI-80-23, 11 NRC 731

(1980).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan

(ESRP). NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.
July 2006 10-1 NUREG-1815

10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

On September 25, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an

application from Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) for an early site permit (ESP) for a

location identified as the Exelon ESP site, adjacent to the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1. This |

application has been revised through Revision 4, submitted on April 14, 2006. The site is |

located in DeWitt County, Illinois, approximately 10 km (6 mi) east of the City of Clinton. An

ESP is a Commission approval of a location for the siting of one or more nuclear power

facilities, and is a separate action from the filing of an application for a construction permit (CP)

or combined construction permit and operating license (combined license or COL) for such a

facility. An ESP application may refer to a reactor’s or reactors’ characteristics or plant

parameter envelope (PPE), which is a set of postulated design parameters that bound the

characteristics of a reactor or reactors that might be built at a selected site; alternatively, an

ESP may refer to a detailed reactor design. The ESP is not a license to build a nuclear power

plant; rather, the application for an ESP initiates a process undertaken to assess whether a

proposed site is suitable should the applicant decide to pursue a CP or COL.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq.) |

directs that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Subpart A of Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 contains the NRC regulations related to ESPs. The NRC

has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. As set forth in 10 CFR 52.18, the

Commission has determined that an EIS will be prepared during the review of an application for

an ESP. The purpose of Exelon’s requested action, issuance of the ESP, is for the NRC to

determine whether the Exelon ESP site is suitable for a new nuclear unit by resolving certain

safety and environmental issues before Exelon incurs the substantial additional time and

expense of designing and seeking approval to construct such facilities at the site. Part 52 of

Title 10 describes the ESP as a “partial construction permit.” An applicant for a CP or COL for a

nuclear power plant or plants to be located at the site for which an ESP was issued can

reference the ESP, thus reducing the need to review siting issues at that stage of the licensing

process. However, issuance of a CP or COL to construct and operate a nuclear power plant is

a major Federal action and will require an EIS to be issued in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.

Three primary issues – site safety, environmental impacts, and emergency planning – must be

addressed in the ESP application. Likewise, in its review of the application, the NRC assesses

the applicant’s proposal in relation to these issues and determines if the application meets the

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the NRC regulations. This EIS addresses

the potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of a new

nuclear unit.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1815 10-2 July 2006

In its application, Exelon requested authorization to perform certain site preparation activities

after the ESP is issued. The application, therefore, includes a site redress plan that specifies

how the applicant would stabilize and restore the site to its preconstruction condition (or

conditions consistent with an alternative use) in the event a nuclear power plant is not

constructed on the approved site. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), the applicant did not

address the benefits of the proposed action (e.g., the need for power). In accordance with

10 CFR 52.18, the EIS is focused on the environmental effects of construction and operation of

a reactor, or reactors, that have characteristics that fall within the postulated site parameters.

Upon acceptance of the Exelon ESP application, the NRC began the environmental review

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

(68 FR 66130) to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping. The staff held a public scoping meeting

in Clinton, Illinois on December 18, 2003, and visited the Exelon ESP site in March 2004. 

Subsequent to the site visit and the scoping meeting and in accordance with NEPA and 10 CFR

Part 51, the staff has determined and evaluated the potential environmental impacts of

| constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. 

| Included in this EIS are (1) the results of the NRC staff’s preliminary analyses, which consider

and weigh the environmental effects of the proposed action (issuance of the ESP) and of

constructing and operating a new nuclear unit at the ESP site, (2) mitigation measures for

reducing or avoiding adverse effects, (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives to the

| proposed action, and (4) the staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action based on its

| environmental review.

During the course of preparing this EIS, the staff reviewed the Environmental Report (ER)

| submitted by Exelon (Exelon 2006a), consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies,

and followed the guidance set forth in review standard RS-002, Processing Applications for

Early Site Permits (NRC 2004), to conduct an independent review of the issues. The review

| standard draws from the previously published NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the

| Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1987), and NUREG-1555,

Environmental Standard Review Plans (NRC 2000). In addition, the NRC considered the public

comments related to the environmental review received during the scoping process. These

comments are provided in Appendix D of this EIS.

| The results of this evaluation were documented in a draft EIS issued for public comment in

| February 2005. During the comment period, the staff conducted a public meeting on April 19,

| 2005, near the Exelon ESP site to describe the results of the NRC environmental review,

| answer questions, and provide members of the public with information to assist them in

| formulating comments on the draft EIS. After the comment period closed, the staff considered

| and dispositioned all the comments received. These comments are addressed in Appendix E of

this EIS.
Conclusions and Recommendations

July 2006 10-3 NUREG-1815

Following the practice the staff used in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License |

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) (NRC 1996) and supplemental license renewal EISs,

environmental issues are evaluated using the three-level standard of significance – SMALL,

MODERATE, or LARGE – developed by NRC using guidelines from the Council on

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.27). The footnote to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, |

Subpart A, Appendix B, provides the following definitions of the three significance levels:

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.

Mitigation measures were considered for each environmental issue and are discussed in the

appropriate sections. During its environmental review, the staff considered planned activities

and actions that Exelon indicates it and others would likely take should Exelon decide to apply

for a CP or COL. In addition, Exelon provided estimates of the environmental impacts resulting

from the construction and operation of a new nuclear unit on the ESP site. Key information

considered by the staff in determining the level of impacts to a resource is discussed throughout

the report and is listed in Appendix K.

NEPA requires that an EIS include information on:

 C Any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be

implemented

 C Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the

proposed action is implemented

 C The relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance

and enhancement of long-term productivity.

Activities permitted under an ESP that includes a site redress plan include preparation of the

site for construction of the facility, installation of temporary construction facilities, excavation for

facility structures, construction of service facilities, and construction of certain structures,

systems, and components that do not prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated

accidents. These activities are identified in the site redress plan. However, the following

discussion of the NEPA requirements addresses the impacts of construction and operation of a 
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1815 10-4 July 2006

new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site. The construction impacts bound any impacts of the

site preparation activities and preliminary construction activities allowed under 10 CFR 52.25(a).

10.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

| Section 102(2)(C)(ii) of NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires that an EIS include information on

any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. 

Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are those potential impacts of construction and

operation of the proposed new units that cannot be avoided and for which no practical means of

mitigation are available.

There will be no unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the granting of the

ESP with the exception of impacts associated with the limited site-preparation and preliminary

| construction activities identified in the site redress plan. The impacts associated with the sitepreparation and preliminary construction activities are bounded by the construction activities. 

However, there are unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the

construction and operation of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site.

If granted, the only activities authorized by the ESP would be the following site-preparation

activities sought by Exelon, which are described in the volume of the application titled

| “Administrative Information, Emergency Plan, Site Redress Plan” (Exelon 2006b) and

enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1): 

 C Preparation of the site for construction of the facility (including such activities as clearing,

grading, and construction of temporary access roads and borrow areas)

 C Installation of temporary construction support facilities (including such items as

warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading

facilities, and construction support buildings)

 C Excavation for facility structures

 C The construction of service facilities (including such facilities as roadways, paving,

railroad spurs, fencing, exterior utility and lighting systems, and sanitary sewage

treatment facilities)

 C The construction of structures, systems, and components that do not prevent or mitigate

the consequences of postulated accidents, which could cause undue risk to the health

and safety of the public. 
Conclusions and Recommendations

July 2006 10-5 NUREG-1815

If the ESP is granted to Exelon and if Exelon performs any or all of the activities above, but does

not, in the future, seek a CP under 10 CFR Part 50 or a COL under 10 CFR Part 52, Exelon

would need to redress the site according to the site redress plan included in the application

(Exelon 2006b). The staff reviewed the list of allowed site-preparation and preliminary |

construction activities in the event that the ESP is granted and reviewed the full site redress

plan submitted by Exelon. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.17, the application demonstrated that

there is reasonable assurance that redress carried out under the plan will achieve an

environmentally stable and aesthetically acceptable site suitable for whatever non-nuclear use

may conform with local zoning laws. As a result of the staff’s independent review, the staff, in

accordance with 10 CFR 52.25(a), concludes that the potential site preparation and preliminary |

construction activities described in Exelon’s site redress plan would not result in any significant

adverse impacts that could not be redressed.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction

Chapter 4 discusses the impacts from construction of a new nuclear unit at the Exelon ESP site

in detail. The unavoidable adverse impacts related to construction are listed in Table 10-1 and

are summarized below. The primary unavoidable adverse environmental impacts during |

construction would be related to land use. All construction activities for a new nuclear unit,

including ground-disturbing activities, would occur within the existing Clinton Power Station site

boundary. According to Exelon, the area that would be affected on a long-term basis as a result

of permanent facilities is approximately 39 ha (96 ac). Additional areas would be disturbed on a

short-term basis as a result of temporary activities and facilities and laydown areas

(Exelon 2006a). |

The construction impacts on the terrestrial ecology of the site would be short-term. 

Construction of a new nuclear unit would result in the removal of approximately 1.45 ha (3.5 ac)

of forested habitat within the site. The Exelon ESP site does not contain any old-growth timber,

nor any unique or sensitive plants or communities. Therefore, construction activities would not

noticeably reduce the local or regional diversity of plants or plant communities. There are no

important animal species or habitats on the ESP site. No areas designated by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service as critical habitat for endangered or threatened species exist at or near the

site, nor are threatened or endangered plants or animals known to exist at the site. Therefore,

construction would likely have no impact on any threatened or endangered species, or other

important species or habitats. Socioeconomic impacts of construction include an increase in

traffic. Atmospheric and meteorological impacts include fugitive dust from construction activities

that can be mitigated by the dust control plan. Radiological doses to construction workers from

the adjacent unit are expected to be well below regulatory limits. Regarding environmental

justice, there are no unusual resource dependencies by minority or low-income populations.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1815 10-6 July 2006

Table 10-1. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction

Impact Category

Adverse Impacts Based

on Applicant’s

Proposal

Actions to Mitigate

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse

Impacts

Land use Yes Comply with

requirements of

applicable Federal, State,

and Local permits

39 ha (96 ac) disturbed

on a long-term basis;

additional land disturbed

on a temporary basis

Hydrological and water

use

Yes Obtain a 401 Certification

prior to site-preparation

activities

Dewatering systems

would depress the water

table in the general

vicinity, but the impacts

would be localized and

temporary

Ecological

Terrestrial

Aquatic

No

Yes

None

Obtain a 401 Certification

prior to site-preparation

activities

| None

| Loss of some benthic

| macroinvertebrates and

| shoreline habitat

Socioeconomic Yes Increased taxes collected

can offset impacts

| Increased use of

| services, traffic

| congestion

| Radiological Yes Use of as low as is

reasonably achievable

(ALARA) principles

Dose to site preparation

workers

Atmospheric and 

meteorological

Yes Implement actions to

reduce fugitive dust

Equipment emissions

and fugitive dust from

operation of earth-moving

equipment are sources of

air pollution

Environmental justice No Not applicable Not applicable

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation

Chapter 5 provides a detailed discussion of the impacts from operation of a new nuclear unit at

the Exelon ESP site. The unavoidable adverse impacts related to operation are listed in

| Table 10-2 and are summarized below. The unavoidable adverse impacts from operation for

land use would be small and further mitigation would not be warranted. Hydrological, water use,

and water quality impacts during operation would primarily be the result of the operation of the

| proposed wet cooling tower during periods of reduced water supply in Clinton Lake and

| downstream assuming a wet cooling tower bounds the consumptive water loss of other cooling

| systems. In normal water years, the impacts from the cooling system would be SMALL and in

low-water years the impacts would be MODERATE. These water impacts are readily mitigated 
Conclusions and Recommendations

July 2006 10-7 NUREG-1815

through the State of Illinois authority to regulate water use and water quality. Water impacts

would be reversed once the precipitation patterns returned to normal. Aquatic ecology impacts |

include increased rates of impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms, based on the |

cooling water intake design. The proposed new unit is expected to have a cooling-tower-based |

heat dissipation system, which draws significantly less water than the existing CPS once- |

through cooling system, thereby resulting in relatively low impingement and entrainment effects. |

Potential mitigation for cooling water system impacts to aquatic biota would be regulated |

through the State of Illinois. Socioeconomic impacts would primarily be increased demand for |

services, with the increase in tax revenue to support the increase in services. It is expected that

meteorological impacts would be negligible and that pollutants emitted during operations would

be insignificant.

Table 10-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation

Impact Category

Adverse Impacts

Based on Applicant’s

Proposal

Actions to Mitigate

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse

Impacts

Land use Yes Local land management

plans

Possible new housing and

retail space added in vicinity

due to potential growth

Hydrological and

water use

Yes Comply with State

permit limits

Decrease in lake level and

reduction in available water

released from the dam

Ecological

Terrestrial

Aquatic

No

Yes

None

Comply with State

permit limits

None

Increase in |

impingement/entrainment of |

aquatic organisms |

Socioeconomic Yes Increased tax revenues

will offset impacts

Increased use of services

Radiological Yes Use of as low as is

reasonably achievable

(ALARA) principles

Dose to workers, the public, |

and biota

Atmospheric and

meteorological

No None None

Environmental

justice

No None None
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1815 10-8 July 2006

10.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of

Resources

| Section 102(2)(C)(v) of NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires that an EIS include information

on any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur if the proposed

action is implemented. The only irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that

would be expended if the proposed action is implemented would be resources used by Exelon

| for site-preparation activities. If not used during the ESP stage, any such resource

commitments for site-preparation activities would be used at the CP or COL stage or could be

used for other activities even if Exelon does not eventually seek a CP or a COL for the ESP

location.

Irretrievable commitments of resources during construction of the proposed new units generally

would be similar to that of any major construction project. The actual commitment of

construction resources (concrete, steel, and other building materials) would depend on the

reactor design selected at the CP or COL stage. Hazardous materials such as asbestos would

not be used, if possible. If materials such as asbestos were used, it would be in accordance

with safety regulations and practices. The actual estimate of construction materials would be

performed at the CP or COL stage when the reactor design is selected. 

The staff expects that the use of construction materials in the quantities associated with those

expected for the new ESP unit, while irretrievable, would be of small consequence, with respect

to the availability of such resources.

The main resource that would be irretrievably committed during operation of a new nuclear unit

would be uranium. The availability of uranium ore and existing stockpiles of highly enriched

uranium in the United States and Russia that could be processed into fuel is sufficient, so that

the irreversible and irretrievable commitment would be of small consequence.

10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term

Productivity of the Human Environment

| Section 102(2)(C)(iv) of NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires that an EIS include information

on the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and

enhancement of long-term productivity. The only short-term use of the environment that could

occur if the proposed action is implemented would be site preparation activities conducted by

Exelon that would be authorized in an ESP. Any such activities are unlikely to adversely affect

the long-term productivity of the environment. The evaluation of the relationship between local

short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term

productivity for the construction and operation of the ESP unit can only be performed by 
Conclusions and Recommendations

July 2006 10-9 NUREG-1815

discussing the benefits of operating the unit. The benefit is the production of electricity. In

accordance with 10 CFR 52.18, an EIS for an ESP does not need to include an assessment of

the benefits of the proposed action. However, an assessment of the evaluation of the |

relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and

enhancement of long-term productivity for the construction and operation of a new nuclear unit

would be performed at the CP or COL stage. |

10.4 Cumulative Impacts

The staff considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation

of the ESP unit with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Exelon ESP

site area in Chapter 7 of this EIS. For each impact area, the staff determined that the potential |

cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation would be SMALL and that

mitigation would not be warranted. Several impact categories have the potential for |

MODERATE impacts, most of which would occur under temporary circumstances or as the

result of a larger-than-expected concentration of construction workers settling near the Exelon

ESP site.

10.5 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

The staff’s recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the |

proposed action is that the ESP should be issued with the permit condition discussed in |

Section 4.3.1 of this EIS. The staff’s evaluation of the safety and emergency preparedness |

aspects of the proposed action have been addressed in the staff’s final safety evaluation report

published May 1, 2006. |

This recommendation is based on (1) the ER submitted by Exelon, (2) consultation with Federal, |

State, Tribal, and local agencies, (3) the staff’s independent review, (4) the staff’s consideration

of comments received from the public, and (5) the assessments summarized in this EIS, |

including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and in the EIS. In addition, in

making its recommendation, the staff has determined that there are no environmentally |

preferable or obviously superior sites. Finally, the staff has concluded that the site-preparation |

and preliminary construction activities allowed by (10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)) will not result in any |

adverse significant impact that cannot be redressed.

A comparative summary showing the environmental impacts of locating a new nuclear unit at

the Exelon ESP site and at any of the alternative sites is shown in Table 10-3. Impacts of the

no-action alternative, or denial of the ESP application, are also shown. Table 10-3 shows that

the significance of the environmental impacts of the proposed action is SMALL for all impact

categories with the exception of water use, water quality, ecology, and certain socioeconomic |

categories. The alternative sites may have environmental effects in at least some categories 
Table 10-3. Summary of Environmental Significance of Station Location at the Exelon ESP Site and at Alternative Sites 

and for the No-Action Alternative

Proposed

Action

No-Action

Alternative

Impact Category ESP Site

Denial of

ESP Dresden Braidwood LaSalle Quad Cities Byron Zion

Land use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLAir quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALLWater use andquality

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Ecology |

||

Unresolved,

Likely to be

SMALL(b)

SMALL SMALL to

LARGE(c)

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

LARGE(d)

SMALL SMALL to

LARGE(e) |

Socioeconomics | Beneficial

|

 Adverse |

|

SMALL to

LARGE(f)

SMALL to

MODERATE(j) |

SMALLSMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(g)

SMALL to

MODERATE(k)

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(l)

SMALL to

MODERATE(h)

SMALL to

MODERATE(m)

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE(n)

SMALL to

MODERATE(i)

SMALL to

MODERATE(o)

SMALL

SMALL to

LARGE(p)

Historic andarchaeological resources

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Environmentaljustice

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Human health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL(a) Temporary MODERATE impact during critical low-water years. See Section 5.3. (j) See Section 5.5.3. |(b) See Sections 4.4.1 and 5.4.2. (k) See Sections 8.5.1.5 and 8.6.4. |(c) Related to transmission system upgrades. See Section 8.5.1.3. (l) See Sections 8.5.2.5 and 8.6.4. |(d) Related to Higgins’ eye pearlymussel. See Section 8.5.4.4. (m) See Sections 8.5.3.5 and 8.6.4. |(e) Related to transmission system upgrades. See Section 8.5.6.5. (n) See Sections 8.5.4.5 and 8.6.4. |(f) Beneficial impact with up to a LARGE impact for DeWitt County. See Section 5.5.3. (o) See Sections 8.5.5.5 and 8.6.4. |(g) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for Grundy County. See Section 8.5.1.5. (p) See Sections 8.5.6.5 and 8.6.4. |(h) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for LaSalle County. See Section 8.5.3.5. |(i) Beneficial impact with up to a MODERATE impact for Ogle County. See Section 8.5.5.5. |

Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1815 10-10 July 2006
Conclusions and Recommendations

July 2006 10-11 NUREG-1815

that reach MODERATE to LARGE significance. The staff concludes that none of the alternative |

sites assessed are obviously superior to the Exelon ESP site.

The range of impacts estimated by the staff was predicated on certain assumptions made by the |

staff; these are identified in each section and summarized in Appendix K. If the Commission

issues the requested ESP and it is later referenced in a CP or COL application, the staff will |

verify that the assumptions identified in Appendixes J and K remain applicable. In addition, |

certain issues are not considered to be resolved because of a lack of information in the |

environmental report or in responses to the staff’s requests for additional information. A CP or |

COL applicant referencing the Exelon ESP would need to provide the missing information for |

these issues. |

10.6 References |

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.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

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

“Council on Environmental Quality.” |

68 FR 66130. “Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Clinton Early Site Permit; Notice of Intent to

Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” Federal Register. 

Vol. 68, No. 227. November 25, 2003.

Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 USC 2011, et seq.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006a. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Early

Site Permit Application: Environmental Report, Rev. 4. Exelon Nuclear, Kennett Square, |

Pennsylvania.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). 2006b. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Early |

Site Permit, Rev. 4. Administrative Information, Emergency Plan, Site Redress Plan. Exelon |

Nuclear, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1815 10-12 July 2006

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plans for the Review of

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, NRC, Washington, D.C.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plans

(ESRP). NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Processing Applications for Early Site

Permits. RS-002, NRC, Washington, D.C.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(9-2004)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1815

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

July

YEAR

2006

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Environmental Impact Statement

for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the

Exelon ESP Site, Final Report

Volume 1, Main Report

5. AUTHOR(S)

See Appendix A of Report

6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of New Reactor Licensing

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Same as above.

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket No. 52-007

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This report has been prepared in response to an application submitted to the NRC by Exelon Generation Company, LLC, for an

early site permit (ESP) for the Exelon ESP site located adjacent to the Clinton Power Station in Clinton, Illinois. The ESP does

not authorize construction and operation of a nuclear power plant. However, the application does include a site redress plan

that, if approved, would allow limited site preparation work.

The staff's recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the proposed action is that the ESP

should be issued. This recommendation is based on (1) the application, including the Environmental Report (ER), submitted by

Exelon; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the staff's independent review; (4) the staff's

consideration of comments related to the environmental review that were received; and (5) the assessments summarized in this

EIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and this EIS. In addition, in making its recommendation, the

staff determined that there are no environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites. Finally, the staff has concluded that the

site-preparation and construction activities allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) requested by Exelon in its application would not result

in any significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be redressed.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

Clinton

Early Site Permit

ESP

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA

Exelon

Environmental Impact Statement

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Printed

on recycled

paper

Federal Recycling Program