ML032721602

Environmental Report for the Exelon Generation Company, LLC Early Site Permit, Table of Contents Through Figure 2.1-3

ML032721602
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton, 05200007, PROJ0718
Issue date:	09/25/2003
From:	Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear
To:	Office of New Reactors
Shared Package
ML032721596	List: ML032721594 ML032721599 ML032721600 ML032721601 ML032721602 ML032721603 ML032721604 ML032721605 ML032721606 ML032721607 ML032721608 ML032721609 ML032721610 ML032721611 ML032721613 ML032721615 ML032721617 ML032721619 ML032721620 ML032721621 ML032730608 ML032730609 ML032730610 ML032730612 ML032730613 ML032730614 ML032730615 ML032730616 ML032730617 ML032730618 ML032730619
References
+ReviewedClintonESP, +reviewednvg DEL-096-REV0
Download: ML032721602 (237)

Text

Environmental Report for the Exelon Generation Company, LLC Early Site Permit

Contents

1. Introduction to the Environmental Report.........................................................................1-1 1.1 The Proposed Project ..................................................................................................1.1-1 1.1.1 The Applicant and Owner ..............................................................................1.1-1 1.1.2 Site Location......................................................................................................1.1-1 1.1.3 Reactor Information .........................................................................................1.1-2 1.1.4 Cooling System Information...........................................................................1.1-2 1.1.5 Transmission System Information .................................................................1.1-2 1.1.6 The Nature of the Proposed Action and Contraints ...................................1.1-3 1.1.7 Construction Start Date ...................................................................................1.1-3 1.2 Status of Reviews, Approvals, and Consultations..................................................1.2-1 Chapter 1 References............................................................................................................ 1.R-1

2. Environmental Description ...................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Station Location ...........................................................................................................2.1-1 2.2 Land...............................................................................................................................2.2-1 2.2.1 Site and Vicinity ...............................................................................................2.2-1 2.2.2 Transmission Corridors and Off-Site Areas .................................................2.2-2 2.2.3 Region ................................................................................................................2.2-4 2.3 Water .............................................................................................................................2.3-1 2.3.1 Hydrology .........................................................................................................2.3-1 2.3.1.1 Freshwater Streams .........................................................................2.3-1 2.3.1.2 Lakes and Impoundments ..............................................................2.3-3 2.3.1.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................2.3-8 2.3.2 Water Use ........................................................................................................2.3-15 2.3.2.1 Freshwater Streams .......................................................................2.3-15 2.3.2.2 Lakes and Impoundments ............................................................2.3-15 2.3.2.3 Groundwater Use...........................................................................2.3-16 2.3.3 Water Quality .................................................................................................2.3-18 2.3.3.1 Freshwater Streams .......................................................................2.3-18 2.3.3.2 Lakes and Impoundments ............................................................2.3-19 2.3.3.3 Groundwater ..................................................................................2.3-21 2.4 Ecology..........................................................................................................................2.4-1 2.4.1 Terrestrial Ecology ...........................................................................................2.4-1 2.4.1.1 Existing Land Use ............................................................................2.4-1 2.4.1.2 Wildlife Resources ...........................................................................2.4-3 2.4.1.3 Important Species ............................................................................2.4-4 2.4.1.4 Important Habitats ..........................................................................2.4-5 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology ...............................................................................................2.4-7 2.4.2.1 Water Quality and Use....................................................................2.4-7 2.4.2.2 Fisheries Resources..........................................................................2.4-8 2.4.2.3 Important Species ............................................................................2.4-8 2.4.2.4 Biological Indicators ......................................................................2.4-11 DEL-096-REV0 iii

CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 2.4.2.5 Important Habitats........................................................................ 2.4-11 2.5 Socioeconomics............................................................................................................ 2.5-1 2.5.1 Demography..................................................................................................... 2.5-1 2.5.1.1 Population Within 16 km (10 mi) .................................................. 2.5-1 2.5.1.2 Population Between 16 km and 80 km (10 mi and 50 mi) ......... 2.5-3 2.5.1.3 Demographic Characteristics of the Population Within 80 km (50 mi).................................................................................... 2.5-4 2.5.2 Community Characteristics............................................................................ 2.5-5 2.5.2.1 Economic Characteristics ............................................................... 2.5-5 2.5.2.2 Political Structure ............................................................................ 2.5-5 2.5.2.3 Social Structure ................................................................................ 2.5-6 2.5.2.4 Housing Information ...................................................................... 2.5-6 2.5.2.5 Educational System ......................................................................... 2.5-7 2.5.2.6 Recreation ......................................................................................... 2.5-7 2.5.2.7 Public Services and Facilities ......................................................... 2.5-9 2.5.2.8 Transportation Facilities................................................................. 2.5-9 2.5.2.9 Distinctive Communities.............................................................. 2.5-10 2.5.2.10 Agriculture ..................................................................................... 2.5-10 2.5.3 Historic Properties......................................................................................... 2.5-11 2.5.4 Environmental Justice ................................................................................... 2.5-12 2.5.4.1 Racial, Ethnic, and Special Groups ............................................. 2.5-13 2.5.4.2 Income Characteristics.................................................................. 2.5-13 2.6 Geology......................................................................................................................... 2.6-1 2.7 Meteorology and Air Quality .................................................................................... 2.7-1 2.7.1 General Climate ............................................................................................... 2.7-1 2.7.1.1 General Description ........................................................................ 2.7-1 2.7.1.2 Winds ................................................................................................ 2.7-2 2.7.1.3 Temperature..................................................................................... 2.7-3 2.7.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture .................................................................... 2.7-3 2.7.1.5 Precipitation ..................................................................................... 2.7-3 2.7.2 Regional Air Quality ....................................................................................... 2.7-3 2.7.3 Severe Weather ................................................................................................ 2.7-4 2.7.3.1 Thunderstorms, Hail, and Lightning............................................ 2.7-4 2.7.3.2 Tornadoes and Severe Winds ........................................................ 2.7-6 2.7.3.3 Heavy Snow and Severe Glaze Storms ........................................ 2.7-7 2.7.3.4 Hurricanes ........................................................................................ 2.7-9 2.7.3.5 Inversions and High Air Pollution Potential............................... 2.7-9 2.7.4 Local Meteorology ......................................................................................... 2.7-10 2.7.4.1 Normal and Extreme Values of Meteorological Parameters... 2.7-11 2.7.4.2 Local Meteorological Conditions for Design and Operating Bases ................................................................................................ 2.7-16 2.7.5 On-Site Meteorological Measurements Program ...................................... 2.7-16 2.7.5.1 Instrumentation ............................................................................. 2.7-16 2.7.5.2 Maintenance and Calibration ...................................................... 2.7-18 2.7.5.3 Data Reduction .............................................................................. 2.7-18 2.7.5.4 Control Room Monitoring............................................................ 2.7-18 2.7.6 Short-Term Diffusion Estimates .................................................................. 2.7-18 iv DEL-096-REV0

EMVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CONTENTS 2.7.6.1 Objective..........................................................................................2.7-18 2.7.6.2 Chi/Q Estimates From the CPS USAR .......................................2.7-19 2.7.6.3 Chi/Q Estimates using the PAVAN Computer Code and On-Site Data....................................................................................2.7-20 2.7.6.4 Chi/Q Estimates for Short-Term Diffusion Calculations.........2.7-22 2.7.7 Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates .................................................2.7-22 2.7.7.1 Objective..........................................................................................2.7-22 2.7.7.2 Calculations ....................................................................................2.7-22 2.8 Other Federal Projects.................................................................................................2.8-1 Chapter 2 References............................................................................................................ 2.R-1

3. Plant Description.....................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout ...................................................................3.1-1 3.1.1 Plant Location ...................................................................................................3.1-1 3.1.2 Planned Physical Activities.............................................................................3.1-1 3.1.3 Station Layout and Appearance.....................................................................3.1-2 3.1.4 Aesthetic Appearance......................................................................................3.1-3 3.2 Reactor Power Conversion System ...........................................................................3.2-1 3.3 Plant Water Use ...........................................................................................................3.3-1 3.3.1 Water Consumption.........................................................................................3.3-1 3.3.1.1 Water Supply....................................................................................3.3-2 3.3.1.2 Water Requirements........................................................................3.3-2 3.3.1.3 Cooling Water Discharges ..............................................................3.3-2 3.3.2 Water Treatment...............................................................................................3.3-2 3.4 Cooling System ............................................................................................................3.4-1 3.4.1 Description and Operational Modes .............................................................3.4-1 3.4.1.1 Normal Heat Sink ............................................................................3.4-1 3.4.1.2 Ultimate Heat Sink...........................................................................3.4-2 3.4.2 Component Descriptions ................................................................................3.4-2 3.4.2.1 EGC ESP Intake Structure...............................................................3.4-2 3.4.2.2 Clinton Power Station Discharge Flume ......................................3.4-3 3.4.2.3 Normal Heat Sink ............................................................................3.4-3 3.4.2.4 Ultimate Heat Sink...........................................................................3.4-4 3.4.2.5 Instrumentation................................................................................3.4-4 3.5 Radioactive Waste Management Systems................................................................3.5-1 3.5.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste Management System .........................................3.5-1 3.5.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste Management System ......................................3.5-2 3.5.3 Solid Radioactive Waste Management System............................................3.5-3 3.6 Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems .........................................................3.6-1 3.6.1 Effluents Containing Biocides or Chemicals ................................................3.6-1 3.6.2 Sanitary System Effluents ...............................................................................3.6-2 3.6.3 Other Effluents .................................................................................................3.6-2 3.6.3.1 Liquid Effluents................................................................................3.6-2 3.6.3.2 Gaseous Effluents ............................................................................3.6-3 3.7 Power Transmission System ......................................................................................3.7-1 3.7.1 Background .......................................................................................................3.7-1 3.7.1.1 Open Transmission Requirements ................................................3.7-1 DEL-096-REV0 v

CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 3.7.1.2 Illinois Power Company Transmission System .......................... 3.7-2 3.7.1.3 Comparative Loads ......................................................................... 3.7-2 3.7.2 Transmission System Description ................................................................. 3.7-2 3.7.3 Radiated Electrical and Acoustical Noises................................................... 3.7-3 3.7.4 Electro Magnetic Fields................................................................................... 3.7-4 3.7.5 Induced or Conducted Ground Currents..................................................... 3.7-4 3.8 Transportation of Radioactive Materials ................................................................. 3.8-1 3.8.1 Light-Water-Cooled Reactors ........................................................................ 3.8-1 3.8.2 Gas-Cooled Reactors ....................................................................................... 3.8-4 3.8.2.1 Introduction and Background ....................................................... 3.8-4 3.8.2.2 Analysis ............................................................................................ 3.8-6 3.8.2.3 Table S-4 Conditions ....................................................................... 3.8-7 3.8.2.4 Risk Contributors - Shipments...................................................... 3.8-8 3.8.2.5 Risk Contributors - Contents......................................................... 3.8-9 3.8.2.6 Discussion....................................................................................... 3.8-11 3.8.2.7 Conclusion...................................................................................... 3.8-12 3.8.3 Methodology Assessment ............................................................................ 3.8-13 Chapter 3 References ............................................................................................................3.R-1

4. Environmental Impacts of Construction ............................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Land Use Impacts........................................................................................................ 4.1-1 4.1.1 Site and Vicinity............................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.1.1.1 Land Directly Affected by Construction ...................................... 4.1-1 4.1.1.2 Land Secondarily Affected by Construction ............................... 4.1-2 4.1.1.3 Land Use Plans ................................................................................ 4.1-3 4.1.1.4 Site Restoration and Management Actions.................................. 4.1-3 4.1.2 Transmission Corridors and Off-Site Areas................................................. 4.1-3 4.1.2.1 Transmission Corridor Construction Methods ........................... 4.1-4 4.1.2.2 Potential Physical Impacts to Land Use from Construction ..... 4.1-7 4.1.3 Historic Properties........................................................................................... 4.1-9 4.2 Water-Related Impacts ............................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations ................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.1.1 Freshwater Streams......................................................................... 4.2-2 4.2.1.2 Lakes and Impoundments ............................................................. 4.2-3 4.2.1.3 Groundwater.................................................................................... 4.2-5 4.2.2 Water Use Impacts........................................................................................... 4.2-7 4.2.2.1 Freshwater Stream........................................................................... 4.2-7 4.2.2.2 Lakes and Impoundments ............................................................. 4.2-7 4.2.2.3 Groundwater Use ............................................................................ 4.2-8 4.3 Ecological Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Ecosystems from Construction ............................... 4.3-1 4.3.1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.3.1.2 Land Use and Habitats ................................................................... 4.3-1 4.3.1.3 Wildlife Resources........................................................................... 4.3-1 4.3.1.4 Important Species and Habitats .................................................... 4.3-2 4.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Ecosystems from Construction.................................... 4.3-4 4.3.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4.3-4 vi DEL-096-REV0

EMVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CONTENTS 4.3.2.2 Water Quality and Use....................................................................4.3-4 4.3.2.3 Fisheries Resources..........................................................................4.3-4 4.3.2.4 Important Species and Habitats.....................................................4.3-4 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts...............................................................................................4.4-1 4.4.1 Physical Impacts...............................................................................................4.4-1 4.4.1.1 Noise ..................................................................................................4.4-1 4.4.1.2 Air ......................................................................................................4.4-1 4.4.1.3 Temporary Aesthetic Disturbances ...............................................4.4-2 4.4.2 Social and Economic Impacts .........................................................................4.4-2 4.4.2.1 Economic Characteristics ................................................................4.4-3 4.4.2.2 Tax Impacts.......................................................................................4.4-3 4.4.2.3 Social Structure.................................................................................4.4-3 4.4.2.4 Housing Information.......................................................................4.4-3 4.4.2.5 Educational System .........................................................................4.4-4 4.4.2.6 Recreation .........................................................................................4.4-4 4.4.2.7 Public Services and Facilities..........................................................4.4-4 4.4.2.8 Transportation Facilities .................................................................4.4-5 4.4.2.9 Distinctive Communities ................................................................4.4-5 4.4.2.10 Agriculture........................................................................................4.4-5 4.4.3 Environmental Justice......................................................................................4.4-5 4.5 Radiation Exposure to Construction Workers.........................................................4.5-1 4.5.1 Site Location......................................................................................................4.5-1 4.5.2 Radiation Sources.............................................................................................4.5-1 4.5.3 Measured Radiation Dose Rates and Airborne Concentrations................4.5-1 4.5.3.1 Gaseous and Liquid Releases from the Clinton Power Station Facility ...............................................................................................4.5-2 4.5.3.2 Direct Radiation Measurements ....................................................4.5-2 4.5.4 Annual Construction Worker Doses .............................................................4.5-2 4.6 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction ...........4.6-1 4.6.1 Regulatory Criteria ..........................................................................................4.6-1 4.6.2 Adverse Environmental Impacts ...................................................................4.6-1 4.6.3 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts......................................4.6-1 4.6.3.1 Temporary Aesthetic Disturbances ...............................................4.6-2 4.6.3.2 Noise ..................................................................................................4.6-2 4.6.3.3 Dust/Air Pollutants.........................................................................4.6-3 4.6.3.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Controls ............................................4.6-3 4.6.3.5 Potential Pollutant Sources.............................................................4.6-5 4.6.3.6 Traffic Controls ................................................................................4.6-9 4.6.3.7 Water-Related Impacts..................................................................4.6-10 4.6.3.8 Land Use Protection/Restoration................................................4.6-13 4.6.3.9 Water Use Protection/Restoration ..............................................4.6-14 4.6.3.10 Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts .....................................................4.6-14 4.6.3.11 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts..........................................................4.6-16 4.6.3.12 Socioeconomic Impacts .................................................................4.6-17 4.6.3.13 Radiological Protection Program.................................................4.6-18 DEL-096-REV0 vii

CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Chapter 4 References ............................................................................................................4.R-1

5. Environmental Impacts of Station Operation ................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Land Use Impacts........................................................................................................ 5.1-1 5.1.1 Site and Vicinity............................................................................................... 5.1-1 5.1.1.1 Summary of Land Use Impacts ..................................................... 5.1-1 5.1.1.2 Heat Dissipation System Impacts to Land Use ........................... 5.1-2 5.1.2 Transmission Corridors and Off-Site Areas................................................. 5.1-2 5.1.2.1 Maintenance Roads ......................................................................... 5.1-2 5.1.2.2 Vegetation Control .......................................................................... 5.1-3 5.1.3 Historic Properties........................................................................................... 5.1-3 5.2 Water-Related Impacts ............................................................................................... 5.2-1 5.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations and Plant Water Supply........................................ 5.2-1 5.2.1.1 Freshwater Streams......................................................................... 5.2-2 5.2.1.2 Lakes and Impoundments ............................................................. 5.2-3 5.2.1.3 Groundwater.................................................................................... 5.2-6 5.2.2 Water Use Impacts........................................................................................... 5.2-6 5.2.2.1 Freshwater Streams......................................................................... 5.2-6 5.2.2.2 Lakes and Impoundments ............................................................. 5.2-6 5.2.2.3 Groundwater Use ............................................................................ 5.2-7 5.3 Cooling System Impacts............................................................................................. 5.3-1 5.3.1 Intake System ................................................................................................... 5.3-1 5.3.1.1 Hydrodynamic Descriptions and Physical Impacts ................... 5.3-1 5.3.1.2 Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................ 5.3-2 5.3.2 Discharge System............................................................................................. 5.3-3 5.3.2.1 Thermal Description and Physical Impacts................................. 5.3-3 5.3.2.2 Aquatic Ecosystems ........................................................................ 5.3-4 5.3.3 Heat-Discharge System................................................................................... 5.3-5 5.3.3.1 Heat Dissipation to the Atmosphere ............................................ 5.3-6 5.3.3.2 Terrestrial Ecosystem...................................................................... 5.3-7 5.3.3.3 Impacts to Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats ............. 5.3-8 5.3.3.4 Ultimate Heat Sink .......................................................................... 5.3-9 5.3.4 Impact to Members of the Public................................................................. 5.3-10 5.3.4.1 Thermophilic Organisms.............................................................. 5.3-10 5.3.4.2 Cooling Tower Thermal and/or Vapor Plumes ....................... 5.3-11 5.3.4.3 Noise Impacts................................................................................. 5.3-11 5.4 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations........................................................... 5.4-1 5.4.1 Exposure Pathways ......................................................................................... 5.4-1 5.4.1.1 Liquid Pathways.............................................................................. 5.4-1 5.4.1.2 Gaseous Pathways........................................................................... 5.4-2 5.4.1.3 Direct Radiation from Station Operation ..................................... 5.4-3 5.4.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public .................................................. 5.4-3 5.4.2.1 Liquid Pathways Doses .................................................................. 5.4-3 5.4.2.2 Gaseous Pathways Doses ............................................................... 5.4-3 5.4.3 Impacts to Members of the Public ................................................................. 5.4-3 5.4.3.1 Impacts from Liquid Pathways ..................................................... 5.4-3 5.4.3.2 Impacts from Gaseous Pathways .................................................. 5.4-4 viii DEL-096-REV0

EMVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CONTENTS 5.4.3.3 Direct Radiation Doses from the EGC ESP Facility ....................5.4-4 5.4.4 Impacts to Biota Other than Members of the Public ...................................5.4-4 5.4.4.1 Liquid Effluents................................................................................5.4-5 5.4.4.2 Gaseous Effluents ............................................................................5.4-5 5.4.4.3 Biota Doses........................................................................................5.4-6 5.5 Environmental Impacts of Waste ..............................................................................5.5-1 5.5.1 Nonradioactive Waste-System Impacts ........................................................5.5-1 5.5.1.1 Nonradioactive Solid Waste...........................................................5.5-1 5.5.1.2 Nonradioactive Liquid Effluents ...................................................5.5-1 5.5.1.3 Gaseous Effluents ............................................................................5.5-3 5.5.2 Mixed Waste Impacts ......................................................................................5.5-3 5.5.2.1 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization Program...........5.5-5 5.5.2.2 Mixed Waste Impacts ......................................................................5.5-8 5.6 Transmission Systems Impacts..................................................................................5.6-1 5.6.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems.....................................................................................5.6-1 5.6.1.1 Important Species ............................................................................5.6-1 5.6.1.2 Important Habitats ..........................................................................5.6-2 5.6.1.3 Maintenance .....................................................................................5.6-3 5.6.1.4 Indirect Impacts ...............................................................................5.6-3 5.6.2 Aquatic Ecosystems .........................................................................................5.6-3 5.6.2.1 Important Species ............................................................................5.6-4 5.6.2.2 Important Habitats ..........................................................................5.6-5 5.6.2.3 Maintenance .....................................................................................5.6-5 5.6.3 Impacts to Members of the Public .................................................................5.6-6 5.6.3.1 Design Parameters ...........................................................................5.6-6 5.6.3.2 Maintenance Practices .....................................................................5.6-6 5.6.3.3 Electric Field Gradient.....................................................................5.6-6 5.6.3.4 Communication System Reception ...............................................5.6-6 5.6.3.5 Grounding Procedures....................................................................5.6-7 5.6.3.6 Noise Levels......................................................................................5.6-7 5.7 Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts .....................................................................................5.7-1 5.7.1 Light-Water-Cooled Reactors .........................................................................5.7-1 5.7.2 Gas-Cooled Reactors........................................................................................5.7-2 5.7.2.1 Introduction and Background........................................................5.7-2 5.7.2.2 Analytic Approach...........................................................................5.7-3 5.7.2.3 Analysis and Discussion .................................................................5.7-5 5.7.2.4 Summary and Conclusion ..............................................................5.7-8 5.7.3 Methodology Assessment...............................................................................5.7-9 5.8 Socioeconomic Impacts...............................................................................................5.8-1 5.8.1 Physical Impacts of Station Operation ..........................................................5.8-1 5.8.1.1 Site and Vicinity ...............................................................................5.8-1 5.8.1.2 Noise ..................................................................................................5.8-2 5.8.1.3 Air ......................................................................................................5.8-2 5.8.1.4 Aesthetic Disturbances....................................................................5.8-2 5.8.2 Social and Economic Impacts of Station Operation ....................................5.8-3 5.8.2.1 Economic Characteristics ................................................................5.8-3 5.8.2.2 Tax Impacts.......................................................................................5.8-4 DEL-096-REV0 ix

CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 5.8.2.3 Social Structure ................................................................................ 5.8-4 5.8.2.4 Housing Information ...................................................................... 5.8-4 5.8.2.5 Educational System ......................................................................... 5.8-4 5.8.2.6 Recreation ......................................................................................... 5.8-4 5.8.2.7 Public Services and Facilities ......................................................... 5.8-5 5.8.2.8 Transportation Facilities................................................................. 5.8-5 5.8.2.9 Distinctive Communities................................................................ 5.8-5 5.8.2.10 Agriculture ....................................................................................... 5.8-5 5.8.3 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................... 5.8-5 5.9 Decommissioning........................................................................................................ 5.9-1 5.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation .............. 5.10-1 5.10.1 Regulatory Criteria ........................................................................................ 5.10-1 5.10.2 Adverse Environmental Impacts................................................................. 5.10-1 5.10.3 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts ................................... 5.10-1 5.10.3.1 Noise................................................................................................ 5.10-2 5.10.3.2 Dust/Air Pollutants ...................................................................... 5.10-2 5.10.3.3 Erosion and Sedimentation Controls.......................................... 5.10-3 5.10.3.4 Effluents and Wastes..................................................................... 5.10-3 5.10.3.5 Traffic Control................................................................................ 5.10-5 5.10.3.6 Land Use Impacts.......................................................................... 5.10-5 5.10.3.7 Water-Related Impacts ................................................................. 5.10-6 5.10.3.8 Water Use Impacts ........................................................................ 5.10-8 5.10.3.9 Cooling System Impacts ............................................................. 5.10-10 5.10.3.10 Radiological Impacts from Normal Operation ....................... 5.10-14 5.10.3.11 Environmental Impacts of Waste .............................................. 5.10-16 5.10.3.12 Transmission System Impacts ................................................... 5.10-16 5.10.3.13 Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts ..................................................... 5.10-19 5.10.3.14 Socioeconomic Impacts............................................................... 5.10-19 5.10.3.15 Decommissioning........................................................................ 5.10-22 Chapter 5 References ............................................................................................................5.R-1

6. Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs............................................... 6-1 6.1 Thermal Monitoring ................................................................................................... 6.1-1 6.1.1 Preapplication Monitoring ............................................................................. 6.1-1 6.1.1.1 Freshwater Streams......................................................................... 6.1-2 6.1.1.2 Lakes and Impoundments ............................................................. 6.1-2 6.1.2 Preoperational Monitoring............................................................................. 6.1-3 6.1.3 Operational Monitoring.................................................................................. 6.1-4 6.2 Radiological Monitoring ............................................................................................ 6.2-1 6.2.1 Proposed Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ................... 6.2-1 6.2.2 Sample Analysis............................................................................................... 6.2-3 6.2.2.1 Direct Radiation Monitoring.......................................................... 6.2-3 6.2.2.2 Atmospheric Monitoring................................................................ 6.2-4 6.2.2.3 Aquatic Monitoring......................................................................... 6.2-4 6.2.2.4 Terrestrial Monitoring .................................................................... 6.2-5 6.2.2.5 Water Monitoring............................................................................ 6.2-6 6.2.3 Quality Assurance Program........................................................................... 6.2-7 x DEL-096-REV0

EMVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CONTENTS 6.3 Hydrological Monitoring ...........................................................................................6.3-1 6.3.1 Preapplication Hydrological Monitoring Program.....................................6.3-1 6.3.1.1 Freshwater Streams .........................................................................6.3-2 6.3.1.2 Lakes and Impoundments ..............................................................6.3-2 6.3.1.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................6.3-3 6.3.2 Construction Hydrological Monitoring Program........................................6.3-5 6.3.2.1 Freshwater Streams .........................................................................6.3-5 6.3.2.2 Lakes and Impoundments ..............................................................6.3-5 6.3.2.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................6.3-5 6.3.3 Preoperational Hydrological Monitoring Program.....................................6.3-6 6.3.3.1 Freshwater Streams .........................................................................6.3-6 6.3.3.2 Lakes and Impoundments ..............................................................6.3-6 6.3.3.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................6.3-6 6.3.4 Operational Hydrological Monitoring Program .........................................6.3-6 6.3.4.1 Freshwater Streams .........................................................................6.3-6 6.3.4.2 Lakes and Impoundments ..............................................................6.3-7 6.3.4.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................6.3-7 6.4 Meteorological Monitoring ........................................................................................6.4-1 6.4.1 General Description - On-Site Meteorological Monitoring Program.......6.4-1

6.4.2 Instrumentation

1972-1977 Period of Operation.........................................6.4-2 6.4.2.1 Wind Systems ...................................................................................6.4-2 6.4.2.2 Temperature Systems......................................................................6.4-3 6.4.2.3 Precipitation Systems ......................................................................6.4-3 6.4.2.4 Equipment Calibration and Data Reduction ...............................6.4-3

6.4.3 Instrumentation

2000-2002 Period of Operation.........................................6.4-4 6.4.3.1 Wind Systems ...................................................................................6.4-4 6.4.3.2 Temperature Systems......................................................................6.4-5 6.4.3.3 Dew Point Systems ..........................................................................6.4-5 6.4.3.4 Precipitation Systems ......................................................................6.4-5 6.4.3.5 Maintenance and Calibration.........................................................6.4-5 6.4.3.6 Data Reduction.................................................................................6.4-6 6.4.3.7 Control Room Monitoring ..............................................................6.4-6 6.5 Ecological Monitoring.................................................................................................6.5-1 6.5.1 Terrestrial Ecology and Land Use..................................................................6.5-1 6.5.1.1 Terrestrial Ecology...........................................................................6.5-1 6.5.1.2 Important Species and Habitats.....................................................6.5-2 6.5.2 Aquatic Ecology ...............................................................................................6.5-4 6.5.2.1 Fisheries Resources..........................................................................6.5-4 6.5.2.2 Important Species and Habitats.....................................................6.5-5 6.6 Chemical Monitoring ..................................................................................................6.6-1 6.6.1 Preapplication Monitoring..............................................................................6.6-1 6.6.1.1 Freshwater Streams .........................................................................6.6-1 6.6.1.2 Lakes and Impoundments ..............................................................6.6-1 6.6.1.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................6.6-3 6.6.2 Construction and Preoperational Monitoring..............................................6.6-4 6.6.2.1 Freshwater Streams .........................................................................6.6-4 6.6.2.2 Lakes and Impoundments ..............................................................6.6-4 DEL-096-REV0 xi

CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 6.6.2.3 Groundwater.................................................................................... 6.6-4 6.6.3 Operational Monitoring.................................................................................. 6.6-5 6.6.3.1 Freshwater Streams......................................................................... 6.6-5 6.6.3.2 Lakes and Impoundments ............................................................. 6.6-5 6.6.3.3 Groundwater.................................................................................... 6.6-5 6.7 Summary of Monitoring Standards.......................................................................... 6.7-1 6.7.1 Site Preparation and Construction Monitoring ........................................... 6.7-1 6.7.2 Preoperational Monitoring............................................................................. 6.7-1 6.7.3 Operational Monitoring.................................................................................. 6.7-1 Chapter 6 References ............................................................................................................6.R-1

7. Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents Involving Radioactive Materials .. 7-1 7.1 Design Basis Accidents............................................................................................... 7.1-1 7.1.1 Selection of Design Basis Accidents .............................................................. 7.1-1 7.1.2 Evaluation of Radiological Consequences ................................................... 7.1-3 7.1.3 Source Terms .................................................................................................... 7.1-4 7.1.4 Postulated Accidents....................................................................................... 7.1-5 7.1.4.1 Main Steam Line Break Outside Containment (AP1000)........... 7.1-5 7.1.4.2 Main Steam Line Break Outside Containment (ABWR)............ 7.1-6 7.1.4.3 Locked Rotor (AP1000)................................................................... 7.1-7 7.1.4.4 Control Rod Ejection (AP1000)...................................................... 7.1-8 7.1.4.5 Rod Drop Accident (ABWR).......................................................... 7.1-9 7.1.4.6 Steam Generator Tube Rupture (AP1000) ................................... 7.1-9 7.1.4.7 Failure of Small Lines Carrying Primary Coolant Outside of Containment (AP1000) ................................................................. 7.1-11 7.1.4.8 Failure of Small Lines Carrying Primary Coolant Outside of Containment (ABWR)................................................................... 7.1-11 7.1.4.9 Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident (AP1000) ...................... 7.1-12 7.1.4.10 Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident (ABWR)........................ 7.1-13 7.1.4.11 Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident (ESBWR) ...................... 7.1-15 7.1.4.12 Large Loss of Coolant Accident (ACR-700) ............................... 7.1-16 7.1.4.13 Fuel Handling Accidents (AP1000)............................................. 7.1-17 7.1.4.14 Fuel Handling Accidents (ABWR) .............................................. 7.1-19 7.2 Severe Accidents ......................................................................................................... 7.2-1 7.2.1 Applicability of Existing Generic Severe Accident Studies ....................... 7.2-1 7.2.2 Evaluation of Potential Severe Accident Releases ...................................... 7.2-3 7.2.2.1 Evaluation of Potential Releases via Atmospheric Pathway..... 7.2-3 7.2.2.2 Evaluation of Potential Releases via Atmospheric Fallout onto Open Bodies Of Water .................................................................... 7.2-4 7.2.2.3 Evaluation of Potential Releases to Groundwater ...................... 7.2-5 7.2.3 Evaluation of Economic Impacts of Severe Accidents ............................... 7.2-6 7.2.4 Consideration of Commission Severe Accident Policy .............................. 7.2-7 7.2.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 7.2-8 xii DEL-096-REV0

EMVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CONTENTS 7.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives .................................................................7.3-1 7.4 Transportation Accidents ...........................................................................................7.4-1 Chapter 7 References............................................................................................................ 7.R-1

8. Need For Power........................................................................................................................8-1 Chapter 8 References............................................................................................................ 8.R-1

9. Alternatives to the Proposed Action....................................................................................9-1 9.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................9.1-1 9.2 Energy Alternatives.....................................................................................................9.2-1 9.2.1 Alternatives That Do Not Require New Generating Capacity ..................9.2-1 9.2.1.1 Initiating Conservation Measures .................................................9.2-3 9.2.1.2 Reactivating or Extending Service Life of Existing Plants .........9.2-4 9.2.1.3 Purchasing Power from Other Utilities or Power Generators...9.2-5 9.2.2 Alternatives That Require New Generating Capacity ................................9.2-6 9.2.2.1 Wind ..................................................................................................9.2-7 9.2.2.2 Geothermal .......................................................................................9.2-8 9.2.2.3 Hydropower .....................................................................................9.2-8 9.2.2.4 PV Cells and Solar Thermal Power ...............................................9.2-8 9.2.2.5 Wood Waste (and Other Biomass) ................................................9.2-9 9.2.2.6 Municipal Solid Waste ....................................................................9.2-9 9.2.2.7 Energy Crops ..................................................................................9.2-10 9.2.2.8 Petroleum Liquids (Oil) ................................................................9.2-10 9.2.2.9 Fuel Cells.........................................................................................9.2-10 9.2.2.10 Coal ..................................................................................................9.2-11 9.2.2.11 Natural Gas.....................................................................................9.2-11 9.2.3 Assessment of Reasonable Alternative Energy Sources and Systems....9.2-12 9.2.3.1 Coal-Fired Generation...................................................................9.2-12 9.2.3.2 Natural Gas Generation ................................................................9.2-15 9.2.4 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 9.2.17 9.3 Alternative Sites...........................................................................................................9.3-1 9.3.1 Site Preferences and the Region of Interest ..................................................9.3-2 9.3.1.1 Site Preferences ................................................................................9.3-2 9.3.1.2 Region of Interest .............................................................................9.3-3 9.3.1.3 The Candidate Site...........................................................................9.3-3 9.3.2 Superiority of Existing Sites Within the Region of Interest........................9.3-4 9.3.3 Alternative Site Review ...................................................................................9.3-5 9.3.3.1 Greenfield Site ..................................................................................9.3-6 9.3.3.2 Brownfield Site .................................................................................9.3-7 9.3.3.3 Existing Nuclear Facilities in the ROI ...........................................9.3-9 9.3.4 Conclusions.....................................................................................................9.3-26 9.4 Alternative Facility Systems.......................................................................................9.4-1 Chapter 9 References............................................................................................................ 9.R-1

10. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action..................................................10-1 10.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts .....................................................10.1-1 10.1.1 Preconstruction and Construction ...............................................................10.1-1 DEL-096-REV0 xiii

CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 10.1.2 Facility Operation .......................................................................................... 10.1-2 10.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................. 10.2-1 10.2.1 Irreversible Environmental Commitments ................................................ 10.2-1 10.2.1.1 Land Use......................................................................................... 10.2-1 10.2.1.2 Hydrological and Water Use ....................................................... 10.2-1 10.2.1.3 Ecological........................................................................................ 10.2-2 10.2.1.4 Socioeconomic................................................................................ 10.2-2 10.2.1.5 Radiological.................................................................................... 10.2-2 10.2.1.6 Atmospheric and Meteorological................................................ 10.2-2 10.2.2 Irreversible Material Commitments of Resources .................................... 10.2-2 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the Human Environment................................................................................................ 10.3-1 10.3.1 Construction Preemptions and Productivity............................................. 10.3-1 10.3.2 Operations Preemptions and Productivity ................................................ 10.3-1 10.4 Benefit-Cost Balance ................................................................................................. 10.4-1 Chapter 10 References ........................................................................................................10.R-1 Appendices A Wells Within 15 mi from the Site B Schools Within the Region xiv DEL-096-REV0

EMVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CONTENTS Tables 1.2-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations ..................................................................... 1.T-1 2.2-1 Land Use in the Site and Vicinity.................................................................................. 2.T-1 2.2-2 Land Use Within the Transmission Corridors ............................................................ 2.T-1 2.2-3 Land Use in the Region................................................................................................... 2.T-1 2.2-4 2000 Yields for Principal Agricultural Products for Counties in the Region .......... 2.T-2 2.3-1 Drainage Characteristics of Salt Creek and its Tributaries........................................ 2.T-3 2.3-2 Mean Monthly Runoff, Rainfall, and Natural Lake Evaporation Data for Salt Creek Basin (Postdam) ............................................................................................ 2.T-3 2.3-3 Discharge Data for Salt Creek at Rowell ...................................................................... 2.T-4 2.3-4 Calculated Peak Flood Magnitudes and Frequencies at Rowell Gauging Station and at Dam Site .................................................................................. 2.T-4 2.3-5 Monthly Runoff on Salt Creek at Rowell Gauging Station for the Years 1952 through 1957 and 1988 Droughts .............................................................. 2.T-5 2.3-6 Postdam Low Flow Rates for Various Frequencies for Salt Creek at Clinton Lake Dam ........................................................................................................... 2.T-5 2.3-7 Standard Dam Operating Procedures .......................................................................... 2.T-6 2.3-8 Summary of Lake Sediment Studies............................................................................. 2.T-6 2.3-9 Summary of Capacities and Depths at Clinton Lake Before and After Deposition of Sediment ........................................................................................ 2.T-7 2.3-10 Simulated Clinton Lake Temperatures ........................................................................ 2.T-8 2.3-11 Measured Temperatures 100 ft Below the Clinton Lake Dam (1994-2000) ............. 2.T-9 2.3-12 Stratigraphic Units and Their Hydrogeologic Characteristics................................ 2.T-10 2.3-13 Historical and Recent Piezometer Data...................................................................... 2.T-11 2.3-14 Laboratory Permeability Test Data ............................................................................. 2.T-14 2.3-15 Field Permeability Tests ............................................................................................... 2.T-15 2.3-16 Laboratory Permeability for Site Soils ........................................................................ 2.T-16 2.3-17 Relative Density Data for Site Soils............................................................................. 2.T-16 2.3-18 Water Withdrawals by County.................................................................................... 2.T-17 2.3-19 Water Quality at Clinton Lake Monitoring Sites ...................................................... 2.T-19 2.3-20 Chemical Analyses of Glacial Drift Groundwater Samples from Selected Site Piezometers ............................................................................................. 2.T-20 2.3-21 Quality of Groundwater in Illinoian versus Kansan Aquifers................................ 2.T-21 2.3-22 Summary of the General Groundwater Chemistry of the Glasford (Illinoian) Sand and Gravel Aquifers ......................................................... 2.T-21 2.3-23 Partial Water Quality Analysis for CPS Test Well in the Mahomet Bedrock Valley Aquifer .............................................................................. 2.T-22 2.3-24 Water Quality Results for Mahomet Aquifer Study in DeWitt County ................ 2.T-24 2.3-25 Summary of the General Groundwater Chemistry of the Sankoty-Mahomet Sand Aquifer................................................................................. 2.T-25 2.4-1 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats ............................................................... 2.T-26 2.4-2 Biological Stream Characterization Summary .......................................................... 2.T-27 2.4-3 Important Aquatic Species and Habitats within the Site and Vicinity .................. 2.T-27 2.5-1 2000 Resident and Transient Population Within 16 km (10 mi) ............................. 2.T-28 2.5-2 Resident and Transient Population Projections Within 16 km (10 mi).................. 2.T-29 DEL-096-REV0 xv

CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 2.5-3 2000 Resident and Transient Population Between 16 km and 80 km (10 mi and 50 mi)............................................................................................................2.T-35 2.5-4 Resident and Transient Population Projections Between 16 km and 80 km (10 mi and 50 mi)............................................................................................................2.T-36 2.5-5 Age and Sex Distribution Within the Region.............................................................2.T-41 2.5-6 Racial and Ethnic Distribution Within the Region....................................................2.T-42 2.5-7 Income Distribution Within the Region - Percent of Households..........................2.T-43 2.5-8 Employment by Industry..............................................................................................2.T-44 2.5-9 Major Employers (Employers with 500 Employees or Greater)..............................2.T-45 2.5-10 Regional Employment Trends .....................................................................................2.T-48 2.5-11 Taxing Rate and Distribution for the Year 2000 ........................................................2.T-49 2.5-12 Housing Characteristics ................................................................................................2.T-50 2.5-13 Available Housing Within the Region ........................................................................2.T-50 2.5-14 Agricultural Lands.........................................................................................................2.T-51 2.5-15 2000 Agricultural Cash Receipts ..................................................................................2.T-52 2.7-1 Climatological Data from Peoria and Springfield, Illinois.......................................2.T-53 2.7-2 Nonattainment Areas in Illinois...................................................................................2.T-54 2.7-3 Summary of Illinois Tornado Occurrences.................................................................2.T-55 2.7-4 Reported Tornado Occurrences in DeWitt and Surrounding Counties.................2.T-55 2.7-5 Measures of Ice Glazing in Various Severe Winter Storms for the State of Illinois ................................................................................................................2.T-56 2.7-6 Wind-Glaze Thickness Relations for Five Periods of Greatest Speed and Greatest Thickness ................................................................................................2.T-56 2.7-7 Seasonal Frequencies of Inversions Below 500 ft in Central Illinois.......................2.T-57 2.7-8 Seasonal Values of Mean Daily Mixing Depth in Central Illinois...........................2.T-57 2.7-9 Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Speed in the Site Area .......................................2.T-57 2.7-10 Summary of 10 m Ambient Temperature Measurements at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977).................................................................2.T-58 2.7-11 Hourly Temperature Distribution at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977) ......................................................................................................................2.T-59 2.7-12 Daily Temperature Distribution at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977) ......................................................................................................................2.T-60 2.7-13 Summary of Relative Humidity Measurements at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977) ...........................................................................................2.T-61 2.7-14 Summary of Wet Bulb Temperature Measurements at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977) ...........................................................................................2.T-62 2.7-15 Summary of 10-m Dew Point Measurements at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977) ...........................................................................................2.T-63 2.7-16 Hourly Dew Point Temperature Persistence at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977)-Percent of Hours with Dew Point ...............................2.T-64 2.7-17 Summary of Dew Point Variability at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977)-Percent of Hours with Dew Point Spread .............................................2.T-65 2.7-18 Summary of Precipitation Measurements at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977) ......................................................................................................................2.T-66 2.7-19 Average Number of Days of Fog Occurrence at Peoria and Springfield, Illinois ........................................................................................................2.T-67 xvi DEL-096-REV0

EMVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CONTENTS 2.7-20 Monthly Frequency of Fog Occurrence, Hours of Maximum and Minimum, and Fog Persistence for Peoria, Illinois (1949-1951; 1957-1971) .............................. 2.T-68 2.7-21 Monthly Frequency of Fog Occurrence, Hours of Maximum and Minimum, and Fog Persistence for Springfield, Illinois (1951-1961; 1963-1970)...................... 2.T-69 2.7-22 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-70 2.7-23 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-71 2.7-24 Joint Frequency Distribution Clinton Power Station Facility.................................. 2.T-72 2.7-25 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-73 2.7-26 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-74 2.7-27 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-75 2.7-28 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-76 2.7-29 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-77 2.7-30 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-78 2.7-31 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-79 2.7-32 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-80 2.7-33 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-81 2.7-34 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-82 2.7-35 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-83 2.7-36 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-84 2.7-37 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility ......................................... 2.T-85 2.7-38 Summary of Frequency of Occurrence of Stability Class at Clinton Power Station Facility................................................................................................................ 2.T-86 2.7-39 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (1-hr Averaging Period)................................................................................................... 2.T-87 2.7-40 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (1-hr Averaging Period)................................................................................................... 2.T-88 2.7-41 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (2-hr Averaging Period)................................................................................................... 2.T-89 2.7-42 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (2-hr Averaging Period)................................................................................................... 2.T-90 2.7-43 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (8-hr Averaging Period)................................................................................................... 2.T-91 DEL-096-REV0 xvii

CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 2.7-44 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (8-hr Averaging Period) ...................................................................................................2.T-92 2.7-45 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (16-hr Averaging Period) .................................................................................................2.T-93 2.7-46 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (16-hr Averaging Period) .................................................................................................2.T-94 2.7-47 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (72-hr Averaging Period) .................................................................................................2.T-95 2.7-48 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (72-hr Averaging Period) .................................................................................................2.T-96 2.7-49 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (624-hr Averaging Period) ...............................................................................................2.T-97 2.7-50 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (624-hr Averaging Period) ...............................................................................................2.T-98 2.7-51 Summary and Comparison of Short Term Chi/Q Calculations .............................2.T-99 2.7-52 Summary of EGC ESP Chi/Q Calculations at Low Population Zone Distance (50% Probability Level) ...............................................................................2.T-100 2.7-53 Long-Term Average Chi/Q (sec/m3) Calculations for Routine Releases............2.T-101 2.7-54 Long-Term Average D/Q (m-2) Calculations for Routine Releases......................2.T-104 2.7-55 Long-Term Average Chi/Q (sec/m3) Calculations (2.26 Day Decay) for Routine Releases ....................................................................................................2.T-107 2.7-56 Long-Term Average Chi/Q (sec/m3) Calculations (Depleted and 8-Day Decayed) for Routine Releases ....................................................................................................2.T-110 3.3-1 Water Balance for Clinton Lake with Proposed EGC ESP .........................................3.T-1 3.3-2 Required Raw Water Supply With Cooling Towers Used For Turbine Cycle And Safety-Related Cooling....................................................................................................3.T-2 3.3-3 Cooling Water, Thermal Discharges to Clinton Lake .................................................3.T-2 3.5-1 Normal Radioactive Liquid Effluents ...........................................................................3.T-3 3.5-2 Comparison of Liquid Releases to 10 CFR 20 Effluent Concentration Limits (ECLs) ................................................................................................................................3.T-4 3.5-3 Normal Radioactive Gaseous Effluents ........................................................................3.T-6 3.5-4 Comparison of Gaseous Releases to 10 CFR 20 Effluent Concentration Limits......3.T-7 3.5-5 Composite Principal Radionuclides in Solid Radwaste .............................................3.T-9 3.6-1 Estimated Bounding Blowdown Constituents and Concentrations.......................3.T-10 3.6-2 Sanitary Discharges to Clinton Lake ...........................................................................3.T-10 3.6-3 Other Effluent Discharges.............................................................................................3.T-10 3.6-4 Bounding Estimates for Yearly Emissions from Auxiliary Boilers and Standby Diesel Generators for the EGC ESP Facility ...............................................................3.T-11 3.6-5 Bounding Estimates for Yearly Emissions from the Standby Power System Gas-Turbine Flue Gas for the EGC ESP Facility ................................................................3.T-12 3.7-1 State Transmission Line EMF Standards and Guidelines ........................................3.T-13 3.8-1 LWR Transportation Impact Evaluation ....................................................................3.T-14 3.8-2 Gas-Cooled Reactor Transportation Impact Evaluation ..........................................3.T-15 3.8-3 Summary Table S-4 Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor ...................................3.T-18 4.5-1 Comparison of Construction Worker Public Dose to 10 CFR 20.1301 Criteria .......4.T-1 xviii DEL-096-REV0

EMVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CONTENTS 4.5-2 Comparison of Construction Worker Public Dose from Clinton Power Station Gaseous Effluent Discharges to 40 CFR 190 Criteria.................................................. 4.T-1 4.5-3 Comparison of Construction Worker Occupational Dose to 10 CFR 20.1201 Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 4.T-1 4.6-1 Structural Control Measures.......................................................................................... 4.T-2 4.6-2 Stabilization Control Measures ..................................................................................... 4.T-3 5.2-1 Clinton Power Station Discharge Permit and Plant Cooling Flows......................... 5.T-1 5.2-2 Water Use Requirements (Consumptive Use) for Plant Options and Cooling Methods ............................................................................................................................ 5.T-1 5.2-3 Lake Water Available for Use During Drought Events ............................................. 5.T-1 5.2-4 Water Discharge Requirements for Plant Options and Cooling Methods .............. 5.T-2 5.3-1 Flow and Velocity through a Cross-Section of the Ultimate Heat Sink................... 5.T-2 5.3-2 Average and Maximum Plant Discharge Values........................................................ 5.T-2 5.3-3 Velocity in the Discharge Flume ................................................................................... 5.T-3 5.3-4 Average Monthly Temperatures at Monitoring Point 4 (Near Plant Intake) from 1987 to 1991............................................................................................................. 5.T-3 5.3-5 Qualitative Assessment of the Magnitude and Extent of Visible Vapor Plumes ... 5.T-4 5.4-1 Liquid Pathways Parameters ......................................................................................... 5.T-5 5.4-2 Liquid Pathways Consumption Factors for the Maximum Exposed Individual ... 5.T-5 5.4-3 Gaseous Pathways Parameters...................................................................................... 5.T-5 5.4-4 Gaseous Pathways Consumption Factors for the Maximum Exposed Individual ......................................................................................................................... 5.T-6 5.4-5 Liquid Pathways - Maximum Exposed Individual Dose Summary ....................... 5.T-6 5.4-6 Gaseous Pathways - Maximum Exposed Individual Dose Summary ..................... 5.T-7 5.4-7 Liquid Pathways - Comparison of Maximum Individual Dose Compared to 10 CFR 50, Appendix I Criteria...................................................................................... 5.T-8 5.4-8 Liquid Pathways Comparison of Maximum Individual Dose Compared to 40 CFR 190 Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 5.T-8 5.4-9 Gaseous Pathways - Comparison of Maximum Individual Dose Compared to 10 CFR 50, Appendix I Criteria........................................................................................... 5.T-9 5.4-10 Gaseous Pathways Comparison of Maximum Individual Dose Compared to 40 CFR 190 Criteria.......................................................................................................... 5.T-9 5.4-11 Gaseous Pathways - Annual Population Dose Results ........................................... 5.T-10 5.4-12 Direct Radiation - Estimated Annual Population Dose........................................... 5.T-10 5.4-13 Natural Background - Estimated Whole Body Dose to the Population within 50 mi of the EGC ESP Facility ...................................................................................... 5.T-10 5.4-14 Identified Important Species and Analytical Surrogates......................................... 5.T-11 5.4-15 Terrestrial Biota Parameters......................................................................................... 5.T-12 5.4-16 Shoreline (Sediment) and Swimming Exposures...................................................... 5.T-12 5.4-17 Parameters Used in Biota Dose Assessments ............................................................ 5.T-13 5.4-18 Total Body Dose to Biota from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents ............................... 5.T-13 5.4-19 Comparison of Biota Doses to 40 CFR 190 Whole Body Dose Equivalent of 25 mrem/yr ......................................................................................................................... 5.T-14 5.4-20 Comparison of Biota Doses to IAEA 1992 Evaluated Daily Limits........................ 5.T-14 5.7-1 Gas-Cooled Fuel Cycle Impact Evaluation ................................................................ 5.T-15 5.7-2 Gas-Cooled Reactor SWU and Feed Calculation Results ........................................ 5.T-17 5.7-3 10 CFR 51.51 Table S of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data................... 5.T-18 DEL-096-REV0 xix

CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 5.10-1 Structural Control Measures ........................................................................................5.T-21 6.1-1 Summary of Clinton Power Station Thermal and Chemical Monitoring Programs ...........................................................................................................................6.T-1 6.2-1 Proposed Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Thermo-Luminescent Dosimeter and Media Sampling Locations ..................................................................6.T-2 6.2-2 Proposed Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Sampling Locations ...........................................................................................................................6.T-4 6.6-1 Effluent Monitoring Requirements in Clinton Power Station NPDES Permit........6.T-6 6.6-2 Clinton Power Station Well Monitoring Program (1978-1981)..................................6.T-7 6.6-3 Chemical and Bacteriological Analytes Measured During 1978-1981 Monitoring Program .............................................................................................................................6.T-8 6.7-1 Proposed Site Preparation (Preconstruction) and Construction Monitoring Programs ...........................................................................................................................6.T-9 6.7-2 Proposed Preoperational Monitoring Programs .......................................................6.T-13 7.1-1 PBMR Design Basis Event Curies Released to Environment by Interval ................7.T-1 7.1-2 Comparison of Reactor Types for Limiting Off-Site Dose Consequences ...............7.T-2 7.1-3 AP1000 Main Steam Line Break Curies Released to Environment by Interval -

Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike .....................................................................................7.T-3 7.1-4 AP1000 Main Steam Line Break Curies Released to Environment by Interval -

Preexisting Iodine Spike..................................................................................................7.T-4 7.1-5 AP1000 Main Steam Line Break - Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike ..........................7.T-5 7.1-6 AP1000 Main Steam Line Break - Preexisting Iodine Spike.......................................7.T-5 7.1-7 ABWR Main Steam Line Break Outside Containment ...............................................7.T-6 7.1-8 ABWR Main Steam Line Break Outside Containment - Maximum Equilibrium Value for Full Power Operation ................................................................................................7.T-7 7.1-9 ABWR Main Steam Line Break Outside Containment - Preexisting Iodine Spike .7.T-7 7.1-10 AP1000 Locked Rotor Accident Curies Released to Environment ...........................7.T-8 7.1-11 AP1000 Locked Rotor Accident, 0 to 1.5 hr Duration - Preexisting Iodine Spike ...7.T-9 7.1-12 AP1000 Control Rod Ejection Accident Curies Released to Environment by Interval -

Preexisting Iodine Spike................................................................................................7.T-10 7.1-13 AP1000 Control Rod Ejection Accident - Preexisting Iodine Spike ........................7.T-11 7.1-14 AP1000 Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accident Curies Released to Environment by Interval - Accident Initiated Iodine Spike ..................................................................7.T-12 7.1-15 AP1000 Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accident Curies Released to Environment by Interval - Preexisting Iodine Spike ..............................................................................7.T-13 7.1-16 AP1000 Steam Generator Tube Rupture - Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike ..........7.T-14 7.1-17 AP1000 Steam Generator Tube Rupture - Preexisting Iodine Spike.......................7.T-14 7.1-18 AP1000 Small Line Break Accident Curies Released to Environment - Accident Initiated Iodine Spike ....................................................................................................7.T-15 7.1-19 AP1000 Small Line Break Accident, 0- to 0.5-hr Duration - Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike.................................................................................................................................7.T-16 7.1-20 ABWR Small Line Break Outside Containment - Activity Released to Environment ...................................................................................................................7.T-16 7.1-21 ABWR Small Line Break Outside Containment ........................................................7.T-17 7.1-22 AP1000 Design Basis Loss of Coolant Accident Curies Released to Environment by Interval.............................................................................................................................7.T-18 7.1-23 AP1000 Design Basis Loss of Coolant Accident ........................................................7.T-20 xx DEL-096-REV0

EMVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CONTENTS 7.1-24 ABWR LOCA Curies Released to Environment by Interval ................................... 7.T-21 7.1-25 ABWR Design Basis Loss of Coolant Accident ......................................................... 7.T-21 7.1-26 ESBWR Design Basis Loss of Coolant Accident Curies Released to Environment by Interval ............................................................................................................................ 7.T-22 7.1-27 ESBWR Design Basis Loss of Coolant Accident........................................................ 7.T-24 7.1-28 ACR-700 Design Basis Large LOCA - Curies Released to Environment by Interval ............................................................................................................................ 7.T-25 7.1-29 ACR-700 Large Loss of Coolant Accident.................................................................. 7.T-26 7.1-30 AP1000 Fuel Handling Accident - Curies Released to Environment..................... 7.T-27 7.1-31 AP1000 Fuel Handling Accident ................................................................................. 7.T-28 7.1-32 ABWR Fuel Handling Accident - Curies Released to Environment by Interval.. 7.T-29 7.1-33 ABWR Fuel Handling Accident .................................................................................. 7.T-30 9.2-1 Air Emissions from Coal-Fired Alternative ............................................................ 9.T-1 9.2-2 Air Emissions from Gas-Fired Alternative .................................................. 9.T-2 9.2-3 Coal-Fired Alternative.................................................................................... 9.T-3 9.2-4 Solid Waste from Cola-Fired Alternative .................................................... 9.T-4 9.2-5 Gas-Fired Alternative ..................................................................................... 9.T-5 9.2-6 Impacts Comparison Summary .................................................................... 9.T-6 9.2-7 Impacts Comparison Detail ........................................................................... 9.T-7 9.3-1 Illinois Nuclear Station Comparison - General Criteria for All Sites .................... 9.T-11 9.3-2 Illinois Nuclear Station Comparison Alternatives.................................................... 9.T-13 10.1-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts During Preconstruction and Construction................................................................................................................... 10.T-1 10.1-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts During Plant Operations ............ 10.T-2 DEL-096-REV0 xxi

EMVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CONTENTS Figures 2.1-1 Site/Vicinity Location Map 2.1-2 Site/Region Location Map 2.1-3 Aerial View of Site 2.1-4 Proposed Areas for EGC ESP Structures 2.1-5 Location of ESP Structures, Relative to Existing CPS Facilities 2.2-1 Land Use/Land Cover at Site 2.2-2 Land Use/Land Cover - Site Vicinity 2.2-3 Vicinity Transportation Network 2.2-4 Proposed Transmission Line Corridor 2.2-5 Land Use/Land Cover in the Region 2.2-6 Regional Transportation Network 2.2-7 Regional Utility Network 2.2-8 Regional Recreational Areas 2.3-1 Plant Location and Clinton Lake Impoundment 2.3-2 Hydrologic Network Sangamon River Basin 2.3-3 Postdam Peak Flood Magnitudes and Frequencies For Salt Creek At Rowell Gauge Station 2.3-4 Postdam 1-Day Duration, Low-Flow Magnitudes and Frequencies For Salt Creek at Rowell Gauge Station 2.3-5 Lake Elevation - Area Capacity Curves 2.3-6 Plan of Main Dam, Spillways, and Outlet Works 2.3-7 Water Surface Profiles Salt Creek 2.3-8 Water Surface Profiles of North Fork Salt Creek 2.3-9 Flood Prone Area 2.3-10 Lake Area Capacity Curves Before and After 50 Years of Sedimentation 2.3-11 Salt Creek Temperature at Rowell Gauge Station (October 12, 1964 - April 1, 1997) 2.3-12 Area-Capacity of Submerged Ultimate Heat Sink 2.3-13 Aquifers in Consolidated from Pennsylvanian to Silurian Devonian 730-K 2.3-14 Axes of Major Bedrock in Central Illinois 2.3-15 Near Site Cross Section of Hydrogeologic Units and Piezometric Surfaces 2.3-16 Location of Piezometers, CPS Test Well, and Water Table in Site Vicinity 2.3-17 Springs in Vicinity of the Site 2.3-18 Number of wells within a 50-mi Radius of the Site 2.3-19 Wells within a 15-mi Radius of the Site 2.3-20 Daily Temperatures in Salt Creek at Site 1.5 Summer 1994 2.3-21 Daily Temperatures in Salt Creek at Site 1.5 Summer 1995 2.3-22 Daily Temperatures in Salt Creek at Site 1.5 Summer 1996 2.3-23 Turbidity Measurements at Rowell Gauge Station 2.3-24 Total Phosphorus Concentrations at Rowell Gauge Station 2.3-25 Lake Sampling Sites 2.4-1 Endangered and Threatened Species 2.4-2 Environmentally Sensitive Areas 2.4-3 Biological Stream Characterizations 2.5-1 Vicinity Sector Chart DEL-096-REV0 xxiii

CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 2.5-2 Regional Sector Chart 2.5-3 Regional Political Jurisdictions 2.5-4 Universities/School Locations 2.5-5 Water Treatment Plant and Water Source Locations 2.5-6 Emergency Services in the Region 2.5-7 Health Care Services in the Region 2.5-8 Environmental Justice Minority Populations 2.5-9 Environmental Justice Income Characteristics 2.7-1 Number of Tornadoes per County (1916-1969) 54 Year Period 2.7-2 Topographical Map of the Site Area Meteorological Tower Location 2.7-3 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-4 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Composite January Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-5 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Composite February Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-6 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Composite March Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-7 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Composite April Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-8 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Composite May Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-9 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Composite June Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-10 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Composite July Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-11 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Composite August Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-12 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Composite September Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-13 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Composite October Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-14 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Composite November Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-15 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Composite December Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.7-16 Wind Rose, 10-Meter Level, Clinton Power Station Site, Period of Record: 1/1/00-8/31/02 2.7-17 Topographic Map Within 5 mi of the Exelon Site 2.7-18 Topographical Cross Section as a Function of the Distance From the Exelon ESP Site 3.3-1 Annual Clinton Lake Outflows with EGC ESP Facility 3.7-1 H-Frame Dimensions 4.4-1 Impacts on Minority Population 4.4-2 Impacts on Low Income Population 5.1-1 Location of Major Bridges in the Vicinity 5.1-2 345-kV H-Frame Structure 5.1-3 Screening Requirements xxiv DEL-096-REV0

EMVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CONTENTS 5.3-1 Ultimate Heat Sink Plan and Section 5.3-2 Design and As-Built UHS Volumes and Areas 6.1-1 Postdam Surface Water Monitoring Locations 6.2-1 Basic Pathways for Gaseous and Liquid Radioactive Effluent Releases to the Public 6.2-2 Proposed EMP Sample Locations within 1 mi 6.2-3 Proposed EMP Sample Locations from 1 to 2 mi 6.2-4 Proposed EMP Sample Locations from 2 to 5 mi 6.2-5 Proposed EMP Sample Locations Greater Than 5 mi 6.6-1 Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations DEL-096-REV0 xxv

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to the Environmental Report Exelon Generation Company (EGC), LLC, hereafter referred to as the Applicant, has developed this comprehensive Environmental Report (ER) to address environmental issues associated with its Early Site Permit (ESP). The site is colocated with an existing nuclear power plant near Clinton, Illinois. This chapter provides an introduction to the environmental impact on the site and surrounding areas, and it describes potential impacts from construction and operation of the EGC ESP Facility.

The chapter is organized into the following sections:

• The Proposed Project (Section 1.1); and

• Status of Reviews, Approvals, and Consultations (Section 1.2).

This ER was developed using the organization and format provided in the Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NUREG-1555) (USNRC, 1999). This ER discusses the existing environment at the site and in the vicinity; summarizes environmental impacts of construction and operation and considers appropriate mitigation measures; and reviews similar alternative sites. This ER does not assess impacts based on a specific power facility design, nor does it postulate costs and benefits associated with construction or operation of any one design option. Rather this ER considers a spectrum of feasible designs.

The following categories of information regarding interfaces of the site and facilities are reviewed:

• Comparison of the functional and operational needs of the EGC ESP Facility as they relate to the sites natural and environmental resources; and

• Direct impact of the EGC ESP Facility on the sites natural and environmental resources.

DEL-096-REV0 1-1

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 1.1 - THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1.1 The Proposed Project This chapter provides an outline of the EGC ESP project. It is organized into the following sections:

• The Applicant and Owner (Section 1.1.1);

• Site Location (Section 1.1.2);

• Reactor Information (Section 1.1.3);

• Cooling System Information (Section 1.1.4);

• Transmission System Information (Section 1.1.5);

• The Nature of the Proposed Action and Constraints (Section 1.1.6); and

• Construction Start Date (Section 1.1.7).

1.1.1 The Applicant and Owner Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the Applicant has filed a Site Safety Analysis Report (SSAR), which accompanies this ER (10 CFR 52.17). The EGC ESP Site is located within the boundary of the Clinton Power Station (CPS) property, which is owned by AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen).

As described in Section 3.4.6 of the Administrative Information, agreements between the Applicant and AmerGen will be in place to assure that the Applicant has the necessary authority, control, and rights related to the proposed EGC ESP Site.

1.1.2 Site Location The site is located in DeWitt County, Illinois, approximately 6-mi east of the City of Clinton and along the shore of Clinton Lake. The site is the location of the CPS, and the EGC ESP Facility will be built 700 feet (ft) south of the CPS. For purposes of this ER, the site is defined as the property within the fenceline of the CPS. The vicinity is the area within a 6-mi radius from the centerpoint of the power block footprint. The region is the area between the 6-mi radius and the 50-mi radius from the centerpoint of the power block footprint.

Clinton Lake is used as a source of cooling water for the CPS, and will be used as a source of makeup water for the EGC ESP Facility. The site is already zoned as industrial. Within the vicinity of the site: 12,076 acres (ac) (16.6 percent) is classified as recreational; 59,870 ac (82.1 percent) is classified as agricultural; 512 ac (0.7 percent) is classified as industrial; and 512 ac (0.7 percent) is classified as residential. Within the region of the site: 269,258 ac (5.4 percent) is classified as recreational; 4,580,167 ac (92.5 percent) is classified as agricultural; 27,530 ac (0.6 percent) is classified as industrial; and 71,843 ac (1.5 percent) is classified as residential.

For more information on site location and demographics, see Chapter 2.

DEL-096-REV0 1.1-1

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SECTION 1.1 - THE PROPOSED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 1.1.3 Reactor Information The selection of a reactor design to be used for this facility is still under consideration. The types of reactors from which the bounding parameters were determined (see SSAR, Table 1.4-1), include:

• Pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) - 8 modules;

• Advanced boiling-water reactor (ABWR) - 1 unit;

• Advanced pressurized-water reactor (AP1000) - 2 units;

• Economic Simpliefied Boiling Water reactor (ESBWR) - 1 unit;

• Gas turbine-modular helium reactor (GT-MHR) - 4 modules;

• Advanced Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) Reactor (ACR-700) - 2 units; and

• International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) - 3 units.

Selection of a reactor to be used at the EGC ESP Site will not be limited to those listed above.

The final selected reactor may be a future design that is bounded by the surrogate plant design reflected in the Plant Parameters Envelope (PPE), as presented in SSAR Table 1.4-1.

It is estimated that the proposed reactor(s) will be capable of generating up to a core thermal power level of 6,800 megawatts thermal (MWt). For more information on the reactors assessed in the PPE, see Chapter 3.

1.1.4 Cooling System Information Waste heat will be dissipated by a cooling tower(s), which will draw cooling water makeup from Clinton Lake. The cooling water makeup will be withdrawn from Clinton Lake through a new intake structure. The approach velocity to the intake will be limited to a maximum velocity of 0.50 feet per second (fps) at the normal lake elevation of 690 ft above mean sea level (msl). The normal raw water requirement is estimated to be 48,288 gallons per minute (gpm). A breakdown of the usage of the raw water supply can be seen in Table 3.3-2. The total discharge from the cooling tower(s) will normally be 12,000 gpm, with a maximum discharge of 49,000 gpm. For more information on the cooling system, see Section 3.4.

1.1.5 Transmission System Information The existing transmission system is insufficient to handle the load of an additional large generation source. If EGC decides to construct generation up to the maximum load specified in the PPE, it will be necessary to increase the capacity of the existing transmission facilities as described below.

A double circuit line will connect the facility to an interconnect point at the Brokaw substation near Bloomington, Illinois, about 23-mi north of the site. A second double circuit line will connect the site to the Oreana substation, which is about 8-mi south of the site.

Based on regional transmission operator (RTO) construction practices, it is anticipated that four wood pole H-Frames will be constructed to carry the lines to their destinations. The H-Frame structures will carry the double circuit lines that consist of six phases of two or three 1.1-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 1.1 - THE PROPOSED PROJECT bundle conductors of 1,272 kilo circular mils (kcmil), aluminum-conductor steel-reinforced (ACSR), and two shield wires. Final conductor size will be determined by the transmission system operator based on:

• Operating voltage;

• Loads to be carried, both initially and in the future;

• Thermal capacity;

• Cost of the conductor, support structures, foundations, right-of-way, and the present value of the energy losses associated with the conductor size and expected loading; and

• Electric and magnetic field strengths, which depend on operating line voltage, conductor currents, and conductor configuration and spacing.

For more information on the transmission system, see Section 3.7.

1.1.6 The Nature of the Proposed Action and Constraints This ER does not assess impacts based on a specific power facility design; it considers a spectrum of feasible designs. The description of the plant details and the environmental impacts provided in the ER are based on the most conservative bounding parameters.

The New Licensing Reactor Project Office (NRLPO) held a public outreach meeting on March 20, 2003, in Clinton, Illinois, to provide information on opportunities for public involvement in the ESP process for this site. Additional interaction with the public was provided by representatives from EGC, who contacted members of the surrounding community during the period of August 21, 2002 to September 1, 2002 to gather input from residents who may be affected by the construction and operation of the proposed EGC ESP project.

1.1.7 Construction Start Date At this time, EGC has not established a date for preconstruction activities. It is estimated that site preparation activities (preconstruction) will take between six and 18 months to complete. Based on estimates provided by the reactor vendors, assuming that appropriate licenses are obtained, actual construction is expected to take between three and five years.

DEL-096-REV0 1.1-3

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 1.2 - STATUS OF REVIEWS, APPROVALS, AND CONSULTATIONS 1.2 Status of Reviews, Approvals, and Consultations Table 1.2-1 provides a list of the environmentally-related authorizations, permits, and certifications required by federal, state, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies. It includes, but is not limited to, permits that are required before the construction and operation of the proposed EGC ESP Facility. It is organized as follows:

• The particular agency with jurisdiction over the imposed requirement;

• The authority, law, or regulation that dictates the requirement;

• The name of the required license, permit, or certification;

• The license or permit number of any existing licenses or permits;

• The expiration date on the license or permit; and

• A brief description of the requirement fulfilled or to be fulfilled by the Applicant prior to the approval of the site.

The structure of this table is based on the format provided in NUREG-1555 (USNRC, 1999).

However, since the purpose of this ER is only to establish the feasibility of the proposed location, any applicable permits will not be applied for until the combined operating license (COL) phase. Therefore, the columns for existing permits and expiration dates have been left blank. For exact locations mentioned in Table 1.2-1, please refer to the site maps in Chapter 2.

DEL-096-REV0 1.2-1

CHAPTER 1 References Chapter Introduction U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. October 1999.

Section 1.1 10 CFR 52.17. Code of Federal Regulations. Contents of Applications.

Section 1.2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. October 1999.

DEL-096-REV0 1.R-1

CHAPTER 1 Tables TABLE 1.2-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations License/ Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Authorization Granted a

U.S. Nuclear 10 CFR 40 Source Material -- --a Possession of source material Regulatory License Commission (USNRC) a Atomic Energy ER -- --a Site approval for a nuclear Act of 1954 power station separate from an USNRC (AEA), 10 CFR application for a standard 51 design certification or combined operating license (COL) a USNRC 10 CFR 52 COL -- --a Construction and Operation Safety Review for a nuclear power station a

USNRC 10 CFR 70 Special Nuclear -- --a Possession of fuel Materials License a

USNRC 10 CFR 30 By-product -- --a Possession of special nuclear License materials a

U.S. Fish and Threatened and Letter of -- --a Compliance with Threatened Wildlife Services Endangered Compliance and Endangered Species Act (USFWS) Species Act a

Federal Aviation 49 USC 1501 Construction -- --a Construction of structures Administration Notice affecting air navigation (FAA) a a U.S. Environ- Clean Water Stormwater -- -- Discharge of stormwater mental Act (CWA) Pollution associated with construction Protection Prevention Plan activities Agency (SWP3)

(USEPA) a US Army Corps CWA Section 404 -- --a Disturbance of the crossing of of Engineers Permit a navigable stream (USACOE) a USACOE Section 404 Walleye Spawning -- --a Disturbances of walleye Conditional Areas Permit spawning areas Permit a

USACOE 33 CFR 209 Dredge and Fill -- --a Construction/modification of Discharge Permit the discharge to Salt Creek DEL-096-REV0 1.T-1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CHAPTER 1 TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 1.2-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations License/ Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Authorization Granted a a State Historic 36 CFR 800 Cultural Resources -- -- Confirmation that site and Preservation Review transmission corridor are not Office (SHPO) considered historic preservation areas Illinois Illinois Public Certification of --a --a Construction and operation of Commerce Utilities Act Public Convenience plant Commission and Necessity a

Illinois Illinois Rev. Construction -- --a Construct lift crane Department of Stat. 1971 Permit Transportation (IDOT) a IDOT Illinois Rev. Construction -- --a Construct dome lighting mast Stat. 1971 Permit a

IDOT Illinois Construction -- --a Construction/modification of Commerce Act Permit discharge structures on Salt 1911 Creek a

IDOT Illinois Construction -- --a Construction of transmission b

Commerce Act Permit lines crossing waterways 1911 a

IDOT Illinois Construction -- --a Construction of transmission b

Commerce Act Permit lines crossing state highways 1911 a

Illinois Resource Development -- --a Storage and transportation of Environmental Conservation (DE), Operating hazardous materials Protection and Recovery (OP), and Agency (IEPA) Act (RCRA) Supplemental Permits a

IEPA 17 IL Adm. Surface Water -- --a Withdrawal of water from a Code Part 120 Withdrawal Permit public surface water source a

IEPA CWA IEPA Section 401 -- --a Certification that activities will Water Quality comply with water quality Certification standards of the state a

IEPA General permit Notice of Intent -- --a Discharge of stormwater from for discharges (NOI) for site during construction associated with Construction construction activities a

IEPA General permit Notice of -- --a Termination of coverage for discharges Termination under the general permit for associated with (NOT) for stormwater discharge construction Construction associated with construction activities site activities a

IEPA CWA NPDES Permit -- --a Discharges to surface water 1.T-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 1 TABLES TABLE 1.2-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations License/ Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Authorization Granted a a IEPA CAA Minor Source -- -- Construction and operation of Construction facilities generating air Permit emissions a

IEPA Title V Title V Operating -- --a Operation of facility Permit generating air emissions a

IEPA General Notice of -- --a Termination of coverage Stormwater Termination under the general permit for Permit (NOT) for stormwater discharge Industrial Activities associated with operations activities a

IEPA Environmental Sanitary -- --a Transportation of sanitary Protection Act Wastewater wastewater (415 ILCS 5) Hauling Permit a

IEPA Environmental Sludge Disposal -- --a Disposal of sludge Protection Act Operating Permit (415 ILCS 5) a IEPA Environmental Non-Hazardous -- --a Transportation of non-Protection Act Domestic Waste hazardous wastewater or (415 ILCS 5) water or Sludge sludge Transporting Permit a

IEPA IL Adm. Code, Emergency -- --a Implementation of storage Part 170 Petroleum Storage tanks containing petroleum Tank Permit products a

IEPA Environmental Open Burning -- --a Open burning of petroleum Protection Act Permit products for back-up (415 ILCS 5) generators IEPA Environmental Supplemental --a --a Disposal of waste from Protection Act Waste stream additional waste streams (415 ILCS 5) Permit a

IEPA N/A Refrigerant -- --a Recovery and recycling of Recovery/Recycling refrigerants Equipment Certifications a

IEPA Environmental Construction -- --a Construction of waste treating Protection Act Permit facilities (415 ILCS 5) a IEPA Environmental Construction -- --a Construction of temporary Protection Act Permit sewage treatment unit for (415 ILCS 5) construction phase only DEL-096-REV0 1.T-3

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CHAPTER 1 TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 1.2-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations License/ Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Permit No. Date Authorization Granted a a IEPA Environmental Operating Permit -- -- Operation of temporary Protection Act sewage treatment unit for (415 ILCS 5) construction phase only IEPA Environmental Operating Permit --a --a Treatment of waste water Protection Act discharge (415 ILCS 5) a DeWitt County Illinois Zoning Approvals -- --a Construction of the plant Zoning Board Act of Appeals Circuit Court of Eminent Petition for --a --a Exercise right of eminent DeWitt County Domain Act condemnation domain a

Data not available. Applicable permits may not be applied for until the COL phase. Applications for permits will be made before the beginning of construction, as required. Some permits may be combined with existing CPS permits.

b To be obtained by the Regional Transmission Operator.

Notes: All permits will be applied for before the beginning of construction. Some permits may not be obtained since the area may be combined with some existing CPS permits.

1.T-4 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 Environmental Description This chapter provides a description of the environmental conditions of the area within and surrounding the EGC ESP Site. It will be used as a baseline to assess potential impacts due to construction and operation of nuclear power reactors at the EGC ESP Site. The chapter is organized into the following sections:

• Station Location (Section 2.1);

• Land (Section 2.2);

• Water (Section 2.3);

• Ecology (Section 2.4);

• Socioeconomics (Section 2.5);

• Geology (Section 2.6);

• Meteorology and Air Quality (Section 2.7); and

• Other Federal Projects (Section 2.8).

For purposes of this ER, the site is defined as the property within the fenceline of the CPS.

The vicinity is the area within a 6-mi radius from the centerpoint of the power block footprint. The region is the area between the 6-mi radius and the 50-mi radius from the centerpoint of the power block footprint.

The EGC ESP Facility will be colocated with the CPS Facility. The environmental description developed for the CPS Facility is summarized in the Clinton Power Station Updated Safety Analysis Report (CPS USAR) (CPS, 2002) and the Clinton Power Station Environmental Report Operating License Stage (CPS ER [OLS]) (CPS, 1982). Based on the initial reviews, the environmental conditions described in these documents provide a valid summary of 2002 existing conditions. The environmental descriptions presented in the CPS documents were updated and supplemented, as necessary, using information from the following available sources.

• Reports, data, and databases from state agencies include the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS), the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA), Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), Illinois Natural Heritage Survey (INHS), and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA).

• Reports, data, and databases from federal agencies include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Census Bureau, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Midwest Regional Climate Center (MRCC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory DEL-096-REV0 2-1

CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT

• STOrage and RETrieval System for Water and Biological Data (STORET) water-quality data from USEPA;

• Aerial photographs; and

• Other publicly available documents.

The existing information was used to support assumptions about meteorology, hydrology, and ecology, thus, eliminating the need for the required 1-yr period of record. Where information about the site was out of date, or needed to be supplemented, the most current information was used. Where appropriate, the applicant developed new data to supplement the existing documents.

2-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.1 - STATION LOCATION 2.1 Station Location The EGC ESP Facility will be colocated on the site of the existing facility and adjacent to the CPS 4,895-ac man-made cooling reservoir; Clinton Lake (IDNR, 2002). The EGC ESP Facility will be located just south of the CPS Facility. The site is located in DeWitt County in east-central Illinois, approximately 6-mi east of the City of Clinton (see Figure 2.1-1) (USGS, 1990). The site is located within Sections 22, 23, 26, and 27 of Township 20 North and Range 3 East (USGS, 1990). The site is located in the political subdivision of Harp Township (IDNR, 1985). The total area of the EGC ESP Site is approximately 461 ac. Universal transverse mercator (UTM) coordinates for the EGC ESP Facility are not provided for security reasons.

The EGC ESP Site is located between the cities of Bloomington and Decatur, 22 mi to the north and 22 mi to the south, respectively. In addition, the EGC ESP Site is located between the cities of Lincoln and Champaign-Urbana, 28 mi to the west and 30 mi to the east, respectively. Figure 2.1-2 shows the site in reference to major towns and cities within a 50-mi radius. The EGC ESP Site is also approximately 51-mi northeast of Springfield, and almost equidistant (approximately 150 mi) between St. Louis and Chicago. Figure 2.1-3 shows an aerial view of the CPS, with an overlay of the EGC ESP facilities. Figure 2.1-4 shows the proposed areas for the EGC ESP structures. Figure 2.1-5 shows the location of these structures relative to CPS facilities.

DEL-096-REV0 2.1-1

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.2 - LAND 2.2 Land This section describes the land area that surrounds the EGC ESP Site, and is divided into three sections:

• Site (the area within the fenceline, see Figure 2.1-3) and vicinity (the area surrounded by a 6-mi radius from the centerpoint of the EGC ESP power block footprint);

• Transmission corridors and off-site areas; and

• Region (the area between a 6-mi radius and a 50-mi radius from the centerpoint of the EGC ESP power block footprint).

2.2.1 Site and Vicinity Figure 2.2-1 and Figure 2.2-2 present land use based on USGS land use classification at the site and in the vicinity, respectively. Table 2.2-1 describes the percentage and actual area devoted to these major use classifications. These land uses were confirmed with a review of recent aerial photographs (USGS, 2000).

Within the site boundary, 100 percent (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 (IDNR, 1998 and 1999, USGS, 2000).

The nearest resident to the site is 0.73 mi to the southwest. The nearest school is 4.8-mi west of the site, the nearest church is 3.8-mi south of the site, and the nearest campground is approximately 1-mi west of the site.

Recreational areas are the only special land uses (16.6 percent of total land use) within the vicinity, and consist of the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area and Weldon Springs State Recreation Area. Clinton Lake State Recreation Area is 9,300 ac, which includes the 4,895-ac Clinton Lake. Clinton Lake State Recreation Area offers snowmobiling, ice-fishing, ice-skating, boating, fishing, water-skiing, picnicking, camping, swimming, hiking, and hunting (IDNR, 2002). Weldon Springs State Recreation Area encompasses approximately 370 ac and contains a 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 (IDNR, 2002).

The area that comprises the vicinity is predominantly agricultural land, 82.1 percent or 59,870 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 (USGS, 1992).

This land use was confirmed with a review of recent aerial photographs (USGS, 2000).

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 800-ft above msl in the north-central portion of the vicinity to 700-ft above msl and 696-ft above msl along Clinton Lake (USGS, 1990).

DEL-096-REV0 2.2-1

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.2 - LAND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Figure 2.2-3 indicates the transportation network, comprised of highways, railroad (RR) lines, and utility rights-of-way, that cross the site and vicinity. Illinois (IL) Route 54 is approximately 1-mi north of the EGC ESP Site. IL Route 10 is approximately 3-mi south, and IL Route 48 is approximately 5-mi east of the EGC ESP Site (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

As shown in Figure 2.2-3, access to the site is limited primarily to IL Route 54.

There is one RR line within the vicinity (see Figure 2.2-3). The Canadian National RR runs parallel to IL Route 54 and traverses the vicinity approximately 1-mi north of the CPS. (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2000).

There are three private airports within the vicinity of the site. The Martin RLA Airport is located approximately 4-mi south of the site. The Thorp Airport is located approximately 5-mi northwest of the site. The Bakers Strip is located approximately 5-mi southeast of the site (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2000).

The waterways within the vicinity include Clinton Lake, Salt Creek, and North Fork of Salt Creek, which branches off Clinton 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 (IDNR, 2002).

There are no known significant mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, coal, oil, natural gas, and ores) within the vicinity (ISGS, 1999).

DeWitt County published a comprehensive plan in 1992 to guide overall development in the area. The EGC ESP Site will not conflict with the proposed zoning for the site, since the facility will be constructed within the CPS Site, which is already designated for transportation and utilities. The 1992 DeWitt County Comprehensive Plan states that DeWitt County should encourage new spin off development or related expansion at the CPS (University of Illinois, 1992).

2.2.2 Transmission Corridors and Off-Site Areas The anticipated transmission corridor for the EGC ESP Facility is an existing corridor used to transmit power generated from the CPS. The transmission corridor is divided into two sections. Based on Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis, the northern section is approximately 23-mi long with a width of 250 ft (an area of 710 ac). The southern section is approximately 8-mi long with a width of 250 ft (an area of 238 ac). The northern section runs north of the EGC ESP Site, and then turns west and runs toward Bloomington, Illinois.

The southern section runs southeast of the EGC ESP Site past Clinton Lake, and then turns south and runs toward the southern boundary of DeWitt County. Figure 2.2-4 depicts the anticipated transmission line corridor.

Table 2.2-2 describes the percentage and actual area devoted to the major land use classifications that were confirmed with a review of aerial photographs (USGS, 2000). The area that comprises the anticipated transmission corridor is predominantly agricultural land, 88.2 percent or 836 ac. A significant portion of the southern transmission corridor crosses Clinton Lake, which account for the fact that approximately 10.7 percent of the land use is recreation. A small portion of the land use of the transmission corridor is classified as industrial, 1.1 percent. This consists primarily of the CPS Site, RR crossings, and highway crossings.

2.2-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.2 - LAND Recreational areas are the only special land uses along the transmission corridor, and include the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area. Clinton Lake State Recreation Area is 9,300 ac, which includes the 4,895-ac Clinton Lake (IDNR, 2002).

The topography of the transmission corridor is generally flat. Along the major drainage courses, however, the land is gently rolling to steeply sloped and usually forested.

Elevations range from approximately 900-ft above msl in the north-central portion of the transmission corridor to 700-ft above msl near Clinton Lake (USGS, 1990).

Figure 2.2-4 also presents the transportation network including highways and RR lines that cross the transmission corridor. The highways that traverse the transmission corridor are U.S. Highway 150, Interstate 74, U.S. Highway 136, IL Route 54, and IL Route 10 (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2000).

The transmission corridor crosses three railroads (see Figure 2.2-4). The Norfolk Southern RR traverses the northern portion of the transmission corridor. The Norfolk Southern RR also has a line that runs parallel to Interstate 74 and traverses the northern central portion of the transmission corridor. The Canadian National RR runs parallel to IL Route 54, and traverses the transmission corridor approximately 1-mi north of the CPS. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

There are no airports within the transmission corridor. There are three private airports and one public airport within 1.5 mi of the transmission corridor. The public airport is Bloomington-Normal Airport, located approximately 1-mi west of the northern tip of the transmission corridor. The private airports are the Martin RLA Airport, Thorp Airport, and Bakers Strip Airport discussed above in Section 2.2.1 (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2000).

The waterways that the transmission corridor crosses include Clinton Lake, Salt Creek, and North Fork of Salt Creek, which branches off Clinton Lake. There is one canoe access area near the northern section of the transmission corridor that crosses Salt Creek. In addition, there is one marina with boat access and separate boat access area near the southern section of the transmission corridor that crosses Clinton Lake (IDNR, 2002).

There are no known significant mineral resources (sand and gravel, coal oil, natural gas, and ores) within the transmission corridor (ISGS, 1999).

DeWitt County published a comprehensive plan in 1992. A review of the plan indicates the transmission corridor does not conflict with any proposed zoning for the county. DeWitt County has designated an area approximately 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 RR. The county is also considering possible improvements to IL Route 10 and IL Route 54, but will conduct a study before proceeding with improvements (University of Illinois, 1992). The transmission corridor does not interfere with the countys land use plan since only existing right-of-way will be used for the transmission corridor.

McLean County published a regional comprehensive plan in August 2000. The transmission corridor will not conflict with any proposed zoning for the county. McLean County plans to make some improvements to the roads that either cross the transmission DEL-096-REV0 2.2-3

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.2 - LAND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT corridor or are adjacent to the transmission corridor (McLean County Regional Planning Commission, 2000). The transmission corridor does not interfere with the countys land use plan because only existing right-of-way will be used for the transmission corridor.

2.2.3 Region Figure 2.2-5 presents land use in the region of the EGC ESP Site based on USGS land use classifications. Table 2.2-3 describes the percentage and actual acres devoted to these major use classifications.

Approximately 92.5 percent (4,580,167 ac) of the area is rural/agricultural land, 0.6 percent (27,530 ac) is industrial land, 1.5 percent (71,843 ac) is residential land, and 5.4 percent (269,258 ac) is recreational land (USGS, 1992) This land use was confirmed with a review of aerial photographs (USGS, 2000).

The region that surrounds the EGC ESP Site is primarily agricultural land with the exception of the cities of Bloomington, Champaign-Urbana, Decatur, and Springfield.

Principal agricultural products in the region include corn, soybeans, and wheat (IDOA, 2001). Table 2.2-4 presents the 2000 annual yields for these principal agricultural products in the 20 Illinois counties that are located within the region of the EGC ESP Site (IDOA, 2001).

Figure 2.2-6 indicates the major transportation network of the region including major highway and RR lines. The major highways within the region include Interstate 155 in the west, Interstate 72 in the southeast, Interstate 55 in the northwest, Interstate 74 in the northeast, Interstate 39 in the north, and Interstate 57 in the east (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

There are only two major waterways, in addition to Clinton Lake, within the region. Lake Decatur is southeast of the City of Decatur, and Shelbyville Lake is 45-mi south of the site (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). There are 10 public airports and 100 private airports within the region (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2000). Figure 2.2-7 presents the utility networks including electric lines and pipelines, within the region.

There are 10 nature preserves and seven state parks scattered throughout the region. The nature preserves include Weston Cemetery Prairie in the north; Ridgetop Hill Prairie and Mehls Bluff in the northwest; Thaddeus Stubblefield Grove and Barton-Sommers Woodland in the west; Carpenter Park and Calamus Lake in the southwest; Bois du Sangamon in the south; and Loda Cemetery Prairie and Tomlison Cemetery Prairie in the east. The state parks include Edward R. Madigan in the west; Sangchris Lake and Lincoln Trail Homestead in the southwest; Moraine View in the central part of the region; and Shelbyville Lake, Spitler Woods, and Eagle Creek/Wolf Creek in the south (IDNR, 2002).

Figure 2.2-8 presents the locations of the parks and nature preserves in the region.

DeWitt County and McLean County are not part of any regional group that developed a regional land use plan. Therefore, a regional land use plan does not exist, and hence is not available for review. Federal, state, and Native American land use plans that include this area do not exist and, therefore, are not available for review.

2.2-4 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.3 - WATER 2.3 Water This section includes the site-specific and regional descriptions of the hydrology, existing water use, and water quality conditions that could affect, or be affected by, the construction or operation of the EGC ESP Facility and the transmission corridor. This description of the site-specific and regional surface and groundwater information will be used to establish the baseline hydrologic conditions to assess potential construction or operational impacts and the adequacy of the related monitoring programs. The potential construction and operational impacts to water resources are discussed in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, respectively, and monitoring programs are presented in Chapter 6.

2.3.1 Hydrology This section describes surface water and groundwater aquifer resources that are present in the vicinity of the site that could affect plant water supply and effluent disposal or could be affected by construction or operation of the EGC ESP Facility and the transmission corridor.

The regional and site-specific data on the physical and hydrological characteristics of surface water and groundwater have been summarized to provide a basis for evaluation of impacts on water bodies and aquifers in the area.

The data and information on the hydrologic system are organized into the following sections:

• Freshwater streams;

• Lakes and impoundments; and

• Groundwater.

2.3.1.1 Freshwater Streams The site and the adjacent Clinton Lake are near the confluence of the Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek, about 56-mi east of where Salt Creek joins the Sangamon River. Clinton Lake was formed by construction of an earthen dam 1,200-ft downstream from the confluence of North Fork of Salt Creek with Salt Creek (see Figure 2.3-1). Dam construction began in 1975 and lake filling began on October 12, 1977. The lake attained the design pool level on May 17, 1978. The Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek fingers extend 14-mi and 8-mi, respectively, upstream from the dam (CPS, 1982).

The general hydrologic network in the Sangamon River Basin and their relation to the site are presented in Figure 2.3-2, and are discussed below.

2.3.1.1.1 Salt Creek Basin Characteristics Salt Creek, in central Illinois, lies within the Sangamon River Basin, which drains into the Illinois River about 10-mi upstream from Beardstown, Illinois (about 75-mi west of the site).

The Sangamon River has a length of 200 mi and a drainage area of 5,400 mi2 (CPS, 1982).

Salt Creek, the principal tributary of the Sangamon River, has its headwaters 15-mi east of Bloomington in McClean County, and flows in a southwesterly direction into DeWitt County. Thereafter, it pursues a westerly course through Logan County and into Mason DEL-096-REV0 2.3-1

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.3 - WATER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT and Menard counties to join the Sangamon River, 8-mi east of Oakford. The length of Salt Creek is 92 mi, and the total drainage area is 1,860 mi2. The maximum relief in the basin between the mouth and the high point on the drainage divide, near LeRoy, is 440 ft (CPS, 1982).

Salt Creek flows through rolling country for 40 mi with a fall of 300 ft. Channel slope varies from over 10 ft/mi in the upper reaches, to less than 3 ft/mi near the Town of Rowell. At Clinton Lake, the channel slope is about 5 ft/mi. Downstream from Rowell, Salt Creek flows sluggishly through prairies to its confluence with the Sangamon River. Channel slope in the lower reach of Salt Creek is less than 2 ft/mi. The drainage area of Salt Creek to the Clinton Lake Dam is 296 mi2 (CPS, 1982).

The cross section of the Salt Creek valley is typically u-shaped with a channel width of 20 ft to 80 ft and a channel depth of 4 ft to 12 ft. The streambed is on relatively thick sand and gravel alluvium underlain by glacial till and deep bedrock formations. Beneath the dam, the bedrock is about 300-ft below the creek bed (CPS, 1982).

The main tributaries of Salt Creek include North Fork of Salt Creek, Lake Fork, Deer Creek, Kickapoo Creek, Tenmile Creek, and Sugar Creek (CPS, 1982). The length, drainage area, maximum relief between the mouth and the high point of the drainage divide, and average annual runoff for the Salt Creek tributaries are provided in Table 2.3-1.

There are no existing reservoirs or dams upstream or downstream from Clinton Lake that could affect the availability of water to Clinton Lake (CPS, 1982).

2.3.1.1.2 Flow Characteristics A USGS gauging station on Salt Creek is located near Rowell, 12-mi downstream from the Clinton Lake Dam. The drainage area at the gauging station is 335 mi2. The station records from October of 1942 to November of 2002 have been evaluated to describe flow characteristics of Salt Creek.

Table 2.3-2 presents the mean monthly runoff, rainfall, and natural lake evaporation data for the Salt Creek Basin at the Rowell gauging station, following the construction of the Clinton Lake Dam (1978 to 2000). The average discharge of Salt Creek for this 21-yr period is 295 cfs, or about 12 in. of runoff per year. March has the highest average monthly runoff, amounting to 1.99 in. over the drainage area, or 578 cfs. September has the lowest runoff, amounting to 0.21 in., or 63 cfs. A maximum discharge of 7,810 cfs was recorded on April 13, 1994. The lowest mean daily flow was 3.7 cfs, observed on September 8, 1988. The postdam runoff to rainfall ratio is about 30 percent (namely 30 percent of the rainfall drains out of the basin).

The discharge data for postdam conditions (namely after 1978) at Rowell gauging station are provided in Table 2.3-3.

2.3.1.1.3 Floods The review of postdam conditions indicates that the lake is significantly attenuating flood flows in Salt Creek. There have been no discharges over 10,000 cfs recorded at the Rowell gauging station after construction of the Clinton Lake Dam (USGS, 2002).

Flood frequency for the Rowell gauging station was analyzed based on the 22 years of records from January of 1978 to September of 2000. Figure 2.3-3 presents the peak flood 2.3-2 DDEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.3 - WATER frequency curve for Salt Creek at the gauging station under postdam conditions. The peak flows for various recurrence intervals at the gauging station and at the dam are also presented in Table 2.3-4. The discharges at the dam were derived using the drainage area ratio.

At the gauging station, the mean annual flood for postdam conditions is 3,600 cfs (recurrence interval of 2.3 years). The maximum postdam discharge of 7,810 cfs (April of 1994) has a recurrence interval of about 25 years (USGS, 2002).

As a result of the dam, the 10-yr recurrence interval flood flow at the Rowell gauging station has been reduced from 11,400 cfs to 6,200 cfs. The 100-yr recurrence flood flow has been reduced from 29,900 cfs to 10,400 cfs (see Table 2.3-4).

2.3.1.1.4 Droughts Since construction of the dam in 1977, there have been significant dry periods. The most significant dry period was in 1988. The monthly runoff values at the Rowell gauging station in 1988 are provided in Table 2.3-5. The minimum postdam flow of 3.7 cfs was recorded at the Rowell gauging station on September 8, 1988 (USGS, 2002).

The Log-Pearson Type III method was used to analyze low-flow frequency for the Rowell gauging station under postdam conditions. The magnitudes and frequencies of low flows with a one-day duration at the gauging station are depicted in Figure 2.3-4. The low-flow rates for the dam derived using a drainage area ratio for the different frequencies and durations are presented in Table 2.3-6.

2.3.1.1.5 Wetlands and Floodplains According to the USFWS, wetlands, including forested, emergent, and scrub-shrub communities, exist within 6 mi of the location of the EGC ESP Facility (USFWS, 2002). These wetlands are generally associated with small tributaries to Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek.

2.3.1.2 Lakes and Impoundments There are many small lakes and ponds, both man-made and natural, scattered around the Salt Creek Basin, particularly along the creeks. The main lake/impoundment features are related to the CPS and include Clinton Lake and the ultimate heat sink (UHS). Clinton Lake provides the cooling water for the CPS. The UHS is a submerged impoundment located within Clinton Lake that provides cooling water for the safe shutdown equipment. Clinton Lake, the existing UHS, and other area lakes are described in the following sections.

2.3.1.2.1 Clinton Lake Clinton Lake was formed by the construction of an earthen dam across Salt Creek, 1,200-ft downstream from the confluence of North Fork of Salt Creek with Salt Creek (see Figure 2.3-1). The dam construction was completed in 1977 and the lake was filled by early 1978.

The CPS is approximately 3.5-mi northeast of the dam, located between the two fingers of the lake, at an approximate grade elevation of 736 ft. The drainage area to the dam is 296 mi2. The lake elevation area capacity curves are presented in Figure 2.3-5. In addition, the lake normal pool elevation is 690 ft, with a surface area of 4,895 ac (7.65 mi2, 2.6 percent of the drainage area), and a storage capacity of 74,200 ac-ft at normal pool (CPS, 1982).

DEL-096-REV0 2.3-3

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.3 - WATER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Clinton Lake was designed to provide cooling water to the CPS and remove the design heat load from the circulating water before the water circulates back into the plant. The CPS intakes water through the circulating water screen house located on North Fork of Salt Creek finger. The circulating water is discharged into the Salt Creek finger through a 3.4-mi long (18,040 ft) discharge flume, as depicted in Figure 2.3-1 (CPS, 1982).

2.3.1.2.1.1 Dam and Appurtenances The dam structure has a length of 3,040 ft, with a 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope on both the upstream and downstream faces. The elevation at top of the dam is 711.8 ft (about 21.8 ft above the normal pool elevation), with a width of 22 ft and 10 in. at the top. The maximum height of the dam is 65 ft above the creek bed. Riprap is provided on the upstream slope of the dam for protection against wind-wave erosion and lake drawdown effects. The downstream slope is seeded and the toe of the dam is riprapped for erosion protection (CPS, 1982).

The dam includes three flow components: 1) a concrete service spillway with an ogee-shaped crest on the west abutment of the dam to pass floods; 2) an auxiliary spillway on the east abutment of the dam to pass floods greater than the 100-yr flood; and 3) a lake outlet structure near the west abutment to provide a minimum downstream release of 5 cfs (CPS, 1982). The plan of the dam and appurtenances are depicted in Figure 2.3-6.

The concrete service spillway with an ogee-shaped crest has a semicircular plan, with a crest length of 175 ft and a crest elevation of 690 ft. The height of the concrete ogee is 10 ft. Water passing over the ogee section is discharged through an 80-ft wide concrete chute into a stilling basin, where the energy of flow is dissipated. Riprap is provided downstream from the stilling basin for erosion protection. A discharge channel was excavated to convey the water to the main channel of Salt Creek (CPS, 1982).

The auxiliary spillway is open cut, with a crest length of 1,200 ft and a crest elevation of 700 ft. The dam crest or control section is 25-ft wide asphalt concrete with riprap provided on the upstream and downstream sides. A 6-ft deep rock trench is provided as a downstream cut off. This varies in distance from the crest, from 150 ft on the far end to 300 ft near the dam. This rock trench protects the spillway crest against erosion on the discharge channel. The spillway approach channel is excavated to an elevation that varies from 690 ft to 695 ft, and the discharge channel is excavated to an elevation of 695 ft. Both of the channels are vegetated (CPS, 1982).

The lake outlet works is provided to release water from the cooling lake to Salt Creek at a minimum rate of 5 cfs. The outlet works consists of a drop inlet submerged intake structure, with the crest at an elevation of 668 ft. The 36-in. diameter vertical inlet section is connected to a 36-in. prestressed, precast concrete pipe leading into the control house near the axis of the dam. The wet well control house is provided with three cast iron sluice gates, which regulate the flow of water from the lake. Two gates are 12 in. by 12 in., located at two levels. The bottom of the upper gate is at an elevation of 685.5 ft, and the bottom of the lower gate is at an elevation of 683.5 ft. The third gate is 24 in. by 36 in., with the bottom of the gate at an elevation of 650.9 ft. Water passing through the gates will flow into a 48-in.

prestressed, precast concrete pipe discharging into the service spillway stilling basin. From the stilling basin, the water will flow through the discharge channel and into the main channel of Salt Creek (CPS, 1982).

2.3-4 DDEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.3 - WATER The hydrologic analyses and hydraulic design for the dam and the lake are based on a probable maximum flood (PMF) condition with a standard project flood (SPF) as an antecedent flood. This design basis is in accordance with the recommendations given by the Regulatory Guide 1.59 (USNRC, 1977). The PMF is an estimated flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of critical meteorological and hydrologic conditions as can reasonably occur in the region. The SPF is estimated to be equal to 50 percent of the PMF. The maximum water level in Clinton Lake at the dam was determined by routing the antecedent SPF, occurring three days prior to the PMF, and the PMF through the lake (CPS, 1982).

At the dam, the PMF water surface elevation in the Clinton Lake is 708.8 ft. The top of the dam is at an elevation of 711.8 ft. A minimum freeboard of 3 ft from the PMF water level was provided in order to determine the elevation at the top of the dam. The freeboard provides for protection against overtopping of the dam by the PMF and wave action. The maximum wave run-up elevation at the dam, due to sustained 40-miles per hour (mph) wind acting on the PMF water level, is 711 ft (CPS, 1982).

The dam is operated passively with flow spilling over the ogee-shaped crest during moderate flows, or the auxiliary weir during high flows. Under low flow conditions, the dam discharges through the lake outlet works (CPS, 1982). The operating procedures are listed in Table 2.3-7 for lake elevation ranges.

2.3.1.2.1.2 Floods The impoundment of Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek to form Clinton Lake has permanently altered flood levels. These flood levels were altered in 1978 with completion of the Clinton Lake impounding structure. The flood water surface elevations of the lake were determined by routing the floods through the lake. The 100-yr flood level in the lake at the dam is at an elevation of 697 ft. The routed peak outflow through the service spillway is 11,610 cfs. Based on the flood frequency analysis, before the dam was built (namely before November of 1977) the 100-yr flood flow at the dam was estimated to be 26,400 cfs. The PMF level with an antecedent SPF is at an elevation of 708.8 ft at the dam and 708.9 at the plant sites (CPS, 1982).

The flooding effects on the headwater area of the cooling lake were determined by backwater computations (CPS, 1982). Figure 2.3-7 and Figure 2.3-8 depict the water surface profiles of the 100-yr flood and the PMF under natural conditions for Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek, respectively.

For Salt Creek, the backwater effect of a 100-yr flood in the lake terminates at the Iron Bridge, approximately 76,000-ft or 14.5-mi upstream from the dam and 1.5-mi southwest of Farmer City. The backwater effect of the PMF in the lake terminates at the U.S. Highway 150 Bridge, approximately 86,400-ft or 16.4-mi upstream from the dam and in Farmer City.

For North Fork of Salt Creek, the backwater effect of a 100-yr flood in the lake terminates at 39,000-ft or 7.5-mi upstream from the dam. The backwater effect of the PMF in the lake terminates at approximately 47,500-ft or 9.0-mi upstream from the dam (CPS, 1982).

The 100-yr flood level was a criterion used in the property acquisition for the lake area.

There is no increase in flooding outside of the lake area property acquisition. The CPS is at a grade elevation of 736 ft and the EGC ESP Facility will be at elevation 735 ft. Neither DEL-096-REV0 2.3-5

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.3 - WATER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT location will be affected by floods in the lake. Figure 2.3-9 depicts the postdam construction normal lake level, 100-yr and PMF flood areas, and the CPS and EGC ESP sites.

Except for the dam that was built across Salt Creek to create Clinton Lake, no CPS structures have been built in the preconstruction 100-yr floodplain for the CPS. Several structures were built along the edges of the postconstruction flood prone area of the CPS. These include the intake and discharge structures, modified highway bridges, a marina, and seven boat ramps. Construction of these structures is complete, and their presence will not cause any alteration in flood levels (CPS, 1982). Construction of the EGC ESP Facility and its associated intake structure will not cause any alteration in flood levels because no facilities will be constructed in the postconstruction flood prone area.

To date, flood flows downstream of the Clinton Lake Dam have been lower than preconstruction flood flows.

2.3.1.2.1.3 Droughts The effect of drought on lake levels has been evaluated to determine if operation of the CPS can be sustained during dry periods (CPS, 2002). A minimum safe lake level is established at elevation of 677 ft. Lake levels below this would require plant shutdown to avoid loss of the safe plant cooling capacity. Two 5-yr duration droughts were established based on historical climatic conditions. The 50-yr and 100-yr droughts were selected for the evaluation.

The drawdown analysis accounted for lake inflows generated from direct rainfall and stormwater runoff, normal evaporation, forced evaporation due to plant cooling and increased lake water temperature, ground seepage losses of 0.5 percent per month of the lake volume, minimum 5 cfs discharge at the dam to sustain the receiving stream, and dam overflow discharges. The drought analysis was completed based on the existing uprated CPS of one 1,138.5-megawatts electric (MWe) boiling-water reactor (BWR) operating at 100 percent of its rated capacity.

The results of the lake level evaluation during drought established minimum lake levels for the 50-yr and 100-yr droughts of elevation 685 ft and elevation 681.4 ft, respectively. Both minimum lake levels are well above the minimum safe lake level of elevation 677 ft. A discussion of lake levels and cooling system impacts based on both the CPS and proposed EGC ESP Facility operation is presented in Chapter 5.

2.3.1.2.1.4 Sedimentation Sediment distribution and deposition studies were conducted for Clinton Lake to determine their effect on the lake capacity, depth, and shore area. On Salt Creek near Rowell, an average turbidity of 16 parts per million (ppm) and a discharge of 0.35 cfs/mi2 were observed from 1950 to 1956. Water sampling at the Rowell gauging station was discontinued in 1956. Based on the average turbidity of Salt Creek, the rate of sedimentation in Clinton Lake is less than 0.1 ac-ft/mi2 per year of drainage area. Based on the results of sedimentation surveys and studies conducted by the ISWS on 85 reservoirs in Illinois, the normal rate of lake sedimentation is 0.25 ac-ft/mi2 per year, with a possible maximum rate of 0.40 ac-ft/mi2 per year (CPS, 1982).

In addition, the sedimentation rates of six area man-made lakes, in existence for several years, were studied. Three of the lakes, Lake Bloomington, Lake Decatur, and Lake 2.3-6 DDEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.3 - WATER Springfield are located within 50 mi of Clinton Lake. Lake Bloomington had a drainage area of 61 mi2 and an average annual sedimentation rate of 0.5 ac-ft/mi2 during the observed period of 26 years from 1929 to 1955. Lake Decatur had a drainage area of 906 mi2 and an average annual sedimentation rate of 0.18 ac-ft/mi2 during the observed period of 44 years from 1922 to 1966. Lake Springfield had a drainage area of 265 mi2 and an average annual sedimentation rate of 0.53 ac-ft/mi2 during the observed period of 31 years from 1934 to 1965 (CPS, 1982).

In 1972, Illinois Power Company established five surface water sampling locations at the site of Clinton Lake. The water quality data at the sampling locations are discussed in Section 2.3.3. The average turbidity observed was estimated to contribute an average rate of sedimentation of less than 0.5 ac-ft/mi2 per year (CPS, 1982).

On the basis of the studies and turbidity observations, a sedimentation rate of 0.5 ac-ft/mi2 per year was used in the lake sedimentation analysis (CPS, 1982). The results of the sediment studies are summarized in Table 2.3-8.

With the lake impoundment completed in 1978, the sediment deposition to date (2003, a 25-yr period) is estimated to be 3,710 ac-ft or 5.0 percent of the initial lake volume at normal pool. Extending the sedimentation relationship out to 30 years and 60 years from dam construction results in 4,450 ac-ft and 8,880 ac-ft of sediment accumulation or 6.0 percent and 12.0 percent, respectively, of the initial lake volume at normal pool. A summary of the capacities and depths in the lake before and after deposition of sediments for a period of 60 years is presented in Table 2.3-9. Recently, the IDNR has identified shore erosion as a significant source of sediment to the lake. The cause is attributed to wind and wave action from recreational boating that have prevented aquatic vegetation from becoming established along the lake shore. The expansion of programs and work to minimize shoreline erosion, establish aquatic vegetation beds, and reduce agricultural runoff and siltation were identified as priorities in the lake management plan that is an addendum to the December 16, 2002 lease agreement with IDNR (IDNR, 2002).

Sediment distribution in Clinton Lake was analyzed for a period of 50 years using the Empirical Area - Reduction Method. Figure 2.3-10 presents the reduction in lake surface area and capacity. Previously deposited sediments in the upper reaches of the lake are expected to move toward the lower reaches during severe floods due to the steep gradients of the streambed. The average bed gradient of Salt Creek is 1 in 2,100 (2.5 ft/mi). However, the upper reaches of Salt Creek, between Iron Bridge and the bridge on U.S. Highway 150, have a very steep gradient of 1 in 670 (7.9 ft/mi). The average bed gradient of North Fork of Salt Creek is 1 in 1,140 (4.6 ft/mi) (CPS, 1982).

The effect of flood levels after 50 years of sedimentation in the lake was also analyzed.

Backwater computations indicate that there has been no appreciable rise of lake level in the upper reaches of the reservoir due to sediment deposition (CPS, 1982).

2.3.1.2.1.5 Lake Temperature Table 2.3-10 provides a representative sample of the natural surface temperatures expected from the cooling lake in the absence of a power plant. These values were computed using the LAKET computer program developed by Sargent & Lundy.

DEL-096-REV0 2.3-7

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.3 - WATER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Many different meteorological factors, such as wet and dry bulb air temperatures, wind direction and velocity, cloud cover, and solar radiation can affect natural surface lake temperatures. The years 1954, 1964, and 1966 were selected on the basis of computer trials because these years had combinations of meteorological factors that would produce the highest natural surface lake temperatures (CPS, 1982).

Table 2.3-11 includes the measured average monthly temperatures in June, July, and August at a point approximately 100-ft downstream of the Clinton Lake Dam for a period from 1994 to 2000. These values are representative of a mix of lake temperatures from the various points of discharge from the dam. The measured data (62ºF minimum in June to 86ºF maximum in August) are similar to the computed range without the power plant (67ºF minimum in June and 83ºF maximum in July). The maximum measured water temperatures near the dam are at the high end of the range of temperatures measured 12-mi downstream at the Rowell gauging station (see Figure 2.3-11).

2.3.1.2.2 The Ultimate Heat Sink The CPS maintains a secure storage impoundment of cooling water that is available in the unlikely event of failure of the main dam and loss of the cooling lake. This submerged impoundment is referred to as the UHS. The UHS is provided within Clinton Lake to supply cooling water for the safe shutdown equipment. The UHS was formed by constructing a secondary submerged dam across North Fork of Salt Creek with an approach channel leading into the circulating water screen house. The UHS was designed to accommodate safe plant shutdown cooling for two 992-MWe BWR units in accordance with the Regulatory Guide 1.27 (USNRC, 1976). The design water surface elevation of the UHS is 675 ft, which is lower than the Clinton Lake 100-yr drought elevation of 681.4 ft. The surface area of the UHS at an elevation of 675 ft is 158 ac with a volume of 1,067 ac-ft (CPS, 1982). The area capacity curve of the UHS is presented in Figure 2.3-12. The volume of the UHS is evaluated annually. The most recent 2001 volume estimate set the volume at 1,022 ac-ft. The minimum UHS volume estimated during CPS design to accommodate the cooling to bring the two units to a cold shutdown is 849 ac-ft.

2.3.1.2.3 Other Area Lakes There are many small lakes and ponds, both man-made and natural, scattered around the Salt Creek Basin, particularly along the creeks. The largest lake is the Weldon Springs Lake located in Weldon Springs State Recreation Area, about 2.5-mi southwest of the Clinton Lake Dam. It has an area of 28 ac and is used for recreational purposes. Most of the other lakes and ponds are for farm and recreational uses and are too small to affect the hydrologic regime of the Salt Creek Basin (CPS, 1982).

2.3.1.3 Groundwater 2.3.1.3.1 General Hydrogeologic Conditions Unconsolidated deposits of Quaternary-age glacial drift and stream alluvium overlie thick sequences of Paleozoic sedimentary rock throughout most of Illinois. Bedrock aquifers within 50 mi of the EGC ESP Site are presented in Figure 2.3-13. The description and characteristics of the geologic and hydrogeologic systems in the vicinity of the site are summarized in Table 2.3-12.

2.3-8 DDEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.3 - WATER The aquifer systems within 50 mi of the site are found in the following geologic environments, in descending order (CPS, 2002):

• Alluvial deposits along streams;

• Glacial drift including layers and lenses of sand and gravel within and between the various tills;

• Glacial outwash (Kansan Stage) in buried bedrock valleys;

• Bedrock of Pennsylvanian-age, consisting of shale, siltstone, limestone, sandstone, underclay, and coal;

• Bedrock of Silurian-age, Devonian-age, and Mississippian-age, predominantly dolomites and limestones; and

• Bedrock of Cambrian-Ordovician-age, consisting of a sequence of limestone, dolomites, and sandstones.

According to the USEPA, none of the aquifers occurring within a 50-mi radius of the site have been designated as sole source aquifers (USEPA, 2002).

Groundwater supplies are obtained chiefly from the glacial outwash in the buried bedrock valleys and shallower unconsolidated deposits. In addition, they are obtained, to a minor extent, from the upper 100 ft of the Pennsylvanian rock sequence beneath the glacial drift.

In DeWitt County, the lower bedrock aquifers are not typically used for water supply because adequate supplies for municipal, agricultural, and domestic requirements are more easily obtained from the shallower bedrock or the overlying unconsolidated materials. Poor water quality in the deeper aquifers is also typical in this region (CPS, 2002).

The various aquifer systems are described in the following sections.

2.3.1.3.1.1 Alluvial Aquifers Alluvial deposits, consisting of varying amounts of clay, silt, sand, and gravel, occur in the valleys of many streams in the regional area. The alluvium may be used for groundwater supply in those areas, where thick, permeable sand and gravel deposits are present. Such deposits commonly occur along larger streams having established floodplains, such as Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek. Alluvial aquifers are not used extensively in the regional area because the floodplain areas have undergone only minor development.

The public water supply for Heyworth, in McLean County, is obtained from alluvial deposits along Kickapoo Creek. Pumping tests indicate the aquifer at this location is capable of supplying over 200 gpm per well (CPS, 2002).

2.3.1.3.1.2 Glacial Drift Aquifers With the exception of the surficial alluvium in present stream valleys, the regional area is underlain by a thick sequence of silts of eolian and lacustrine origin, tills, and outwash. This sequence of Wisconsinan-aged, Illinoian-aged, and Kansan-aged deposits are collectively referred to as glacial drift. The total thickness of these deposits varies from less than 50 ft to approximately 400 ft, and averages 200 ft. The silts are often clayey and may contain fine sand. The tills are composed of heterogeneous mixtures of clay, silts, sand, and gravel, but consist predominantly of clayey silts or silty clays. Lenses, and thin discontinuous layers of DEL-096-REV0 2.3-9

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.3 - WATER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT silt, sand, or gravel are common between and within the tills. Outwash deposits consist of sand and gravel with varying amounts of silt or clay (CPS, 2002).

Availability of groundwater from the unconsolidated material is governed by the occurrence of permeable sand and gravel deposits within the glacial drift and recharge sources. Sand and gravel deposits may occur above or below the individual tills, as lenses within the tills, or as relatively continuous deposits in bedrock valleys.

The Wisconsinan formations are generally composed of fine grained sediments with only shallow and very localized deposits of sand and gravel. Thus, they are poor sources of groundwater. The water table in the upper (Wisconsinan) glacial deposits generally occurs within a few feet of the ground surface. Groundwater levels are deepest over topographically high areas and shallowest in topographically low or flat areas.

Groundwater levels have been measured regionally by the ISWS in a statewide network of observation wells. The water table in wells, finished in Wisconsinan deposits, varies from 2-ft to 19-ft below the ground surface. Seasonal fluctuations in individual observation wells range from 1.5 ft to 12 ft and averages approximately 5 ft. Water levels are highest during spring when conditions are most favorable for recharge from precipitation. The water table falls from the spring peak during late spring, summer, and early fall when discharge by evapotranspiration and groundwater runoff exceeds recharge from precipitation. Regional groundwater movement on the Wisconsinan till plain is generally west and southwest toward the Illinois River, under a hydraulic gradient of approximately 2 ft/mi to 3 ft/mi.

The water table is locally deflected and steepened toward stream courses that cross the till plain, and are tributaries to the Illinois River (CPS, 2002).

Widespread lenses of sand and gravel intercalated in the Illinoian drift are capable of supplying small to moderate amounts of groundwater. Sand and gravel deposits in the Kansan-aged drift occur primarily as outwash deposits in buried bedrock valleys. The axes of the bedrock valleys in central Illinois are depicted in Figure 2.3-14. Specifically important to this area are the Mahomet and Mackinaw bedrock valleys, which are filled with sand and gravel (USGS, 1995). Deposits filling the valley include the widespread Mahomet Sand Member, and are as much as 200-ft thick (Kempton et. al, 1991). With hydraulic conductivities as high as 570 ft/day, a horizontal hydraulic gradient of 0.0002 ft/ft, and an assumed porosity of 0.25, average linear groundwater velocities in this material are estimated at 0.45 ft/day. Aquifers associated with the Mahomet Bedrock Valley and the ancient Mississippi Bedrock Valley are the only highly productive, nonalluvial sand and gravel aquifers in southern Illinois. Forty municipalities and water districts obtained groundwater from these aquifers as of 1991. The largest groundwater withdrawals from the valley aquifer occur in the Champaign-Urbana area, averaging 17 million gallons per day (mgd) (Kempton et. al., 1991).

Groundwater in the Illinoian and Kansan deposits occurs under artesian conditions, whereas, in the Wisconsinan deposits, water table conditions generally prevail (see Figure 2.3-15). Wells in the outwash near the margins of the bedrock valleys may produce as much as 500 gpm. Wells located in the center of the valleys might yield substantially higher quantities of groundwater on a sustained basis given proper well construction and management. Most wells in this area do not produce from this deep outwash because adequate supplies for domestic, agricultural, and most municipal purposes may be 2.3-10 DDEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.3 - WATER developed from the shallow alluvium along stream courses or from small permeable lenses in the upper glacial drift materials (CPS, 2002).

Groundwater in the glacial drift is derived from precipitation, underflow through bedrock and bedrock valleys, and induced infiltration from streambeds. Recharge to the sand and gravel deposits occurs primarily by vertical leakage of infiltrating precipitation, the rate of which is controlled by the vertical permeability of the relatively impermeable tills; the thickness of the tills (confining beds); and the head differential between the source of recharge and the receiving aquifer. Vertical permeability for till with some sand and gravel averages 0.02 gallons per day per square feet (gpd/ft2). The recharge rates for sand and gravel aquifers overlain by thick glacial drift consisting largely of till is estimated to be 115,000 gpd/mi2. The recharge rate for the Kansan glacial deposits is estimated to be 107,000 gpd/mi2 (CPS, 1982).

Groundwater in the glacial drift aquifers is discharged to streams that intersect the aquifers (base flow), to the underlying glacial drift, to the Pennsylvanian bedrock, and to pumping wells. Groundwater base flow for the upper portion of the Salt Creek drainage basin, calculated from hydrologic data collected at the Rowell gauging station, averages 0.36 cfs/mi2 for years that have near normal precipitation. Groundwater base flow averages 0.13 cfs/mi2 for years that have below normal precipitation and 0.58 cfs/mi2 for years that have above normal precipitation. In alluvial deposits, bank storage accounts for much of the variability in observed values of groundwater runoff between years of below normal and above normal precipitation (CPS, 2002).

2.3.1.3.1.3 Bedrock Aquifers Bedrock aquifers within the 50-mi radius of the site are presented in Figure 2.3-13. Most of the glacial drift in the study area is underlain by Pennsylvanian bedrock that consists largely of shale and siltstone interbedded with limestone, sandstone, underclay, and coal.

Small amounts of groundwater may be obtained from wells penetrating beds of sandstone, creviced limestone, and fractured shale and coal. Recharge to the Pennsylvanian bedrock occurs by vertical leakage from the overlying glacial drift. Groundwater in the bedrock is under artesian conditions, and is discharged to lower bedrock formations or to the glacial drift in those areas where the potentiometric surface of the Pennsylvanian aquifers is higher than that of the drift aquifers. Most wells in the Pennsylvanian bedrock extend less than 100-ft below the bedrock surface because the formations become tighter and mineralization of the groundwater increases with depth. Bedrock is used as a source of domestic water supply in the regional area only where conditions are unfavorable for the development of drift aquifers. The USGS reports that yield of wells in the Pennsylvanian aquifers range from less than 1 to about 100 gpm, with an average well yield of about 10 gpm (USGS, 1995).

Fresh groundwater withdrawals from these aquifers during 1985 accounted for less than 4 percent of the total withdrawals in Illinois.

Bedrock aquifers of the Mississippian-age or Silurian-Devonian-age occur beneath the unconsolidated deposits in the northeast portion of the study area (see Figure 2.3-13).

Mississippian rocks that are aquifers are generally comprised of thick-bedded limestone and sandstone. However, these aquifers are typically used for water supply when they are less than 200-ft below land surface and when more water can be obtained from them than from the overlying surficial aquifer system. Water is typically under confined conditions where the water yielding zones lie beneath clay or shale beds. Recharge to the Mississippian DEL-096-REV0 2.3-11

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.3 - WATER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT aquifers occurs primarily by water that percolates downward through the unconsolidated materials and the Pennsylvanian bedrock. Reported well yields range from 1 gpm to 100 gpm, with an average of about 10 gpm. Fresh groundwater withdrawals from the Mississippian aquifers during 1985 were less than 3 percent of the total groundwater withdrawn in Illinois (USGS, 1995).

Dolomites and limestone of Silurian-Devonian-age also constitute some of the aquifers in the northeast portion of the study area (see Figure 2.3-13). The aquifer portion of the rock lies beneath the upper Devonian shale, Mississippian rocks, or Quaternary deposits. This aquifer generally contains freshwater to about 500-ft below the ground surface. The base of freshwater coincides approximately with the base of the aquifer. Underlying Ordovician shale impedes the downward movement of freshwater. Groundwater is generally under confined conditions and moves through fractures, bedding planes, and solution cavities.

Probable well yields in the study area, where this aquifer is used, range from less than 250 gpm to 500 gpm. In 1985, withdrawals from the Silurian-Devonian aquifer accounted for about 15 percent of the total groundwater withdrawn in Illinois (USGS, 1995).

2.3.1.3.2 Site Hydrogeologic Conditions The hydrogeologic systems in the site area consist of alluvial deposits along Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek, glacial drift, glacial outwash in the buried Mahomet Bedrock Valley, and Pennsylvanian-age bedrock. General occurrence and characteristics of yield, recharge, and discharge of these systems are discussed in the previous section. The data presented in this section are mainly based upon site investigations conducted for the CPS and are summarized in the CPS USAR (CPS, 2002). In July and August of 2002, a limited geological investigation was conducted within the proposed area of the plant to confirm the underlying subsurface conditions are consistent with those presented in the CPS USAR.

Alluvial deposits (Henry Formation) encountered in the vicinity of the UHS for the CPS consist of fine grained floodplain deposits overlying coarse grained outwash. Illinoian till (Glasford Formation) underlies the alluvial deposits. The floodplain deposits are commonly silt with some fine sand and clay, whereas the outwash deposits are sand and gravel with varying amounts of silt or clay. The total thickness of the alluvial deposits varies from 6 ft to 48 ft in the UHS borings, with an average of 18.5 ft. Floodplain deposits range to a maximum thickness of 23 ft, and average about 9 ft. Outwash deposits range to a maximum of 41-ft thick and average about 9-ft thick. The thickest outwash deposits are located over an apparent terrace on the north side of the valley. Outwash deposits were observed to be continuous in the foundation excavation for the UHS dam. The base of the outwash that was observed in the borings ranges in elevation from 650.5 ft to 678.3 ft, with the most frequently reported base elevations in the interval between 657 ft and 667 ft. Permeability tests were not performed in the UHS borings. Based upon the results of particle size analyses for samples from the borings, the permeability of the outwash deposits is approximately 2.8 ft/day to 28 ft/day. There were no known domestic or farm supply wells in the alluvial deposits in the CPS UHS area (CPS, 2002).

The CPS excavation exposed the sequence of glacial drift consisting of the Wisconsinan-age Richland Loess, Wedron Formation, Robein Silt, and the Illinoian-age Glasford Formation.

Based on the CPS borings, the elevation of the top of the Illinoian deposits averaged 698 ft.

Fifteen deep borings in the CPS and UHS areas encountered lacustrine deposits and Kansan-age till beneath the Illinoian drift at an average elevation of 572 ft. The total 2.3-12 DDEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.3 - WATER thickness of the glacial drift in the CPS area varies from 230 ft to 250 ft and averages about 237 ft (CPS, 2002). The lithologies of these stratigraphic units are summarized in Table 2.3-12.

Several discontinuous sand lenses, ranging in thickness from several inches to 22 ft, were encountered by the CPS Site borings between an elevation of 650 ft and 730 ft. The CPS excavation that extended to an elevation of about 680 ft penetrated some of these lenses.

The majority of the sand deposits encountered are discontinuous pockets or lenses. The one exception is a nearly continuous layer of fine sand near the top of the Wedron Formation.

Sand is reported at the same position in most of the borings around the site except those within the triangular area formed by the UHS baffle dike abutment, the screen house, and the southwest corner of the excavation. In general, the base of the sand layer slopes from an elevation of 723 ft at the western limit of the excavation to an elevation of 716 ft on the slope above the cooling lake. In borings between the excavation and the cooling lake, the thickness of the sand layer varies from 2.0 ft to 16.5 ft. The remainder of the sand deposits encountered occurred as discontinuous seams and localized pockets within the tills of the Wedron and Glasford Formations (CPS, 2002).

Four additional soil borings were advanced in July and August of 2002, within the footprint for EGC ESP Facility. These borings confirm that the general stratigraphic sequence depicted in Figure 2.3-15 continues south of the CPS. Two of these borings extend into the Pennsylvanian bedrock. In these borings, unconsolidated deposits encountered include the Richland Loess, the Wedron Formation (Wisconsinan glacial till and outwash), the Robien Silt (Interglacial Zone), the Glasford Formation (Illinoian glacial till and outwash), lacustrine deposits, the Banner Formation (pre-Illinoian glacial till and outwash), and pre-Illinoian alluvial deposits. The continuous fine sand deposit noted in previous site borings near the top of the Wedron Formation apparently continues south of the CPS, tapering out to the southeast. The top of the Glasford Formation drops toward the south, to an average elevation of 678 ft in the four additional borings. Lacustrine deposits were encountered below the Glasford Formation at elevations (566 ft and 574 ft), consistent with previous site borings. Pre-Illinoian alluvial deposits, consisting of interbedded silts, clays, sands, and gravels, were encountered above the top of the bedrock.

The additional borings indicate that the bedrock surface dips to the south of the CPS and from west to east. The top of bedrock was encountered at elevations of 446 ft and 448 ft in these borings, approximately 35-ft lower than at previous site borings to the north and west.

This bedrock valley is filled with pre-Illinoian alluvial deposits. The upper 20 ft to 30 ft of bedrock was cored, and consists of interbedded shale, limestone, and siltstone.

2.3.1.3.2.1 Potentiometric Levels, Flow, and Interactions Configuration of the water table in the immediate vicinity of the site was established by measuring water levels in piezometers installed in selected borings during the CPS Site investigations conducted in 1972 and 1973. Additional piezometers were installed in 1976 around the lake during construction (Observation Well [OW]-1 through OW-8) and downstream from the dam in 1977 and 1979 (OW-9 through OW-24). Some of the piezometers that were destroyed by construction activities are no longer functional (CPS, 2002). A summary of the installation dates, tested intervals, and status of the piezometers is presented in Table 2.3-13.

DEL-096-REV0 2.3-13

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.3 - WATER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Based on the data presented in the CPS USAR, the groundwater table in the upper glacial deposits (Wisconsinan) generally occurs a few feet below the ground surface (CPS, 2002).

The highest groundwater level in the CPS Site has been measured at an elevation of 729.7 ft.

The water table in the vicinity of the CPS occurs as a ridge like mound in the Wisconsinan till between Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek (see Figure 2.3-16). The position of the groundwater ridge marks a recharge area from which groundwater flows to the southeast toward Salt Creek and to the northwest, across the site, toward North Fork of Salt Creek.

The magnitude of the hydraulic gradient at the site is approximately 0.09 ft/ft, or 450 ft/mi.

This value is based upon a maximum head loss of 55 ft over a minimum distance of 640 ft from the site to the edge of the floodplain of North Fork of Salt Creek (CPS, 1982).

Prior to impoundment of the cooling lake, North Fork of Salt Creek served as the local base level for groundwater flow from the facility to the floodplain. Impoundment of the cooling lake has raised the base level to an elevation of 690 ft, causing the groundwater and surface water interface to shift to the southeast toward the facility (CPS, 1982).

Groundwater exists under water table conditions in the Wisconsinan till and under confinement in the underlying Illinoian and Kansan tills. Piezometer levels measured for the CPS Site investigation ranged from 675 ft to 717 ft, with an average of 713 ft in the Illinoian till. In addition, the piezometer levels measured approximately at an elevation of 680 ft in the Kansan till over a three-year period of observation in the late 1970s. The potentiometric level in the Kansan outwash deposits of the buried Mahomet Bedrock Valley, as measured in the CPS test well, was at an elevation of approximately 600 ft. The head relationships between the Wisconsinan, Illinoian, and Kansan aquifers indicate that the glacial drift aquifers are recharged by vertical seepage from the overlying drift under a net downward hydraulic gradient (CPS, 2002).

Three additional piezometers were installed southwest of the CPS in July of 2002. Two of these piezometers were completed in the upper Wisconsinan glacial deposits (Wedron Formation), and the third was completed in the upper Illinoian glacial deposits (Glasford Formation). In these additional piezometers, water table elevations in the Wedron Formation were between 725 ft and 730 ft, and the piezometric head elevation in the Glasford Formation was approximately 710 ft. These measurements are generally consistent with groundwater elevations observed in previous site investigations.

A correlation between daily precipitation volumes and groundwater elevations in site piezometers is not evident from a qualitative review of the figures in the CPS USAR.

Typical seasonal variations (higher groundwater levels in the spring, lower groundwater levels in the fall and summer) are also not apparent. These conditions are consistent with the fine grained nature of much of the glacial drift that inhibits groundwater flow, and therefore, recharge velocity.

Some groundwater in the upper glacial drift deposits are discharged into streams from springs present within the general vicinity of the CPS and Clinton Lake. A survey was conducted by use of aerial photo interpretations, field reconnaissance, and personal interviews with local farmers in order to locate springs in the vicinity of the site. The springs found during this survey are presented in Figure 2.3-17. None of these springs are being used as a potable water supply (CPS, 2002).

2.3-14 DDEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.3 - WATER 2.3.1.3.2.2 Hydraulic Characteristics Falling-head and constant-head type permeability tests were performed in the laboratory on representative soil samples of the Salt Creek Alluvium (Henry Formation), the interglacial zone (weathered material at the top of Illinoian deposits and the bottom of the Wisconsinan till deposits), and the Illinoian glacial till (Glasford Formation). The tests resulted in measurements of the vertical permeability of each soil formation. The results of these tests are presented in Table 2.3-14. Only one sample of the Salt Creek Alluvium was tested, the results of which indicate a vertical permeability of 5.1E-05 ft/day for the fine grained floodplain deposits. The underlying outwash was not tested. Vertical permeability of sand samples from the interglacial zone (weathered portion of the Glasford Formation) averages 6 ft/day, ranging from 0.5 ft/day to 13 ft/day. In the Illinoian deposits (unaltered Glasford Formation), the vertical permeability ranges from 1.1E-05 ft/day to 6.5E-04 ft/day, and averages 1.1E-04 ft/day. Also presented in Table 2.3-14 is an estimate of the porosity for each sample. The porosity was calculated using laboratory data that included degree of saturation, wet density, moisture content, and an assumed specific gravity (CPS, 2002).

During the CPS Site investigations, falling-head type field permeability tests were also performed on samples collected from the Clinton Lake Dam site and the CPS Site. The tests were performed in piezometers to estimate average horizontal permeability within the zone of percolation in the borehole, and the results are provided in Table 2.3-15. Average horizontal permeability values range from 3.4E-03 ft/day to 0.01 ft/day in the Wisconsinan till and 0.02 ft/day to 0.04 ft/day in the Illinoian till (CPS, 2002).

Using a hydraulic conductivity of 0.01 ft/day from field hydraulic conductivity testing of the Wisconsinan till, a water table gradient of 0.086, and an assumed porosity of 0.25 (based on one value provided for the Wisconsinan till in the CPS USAR report; CPS, 2002), the estimated average linear groundwater velocity for the upper portion of the Wisconsinan till is 2.5E-03 ft/day. Additional laboratory data for Wisconsinan glacial till and Mahomet Bedrock Valley Outwash are provided in Table 2.3-16 and Table 2.3-17, respectively.

2.3.2 Water Use 2.3.2.1 Freshwater Streams There are no communities, either upstream or downstream of the Clinton Lake Dam, that draw water from Salt Creek for public water supply. Within 25 mi of the site, Bloomington (approximately 35,000 population) draws water from the Mackinaw River Watershed upstream of the confluence with Salt Creek. Decatur (approximately 95,000 population) draws water from the Sangamon River Watershed. There is a population of 308,000 in the counties that lie within a 50-mi radius of the site that use surface water from a public water supply other than Salt Creek (see Table 2.3-18). Public water supplies draw about 75 mgd from surface waters. There are no private surface water withdrawals for domestic water supply or for agricultural purposes. There are 10 million gallons of private surface water withdrawn for commercial purposes, and 30 million gallons withdrawn for industrial purposes (USGS, 1995a).

2.3.2.2 Lakes and Impoundments The primary purpose of the 4,895-ac Clinton Lake is to provide the water required for the operation of the CPS. The water use and effluent characteristics of the EGC ESP Facility are DEL-096-REV0 2.3-15

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.3 - WATER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT discussed in Chapter 3. In addition, Clinton Lake also supplies a wide variety of quality recreation opportunities. Clinton Lake is classified as both a general use (namely protected water) and a public food processing water supply source. The lake is considered protected general use water because of the primary human contact (swimming and water-skiing) which occurs on the lake during the summer months. The public and food processing water supply classification is applicable because potable water for the CPS is drawn from the lake (CPS, 2001).

Clinton Lake, which is managed by the IDNR, was opened to the public on August 22, 1979 for recreational use. The lake had a yearly attendance rate of 972,616 in 2000 and 877,245 in 2001. Peak attendance typically occurs between June and August, with an average daily attendance of 5,137 people per day and a peak attendance of 10,000. The recreational facility is used year-round and offers snowmobiling, ice-fishing, ice-skating, boating, fishing, water-skiing, picnicking, camping, swimming, hiking, and hunting (IDNR, 2002a).

Weldon Springs State Recreation Area, located about 5.5-mi southwest of the site, had 415,449 visitors in the year 2000, and 377,743 visitors in the year 2001. Peak attendance typically occurs between May and August. The daily average attendance is 1,636 people per day with a peak attendance of 10,000 people. The 443-ac park offers facilities for fishing, picnicking, boating, hiking, sledding, tobogganing, ice-fishing, and cross-country skiing (IDNR, 2002a).

2.3.2.3 Groundwater Use 2.3.2.3.1 On-Site Use Groundwater with high naturally-occurring methane was collected from a test well during the site planning for the CPS. Therefore, the CPS water requirements have been met by surface water sources (namely Clinton Lake) rather than from groundwater. The original test well was located approximately 1-mi south of the site (CPS, 1982). Based on the presence of the naturally-occurring methane in the groundwater and the availability of water from Clinton Lake, groundwater will not be used for operations of the EGC ESP Facility. As such, groundwater use and/or quality regulations do not apply (CPS, 1982). In addition, there are no sole source aquifers in the State of Illinois (USEPA, 2002).

2.3.2.3.2 Present and Future Groundwater Use Public water supplies in the regional area are derived mainly from groundwater sources.

Water supply and water wells within a 50-mi radius of the site and within a 15-mi radius of the site that are in the ISGS GIS database are presented in Figure 2.3-18 and Figure 2.3-19, respectively. In addition, information on the water supply and water wells within a 15-mi radius of the site is provided in Appendix A.

The CPS USAR reported that within 15 mi of the site, approximately 65 percent of the total public groundwater supplies are pumped from the Mahomet Bedrock Valley aquifer.

Except for the alluvial wells at Heyworth, the remaining public water supplies are pumped from wells in the Wisconsinan, Illinoian, and Kansan glacial deposits. Bedrock wells are not used in any of the public water supply systems within 15 mi of the site (CPS, 2002).

The CPS USAR identifies a small test well located about 1-mi south of the CPS Site, 120-ft southeast of the CPS test well, that will be used as a water supply well for the Village of DeWitt (see Figure 2.3-17). The well is about 340-ft deep, and produces water from the sand 2.3-16 DDEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.3 - WATER and gravel deposits of the buried Mahomet Bedrock Valley at a depth of 300 to 340 ft (CPS, 2002).

The database, maintained by the ISGS, identifies approximately 179 water wells and 18 water test holes within 5 mi of the site. The available data indicate that the depths of the water wells and water test holes range from 36-ft to 413-ft below ground surface. Four wells with depths greater than 400 ft, 12 water wells, and two additional water test holes are owned by Illinois Power Company and occur within a 5-mi radius of the site (ISGS, 2002).

Most of the domestic wells are less than 150-ft deep and produce from sand lenses in the upper glacial tills rather than from the deeper Mahomet Bedrock Valley aquifer. Production exceeded 10 gpm in only a few cases. With the exception of wells used by tenant farmers or for monitoring, wells on the site property were abandoned and sealed in accordance with applicable state requirements during facility construction (CPS, 2002).

The area within 15 mi of the site includes most of DeWitt County and portions of Macon, McLean, and Piatt counties (see Figure 2.3-19). Available groundwater supplies for DeWitt County exceed 39 mgd (CPS, 2002). In 1995, public groundwater withdrawals totaled 1.48 mgd in DeWitt County, see Table 2.3-18 (USGS, 1995a). The USGS reported in 1995 that the rural groundwater use in the county was approximately 0.4 mgd. This indicates that the present water demands are less than 2 mgd, or approximately 5 percent of the total available supplies. Thus, groundwater is capable of meeting any foreseeable increase in water demand in DeWitt County. Similar conclusions may be drawn for the rest of the regional area since the hydrogeologic and population characteristics of the other counties are similar to those for DeWitt County.

Reversals in the regional hydraulic gradient and regional declines in the potentiometric surface have resulted from intensive pumping in the heavily urbanized Champaign-Urbana district, 32 mi to the east, where groundwater is pumped from the Mahomet Bedrock Valley aquifer. Although no positive evidence of these effects was identified in the CPS USAR for DeWitt County, declines may eventually occur in the eastern portion of the county if pumping continues to increase in the Champaign-Urbana district (CPS, 2002). These declines will probably not be significant at the site and no changes in the local pattern of groundwater movement are expected to occur.

In DeWitt County, reversals in the hydraulic gradient may also be expected to occur in response to pumping from the City of Clinton municipal well field. Lower potentiometric levels within the cone of influence induce higher recharge rates to the Mahomet Bedrock Valley aquifer. In turn, this may cause potentiometric levels in the overlying aquifers to decline slightly within the cone of influence. However, the cone of influence associated with the City of Clinton municipal well field is much smaller than the cone developed around Champaign-Urbana because pumping at the City of Clinton totals less than one-tenth of that at Champaign-Urbana. The cone of influence at the City of Clinton is likely limited to an area within a few miles of the well field and will have little, if any effect on groundwater levels at the site. In addition, the main facility borings indicated the buried Mahomet Bedrock Valley is not present beneath the site (CPS, 2002).

DEL-096-REV0 2.3-17

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.3 - WATER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 2.3.3 Water Quality This section describes the water quality conditions in the surface water and groundwater that may potentially affect, or be affected by the construction or operation of the EGC ESP Facility. The potential construction or operational impacts on water quality are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively.

2.3.3.1 Freshwater Streams The water quality of Salt Creek was monitored by the ISWS at the Rowell gauging station, 12-mi downstream of the Clinton Lake Dam, from 1950 to 1956. Water quality sampling for Salt Creek at Rowell was resumed with measurements beginning in 1964 through 1997.

Water quality information is also available, beginning in 1972 (prior to construction of the dam), at five other sampling locations established by Illinois Power Company on Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek in the vicinity of the then proposed Clinton Lake. The sampling procedure and the water quality analyses are discussed in the CPS ER, Chapter 2, Section 6.1.1 (CPS, 1982). Detailed summer maximum, minimum, and average temperatures were also measured between 1994 and 2000 at a point on Salt Creek 100-ft downstream of the Clinton Lake Dam (CPS, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2001a).

Stream water quality data was evaluated for two time periods:

• Postdam and preoperational period (1978 through 1986 after filling of the lake and before the operation of the CPS); and

• Postdam and operational period (1987 to present).

The postdam and preoperational period consists of a nine-year period of time following the construction of the dam and before the operation of the CPS.

Temperature, suspended solids, and phosphorus were evaluated for the three time periods.

Figure 2.3-11 shows the temperature plot measured at the Rowell gauging station.

Generally there is little change from one period to the next. The dominant summer high temperature during the three periods is generally in the 85 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) range.

The dominant low winter temperature is 32°F. Even the transition between preoperation and postoperation of the power plant shows similar temperature values.

Water temperature was also monitored at a point 100-ft downstream of the dam (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Permit Order 92-142) during CPS operation. These data were compared to water temperature measured at Rowell gauging station during the same time period. A comparison of stream temperatures measured 100-ft downstream of the dam and at Rowell gauging station for June, July, and August of 1994, 1995, and 1996 are presented in Figure 2.3-20, Figure 2.3-21, and Figure 2.3-22.

Values for suspended solids measured as turbidity at the Rowell gauging station are presented on Figure 2.3-23. Postdam high turbidity values generally range from 30 to 120 Nephelometric Turbidity Units. The transition between before operation of CPS and postoperation at CPS indicates unremarkable changes in turbidity.

Values for phosphorus at the Rowell gauging station are presented on Figure 2.3-24.

Recorded postdam values indicate relatively low phosphorus levels generally less than 2.3-18 DDEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.3 - WATER 0.6 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Elevated phosphorus values in the 1.0 mg/L range were recorded periodically for the two-year period following the start of CPS operation but levels returned to preplant operation values for the last ten years of monitoring (USGS, 2002).

The Illinois Water Quality Report 2002 (305b report) does not list any impairments for Salt Creek and gives it an Aquatic Life Use assessment of good for the upstream reaches and fair for the most downstream reach. The 2002 303d list identifies the most downstream reach of Salt Creek as water quality limited. This reach is located about 50-mi downstream, measured directly, or 75 river miles downstream of the Clinton Lake Dam. No impairments are shown on the original listing, but Errata No. 21 includes a swimming use impairment and identifies the cause of the impairment as pathogens (code 1700) (IEPA, 2002). This impairment is likely to be a result of downstream population centers in the vicinity of the impairment rather than Clinton Lake or activity around the lake.

2.3.3.2 Lakes and Impoundments Water quality data have been gathered from Clinton Lake for the nine years between the completion of the dam prior to power plant operations (1978 through 1986), and five years since the CPS began operation (1987 through 1991). Illinois Power Company monitored 28 water quality parameters during the program. The sample locations were selected to monitor upstream of and near the cooling water discharge, along the path between the discharge and the cooling water intake, and near the CPS intake screen house (CPS, 1992).

The CPS sampling locations are presented on Figure 2.3-25. Selected water quality data collected during this monitoring program from 1987 to 1991 for Monitoring Site 4 (near plant intake) and Site 2 (near plant discharge) are presented in Table 2.3-19.

As part of the ambient lake program, IEPA collects temperature and chemical data at three sites in Clinton Lake. The Core Lakes, including Clinton Lake, are sampled every 3 years.

During the monitoring event the lake is sampled five times: once during the spring runoff (April or May), three times during the summer (June, July, and August), and once during the fall (September or October). The analytical data can be accessed from the STORET water quality database maintained by the USEPA (IEPA, 2002a). The sample locations are also presented in Figure 2.3-25. A summary of water quality data from 1991 through 2000 from the STORET database for selected parameters is also presented in Table 2.3-19.

Lake temperature appears to be the most significant water quality change that has resulted from the current facility operation. Lake temperatures from the plant intake to the discharge appear to be about 5°F warmer on average. More recent average water temperatures for the combined IEPA monitoring sites are slightly lower than the discharge monitoring data. This is a good trend, but no solid conclusions can be drawn because of the limited number of recent data values and the data do not cover the same summer time period.

Dissolved oxygen levels are reduced by approximately 1 mg/L between the intake and the discharge locations, which is consistent with the noted temperature increase. More recent average dissolved oxygen levels from combined sites appear to be slightly higher than the previous discharge values. Again, this is a good trend, but variations in the number of samples and the seasonal distribution of the samples make solid conclusions difficult to draw.

DEL-096-REV0 2.3-19

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.3 - WATER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Turbidity is increased slightly at the discharge monitoring site over values measured at the intake. The more recent composite turbidity values showed reduced average turbidity.

Other constituents reviewed did not appear to show significant change. They include hardness, TDS, magnesium, chloride, orthophosphate, and sulfate.

The designated uses for Clinton Lake, based on the Illinois Water Quality Report 2002 and the 2002 303d List, includes Full Aquatic Life (F20), Full Fish Consumption (F21), Partial Support General Use (P1), Partial Support Swimming (P42), and Partial Support Secondary Contact (P44). No assessment was made for Drinking Water Supply (X50). The IEPA has identified two causes of impaired use and has established a medium priority for further study. The causes of impaired use include a Confidence Level 3 (high) Excess Algal Growth (H2210), and a Confidence Level 2 (moderate) Metals (M500). The sources of impairment listed include Industrial Point Sources (100), Agriculture (1000) Crop Related Sources (1050)

Non-irrigated Crop Production (1100), Hydrologic/Habitat Modification (7000) Flow Regulation Modification (7400), and Marinas and Recreational Boating (7900) (IEPA, 2002).

The impaired status and medium priority indicates that further study is required to confirm and resolve the impairments.

Excessive algal growth is generally associated with elevated nutrient levels and clear water that allows deep sunlight penetration. Major sources of nutrients to Clinton Lake are expected to be agriculture, crop-related sources, and non-irrigated crop production. Other sources may also contribute to the availability of nutrients in the water column such as recreational boating that may increase sediment resuspension and shoreline erosion. Power plant operation is not considered a significant source of nutrients to Clinton Lake.

Chlorophyll-a is the accepted water quality parameter for establishing excessive algal growth. Review of recent Chlorophyll-a monitoring data collected by IEPA from 1981 to 2000 indicate average concentrations of 33 µg/L. A minimum value of 2 µg/L was measured on August 19, 1981, and a maximum value of 103 µg/L was measured on June 12, 1997. The second highest value measured over this period was 69 µg/L measured on June 12, 2000. The samples were collected during the months of April through October (USEPA, 2002a).

IEPA uses specific ranges for slight, moderate, and high magnitude of impairment levels.

The following ranges have been adopted for Chlorophyll-a (IEPA, 2002):

• Slight >20 to <92 µg/L;

• Moderate >92 to <426 µg/L; and

• High >426 µg/L.

Recent recorded Chlorophyll-a values generally fall in the no impairment to slight impairment range.

The moderate impairment due to metals may be attributed to a number of sources including geological or natural sources in soil, agriculture, and industrial sources. Control measures are limited for natural sources except to promote erosion control practices on adjacent land uses in order to prevent mobilization and delivery of naturally occurring metals in sediment to the lake and tributary rivers and streams. Agricultural land is the dominant land use in 2.3-20 DDEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.3 - WATER the lake watershed. Therefore, erosion and sediment control from agricultural land is potentially the single most effective control measure for metals that are naturally occurring or used in agricultural applications. Industrial sources, such as the CPS, are also a potential source of metals. Control practices include stormwater management and sediment and erosion control, and corrosion control measures for the cooling system and selection of pipe materials and other exposed metals that have a reduced potential for leaching metals. The CPS operates in compliance with a NPDES stormwater discharge permit.

2.3.3.3 Groundwater The following description of the groundwater quality conditions for the various aquifers beneath the site are based on data collected for the CPS and from regional sources.

Investigations for the CPS Facility included collection of groundwater samples from the alluvial and the glacial drift aquifers. In 1974, a groundwater sample was also collected from the test well in the Mahomet Bedrock aquifer (CPS, 2002). Water quality of the deeper bedrock aquifers that were not encountered by the investigations for the CPS Facility are summarized from studies conducted by the ISWS, IDNR, or the USGS. A summary of water quality conditions for the different aquifer units is presented in the following sections.

2.3.3.3.1 Alluvial Aquifer The alluvial deposits consisting of thick, permeable sand, and gravel deposits, commonly occur along larger streams having established floodplains, such as Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek. Water quality data for the alluvial aquifers in the regional area are limited since these aquifers are not used extensively because the floodplain areas have undergone only minor development. One municipality that uses the alluvial deposits along Kickapoo Creek as a source of public water is Heyworth in McLean County (CPS, 2002).

The following concentrations were reported in the CPS USAR for selected chemical constituents in groundwater from the alluvial aquifer at Heyworth for a sample collected in 1972: hardness (as CaC03), 284 ppm; alkalinity (as CaC03), 240 ppm; chloride, 16 ppm; total iron, 0.4 ppm; and total dissolved minerals, 329 ppm (CPS, 2002).

2.3.3.3.2 Glacial Drift Aquifers Chemical analyses of site groundwater samples from selected borings in the glacial deposits during the site investigation for the CPS are provided in Table 2.3-20.

Regional groundwater quality in the Illinoian and Kansan aquifers is summarized in Table 2.3-21. As indicated in the table, the quality of groundwater does not differ substantially between aquifers. Water from wells pumping from the Wisconsinan aquifers generally has a lower mineral content than water from wells in the deeper formations. However, the quality of groundwater obtained from Wisconsinan aquifers is more variable, which is due in part to local contamination of shallow wells from nearby pollution sources, such as septic tanks and feedlots. The high chloride content reported for some wells in the Illinoian and Kansan aquifers suggests that some highly mineralized water is being discharged from the Pennsylvanian bedrock to the overlying glacial deposits in some areas. In addition to the CPS test well, methane gas is present in seven public water supply systems within 15 mi of the site. Methane is also reported from numerous private wells in the regional area (CPS, 2002).

DEL-096-REV0 2.3-21

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.3 - WATER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT General groundwater chemistry of the Glasford sand and gravel aquifers, within the Illinoian deposits of southwest McLean and southeast Tazewell counties, have been summarized by the ISWS (IDNR et al., 1995) and are provided in Table 2.3-22.

2.3.3.3.3 Kansan Outwash in Buried Mahomet Bedrock Valley Aquifer The Mahomet Bedrock Valley aquifer is one of the most highly productive, nonalluvial sand and gravel aquifers in southern Illinois (Kempton et. al., 1991). In 1974, a test well drilled to total depth of 358 ft was installed about 1 mi from the site in order to establish the groundwater quality of the buried Mahomet Bedrock Valley aquifer. Analytical data for that test well are summarized in Table 2.3-23. The analytical results for the groundwater from the test well were relatively consistent with regional levels measured in the Illinoian and Kansan aquifers (see Table 2.3-21). Burnable gas was detected in the groundwater during pumping of the test well. Results of two gas analyses indicated that methane comprised more than 80 percent of the total gas sample. This volume of gas is similar to that reported for other gas producing water wells in DeWitt County (CPS, 1982).

Regional water quality data from DeWitt County, collected as part of the Mahomet Aquifer Study being conducted by the ISWS, and for the Sankoty-Mahomet Sand aquifer of southwest McLean and southeast Tazewell counties (IDNR et al., 1995) are presented in Table 2.3-24 and Table 2.3-25, respectively. The groundwater quality of the Mahomet Aquifer in DeWitt County falls in the middle of the range observed regionally for this aquifer (see Table 2.3-21 and Table 2.3-25). The total dissolved solid, hardness, and calcium concentrations in the water samples from the Mahomet Bedrock Valley aquifer in DeWitt County are not indicative of the highly mineralized water that have been observed at depth in some areas (see Table 2.3-25).

2.3.3.3.4 Pennsylvanian Bedrock Aquifer Pronounced increases in the concentrations of dissolved solids due to increased sodium and chloride occur with depth in these deposits. However, the water can be somewhat softened by ion exchange between the water and minerals in the shales and clays. Water yielding sandstone and limestone are thin and interlayered with low permeability deposits of shale and coal. Water from the freshwater parts of the Pennsylvanian aquifers is moderately hard and of a sodium bicarbonate type with a median dissolved solids concentration greater than 500 mg/L (USGS, 1995).

2.3.3.3.5 Mississippian Bedrock Aquifer The USGS summarized chemical analyses of water from this aquifer with the exception of Greene County, Indiana, on the eastern side of the Illinois Basin. The water is moderately hard and is a sodium calcium bicarbonate type. The TDS concentrations typically increase as the depth of the well increases. Mississippian-aged rocks in this part of Illinois typically contain water with dissolved solids concentrations of greater than 1,000 mg/L (USGS, 1995).

2.3.3.3.6 Silurian-Devonian Bedrock Aquifer The USGS indicates that concentrations of dissolved solids and iron exceed secondary maximum contaminant levels established by the USEPA in more than 50 percent of the studied samples. The water is also hard, and sulfate concentrations exceed 250 mg/L in many samples (USGS, 1995).

2.3-22 DDEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.4 - ECOLOGY 2.4 Ecology This section describes the ecological resources existing at the site and within the vicinity surrounding the EGC ESP Site. This description of ecological resources focuses on the terrestrial and aquatic environments that could affect or be affected by the construction or operation of the EGC ESP Facility, in addition to transmission corridors and off-site facilities.

The information presented in this section has been summarized from the following sources:

• CPS ER (CPS, 1973), various sections;

• CPS ER (operating license stage [OLS]) (CPS, 1982), various sections;

• USFWS and IDNR GIS databases;

• USGS reports and databases;

• Aerial photographs; and

• Additional investigations and monitoring reports prepared for the CPS.

2.4.1 Terrestrial Ecology The following sections of this document describe the terrestrial environment and biota of the site, vicinity, and off-site areas likely to be affected by construction, maintenance, or operation of the facility and transmission corridor. This portion of the document has been divided into three sections describing the existing land use, wildlife resources, and important species and habitats found within the site and vicinity. Resources were initially identified from the CPS ER (CPS, 1973) and the CPS ER (OLS) (CPS, 1982), and were then updated based on review of state databases and current available aerial and site photographs.

2.4.1.1 Existing Land Use According to historic studies, evaluations that have been performed in conjunction with activities associated with the CPS, and other available resources, a variety of vegetation communities in various stages of ecological succession can be found within the vicinity and along the proposed transmission corridor. The following section describes the major land use types and ecological habitats present within the EGC ESP Facility vicinity and along the proposed transmission corridor.

2.4.1.1.1 Active Agricultural Land Agriculture is the predominant land use for areas within 6 mi of the site (USGS, 1992).

Active agricultural practices within the vicinity include hay, row crops, and small grains.

2.4.1.1.2 Upland Pasture Many of the plant species observed to be growing within pasturelands in the vicinity include exotic (non-native) species.

Open lands within the vicinity that are not used for active agricultural purposes are commonly used as pastureland for the grazing of livestock. According to baseline and DEL-096-REV0 2.4-1

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.4 - ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT subsequent monitoring year studies performed for the CPS and other available sources, plants commonly found in upland pasture and open field habitats in the vicinity include common ragweed, Kentucky bluegrass, red sorrel, Japanese brome, timothy, and common yarrow. During baseline and subsequent monitoring year surveys, shrub species observed in upland pasture and open field communities include multiflora rose, blackberry, and hawthorn (CPS, 1973 and CPS, 1982). Observations made during various field efforts in 2002 confirmed the continued predominance of open field habitats at and adjacent to the site.

2.4.1.1.3 Upland Forest According to baseline and subsequent monitoring year studies in support of the CPS ER and CPS ER (OLS), typical species found in the understory and herbaceous layers of upland forest communities included multiflora rose, may-apple, trillium, goldenrod species, aster species, and Jack-in-the-pulpit (CPS, 1973 and CPS, 1982). These species continue to be commonly observed herbaceous species throughout the region.

During baseline and subsequent monitoring events, upland forest communities located within the vicinity were observed to be predominantly vegetated with several species of oak and elm, black cherry, shagbark hickory, black walnut, hackberry, honeylocust, and red mulberry (CPS, 1973 and CPS, 1982). These species continue to be commonly observed upland forest communities throughout the region.

2.4.1.1.4 Wetland and Floodplain Forest Wetland and floodplain forest areas are present along Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek. Additionally, some floodplain forest areas can be found along Clinton Lake, north of the EGC ESP Facility (USFWS, 2002), and in areas along the proposed transmission corridor.

Tree species commonly found within wetland and floodplain forests in the vicinity include hackberry, elms, black walnut, silver maple, and box elder. Vegetation commonly found in the understory of these forest areas include wood nettle, avens, and beggarticks (CPS, 1973).

Observations made during field studies supporting the CPS ER (OLS) presented data confirming the predominance of these species in forested wetlands in the vicinity (CPS, 1982).

An increasing problem in Illinois is the spread of invasive perennial weeds, including purple loosestrife and cut-leafed teasel. Purple loosestrife is increasingly more common in wet areas, while cut-leafed teasel has been documented as occurring near the existing facility.

According to the INHS, purple loosestrife has gradually come to dominate many of the remaining high quality wetlands in the northern half of Illinois (INHS, 2002). The IDNR is researching several methods to control purple loosestrife in Illinois (INHS, 2002).

Additionally, the IDOT has solicited the INHS to conduct research on the management and natural history of cut-leafed teasel to develop a management strategy. The INHS studies seed dispersal, the influence of mowing on patch size, and the transition time between life stages of selected teasel plants growing below the spillway at Clinton Lake (INHS, 2002).

2.4-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.4 - ECOLOGY 2.4.1.2 Wildlife Resources The following discussion presents the wildlife resources existing within the vicinity and along the proposed transmission corridors. The data are based on the results of the wildlife studies performed in support of the original CPS (both baseline surveys and subsequent monitoring surveys), as well as recent information gathered from the IDNR and other available sources.

Wildlife resources found within the vicinity and along the proposed transmission corridors are consistent with those species commonly found in the central Illinois region. Extensive wildlife surveys, including trapping and general observational events, were performed to characterize species composition in the vicinity of the CPS. The results of those surveys are presented below.

Eighteen species of mammals were identified in the vicinity during baseline surveys performed in support of the CPS ER, and include deer mouse, white-footed mouse, meadow vole, various species of shrews (including shorttail and least shrews, white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, beaver, muskrat, striped skunk, mink, and thirteen-lined ground squirrel)

(CPS, 1973). Additional surveys performed as part of the monitoring plan supporting the CPS confirmed that wildlife species present in the vicinity generally are consistent with species present during baseline studies (CPS, 1982).

Based on baseline trapping results, it was concluded that deer mice are the most widespread and abundant species, accounting for over half of the mammals captured during sampling events (CPS, 1973). Deer mice were found in the different habitats that were sampled, but were most common in shrub dominated communities and floodplain communities. In general, diversity and abundance of each species varied among the habitat types sampled.

Relative abundance was highest in habitats dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Diversity was highest in forested communities (CPS, 1973). Results of sampling efforts performed in support of the CPS ER (OLS) confirmed that mice, including deer mice, were still the most widespread and abundant species of the mammals captured during sampling efforts (CPS, 1982).

Habitats located in the vicinity and along the proposed transmission corridors are suitable for a variety of migrating songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors. Ninety-six species of birds were identified during the spring and fall survey conducted within the vicinity.

Birds that were observed include red-winged blackbird, common grackle, northern cardinal, redheaded woodpecker, various species of sparrows, juncos, black-capped chickadee, blue jay, mourning dove, yellow-shafted flicker, downy woodpecker, common crow, and starling (CPS, 1973). Of the bird species observed, 36 were characterized as summer residents, 29 were characterized as migratory, 28 were characterized as permanent residents, and 3 were characterized as winter residents (CPS, 1973). In addition, there have been documented observations of a variety of rare bird species in the vicinity, including gyrfalcon and prairie falcon near Clinton Lake (De Vore, 2000).

Clinton Lake, and other waterbodies located within the vicinity provides a suitable habitat for a variety of waterfowl species. Waterfowl observed, or documented to occur within the vicinity, include the blue-winged teal, mallard, American widgeon, wood duck, lesser scaup, and Canada goose. In addition, migratory shorebirds were also observed during baseline and subsequent monitoring year surveys. Common species identified include a DEL-096-REV0 2.4-3

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.4 - ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT variety of sandpipers and heron (CPS, 1973 and CPS, 1982). According to Birding Illinois, key bird species observed at Clinton Lake include migratory loons and grebes, regularly occurring migratory waterfowl, migratory shorebirds, and migratory and wintering gulls (De Vore, 2000).

According to baseline and subsequent monitoring year surveys, and confirmed by various other sources including the IDNR, game birds commonly observed within the vicinity include ring-necked pheasant and common bobwhite.

Reptiles and amphibians that commonly occur within the vicinity include various species of frogs, salamanders, snakes, and turtles, most of which are commonly found throughout the region.

The most common species of concern as disease vectors or pests in the region include ticks and mosquitoes. Recent studies show that the tiger mosquito has become a major problem in every county in Illinois (INHS, 2002). In addition, rats and other small rodents can transmit diseases and are general nuisances to residential and agricultural areas in the vicinity.

2.4.1.3 Important Species According to the USNRC, important species are defined as state- or federally-listed (or proposed for listing) threatened or endangered species; commercially or recreationally valuable species; species that are essential to the maintenance and survival of species that are rare and commercially or recreationally valuable; species that are critical to the structure and function of the local terrestrial ecosystem; and/or species that may serve as biological indicators to monitor the effects of the facilities on the terrestrial environment (USNRC, 1999).

Important species and habitats are shown in Table 2.4-1.

2.4.1.3.1 Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species Based on preliminary database reviews, no federally-listed threatened or endangered species have been documented within the immediate vicinity (IDNR, 2002a) (see Figure 2.4-1). Federal wildlife agencies will be formally contacted at a date closer to the facility construction to confirm the absence of federal listed threatened and endangered species, since confirmation letters are valid for only one year after issuance.

2.4.1.3.2 State-listed Threatened and Endangered Species Based on preliminary database reviews, no state-listed threatened or endangered species have been documented within the immediate vicinity (IDNR, 2002a). However, there have been documented sightings of rare bird species in the vicinity. According to local Audubon Societies and other sources for birding in Illinois, snowy egret, Henslows sparrow, northern harrier, peregrine falcon, black-crowned night heron, short-eared owl, yellow-headed blackbird, sandhill crane, pied-billed grebe, bald eagle, brown creeper, and red-shouldered hawk are state-listed threatened or endangered bird species that have been observed in the vicinity (De Vore, 2000 and Illinois Audubon Society, 2003).

Additionally, the CPS ER and CPS ER (OLS) identified the river otter as a species that was present during field surveys (CPS, 1973 and CPS, 1982). The river otter is listed as a threatened species in the State of Illinois (IDNR, 2002h).

2.4-4 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.4 - ECOLOGY State wildlife agencies will be formally contacted at a date closer to the facility construction to confirm the absence of state-listed threatened and endangered species, since confirmation letters are valid for only two years after issuance.

2.4.1.3.3 Species of Commercial or Recreational Value Species that are commercially or recreationally valuable and can be found within the vicinity are:

• White-tailed Deer - Hunting for white-tailed deer in DeWitt County has been ongoing since its implementation in 1970. In the first few years of existence, the number of permits that were issued each year to deer hunters within the county was limited to 200, with actual numbers of deer harvested ranging from 27 to 30, in 1971 and 1970 respectively (CPS, 1973). Total numbers of deer harvested in DeWitt County in the year 2000 were 309, and increased to 326 in the year 2001 (IDNR, 2002b).

• Waterfowl - Waterfowl species commonly hunted in DeWitt County and at the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area include mallard, scaup, wood duck, redhead, black duck, pintail, teal, coot, and Canada goose (IDNR, 2002c).

Hunting season for most waterfowl is in the fall, generally from mid-October through mid-December, with certain exceptions. In central Illinois there are two goose hunting seasons: the last week in October and from mid-November through January.

• Other Species with Recreational Value - In addition to deer and wild turkey, mammals including eastern cottontail, raccoon, opossum, fox, skunk, coyote, and squirrel are hunted recreationally in DeWitt County (IDNR, 2002b).

2.4.1.3.4 Biological Indicators The USEPA describes biological indicators as groups or types of biological resources that can be used to assess environmental conditions (USEPA, 2003). Within these groups, certain species can be chosen to characterize current status or to track or predict significant change.

Many species could be considered as biological indicators including federally-listed and state-listed threatened and endangered species, and other rare species occurring within the terrestrial environments near the EGC ESP Facility.

Avian species that could be considered as biological indicators for the ecosystems within the vicinity include bald eagle and osprey. These are two species that are commonly observed in and near Clinton Lake, and because of their location at the top of the food chain, they become an irreplaceable indicator for measuring the health of an ecosystem.

River otter is another terrestrial species historically observed in the vicinity that could be used as a biological indicator for the surrounding ecosystems. River otters are typically recognized as an indicator species for both water quality and riparian vegetation. Their success indicates clean water, viable fish populations, and lush riparian areas.

2.4.1.4 Important Habitats According to the USNRC, important habitats include any wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, or preserves; habitats identified by state or federal agencies as unique, rare, or of priority for protection; wetlands and floodplains; and land areas identified as critical habitat for species listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS (USNRC, 1999).

DEL-096-REV0 2.4-5

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.4 - ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 2.4.1.4.1 Clinton Lake State Recreation Area The CPS is located on Clinton Lake, which is part of the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area.

This entire recreational area is approximately 9,300 ac, and provides opportunities for an array of recreational activities including fishing, picnicking, hiking, camping, swimming, boating, hunting, and wildlife viewing activities.

According to the IDNR, 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) (IDNR, 2003). The parklands are owned by AmerGen, who also operates the CPS. The state has operated the park through a long-term lease with AmerGen since 1978 (IDNR, 2002d).

According to Birding Illinois, there are several habitats within the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area that are significant for birding including wet meadows, pine forest, and a marsh associated with a nearby beaver dam (De Vore, 2000). These areas provide habitats significant to a variety of birds including rare and threatened and endangered species.

2.4.1.4.2 Weldon Springs State Recreation Area Weldon Springs State Recreation Area is a 370-ac park located southeast of the City of Clinton. This recreation area offers a variety of recreational opportunities including fishing, boating, picnicking, camping, hiking, and wildlife viewing activities (IDNR, 2002e).

Woodlands in the Weldon Springs State Recreation Area are vegetated predominantly with a variety of oak, hickory, maple, ash, in addition to walnut, sweetgum, sycamore and locust (City of Clinton, 2003).

Wetlands observed in the Weldon Springs State Recreation Area include lake, pond, and stream habitats, in addition to marsh, forested wetland and riparian areas (City of Clinton, 2003).

Weldon Springs State Recreation Area is located approximately 6 mi from the EGC ESP Facility.

2.4.1.4.3 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Illinois Natural Area Inventory Sites)

Illinois designates certain environmentally sensitive areas as Illinois Natural Areas. These areas are protected to varying degrees, under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission. There are two environmentally sensitive areas located near the site, specifically along Salt Creek and Tenmile Creek (see Figure 2.4-2). They are approximately 3 mi and 5 mi, respectively, from the location of the EGC ESP Facility (IDNR, 2002).

Salt Creek, located southeast of the location of the EGC ESP Facility, is classified as a highly valued aquatic resource.

Tenmile Creek, located approximately 5-mi west of the location of the EGC ESP Facility, is classified by the IEPA as a unique aquatic resource (see Table 2.4-2). This portion of the watercourse is also listed as an important resource, medium gradient creek, by the IDNR.

2.4.1.4.4 Wetlands and Floodplains According to National Wetland Inventory databases, there are four minor areas (less than 1 ac) within the site boundary, that have been identified as wetlands (USFWS, 2002). These 2.4-6 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.4 - ECOLOGY areas generally are comprised of open water resources consistent with constructed sediment basins.

In addition, wetland resources including forested, emergent, and scrub-shrub communities, exist within 6 mi of the location of the EGC ESP Facility and along the proposed transmission corridors (USFWS, 2002). These wetlands generally are associated with small tributaries to Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek.

2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology The following sections describe the aquatic environment and biota of the site, vicinity, and off-site areas likely to be affected by construction, maintenance, or operation of the facility and transmission corridors. This section has been divided into three parts describing the existing water quality and use, fisheries resources, and important species and habitats found within the site and vicinity.

2.4.2.1 Water Quality and Use This section presents a general description of the water quality and use of watercourses within the vicinity of the EGC ESP Site. Section 2.3.2 and Section 2.3.3 present detailed descriptions of water use and quality. This includes the identification of consumptive water uses that could affect the water supply of the facility: the identification of recreational, navigational, and other nonconsumptive uses; and additional information regarding the quality of watercourses and supplies in the vicinity.

According to the IEPAs Biological Assessment of Illinois Stream Quality (through 1993), water quality within the vicinity of the EGC ESP Site is generally good, with most of the existing watercourses designated as moderate, highly valued, or unique aquatic resources (IEPA, 2002). Below are descriptions of the quality of area waterbodies. Figure 2.4-3 presents the biological stream characterizations for watercourses within the vicinity.

• Tenmile Creek, located approximately 5-mi west of the location of the EGC ESP Facility, is classified by the IEPA as a unique aquatic resource (see Table 2.4-2). This portion of the watercourse is also listed as an important resource, medium gradient creek, by the IDNR.

• Coon Creek, located approximately 3 mi from the location of the EGC ESP Facility, is classified by the IEPA as a highly valued aquatic resource (see Table 2.4-2).

• North Fork of Salt Creek, located north of the location of the EGC ESP Facility, is classified as a moderate aquatic resource (see Table 2.4-2).

• Salt Creek, located southeast of the location of the EGC ESP Facility, is classified as a highly valued aquatic resource.

• Friends Creek and Wolf Run, tributaries to the Sangamon River, are both classified as highly valued aquatic resources.

• Watercourses within the vicinity of the EGC ESP Site are used for a variety of purposes (depending on the size and nature of the waterbody). Many streams in the vicinity are DEL-096-REV0 2.4-7

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.4 - ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT utilized for fishing, boating, canoeing, and kayaking. Other recreational activities include hiking and wildlife viewing.

• Clinton Lake, a 4,895-ac lake constructed as a source for cooling water for the CPS, is located immediately adjacent to the EGC ESP Facility. Clinton Lake is a significant resource for a variety of recreational activities including fishing, boating, swimming, and wildlife viewing. The water quality of Clinton Lake is presently classified as an impaired waterbody by the IEPA. Important ecological habitats located in the vicinity of Clinton Lake include wetlands and riparian forest lands.

• The Weldon Springs Lake, a 28-ac spring fed lake is located in Weldon Springs State Recreation Area and is primarily used for recreational activities including boating, fishing, camping, hiking, and wildlife viewing. Other important ecological habitats observed at Weldon Springs State Recreation Area include wetlands and natural springs.

2.4.2.2 Fisheries Resources As previously mentioned, the EGC ESP Site is located on Clinton Lake, a 4,895-ac waterbody created as a cooling source for the CPS. Since its creation, Clinton Lake has become a tremendous resource for a variety of stocked and naturally occurring populations of fish species.

The Clinton Lake fish community is dominated by gizzard shad, common carp, bluegill, white crappie, largemouth bass, quillback, and bigmouth buffalo. Channel catfish are also a major part of the Clinton Lake fishery. In addition, the IDNR has implemented a fishery stocking program that has introduced striped bass (including hybrid populations) and walleye (IDNR, 2002f and 2002g). These species are discussed further in Section 2.4.2.3.

Fisheries in watercourses of the vicinity are consistent with fisheries commonly found in the central Illinois region. During extensive baseline and subsequent monitoring year surveys performed in Salt Creek and the North Fork of Salt Creek, species collected include several species of shiner (common, bigmouth, red, sand, and redfin), bluntnose minnow, creek chub, white sucker, black bullhead, channel catfish, bluegill, largemouth bass, and crappie (CPS, 1973 and CPS, 1982). Information obtained from various IDNR sources and recent studies in support of the CPS confirm that species present within waterbodies in the vicinity generally remain consistent to species observed during the baseline and subsequent monitoring year surveys.

2.4.2.3 Important Species According to the USNRC, important species are defined as state- or federally-listed (or proposed for listing) threatened or endangered species; commercially or recreationally valuable species; species that are essential to the maintenance and survival of species that are rare and commercially or recreationally valuable; species that are critical to the structure and function of the local terrestrial ecosystem; and/or species that may serve as biological indicators to monitor the effects of the facilities on the terrestrial environment (USNRC, 1999). Important species and habitats are presented in Table 2.4-3.

2.4-8 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.4 - ECOLOGY 2.4.2.3.1 Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species Based on preliminary database reviews, no federally-listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur within the vicinity (IDNR, 2002a). Applicable federal agencies, including the National Marine Fisheries Service and the USFWS will be formally contacted in order to confirm the presence or absence of any federally-listed (or proposed for listing) threatened or endangered fish or other aquatic species.

2.4.2.3.2 State-listed Threatened and Endangered Species According to information provided by the IDNR, only one aquatic state threatened or endangered species has been identified within 10 mi of the EGC ESP Site. Documented occurrences of the spike (Elliptio dilatata), a freshwater mussel, have been made approximately 10 mi from the EGC ESP Site (IDNR, 2002a). This is approximately 4 mi beyond the limits of the vicinity. The spike, also known as the lady finger mussel, is designated as threatened in the State of Illinois (IDNR, 2002a). A suitable habitat for the spike includes small to large streams. In addition, they are occasionally found in lakes with muddy or gravelly substrates (IDNR, 2002i).

There are no documented occurrences of the spike in Clinton Lake, or any other watercourses within the site or vicinity.

2.4.2.3.3 Species of Commercial or Recreational Value As previously mentioned, important species include those aquatic species that present value in a commercial or recreational manner. There are no commercial fisheries within the site or vicinity. Species that are of recreational value that can be found within the vicinity are described below.

• Channel Catfish - The self sustaining population of channel catfish found in Clinton Lake has been a major part of the fishery of Clinton Lake (IDNR, 2002j). Clinton Lake has been described as one of the best places in the state for catching channel catfish, a common sport fish that can be found in many locations in the lake (IDNR, 2002j). As previously mentioned, channel catfish are also present in watercourses located within the vicinity, specifically in Salt Creek and the North Fork of Salt Creek.

Channel catfish prefer fairly deep waters with sand, gravel, or rocky substrates, and are not usually found in areas comprised of dense aquatic vegetation. In streams, channel catfish are usually found in moderate to swift current and thrive in water temperatures above 70ºF.

Channel catfish are highly migratory and ascend small streams to spawn. They are commonly referred to as cavity spawners, and will only spawn in secluded areas.

Adult channel catfish typically come into shallow water at night to feed, but return to deep holes or shelters during daylight. They feed by sight and by taste, using the barbels. Channel catfish feed primarily on aquatic insects when young and have a more varied diet (including insects, fish, and aquatic plants) when older.

• Striped Bass - According to the IDNR, Clinton Lake was one of the first lakes in Illinois to receive hybrid striped bass, which was first stocked in 1978 (IDNR, 2002k). Striped bass thrived in Clinton Lake until the early 1990s. However, consecutive years of flash floods significantly reduced the hybrid bass numbers. In past years, stock additions DEL-096-REV0 2.4-9

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.4 - ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT have increased overall populations to where they had been during the peak years of the fisherys existence (IDNR, 2002k).

Striped bass and hybrid striped bass are commonly stocked into large lakes and reservoirs for recreational purposes. They are generally most active during dawn and dusk hours, when there is lower amounts of light.

Striped bass typically inhabit deeper areas during winter months, then migrate to shallow and upstream areas to spawn.

Striped bass and hybrid striped bass eat insects and other crustaceans when young, and primarily eat fish when older.

• Largemouth Bass - The largemouth bass population of Clinton Lake exists as a recreationally important species, but has struggled over the past several years.

According to the IDNR, the INHS is conducting extensive research to determine the causes of poor reproduction in the lake (IDNR, 2002g). As previously discussed, largemouth bass are also present in watercourses located within the vicinity, specifically Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek.

Largemouth bass can be found in a variety of types of waterbodies, from small farm ponds to large lakes, and are highly valued by fishermen for their fighting abilities.

Spawning typically occurs after one year, when water temperatures have settled between 65ºF and 75ºF. Largemouth bass tend to spawn close to the shore, in waters 1 to 4 ft in depth.

Largemouth bass feed on fish and a variety of other aquatic life including insects and crayfish.

Reproduction and recruitment of largemouth bass (and white crappie) are a major concern in Clinton Lake due to the continued reproductive difficulties that have been observed in these species. A variety of regulations have been implemented to assist in the management and protection of these species.

• Walleye - According to the IDNR, between 1987 and 1992, the walleye population in Clinton Lake was one of the best in the state (IDNR, 2002f). Recurring floods in the early 1990s hurt existing populations, but stocking events over the past few years have greatly improved the walleye fishery (IDNR, 2002f).

The walleye is known for low-light vision and sensitivity to bright light, which plays a large role in its behavior. They usually feed in shallow water at dawn and dusk, and during daylight hours tend to migrate towards deeper waters or areas somewhat sheltered from the light.

Walleye typically spawn over rocks, rubble, or gravelly substrate in rivers or shallow water (1 to 6 ft deep). Male walleye move into spawning areas in early spring when the water temperature may be only a few degrees above freezing.

2.4-10 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.4 - ECOLOGY 2.4.2.4 Biological Indicators As previously discussed, biological indicators are defined as groups or types of biological resources that can be used to assess environmental condition (USEPA, 2003). Within these groups, certain species can be chosen to characterize current status or to track or predict significant change. Consistent with the indicators discussed in terrestrial ecosystems, many species could be considered as biological indicators for aquatic ecosystems including federally-listed and state-listed threatened and endangered species, and other rare or otherwise sensitive species occurring within the aquatic environments near the EGC ESP Facility.

Aquatic insects and macroinvertebrates are often used to monitor the quality of aquatic habitats. Indicators of healthy aquatic ecosystems include species richness, relative abundance, community structure, and dominance (IDNR, 2000). Specific aquatic insects and macroinvertebrates that are sensitive to changes in their environments include stoneflies, mayflies, dobsonflies, and certain freshwater mussel species. Species moderately tolerant of changes to their environment include damselflies, dragonflies, crayfish, blackflies, and craneflies. Aquatic species typically more tolerant of polluted or otherwise contaminated environments include midgeflies, worms, leeches, and certain species of snails (USEPA, 2003).

2.4.2.5 Important Habitats According to the USNRC, important habitats include any wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, or preserve habitats identified by state or federal agencies as unique, rare, or of priority for protection; wetlands and floodplains; and land areas identified as critical habitat for species listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS (USNRC, 1999). Important habitat in and around the EGC ESP Facility include:

• Clinton Lake State Recreation Area;

• Weldon Springs State Recreation Area;

• Environmentally sensitive areas; and

• Floodplains and wetlands.

Additional information on these areas is provided in the sections below.

2.4.2.5.1 Clinton Lake State Recreation Area The EGC ESP Site is located on Clinton Lake, which is part of the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area. This recreation area is approximately 9,300 ac, of which, approximately 5,000 ac are open water areas (IDNR, 2003).

The parklands are owned by AmerGen, which operates and maintains the existing power station. The state has operated the park through a long-term lease with AmerGen since 1978 (IDNR, 2002d).

Important aquatic habitats present at the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area include deep lake, marsh, and riverine habitats. These areas provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species including several species of state-listed threatened and endangered birds and other wildlife.

DEL-096-REV0 2.4-11

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.4 - ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 2.4.2.5.2 Weldon Springs State Recreation Area Weldon Springs State Recreation Area is a 370-ac park, which includes a 29-ac spring fed lake, located southeast of the City of Clinton (IDNR, 2002e).

Weldon Springs State Recreation Area is located approximately 6 mi from the location of the EGC ESP Facility.

Important aquatic habitats present at Weldon Springs State Recreation Area include lake habitat, natural spring habitats, and riverine habitats. These environments provide significant habitat for a variety of wildlife species.

2.4.2.5.3 Environmentally Sensitive Areas Illinois designates certain environmentally sensitive areas as Illinois Natural Areas. These areas are protected to varying degrees, under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission. There are two environmentally sensitive areas located within 6 mi of the site, specifically along Salt Creek and Tenmile Creek, approximately 3 mi and 5 mi respectively, from the location of the EGC ESP Facility (see Figure 2.4-2) (IDNR, 2002).

These waterbodies were described previously in Section 2.4.2.1.

2.4.2.5.4 Other Important Habitats According to data provided by the IDNR, portions of Tenmile Creek, west of the City of Clinton, have been designated as the critical habitat, medium gradient creek (IDNR, 2002a). This portion of Tenmile Creek, classified by the IEPA as a unique aquatic resource, is located approximately 10 mi from the location of the EGC ESP Facility, approximately 4 mi beyond the limits of the vicinity (IDNR, 2002a).

2.4.2.5.5 Wetlands and Floodplains According to National Wetland Inventory databases, there are four minor areas (less than 1 ac) within the site boundary that have been identified as wetlands (USFWS, 2002). These areas are generally comprised of open water resources comparable to constructed sediment basins. In addition, wetland resources including forested, emergent, and scrub-shrub communities, exist within 6 mi of the location of the EGC ESP Facility and along the proposed transmission corridors (USFWS, 2002). These wetlands are generally associated with small tributaries to Salt Creek and North Fork of Salt Creek.

2.4-12 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS 2.5 Socioeconomics The socioeconomic characteristics of the site, vicinity, and region are discussed in this section. Socioeconomic characteristics include:

• Population information;

• Community characteristics;

• Historical property information; and

• Environmental justice.

2.5.1 Demography This section discusses population within the vicinity and region, projected populations for the vicinity and region, transient and migratory population, and demographic characteristics, which include sex, race, age, and income. Data on population was gathered using U.S. Census Bureau 2000 data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Projected population was determined based upon projection data provided by Illinois State University (ISU) (ISU, 2002).

2.5.1.1 Population Within 16 km (10 mi)

The 2000 total residential population within 16 km (10 mi) of the site is 12,358 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Figure 2.5-1 depicts the population groupings (i.e., towns and cities) within 16 km (10 mi) of the site. Figure 2.5-1 also includes a 0- to 16-km (0- to 10-mi) sector chart, which is used as a key for the population distribution tables described below.

Table 2.5-1 presents the population and transient population within the sectors depicted in Figure 2.5-1. The table indicates that the majority of the population lives in the west sector, 10 km to 16 km (6.2 mi to 10 mi) from the site. The west sector includes the City of Clinton, which has a population of over 7,000. Most of the area within a 16-km (10-mi) radius of the site is rural, with an average population density of 39 people per mi2. Comparatively, suburban communities around Springfield have a population density of 500 to 2,500 people per mi2 in previous sections (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). A GIS system, in conjunction with the U.S. Census Bureau data from 2000, was used to determine the population by sector.

Data were grouped by each census block, which is the smallest unit area of U.S. Census Bureau data collected. There are approximately 290 census blocks within a 16-km (10-mi) radius of the site. It was assumed that the population was evenly distributed within a census block. For example, if a sector made up 50 percent of a census block, it was assumed that the sector had 50 percent of the population in that census block.

In order to determine the total transient population, the following categories of transient population were estimated:

• Seasonal Population - This population was based on the number of temporary houses used for recreation or other seasonal work provided by the 2000 Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).

DEL-096-REV0 2.5-1

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT

• Transient Business Population - For commercial and manufacturing business within the 16-km (10-mi) radius, it was assumed, based on reasonable judgement, that business workers lived outside the 16-km (10-mi) radius. Therefore, to be conservative, employees of businesses within the 16-km (10-mi) radius were considered transients.

Approximately 130 small business were estimated to have three or less employees, for a total of 390 (Clinton Chamber of Commerce [CCC], 2002). Larger business were surveyed during August and September 2002 and were verified by the DeWitt County Emergency Services and Disaster Agency Coordinator.

• Hotel/Motel Population - Within the 16-km (10-mi) radius, information was collected on the number of rooms for each hotel or motel. To be conservative and based on reasonable judgement, it were assumed that one person occupied each room on any given day.

• Recreation Areas - Data was obtained from the IDNR on the number of visitors to state parks including Clinton Lake State Recreation Area (IDNR, 2002). These visitors were considered transients. Data was also obtained for smaller recreational facilities in the region by survey during August and September 2002 and verified by the DeWitt County Emergency Services and Disaster Agency Coordinator.

• Special Population (Schools, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, and Correctional Facilities) - To be conservative, special population within the 16-km (10-mi) radius, was assumed to be transient. Population estimates were collected by surveys conducted during August and September 2002 and verified by the DeWitt County Emergency Services and Disaster Agency Coordinator.

• Festivals - Data was obtained from the CCC on the attendees at the annual Apple and Pork Festival that is held in Clinton. In 2002, 22,000 people, in addition to residents of Clinton, attended this festival. These people were not included, however, in the summary of transients within the 16-km (10-mi) radius, since this event occurs only one weekend each year, the last full weekend of September, see Table 2.5-1.

• Migrant Workers - Based on average statewide statistics on the percentage of migrant farmers supplied by the Illinois Agricultural Statistics Service (IASS), it was estimated that the number of migrant farm workers in the area is 13.6 percent of the agricultural labor force. Data on the amount of agricultural labor was obtained by the county from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (USDOC, 2002). The migrant workers were considered transients.

Table 2.5-2 presents population projections for the facility starting with 2010, and for 10-yr increments up to 60 years from the latest decennial census (i.e., 2060). The ISU provided population projections for 2010 and 2020 for each county (ISU, 2002). Based on this data, the expected population change rates (percent change) between 2000 and 2010 and between 2010 and 2020 was estimated for each county. It was assumed that the expected population change rate for the four 10-yr increments between 2020 and 2060 would be similar to the estimated population change rate between 2010 and 2020. These population rates were then applied using U.S. Census Bureau data from 2000 to each census block within a county.

Population forecasts for each sector were calculated by assuming an even distribution of 2.5-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS population throughout the census block. Transient population was forecast using the same growth percentages.

2.5.1.2 Population Between 16 km and 80 km (10 mi and 50 mi)

The total residential population within 80 km (50 mi) of the site is 752,008 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). More than 70 percent of this population live outside of a 40-km (25-mi) radius from the site (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Figure 2.5-2 indicates the location of communities and cities within 80 km (50 mi) of the site, as well as a 16- to 80-km (0- to 50-mi) sector chart, which is used as a key for the population distribution tables described below.

Table 2.5-3 presents the population within the sectors depicted in Figure 2.5-2. The most heavily populated sector within 16 km and 80 km (10 mi and 50 mi) of the site is the east sector. The high population in this sector is due primarily to the cities of Champaign and Urbana with an approximate 2000 population of 67,518 and 36,395, respectively. The northeast sector has the lowest population. The average population density within 80 km (50 mi) of the site is 97 people per mi2. The area between 40 and 60 km (25 and 37 mi) of the site is the most densely populated, with a population of 267,376 and an average population density of 110 per mi2 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). A GIS system, in conjunction with U.S.

Census Bureau data, as described in Section 2.5.1.1, was used to determine the population by sector.

In order to determine the total transient population, the following categories of transient population were estimated:

• Seasonal Population - The same methodology was used that is described in Section 2.5.1.1.

• Transient Business Population - For commercial and manufacturing business within the 80-km (50-mi) radius, it was assumed, because of the large area and based on reasonable judgment, that there is no net change in population. In other words, on any given business day, the number of workers commuting into the 80-km (50-mi) radius is the same as the number of workers commuting out of the 80-km (50-mi) radius.

• Hotel/Motel Population - Information was collected on the location and number of hotels or motels within the 16-km to 80-km (10-mi to 50-mi radius). It was then assumed, based on data collected for the 0-16 km radius and surveys of selected hotels and motels within the 80-km radius that, on average, 25 rooms were available in each motel and 75 rooms were available in each hotel. Based on reasonable judgment, it was assumed that one person occupied each room.

• Special Population (Schools, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, and Correctional Facilities) -

For special population within the 80-km (50-mi) radius, it was assumed, because of the large area and based on reasonable judgment, that there is no net change in population.

In other words, students and staff of schools within the region, likely live with in the region. University students living in dormitories or apartments are counted in residential totals, based on U.S. Census Bureau procedure. Staff and residences temporarily in hospitals and nursing homes also likely live within the region. Residence of correctional facilities or long-term residences of nursing homes, hospitals, and other DEL-096-REV0 2.5-3

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT institutions are counted in residential totals, based on the U.S. Census Bureau procedure.

• Recreation Areas - Data was obtained from the IDNR on the number of visitors to state parks, which was then used to estimate transient population (IDNR, 2002). Visitors to local nature preserves and county or local parks were not included in estimates of transient population because it was assumed that these visitors would likely originate from the area encompassed by a 80-km (50-mi) radius.

• Migrant Workers - The same methodology was used that is described in Section 2.5.1.1.

Table 2.5-4 presents population projections for the region starting with 2010, and for 10-yr increments up to 60 years from the latest decennial census (i.e., 2060). The methodology used to forecast the population in the 16- to 80-km (10- to 50-mi) radius is the same that was used for the 0- to 16-km (0- to 10-mi) radius, see Section 2.5.1.1.

2.5.1.3 Demographic Characteristics of the Population Within 80 km (50 mi)

Demographic characteristics were prepared for the low population zone (the area within a 2.5-mi radius centered on the EGC ESP Facility footprint), the emergency planning zone (EPZ) (the area within approximately a 10-mi radius of the EGC ESP Site), and the region (the area within a 50-mi radius of the EGC ESP Site).

2.5.1.3.1 Age and Sex Distribution of Population A summary of age and sex distribution by low population zone, EPZ, and region is shown in Table 2.5-5. In general, the population within the region of the site has the same or a greater percentage of adults than the national average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). In addition, the male and female population within a 50-mi radius of the site is about equal (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).

2.5.1.3.2 Racial and Ethnic Distribution A summary of racial and ethnic distribution by low population zone, EPZ, and region is shown in Table 2.5-6. Minority populations include people who identified themselves in the U.S. Census as African-American, Asian, Hawaiian, Hispanic, Native American, other, or having two or more races.

Within the low population zone, the minority population is 4.3 percent. Within the EPZ, the minority population is 3.6 percent. Within the region, the minority population is 13 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001 and 2001a). The national average for minority population is 37 percent. Therefore, minority population in the region is well below the national average.

2.5.1.3.3 Income Distribution Within the low population zone, 3.4 percent of the population had a 1999 income below the poverty level. Within the EPZ, 8 percent of the population had a 1999 income below the poverty level. Within the region, 10 percent of the population had a 1999 income below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001 and 2001a). The national average of population below the poverty level is 11.3 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001b). Other income distributions for the exclusion area, low population zone, EPZ, and region is provided in Table 2.5-7.

2.5-4 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS 2.5.2 Community Characteristics 2.5.2.1 Economic Characteristics The principal economic centers in the region include the cities of Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, Decatur, and Springfield. The smaller communities of East Peoria, Lincoln, Monticello, Morton, Pekin, Pontiac, Rantoul, Taylorville, and Washington, also serve important, but smaller roles in the region of the EGC ESP Site (see Figure 2.1-2). The types of industry in the region include manufacturing, government, retail trade, transportation and public utilities, and other services. These communities also support agribusiness throughout the region. Additionally, universities in the region are also a significant employer. Table 2.5-8 presents the level of employment for the region in these industry categories for the years 1990 and 2000. The table also shows that in the year 2000, the construction industry had 38,485 jobs, an increase from 1990 (USDOC, 2002). In addition, Table 2.5-9 shows the major employers in the region. It is estimated that the EGC ESP Facility will require up to 3,150 construction workers and up to 580 workers to operate the facility.

Regional employment trends, by county, are shown in Table 2.5-10. Employment trends indicate a stable economy with slight shifts in individual employment categories. All but three of the counties within the region (DeWitt, Ford, and Vermilion) had an increase in employment from 1990 to 2000. Unemployment in the region is relatively low, and has remained stable from 1990 to 2000 (USDOL, 2002).

2.5.2.2 Political Structure Figure 2.5-3 presents the political jurisdictions in the region including cities, townships, and counties. The taxing districts that will be directly affected by facility construction and operation are as follows:

• DeWitt County;

• Harp Township;

• Clinton Community School District No. 15;

• Richland Community College District No. 537;

• Multi-Township Assessment District No. 3;

• Vespasian Warner Public Library District; and

• Mahomet Valley Water Authority.

Table 2.5-11 indicates the taxing rate and distribution between the taxing bodies for the year 2000.

DeWitt County is the local planning authority for the site. The EGC ESP Site will not conflict with the proposed zoning for the site since the EGC ESP Site will be constructed adjacent to the CPS. The CPS is already designated for transportation and utilities (University of Illinois, 1992). The EGC ESP Site is located in a rural area; therefore, no regional planning organizations include the EGC ESP Site or vicinity in their planning area.

DEL-096-REV0 2.5-5

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 2.5.2.3 Social Structure There are four major cities in the region of the site including Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, Decatur, and Springfield, each with a population of over 80,000. These cities are the regional centers for employment, services, entertainment, education, and cultural activities. The remainder of the area is largely rural, with smaller communities that vary in size from 100 to 25,000 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). These communities provide services for daily needs. The major cities in the region serve as a magnet for population growth, with rural areas and small communities experiencing stable or declining populations. This is likely due to the trend of younger workers moving away from smaller towns to the cities for employment opportunities.

Most of the population enjoys a rural quality of life, unencumbered travel, and easy access to outdoor activities. The population is fairly homogeneous, largely white, and not dominated by a particular ethnic group (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001a).

However, an Amish community is located around the towns of Arthur and Arcola, which are 37-mi and 44-mi southeast of the site, respectively. Although cultural and religious variations exist, there are several general characteristics that describe the Amish community.

For instance, the Amish stress separatism, a simple life, importance of family, harmony with soil and nature, mutual assistance and neighborliness, and a disciplined church and religious community. The Amish are characterized as hard working, agrarian, ethnically homogeneous, and religious. Their simplicity of dress and their use of horses for transportation and farm work are the most noticeable outward expressions of the importance that the Amish place on humility, family and community, and separation from the world. No impacts from the EGC ESP Facility are expected because of the relatively long distance between these communities and the EGC ESP Site.

2.5.2.4 Housing Information In this region, residential areas are primarily found in the communities with rural residences (farmsteads) and scattered throughout the area. Rental property is available primarily in larger communities in the region (Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, Decatur, and Springfield). In the vicinity, residential areas are, for the most part, older single-family residences and mobile homes. Newer communities are located primarily in the four major cities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001 and references listed in Table 2.5-13).

Table 2.5-12 presents the total housing units in the region, by area, as well as a breakdown of owner versus renter occupied units. In 2000, approximately 68.79 percent of the housing units within a 50-mi radius were owner occupied, and 31.21 percent were renter occupied (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).

Within the last four years (1998-2001), there has been an average of 43 residence permits issued by DeWitt County. As of August 8, 2002, DeWitt County has issued 22 resident permits for the year 2002. These permits are issued for new single family housing and apartment buildings to be built within DeWitt County (DeWitt County, 2002).

Several local and regional newspapers were consulted to achieve a snapshot of the availability of rental units or houses for sale (Clinton Daily Journal, 2002; Herald & Review, 2002; State Journal Register, 2002; DeWitt County, 2002; Pantagraph, 2002). In general, 2.5-6 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS rental units and houses are readily available. Table 2.5-13 presents the results of these consultations.

2.5.2.5 Educational System The public school system in the region is organized into 110 primary, secondary, or unit school districts. Figure 2.5-4 presents the location of the schools located in these school districts. Appendix B of this report lists the schools located in the region and their distance from the EGC ESP Site. A survey of class size of schools in the region was performed, and 70 percent of schools have a class size at or below the national average. This indicates there is sufficient capacity for a small increase in population. There are three community colleges and eight 4-yr colleges and universities in the region. The 4-yr colleges and universities are listed below (NCES, 2002):

• Eureka College - 525 students;

• Illinois Central College - 13,930 students;

• ISU - 20,504 students;

• Illinois Wesleyan - 2,028 students;

• Millikin University - 2,079 students;

• Parkland College - 9,280 students;

• Southern Illinois University - 4,334 students; and

• University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign - 36,936 students.

2.5.2.6 Recreation There are several parks, forest preserves, golf courses, and other recreation areas in the region. These recreation areas generally serve the local community only. The state parks and larger recreation areas that serve the region include:

• Clinton Lake State Recreation Area;

• Weldon Springs State Recreation Area;

• Allerton Park;

• Eagle Creek Recreation Area/Wolf Creek State Park;

• Edward R. Madigan State Fish and Wildlife Park;

• Lincoln Trail Homestead;

• Moraine View State Recreation Area;

• Sangchris Lake State Recreation Area;

• Shelbyville State Fish and Wildlife Area; and

• Spitler Woods State Natural Area.

DEL-096-REV0 2.5-7

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Clinton Lake State Recreation Area comprises 9,300 ac of land and is managed by the IDNR.

This recreation area is used year-round and offers snowmobiling, ice-fishing, ice-skating, boating, fishing, water-skiing, picnicking, camping, swimming, hiking, and hunting (IDNR, 2002). Clinton Lake State Recreation Area is less than 1 mi from the site.

Weldon Springs State Recreation Area is also managed by the IDNR, and is located 5.5-mi southwest of the site. This 370-ac park offers fishing, picnicking, boating, and hiking during the summer, and sledding, tobogganing, ice-fishing, and cross-country skiing during the winter (IDNR, 2002).

Allerton Park is a 1,517-ac park located approximately 20-mi southeast of the site. The park offers formal gardens, outdoor sculpture parks, and nature trails. The park also contains a Georgian manor house formerly owned by Robert Allerton, who donated the land and house to the University of Illinois (University of Illinois, 2003).

Eagle Creek Recreation Area/Wolf Creek State Park encompasses 11,100 ac of water with 250 mi of shoreline, which is managed by the IDNR. This recreation area offers camping, hiking, horseback riding, snowmobiling, fishing, water-skiing, pontoon boating, and windsurfing (IDNR, 2002). This area is 45-mi south of the site.

Edward R. Madigan State Fish and Wildlife Park is located west of the site, and compromises 723 ac of land. Activities include picnicking, fishing, canoeing, hiking, and hunting. This park is the home of the largest sycamore tree in Illinois, and is located 29-mi west of the site (IDNR, 2002).

Lincoln Trail Homestead is the site of Abraham Lincolns first home, and is located 29-mi south-southwest of the site. The site compromises 162 ac of land. A memorial commemorating the beginning of Lincolns life is present on the property. Activities available include camping, fishing, hiking, and picnicking (IDNR, 2002).

Moraine View State Recreation Area encompasses 1,687 ac of land with a 158-ac lake. This area offers many different activities including boating, camping, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, picnicking, swimming, snowmobiling, and other winter sports (IDNR, 2002). Moraine View State Recreation Area is located 16-mi north-northeast of the site.

Sangchris Lake State Recreation Area is located east of Springfield, Illinois, and is 48-mi southwest of the site. There is a total of 3,022 ac of land with 120 mi of shoreline available for boating, camping, fishing, hiking, hunting, and picnicking. There is also a dog training area for seasonal use. The park is closed in the winter (IDNR, 2002).

Shelbyville State Fish and Wildlife Area is 37-mi south of the site and contains over 6,000 ac of mixed habitat land with a 39,000-ac lake, Lake Shelbyville. This area offers some of the best hunting, river fishing, and nature study opportunities in the state. However, no camping, picnicking, or day use facilities are available due to hunting activities (IDNR, 2002).

Spitler Woods State Natural Area is southeast of Decatur, Illinois, and is located 27-mi south of the site. This park offers 202 ac of land for camping, picnicking, and hiking. It also includes a large nature preserve (IDNR, 2002).

Figure 2.2-8 presents the location of the parks and recreation areas within the region.

2.5-8 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS 2.5.2.7 Public Services and Facilities Public services and facilities consist of schools, public utilities, police and fire departments, hospitals, and churches. They are typically located within municipal boundaries and near population centers. Schools are described in Section 2.5.2.5. The remaining services are described below.

Public utilities include facilities for distributing energy, such as electricity and natural gas, as well as water supplies and wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). In the vicinity of the site, drinking water in DeWitt County is primarily obtained from groundwater extracted from wells, with only a small number of residents that have private well systems. The Clinton Sanitary District Sewage Treatment Plant serves the wastewater needs of the City of Clinton. In the region, rural communities generally have private well water and septic systems. Larger communities in the region obtain water from public groundwater extraction wells, and are served by public sewer systems. Figure 2.5-5 shows the locations of public water supply sources, and also water and wastewater treatment plants in the region. A survey was performed for water and water facilities in the region, and the facilities have excess capacity to accommodate a potential increase in population in the region.

Within the vicinity, there is one fire department and three police departments that serve the City of Clinton. In the region, there are 89 fire departments and 76 police departments.

Outside of the four regional centers (Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, Decatur, and Springfield), communities typically share fire fighting services. Figure 2.5-6 presents the locations of fire protection and law enforcement locations within the region.

In the vicinity, there are two nursing homes and one hospital serving the City of Clinton. In the region, there are 52 hospitals and 84 nursing homes. Figure 2.5-7 presents the locations of hospitals and nursing homes within the region.

The projected capacity of public services is adequate and is expected to expand modestly to meet the demands of a slight population growth in the region.

2.5.2.8 Transportation Facilities The EGC ESP Site is located close to major road and RR transportation systems that support the CPS. IL Route 54 serves the entrance to the existing facility site. This two-lane roadway is a rural highway with sufficient capacity to serve future traffic-related to the construction and operation of the EGC ESP Site. Additionally, IL Route 10 is an east-west highway (2-lane), located south of the EGC ESP Site. Both IL Route 54 and IL Route 10 have continuity through the area and connect to an interstate highway to the east and the west. Although traffic is typical of low volume rural highways, weekend recreational use does result in traffic volume increases. U.S. Highway 51, a major north-south route, is located about 5-mi west of the site. This 4-lane divided highway is relatively low volume, with sufficient capacity to accommodate future traffic. U.S. Highway 51 connects to Interstate 74 about 20-mi north of the site and connects to Interstate 72 about 20-mi south of the site. IL Route 54 also connects to Interstate 74 about 12-mi east of the site. Figure 2.2-3 and Figure 2.2-6 show the vicinity and regional transportation network. Public transit systems, such as bus or rail, are not available within the vicinity of the site.

The EGC ESP Site falls within IDOTs District 5. According to the FY 2002-2006 Proposed Highway Improvement Program, approximately 438 million dollars is budgeted for road DEL-096-REV0 2.5-9

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT improvements in the district between the years of 2002 and 2006. In DeWitt County, the following projects are planned (IDOT, 2001):

• Resurfacing of 3.5 mi of U.S. Highway 51 Bypass in Clinton;

• Resurfacing of 7.1 mi of U.S. Highway 51, south of the McLean County Line to Forsyth;

• Resurfacing of 9.9 mi of U.S. Highway 150 from the McLean County Line to Mansfield;

• Resurfacing of 8.4 mi of IL Route 10 from Logan County Line to U.S. Highway 51, west of Clinton;

• Bridge replacement on IL Route 10, over a creek, 2-mi east of the Logan County Line;

• Culvert replacement, land acquisition, and utility adjustment at IL Route 48/IL Route 10;

• Resurfacing of 13.5 mi of IL Route 10 from IL Route 48 to Interstate 72;

• Resurfacing of 9.9 mi of IL Route 54 from Logan County Line to U.S. Highway 51;

• Installation of signals at IL Route 54 and Illini Drive in Clinton; and

• Resurfacing of 9.9 mi and bridge replacement on IL Route 54 from IL Route 48 to the McLean County Line.

2.5.2.9 Distinctive Communities As stated in Section 2.5.2.3, and presented in Section 2.5.4, the population in the region is fairly homogeneous, largely white, and not dominated by a particular ethnic group. The one exception is an Amish community located around the towns of Arthur and Arcola.

Other distinct communities within the region include the State Capitol of Illinois in Springfield, and the college town of Champaign-Urbana. Springfield is approximately 50-mi southwest of the site. Special landmarks in Springfield include The State Capitol Building, The Old State Capitol, several historic homes, and a national cemetery that was once a site for training civil war soldiers. There are many tourist attractions associated with Abraham Lincoln including his childhood home, his old law office, a pew from his church, and his tomb. The Illinois State Fair is also held every summer at the State Fairgrounds in Springfield.

The University of Illinois is located in Champaign-Urbana, which is approximately 30-mi east of the site. As stated in Section 2.5.2.5, the University of Illinois is a large university with numerous staff and students. There are many theaters, museums, and other cultural attractions typically associated with a larger university.

2.5.2.10 Agriculture According to the Illinois Agricultural Statistics Annual Summary 2001, Illinois is rich with agricultural resources and is recognized as a world supplier of food. Illinois is a strong agricultural resource because of its fertile soil and favorable climate. In 2000, Illinois ranked second among all states in the production of corn and soybeans. Other agricultural resources in Illinois that are not as prominent include wheat, sorghum, hay, livestock, and dairy production (IDOA, 2001).

2.5-10 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS When comparing all Illinois counties, La Salle County is ranked first among all Illinois counties with 1,581 farms, while DeWitt County, with 463 farms, ranked 77 out of 102 (IDOA, 2001).

DeWitt County is not a large producer of either corn or soybean crops. In fact, DeWitt County ranks 43 out of 102 Illinois counties in corn crop production and 46 out of 102 Illinois counties in soybean crop production. Illinois counties that lead in the production of corn include McLean (51,057,000 bushels), Iroquois (45,472,000 bushels), and La Salle (42,803,200 bushels). DeWitt County produced only 15,904,000 bushels of corn in 2000.

Illinois counties that lead in the production of soybeans include McLean (14,602,900 bushels), Livingston (12,874,400 bushels), and Iroquois (12,641,200 bushels). Comparably, DeWitt County produced only 4,601,300 bushels of soybeans. Ultimately, DeWitt County is not a major contributor to the production of any agricultural resource (IDOA, 2001).

Table 2.5-14 provides agricultural statistics for the counties within a 50-mi radius of the project area.

The total market value of DeWitt County agricultural products sold in the year 2000 was

$53,745,000. Crop sales accounted for 95 percent of DeWitt County agricultural cash receipts in 2000; livestock made up the remaining 5 percent (IDOA, 2001). Table 2.5-15 represents a breakdown of the cash receipts for the counties within a 50-mi radius of the site.

2.5.3 Historic Properties The vicinity of the site lies entirely within DeWitt County. DeWitt County, located in east central Illinois, is one of the smaller counties in Illinois. The first pioneers entered the county as part of the general westward expansion, and the area was slowly settled and farmed. DeWitt County retains many of the rural characteristics that were part of its early history (CPS, 1973).

Comprehensive cultural resource and historic property investigation was performed prior to construction of the CPS, approximately 30 years ago. Any issues that were raised at this time were resolved through removal of these historic and cultural resources.

A database and literature review was performed in September 2002, to assess the potential for cultural resources within the EGC ESP Site power block footprint and as a buffer to the area within a 2-mi radius of the CPS. A database and literature review of the area between 2-mi and 10-mi from the EGC ESP Site power block footprint was not performed because no impacts to archaeological or cultural resources are expected in this area. No historic standing structures have been identified within the EGC ESP Facility power block footprint, cooling tower footprint, or in the immediate vicinity of the CPS. Within the EGC ESP Facility power block and cooling tower footprint, there are no records of historic standing structures, archaeological sites within the historic period, or dateable archaeological sites within the prehistoric period.

Archaeological site files at the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency indicate that a total of 95 archaeological sites and isolated find spots have been identified within a 2-mi radius of the CPS. Ten archaeological sites contained features or artifacts dating from the historic period; 92 sites contained features and/or artifacts that represented prehistoric activity or DEL-096-REV0 2.5-11

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT occupation. Of the 92 sites with prehistoric remains, 22 sites were dateable and suggest that prehistoric occupation of the area began in the Early Archaic period (ca. 10,000 Before Present [BP]) through the Late Woodland/Mississippian period (ca. 1,000-500 BP). Within the EGC ESP Site footprint, there are two small and undateable prehistoric sites. These two sites are small prehistoric occupations of unknown cultural affiliation that were identified during the archaeological surveys for the CPS in the early 1970s. There is no evidence in the state site files that any further study was conducted at these sites after their initial identification. It is likely that these sites were identified either through controlled surface reconnaissance or shovel testing. The ten archaeological sites with historic material are dated from the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries. Four sites can be linked to historically identifiable map locations including a schoolhouse and three dwellings. Within a 2-mi radius of the CPS, there are three records of standing structures. They include Harp Township Hall and the Centenary Methodist Episcopal Church Barn, which are located in Birkbeck (northwest of the EGC ESP Site). An 1850 Valley Mill property was also identified, but it is no longer standing.

The location of the EGC ESP Facility power block footprint appears to have been heavily disturbed by previous development of the CPS; therefore, archaeological testing appears not to be warranted. The cooling tower footprint of the EGC ESP Facility also may have been disturbed by pervious development of the CPS, although it is unclear whether this area was surveyed prior to development of the CPS. The aerial photo illustrates disturbances related to roads and some stripping, possibly resulting from laydown activities. Therefore, archaeological testing of this area does not appear to be warranted. If additional area within the EGC ESP Site will be required, further evaluation will be performed to determine if additional archaeological review is required.

2.5.4 Environmental Justice Environmental justice refers to a federal executive order in which federal actions should not result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts to low income or minority populations. Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to consider environmental justice by identifying and mitigating disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects. This includes the interrelated social and economic effects of their programs, policies, and activities on low income and minority populations. This review considers minority or low income communities within a 50-mi radius in and around DeWitt County. In addition, the review demonstrates that the construction and operation of the proposed facility does not adversely affect the distinctive character of these communities or disproportionately affect low income or minority populations.

This section, along with Section 4.4.3 and Section 5.8.3, details the studies that are used to define these populations of interest. Furthermore, the environmental justice review has two goals:

• Define racial, ethnic, and special characteristics of groups that may be affected by any adverse environmental impact from the facility; and

• Define the income characteristics of the populations that may be affected by any adverse environmental impact from the facility.

2.5-12 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.5 - SOCIOECONOMICS The scope of the review includes an analysis of impacts on low income and minority populations, the location and significance of any environmental impact during operations on populations that are particularly sensitive, and any additional information pertaining to mitigation.

U.S. Census Bureau data from 2000 was used to accurately identify low income or minority populations in the region, information on racial, ethnic, and income population characteristics.

Based on environmental justice guidelines, each census block within the region (community of comparison) was examined for racial composition and median household income in comparison to the potential impact area as a whole.

2.5.4.1 Racial, Ethnic, and Special Groups According to the U.S. Census Bureau data from 2000, 97.1 percent of DeWitt County is white, 0.5 percent is African American, 0.2 percent is American Indian, 1.3 percent is of Hispanic origin, and 0.9 percent is classified as other races. Figure 2.5-8 identifies the minority populations in the region (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001a).

As stated in Section 2.5.2.3, the only special group within the region is an Amish community located around the towns of Arthur and Arcola, which are 37-mi and 44-mi southeast of the site, respectively. The U.S. Census Bureau does not track and consider the Amish separately. The Amish tend to be fairly homogeneous, largely white, and not dominated by a particular ethnic group. According to the Town of Arthurs website, the Amish population is about 3,500 (Town of Arthur, 2002). According to the Town of Arcolas website, the Amish population is about 4,200 (Town of Arcola, 2002).

2.5.4.2 Income Characteristics A block census evaluation of household income was performed to identify low income populations, as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services.1 Within the vicinity, 8 percent of the population had a 1999 income below the poverty level. Within the region, 10 percent of the population had a 1999 income below the poverty level. In DeWitt County, 8 percent of the population is considered low income. For perspective, the national average of low income population is 11.3 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001b). Figure 2.5-9 shows the population below the poverty level within each census block (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001 and 2001b).

1 The Department of Health and Human Services defines low income as those residents living below the defined poverty guideline; the U.S. Census Bureau defines families whose income falls below the poverty threshold as poor. (See www.census.gov for more information.) For a family of four, the poverty threshold for the year 2001 is $17,960.

DEL-096-REV0 2.5-13

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.6 - GEOLOGY 2.6 Geology In accordance with NUREG-1555, an environmental review of geology is not required in the Environmental Report (USNRC, 1999). However, in order to assess the suitability of a site for a facility of the general size and type proposed, a summary of the geological features for the site and vicinity have been included in the SSAR. In addition, the SSAR presents detailed analyses and evaluations of geological, seismological, and geotechnical data that have become available for the site and region since the preparation of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and CPS USAR. The new information includes updated estimates of peak horizontal and vertical ground accelerations and response spectra associated with the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). These seismic motions have been determined by conducting a probabilistic seismic hazards analysis (PSHA).

Based on the geological, seismological, and geotechnical conditions present within the project area, there are no long-term adverse geological, seismological, or geotechnical impacts anticipated from the future construction or operation of a new facility. For example:

• There are no known geological hazards, such as karstification or surface faulting that could affect the EGC ESP Facility.

• The long-term impacts from seismic loading are expected to be similar to those that would occur if the facility were not constructed. The potential effects of seismic loads, such as liquefaction and soil structure interaction, will be considered during design.

• While any new structure will load the soil, the magnitudes of the load will not result in consolidation of aquifers located below the site. The site has been overridden by past glaciations, and the loads associated with these glaciations exceed the imposed load of any new facilities.

• Small amounts of settlement could result at the ground surface near the constructed facility. This settlement could affect surface water drainage. These effects, if they were to occur, will take place during construction, and can be easily mitigated by regrading the site.

• There are no slopes in proximity to the proposed facility location that could be affected by the imposed structural loads or whose instability could affect the facility.

• Imported backfill material will be required to fill excavations next to the constructed EGC ESP Facility. Any negative effects either to the underlying soil or to the structure from the imported backfill material will be mitigated during design.

• New cooling water detention ponds could be required, based on the final reactor selection. Although these ponds would have the potential to serve as a source of groundwater infiltration, the cooling water ponds will be lined to preclude such occurrences.

A number of short-term geological impacts could occur during construction, but again, these are not expected to have any long-term adverse impacts. The geological impacts could DEL-096-REV0 2.6-1

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.6 - GEOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT include excavations, vibrations, and dewatering during the construction of the EGC ESP Facility.

• Excavated material will be disposed either on site or off site. Normal methods will be used to mitigate the potential for erosion of material at the disposal site, such as reseeding and drainage control. Excavated slopes or soil surfaces exposed during construction will be protected from erosion.

• Construction equipment could cause vibrations that are felt by the operating facility and nearby residences. These vibrations will not be large enough to cause any adverse impacts.

• Discussion of the potential for impacts from construction dewatering is presented in Section 4.2.

2.6-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY 2.7 Meteorology and Air Quality This section provides a description of the general climate of the EGC ESP Site, as well as the regional meteorological conditions used as a basis for design and operating conditions. In addition, this section documents the range of meteorological and conditions that will exist during the construction and operation of the proposed facility. The information contained in this section is also used to establish the range of conditions that are considered in the design of the facility. A climatological summary of normal and extreme values of several meteorological parameters is presented for the first order National Weather Service (NWS) Stations in Peoria, Illinois and Springfield, Illinois. Further information regarding regional climatology was derived from pertinent documents, which are referenced in the text.

2.7.1 General Climate 2.7.1.1 General Description The EGC ESP Site is located near the geographical center of Illinois, approximately 55-mi southeast of the NWS Station in Peoria, and 49-mi east-northeast of the NWS Station in Springfield. Both of these stations are considered to be first order weather observing stations because they are fully instrumented and record a complete range of meteorological parameters. Additionally, the observations are recorded continuously, either by automated instruments or by human observer for the 24-hr period, midnight to midnight.

General climatological data for the region surrounding the site area were obtained from several sources of information that contain statistical summaries of historical meteorological data for the region. The climatic data from the Peoria and Springfield observation stations are considered to be representative of the climate at the site. This is due to the relatively close proximity of these two stations to the site, as well as similarities of terrain and vegetation features in the area. With the exception of a few low hills in the extreme southern and northwest portions of the state, the terrain throughout Illinois is considered to be flat to gently rolling, with vegetation consisting predominantly of croplands, interspersed with only modest amounts of deciduous forestation. The references that were used to characterize the climatology of the region include Climates of the States, Third Edition (Gale Research Company, 1985), Weather of U.S. Cities, Fourth Edition (Gale Research Company, 1992), and The Weather Almanac, Sixth Edition (Gale Research Company, 1992a).

The climate of central Illinois is typically continental, with cold winters, warm summers, and frequent short period fluctuations in temperature, humidity, cloudiness, and wind direction. The great variability in the central Illinois climate is due to its location in a confluence zone, particularly during the cooler months, between different air masses. The air masses that affect central Illinois typically include maritime tropical air, which originates in the Gulf of Mexico; continental tropical air, which originates in Mexico and the southern Rockies; Pacific air which originates in Mexico and in the eastern North Pacific Ocean; and continental polar and continental arctic air, which originates in Canada. As these air masses migrate from their source regions, they may undergo substantial modification in their characteristics. Monthly streamline analyses of resultant surface winds suggest that air reaching central Illinois most frequently originates over the Gulf of Mexico from April DEL-096-REV0 2.7-1

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT through August, over the southeastern U.S. from September through November, and over both the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico from December through March (Bryson, 1966).

The major factors controlling the frequency and variation of weather types in central Illinois are distinctly different during two separate periods of the year. During the fall, winter, and spring months, the frequency and variation of weather types is determined by the movement of synoptic-scale storm systems, which commonly follow paths along a major confluence zone between air masses, and is usually oriented from southwest to northeast through the region. The confluence zone normally shifts in latitude during this period, ranging in position from the central states to the U.S.-Canadian border. The average frequency of the passage of storm systems along this zone is about once every five to eight days. The storm systems are most frequent during the winter and spring months, causing a maximum of cloudiness during these seasons. Winter is characterized by alternating periods of steady precipitation (rain, freezing rain, sleet, or snow) and periods of clear, crisp, and cold weather. Springtime precipitation is primarily showery in nature. The frequent passage of storm systems, presence of high winds aloft, and frequent occurrence of unstable conditions caused by the close proximity of warm, moist air masses to cold, dry air masses result in a relatively high frequency of thunderstorms during this period. These thunderstorms, on occasion, are the source of hail, damaging winds, and tornadoes.

Although synoptic-scale storm systems also occur during the fall months, their frequency of occurrence is less than in winter or spring. Periods of pleasant, dry weather characterize the fall season, but ends rather abruptly with the returning storminess that usually begins in November.

In contrast, weather during the summer months is characterized by weaker storm systems, which tend to pass to the north of Illinois. A major confluence zone is not present in the region, and the region's weather is characterized by much sunshine interspersed with thunderstorm situations. Showers and thunderstorms are usually of the air mass type, although occasional outbreaks of cold air bring precipitation and weather typical of that associated with the fronts and storm systems of the spring months.

When southeast and easterly winds are present in central Illinois, they usually bring mild and wet weather. Southerly winds are warm and showery, westerly winds are dry with moderate temperatures, and winds from the northwest and north are cool and dry.

Table 2.7-1 presents a summary of historical climatological observations from the Peoria and Springfield meteorological observing stations.

2.7.1.2 Winds In both Peoria and Springfield, the prevailing wind is southerly. The frequency of winds from other directions is relatively well distributed. The monthly average wind speed is lowest during late summer at both stations, with the prevailing direction from the south in Peoria and the south-southwest in Springfield. The monthly average wind speed is highest during late winter and early spring at both stations, with the prevailing directions from the west-northwest and the south in Peoria, and the northwest and south in Springfield.

Annual average wind speeds are 10.1 mph in Peoria and 11.2 mph in Springfield. Peak gusts during the period of 1941-1990 were 69 mph in Peoria (April of 1989) and 69 mph in 2.7-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY Springfield (August of 1987). The fastest mile of wind was 75 mph in Peoria (July of 1953) and 75 mph in Springfield (June of 1957) (Gale Research Company, 1992a).

2.7.1.3 Temperature The annual average temperature is 51.1°F in Peoria and 53.2°F in Springfield. Monthly average temperatures in the site region range from the mid-twenties in January to the mid-seventies in July. Extreme temperatures recorded in the region range from a maximum of 105°F (Peoria) and 112°F (Springfield) to a minimum of -25°F (Peoria) and -22°F (Springfield). Maximum temperatures in the EGC ESP Site region equal or exceed 90°F, with an average of 20 to 31 times per year. Minimum temperatures in this region are less than or equal to 32°F with an average of 117 to 129 times per year (Gale Research Company, 1992a).

2.7.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture Relative humidity varies with wind direction, being lower with west or northwest winds and higher with east or south winds. The early morning relative humidity is highest during the late summer, with an average of 89 percent in both Peoria and Springfield. The relative humidity is highest throughout the day during December, ranging from 83 percent in early morning to 71 percent at noon in Peoria and 82 percent in early morning to 71 percent at noon in Springfield.

2.7.1.5 Precipitation Annual precipitation in the site area averages about 35 in. per year. For the 40-yr period (1961-1990), the minimum annual precipitation was 22.16 in. at Peoria (1988), and 25.31 in. at Springfield (1988). For the same period, the maximum annual precipitation was 55.35 in. for Peoria (1990), and 52.67 in. for Springfield (1990). On average in the region, about 55 percent of the annual precipitation occurs from April through August each year. However, no month in this region averages less than 4 percent of the annual total. Monthly precipitation totals have ranged from 13.09 in. at Peoria (September of 1961) to a trace amount in Springfield (September of 1979). The maximum 24-hr precipitation, at either station, was 6.12 in, recorded in Springfield in December of 1982. Snowfall commonly occurs from November through March, with an annual average of 25.1 in. at Peoria, and 23.9 in. at Springfield. The monthly maximum snowfall was 24.7 in. at Peoria (January of 1979) and 22.7 in. at Springfield (December of 1973). The 24-hr maximum snowfall was 12.2 in. at Peoria (January of 1979) and 10.9 in. at Springfield (December of 1973) (Gale Research Company, 1992a).

2.7.2 Regional Air Quality There are eleven counties within the State of Illinois that are classified as nonattainment areas. Nonattainment areas are specifically designated areas (typically an entire county) where air pollution levels exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In Illinois, the two pollutants that exceed the NAAQS are ozone and particulate matter (PM) less than 10 microns in diameter (PM-10). The eleven counties and the pollutants of concern within each county are presented in Table 2.7-2 (USEPA, 2002). None of these counties are in the region of the EGC ESP Site, nor are any of these areas within 100 mi of the site.

DEL-096-REV0 2.7-3

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Therefore, air emissions from the proposed facility are not expected to impact any nonattainment areas in Illinois.

The EGC ESP Site is located in DeWitt County, Illinois. Based on USEPAs designation, DeWitt County is designated as being in attainment of NAAQS. To determine whether a county is in attainment of the NAAQS, the IEPA operates a network of ambient air quality monitoring stations. This network has been designed to measure ambient air quality levels in the various Illinois Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR). For example, DeWitt County is located in AQCR No. 66 - East Central Illinois Interstate. Three air monitoring stations are located within AQCR No. 66.

In general, outdoor air quality in Illinois is considered to be good most of the time. The year 2000 was the first year since ozone has been monitored that there were no exceedances of the 1-hr health standard anywhere in the state. However, both the Chicago and East St.

Louis metropolitan regions do not meet the federal air quality standard for ozone (smog),

which is associated with both human respiratory problems and ecosystem damage.

Recently, the Supreme Court upheld USEPAs fine particulate (PM-2.5) air quality standard, which is based on a 3-yr annual average of monitoring results at a given location. PM-2.5 compliance will be determined on the basis of data collected during the period from 2000 through 2002. Based on preliminary results from the year 2000, the Chicago and East St.

Louis metropolitan areas will not likely meet the PM-2.5 annual standard. In addition, further reductions of emissions in the affected counties may be needed in the future (IEPA, 2001).

Based on the Illinois Air Quality Index (AQI), which now includes the proposed new 8-hr ozone and PM-2.5 standards, there were 25 days when air quality was considered unhealthy for sensitive groups in one or more portions of Illinois during 2000, with 18 days due to PM-2.5 and 9 days due to ozone. Two of those days reflected high levels of both fine particulates and ozone measured for the 8-hr standard (IEPA, 2001).

2.7.3 Severe Weather 2.7.3.1 Thunderstorms, Hail, and Lightning Thunderstorms occurred on an average of 48 days per year in Peoria (1955-1990) and Springfield (1959-1990) (Gale Research Company, 1992a). Approximately 41 percent of the annual precipitation in the region is estimated to fall during thunderstorms (Changnon, 1957). Thunderstorms occur most frequently during the months of June and July, each with eight days per month in Peoria, and nine days per month in Springfield. Peoria and Springfield average five or more thunderstorm days per month throughout the season from April through September. Both stations average two or less thunderstorm days per month from November through February (Gale Research Company, 1992a). A thunderstorm day is normally recorded only if thunder is heard and the observation is independent of whether or not rain and/or lightning are observed concurrent with the thunder (American Meteorological Society [AMS], 1970).

2.7-4 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY A severe thunderstorm is defined by the National Severe Storms Forecast Center (NSSFC) of the NWS as a thunderstorm that possesses one or more of the following characteristics (USDOC, 1969):

• Winds of 50 knots or more;

• Hail of 0.75 in. or more in diameter; or

• Cumulonimbus cloud favorable to tornado formation.

The above referenced report by the NSSFC provides values for the total number of hail reports of 0.75 in. or greater, winds of 50 knots or greater, and the number of tornadoes for the period 1955-1967 by 1° squares (latitude by longitude). The report shows that during this 13-yr period, the 1° square containing the site had 15 hailstorms producing hail 0.75-in.

diameter or greater, 26 occurrences of winds of 50 knots or greater, and 42 tornadoes.

At least one day of hail is observed per year over approximately 90 percent of Illinois, with the average number of hail days at a point varying from one to four (Huff and Changnon, 1959). Considerable year to year variation in the number of hail days is seen to occur; annual extremes vary from no hail in certain years to as many as 14 hail days in other years.

About 80 percent of the hail days occur from March through August, with spring (March through May) being the primary period of occurrence. In the region, Peoria and Springfield average approximately 22 hail days per 10-yr period, with about 55 percent of hail days occurring in the spring (Huff and Changnon, 1959). The maximum number of hail days in a year for Peoria and Springfield is seven (1927, 1950, 1954) and eight (1975), respectively (Changnon, 1995). Total hailstorm life averages about 7 minutes, with maximum storm life generally not over 20 minutes for Illinois (Changnon, 1957).

The frequency of lightning flashes per thunderstorm day over a specific area can be estimated by using Equation 2.7-1, taking into account the distance of the location from the equator (Marshall, 1971):

Equation 2.7-1: N = (0.1 + 0.35 sin Ø) (0.40 +/- 0.20)

N = Number of flashes to each per thunderstorm day per km2

Ø = Geographical latitude For the EGC ESP Site, which is located at approximately 40° north latitude, the frequency of lightning flashes (N) ranges from 0.065 to 0.195 flashes per thunderstorm day per km2. The value 0.195 is used as the most conservative estimate of lightning frequency in the calculations that follow.

Taking the annual average number of thunderstorm days in the site region as 48, the mean frequency of lightning flashes per km2 per year is 9.4, as calculated below:

0.195 flashes x 48 thunderstorm days = 9.4 flashes thunderstorm day km2 yr km2 yr DEL-096-REV0 2.7-5

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT The area of the CPS Site is approximately 14,000 ac. Hence, the expected frequency of lightning flashes at the site per year is 533, as calculated below:

9.4 flashes x 56.7 km2 = 533 flashes km2 yr yr The exclusion area for the EGC ESP Facility has a radius of 3,362 ft. Hence, the expected frequency of lightning flashes in the exclusion area per year is 31, as calculated below:

9.4 flashes x 3.3 km2 = 31 flashes km2 yr yr 2.7.3.2 Tornadoes and Severe Winds Illinois ranks eighth in the U.S. for average annual number of tornadoes, based on the period of record 1953-1989 (Gale Research Company, 1992a). During the period 1950 to 2002, the average number of tornadoes per year that have occurred in Illinois is 30 (NOAA, 2002). For this same period of record, Illinois tornado statistics, based on storm intensity, are summarized in Table 2.7-3 (NOAA, 2002a). It is important to note that the wind speeds associated with the storm intensities (i.e., the Fujita Tornado Scale) listed in Table 2.7-3 are estimates and have never been verified by actual measurement. The scale is based on estimated winds associated with the amount of damage observed after the storm event. For DeWitt and the immediately adjacent surrounding counties, the number of tornadoes reported for the same period are summarized in Table 2.7-4.

Approximately 65 percent of Illinois tornadoes have occurred during the months of March through June, with the highest statewide probability of a tornado occurrence in April.

Tornadoes can occur at any hour of the day, but are most common during the afternoon and evening hours. About 50 percent of Illinois tornadoes travel from the southwest to northeast. Slightly over 80 percent exhibit directions of movement toward the northeast through east. Fewer than 2 percent move from a direction with an easterly component (Wilson and Changnon, 1971).

Figure 2.7-1 illustrates the total number of tornadoes recorded during the period (1916-1969) for each county in Illinois. This figure was obtained from the CPS USAR (CPS, 2002). It illustrates that 36 tornadoes originated during the 54-yr period in the five-county area surrounding and including the EGC ESP Site (e.g., DeWitt, McLean, Logan, Macon, and Piatt counties). Three of these tornadoes were recorded in DeWitt County during the 54-yr period. For the period of 1950-2002, 11 tornadoes were recorded in DeWitt County and 188 tornadoes recorded in the 5-county area. In spite of the fact that there was a significant increase in the number of recorded tornadoes in the area from 1950-2002 period, when compared to the 1916-1969 period, there is no reason to believe that the existence of such a large increase actually occurred. Based on a statistical analysis of tornado occurrences in the U.S. over a 70-yr period, Fujita (1987) concluded that the indicated increase in tornado occurrences was a result of increased reporting efficiency and confirmation skill, and that F0 and F1 class tornadoes were typically overlooked during the early data-collection years.

Additionally, research conducted by Grazulis (1993) concluded that the increase in urbanization over the past 50 yrs has effectively resulted in an increase in the number of reported tornadoes, if for no other reason than there are more targets destroyed or damaged 2.7-6 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY by a tornado in an urban area than in a rural area. As a result, there is a higher frequency of reported incidents in urban areas than in rural areas.

The likelihood of a given point being struck by a tornado can be calculated by using a method developed by H.C.S. Thom (Thom, 1963). Thom presents a map of the continental U.S. showing the mean annual frequency of occurrence of tornadoes for each 1° square (latitude by longitude) for the period of 1953-1962. For the 1° square (3,634 mi2 in area) containing the EGC ESP Site, Thom computed an annual average of 1.9 tornadoes.

Assuming 2.82 mi2 is the average tornado path area, the mean probability of a tornado occurring at any point within the 1° square containing the site area in any given year, is calculated to be 0.0015. This converts to a mean recurrence interval of 670 yrs. Using the same annual frequency, but an average area of tornado coverage of 3.5 mi2 (Wilson and Changnon, 1971), the mean probability of a tornado occurrence is 0.0018. More recent data containing tornado frequencies, for the period of 1955-1967, indicate an annual tornado frequency of 3.2 for the 1° square containing the site (USDOC, 1969). This frequency, in conjunction with Wilson and Changnons average path area of 3.5 mi2, results in an estimated mean tornado probability of 0.0031, with a corresponding mean return period of 325 yrs.

The annual tornado probability (for a tornado of any intensity) in the area is best expressed as being in the range of 0.0015 to 0.0031, with a mean tornado return period of 325 to 670 yrs. Based on the observed occurrences of worst case tornadoes in Illinois (i.e., F4 and F5 on the Fujita Scale), an estimate of worst-case tornadic events at the EGC ESP Site can be made.

The distribution of tornadoes in Illinois by intensity, as shown in Table 2.7-3 during the period of 1950-2002, indicates that there were 43 occurrences of F4 and F5 tornadoes out of a total of 1,716 tornadoes (i.e., 2.51 percent). Applying this percentage to the range of annual tornado probabilities for the site area, the probability of occurrence of a worst tornado is therefore 0.000038 to 0.000078.

2.7.3.3 Heavy Snow and Severe Glaze Storms Severe winter storms, which usually produce snowfall in excess of 6 in. and are often accompanied by damaging glaze, are responsible for more damage in Illinois than any other form of severe weather including hail, tornadoes, or lightning (Changnon, 1969). These storms occur on an average of five times per year in the state. The estimated probability of one or more severe winter storms occurring in a given year is virtually 100 percent, while the estimated probability of three or more severe winter storms occurring in Illinois in a year is 87 percent. A typical storm has a median point duration of 14.2 hrs. Point durations have ranged from 2 hrs to 48 hrs during the 61-yr period of record from 1900 to 1960, which is used in the severe winter storm statistical analyses (Changnon, 1969). Data on the average areal extent of severe winter storms in Illinois show that they deposit at least 4 in. of snow over 15,050 mi2. Central Illinois (including the EGC ESP Site) had 107 occurrences of a 6-in. snow or glaze damage area during the years from 1900-1960. About 42 of those storms deposited more than 6 in. of snowfall in DeWitt County (Changnon, 1969).

DEL-096-REV0 2.7-7

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT The 2-day and 7-day maximum snowfall values (in.) for selected recurrence intervals in the EGC ESP Site area as follows (Changnon, 1969):

2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 20-yr 30-yr 50-yr 2-day: 7.0 8.6 10.2 12.1 13.4 15.2 7-day: 7.6 10.1 12.8 16.3 18.7 22.0 In the Springfield area, the maximum recorded 24-hr snowfall is 15.0 in, and the maximum monthly snowfall is 24.4 in., both of which occurred in February of 1900. On average, heavy snows of 4 in. to 6 in. have occurred one to two times per year (Changnon, 1969).

Sleet or freezing rain occurs during the colder months of the year when rain falls through a shallow layer of cold air, with a temperature below 32°F from an overlying warm layer of a temperature above 32°F. The rain becomes supercooled as it descends through the cold air.

If it cools enough to freeze in the air, it descends to the ground as sleet; otherwise, it freezes upon contact with the ground or other objects, causing glaze.

In Illinois, severe glaze storms occur on an average of about three times every 2 yrs.

Statewide statistics indicate that during the 61-yr period from 1900-1960, there were 92 recorded glaze storms defined either by the occurrence of glaze damage or by the occurrence of glaze over at least 10 percent of Illinois. These 92 glaze storms represent 30 percent of the total winter storms in the period. The greatest number of glaze storms in 1 yr is six (1951); in 2 yrs is nine (1950-1951); in 3 yrs is ten (1950-1952); and in 5 yrs is fifteen (1948-1952). In an analysis of these 92 glaze storms, Changnon determined that in 66 storms, the heaviest glaze disappeared within 2 days; in 11 storms it disappeared after 3 to 5 days; in eight storms it disappeared after 6 to 8 days; in four storms it disappeared after 9 to 11 days; and in three storms it disappeared after 12 to 15 days. Fifteen days was the maximum persistence of glaze (1969). Within the central third of Illinois, 11 localized areas received damaging glaze in an average 10-yr period. The EGC ESP Site area averages slightly over 5 days of glaze per year (Changnon, 1969).

Ice measurements recorded in some of the most severe Illinois glaze storms are shown in Table 2.7-5. The list reveals that severe glaze storms that deposit ice of moderate to large radial thickness may occur in any part of Illinois. An average of one storm every 3 yrs will produce glaze ice 0.75 in. or thicker on wires (Changnon, 1969).

Strong winds during and after a glaze storm greatly increase the amount of damage to trees and power lines. In studying wind effects on glaze-loaded wires, the Association of American Railroads concluded that maximum wind gusts were not as significant (harmful) a measure of wind damage as were speeds sustained over 5-minute periods (Association of American Railroads, 1955). Moderate wind speeds (10-24 mph) occurring after glaze storms are most prevalent. Wind speeds of 25 mph or higher are not unusual; however, there has been 5-minute winds in excess of 40 mph with a glaze thickness of 0.25 in. or more (Changnon, 1969). Table 2.7-6 presents specific glaze thickness data for the five fastest 5-minute speeds and the speeds with the five greatest measured glazed thicknesses for 148 glaze storms throughout the country during the period from 1926-1937. Although these 2.7-8 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY data were collected from various locations throughout the U.S., they are considered applicable design values for locations in Illinois.

The 100-yr return period snowpack, as obtained from the ANSI building code requirements (American National Standards Institute [ANSI], 1972), is 22 pounds per square foot (psf),

which corresponds to approximately 22 in. of snowpack.

The weight of the accumulation of winter precipitation from a single storm is 13 psf. This is based on the assumption that the worst case storm event would be consistent with the maximum monthly snowfall observed in the Springfield/Peoria area over the past 100 yrs.

The maximum recorded monthly snowfall in the area is 24.7 in. (Peoria, January of 1979) and 24.4 in. (Springfield, February of 1900). This translates to the equivalent of about 2.5 in.

of precipitable water, and is assumed to be representative of a worst case storm event during the winter months. Thus, a conservative estimate of the accumulated weight of snow and ice that could have occurred (based on actual observations) after a worst case winter storm event is conservatively calculated to be 35 psf (i.e., 22 psf + 13 psf).

2.7.3.4 Hurricanes The site area has never been affected by tropical cyclones or hurricanes.

2.7.3.5 Inversions and High Air Pollution Potential Weather records from many U.S. weather stations have been analyzed by Hosler (1961) and Holzworth (1972) with the objective of characterizing atmospheric dispersion potential (Hosler, 1961 and Holzworth, 1972). The seasonal frequencies of inversions based below 500 ft for the general area of the EGC ESP Site are shown in Table 2.7-7.

Since central Illinois has a primarily continental climate, inversion frequencies are expected to be closely related to the diurnal cycle. The less frequent occurrence of storms in summer and early fall is expected to produce a larger frequency of nights with short duration inversion conditions.

Holzworths data give estimates of the average depth of vigorous vertical mixing, which gives an indication of the vertical depth of atmosphere available for mixing and dispersion of effluents. For the EGC ESP Site region, the seasonal values of the mean daily mixing depths are provided by Holzworth and presented in Table 2.7-8. In general, when daytime (maximum) mixing depths are shallow (i.e., low inversion heights), pollution potential is considered to be greatest.

Holzworth has also presented statistics on the frequency of episodes of high air pollution potential, defined as a combination of low mixing depth and light winds. Holzworths data indicate that during the 5-yr period of 1960-1964, the region, including the EGC ESP Site, did not experience any episodes of 2 days or longer with mixing depths less than 500 meters (m) and winds less than 2 meters per second (mps). There were two episodes with winds remaining less than 4 mps. For mixing heights less than 1,000 m and winds less than 4 mps, there were approximately nine episodes in the 5-yr period that lasted 2 days or more.

However, there were no episodes lasting 5 days or more. Holzworths data indicates that central Illinois is in a relatively favorable dispersion regime in that a relatively low frequency of extended periods of high air pollution potential is expected (Holzworth, 1972).

DEL-096-REV0 2.7-9

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 2.7.4 Local Meteorology Local meteorological conditions are characterized by data obtained from an on-site meteorological monitoring system that was installed and began operation at the CPS Site on April 13, 1972. The location of the on-site monitoring system is approximately 3,200-ft south-southeast of the CPS containment structure and approximately 1,800-ft south-southeast of the center of the EGC ESP Site power block footprint. Based on its proximity to the EGC ESP Site, the meteorological parameters that are monitored by the CPS monitoring station are representative of the EGC ESP Site and are, therefore, appropriate for use in characterizing local meteorological conditions in this report. Local meteorological monitoring results and summaries of the parameters monitored by the on-site system are contained in this section. A more detailed description of the physical characteristics of the on-site meteorological monitoring system is described is Section 2.7.5 and Section 6.4. There is also information in Section 2 of the CPS USAR (CPS, 2002), Section 6 of the CPS ER (CPS, 1973) and Section 6 of the CPS ER (OLS) (CPS, 1982). Data from the CPS meteorological monitoring system, as described and documented in these reports, have previously been used in the preparation of the CPS USAR and the CPS ER for the 5-yr period that spans April 13, 1972 through April 30, 1977. These data were also previously used in the assessment of the radiological impacts associated with routine station operation (i.e., routine radiological releases), as well as the impacts of potential accidental releases that could occur during station operation.

During the 5-yr period of record that was reported in the CPS ER (OLS) and the CPS USAR, the meteorological system monitored the following parameters, also summarized in Table 6.1-5 of the CPS ER (CPS, 1973):

Tower Level Parameters Measured Ground: Precipitation 10 m: Wind speed and direction Ambient air temperature Dew point 60 m: Wind speed and direction Ambient air temperature (for computing delta temperature with 10-m temperature)

Delta temperature Dew point Data available from the CPS on-site meteorological monitoring system were obtained from the same tower system and at the same levels above ground.

Since the CPS began operation in 1987, annual reports have been prepared and submitted to the USNRC. It contains annual summaries, such as joint frequency distributions of wind speed, direction, and atmospheric stability of the meteorological data collected by the CPS on-site meteorological monitoring system. The most recent example of such a report is the 2001 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the CPS (Campbell, 2002).

For the purposes of this ER, two different periods of records have been utilized and referenced as follows:

2.7-10 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY April 13, 1972 to April 30, 1977: The data from this period of record were representative of the EGC ESP Site prior to construction of the CPS (including the filling of Clinton Lake) and were used in the original CPS ER (OLS) and the CPS USAR for the CPS. Analyses of these data included joint frequency distributions of wind speed, direction, and atmospheric stability, as well as short- and long-term analyses of accidental and routine radiological releases from the CPS.

January 1, 2000 to August 31, 2002: The data from this period of record were used to characterize site-specific meteorological conditions.

They were also used to assess the impacts of long-term routine radiological releases from the EGC ESP Facility using operational software utilized by the CPS personnel.

2.7.4.1 Normal and Extreme Values of Meteorological Parameters 2.7.4.1.1 Wind Summaries Detailed wind records are available from the CPS meteorological monitoring system for two periods of record, namely 1972-1977 and 2000-2002. Monthly and long-term average wind roses were constructed from wind speed and direction measurements made at the 10-m (33-ft) level of the on-site meteorological tower. The location of the tower is shown in Figure 2.7-2. A composite wind rose for the period of 1972-1977 is presented in Figure 2.7-3, and the composite monthly average wind roses for the same period are shown in Figure 2.7-4 through Figure 2.7-15. A composite wind rose for the period of 2000-2002 is presented in Figure 2.7-16. Seasonal variations are evident from the monthly data for the 1972-1977 period of record. Winds from the south-southeast through west-northwest sectors tend to dominate in most months. Winter months show generally higher wind speeds, fewer calms, and more west-northwest winds than do the summer months. A visual comparison of the composite wind roses for the two periods of record illustrates that the wind speed and direction characteristics of the site area did not change substantially before (1972-1977) and after (2000-2002) the construction of the CPS Facility. The two data periods are similar in their overall characteristics in that they exhibit a predominance of winds from the northwest through the southwest and south-southeast sectors. The most notable differences include a slight increase in occurrence of winds from the northeast sector in the 2000-2002 data period (7 percent versus a less than 5 percent occurrence in the 1972-1977 data). There is also an apparent increase in some direction sectors (of less than approximately 1 percent per sector) in the frequency of occurrence of wind speeds greater than 8 mps in the 2000-2002 period.

However, Table 2.7-9 illustrates that for sectors combined there is a general shift towards lower wind speeds in the more recent data. These types of differences are consistent with what can be expected when comparing wind roses and statistical data summaries for periods in the midwestern U.S. Furthermore, such variations will be somewhat more noticeable in the shorter 32-month period of 2000-2002, as a result of year to year variations that may otherwise be averaged out over a longer 5-yr period.

DEL-096-REV0 2.7-11

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT For the 1972-1977 period of record, there were two occurrences of persistence of wind direction for 33 hrs (the longest persistence observed). These occurred in two sectors, the south-southwest and the northeast.

2.7.4.1.2 Temperatures Temperatures at the CPS meteorological monitoring site are measured at the 10- and 60-m level of the tower. For the 1972-1977 period of record, the average daily temperature was 50.9°F. The absolute maximum temperature was 95.4°F, and the absolute minimum temperature was -19.8°F. The 1972-1977 period of record and composite monthly summaries of the on-site temperature data are presented in Tables 2.7-10 through Table 2.7-12. These data are believed to be representative of the site area, and have been previously shown to be consistent with regional observations from Peoria and Springfield.

2.7.4.1.3 Atmospheric Moisture 2.7.4.1.3.1 Relative Humidity The relative humidity for a given moisture content of the air is inversely proportional to the temperature cycle. Maximum relative humidity usually occurs during the early morning hours, and minimum relative humidity is typically observed in the mid-afternoon. For the annual cycle, the lowest humidities occur in mid-spring; the winter months experience the highest humidities. Table 2.7-13 presents a summary of relative humidity at the 10-m level for the CPS during the period from 1972-1977. These data are believed to be representative of the site area, and have been previously shown to be consistent with regional observations from Peoria and Springfield.

2.7.4.1.3.2 Wet Bulb The wet bulb temperature is not as strong a function of the ambient temperature as the relative humidity. Wet bulb temperature is used for evaporative cooling system modeling studies. The wet bulb temperature is defined to be the temperature in which an air parcel may be cooled by evaporating water into it at a constant pressure until it is saturated. The latent heat utilized in the process is supplied by the air parcel. Summaries of 10-m wet bulb temperatures are presented in Table 2.7-14 for the period from 1972-1977. These values were calculated from the dew point and ambient temperatures, assuming a constant standard sea level pressure of 1,013.25 millibars. These data are believed to be representative of the site area, and have been previously shown to be consistent with regional observations from Peoria and Springfield.

2.7.4.1.3.3 Dew Point Temperature Dew point temperature is a measure of absolute humidity in the air. It is the temperature in which the air must be cooled to cause condensation to occur, assuming pressure and water vapor content remain constant. Summaries of composite monthly and period of record 10-m dew point measurements are presented in Tables 2.7-15 through Table 2.7-17 for the period from 1972-1977. These data are believed to be representative of the site area, and have been previously shown to be consistent with regional observations from Peoria and Springfield.

2.7.4.1.4 Precipitation The average yearly precipitation for the 1972-1977 period of record for the EGC ESP Site is 25.47 in. Period of record and composite monthly precipitation data appear in Table 2.7-18.

The months of March and June are the wettest, and December, January, and February are 2.7-12 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY the driest. These data are believed to be representative of the site area, and have been previously shown to be consistent with regional observations from Peoria and Springfield.

2.7.4.1.5 Fog Fog is an aggregate of minute water droplets suspended in the atmosphere near the surface of the earth. According to international definition, fog reduces visibility to less than 0.62 mi According to U.S. observing practice, ground fog is a fog that hides less than 60 percent of the sky, and does not extend to the base of any clouds that may lie above it. Ice fog is fog composed of suspended particles of ice. It usually occurs in high latitudes in calm, clear weather at temperatures below -20°F, and increases in frequency as temperature decreases (AMS, 1970).

Since local data are not available to assess the fog statistics at the EGC ESP Site, data are presented for nearby Springfield and Peoria. Fog is a very local phenomenon; thus, this data will be considered as only regional estimates. The average number of days during which heavy fog (visibility less than 0.25 mi) was observed is presented in Table 2.7-19 for the 23-yr period of 1949-1971. The yearly average number of fog days for this reporting period was 18.5 days in Springfield and 20 days in Peoria, with the highest occurrence of fog in the winter months for both locations.

Table 2.7-20 and Table 2.7-21 also summarize the frequency of occurrence, number of hours, and persistence of fog for Peoria and Springfield, respectively. These summaries were obtained from the CPS USAR (CPS, 2002), and were originally prepared by processing the digital data tapes for these NWS observation stations. Fog extracted from these tapes included any of the fogs coded as either fog, ground fog, or ice fog, which occurred in column 132, obstruction to vision, on the Airways Surface Observations tapes.

The percentage of the total fog observations reported for Peoria and Springfield is presented in Table 2.7-20 and Table 2.7-21. The table also provides information on the hour and the percentage of observations for that hour of the maximum and minimum fog occurrence.

Peoria was observed to have a higher frequency of fog in all months. The long-term annual average percent of hourly observations with any intensity of fog for Peoria and Springfield were 11.3 percent and 9.1 percent, respectively. The occurrence of prolonged periods of fog was also greater for Peoria. Although information on fog is generally a very local phenomenon, the expected occurrences at the EGC ESP Site will be within the range represented by these two stations.

A less detailed summary of fog occurrence in Peoria and Springfield available for a 40-yr reporting period spanning over 1951-1990 (Gale Research Company, 1992a), indicates that the average occurrence of fog is 21 times per year in Peoria and 17 times per year in Springfield.

The observations of fog in Peoria and Springfield, at approximately 20 to 21 days of occurrence per year, can be considered to be a baseline occurrence. This is because they do not account for any occurrences of fog associated with the presence of Clinton Lake or the once through cooling system used by the CPS. During winter months, cold air passing over the relatively warmer water surface of Clinton Lake can become saturated with respect to water vapor. When sufficient evaporated water vapor condenses into droplets, steam fog occurs. The characteristics of such steam fog will vary with the water temperature, the DEL-096-REV0 2.7-13

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT distance traveled over the water, the low level ambient air temperature, relative humidity, vertical and horizontal stability, and the transporting wind speed.

In addition to the regional observations of fog obtained from the Springfield and Peoria airports, the impacts of fog associated with the presence of Clinton Lake and the once through cooling were previously addressed and documented in Section 2.3.2.2.2 of the CPS USAR (CPS, 2002). An analytical model was used to account for the processes of evaporation, condensation, and diffusion downwind. A description of the model that was used was provided in Attachment A2.3 (Analytical Fog Model) of the CPS USAR. The modeling analysis focused on a number of areas surrounding the CPS including roadways and areas of population. The steam fog prediction model was used to calculate the occurrence of restricted visibility caused by steam fog in the specified areas of interest. This process was repeated for each month to account for the monthly difference in water temperature. The results were documented in several hundred maps showing the concentration of water vapor and water droplets for Clinton Lake and adjacent areas. The maps produced by the computer fog model illustrated the horizontal extent of visible water vapor plumes that were predicted to occur with a given wind direction for a specified combination of air temperature and relative humidity. The analyses of these maps as described in the CPS USAR concluded that the maximum extent of reduced visibility beyond Clinton Lake from the lake steam fog would generally be confined to the area that is south of Clinton Lake and east of the Town of Lane. However, steam fog was predicted to occasionally drift over IL Route 54, where it passes near the northern edge of Clinton Lake.

The steam fog analysis also concluded that there was no significant probability of lake steam fog extending to the towns of DeWitt or Lane. In addition, the remaining sections of roads around Clinton Lake were not affected significantly by the predicted lake steam fog. In general, the steam fog analysis presented in the CPS USAR concluded that the maximum horizontal extent of steam fog from Clinton Lake would be 1 mi or less. The extent of extremely dense steam fog would be limited to the area immediately adjacent to Clinton Lake, and, in particular, the shallow water discharge flume and the point of discharge to the lake.

2.7.4.1.6 Atmospheric Stability For estimates of average dispersion over extended periods, the joint probability of occurrence of wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability must be known. These probabilities, or frequencies, have been generated from on-site data using the vertical temperature gradient and the variability of the horizontal wind to estimate atmospheric stability in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.23. Joint frequency distributions of wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability measured at the site are provided in Table 2.7-22 through Table 2.7-29 for the 1972-1977 period of record. Joint frequency distributions for the 2000-2002 period of record are provided in Table 2.7-30 through Table 2.7-37.

Table 2.7-38 summarizes the percent frequencies of occurrence for each stability class (determined on the basis of vertical temperature gradient) recorded at the EGC ESP Site.

The upper part of the table summarizes the 1972-1977 period of record, and the lower part summarizes the 2000-2002 period of record.

For the 1972-1977 period of record, the combination of E stability and calm winds (less than 0.3 mps) occurred 0.06 percent of the time; F and calm conditions occurred 0.06 percent of the time; and G and calm conditions occurred 0.12 percent of the time. For the 2000-2002 2.7-14 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY period of record, only 9 hrs of calm winds occurred out of 21,430 hrs of valid observations and 1,937 hrs of missing data (see Table 2.7-30 through Table 2.7-37).

2.7.4.1.7 Topographical Description of the Surrounding Area Figure 2.7-17 is a topographic map of the area within 5 mi of the site. Figure 2.7-18 shows topographic cross sections in the 16 primary compass directions radiating from the site. The crosshatched sections represent the areas associated with Clinton Lake. The EGC ESP Facility will be located at an elevation of approximately 735-ft above msl. Within the 5-mi radius, no land elevation is above 760 ft or below 640 ft. Most of this modest relief is due to the shallow valleys surrounding North Fork of Salt Creek and Salt Creek. These valleys form the boundaries of the CPS cooling lake (Clinton Lake). The surface of Clinton Lake is approximately 690-ft above msl. Thus, a large portion of the topographical relief in the immediate area is filled by Clinton Lake.

The terrain in central Illinois is relatively flat and differences in elevation will have no influence on the general climate within 50 mi of the project site. However, the low hills and shallow river valleys that do exist could exert a small effect upon nocturnal wind drainage patterns and fog frequency under certain atmospheric conditions.

In the immediate vicinity of the site, the 4,895-ac Clinton Lake represents a discontinuity in the ground surface over which diffusing gases can travel. Clinton Lake presents a smoother surface than does the land over which the air parcels will travel and, for both east and west winds, there will be up to a maximum of approximately 6,000 ft (1.1 mi) of upwind-downwind fetch that could potentially have an effect on diffusion downwind of the site.

Under certain atmospheric conditions, this could reduce the surface- or mechanically-induced turbulence, and thus, the resulting diffusion of any pollutants released from the station. At the same time, however, reduced frictional effects would allow for an increase in wind speed. Thus, to some effect, it will mitigate the effects of decreased diffusion due to turbulence. In view of the relatively short distances across Clinton Lake for releases from the facility under most wind directions, no adjustments in the diffusion calculations are proposed to account for the reduction in surface roughness caused by Clinton Lake.

Since Clinton Lake is used as a heat sink for the CPS reactor, a more potentially significant impact of Clinton Lake is the warm surface that it can present to the atmosphere that, at times, can be much warmer than the surrounding ground and air. Under these conditions, this increase in surface temperature could cause the layer of air in contact with Clinton Lake to achieve a neutral or unstable lapse rate in the vertical, especially when thermally stable conditions prevail over the land. In addition, a release from a ground level source would undergo some additional vertical diffusion over Clinton Lake than would be computed (using a stable delta temperature based stability category) from the meteorological tower.

However, due to the relatively small dimensions of Clinton Lake and its orientation with respect to the facility, no adjustments are proposed to the diffusion calculations. Additional dispersion effects attributable to elevated lake temperatures were not accounted for. This should add to the conservative nature of the routine and accidental release diffusion estimates that are described in detail later in this section.

The natural topography of the area surrounding the site is considered to be rural in nature and is not expected to affect the diffusion estimates.

DEL-096-REV0 2.7-15

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT 2.7.4.2 Local Meteorological Conditions for Design and Operating Bases Design and operating bases, such as tornado parameters, ice glaze thickness, and winter probable maximum precipitation are statistics by which definition and necessity are based upon long-term regional records. While data collected at the on-site meteorological monitoring system can be considered representative of long-term site meteorology, long-term regional data are most appropriate for use as conservative estimates of climatological extremes. Therefore, the design and operating basis conditions were based upon regional meteorological data, as described in Section 2.7.1.

2.7.5 On-Site Meteorological Measurements Program Detailed information on the meteorological measurements program, including system design, location, instrumentation, and data reduction protocols, have previously been described in Section 2 of the CPS USAR (CPS, 2002), Section 6 of the CPS ER (CPS, 1973) and Section 6 of the CPS ER (OLS) (CPS, 1982). Since the proposed EGC ESP Site location is adjacent to the CPS Facility, the location of the CPS meteorological monitoring tower and system is considered to be ideally situated for the on-site meteorological measurements required for this ESP evaluation. A summary description of the system, including the chronology of the instrumentation in use at the CPS and the EGC ESP sites, is provided below.

2.7.5.1 Instrumentation The CPS meteorological monitoring tower is located approximately 3,200-ft south-southeast of the CPS containment structure, and approximately 1,800-ft south-southeast of the center of the EGC ESP Site. The tower is located in an open area with no trees. Tall obstructions or topographical features in the immediate vicinity of the tower could cause a bias in the measured values of the parameters. Soybeans and similar crops have historically been raised in the fields surrounding the plot that contains the tower. The ground immediately under the tower is covered with short natural grasses and weeds. Heating and ventilation are thermostatically controlled in the instrument shed to provide a controlled environment for the signal translating equipment. The location of the tower with respect to the CPS and the EGC ESP Facility is shown in Figure 2.7-2. The tower has been at this location since its original installation.

It is noted that some of the original monitoring equipment (i.e., sensors, data recorders, electronic data loggers, remote interrogation equipment) have undergone routine replacement, repair, and upgrade since the original installation of the system. Additionally, certain changes in the method of data reduction have been made since the original installation date, with a transition from a manual to an electronic based system with strip chart backup. However, the basic monitoring system hardware that is in use at the CPS is very similar to what was originally installed in 1972. The meteorological monitoring system has been demonstrated throughout this period to be compliant with Regulatory Guide 1.23 (USNRC, 1972).

Data from the two periods of record used in this report (see Section 2.7.4) were found to compare relatively favorably, although some differences exist that are believed to be attributable to increased instrument accuracy, lower monitoring thresholds, and improved (electronic) methods of data reduction and interpretation. These two data sets were used 2.7-16 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY and evaluated separately, rather than in combination because of these improvements over time. The original data and analyses, as presented in the CPS USAR and construction and licensing phase ERs, were supplemented with the additional analyses based on the more recent 2000-2002 data period.

The CPS meteorological monitoring system is slated for a substantial upgrade to improve the overall system reliability, data capture efficiency, data accuracy, and data retention recordkeeping. The new system is being designed to be fully compliant with Regulatory Guide 1.23. In addition, it will include the replacement of the electronics at the 10-m and 60-m levels of the existing tower including wind speed sensors, wind direction sensors, temperature sensors, and dew point sensors. The existing rain gauge will be retained, but rewired to new electronics. System electronics being replaced or added will include new multiplexer (MUX) components, instrument cabinets, digital recorder, data logger, and instrument cabling. The new monitoring sensors will be generally more accurate, and in some cases with lower monitoring thresholds than the sensors that will be replaced. When the upgrade becomes operational, a new data processing software system will also be implemented, replacing the previous MIDAS system. The new system, which will be supplied and installed by the CPS meteorological consultants (Murray and Trettel, Inc.), is the Yokagowa developed Darwin DW/WA DP300-13 Enhanced Data Logging Software (Release Revision 2). Murray and Trettel have advised the CPS staff that the meteorological data obtained and processed by the MIDAS system can be made compatible with the data produced by the new Darwin software system.

Meteorological monitoring instruments are also located on a nearby microwave tower to act as a backup to the existing meteorological monitoring instruments on the primary meteorological tower. The microwave tower is 250-ft high with instrumentation installed at the 10-m (33-ft) level. Backup instrumentation on this tower consists of wind speed and direction sensors only. The location of the tower is depicted in Figure 2.7-2.

The CPS USAR also included the submittal of a complete record of 12 consecutive months of hour by hour on-site meteorological data for the 1-yr period from 12:00 A.M., January 15, 1973 to 11:59 P.M., January 14, 1974. Also included with this submittal were two attachments (see Section 2.3.3 of the CPS USAR; CPS, 2002):

• Attachment A - listing of the dates and hours of missing data in the period.

• Attachment B - listing of recommended substitute values for the missing data. The bases for the substitutions were extrapolations and interpolation using data before and after the missing period. There were no lengthy periods of missing data that required more involved methods. There are no recommended values for precipitation given.

2.7.5.1.1 Wind System The wind speed and direction at the 10-m and 60-m levels of the primary meteorological tower system are measured by a combined cup and vane sensor. A more detailed discussion of the monitoring instrumentation used to record wind speeds at the site since 1972 is provided in Section 6.4.

2.7.5.1.2 Temperature and Delta Temperature System Temperature is sensed by an aspirated dual temperature sensor at the 60-m level, and an aspirated dual temperature sensor at the 10-m level. One-half of the dual sensor at each DEL-096-REV0 2.7-17

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT elevation is used for ambient temperature. The other half of each sensor is used to provide a differential temperature (delta temperature) between the 10-m and 60-m elevation. A more detailed discussion of the monitoring instrumentation used to record temperature and delta temperature at the site since 1972 is provided in Section 6.4.

2.7.5.1.3 Dew Point System Lower level (10 m) dew point is measured with an aspirated dew point sensor. A more detailed discussion of the monitoring instrumentation used to record dew point at the site since 1972 is provided in Section 6.4.

2.7.5.1.4 Precipitation System Precipitation is measured by a tipping bucket rain gauge. A more detailed discussion of the monitoring instrumentation used to record precipitation at the site since 1972 is provided in Section 6.4.

2.7.5.2 Maintenance and Calibration Emergency maintenance may be performed by the system vendor, with routine maintenance performed by the CPS technicians. Data recovery is normally greater than 90 percent for the parameters.

Semiannual calibrations are periodically performed by trained technicians. Ice baths are used to check ambient temperature sensors. The lithium chloride dew point unit is checked against calibrated material and test equipment.

The wind direction and wind speed sensors are checked for normal operation, according to vendor specifications.

A more detailed discussion of the meteorological monitoring system maintenance and calibration procedures used at the site since 1972 is provided in Section 6.4.

2.7.5.3 Data Reduction A discussion of the data reduction procedures used on the data obtained from the meteorological monitoring system since 1972 is provided in Section 6.4.

2.7.5.4 Control Room Monitoring Meteorological data are recorded in the CPS main control room. Additionally, 10-minute averages are available on the radiation monitoring system cathode-ray tube (CRT) terminal in the technical support center (TSC).

The main control room wind recorders are dual 5-in. zone, continuous strip, and 3-in. per hour chart recorders. They continuously record wind direction and speed at the 10-m and 60-m level. A multi-point recorder records 10-m and 60-m temperature, delta temperature, precipitation, and 10-m dew point.

2.7.6 Short-Term Diffusion Estimates 2.7.6.1 Objective Conservative estimates of the local atmospheric dilution factors (Chi/Q) for the EGC ESP Facility are available from two sources of information:

2.7-18 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY

• Chi/Q analyses (including 5 and 50 percent probability levels that are described and presented in the CPS USAR for the CPS (CPS, 2002); and

• Chi/Q estimates using the PAVAN Computer code (described in Section 2.7.6.3) and the on-site meteorological data from the period of 2000-2002.

Sections 2.7.6.2 and Section 2.7.6.3 provide additional information on the results of the short-term Chi/Q estimates for the EGC ESP Facility.

2.7.6.2 Chi/Q Estimates From the CPS USAR The short-term Chi/Q analyses presented in the CPS USAR were prepared for the CPS exclusion area boundary (EAB). This was defined to be 975 m from the release point in sectors, as well as the low population zone (LPZ) that was defined to be 4,018 m from the release point in all directions. Calculations were made for sliding time period windows of 1, 8, 16, 72, and 624 hrs using on-site meteorological data obtained from the CPS meteorological monitoring system during the April 4, 1972 through April 30, 1977 meteorological monitoring period. Calculations of the short-term ground level atmospheric dilution factors for the CPS were performed using Gaussian plume diffusion models for a continuously emitting ground level source, in accordance with guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.145 (USNRC, 1983). Hourly centerline /Q values were computed from concurrent hourly mean values of wind speed, wind direction and variability, and Pasquill stability class of the on-site meteorological data. The wind speed at the 10-m level was used in the diffusion estimates for the ground level release. The Pasquill stability class was determined from the measured vertical temperature difference (delta temperature) and the variation of horizontal wind direction, according to Regulatory Guide 1.23 (USNRC, 1972).

Calms were assigned a wind speed value equal to the starting speed of the wind vane (0.7 mph). Cumulative frequency distributions were prepared to determine the Chi/Q values that exceeded no more than 5 percent and 50 percent of the time.

The short-term diffusion estimates that were made for the CPS are also representative of short-term releases from the EGC ESP Facility, based on the following assumptions:

• The EAB for the EGC ESP Facility is defined to be 1,025 m, which compares with the EAB that was defined for the CPS of 975 m. Since the EAB in the CPS USAR analysis for the CPS is smaller than the EAB for the proposed unit by 50 m, the results will be slightly more conservative (higher) than if the larger EAB were used in the analysis.

Since the accidental release modeling was performed as a ground level release, the predicted concentrations decrease with increasing distance from the source.

• The LPZ distance of 4,018 m is the same as the LPZ used in the CPS USAR analysis.

• The meteorological data and characteristics used in the original analysis are still representative of the site conditions.

Gaussian plume diffusion models for ground level concentration were used to describe the downwind spread of effluents (Campbell, 2002). A continuous ground level release of effluents at a constant emission rate was assumed in the diffusion estimates. Total reflection of the plume at ground level was assumed in the diffusion estimates (i.e., no deposition or DEL-096-REV0 2.7-19

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT reaction at the surface). Hourly Chi/Q values were calculated by using the following equations:

Equation 2.7-2: Chi/Q = 1/(u10 y z)

Equation 2.7-3: Chi/Q = 1/[u10 (yz + A/2)]

Equation 2.7-4: Chi/Q = 1/[u10 (3 y3 z)]

Chi/Q = Relative centerline concentration (sec/m3) at ground level

= 3.14159 u10 = Wind speed (mps) at 10-m above the ground y = Lateral plume spread (m), a function of atmospheric stability, wind speed, and downwind distance from the point of release. For distances to 800 m, y = My; M being a function of atmospheric stability and wind speed. For distances greater than 800 m, y = (M-1) y 800m + y y = Lateral plume spread as a function of atmospheric stability and distance z = Vertical plume spread as a function of atmospheric stability and distance A = Smallest vertical plane, cross-sectional area of the building from which the effluent is released (A=2,069 m2)

For neutral to stable conditions with wind speeds less than 6 mps, Equation 2.7-3 and Equation 2.7-4 were calculated and compared, and the higher Chi/Q was selected. This higher value was compared to the Chi/Q resulting from Equation 2.7-2 and the lower was selected. This was done in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.145 (USNRC, 1983). For other stability and/or wind speed conditions, Chi/Q was selected as the higher value from Equation 2.7-3 and Equation 2.7-4.

From these hourly Chi/Q values, cumulative frequency distributions were prepared from the mean values of sliding time windows of 1, 2, 8, 16, 72, and 624 hrs. These intervals correspond to time periods of 0-1 hr, 0-2 hrs, 0-8 hrs, 8-24 hrs, 1-4 days, and 4-30 days. For each time period used, the mean centerline /Q value in each sector was computed. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 2.7-39 through Table 2.7-50.

2.7.6.3 Chi/Q Estimates using the PAVAN Computer Code and On-Site Data The PAVAN computer code (USNRC, 1982) was used to calculate short-term accident Chi/Q values attributable to potential accidental releases from the proposed EGC ESP Facility. It was determined in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.145 for the 0.5 percent maximum sector Chi/Q and the 5 percent direction independent value. In addition, 50 percent direction independent values were determined. The model ran for two cases using 2 yrs and 8 months of on-site meteorological data from the period of 2000-2002, a description is provided above. The following two cases were evaluated:

• Case 1: CPS Site distances used in CPS USAR (EAB = 975 m, LPZ = 4,018 m)

• Case 2: EGC ESP Site distance (EAB =1,025 m, LPZ = 4,018 m)

In addition, Case 2 was evaluated with and without building wake effects.

2.7-20 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY These two cases were modeled to facilitate an evaluation and comparison of the Chi/Q calculations with those presented in the CPS USAR, as well as to examine the relative significance of building wake effects on the calculations.

Input to the PAVAN model consisted of the following:

• Meteorological Data: Joint frequency distribution of wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, 16 standard azimuthal sectors, period of record January 1, 2000 to August 31, 2002 (see Table 2.7-30 through Table 2.7-37)

• Wind Sensor Height: 10 m

• Delta Temperature Heights: 10 m - 60 m

• Number of Wind Speed Categories: 6

• Minimum Building Cross Section: 2,069 m2 (equivalent to the CPS containment structure)

• Containment Height: 76.1 m

• Release Height: 10 m (ground level default height)

The release points and receptor locations in this analysis are defined as the EGC ESP Site EAB (1,025 m) and LPZ (4,018 m).

Short-term Chi/Q analyses were performed using the PAVAN model. The results of the PAVAN modeling analysis are summarized in Table 2.7-51 and Table 2.7-52. Table 2.7-51 summarizes, in a matrix format, the results of the modeling analysis for the two cases discussed above. Maximum sector Chi/Qs from the PAVAN modeling analysis are compared with the maximum sector Chi/Qs in the CPS USAR. It is noted that the PAVAN results for the EGC ESP Site distances reflect the limiting values based on the 0.5 percent maximum sector Chi/Q. The values from the CPS USAR reflect the 5 percent maximum sector. A review of the results summarized in the table leads to the following conclusions:

• A comparison of the CPS USAR and the PAVAN Chi/Qs for the CPS 975-m EAB distance indicates that the results are similar, with the PAVAN model results being only moderately greater for averaging periods. Differences are attributed to the different models used, as well as differences in the meteorology used in each analysis (i.e., 1972-1977 for the CPS USAR analysis and 2000-2002 for the PAVAN analysis).

• A comparison of the CPS USAR and the PAVAN Chi/Qs for the 4,018-m LPZ distance indicates that the results are similar, with the PAVAN model results being only moderately greater for averaging periods. Differences are attributed to the different models used, as well as differences in the meteorology used in each analysis (i.e., 1972-1977 for the CPS USAR analysis and 2000-2002 for the PAVAN analysis).

• A comparison of Case 2 results in both with and without building wake effects, and illustrates that building wake effects have very little influence on Chi/Qs, particularly for very short averaging periods. This conclusion is the same for both the EAB distance of 1,025 m and the LPZ distance of 4,018 m. Since the results obtained without building DEL-096-REV0 2.7-21

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT wakes tend to be slightly higher at both distances (i.e., for averaging periods greater than 2 hrs), these values are used for further ESP evaluations or analyses.

2.7.6.4 Chi/Q Estimates for Short-Term Diffusion Calculations Although the results of the Chi/Q analyses discussed above have been demonstrated to compare favorably with one another, the results of the analysis using the PAVAN model and the meteorological data for the period 2000-2002 are moderately higher for some scenarios. Since this is a more conservative estimate of the Chi/Qs, they will be used for the short-term diffusion estimates.

2.7.7 Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates 2.7.7.1 Objective Estimates of long-term atmospheric dilution factors (Chi/Q) and relative deposition (D/Q) were made using a straight line Gaussian model, consistent with Regulatory Guides 1.111 and 1.109. The objective was to calculate Chi/Q and D/Q values at the following locations in the 16 primary directions including:

• Nearest property boundary;

• Exclusion area boundary;

• Low population zone;

• Nearest milk cow;

• Nearest milk goat;

• Nearest garden;

• Nearest meat animal;

• Nearest residence; and

• Distances of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0, 15.0 20.0, 25.0, 30.0, 35.0, 40.0, 45.0, and 47.5 mi from the EGC ESP Facility.

Section 2.7.7.2 provides additional information on the results of the long-term Chi/Q estimates for the EGC ESP Facility.

2.7.7.2 Calculations The calculations were made using the MIDAS suite of software programs that is licensed and installed at the CPS (CPS, 2002). Program XDCALC from the MIDASTM software package calculates hourly centerline values of Chi/Q and D/Q, and accumulates those values over any specified time period less than 32,760 hrs.

The calculations of Chi/Q and D/Q were made by program XDCALC using hourly on-site meteorological data. Hourly meteorological data was obtained using the 15-minute observation period that ended on each hour. The program was used to estimate centerline Chi/Qs and D/Qs for a ground level release, with an assumed height of release of 10 m.

The 10-m release height is consistent with the height at which wind speed and direction are 2.7-22 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.7 - METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY measured on the CPS meteorological tower, as well as with USNRC guidance for the modeling of ground level releases. Assumptions used in the analysis are summarized below:

• Meteorological Data Source: CPS on-site meteorological tower

• Period of Record: January 1, 2000 to August 31, 2002

• Wind Reference Level: 10 m

• Stability Calculation: Delta temperature (10-m and 60-m tower levels)

• Release Type: Ground level

• Release Height: 10 m

• Building Wake Effects: Included The results of the long-term diffusion modeling analysis are contained in Table 2.7-53 to represent undepleted Chi/Q calculations from the EGC ESP Facility. Table 2.7-54 represents Chi/Q calculations that account for deposition effects. Table 2.7-55 contains estimates that include radioactive decay with an overall half-life of 2.26 days for short-lived noble gases. Table 2.7-56 contains estimates that include an 8-day half-life for iodines released to the atmosphere.

DEL-096-REV0 2.7-23

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT SECTION 2.8 - OTHER FEDERAL PROJECTS 2.8 Other Federal Projects The purpose of this section is to identify any federal activities that are related to the project, review cumulative impacts due to the projects, and the possible need for another federal agency to participate in the preparation of the environmental impact statement as a cooperating agency. Actions related only to the granting of licenses, permits, or approvals by other federal agencies are not considered in this review, in accordance with NUREG-1555 (USNRC, 1999). A review of possible federal agency actions in the vicinity shows that no other federal projects are associated with this ESP application. Future federal actions related to this project include permits and licenses that may be required at the time of the COL application. Other federal projects may be required at the COL stage, such as transmission-related studies by FERC. However, these activities do not relate to the ESP, and have not been started. Thus, the cumulative impacts from any of these future activities cannot be postulated.

In summary, no other federal activities or projects are associated with the permitting of the EGC ESP Site, as listed below.

• There are no federal actions planned associated with acquisition and/or use of the EGC ESP Site.

• There are no federal projects planned that will be required to provide facility cooling water.

• There are no federal projects planned that must be completed as a condition of facility construction or operation.

• There are no federal projects that are contingent on facility construction and operation.

DEL-096-REV0 2.8-1

CHAPTER 2 References Chapter Introduction Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station Environmental Report Operating License Stage [OLS]. Supplement 3. April 1982.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station Updated Safety Analysis Report (CPS USAR). Revision 10. January 2002.

Section 2.1 Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Aerial Photography. USGS Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle for DeWitt County. 1998 and 1999.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). GIS Layer for Political Township Boundaries in Illinois. 1985.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). State Park Page. Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/Landmgt/PARKS/ilstate.htm. August 8, 2002.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 County and County Equivalent Areas of Illinois Generalized Boundary File. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/co2000.html. June 26, 2002a.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Incorporated/Census Designated Places of Illinois Generalized Boundary File. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/pl2000.html. June 26, 2002.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 TIGER/Line Files (machine-readable data files). Roads, Railroads and Water Features. Washington D.C. 2000.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). DeWitt 7.5 minute quadrangle Digital Raster Graphic. 1979.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Topographic Map. Clinton 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangle.

1990.

Section 2.2 Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Transportation Atlas. Airport Locations. 2000.

Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA). Illinois Agricultural Statistics Annual Summary.

2001.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). GIS Layer of Electrical Line Locations in Illinois. 1993.

DEL-096-REV0 2.R-1

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). GIS Layer of Pipeline Locations in Illinois.

1984.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). State Park Page. Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/parks/ilstate.htm. August 8, 2002.

Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS). Masters, John M., et al. 1997 Directory of Illinois Mineral Producers, and Maps of Extraction Sites. 1999.

McLean County Regional Planning Commission. McLean County Regional Comprehensive Plan. August 2000.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Incorporated/Census Designated Places of Illinois Generalized Boundary File. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/pl2000.html. June 26, 2002.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 TIGER/Line Files (machine-readable data files). Roads, Railroads and Water Features. Washington D.C. 2000.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). GIS Layer of National Landcover Data Set for Central Illinois. 1992.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Illinois Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle. 2000.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Topographic Map. Clinton 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangle.

1990.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (University of Illinois). DeWitt County Comprehensive Plan. 1992.

Section 2.3 Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station, NPDES Permit No. IL0036919, 1994 Summer Temperature Monitoring Data in Salt Creek Below Clinton Lake Dam. December 28, 1994.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station, NPDES Permit No. IL0036919, 1995 Summer Temperature Monitoring Data in Salt Creek Below Clinton Lake Dam. December 11, 1995.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station, NPDES Permit No. IL0036919, 1996 Summer Temperature Monitoring Data in Salt Creek Below Clinton Lake Dam. December 17, 1996.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station, NPDES Permit No. IL0036919, 1997 Summer Temperature Monitoring Data in Salt Creek Below Dam. December 31, 1997.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station, NPDES Permit No. IL0036919, 1998 Summer Temperature Monitoring Data in Salt Creek Below Dam. December 31, 1998.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station, NPDES Permit No. IL0036919, 1999 Summer Temperature Monitoring Data in Salt Creek Below Dam. January 28, 2000.

2.R-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - REFERENCES Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station, 2000 Summer Temperature Monitoring Data in Salt Creek Below Dam. NPDES Permit No. IL0036919. January 30, 2001a.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station Environmental Report Operating License Stage [OLS]. Supplement 3. April 1982.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station Updated Safety Analysis Report. Revision

10. 2002.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Environmental Monitoring Program Water Quality Report 1978-1991. pp 16-32, 266-276. 1992.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Clinton Station's Proposed Power Uprate on the Fish Community of Clinton Lake. March 2001.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Aerial Photography. USGS Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle for DeWitt County. 1998 and 1999.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Clinton Station Cooling Lake Management Plan. Exhibit B of IDNR/Amergen lease agreement. December 16, 2002.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). State Park Page. Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/Landmgt/PARKS/ilstate.htm. August 8, 2002a.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), et. al. Hydrogeology and Groundwater Availability in Southwest McLean and Southeast Tazewell Counties. Part 1: Aquifer Characterization. Cooperative Groundwater Report 17. 1995.

Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Division of Water Resources Permit No.

18199 to the Illinois Power Company Operation Maintenance Plan. 1984.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). Illinois Water Quality Report 2002.

IEPA/BOW.02-006. Bureau of Water. July 2002.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). Water Monitoring Strategy 2002 - 2006.

IEPA/BOW/02-005. Bureau of Water. August 2002a.

Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS). GIS Layer of Well Locations. 2002.

Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS). GIS Layer of One-Hundred and Five-Hundred Year Floodzones for Unincorporated Areas in Illinois by County. 1996.

Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS). Water Sample Data. Laboratory Sample Number: 231902.

August 1, 2000.

Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS). Water Sample Data. Laboratory Sample Number: 231897.

June 27, 2000a.

Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS). Water Sample Data. Laboratory Sample Number: 231909.

June 28, 2000b.

Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS). Water Sample Data. Laboratory Sample Number: 231908.

June 28, 2000c.

DEL-096-REV0 2.R-3

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS). Water Sample Data. Laboratory Sample Number: 231907.

June 28, 2000d.

Kempton, John P., et al. Topography, Glacial Drift Stratigraphy, and Hydrogeology.

Geological Society of America Special Paper 258. Mahomet Bedrock Valley, East-Central Illinois. 1991.

Knapp, H.V. Sangamon River Streamflow Assessment Model: 1999 Update to the Hydrologic Analysis. Illinois State Water Survey Contract Report 650. 1999.

Midwest Regional Climate Center (MRCC). Database File of Evaporation Data 1963-2002.

August 12, 2002.

Midwest Regional Climate Center (MRCC). Database File of Rainfall Data 1910-2002.

August 12, 2002a.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 County and County Equivalent Areas of Illinois Generalized Boundary File. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/co2000.html. June 26, 2002a.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Incorporated/Census Designated Places of Illinois Generalized Boundary File. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/pl2000.html. June 26, 2002.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 TIGER/Line Files (machine-readable data files). Roads, Railroads and Water Features. Washington D.C. 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Source Water Protection. Designated Sole Source Aquifers in EPA Region V. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/swp/ssa/reg5.html. August 8, 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Office of Water. STORET Database Access.

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/storet/dbtop.html. August 20, 2002a.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Available at:

http://ecos.fws.gov/nwi_mapplet/summap.html. August 8, 2002.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Enhanced Digital Raster Graphic 30 x 60. 1984.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Enhanced Digital Raster Graphic 30 x 60. 1989.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Flood Zone Boundaries Based on USGS National Digital Elevation Model. 1999.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Segment 10.

Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-K. 1995.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). National Water Information System 1978-1999. Available at:

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. August 20, 2002.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). National Water-Use Data Files. Available at:

http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/spread95/ilco95.txt. [August14, 2002] 1995a.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Design Basis for Floods for Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.59. Office of Standards Development. August 1977.

2.R-4 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - REFERENCES U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants.

Regulatory Guide 1.27. Office of Standards Development. January 1976.

Section 2.4 City of Clinton. Weldon Springs Page. Available at:

http://www.clintonillinois.com/tourism_pages/WeldonSprings.asp. Office of Tourism.

2003.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station Environmental Report Operating License Stage. Supplement 3. April 1982.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station Units 1 and 2, Environmental Report, Construction Permit Stage. 1973.

DeVore, Sheryl. Birding Illinois. Falcon Publishing. 2000.

Illinois Audubon Society. Available at: http://www.illinoisaudubon.org/. 2003.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/espb/datelist.htm. August 13, 2002h.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/parks/R3/Clinton.htm. August 12, 2002d.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/parks/R3/Weldonra.htm. August 13, 2002e.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2001/Dec/deerfinal2001.htm. August 12, 2002b.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2002/August/waterfowl2002recom.htm. August 12, 2002c.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Building Illinois Biological Memory: A Framework for Long-Term Ecosystem Monitoring. Critical Trends Program. 2000.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Division of Fisheries. Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/2001/2002BassStatusReport.htm. August 6, 2002g.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Division of Fisheries. Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/2001/Walleye2001.htm. August 6, 2002f.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Division of Fisheries. Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/fish/2001/cat01.htm. August 6, 2002j.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Division of Fisheries. Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/fish/2001/hybridBass.htm. August 6, 2002k.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). GIS Layer of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. 2002.

DEL-096-REV0 2.R-5

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). GIS Layer of Threatened and Endangered Species. 2002a.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Hunter Fact Sheet. Available at http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/hunter_fact_sheet/r3hfs/cll.htm. 2003.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Illinois Natural History Survey. Available at: http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/musselmanual/page68_9.html. August 13, 2002i.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Natural Heritage Database. 2002l.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). Biological Assessment of Illinois Stream Quality through 1993. 2002.

Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS). Invasive Species. Available at:

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/an_report/98_99/invspec.html. 2002.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 TIGER/Line Files (machine-readable data files). Roads, Railroads and Water Features. Washington D.C. 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Biological Indicators of Watershed Health.

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators. 2003.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). GIS Layer of National Landcover Data Set for Central Illinois. 1992.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Available at:

http://ecos.fws.gov/nwi_mapplet/summap.html. 2002.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. October 1999.

Section 2.5 Clinton Chamber of Commerce (CCC). Number of Small Businesses. Available at:

www.clintonillinois.com. August 8, 2002.

Clinton Daily Journal. Rental and House Sale Advertisements. August 8, 2002.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station Units 1 and 2, Environmental Report, Construction Permit Stage. 1973.

DeWitt County. Area Home Guide - Rental and House Sale Ads. August 8, 2002.

Herald & Review. Rental and House Sale Ads. August 12, 2002.

Illinois Agricultural Statistics Service. Illinois Farm Report. Volume 23. No. 4. March 25, 2002.

Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA). Illinois Agricultural Statistics Annual Summary.

2001.

Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (IDCCA). Community Profiles.

Available at: http://www.commerce.state.il.us/com/index.html. July 1, 2002.

2.R-6 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - REFERENCES Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). GIS Layer for Political Township Boundaries in Illinois. 1985.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). GIS Layer for Public Water Supply Sources in Illinois. 2000.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). State Park Page. Available at:

http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/parks/ilstate.htm. August 8, 2002.

Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). FY 2002-2006 Proposed Highway Improvement Program. 2001.

Illinois State University (ISU). Available at: http://www.cadus.ilstu.edu/data.htm. July 2, 2002.

Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS). Community Surface Water Supply Intakes in Illinois. 2000.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Available at:

http://www.capitolimpact.com. July 2, 2002.

Pantagraph. Rental and House Sale Ads. August 12, 2002.

State Journal Register. Rental and House Sale Ads. August 12, 2002.

Town of Arcola. Available at: http://www.arcola-il.org. August 16, 2002.

Town of Arthur. Available at: http://www.arthuril.com. August 16, 2002.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 County and County Equivalent Areas of Illinois Generalized Boundary File. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/co2000.html. June 26, 2002a.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Incorporated/Census Designated Places of Illinois Generalized Boundary File. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/pl2000.html. June 26, 2002.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Summary File 1. 2001.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Summary File 3. 2001a.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 TIGER/Line Files (machine-readable data files). Roads, Railroads and Water Features. Washington D.C. 2000.

U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty in the United States: 2000. September 2001b.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Bureau of Economic Analysis. Available at:

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/. July 2, 2002.

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at:

http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm. August 8, 2002.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (University of Illinois). DeWitt County Comprehensive Plan. 1992.

DEL-096-REV0 2.R-7

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (University of Illinois). Welcome to the Robert Allerton Park and Conference Center. Available at: http://www.conted.uiuc.edu/allerton/.

March 7, 2003.

Section 2.6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. October 1999.

Section 2.7 American Meteorological Society (AMS). Glossary of Meteorology. American Meteorological Society. Boston, Massachusetts. 1970.

American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI). Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures. ANSI A58.1-1972. American National Standards Institute, Inc. New York, New York. 1972.

Association of American Railroads. Glaze Storm Loading Summary, 1927-28 to 1936-37. 1955.

Bryson, R.A. Airmasses. Streamlines and the Boreal Forest. Technical Report No. 24. pp 13-57.

University of Wisconsin: Department of Meteorology. Madison, Wisconsin. 1966.

Campbell, Robert J. 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, Clinton letter reference number U-603543, NRC Adams Accession Number ML020800817 and ML020800855. March 8, 2002.

Clinton Power Station. Clinton Power Station Environmental Report Operating License Stage

[OLS]. Supplement 3. April 1982.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station Units 1 and 2, Environmental Report, Construction Permit Stage. 1973.

Clinton Power Station (CPS). Clinton Power Station Updated Safety Analysis Report. Revision

10. 2002.

Changnon, S. A., Jr. Climatology of Severe Winter Storms in Illinois. Bulletin 53. Illinois State Water Survey. Urbana, Illinois. 1969.

Changnon, S.A., Temporal Fluctuations of Hail in Illinois. Misc. Publication 167, pp.19.

Illinois State Water Survey. 1995.

Changnon, S.A., Jr. Thunderstorm-Precipitation Relations in Illinois. Report of Investigation No. 34. Illinois State Water Survey. Urbana, Illinois. 1957.

Fujita, T.T. U.S. Tornadoes, Part One, &0-Year Statistics. AMRP Research Paper Number 218.

Published by the University of Chicago. Chicago, Illinois, 1987.

2.R-8 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - REFERENCES Gale Research Company. Climates of the States. Third Edition. Volume 1. Alabama - New Mexico. ISBN 0-8103-1042-2. 1985.

Gale Research Company. The Weather Almanac. Sixth Edition. ISBN 8103-2843-7. 1992a.

Gale Research Company. Weather of U.S. Cities. Fourth Edition. ISBN 0-8103-4827-6. 1992.

Grazulis,T.P., A 110-Year Perspective of Significant Tornadoes. Paper in: The Tornado: Its Structure, Dynamics, Prediction, and Hazards. Geophysical Monograph 79. Published by the American Geophysical Union. Washington, D.C. 1993.

Holzworth, G.C. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States. AP-101. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 1972.

Hosler, C.R. Low-Level Inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States. Monthly Weather Review. Volume 89. pp. 319-339. September 1961.

Huff, F.A. and Changnon, S.A., Jr. Hail. Climatology of Illinois. Report of Investigation 38.

Illinois State Water Survey. Urbana, Illinois. 1959.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). Illinois Annual Air Quality Report 2000.

Bureau of Air. Springfield, IL. 2001.

Marshall, J.L. Probability of a Lightning Stroke. Lightning Protection. Chapter 3. pp. 30-31.

John Wiley and Sons. New York, New York. 1971.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Storm Damage Reports in Illinois. National Climatic Data Center. Available at: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms. 2002a.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). U.S. National Weather Service Public Information Statement. 10:00 AM CST Tuesday March 5, 2002. Available at:

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ilx/torstats.htm. 2002.

Thom, J. C. S. Tornado Probabilities. Monthly Weather Review. Volume 91. pp. 730-736.

1963.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Severe Local Storm Occurrences, 1955-1967.

WBTM FCST 12. USDOC, ESSA. Silver Springs, Maryland. September 1969.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Enhanced Digital Raster Graphic 30 x 60. 1984.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Enhanced Digital Raster Graphic 30 x 60. 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. July 29, 2002.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.145. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. February 1983.

DEL-096-REV0 2.R-9

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Onsite Meteorological Programs. Regulatory Guide 1.23. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. February 1972.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). PAVAN: An Atmospheric Dispersion Program for Evaluating Design Basis Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power Stations. NUREG/CR-2858. September 1982.

Wilson, J.W., and S.A. Changnon, Jr. Illinois Tornadoes. Circular 103. Illinois State Water Survey. Urbana, Illinois. 1971.

Section 2.8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. October 1999.

2.R-10 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 Tables TABLE 2.2-1 Land Use in the Site and Vicinity USGS Land Use Percent of Area within Site Percent of Area within Vicinity Classification Site Area (ac) Vicinity Area (ac)

Recreation 0% 0 16.6% 12,076 Agricultural 0% 0 82.1% 59,870 Industrial 100% 461 0.7% 512 Residential 0% 0 0.7% 512 Source: USGS, 1992 Note: Entire area within site boundary is zoned industrial. Actual land cover within the site boundary varies.

TABLE 2.2-2 Land Use Within the Transmission Corridors USGS Land Use Percent of Area within Region Classification Region Area (ac)

Recreation 10.7% 101 Agricultural 88.2% 836 Industrial 1.1% 10 Residential 0% 0 Source: USGS, 1992 TABLE 2.2-3 Land Use in the Region USGS Land Use Percent of Area within Region Classification Region Area (ac)

Recreation 5.4% 269,258 Agricultural 92.5% 4,580,167 Industrial 0.6% 27,530 Residential 1.5% 71,843 Source: USGS, 1992 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-1

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.2-4 2000 Yields for Principal Agricultural Products for Counties in the Region County Production (bushels)

Corn Soybeans Wheat DeWitt 15,904,000 4,601,300 97,500 McLean 51,057,000 14,602,900 0a Logan 29,340,000 7,646,900 132,800 Macon 26,023,600 7,242,200 109,800 b

Piatt 21,248,000 5,990,000 ---

Champaign 40,034,500 12,492,600 238,400b c

Douglas 18,259,200 5,659,200 160,000 Moultrie 15,016,400 4,075,200 ---c Shelby 29,291,100 7,787,900 1,228,800 Christian 34,621,200 8,756,300 276,000 Sangamon 35,635,200 9,350,400 67,200 Menard 13,711,600 3,263,700 158,400 Mason 16,747,600 4,307,600 382,800 Tazewell 24,057,000 6,038,400 207,900 Woodford 21,488,000 6,182,400 175,200 Livingston 42,277,200 12,874,400 361,900 Ford 19,570,400 5,665,800 150,000 Coles 20,202,200 5,595,000 110,400 Iroquois 45,472,000 12,641,200 364,500 Vermilion 29,947,200 9,801,000 285,000 Source: IDOA, 2001 a

Counties with less than 1,000 ac harvested for grain not published.

b Piatt County combined with Champaign County.

c Douglas County combined with Moultrie County.

2.T-2 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.3-1 Drainage Characteristics of Salt Creek and its Tributaries Length Drainage Area Maximum Relief Average Creek (mi) (mi2) (ft) Annual Runoff (in)

North Fork 26 128 270 9.73 Lake Fork 40 280 210 8.88 Deer Creek 25 81 240 10.30 Kickapoo Creek 55 330 380 8.91 Sugar Creek 55 480 380 8.63 Tenmile Creek 19 41 250 10.10 Salt Creek 92 1860 440 9.17 Source: CPS, 1982 and Knapp, 1999 a

Data not available TABLE 2.3-2 Mean Monthly Runoff, Rainfall, and Natural Lake Evaporation Data for Salt Creek Basin (Postdam)

Mean Runoff Mean Rainfall Percent of Mean Lake Evaporation Month (in) (in) Rainfall as Runoff (in)

January 0.80 1.91 41.7% ---a February 1.01 1.99 50.4% ---a March 1.99 3.13 63.6% 1.17 April 1.76 4.31 40.8% 3.34 May 1.86 4.50 41.3% 5.19 June 1.21 3.82 31.6% 6.41 July 0.84 4.43 18.9% 6.24 August 0.50 3.78 13.2% 5.26 September 0.21 2.51 8.4% 4.14 October 0.35 3.36 10.5% 2.47 November 0.57 3.63 15.8% 0.52 December 0.87 2.80 31.2% ---a Total 11.97 40.17 29.8%b 34.74 Source: USGS, 2002; MRCC, 2002 and 2002a a

Data not available b

Percentage taken as an average rather than a total DEL-096-REV0 2.T-3

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.3-3 Discharge Data for Salt Creek at Rowell Postdam Magnitude (1978-1999)

Discharge (cfs)

Mean Annual 295 Highest Mean Monthly 578 (March)

Lowest Mean Monthly (September) 63 Maximum Mean Daily Peak 6960 Minimum Mean Daily Low 3.7 Source: USGS, 2002 TABLE 2.3-4 Calculated Peak Flood Magnitudes and Frequencies at Rowell Gauging Station and at Dam Site Postdam Flood Magnitude Recurrence (cfs)

Interval (year) Rowell Gauge Clinton Lake Dam 2.33 3,600 3,200 10 6,200 5,500 25 7,900 7,000 50 9,100 8,000 100 10,400 9,200 Source: USGS, 2002 2.T-4 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.3-5 Monthly Runoff on Salt Creek at Rowell Gauging Station for the Years 1952 through 1957 and 1988 Droughts Runoff per Year (in)

Month 1952 a 1953 a 1954 a 1955 a 1956 a 1957 a 1988 b January ---c 0.11 0.13 0.18 0.05 0.20 0.96 c

February --- 0.20 0.08 0.53 0.49 0.39 0.83 c

March --- 1.60 0.14 0.57 0.28 0.20 0.72 c c April --- 1.57 0.43 0.54 0.19 --- 1.00 c

May --- 0.43 0.12 0.43 2.33 ---c 0.16 c c June --- 0.52 0.35 0.89 0.67 --- 0.05 c c July --- 0.90 0.03 0.19 0.18 --- 0.03 August 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.33 ---c 0.02 c

September 0.04 0.03 0.006 0.03 0.03 --- 0.02 c

October 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.20 0.01 --- 0.03 c

November 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.03 --- 0.03 December 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.04 ---c 0.05 c c Annual Total --- 5.57 1.46 3.77 4.63 --- 3.90 a

CPS, 1982 b

USGS, 2002 c

Data not available TABLE 2.3-6 Postdam Low Flow Rates for Various Frequencies for Salt Creek at Clinton Lake Dam Recurrence Interval (year) Low Flow Rate with One-Day Duration (cfs) 2 8.1 5 6.1 10 5.2 20 3.9 50 2.9 100 2.4 Source: USGS, 2002 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-5

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.3-7 Standard Dam Operating Procedures Gate Gate Gate Lake Elevation (12 in x 12 in @ 686 ft) (12 in x 12 in @ 684 ft) (24 in x36 in @ 650.88 ft)

> 687 Open Closed Closed 685 - 687 Open Open Closed 685 Open Open Open with Management (Drought condition) Approval Source: IDOT, 1984 Notes: Operational activities will be performed by CPS Personnel. Gates will be opened and/or closed by use of a manual crank. Operator activities are based on lake level elevation; therefore, as a result of periodic surveillance when the lake level approaches 687 ft the Nuclear Station Engineering Department will notify CPS staff of the need to initiate operator involvement.

TABLE 2.3-8 Summary of Lake Sediment Studies Location Duration Volume of Sediment Salt Creek near Rowell 1950-1956 0.10 ac-ft/yr/mi2 85 reservoirs in Illinois ---a 0.40 ac-ft/yr/mi2 Lake Bloomington (61 mi2) 1929-1955 0.50 ac-ft/yr/mi2 Lake Decatur (906 mi2) 1922-1966 0.18 ac-ft/yr/mi2 2

Lake Springfield (265 mi ) 1934-1965 0.53 ac-ft/yr/mi2 2

Five surface water sampling 1972 <0.50 ac-ft/yr/mi locations on Salt Creek Source: CPS, 1982 a

Data not available 2.T-6 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.3-9 Summary of Capacities and Depths at Clinton Lake Before and After Deposition of Sediment Interval (years) 10 yrs 20 yrs 25 yrs 30 yrs 40 yrs 50 yrs 55 yrs 60 yrs (1988) (1998) (2003) (2008) (2018) (2028) (2033) (2038)

Salt Original 59,360 59,360 59,360 59,360 59,360 59,360 59,360 59,360 Creek Capacity (ac-ft)

Sediment 840 1,680 2,100 2,520 3,360 4,200 4,620 5,040 Volume (ac-ft)

Available 58,520 57,680 57,260 56,840 56,000 55,160 54,740 54,320 Capacity (ac-ft)

North Original 14,840 14,840 14,840 14,840 14,840 14,840 14,840 14,840 Fork Capacity Creek (ac-ft)

Sediment 640 1,290 1,610 1,930 2,570 3,410 3,730 3,840 Volume (ac-ft)

Available 14,200 13,500 13,210 12,910 12,270 11,430 11,110 11,000 Capacity (ac-ft)

Clinton Original 74,200 74,200 74,200 74,200 74,200 74,200 74,200 74,200 Lake Capacity (ac-ft)

Sediment 1,480 2,970 3,710 4,450 5,930 7,610 8,350 8,880 Volume (ac-ft)

Available 72,720 71,230 70,490 69,750 68,270 66,590 65,850 65,320 Capacity (ac-ft)

Reduction in Depth 7.2 7.8 ---a 8.2 9.0 9.4 ---a ---a at the Dam (ft)

Source: CPS, 1982 a

Data not available Note: 25-, 55-, and 60-yr intervals were extrapolated from Table 2.4-11 of CPS, 1982.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-7

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.3-10 Simulated Clinton Lake Temperatures Simulated Lake Temperature (°F) 1966 1964 1954 Month Day 1 Day 15 Day 1 Day 15 Day 1 Day 15 January 35.1 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 February 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 35.6 March 32.0 37.1 34.3 40.0 40.0 38.7 April 43.7 46.4 40.3 49.3 43.4 54.8 May 55.1 57.3 57.0 67.0 63.3 61.0 June 69.5 70.5 69.7 74.8 67.0 76.6 July 81.3 82.2 82.8 78.3 81.8 81.2 August 78.9 76.5 81.3 73.6 80.1 77.9 September 77.6 71.4 74.6 71.5 79.4 72.0 October 61.6 58.0 63.9 57.2 70.0 62.2 November 48.9 43.8 52. 53.9 48.0 46.6 December 38.6 33.5 37.2 32.0 38.7 33.3 Source: CPS, 1982 Notes: Temperatures are simulated estimates for the lake surface in the absence of a power plant and represent 3:00 p.m. values. Values for years 1966 and 1964 are based on Peoria, Illinois, Weather Station and year 1954 is based on Springfield, Illinois, Weather Station.

2.T-8 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.3-11 Measured Temperatures 100 ft Below the Clinton Lake Dam (1994-2000)

Temperature (°F)

Year June July August Day 1 Day 15 Day 1 Day 15 Day 1 Day 15 1994 72.7 76.4 79.9 79.6 79.6 76.2 1995 69.8 73.8 78.2 85.5 81.3 86.3 1996 68.4 78 83.8 78 78.9 80.1 1997 62 68.4 78.5 79 78.5 76.3 1998 71.8 71.4 79 81.6 80.1 ---a 1999 69.9 77.8 78.6 80.2 83.5 78.9 2000 70.4 73.5 78.1 83.8 80.7 80.1 Source: USGS, 2002 a

Data not available DEL-096-REV0 2.T-9

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.3-12 Stratigraphic Units and Their Hydrogeologic Characteristics Geologic Stratigraphic Hydrogeolo System Unit Description gic System Hydrogeologic Characteristics Quaternary Henry Clayey silt overlying Alluvium Groundwater occurs in permeable sand and Formation stratified silt, sand, or gravel deposits underlying the fine-grained gravel floodplain deposits. Yields are generally suitable for domestic or farm use. Sufficient quantities for municipal use may be available in those areas along the larger streams where thick sand and gravel deposits are present.

Richland Clayey silt, trace fine Wisconsinan Groundwater may be obtained from sand and Loess sand deposits gravel lenses in the Wisconsinan tills.

Groundwater occurs under water table Wedron Clayey sandy silt till with conditions in the Wisconsinan deposits.

Formation interbedded discontinuous lenses of stratified silt, sand, or gravel Robien Silt Silt, some organics, trace Interglacial clay, and fine sand Zone Glasford Sandy silt till, with Illinoian Groundwater may be obtained from sand and Formation interbedded discontinuous deposits gravel lenses in the Illinoian tills. Groundwater lenses of stratified silt, occurs under artesian conditions in the Illinoian sand, or sandy silt; upper deposits. Yields from wells that intercept good 10 ft is highly weathered water-yielding sand and gravel deposits are (altered) suitable for domestic and farm purposes.

Higher yields for small industrial or municipal supply are locally available. Where sand and gravel deposits are thin or absent, small amounts of groundwater may be obtained using large-diameter wells.

Banner Complex sequence of Kansan Groundwater may be obtained from Kansan Formation stratified silt, sandy clay deposits outwash deposits (Banner Formation) in the till, and sand and gravel buried Mahomet Bedrock Valley. Groundwater outwash occurs under artesian conditions in the Kansan deposits. Kansan sand and gravel deposits in the buried Mahomet Bedrock Valley comprise the major aquifer in the area. Yields of up to 2,000 gpm may be obtained from a suitably constructed well located in the main channel of the valley Pennsylvanian Bond Formation Shale with thin beds of Pennsylvania Groundwater occurs in thin sandstone and limestone, sandstone, n bedrock fractured limestone beds under artesian Modesto siltstone underclay, and conditions. Small quantities of groundwater, Formation coal suitable only for domestic or farm supply, may be obtained from the upper 50 to 100 ft of the Carbondale Pennsylvanian formations.

Formation Spoon Formation Abbott Formation Mississippian, Various Sandstone, limestone, Mississippian, The best groundwater yields are from wells that Silurian, Formations and dolomite units Silurian, intersect bedding planes, fractures, and Devonian Devonian solution channels.

bedrock Source: CPS, 2002; USGS, 1995 Note: Excavations for the CPS did not extend below the Glasford Formation. CPS borings did not fully penetrate rocks of the Carbondale Formation. The ESP borings did not fully penetrate the Modesto Formation.

2.T-10 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.3-13 Historical and Recent Piezometer Data Tested Interval c Surface Stratigraphic a, b Piezometer Date of Elevation Depth Elevation Units Open to Investigation Number Installation (ft, msl) (ft) (ft, msl) Piezometer CPS D-23B d 7-14-72 655.8 11.5-16.0 639.8-644.3 Alluvium CPS D-30B d 7-26-72 669.9 3.5-12.0 657.9-666.4 Alluvium d

CPS D-3B 7-13-72 660.0 10.5-20.5 639.5-649.5 Alluvium d

CPS D-8B 7-19-72 655.7 1.5-16.0 639.7-654.2 Alluvium CPS P-1B d 6-26-72 675.9 10.0?-?  ?-665.9? Alluvium CPS OW-18 7-16-79 656.5 7.0-15.0 641.5-649.5 Alluvium and Fill d

CPS D-19B 7-13-72 658.9 23.0-30.0 628.9-635.9 Alluvium and Illinoian CPS OW-12 8-2-77 659.2 17.0-25.0 634.2-642.2 Alluvium and Illinoian CPS OW-19 7-16-79 654.5 6.0-18.5 636.0-648.5 Alluvium and Illinoian b

ESP B-2 8-2002 737.2 8-28 729.2-709.2 Wisconsinan b

ESP B-3 8-2002 734.1 16-26 718.1-708.1 Wisconsinan CPS D-50 4-30-73 718.0 2.0-37.0 681.0-716.0 Wisconsinan d

CPS E-1B 7-13-72 733 30-40 693-703 Wisconsinan CPS OW-22B 10-9-79 665.9 5.5-20.0 645.9-660.4 Wisconsinan CPS OW-3d 5-10-76 735.9 10-40 695.9-725.9 Wisconsinan CPS OW-3s 5-10-76 735.9 5-10 725.9-730.9 Wisconsinan CPS OW-4d 5-7-76 721.0 10-23.5 697.5-711.0 Wisconsinan CPS OW-4s 5-7-76 720.9 2.5-6.5 714.1-718.1 Wisconsinan CPS OW-5d 5-7-76 712.6 10-18.2 694.4-702.6 Wisconsinan CPS OW-5s 5-7-76 712.8 4-8 704.8-708.8 Wisconsinan CPS OW-6d 5-10-76 743.2 10-52 691.2-733.2 Wisconsinan CPS OW-6s 5-10-76 743.3 2.5-7.5 735.8-740.8 Wisconsinan CPS OW-7d 5-13-76 718.6 10-25 693.6-708.6 Wisconsinan CPS OW-7s 5-13-76 718.6 2-6 712.6-716.6 Wisconsinan CPS P-37 d 8-27-73 739.1 16.0-40.0 699.1-723.1 Wisconsinan d

CPS P-40 10-19-73 742.1 10.0-38.0 704.1-732.1 Wisconsinan CPS D-46 4-24-73 710.3 2.0-27.0 683.3-708.3 Wisconsinan and Illinoian DEL-096-REV0 2.T-11

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.3-13 Historical and Recent Piezometer Data Tested Interval c Surface Stratigraphic a, b Piezometer Date of Elevation Depth Elevation Units Open to Investigation Number Installation (ft, msl) (ft) (ft, msl) Piezometer CPS D-47 d 4-24-73 714.8 2.0-38.0 676.8-712.8 Wisconsinan and Illinoian CPS D-48 4-24-73 715.3 2.0-39.0 676.3-713.3 Wisconsinan and Illinoian d

CPS OW-2 5-12-76 --e 5-20 --e Wisconsinan and Illinoian CPS OW-8 5-12-76 719.2 18-42 677.2-701.2 Wisconsinan and Illinoian CPS E-6B 7-25-72 736 0-151 585-736 Wisconsinan, Illinoian, and Kansan d

CPS E-7 7-20-72 712 0-151 560.5-712 Wisconsinan, Illinoian, and Kansan ESP B-1b 8-2002 738.6 80-90 658.6-648.6 Illinoian d

CPS D-19A 7-13-72 658.9 33.0-38.0 620.9-625.9 Illinoian d

CPS D-23A 7-14-72 655.8 25.0-31.5 624.3-630.8 Illinoian CPS D-30C d 7-27-72 669.9 45.0-50.0 619.9-624.9 Illinoian d

CPS D-3A 7-13-72 660.0 30.0-40.0 620.0-630.0 Illinoian d

CPS E-2B 7-12-72 746 60-68 678-686 Illinoian CPS E-3B 7-12-72 730 68-75 655-662 Illinoian CPS E-4B 7-6-72 740 80-96 644-654 Illinoian CPS E-5B 7-19-72 750 70-76 674-680 Illinoian CPS OW-1 5-12-76 716.7 60-70 646.7-656.7 Illinoian CPS OW-10 8-2-77 656.0 27.0-35.0 621.0-629.0 Illinoian CPS OW-11 8-2-77 654.5 19.0-27.0 627.5-635.5 Illinoian CPS OW-13 8-2-77 662.1 32.0-40.0 622.1-630.1 Illinoian CPS OW-14 8-2-77 657.1 23.0-31.0 626.1-634.1 Illinoian CPS OW-15 8-3-77 664.5 47.0-55.0 609.5-617.5 Illinoian CPS OW-16 8-3-77 657.9 22.0-30.0 627.9-635.9 Illinoian CPS OW-17 8-3-77 659.5 32.0-40.0 619.5-627.5 Illinoian CPS OW-22A 10-9-79 665.9 23.0-44.5 621.4-642.9 Illinoian CPS OW-9 8-1-77 654.3 16.5-24.5 629.8-637.8 Illinoian d

CPS P-1A 6-26-72 675.9 66.0?-79.5 596.4-609.9? Illinoian 2.T-12 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.3-13 Historical and Recent Piezometer Data Tested Interval c Surface Stratigraphic a, b Piezometer Date of Elevation Depth Elevation Units Open to Investigation Number Installation (ft, msl) (ft) (ft, msl) Piezometer CPS P-22B d 6-28-72 734.0 55.0-64.0 670.0-679.0 Illinoian d

CPS P-27 6-6-72 742.9 57.5 85.4 Illinoian d

CPS P-31 9-11-73 736.8 50.0-159.0 577.8-686.8 Illinoian CPS P-39 d 8-28-73 740.8 62.0-150.0 590.8-678.8 Illinoian d

CPS P-7B 7-5-72 737.5 70.0-78.0 659.5-667.5 Illinoian CPS OW-20 7-17-79 658.4 10.0-34.4 624.0-648.4 Illinoian and Fill CPS OW-21 10-8-79 670.0 5.0-55.0 615.0-665.0 Illinoian and Fill CPS OW-23 10-10-79 654.5 5.0-34.5 620.0-649.5 Illinoian and Fill CPS OW-24 10-11-79 654.9 5.0-34.0 620.9-649.9 Illinoian and Fill d

CPS P-17 7-10-72 738.3 149.9- 498.3-589.3 Illinoian and 240.0 Kansan d

CPS P-20 6-28-72 738.3 170.0- 432.8-568.3 Illinoian, 305.5 Kansan, and Bedrock d

CPS D-31 6-16-72 667.7 158.0- 311.2-509.7 Illinoian, 356.5 Mahomet Sand, and Bedrock d

CPS P-36 11-6-73 738.2 178.0- 515.2-560.2 Kansan 223.0 CPS E-3A 7-5-72 730 214-238 492-516 Kansan and Mahomet Sand d

CPS D-11 6-21-72 653.8 140.0- 310.3-513.8 Kansan, 343.5 Mahomet Sand, and Bedrock a CPS data as reported in CPS, 2002.

b ESP data as reported for wells installed in 2002.

c Tested Interval refers to portion of piezometer backfilled with pea gravel and open to stratigraphic unit.

d Piezometer has been destroyed by construction activities.

e Data not available.

Note: ? indicates that the exact depth was not been recorded.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-13

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.3-14 Laboratory Permeability Test Data Average Field Field Coefficient of Moisture Dry Permeability Estimated Boring Elevation Soil Geologic Type of Content Density at 20°C Porosity a

Number (ft-in) Type Unit Test (lb/ft3) (cmps) b Dam Site Borings D-3 626.2 ML Illinoian Falling 7.5% 144 3.9E-09 16.8%

Glacial Till head D-10 627.0 ML Illinoian Falling 7.2% 131 1.0E-08 16.3%

Glacial Till head D-13 676.4 SP Interglacial Constant 24.8% 94 1.8E-04 40.0%

Zone head D-13 661.4 SP, SW Interglacial Constant 6.4% 105 4.7E-03 14.8%

Zone head D-13 632.0 ML Illinoian Falling 7.3% 142 3.8E-09 16.4%

Glacial Till head D-24 631.0 ML Salt Creek Falling 7.4% 123 1.8E-08 16.5%

Alluvium head D-34 664.8 SP, GP Interglacial Constant 6.2% 112 2.3E-03 14.3%

Zone head D-34 649.8 SP, GP Interglacial Constant 17.5% 118 2.0E-04 32.0%

Zone head D-34 629.8 ML Illinoian Falling 7.8% 138 6.5E-09 17.4%

Glacial Till head D-37 663.7 SP, SW Interglacial Constant 12.2% 116 3.0E-03 24.7%

Zone head D-37 643.7 ML, CL Illinoian Falling 11.7% 134 1.3E-08 24.0%

Glacial Till head Station Site Borings P-14 654.8 ML Illinoian Falling 9.5% 129 2.5E-08 Glacial Till head P-14 579.8 ML Illinoian Falling 8.1% 139 9.5E-09 Glacial Till head P-18 683.7 ML, SM Illinoian Falling 10.3% 131 2.3E-07 Glacial Till head Source: CPS, 2002 a

Soil Types:

GP = Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines SW = Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines SP = Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines SM = Silty sands, silt-sand mixtures ML = Inorganic silts with very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts, with slight plasticity CL = Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays b

The unit cmps stands for centimeter per second.

2.T-14 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.3-15 Field Permeability Tests Ground Zone of Average Surface Percolation Coefficient of Elevation Elevation Permeability Estimated Boring Number (ft) (ft) Geologic Unit (cmps) b Porosity D-19 658.9 625.0-620.9 Illinoian Till 1.4E-05 26.7%

D-23 655.8 630.8-624.3 Illinoian Till 6.1E-06 24.5%

E-1B 733.0 703.0-693.0 Wisconsinan Till 1.5E-06 ---a P-37 741.5 726.1-701.1 Wisconsinan Till 2.6E-06 25.7%

Source: CPS, 2002 a

Data not available b

The unit cmps stands for centimeter per second.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-15

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.3-16 Laboratory Permeability for Site Soils Remolded Sample Average Coefficient of Boring Elevation Soil Geologic Moisture Dry Density Permeability at a

Number (ft msl) Type Unit Test Type Content (lb/ft3) 20°C (cmps)

S-10 702.6- Clay Wisconsinan Falling head 13.6% 126 3.2E-09 697.6 Glacial Till S-10 702.6- Clay Wisconsinan Falling head 12.4% 125 2.0E-08 697.6 Glacial Till S-14 727.2- Clay Wisconsinan Falling head 16.8% 109 1.6E-08 720.2 Glacial Till S-14 727.2- Clay Wisconsinan Falling head 11.0% 125 1.0E-08 720.2 Glacial Till Source: CPS, 2002 a

The unit cmps stands for centimeter per second.

TABLE 2.3-17 Relative Density Data for Site Soils Minimum Dry Maximum Dry Density Boring Elevation Density (lb/ft3)

Number (ft) Soil Type Geologic Unit (lb/ft3) (wet method)

D-11 473.8 Sand and Mahomet Bedrock 92 113 gravel Valley Outwash D-11 424.8 Sand and Mahomet Bedrock 91 118 gravel Valley Outwash Source: CPS, 2002 2.T-16 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.3-18 Water Withdrawals by County Population/Usage Public Supply Withdrawals Domestic Supply Withdrawals (thousands) (MGD) (MGD)

Number of Pop. Served by Pop. Served by Total Pop. Pop. Served Producing Public Supply Public Supply Served by by Domestic Ground- Surface Ground- Surface County Wells Groundwater Surface Water Public Supply Supply water Water Total water Water Total Champaign 3,755 166.88 0 166.88 2.22 22.59 0 22.59 0.2 0 0.2 Christian 1,523 13.96 5.08 19.04 15.88 2.13 0.77 2.9 1.43 0 1.43 DeWitt 997 12.38 0 12.38 4.44 1.48 0 1.48 0.4 0 0.4 Douglas 1,114 13.06 0 13.06 6.74 1.26 0 1.26 0.61 0 0.61 Ford 876 9.23 0 9.23 4.9 1.73 0 1.73 0.44 0 0.44 Livingston 1,535 11.02 17.43 28.45 11.95 1.88 2.97 4.85 1.08 0 1.08 Logan 1,360 25.97 0 25.97 5.3 3.2 0 3.2 0.48 0 0.48 Macon 1,575 4.96 95.34 100.3 16.11 1.96 37.74 39.7 1.45 0 1.45 Mason 1,636 8.96 0 8.96 7.73 1.16 0 1.16 0.7 0 0.7 McLean 2,241 42.38 36.79 79.17 60.1 5.64 4.9 10.54 5.41 0 5.41 Menard 780 8.73 0 8.73 3.55 0.76 0 0.76 0.32 0 0.32 Moultrie 714 9.75 0 9.75 4.42 1.16 0 1.16 0.4 0 0.4 Piatt 958 6.58 0 6.58 9.58 1.35 0 1.35 0.86 0 0.86 Sangamon 2,284 13.67 129.45 143.12 41.61 2.27 21.52 23.79 3.74 0 3.74 Shelby 2,003 7.09 6.9 13.99 8.57 1.21 1.18 2.39 0.77 0 0.77 Tazewell 3,051 112.64 0.82 113.46 14.14 14.66 0.11 14.77 1.27 0 1.27 Woodford 1,890 5.28 16.22 21.5 13.08 2.13 6.54 8.67 1.18 0 1.18 Source: USGS, 1995a DEL-096-REV0 2.T-17

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.3-18 (CONTINUED)

Water Withdrawals by County Commercial Withdrawals (MGD) Industrial Withdrawals (MGD) Irrigation Withdrawals (MGD)

Number of Producing Ground- Surface Ground- Surface Ground- Surface Total Agricultural a

County Wells water Water Total water Water Total water Water Total Withdrawals (MGD)

Champaign 3,755 0.1 0.03 0.13 2.27 0 2.27 5.32 0 5.32 5.57 Christian 1,523 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.16 0 0.16 0.43 DeWitt 997 0.04 0 0.04 0 0 0 0.38 0 0.38 0.68 Douglas 1,114 0.03 0 0.03 0 3.32 3.32 0.02 0 0.02 0.28 Ford 876 0.09 0 0.09 0.1 0 0.1 0.62 0 0.62 0.88 Livingston 1,535 0 0.21 0.21 0.08 0 0.08 0.29 0 0.29 0.96 Logan 1,360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.64 0 0.64 1.09 Macon 1,575 0.01 0 0.01 0.6 4.36 4.96 0.26 0 0.26 0.43 Mason 1,636 4.35 9.17 13.52 0 0 0 35.57 0 35.57 42.4 McLean 2,241 0.12 0 0.12 0 0 0 0.26 0 0.26 0.89 Menard 780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.52 0 0.52 0.85 Moultrie 714 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 0 0.02 0 0.02 0.2 Piatt 958 0.02 0 0.02 0.79 0 0.79 0.15 0 0.15 0.27 Sangamon 2,284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.49 0 0.49 1.03 Shelby 2,003 0.29 0 0.29 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0.92 Tazewell 3,051 0.02 0 0.02 12.99 22.84 35.83 11.61 0 11.61 12.24 Woodford 1,890 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0.26 0 0.26 0.88 Source: USGS, 1995a a

Total Agricultural Withdrawals is the total of irrigation withdrawals and livestock withdrawals.

2.T-18 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.3-19 Water Quality at Clinton Lake Monitoring Sites 1987 to 1991a 1991 to 2000b Site 4 Site 2 IEPA Sites Constituent Intake Discharge (combined)

Temperature (°C)

Average 19.3 24.6 23.4 Max 29.0 36.2 32.7 Min 6.2 8.2 14.9 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

Average 9.3 8.1 8.6 Max 16.2 12.6 14.5 Min 5.0 4.8 5.4 Turbidity (NTU) (NTU) (FTU)

Average 8.0 11.0 8.2 Max 11.0 28.0 28.5 Min 4.0 4.7 3.3 Hardness (mg/l) c Average 233 233 --

c Max 284 291 --

c Min 186 186 --

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) c Average 276 277 --

c Max 340 370 --

c Min 210 220 --

Magnesium (mg/l) c Average 32 32 --

c Max 37 40 --

c Min 27 26 --

Chloride (mg/l) c Average 27.2 27.2 --

c Max 37.2 35.2 --

c Min 20.6 21.2 --

Orthophosphate c

Average Annual 0.01 0.02 --

c Max 0.06 0.08 --

c Min 0.00 0.00 --

Sulfate (mg/l) c Average 39 39 --

c Max 54 55 --

c Min 29 30 --

d Chlorophyll-a (µg/l) c c Average -- -- 33.5 c c Max -- -- 103.2 c c Min -- -- 2.1 a

CPS, 1992 b

USEPA, 2002a c

Data not available.

d Chlorophyll-a concentration determined using the Spectrophotometric method. Data range for Chlorophyll-a is 1981 to 2000.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-19

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.3-20 Chemical Analyses of Glacial Drift Groundwater Samples from Selected Site Piezometers Piezometer Number E-7 E-6 D-3A E-5B P-22 P-14 D-31 E-3A Depth To 5 12 10 19 30 60 60 10 Water (ft)

Tested Wisconsinan Wisconsinan, Illinoian Illinoian Illinoian Illinoian Illinoian, Kansan Aquifer and Illinoian Illinoian, and and Kansan, Kansan Kansan and Bedrock pH 6.70 6.62 6.77 7.01 7.19 6.90 9.98 7.25 Ca++ 17 62 40 43 46 39 35 36 Mg++ 28 82 49 38 42 45 2 41 Na+ 16 24 60 100 34 11 18 46 K+ 3 1 9 8 4 1 4 5 Cl- 12 12 37 35 14 15 40 15 SO4-- 55 325 180 30 70 30 60 65 CO3 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 HCO3- 55 278 122 262 214 149 0 195

--a --a --a --a --a --a Fe 0.32 0.10 SiO2 5 26 19 28 18 19 30 23 Source: CPS, 2002 a

Concentration was below the detection limit of about 0.1 ppm.

Notes: All concentrations except pH are reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L). Locations of the piezometers are shown in Figure 2.3-16.

2.T-20

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.3-21 Quality of Groundwater in Illinoian versus Kansan Aquifers Illinoian Aquifer Kansan Aquifer Parameter Range (mg/L) Mean (mg/L) Range (mg/L) Mean (mg/L)

Iron 0.6-3.2 1.8 0.2-3.0 1.2 Chloride Trace-37 4 Trace-66 11 Sulfate 0-9 2.3 0-5 0.9 Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 278-475 363 284-454 363 Hardness (as CaCO3) 170-595 299 150-438 293 Total Dissolved Minerals 310-478 379 295-636 414 Source: CPS, 1982 TABLE 2.3-22 Summary of the General Groundwater Chemistry of the Glasford (Illinoian) Sand and Gravel Aquifers Number of Standard Constituent Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Deviation Calcium 29 35.0 202 98.0 92.0 36.6 Magnesium 30 25.0 224 53.8 42.1 36.7 Sodium 30 0.0 254 47 32 51 Potassium 13 1.0 2.2 1.7 1.6 0.4 Chloride 86 1.0 452 29 5 63 Sulfate 33 0.0 250 57 24 70 Arsenic 12 0.0 0.020 0.005 0.004 6.59 Iron 86 0.0 28.5 3.0 2.50 4.19 Lead 12 0.0 0.030 0.008 0.006 8.30 Manganese 35 0.0 0.800 0.056 0.028 136.61 pH 20 6.4 8.0 7.2 7.2 0.45 Alkalinity 86 154 652 396 396 95 Ammonia 9 0.13 5.0 1.91 1.30 1.79 Hardness 86 216 1056 423 360 165 TDS 86 263 1556 535 476 227 Source: IDNR et al., 1995 Notes: Constituent concentrations are in mg/L; hardness and alkalinity are measured as CaCO3. Results of 0.0 indicate that concentration was below method detection limit (MDL).

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-21

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.3-23 Partial Water Quality Analysis for CPS Test Well in the Mahomet Bedrock Valley Aquifer Parameter a A&H Engineering Corp b Illinois State Water Survey c PH 7.4 Not reported Hardness 279 (EDTA) 264 (as CaCO3)

Alkalinity 472 (total) 480 (as CaCO3)

Chloride 140 160 Fluoride Not reported 0.7 Sulfate <1 Not reported Nitrate 0.13 (as N) 0.9 Silica (as SiO2) 19 Not reported Iron (total) 4.5 1.6 Manganese 0.15 (total) 0.08 Total Dissolved Solids 641 784 Source: CPS, 1982 a All parameters except pH are reported in milligrams per liter.

b Water samples were collected on September 26 and 27, 1974, during test pumping of well.

c Water sample was collected from test well on September 11, 1974.

Notes: A gas flow measurement was made during test well pumping on September 26, 1979, by the Illinois State Water Survey. Results of two gas analyses indicated that methane comprised more than 80 percent of the total gas sample.

2.T-22

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.3-24 Water Quality Results for Mahomet Aquifer Study in DeWitt County Owner Parameter Green Acres City of City of City of (mg/L) AmerGen a Campground b

Decatur c Decatur d Decatur e pH 7.29 7.43 7.28 7.21 7.30 Hardness 237 277 269 307 348 Alkalinity 443 423 431 433 401 Chloride 128 71 76 54 53 Fluoride 0.64 0.86 0.80 0.68 0.48 Sulfate 2.72 0.57 0.40 0.46 14.2 Nitrate < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06 Iron (total) 2.18 1.90 1.52 2.00 0.56 Magnesium 25.3 34.6 33.2 36.1 36.0 Total Dissolved 670 560 582 553 513 Solids Manganese 0.025 0.019 0.023 0.027 0.045 Calcium 53.1 53.9 53.1 63.4 80.3 Sodium 168 125 129 97 76 Barium 0.59 0.86 1.42 1.40 1.49 Boron 0.245 0.767 0.688 0.508 0.488 Chromium < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 Copper 0.004 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 Nickel < 0.007 < 0.007 < 0.007 < 0.007 < 0.007 Zinc 0.085 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 a

ISWS, 2000. Date Collected: 8/1/00, Well Depth (ft): 340 b

ISWS, 2000a. Date Collected: 6/27/00, Well Depth (ft): 335 c

ISWS, 2000b. Date Collected: 6/28/00, Well Depth (ft): 318 d

ISWS, 2000c. Date Collected: 6/28/00, Well Depth (ft): 296 e

ISWS, 2000d. Date Collected: 6/28/00, Well Depth (ft): 296 Note: < = Below detection limit (i.e., < 1.0 = less than 1.0 mg/L)

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-23

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.3-25 Summary of the General Groundwater Chemistry of the Sankoty-Mahomet Sand Aquifer Number of Standard Constituent Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Deviation Calcium 39 15.9 193 76.3 72.0 24.74 Magnesium 38 25.5 67.8 35.3 33.8 8.39 Sodium 36 0.0 160 55 27 50.23 Potassium 25 1.2 3.3 2.0 2.1 0.65 Chloride 61 1.0 100 25.2 8.8 27.93 Sulfate 34 0.0 122 16.1 2.5 26.85 Arsenic 25 0.0 0.051 0.016 0.014 12.80 Iron 62 0.07 12.5 2.95 2.35 2.35 Lead 19 0.0 0.040 0.008 0.006 10.55 Manganese 44 0.0 0.235 0.053 0.040 57.9 pH 31 6.8 8.1 7.3 7.4 0.3 Alkalinity 64 300 644 416 426 78.3 Ammonia 20 0.0 9.2 3.3 2.2 2.96 Hardness 58 197 761 333 322 77.64 TDS 62 312 789 469 465 112 Source: IDNR et al., 1995 Notes: Constituent concentrations except for pH are in mg/L; hardness and alkalinity are measured as CaCO3.

Results of 0.0 indicate that concentration was below method detection limit.

TABLE 2.4-1 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats Important Species Important Habitats White-tailed deer Clinton Lake State Recreation Area Various species of waterfowl (including mallard, Weldon Springs State Recreation Area scaup, wood duck, redhead, black duck, pintail, teal, coot, Canada goose)

Small game mammals (including cottontail rabbit, Salt Creek (Illinois Natural Area Inventory Site) raccoon, possum, fox, skunk, coyote, squirrel)

Tenmile Creek (Illinois Natural Area Inventory Site)

Wetlands within Site Vicinity Source: IDNR, 2002, 2002b, 2002c, 2002d, 2002e 2.T-24

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.4-2 Biological Stream Characterization Summary Category Stream Biotic Resource Description Class Quality Unique Aquatic A Excellent Comparable to the best situations without Resource human disturbance.

Highly Valued B Good Good fishery for important gamefish species.

Aquatic Resource Species richness may be somewhat below expectations for stream size or geographic region.

Moderate Aquatic C Fair Fishery consists primarily of catfish, sunfish, Resource and carp. Species diversity and number of intolerant fish reduced. Trophic structure skewed with increased frequency of omnivores, green sunfish or tolerant species.

Limited Aquatic D Poor Fishery predominantly for carp; fish community Resource dominated by omnivores and tolerant forms.

Species richness may be notably lower than expected for geographic area, stream size, or available habitat.

Restricted Aquatic E Very Poor Few fish of any species present; no sport Resource fishery exists. Species richness very limited.

Source: IEPA, 2002 TABLE 2.4-3 Important Aquatic Species and Habitats within the Site and Vicinity Important Species Channel catfish Striped bass Largemouth bass Walleye Important Habitats Clinton Lake State Recreation Area Weldon Springs State Recreation Area Salt Creek (Illinois Natural Area Inventory Site)

Tenmile Creek (Illinois Natural Area Inventory Site)

Wetlands within Site Vicinity Sources: IDNR, 2002, 2002d, 2002e, 2002f, 2002g, 2002j, 2002k, 2002l DEL-096-REV0 2.T-25

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-1 2000 Resident and Transient Population Within 16 km (10 mi) km 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-16 Total for mi 0-1.2 1.2-2.5 2.5-3.7 3.7-5 5-6.2 6.2-10 Sector North-Residential 0 10 16 30 25 51 132 North-Transient 0 0 0 3 1 3 7 North North East-Residential 0 9 12 49 33 88 191 North North East-Transient 0 0 0 7 1 3 11 North East-Residential 1 5 4 11 8 85 114 North East-Transient 1,115 0 0 0 1 3 1,119 East North East-Residential 1 3 194 16 27 164 405 East North East-Transient 0 0 264 0 1 3 268 East-Residential 0 3 10 42 11 43 109 East-Transient 0 0 864 0 1 2 867 East South East-Residential 0 0 12 5 39 58 114 East South East-Transient 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 South East-Residential 0 1 15 11 440 35 502 South East-Transient 0 1,848 0 0 162 2 2,012 South South East-Residential 0 8 8 11 15 69 111 South South East-Transient 0 0 0 0 1 9 10 South-Residential 0 2 19 10 13 73 117 South-Transient 630 0 3 0 1 3 637 South South West-Residential 0 0 92 21 12 60 185 South South West-Transient 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 South West-Residential 0 0 24 46 68 161 299 South West-Transient 0 437 0 1 677 403 1,518 West South West-Residential 0 8 29 22 198 2,147 2,404 West South West-Transient 0 821 0 0 4 537 1,362 West-Residential 0 55 37 23 1,245 5,207 6,567 West-Transient 0 3 0 1 11 3,749 3,764 West North West-Residential 1 16 8 10 23 743 801 West North West-Transient 0 0 0 1 1 19 21 North West-Residential 5 11 11 12 11 150 200 North West-Transient 0 0 0 0 1 153 154 North North West-Residential 0 11 14 9 13 60 107 North North West-Transient 73 0 0 0 1 3 77 Residential Total 8 142 505 328 2,181 9,194 12,358 Cumulative Total (Residential 1,826 3,251 1,636 341 3,047 14,091 24,192 plus Transient)

Source: Residential Population is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2001. Transient Population is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2001; IDNR, 2002; USDOC, 2002 2.T-26

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.5-2 Resident and Transient Population Projections Within 16 km (10 mi) km 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-16 Total for mi 0-1.2 1.2-2.5 2.5-3.7 3.7-5 5-6.2 6.2-10 Sector North-Residential 2010 population 0 9 15 29 24 52 129 2020 population 0 9 15 28 24 53 129 2030 population 0 9 15 27 23 55 129 2040 population 0 9 14 27 22 57 129 2050 population 0 8 14 26 22 59 129 2060 population 0 8 14 25 21 60 128 North-Transient 2010 population 0 0 0 3 1 3 7 2020 population 0 0 0 3 1 3 7 2030 population 0 0 0 3 1 3 7 2040 population 0 0 0 3 1 3 7 2050 population 0 0 0 3 1 3 7 2060 population 0 0 0 3 1 4 7 North North East-Residential 2010 population 0 9 11 47 31 86 184 2020 population 0 9 11 46 30 86 182 2030 population 0 8 11 44 30 86 179 2040 population 0 8 10 43 29 85 175 2050 population 0 8 10 42 28 85 173 2060 population 0 8 10 41 27 85 171 North North East-Transient 2010 population 0 0 0 7 1 3 11 2020 population 0 0 0 7 1 3 10 2030 population 0 0 0 6 1 3 10 2040 population 0 0 0 6 1 3 10 2050 population 0 0 0 6 1 3 10 2060 population 0 0 0 6 1 3 10 North East-Residential 2010 population 1 5 4 10 8 81 109 2020 population 1 5 4 10 8 79 107 2030 population 1 4 4 10 8 77 104 2040 population 1 4 4 10 7 76 102 2050 population 1 4 4 9 7 74 99 2060 population 1 4 4 9 7 72 97 North East-Transient 2010 population 1,115 0 0 0 1 3 1,119 2020 population 1,115 0 0 0 1 3 1,119 2030 population 1,115 0 0 0 1 3 1,119 2040 population 1,115 0 0 0 1 3 1,119 2050 population 1,115 0 0 0 1 3 1,118 2060 population 1,115 0 0 0 1 3 1,118 East North East-Residential 2010 population 1 3 184 16 26 155 385 2020 population 1 3 180 15 25 152 376 2030 population 1 3 175 15 25 148 367 2040 population 1 3 171 15 24 145 359 2050 population 1 3 167 14 24 141 350 2060 population 1 3 163 14 23 137 341 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-27

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-2 Resident and Transient Population Projections Within 16 km (10 mi) km 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-16 Total for mi 0-1.2 1.2-2.5 2.5-3.7 3.7-5 5-6.2 6.2-10 Sector East North East-Transient 2010 population 0 0 250 0 1 3 254 2020 population 0 0 245 0 1 3 249 2030 population 0 0 238 0 1 3 242 2040 population 0 0 233 0 1 3 236 2050 population 0 0 227 0 1 3 231 2060 population 0 0 222 0 1 3 225 East-Residential 2010 population 0 3 10 40 10 41 104 2020 population 0 3 9 39 10 41 102 2030 population 0 2 9 38 10 41 100 2040 population 0 2 9 37 9 41 98 2050 population 0 2 9 36 9 41 97 2060 population 0 2 8 35 9 40 94 East-Transient 2010 population 0 0 864 0 1 2 867 2020 population 0 0 778 0 1 2 780 2030 population 0 0 778 0 1 2 780 2040 population 0 0 778 0 1 2 780 2050 population 0 0 778 0 1 2 780 2060 population 0 0 691 0 1 2 694 East South East-Residential 2010 population 0 0 11 5 37 57 110 2020 population 0 0 11 5 37 57 110 2030 population 0 0 11 5 36 57 109 2040 population 0 0 10 5 35 57 107 2050 population 0 0 10 5 34 58 107 2060 population 0 0 10 5 33 58 106 East South East-Transient 2010 population 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 2020 population 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 2030 population 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 2040 population 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 2050 population 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 2060 population 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 South East-Residential 2010 population 0 1 14 10 418 35 478 2020 population 0 1 14 10 408 35 468 2030 population 0 1 13 10 398 36 458 2040 population 0 1 13 10 389 36 449 2050 population 0 1 13 9 379 37 439 2060 population 0 1 12 9 369 37 428 South East-Transient 2010 population 0 1,848 0 0 154 2 2,004 2020 population 0 1,848 0 0 150 2 2,000 2030 population 0 1,848 0 0 147 2 1,997 2040 population 0 1,848 0 0 143 2 1,993 2050 population 0 1,848 0 0 140 2 1,990 2060 population 0 1,848 0 0 136 2 1,986 2.T-28

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.5-2 Resident and Transient Population Projections Within 16 km (10 mi) km 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-16 Total for mi 0-1.2 1.2-2.5 2.5-3.7 3.7-5 5-6.2 6.2-10 Sector South South East-Residential 2010 population 0 8 7 10 14 69 108 2020 population 0 8 7 10 14 68 107 2030 population 0 7 7 10 13 68 105 2040 population 0 7 7 9 13 68 104 2050 population 0 7 7 9 13 67 103 2060 population 0 7 7 9 12 67 102 South South East-Transient 2010 population 0 0 0 0 1 9 10 2020 population 0 0 0 0 1 9 10 2030 population 0 0 0 0 1 9 10 2040 population 0 0 0 0 1 9 10 2050 population 0 0 0 0 1 9 10 2060 population 0 0 0 0 1 9 10 South-Residential 2010 population 0 1 18 10 12 73 114 2020 population 0 1 18 9 12 73 113 2030 population 0 1 17 9 12 73 112 2040 population 0 1 17 9 11 73 111 2050 population 0 1 17 9 11 72 110 2060 population 0 1 16 9 11 72 109 South-Transient 2010 population 630 0 3 0 1 3 637 2020 population 630 0 3 0 1 3 637 2030 population 630 0 3 0 1 3 637 2040 population 630 0 3 0 1 3 637 2050 population 630 0 3 0 1 3 636 2060 population 630 0 3 0 1 3 636 South South West-Residential 2010 population 0 0 87 20 12 59 178 2020 population 0 0 85 20 12 58 175 2030 population 0 0 83 19 11 57 170 2040 population 0 0 81 19 11 57 168 2050 population 0 0 79 18 11 56 164 2060 population 0 0 77 18 10 56 161 South South West-Transient 2010 population 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 2020 population 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 2030 population 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 2040 population 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 2050 population 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 2060 population 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 South West-Residential 2010 population 0 0 22 44 65 154 285 2020 population 0 0 22 43 63 150 278 2030 population 0 0 21 42 62 147 272 2040 population 0 0 21 41 60 143 265 2050 population 0 0 20 40 59 139 258 2060 population 0 0 20 39 57 136 252 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-29

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-2 Resident and Transient Population Projections Within 16 km (10 mi) km 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-16 Total for mi 0-1.2 1.2-2.5 2.5-3.7 3.7-5 5-6.2 6.2-10 Sector South West-Transient 2010 population 0 437 0 1 647 385 1,471 2020 population 0 437 0 1 627 375 1,441 2030 population 0 437 0 1 617 368 1,423 2040 population 0 437 0 1 597 358 1,393 2050 population 0 437 0 1 587 348 1,373 2060 population 0 437 0 1 567 340 1,346 West South West-Residential 2010 population 0 8 27 21 188 2,041 2,285 2020 population 0 7 27 20 184 1,993 2,231 2030 population 0 7 26 20 180 1,945 2,178 2040 population 0 7 26 19 175 1,898 2,125 2050 population 0 7 25 19 171 1,850 2,072 2060 population 0 7 24 18 166 1,802 2,017 West South West-Transient 2010 population 0 821 0 0 4 510 1,335 2020 population 0 718 0 0 4 498 1,221 2030 population 0 718 0 0 4 486 1,208 2040 population 0 718 0 0 4 475 1,197 2050 population 0 718 0 0 3 463 1,185 2060 population 0 718 0 0 3 451 1,172 West-Residential 2010 population 0 52 36 22 1,183 4,950 6,243 2020 population 0 51 35 21 1,155 4,834 6,096 2030 population 0 50 34 21 1,128 4,719 5,952 2040 population 0 48 33 20 1,100 4,603 5,804 2050 population 0 47 32 20 1,073 4,487 5,659 2060 population 0 46 31 19 1,045 4,372 5,513 West-Transient 2010 population 0 3 0 1 10 3,564 3,578 2020 population 0 3 0 1 10 3,480 3,494 2030 population 0 3 0 1 10 3,398 3,411 2040 population 0 3 0 1 10 3,314 3,327 2050 population 0 3 0 1 9 3,231 3,244 2060 population 0 3 0 1 9 3,148 3,160 West North West-Residential 2010 population 1 15 8 10 22 706 762 2020 population 1 15 8 9 22 689 744 2030 population 1 14 7 9 21 673 725 2040 population 1 14 7 9 21 656 708 2050 population 1 14 7 9 20 640 691 2060 population 1 13 7 9 20 624 674 West North West-Transient 2010 population 0 0 0 1 1 18 20 2020 population 0 0 0 1 1 18 19 2030 population 0 0 0 1 1 17 19 2040 population 0 0 0 1 1 17 19 2050 population 0 0 0 1 1 16 18 2060 population 0 0 0 1 1 16 18 2.T-30

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.5-2 Resident and Transient Population Projections Within 16 km (10 mi) km 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-16 Total for mi 0-1.2 1.2-2.5 2.5-3.7 3.7-5 5-6.2 6.2-10 Sector North West-Residential 2010 population 4 10 11 12 11 142 190 2020 population 4 10 10 11 10 139 184 2030 population 4 10 10 11 10 136 181 2040 population 4 10 10 11 10 132 177 2050 population 4 9 10 11 10 129 173 2060 population 4 9 9 10 9 126 167 North West-Transient 2010 population 0 0 0 0 1 145 146 2020 population 0 0 0 0 1 142 143 2030 population 0 0 0 0 1 139 140 2040 population 0 0 0 0 1 135 136 2050 population 0 0 0 0 1 132 132 2060 population 0 0 0 0 1 129 129 North North West-Residential 2010 population 0 10 13 9 12 59 103 2020 population 0 10 13 9 12 60 104 2030 population 0 10 12 8 12 61 103 2040 population 0 9 12 8 11 62 102 2050 population 0 9 12 8 11 63 103 2060 population 0 9 11 8 11 63 102 North North West-Transient 2010 population 73 0 0 0 1 3 77 2020 population 73 0 0 0 1 3 77 2030 population 73 0 0 0 1 3 77 2040 population 73 0 0 0 1 3 77 2050 population 73 0 0 0 1 3 77 2060 population 73 0 0 0 1 3 77 2010 population Residential Total 7 134 478 315 2,073 8,760 11,767 Cumulative Total 1,825 3,243 1,595 328 2,900 13,423 23,309 (Residential plus Transient) 2020 population Residential Total 7 132 469 305 2,026 8,567 11,506 Cumulative Total 1,825 3,138 1,494 317 2,829 13,123 22,719 (Residential plus Transient) 2030 population Residential Total 7 126 455 298 1,979 8,379 11,244 Cumulative Total 1,825 3,132 1,473 310 2,767 12,834 22,330 (Residential plus Transient) 2040 population Residential Total 7 123 445 292 1,927 8,189 10,983 Cumulative Total 1,825 3,129 1,458 304 2,691 12,537 21,929 (Residential plus Transient) 2050 population Residential Total 7 120 436 284 1,882 7,998 10,727 Cumulative Total 1,825 3,126 1,444 295 2,632 12,242 21,544 (Residential plus Transient)

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-31

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-2 Resident and Transient Population Projections Within 16 km (10 mi) km 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-16 Total for mi 0-1.2 1.2-2.5 2.5-3.7 3.7-5 5-6.2 6.2-10 Sector 2060 population Residential Total 7 118 423 277 1,830 7,807 10,462 Cumulative Total 1,825 3,124 1,339 288 2,556 11,947 21,057 (Residential plus Transient)

Source: ISU, 2002 Notes: 2010 and 2020 projections are based on a methodology determined by the Illinois State University. They are based on 1990 populations and fertility, mortality, and migration rates from the early 1990s. They have not been adjusted for the 2000 Census population. Population projections from the 2000 Census are being prepared by the State of Illinois and are expected to be released in 2004 to 2006. A ratio of the population in 2010 and 2020 was used to determine the projected population for 2030, 2040, 2050, and 2060. Transient population was assumed to follow the same population trends as residential population.

2.T-32

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.5-3 2000 Resident and Transient Population Between 16 km and 80 km (10 mi and 50 mi) km 16-40 40-60 60-80 mi 10-25 25-37 37-50 Total for Sector North-Residential 10,558 5,161 6,645 22,364 North-Transient 39 329 81 449 North North East-Residential 4,874 2,426 12,357 19,657 North North East-Transient 4,063 40 124 4,227 North East-Residential 1,852 4,552 3,665 10,069 North East-Transient 21 52 78 151 East North East-Residential 3,987 7,622 18,845 30,454 East North East-Transient 133 230 421 784 East -Residential 9,734 114,051 8,157 131,942 East -Transient 63 1,934 60 2,057 East South East-Residential 3,266 22,665 8,686 34,617 East South East-Transient 37 235 82 354 South East-Residential 7,436 3,381 11,508 22,325 South East-Transient 58 63 262 383 South South East-Residential 2,526 5,910 9,581 18,017 South South East-Transient 33 51 132 216 South-Residential 14,620 12,296 3,125 30,041 South-Transient 196 1,958 34,287 36,441 South South West-Residential 69,848 15,636 19,275 104,759 South South West-Transient 1,094 1,056 104 2,254 South West-Residential 4,058 3,324 11,585 18,967 South West-Transient 40 45 11,418 44,503 West South West-Residential 1,585 3,483 58,674 63,742 West South West-Transient 34 43 241 318 West -Residential 1,381 20,729 5,931 28,041 West -Transient 26 1,196 71 1,293 West North West-Residential 3,770 3,724 12,702 20,196 West North West-Transient 67 54 101 222 North West-Residential 3,010 6,786 56,991 66,787 North West-Transient 27 294 412 733 North North West-Residential 79,919 35,630 14,481 130,030 North North West-Transient 1,423 1,097 155 2,675 Residential Total 222,424 267,376 262,208 752,008 Cumulative Total (Residential plus 229,778 276,053 310,237 816,068 Transient)

Source: CH2M HILL, 2002. Residential Population is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2001. Transient Population is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2001; IDNR, 2002; USDOC, 2002 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-33

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-4 Resident and Transient Population Projections Between 16 km and 80 km (10 mi and 50 mi) km 16-40 40-60 60-80 Total for Sector mi 10-25 25-37 37-50 North-Residential 2010 population 10,972 5,363 6,809 23,144 2020 population 11,599 5,670 7,085 24,354 2030 population 12,227 5,977 7,361 25,565 2040 population 12,854 6,283 7,637 26,774 2050 population 13,481 6,590 7,913 27,984 2060 population 14,109 6,897 8,189 29,195 North-Transient 2010 population 41 342 83 465 2020 population 43 361 86 491 2030 population 45 381 90 516 2040 population 47 401 93 541 2050 population 50 420 96 566 2060 population 52 440 100 592 North North East-Residential 2010 population 5,065 2,518 12,207 19,790 2020 population 5,354 2,659 12,185 20,198 2030 population 5,644 2,800 12,163 20,607 2040 population 5,934 2,941 12,141 21,016 2050 population 6,223 3,082 12,119 21,424 2060 population 6,513 3,223 12,097 21,833 North North East-Transient 2010 population 4,222 42 122 4,386 2020 population 4,463 44 122 4,629 2030 population 4,705 46 122 4,873 2040 population 4,947 48 122 5,117 2050 population 5,188 51 122 5,360 2060 population 5,429 53 121 5,604 North East-Residential 2010 population 1,920 4,509 3,613 10,042 2020 population 2,026 4,446 3,572 10,044 2030 population 2,132 4,383 3,530 10,045 2040 population 2,237 4,320 3,489 10,046 2050 population 2,343 4,258 3,448 10,049 2060 population 2,449 4,195 3,406 10,050 North East-Transient 2010 population 22 52 77 150 2020 population 23 51 76 150 2030 population 24 50 75 149 2040 population 25 49 74 149 2050 population 27 49 73 149 2060 population 28 48 72 148 East North East-Residential 2010 population 3,981 8,208 19,670 31,859 2020 population 4,026 8,656 20,297 32,979 2030 population 4,070 9,104 20,925 34,099 2040 population 4,115 9,552 21,552 35,219 2050 population 4,159 10,000 22,179 36,338 2060 population 4,204 10,448 22,807 37,459 2.T-34

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.5-4 Resident and Transient Population Projections Between 16 km and 80 km (10 mi and 50 mi) km 16-40 40-60 60-80 Total for Sector mi 10-25 25-37 37-50 East North East-Transient 2010 population 133 248 439 820 2020 population 134 261 453 849 2030 population 136 275 467 878 2040 population 137 288 481 907 2050 population 139 302 495 936 2060 population 140 315 510 965 East -Residential 2010 population 10,430 123,506 8,818 142,754 2020 population 11,014 130,812 9,325 151,151 2030 population 11,598 138,118 9,833 159,549 2040 population 12,182 145,423 10,341 167,946 2050 population 12,766 152,729 10,849 176,344 2060 population 13,350 160,035 11,356 184,741 East -Transient 2010 population 68 2,094 65 2,227 2020 population 71 2,218 69 2,358 2030 population 75 2,342 72 2,490 2040 population 79 2,466 76 2,621 2050 population 83 2,590 80 2,752 2060 population 86 2,714 84 2,884 East South East-Residential 2010 population 3,348 24,544 9,119 37,011 2020 population 3,489 25,996 9,488 38,973 2030 population 3,631 27,447 9,858 40,936 2040 population 3,773 28,899 10,228 42,900 2050 population 3,914 30,351 10,597 44,862 2060 population 4,056 31,803 10,967 46,826 East South East-Transient 2010 population 38 254 86 378 2020 population 40 270 90 399 2030 population 41 285 93 419 2040 population 43 300 97 439 2050 population 44 315 100 459 2060 population 46 330 104 479 South East-Residential 2010 population 7,538 3,424 11,427 22,389 2020 population 7,830 3,505 11,515 22,850 2030 population 8,123 3,587 11,603 23,313 2040 population 8,415 3,668 11,691 23,774 2050 population 8,707 3,750 11,779 24,236 2060 population 9,000 3,831 11,868 24,699 South East-Transient 2010 population 59 64 260 383 2020 population 61 65 262 389 2030 population 63 67 264 394 2040 population 66 68 266 400 2050 population 68 70 268 406 2060 population 70 71 270 412 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-35

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-4 Resident and Transient Population Projections Between 16 km and 80 km (10 mi and 50 mi) km 16-40 40-60 60-80 Total for Sector mi 10-25 25-37 37-50 South South East-Residential 2010 population 2,563 5,901 9,614 18,078 2020 population 2,655 6,006 9,830 18,491 2030 population 2,748 6,111 10,046 18,905 2040 population 2,840 6,215 10,262 19,317 2050 population 2,932 6,320 10,478 19,730 2060 population 3,024 6,425 10,694 20,143 South South East-Transient 2010 population 33 51 132 217 2020 population 35 52 135 222 2030 population 36 53 138 227 2040 population 37 54 141 232 2050 population 38 55 144 237 2060 population 40 55 147 242 South-Residential 2010 population 14,988 12,540 3,174 30,702 2020 population 15,068 12,636 3,359 31,063 2030 population 15,147 12,733 3,543 31,423 2040 population 15,226 12,829 3,728 31,783 2050 population 15,305 12,926 3,912 32,143 2060 population 15,385 13,022 4,097 32,504 South-Transient 2010 population 201 1,997 34,825 37,022 2020 population 202 2,012 36,854 39,069 2030 population 203 2,028 38,873 41,104 2040 population 204 2,043 40,903 43,150 2050 population 205 2,058 42,922 45,485 2060 population 206 2,074 44,952 47,231 South South West-Residential 2010 population 71,610 16,027 19,193 106,830 2020 population 71,988 16,114 19,463 107,565 2030 population 72,366 16,202 19,733 108,301 2040 population 72,744 16,290 20,003 109,037 2050 population 73,122 16,378 20,273 109,773 2060 population 73,500 16,466 20,542 110,508 South South West-Transient 2010 population 1,122 1,082 104 2,308 2020 population 1,128 1,088 105 2,321 2030 population 1,133 1,094 106 2,334 2040 population 1,139 1,100 108 2,347 2050 population 1,145 1,106 109 2,361 2060 population 1,151 1,112 111 2,374 South West-Residential 2010 population 4,180 3,453 12,191 19,824 2020 population 4,207 3,508 12,467 20,182 2030 population 4,233 3,563 12,744 20,540 2040 population 4,260 3,618 13,021 20,899 2050 population 4,286 3,673 13,298 21,257 2060 population 4,313 3,729 13,575 21,617 2.T-36

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.5-4 Resident and Transient Population Projections Between 16 km and 80 km (10 mi and 50 mi) km 16-40 40-60 60-80 Total for Sector mi 10-25 25-37 37-50 South West-Transient 2010 population 41 47 12,015 12,103 2020 population 41 47 12,287 12,376 2030 population 42 48 12,560 12,650 2040 population 42 49 12,833 12,924 2050 population 42 50 13,106 13,198 2060 population 43 50 13,379 13,472 West South West-Residential 2010 population 1,595 3,727 63,458 68,780 2020 population 1,589 3,787 65,682 71,058 2030 population 1,583 3,847 67,906 73,336 2040 population 1,577 3,907 70,130 75,614 2050 population 1,571 3,967 72,354 77,892 2060 population 1,565 4,028 74,578 80,171 West South West-Transient 2010 population 34 46 261 341 2020 population 34 47 270 351 2030 population 34 47 279 360 2040 population 34 48 288 370 2050 population 34 49 297 380 2060 population 34 50 306 390 West-Residential 2010 population 1,413 22,179 6,300 29,892 2020 population 1,415 22,525 6,631 30,571 2030 population 1,417 22,871 6,963 31,251 2040 population 1,419 23,218 7,294 31,931 2050 population 1,421 23,564 7,626 32,611 2060 population 1,423 23,910 7,957 33,290 West-Transient 2010 population 27 1,280 75 1,382 2020 population 27 1,300 79 1,406 2030 population 27 1,320 83 1,430 2040 population 27 1,340 87 1,454 2050 population 27 1,360 91 1,478 2060 population 27 1,380 95 1,502 West North West-Residential 2010 population 3,912 3,880 12,941 20,733 2020 population 3,991 3,945 13,134 21,070 2030 population 4,070 4,010 13,327 21,407 2040 population 4,149 4,074 13,519 21,742 2050 population 4,228 4,139 13,712 22,079 2060 population 4,307 4,204 13,904 22,415 West North West-Transient 2010 population 70 56 103 229 2020 population 71 57 104 233 2030 population 72 58 106 236 2040 population 74 59 107 240 2050 population 75 60 109 244 2060 population 77 61 111 248 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-37

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-4 Resident and Transient Population Projections Between 16 km and 80 km (10 mi and 50 mi) km 16-40 40-60 60-80 Total for Sector mi 10-25 25-37 37-50 North West-Residential 2010 population 3,116 6,994 58,417 68,527 2020 population 3,284 7,237 59,515 70,036 2030 population 3,451 7,480 60,613 71,544 2040 population 3,619 7,723 61,712 73,054 2050 population 3,787 7,966 62,810 74,563 2060 population 3,955 8,209 63,908 76,072 North West-Transient 2010 population 28 303 422 753 2020 population 29 314 430 773 2030 population 31 324 438 793 2040 population 32 335 446 813 2050 population 34 345 454 833 2060 population 35 356 462 853 North North West-Residential 2010 population 83,049 37,128 16,035 136,212 2020 population 87,798 39,354 17,933 145,085 2030 population 92,547 41,579 19,830 153,956 2040 population 97,296 43,804 21,728 162,828 2050 population 102,044 46,030 23,625 171,699 2060 population 106,793 48,255 25,523 180,571 North North West-Transient 2010 population 1,479 1,143 172 2,793 2020 population 1,563 1,212 192 2,967 2030 population 1,648 1,280 212 3,140 2040 population 1,732 1,349 233 3,314 2050 population 1,817 1,417 253 3,487 2060 population 1,902 1,486 273 3,660 2010 population Residential Total 229,680 283,901 272,986 786,567 Cumulative Total 237,296 293,001 322,228 852,525 (Residential plus Transient) 2020 population Residential Total 237,333 296,856 281,481 815,670 Cumulative Total 245,298 306,255 333,097 884,650 (Residential plus Transient) 2030 population Residential Total 244,987 309,812 289,978 844,777 Cumulative Total 253,302 319,510 343,959 916,771 (Residential plus Transient) 2040 population Residential Total 252,640 322,764 298,476 873,880 Cumulative Total 261,306 332,760 354,833 948,899 (Residential plus Transient) 2050 population Residential Total 260,289 335,723 306,972 902,984 Cumulative Total 269,304 346,018 365,693 981,016 (Residential plus Transient) 2.T-38

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.5-4 Resident and Transient Population Projections Between 16 km and 80 km (10 mi and 50 mi) km 16-40 40-60 60-80 Total for Sector mi 10-25 25-37 37-50 2060 population Residential Total 267,946 348,680 315,468 932,094 Cumulative Total 277,311 359,274 376,565 1,013,150 (Residential plus Transient)

Source: ISU, 2002 Notes: 2010 and 2020 projections are based on a methodology determined by the Illinois State University. They are based on 1990 populations and fertility, mortality, and migration rates from the early 1990s. They have not been adjusted for the 2000 Census population. Population projections from the 2000 Census are being prepared by the State of Illinois and are expected to be released 2004 to 2006. A ratio of the population in 2010 and 2020 was used to determine the projected population for 2030, 2040, 2050, and 2060. Transient population was assumed to follow the same population trends as residential population.

TABLE 2.5-5 Age and Sex Distribution Within the Region Low Population Zone Emergency Planning Zone Region (2.5-mi radius) (10-mi radius) (50-mi radius)

Male 55.89% 48.79% 48.99%

Female 44.11% 51.21% 51.01%

Under 5 yrs 4.48% 6.59% 6.21%

5-9 yrs 4.17% 7.03% 6.66%

10-17 yrs 15.16% 11.43% 10.91%

18-21 yrs 4.77% 4.60% 9.22%

22-29 yrs 2.12% 9.49% 11.40%

30-39 yrs 13.19% 14.47% 13.76%

40-49 yrs 23.84% 15.26% 14.69%

50-59 yrs 6.60% 11.23% 10.53%

60-69 yrs 14.02% 8.64% 7.12%

70-79 yrs 9.91% 7.07% 5.84%

80-84 yrs 0.83% 2.43% 1.90%

85 yrs and Over 0.91% 1.76% 1.76%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-39

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-6 Racial and Ethnic Distribution Within the Region Two or African- Native More American Asian Hawaiian Hispanic American Caucasian Other Races Low Population Zone 0% 0.35% 0% 0% 0.67% 95.74% 0.64% 2.61%

2.5-mi radius Emergency Planning 0.59% 0.35% 0.02% 1.52% 0.22% 96.40% 0.15% 0.74%

Zone 10-mi radius Region 7.75% 2.15% 0.02% 1.84% 0.17% 86.86% 0.10% 1.10%

50-mi radius Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001a 2.T-40

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.5-7 Income Distribution Within the Region - Percent of Households Low Population Zone Emergency Planning Region (2.5-mi radius) Zone (10-mi radius) (50-mi radius)

Less Than $10,000 2.59% 7.88% 8.29%

$10,000 to $14,999 4.03% 7.86% 6.75%

$15,000 to $19,999 6.34% 6.88% 6.19%

$20,000 to $24,999 5.48% 6.48% 7.11%

$25,000 to $29,999 3.75% 6.56% 7.31%

$30,000 to $34,999 4.32% 6.77% 7.03%

$35,000 to $39,999 4.03% 7.10% 6.13%

$40,000 to $44,999 5.48% 5.12% 6.25%

$45,000 to $49,999 6.92% 4.87% 6.31%

$50,000 to $59,999 14.12% 10.84% 10.60%

$60,000 to $74,999 13.54% 11.75% 10.86%

$75,000 to $99,999 16.14% 8.69% 9.09%

$100,000 to $124,999 6.34% 4.65% 3.79%

$125,000 to $149,999 2.59% 1.91% 1.73%

$150,000 to $199,999 3.75% 1.76% 1.53%

$200,000 or More 0.58% 0.88% 1.03%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001 and 2001b Note: Percent of population below the poverty level is not shown in this table, since poverty level is a function of both income and household size.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-41

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-8 Employment by Industry 1990 2000 Industry Number of Jobs Percent of Number of Jobs Percent of Total Total Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing 6,946 1.1% 6,357 0.9%

Construction 29,136 4.6% 38,485 5.2%

Farming 25,636 4.0% 22,879 3.1%

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 46,291 7.2% 64,975 8.8%

Government and Government Enterprises 121,872 19.1% 125,485 17.0%

Manufacturing 87,735 13.7% 90,601 12.3%

Mining 1,735 0.3% 640 0.1%

Retail Trade 108,781 17.0% 127,409 17.3%

Services 157,102 24.6% 198,829 27.0%

Transportation and Public Utilities 28,639 4.5% 34,198 4.7%

Wholesale Trade 25,024 3.9% 26,733 3.6%

Total 638,897 736,591 Source: USDOC, 2002 2.T-42

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.5-9 Employer City Employees Agricultural A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co Decatur 720 Archer Daniels Midland Decatur 3,300 Grain Systems Inc. Taylorville 850 Distribution Hobbico Champaign 700 Supervalu Urbana 625 Education Bloomington School District 87 Bloomington 708 Champaign School District Champaign 1,305 Decatur Public Schools Decatur 1,325 Illinois Central College East Peoria 1,400 Illinois State University Normal 3,400 Illinois Wesleyan University Bloomington 550 Millikin University Decatur 590 Normal School Unit 5 Normal 1,343 Parkland College Champaign 1,200 SIU School of Medicine Springfield 1,200 Springfield School District 186 Springfield 2,112 University of Illinois Urbana 20,571 Urbana School District Urbana 887 Government City of Decatur Decatur 583 City of Springfield Springfield 1,707 Federal Bureau of Prisons Pekin 3,130 Illinois National Guard Springfield 2,700 McLean County Government Bloomington 942 Pontiac Correctional Center Pontiac 800 State of Illinois Springfield 21,600 Health Care BroMenn Normal 1,860 Carle Clinic Urbana 2,918 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-43

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-9 Employer City Employees Carle Foundation Urbana 2,100 Christie Clinic Association Champaign 800 Decatur Memorial Hospital Decatur 2,200 Memorial Health Systems Springfield 3,500 OSF/St. Joseph Medical Center Bloomington 1,000 Pekin Memorial Hospital Pekin 680 Provena Covenant Urbana 1,200 Springfield Clinic Springfield 1,100 St. Johns Hospital Springfield 3,588 St. Marys Hospital Decatur 1,200 Manufacturing Bell Sports/Bell Racing Rantoul 561 Bridgestone/Firestone Normal 575 Caradco Rantoul 510 Caterpillar, Inc. Decatur 2,000 Caterpillar Morton 1,800 Caterpillar, Inc. Pontiac 1,170 Caterpillar Tractor - Earth East Peoria 4,000 Eagle Wings Ind. Rantoul 513 Eaton Cutler Hammer Lincoln 625 Interlake, Inc. Pontiac 530 Kraft Foods Champaign 1,300 Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of Normal 3,200 America Morton Metalcraft - Sheet Morton 950 Nestle USA Bloomington 625 Plastipak Packaging Inc. Champaign 600 Solo Cup Urbana 700 Textron Auto Co, Rantoul Products Rantoul 1,211 Verizon Bloomington 750 Retail Meijer Champaign 584 Walmart East Peoria 500 2.T-44

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.5-9 Employer City Employees Services Anderson Financial Network Bloomington 1,118 Boyd Gaming East Peoria 1,100 Country Companies Insurance Bloomington 2,118 Horace Mann Insurance Company Springfield 1,310 Lincoln Developmental Center Lincoln 683 Pekin Insurance Pekin 650 R.R. Donnelley and Sons, Inc. Pontiac 710 Roman Catholic Diocese Springfield 1,600 State Farm Insurance Bloomington-Normal 15,889 Transportation G & D Transportation - Trucking Morton 755 Norfolk Southern Corp. Decatur 600 Star Transport Morton 1,150 Utilities Illinois Power Company Decatur 1,250 Source: IDDCA, 2002 Notes: Last updated 6/2001 for Bloomington, 3/2002 for Champaign, 3/2002 for Decatur, 10/2001 for East Peoria, 9/2001 for Lincoln, 3/2001 for Morton, 6/2001 for Normal, 8/2001 for Pekin, 5/2001 for Pontiac, 8/2001 for Rantoul, 6/2002 for Springfield, 2/2001 for Taylorville, 3/2002 for Urbana, and 12/2001 for Washington.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-45

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-10 Regional Employment Trends Workers Workers Percent Change in Unemployment Unemployment Employed Employed Workers Employed Rate Rate County 1990 2000 1990-2000 1990 2000 DeWitt 7,632 7,318 -4.3% 6.10% 7.40%

Champaign 88,002 96,832 9.1% 3.30% 2.40%

Christian 16,651 18,000 7.5% 5.60% 5.40%

Coles 23,854 26,723 10.7% 6.00% 4.10%

Douglas 9,253 12,567 26.4% 4.70% 3.40%

Ford 6,575 6,469 -1.6% 4.70% 3.60%

Iroquois 13,973 15,259 8.4% 5.30% 4.50%

Livingston 18,008 19,872 9.4% 3.50% 3.40%

Logan 12,891 13,546 4.8% 5.90% 3.60%

McLean 69,106 90,126 23.3% 3.70% 2.50%

Macon 54,038 57,334 5.7% 7.10% 5.10%

Mason 6,863 8,055 14.8% 7.80% 6.10%

Menard 5,598 6,093 8.1% 4.50% 3.60%

Moultrie 6,210 8,071 23.1% 6.40% 4.00%

Piatt 7,789 8,115 4.0% 5.20% 3.40%

Sangamon 96,063 97,929 1.9% 3.90% 3.60%

Shelby 9,662 10,885 11.2% 7.10% 5.10%

Tazewell 59,582 68,531 13.1% 5.40% 3.70%

Vermilion 37,107 36,400 -1.9% 9.70% 6.60%

Woodford 15,818 18,817 15.9% 3.40% 2.80%

Total 564,675 626,942 9.9%

Source: USDOL, 2002 2.T-46

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.5-11 Taxing Body Taxing Rate DeWitt County 0.5809%

Clinton Community School District 15 2.2141%

Harp Township 6.0278%a a

-- Richland Community College District 537 ---

-- Multi-Township Assessment District 3 ---a

-- Vespasian Warner Public Library District ---a

-- Mahomet Valley Water Authority ---a a

Harp Township, Richland Community College District 537, Multi-Township Assessment District 3, Vespasian Warner Public Library District, and Mahomet Valley Water Authority have a combined tax rate of 6.0278%.

Note: Last updated 10/2000 for Clinton. Clinton Nuclear Generating Station Settlement Agreement, January 31, 2001.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-47

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-12 Housing Characteristics Total Housing Number Number Number County Units Vacant Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Champaign 75,280 4,683 39,329 31,268 Christian 14,992 1,071 10,610 3,311 Coles 22,768 1,725 13,028 8,015 DeWitt 7,282 512 5,076 1,694 Douglas 8,005 431 5,827 1,747 Ford 6,060 421 4,297 1,342 Iroquois 13,362 1,142 9,335 2,885 Livingston 15,297 923 10,655 3,719 Logan 11,872 759 7,925 3,188 McLean 59,972 3,226 37,710 19,036 Macon 50,241 3,680 33,345 13,216 Mason 7,033 644 4,905 1,484 Menard 5,285 412 3,847 1,026 Moultrie 5,743 338 4,241 1,164 Piatt 6,798 323 5,191 1,284 Sangamon 85,459 6,737 55,082 23,640 Shelby 10,060 1,004 7,337 1,719 Tazewell 52,973 2,646 38,293 12,034 Vermilion 36,349 2,943 23,953 9,453 Woodford 13,487 690 10,591 2,206 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001 TABLE 2.5-13 Available Housing Within the Region Area Rental Property Sale Property Source Clinton 3 2 Clinton Daily Journal, August 8, 2002 Decatur 58 55 Herald & Review, August 12, 2002 Springfield 68 16 State Journal Register, August 12, 2002 DeWitt County 0 56 DeWitt County, August 8, 2002 Central Illinois 23 33 Pantagraph, August 12, 2002 2.T-48

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.5-14 Agricultural Lands Total Land Area of Total Land in Percent of Total Number of Average Farm County County (ac) Farms (ac) Land Area Farms Size (ac)

DeWitt 259,194 204,896 79% 463 443 Champaign 638,047 567,697 89% 1,371 414 Christian 458,131 389,958 85% 820 476 Coles 326,257 256,974 79% 681 377 Douglas 266,983 249,551 93% 630 396 Ford 315,000 314,806 99% 550 572 Iroquois 715,022 667,134 93% 1,393 479 Livingston 668,865 613,645 92% 1,380 445 Logan 396,265 380,921 96% 739 515 McLean 759,116 696,575 92% 1,475 472 Macon 374,537 332,875 89% 665 501 Mason 360,904 291,579 81% 486 600 Menard 202,002 170,231 84% 352 484 Moultrie 220,398 172,657 78% 464 372 Piatt 281,744 253,317 90% 448 565 Sangamon 561,666 466,956 83% 993 470 Shelby 491,433 418,688 85% 1,250 335 Tazewell 421,188 328,289 78% 909 361 Vermillion 577,006 484,846 84% 984 493 Woodford 347,335 299,763 86% 923 325 Source: IDOA, 2001 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-49

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.5-15 2000 Agricultural Cash Receipts All other Cattle and Hogs and Total County Corn Soybeans Wheat crops Calves Pigs Receipts DeWitt $28,577 $22,410 $68 $780 $911 $999 $53,745 Champaign $76,714 $62,648 $450 $5,280 $2,352 $4,696 $152,140 Christian $52,319 $37,690 $870 $2,354 $1,290 $6,495 $101,018 Coles $29,435 $23,824 $337 $1,125 $1,821 $1,998 $58,540 Douglas $30,777 $25,515 $75 $2,255 $2,277 $1,199 $62,098 Ford $37,853 $33,197 $217 $714 $1,062 $5,795 $78,838 Iroquois $80,200 $66,394 $710 $10,414 $10,168 $4,896 $172,782 Livingston $67,651 $63,248 $374 $1,910 $3,642 $28,577 $165,402 Logan $50,159 $37,563 $313 $1,882 $1,594 $21,083 $112,594 McLean $92,599 $74,742 $281 $2,312 $5,995 $13,689 $189,618 Macon $43,937 $33,219 $145 $1,021 $1,290 $2,998 $82,610 Mason $30,359 $20,184 $1,269 $29,325 $2,201 $5,496 $88,834 Menard $18,432 $14,619 $486 $1,083 $2,504 $7,094 $44,218 Moultrie $21,379 $16,675 $174 $1,385 $1,062 $999 $41,674 Piatt $33,567 $28,274 $103 $605 $835 $3,697 $67,081 Sangamon $59,679 $46,999 $401 $2,014 $3,035 $10,092 $122,220 Shelby $36,122 $29,946 $2,702 $1,508 $7,133 $11,191 $88,602 Tazewell $38,207 $30,650 $479 $16,703 $3,035 $11,591 $100,665 Vermilion $55,102 $50,106 $601 $2,047 $2,884 $2,998 $113,738 Woodford $35,264 $30,586 $240 $1,839 $2,656 $16,889 $87,474 Source: IDOA, 2001 Notes: Total and selected commodities in thousands of dollars.

2.T-50

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-1 Climatological Data from Peoria and Springfield, Illinois Station Parameter Peoria Springfield Location Distance (mi) 55 49 Direction from CPS Northwest West-Southwest Temperature Annual (°F) 51.1 53.2 Maximum (°F) 105 (July 1988) 112 (July 1954)

Minimum (°F) -25 (January 1977) -22 (February 1963)

Degree days (heating) 6,226 5,654 Degree days (cooling) 948 1,165 Relative Humidity (%)

Annual average at 6 A.M. 83 82 Annual average at Noon 61 61 Wind Annual average speed (mph) 10.1 11.2 Prevailing direction South South Southwest Fastest mile:

Speed (mph) 75 (July 1953) 75 (June 1957)

Direction Northwest Southwest Peak Gust Speed (mph) 69 (April 1989) 69 (August 1987)

Direction North West Precipitation (in.)

Annual average 34.89 33.78 Monthly maximum 13.09 (September 1961) 10.76 (July 1981)

Monthly minimum 0.03 (September 1979) Trace amount (September 1979) 24-hr maximum 5.06 (April 1950) 6.12 (December 1982)

Maximum Annual 55.35 (1990) 52.67 (1990)

Snowfall (in.)

Annual average 25.1 23.9 Monthly maximum 24.7 (January 1979) 22.7 (December 1973)

Maximum 24-hr 12.2 (January 1979) 10.9 (December 1973)

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-51

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-1 Climatological Data from Peoria and Springfield, Illinois Station Parameter Peoria Springfield Mean Annual (number of days)

Precipitation > 0.01 in. 113 113 Snow, sleet, hail > 1.0 in. 8 8 Heavy fog (visibility 0.25 mi or 21 17 less)

Maximum temperature > 90°F 20 31 Minimum temperature < 32°F 129 117 Source: Gale Research Company, 1985, 1992, 1992a Notes: These statistics are based on periods of record ranging from 22 to 50 years in length. The ranges span the years 1941 to 1990.

TABLE 2.7-2 Nonattainment Areas in Illinois Illinois Nonattainment Counties Nonattainment Pollutant(s)

Cook Ozone, PM-10 DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake, Madison, McHenry, Ozone Monroe, St. Claire, and Will Source: USEPA, 2002 2.T-52

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-3 Summary of Illinois Tornado Occurrences Tornado Intensity Number of Reported Occurrences (Fujita Tornado Scale) January 1, 1950 - April 30, 2002

> F0 1,16

> F1 1,16

> F2 509

> F3 164

> F4 43 F5 3 Source: NOAA, 2002a Notes:

F0: 40-72 mph F1: 73 - 112 mph F2: 113 - 157 mph F3: 158 - 206 mph F4: 207 - 260 mph F5: 261 - 318 mph TABLE 2.7-4 Reported Tornado Occurrences in DeWitt and Surrounding Counties County No. of Reported Tornadoes (1950 - 2002)

DeWitt 11 Piatt 19 Macon 41 Logan 33 McLean 84 Source: NOAA, 2002a DEL-096-REV0 2.T-53

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-5 Measures of Ice Glazing in Various Severe Winter Storms for the State of Illinois Radial Ratio of Ice Weight of Ice Thickness of Weight to (oz) on 1 ft of Ice on Wire Weight of 0.25- Standard (No. State Storm Date (in) in Twig 12) Wire City Section 2 - 4 February 1883 ---a ---a 11 Springfield WSW a a 20 March 1912 0.5 --- --- Decatur C 21 February 1913 2.0 ---a ---a La Salle NE a

12 March 1923 1.6 --- 12 Marengo NE 17 - 19 December 1924 1.2 15:1 8 Springfield WSW a

22 - 23 January 1927 1.1 --- 2 Cairo SE a a 31 March 1929 0.5 --- --- Moline NW 7 - 8 January 1930 1.2 ---a ---a Carlinville WSW a a 1 - 2 March 1932 0.5 --- --- Galena NW a

7 - 8 January 1937 1.5 --- ---a Quincy W a

31 Dec 1947 - 1 1.0 --- 72 Chicago NE January 1948 a

10 January 1949 0.8 --- ---a Macomb W a a a 8 December 1956 --- --- --- Alton WSW a

20 - 22 January 1959 0.7 12:1 --- Urbana E 26 - 27 January 1967 1.7 17:1 40 Urbana E Source: Changnon, 1969 a

Data not available Notes: C=Central, E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West TABLE 2.7-6 Wind-Glaze Thickness Relations for Five Periods of Greatest Speed and Greatest Thickness Five Periods When Five Fastest Five Periods When Five Greatest Ice 5-minute Speeds Were Registered Thicknesses Were Measured Rank Speed (mph) Ice Thickness (in) Ice Thickness (in) Speed (mph) 1 50 0.19 2.87 30 2 46 0.79 1.71 18 3 45 0.26 1.50 21 4 40 0.30 1.10 28 5 35 0.78 1.00 18 Source: Changnon, 1969 Notes: From data collected throughout the United States during period 1926-1937.

2.T-54

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-7 Seasonal Frequencies of Inversions Below 500 ft in Central Illinois Inversions Below 500 ft Percent of 24-hr Periods with at Least 1 hr of Season Percent of Total Hours Inversion Winter 29% 53%

Spring 29% 67%

Summer 33% 81%

Fall 39% 82%

Source: Hosler,1961 TABLE 2.7-8 Seasonal Values of Mean Daily Mixing Depth in Central Illinois Mean Daily Mixing Depths (m)

Season Morning Afternoon Winter 400 690 Spring 490 1,500 Summer 330 1,600 Fall 390 1,200 Source: Holzworth,1972 TABLE 2.7-9 Frequency of Occurrence of Wind Speed in the Site Area Percent of Occurrence Wind Speed (mps) 1972 - 1977 2000 - 2002

< 0.3 (calm) 0.3 0.03 0.3 to 1.4 7.7 13.83 1.5 to 3.0 28.2 40.40 3.1 to 5.0 30.7 31.41 5.1 to 8.0 23.7 12.21

> 8.0 9.4 2.16 Sources: CPS, 2002; ER Table 2.7-44 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-55

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-10 Summary of 10 m Ambient Temperature Measurements at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977)

Average Average Daily Average Daily Absolute Daily Maximum Minimum Maximum Absolute Minimum January -5.1 -1.3 -8.9 15.5 -28.8 February -1.3 1.9 -4.4 15.8 -23.6 March 5.9 10.5 1.6 25.5 -15.1 April 11.4 16.7 6.1 29.3 -6.5 May 16.4 21.2 11.2 32.1 0.0 June 21.2 26.1 16.0 33.0 5.0 July 23.6 28.4 18.5 35.2 8.1 August 22.1 26.8 17.4 23.2 9.1 September 17.7 22.8 12.7 33.3 0.8 October 11.9 17.1 6.9 30.0 -4.8 November 4.5 8.4 0.8 23.0 -15.8 December -2.3 1.3 -5.9 17.8 -23.8 Period of Record 10.5 15.0 6.0 35.2 -28.8 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Temperatures in oC.

2.T-56

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-11 Hourly Temperature Distribution at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977)

> 32.2°C < 0.0°C < -12.2°C < -17.8°C Hours Percent Hours Percent Hours Percent Hours Percent January 0 0.0% 2,628 72.5% 730 20.1% 225 6.2%

February 0 0.0% 2,019 60.5% 203 6.1% 48 1.4%

March 0 0.0% 808 21.9% 19 0.5% 0 0.0%

April 0 0.0% 188 4.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

May 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

June 8 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

July 67 1.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

August 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

September 3 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

October 0 0.0% 82 2.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

November 0 0.0% 948 26.4% 28 0.8% 0 0.0%

December 0 0.0% 2,414 65.9% 302 8.2% 56 1.5%

Period of Record 78 0.2% 9,088 21.0% 1,282 3.0% 329 0.8%

Source: CPS, 2002 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-57

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-12 Daily Temperature Distribution at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977)

> 32.2°C < 0.0°C < -12.2°C < -17.8°C Days Percent Days Percent Days Percent Days Percent January 0 0.0% 132 86.3% 55 35.9% 24 15.7%

February 0 0.0% 116 82.3% 21 14.9% 6 4.3%

March 0 0.0% 65 41.9% 2 1.3% 0 0.0%

April 0 0.0% 27 16.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

May 0 0.0% 1 0.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

June 3 2.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

July 15 10.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

August 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

September 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

October 0 0.0% 15 9.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

November 0 0.0% 73 48.7% 3 2.0% 0 0.0%

December 0 0.0% 129 83.8% 29 18.8% 8 5.2%

Period of Record 19 1.0% 558 30.5% 110 6.0% 38 2.1%

Source: CPS, 2002 2.T-58

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-13 Summary of Relative Humidity Measurements at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Period of Record Average 85.94 82.04 77.29 68.01 64.44 68.24 70.00 74.04 72.15 67.15 77.58 85.71 68.28 Average Daily Max. 92.10 89.77 87.75 83.96 80.77 83.26 85.13 86.04 85.33 80.75 86.61 90.47 79.01 Average Daily Min. 71.04 65.71 56.91 46.43 43.89 47.52 49.03 53.84 49.40 45.57 60.44 71.64 50.63 Absolute Max. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Absolute Min. 38.34 14.11 22.26 16.80 15.78 19.22 27.20 23.93 15.91 14.86 23.13 21.40 14.11 Average by Hour of Day 00 83.15 80.78 74.30 69.75 68.25 70.72 69.96 76.71 73.91 67.56 76.45 82.07 68.35 03 84.00 81.27 75.53 74.31 73.88 75.17 75.54 80.02 78.10 71.51 78.10 82.49 71.15 06 84.88 82.23 79.17 77.55 75.88 76.23 77.75 82.62 80.27 74.87 79.87 83.10 73.04 09 84.31 79.85 71.60 66.35 61.19 64.77 66.22 73.67 73.38 68.40 77.39 82.10 66.35 12 78.10 75.28 63.31 54.95 52.41 53.97 55.67 61.81 59.77 56.74 67.48 77.51 57.85 15 74.32 71.11 59.83 53.07 49.43 50.32 50.25 56.39 51.12 49.93 63.62 74.12 53.79 18 78.53 75.99 64.18 54.48 52.14 52.18 54.35 61.51 56.89 53.79 69.04 79.07 57.52 21 81.66 78.76 63.76 63.76 61.91 61.11 65.27 70.98 67.38 62.08 74.42 81.32 64.26 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-59

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION\

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-14 Summary of Wet Bulb Temperature Measurements at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977)

Average Average Daily Average Daily Absolute Absolute 57% Wet Daily Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Bulb Value a

January -4.13 0.27 -7.98 16.67 -28.35 --

February 0.43 4.31 -3.16 17.76 -20.42 --a March 8.67 13.36 3.6 27.7 -13.7 --a April 13.74 19.21 7.16 32.13 -6.05 --a May 18.84 23.52 12.27 33 2.25 --a June 23.19 27.32 16.69 34.17 5.52 --a July 25.49 29.28 19.1 35.59 9.64 --a a

August 23.64 27.61 17.67 32.41 9.64 --

September 19.95 24.79 13.75 33.15 1 --a a

October 14.1 19.38 7.95 33.13 -4.16 --

November 6.23 10.42 1.8 24.67 14.95 --a a

December -1.22 2.65 -5 18.67 -23.32 --

Period of Record 11.34 15.41 6.33 35.59 -28.35 28.17 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Temperatures in °C. Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77

--a = Data not available DEL-096-REV0 2.T-60

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-15 Summary of 10-m Dew Point Measurements at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977)

Average Average Daily Average Daily Absolute Absolute Daily Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum January -7.8 -4.4 -11.1 14.1 -29.5 February -4.0 -0.7 -7.5 13.6 -24.1 March 1.8 5.4 -1.2 17.7 -17.8 April 4.2 7.4 1.3 19.0 -10.0 May 8.1 11.0 5.2 22.7 -9.0 June 13.5 16.4 10.6 25.6 -0.3 July 16.5 19.3 14.0 25. 3.5 August 15.9 18.1 13.6 24.5 2.5 September 11.4 14.0 8.5 23.3 -7.1 October 4.2 7.1 1.4 9.1 -11.3 November -0.1 2.8 -2.7 16.3 -17.5 December -5.2 -2.1 -8.3 13.1 -25.7 Period of Record 4.7 7.8 1.9 25.6 -29.5 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Temperatures in °C. Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-61

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-16 Hourly Dew Point Temperature Persistence at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977)-Percent of Hours with Dew Point

> 18.3°C > 12.8°C > 7.2°C > 0.0°C January 0.0 0.1 2.0 16.5 February 0.0 0.2 3.5 27.9 March 0.0 5.9 21.7 58.9 April 0.1 9.9 32.8 73.7 May 3.0 22.1 59.1 89.5 June 19.3 54.1 89.0 99.9 July 38.1 79.3 98.1 100.0 August 37.7 73.9 94.3 100.0 September 20.3 41.1 73.0 96.2 October 0.4 13.5 34.1 72.5 November 0.0 4.6 15.0 47.3 December 0.0 0.1 2.5 17.9 Period of Record 9.5 24.9 43.3 66.3 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 2.T-62

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-17 Summary of Dew Point Variability at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977)-Percent of Hours with Dew Point Spread 0.0 to 0.7oC 0.8 to 2.2oC 2.3 to 4.4oC > 4.5oC January 15.8% 33.0% 37.3% 14.0%

February 20.1% 20.7% 26.8% 32.3%

March 6.6% 18.0% 29.0% 46.5%

April 3.4% 14.2% 21.1% 61.2%

May 1.4% 9.0% 22.7% 66.9%

June 3.0% 11.1% 20.5% 65.4%

July 2.6% 8.3% 22.0% 67.1%

August 3.0% 16.3% 25.9% 54.8%

September 5.0% 16.8% 23.5% 54.7%

October 4.5% 14.9% 16.2% 64.4%

November 7.6% 20.8% 31.1% 40.6%

December 12.7% 26.7% 31.8% 18.8%

Period of Record 7.0% 18.4% 25.8% 48.8%

Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-63

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION\

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-18 Summary of Precipitation Measurements at Clinton Power Station Facility (1972-1977)

Percent Hours With Percent Days With Max. Consecutive Max. Consecutive Precipitation Precipitation Hours Days Average Monthly and Maximum Maximum 0.01 1.00 0.01 1.00 With Without Without Annual 1 hr 1 day or More or More or More or More Precip. Precip. With Precip. Precip.

January 1.40 0.50 2.53 3.4% 0.0% 21.3% 0.6% 14 356 5 14 February 1.15 0.26 0.97 3.3% 0.0% 19.9% 0.0% 9 470 3 19 March 3.44 0.69 1.29 5.9% 0.0% 23.3% 1.9% 10 408 3 16 April 1.67 0.69 1.63 3.4% 0.0% 25.1% 0.6% 14 455 5 18 May 1.80 0.52 0.62 3.6% 0.0% 26.0% 0.0% 6 293 5 12 June 4.16 1.15 2.72 4.7% 0.0% 31.3% 3.3% 14 545 5 22 July 2.27 0.43 1.74 3.1% 0.0% 25.2% 0.6% 7 365 4 14 August 2.52 0.80 1.34 2.9% 0.0% 21.9% 0.6% 8 476 3 21 September 2.44 0.81 1.26 3.8% 0.0% 28.0% 2.0% 11 372 8 15 October 1.53 0.45 0.94 3.7% 0.0% 20.6% 0.0% 12 332 3 13 November 1.83 0.40 1.06 4.4% 0.0% 22.0% 0.7% 11 620 5 25 December 1.33 0.34 0.93 3.7% 0.0% 21.9% 0.0% 8 406 8 16 Period of Record 25.47 1.15 2.72 3.8% 0.0% 24.6% 0.9% 14 807 8 33 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Precipitation is measured in inches. Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-64

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-19 Average Number of Days of Fog Occurrence at Peoria and Springfield, Illinois Average Number of Days of Fog (Observed)

Springfield, IL Peoria, IL January 2 3 February 3 3 March 2 2 April 1 1 May 1 1 June 1/2 1 July 1 1 August 1 1 September 1 1 October 1 1 November 2 2 December 3 3 Year 18.5 20 Period of Record 1951-1961; 1963-1970 1949-1951; 1957-1971 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Originally obtained from NOAA, Local Climatological Data Summaries for Peoria and Springfield, Illinois.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-65

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-20 Monthly Frequency of Fog Occurrence, Hours of Maximum and Minimum, and Fog Persistence for Peoria, Illinois (1949-1951; 1957-1971)

Number of Times In 15 yrs Fog Percent Total Daily Maximum Daily Minimum Persisted For At Least:

Frequency of Month Occurrences Hour Percent Hour Percent 12 hrs 24 hrs Max.

January 17.8 8 AM 25.1% 6 PM 14.0% 38 15 95 February 17.1 8 AM 26.8% 3 PM 11.6% 32 8 42 March 14.9 6 AM 24.1% 3 PM 9.5% 33 8 74 April 8.2 6 AM 18.0% 2 PM 4.1% 10 4 36 May 7.4 6 AM 17.2% 5 PM 2.5% 11 2 34 June 5.7 5 AM 17.4% 6 PM 0.9% 3 1 42 July 7.3 5 AM 27.6% 5 PM 0.7% 7 0 15 August 8.6 6 AM 35.7% 4 PM 0.4% 5 0 19 September 9.1 6 AM 27.3% 2 PM 1.9% 10 1 33 October 10.3 7 AM 23.3% 3 PM 5.4% 15 3 34 November 13.8 8 AM 23.0% 1 PM 8.5% 25 7 43 December 15.5 9 AM 21.5% 4 PM 10.0% 38 9 48 Source: CPS, 2002 2.T-66

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-21 Monthly Frequency of Fog Occurrence, Hours of Maximum and Minimum, and Fog Persistence for Springfield, Illinois (1951-1961; 1963-1970)

Number of Times In 15 yrs Fog Percent Total Daily Maximum Daily Minimum Persisted for at Least:

Frequency of Month Occurrences Hour Percent Hour Percent 12 hrs 24 hrs Max.

January 17.2% 7 AM 25.1% 3 PM 13.4% 49 17 90 February 15.0% 7 AM 23.9% 3 PM 10.8% 39 15 53 March 12.7% 6 AM 21.4% 3 PM 8.7% 36 8 36 April 6.4% 6 AM 16.1% 4 PM 2.3% 16 2 26 May 5.5% 5 AM 14.6% 4 PM 1.5% 8 1 27 June 3.7% 6 AM 12.4% 5 PM 0.8% 1 1 29 July 5.0% 5 AM 22.3% 3 PM 0.2% 6 0 19 August 6.1% 6 AM 27.0% 4 PM 0.2% 2 0 13 September 5.5% 6 AM 23.9% 4 PM 0.3% 3 0 22 October 6.7% 6 AM 15.8% 4 PM 4.0% 14 3 47 November 9.4% 7 AM 17.4% 2 PM 4.9% 25 5 51 December 15.4% 8 AM 20.8% 2 PM 12.2% 37 17 75 Source: CPS, 2002 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-67

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-22 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: A (Delta Temperature Less Than -1.8°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 Direction (3)

Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total 0.3- 1.4 1 4 3 2 2 7 9 5 5 6 2 3 4 3 4 5 65 (1) 0.06 0.23 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.51 0.28 0.28 0.34 0.11 0.17 0.23 0.17 0.23 0.28 3.68 (2) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.16 1.5- 3.0 23 24 12 14 8 19 34 41 31 37 13 24 30 27 18 24 379 (1) 1.30 1.36 0.68 0.79 0.45 1.08 1.93 2.32 1.76 2.10 0.74 1.36 1.70 1.53 1.02 1.36 21.46 (2) 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.93 3.1- 5.0 39 43 26 19 8 17 38 61 40 65 32 44 37 57 24 29 579 (1) 2.21 2.43 1.47 1.08 0.45 0.96 2.15 3.45 2.27 3.68 1.81 2.49 2.10 3.23 1.36 1.64 32.79 (2) 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.15 0.10 0.16 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.06 0.07 1.42 5.1- 8.0 28 59 27 8 4 10 22 46 38 52 46 71 65 48 49 26 594 (1) 1.59 3.34 1.25 0.45 0.23 0.57 1.25 2.60 2.15 2.94 2.60 4.02 3.68 2.72 2.77 1.47 33.64 (2) 0.07 0.15 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.06 1.46 8.1-10.4 4 2 2 0 0 0 1 9 6 11 13 19 8 5 13 6 104 (1) 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.51 0.34 0.62 1.02 1.08 0.45 0.28 0.74 0.34 5.89 (2) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.26 OVER 10.4 0 12 1 1 2 0 1 0 2 2 3 7 2 4 2 5 44 (1) 0.00 0.68 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.40 0.11 0.23 0.11 0.28 2.49 (2) 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.11 All Speeds (4) 95 144 66 44 24 53 105 162 122 173 114 168 146 144 110 95 1,765 (1) 5.38 8.15 3.74 2.49 1.36 3.00 5.95 9.17 6.91 9.80 6.46 9.51 8.27 8.15 6.23 5.38 99.94 (2) 0.23 0.35 0.16 0.11 0.06 0.13 0.26 0.40 0.30 0.43 0.28 0.41 0.36 0.35 0.27 0.23 4.34 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: (1) Percent of all good observations for this page; (2) Percent of all good observations for the period; (3) E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; (4) 1,766 hours0.00887 days <br />0.213 hours <br />0.00127 weeks <br />2.91463e-4 months <br /> on this page with 1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> (0.1 percent) at less than 0.3 mps (0.0 percent of all hours).

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-68

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-23 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: B (Delta Temperature Range = -1.8 to -1.7°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 Direction (3)

Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total 0.3- 1.4 0 4 5 1 0 1 1 2 1 6 2 5 4 2 2 0 36 (1) 0.00 0.27 0.34 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.07 0.41 0.14 0.34 0.27 0.14 0.14 0.00 2.47 (2) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 1.5- 3.0 12 24 8 13 10 10 14 22 13 36 22 15 18 15 13 15 260 (1) 0.82 1.65 0.55 0.89 0.69 0.69 0.96 1.51 0.69 2.47 1.51 1.03 1.24 1.03 0.89 1.03 17.86 (2) 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.64 3.1- 5.0 35 32 18 14 17 24 29 41 45 61 40 46 40 43 28 27 541 (1) 2.40 2.20 1.24 0.96 1.17 1.72 1.99 2.82 3.09 4.19 2.75 3.16 2.75 2.95 1.92 1.85 37.16 (2) 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.15 0-.10 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.07 1.33 5.1- 8.0 20 34 16 20 6 16 31 27 35 46 42 40 47 47 22 26 475 (1) 1.37 2.34 1.10 1.37 0.41 1.10 2.13 1.85 2.40 3.16 2.88 2.76 3.23 3.23 1.51 1.79 32.62 (2) 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.06 1.17 8.1-10.4 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 7 5 5 9 24 16 4 3 3 82 (1) 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.48 0.34 0.34 0.62 1.65 1.10 0.27 0.21 0.21 5.63 (2) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.20 Over 10.4 2 1 0 2 6 2 1 6 3 4 5 8 15 1 0 5 61 (1) 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.41 0.14 0.07 0.41 0.21 0.27 0.34 0.55 1.03 0.07 0.00 0.34 4.19 (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.15 All Speeds (4) 72 95 47 51 39 54 78 105 102 158 120 138 140 112 68 76 1,455 (1) 4.95 6.52 3.23 3.50 2.68 3.71 5.36 7.21 7.01 10.85 8.24 9.48 9.62 7.69 4.67 5.22 99.93 (2) 0.18 0.23 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.19 0.26 0.25 0.39 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.28 0.17 0.19 3.58 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: (1) Percent of all good observations for this page, (2) Percent of all good observations for the period; (3) E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; (4) 1,456 hrs on this page, with 1 hr (0.1 percent ) at less than 0.3 mps (0.0 percent of all hours).

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-69

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-24 Joint Frequency Distribution Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: C (Delta Temperature Range = -1.6 to -1.5 °C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 Direction (3)

Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total 0.3-1.4 0 5 4 1 1 3 7 7 7 4 5 5 6 4 3 2 64 (1) 0.00 0.23 0.18 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.18 0.14 0.09 2.92 (2) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.16 1.5- 3.0 27 31 31 18 12 25 29 36 29 32 22 28 35 18 28 22 423 (1) 1.23 1.42 1.42 0.82 0.55 1.14 1.32 1.64 1.32 1.46 1.01 1.28 1.60 0.82 1.28 1.01 19.32 (2) 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.05 1.04 3.1- 5.0 42 46 40 31 31 24 51 55 47 83 67 38 62 50 52 27 746 I (1) 1.92 2.10 1.83 1.42 1.42 1.10 2.33 2.51 2.15 3.79 3.06 1.74 2.83 2.28 2.38 1.23 34.08 (2) 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.20 0.16 0.09 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.07 1.83 5.1- 8.0 35 34 19 20 20 31 40 33 43 88 62 61 72 55 33 29 675 (1) 1.60 1.55 0.87 0.91 0.91 1.42 1.83 1.51 1.96 4.02 2.83 2.79 3.29 2.51 1.51 1.32 30.84 (2) 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.14 0.08 0.07 1.66 8.1-10.4 8 3 0 1 0 2 2 9 14 12 17 36 20 13 5 7 149 (1) 0.37 0.14 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.41 0.64 0.55 0.78 1.64 0.91 0.59 0.23 0.32 6.81 (2) 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.37 Over 10.4 1 3 1 8 7 9 10 3 12 9 19 23 12 4 4 5 130 (1) 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.37 0.32 0.41 0.46 0.14 0.55 0.41 0.87 1.05 0.55 0.18 0.18 0.23 5.94 (2) 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.32 All Speeds (4) 113 122 95 79 71 94 139 143 152 228 192 191 207 144 125 92 2,187 (1) 5.16 5.57 4.34 3.61 3.24 4.29 6.35 6.53 6.94 10.42 8.77 8.73 9.46 6.58 5.71 4.20 99.91 (2) 0.28 0.30 0.23 0.19 0.17 0.23 0.34 0.35 0.37 0.56 0.47 0.47 0.51 0.35 0.31 0.23 5.38 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: (1) Percent of all good observations for this page; (2) Percent of all good observations for the period; (3) E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; (4) 2,189 hrs on this page with 2 hrs (0.1 percent) at less than 0.3 mps (0.0 percent of all hours).

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-70

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-25 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: D (Delta Temperature Range = -1.4 to -0.5°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 Direction (3)

Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total 0.3-1.4 30 34 31 37 40 25 46 50 46 52 37 36 46 26 35 31 602 (1) 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.23 0.25 0.15 0.28 0.31 0.28 0.32 0.23 0.22 0.28 0.16 0.21 0.19 3.69 (2) 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.09 0.08 1.48 1.5- 3.0 126 178 204 197 147 173 250 249 218 229 160 162 190 166 155 135 2,939 (1) 0.77 1.09 1.25 1.21 0.90 1.06 1.53 1.53 1.34 1.40 0.98 0.99 1.16 1.02 0.95 0.83 18.01 (2) 0.31 0.44 0.50 0.48 0.36 0.43 0.61 0.61 0.54 0.56 0.39 0.40 0.47 0.41 0.38 0.33 7.23 3.1- 5.0 269 289 291 286 248 231 302 416 466 396 314 360 450 406 316 294 5,334 (1) 1.65 1.77 1.78 1.75 1.52 1.42 1.85 2.55 2.86 2.43 1.92 2.21 2.76 2.49 1.94 1.80 32.69 4 (2) 0.66 0.71 0.72 0.70 0.61 0.57 0.74 1.02 1.15 0.97 0.77 0.89 1.11 1.00 0.78 0.72 13.11 5.1- 8.0 240 263 138 134 170 193 228 439 515 428 323 535 679 457 319 269 5,330 (1) 1.47 1.61 0.85 0.82 1.04 1.18 1.40 2.69 3.16 2.62 1.98 3.28 4.16 2.80 1.96 1.65 32.67 (2) 0.59 0.65 0.34 0.33 0.42 0.47 0.56 1.08 1.27 1.05 0.79 1.32 1.67 1.12 0.78 0.66 13.10 8.1-10.4 65 63 11 16 16 23 40 152 139 119 137 200 204 102 86 73 1,446 (1) 0.40 0.39 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.25 0.93 0.85 0.73 0.84 1.23 1.25 0.63 0.53 0.85 8.86 (2) 0.16 0.15 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.37 0.34 0.29 0.34 0.42 0.50 0.25 0.21 0.18 3.55 Over 10.4 25 19 13 21 18 22 17 39 58 52 95 132 80 24 24 23 662 (1) 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.24 0.36 0.32 0.58 0.81 0.49 0.15 0.15 0.14 4.06 (2) 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.13 0.23 0.32 0.20 0.06 0.06 0.06 1.63 All Speeds (4) 755 846 688 691 639 667 883 1,345 1,442 1,276 1,066 1,425 1,649 1,181 935 825 16,313 (1) 4.63 5.18 4.22 4.23 3.92 4.09 5.41 8.24 8.84 7.82 6.53 8.73 10.11 7.24 5.73 5.06 99.98 (2) 1.86 2.08 1.69 1.70 1.57 1.64 26.17 3.31 3.55 3.14 2.62 3.50 4.05 2.90 2.30 2.03 40.10 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: (1) Percent of all good observations for this page; (2) Percent of all good observations for the period; (3) E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; (4) 16,317 hrs on this page with 4 hrs (0.0 percent) at less than 0.3 mps (0.0 percent of all hours).

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-71

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-26 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: E (Delta Temperature Range = -0.4 to +1.5°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 Direction (3)

Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total 0.3-1.4 38 42 49 47 33 53 62 69 60 60 48 44 41 28 19 32 725 (1) 0.35 0.39 0.45 0.43 0.31 0.49 0.57 0.64 0.55 0.55 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.26 0.15 0.30 6.70 (2) 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.08 1.78 1.5- 3.0 95 170 188 204 201 255 308 312 299 218 197 173 175 159 113 98 3,165 (1) 0.88 1.57 1.74 1.89 1.86 2.36 2.85 2.88 2.76 2.02 1.82 1.60 1.62 1.47 1.04 0.91 29.26 (2) 0.23 0.42 0.46 0.50 0.49 0.63 0.76 0.77 0.74 0.54 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.39 0.28 0.24 7.78 3.1- 5.0 119 156 162 187 197 246 367 530 518 343 241 242 223 148 116 151 3,946 (1) 1.10 1.44 1.50 1.73 1.82 2.27 3.39 4.90 4.79 3.17 2.23 2.24 2.06 1.37 1.07 1.40 36.49 (2) 0.29 0.38 0.40 0.46 0.48 0.60 0.90 1.30 1.27 0.84 0.59 0.59 0.55 0.36 0.29 0.37 9.70 5.1- 8.0 48 72 33 56 100 148 174 402 386 193 188 197 124 56 42 65 2,284 (1) 0.44 0.67 0.31 0.52 0.92 1.37 1.61 3.72 3.57 1.78 1.74 1.82 1.15 0.52 0.39 0.60 21.12 (2) 0.12 0.18 0.08 0.14 0.25 0.36 0.43 0.99 0.95 0.47 0.46 0.48 0.30 0.14 0.10 0.16 5.61 8.1-10.4 15 10 5 2 21 26 19 56 43 32 46 51 25 9 20 14 394 (1) 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.19 0.24 0.18 0.52 0.40 0.30 0.43 0.47 0.23 0.08 0.18 0.13 3.64 (2) 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.97 Over 10.4 4 9 9 17 24 15 20 31 36 24 24 23 13 13 4 9 275 (1) 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.22 0.14 0.18 0.29 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.08 2.54 (2) 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.68 All Speeds (4) 319 459 446 513 576 743 950 1,480 1,342 870 744 730 601 413 314 369 10,789 (1) 2.95 4.24 4.12 4.74 5.33 6.87 8.78 12.94 12.41 8.04 6.88 6.75 5.56 3.82 2.90 3.41 99.76 (2) 0.78 1.13 1.10 1.26 1.42 1.83 2.34 3.44 3.30 2.14 1.83 1.79 1.48 1.02 0.77 0.91 26.52 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: (1) Percent of all good observations for this page; (2) Percent of all good observations for the period; (3) E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; (4) 10,815 hrs on this page with 26 hrs (0.2 percent) at less than 0.3 mps (0.1 percent of all hours).

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-72

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-27 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: F (Delta Temperature Range = 1.6 To 4.0°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 Direction (3)

Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total 0.3-1.4 30 50 50 42 36 49 54 59 36 44 35 44 29 25 33 39 655 (1) 0.67 1.12 1.12 0.94 0.80 1.10 1.21 1.32 0.80 0.98 0.78 0.98 0.65 0.56 0.74 0.87 14.64 (2) 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.10 1.61 1.5- 3.0 75 125 134 153 161 197 216 222 248 209 152 139 163 113 63 83 2,453 (1) 1.68 2.79 3.00 3.42 3.60 4.40 4.83 4.96 5.54 4.67 3.40 3.11 3.64 2.53 1.41 1.86 54.83 (2) 0.18 0.31 0.33 0.38 0.40 0.48 0.53 0.55 0.61 0.51 0.37 0.34 0.40 0.28 0.15 0.20 6.03 3.1- 5.0 26 24 22 28 40 56 101 114 148 120 96 73 75 57 24 27 1,031 (1) 0.58 0.54 0.49 0.63 0.89 1.25 2.26 2.55 3.31 2.68 2.15 1.63 1.68 1.27 0.54 0.60 23.04 (2) 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.25 0.28 0.36 0.30 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.06 0.07 2.53 5.1- 8.0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 4 8 14 10 16 10 3 4 2 80 (1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.31 0.22 0.36 0.22 0.07 0.09 0.04 1.79 (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.20 8.1-10.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 5 (1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.11 (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Over 10.4 11 21 14 22 9 13 23 18 23 17 15 12 8 5 4 9 224 (1) 0.25 0.47 0.31 0.49 0.20 0.29 0.51 0.40 0.51 0.38 0.34 0.27 0.18 0.11 0.09 0.20 5.01 (2) 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.55 All Speeds (4) 142 220 220 245 246 320 398 417 463 404 308 285 286 204 130 160 4,448 (1) 3.17 4.92 4.92 5.48 5.50 7.15 8.90 9.32 10.35 9.03 6.88 6.37 6.39 4.56 2.91 3.58 99.42 (2) 0.35 0.54 0.54 0.60 0.60 0.79 0.98 1.03 1.14 0.99 0.76 0.70 0.70 0.50 0.32 0.39 10.93 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: (1) Percent of all good observations for this page; (2) Percent of all good observations for the period; (3) E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; (4) 4,474 hrs on this page with 24 hrs (0.6 percent) at less than 0.3 mps (0.1 percent of all hours).

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-73

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-28 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: G (Delta Temperature Greater Than 4.0°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 Direction (3)

Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total 0.3-1.4 53 73 73 79 52 57 69 98 78 63 58 58 55 49 41 37 993 (1) 1.45 1.99 1.99 2.16 1.42 1.56 1.89 2.68 2.13 1.72 1.58 1.58 1.50 1.34 1.12 1.01 27.13 (2) 0.13 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.24 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.09 2.44 1.5- 3.0 75 138 94 93 90 160 182 189 216 151 88 94 92 96 43 57 1,858 (1) 2.05 3.77 2.57 2.54 2.46 4.37 4.97 5.16 5.90 4.13 2.40 2.57 2.51 2.62 1.17 1.56 50.77 (2) 0.18 0.34 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.39 0.45 0.46 0.53 0.37 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.11 0.14 4.57 3.1- 5.0 8 9 9 10 13 19 23 23 55 28 13 17 22 27 12 7 295 (1) 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.36 0.52 0.63 0.63 1.50 0.77 0.36 0.46 0.60 0.74 0.33 0.19 8.06 (2) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.73 5.1- 8.0 6 10 1 5 14 15 4 35 55 13 2 17 14 2 1 3 197 (1) 0.16 0.27 0.03 0.14 0.38 0.41 0.11 0.96 1.50 0.36 0.05 0.46 0.38 0.05 0.03 0.08 5.38 (2) 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.48 8.1-10.4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 4 1 8 6 0 2 3 47 (1) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.11 0.03 0.22 0.16 0.00 0.05 0.08 1.28 (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 Over 10.4 8 30 27 25 15 9 16 27 16 13 16 2 5 5 2 5 221 (1) 0.22 0.82 0.74 0.68 0.41 0.25 0.44 0.74 0.44 0.36 0.44 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.14 6.04 (2) 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.54 All Speeds (4) 151 261 205 212 184 260 294 372 440 272 178 196 194 179 101 112 3,611 (1) 4.13 7.13 5.60 5.79 5.03 7.10 8.03 10.16 12.02 7.43 4.86 5.36 5.30 4.89 2.76 3.06 98.66 (2) 0.37 0.64 0.50 0.52 0.45 0.64 0.72 0.91 1.08 0.67 0.44 0.48 0.48 0.44 0.25 0.28 8.88 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: (1) Percent of all good observations for this page; (2) Percent of all good observations for the period; (3) E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; (4) 3,660 hrs on this page with 49 hrs (1.3 percent ) at less than 0.3 mps (0.1 percent of all hours).

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-74

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-29 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: ALL Stabilities Combined Period of Record: 4/14/72-4/30/77 Direction (3)

Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total 0.3-1.4 152 212 215 209 164 195 248 290 233 235 187 195 185 137 137 146 3,140 (1) 0.37 0.52 0.53 0.51 0.40 0.48 0.61 0.71 0.57 0.58 0.46 0.48 0.45 0.34 0.34 0.36 7.72 (2) 0.37 0.52 0.53 0.51 0.40 0.48 0.61 0.71 0.57 0.58 0.46 0.48 0.45 0.34 0.34 0.36 7.72 1.5- 3.0 433 690 671 692 629 839 1,033 1,071 1,054 912 654 635 703 594 433 434 11,477 (1) 1.06 1.70 1.65 1.70 1.55 2.06 2.54 2.63 2.59 2.24 1.61 1.56 1.73 1.46 1.06 1.07 28.21 (2) 1.06 1.70 1.65 1.70 1.55 2.06 2.54 2.63 2.59 2.24 1.61 1.56 1.73 1.46 1.06 1.07 28.21 3.1- 5.0 538 599 568 575 554 618 911 1,240 1,319 1,096 803 820 909 788 572 562 12,472 (1) 1.32 1.47 1.40 1.41 1.36 1.52 2.24 3.05 3.24 2.69 1.97 2.02 2.23 1.94 1.41 1.38 30.66 (2) 1.32 1.47 1.40 1.41 1.36 1.52 2.24 3.05 3.24 2.69 1.97 2.02 2.23 1.94 1.41 1.38 30.66 5.1- 8.0 377 472 229 243 314 418 503 956 1,000 834 673 937 1,011 668 470 420 9,635 (1) 0.93 1.16 0.56 0.60 0.77 1.03 1.24 2.42 2.66 2.05 1.65 2.30 2.49 1.64 1.16 1.03 23.69 (2) 0.93 1.16 0.56 0.60 0.77 1.03 1.24 2.42 2.66 2.05 1.65 2.30 2.49 1.64 1.16 1.03 23.69 8.1-10.4 96 79 19 20 37 51 64 233 227 183 228 339 280 134 131 106 2227 (1) 0.24 0.19 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.57 0.56 0.45 0.56 0.83 0.69 0.33 0.32 0.26 5.47 (2) 0.24 0.19 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.16 0.57 0.56 0.45 0.56 0.83 0.69 0.33 0.32 0.26 5.47 Over 10.4 51 95 65 96 81 70 88 124 150 121 177 207 135 56 40 61 1,617 (1) 0.13 0.23 0.16 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.30 0.44 0.51 0.33 0.14 0.10 0.15 3.98 (2) 0.13 0.23 0.16 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.30 0.44 0.51 0.33 0.14 0.10 0.15 3.98 All Speeds (4) 1,647 2,147 1,767 1,835 1,779 2,191 2,847 3,944 4,063 3,381 2,722 3,133 3,223 2,377 1,783 1,729 40,568 (1) 4.05 5.28 4.34 4.51 4.37 5.39 7.00 9.70 9.99 8.31 6.69 7.70 7.92 5.84 4.38 4.25 99.73 (2) 4.05 5.28 4.34 4.51 4.37 5.39 7.00 9.70 9.99 8.31 6.69 7.70 7.92 5.84 4.38 4.25 99.73 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: (1) Percent of all good observations for this page; (2) Percent of all good observations for the period; (3) E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; (4) 40,677 good hours with 109 hrs (0.3 percent ) at less than 0.3 mps, 44,208 hrs in the time period, 92.0 percent data recovery.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-75

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES 5TABLE 2.7-30 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: A (Delta Temperature Less Than -1.8°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 01/01/2000-08/31/2002 Hours observed at each indicated wind direction and wind speed Direction Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total

< 1.5 0 3 6 3 9 12 19 6 4 7 6 3 1 3 1 2 85 1.6 - 3.3 6 59 56 62 82 89 94 128 83 95 38 36 40 40 17 15 940 3.4 - 5.5 28 90 25 22 12 42 32 130 129 113 64 84 77 85 35 34 1,002 5.6 - 8.2 12 22 3 3 0 9 25 67 58 56 38 73 79 51 19 16 531 8.3 - 10.9 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 8 1 2 4 18 20 9 5 1 72

> 11.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 6 All Speeds 46 175 90 90 103 153 173 339 275 273 152 217 217 188 77 68 2,636 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: 2,636 hrs on this page, 2 hrs calm winds (less than 0.3 mps), 0.1 percent of all hours.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-76

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-31 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: B (Delta Temperature Range = -1.8 to -1.7°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 01/01/2000-08/31/2002 Hours observed at each indicated wind direction and wind speed Direction Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total

< 1.5 0 4 5 6 12 14 7 12 8 9 7 3 4 2 0 2 95 1.6 - 3.3 17 43 28 18 16 38 36 52 49 48 30 37 38 36 14 23 523 3.4 - 5.5 29 28 14 6 1 12 33 43 55 75 55 51 55 57 21 23 558 5.6 - 8.2 5 10 1 2 1 2 17 28 41 17 22 25 23 16 6 12 228 8.3 - 10.9 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 2 2 3 8 7 2 3 1 38

> 11.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 6 All Speeds 52 85 48 32 30 66 95 143 155 151 118 128 127 113 44 61 1,448 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: 1,448 hrs on this page, 2 hrs calm winds (less than 0.3 mps), 0.1 percent of all hours.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-77

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-32 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: C (Delta Temperature Range = -1.6 to -1.5°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 01/01/2000-08/31/2002 Hours observed at each indicated wind direction and wind speed Direction Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total

< 1.5 2 8 5 5 9 6 9 8 5 10 6 2 7 8 3 2 95 1.6 - 3.3 16 49 34 17 20 34 30 34 24 33 22 30 38 36 35 21 473 3.4 - 5.5 35 27 15 5 8 19 32 57 44 51 41 49 49 36 25 30 523 5.6 - 8.2 16 16 0 1 0 7 10 21 20 16 23 29 51 28 11 15 264 8.3 - 10.9 8 5 0 0 0 0 1 8 4 2 13 5 12 6 1 0 65

> 11.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 All Speeds 77 105 54 28 37 66 82 128 97 112 106 116 158 114 75 68 1,423 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: 1,423 hrs on this page, 0 hrs calm winds (less than 0.3 mps), 0.0 percent of all hours.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-78

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-33 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: D (Delta Temperature Range = -1.4 to -0.5°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 01/01/2000-08/31/2002 Hours observed at each indicated wind direction and wind speed Direction Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total

< 1.5 23 32 39 54 71 36 41 22 32 38 20 32 29 26 21 20 536 1.6 - 3.3 131 198 152 145 177 202 227 170 169 143 96 152 137 154 121 124 2,498 3.4 - 5.5 186 206 74 35 57 128 237 347 319 156 156 262 296 244 157 166 3,026 5.6 - 8.2 53 60 4 1 2 25 64 176 177 50 70 187 195 113 36 51 1,264 8.3 - 10.9 9 8 0 0 0 0 3 44 24 9 24 38 35 10 4 1 209

> 11.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 9 All Speeds 403 504 269 235 307 391 572 759 721 397 367 677 692 547 339 362 7,542 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: 7,542 hrs on this page, 0 hrs calm winds (less than 0.3 mps), 0.0 percent of all hours.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-79

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-34 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: E (Delta Temperature Range = -0.4 to +1.5°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 01/01/2000-08/31/2002 Hours observed at each indicated wind direction and wind speed Direction Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total

< 1.5 35 67 69 82 104 88 69 62 68 53 53 39 30 30 23 15 887 1.6 - 3.3 82 184 137 131 147 204 338 383 300 185 153 147 151 112 91 65 2,810 3.4 - 5.5 29 25 17 10 12 57 148 311 305 125 83 107 89 31 45 22 1,416 5.6 - 8.2 4 1 0 0 0 5 14 99 61 26 17 32 7 10 13 0 289 8.3 - 10.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 18 6 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 32

> 11.0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 All Speeds 153 280 223 223 263 354 571 873 740 389 307 326 279 185 172 102 5,440 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: 5,440 hrs on this page, 0 hrs calm winds (less than 0.3 mps), 0.0 percent of all hours.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-80

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-35 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: F (Delta Temperature Range = 1.6 to 4.0°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 01/01/2000-08/31/2002 Hours observed at each indicated wind direction and wind speed Direction Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total

< 1.5 43 78 46 52 51 50 49 45 59 44 49 45 38 32 14 19 714 1.6 - 3.3 73 114 61 29 16 79 88 88 106 88 73 72 49 71 23 27 1,057 3.4 - 5.5 7 8 16 11 1 3 10 23 20 17 30 5 12 11 6 1 181 5.6 - 8.2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 13 2 0 1 4 1 26 8.3 - 10.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3

> 11.0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 All Speeds 124 203 124 92 68 132 147 157 185 153 168 124 99 115 47 52 1,990 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: 1,990 hrs on this page, 3 hrs calm winds (less than 0.3 mps), 0.2 percent of all hours.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-81

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-36 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: G (Delta Temperature Greater Than 4.0°C per 100 m)

Period of Record: 01/01/2000-08/31/2002 Hours observed at each indicated wind direction and wind speed Direction Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total

< 1.5 52 88 35 35 31 25 21 20 23 28 39 38 46 41 15 14 551 1.6 - 3.3 50 70 13 15 2 14 13 19 13 22 24 14 22 51 7 7 356 3.4 - 5.5 1 1 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 5 2 0 25 5.6 - 8.2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 15 8.3 - 10.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

> 11.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 All Speeds 103 159 55 58 33 39 34 39 36 58 71 52 68 97 24 25 951 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: 951 hrs on this page, 2 hrs calm winds (less than 0.3 mps), 0.2 percent of all hours.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-82

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-37 Joint Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed, Wind Direction, and Atmospheric Stability at Clinton Power Station Facility Wind Level: 10 m (33 ft)

Stability Category: ALL Stabilities Combined Period of Record: 01/01/2000-08/31/2002 Hours observed at each indicated wind direction and wind speed Direction Speed (mps) NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N Total

< 1.5 155 280 205 237 287 231 215 175 199 189 180 162 155 142 77 74 2,963 1.6 - 3.3 375 717 481 417 460 660 826 874 744 614 436 488 475 500 308 282 8,657 3.4 - 5.5 315 385 166 93 91 261 492 911 872 541 432 558 578 469 291 276 6,731 5.6 - 8.2 90 109 11 11 3 48 130 391 357 173 187 348 355 219 89 96 2,617 8.3 - 10.9 18 14 0 0 0 1 10 85 37 15 49 70 76 29 13 3 420

> 11.0 5 6 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 5 14 1 0 0 7 42 All Speeds 958 1,511 863 758 841 1,201 1,674 2,438 2,209 1,533 1,289 1,640 1,640 1,359 778 738 21,430 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: 21,430 hrs on this page, 9 hrs calm winds (less than 0.3 mps), 0.03 percent of all hours.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-83

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-38 Summary of Frequency of Occurrence of Stability Class at Clinton Power Station Facility 1972 - 1977 Period of Record a A B C D E F G 4.34 3.58 5.38 40.10 26.52 10.93 8.88 Summary:

Unstable (A, B, C) 13.30%

Neutral (D) 40.10%

Stable (E, F, G) 46.33%

b 2000 - 2002 Period of Record A B C D E F G 12.30 6.75 6.64 35.19 25.39 9.29 4.44 Summary:

Unstable (A, B, C) 25.69%

Neutral (D) 35.19%

Stable (E, F, G) 39.12%

a CPS, 2002 b

Campbell, 2002 Notes: Refer to ER Tables 2.7-37 through Table 2.7-44 2.T-84 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-39 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (1-hr Averaging Period)

Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) Distance 5 Percent 50 Percent Downwind Sector (m) Chi/Q Chi/Q N 975 0.163E-03 0.291E-04 NNE 975 0.151E-03 0.311E-04 NE 975 0.154E-03 0.289E-04 ENE 975 0.153E-03 0.279E-04 E 975 0.150E-03 0.254E-04 ESE 975 0.143E-03 0.248E-04 SE 975 0.149E-03 0.258E-04 SSE 975 0.164E-03 0.254E-04 S 975 0.156E-03 0.277E-04 SSW 975 0.182E-03 0.274E-04 SW 975 0.190E-03 0.294E-04 WSW 975 0.210E-03 0.349E-04 W 975 0.211E-03 0.376E-04 WNW 975 0.169E-03 0.361E-04 NW 975 0.177E-03 0.377E-04 NNW 975 0.168E-03 0.350E-04 All Direction Case 0.178E-03 0.305E-04 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: May 1972-April 1977; E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; Chi/Q=sec/m3 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-85

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-40 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (1-hr Averaging Period)

Low Population Zone (LPZ) Distance 5 Percent 50 Percent Downwind Sector (m) Chi/Q Chi/Q N 4,018 0.342E-04 0.377E-05 NNE 4,018 0.336E-04 0.425E-05 NE 4,018 0.344E-04 0.374E-05 ENE 4,018 0.354E-04 0.363E-05 E 4,018 0.310E-04 0.315E-05 ESE 4,018 0.282E-04 0.303E-05 SE 4,018 0.331E-04 0.313E-05 SSE 4,018 0.372E-04 0.304E-05 S 4,018 0.367E-04 0.353E-05 SSW 4,018 0.427E-04 0.347E-05 SW 4,018 0.449E-04 0.379E-05 WSW 4,018 0.475E-04 0.488E-05 W 4,018 0.476E-04 0.528E-05 WNW 4,018 0.379E-04 0.505E-05 NW 4,018 0.401E-04 0.527E-05 NNW 4,018 0.379E-04 0.473E-05 All Direction Case 0.415E-04 0.426E-05 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: May 1972-April 1977; E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; Chi/Q=sec/m3 2.T-86 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-41 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/ Q Calculations (2-hr Averaging Period)

Exclusion Area Boundary Downwind (EAB) Distance 5 Percent 50 Percent Sector (m) Chi/ Q Chi/Q N 975 0.124E-03 0.214E-04 NNE 975 0.115E-03 0.226E-04 NE 975 0.113E-03 0.198E-04 ENE 975 0.101E-03 0.197E-04 E 975 0.982E-04 0.181E-04 ESE 975 0.945E-04 0.177E-04 SE 975 0.102E-03 0.173E-04 SSE 975 0.107E-03 0.169E-04 S 975 0.112E-03 0.200E-04 SSW 975 0.120E-03 0.193E-04 SW 975 0.137E-03 0.223E-04 WSW 975 0.141E-03 0.247E-04 W 975 0.141E-03 0.251E-04 WNW 975 0.118E-03 0.247E-04 NW 975 0.137E-03 0.247E-04 NNW 975 0.131E-03 0.241E-04 All Direction Case 0.126E-03 0.231E-04 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: May 1972-April 1977; E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; Chi/Q=sec/m3 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-87

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-42 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (2-hr Averaging Period)

Low Population Zone Downwind (LPZ) Distance 5 Percent 50 Percent Sector (m) ChiI/Q Chi/Q N 4,018 0.247E-04 0.279E-05 NNE 4,018 0.246E-04 0.299E-05 NE 4,018 0.247E-04 0.261E-05 ENE 4,018 0.230E-04 0.264E-05 E 4,018 0.217E-04 0.236E-05 ESE 4,018 0.194E-04 0.229E-05 SE 4,018 0.217E-04 0.220E-05 SSE 4,018 0.234E-04 0.216E-05 S 4,018 0..237E-04 0.264E-05 SSW 4,018 0.284E-04 0.256E-05 SW 4,018 0.315E-04 0.287E-05 WSW 4,018 0.317E-04 0.346E-05 W 4,018 0.305E-04 0.366E-05 WNW 4,018 0.248E-04 0.356E-05 NW 4,018 0.294E-04 0.357E-05 NNW 4,018 0.266E-04 0.331E-05 All Direction Case 0.272E-04 0.308E-05 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: May 1972-April 1977; E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; Chi/Q=sec/m3 2.T-88 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-43 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/ Q Calculations (8-hr Averaging Period)

Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) Distance 5 Percent 50 Percent Downwind Sector (m) Chi/Q Chi/Q N 975 0.596E-04 0.108E-04 NNE 975 0.605E-04 0.102E-04 NE 975 0.548E-04 0.890E-05 ENE 975 0.489E-04 0.804E-05 E 975 0.464E-04 0.833E-05 ESE 975 0.490E-04 0.887E-05 SE 975 0.450E-04 0.836E-05 SSE 975 0.431E-04 0.734E-05 S 975 0.488E-04 0.890E-05 SSW 975 0.517E-04 0.891E-05 SW 975 0.660E-04 0.104E-04 WSW 975 0.606E-04 0.113E-04 W 975 0.647E-04 0.124E-04 WNW 975 0.529E-04 0.111E-04 NW 975 0.605E-04 0.111E-04 NNW 975 0.621E-04 0.111E-04 All Direction Case 0.600E-04 0.104E-04 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: May 1972-April 1977; E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; Chi/Q=sec/m3 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-89

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-44 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (8-hr Averaging Period)

Low Population Zone (LPZ) Distance 5 Percent 50 Percent Downwind Sector (m) Chi/ Q Chi/ Q N 4,018 0.118E-04 0.147E-05 NNE 4,018 0.117E-04 0.139E-05 NE 4,018 0.112E-04 0.121E-05 ENE 4,018 0.964E-05 0.113E-05 E 4,018 0.946E-05 0.115E-05 ESE 4,018 0.100E-04 0.118E-05 SE 4,018 0.931E-05 0.114E-05 SSE 4,018 0.943E-05 0.101E-05 S 4,018 0.921E-05 0.123E-05 SSW 4,018 0.118E-04 0.123E-05 SW 4,018 0.142E-04 0.147E-05 WSW 4,018 0.129E-04 0.162E-05 W 4,018 0.134E-04 0.179E-05 WNW 4,018 0.104E-04 0.162E-05 NW 4,018 0.125E-04 0.160E-05 NNW 4,018 0.124E-04 0.155E-05 All Direction Case 0.125E-04 0.147E-05 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: May 1972-April 1977; E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; Chi/Q=sec/m3 2.T-90 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-45 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (16-hr Averaging Period)

Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) Distance 5 Percent 50 Percent Downwind Sector (m) Chi/ Q Chi/ Q N 975 0.407E-04 0.771E-05 NNE 975 0.403E-04 0.693E-05 NE 975 0.380E-04 0.580E-05 ENE 975 0.320E-04 0.513E-05 E 975 0.312E-04 0.565E-05 ESE 975 0.342E-04 0.602E-05 SE 975 0.307E-04 0.537E-05 SSE 975 0.289E-04 0.469E-05 S 975 0.290E-04 0.584E-05 SSW 975 0.327E-04 0.588E-05 SW 975 0.403E-04 0.719E-05 WSW 975 0.396E-04 0.714E-05 W 975 0.434E-04 0.859E-05 WNW 975 0.332E-04 0.727E-05 NW 975 0.393E-04 0.725E-05 NNW 975 0.406E-04 0.753E-05 All Direction Case 0.403E-04 0.710E-05 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: May 1972-April 1977; E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; Chi/Q=sec/m3 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-91

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-46 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (16-hr Averaging Period)

Low Population Zone (LPZ) Distance 5 Percent 50 Percent Downwind Sector (m) Chi/Q Chi/Q N 4,018 0.797E-05 0.111E-05 NNE 4,018 0.770E-05 0.997E-06 NE 4,018 0.758E-05 0.815E-06 ENE 4,018 0.647E-05 0.736E-06 E 4,018 0.661E-05 0.792E-06 ESE 4,018 0.673E-05 0.841E-06 SE 4,018 0.610E-05 0.740E-06 SSE 4,018 0.596E-05 0.633E-06 S 4,018 0.579E-05 0.810E-06 SSW 4,018 0.712E-05 0.860E-06 SW 4,018 0.869E-05 0.107E-05 WSW 4,018 0.824E-05 0.105E-05 W 4,018 0.905E-05 0.131E-05 WNW 4,018 0.669E-05 0.112E-05 NW 4,018 0.775E-05 0.109E-05 NNW 4,018 0.764E-05 0.113E-05 All Direction Case 0.820E-05 0.100E-05 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: May 1972-April 1977; C=Central, E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; Chi/Q=sec/m3 2.T-92 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-47 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (72-hr Averaging Period)

Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) Distance 5 Percent 50 Percent Downwind Sector (m) Chi/Q Chi/Q N 975 0.185E-04 0.399E-05 NNE 975 0.182E-04 0.370E-05 NE 975 0.157E-04 0.307E-05 ENE 975 0.135E-04 0.244E-05 E 975 0.128E-04 0.269E-05 ESE 975 0.144E-04 0.269E-05 SE 975 0.136E-04 0.228E-05 SSE 975 0.123E-04 0.191E-05 S 975 0.130E-04 0.204E-05 SSW 975 0.125E-04 0.228E-05 SW 975 0.174E-04 0.318E-05 WSW 975 0.148E-04 0.303E-05 W 975 0.162E-04 0.350E-05 WNW 975 0.132E-04 0.305E-05 NW 975 0.151E-04 0.312E-05 NNW 975 0.181E-04 0.358E-05 All Direction Case 0.171E-04 0.320E-05 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: May 1972-April 1977;E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; Chi/Q=sec/m3 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-93

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-48 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/ Q Calculations (72-hr Averaging Period)

Low Population Zone (LPZ) Distance 5 Percent 50 Percent Downwind Sector (m) Chi/Q Chi/ Q N 4,018 0.343E-05 0.600E-06 NNE 4,018 0.335E-05 0.575E-06 NE 4,018 0.329E-05 0.457E-06 ENE 4,018 0.268E-05 0.392E-06 E 4,018 0.254E-05 0.391E-06 ESE 4,018 0.277E-05 0.390E-06 SE 4,018 0.262E-05 0.327E-06 SSE 4,018 0.239E-05 0.267E-06 S 4,018 0.246E-05 0.317E-06 SSW 4,018 0.258E-05 0.360E-06 SW 4,018 0.348E-05 0.478E-06 WSW 4,018 0.317E-05 0.489E-06 W 4,018 0.354E-05 0.551E-06 WNW 4,018 0.248E-05 0.487E-06 NW 4,018 0.292E-05 0.521E-06 NNW 4,018 0.356E-05 0.541E-06 All Direction Case 0.330E-05 0.490E-06 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: May 1972-April 1977; E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; Chi/Q=sec/m3 2.T-94 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-49 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (624-hr Averaging Period)

Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) Distance 5 Percent 50 Percent Downwind Sector (m) Chi/Q Chi/Q N 975 0.984E-05 0.402E-05 NNE 975 0.886E-05 0.401E-05 NE 975 0.750E-05 0.351E-05 ENE 975 0.706E-05 0.229E-05 E 975 0.654E-05 0.287E-05 ESE 975 0.826E-05 0.275E-05 SE 975 0.568E-05 0.215E-05 SSE 975 0.493E-05 0.152E-05 S 975 0.551E-05 0.153E-05 SSW 975 0.488E-05 0.159E-05 SW 975 0.670E-05 0.229E-05 WSW 975 0.643E-05 0.244E-05 W 975 0.711E-05 0.258E-05 WNW 975 0.584E-05 0.235E-05 NW 975 0.746E-05 0.312E-05 NNW 975 0.888E-05 0.322E-05 All Direction Case 0.810E-05 0.296E-05 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: May 1972-April 1977; E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; Chi/Q=sec/m3 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-95

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-50 Clinton Power Station Site Accident Chi/Q Calculations (624-hr Averaging Period)

Low Population Zone (LPZ) Distance 5 Percent 50 Percent Downwind Sector (m) Chi/Q Chi/Q N 4,018 0.178E-05 0.661E-06 NNE 4,018 0.155E-05 0.664E-06 NE 4,018 0.149E-05 0.605E-06 ENE 4,018 0.139E-05 0.386E-06 E 4,018 0.122E-05 0.491E-06 ESE 4,018 0.153E-05 0.422E-06 SE 4,018 0.104E-05 0.333E-06 SSE 4,018 0.926E-06 0.231E-06 S 4,018 0.103E-05 0.246E-06 SSW 4,018 0.101E-05 0.270E-06 SW 4,018 0.138E-05 0.382E-06 WSW 4,018 0.120E-05 0.402E-06 W 4,018 0.149E-05 0.435E-06 WNW 4,018 0.114E-05 0.391E-06 NW 4,018 0.145E-05 0.533E-06 NNW 4,018 0.167E-05 0.552E-06 All Direction Case 0.155E-05 0.480E-06 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Period of Record: May 1972-April 1977; E=East, N=North, S=South, W=West; Chi/Q=sec/m3 2.T-96 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-51 Summary and Comparison of Short Term Chi/Q Calculations Maximum Sector Values (sec/m3)

CPS USAR PAVAN PAVAN PAVAN CPS USAR PAVAN PAVAN a

Results Results Results Results Results a Results Results EAB = 975 m EAB 1,025 m LPZ 4,018 m LPZ 4,018 m LPZ 4,018 m No Building No Building No Building Averaging Period Building Wake Wake Building Wake Wake Building Wake Building Wake Wake 0 - 2 hr 1.78E-04 1.98E-04 1.85E-04 1.85E-04 4.15E-05 5.47E-05 5.47E-05 0 - 8 hr 6.00E-05 9.78E-05 9.09E-05 9.89E-05 1.25E-05 2.36E-05 2.49E-05 8 - 24 hr 4.03E-05 6.87E-05 6.37E-05 7.23E-05 8.20E-06 1.55E-05 1.68E-05 1 - 4 days 1.71E-05 3.20E-05 2.95E-05 3.66E-05 3.30E-06 6.24E-06 7.18E-06 4 - 30 days 0.81E-05 1.06E-05 0.98E-05 1.38E-05 1.55E-06 1.68E-06 2.11E-06 a

CPS, 2002 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-97

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-52 Summary of EGC ESP Chi/Q Calculations at Low Population Zone Distance (50% Probability Level)

EGC ESP Site Chi/Q Values 3

(Maximum Sector, 50% Probability Value, [sec/m ])

Exclusion Area Boundary Low Population Zone Averaging Period Distance Distance Source 0 - 2 hr 3.6E-05 5.10E-06 PAVAN Model 0 - 8 hr -- 3.40E-06 Interpolation 8 - 24 hr -- 2.85E-06 Interpolation 1 - 4 days -- 1.85E-06 Interpolation 4 - 30 days -- 1.00E-06 Interpolation Annual Average -- 4.72E-07 PAVAN Model 2.T-98 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-53 Long-Term Average Chi/Q (sec/m3) Calculations for Routine Releases Actual Site Boundary Exclusion Area Boundary Low Population Zone Nearest Cow Milk Nearest Goat Milk Nearest Garden Downwind Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance Sector (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q N 1,767 8.61E-07 1,025 1.96E-06 4,018 2.54E-07 1,500 1.10E-06 8,000 9.47E-08 1,500. 1.10E-06 NNE 1,527 1.11E-06 1,025 2.04E-06 4,018 2.65E-07 2,050 7.20E-07 8,000 9.90E-08 4,610 2.16E-07 NE 1,400 1.12E-06 1,025 1.81E-06 4,018 2.35E-07 5,530 1.47E-07 8,000 8.88E-08 3,460. 2.93E-07 ENE 1,297 1.07E-06 1,025 1.55E-06 4,018 2.02E-07 7,740 8.06E-08 8,000 7.71E-08 4,210 1.89E-07 E 1,710 6.93E-07 1,025 1.52E-06 4,018 1.97E-07 1,670 7.18E-07 8,000 7.52E-08 1,670 7.18E-07 ESE 4,540 1.65E-07 1,025 1.54E-06 4,,018 1.97E-07 8,000 7.47E-08 8,000 7.47E-08 5,300 1.32E-07 SE 3,184 2.66E-07 1,025 1.49E-06 4,018 1.90E-07 8,000 7.22E-08 7,010 8.64E-08 7,010 8.64E-08 SSE 3,084 2.02E-07 1,025 1.08E-06 4,018 1.37E-07 8,000 5.17E-08 8,000 5.17E-08 4,450 1.18E-07 S 3,032 1.49E-07 1,025 7.76E-07 4,018 9.79E-08 8,000 3.65E-08 8,000 3.65E-08 4,840 7.43E-08 SSW 4,353 1.28E-07 1,025 1.12E-06 4,018 1.44E-07 5,470 9.22E-08 8,000 5.50E-08 8,000 5.50E-08 SW 4,891 1.82E-07 1,025 1.85E-06 4,018 2.41E-07 5,870 1.42E-07 8,000 9.36E-08 5,870 1.42E-07 WSW 3,784 2.39E-07 1,025 1.69E-06 4,018 2.20E-07 5,530 1.39E-07 8,000 8.44E-08 3,620 2.55E-07 W 2,277 3.92E-07 1,025 1.32E-06 4,018 1.72E-07 3,310 2.27E-07 8,000 6.53E-08 3,320 2.26E-07 WNW 1,934 5.21E-07 1,025 1.37E-06 4,018 1.77E-07 8,000 6.69E-08 8,000 6.69E-08 2,640 3.28E-07 NW 1,356 9.73E-07 1,025 1.50E-06 4,018 1.94E-07 3,850 2.07E-07 8,000 7.30E-08 4,700 1.54E-07 NNW 2,023 6.18E-07 1,025 1.73E-06 4,018 2.24E-07 2,050 6.06E-07 8,000 8.42E-08 8,000 8.42E-08 All 8.694E-06 2.436E-05 3.146E-06 4.479E-06 1.206E-06 4.168E-06 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-99

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-53 Long-Term Average Chi/Q (sec/m3) Calculations for Routine Releases Nearest Meat Animal Nearest Residence Downwind Distance (mi)

Downwind Distance Distance Sector (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 N 1,500 1.10E-06 1,500 1.10E-06 2.88E-06 9.89E-07 5.42E-07 3.53E-07 2.53E-07 1.93E-07 1.54E-07 1.28E-07 NNE 2,050 7.20E-07 1,590 1.05E-06 3.00E-06 1.91E-06 5.65E-07 3.68E-07 2.64E-07 2.02E-07 1.60E-07 1.34E-07 NE 5,530 1.47E-07 2,070 6.24E-07 2.67E-06 1.69E-06 4.96E-07 3.26E-07 2.35E-07 1.80E-07 1.44E-07 1.20E-07 ENE 7,740 8.06E-08 2,860 3.29E-07 2.30E-06 1.45E-06 4.21E-07 2.78E-07 2.01E-07 1.55E-07 1.24E-07 1.03E-07 E 1,670 7.18E-07 1,670 7.18E-07 2.25E-06 1.42E-06 4.12E-07 2.72E-07 1.97E-07 1.51E-07 1.21E-07 1.01E-07 ESE 8,000 7.47E-08 5,140 1.38E-07 2.27E-06 1.44E-06 4.15E-07 2.73E-07 1.97E-07 1.51E-07 1.21E-07 1.01E-07 SE 7,010 8.64E-08 4,440 1.64E-07 2.20E-06 1.40E-06 3.97E-07 2.62E-07 1.89E-07 1.45E-07 1.16E-07 9.70E-08 SSE 4,890 1.03E-07 2,900 2.21E-07 1.59E-06 1.01E-06 2.89E-07 1.90E-07 1.37E-07 1.05E-07 8.37E-08 6.97E-08 S 8,000 3.65E-08 4,780 7.57E-08 1.14E-06 7.26E-07 2.08E-07 1.36E-07 9.77E-08 7.46E-08 5.94E-08 4.93E-08 SSW 5,470 9.22E-08 4,680 1.15E-07 1.65E-06 1.05E-06 2.99E-07 1.98E-07 1.43E-07 1.10E-07 8.85E-08 7.38E-08 SW 5,870 1.42E-07 1,170 1.50E-06 2.74E-06 1.73E-06 4.95E-07 3.29E-07 2.40E-07 1.86E-07 1.50E-07 1.25E-07 WSW 4,600 1.81E-07 2,520 4.28E-07 2.49E-06 1.58E-06 4.56E-07 3.02E-07 2.19E-07 1.69E-07 1.36E-07 1.13E-07 W 3,310 2.27E-07 2,630 3.17E-07 1.94E-06 1.23E-06 3.59E-07 2.37E-07 1.71E-07 1.31E-07 1.05E-07 8.77E-08 WNW 8,000 6.69E-08 2,630 3.30E-07 2.01E-06 1.28E-06 3.74E-07 2.45E-07 1.77E-07 1.35E-07 1.08E-07 9.00E-08 NW 3,850 2.07E-07 2,650 3.58E-07 2.20E-06 1.40E-06 4.11E-07 2.69E-07 1.94E-07 1.48E-07 1.18E-07 9.83E-08 NNW 2,050 6.06E-07 2,780 3.86E-07 2.54E-06 1.62E-06 4.76E-07 3.11E-07 2.24E-07 1.71E-07 1.36E-07 1.14E-07 All 4.586E-06 7.848E-06 3.582E-05 2.192E-05 6.612E-06 4.347E-06 3.140E-06 2.407E-06 1.924E-06 1.603E-06 2.T-100 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-53 Long-Term Average Chi/Q (sec/m3) Calculations for Routine Releases Downwind Distance (mi)

Downwind Sector 4.5 5.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 47.5 N 1.09E-07 9.39E-08 7.31E-08 5.01E-08 3.72E-08 2.12E-08 1.44E-08 1.07E-08 8.39E-09 6.86E-09 5.76E-09 4.94E-09 4.60E-09 NNE 1.14E-07 9.82E-08 7.64E-08 5.24E-08 3.89E-08 2.22E-08 1.50E-08 1.12E-08 8.79E-09 7.19E-09 6.04E-09 5.18E-09 4.82E-09 NE 1.02E-07 8.81E-08 6.87E-08 4.73E-08 3.52E-08 2.02E-08 1.37E-08 1.02E-08 8.04E-09 6.58E-09 5.54E-09 4.76E-09 4.43E-09 ENE 8.82E-08 7.65E-08 5.98E-08 4.13E-08 3.09E-08 1.78E-08 1.21E-08 9.05E-09 7.13E-09 5.85E-09 4.93E-09 4.24E-09 3.96E-09 E 8.60E-08 7.46E-08 5.82E-08 4.02E-08 3.00E-08 1.73E-08 1.18E-08 8.75E-09 6.90E-09 5.65E-09 4.76E-09 4.09E-09 3.82E-09 ESE 8.56E-08 7.41E-08 5.78E-08 3.98E-08 2.96E-08 1.70E-08 1.16E-08 8.58E-09 6.75E-09 5.53E-09 4.65E-09 4.00E-09 3.73E-09 SE 8.27E-08 7.16E-08 5.59E-08 3.86E-08 2.88E-08 1.66E-08 1.13E-08 8.38E-09 6.59E-09 5.40E-09 4.55E-09 3.91E-09 3.65E-09 SSE 5.93E-08 5.13E-08 4.00E-08 2.75E-08 2.05E-08 1.17E-08 7.96E-09 5.91E-09 4.64E-09 3.80E-09 3.20E-09 2.75E-09 2.56E-09 S 4.19E-08 3.62E-08 2.81E-08 1.92E-08 1.43E-08 8.13E-09 5.49E-09 4.07E-09 3.20E-09 2.61E-09 2.19E-09 1.88E-09 1.75E-09 SSW 6.29E-08 5.45E-08 4.26E-08 2.94E-08 2.20E-08 1.27E-08 8.62E-09 6.40E-09 5.04E-09 4.13E-09 3.48E-09 2.99E-09 2.79E-09 SW 1.07E-07 9.29E-08 7.28E-08 5.06E-08 3.80E-08 2.21E-08 1.51E-08 1.12E-08 8.85E-09 7.26E-09 6.13E-09 5.28E-09 4.93E-09 WSW 9.66E-08 8.38E-08 6.55E-08 4.53E-08 3.39E-08 1.96E-08 1.34E-08 9.96E-09 7.85E-09 6.44E-09 5.42E-09 4.67E-09 4.35E-09 W 7.47E-08 6.47E-08 5.05E-08 3.48E-08 2.60E-08 1.50E-08 1.02E-08 7.57E-09 5.96E-09 4.88E-09 4.11E-09 3.53E-09 3.29E-09 WNW 7.67E-08 6.64E-08 5.18E-08 3.56E-08 2.65E-08 1.52E-08 1.03E-08 7.67E-09 6.03E-09 4.93E-09 4.15E-09 3.56E-09 3.32E-09 NW 8.37E-08 7.24E-08 5.64E-08 3.88E-08 2.89E-08 1.65E-08 1.12E-08 8.32E-09 6.54E-09 5.35E-09 4.50E-09 3.86E-09 3.60E-09 NNW 9.65E-08 8.35E-08 6.50E-08 4.46E-08 3.32E-08 1.90E-08 1.29E-08 9.57E-09 7.53E-09 6.16E-09 5.17E-09 4.44E-09 4.13E-09 All 1.366E-06 1.183E-06 9.224E-07 6.354E-07 4.739E-07 2.724E-07 1.849E-07 1.375E-07 1.082E-07 8.862E-08 7.457E-08 6.407E-08 5.971E-08 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Wind Reference Level: 10 m; Stability Type: Delta Temperature (60 - 10 m); Release Type: Ground Level - 10 m; Building Height/Cross Section: 57.2 m/2,090 m2 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-101

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-54 Long-Term Average D/Q (m-2) Calculations for Routine Releases Actual Site Boundary Exclusion Area Boundary Low Population Zone Nearest Milk Cow Nearest Goat Milk Nearest Garden Downwind Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance Sector (m) D/Q (m) D/Q (m) D/Q (m) D/Q (m) D/Q (m) D/Q N 1,767 5.08E-09 1,025 1.28E-08 4,018 1.24E-09 1,500 6.76E-09 8,000 3.69E-10 1,500 6.76E-09 NNE 1,527 7.47E-09 1,025 1.46E-08 4,018 1.42E-09 2,050 4.47E-09 8,000 4.21E-10 4,610 1.13E-09 NE 1,400 6.87E-09 1,025 1.16E-08 4,018 1.12E-09 5,530 6.53E-10 8,000 3.33E-10 3,460 1.45E-09 ENE 1,297 6.01E-09 1,025 8.85E-09 4,018 8.59E-10 7,740 2.71E-10 8,000 2.55E-10 4,210 7.94E-10 E 1,710 3.86E-09 1,025 9.20E-09 4,018 8.93E-10 1,670 4.02E-09 8,000 2.65E-10 1,670 4.02E-09 ESE 4,540 8.17E-10 1,025 1.04E-08 4,018 1.01E-09 8,000 2.98E-10 8,000 2.98E-10 5,300 6.29E-10 SE 3,184 1.35E-09 1,025 9.41E-09 4,018 9.13E-10 8,000 2.71E-10 7,010 3.45E-10 7,010 3.45E-10 SSE 3,084 9.82E-10 1,025 6.46E-09 4,018 6.27E-10 8,000 1.86E-10 8,000 1.86E-10 4,450 5.28E-10 S 3,032 7.50E-10 1,025 4.80E-09 4,018 4.66E-10 8,000 1.38E-10 8,000 1.38E-10 4,840 3.40E-10 SSW 4,353 4.67E-10 1,025 5.51E-09 4,018 5.35E-10 5,470 3.17E-10 8,000 1.59E-10 8,000 1.59E-10 SW 4,891 5.44E-10 1,025 7.82E-09 4,018 7.59E-10 5,870 3.97E-10 8,000 2.25E-10 5,870 3.97E-10 WSW 3,784 7.56E-10 1,025 7.04E-09 4,018 6.83E-10 5,530 3.98E-10 8,000 2.03E-10 3,620 8.15E-10 W 2,277 1.30E-09 1,025 5.09E-09 4,018 4.94E-10 3,310 6.86E-10 8,000 1.47E-10 3,320 6.82E-10 WNW 1,934 1.71E-09 1,025 5.06E-09 4,018 4.91E-10 8,000 1.46E-10 8,000 1.46E-10 2,640 1.00E-09 NW 1,356 4.02E-09 1,025 6.39E-09 4,018 6.21E-10 3,850 6.67E-10 8,000 1.84E-10 4,700 4.76E-10 NNW 2,023 2.82E-09 1,025 9.00E-09 4,018 8.74E-10 2,050 2.75E-09 8,000 2.59E-10 8,000 2.59E-10 All 4.480E-08 1.340E-07 1.300E-08 2.243E-08 3.933E-09 1.977E-08 2.T-102 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-54 Long-Term Average D/Q (m-2) Calculations for Routine Releases Nearest Meat Animal Rearest Residence Downwind Distance (mi)

Downwind Distance Distance Sector (m) D/Q (m) D/Q 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 N 1,500 6.76E-09 1,500 6.76E-09 1.88E-08 5.98E-09 2.95E-09 1.81E-09 1.24E-09 9.12E-10 7.02E-10 5.50E-10 NNE 2,050 4.47E-09 1,590 6.96E-09 2.15E-08 1.37E-08 3.36E-09 2.07E-09 1.42E-09 1.04E-09 8.01E-10 6.27E-10 NE 5,530 6.53E-10 2,070 3.47E-09 1.70E-08 1.08E-08 2.66E-09 1.63E-09 1.12E-09 8.22E-10 6.33E-10 4.96E-10 ENE 7,740 2.71E-10 2,860 1.53E-09 1.30E-08 8.27E-09 2.04E-09 1.25E-09 8.57E-10 6.30E-10 4.85E-10 3.80E-10 E 1,670 4.02E-09 1,670 4.02E-09 1.35E-08 8.60E-09 2.11E-09 1.30E-09 8.91E-10 6.54E-10 5.04E-10 3.94E-10 ESE 8,000 2.98E-10 5,140 6.62E-10 1.52E-08 9.67E-09 2.38E-09 1.46E-09 1.00E-09 7.36E-10 5.67E-10 4.44E-10 SE 7,010 3.45E-10 4,440 7.71E-10 1.38E-08 8.79E-09 2.16E-09 1.33E-09 9.11E-10 6.69E-10 5.15E-10 4.04E-10 SSE 4,890 4.50E-10 2,900 1.09E-09 9.50E-09 6.04E-09 1.49E-09 9.13E-10 6.26E-10 4.60E-10 3.54E-10 2.77E-10 S 8,000 1.38E-10 4,780 3.47E-10 7.05E-09 4.48E-09 1.10E-09 6.78E-10 4.65E-10 3.41E-10 2.63E-10 2.06E-10 SSW 5,470 3.17E-10 4,680 4.13E-10 8.09E-09 5.15E-09 1.27E-09 7.78E-10 5.33E-10 3.92E-10 3.02E-10 2.36E-10 SW 5,870 3.97E-10 1,170 6.33E-09 1.15E-08 7.31E-09 1.80E-09 1.10E-09 7.57E-10 5.56E-10 4.28E-10 3.35E-10 WSW 4,600 5.43E-10 2,520 1.50E-09 1.03E-08 6.58E-09 1.62E-09 9.94E-10 6.82E-10 5.01E-10 3.85E-10 3.02E-10 W 3,310 6.86E-10 2,630 1.01E-09 7.48E-09 4.76E-09 1.17E-09 7.19E-10 4.93E-10 3.62E-10 2.79E-10 2.18E-10 WNW 8,000 1.46E-10 2,630 1.01E-09 7.44E-09 4.73E-09 1.16E-09 7.15E-10 4.90E-10 3.60E-10 2.77E-10 2.17E-10 NW 3,850 6.67E-10 2,650 1.26E-09 9.40E-09 5.98E-09 1.47E-09 9.03E-10 6.19E-10 4.55E-10 3.50E-10 2.74E-10 NNW 2,050 2.75E-09 2,780 1.63E-09 1.32E-08 8.41E-09 2.07E-09 1.27E-09 8.72E-10 6.40E-10 4.93E-10 3.86E-10 All 2.291E-08 3.876E-08 1.969E-07 1.192E-07 3.080E-08 1.893E-08 1.297E-08 9.530E-09 7.336E-09 5.745E-09 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-103

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-54 Long-Term Average D/Q (m-2) Calculations for Routine Releases Downward Distance (mi)

Downwind Sector 4.5 5.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 47.5 N 4.43E-10 3.65E-10 2.62E-10 1.70E-10 1.19E-10 5.67E-11 3.35E-11 2.23E-11 1.60E-11 1.20E-11 9.36E-12 7.43E-12 6.68E-12 NNE 5.05E-10 4.17E-10 2.98E-10 1.94E-10 1.36E-10 6.47E-11 3.82E-11 2.54E-11 1.82E-11 1.37E-11 1.07E-11 8.48E-12 7.62E-12 NE 3.99E-10 3.29E-10 2.36E-10 1.53E-10 1.08E-10 5.12E-11 3.02E-11 2.01E-11 1.44E-11 1.09E-11 8.44E-12 6.70E-12 6.02E-12 ENE 3.06E-10 2.52E-10 1.81E-10 1.17E-10 8.24E-11 3.92E-11 2.31E-11 1.54E-11 1.10E-11 8.31E-12 6.46E-12 5.13E-12 4.61E-12 E 3.18E-10 2.62E-10 1.88E-10 1.22E-10 8.56E-11 4.07E-11 2.40E-11 1.60E-11 1.14E-11 8.64E-12 6.71E-12 5.33E-12 4.79E-12 ESE 3.58E-10 2.95E-10 2.11E-10 1.37E-10 9.64E-11 4.58E-11 2.70E-11 1.80E-11 1.29E-11 9.72E-12 7.56E-12 6.00E-12 5.39E-12 SE 3.25E-10 2.68E-10 1.92E-10 1.25E-10 8.76E-11 4.16E-11 2.46E-11 1.63E-11 1.17E-11 8.84E-12 6.87E-12 5.46E-12 4.90E-12 SSE 2.23E-10 1.84E-10 1.32E-10 8.57E-11 6.02E-11 2.86E-11 1.69E-11 1.12E-11 8.04E-12 6.07E-12 4.72E-12 3.75E-12 3.37E-12 S 1.66E-10 1.37E-10 9.79E-11 6.36E-11 4.47E-11 2.12E-11 1.25E-11 8.33E-12 5.97E-12 4.51E-12 3.50E-12 2.78E-12 2.50E-12 SSW 1.90E-10 1.57E-10 1.12E-10 7.30E-11 5.13E-11 2.44E-11 1.44E-11 9.56E-12 6.85E-12 5.17E-12 4.02E-12 3.19E-12 2.87E-12 SW 2.70E-10 2.23E-10 1.60E-10 1.04E-10 7.28E-11 3.46E-11 2.04E-11 1.36E-11 9.73E-12 7.34E-12 5.71E-12 4.53E-12 4.07E-12 WSW 2.43E-10 2.01E-10 1.44E-10 9.33E-11 6.55E-11 3.12E-11 1.84E-11 1.22E-11 8.76E-12 6.61E-12 5.14E-12 4.08E-12 3.67E-12 W 1.76E-10 1.45E-10 1.04E-10 6.75E-11 4.74E-11 2.25E-11 1.33E-11 8.84E-12 6.33E-12 4.78E-12 3.72E-12 2.95E-12 2.65E-12 WNW 1.75E-10 1.44E-10 1.03E-10 6.71E-11 4.71E-11 2.24E-11 1.32E-11 8.79E-12 6.30E-12 4.75E-12 3.69E-12 2.93E-12 2.64E-12 NW 2.21E-10 1.82E-10 1.31E-10 8.48E-11 5.95E-11 2.83E-11 1.67E-11 1.11E-11 7.96E-12 6.01E-12 4.67E-12 3.71E-12 3.33E-12 NNW 3.11E-10 2.57E-10 1.84E-10 1.19E-10 8.38E-11 3.98E-11 2.35E-11 1.56E-11 1.12E-11 8.46E-12 6.57E-12 5.22E-12 4.69E-12 All 4.630E-09 3.818E-09 2.734E-09 1.776E-09 1.247E-09 5.929E-10 3.501E-10 2.327E-10 1.667E-10 1.258E-10 9.779E-11 7.767E-11 6.977E-11 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Wind Reference Level: 10 m; Stability Type: Delta Temperature (60 - 10 m); Release Type: Ground Level - 10 m; Building Height/Cross Section: 57.2 m/2,090 m2.

2.T-104 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-55 Long-Term Average Chi/Q (sec/m3) Calculations (2.26 Day Decay) for Routine Releases Exclusion Area Actual Site Boundary Boundary Low Population Zone Nearest Cow Milk Nearest Goat Milk Nearest Garden Downwind Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance Sector (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q N 1,767 8.58E-07 1,025 1.96E-06 4,018 2.51E-07 1,500 1.10E-06 8,000 9.29E-08 1,500 1.10E-06 NNE 1,527 1.11E-06 1,025 2.04E-06 4,018 2.62E-07 2,050 7.16E-07 8,000 9.72E-08 4,610 2.14E-07 NE 1,400 1.12E-06 1,025 1.81E-06 4,018 2.33E-07 5,530 1.45E-07 8,000 8.69E-08 3,460 2.90E-07 ENE 1,297 1.07E-06 1,025 1.55E-06 4,018 1.99E-07 7,740 7.88E-08 8,000 7.53E-08 4,210 1.86E-07 E 1,710 6.90E-07 1,025 1.52E-06 4,018 1.95E-07 1,670 7.15E-07 8,000 7.35E-08 1,670 7.15E-07 ESE 4,540 1.63E-07 1,025 1.54E-06 4,018 1.95E-07 8,000 7.31E-08 8,000 7.31E-08 5,300 1.30E-07 SE 3,184 2.64E-07 1,025 1.49E-06 4,018 1.88E-07 8,000 7.06E-08 7,010 8.48E-08 7,010 8.48E-08 SSE 3,084 2.00E-07 1,025 1.08E-06 4,018 1.36E-07 8,000 5.06E-08 8,000 5.06E-08 4,450 1.17E-07 S 3,032 1.47E-07 1,025 7.74E-07 4,018 9.67E-08 8,000 3.56E-08 8,000 3.56E-08 4,840 7.33E-08 SSW 4,353 1.26E-07 1,025 1.12E-06 4,018 1.42E-07 5,470 9.08E-08 8,000 5.37E-08 8,000 5.37E-08 SW 4,891 1.80E-07 1,025 1.85E-06 4,018 2.38E-07 5,870 1.39E-07 8,000 9.14E-08 5,870 1.39E-07 WSW 3,784 2.37E-07 1,025 1.68E-06 4,018 2.17E-07 5,530 1.37E-07 8,000 8.25E-08 3,620 2.52E-07 W 2,277 3.89E-07 1,025 1.31E-06 4,018 1.69E-07 3,310 2.25E-07 8,000 6.37E-08 3,320 2.24E-07 WNW 1,934 5.18E-07 1,025 1.36E-06 4,018 1.75E-07 8,000 6.52E-08 8,000 6.52E-08 2,640 3.25E-07 NW 1,356 9.69E-07 1,025 1.49E-06 4,018 1.92E-07 3,850 2.04E-07 8,000 7.12E-08 4,700 1.52E-07 NNW 2,023 6.15E-07 1,025 1.72E-06 4,018 2.22E-07 2,050 6.03E-07 8,000 8.23E-08 8,000 8.23E-08 All 8.648E-06 2.429E-05 3.110E-06 4.444E-06 1.180E-06 4.133E-06 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-105

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-55 Long-Term Average Chi/Q (sec/m3) Calculations (2.26 Day Decay) for Routine Releases Nearest Meat Animal Rearest Residence Downwind Distance (mi)

Downwind Distance Distance Sector (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 N 1,500 1.10E-06 1,500 1.10E-06 2.87E-06 9.86E-07 5.39E-07 3.50E-07 2.51E-07 1.91E-07 1.52E-07 1.26E-07 NNE 2,050 7.16E-07 1,590 1.05E-06 2.99E-06 1.91E-06 5.62E-07 3.66E-07 2.62E-07 1.99E-07 1.59E-07 1.32E-07 NE 5,530 1.45E-07 2,070 6.21E-07 2.66E-06 1.69E-06 4.93E-07 3.23E-07 2.32E-07 1.78E-07 1.42E-07 1.18E-07 ENE 7,740 7.88E-08 2,860 3.27E-07 2.29E-06 1.45E-06 4.18E-07 2.75E-07 1.99E-07 1.53E-07 1.22E-07 1.02E-07 E 1,670 7.15E-07 1,670 7.15E-07 2.24E-06 1.42E-06 4.09E-07 2.69E-07 1.95E-07 1.49E-07 1.19E-07 9.92E-08 ESE 8,000 7.31E-08 5,140 1.36E-07 2.27E-06 1.44E-06 4.12E-07 2.70E-07 1.95E-07 1.49E-07 1.19E-07 9.88E-08 SE 7,010 8.48E-08 4,440 1.62E-07 2.19E-06 1.39E-06 3.95E-07 2.59E-07 1.87E-07 1.44E-07 1.15E-07 9.53E-08 SSE 4,890 1.01E-07 2,900 2.19E-07 1.58E-06 1.01E-06 2.87E-07 1.88E-07 1.35E-07 1.03E-07 8.24E-08 6.84E-08 S 8,000 3.56E-08 4,780 7.47E-08 1.13E-06 7.24E-07 2.07E-07 1.35E-07 9.65E-08 7.35E-08 5.85E-08 4.84E-08 SSW 5,470 9.08E-08 4,680 1.14E-07 1.64E-06 1.04E-06 2.97E-07 1.96E-07 1.42E-07 1.09E-07 8.71E-08 7.24E-08 SW 5,870 1.39E-07 1,170 1.49E-06 2.73E-06 1.73E-06 4.91E-07 3.26E-07 2.38E-07 1.83E-07 1.47E-07 1.23E-07 WSW 4,600 1.79E-07 2,520 4.25E-07 2.48E-06 1.57E-06 4.53E-07 2.99E-07 2.17E-07 1.67E-07 1.33E-07 1.11E-07 W 3,310 2.25E-07 2,630 3.15E-07 1.93E-06 1.23E-06 3.57E-07 2.34E-07 1.69E-07 1.30E-07 1.03E-07 8.60E-08 WNW 8,000 6.52E-08 2,630 3.27E-07 2.00E-06 1.27E-06 3.71E-07 2.42E-07 1.74E-07 1.33E-07 1.06E-07 8.81E-08 NW 3,850 2.04E-07 2,650 3.55E-07 2.19E-06 1.40E-06 4.08E-07 2.66E-07 1.91E-07 1.46E-07 1.16E-07 9.64E-08 NNW 2,050 6.03E-07 2,780 3.83E-07 2.53E-06 1.61E-06 4.73E-07 3.08E-07 2.21E-07 1.69E-07 1.34E-07 1.12E-07 All 4.551E-06 7.804E-06 3.574E-05 2.185E-05 6.570E-06 4.307E-06 3.104E-06 2.375E-06 1.895E-06 1.575E-06 2.T-106 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-55 Long-Term Average Chi/Q (sec/m3) Calculations (2.26 Day Decay) for Routine Releases Downwind Distance (mi)

Downwind Sector 4.5 5.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 47.5 N 1.07E-07 9.21E-08 7.14E-08 4.86E-08 3.58E-08 2.00E-08 1.33E-08 9.71E-09 7.50E-09 6.02E-09 4.96E-09 4.18E-09 3.86E-09 NNE 1.12E-07 9.64E-08 7.48E-08 5.09E-08 3.75E-08 2.10E-08 1.40E-08 1.02E-08 7.89E-09 6.34E-09 5.23E-09 4.41E-09 4.07E-09 NE 9.98E-08 8.62E-08 6.69E-08 4.57E-08 3.37E-08 1.89E-08 1.26E-08 9.17E-09 7.08E-09 5.68E-09 4.68E-09 3.94E-09 3.64E-09 ENE 8.64E-08 7.47E-08 5.81E-08 3.98E-08 2.95E-08 1.66E-08 1.11E-08 8.07E-09 6.23E-09 5.00E-09 4.12E-09 3.47E-09 3.20E-09 E 8.43E-08 7.29E-08 5.67E-08 3.88E-08 2.87E-08 1.61E-08 1.07E-08 7.82E-09 6.03E-09 4.83E-09 3.98E-09 3.35E-09 3.09E-09 ESE 8.39E-08 7.25E-08 5.63E-08 3.84E-08 2.83E-08 1.59E-08 1.06E-08 7.67E-09 5.91E-09 4.73E-09 3.89E-09 3.27E-09 3.02E-09 SE 8.10E-08 7.01E-08 5.45E-08 3.72E-08 2.75E-08 1.55E-08 1.03E-08 7.50E-09 5.78E-09 4.63E-09 3.82E-09 3.22E-09 2.97E-09 SSE 5.81E-08 5.02E-08 3.89E-08 2.65E-08 1.95E-08 1.09E-08 7.25E-09 5.26E-09 4.05E-09 3.24E-09 2.67E-09 2.24E-09 2.07E-09 S 4.10E-08 3.54E-08 2.73E-08 1.85E-08 1.36E-08 7.56E-09 4.99E-09 3.62E-09 2.77E-09 2.21E-09 1.82E-09 1.52E-09 1.40E-09 SSW 6.16E-08 5.32E-08 4.14E-08 2.83E-08 2.09E-08 1.18E-08 7.83E-09 5.69E-09 4.37E-09 3.50E-09 2.88E-09 2.42E-09 2.24E-09 SW 1.05E-07 9.07E-08 7.08E-08 4.87E-08 3.62E-08 2.06E-08 1.37E-08 9.98E-09 7.70E-09 6.18E-09 5.10E-09 4.29E-09 3.97E-09 WSW 9.46E-08 8.18E-08 6.37E-08 4.37E-08 3.24E-08 1.83E-08 1.22E-08 8.88E-09 6.85E-09 5.50E-09 4.53E-09 3.82E-09 3.52E-09 W 7.31E-08 6.32E-08 4.91E-08 3.35E-08 2.48E-08 1.39E-08 9.23E-09 6.71E-09 5.16E-09 4.13E-09 3.40E-09 2.86E-09 2.63E-09 WNW 7.48E-08 6.46E-08 5.02E-08 3.42E-08 2.52E-08 1.41E-08 9.29E-09 6.73E-09 5.16E-09 4.12E-09 3.38E-09 2.83E-09 2.60E-09 NW 8.18E-08 7.06E-08 5.48E-08 3.73E-08 2.74E-08 1.53E-08 1.01E-08 7.34E-09 5.64E-09 4.50E-09 3.69E-09 3.09E-09 2.85E-09 NNW 9.46E-08 8.17E-08 6.33E-08 4.31E-08 3.18E-08 1.78E-08 1.18E-08 8.56E-09 6.60E-09 5.28E-09 4.35E-09 3.65E-09 3.37E-09 All 1.338E-06 1.156E-06 8.981E-07 6.132E-07 4.528E-07 2.543E-07 1.689E-07 1.229E-07 9.470E-08 7.589E-08 6.250E-08 5.256E-08 4.849E-08 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Wind Reference Level: 10 m; Stability Type: Delta Temperature (60 - 10 m); Release Type: Ground Level - 10 m; Building Height/Cross Section: 57.2 m/2,090 m2.

DEL-096-REV0 2.T-107

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-56 Long-Term Average Chi/Q (sec/m3) Calculations (Depleted and 8-Day Decayed) for Routine Releases Exclusion Area Actual Site Boundary Boundary Low Population Zone Nearest Cow Milk Nearest Goat Milk Nearest Garden Downwind Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance Sector (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q N 1,767 7.46E-07 1,025 1.77E-06 4,018 2.04E-07 1,500 9.63E-07 8,000 6.96E-08 1,500 9.63E-07 NNE 1,527 9.76E-07 1,025 1.84E-06 4,018 2.13E-07 2,050 6.17E-07 8,000 7.28E-08 4,610 1.71E-07 NE 1,400 9.86E-07 1,025 1.63E-06 4,018 1.89E-07 5,530 1.14E-07 8,000 6.53E-08 3,460 2.39E-07 ENE 1,297 9.50E-07 1,025 1.40E-06 4,018 1.62E-07 7,740 5.95E-08 8,000 5.66E-08 4,210 1.51E-07 E 1,710 6.02E-07 1,025 1.37E-06 4,018 1.58E-07 1,670 6.25E-07 8,000 5.52E-08 1,670 6.25E-07 ESE 4,540 1.31E-07 1,025 1.39E-06 4,018 1.58E-07 8,000 5.49E-08 8,000 5.49E-08 5,300 1.03E-07 SE 3,184 2.19E-07 1,025 1.34E-06 4,018 1.52E-07 8,000 5.30E-08 7,010 6.48E-08 7,010 6.48E-08 SSE 3,084 1.67E-07 1,025 9.72E-07 4,018 1.10E-07 8,000 3.80E-08 8,000 3.80E-08 4,450 9.37E-08 S 3,032 1.23E-07 1,025 6.98E-07 4,018 7.86E-08 8,000 2.68E-08 8,000 2.68E-08 4,840 5.85E-08 SSW 4,353 1.02E-07 1,025 1.01E-06 4,018 1.15E-07 5,470 7.17E-08 8,000 4.04E-08 8,000 4.04E-08 SW 4,891 1.43E-07 1,025 1.67E-06 4,018 1.93E-07 5,870 1.09E-07 8,000 6.88E-08 5,870 1.09E-07 WSW 3,784 1.93E-07 1,025 1.52E-06 4,018 1.76E-07 5,530 1.08E-07 8,000 6.20E-08 3,620 2.07E-07 W 2,277 3.33E-07 1,025 1.18E-06 4,018 1.38E-07 3,310 1.86E-07 8,000 4.79E-08 3,320 1.85E-07 WNW 1,934 4.48E-07 1,025 1.23E-06 4,018 1.42E-07 8,000 4.91E-08 8,000 4.91E-08 2,640 2.75E-07 NW 1,356 8.59E-07 1,025 1.35E-06 4,018 1.56E-07 3,850 1.67E-07 8,000 5.36E-08 4,700 1.22E-07 NNW 2,023 5.31E-07 1,025 1.55E-06 4,018 1.80E-07 2,050 5.20E-07 8,000 6.19E-08 8,000 6.19E-08 All 7.508E-06 2.189E-05 2.525E-06 3.761E-06 8.875E-07 3.468E-06 2.T-108 DEL-096-REV0

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT CHAPTER 2 - TABLES TABLE 2.7-56 Long-Term Average Chi/Q (sec/m3) Calculations (Depleted and 8-Day Decayed) for Routine Releases Nearest Meat Animal Rearest Residence Downwind Distance (mi)

Downwind Distance Distance Sector (m) Chi/Q (m) Chi/Q 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 N 1,500 9.63E-07 1,500 9.63E-07 2.62E-06 8.63E-07 4.59E-07 2.90E-07 2.03E-07 1.52E-07 1.19E-07 9.70E-08 NNE 2,050 6.17E-07 1,590 9.16E-07 2.73E-06 1.72E-06 4.78E-07 3.03E-07 2.12E-07 1.59E-07 1.24E-07 1.01E-07 NE 5,530 1.14E-07 2,070 5.35E-07 2.43E-06 1.52E-06 4.20E-07 2.68E-07 1.89E-07 1.42E-07 1.11E-07 9.08E-08 ENE 7,740 5.95E-08 2,860 2.74E-07 2.09E-06 1.30E-06 3.56E-07 2.28E-07 1.62E-07 1.22E-07 9.60E-08 7.85E-08 E 1,670 6.25E-07 1,670 6.25E-07 2.05E-06 1.28E-06 3.49E-07 2.23E-07 1.58E-07 1.19E-07 9.37E-08 7.66E-08 ESE 8,000 5.49E-08 5,140 1.08E-07 2.07E-06 1.30E-06 3.51E-07 2.24E-07 1.58E-07 1.19E-07 9.35E-08 7.63E-08 SE 7,010 6.48E-08 4,440 1.30E-07 2.00E-06 1.25E-06 3.36E-07 2.15E-07 1.52E-07 1.14E-07 9.01E-08 7.36E-08 SSE 4,890 8.09E-08 2,900 1.84E-07 1.45E-06 9.07E-07 2.45E-07 1.56E-07 1.10E-07 8.25E-08 6.48E-08 5.29E-08 S 8,000 2.68E-08 4,780 5.96E-08 1.04E-06 6.51E-07 1.76E-07 1.12E-07 7.84E-08 5.87E-08 4.60E-08 3.74E-08 SSW 5,470 7.17E-08 4,680 9.11E-08 1.50E-06 9.38E-07 2.53E-07 1.62E-07 1.15E-07 8.69E-08 6.85E-08 5.60E-08 SW 5,870 1.09E-07 1,170 1.34E-06 2.49E-06 1.55E-06 4.19E-07 2.71E-07 1.93E-07 1.46E-07 1.16E-07 9.49E-08 WSW 4,600 1.43E-07 2,520 3.61E-07 2.27E-06 1.41E-06 3.86E-07 2.48E-07 1.76E-07 1.33E-07 1.05E-07 8.59E-08 W 3,310 1.86E-07 2,630 2.66E-07 1.76E-06 1.10E-06 3.04E-07 1.94E-07 1.37E-07 1.03E-07 8.14E-08 6.65E-08 WNW 8,000 4.91E-08 2,630 2.76E-07 1.83E-06 1.15E-06 3.16E-07 2.01E-07 1.42E-07 1.06E-07 8.36E-08 6.83E-08 NW 3,850 1.67E-07 2,650 3.00E-07 2.00E-06 1.26E-06 3.48E-07 2.21E-07 1.55E-07 1.17E-07 9.14E-08 7.46E-08 NNW 2,050 5.20E-07 2,780 3.22E-07 2.31E-06 1.45E-06 4.03E-07 2.56E-07 1.80E-07 1.35E-07 1.06E-07 8.62E-08 All 3.851E-06 6.746E-06 3.264E-05 1.963E-05 5.599E-06 3.571E-06 2.519E-06 1.895E-06 1.490E-06 1.217E-06 DEL-096-REV0 2.T-109

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2 - TABLES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR THE EGC EARLY SITE PERMIT TABLE 2.7-56 Long-Term Average Chi/Q (sec/m3) Calculations (Depleted and 8-Day Decayed) for Routine Releases Downwind Distance (mi)

Downwind Sector 4.5 5.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 47.5 N 8.11E-08 6.90E-08 5.22E-08 3.45E-08 2.47E-08 1.29E-08 8.17E-09 5.72E-09 4.26E-09 3.31E-09 2.64E-09 2.16E-09 1.96E-09 NNE 8.47E-08 7.21E-08 5.46E-08 3.61E-08 2.59E-08 1.36E-08 8.57E-09 6.00E-09 4.47E-09 3.47E-09 2.78E-09 2.27E-09 2.06E-09 NE 7.59E-08 6.47E-08 4.91E-08 3.25E-08 2.34E-08 1.23E-08 7.78E-09 5.45E-09 4.06E-09 3.16E-09 2.53E-09 2.06E-09 1.88E-09 ENE 6.58E-08 5.61E-08 4.27E-08 2.84E-08 2.05E-08 1.08E-08 6.88E-09 4.82E-09 3.60E-09 2.80E-09 2.24E-09 1.83E-09 1.67E-09 E 6.42E-08 5.47E-08 4.16E-08 2.76E-08 1.99E-08 1.05E-08 6.67E-09 4.67E-09 3.48E-09 2.70E-09 2.16E-09 1.77E-09 1.61E-09 ESE 6.38E-08 5.44E-08 4.13E-08 2.74E-08 1.97E-08 1.04E-08 6.55E-09 4.58E-09 3.41E-09 2.65E-09 2.12E-09 1.73E-09 1.57E-09 SE 6.16E-08 5.26E-08 3.99E-08 2.65E-08 1.91E-08 1.01E-08 6.39E-09 4.47E-09 3.33E-09 2.59E-09 2.07E-09 1.69E-09 1.54E-09 SSE 4.42E-08 3.77E-08 2.86E-08 1.89E-08 1.36E-08 7.14E-09 4.51E-09 3.15E-09 2.34E-09 1.82E-09 1.45E-09 1.19E-09 1.08E-09 S 3.12E-08 2.66E-08 2.01E-08 1.32E-08 9.46E-09 4.94E-09 3.11E-09 2.17E-09 1.61E-09 1.25E-09 9.94E-10 8.10E-10 7.36E-10 SSW 4.69E-08 4.00E-08 3.04E-08 2.02E-08 1.46E-08 7.70E-09 4.88E-09 3.41E-09 2.54E-09 1.97E-09 1.58E-09 1.29E-09 1.17E-09 SW 7.97E-08 6.82E-08 5.20E-08 3.48E-08 2.52E-08 1.34E-08 8.54E-09 5.98E-09 4.46E-09 3.47E-09 2.78E-09 2.28E-09 2.08E-09 WSW 7.20E-08 6.15E-08 4.68E-08 3.12E-08 2.25E-08 1.19E-08 7.58E-09 5.31E-09 3.96E-09 3.08E-09 2.47E-09 2.02E-09 1.84E-09 W 5.57E-08 4.75E-08 3.61E-08 2.40E-08 1.72E-08 9.09E-09 5.76E-09 4.03E-09 3.00E-09 2.33E-09 1.86E-09 1.52E-09 1.39E-09 WNW 5.71E-08 4.87E-08 3.69E-08 2.45E-08 1.76E-08 9.23E-09 5.83E-09 4.07E-09 3.02E-09 2.34E-09 1.87E-09 1.53E-09 1.39E-09 NW 6.24E-08 5.31E-08 4.03E-08 2.67E-08 1.91E-08 1.00E-08 6.33E-09 4.42E-09 3.29E-09 2.55E-09 2.04E-09 1.66E-09 1.51E-09 NNW 7.20E-08 6.13E-08 4.64E-08 3.07E-08 2.20E-08 1.16E-08 7.30E-09 5.10E-09 3.80E-09 2.95E-09 2.36E-09 1.92E-09 1.75E-09 All 1.018E-06 8.681E-07 6.587E-07 4.373E-07 3.144E-07 1.656E-07 1.048E-07 7.332E-08 5.459E-08 4.243E-08 3.393E-08 2.772E-08 2.524E-08 Source: CPS, 2002 Notes: Wind Reference Level: 10 m; Stability Type: Delta Temperature (60 - 10 m); Release Type: Ground Level - 10 m; Building Height/Cross Section: 57.2 m/2,090 m2 2.T-110 DEL-096-REV0

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit 6 mi Figure 2.1-1 Site/Vicinity Location Map Legend Site Boundary: Fenceline Wapella Vicinity: 6-mi radius around site 54 Proposed Areas for EGC ESP Facility Structures U.S. Highway, Multilane divided U.S. Highway State Route County or other minor road Railroads Water: Lakes and Rivers DeWitt Incorporated/Designated Places County Boundary 51 Clinton 48 Data Sources:

Clinton Lake U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002a 10 Boone Jo DaviessStephenson McHenryLake Weldon Winnebago Carroll Ogle DeKalbKane Whiteside Lee DuPageCook Rock Island Kendall Will Henry Bureau La Salle Mercer Grundy Putnam Kankakee Stark Marshall Knox HendersonWarren Livingston PeoriaWoodford Iroquois McDonough Ford Hancock Fulton Tazewell McLean DEWI T T COU N T Y Schuyler Mason Adams Brown Cass Menard Logan DeWittChampaignVermilion Piatt Macon MorganSangamon Douglas Pike Edgar PI AT T COU NT Y Scott Greene Christian Moultrie Shelby Coles Clark Calhoun Macoupin Jersey Montgomery Effingham Cumberland Fayette JasperCrawford MadisonBond ClayRichlandLawrence Clinton Marion St. Clair Wayne Wabash Monroe WashingtonJefferson Edwards Miles RandolphPerry HamiltonWhite Franklin 0 1 2 4 Jackson SalineGallatin Williamson Johnson Hardin Union Pope AlexanderPulaskiMassac

50 m i Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Peoria 116 Livingston Woodford County 57 County 55 County 115 39 Figure 2.1-2 24 24 Site/Region Location Map 47 Iroquois County Legend 74 49 EGC ESP Site 45 165 Vicinity: 6-mi radius around site 9 Ford Region: 50-mi radius around site Tazewell County 9 County Interstate, Fully access controlled 122 9 U.S. Highway, Multilane divided 150 U.S. Highway 155 McLean County 54 State Route 74 Railroads Mason 136 136 Water: Lakes and Rivers County 55 51 6 mi Champaign Incorporated/Designated Places DeWitt County County County Boundary 10 74 29 97 Logan County 48 Menard 72 County 55 Macon 45 Vermilion Data Sources:

Piatt County U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 County County U.S. Census Bureau, 2002a 54 105 130 Boone 72 Jo DaviessStephenson McHenryLake Winnebago Douglas County Carroll Ogle Whiteside Lee DeKalbKane DuPageCook Kendall 36 Rock Island Henry Bureau Will 72 Mercer Putnam La Salle Grundy Stark Kankakee Marshall 29 HendersonWarren Knox Peoria Woodford Livingston Iroquois Sangamon 51 133 Edgar McDonough Hancock Schuyler Fulton Tazewell McLean Mason Ford Logan DeWittChampaignVermilion County Adams Brown Cass Menard Piatt 48 County 55 121 Pike MorganSangamon Scott Macon Christian Moultrie Douglas Coles Edgar Moultrie Greene Shelby Calhoun Macoupin Clark 57 EffinghamCumberland 104 Jersey Montgomery Fayette JasperCrawford MadisonBond 128 County St. Clair Clinton Marion Monroe WashingtonJefferson ClayRichlandLawrence Wayne Wabash Edwards Miles Shelby HamiltonWhite RandolphPerry 0 5 10 20 Coles County Jackson Franklin SalineGallatin Christian County Williamson Union Johnson Hardin AlexanderPulaskiMassac Pope County 16

Environmental Report for the EGC Early Site Permit Figure 2.1-3 Aerial View of Site Legend Site Boundary: Fenceline Proposed Areas for EGC ESP Facility Structures ESP Exclusion Area Boundary (1025 meters)

Water: Lakes and Rivers Clinton Lake Data Sources:

IDNR, 1998 and 1999 Boone Jo DaviessStephenson McHenryLake Winnebago Carroll Ogle DeKalbKane Whiteside Lee DuPageCook Rock Island Kendall Will Henry Bureau La Salle Clinton Lake Mercer Knox Stark Putnam Marshall Grundy Kankakee HendersonWarren Livingston PeoriaWoodford Iroquois McDonough Ford Hancock Fulton Tazewell McLean Schuyler Mason LoganDeWittChampaignVermilion AdamsBrown Cass Menard Piatt Macon MorganSangamon Douglas Pike Edgar Scott Christian MoultrieColes Greene Shelby Calhoun Macoupin Clark Jersey Montgomery Effingham Cumberland Fayette JasperCrawford MadisonBond ClayRichlandLawrence Clinton Marion St. Clair Monroe WashingtonJefferson Wayne Wabash Edwards Miles RandolphPerry HamiltonWhite 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Franklin Jackson SalineGallatin Williamson Johnson Hardin Union Pope AlexanderPulaskiMassac